[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 98 (Tuesday, July 21, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8635-S8638]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED 
                   AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.


                           Amendment No. 3234

  Mr. DURBIN. Could I have a clarification? I want to make sure the 
Senator from New Hampshire and I have an understanding about the 
pending amendment. It is my understanding--I hope the Senator from New 
Hampshire would follow me in this--that we have some 20 minutes left in 
debate, equally divided between the Senator from New Hampshire and 
myself, at which point at the end of that debate there will be a vote. 
Is that the Chair's understanding?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Chair and ask the Senator from New 
Hampshire----
  Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. Yes.
  Mr. GREGG. I understand the vote is to occur at 6 o'clock.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That was the order, but Senator Domenici took 
2

[[Page S8636]]

minutes as in morning business which will push back the vote.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I would be willing to have 
the 2 minutes that Senator Domenici used come off of my 10 minutes in 
order to keep the vote at 6 o'clock. I ask unanimous consent to do 
that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, thank you. I will take a portion of the 10 
minutes to start with and then allow my colleague from New Hampshire to 
state his side of the case on behalf of this amendment.
  Let me try to explain where we are in terms of what this amendment is 
doing. We are trying to set up a computer check across the United 
States, so if you purchase a firearm, there is a way for States or the 
Federal Government to check and see whether you have a history of 
having committed a felony or a history of mental illness, and in that 
situation States are saying, ``Of course we do not want to sell a gun 
to you.'' And that is the basic Brady law.
  Most people support it because it is eminently sensible that we want 
to keep guns out of the hands of people who are likely to misuse them. 
I think everybody supports that. The NRA and the people on the other 
side of the issue even support it.
  The Senator from New Hampshire comes before us, though, with a very 
interesting proposition. The Federal Bureau of Investigation does these 
background checks by computer. They have said that, ``When we do these 
background checks, we will charge the prospective gun purchaser, the 
one who wants to buy the gun, for our cost in doing the background 
check.'' And of course that sounds reasonable to me.
  If I want to purchase a gun, and I want to have a background check to 
qualify me for a gun, it is not unreasonable for me to expect to pay 
for what it costs for that to happen. Why should this be the burden of 
every taxpayer in America, those who do not own guns and those who are 
not purchasing guns? It really is a decision that I want to buy a gun; 
and, therefore, I am going into the system to prove that I am eligible 
to own a gun.
  The Senator from New Hampshire says: Wait a minute. Why do we want to 
charge the prospective gun purchaser for this background check? 
Shouldn't the Treasury pay for that? Shouldn't all the taxpayers pay 
for these people who want to buy guns?
  I do not think so. And the practical result of the amendment of the 
Senator from New Hampshire is to take from the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation the amount of money they would have collected to do these 
background checks. And you know what that means? It means basically the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation will have anywhere from $50 to $75 
million less in their appropriation to do their job.
  Well, can they absorb a $50 to $75 million hit? I think we can all 
answer that question, because we all come to this floor and come up 
with wonderful ideas for the FBI to get involved. We want the FBI to 
fight terrorism. Of course we do. We want to make sure that they are 
fighting it around the world and protecting people across the United 
States. And so we say, ``We're assigning that responsibility to you.'' 
The Senator from New Hampshire says, ``Yes, we give you the 
responsibility. We're not going to give you the money you need to do 
the job.''
  We also say we want the FBI to go after some serious issues. Let me 
give you an example--crimes against children, to enhance the FBI's 
capabilities to combat child abductions, and serial killings. This is 
the responsibility we give to the FBI. The Senator from New Hampshire 
says: It is a great responsibility, but take the money away from them--
$50 to $75 million less each year.
  How about narcotics? Is there a more serious criminal problem in 
America? What is filling our prisons? What is tempting our children? 
What is leading to the kinds of degradation in lifestyle that we see 
around this country, but basically the war on drugs, the war on 
narcotics?
  So the Senator from New Hampshire says: Let us take some money away 
from that, too, because we want people who apply for a gun not to have 
to pay for it. We want the Treasury to pay for it. We want the FBI to 
take this money from other sources. I do not think that is fair.
  I do not think it is fair for an agency with this sort of 
responsibility. And I do not think it is fair for those who want to 
purchase a gun to say, ``We want a free ride.'' For goodness' sakes, it 
is their decision to purchase a gun. They are going forward in the 
system to purchase it. Shouldn't they pay their own freight?
  Would you think twice about buying a car and trying to get a license 
and say, ``I just decided to buy a car, but as far as the cost of the 
license for my car, why should I have to pay for that? Taxpayers ought 
to pay for that. I just want to drive the car''? That is what the 
Senator from New Hampshire is arguing.
  Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. I will be happy to.
  Mr. BIDEN. Isn't it true that there are a number of background 
checks. Years ago I drafted a law which became law that requires 
certain background checks, for example, for people who wish to work in 
day-care centers with young children, to try to figure out and ferret 
out child predators.
  Now, the way it works now is if, in fact, you are going to be hired 
at a boys' club, a girls' club or a day care center, and they--the day 
care center--say they want a background check, and you have to go 
through the FBI, the FBI now charges the person seeking employment the 
cost to run the background check.
  I don't understand why, if we are going to say on a background check 
for an employee--where the employee is seeking a job but is required by 
that agency to have a background check to prove, in effect, they are 
not a child predator or do not have any sex crime history--why it is 
appropriate to charge the prospective employee and it is not 
appropriate to charge a person purchasing a gun. There is nothing 
exceptional about this.
  My question to my friend is, Isn't this all about reneging on a 
commitment everyone said they are for, which was to have an instant 
background check, so there is no 7-day, 5-day or 1-day waiting period, 
so every single gun seller in America, when they go to sell you a gun, 
can push a button, tap into a computer, and have the computer say you 
can or cannot sell it? It seems to me this is about doing away with the 
instant check.
  Mr. DURBIN. The Senator from Delaware is correct. The instant check 
system was proposed by the National Rifle Association as a way of 
avoiding the Brady law. They said, ``We will do this by computer; we 
will punch it in.''
  The fellow who is selling the gun, the dealer, will punch in the 
information and find out if you are a dangerous person; if not, they 
can sell it to you.
  Now they have decided they want the computer check but they don't 
want to pay for it, they want the taxpayers to pay for it, and take the 
money out of the FBI.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, there has been a lot of talk recently 
about more and more gun laws, more and more complicated and esoteric, 
having less and less ability to protect the safety of the American 
people.
  Let me tell you we have some outstanding, effective gun laws on the 
books now that allow people who are felons to be prosecuted for 
possessing a gun, that allow the prosecution of people who carry a gun 
during a felony to receive 5 years without parole, consecutive to any 
other offense.
  Look at what this administration that is always talking about gun 
prosecutions has done. In 1992, when they took office, there were 7,048 
``triggerlock prosecutions'' of serious gun offenders in this country; 
now, 1997, 3,765. It has plummeted that percent.
  What they need to do is enforce the laws they have and quit worrying 
about passing laws that are not very relevant and not going to have any 
impact on crime in America. I think the American people need to 
understand that.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from 
Idaho.

[[Page S8637]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Let's talk money. The program has been fully funded. Some $37.5 
million in the last 4 years has been provided. The FBI budget has been 
almost tripled in the last 10 years.
  Let me talk about Janet Reno. Here is what Attorney General Janet 
Reno said, on May 26, 1994: She does not intend to charge for such 
access, provided that there is sufficient appropriations.
  Guess what? We have given them every dime they requested and many, 
many millions more. Sorry, Janet Reno. Why don't you stay with your 
word? That is what you told us. That is what we believed when we passed 
the Brady bill.
  What is this? This is a gun tax. Let's talk about it for what it is. 
The FBI asked for money and we gave them money. In fact, we tripled 
their budget in the last 10 years. Why? Because we are interested in 
law enforcement. We want criminals caught. Most importantly, we want 
criminals prosecuted. We do not want law-abiding citizens taxed.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. How much time remains on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 minutes 14 seconds.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, let me explain this 
amendment. I have heard some very interesting remarks on the other side 
about Brady and registration. That is not what my amendment is--very 
eloquent, but that is not what my amendment is.
  My amendment does three things. First, it prevents the FBI from 
keeping a file on a law-abiding citizen who, after he had the gun 
checked, came up fine, clear. Why would we want the FBI to maintain a 
file on a law-abiding gun owner who did nothing wrong except exercise 
his constitutional right to own a gun? They want 18 months to keep 
these files. I don't want 18 seconds. I want these files destroyed 
immediately. That is point one in my amendment.
  Second, my amendment prevents the FBI from imposing a tax on people 
who use this national instant criminal background check system because 
they want simply to exercise their right to own a gun. That is the 
second point. Why should they be taxed for that? Why should they pay 
this fee? It could be up to $20 to $25 just to do this--maybe more. 
That is to start. There is no reason why anybody should pay a fee. You 
are an individual who has a constitutional right to own a gun. Somebody 
in the Government decides that they want to check you out, fine. You 
check out clear. Why should you have to pay for that? You didn't ask 
for it; it is your right. The person who is a criminal or a person who 
is not entitled to have that gun because of something they did, fine, 
they can pay for it, and they should pay for it and they shouldn't get 
the gun. But that is not the people about whom we are talking.
  Third, if the Government, in violation of the law, holds these files, 
you have the right to pursue this matter in court, which is the proper 
procedure.
  I simply ask my colleagues, Why would you keep a file in the FBI on 
an innocent person who did nothing except own a gun, which is his 
constitutional right to do so? That is what this amendment is about. If 
you want those files maintained, then you would vote against this 
amendment. This is Big Brother at its worst. It is Big Brother at its 
worst.
  It is coming in and taking privacy--your privacy; you have the right 
not to have that file in the FBI, and they don't have the right to put 
it there, because you did nothing wrong. That is what this amendment is 
about.
  Secondly, it is about a tax. If you want to charge these fees, so be 
it. But then you can vote against my amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes 45 seconds.
  Mr. DURBIN. If I understand the argument of the Senator from New 
Hampshire, because we have a constitutional right to bear arms, all of 
the Federal taxpayers have to subsidize that right.
  I suppose since we have a constitutional right to exercise our 
religious belief, then it is the responsibility of taxpayers to pay for 
my priest or minister. I don't think so. I don't think so.
  In this situation, the American people are coming forward and saying, 
``We want to exercise our right to own a gun.'' We are saying, ``Fine, 
so long as you don't misuse it and you are not a person with a 
background where you are likely to misuse it.'' And if you are going to 
submit yourself to this background check, be prepared to pay for it.
  The Senator from Delaware makes a good point. If we are going to hire 
people to work in nursing homes and child care facilities that need 
background checks--and that is not a bad idea--why shouldn't they, as a 
condition of employment, pay for the background check? Why should this 
be the responsibility of every taxpayer?
  The Senator from New Hampshire wants to say to the prospective gun 
owners they have the right to come to the Government and say, ``I want 
it for nothing.'' When you get it for nothing, someone will pay for it. 
In this situation, the FBI pays for it.
  Do you know why the FBI appropriation has gone up, as the Senator 
from Idaho has said? Because we keep giving them more 
responsibilities--do fingerprint checks on anybody who wants to be a 
new citizen in the United States; get serious about dealing with drugs 
across borders, make certain that you have the wherewithal to do it; 
fight terrorism. We tell them to do all of these things and now the 
Senator from Idaho says they should have enough money to absorb this 
$50 to $75 million loss. I think they are wrong.
  I think those who are for law and order and for law enforcement have 
to vote against this amendment offered by the Senator from New 
Hampshire. Let those who want to purchase a gun and exercise their 
right, exercise their responsibility to pay for this check, to make 
certain that those people who worry about gun violence have less to 
worry about.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in opposing this amendment from the 
Senator from New Hampshire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire has 1 minute 22 
seconds.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I respond to my friend by repeating what 
Senator Craig said a moment ago. There is $100 million in the law to do 
this, so we don't need to be charging additional fees. That is No. 1.
  No. 2, it is interesting how we pick out certain constitutional 
rights and say we are going to tax them and not others. Maybe we should 
tax everybody for having free speech. Or maybe we should tax everybody 
for reading the newspaper. Maybe we should tax everybody for going to 
church.
  It doesn't make sense. It is our constitutional right.
  Let me repeat, again. No. 1, this amendment prevents the FBI from 
keeping files on innocent people who simply had a background check done 
on them who did nothing wrong and were perfectly entitled to own a gun.
  Secondly, the amendment prevents the FBI from imposing a tax on these 
people. Thirdly, it allows a person to go to court if the FBI does 
that. We have seen abuses by the FBI. We have seen files held in the 
White House. Do you want this to go on? That is what this issue is 
about. That is what my amendment is about. I hope my colleagues will 
support me on this amendment because this is more than a gun issue--
this is a privacy issue.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). The Senator from Illinois has 
30 seconds.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the $100 million we have invested is for 
the hardware for the computers. It now costs $13 to $16 every time they 
do a background check. I think the people should pay for it. The 
Senator from New Hampshire would take the money out of FBI for other 
law enforcement. I think the FBI needs these funds to do important 
tasks. I hope the Senator will agree that the FBI is an agency that we 
need to be strong in the United States. Taking $50 million to $75 
million away from them is not going to make them a stronger agency or 
make Americans any safer at home.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3234 offered by the 
Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Smith.

[[Page S8638]]

  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 69, nays 31, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 217 Leg.]

                                YEAS--69

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Leahy
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--31

     Akaka
     Biden
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Reed
     Robb
     Sarbanes
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The amendment (No. 3234) was agreed to.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the 
vote.
  Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 3233, as Amended

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 
that the yeas and nays be vitiated on the underlying amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3233), as amended, was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.

                          ____________________