Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, our understanding is that the next amendment will be the Hatch-Feinstein amendment.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote be postponed until the time set in an agreement of the two leaders.

Mr. HATCH. Can we put this over for a vote until next Tuesday?

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am prepared to accept the amendment. I am a cosponsor of it as well.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I am asking that Senator Kohl be able to present the Hatch-Kohl trigger lock amendment, and we will proceed. We will have that, followed by the Hatch-Feinstein amendment on gangs.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kohl be permitted to present the Hatch-Kohl trigger lock amendment.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, may I ask the parliamentary situation?

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, let us see if I can bring some order to this. We did say last night we were going to try to come up with language that would address Senators' concerns. I hesitate to say this, but the distinguished Senator from New York had the language before I did. It was only a matter of minutes, but he did. It is only a one-paragraph thing. But rather than continue the heated debate, I will ask my colleague, the distinguished Senator from Vermont, if he will work with me. Let us see if we can work out this language so that we can solve this, so that your side is happy with it. I am personally happy with the Hatch-Craig amendment. But to the extent we can do that, we will do that. Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATCH. I think the modification I have sent to the desk does close the loophole in a way that hopefully will please my colleagues on the other side. I hope they will grant unanimous consent to do that. If they do not grant unanimous consent, then I will try to do that by amendment later, which we will have to vote on, I suppose. But all I am trying to do is to accommodate them. I sometimes wonder if unfair political advantage isn't what is being sought here, instead of a bill. Everybody ought to be happy to have this additional language. The Hatch-Craig amendment closes the gun show background check loophole. This additional language makes it even more express than the bill makes it express at this time. I hope my colleagues will permit the unanimous consent request to modify the amendment. To the degree we can work on other problems that they are concerned about, we will be happy to try to do that during the course of the debate on this bill.

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that he be given a half a minute.

Mr. HATCH. Could I yield----

Mr. HATCH. Let me just end with this. I believe my colleagues are sincere on the other side. I know the distinguished ranking member on the Judiciary Committee has been working diligently with me to get this bill passed. I compliment him and I honor him for that. I believe the distinguished Senator from New Jersey is doing his best to try to make sure that loopholes are closed. I appreciate that. I have tried to accommodate him. I did not like his amendment because I thought it was too bureaucratic and too heavyhanded. On the other hand, he was sincere in presenting it. If he had not presented it, we probably would not be here today trying to accommodate him. With regard to my friend from New York, there are very few people in this body who understand this issue any better than he does. And I respect him. But I am serving notice, I am getting tired of the spurious arguments that have been made by some against what we are trying to do. And I am a little impatient because I think they are trying to artificially paint this gun show amendment like a National Rifle Association amendment. I can tell you right now, I did not talk to the National Rifle Association about this amendment; and I had a lot to do with changing the previous voluntary background check to a mandatory background check for sales at gun shows. And to his credit, Senator Craig has cooperated every step of the way. Now, this mandatory gun show check is to accommodate our colleagues. This is to solve this gun show problem. We cannot solve every problem in this bill, but we are certainly trying to solve as many as we can. And this is a very small part of this total juvenile justice bill that we need to pass. We will never get it passed unless we get some cooperation from both sides of the aisle. I am asking for that. We have been debating this juvenile justice bill for 3 days. This is a bill that should have been passed in 1 day. Every one of us should have been very, very happy to get this bill passed. Most everybody on this floor knows that this bill is a very, very well-thought-out bill. It is bipartisan, and it is time for us to get it passed. But we have to quit playing political games around here. Let's start worrying about the young people in this society, the families and our society as a whole. That is all I need to say about it. I apologize if I have offended any of my colleagues on the other side, but I am tired of having arguments made that are not constructive when I am trying to meet the needs of the very people who have made these arguments. Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATCH. He did.

Mr. HATCH. He did.

Mr. HATCH. This is a good-faith effort to accommodate our colleagues on the other side who I believe have raised legitimate objections. They have tried to make it look like our side is in frantic shape about doing it. I just want to get it done.

Mr. HATCH. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. HATCH. Right. Our colleagues have been complaining here for 2 days. We are doing what I think they and others on our side would like to have done. And the National Rifle Association has not had a thing to do with it. I don't care whether they accept it or don't accept it. These things are done by us. Frankly, to try to make them the terrible organization that some on the other side try to do bothers me. They represent millions of decent, law-abiding, honest sports people. I think it is time to start talking about these things in earnest with clarity and with decency. I think, more important, this is not all about guns. Guns are a part of the juvenile justice bill, but it is not all about guns. There are so many other things this bill does that will help us in this society to resolve the problems of violent juveniles that it is a crying shame we have had to play around with this bill over the last number of days like we have. I have tried to move these amendments forward and will continue to do so, but there is only so much time this bill can be given.

Mr. HATCH. They have equal time.

Mr. HATCH. Sufficient time to explain this amendment.

Mr. HATCH. Let me tell you, I am so tired of this unnecessary argument. I want a juvenile justice bill. I have insisted on making these changes so we can get rid of these political arguments made on the other side, and I am tired of it. What we are trying to do this morning is make it absolutely clear-- even though we think it is clear in the bill as it is--with this modification. I hate to say this, but I really believe there is an effort by some in this body to never have a juvenile justice bill. I am going to do everything in my power to get it. Under current law, anyone who engages in the business of selling firearms at a gun show must have a license. The loophole of current law lets gunsmiths and other individuals go to gun shows as nonlicensed individuals to sell guns with no instant check. That is current law. We are trying to solve that. Others are trying to exploit this issue, and I think very unfairly so. As long as the gunsmiths do not sell so many firearms as to be engaged in the business of firearms dealing, they are not classified as firearms dealers. Thus, they can sell a limited number of firearms at a gun show without a license. This is also a loophole in existing law. The Craig amendment which the Senate adopted on Wednesday provided that the gunsmiths who wanted to engage in the business of selling firearms, but just at gun shows, could do so, but have to be licensed to do so--a step in the right direction. It was not enough, apparently, and so we have been willing to change that. The Craig amendment provided for a special license that would last for only 3 days. By becoming, in effect, a temporary dealer, the gunsmith was subject to all the provisions of the Gun Control Act to which dealers are subject, including the recordkeeping requirements, the requirement to be subject to inspection by Federal officials, and the requirement to perform background checks--a step in the right direction. While the Craig amendment exempted special registrants who only conducted background checks and did not engage in the business of selling firearms from the dealer recordkeeping requirements, it expressly provided that the special licensee would be subject to the recordkeeping requirements of the Gun Control Act. The Hatch-Craig amendment, which we are going to vote on in a few minutes, which we offered yesterday, simply changed the voluntary background check for individual sellers at gun shows to a mandatory background check. It did not affect the special licensing requirements. Thus, after the Hatch-Craig amendment, an individual who desires to obtain a firearm at a gun show must submit to a background check whether he purchases the firearm from a regular dealer, a special licensee, or another individual. It is my desire to ensure that any gun sale that takes place at any gun show has a background check. That is what we are doing here, and we are doing it because of the complaining on both sides of the aisle, and I have insisted on it. My colleague, Senator Craig, and I now agree on this. I believe the current language clearly, clearly accomplishes this, without this modification I have sent to the desk. However, if my colleagues want to make the language to the special licensee even more express, that is why I expressed a desire to work with them. I am glad to work with them. I sent a modification to the desk to make it absolutely superabundantly clear. Since we have the same goals here, there is no reason to play politics on this issue. Let's get the job done. Last but not least, we have asked the Justice Department and others to cooperate with us and help to know what they want here. Not one word in 2 years, other than political crticism. The President bad-mouthed this all day yesterday for political purposes, and I am tired of that because I am one of those who is insisting on making these changes. I am one of those who wants to accommodate my colleagues on the other side. If they have any substantive problems, bring them to us, but their amendment certainly does not do as much as ours does. I cannot solve every problem here, but this I think we can solve. The modification basically says: Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, section 923 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by this Act, shall be applied by amending in subsection (m) the following: In subsection (m), amend paragraph 1 by adding the new subparagraph as follows: Subparagraph (f), except as provided in subparagraph (d) a special licensee shall-- Not may, shall-- be subject to all the provisions of this chapter applicable to dealers, including, but not limited to, the performance of an instant background check. I do not think that is necessary, but my colleagues do, and I want to accommodate my colleagues on the other side. I cannot accommodate----

Mr. HATCH. There will be 2 minutes on the other side.

Mr. HATCH. I withdraw it. It is amazing to me----

Mr. HATCH. You object to closing the so-called loophole?

Mr. HATCH. You object to doing what is right here?