Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Let me see if I have enough time at the end.

Mr. HATCH. I will be happy to at the end if we have some time, but we are short on time. The distinguished Senator from New Jersey says we are a nation of laws. He says we must close the loophole that allows nonlicensed individuals to buy a gun at a gun show. The Senator from New Jersey says the definition of ``gun show'' used in the amendment would exempt gatherings of fewer than 10 firearms exhibitors and, he said, would exempt gatherings of firearm exhibitors and other exhibitors where the percentage of firearm exhibitors is less than 20 percent of the show. This is untrue. The amendment defines a ``gun show'' as an event at which we have either, A, 20 percent or more firearms exhibitors out of all the exhibitors at the show or, B, 10 or more firearms exhibitors. The language is ``or,'' not ``and.'' Thus, if there are three exhibitors, one of which is a firearms exhibitor, this would constitute a ``gun show'' under the 20 percent rule--one out of three naturally being 33 percent, which is greater than 20 percent. The event need not satisfy the ``10 or more'' tests. It will be a gun show. If there are 10 firearm exhibitors out of 100 exhibitors, that will be a gun show under the ``10 or more'' rule. The event need not also satisfy the 20 percent. It would be a gun show. It is just that simple. There is no question about it. The threshold for what constitutes a gun show is low and it is certain: 20 percent firearms exhibitors or 10 or more firearms exhibitors. What does that mean? In fact, the definition of ``gun show'' in the Hatch-Craig amendment is more strict than Senator Lautenberg's original definition. He required 50 firearms and 2 or more firearms sellers. Thus, if 1 of 3 exhibitors at a gathering is a firearms dealer and only brings 49 firearms, Senator Lautenberg's amendment would not classify it as a gun show. The Hatch-Craig amendment would classify it as a gun show. The Republican amendment closes the loophole that the Democratic amendment left open. To talk about loopholes, we know a little bit about that. The Hatch-Craig amendment slams the door shut on the loophole and slams it hard. Unfortunately for my Democratic colleagues, however, our amendment slams this door without more regulation, and without more taxes and without much more Government and bureaucracy, which is what would have happened under the Lautenberg amendment. Next, the Senator from New Jersey says that we on this side of the aisle do not believe that gun laws work. He is absolutely wrong on that. We just know they are not enforced by this administration. For all the loudmouth talking that this administration does, look at this record of what they have done with regard to prosecutions of guns. I went through this early in the day. Providing a firearm to a prohibited person, unspecified category-- each number will be for 1996, 1997, 1998, in that order--17, 25, 10. It is pitiful. Look at this. Providing firearms to a felon: 20, 13, 24; for 1996, 1997, 1998. Possession of a firearm by a fugitive: 30, 30, and 23 for last year. Possession of a firearm by a drug addict or illegal drug user--we know there are hundreds of thousands, at least, if not millions--46, 69, 129. Possession of a firearm by a person committed to a mental institution or adjudicated mentally incompetent: 1 in 1996, 4 in 1997, and 5 prosecutions in 1998. Tell me that this administration is enforcing gun laws that are on the books. And yet all we hear is crying and crying over spilled milk, that we need more gun laws. But they won't enforce them. There are lots of gun laws on the books, but they just will not enforce them. It is just the phoniest doggone issue I have seen yet, when everybody in this Senate knows that these problems with our teenagers and our young people, what they come down to is a myriad of problems, many of which are caused by broken homes, broken families, single families where the parent has to work and cannot take care of the kids, a breakdown in society, a breakdown in religious values, a breakdown in family values, a breakdown in many other societal values, rotten movies, rotten music, rotten Internet things, rotten video games. All of this is adding to this. Guns is one small part of it. But look at all these laws. And they are not being enforced by this very administration which continues to pop off every day about, we need more gun laws. Well, enforce the ones we have. It is incredible to me that they get away with this. Sure, the polls will say that people are concerned about guns. Naturally they are. We all are. But they ought to be concerned about an administration that does nothing about the laws already on the books, that continually calls for more for political advantage. That is what bothers me about this outfit. Possession of a firearm by a person dishonorably discharged from the armed services: 0, 0, 2; for 1996, 1997, 1998. Possession of a firearm by a person under a certain kind of restraining order provision: 3 in 1996, 18 in 1997, 22 in 1998. Possession of a firearm by a person convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor: 0 in 1996, 21 in 1997, 56 in 1998. A country of 250 million people, and this is the record we have? Possession of a firearm by a person convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor--think about it--0 in 1996, 21 in 1997, 56 in 1998. Possession of a firearm or discharge of a firearm in a school zone-- thousands of them--we had 4, 5, and 8 in the last 3 years. Think about it. All violations under the Brady Act--we have heard nothing but Brady Act, Brady Act, Brady Act, and it has not done a thing compared to the instant check system which we insisted on. But look at this. All the violations under the Brady Act, first phase: No prosecutions in either 1996 or 1997; one prosecution under the Brady Act in 1998. And you would have thought the Brady Act was the last panacea for all gun problems on this Earth. All violations under the Brady Act in the instant check phase--they are not even doing it under the instant check that we have done--0, 0, 0; for 1996, 1997, 1998. There is a point where you call it hypocrisy to continually try to make political points on guns when this administration ignores every law that is on the books and then says we need more laws to solve these problems. My gosh, we know that the trigger lock cases have dropped an awful lot, from 7,500 under the Bush administration down to 3,500, because this administration does not take it seriously. Yet they go out every day and make these political points that we need more gun laws so that they have an opportunity not to enforce them, I guess. Look at this. Theft of a firearm from a Federal firearms licensee: 52, 51, 25. Manufacturing, transferring, or possession of a nongrandfathered assault weapon: 16, 4, 4. We heard how terrible assault weapons are. Hardly anything done about it. Transfer of a handgun or handgun ammunition to a juvenile: 9, 5, 6, even though we know that is violated all over this country. The fact of the matter is, these are laws we should be enforcing that are not being enforced. And I have only covered some of them. I do not have enough time to cover all of them. But the fact is, this administration, for all of its talk about guns, isn't enforcing the laws that exist. Now they are asking for more laws. And they will not enforce those either. The Hatch-Craig amendment slams the door on these loopholes. And, frankly, when are they going to enforce these laws the way they should be enforced? It is one thing to talk about punishing the criminal use of firearms; it is another thing to mean it. It is one thing to talk about protecting innocent schoolchildren from violent juvenile offenders; it is another thing to actually pass a bill that will do it. This bill will help. Yet we are in such a doggone logjam here, we might have to pull this bill down, because all the amendments that people are coming up with every day really are deterring the passage of this bill. Republicans want to pass this bill and protect our children now. And I believe my colleague on the other side, who is managing his side, wants to do so as much as I do. Let's stop talking. Let's start acting. If you really want to protect our schoolchildren, prove it by passing the juvenile crime bill. That is the best way to do it. And let's not just center on guns, which may be a problem, and probably is a whole series of problems, but that is only one small part of this. I am saying, a lot of things are not being done. Senator Schumer criticizes this amendment by saying it would permit, for the first time, transactions of firearms at gun shows by individuals who are not Federal firearms licensees. But the entire justification of the gun show amendment--since the private sales are occurring at gun shows without any background checks whatsoever, we are putting in this bill, the Hatch-Craig amendment, instant checks on all sales. And it shall be done, according to this amendment. Senator Schumer's criticism suggests we are trying to address a problem that does not exist. Which is it? Is this a problem? Is there a problem with private sales at gun shows or not?

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute, and I will finish with that.

Mr. HATCH. This amendment does not allow more types of firearms transactions at gun shows. It does provide for a mandatory background check for all transactions at gun shows. Only those transactions where there is currently no check at all will be able to take advantage of a special registrant background check. Right now, we have hardly any protections. This amendment will bring them to pass. This amendment will do what was asked for yesterday. I think you can criticize anything to do with this area, but this is the right way to go. We are going to solve this problem. That is why people should vote for the Hatch-Craig amendment. I thank my colleagues for their forbearance.

Mr. HATCH. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Then give me a vote on my amendment. Go to my amendment. I will give you all the time on your side. We have debated it. We won't even make a point on our side. We will give you the time and vote on mine, bring yours up and vote on yours; or we will stack them together to accommodate Senators here, some of whom are Democrats.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Would the Senator from Arizona----

Mr. HATCH. Let me ask the Senator----

Mr. HATCH. That is not part of the unanimous consent request.

Mr. HATCH. Yes; following that, we intend to move to the Hatch-Craig amendment on firearms.

Mr. HATCH. Therefore, for the information of all Senators, the next votes will occur at approximately 3:30 p.m. and approximately 4 p.m. today.

Mr. HATCH. Therefore, for the information of all Senators--do I have the unanimous consent?

Mr. HATCH. Let me finish. Following that debate, the Senate proceed to vote in the order in which the amendments were offered, with 5 minutes prior to each vote for explanation.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the disposition of amendment No. 335, Senator Feingold be recognized for up to 8 minutes to make a statement on debate, the Senator from Minnesota be recognized for up to 10 minutes, and then Senator Ashcroft be recognized to offer an amendment regarding guns, and that there be 45 minutes equally divided for debate prior to the vote on or in relation to the amendment, with no amendments in order to the amendment prior to that vote. I further ask consent that following the debate, the amendment be laid aside and Senator Feinstein be recognized to offer an amendment regarding gun control, with the debate limited to 90 minutes and under the same parameters outlined above.

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

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the ``Citizens Access to Justice Act of 1999,'' or CAJA. More precisely, I am reintroducing the same bill that was voted out of the Judiciary Committee last Congress, but was a victim of a filibuster by the left. Why am I doing this? Some may say that it is fruitless. But even though Senator Landrieu, other supporters of the bill, and myself, were unsuccessful last Congress in passing this much needed bill, property owners of Utah, and, indeed, of all of our States, still feel the heavy hand of the government erode their right to hold and enjoy private property. To make matters worse, many of these property owners often are unable to safeguard their rights because they effectively are denied access to federal courts. Our bill was designed to rectify this problem. Let me explain. In a society based upon the ``rule of law,'' the ability to protect property and other rights is of paramount importance. Indeed, it was Chief Justice John Marshall, who in the seminal 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, observed that the ``government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will cease to deserve this high appellation, if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested right.'' Despite this core belief of John Marshall and other Founders, the ability of property owners to vindicate their rights in court today is being frustrated by localities which sometimes create labyrinths of administrative hurdles that property owners must jump through before being able to bring a claim in Federal court to vindicate their federal constitutional rights. They are also hampered by the overlapping and confusing jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims and the federal district courts over Fifth Amendment property rights claims. CAJA seeks to remedy these situations. The purpose of the bill is, therefore, at its root, primarily one of fostering fundamental fairness and simple justice for the many millions of Americans who possess or own property. Many citizens who attempt to protect their property rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution are barred from the doors of the federal courthouse. In situations where other than Fifth Amendment property rights are sought to be enforced--such as First Amendment rights, for example-- aggrieved parties generally file in a single federal forum to obtain the full range of remedies available to litigants to make them whole. In property rights cases, property owners may have to file in different courts for different types of remedies. This is expensive and wasteful. Moreover, unlike situations where other constitutional rights are sought to be enforced, property owners seeking to enforce their Fifth Amendment rights must first exhaust all state remedies with the result that they may have to wait for over a decade before their rights are allowed to be vindicated in federal court--if they get there at all. CAJA addresses this problem of providing property owners fair access to federal courts to vindicate their federal constitutional rights. Let me be more specific. The bill has two main provisions to accomplish this end. The first is to provide private property owners claiming a violation of the Fifth Amendment's Taking Clause some certainty as to when they may file the claim in federal court. This is accomplished by addressing the procedural hurdles of the ripeness and abstention doctrines which currently prevent them from having fair and equal access to federal court. The bill defines when a final agency decision has occurred for purposes of meeting the ripeness requirement and prohibits a federal judge from abstaining from or relinquishing jurisdiction when the case does not allege any violation of a state law, right, or privilege. Thus, the bill serves as a vehicle for overcoming federal judicial reluctance to review takings claims based on the ripeness and abstention doctrines. The second provision clarifies the jurisdiction between the Court of Federal Claims in Washington, D.C., and the regional federal district courts over federal Fifth Amendment takings claims. The ``Tucker Act,'' which waives the sovereign immunity of the United States by granting the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction to entertain monetary claims against the United States, actually complicates the ability of a property owner to vindicate the right to just compensation for a government action that has caused a taking. The law currently forces a property owner to elect between equitable relief in the federal district court and monetary relief in the Court of Federal Claims. Further difficulty arises when the law is used by the government to urge dismissal in the district court on the ground that the plaintiff should seek just compensation in the Court of Federal Claims, and is used to urge dismissal in the Court of Federal Claims on the ground that plaintiff should first seek equitable relief in the district court. This division between law and equity is archaic and results in burdensome delays as property owners who seek both types of relief are ``shuffled'' from one court to the other to determine which court is the proper forum for review. The bill resolves this matter by simply giving both courts concurrent jurisdiction over takings claims, thus allowing both legal and equitable relief to be granted in a single forum. I must emphasize that the bill does not create any substantive rights. The definition of property, as well as what constitutes a taking under the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment, is left to the courts to define. The bill would not change existing case law's ad hoc, case-by-case definition of regulatory takings. Instead, it would provide a procedural fix to the litigation muddle that delays and increases the cost of litigating a Fifth Amendment taking case. All the bill does is to provide for fair procedures to allow property owners the means to safeguard their rights by having their day in court. Mr. President, I am very well aware that this bill has been opposed by the Department of Justice, many localities, some interstate governmental associations, and certain environmental groups. I believe that there concerns that the bill would hinder local prerogatives and significantly increase the amount of federal litigation are highly overstated. The bill is carefully drafted to ensure that aggrieved property owners must first seek solutions on the local or state level before filing a federal claim. It just sets a limit on how many procedures localities may interpose. Moreover, I seriously doubt that there will be a rush of new litigation, as some have contended, flooding federal courts. That there will be no significant increase was the conclusion of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office in its study of last year's bill. It is extremely difficult to prove a takings claim, and this bill does not in any way redefine what constitutes a taking. These claims are also expensive to bring. Paradoxically, localities' need to defend federal actions may be lessened by the bill because localities already must litigate property rights claims on federal ripeness grounds, which take years to resolve. Let me restate this. By providing certainty on the ripeness issue, the bill may very well reduce litigation costs to localities. Substantive takings claims, unless they are likely to prevail on the merits, are simply too hard to prove and too expensive to bring in federal court. And the issue of ripeness will have been removed by the bill from the already crowded court dockets. Mr. President, it is interesting to note that once many state officials, localities, and state and trade organizations really examine the measure, many become the bill's supporters. Those supporting the bill and increased vigilance in the property rights arena include the Governors of Tennessee, Wisconsin, New Mexico, and North Dakota. They also include the American Legislative Exchange Council, which represents over 3000 state legislators, and trade groups such as America's Community Bankers, the National Mortgage Association of America, the National Association of Home Builders, the National Association of Realtors, and the National Federation of Independent Businesses, the organ of small business in the United States. They also include agricultural interests such as the American Farm Bureau, the American Forest and Paper Association, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, and the National Grange. Just as important, let me point out that 133 House sponsors of the last year's House passed bill were former state and local officeholders. I do not believe that they would have voted for the bill if the bill would conflict with local sovereignty. Mr. President, we have bent over backwards trying to accommodate those expressing concerns about the bill which passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee last year. We met with city mayors, representatives of local governmental organizations, attorneys generals, and religious groups, to name just a few. We held group meetings and asked for suggestions and changes to the bill which would alleviate opposition and concerns. These changes are incorporated in the present bill. These changes by and large alleviate municipalities' concerns that the bill would become a vehicle for frivolous and novel suits. They remove any incentive the bill may have for property owners to file specious suits against localities. They foster negotiations to resolve problems. And, they recognize the right of the states and localities to abate nuisances without having to pay compensation. But I am under no illusion. I understand that many localities still oppose the bill. The process that we so fruitfully began last year should be continued. It is my hope that groups supporting property rights and those localities and governmental entities that oppose the bill should meet as soon as practicable. Let each side discuss their problems and concerns. I believe--in the best tradition of American pragmatic know how--that a solution to this problem can be worked out. The bill I introduce today is a model. But it is a model that can be improved. I assure all those concerned that we will consider all reasonable suggested changes to the bill. After all, it is not pride of authorship that is important. What is important, instead, is a viable solution to a vexing and unfair problem. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire text of the bill be inserted in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, May 13, 1999, in executive session, to mark up the FY 2000 Defense authorization bill.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 2 p.m. on Thursday, May 13, 1999, in executive session, to mark up the FY 2000 Defense authorization bill.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 13, for purposes of conducting a full committee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 698, a bill to review the suitably and feasibility of recovering costs of high altitude rescues at Denali National Park and Preserve in Alaska, and for other purposes; S. 711, a bill to allow for the investment of joint Federal and State funds from the civil settlement of damages from the Exxon Valdez oil spill, and for other purposes; and S. 748, a bill to improve Native hiring and contracting by the Federal Government within the State of Alaska, and for other purposes.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full Committee on Environment and Public Works be granted permission to conduct a hearing on the Clean Water Act Plan, Thursday, May 13, 10 a.m., Hearing Room (SD-406).

Mr. HATCH. Mr. president, the Finance Committee requests unanimous consent to conduct a hearing on Thursday, May 13, 1999 beginning at 10 a.m. in room 215 Dirksen.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 13, 1999 at 10 a.m. to hold a hearing.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet for a hearing on the Nomination of Richard McGahey during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 13, 1999, at 10 a.m.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on criminal Justice Oversight, of the Senate Judiciary Committee, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 13, 1999 at 2 p.m. to hold a hearing in room 226, Senate Dirksen Office Building, on: ``The Clinton Justice Department's Refusal to Enforce the Law on Voluntary Confessions.''

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Forests & Public Land Management of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 13, for purposes of conducting a hearing Subcommittee on Forests & Public Lands Management hearing which is scheduled to begin at 2:30 p.m. The purpose of this oversight hearing is to receive testimony on fire preparedness on public lands. Specifically, what actions the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service are taking to prepare for the fire season; whether the agencies are informing the public about these plans; and ongoing research related to wildlife and fire suppression activities.