[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 33 (Wednesday, March 22, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1598-S1601]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Craig, and Mr. Smith of New
Hampshire):
S. 2270. A bill to prohibit civil or equitable actions from being
brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or
importers of firearms or ammunition for damages resulting from the
misuse of their products by others, to protect gun owner privacy and
ownership rights, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
The right to bear arms protection and privacy act of 2000
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a very significant
bill--the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Protection and Privacy Act.
There is a gun control frenzy taking place in Washington. There are
about 1,070 bills either regulating or dealing with firearms pending in
the House and Senate. These range from imposing new Federal regulatory
standards on the manufacture of firearms to those requiring background
checks at gun shows. And President Clinton has written a letter
informing me that he will not sign long overdue, worthwhile and
comprehensive youth violence legislation unless it includes most of
this gun control agenda.
I have become convinced that, for conscientious and reasonable
defenders of the Second Amendment, it is not enough to simply oppose
the gun control communities legislative agenda. Instead, we just
redouble our efforts and set out to pass an affirmative legislative
agenda which safeguards the right to keep and bear arms.
Many gun control advocates claim that it is not their goal to
interfere with the rights of law abiding gun owners. Many question
sincerity. The bill I am introducing today will afford gun control
advocates the opportunity to prove their critics wrong. This important
bill is a first step in what I hope will become a bipartisan campaign
to safeguard the rights of law abiding gun owners.
Simply put, this plainly written bill would end burdensome and
frivolous suits against law abiding firearm manufacturers, dealers, and
owners, and preclude new ones, except in those cases where plaintiffs
could show that the manufacturer or seller knew that the firearm would
be used to commit a Federal or State crime. Thus, if it can be shown
that manufacturers and sellers knew that a specific product would be
used to a commit crime, then they will be subject to a civil action, if
not a criminal prosecution. The provision also has the beneficial
effect of striking a blow against ``legislation through litigation,''
which has enriched the trial lawyers while harming many of our nation's
law abiding citizens and businesses.
In addition, the bill also addresses the concerns of gun owners and
advocates of the Second Amendment that the federal regulatory process
will be misused by the government to abridge the constitutional right
to keep and bear arms. The bill thus contains the following provisions:
(1) a prohibition against the government charging a background check
fee in connection with the transfer of a firearm; (2) a gun owner
privacy protection component which requires immediate destruction of
background check records for approved firearms buyers; and (3)
establishes a civil remedy for private citizens aggrieved by government
violations of the background check fee or gun owner privacy provisions.
After all, if firearms manufacturers should be subjected to civil
liability for illegal acts, why shouldn't the government be liable if a
law abiding gun owner's privacy protections are violated?
As a Senior proudly representing the people of Utah, I take seriously
our oath of office to defend our Union's defining document--the
Constitution of the United States. I truly concur with the remarks of
the great British Prime Minister William Gladstone when he wrote in
1878 that the ``American Constitution is * * * the most wonderful work
ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.''
So too, I am an avid supporter of the Second Amendment. I believe,
following the teachings of virtually all the Founders of our Republic,
that the right of citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been
considered as, in the words of the learned Justice Joseph Story, ``the
palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong
moral check against the usurpation
[[Page S1599]]
and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are
successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and
triumph over them.''
It is astonishing to me that despite this pedigree of the Second
Amendment, the enemies of the right to keep and bear arms, those
advocates of state-ism and the politics of the left, have stooped to
new lows in their crusade to diminish the God-given liberties of the
American people. Seeing that radical gun control measures are unpopular
and cannot pass Congress and state legislatures, those hostile to the
Second Amendment have resorted to a new tactic in a not-so-veiled
attempt to undermine the right to keep and bear arms.
They have resorted to misusing our civil litigation system by
bringing law suits against the source of guns: firearms manufacturers.
They seek damages from firearms manufacturers for any harm caused by
gun wielding criminals, even though the manufacturers are not
responsible for the crimes. This violates traditional precepts of
American law, which is based upon the free-will notion that only those
responsible should be held liable.
More specifically, over the past few years the firearms manufacturing
industry has been subjected to these numerous ``junk'' lawsuits seeking
damages or injunctive relief for harm caused by third-party criminal
actors. Many of these cases have been brought by local government
entities, including approximately thirty American cities. The Clinton
Administration had announced that it would support these lawsuits and
publicly threatened that the Department of Housing and Urban
Development would commence an action against the firearms
manufacturers.
Generally, the plaintiffs in these cases argue that although the
firearms are legal products and despite the criminal actions of third
parties, manufacturers and sellers should be held liable because of the
negligent fashion in which they designed, marketed, and sold their
products. This novel theory stands traditional tort law on its head.
These radical lawsuits are onerous and may well bankrupt many
firearms manufacturers. If a maverick judge were to rule in favor of
the plaintiffs in one of these cases, the industry could face financial
ruin. Indeed, the Louisiana state judge handling the City of New
Orleans lawsuit recently refused to dismiss that lawsuit
notwithstanding the enactment of a state law that nullified the cause
of action. The net result may very well be the disappearance of a
lawful product--firearms--from interstate commerce.
Let me mention a junk lawsuit brought by the City of Chicago against
12 suburban gun shops, 22 gun manufacturers, and four gun distributors.
The Chicago Tribune, in an editorial dated November 14, 1998, agreed
that the mayor's anger at the misuse of handguns was understandable,
but called his lawsuit ``wrongheaded and ill-advised'' because ``it
represents an abuse of the tort liability system and a dangerous
extension of the tactic employed in similar lawsuits against the
tobacco industry of using potentially bankrupting lawsuits to force
makers of legal but unpopular products to quit.''
To one federal district court, such lawsuits are ``an obvious attempt
unwise and unwarranted to ban or restrict handguns through courts and
juries, despite the repeated refusals of state legislatures and
Congress to pass strong, comprehensive gun-control measures.''
[Patterson v. Rohm Gessellschaft, 608 F. Supp. 1206, 1211 (N.D. Tex.
1985)].
Indeed, in characterizing the federal lawsuit against the tobacco
producers and the HUD suit threatened against the firearms industries,
and in complete candor, former Clinton Secretary of Labor Robert Reich
noted that:
* * * the biggest problem is that these lawsuits are end
runs around the democratic process. We used to be a nation of
laws, but this new strategy presents novel means of
legislating--within settlement negotiations of large civil
suits initiated by the executive branch. This is faux
legislation that sacrifices democracy to the discretion of
administrative officials operating in secrecy.
[Robert Reich, ``Don't Democrats Believe in Democracy,'' The Wall
Street Journal, Wednesday, January 12, 2000].
Furthermore, these junk lawsuits seek to reverse the well-established
tort law principle that manufacturers are not responsible for the
criminal misuse of their products. For instance, the Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals in Martin v. Harrington and Richardson, Inc., [743 F.
2d 1200, 1205 (7th Cir. 1984)], held that criminal misuse of a handgun
breaks the causal connection between the manufacturers action and the
injury ``because such criminal activity is not reasonably forseeable.''
A judge from a federal district court noted that ``under all ordinary
and normal circumstances in the absence of any reason to expect the
contrary, the actor may reasonably proceed with the assumption that
others will obey the criminal law.'' [Bennett v. The Cincinnati Checker
Cab, 353 F.Supp. 1206, 1209 (E.D. Kent, 1973)]. It is important to note
that in his opinion the judge cited the noted tort expert, the late
Professor Prosser, for the proposition that entities are not liable for
criminal acts of others because such acts are generally unforeseeable
and thereby cut the chain of proximate causation. [Prosser, Torts, 3d
ed. at 176].
Moreover, these lawsuits suffer from the same defect that some, if
not all, of the courts in the federal tobacco lawsuit suffer from: lack
of standing. Government entities, absent specific statutory authority--
which is not present in either the federal tobacco case or these gun
manufacturers cases--may not recoup medical and other expenses paid by
government agencies from manufacturers of products alleged to cause the
harm to ``third party'' beneficiaries of government programs. For
instance let me mention two cases. Holmes v. Securities Investor
Protection Corp., [503 U.S. 258, 268-69 (1992)] and Laborers Local 17
Health Benefit Fund v. Phillip Morris, [191 F. 3d 229 (2nd Cir. 1999)].
These cases stand for the proposition that a complaint is too
``remote'' when a plaintiff seeks to recover damage to a third party.
Therefore, the plaintiff lacks standing to bring the suit.
This is exactly what Connecticut Superior Court Judge Robert McWeeny
held when he recently dismissed the City of Bridgport's ``junk
lawsuit'' complaint for recoupment against Smith & Wesson. [Ganim v.
Smith & Wesson, [No. CV 990253198S (Superior Ct. Conn., Dec. 10,
1999)]].
Our judiciary is being transformed by these misguided advocates of
gun control from courts of justice into tribunals of the gun control
lobby. That is why this legislation is needed. The Congress has both a
duty to protect federal constitutional rights such as the right to keep
and bear arms, as well as to step in and reform our tort system when it
is being abused and the abuse has a significant impact on interstate
commerce.
Let me say a few words about last Friday's announcement of the
agreement between Smith & Wesson and HUD. Basically, the agreement
mandates that Smith & Wesson would provide trigger locks within 60 days
and make their handguns child resistant within a year. Smith & Wesson
also agreed to a ``code of conduct'' whereby the manufacturer would
sell its products only to ``authorized dealers and distributors'' who
agree to have their contract terminated if ``a disproportionate
number'' of crimes were traced to the firearms they sell. Some sort of
outside board will police the settlement. In return, the federal
government agreed not to bring suit against the firearms manufacturer
and eleven of the thirty cities and local governments dropped their
actions.
I believe that this so-called ``deal'' is the latest attempt by the
Administration to play on the fear of the American people for pure
political advantage. It makes the Administration look good. It makes it
seem that the Administration is doing ``something'' about gun violence.
But the record makes clear that the Administration has done little to
enforce the federal laws on the books against gun wielding criminals.
So this settlement masks the truth. The Administration has been inept
in preventing gun violence.
Let me say, first of all, that I don't believe that the
Administration ever really intended to see its lawsuit against the
firearms manufacturers to verdict. Indeed, in announcing the projected
lawsuit against the gun manufacturers, HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo
admitted to the press that the whole effort was simply a bargaining
ploy.
So let's call it what the federal lawsuit really is: extortion. It is
an attempt to bypass the legislative process
[[Page S1600]]
and the Constitution to achieve a gun control agenda that the public's
elected officials oppose. Sue the industry and have them cave in or
face imminent financial ruin by having to defend an avalanche of
legally dubious lawsuits and bad publicity. That's their game plan.
Well, Smith & Wesson caved in. Why? Published reports have it that
the owner of Smith & Wesson, Tompkins PLC of Great Britain, could not
find a buyer for the $161 million company with lawsuits hanging over
its head. And Tompkins understands that three California gun companies
have gone out of business and that legal fees may very well bankrupt
the industry. So Tompkins surrendered.
And the reward for their surrender: it was announced on Saturday that
HUD and the mayors of Atlanta, Detroit and Miami directed their law
enforcement agencies to give preferences to Smith & Wesson when
purchasing firearms. [``Smith & Wesson Earns Preference,'' @ Home
Network, AP, March 18, 2000] This is outrageous. Not only does this
deal undercut the Second Amendment, it undercuts the principle of
competitive bidding. It creates an incentive that tax payers will be
gouged. It punishes innocent firearms manufacturers. It weakens the
rule of law because innocent manufacturers are denied their day in
court. It weakens democracy because the heavy hand of big government is
used as a tool of despotism.
But it is the ``code of conduct'' term of the settlement that is the
most peculiar. Again, this provision mandates that Smith & Wesson sell
its products only to ``authorized dealers and distributors'' who agree
to have their contracts terminated if ``a disproportionate number'' of
crimes are traced to the firearms they sell. Well, how is this to be
determined? What is a disproportionate number of crimes? And how will
this be traced to the dealer or distributor? And what if the dealer or
distributor were innocent of any wrongdoing?
It seems to me that this settlement term suffers from the same defect
as the underlying ``junk lawsuits''--innocent parties are being held
liable for the criminal acts of third parties.
The settlement represents the misuse of governmental power. It
represents a weakening of our democracy and the rule of law.
Mr. President, let me turn to the provisions of the bill that will
(1) prevent illicit fees to be charged for background checks, and (2)
that protect the privacy of gun owners from federal intrusion.
The Brady Handgun Control Act of 1993 is silent on whether the
government may charge a fee for the instant background check required
under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922(t). And let me add that it was never
contemplated that the government would charge such a fee when Brady was
debated and passed.
Nonetheless, despite no explicit legal authority, the Administration
has repeatedly attempted to require the payment of such a fee by
licensed firearms dealers--which fees would almost surely be passed
along to purchasers through higher prices. This would truly amount to
``taxation without representation.''
Section 5 of our bill adds Section 540C to Title 28. This new section
prohibits the Administration from promulgating a tax without Congress'
approval. It codifies a prohibition on charging or collecting ``any fee
in connection with any background check required in connection with the
transfer of a firearm.'' The prohibition would apply both to the
Federal government and ``State or local officers or employees acting on
behalf of the United States.''
This section thus prohibits an unauthorized fee that may be
considered to be a ``tax'' on the exercise of a constitutional right--
in this case, to buy a firearm.
Finally, under the Brady bill, if the instant background check
reveals that the buyer is eligible to purchase the firearm, the
government is required to ``destroy all records of the system with
respect to the call and all records of the system relating to the
person or the transfer.'' [18 U.S.C. Sec. 922(t)(2)(C)]. The Brady bill
also prohibits the government from using the instant check system to
establish a registry of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms
transfers, except with respect to persons prohibited from receiving a
firearm. [Pub. L. 103-159, Sec. 103(i)].
Despite the law, the Administration promulgated regulations in 1998
that allowed the FBI to retain for 6 months information pertinent to an
approved firearms sale gathered as part of the instant check system.
[See C.F.R. Sec. 25.9(b)(1)].
But, I concur with those Second Amendment advocates who view these
record retention periods as veiled attempts by the government to
establish a national firearms registry. Furthermore, the only way to
ensure the privacy and security of the information in the instant check
system is to immediately destroy the records of approved firearms
transfers.
To address these concerns and preempt the Administration's efforts to
undermine the Brady bill's ban on a national firearms registry, my bill
would establish a new statute, Section 931 to title 18, that would
prohibit the use of the instant check system unless the system
``require[s] and result[s] in the immediate destruction of all
information, in any form whatsoever or through any medium,'' about any
person determined not to be prohibited from receiving a firearm.
The destruction requirement, however, would not apply to (1) ``any
unique identification number provided by the [instant check] system,''
or (2) ``the date on which that number is provided.'' These exceptions
parallel the exceptions contained in the Brady bill [see 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 922(t)(2)(C)] and allow the government to trace a firearm to a
dealer, but not to a purchaser.
In conclusion, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this
legislation to prevent extortion against the manufacturers of a lawful
product, firearms. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to
prohibit a tax on the exercise of constitutional right--the Second
Amendment's guarantee of the right of the American citizen to keep and
bear arms. And I urge my colleagues to support this legislation that
protects the privacy of citizens who lawfully and peaceably possess
firearms from federal intrusion.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2270
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Right to Bear Arms
Protection and Privacy Act of 2000''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
(1) Citizens have a right, under the Second Amendment to
the United States Constitution, to keep and bear arms.
(2) Lawsuits have been commenced against manufacturers,
distributors, dealers, and importers of nondefective
firearms, which seek money damages and other relief for the
harm caused by the misuse of firearms by third parties,
including criminals.
(3) The manufacture, importation, possession, sale, and use
of firearms and ammunition in the United States is heavily
regulated by Federal, State, and local laws. Such Federal
laws include the Gun Control Act of 1968, the National
Firearms Act, and the Arms Export Control Act.
(4) Businesses in the United States that are engaged in
interstate and foreign commerce through the lawful design,
marketing, distribution, manufacture, importation, or sale to
the public of firearms or ammunition that have been shipped
or transported in interstate or foreign commerce are not, and
should not be, liable or otherwise legally responsible for
the harm caused by those who criminally or unlawfully misuse
firearm products or ammunition products.
(5) The possibility of imposing liability or other legal
restrictions on an entire industry as a result of harm that
is the sole responsibility of others is an abuse of the legal
system, erodes public confidence our Nation's laws, threatens
the diminution of a basic constitutional right, invites the
disassembly and destabilization of other industries and
economic sectors lawfully competing in America's free
enterprise system, and constitutes an unreasonable burden on
interstate and foreign commerce.
(6) The liability and equitable actions commenced or
contemplated by municipalities, cities, and other entities
are based on theories without foundation in hundreds of years
of the common law and American jurisprudence. The possible
sustaining of these actions by a maverick judicial officer
would expand civil liability in a manner never contemplated
by the Framers of the Constitution. The Congress further
finds that such an expansion of liability would constitute a
deprivation of the rights, privileges, and immunities
guaranteed to a citizen of the United
[[Page S1601]]
States under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are as follows:
(1) To prohibit causes of action against law-abiding
manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of
firearms or ammunition products for the harm caused by the
criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition
products by others.
(2) To preserve a citizen's constitutional access to a
supply of firearms and ammunition for all lawful purposes,
including hunting, self-defense, collecting, and competitive
or recreational shooting.
(3) To protect a citizen's right to privacy concerning the
lawful purchase and ownership of firearms.
(4) To guarantee a citizen's rights, privileges, and
immunities, as applied to the States, under the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution, pursuant to
section five of that Amendment.
SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON BRINGING OF QUALIFIED CIVIL ACTIONS IN
FEDERAL OR STATE COURT.
(a) In General.--A qualified civil action may not be
brought in any Federal or State court.
(b) Dismissal of Pending Actions.--A qualified civil action
that is pending on the date of the enactment of this Act
shall be dismissed immediately by the court in which the
action was brought.
SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Manufacturer.--The term ``manufacturer'' means, with
respect to a qualified product--
(A) a person who is lawfully engaged in a business to
import, make, produce, create, or assemble a qualified
product, and who designs or formulates, or has engaged
another person to design or formulate, a qualified product;
(B) a lawful seller of a qualified product, but only with
respect to an aspect of the product that is made or affected
when the seller makes, produces, creates, or assembles and
designs or formulates an aspect of the product made by
another person; and
(C) any lawful seller of a qualified product who represents
to a user of a qualified product that the seller is a
manufacturer of the qualified product.
(2) Person.--The term ``person'' means any individual,
corporation, company, association, firm, partnership,
society, joint stock company, or any other entity, including
any governmental entity.
(3) Qualified product.--The term ``qualified product''
means a firearm (as defined in section 921(a)(3) of title 18,
United States Code) or ammunition (as defined in section
921(a)(17) of such title), or a component part of a firearm
or ammunition, that has been shipped or transported in
interstate or foreign commerce.
(4) Qualified civil action.--The term ``qualified civil
action'' means a civil or equitable action brought by any
person against a lawful manufacturer or lawful seller of a
qualified product, or a trade association, for damages or
other relief as a result of the criminal or unlawful misuse
of a qualified product by the person or a third party, but
shall not include an action brought against a manufacturer,
seller, or transferor who knowingly manufactures, sells, or
transfers a qualified product with knowledge that such
product will be used to commit a crime under Federal or State
law.
(5) Seller.--The term ``seller'' means, with respect to a
qualified product, a person who--
(A) in the course of a lawful business conducted for that
purpose, lawfully sells, distributes, rents, leases,
prepares, blends, packages, labels, or otherwise is involved
in placing a qualified product in the stream of commerce; or
(B) lawfully installs, repairs, refurbishes, reconditions,
or maintains an aspect of a qualified product that is alleged
to have resulted in damages.
(6) State.--The term ``State'' includes each of the several
States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam,
American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, and any other territory or possession of the United
States, and any political subdivision of any such place.
(7) Trade association.--The term ``trade association''
means any association or business organization (whether or
not incorporated under Federal or State law) 2 or more
members of which are manufacturers or sellers of a qualified
product.
SEC. 5. PROHIBITION OF BACKGROUND CHECK FEE; GUN OWNER
PRIVACY.
(a) Prohibition of Background Check Fee.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 33 of title 28, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 540C. Prohibition of fee for background check in
connection with firearm transfer
``No officer, employee, or agent of the United States,
including a State or local officer or employee acting on
behalf of the United States, may charge or collect any fee in
connection with any background check required in connection
with the transfer of a firearm (as defined in section 921(a)
of title 18).''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--The analysis for chapter 33 of
title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting after
the item relating to section 540B the following:
``540C. Prohibition of fee for background check in connection with
firearm transfer.''.
(b) Protection of Gun Owner Privacy and Ownership Rights.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 44 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 931. Gun owner privacy and ownership rights
``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, no department, agency, or instrumentality of the United
States or officer, employee, or agent of the United States,
including a State or local officer or employee acting on
behalf of the United States--
``(1) shall perform any criminal background check through
the National Instant Criminal Background Check System
(referred to in this section as the `system') on any person
if the system does not require and result in the immediate
destruction of all information, in any form whatsoever or
through any medium, about any such person that is determined,
through the use of the system, not to be prohibited by
subsection (g) or (n) of section 922, or by State law, from
receiving a firearm; or
``(2) shall continue to operate the system (including
requiring a background check before the transfer of a
firearm) unless--
``(A) the NICS Index complies with the requirements of
section 552a(e)(5) of title 5, United States Code; and
``(B) the agency responsible for the system and the
system's compliance with Federal law does not invoke the
exceptions under subsection (j)(2) or paragraph (2) or (3) of
subsection (k) of section 552a of title 5, United States
Code, except if specifically identifiable information is
compiled for a particular law enforcement investigation or
specific criminal enforcement matter.
``(b) Applicability.--Subsection (a)(1) does not apply to
the retention or transfer of information relating to--
``(1) any unique identification number provided by the
National Instant Criminal Background Check System under
section 922(t)(1)(B)(i); or
``(2) the date on which that number is provided.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--The analysis for chapter 44 of
title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``931. Gun owner privacy and ownership rights.''.
(c) Civil Remedies.--Any person aggrieved by a violation of
section 540C of title 28 or 931 of title 18, United States
Code (as added by this section), may bring an action in the
United States district court for the district in which the
person resides for actual damages, punitive damages, and such
other relief as the court determines to be appropriate,
including a reasonable attorney's fee.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
take effect on the date of enactment of this Act except that
the amendments made by subsection (a) shall take effect as of
November 30, 1998.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise along with Senator
Hatch to support the Right to Bear Arms Protection and Privacy Act of
2000.
This bill embodies the goals of several bills I have previously
introduced, and its passage would be a great relief for millions of law
abiding gun owners who want their rights protected.
Mr. President, this administration has launched an all-out assault on
gun owners and gunmakers in an attempt to blame them for the crime
problem that has resulted from the revolving-door criminal justice
approach taken by liberal judges throughout this country.
I look forward to working with Chairman Hatch to move this bill
expeditiously through the Judiciary Committee.
______