Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. The 2 minutes would be after the first vote.

Mr. HATCH. Can we voice vote this amendment? I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays be vitiated.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, Let me modify my request to make it no later than 4 o'clock.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this child safety device amendment will, first, provide qualified immunity to law-abiding gun owners who use a trigger lock or gun storage device, and two, it will require the sale of a child safety device lock or gun storage device with the sale of every handgun sold by a licensee. In the past week it has been clear that some on the other side of the aisle believe that playing politics is more important than taking action. Some--but not all. So I am pleased to say that Senators Kohl, Chafee, and I have joined forces to produce a compromise on child safety locks that lays aside partisan rhetoric and demonstrates the positive steps that can result from putting aside such rhetoric and focusing on protecting our children. Under the Kohl-Hatch-Chafee amendment, for the first time every handgun purchased from a manufacturer, importer, or licensed dealer will have to be sold with a storage or child safety lock device. This amendment will not change the fundamental principle that governmental action cannot be used to micromanage specific methods of parental responsibility. We do not expect parents to let their small children drive a car or play with matches, and we do not expect them to permit their children to have unsupervised access to firearms. This amendment will provide parents with a tool to help prevent such access. Last year the Senate overwhelmingly agreed to an amendment that funded gun safety education by State and local entities. It also required gun dealers to stock safety devices. These efforts encouraged people to lock up their guns and to act safely and responsibly. This amendment is another step in enhancing this successful effort. I should add that no child safety lock or gun safe will ever make our society safe from gun violence if criminals who use firearms are not aggressively prosecuted and punished. No safety device will stop a felon, but jail will. So once again I call upon the Attorney General to start prosecuting criminals who use guns. Only then will we truly be able to create a safer environment for our children. This amendment gives law-abiding gun owners the peace of mind of knowing their children are protected. Further, it will give law-abiding gun owners qualified immunity from civil suit if they use the child safety device or child safety lock. This amendment is a good idea for gun owners and a good idea for children. I am pleased we have bipartisan support in the Senate for this amendment. I hope it will be agreed to.

Mr. HATCH. I yield back the time on this side.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, let me just make one quick comment and then yield to Senator Kohl. The Kohl-Hatch amendment provides qualified immunity to law-abiding gun owners who use a child safety lock or gun storage unit and requires that all handguns be sold with a child safety lock or gun storage unit.

Mr. HATCH. And then protect the right of the Senator from California to speak in opposition. Mr. President, I am pleased to support this amendment, which is nearly identical to a bill I introduced earlier this year, S. 577, The Twenty-First Amendment Enforcement Act. If nothing else can be said about this issue--it is absolutely imperative that states have the means to prevent unlawful access to alcohol by our children. If a 13-year-old is capable of ordering beer and having it delivered by merely ``borrowing'' a credit card and making a few clicks with her mouse, there is something wrong with the level of control that is being exercised over these sales and something must be done to address the problem. I am a strong supporter of e-commerce. But the sale of alcohol cannot be equated with the sale of a sweater or shirt. We need to foster growth in electronic commerce, but we also need to make sure that alcohol control laws are respected. The growth of many of our nation's wineries is tied to their ability to achieve name recognition and generate sales nationwide--tasks the Internet is uniquely suited to accomplish. I do not want to preclude them from using the Internet; I want to ensure that they use it responsibly and in accordance with state laws. If there is a problem with the system, we need to fix the system, not break the laws. The 21st amendment gives states the right to regulate the importation of alcohol into their states. However, efforts to enforce laws relating to the importation of alcohol have run into significant legal hurdles in both state and Federal courts. The scope of the 21st amendment is essentially a federal question that must be decided by the federal courts--and ultimately the Supreme Court. For that reason, among others, I believe a federal court forum is appropriate for state enforcement efforts. Most states do not permit direct shipping of alcohol to consumers. Therefore most Internet sales of alcohol are currently prohibited. If a state wants to set up a system to allow for the direct shipment of alcohol to consumers, such as New Hampshire and Louisiana have already done, then that is their right under the 21st amendment. But the decision to permit direct shipping, and under what conditions, is up to the states, not the purveyors of alcohol. The bill is supported by a host of interests including, inter alia, Utah interests (Governor Leavitt, Attorney General Graham, Utah's Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, the Utah Hospitality Association, numerous Utah Congressional Representatives and Senator Bennett), SADD, the National Licensed Beverage Association, the National Beer Wholesalers Association, the Wine and Spirits Wholesalers, Geerlings and Wade (leading direct marketer of fine wines to 27 states and more than 81 percent of the wine consuming public), Americans for Responsible Alcohol Access, the National Association of Beverage Retailers, the National Alcohol Beverage Control Association, and the National Conference of State Liquor Administrators. Having said that, I will yield back the remainder of any time the proponents have.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. HATCH. I thank the Chair.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am extremely disappointed in the failure of the Senate to invoke cloture. I believe that there exists strong bipartisan support for the bill and it is a shame that the bill may die for partisan reasons. But the Democrats held firm on cloture. Sometimes party unity is a good thing, but in this case, it is a mistake. The reason why it is a mistake is that the Y2K problem hurts America. What we face is the threat that an avalanche of Y2K-related lawsuits will be simultaneously filed on or about January 3, 2000 and that this unprecedented wave of litigation will overwhelm the computer industry's ability to correct the problem. Make no mistake about it, this super- litigation threat is real, and if it substantially interferes with the computer industry's ongoing Y2K repair efforts, the consequences for America could be disastrous. Today we face the more immediate problem of frivolous litigation that seeks recovery even where there is little or no actual harm done. In that regard, I am aware of at least 25 Y2K-related class actions that are currently pending in courts across the country, with the threat of hundreds more to come. It is precisely these types of Y2K-related lawsuits that pose the greatest danger to industry's efforts to fix the problem. All of us are aware that the computer industry is feverishly working to correct--or remediate, in industry language--Y2K so as to minimize any disruptions that occur early next year. What we also know is that every dollar that industry has to spend to defend against especially frivolous lawsuits is a dollar that will not get spent on fixing the problem and delivering solutions to technology consumers. Also, how industry spends its precious time and money between now and the end of the year--either litigating or mitigating-- will largely determine how severe Y2K-related damage, disruption, and hardship will be. Let me talk about the potential financial magnitude of the Y2K litigation problem. The Gartner Group estimates that worldwide remediation costs will range between $300 billion to $600 billion. Other experts contend that overall litigation costs may total $1 trillion. Even if we accept the lower amount, according to Y2K legal expert Jeff Jinnett, ``this cost would greatly exceed the combined estimated legal costs associated with Superfund environmental litigation . . . U.S. tort litigation . . . and asbestos litigation.'' Perhaps the best illustration of the sheer dimension of the litigation monster that Y2K may create is Mr. Jinnett's suggestion that a $1 trillion estimate for Y2K-related litigation costs ``would exceed even the estimated total annual direct and indirect costs of all civil litigation in the United States,'' which he says is $300 billion per year. These figures should give all of us pause. At this level of cost, Y2K-related litigation may well overwhelm the capacity of the already crowded court system to deal with it. Thus, it is imperative that Congress should give companies an incentive to fix Y2K problems right away, knowing that if they do not make a good-faith effort to do so, they will shortly face costly litigation. The natural economic incentive of industry is to satisfy their customers and, thus, prosper in the competitive environment of the free market. This acts as a strong motivation for industry to fix a Y2K problem before any dispute becomes a legal one. This will be true, however, only as long as businesses are given an opportunity to do so and are not forced, at the outset, to divert precious resources from the urgent tasks of the repair shop to the often unnecessary distractions of the court room. A business and legal environment which encourages problem-solving while preserving the eventual opportunity to litigate may best insure that consumers and other innocent users of Y2K defective products are protected. The Y2K problem presents a special case. Because of the great dependence of our economy, indeed of our whole society, on computerization, Y2K will impact almost every American in some way. But the problem and its associated harms will occur only once, all at approximately the same time, and will affect virtually every aspect of the economy, society, and government. What we must avoid is creating a litigious environment so severe that the computer industry's remediation efforts will slacken and retreat at the very moment when users and consumers need them to advance with all deliberate speed. What we must avoid is the crippling the high tech sector of our economy. As chairman of the Federal Reserve Board Alan Greenspan recently noted, the tremendous growth of our economy is in large measure a result of productivity gains resulting from the computerization of our economy. America is unquestionably the high tech leader in the world today. Our technology is a major export item. Unless the Y2K bill is passed, the American high tech information industries and computer businesses will be swamped by an avalanche of lawsuits. Mr. President, why kill the goose that lays the golden egg? Let the Senate vote on the underlying bill. Let the Senate vote on Democrat and Republican amendments. But let us vote on the merits of the bill. Leave politics aside. This issue is too important to be held hostage. The excuse that the minority proffered is that the Y2K should not be brought up until the Juvenile Justice bill is completed. How ironic. I have been working around the clock to work on a time agreements for amendments to the Juvenile Justice bill. The minority has been delaying the Juvenile Justice bill and uses the delay as an excuse to vote no on cloture petition on a motion to proceed to the Y2K bill. That's called chutzpa. Look, a strong bipartisan substitute--a Dodd-McCain-Hatch-Feinstein- Gorton-Wyden-Bennett substitute--has been crafted. This substitute is carefully drafted to assure an appropriate balance between the rights of citizens to bring suits for compensation and the need to protect the high tech community from onerous and wasteful litigation. This is a fair resolution of differences between Democrats and Republicans. I hope--for the sake of our Nation--that the minority allows us to debate this provision.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of calendar No. 95, S. 39.

Mr. HATCH. I feel exactly the same way. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Missouri be accorded the floor to make a statement about these matters following a short statement on this amendment.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I am pleased to support the amendment I am offering on behalf of the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Santorum. This amendment adds new incentives for States to ensure that violent offenders are incarcerated for the public's protection, by transferring Federal crime fighting resources from States that fail to incarcerate their criminals to States where the criminals commit subsequent crimes. Congressionally funded truth-in-sentencing grants, which provide funds to States to build prisons, have been instrumental in lowering crime by encouraging States to incarcerate violent and repeat offenders for at least 85 percent of their sentence. In January, the Justice Department reported that 70 percent of prison admissions in 1997 were in States requiring criminals to serve at least 85 percent of their sentence. More significantly, the average time served by violent criminals nationally has increased 12.2 percent since 1993. Perhaps the biggest reason for recent declines in violent crime is due to these truth-in-sentencing prison grants. Simply put, violent criminals cannot commit crimes against innocent victims while in prison. But as important as these grants have been, we can do more. While crime is a local issue, its effects are interstate. In our highly mobile society, the criminals let out of prison in one State too frequently end up committing crimes in a neighboring State, or even in a State across the country. In my view, States owe a duty not only to their own citizens, but to the citizens of other States as well, to keep their worst offenders locked up. Senator Santorum's amendment provides a modest incentive to States in this regard, by putting them on notice that if one of their murderers, rapists, or other sex offenders commits a similar offense in another State after being released, the second State may be reimbursed out of Federal criminal justice assistance funds allocated to the first State for the costs of incarcerating the criminal in the second State. These transfers would apply if the first State is not a truth-in- sentencing State, does not have penalties at least 10 percent above the national average for murder, rape, or other sexual offenses, or in the individual case of triggering the transfer, the inmate did not serve at least 85 percent of his or her sentence. Madam President, no State should allow crime to be a major export. This amendment is a modest proposal to ensure that all our States absorb at least part of the costs of their trans-border crime. I urge my colleagues to support it. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 361

Mr. HATCH. I have been here all weekend hoping we can find some help on the other side to resolve this matter. Now, there may be valid reasons why people on the other side did not meet with us, but we have been open to meeting and resolving this. I think I have exhibited a desire to resolve this bill time after time after time. We have tried, in an evolutionary sort of way, to resolve some of the gun problems. We know that is the way it is going to have to go. We are trying to do it. But we have not been able to get any cooperation. Now that we are here on Monday, it seems to me we ought to start cooperating and helping our majority leader get this done. I understand the Senator has an amendment for this side that he can call up. Is it the Ashcroft amendment? And then we can go back to the Senator from Minnesota. Let me, without yielding my right to the floor----

Mr. HATCH. Will my colleague yield one more time to me?

Mr. HATCH. Fine. Amendment No. 348 (Purpose: To reduce violent juvenile crime by encouraging States to prosecute violent armed juveniles as adults) Mr. SESSIONS Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk. This amendment is to reduce juvenile violent crime by encouraging States to prosecute violent armed juveniles as adults if they are over 14 years of age. It has been submitted by Senator John Ashcroft of Missouri. Senator Ashcroft serves on the Senate Judiciary Committee, is a former attorney general of Missouri and a former Governor of Missouri. Recently, our Juvenile Crime Subcommittee went to Missouri and held field hearings where we dealt with the problems of using young people to commit serious crimes because they could not be punished for them effectively. This amendment would be Senator Ashcroft's effort to say to those who commit murder and robbery and forcible rape while using a dangerous weapon, that they would be treated as adults if they carried a firearm.

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

Mr. HATCH. Could I ask the Senator from Minnesota how he would like to proceed? He has one more amendment.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I am happy to recommend that the distinguished Senator from Minnesota call up another of his amendments, and I will then call up one for Senator Santorum. We will proceed in that way. It is my understanding the distinguished Senator will take upwards of a half hour for his amendment, and then I will offer an amendment.

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. HATCH. This is the fifth day on this bill. I mentioned in my remarks today other incidents occurring around this country with juveniles who don't have to expect any real retribution as a result of a lack of law. We can make a difference in this country right now or we can keep fooling around and not get anything done. I can't blame the distinguished Senator for representing his side and protecting the minority leader, except I can't imagine the minority leader not wanting to finish this by 6 o'clock tomorrow. As far as I am concerned, we should finish it 2 minutes from now, get this bill on the record, get the House to pass it, the President to sign it, and hopefully get a set of mechanisms the bill will provide into operation so we can help our families and our children throughout this society to be protected from these violent juveniles.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I ask the Y2K bill be set aside and we return to the----