Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield again without losing his right to the floor?

Mr. HATCH. I appreciate my colleague's remarks. I believe him and have great respect for him, as he knows. Let me just say this: The managers' amendment is basically agreed to between the two managers. It is a matter of making the final drafting changes, as I understand it. We intend to have that done and filed and approved, hopefully, and probably this afternoon, it seems to me. We will try to do that. But let's move this ahead. Let me just finish my remarks on this, because I forgot that the distinguished Senator from California needs a chance to make her remarks. She said she would be 2 or 3 minutes.

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. HATCH. If the Senator will yield on that point, it is not Brady we are talking about. It is gun shows we are trying to resolve, and if we do not resolve it right, you are going to create a black market.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, it is now 12:19. I understand the distinguished Senator from California wants 3 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that she be granted 3 minutes to make her statement, and then I also want to have 1 minute to finish my side.

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. HATCH. I know that.

Mr. HATCH. For you.

Mr. HATCH. For Senator McConnell.

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield without losing the right to the floor?

Mr. HATCH. I may need a little bit more than that because of Senator Kerrey's remarks and the remarks of the Senator from California. So I will ask unanimous consent when I do that. Senator Kerrey says a lot of pawnshop guns could be stolen. But let me remind the Senator that State law already requires a check with State or local law enforcement agencies. If the gun is stolen, the State law catches this. So the Lautenberg amendment does not do anything particularly good on that. Without the special license provision, gunsmiths and others will not go into a regulated gun show. It is just that simple. These people generally do not have to be licensed now. Under the bill as currently amended, we require them to keep records and to comply with all of the provisions of the Gun Control Act. If we regulate gun shows without a special licensee, we will force these people into the black market. So let's require them to be licensed. That is one of the points I was making there. All the other points I made I do not think have been rebutted at all. Mr. President, we now reach that point where we have the debate on four amendments, 10 minutes equally divided. We will begin with the Wellstone amendment No. 358; then we will go to the Sessions amendment No. 357; then to the Ashcroft amendment No. 361; and then the Santorum amendment No. 360, with the votes to occur beginning at 1 p.m., as I understand it. Should we go with Sessions first? I will be happy to do that. Let me rearrange the order. We will start with Sessions amendment No. 357, then Wellstone amendment No. 358, then Ashcroft amendment No. 361, and then Santorum amendment No. 360. OK.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield such time as he needs to the distinguished Senator from Alabama.

Mr. HATCH. As has the distinguished Senator from Vermont. As floor managers, we are trying to bring people together. I say to the distinguished Senator from Iowa, I believe he has faith that I will always try to do what is right for persons with disabilities. I will use my optimum good efforts to try to make sure this matter is resolved in a manner that is credible and acceptable to both sides--or at least as acceptable as can be to both sides. But I would like to set a time limit for further debate, which I hope will not be very long because you have been debating now for hours. I think virtually everything has been said that needs to be said. Then let's just go to those votes. The Senator is not on a list right now, to come up, I do not believe, after this amendment. But I will get you on the list. I will ask unanimous consent you be given that privilege. I think it is fair. I think it is a way of resolving this. I don't want to see a filibuster here at the last minute on a bill of this importance when this could be resolved through voting and when I am giving the Senator a shot at his amendment, which basically rebuts theirs, immediately following it. I think that is fair. It is a reasonable way of doing it. You are dealing with two managers who have done their utmost to bend over backwards for everybody on the floor. I have even bent over backwards for the Senator from Minnesota, time after time--I finally got a smile out of him. It is the only time he smiled all day. But I would like to see my friend from Iowa do that. If he would, I would personally appreciate it. I would like to get this bill done, at least pushed forward as far as we can. I believe we can finish this bill tonight if we have time today. We have had 7 days on this bill. I would hate to go on 8 days, but I would even do that if we have time agreements on all these amendments, time agreements on when we vote, and let the chips fall where they may and let's go at it. I intend to call up an amendment as soon as these two are disposed of, if that is what we do, and we will move ahead on the other amendments and we will try to shorten the time on all the amendments. I am asking the distinguished Senator from Iowa to shorten the time, agree to a time agreement, and I will certainly live up to asking unanimous consent and getting his amendment immediately following the amendment of the distinguished Senators from Tennessee and Missouri. Will the Senator please help me in that regard--help us, Senator Leahy and me?

Mr. HATCH. I made a unanimous consent request to give Senator McConnell 3 minutes, which would give him another minute and a half, and give you an equal amount of time on your side.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, let me once again start by complimenting the Senator from Minnesota's commitment to the problems associated with mental health conditions. I share his commitment, but I have a number of grave concerns about his amendment to provide $1 billion a year in new funding to hire over 100,000 school-based mental health personnel. As I noted in my statement yesterday, there is no evidence whatsoever to support the assertion that the recent tragedies in Colorado and Oregon would have been prevented by having more school counselors. Let me reiterate what I observed yesterday: it has been reported that both Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold had gotten fairly extensive individual counseling, had undergone anger-management training and had gotten affirmative evaluations from counselors. One of Dylan Klebold's teachers had expressed concern about some of the things he was writing in English class to a counselor. It has also been reported that the 15-year-old Oregon killer, Kip Kinkel was currently in counseling, along with his parents, when he killed them and went on to kill two of his classmates and injure a number of others. Please don't misunderstand me, Mr. President, I do not want in any way to undercut the very fine and vital work done by counselors in my state of Utah and around the country. I respect them. Their work is important and valuable and I support their efforts 100 percent. I merely make the point that more counselors would not have prevented these recent tragedies. Additionally, Mr. President, as a parent and grandparent, I have an almost knee-jerk reaction whenever I hear that the federal government is--once again--attempting to micromanage public education. I believe that we can best support our local schools by adequately funding current federal education programs and allowing state and local education agencies the flexibility to make important education decisions unencumbered by federal regulation. I sincerely beleive that $1 billion of new federal taxpayer dollars will not do as much to encourage a renewed commitment to strengthen mental health outreach as local school boards, parent groups and local civic mental health and law enforcement organizations working together. This amendment is a Washington knows best, big money, unfunded answer to complicated questions that can best be addressed through local efforts. Mr. President, I get am getting a little tired of seeing some of our colleagues throwing money at issues without regard to costs. I am geting a little tired of hearing that the answer to everything around here is simply to throw more money at it. There is no question that counselors can be effective, but a lot of other things are too, and we have a lot of effective programs in this bill. Frankly, it is time to get this bill passed and quit delaying it.

Mr. HATCH. I can understand why the Senators from Missouri and Tennessee want a vote on their amendment. I can understand why the Senator wants a vote on his amendment. It is a legitimate way to resolve an issue. I don't know which way the votes will go on either issue and I take a great interest in this as well. But there will be a conference and we will probably resolve these issues in the best interests of all. My position is we have had a lengthy debate. I have deliberately stayed off the floor because I wanted Senators to have a free and open debate on this. But it seems to me we have had the debate. Basically, both sides have really explained their positions. Everybody knows what they are. My suggestion is we go to a vote on the amendment of the Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from Missouri, up or down, and then if they lose, they lose. Then I will ask unanimous consent, whether they win or lose, that the Senator be entitled to immediately bring up his amendment which would undo everything they are doing and we go up or down on a vote there. And we even could have an additional period of time so people could hear one last explanation on the differences between the two sides. What I want to avoid is a filibuster. I want to avoid the Senator feeling he has to now delay this whole bill because he feels deeply about this issue. I feel deeply about it, too. I think these Senators on this side feel deeply about it. You feel deeply about it. Frankly, there is still a conference where we can work with both sides to see if we can resolve this as we go to conference. But I would like to be able to push this bill forward, because it is an important bill and every day we delay--we all know once we get it through the Senate, the bill has to come through the House. Then we have to go through conference. Then we have to send it down to the President. If he signs it, then it becomes law. We are talking weeks or months before we can get a juvenile justice bill passed that might prevent more Columbine High School massacres. But we have to get this done. We also have a supplemental appropriations bill that has to be brought up, because it is important. It is not fair to hold this bill hostage--either side--now. It is not fair to hold this bill hostage because of a dispute that literally is a legitimate dispute on both sides that can be resolved by voting. Let the chips fall where they may. I have had to do that. I have had to eat a lot of stuff here on the floor.

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent to make that 3 minutes on the side of Senator McConnell and an equivalent amount of extra time on the side of the minority.

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield on that point, just on that point? I am sorry to interrupt him, but this bill has been in the works for 2 solid years. We have worked with our colleagues on the other side repeatedly. I think the distinguished Senator from Vermont and I are together on the managers' package. It is very comprehensive. This is not some quick thing. We have worked very hard on it. Littleton--yes-- --

Mr. HATCH. If the Senator will yield further.

Mr. HATCH. I have to ask the Senator, this debate has gone on for quite a well. It has been one of the better debates I have seen or listened to, on both sides. It is clear we have a difference of opinion. It is clear both sides think they have a legitimate case to make. I know the distinguished Senator is one of the champions for persons with disabilities, as am I. We have worked closely together through the years. I understand the difficulties that are involved here. I understand his sincerity. I also understand the sincerity of the Senator from Missouri and the Senator from Tennessee. They are decent people. They are good men. The Senator from Tennessee is a major force on the Labor Committee, as is the distinguished Senator from Iowa. We are in the middle of a bill that really needs to be passed now. This is our seventh day on this bill. It is not a full-blown crime bill that took a tremendous amount of time. This is a limited, narrow bill with a lot of provisions that will make a difference with regard to children in our society. I would like to bring it to conclusion. I guess I am asking my friend from Iowa, can we get an idea of how much time the Senator desires? I will talk to my people on my side to try and shorten our time so we can proceed with the rest of the amendments on this bill and hopefully lock in the final time agreement on all the remaining amendments and a final vote certain so everybody in the Senate will know what we are doing. I just want to ask my colleague if he will cooperate with me and set a time agreement so we can move this bill ahead, rather than have this stay in the logjam it is in. It is a sincere set of differences. It seems to me the way to resolve those differences is time honored. We go to a vote on this amendment and then I ask unanimous consent that the next amendment be the Senator's amendment which rebuts this amendment. So we go to a vote on the amendment of the Senator from Iowa and let the chips fall where they may. I don't see any reason to delay this bill when I am willing to make that offer. I will see that the Senator gets an amendment immediately following. If you win, you win; if you lose on this one, you lose.

Mr. HATCH. Let me say this again, what are the crimes? What is the extent of the crimes? How serious are they? The fact that 13 percent of the offenders are African American and 67 percent of those incarcerated are--I don't see any information here saying that higher percentage was unjustifiably put in jail. These percentages don't tell us what the crimes were in the individual cases. If these individuals committed a crime, then they go to jail. Does that mean there are a lot of white people getting off? I don't see any evidence of that, either. Do you have evidence that minority juveniles are more likely to be detained for the same crime as white juveniles? I don't think you do. For example, is there evidence that African Americans who are charged with possession of crack cocaine are given more severe sentences than whites for crack cocaine? Is there evidence? I don't know of any. My point is, I don't think my colleagues on the other side are arguing that if people commit heinous crimes and they are convicted and sentenced to jail that they shouldn't be. Now, if there is some evidence that law enforcement is ignoring white people who commit these same heinous crimes, then I am with you. I don't know of any evidence of that. Statistics are statistics are statistics, but when people go to jail, it is generally because they have committed crimes. What is your solution? To let them out of jail? Crack cocaine distributors? Is your argument that white crack dealers get away with it because they are smarter or they are protected somehow or other? I don't think you are making that argument. I can't imagine you would make that argument. So I don't know why there is a higher percentage, but I do know that almost without exception--there certainly are some instances where the law is not applied justly, I am aware of that--but almost without exception, people who commit these heinous crimes go to jail for them. I don't think you are arguing to let them out of jail. But then, again, how can you argue, then, that if they are committing the crimes and are going to jail, that for some reason or other there is some reason why they are going to jail where others aren't? I don't see the argument myself. Plus, you are adding racial classifications, mandated racial classifications in this amendment. To me it is not even a question of constitutionality. There is no question it is unconstitutional. With that, I reserve the remainder of my time. Let me retain it for a second and say one other thing. One would think, listening to my friend from Minnesota, that our bill does absolutely nothing to deal with this problem. You hear this very emotional set of arguments as though the Hatch-Biden-Sessions bill does absolutely nothing about these problems. S. 254, in my opinion, has a much better provision to solve these problems than the distinguished Senator from Minnesota. The bill as written, as before the Senate, requires that prevention resources be directed to ``segments of the juvenile population'' who are disproportionately detained. Now, such ``segments of the population'' could include, for example, certain socioeconomic groups who are more likely to be at risk. S. 254 directs prevention resources to such groups who need those resources the most. So we try to do something about it rather than just cite statistics. I don't see how you get around the fact that these people are sentenced and sent to jail because they have committed crimes. Just because there are statistics that indicate that more than a proportionate share of the general population is going to jail, I don't know how in the world you get around the fact that these crimes are being committed by individuals--individuals who just happen to be of one race or another. But we do try to address it by directing prevention resources to such groups who need those resources the most. I think that is the way to do it. I will work with my friends on the other side to see that we do things that make sure those moneys work. A National Research Council study, published by the National Academy of Sciences no less, found that: Few criminologists would argue that the current gap between African American and white levels of imprisonment is mainly due to discrimination of sentencing or in any other decisionmaking process in the criminal justice system. If the National Academy of Sciences is wrong, show me the evidence. Just because this disparity exists, liberals throw their hands in the air and say there must be something wrong, but they can't prove it, other than to show statistics. I hope they will be with me in saying that people who are justly sentenced for heinous crimes shouldn't be let off just because there is a disproportionate sentencing because more crimes are committed by one group than another. I don't see how anybody can argue with that point. You know, it must be nice to always act like you are caring for the little guy, when, in fact, you are not willing to do what has to be done in order to help resolve these problems. Now, 55 percent of this bill is for prevention--55 percent of it. I don't remember any crime bill in my time here--there may have been one, but I can't remember it--where we put more money into prevention than law enforcement and accountability. But we have done it here, and one reason is to try to solve these problems. If there is a segment of our population that seems to have certain socioeconomic problems that literally have caused them to be disproportionately convicted--I don't even think the word ``disproportionate'' is right--but more convicted than their racial group's percentage in population group might suggest, we want to spend more money on prevention for those people. And that is what this bill does. It doesn't take a lot of sense to recognize that is a pretty good proposition, and we have it in the bill. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. HATCH. Right. That is if we ever get it passed.

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield to his friend on the other side?

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. HATCH. And vice versa.