Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays, and I request at the same time that the following two votes be 10 minutes each.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, am I correct, the first vote is the Wellstone amendment?

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH. I am happy to defer remarks of mine until the distinguished Senators from Massachusetts and New York and California speak.

Mr. HATCH. I would like to have time agreements on the other amendments, if we can. Will the Senator from Massachusetts give us some indication of how long he may speak? I will have to be gone from the floor to the Finance Committee for a vote and I would like to know, if I may, how long the Senator will speak.

Mr. HATCH. Let me just say a few words. I must object to the amendment of the Senator from California. I appreciate the necessity of afterschool programs. I am aware that the 21st Century Learning Centers program supports several efforts in my home State of Utah. The Senator's amendment, however, increases the program's authorization from $20 million annually to $600 million annually. That adds up to $3 billion over 5 years. The entire underlying bill, which we have been working on for 2 years, only authorizes a little over $1 billion in spending a year--our whole bill. Again, I express my concerns with attempting to solve a problem by simply throwing more money at it. This amendment attempts to throw $3 billion at a problem our underlying bill will solve because it is effectively written and we know what to do with the money. Our underlying bill will solve many of the problems this amendment by the distinguished Senator from California addresses, without spending such an inordinate amount or settled amount on a single program. Finally, the Labor Committee is undertaking reauthorization of the ESEA this year. Let that committee do its job in a thoughtful and reasonable way. That would be the place for the distinguished Senator to make her case when that comes up, both in the Labor Committee and on the floor. I yield such time as he may need to the distinguished chairman of the Labor Committee.

Mr. HATCH. I understand the Senator from Massachusetts, 10 or 15 minutes for sure, and then the Senator from New York at least 5 minutes, and then the Senator from California.

Mr. HATCH. How much time remains on both sides?

Mr. HATCH. I want to thank the Senator from Kentucky for his amendment. I just want to be clear on one matter, however. It is my understanding that lands under the BLM, Park Service, and Forest Service are in no way covered or affected by the amendment because they do not consider subjective criteria when determining whether to cooperate or grant permits to a film or TV production. Is that correct?

Mr. HATCH. I just want to have some idea. I would also like to have the floor protected, and I know my colleague from Vermont will, while I go to vote on this Finance Committee bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have been working very closely with the Democratic leadership to try to get this matter to a conclusion. As I understand it, including this gun amendment, there are two others, and possibly a third besides this amendment. We are going to try to finish this bill. Now, my personal impression is that they have gone too far. They are pushing this way too far. As the manager of this bill, I have tried to bring both sides together, and we have made a real effort to do so. I am starting to question whether or not we are getting a good-faith effort on the other side. Now, this is the second time we have debated the Lautenberg amendment--the second time. To be honest with you, there is so much more in this bill than just the gun matters. I have helped to effectuate compromise on the gun matters, which I believe has been to the satisfaction of most all Democrats and most all Republicans--not all on either side. Here is where we are. We have fought back amendments on one side. I was told by colleagues on the other side of the aisle they had cut their list of amendments to eight and that three, maybe four, including this amendment, would be on gun control. Today, they tell us that maybe they can agree to limit amendments. I have chatted with one of the top leaders on the Democrat side. He said they have agreed that we are going to get this done. But some have said maybe they can agree to limit amendments, but only after a vote on the Lautenberg amendment. You see, they want to vote on Lautenberg, not just twice, but three, four, five--who knows how many times. Who is holding up this bill? I have to tell you, it isn't us. We will vote on Lautenberg, but I want to be sure that we have a unanimous consent agreement to vote on final passage. I would like to vote on Lautenberg. But that is going to have to be the good-faith deal, because that is what I have represented to the other side. I think it is time to put this matter to rest. I think we can push these gun things only so far, especially when you have seen the good-faith effort I have made, and others on our side, to try to resolve these problems. The gun issue is an evolutionary issue; there is no question about it. We are trying to find ways of satisfying the vast majority of Senators. So far, we have been able to do that except with regard to the Lautenberg amendment. There is a very good reason why we will not vote for the Lautenberg amendment, or why we are going to vote for a tabling motion. Much has been said about gun shows and how best to limit criminal access to guns at these shows. Not much has been said about the black market push that is going to happen if we get too bureaucratic about it, where people won't go to gun shows, where they will just sell them on the black market. That is the last thing on Earth I want, but that is what is going to happen. I have to tell you, it is time to cut the rug. It is rug-cutting time. We are giving them the Lautenberg vote not because we think it is a worthy thing to do but because they are insisting on it. But there is a time when good faith says we move the bill. If Lautenberg is passed, so be it. If it does not pass, then so be it. I have been saying for a long time that there have been numerous delays in debate on this matter. I have had some indications that there are going to be some more delays. We will have to see. I am going to encourage my friends on the other side to limit the time. Let's get time agreement. Let's move ahead. Let's save the time of everybody in the Senate, and let's get a bill that will do something about juvenile justice in this country and about solving some of these serious problems we have.

Mr. HATCH. Yes; I am happy to yield to my friend from Nevada.

Mr. HATCH. I would like to make remarks in rebuttal, if I may, because Senator Kerrey has already spoken. But if he needs to speak, I will be happy to--if the Senator from California is going to speak for 2 or 3 minutes, I will be happy to yield.

Mr. HATCH. I thank the Senator very much. I have been saying for a long time that how the Congress will deal with firearms violence is an evolving process. We began this debate with fairly ardent positions on both sides. After several days of debate last week, Republicans took a step to require background checks at gun shows without substantial cost and regulatory burdens, and we passed the so-called bill on that, the Hatch-Craig bill. There was some gloating on the other side of the aisle, if I didn't misconstrue it. There were some Senators quoted talking about eating crow. These comments were not constructive at all. They made my job much more difficult on our side. We are here to do what is best for our children and to uphold the Constitution of the United States, including the second amendment. We are not here to score debating points, it seems to me. That type of comment, it seems to me, is very unconstructive and not conducive to getting a bill that will help our children and our country as a whole. I would note, however, that the evolution of this matter continues. This time, the supporters of the Lautenberg amendment are making changes to their proposal to bring it closer to our plan that we passed in the Hatch-Craig amendment. My sense and hope is that our efforts will continue to evolve and we will be able to find common ground. That to me would be a great, great accomplishment. But I haven't seen that yet. We are evolving towards that. I appreciate that my colleagues have recognized that the concerns we raised were legitimate and they have taken some steps in this current amendment to address the concerns. But I certainly don't think they have gone far enough. I think they have gone too far in making it look like the only matter to consider on this whole bill happens to be guns. Let's review how we got here. Under current law, non-licensed individuals can sell firearms at a gun show without obtaining a background check. This was the loophole that the President, the Lautenberg amendment sponsors, and others said they were concerned about. Yet, the bill as amended last week now requires background checks for these transactions at gun shows. Under current law, persons who only want to sell firearms at a gun show are not licensed at all and perform no background checks. Our bill as amended requires sellers to obtain a federal license to sell firearms at a gun show. Because these special licensees, or temporary dealers, are now included in the Gun Control Act, they are subject to the background check requirements. Further, our bill as amended provides civil liability protection to those sellers who complied with the background check requirements. Our proposal also prevents the Federal Government from taxing background check transactions. The liability protection and tax relief were powerful incentives for persons to have background checks. That is why we put them in the Hatch-Craig amendment. Last week, when we first debated the Lautenberg amendment, we pointed out several problems. First, the Lautenberg amendment's definition of a gun show was, at best, unfocused. If two neighbors got together with 25 guns each and sold a gun, they would have been surprised to find that they had created a gun show and were criminals under the Lautenberg amendment because they did not conduct a background check or get a permit from the ATF. We understand that the revised Lautenberg amendment now modifies the definition of ``gun show'' to conform with what is already in the bill, what we put in the Hatch-Craig amendment. It isn't totally that way because they still have their 50-person standard, and so forth, but basically they have come our way on it. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle complain that the bill's current definition of ``gun show'' would allow ``hundreds of guns'' to be sold at flea markets that do not fall under the 10 or more exhibitor or 20 percent exhibitor rule. Of course, if a very few sellers were selling hundreds of firearms, they would in all likelihood be engaged in the business--and that is an important phrase--in the business of selling firearms without a license. Under current law, such persons are subject to fines, prison sentences or both. Secondly, the Lautenberg amendment allowed the imposition of taxes and fees on background checks that constitute a substantial cost for complying with the law. Now what does that do? That is going to force people to not go to gun shows where they can legitimately sell them with background checks now that we require it in this bill, and to go off and sell them on the black market. What we are trying to do and what it seems to me will be the inevitable result of some of the approaches under the Lautenberg amendment, will be that we will create a huge black market in guns, which is exactly the opposite of what we want to accomplish. I am sure that the distinguished Senator from New Jersey does not want to accomplish that, nor anybody else on this floor, but think it through. It doesn't take many brains to realize that is what will happen. We understand the revised Lautenberg amendment does not ``impose'' taxes on sellers and purchasers. However, the tax to which we objected is paid by the person or entity that conducts the background check, not to a nonlicensed buyer or seller. Of course, the licensee, special licensee or special registrants now in this bill will pass this fee on to the buyer or seller who will have to pay it. Of course, they will pass it on. They will not just do this out of the goodness of their heart. As they do that, people will go into the black market to sell their guns, the exact opposite of what the distinguished Senator from New Jersey and I and others, who are really trying to do something constructive in this area, want to occur. In short, notwithstanding its appearance, the revised Lautenberg amendment allows for an ATF taxing authority loophole. The revised amendment seemingly concludes that we were right, but does not correct the problem. So on this provision we have a major concern. Third, the Lautenberg amendment required gun show organizers to obtain advanced permission from the ATF before holding a gun show. It doesn't take many brains to realize that is something nobody wants to agree with who believes that gun shows are a time-honored right in this society under the second amendment. We understand that the revised Lautenberg amendment currently before the Senate that will be at the end of this amendment chain to be voted upon eliminates the advance permission requirement. However, gun show organizers are still required to keep extensive records, so there is a substantial burden that would be required, overregulatory burden. Fourth, the Lautenberg amendment imposed extensive recordkeeping requirements for sales between nonlicensed individuals, thus driving up the cost of the background check and intruding into the privacy of law- abiding citizens. That is just typical of what we have to face around here in the zeal to score points on guns. We understand that the revised Lautenberg amendment may require less records to be kept and may require the Federal Government to destroy records held by the instant check operator, yet dealers must still keep all records on the buyer. Further, the implication that requiring records to be destroyed after 90 days conveys a new benefit is not accurate. 18 U.S.C. section 922(t)(2)(C) already requires the instant check operator to destroy records of checks that were approved, and the FBI currently destroys the records after 90 days. There is no new benefit in this system compared to current law. So the Lautenberg amendment does not improve current law at all, it just obscures it. Some have complained that the Republican plan promotes unaccountable interstate gun peddling by gun dealers. Under current law, a dealer from one State can go to a gun show in another State and solicit sales. He must return home to his licensed premises, however, to ship the firearm. And the shipment must be to a licensed dealer. That is current law. Our amendment allows one federally licensed firearms dealer to deliver the firearm to another federally licensed firearms dealer who is located out of State. He still cannot deliver a firearm to a nonlicensed individual, but only to a licensed dealer. Thus, the purchasing dealer will have to log the firearm into his inventory, will be subject to inspection by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to find that firearm, and will have to conduct a background check to sell a firearm to a nonlicensed dealer. This is about the most regulated sale of a firearm for which the Federal law provides. Next, some have stated that the current bill's provision for granting civil liability protection to people who comply with the background check requirement is not prudent. They say that the revised Lautenberg amendment provides no immunity for people who transfer guns to felons and others who intend to use the guns to commit violent crimes or felonies. The bill, as amended, recognizes that persons who act properly with firearms--this is the amendment by Hatch-Craig--including firearms transactions, should not be subject to suit. Indeed, only yesterday, the Senate recognized the value of providing limited immunities to persons who act properly with firearms, by bestowing qualified immunity on persons who properly use child safety laws. This is a key incentive in the Kohl-Hatch-Chafee child safety lock amendment. The same reasons for affording civil liability protection apply here. Keep in mind we have evolved towards having something that brings both sides together. The current Lautenberg amendment split both sides apart and will result, in my opinion, in more black market sales in this country, to the detriment of the country. Further, some complain that our bill dismisses certain suits. These are only those suits at which nonlicensed individuals have voluntarily sold a firearm through a licensed dealer who conducted a background check. If persons are now voluntarily having background checks performed at gun shows, they should not be penalized for doing so. That is something we want to encourage. We want to give incentives for that. I also note that the bill provides no immunities for criminal sales of firearms. If a seller knowingly transfers a firearm to a buyer who will use that firearm to commit a crime of violence or a drug trafficking crime, he is subject to severe criminal penalties. Further, if the seller is convicted of that offense, the bill expressly provides that he is not entitled to civil immunities. Thus, he could be sued for compensatory and punitive damages. Some have complained that the bill, as amended, does not impose stiff enough penalties on special licensees and special registrants for the failure to obtain a background check. However, current law suspends the license and imposes a fine on dealers who do not conduct a background check. Our bill maintains the current penalties for background check failures and imposes tough mandatory minimums for the knowing transfer of a firearm to a juvenile who will use that firearm in a crime of violence. That is a major change. And we put it in our bill. In fact, a lot of these things that were requested by the President we have in the bill. We had them in there before he requested them. I suspect he might have had somebody look at the bill. Further, through our aggressive firearms prosecution program, the CUFF Program, and the prosecution reporting requirement, we ensure that some of these violations actually will be prosecuted by the Attorney General--something that hasn't been undertaken in earnest over the last 6 years. Remember, of the thousands of possible cases, the Attorney General only prosecuted one Brady case, one Brady background check violation, from 1996 through 1998. Of the thousands they claim, 225,000 turned back felons, one prosecution. The Lautenberg amendment not only fails to include the tough mandatory minimums found in the Republican plan, it acquiesces in the Attorney General's almost complete failure to prosecute Brady violations. This makes no sense. If we in Congress pass criminal statutes, it is the duty of the Attorney General to enforce those laws. Our bill recognizes that we have a problem at the Department of Justice and our bill does something about it. Some have also stated that our bill has the potential for invading the privacy of gun owners by nonspecial registrants and special licensees to conduct background checks. This argument goes that by requiring the Instant Check operator to destroy records of an approved background check immediately, special licensees and special registrants will be able to conduct background checks on anyone, even non-gun buyers, and there will be no audit trail to catch them. Of course, special licensees and special registrants will have to undergo a background check, a field examination, and an interview just to obtain their license or registration. And they must keep records of the persons for whom they used the Instant Check system. Thus, the ATF can take these records, contact the persons listed, and determine if they attempted to purchase a gun using the services of the special licensee or the special registrant. If they did not, the special licensee or the special registrant will be held accountable, just as dealers are now. Further, gun owners would much rather entrust their privacy interests to special licensees and special registrants than to the Federal Government. The argument that more record keeping on lawful gun ownership by the Federal Government would protect privacy better than less record keeping by the Federal Government carries little weight. Mr. President, all of these concerns are less than compelling. The plain fact of the matter is that the revised Lautenberg amendment, though improved to look more like the Republican proposal, is still not as good as the current bill as amended. The revised Lautenberg amendment still fails to provide qualified immunity to persons who obey the law and act appropriately with firearms, even after the Senate voted only yesterday to provide qualified immunity when parents properly use child safety devices or child trigger locks. The revised Lautenberg amendment still fails to provide tax relief to licensees and others who perform background checks. And the revised Lautenberg amendment still fails to relieve gun show operators or organizers of substantial new recordkeeping requirements. Some are complaining that the 24-hour requirement for instant check is not good enough. They would require 3 days. But gun shows only last 3 days. If we do not have a 24-hour instant check requirement, the gun show is going to be over. The ATF has the technology and the funding to get the job done in 24 hours, and it should. We should not force people into a black market where there are no licenses, no records, and no background checks. We do not need to do that. Further, we even offered to make the background check requirement for special licensees express. But my colleagues on the other side of the aisle rejected this, or objected to my modification of my own amendment, one of the few times in my 23 years where a Senator was refused the right to modify his own amendment to please the other side--even though it was not necessary, in my view, and I think in the view of any reasonable person who looks at it. I want to make sure that persons who sell a substantial number of guns come inside the gun show and get a Federal license. These special licensees must submit to a background check and an ATF interview, they must comply with the Gun Control Act, and they must conduct background checks--something that has evolved into something that both sides ought to be willing to agree to. Mr. President, there is one firearm-related provision on which I hope we can reach bipartisan agreement. And that is the treatment of pawn shops, gunsmiths and repair shops that have traditionally been exempt from the requirement to conduct background checks when they simply return a firearm to its owner. Prior to the 1993 Brady law, States required pawn shops to report the pawn of a firearm to State or local law enforcement agencies. Thus, there was already a state law check on the firearm. The Brady law, however, when it passed inadvertently required a Federal background check on returned firearms in addition to the state check. The pawn shops raised concerns because State law already required them to undergo a background check and because waiting on a background check to be returned before returning a firearm to its rightful owner affected their business. Because these were real concerns, many in Congress supported an exemption to the Brady law which exempted pawn shops, gunsmiths, and repair shops from the Federal background check. It passed the Congress as part of the 1994 crime bill. Many of the people attacking the Hatch- Craig amendment's so-called pawn shop loophole voted to do the same thing in 1994 when the crime bill passed. Frankly, if what we included in the Hatch-Craig amendment is a loophole, it was a loophole when Senator Lautenberg voted for the crime bill in 1994 and when President Clinton signed it into law. Indeed, after the Brady law passed, Senator Schumer even wrote a letter to the Treasury Department asking them to draft regulations to exempt pawn shops from the Federal background check requirement. To be fair, however, I should note that then-Congressman Schumer did vote against the amendment to the 1994 crime bill that provided the statutory exemption for pawn shops, but he still took a position in his 1994 letter to the Treasury Department which is consistent with our amendment. If the pawn shop exemption from a Federal background check is a loophole now, it was a loophole in 1994 when Senator Schumer asked the Treasury Department to draft it. The Craig amendment that we passed last Wednesday simply restored the exemption for pawn shops that had been part of the Brady law for 4 years. Thus, this was not a major change in law, but a change back to how the Brady law read from 1994 to November 1998 when the exemption lapsed as the Instant Check system became effective. However, I know that the good Senator from New York has legitimate concerns and wants to address those concerns. Neither of us want a person to commit a crime and then get a firearm. However, I believe neither of us want to overburden legitimate business transactions. As I have stated repeatedly--it is my goal to find common ground on these issues. Wherever possible, I want to do what's best for our children and the public in a manner which is consistent with our oath as Senator to uphold the Constitution. Frankly, I viewed this provision as a technical matter--one which should not be politicized. I just have a minute more to go, maybe a minute and a half, because I know there is limited time here. Let me just sum it up. Thus, the revised Lautenberg amendment is a small step in the right direction. And I sincerely appreciate that step. However, in my view, it fails to go far enough, and it may create more problems than currently exist. The current bill as amended strikes the appropriate balance between the privacy interests of law abiding citizens and the public interest in preventing criminals from obtaining guns. The powerful incentives included in our plan will ensure that persons comply with the mandatory background check requirement on all sales at gun shows. The Republican plan also gives law abiding gun owners the peace of mind that they have not inadvertently transferred a firearm to a felon, and requires the Attorney General to begin prosecuting the criminals who violate the existing gun control laws, something that has not been done, now, for a number of years, maybe the whole time of this administration--since the Brady bill. Accordingly, when the time arrives, I will move to table the revised Lautenberg amendment in order to allow the bill as currently amended to stand, because I think it will do a better job of accomplishing what everybody here seems to want, everything the current Lautenberg amendment will do. I am sorry this took so long. I apologize to my colleagues, but it was important to make these points.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I do not know of any opposition to the amendment or anybody to speak on it. I wonder if the minority will yield back its time? Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we reserve the time in opposition to this amendment and we move on to the next amendment.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum with the time charged to the proponents on this amendment.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum with the time charged equally.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, what is the change that was sent? I am sorry.

Mr. HATCH. No objection.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we continue to throw money at these problems and not solve them. First, the Senator's bill called for $1 billion and now it calls for $340,000,000. Which one is it? And how do we know that this latest amount is what is needed? We can't keep pulling extraordinary amounts of money out of thin air and justify spending the amounts because problems may exist. We continue to take time on this floor to delay a bill that can help solve these problems. The fact is that we take care of a lot of these problems in the bill without throwing an inordinate amount of money toward them.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I don't want to take too much time, but I will take 30 more seconds. Look, you are not the only Senator on this floor who cares about kids. I have a record of 23 years of leading a fight for most of the children's programs that have passed here. And every one of them takes into carefull consideration how much money should or should not be spent--child care, the child health insurance bill; you name it, I have been there. Right now, I am raising over $2 million for the Pediatric AIDS Foundation. I don't need to be lectured by the Senator from Minnesota, whose answer to everything is to throw more money at every problem.

Mr. HATCH. I object, unless it is for 30 seconds.

Mr. HATCH. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. HATCH. Is this amendment No. 358?