Henry Hyde

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. I would just say to the gentlewoman that I have no problem with her formulation; unfortunately, the Lautenberg amendment does much more than that. Much more than that. And therein lies the problem. I am happy to yield further if the gentlewoman is going to say something generous. I yield whatever time she wants.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr).

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) who just spoke. We are not delaying this. We are working as hard as we can. It is no easy matter to reconcile the left, the right, the center, the pro-gun, the anti-gun, the liberals, the conservatives. This a very difficult question. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) told us earlier that we have been meeting even today, and we are going to meet tomorrow. We are working very hard, and please do not beat us over the head that we are trying to delay this. We are moving with all deliberate speed, I can assure the gentlewoman from Ohio, and if she doubts it, ask Mr. Conyers.

Mr. HYDE. I understand that, Mr. Speaker, and I am here to tell the gentlewoman we are getting it on as fast as we can, believe me.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the gentlewoman from California that we do not have a text of a bill yet, despite the Associate Press's somewhat premature remarks. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and I have been meeting for many hours with our staffs, and we are still negotiating, so any text would be premature. I would prefer releasing a text when we have one, a final one. I rise actually to support the gentlewoman's motion, but first I want to commend the senior Senator from Utah, who is the chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary and chairman of the Juvenile Justice Conference. And he has shown tremendous leadership on this issue and has done everything in his power to bring the Senate, the House, and the administration together and hammer out a proposal that can pass both Houses of Congress and be signed into law. He and his staff have put politics aside, rolled up their sleeves and sought a solution. I also want to thank the Speaker of the House and the leadership of this House. I have had their constant support and cooperation in finding the appropriate balance of juvenile justice, enforcement, gun safety, and cultural provisions to respond to the horrific violence that plagues our society. And, finally, I want to commend my colleague from Michigan, the ranking member of the House Committee on the Judiciary. I have had the pleasure of working closely with him over the last few months to resolve the differences in the House over this juvenile justice provision. It is worth noting that, after 4\1/2\ years, we came to a bipartisan agreement on juvenile justice legislation early this year. Unfortunately, that proposal is now wrapped up in a larger package of much more controversial items, including gun safety measures. I respect the courage of the gentleman from Michigan to seek a meaningful resolution to issues that others would rather exploit than solve. Now, the gentlewoman's motion calls for background checks at gun shows without loopholes, no weakening of current law, and improved enforcement of current firearms laws. To the gentlewoman I say, consider me instructed. I can state unequivocally that I support each of these goals. Since the tragic school shooting at Columbine high school in April, the Committee on the Judiciary has been holding hearings and working on legislation to address the growing culture of youth violence. And the three goals stated in the gentlewoman's motion have been our guiding effort. And they were reflected in the legislation we brought to the House floor in June, legislation that she and many of her colleagues, unfortunately, did not support. While I support these laudable objectives, I do not support using them as a Trojan horse for more invidious goals. I support mandatory background checks at gun shows without loopholes. I do not support eliminating gun shows. I agree we should not weaken current law. I do not agree that we should allow for a national registry of firearms. But as I rise to support the motion, I want to make a few points that I think shed important light on the issues that the gentlewoman's motion addresses. Her motion directs that our conference report include a loophole-free system that ensures that no criminals or other prohibited purchasers obtain firearms from nonlicensed persons and federally licensed firearms dealers at gun shows. Well, I hope the gentlewoman knows that current law already requires federally-licensed firearms dealers at gun shows to perform background checks prior to the sale of any firearm, and I trust the gentlewoman knows that H.R. 2122, the legislation the House considered on the floor back in June, that addressed gun shows, would have required that all vendors at gun shows, including nonlicensed vendors, perform background checks prior to the sale of any firearm. I assume the gentlewoman knows that all of the persons on her list of prohibited purchasers, ``murderers, rapists, child molesters, fugitives from justice, undocumented aliens, stalkers and batterers,'' are prevented under current law from lawfully purchasing a firearm. And does the gentlewoman know that the list of prohibited purchasers under current law is actually much longer than her list? All felons, not just the few she lists, are prohibited purchasers under current law. Furthermore, an individual does not even have to be a felon to be prohibited, but merely needs to be under indictment for a felony to be prohibited. And the list also includes persons that have been dishonorably discharged, and persons who have denounced or renounced their U.S. citizenship. That is all under current law. Now, I want to say that while I will vote for this motion, I am concerned about what the gentlewoman means when she calls for a loophole-free system. If by that she means mandatory background checks at gun shows prior to the sale of any firearm, with no exceptions and no loopholes, then I am with her all the way. If she means, however, to define gun shows to include every private gun transaction under the sun, then I am not with her. That would be a gross incursion of the liberties that law-abiding U.S. citizens enjoy and would represent an unprecedented degree of Big Brother. And that is why I do not support the so-called Lautenberg gun show provision. It goes far beyond requiring mandatory background checks at gun shows. Permit me to list a few of its excesses. Its definition of a gun show is so broad that it could include a few family members or neighbors who gathered together to trade firearms. It imposed myriad new excessive regulations on gun show organizers, seemingly with the aim of driving them out of business, including criminal penalties for conduct of persons not within their control. It required federally licensed vendors to do the background checks for nonlicensed vendors at gun shows. That is for their competitors. And it would then impose new regulatory burdens on the federally licensed vendors, making it more difficult for them to stay in business. And get this, it would further allow Federal ATF agents to search a gun show promoter or a federally licensed vendor without reasonable cause and without a warrant. And, finally, it created a new huge gun control bureaucracy with vast new authority. Indeed, the most oft repeated phrase in the Lautenberg provision is, ``as shall be required by regulation from the Secretary of the Treasury.'' This new gun control bureaucracy would make organizing and participating in a gun show so onerous and costly that it appears to have been designed to shut down gun shows altogether. One example is handing to every participant a copy of title 18's gun control regulations and statutes, plus a copy of the regulations. As such, it is my considered view that the Lautenberg amendment does not represent reasonable common ground as we continue to work toward reasonable gun control. What is reasonable gun control? Well, how about a ban on importing large capacity ammunition clips; a requirement for the sale of safety devices with handguns; Juvenile Brady, prohibiting juveniles convicted of a violent offense from owning a firearm; prohibiting minors from possessing assault weapons; and, yes, mandatory background checks at gun shows before the sale of any firearm. This is what we propose. The gentlewoman's motion also urges the conferees to, and I quote, ``include provisions that aid in the enforcement of current laws against criminals who use guns.'' I hope no one misses the point that the motion is concerned about the enforcement of firearms laws already on the books. Let me say that I share that concern, because the administration has been derelict when it comes to firearms enforcement. Consider the following: In 1992, there were 7,048 Federal prosecutions of Federal firearms violations. In 1998, there were only 3,807 such prosecutions. This is a reduction of nearly one-half. Over the last 3 years, the total number of prosecutions of gun criminals has been pitiful. During that period, there were only 38 prosecutions of juveniles in possession of a handgun, that is over 3 years, even though juvenile gun violence is way up. There were only 22 prosecutions for illegally transferring a handgun to a juvenile. There were only 17 prosecutions for possession or discharge of a firearm in a school zone. And, get this, only one Brady Act violation or background check prosecution in 3 years. Now, some can argue that the numbers fail to point out the States are doing a better job. Well, even if the States are picking up some of the slack, it does not diminish the fact that the Federal Government has been prosecuting less. And less Federal prosecutions mean less prison time by gun criminals, because the Federal system is the toughest in the Nation. I also wonder if the gentlewoman is aware that the McCollum amendment to H.R. 1501, which passed the House in June, included the armed criminal apprehension program. This program was precisely designed to, in the words of the motion, aid in the enforcement of current laws against criminals who use guns. The program in the McCollum amendment required the Justice Department to establish an armed criminal apprehension program in each U.S. Attorney's Office. Under the program, every U.S. Attorney would designate one or more Federal prosecutors to prosecute firearms offenses and coordinate with State and local authorities for more effective enforcement. In conclusion, let me say I wholeheartedly agree that enforcement of current gun laws has become a national problem, even a national disgrace. I am glad the gentlewoman's motion makes the point and calls for improved enforcement efforts. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HYDE. I Yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to supporting this resolution. I will say it is a little distressful, and I searched for a word and I came up with distressful, to be unjustly criticized for foot dragging. I would presume to direct those who criticize us for lack of progress, I would direct them to their committee staff and to their ranking member for verification that no one has been delaying a solution. I want a solution. I am in good faith. So is our staff. We have met time and time again. These are difficult, emotional issues; and they are not going to be solved easily. It seems to me by accusing us lopsidedly, one-sidedly, of foot dragging, my colleagues are injecting a distinctly political tone into an issue that deserves nonpolitical treatment. There is a lot of hard work ahead, believe me. We are a long ways from agreement, but we are closer than we have ever been. I am committed to remaining at the negotiating table, and not get stampeded, as long as it takes to try and find reasonable, common ground. If my colleagues really want a bill, and that is a question number one, do my colleagues really want a bill? Or are we to encounter gridlock and failure and say, see, these guys cannot govern; they really cannot run the House? There is that question, and I have tried to dispel it. I certainly do not think it animates the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and his staff, because we have had excellent discussions in the best of good faith, and so I discount that. There may be others who do not want a bill because they do not want the Republicans to have any success whatsoever. I would look upon this not as a Republican success but as congressional success that we can respond to the tragedies that have bloodied our country. If we really do not want a bill, there are a couple of ways we can kill it. One is to draw a bill that is empty and hollow and meaningless, and the other is at the opposite end of the spectrum: strengthen a bill to death. Now, when we are negotiating, we have people who we have to appeal to differently on different issues. It is not easy. We have to get some democratic support. I do not think we have enough on our side to pass this. Now, either they can kill it, or they can help us. But I ask my colleagues for their help. They certainly have mine. But to any of my colleagues who accuse us of foot-dragging, please talk to the staff, please talk to the ranking member. My democratic colleagues do not have to accept our statement that we are doing the best we can. Now, tomorrow, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) is going to instruct us to meet every day in public. I will not object to that, but we do not get things solved with formal meetings. We talk, and we talk out, and we find out what we can agree on, what we cannot. We make trade-offs; we do the best we can; and we come up with a bill. Do we want a bill, or do we want an issue? I want a bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE. Yes, speed. Emphasize speed, but it takes deliberation, too. We cannot do this, as my colleagues know, with a snap of the fingers. I know the gentlewoman has had vast experience in negotiating these matters, and I want to defer to her, but I want her to know we are trying as hard as we can. Believe me.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum). (Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time I have remaining.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) that I have no objection to the instructions proposed by the gentleman from Michigan and we will accept them. I just have one caveat, and that is putting time constraints on this may make it more difficult to resolve. We will do our best. It would be in an ideal world that we could finish this next week.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1501) to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to provide grants to ensure increased accountability for juvenile offenders; to amend the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 to provide quality prevention programs and accountability programs relating to juvenile delinquency, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion to instruct conferees. The gentleman from Michigan's motion makes several points that I know we all agree with, and hence we need no instruction to do. But I am concerned that the motion would also, or might also constrain the work of the conferees in such a way that might well be counterproductive. The first instruction in the motion is that conferees craft the conference report in such a way that no criminal will be able to buy a gun, at a gun show or anywhere else. I know of no dispute on this point. The second instruction in the motion is that the conferees not weaken any existing gun laws. I can assure you this side intends for that to happen. In fact, a cursory review of H.R. 1501 as passed by the House shows that the intent of this body is to strengthen the laws that punish the illegal possession and use of a gun. We do not need to be instructed to avoid doing the opposite. The third point raised by the motion, to ensure that the conference report addresses the issue of school resource officers, is one that can be raised at conference certainly, and I am not aware of any controversy on this point that requires a vote of the full House at this time. I am certain we can address it at the conference itself satisfactorily. Mr. Speaker, if this motion instructed us to do only that which we intend to do anyway, it would be superfluous and not needed. But I am troubled by one aspect of it, and, that is, the time constraints. We all want to move with expedition. There have been inordinate delays in getting this to this point. But we all know the reasons for that. This is a very contentious and volatile issue and there are diverse interests tugging and pulling us in different directions. And so I expect this to be a difficult but certainly not impossible conference. But I am fully hopeful that we can emerge with a conference report that can command the support of the majority of this House and a majority of the other body. I also note that next week is going to involve a number of important measures that will be brought to the floor of this House and that of the other body, all seeking to be reconciled and resolved before the August recess. The interruptions that votes on these measures would cause to a conference, were one to be held, might be enough to prevent us from finishing within a week. Simply put, next week is not the wisest deadline for the work of this conference to be completed. But we are going to try. We are going to give it our very best effort. And so I support the motion to instruct conferees, and I ask my colleagues to support it. I give you in return my assurance that I intend to complete the work of the conference as quickly and as effectively as possible, while still doing all the work expected of us, in as thoughtful and thorough a manner as possible. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, before my time lapses if I could recapture it briefly to say we do not suffer from too much moral conviction; perhaps too little. And where we find it, we ought to nurture it and protect it.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I certainly will not use the 5 minutes, but it seems to me this really is much ado about nothing; not that the issue is a nothing issue, but the distinctions that should be made. Conscience and moral conviction are really facets of the same issue. Religious reasons may motivate a conviction, but ethical reasons, without any religious foundation, are of the same stripe. They are a nuanced way of expressing one's conscience. If we want to protect peoples conscience which flows from religious conviction, we want to similarly treat people's moral convictions that do not have a religious foundation but are just as strongly felt. Now, does a plan have a conscience? That should not bother anybody. Corporations can act immorally. They can dump toxic wastes in the ground. By continuing to do that, we say that corporation is immoral, is acting immorally. Plans operate through people. It is not some sort of entity out there. It is an intangible. But people make decisions and have consciences and violate their conscience or protect their conscience or act pursuant to it. But there is nothing strange about a plan acting morally. We say the profits for this corporation were ``obscene.'' So corporations and these entities can have a conscience, can act pursuant to a conscience because they are run by directors and by people. So why do we not protect moral conviction just as strongly as we protect religious conscience? They are two sides of the same coin. And I do not understand why we are doing this.

Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York not just with pleasure, but with great pleasure.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) to listen to what I say and tell me if I am wrong. I want to make sure I understand the impact of his amendment. It seems to me that what the gentleman is seeking to do is to carve out, lift from under the umbrella of this bill civil rights. And among the civil rights that he interprets are what are sometimes known as gay rights, that is the right of homosexuals to practice their homosexuality. And, therefore, that becomes a preferred right and the free exercise of religion becomes subordinate to that. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman if I am correct.

Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, it seems to me that absent the gentleman's amendment, the bill itself restores the compelling- interest standard which obtained before the Smith case and that the question of which civil right trumps the free exercise of religion can be left to the States on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, the amendment of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) is really not needed.

Mr. HYDE. Surely. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, it just seems to me the gentleman from New York is unduly complicating what is essentially not a complicated proposition. The civil rights that may or may not be jeopardized and any conflict with the free exercise of religion can be protected and will be protected on a case-by-case basis without the complexity of the gentleman's amendment. So I just take this time to congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) for a very important bill and his persistence in getting it to this point. I support it without the Nadler amendment.

Mr. HYDE

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to join with Chairman Gekas of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law and Congressman Goodlatte to introduce the ``Fairness in Telecommunications License Transfers Act.'' As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the committee with jurisdiction over antitrust and administrative procedure matters, I have long been concerned about the treatment of mergers in the telecommunications industry. During the consideration of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Ranking Member John Conyers and I were instrumental in updating the law to make sure that telecommunications mergers received a full antitrust review under the normal Hart-Scott- Rodino process in addition to the broader public interest review of license transfers by the Federal Communications Commission. Since that time, the Committee on the Judiciary has continued to study this matter. On June 24, 1998, we held an oversight hearing on ``The Effects of Consolidation on the State of Competition in the Telecommunications Industry.'' Chairman William Kennard of the FCC was invited to appear at that hearing, but he had a scheduling conflict. At that time, I remained hopeful that the dual review would enhance the process rather than detracting from it. I have been pleased with the Department of Justice's role in these mergers. Although I may not agree with their substantive decisions in every respect, they have reviewed these mergers in a reasonable procedural manner under tight time deadlines. I think that their work has shown that Mr. Conyers and I did the right thing in 1996 when we succeeded in getting these mergers into the Hart-Scott-Rodiono process. The FCC's record on the other hand has been disappointing to say the least. On May 25, 1999, Chairman Gekas's Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law held an oversight hearing on that record entitled ``Novel Procedures in FCC License Transfer Proceedings.'' Again, Chairman Kennard was invited to appear, but had a scheduling conflict. At that hearing, the Subcommittee heard disturbing testimony from Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Rott about the utterly standardless decisionmaking process that the Commission employs in these matters. His testimony proved that the title of that hearing was instructive in at least two regards. First, as Commissioner Furchtgott-Roth testified, under current law, the FCC has authority to review license transfers-- not mergers. Second, he told us that the FCC's procedures are novel indeed--they are not written down anywhere. Let me address both these areas. On the substance of the review, I have not in the past opposed the FCC's consideration of competitive factors as part of its public interest review of license transfers. I thought that some additional competitive analysis might be helpful. Based on the experience of the last year, and particularly the experience of the SBC and Ameritech merger, however, I am now much more skeptical. Having reviewed the governing law and Commissioner Furchtgott-Roth's testimony. I have substantial doubts as to whether the FCC should be redoing the competitive analysis done under the Hart- Scott-Rodino process. It appears to me that the license transfer authority was primarily intended to allow the Commission to determine whether the transferee is a responsible and qualified party--not to launch a full scale competitive analysis. At the least, the kind of far-flung proceeding that SBC and Ameritech have faced strikes me as beyond the intent of the statute. For that reason, Section 2 of the bill would clarify that the FCC is not an antitrust enforcement agency. It removes language in the Clayton Act that currently appears to give the FCC concurrent authority to enforce the antitrust laws against telecommunications carriers. That authority has rarely been invoked in any formal manner, but I think that this change will help to clarify the appropriate role of the FCC in license transfer review and in other areas. Second, we must address procedural fairness in license transfer proceedings. I do not think I can say it any better than Commissioner Furchtgott-Roth put it to the Subcommittee: ``debates about process are not trivial debates. To the contrary, regularity and fairness of process are central to a governmental system based on the rule of law. As the law recognizes in many different areas, the denial of a procedural right can result in the abridgment of a substantive right.'' What is wrong with the FCC's procedures? Let's consider SBC and Ameritech as a case study. First, the FCC simply does not have any rules for dealing with license transfer--none. As Commissioner Furchtgott-Roth testified, there simply is no place to go to look up the rules. Rather, in the case of SBC and Ameritech, the Commission has adopted a ``make it up as you go'' approach. Whenever the deal has neared the goalposts, the goalposts have been moved. That is confusing and costly for all concerned. Second, because there are no clear rules, some license transfers are treated in one fashion and some in another. Thousands are dealt with in a perfunctory fashion, and a few are dealt with extensively. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, but it ought to be done according to some neutral principle. For example, without commenting on their substance, it is hard to see why the AT&T-TCI transaction was approved in less than six months and the SBC-Ameritech transaction still is not completed after more than a year. That necessarily affects competition between these companies. A fundamental principle of fairness is that similarly situated parties ought to be treated similarly. Moreover, government bureaucracies ought not to be dictating market outcomes. Third, as I just pointed out, the SBC-Ameritech transaction has been pending for over a year. I have usually been circumspect in commenting on pending matters, but because of the extraordinary delay here, I wrote to Chairman Kennard on March 22, 1999 asking him to act expeditiously. A month later, he wrote back to me stating that the Commission had instituted a new round of procedures and that a decision was possible by the end of June. The end of June has come and gone. The Commission and the parties have reached a tentative agreement on 26 conditions for the merger, but the Commission has not voted on it. Again, without commenting on the substance of the merger, this level of delay is simply unacceptable. These companies are involved in fiercely competitive markets, and time is of the essence. Billions of dollars of commerce have been held hostage to bureaucratic delay. Fourth, I am concerned about the conditional nature of this tentative approval as a procedural matter. The statutory basis for such conditional approvals in FCC license transfer proceedings is unclear at best. When the number of conditions rises to 26 and they are as extensive as those we see here, I have to question whether this is a public interest review or something else. These conditions may well be helpful as a policy matter, and I am at least pleased that this lengthy process is coming to an end. However, the legal and procedural basis for them is less than clear to me. All of these examples show what is wrong procedurally with the consideration of license transfers at the FCC. Section 3 of our bill would amend the Administrative Procedure Act to require the FCC to write rules governing their license transfer proceedings. We do not try to dictate what those rules should be. We simply require that there must be neutral rules accessible to all in advance. That seems to me simple fairness. With such rules in place, all parties will have an equal chance in these proceedings. If the FCC fails to write such rules or it does not follow them, parties to license transfers can bring a court action to have their transfers deemed approved. Mr. Speaker, I believe these simple changes will bring order and fairness to what has become a chaotic and unfair process. I urge my colleagues to join me, Chairman Gekas, and Congressman Goodlatte in passing this important legislation.