Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. That is what it looks like to me.

Mr. HATCH. I will move to table everything that comes up. I am getting sick of it. If we can't get some reasonable time agreements, which we have done time after time after time, this could go into the quagmire that defeats the bill. I am not going to put up with that kind of stuff, after what we have done here for 3 days in a row on a bill that everybody should want. Look, I am trying to be reasonable. If the Senator insists on having votes when the Senator wants the vote, and I am trying to protect Democrat Senators, I think that is the wrong thing to do. I am prepared to table everything that comes up. I don't care. I will table Republican amendments, too, if that is what it takes. I will be fair to both sides; I will table everything.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, let me suggest to the Senator we work with the Senator on when the vote should take place. We are talking about protecting some Senators, we are talking about----

Mr. HATCH. That was in the underlying amendment. Hatch-Craig basically does the four things I discussed, and that is not a major----

Mr. HATCH. Of course.

Mr. HATCH. Thirty minutes equally divided on Schumer, and then we can be back with a time agreement on----

Mr. HATCH. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. HATCH. We will try for 30 minutes. If we need more, we will certainly give it every consideration.

Mr. HATCH. First of all, those suggestions you had were in the $1.4 billion comprehensive amendment you made that had less than 9 percent for accountability. We have 45 percent on this bill on the money for accountability and 55 percent for prevention. I said at the time, many of those amendments we could accept and that we would present them later, which is what we have done. We have tried to do it in a reasonable, short period of time. It is to the Senator's credit that we all agree on those particular amendments. What I would like to do is finish the Hatch-Craig amendment. Assuming we do need a little bit more time on that, I suggest we set that aside so the Senator can have a little bit more time, and go to the Schumer amendment, which I believe we can do in 30 minutes equally divided.

Mr. HATCH. If the Senator will yield.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as I understand it, for the benefit of our colleagues, these next two votes will begin at about 3:45. We anticipate having a vote at 3:45, but that may be delayed in order to accommodate our Appropriations Committee conference. We will know within the next 10 minutes. If we don't begin voting at 3:45, then, if we can get the time yielded back from the distinguished Senator from Idaho and the distinguished Senator from California, we would then move to the Hatch-Craig amendment with the debate to continue for an hour evenly divided. I ask unanimous consent that----

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

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

Mr. HATCH. As I understand it, all time has been yielded back on the part of the minority. Can we get the majority, Senator Craig----

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

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, for the benefit of our colleagues, it appears as though we don't know whether there will be a vote at 3:45 or not. It doesn't look like there will be, in my opinion. Those votes may be deferred for approximately an hour and 15 or 20 minutes. We will announce if we do have votes beginning at that time. We are going to move ahead, keep moving on these amendments. This is the Hatch-Craig amendment. We would like to limit debate to an hour, but the minority needs to examine the amendment. We will certainly wait until they do before we ask for a limited period of time. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the previously scheduled votes now occur at 5:00 p.m. under the same conditions as stated earlier.

Mr. HATCH. I also ask that no second-degree amendments be in order prior to the scheduled votes.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator McCain be placed as a cosponsor of the Hatch-Craig amendment.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, in discussing several proposals with my colleagues over the last 2 days and nights, I am offering a package of amendments that will increase the effectiveness of S. 254 by sharpening the bill's focus on punishing criminals who use guns illegally, while protecting law-abiding people who use guns lawfully for traditional sporting and self-defense purposes. We want to punish the criminal without burdening law-abiding people. Our amendment package has four parts: one, more aggressive prosecution; two, enhanced targeted penalties; three, expanded protection for children; and, four, enhanced background checks. First, we propose an improved version of a program for the aggressive prosecution of the criminal use of firearms by felons or a program that is commonly known as CUFF, C-U-F-F. It is one thing to talk about putting criminals behind bars, and it is another thing to actually do it. We in the Senate must recognize that all the gun laws we could ever pass mean absolutely nothing if the Attorney General does not enforce them. The Clinton administration talked about the Brady bill and stopping criminals from obtaining and using guns. The Attorney General talked about being tough on criminals, but the record shows otherwise. The chart that we are going to show to you shows that in the last 3 years the Democratic Department of Justice has had a dismal record in protecting the very crimes that the Democratic administration and Democrats in Congress said were an essential part of their program. This chart shows the prosecutions of Federal firearms laws, cases reported, Executive Office, U.S. Attorney, requested firearms sections, counts charged, calendar years 1996-1998. Now, for example, between 1992 and 1997, gun prosecutions under Operation Triggerlock--a proven gun crime prosecution program, started under President Bush--dropped nearly 50 percent, from 7,045 to 3,765. Now, these are prosecutions of defendants who use a firearm in the commission of a felony. They had been cut by 50 percent between the years 1992 and 1997. The Executive Office of the U.S. Attorney reports that between 1996 and 1998 the Clinton Justice Department prosecuted a grand total of one criminal who illegally attempted to purchase a handgun, but was stopped by the instant check system. It is a Federal crime to possess a firearm on school grounds. However, the Clinton Justice Department prosecuted only eight cases under this law in 1998, even though they admit that more than 6,000 students illegally brought guns to school last year. The Clinton administration had prosecuted only five such cases in 1997. Many believe that the actual number of kids who bring guns to school is much higher than the 6,000, but I think it is pretty pathetic when you stop and think that, in 1998, there were only eight cases prosecuted and in 1997 only five. It is a Federal crime to transfer a firearm to a juvenile. However, the Clinton Justice Department prosecuted only six cases under this law in 1998, and only five in 1997. Think about it. It is illegal-- illegal--to transfer a firearm to a juvenile yet only six cases were prosecuted in 1998 and only five in 1997. Now, it is a Federal crime to transfer or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon. However, the Clinton Justice Department prosecuted only four cases under this law in 1998 and only four in 1997. Think about it. In addition, the Clinton administration has requested only $5 million to prosecute gun crimes. We have a lot of rhetoric from this administration about gun crimes and how effective the Brady law has been. They claim hundreds of thousands of people are stopped from purchasing guns, many of whom they believed were felons. Please note that it costs $1.5 million to fund an effective project in the city of Philadelphia alone--just one city, $1.5 million--and they only requested $5 million for prosecuting gun crimes. Thus, not only has the Clinton administration failed to prosecute gun crimes in the past; it apparently has no plan to do better in the future. This chart lists the prosecuted cases reported by the Executive Office of the U.S. Attorney. Providing firearm to a prohibited person, unspecified category: 17 in 1996, 20 in 1997, and 10 in 1998. Providing a firearm to a felon: 20 in 1996, 13 in 1997, and 24 in 1998. Possession of a firearm by a fugitive: 30 in 1996, 30 in 1997, and 23 in 1998. That is an important category. Possession of a firearm by a drug addict or illegal drug user: 46 in 1996, 69 in 1997, 129 in 1998. Possession of a firearm by a person committed to a mental institution, or an adjudicated mental incompetent: 1 in 1996, 4 in 1997, 5 in 1998. Possession of a firearm by an illegal alien, and we have millions of them coming into this country: 72 in 1996, 96 in 1997, and 107 in 1998. Possession of a firearm by a person dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces: 0 in 1996, 0 in 1997, 2 in 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. Even though this administration has been complaining about domestic violence and the use of handguns and guns in domestic violence. Just think about it. This is the whole country. This is all the Justice Department has done. OK. Possession of a firearm by a person convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor: 0 in 1996, 21 in 1997, 56 in 1998. Look at this. Possession or discharge of a firearm in a school zone: 4. Look at that. We have 6,000 kids that they admit came into schools with firearms in this country, and we know it is many more thousands than that; they know it, too. But there were only 4 in 1996, 5 in 1997, and 8 in 1998. Now, we have heard a lot of mouthing off about the Brady bill and 100,000 cops in the streets. Let's talk about the Brady bill. According to them, hundreds of thousands of people have been prohibited from getting guns because of the Brady Act. Really, it is the check system that we insisted on that is causing these people to be caught. Look at this: All violations under the Brady Act, first phase: 0 in 1996, 0 in 1996, and 1 in 1998. Think about that, OK. All violations under the Brady Act, instant check phase: 0 in 1996, 0 in 1997, 0 in 1998. How about the hundreds of thousands of people they claim violated the law that they have caught: Theft of a firearm from a Federal firearms licensee: 52 in 1996, 51 in 1997, and 25 in 1998. Manufacturing, transferring, or possessing a nongrandfathered assault weapon: 16 in 1996, 4 in 1997, and 4 in 1998. Transfer of a handgun, or handgun ammunition to a juvenile. We have thousands of cases like this: 9 in 1996, 5 in 1997, 6 in 1998. Possession of a handgun, or handgun ammunition, by a juvenile: 27 in 1996, 3 in 97, and only 8 in 1998. Think about that. Unspecified violations: 46 in 1996, 26 in 1997, and 21 in 1998. Enhanced penalty use of a firearm or destructive device during a crime of violence or drug-related crime prosecutable in Federal Court: 1,987 in 1996, 1,885 in 1997, and 1,763 in 1998. Those are very small numbers compared to the number of people who they claim are misusing firearms. Possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, unspecified category: 683 in 1996, 752 in 1997, 603 in 1998. Possession of a firearm by a felon. Think about all these complaints about firearms causing everything in our society. They prosecuted 1,213 in 1996, 1,366 in 1997, 1,550 in 1998. Who is kidding whom here? The fact of the matter is, this administration hasn't been serious about prosecuting gun cases, and now they want a lot more gun laws. Well, we are going to give them some on this bill, and we are going to give them some that some gun owners don't particularly care for. We are going to see if they do a better job in the future. We have to turn this around. The CUFF amendment would fund--and we offer it in this amendment--an aggressive firearms prosecution program modeled after Operation Triggerlock, which was so successful during the Bush administration. It focuses on prosecuting gun criminals and obtaining tough sentences on the use of firearms in the commission of crimes of violence.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator.

Mr. HATCH. We said that after you finished we would go to Senator Hollings. With Senator Hollings' permission, I will yield 5 minutes, if I have it, or the remainder of my time, to the distinguished Senator from Montana, and then Senator Hollings.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. HATCH. That would be fine.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I am glad my friend from Vermont read that letter. I visited with Senator Sasser a couple of years ago over there. He is doing a very good job in China.