[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9545-9591]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                          THE CRISIS IN KOSOVO

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have spoken a number of times on the 
floor of the Senate about the crisis in Kosovo. I think it is 
important, under the circumstances, that I do so again in order to pose 
some critical questions that have emerged recently about United States 
and NATO policy there.
  I saw a window of opportunity for diplomacy. I was really optimistic 
given the direction of the G-8 countries. I thought we were then going 
to be going to the United Nations, and we had an opportunity perhaps 
through diplomacy to bring this conflict to an end.
  I think that given what has happened over the weekend, and given the 
very delicate discussions now underway involving NATO, the U.N. 
Secretary General, Russia, China, and other key players, it is time to 
reconsider a proposal that I made 10 days ago: a brief, conditional 
pause in the airstrike campaign to allow for a de-escalation of this 
military conflict.
  Let me be clear. I continue to support the basic military, political 
and humanitarian goals that NATO has outlined: the safe return of 
refugees to their homes; the withdrawal of Serb security forces; the 
presence of robustly armed international forces capable of protecting 
refugees and monitoring Serb compliance; full access to Kosovo for 
nongovernmental organizations aiding the refugees; and Serb willingness 
to participate in meaningful negotiations on Kosovo's status.
  These goals must be met. But in the wake of the Chinese Embassy 
accident, NATO needs to be even more focused on diplomacy, and I think 
we have to be very careful to not appear to be belligerent in our 
public statements--to be strong in terms of the goals that have to be 
met but be creative in our diplomacy.
  I don't really know what there is to the withdrawal of some of the 
Serb military. Secretary Cohen has raised some very important 
questions. But on the floor of the Senate, I do want to point out that 
contrary to some published reports of United States and public 
statements that suggest that we intend to continue the airstrikes even 
against Serb forces who may actually be beginning to withdraw, I 
believe we and NATO should reiterate what we have been saying earlier--
that NATO will not strike at Serbian troops who are actively pulling 
out of Kosovo.
  How can we expect even the Serbs to withdraw their troops if we have 
made it clear that we will bomb them on the way out unless they have 
agreed to full withdrawal and outlined a timetable for it? Is this 
seeming new emphasis on continuing the airstrikes even if the troops 
are withdrawing a change in emphasis, or tone, or is it a substantive 
change? What precisely would the NATO rules of engagement be if 
substantial numbers of Serb troops begin to actually withdraw from 
Kosovo? What did Milosevic's statement on a return to ``peacetime troop 
levels'' mean? If he means a return to prewar levels, that is a 
nonstarter. What small token Serb forces, if any, would NATO allow to 
stay, as long as an armed international presence was allowed?
  While I understand NATO's decision to remain silent, or to leave some 
ambiguity on some of these questions, it has created an unnecessarily 
confusing, and sometimes conflicting, set of policy prescriptions from 
NATO.
  Mr. President, while I think a diplomatic solution is the best way to 
resolve this crisis, I want to make clear that I have no illusions 
about Milosevic and what he has done. My disgust with his actions was 
only increased yesterday when I read some of the information in the new 
State Department report entitled ``Erasing History: Ethnic Cleansing in 
Kosovo.''
  The report catalogs the horrific events that continue to unfold in 
Kosovo. Interviews with thousands of refugees have revealed brutalities 
which boggle the mind and sicken the soul. I shudder to think what else 
we will learn in the months and years to come after looking at forensic 
evidence within Kosovo. It is clear that even while the bombing 
campaign has raged Kosovo has been emptied, and it has been burned.
  Mr. President, let me just make it clear that I know why we have been 
involved, and I think we have launched our military actions with the 
best intentions and with what I truly believe was sound moral 
authority. But I am troubled now by some actions by NATO, including the 
so-called ``collateral'' damage we have wrought, and the embassy 
bombing, which I believe may undermine that sense of moral legitimacy.
  The embassy incident is only the latest of targeted errors which have 
caused civilian casualties. We have seen errant strikes on a refugee 
convoy, a civilian train, a bus and other incidents. While I understand 
clearly the difference between the brutal, deliberate and systematic 
attacks of Serb forces, which have resulted in the deaths of thousands 
and displacement of over a million more, and the accidental death of 
civilians caused by our wayward missiles, any serious moral reflection 
requires us to consider the impact of our actions on innocent 
civilians. Taken together, I fear these incidents are beginning to 
erode the moral authority of our efforts in Kosovo.
  I do not mean to suggest in any way a moral equivalence between the 
two. But as the number of civilian casualties mounts, it will become 
increasingly difficult to justify as we try to balance these 
regrettable losses against whatever progress we are making toward our 
goal.
  One way to put an end to Milosevic's atrocities and to the recurring 
cycle of collateral damage and NATO apologies may be to pursue a more 
creative coupling of our military, political and diplomatic goals.
  Last week, I called for a brief, conditional and reciprocal pause in 
our military action. I wish we had done so. On NATO's part, this would 
entail a bombing pause of perhaps 48 hours. Such a pause--if it can be 
worked out in a way which would protect NATO troops and would not risk 
Serb resupply of their war machine--could help to reinvigorate--and I 
think we need to now--diplomatic efforts and halt the steady movement 
toward bombing that we have now seen which could lead to a deeper 
involvement and a wider war. Mr. President, we need to reinvigorate our 
diplomatic efforts, and we need to

[[Page 9546]]

halt the steady movement in the bombing. We need to figure out a way 
that we can involve critical parties and countries in a diplomatic 
effort.
  While my proposal is not the proposal that comes from the Chinese and 
Russians, it is more qualified. And it would require a more immediate 
reciprocal response from Milosevic.
  I believe we need to take this step. I am not naive about whether we 
can trust Milosevic. We have seen him break his word too many times 
with that. We may even be seeing that again now in what NATO leaders 
have called a ``feint'' of a partial withdrawal. I am not proposing an 
open-ended halt in our efforts, but I am talking about a temporary 
pause of 48 hours or so offered on condition that Milosevic not be 
allowed to use the period to resupply his troops, or to repair his air 
defenses, and that he immediately order his forces in Kosovo to halt 
their attacks and to begin to actually withdraw. It would not require 
his formal prior assent to each of these conditions. But if our 
intelligence and other means of verification concludes that he is 
taking military advantage of such a pause by doing any of these things, 
we should resume the bombing.
  I believe, however, that we need to take this first step, a gesture, 
in order to move diplomacy forward and bring these horrors to an end.
  Let me conclude by saying that as a Senator I have been so impressed 
by the heroic efforts of nongovernmental organizations to bring 
humanitarian supplies by convoy to hundreds of thousands of homeless 
and starving misplaced refugees still wandering in the mountains of 
Kosovo. I believe a pause might very well serve their interests. It 
might enable these aid organizations and other neutrals in the conflict 
to more easily airlift or truck in and then distribute relief supplies 
to them without the threat of their humanitarian mission being halted 
by the Serbian military. A Serb guarantee of their safe conduct would 
be an important reciprocal gesture on the part of Milosevic. These 
people must be rescued. My hope is that a temporary bombing pause might 
help to enable aid organizations to get there.
  Mr. President, I intend to press these questions that I have raised 
with the administration officials later today. I think we have an 
opportunity still for diplomacy. We must not allow this window of 
opportunity provided by the Russians and others to close.
  I thank my colleagues for their graciousness.
  I urge the President and his foreign policy advisers to consider 
steps to deescalate this military conflict, and to work with our 
allies, with the U.N. Secretary General, with the Russians and others 
to take advantage of whatever opportunities present themselves to forge 
a just and lasting peace which restores the Kosovar Albanians to their 
home, provides for their protection and for their secure futures, 
allows aid groups access to them, and provides for negotiation on their 
political status.
  We must move forward now. I wish that we could have had this pause 
that I called for 10 days ago. I am extremely worried about the 
repercussions of the bombing of the embassy in China. I am worried 
about the events in Russia. I am worried about a window of opportunity 
for diplomacy closing and more escalation in this military conflict.
  I think it is important that we take this step under the conditions 
that I have outlined.
  I am going to continue to press forward with this proposal. I hope 
that in the Senate next week we will again have a discussion and debate 
about the events in Kosovo, about our military involvement, about where 
we are, about where NATO is, and what we need to do to achieve our 
objective.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 342

 (Purpose: To amendment chapter 44 of Title 18, United States Code, to 
enhance penalties for the unlawful use by or transfer to juveniles of a 
   handgun, ammunition, large capacity ammunition feeding devices or 
         semiautomatic assault weapons, and for other purposes)

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I thank you for recognizing me. It is my 
understanding that in accordance with the previous consent that I have 
the opportunity to present an amendment to the juvenile bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Ashcroft] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 342.

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       To be inserted at the appropriate place:

       TITLE   . RESTRICTING JUVENILE ACCESS TO CERTAIN FIREARMS

     SECTION 1. PENALTIES FOR UNLAWFUL ACTS BY JUVENILES.

       (a) Juvenile Weapons Penalties.--Section 924(a) of title 
     18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (4) by striking ``Whoever'' at the 
     beginning of the first sentence, and inserting in lieu 
     thereof, ``Except as provided in paragraph (6) of this 
     subsection, whoever''; and
       (2) in paragraph (6), by amending it to read as follows:
       ``(6)(A) A juvenile who violates section 922(x) shall be 
     fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or 
     both, except--
       ``(i) a juvenile shall be sentenced to probation on 
     appropriate conditions and shall not be incarcerated unless 
     the juvenile fails to comply with a condition of probation, 
     if--
       ``(I) the offense of which the juvenile is charged is 
     possession of a handgun, ammunition, larger capacity 
     ammunition feeding device or a semiautomatic assault weapon 
     in violation of section 922(x)(2); and
       ``(II) the juvenile has not been convicted in any court of 
     an offense (including an offense under section 922(x) or a 
     similar State law, but not including any other offense 
     consisting of conduct that if engaged in by an adult would 
     not constitute an offense) or adjudicated as a juvenile 
     delinquent for conduct that if engaged in by an adult would 
     constitute an offense; or
       ``(ii) a juvenile shall be fined under this title, 
     imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, if--
       ``(I) the offense of which the juvenile is charged is 
     possession of a handgun, ammunition, large capacity 
     ammunition feeding device or a semiautomatic assault weapon 
     in violation of section 922(x)(2); and
       ``(II) during the same course of conduct in violating 
     section 922(x)(2), the juvenile violated section 922(q), with 
     the intent to carry or otherwise possess or discharge or 
     otherwise use the handgun, ammunition, large capacity 
     ammunition feeding device or a semiautomatic assault weapon 
     in the commission of a violent felony.
       ``(B) A person other than a juvenile who knowingly violates 
     section 922(x)--
       ``(i) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more 
     than 1 year, or both; and
       ``(ii) if the person sold, delivered, or otherwise 
     transferred a handgun, ammunition, large capacity ammunition 
     feeding device or a semiautomatic assault weapon to a 
     juvenile knowing or having reasonable cause to know that the 
     juvenile intended to carry or otherwise possess or discharge 
     or otherwise use the handgun, ammunition, large capacity 
     ammunition feeding device or semiautomatic assault weapon in 
     the commission of a violent felony, shall be fined under this 
     title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
       ``(C) For purposes of this paragraph a `violent felony' 
     means conduct as described in section 924(e)(2)(B) of this 
     title.
       ``(D) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, in any 
     case in which a juvenile is prosecuted in a district court of 
     the United States, and the juvenile is subject to the 
     penalties under clause (ii) of paragraph (A), the juvenile 
     shall be subject to the same laws, rules, and proceedings 
     regarding sentencing (including the availability of 
     probation, restitution, fines, forfeiture, imprisonment, and 
     supervised release) that would be applicable in the case of 
     an adult. No juvenile sentenced to a term of imprisonment 
     shall be released from custody simply because the juvenile 
     reaches the age of 18 years.''.
       (b) Unlawful Weapons Transfers to Juveniles.--Section 
     922(x) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(x)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to sell, 
     deliver, or otherwise transfer to a person who the transferor 
     knows or has reasonable cause to believe is a juvenile--
       ``(A) a handgun;
       ``(B) ammunition that is suitable for use only in a 
     handgun;
       ``(C) a semiautomatic assault weapon; or
       ``(D) a large capacity ammunition feeding device.
       ``(2) It shall be unlawful for any person who is a juvenile 
     to knowingly possess--
       ``(A) a handgun;
       ``(B) ammunition that is suitable for use only in a 
     handgun;
       ``(C) a semiautomatic assault weapon; or
       ``(D) a large capacity ammunition feeding device.
       ``(3) This subsection does not apply to--

[[Page 9547]]

       ``(A) a temporary transfer of a handgun, ammunition, large 
     capacity ammunition feeding device or a semiautomatic assault 
     weapon to a juvenile or to the possession or use of a 
     handgun, ammunition, large capacity ammunition feeding device 
     or a semiautomatic assault weapon by a juvenile--
       (i) if the handgun, ammunition, large capacity ammunition 
     feeding device or semiautomatic assault weapon are possessed 
     and used by the juvenile--
       ``(I) in the course of employment,
       ``(II) in the course of ranching or farming related to 
     activities at the residence of the juvenile (or on property 
     used for ranching or farming at which the juvenile, with the 
     permission of the property owner or lessee, is performing 
     activities related to the operation of the farm or ranch),
       ``(III) for target practice.
       ``(IV) for hunting, or
       ``(V) for a course of instruction in the safe and lawful 
     use of a firearm.
       ``(ii) Clause (i) shall apply only if the juvenile's 
     possession and use of a handgun, ammunition, large capacity 
     ammunition feeding device or a semiautomatic assault weapon 
     under this subparagraph are in accordance with State and 
     local law, and the following conditions are met--
       ``(I) except when a parent or guardian of the juvenile is 
     in the immediate and supervisory presence of the juvenile, 
     the juvenile shall have in the juvenile's possession at all 
     times when a handgun, ammunition, large capacity ammunition 
     feeding device or semiautomatic assault weapon is in the 
     possession of the juvenile, the prior written consent of the 
     juvenile's parent or guardian who is not prohibited by 
     Federal, State, or local law from possessing a firearm or 
     ammunition; and
       ``(II) during transportation by the juvenile directly from 
     the place of transfer to a place at which on activity 
     described in clause (i) is to take place the firearm shall be 
     unloaded and in a locked container or case, and during the 
     transportation by the juvenile of that firearm, directly from 
     the place at which such an activity took place to the 
     transferor, the firearm shall also be unloaded and in a 
     locked container or case; or
       ``(III) with respect to employment, ranching or farming 
     activities as described in clause (i), a juvenile may passes 
     and use a handgun, ammunition, large capacity ammunition 
     feeding device or a semiautomatic assault rifle with the 
     prior written approval of the juvenile's parent or legal 
     guardian, if such approval is on file with the adult who is 
     not prohibit by Federal, State or local law from possessing a 
     firearm or ammunition and that person is directing the 
     ranching or farming activities of the juvenile.
       ``(B) a juvenile who is a member of the Armed Forces of the 
     Unites States or the National Guard who possess or is armed 
     with a handgun, ammunition, large capacity ammunition feeding 
     device or semiautomatic assault weapon in the line of duty;
       ``(C) a transfer by inheritance of title (but not 
     possession) of a handgun, ammunition, large capacity 
     ammunition feeding device or a semiautomatic assault weapon 
     to a juvenile; or
       ``(D) the possession of a handgun, ammunition, large 
     capacity ammunition feeding device or a semiautomatic assault 
     weapon taken in lawful defense of the juvenile or other 
     persons in the residence of the juvenile or a residence in 
     which the juvenile is an invited guest.
       ``(4) A handgun, ammunition, large capacity ammunition 
     feeding device or a semiautomatic assault weapon, the 
     possession of which is transferred to a juvenile in 
     circumstances in which the transferor is not in violation of 
     this subsection, shall not be subject to permanent 
     confiscation by the Government if its possession by the 
     juvenile subsequently becomes unlawful because of the conduct 
     of the juvenile, but shall be returned to the lawful owner 
     when such handgun, ammunition, large capacity ammunition 
     feeding device or semiautomatic assault weapon is no longer 
     required by the Government for the purposes of investigation 
     or prosecution.
       ``(5) For purposes of this subsection, the term 
     ``juvenile'' means a person who is less than 18 years of age.
       ``(6)(A) In a prosecution of a violation of this 
     subsection, the court shall require the presence of a 
     juvenile defendant's parent or legal guardian at all 
     proceedings.
       ``(B) The court may use the contempt power to enforce 
     subparagraph (A).
       ``(C) The court may excuse attendance of a parent or legal 
     guardian of a juvenile defendant at a proceeding in a 
     prosecution of a violation of this subsection for good cause 
     shown.''
       (7) For purposes of this subsection only, the term ``large 
     capacity ammunition feeding device'' has the same meaning as 
     in section 921(a)(31) of title 18 and includes similar 
     devices manufactured before the effective date of the Violent 
     Crime Control Law Enforcement Act of 1994.

     SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take 
     effect 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, all of us are concerned and deeply so 
about what we think is a changing landscape in American culture. We are 
concerned about the fact that young people whom we once felt were the 
repository for the innocence of the culture are no longer that 
repository. We find ourselves being outraged and stunned when we find 
activity in juvenile quarters which are really threatening to all of 
us. That is why the whole juvenile justice topic is before us. We are 
amazingly aware, painfully aware, of the fact that we need to take 
steps to improve the way we deal with young people and to curtail the 
amount of criminal activity and behavior among those who are the young 
people of our culture.
  It is important that we debate this issue in the Senate. It is 
important that we offer legislative responses to this serious challenge 
to the public safety and security of people and their families. But we 
shouldn't try to telegraph or to communicate the fact that we are 
addressing this, that we think that we can do everything that is 
necessary for a safer and saner approach to life by all of our citizens 
including young people.
  There is much that simply can't be done by government. The resources 
of the State are inadequate to shape the culture totally and completely 
and to bring the kind of result that we want.
  The fact that we are here to talk about things that we can do doesn't 
mean we believe that what we can do will totally accommodate or 
otherwise remediate the problem. We should do what we can do. I believe 
it is important to look around and ask how can we improve the situation 
and the legal framework.
  One of the aspects of juvenile justice that we are discussing today 
is the access that juveniles have to firearms. In my hometown of 
Springfield, MO, and towns and cities across Missouri and across the 
United States, parents have long played an active and crucial role in 
teaching children the safe and responsible use of firearms.
  However, Federal law already recognizes that certain firearms involve 
a higher level of responsibility than others. Handguns, for instance, 
have long been recognized as requiring greater restrictions than other 
firearms. Of course, any restriction must respect the second amendment 
rights of American citizens, one of the fundamental rights enjoyed 
under the Bill of Rights under the U.S. Constitution.
  The amendment I propose today does exactly that. It simply extends 
the recognition of the need for increased responsibility to certain 
military-style semiautomatic assault weapons such as AK-47s and Uzis. 
In part, this mirrors a bill which I introduced recently in the Senate, 
Senate bill 994. The amendment which I have sent to the desk restricts 
the acquisition and possession of semiautomatic assault rifles and 
high-capacity ammunition-feeding devices--those holding over 10 rounds 
of ammunition--by juveniles.
  Let me say again what this amendment does. This amendment restricts 
juveniles from acquiring semiautomatic assault weapon rifles and high-
capacity ammunition-feeding devices--meaning those feeding devices 
which hold over 10 rounds of ammunition. It says juveniles do not have 
the authority to acquire, to purchase, or to possess those rifles 
generally.
  Let me be clear about what this amendment does not do. This amendment 
does not affect the lawful ownership or possession of semiautomatic 
hunting or target rifles or semiautomatic shotguns, the kind of 
firearms that are routinely used responsibly by young people and 
American citizens across our country in hunting. It does restrict the 
possession and purchase of semiautomatic assault weapons and the high-
capacity ammunition-feeding devices associated with them.
  Current Federal gun law can be awfully complicated, but this 
amendment is not complicated. It is a straightforward commonsense 
amendment. Let me refer to a chart which shows the existing law. 
Already, the law requires elevated levels of responsibility in terms of 
handguns so that a juvenile individual is prohibited from purchasing a 
handgun from a federally licensed dealer, prohibited from purchasing a 
handgun in a private transaction or sale, and must have the permission 
of a parent in order to possess

[[Page 9548]]

or use the handgun. I repeat, cannot buy from a licensed dealer, cannot 
buy in a private sale, and must have permission to use or possess.
  Current Federal law in regard to semiautomatic assault rifles 
prohibits the sale by a federally licensed dealer to a juvenile, but 
permits juveniles to purchase semiautomatic assault rifles from 
individuals in private sales, and does not require a juvenile to have 
parental permission in order to possess or use such a firearm.
  We have a disparity. Handguns have been prohibited for sale both 
privately and through licensed dealers and require parental permission; 
semiautomatic assault rifles, or AKs or Uzis, although prohibited for 
sale by a licensed dealer, juveniles are permitted to purchase at 
private sales; and juveniles require no parental permission. What we 
are proposing takes care of this disparity.
  It says we will treat semiautomatic assault weapons as we treat 
handguns, that we will prohibit the acquisition of these weapons and 
firearms by juveniles from private sales just as they have been 
prohibited from federally licensed dealers, and we would require any 
possession by a juvenile of such a firearm to be an acknowledged and 
permitted possession of that firearm by the adult or the guardian 
parent of the juvenile.
  It is pretty clear that what we have done here is to simplify the law 
by saying the same basic rules that apply to juveniles on handguns will 
apply to juveniles in semiautomatic assault weapons or assault rifles.
  The law currently says in regard to a handgun you can teach your 
child to shoot a handgun but he can't shoot it without your permission. 
Basically, this would harmonize semiautomatic assault rifles with the 
law regarding handguns.
  Now, there are under existing law some permitted uses of handguns by 
juveniles. If a juvenile is in the military service or if a juvenile is 
in lawful defense of himself against an intruder into his house, he is 
allowed to use a handgun--eminently reasonable. Those basic exceptions 
ought to be transferred or ought to exist for other firearms, as well.
  Transfer of title to a firearm like this to a juvenile is permitted 
by inheritance, though the juvenile may not take possession until age 
18, absent the kind of permission which would be required not only for 
this but for handguns.
  My amendment simply treats semiautomatic assault weapons such as the 
AK-47s and the Uzis, street-sweeper shotguns, and high-capacity 
ammunition-feeding devices the same way for juveniles that we treat 
handguns. Private parties can no longer sell them to juveniles, and the 
juvenile needs parental permission to possess one unless he is in the 
military or uses it for self-defense.
  What kind of weapons are we talking about that have been permitted to 
be sold to juveniles but would be prohibited under this amendment? The 
list includes: the AK-47, the Uzis, the Galil, Beretta AR 70, Colt AR-
15, Fabrique Nationale FN or FAL, SWD M 10, M-11, M-11 1/9, the Steyr 
Aug, the TEC-9, street-sweeper shotgun, Striker-12 shotgun, and other 
semiautomatic rifles and shotguns with at least two military features, 
such as folding stocks, pistol grips, bayonet gloves, and grenade 
launchers.
  These are serious firearms. Because they are serious, they create 
some new serious penalties. This amendment creates a new penalty of up 
to 20 years' incarceration for possession of handgun ammunition or 
semiautomatic assault weapon or high-capacity ammunition-feeding device 
with the intent to possess, carry, or use it in a crime of violence in 
a school zone. It raises the penalty for transferring a firearm to a 
juvenile, knowing that it will be used in a crime of violence or drug 
crime, to 20 years.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, as chairman of the Youth Violence 
Subcommittee, I very much appreciate Senator Ashcroft's leadership on 
this particular issue. But not just this one, on the entire package of 
legislation we have put together today. He has conducted hearings in 
Missouri, which I was pleased to be able to attend. We heard from 
victims of crime. We heard from police officers. We heard from young 
people. We went out and met with law enforcement officers who were 
breaking up drug labs. In the course of that, one of the things we 
dealt with was adult criminals using young people to commit crimes for 
them. Senator Ashcroft has prepared that part of our bill in 
particular, which I think is invaluable, because young people do get 
treated less severely, and older adults are using them to commit 
crimes.
  Zeroing in on some weapons that young people do not need to be able 
to receive in any fashion is good legislation. As chairman of that 
subcommittee, I appreciate Senator Ashcroft, former attorney general of 
the State of Missouri, former Governor of the State, for his leadership 
throughout this process. I have enjoyed working with him and look 
forward to continuing to do so as we move this bill through to success.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Senator. I appreciate his work, coming to 
Missouri to participate in the hearing.
  It became clear to us that adults using children to commit crimes--
hoping the children would be excused because of their youth and they 
would all escape penalty--brings children into a criminal environment. 
It starts them down a path of crime. That is very dangerous, and this 
proposal which we are considering today obviously would elevate the 
penalties for that about threefold. I am delighted.
  Again, let me refer to this amendment that really harmonizes the law 
so the same kinds of prohibitions apply to semiautomatic assault 
weapons as apply to handguns. There are a few clarifying changes in the 
existing law. It makes it clear that parental permission allows 
possession, either with parental supervision or with prior written 
permission of a parent. Even with this parental permission, juveniles 
can only possess these weapons for three narrow purposes: For target 
shooting; for gun safety courses; or if required for their employment 
in ranching, farming, or lawful hunting. Such a firearm being 
transported by a juvenile must be unloaded and in a locked case, under 
this amendment. So for a juvenile, even if he was transporting for one 
of these lawful purposes--that also relates to handguns, I might add--
the law requires the weapon be unloaded and in a locked case.
  Likewise, this amendment allows prior written permission to be 
retained by a parent instead of carried by the juvenile in the case of 
juvenile possession incident to employment, ranching, or farming 
activities. In other words, if on a ranch a youngster is carrying a 
pistol, obviously the written permission can exist in the ranch house 
while the youngster is doing chores or away from the house with the 
pistol.
  Finally, the amendment clarifies the self-defense provision of the 
law by permitting possession in lawful defense of self or others in a 
residence against any threat to the life of the individuals there. I 
think it is only reasonable to conclude it should not be illegal for a 
young person to pick up a handgun to defend himself and his family in 
the event he is in his home and is the victim of a threat to his own 
life.
  If parents want to teach children to use firearms responsibly, the 
law should not stand in the way. This law encourages parents to play an 
active role in the lives of their children and respects the judgment of 
parents. It does not suggest we in Washington know best and are better 
equipped than parents to make decisions. But it does say, as it relates 
to semiautomatic assault rifles and weapons, the provisions that relate 
to handguns ought to be the provisions that relate to semiautomatic 
rifles. That means this amendment would prohibit the private sale of a 
semiautomatic assault rifle to a juvenile and the possession of any 
assault rifle or similar weapon by a juvenile, absent the specific 
permission of a parent.
  With that in mind, I think we take another step forward. We do not 
cure

[[Page 9549]]

all the problems attendant to our society related to law-abiding 
responsibilities of young people. But we do take a step forward to 
bring the law to a place of rationality and to prohibit possession of 
semiautomatic assault rifles where pistols or handguns would be 
prohibited, and to prohibit such possession without the permission of a 
parent in a similar way to the way in which it has been prohibited for 
handguns.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to comment on the amendment the 
Senator has just submitted before the body. I believe directly 
following this amendment, I will be introducing an amendment. Last 
week, I announced I would be introducing an amendment which had 
essentially all the parts that Senator Ashcroft has just introduced, 
plus one additional part. Let me comment on how his amendment differs 
from mine in the sense of the parts he has just talked about.
  He has added exceptions relating to employment, ranching, farming, 
hunting, inheritance, target practice, and training. The exceptions in 
my amendment are military and law enforcement.
  He also creates a new penalty of up to 20 years for a juvenile who 
uses these weapons with the intent to commit a violent felony. I think 
that is a very positive addition.
  He does not make any transfer a felony, so the penalty would still be 
only up to 1 year. That is, if you transfer an assault weapon to a 
juvenile, the penalty is only up to 1 year. That is part of the 
problem. The penalty is so low, it is difficult to sustain or even make 
prosecutions. But I am very pleased he has seen fit to offer this 
amendment.
  I want for a moment to talk about what is missing from the amendment, 
which I will talk about more deeply on my own time. What is missing 
from the amendment is plugging a major loophole in the assault weapons 
legislation which I presented to this body in 1993 as an amendment to 
the crime bill and which is now law.
  When the amendment came before the body and we were standing down in 
the well, another Senator approached me and said: Would you mind if 
there were an amendment which would permit the continued grandfathering 
of big clips into this country, particularly for those that have bills 
of lading on them already and are in transit? I said no. The amendment 
went in and got broadened in the course of what turned out to be a 
rather cantankerous debate on the subject, back and forth between the 
two Houses.
  This is significant because the failsafe in the assault weapons 
legislation has to do with clips, in that the domestic manufacture of 
clips, drums, or strips of more than 10 bullets is prohibited in the 
United States subsequent to enactment of the assault weapons 
legislation. That is now the law. The loophole is that these clips are 
coming in from all around the world.
  Let me give a few examples. Between March of 1998 and July of 1998, 
BATF approved permits for over 8 million of these clips. They came in 
from countries all over--from Austria to Zimbabwe.
  Let me tell you some of the things that come in from Great Britain: 
826,000 clips, drums or strips, 250-round magazines, 177-round 
magazines, 71-round magazines, 50-round magazines; from Germany, 
426,300; from Italy, 5,900,000, and on and on.
  What is the significance of this? What gives an assault weapon the 
firepower is, first, you can hold it at your hip with two hands and 
spray fire; secondly, most of them are capable of having a very light 
trigger which you can pull very rapidly, and being semiautomatic, each 
time you pull it, it dispenses a bullet; and the clips are very big. 
The bigger the clip, the less the opportunity somebody has to disarm 
you.
  Hence, they have become the weapon of choice of grievance killers, of 
drive-by shooters, of gangs, and of drug dealers. None of these big 
clips are necessary for hunting.
  It always puzzles me why there is an exception. As a matter of fact, 
overwhelmingly, the great bulk of States prohibit more than seven 
bullets in a clip for hunting. Therefore, why you need to make an 
exception for hunting--I used to use a bow and arrow. I was pretty good 
at it. At least there was some sport in it. If you come along with a 
spray-fire assault weapon and you are hunting some poor deer, my 
goodness, I am rooting for the deer, that's for sure.
  I really question why we cannot plug this loophole. I tried last 
year. We received 44 votes. I was told some people did not like the 
timing of it and, therefore, I am trying at a time now when the 
juvenile justice bill is before this body.
  Unless we close this loophole, we will continue to build a nation 
that is awash with the kind of equipment that wreaks the devastation 
that is occurring all over this country.
  What the Senator has done is commendable. He has put forward 
certainly some improvements. I have done the same thing with not as 
many exceptions and added one other item.
  I will probably vote for that amendment. I will also, though, press 
my amendment because, as one who has lived this assault weapons issue 
now for the past 6 years, unless we close some of these loopholes, the 
point of the legislation, which is to dry up the huge supply of assault 
weapons as well as these big clips, essentially will not happen. This 
is an important loophole to be closed. That is essentially the 
difference between our two amendments.
  How much time remains on our side, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fourteen minutes, 52 seconds.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I want to take this time, if I may, to 
do something I have never done before, certainly on the floor of the 
Senate, and share with you my personal experience with guns and why I 
feel as strongly as I do with what is happening in this Nation with 
respect to them.
  In 1976, I was president of the board of supervisors in San 
Francisco. There was a terrorist group by the name of the New World 
Liberation Front that was operating in the far west. They had blown up 
power stations throughout the West. They targeted me and placed a bomb 
in a flower box outside my house. The bomb had a construction-grade 
explosive which does not detonate below freezing. It never drops below 
freezing in San Francisco. It was set to detonate at 1:30 in the 
morning.
  It did detonate, but the explosive washed up the side of the building 
and it did not explode. The timer went out in the street, and the next 
morning, we found the explosive on the side of the house. It was a very 
sobering thing because it was right below my daughter's window. Then 
this same group shot out about 15 windows in a beach house my husband 
and I owned.
  I went to the police department and asked for protection, and I asked 
if I could learn to carry a weapon. So I received, in 1976, a concealed 
weapon permit to carry a weapon. I was trained at the police range. The 
weapon I carried was a chief's special 38, five shots. I practiced 
regularly.
  My husband was going through cancer surgery at this time, and I 
remember walking back and forth to the hospital feeling safer because I 
had this small gun in my purse. A year later, arrests were made, and I 
returned the gun and, as a matter of fact, it was melted down with 
about eight others into a cross which I was able to present to the Holy 
Father in Rome in the early 1980s.
  Subsequent to that time, a direct contradictory incident changed my 
life dramatically, when a colleague of mine on the board of supervisors 
smuggled a gun in, a former police officer, and shot and killed the 
mayor and shot and killed a colleague.
  I spoke about this very briefly on the floor once before, but I was 
the one who found my colleague's body and put a finger through a bullet 
hole trying to get a pulse. I became mayor as a product of 
assassination in a most difficult time in my city's history.
  Between those two incidents, I have seen the reassurance, albeit 
false, that a weapon can give someone under siege. With a terrorist 
group, one does

[[Page 9550]]

not know when they will strike. I was very frightened. I decided I 
would try to fight back, if I could, and did the legal things to be 
able to do it. So I understand that reassurance.
  On the other hand, I have seen the criminal use of weapons. Then I 
began to see very clearly, between the late seventies and today, the 
evolution of the gun on the streets of America and seeing these very 
high-powered weapons striking hard and killing innocent people. I 
actually walked a block in Los Angeles where, in 6 months, 30 people 
were mowed down by drive-by shooters carrying these weapons.
  I went to 101 California Street and saw the devastation that an 
aggrieved man brought about when he walked in with assault weapons and 
mowed down innocent people.
  Let me tell you a couple of the characteristics of some of these 
weapons. I will begin with the weapon that was used in Littleton.
  The Intratech TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22 is a favorite weapon of drug 
dealers, according to BATF gun data. One out of every five assault 
weapons traced from a crime is a TEC-9, according to BATF. It comes 
standard with a 30- to 36-round ammunition magazine capable of being 
fired as fast as the operator can pull the trigger. It is one of the 
most inexpensive semiautomatic assault weapons available. The original 
pistol version, called KG-9, was so easily converted to fully automatic 
it was reclassified by the BATF in 1982 as a machine gun.
  The TEC-22 is very similar to the TEC-9 and TEC-DC9 and fires .22 
caliber ammunition, manufactured in the United States.
  The other one widely used is the AK-47. It is the most widely used 
assault weapon in the world, now manufactured in many countries. An 
estimated 20 to 50 million have been produced. It comes standard with a 
30-round ammunition magazine capable of being fired as fast as the 
operator can pull the trigger. Some models are available with 
collapsible stock to facilitate accountability, developed in 1947 in 
the Soviet Union.
  These are two of the weapons most used--banned by the assault weapons 
legislation.
  What is the problem? The problem is the gun manufacturers are so 
craven that whatever you write, they find a way to get around it, to 
produce a thumb-hole stock or some other device, but to continue the 
basics of the weapon--that it can be held in two hands, that it can be 
spray fired. And what enables it to be so lethal and used in grievance 
killings and used by drive-by shooters and used by gangs is the big 
clips. No one can get to you to disarm you if you have a 70-round clip, 
a 90-round clip, or two 30-round clips strapped together.
  So the purpose of the assault weapons legislation was to dry up that 
supply, not to take one away from anybody but over time dry up the 
supply. Today, no one in this country can manufacture a clip, drum, or 
strip of more than 10 bullets. No one can sell it legally. No one can 
possess it legally if it is made postban. The loophole is that they are 
pouring in from 20 different nations.
  I went to the President, and I said: Can you use your executive 
authority to stop it? Just as he did with the foreign importation of 
assault weapons. What I was told by Justice was, no, we need 
legislation to close the loophole.
  So I say to the Senator, where my legislation differs from yours is 
in exceptions and plugging this loophole. I very much hope we can plug 
the loophole. I very much hope the intent of your legislation isn't to 
submarine my legislation, isn't to prevent the closure of this 
loophole, which, as submitted to me right down there--I will never 
forget where it happened--was simply a grandfather clause to permit 
those weapons that had bills of lading on them in transport coming into 
this country. And I believe it should be closed. I believe the supply 
should be dried up.
  Let me talk about the school killings and how these clips come into 
it for a moment.
  I sent my staff to buy some of these clips. Let's see if it is easy; 
let's see if it is hard.
  On the Internet, no questions asked. It is $8, $10 for a clip; no 
questions asked. Give your mother's credit card and you get it in the 
mail within a couple of days. We bought a 75-round magazine for an AK-
47. And we bought several 30-round clips for $7.99, $8. And then if it 
slips into the weapon, you have a gun that can kill 30 people before 
you can be disarmed. That is why I so desperately want to plug this 
loophole.
  As I believe the time is up, I yield the floor and will continue this 
on my own time. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I am happy to yield such time to the Senator from Idaho 
as he might consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Missouri for 
yielding.
  I stand in support of what I think is a very needed piece of 
legislation. While I stand always in defense of the constitutional 
right of law-abiding citizens to own guns, I also recognize the 
tremendously valuable linkage between rights and responsibilities and 
the ability of people to understand what those responsibilities are and 
to perform them in law-abiding ways.
  The Senator from Missouri has recognized that in the laws we 
currently have, there is the potential, if not the reality, where we 
say to juveniles they cannot own handguns, up to a certain age, and 
that in fact we have seen there is a possibility, by definition of 
``semiauto,'' that they could own one.
  Certainly, in the case of Littleton, CO, the acts were illegal. That 
does not make the point. The point is, the law needs to be specific. 
That is what the Senator from Missouri is doing at this moment. He is 
making it very clear, as it relates to semiauto assault weaponry and 
the loading devices, that they be appropriately prescribed under the 
law as it relates to juveniles and that which we prohibit juveniles 
from possessing.
  So I stand certainly in support of this. I encourage my colleagues to 
vote for it. I think it is the refinement of the laws of our country 
relating to gun ownership that clearly is deserving and appropriate in 
this legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I inquire how much time remains.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri has 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California for 
her kind remarks about the intent that is expressed in making sure we 
provide the same kind of restrictions for semiautomatic assault weapons 
that we provide for handguns.
  I just say this is an important amendment. This is the subject of 
legislation I have previously filed in the Senate. I think this is 
appropriate because this addresses the subject matter of this bill, 
which is the juvenile justice framework. This is not, obviously, a 
comprehensive approach to such weapons but it is very clear and 
specific in terms of its reference to juveniles and their possession of 
not only the weapons but the kind of expanded or substantial clips or 
magazines, and it simply says juveniles are ineligible to possess those 
kinds of expanded clips or magazines.
  So I believe this measure is appropriate and it will harmonize the 
law to say that juveniles do not have greater authority to possess 
semiautomatic assault rifles than they do to possess handguns. This 
harmonizes the law and brings it into a place of reasonability.
  I am grateful for the opportunity to present this amendment. I 
appreciate, and will appreciate, the support of colleagues who intend 
to vote on behalf of this amendment.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. How much time remains on both sides, please?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1 minute 29 seconds for Senator

[[Page 9551]]

Ashcroft; and 4 minutes 27 seconds in opposition.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment to be offered by 
the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein.
  Let me tell you two things that happened yesterday on Capitol Hill 
which most people across America would find nothing short of 
incredible. We had a chance on the floor of the Senate to say that if 
you went to a gun show and bought a gun, you would be subject to the 
same law as anyone who walked into a gun dealer. In other words, we 
would check your background. Are you a felon; do you have a criminal 
record; do you have a history of violent mental illness?
  Before we sell a gun at a gun show, we wanted to make sure there was 
less likelihood that people would walk in with those problems and walk 
out with a gun. We were defeated. The National Rifle Association 
defeated that amendment. Despite the best efforts of Senator Frank 
Lautenberg of New Jersey and many of us, we were defeated.
  Instead, this Senate passed an amendment by the Senator from Idaho 
which went in the opposite direction and made it easier for people to 
buy guns without background checks. In fact, the amendment offered by 
the Senator from Idaho, adopted by this Senate, said you could walk 
into a pawn shop and buy your gun back without any background check.
  What is wrong with that? Five times as many criminal felons put their 
guns in pawn shops as regular citizens. So what the National Rifle 
Association did with this amendment by the Senator from Idaho was make 
it easier for those who use guns in crime to get those guns without a 
background check.
  America has to be standing back and saying: Did the Senate learn 
anything from what happened in Littleton, CO? Can we do anything to 
deal with gun violence?
  Then, last night, I went to a conference committee on the emergency 
supplemental bill, and I said to the gathered members of the House and 
Senate, please, we are considering a bill worth billions of dollars. 
Can we put some money in to help our schools--$265 million so we can 
hire more counselors in schools to help troubled children; $100 million 
for more afterschool programs so that kids can be in a constructive, 
positive, safe environment. They said no, not a penny. In this 
emergency supplemental bill, not one penny for America's schools, but 
$6 billion more for military spending than President Clinton asked for, 
billions of dollars to be spent around the world for problems which the 
United States is involved in, but not a penny to be spent on safety in 
schools.
  What a message. What a message coming out of Capitol Hill yesterday. 
If these are truly representative bodies in the Senate and the House of 
Representatives, to whom have they been listening? They haven't been 
listening to the families across America who want us to stand up and do 
something about gun violence. They have been listening to the National 
Rifle Association. They haven't been listening to the kids that we met 
with this morning from all across the United States, who came in and 
talked about their worries and their concerns about safety in schools. 
And they sure haven't been listening to the parents, worried to death 
about another school year and more violence.
  If this Senate is going to be truly representative of the people who 
sent us here, if we are going to do something to show leadership 
instead of powerlessness to groups like the National Rifle Association, 
we should pass the amendment of Senator Dianne Feinstein.
  Stop these ammunition clips. Who on God's green Earth needs an 
ammunition clip with 250 bullets in it? If you need that kind of 
ammunition to go out and shoot a deer, you ought to stick to fishing.
  The bottom line is, this amendment is sensible. She is trying to stop 
those who are buying ammunition clips that are designed to do one 
thing--kill human beings. Yet, the National Rifle Association says it 
is our constitutional right to buy these. Ridiculous.
  Ask the families across America whether the Dianne Feinstein 
amendment makes sense and they will say yes. Ask them whether Senator 
Frank Lautenberg's amendment, to make sure that we check the 
backgrounds of people before they buy these guns at gun shows, is the 
sort of thing we want to make certain it is safe for all Americans. 
They will say yes; that makes sense.
  Time and again, we are going to give our colleagues, Democrats and 
Republicans, on the Senate floor a chance to stand up and decide 
whether they are going to be for the families across America who want 
safety in schools or whether they are going to shrink away in cowardice 
because of the National Rifle Association. Let us do the right thing. 
Let us adopt Senator Feinstein's amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time in opposition has expired. The 
Senator from Missouri has a minute and a half.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, this is a simple amendment. It simply 
says that what we ought to do in regard to semiautomatic assault 
weapons in our schools, for young people, is to require them to have 
the same kind of rules we have for handguns. Most people think that a 
semiautomatic assault weapon is much more dangerous than a handgun. 
Yet, under current law, you are permitted to buy one as a juvenile. You 
don't have to have your parents' permission like you do with a handgun, 
where you are prohibited and you do have to have your parents' 
permission.
  So what we are talking about in this law is, for semiautomatic 
weapons, you are prohibited from buying them as a juvenile. And you 
cannot even possess one unless you have a clear indication of your 
parents' permission.
  We have also dealt with juveniles in these clips that are being 
spoken of and simply said that they are not eligible to possess these 
clips, that this kind of automatic ammunition-feeding device is not 
appropriate for and, therefore, is prohibited, in terms of selling to, 
in the same way that we would prohibit the sales to young people of 
semiautomatic assault weapons. It does not include traditional hunting 
weapons, and we are not talking about these kind of things that are 
mentioned as spray-firing weapons. As a matter of fact, semiautomatic 
is not spray firing. Spray firing is a machine gun.
  We are simply making the rules for semiautomatic assault weapons the 
same as they are for handguns. It a change that ought to be made. I 
urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The Senator from California is recognized to offer an amendment.


                           Amendment No. 343

       (Purpose: Relating to assault weapons)

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of myself and Senators Chafee, Kennedy, Schumer, Torricelli, 
Durbin, Levin, Landrieu, Murray, and Inouye.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
  The Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), for herself, Mr. 
Chafee, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Levin, Mr. 
Durbin, Ms. Landrieu, Mrs. Murray, and Mr. Inouye, proposes an 
amendment numbered 343.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 276, below the matter following line 3, add the 
     following:
                        TITLE V--ASSAULT WEAPONS

     SEC. 501. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Juvenile Assault Weapon 
     Loophole Closure Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 502. BAN ON IMPORTING LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING 
                   DEVICES.

       Section 922(w) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``(1) Except as provided 
     in paragraph (2)'' and inserting ``(1)(A) Except as provided 
     in subparagraph (B)'';
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``(2) Paragraph (1)'' and 
     inserting ``(B) Subparagraph (A)'';

[[Page 9552]]

       (3) by inserting before paragraph (3) the following new 
     paragraph (2):
       ``(2) It shall be unlawful for any person to import a large 
     capacity ammunition feeding device.''; and
       (4) in paragraph (4)--
       (A) by striking ``(1)'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``(1)(A)''; and
       (B) by striking ``(2)'' and inserting ``(1)(B)''.

     SEC. 503. PROHIBITION ON TRANSFER TO AND POSSESSION BY 
                   JUVENILES OF SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS AND 
                   LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.

       Section 922(x) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting a semicolon; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) a semiautomatic assault weapon; or
       ``(D) a large capacity ammunition feeding device.'';
       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting a semicolon; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) a semiautomatic assault weapon; or
       ``(D) a large capacity ammunition feeding device.''; and
       (3) in paragraph (3)--
       (A) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``, semiautomatic 
     assault weapon, or large capacity ammunition feeding device'' 
     after ``handgun''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``or ammunition'' and 
     inserting ``, ammunition, semiautomatic assault weapon, or 
     large capacity ammunition feeding device''.

     SEC. 504. ENHANCED CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR TRANSFERS OF 
                   HANDGUNS, AMMUNITION, SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT 
                   WEAPONS, AND LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING 
                   DEVICES TO JUVENILES.

       Section 924(a)(6)(B) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in clause (i), by striking ``1 year'' and inserting ``5 
     years''; and
       (2) in clause (ii)--
       (A) by inserting ``, semiautomatic assault weapon, large 
     capacity ammunition feeding device, or'' after ``handgun'' 
     both places it appears; and
       (B) by striking ``10 years'' and inserting ``20 years''.

     SEC. 505. DEFINITION OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING 
                   DEVICE.

       Section 921(a)(31) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``manufactured after the date of 
     enactment of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement 
     Act of 1994''.

     SEC. 506. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take 
     effect 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, this amendment is designed to close several loopholes 
in laws that allow juveniles to obtain big guns. The amendment will ban 
juvenile possession of semiautomatic assault weapons. It will ban 
juvenile possession of large-capacity ammunition magazines. It will ban 
future importation of large-capacity ammunition magazines, and it makes 
the transfer of a handgun, semiautomatic assault weapon or high-
capacity clip to a juvenile a felony, punishable by up to 5 years in 
prison.
  It increases the maximum penalty for transferring a handgun to a 
juvenile, with knowledge that it will be used to commit a crime, from 
10 to 20 years. It does that same thing for transfer of a semiautomatic 
assault weapon to a juvenile.
  I think we have had a good discussion on the first part of the 
amendment with Senator Ashcroft's legislation; that is, the amendment 
banning juvenile possession of a semiautomatic assault weapon. Current 
law already prohibits any person under the age of 18 from owning or 
possessing a handgun, with certain very limited exceptions. Yet, the 
law does nothing to prevent a juvenile from possessing the deadliest of 
assault weapons, those banned by our legislation of 1994. This would 
close that loophole.
  Secondly, the amendment bans juvenile possession of large-capacity 
ammunition-feeding devices.
  Now, what is a large-capacity ammunition-feeding device? It is 
something like this, where 30 rounds go into this clip. The clip goes 
up into the weapon, and you can use the weapon and spray fire, having a 
large number of bullets. Most assault weapons come standard with 20- or 
30-round clips. These big drums or clips are the tools that allow a 
person to rapidly fire shot after shot after shot with no opportunity 
to be disarmed.
  As I said earlier, they have no sporting purpose. Anybody who sees 
somebody deer hunting with one of these, root for the deer because you 
don't have much of a hunter if it takes 30 bullets in an assault weapon 
to take down a deer.
  For both of these two provisions, the ban on juvenile possession of 
assault weapons and high-capacity clips, there are two exceptions. A 
juvenile may still use or possess a handgun, assault weapon, or high-
capacity ammunition magazine if he or she is a member of the Armed 
Forces or the National Guard, and the use of such items is in the line 
of duty. Secondly, a juvenile may still use or possess a handgun, 
assault weapon, or high-capacity ammunition if these items are 
temporarily being used to defend a home. So, in other words, if there 
is one in the home and the home is invaded by a number of masked 
gunmen, the youth can certainly legally pick up that weapon to defend 
himself or herself. Throughout my amendment, a juvenile is defined as a 
person under the age of 18.
  The third provision I have offered would finally stop the importation 
of large-capacity ammunition-feeding devices, and that is what the 
other side of the aisle wants to permit to continue to happen. As I 
mentioned earlier when we passed the legislation in 1994, a grandfather 
clause was in it to permit those shipments that have bills of lading on 
them to come into the country. What a mistake I made at that time. I 
should have fought it tooth and nail. It was then expanded, and you 
have the loophole that exists today. It has now been more than 4 years, 
and I believe anybody who has made pre-1994 assault weapons and clips 
has had an opportunity to import them into this Nation. My goodness, 
BATF, in 6 months, approves permits for 8.6 million of them. Now, look 
at the number of years that have gone by already. If you multiply every 
6 months by 8.6 million, you will get a sense of the number that are 
coming in.
  Let me say, once again, it is illegal to manufacture them 
domestically, sell them domestically, and possess them domestically, if 
they were made after the ban. The problem is, BATF has no way of 
knowing whether the clip, once it is in, was made before or after the 
ban because BATF can't go to Austria, or Great Britain, or Italy, or 
Zimbabwe, or Czechoslovakia, or East Germany, or any of these other 
places where these big clips are made and brought into this country.
  Last year, the President stopped the importation of most copycat 
assault weapons into this country with an executive order. The Justice 
Department has advised that the President doesn't have the authority to 
ban the big clips and close the loophole. That is why the legislation 
is before us today.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a document entitled 
``Firearms and Explosives Import Branch, High-Capacity Magazine Import 
Totals, 3/98 to 7/98'' be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES IMPORTS BRANCH, HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINE IMPORT
                 TOTALS, BY COUNTRY OF EXPORT, 3/98-7/98
           [This does not reflect the country of manufacture]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   No. of       Total
                                                 magazines      rounds
                                                per country    approved
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Austria:
  20 round magazines..........................      300,000    6,000,000
                                               -------------------------
      Totals..................................      300,000    6,000,000
Belgium:
  15 round magazines..........................         3200       48,000
  30 round magazines..........................          500       15,000
                                               -------------------------
      Totals..................................         3700       63,000
                                               -------------------------
Chile:
  15 round magazines..........................       30,700      460,500
  20 round magazines..........................        2,234       44,680
  30 round magazines..........................       35,482    1,064,460
  32 round magazines..........................        1,008       32,256
                                               -------------------------
      Totals..................................       69,424    1,601,896
Costa Rica:
  15 round magazines..........................        6,000       90,000
                                               -------------------------
      Totals..................................        6,000       90,000
Czech Republic:
  15 round magazines..........................       20,000      300,000
  20 round magazines..........................       25,000      500,000
  70 round magazines..........................        5,000      350,000
                                               -------------------------
      Totals..................................       50,000    1,150,000
Denmark:
  32 round magazines..........................          238        7,616

[[Page 9553]]

 
  36 round magazines..........................          840       30,240
                                               -------------------------
      Totals..................................        1,078       37,856
England:
  20 round magazines..........................      644,800   12,896,000
  25 round magazines..........................       27,500      687,500
  30 round magazines..........................      101,650    3,049,500
  32 round magazines..........................       28,490      911,680
  50 round magazines..........................          500       25,000
  71 round magazines..........................         3000      213,000
  177 round magazines.........................          200       35,400
  250 round magazines.........................       20,000    5,000,000
                                               -------------------------
      Totals..................................      826,140   22,818,080
Germany:
  15 round magazines..........................       10,000      150,000
  16 round magazines..........................          800       12,800
  20 round magazines..........................       34,500      690,000
  30 round magazines..........................      230,000    6,900,000
  40 round magazines..........................      100,000    4,000,000
  75 round magazines..........................       50,000    3,750,000
  100 round magazines.........................        1,000      100,000
                                               -------------------------
      Totals..................................      426,300   15,602,800
Greece:
  30 round magazines..........................        6,062      181,860
  32 round magazines..........................       55,900    1,788,800
                                               -------------------------
      Totals..................................       61,962    1,970,660
Hungary:
  20 round magazines..........................       20,800      416,000
  30 round magazines..........................       20,800      624,000
  70 round magazines..........................          500       35,000
  71 round magazines..........................          200       14,200
                                               -------------------------
      Totals..................................       42,300    1,089,200
Indonesia:
  30 round magazines..........................      100,000    3,000,000
                                               -------------------------
      Totals..................................      100,000    3,000,000
Israel:
  20 round magazines..........................       65,900    1,318,000
  25 round magazines..........................       17,000      425,000
  30 round magazines..........................       80,000    2,400,000
  32 round magazines..........................        2,000       64,000
  35 round magazines..........................        7,000      245,000
  50 round magazines..........................       65,900    1,318,000
                                               -------------------------
      Totals..................................      172,900    4,502,000
Italy:
  11 round magazines..........................       20,000      220,000
  12 round magazines..........................      506,318    6,075,816
  13 round magazines..........................    1,151,264    3,049,500
  15 round magazines..........................    1,940,556   14,966,432
  17 round magazines..........................    1,308,696   22,247,832
  20 round magazines..........................    1,000,000   20,000,000
                                               -------------------------
      Totals..................................    5,962,834   46,559,580
Nicaragua:
  20 round magazines..........................       10,000      200,000
  50 round magazines..........................          500       25,000
                                               -------------------------
      Totals..................................       10,500      225,000
South Africa:
  20 round magazines..........................       54,360    1,087,200
  25 round magazines..........................       23,500      587,500
                                               -------------------------
      Totals..................................       77,860    1,674,700
Switzerland:
  20 round magazines..........................          300        9,000
                                               -------------------------
      Totals..................................          300        9,000
                                               -------------------------
Taiwan:
  30 round magazines..........................        1,000       30,000
                                               -------------------------
      Totals..................................        1,000       30,000
Zimbabwe:
  30 round magazines..........................       32,000      960,000
  32 round magazines..........................       42,874    1,307,968
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Once again, this describes the countries--Austria, 
Belgium, Chile, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Denmark, England, Germany, 
Greece, Hungary, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Nicaragua, South Africa, 
Switzerland, Taiwan, and Zimbabwe--where during this 6-month period 
these big clips received permits.
  The final provision in this amendment will increase penalties on any 
person who sells or transfers a handgun, assault weapon, or high-
capacity ammunition magazine to a juvenile. Any transfer of a handgun, 
assault weapon, or one of these clips to a juvenile, under my 
legislation, would become a felony punishable by up to 5 years in 
prison. And any person who transfers to a juvenile, knowing that it is 
going to be used to commit a crime, is subject to a maximum penalty of 
20 years. As I said earlier, the legislation applies the handgun 
prohibition to assault weapons as well.
  Now, let me just speak for a moment about what we have seen happen in 
the last 3 years. Since I became, I might say, gun-sensitive in 1976, I 
have watched incidents develop in the United States. It is not hard for 
any of us to see that what has happened is a combination of things. In 
the first place, there are parents that, apparently, don't teach their 
youngsters values; schools that are too big; counselors that are too 
rare; the burgeoning group of youngsters who feel aggrieved or not 
accepted or not ``one of them,'' or is jealous, is going to essentially 
have the last laugh by going in and really taking out a large number of 
students. We saw it in Moses Lake, WA; Bethel, AK; Pearl, MS; West 
Paducah, KY; Jonesboro, AR, which involved 2 killers, one of them just 
11 years old; Edinboro, PA; Fayetteville, TN; Springfield, OR; and now 
Littleton, CO. All of these took place not in Los Angeles, New York, 
Detroit, Chicago, Cleveland, or San Francisco, but in small suburban 
communities, many of them deeply religious, most of them middle to 
upper-class socioeconomically.
  So what has happened? I believe that what happened is we have seen 
the fomenting of a culture of violence surrounding youngsters. I have 
used this before and I will use it again. I would like to read directly 
from the Washington Post article dated Monday, May 11:

       Angry 5-year-old Took Gun to School. Memphis. Five-year-old 
     kindergartner was arrested after bringing a loaded pistol to 
     school because he wanted to kill his teacher for punishing 
     him with a ``time out,'' according to police records. The .25 
     caliber semiautomatic pistol in the child's backpack was 
     confiscated by teacher Maggie Foster on Friday after another 
     pupil brought her a bullet. ``He said he wanted to shoot and 
     kill several pupils as well as a teacher,'' the arrest ticket 
     said. He stated he was going to shoot Ms. Foster for putting 
     him in ``time out,'' a form of discipline for young children.
       The boy was charged with carrying a weapon. It was unclear 
     if he would be prosecuted. ``A five-year-old is not capable 
     of forming criminal intent,'' juvenile court Judge Kenneth 
     Turner said. ``The boy got the gun from atop his 
     grandfather's bedroom dresser,'' said Jerry Manassass, 
     juvenile director of court services. The boy and his mother 
     live with the grandfather. ``The State's Department of 
     Children Services will investigate the boy's home 
     situation,'' officials said.

  And that's that.
  Doesn't that frighten you? Doesn't it make you think that this Nation 
is so awash with guns that it has even trickled down to a five-year-old 
who knows enough to pick up a gun and take it to school? It frightens 
me, and I believe it concerns the dominant majority of American people. 
We have a chance to do something about it.
  We can't entirely change the culture. We can pass, as we have, 
certain pieces of legislation. We can use the bully pulpit. We can talk 
about parents keeping their guns safe. We can use trigger locks. We can 
make parents responsible--all of which I think we should do. But the 
one thing we can and we must do is keep large firepower out of the 
hands of juveniles. The more you proliferate these weapons and make it 
easy for youngsters to obtain the ammunition feeding devices, just by 
using their computer, just by punching in their family's credit card, 
we create the situation where more lives can be taken.
  Almost 1 in 12 high school students report having carried a gun in 
the last 30 days. This is despite Senator Dorgan and my gun-free 
schools bill. In 1996, 2,866 children and teenagers were murdered with 
guns, 1,309 committed suicide with guns, and 468 died in unintentional 
shootings. Gunshot wounds are now the second leading cause of death 
among people aged 10 to 34. What a commentary on this Nation. The 
firearm epidemic in this country is now 10 times larger than the polio 
epidemic of earlier this century.
  In the 1996-1997 school year alone, more than 6,000 students across 
this Nation were caught with firearms in school. Is there a Member of 
this body who saw guns in their classrooms as they were growing up? I 
don't think so. I sure didn't. But I will tell you this: I addressed 
the fourth grade class in Hollywood and I said: What is your greatest 
fear? And that fourth grade said being shot. I said: How many of you 
have heard shots? And every single hand in the class went up in 
Hollywood, CA, as having heard shots. What kind of a nation are we 
becoming when our youngsters have to be reared in this kind of 
environment?
  I notice the distinguished Senator, my cosponsor of this amendment, 
Senator Chafee of Rhode Island, is on the floor. If I might, I would 
like to yield time to him, as much time as he requires.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the distinguished Senator from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor Senator Feinstein's 
amendment, which is designed to keep assault weapons and large capacity 
ammunition feeding devices out of the hands of children. Also, I am 
grateful to Chairman Hatch for the opportunity to discuss this 
important matter.
  For years, Senator feinstein has been an ardent proponent of banning

[[Page 9554]]

assault weapons and large capacity ammunition clips. In 1994, Congress 
wisely enacted legislation to prohibit domestic production of assault 
weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices. Regrettably, it 
took a terrible tragedy to give us that wisdom.
  In January 1989, our nation was stunned when Patrick Purdy murdered 5 
children and injured 30 others in a schoolyard in Stockton, CA. With 
the horror of that slaughter fresh in our minds and hearts, Congress 
enacted the assault weapons ban as part of the Violent Crime Control 
and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.
  That legislation, principally proposed and fought for by the 
distinguished Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, prohibits the 
manufacture, possession, and transfer of semiautomatic weapons and 
large-capacity ammunition clips that were not lawfully owned prior to 
enactment of the 1994 act. Regrettably, there are gaping loopholes in 
that law.
  The amendment Senator Feinstein and I have offered today is designed 
to close the loophole in the law that enables children to gain access 
to assault weapons and large capacity ammunition clips. It is intended 
to close the loophole that allows large capacity ammunition clips, 
which are manufactured abroad, to flood the United States. And it is 
designed to increase penalties on adults who provide children with 
handguns, deadly assault weapons, and large capacity clips.
  This amendment is a matter of common sense. Common sense led us to 
prohibit possession of handguns by children. Nevertheless, we permit 
children to possess assault weapons and large clips. These are not 
weapons intended for hunting or recreational purposes. These are lethal 
weapons designed to make it easy to kill. Yet, the law says it's just 
fine for children to possess them.
  There is a lot of discussion on the floor of this Chamber about the 
culture of violence.
  We are asked to blame the ``culture of violence'' for the rash 
shootings that have rocked our nation and our schools. Children watch 
too much TV, therefore they are violent. Children go to violent movies, 
therefore they act out what they see. Children play video and computer 
games with violent themes, therefore they become killers. Perhaps there 
is truth in these conclusions, but there is a much simpler truth. It is 
foolhardy and irresponsible to allow children to possess assault 
weapons.
  In America, a 15-year-old child can't drive a car, but he can own an 
assault weapon. An 18-year-old can't buy a beer, but he can own an 
assault weapon. There are age requirements for buying cigarettes or 
attending certain movies, but there are no age limits when it comes to 
assault weapons. The age requirements for certain activities are meant 
to keep children out of harm's way. That's what this amendment is meant 
to do, too.
  We have an opportunity today to say enough is enough. We have an 
opportunity to use our common sense and take assault weapons and large 
capacity clips away from children. We have an opportunity to learn from 
the horror that all of American has witnessed in our nation's schools.
  Assault weapons and large capacity magazines were used in two of the 
horrific shootings we all watched on the evening news. At Thurston High 
School in Springfield, OR, a 15-year-old, who was suspended for 
bringing a gun to school, returned the next day and opened fire in a 
crowded cafeteria. He killed two students and wounded 22 others, using 
a large capacity ammunition clip. Most recently, two boys in Littleton, 
CO, devastated their community by storming their school, murdering 12 
schoolmates and a teacher, and finally killing themselves. One of the 
weapons the boys used was a Tec-9 assault pistol.
  It's time to end the madness. It's time to take common sense steps to 
keep guns, particularly assault weapons and large capacity clips, out 
of the hands of children. We teach our children not to play with 
matches; to look both ways before crossing the street; we tell them not 
to talk to strangers. We teach them lessons to keep them safe, but we 
allow them access to the deadliest of weapons. It doesn't make sense. 
It is unjustifiable.
  We have a chance today to close the loophole in the assault weapons 
ban that permits what our common sense tells us is insane.
  Mr. President, clearly, it will be argued on the floor of this Senate 
that we have a host of laws on the books--I think somebody said 40,000 
laws. I don't know whether that is accurate or not. But if it is, there 
is a mass of laws on the books, and all we have to do is enforce these 
laws and we wouldn't have these troubles.
  There is no law dealing with assault weapons in the hands of 
children--certainly no Federal law. There ought to be one along with 
passage of these laws on the floor of this Chamber. Certainly, there 
should be greater enforcement than there is.
  But, first of all, let's have the law making it illegal, not only to 
own one of these weapons--for a minor to or for a child to--but also 
the clip that goes with it.
  It should not be lawful for children to possess assault weapons and 
large capacity ammunition clips. It should not be possible for foreign 
manufacturers to flood the United States with a product domestic 
manufacturers are forbidden to produce. Adults who provide these deadly 
weapons to children should be punished.
  That is part of the legislation for which the distinguished Senator 
from California has pushed. Senator Feinstein's amendment is about 
children and safety.
  I urge my colleagues to rely on their common sense and vote to take 
assault weapons away from children.
  I thank the Chair. I thank the distinguished proponent of this 
amendment.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I think the distinguished Senator from 
Rhode Island knows I hold him in very high regard, but I want him to 
know that my fondness for him has just increased exponentially.
  Thank you very much for that very compelling statement.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I am delighted to be associated with her. I want to say, 
regrettably, we haven't passed much gun control legislation on the 
floor of this Senate, but because the Senator from California was so 
dogged and determined in, I believe, 1994, some 5 years ago, we were 
able to take a big step forward. Now she has come up with legislation 
to eliminate some of the loopholes in that bill.
  I thank the Chair and I thank the distinguished Senator from 
California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank my good friend from California, and I commend her 
and the Senator from Rhode Island and others who are actively pursuing 
this very important amendment.
  Mr. President, I believe that the tragedy in Littleton, Colorado 
struck a chord with every American. Three weeks ago, we watched in 
disbelief as children turned violent against other children, and we 
asked ourselves why. There is no single answer to that question. The 
violence in movies, on television, and in video games alarms us all. 
Our culture is surely far too violent. But, in these school shootings, 
we see one crucial common denominator: guns.
  Guns kill some 35,000 people in the United States each year. We've 
grown so accustomed to the carnage that guns cause that only the most 
horrific acts of violence are capable of shaking us from our slumber. 
We paused in the Senate to observe a moment of silence to pay tribute 
to those who died at Columbine High School and to express our sympathy 
for their loved ones. But now with this latest tribute for the victims 
in Littleton behind us, we need to be anything but silent.
  There is no one cause of youth violence, the causes are many. But 
among them there is one that cannot be ignored or denied: the easy 
access our young people have to deadly weapons.
  Violence in television shows, video games and movies horrifies us as 
parents and grandparents. But these same programs and those same games 
are the predominant entertainment in

[[Page 9555]]

many other countries, as well, which have a small fraction of our gun 
murder rate. Look at our border with Canada. In 1997, the U.S. death 
rate involving firearms was about 14 per 100,000 people. The rate for 
Canada was less than one-third of that, about 4. Canadian towns on our 
border watch exactly the same T.V. and movies we do. Their kids play 
the same video games as ours. In 1997, there were 354 firearm homicides 
in Detroit; across the river in Windsor, Ontario, one fifth its 
population, there were only 4. The crucial difference is the easy 
availability of firearms in the U.S. If we equate the populations, that 
would mean that on an apples and apples basis, Windsor would have had 
20 firearm homicides. They watch the same television, they watch the 
same movies, and they play the same video games. We had 354 firearm 
homicides in Detroit; Windsor has 20 on a comparable basis.
  The crucial difference isn't, then, the atmosphere of violence which 
pervades too much of our environment; the critical, crucial difference 
is the easy availability of firearms in the United States.
  No matter how severe this plague of gun violence is for society as a 
whole, for the young it is far worse. For young males, the firearm 
death rate is nearly twice that of all diseases combined. One hundred 
and thirty-five thousand guns are brought into U.S. schools every day, 
according to an estimate by the National School Board Association--
135,000 guns every day brought into our schools. Guns are not the cause 
of violent emotion, but guns are the predominant cause of violent 
killings and murders when such violent emotions are acted out.
  There are numerous loopholes in the Federal gun laws which I think 
would surprise most Americans. The Feinstein amendment before the 
Senate addresses loopholes which allow youth access to, for instance, 
the assault weapons which have been discussed. Most of these are 
commonsense proposals.
  Ten years ago, maybe now a little longer than that, former Senator 
Barry Goldwater first heard that a madman walked into a schoolyard in 
Stockton, CA, with a rapid-firing AK-47 and shot off 100 rounds in 2 
minutes, killing 5 children and wounding 30. Senator Goldwater said, 
``I'm completely opposed to selling automatic rifles, and I have been a 
member of the NRA. I collect, make, and shoot guns. I've never used an 
automatic or semiautomatic for hunting. There is no need to. They have 
no place in anybody's arsenal.''
  Senator Goldwater was right when he said that assault weapons have no 
sporting purpose. How many more tragedies will it take before, at a 
bare minimum, we take assault weapons and large ammunition clips out of 
the hands of children?
  This amendment does that. I hope this Senate will give its support. I 
commend the Senators from California and Rhode Island.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Michigan. A while back, a former Vice President said he is one of the 
great minds of the Senate. I certainly agree with that. I think you 
know that.
  Thank you very much.
  I see the distinguished Senator from New Jersey on the floor. I yield 
5 minutes of my time to Senator Torricelli.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the Senator from California for yielding.
  Mr. President, all of us, after Littleton, grieved together. I 
believe all of those prayers and condolences were sincere. But we also 
pledged to finally take the issue of gun violence and young people in 
America seriously. Those pledges may not have been as sincere.
  It was my hope in this debate that we would deal with some very 
fundamental issues--restricting the ability to buy handguns to one a 
month; stopping the wholesale transfer of these guns into our cities 
and small towns in States like my own of New Jersey.
  I hoped we would extend the Brady period to give a cooling off period 
to people who buy these weapons. I hoped to regulate firearms like any 
other consumer product.
  We decided not to do these things because we wanted to meet our 
opponents, those who are advocates for the gun lobby, halfway. So we 
restricted ourselves to the most reasonable, the least controversial. 
It might have been a mistake, because even those commonsense 
initiatives, which I think most Americans would subscribe to, are not 
succeeding.
  Yesterday, this Senate failed in an effort to restrict sales at gun 
shows without background checks--4,000 gun shows that operate outside 
of the current checks for mental illness and previous legal 
convictions. Now we return again with another provision that should be 
equally noncontroversial. Most people in America wouldn't believe this 
provision is necessary. I would have a hard time convincing most people 
in New Jersey that this amendment is required, because most people 
would believe it was already law: That an 18- or 19-year-old can buy an 
assault rifle; that any child can buy a rifle or shotgun, including 
assault rifles such as the infamous street-sweeper; that any youth 18 
to 21 can privately buy an assault pistol such as the TEC-9 used in 
Littleton.
  Our country has recognized that there is an age of maturity to drive 
an automobile. We recognize there is an appropriate age of maturity to 
consume alcohol, to exercise the right to vote--the basic sovereignty 
of our people. Yet, with the power to take a human life by the exercise 
of the extraordinary power in these weapons, young people like those in 
Littleton who consumed so many lives operate without restrictions.
  I believe those who responded to the massacre in Littleton were 
sincere in wanting to deal with this problem. But it requires more than 
words. It requires the one area of political life that I most admire 
and is in the shortest supply in our country--courage--the courage to 
go to those few advocates who believe they are so right and their 
privileges are so important that the larger good of the public must be 
compromised. I suggest to them they must compromise for the sake of the 
Nation.
  That is the moment in which we now find ourselves. Senator Feinstein 
has offered an amendment that would interfere with the rights of no 
parents who want to teach their child to use a firearm responsibly or 
want to have a firearm in their home. It deals only with that class of 
weapons for which there is no hunting purpose, no legitimate function 
for which any teenager in any school of America should want to own an 
assault rifle or a multibullet clip. That is all we deal with. 
Inexplicably, I do not know if we will succeed.
  Last year, we lost over 3,500 young people to gunfire; 3,500 deaths. 
This is no perfect answer. It will not eliminate all of those deaths. 
It may not eliminate a majority of those deaths. But no one on this 
Senate floor can credibly argue that with the adoption of the Feinstein 
amendment some lives will not be saved; that the chances of a Littleton 
are not measurably reduced.
  The Senate has a choice. Senator Ashcroft has also offered an 
amendment and it would also restrict to minors access to some of these 
weapons.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has spoken for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I yield the Senator an additional 
minute.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the Senator for yielding an additional 
minute.
  But only the Feinstein amendment offers not only restricting this 
class of weapon to young people, but also closes the loophole that 
allows these multibullet clips that allow the rage of a child who would 
take a single life to destroy a school, an entire group of people--to 
commit a mass murder.
  I do not argue this alone will stop these tragedies. No one here can 
argue that any one formula, any one idea will eliminate this problem. 
But I will tell you this, Senator Feinstein has the one proposal that 
can address the rage, the inexplicable rage that must be dealt with--by 
families and schools and churches and synagogues, exploding on such a 
level--by taking both these weapons of mass destruction and these 
multibullet clips out of circulation.
  I congratulate her for her amendment. I ask the Senate, with all the

[[Page 9556]]

rage you felt after Littleton, with all the conviction you felt to 
solve this problem, and all the compassion you felt for those children, 
have that strength, that courage and that conviction now. For once, at 
long last, let's take a stand and cast a vote so, as the years pass, we 
will have real pride that we made some contribution. Just as we ask 
those parents, those schools, those churches, those synagogues to play 
their role and be part of this solution, let the Senate be part of this 
solution, too.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
New Jersey for his thinking. I very much appreciate it. It seems to me, 
those of us who have big cities in our States really understand what a 
lot of this is about. I think it is very important. When we get back 
here I think we forget what it is like out there, the ease with which 
youngsters can obtain these high-powered implements which are capable 
of killing so many people at one time. So I thank the Senator very much 
for his support in this.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 6 minutes 50 seconds.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, let me once again state what is the 
fundamental difference between the amendment proposed by the 
distinguished Senator from Missouri and my amendment. My amendment has 
one thing that his does not. It closes the loophole in the 1994 assault 
weapons legislation.
  Today, it is illegal for anyone, domestically, to manufacture these 
big clips. It is illegal for them to sell them. It is illegal for 
people to possess them. But it is not illegal to bring them in from 
abroad. So why wouldn't we straighten this out? Why would we 
disadvantage our domestic manufacturers and allow all of this stuff, 
these big clips, up to 250 rounds, to come in from abroad? It makes no 
sense. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. In a simple 
equity argument, we have closed the supply off domestically. Why permit 
these clips to come in from foreign countries?
  Mr. President, I believe as soon as Senator Schumer comes he would 
like some time on this amendment as well. But I think we have an 
opportunity today for both parties to come together and do something 
important for our Nation. I deeply believe this legislation is 
supported by 80 percent to 90 percent of the American people. Why would 
we not enact it? Both of us want the same thing. We want to keep these 
weapons out of the hands of juveniles and we want to keep these big 
clips out of the hands of juveniles.
  Does it make sense, then, to continue to increase the supply? I do 
not believe it does.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum and reserve the remainder of my 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask that the Senator from New York 
be recognized for the remainder of my time.
  Also, I ask unanimous consent the junior Senator from Rhode Island, 
Mr. Jack Reed, be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Chair, and I thank the Senator from 
California, not only for the time but, far more important, for her 
leadership on this issue.
  We were the coauthors of the assault weapons ban of 1994. She carried 
it bravely in the Senate, and then I followed in the House.
  We still have unfinished work to do. That is what this amendment is 
all about. The Senator from California has well documented the need for 
this legislation. But let me say that this is such a simple, carefully 
drawn, and modest measure that to take half a loaf or a quarter of a 
loaf is not good enough, particularly in light of the tragedy in 
Littleton and the tragedies which have occurred throughout America.
  The Senator from Missouri has tried to deal with a part of the 
Feinstein amendment, but it still leaves a giant exception for young 
people to get these clips for hunting, for employment, for a group of 
other exceptions.
  I say, if we believe these clips are unnecessary--unnecessary for 
hunting, unnecessary for self-defense--because they kill far too many 
people, then why are we making such an exception? So I ask my 
colleagues, if you really believe in rational laws on guns, if you 
really believe that young people should not have the kinds of clips--
30-round--from all across the world sent to this country for no other 
purpose than to harm and maim--no legitimate purpose--then how can you 
believe it is OK half of the time or a quarter of the time or three-
quarters of the time?
  So I urge my colleagues to pass this amendment, not to shy away from 
it with a modification that does not really do the job, but to take 
this well-thought-out and modest step.
  Let me say something else about the climate around here as it relates 
to this amendment and all of the amendments that are here.
  What a bitter disappointment it is that the response to Littleton is 
that a loophole which allows criminals to get guns just gets wider. The 
American people are scratching their collective heads and saying, What 
is going on in this Senate of the United States? There is the blood of 
young children on our schoolhouse floors, and not only do we fail to 
take the modest step of closing the gun show loophole, we actually make 
it wider. I don't get it. I am new in the Senate, but I just don't get 
it.
  As the entire Nation turns its eyes towards the Senate to do 
something to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, we give criminals 
a new special pawnshop exemption, one that did not exist even in the 
months before Littleton. Shame on us.
  On the amendment of the Senator from Idaho, there was some discussion 
between him and me about it yesterday, but now it seems that all of the 
provisions I mentioned that were in that amendment seem to be true. 
And, frankly, the Senator from Idaho was gracious enough to admit that 
to me in the well of this Chamber this morning.
  Let me tell you what we passed into law yesterday.
  A violent felon gets out of jail and has little cash, so he pawns 
some of his guns. At this point, he is not even allowed to own a gun by 
law. Later, he raises money--maybe through a job, maybe through a 
crime; who knows--and he goes to redeem his gun. And now there will be 
no background check because of the amendment of the Senator from Idaho.
  In 1994, of the 5,405 people who redeemed their own gun at a 
pawnshop, 294 were caught in the Brady net. When America begged the 
Senate to do something about guns, they were not asking us to bring 
back the pawnshop loophole. Why are we back-peddling? And other places, 
too.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah controls 45 minutes.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent for 20 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will the Senator from California yield for a question?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Of course.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will the Senator from California ask unanimous consent 
that I be recognized for an additional minute, just to finish my point?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent the Senator from New York be 
recognized for an additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we yield a minute to each, if it is all 
right. Do you want more?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Senator for his generosity.

[[Page 9557]]


  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. You finish, and then I will go.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Senator from California.
  There were two other exceptions in the Craig amendment, two other 
loopholes that, again, made it easier for people--children, criminals--
to get guns. One is an exemption from liability for certain gun 
dealers; another would allow gun dealers to actually set up shop out of 
State, something unheard of since 1968. I would caution my colleagues 
in the Senate, evidently the Craig amendment had other loopholes as 
well, which we will talk more about later.
  So please, let us, everyone, if we are afraid to take a step 
forward--and I pray that we are not--not take three steps backwards, 
which up to now the Senate has done.
  I yield back.


                     Amendment No. 343, As Modified

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to submit a 
small technical correction to my amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 343), as modified, is as follows:

       On page 276, below the matter following line 3, add the 
     following:
                        TITLE V--ASSAULT WEAPONS

     SEC. 501. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Juvenile Assault Weapon 
     Loophole Closure Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 502. BAN ON IMPORTING LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING 
                   DEVICES.

       Section 922(w) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``(1) Except as provided 
     in paragraph (2)'' and inserting ``(1)(A) Except as provided 
     in subparagraph (B)'';
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``(2) Paragraph (1)'' and 
     inserting ``(B) Subparagraph (A)'';
       (3) by inserting before paragraph (3) the following new 
     paragraph (2):
       ``(2) It shall be unlawful for any person to import a large 
     capacity ammunition feeding device.''; and
       (4) in paragraph (4)--
       (A) by striking ``(1)'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``(1)(A)''; and
       (B) by striking ``(2)'' and inserting ``(1)(B)''.

     SEC. 503. PROHIBITION ON TRANSFER TO AND POSSESSION BY 
                   JUVENILES OF SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS AND 
                   LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.

       Section 922(x) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting a semicolon; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) a semiautomatic assault weapon; or
       ``(D) a large capacity ammunition feeding device.'';
       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting a semicolon; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) a semiautomatic assault weapon; or
       ``(D) a large capacity ammunition feeding device.''; and
       (3) in paragraph (3)--
       (A) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``, semiautomatic 
     assault weapon, or large capacity ammunition feeding device'' 
     after ``handgun''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``or ammunition'' and 
     inserting ``, ammunition, semiautomatic assault weapon, or 
     large capacity ammunition feeding device''.

     SEC. 504. ENHANCED CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR TRANSFERS OF 
                   HANDGUNS, AMMUNITION, SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT 
                   WEAPONS, AND LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING 
                   DEVICES TO JUVENILES.

       Section 924(a)(6)(B) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in clause (i), by striking ``1 year'' and inserting ``5 
     years''; and
       (2) in clause (ii)--
       (A) by inserting ``, semiautomatic assault weapon, large 
     capacity ammunition feeding device, or'' after ``handgun'' 
     both places it appears; and
       (B) by striking ``10 years'' and inserting ``20 years''.

     SEC. 505. DEFINITION OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING 
                   DEVICE.

       Section 921(a)(31) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``manufactured after the date of 
     enactment of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement 
     Act of 1994''.

     SEC. 506. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act and the amendments made by this Act except 
     sections 502 and 505 shall take effect 180 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.

  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might consume 
in opposition to the Feinstein amendment.
  Mr. President, the Senator from California and I over our years 
together here in the Senate have remained good friends even though we 
find ourselves on occasion in disagreement. This is one of those 
occasions.
  I wish I could join with the Senator from California and the Senator 
from Michigan and those who have spoken on the floor, in the most 
sincere of ways, in creating a magic wand that would take violence out 
of our schools and violence off our streets, and proclaim that our 
Nation is a violence-free nation. If we could do that together, then we 
would not be here debating this and our Nation would react differently 
than it is at this moment.
  All of us have mourned the loss of those marvelous young people in 
Littleton, CO. But it would be unfair for anybody to stand on this 
floor and portray that passage of the Feinstein amendment will solve 
that problem. It will not. It will not solve the problem of violence in 
our youth today or the feeling of disillusionment or the frustration 
which has produced these episodes of extreme violence in juveniles that 
this society has never seen in its history.
  I stand in opposition to the Feinstein amendment today because it 
would undo a provision of the law that was created in an interest of 
fairness, because in July of last year, when the Senator brought this 
to the floor, we argued it and 55 Senators said we ought not change 
this provision of the law. That is because, in 1994, Congress debated 
banning the future importation and manufacturing of high-capacity clips 
with more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Frankly, I was one of those who 
opposed banning this ammunition because I felt it had nothing 
whatsoever to do with controlling crime.
  Enforcement controls crime: Cops on the street with the ability to 
make sure, when they arrest somebody who uses a gun in the commission 
of a crime, that some attorney will not plea bargain them back to the 
street. Adult crime is going down today because we are locking people 
up, in part. And yet we are going to have a bill on the floor in the 
next few minutes which is going to make it even tougher for Federal 
prosecutors to walk away from their responsibility under the law; and 
that is to put people away who use guns in the commission of a crime. 
That is how you make the streets safer.
  Well, at least that is how you make the streets safer in relation to 
also protecting a private citizen's right to own and to collect.
  I think, however, even the sponsor has acknowledged it would be 
unfair to outlaw existing clips or some clips. She did in 1994. In all 
fairness to her, she has honestly said on the floor she made a mistake. 
I do not think she made a mistake at that time. I supported her in 
that, and we voted on it, and it became the law of the land. The ATF 
proceeded to do everything in its power to frustrate the law we had 
created. Specifically, it held up imports of legal clips for years, 
claiming that Congress only intended to grandfather domestic clips. 
This reading of the statute was obviously so wrong that even the 
Justice Department went to ATF and said: Sorry, it is unenforceable. So 
ATF had to give in; they couldn't jawbone their way outside the law.
  As a result of that, that importation was allowed as the law had 
designed. Consequently, the legal magazines finally were allowed to be 
imported years after the ban went into effect.
  Today, those who wrote the law are now trying to undo it. Of course, 
that is the right of Congress--I do not dispute that--to change the law 
if they wish. But I hope they would have good grounds to do so.
  I think the first provision of the Senator's law is the right thing 
to do. It is what the Senator from Missouri is doing, to tighten up on 
juvenile ownership and therefore force a greater level

[[Page 9558]]

of juvenile responsibility. But hers is much broader than that, and I 
simply have to oppose it.
  History is not the only reason that this amendment is unfair, 
however. It also is unfair because it would overnight make certain 
legal, lawfully owned firearms obsolete. These magazines are still 
being imported because there is a market for them, yes. She has spoken 
to that market. I think that is fair and responsible because of the 
character in which we have tried to shape this particular market.
  It was unfair in 1994 to ban these magazines, I believe. It is unfair 
today. Again, I hope the Senator and I can find that magic wand. 
Congress is struggling mightily at this moment, and this Senate is, 
with the juvenile crime bill, to change the definition of how we treat 
juveniles in our society and to change the law, to treat them more like 
adults, to look at other dimensions that we believe are causing these 
levels of frustration and violent outbursts, from movies to videos.
  I wish we could even take our magic wand, if we found it, and make 
the parents of our society more responsible, but that won't happen 
either. We will try. In the end, I hope we can succeed.
  It is my judgment, I believe a fair judgment, to suggest that the 
Feinstein amendment will not make the Littletons go away, or any other 
act of violence in this country, unless we bring a whole combination of 
things and change the way our culture thinks and reacts, as it relates 
to its children and its future.
  I hope my colleagues will join with me this afternoon in opposing the 
Feinstein amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  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. KOHL. Reserving the right to object----
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  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. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.


                           Amendment No. 344

   (Purpose: To make an amendment with respect to effective gun law 
enforcement, enhanced penalties, and facilitation of background checks 
                             at gun shows)

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having been yielded back, the clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch], for himself, Mr. Craig 
     and Mr. McCain, proposes an amendment numbered 344.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. I also ask that no second-degree amendments be in order 
prior to the scheduled votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator McCain 
be placed as a cosponsor of the Hatch-Craig amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  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

[[Page 9559]]

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. LEAHY. Will the distinguished Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. HATCH. I am happy to yield for a question.
  Mr. LEAHY. The distinguished Senator said the Republican package will 
offer some things gun owners won't like. Anything that I have seen in 
the Republican package, including a whole lot of things that were in 
legislation I had introduced, have been supported by virtually all gun 
owners. What were the ones the gun owners aren't going to like?
  Mr. HATCH. Let me get to that.
  Mr. LEAHY. I just didn't see any.
  Mr. HATCH. The CUFF amendment, of course, they would like. Anybody 
who wants to do anything about crime would like that. In contrast to 
the $5 million requested by the Clinton administration to fund gun 
crimes, our plan provides $50 million to hire additional Federal 
prosecutors to prosecute gun crimes. This is just in the area of 
juvenile justice.
  Our program expands to other cities a successful Richmond, Virginia 
program in which federal prosecutors prosecute as many local gun-
related crimes as possible in federal court. Homicides have fallen 50 
percent in Richmond since the program was implemented. This program 
works.
  In addition to encouraging aggressive prosecution, our plan requires 
the Attorney General to report to Congress on the number of possible 
gun crimes and, if the crimes are not prosecuted, to explain why. I 
initially hesitated to support such a statute. However, after years of 
little enforcement of existing laws and after years of holding hearings 
at which the Attorney General consistently provides no satisfactory 
explanation, we have no choice.
  If Congress passes a law to make an act a crime, it is the duty of 
the Attorney General to enforce that law. This reporting provision is a 
necessary step to ensure that the Clinton Justice Department does its 
duty and prosecutes the illegal use of guns by criminals.
  Second, this package of amendments includes several penalty 
enhancements that I, Senator Ashcroft, Senator McCain, and Senator 
Campbell have worked on. These enhancements target the illegal use of 
guns by criminals.
  This proposal would impose the following mandatory minimum sentences:
  Five years for the transfer of a firearm to another who the 
transferor knows will use the firearm in the commission of a crime of 
violence or a drug trafficking offense.
  Ten years for criminals, including straw purchasers, that illegally 
transfer a firearm to a juvenile who they have reasonable cause to know 
will use the firearm to commit a violent felony.
  Twelve years for discharging a firearm during the commission of a 
crime of violence or a drug trafficking crime.
  Fifteen years for injuring a person in the commission of a crime of 
violence or a drug trafficking crime.

[[Page 9560]]

  The proposal would also increase the mandatory minimums for 
distributing drugs to minors and for selling drugs in or near a school 
to 3 years for the first offense and 5 years for repeat offenders.
  Our proposal would also increase the maximum penalty for knowingly 
transporting or transacting in stolen firearms, stealing a firearm from 
a dealer, and stealing a firearm that has moved in interstate commerce 
to 15 years.
  This is strong medicine for the worst criminals that illegally use 
guns and drugs to harm elderly people, women, and children.
  Third, our proposal would protect our children.
  After reviewing Senator Leahy's proposal, I must give the good 
Senator from Vermont and his colleagues on the Democratic side of the 
aisle credit. His proposal to expand the Youth Crime Gun Interdiction 
Initiative is a proposal that we can agree on.
  This proposal would facilitate the identification and prosecution of 
gun traffickers that illegally peddle guns to our children.
  The proposal would also facilitate the sharing of information between 
federal and State law enforcement authorities to stop gun trafficking.
  The proposal would also provide grants to State and local governments 
to assist them in tracing firearms and hiring personnel to stop illegal 
gun trafficking.
  I am glad that on this provision, we can reach a bipartisan agreement 
to protect our youth from illegal gun trafficking.
  This proposal would also prohibit possession of firearms by violent 
juvenile offenders. This is the juvenile Brady provision, another 
provision they weren't particularly happy of in the eyes of some people 
in our society. But it is in this bill, and in this amendment.
  It extends the current ban on firearm ownership by certain felons to 
certain juvenile offenders.
  Under this proposal, juveniles who are adjudicated delinquent for 
serious crimes will not be able to own a firearm--ever.
  When they reach maturity, they will not be able to own a firearm.
  To ensure that this law will be enforceable, however, we make it 
effective only after records of such offenses are made available on the 
Instant Check System.
  Finally, this proposal would aid in the overall enhancement of the 
Instant Check System. Senator DeWine has played an instrumental role in 
drafting this provision that will help bring the Instant Check System 
into the 21st century, something that all on our side have been for 
from the beginning, and it is the only thing that really is working.
  This amendment will fund a feasibility study on the development of a 
single-fingerprint computer system and database for identifying 
convicted felons who attempt to purchase handguns.
  Under this system, a person will be able to voluntarily put his thumb 
or index finger onto a scanner at a gun store and a computer would 
instantly compare his finger print to a national digital database of 
finger prints for convicted felons. This would provide a truly accurate 
and truly instant check of a potential purchaser. This would prevent 
criminals with false identification credentials from purchasing a 
handgun.
  The amendment would also close a loophole in current law. It would 
require the Attorney General to establish procedures to provide the 
Instant Check system with access to records not currently on the 
database. This would include records of domestic violence restraining 
orders. This will help protect vulnerable women from abusive spouses.
  After the shooting at the library in Utah by a mentally disturbed 
person, I have been in contact with the representatives of mental 
health organizations to discuss this important problem. My constituents 
in Utah are very concerned about this issue and so am I, and everybody 
else is as well who reflects on this matter.
  This proposal takes a small but important step on this issue. It 
directs the Attorney General to establish procedures for including 
public records of adjudications of mental incompetence and involuntary 
commitments to mental institution in the Instant Check database. This 
provision would protect the public, but would also respect the 
legitimate privacy interests and treatment needs of those with mental 
health problems.
  Mr. President, this package of amendments will increase the 
prosecution of firearm crimes, increase penalties on criminals that 
illegally use guns and drugs, protect our children from gun 
trafficking, and expand the availability of background checks to stop 
convicted felons from illegally purchasing guns. The package 
accomplishes this without overburdening the lawful and traditional use 
of firearms by law abiding citizens for sporting purposes and by our 
most vulnerable citizens for self-defense purposes. Mr. President, I 
strongly support this package of amendments as an excellent addition to 
S. 254.
  In addition, Mr. President, this amendment would also punish the 
solicitation of the violation of federal gun laws over the Internet. It 
would not require advertisers who do not actually sell a firearm over 
the Internet to become federally licensed firearms dealers.
  The amendment provides that if a person knows or has reason to know 
that his Internet advertisement offering to transfer a firearm or 
explosives in violation of existing federal criminal statutes, he will 
be punished severely.
  The amendment imposes fines and prison sentences that escalate for 
repeat offenders.
  The amendment also provides an affirmative defense. If the advertiser 
is a licensed dealer, he can avoid the penalty imposed by this statute 
by posting a notice stating that sales of the firearm will be in 
accordance with federal law and will be made through a licensed dealer.
  If the advertiser is a non-licensed individual, he can avoid the 
penalty imposed by this statute by:
  (1) Sending a notice to the solicited party stating that the sale 
will be made in accordance with federal law; and
  (2) Providing that as a term of the sale, the sale will be 
consummated through a licensed federal firearms dealer. Thus, there 
will be a background check before the firearm is transferred.
  Mr. President, this amendment solves the problem of a non-licensee 
soliciting an illegal transfer of a firearm over the Internet. It 
punishes the knowing solicitation of a criminal transaction, and it 
allows an affirmative defense if the ultimate transaction includes an 
agreement to transfer the firearm through a licensed firearms dealer. 
Under current law, a licensed firearms dealer is required to run the 
buyer's name through the Instant Check system before transferring the 
firearm. This is a far superior alternative to requiring advertisers 
who do not sell firearms to become federally licensed firearms dealers 
and to act as middlement in the sale of firearms.
  This amendment would punish those who solicit violations of federal 
law, but would not over burden law abiding citizens who lawfully 
advertise legal products.
  Yesterday the Senate did two things related to background checks at 
gun shows. First, it rejected, on a bipartisan basis, the Lautenberg 
amendment. This proposal was unacceptable to many Members because of 
the incredible regulatory burden it would have imposed and because of 
the privacy implications for lawful citizens. Specifically, members 
were concerned with:
  (1) excessive costs of the proposed background check system;
  (2) centralized record keeping of lawful gun transactions; and
  (3) a new bureaucracy for regulating gun shows designed to do far 
more than perform background checks.
  Second, the Senate passed, on a bipartisan basis, the Craig amendment 
which represents a great step forward for gun safety while protecting 
the rights of lawful gun owners: It gave access for the first time to 
the instant check system, the NICS system, to

[[Page 9561]]

nonlicensed individuals who want to sell their firearms; ensured there 
will be no unlawful recordkeeping by the FBI; established means for 
people to become licensed dealers of firearms if they want to sell them 
at a gun show; and provided liability protection when the instant check 
system tells a seller that a perspective purchaser is eligible to 
purchase.
  Today, we include in our omnibus gun prosecution control package 
improvements to the Hatch amendment which will ensure that all gun 
sales at gun shows pass the muster of an instant check background 
check. This is due to the efforts of the distinguished Senator from 
Oregon, Mr. Smith; the distinguished Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain; 
Senator Craig, and myself.
  We want all gun sellers to have the peace of mind that they are 
selling their firearm to a lawful purchaser. We want gun shows to be a 
place for legitimate business transactions and for collectors to enjoy 
their hobby, but never at the expense of public safety.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Smith of Oregon be added as an 
original cosponsor of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. I yield to my colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Utah, Mr. Hatch, for his stewardship and his incredible efforts today 
on this issue. This package and this amendment that I intend to address 
briefly would not have been possible without his effort. I thank also 
Senator Craig and my colleagues, Senators Smith, Collins, Snowe, 
Abraham and many others who have taken an active role in this 
legislation today that would establish background checks in a manner 
which is fair and workable.
  To start with, I want to point out that this amendment closes a 
loophole, and it requires instant background checks at all events at 
which at least 10 exhibitors are selling firearms, or at least 20 
percent of the exhibitors are selling guns. This prevents any sale of a 
gun or a weapon at one of these shows without an instant background 
check. That is the effect of this amendment.
  Specific language says a person not licensed under this section 
desiring to transfer a firearm at a gun show in his State of residence 
to another person who is a resident of the same State and not licensed 
under this section:

       Shall only make such a transfer through a licensee who can 
     conduct an instant background check at the gun show or 
     directly to the perspective transferee if an instant 
     background check is first conducted by a special registrant 
     at the gun show on a perspective transferee.

  These background checks must be completed within 24 hours. This is 
not an overly burdensome requirement in the face of the Columbine High 
School tragedy; rather, it is a responsible means of lessening the 
likelihood of unlawful gun purchases. I believe this is something every 
Member of the Senate should be able to support.
  It is my understanding this amendment has been cleared by every 
Member on this side of the aisle. I hope it will be cleared by Members 
on the other side. If they desire a rollcall vote on this, that would 
be fine. I think it should receive the unanimous support that it 
deserves.
  I repeat one more time: This now provides for instant background 
checks at gun shows, and it effectively closes a loophole that was 
created. I am very appreciative of the Senator from Idaho for his 
cooperation in closing this loophole. It is a very strongly held belief 
on his part. I think he showed great statesmanship today.
  I thank so many of my colleagues under the leadership of Senator 
Hatch, Senator Collins, Senator Snowe, and especially my friend from 
Oregon, Senator Gordon Smith.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I join in thanking those who have 
submitted this amendment today. I especially thank Senator Hatch for 
his indulgence and his leadership; Senator Craig, for allowing this to 
go forward; Senator McCain, for his doggedness and determination to 
help a number of Members to make sure that what we began yesterday to 
close this loophole, we, in fact, closed today.
  I am proud to stand on the floor of the Senate and proclaim myself a 
defender of the second amendment. I say that and also qualify it only 
in this respect: I defend the second amendment for law-abiding citizens 
to bear arms--not for nuts and crooks. I think it is possible to defend 
this constitutional right and also defend kids in the school cafeteria. 
But to do that, we need to make this technical amendment today.
  I am proud to stand with my colleagues. I hope the other side will 
allow this to clear. This is something our country needs. It is 
something I am proud to be a part of.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the Hatch-Craig amendment package is a very 
broad-based package bringing greater enforcement, aggressive 
prosecution that this administration has been very reluctant in 
pursuing. It enhances penalties across a broad cross section of illegal 
activities to assure that the criminal simply is not going to fall 
through the cracks.
  As my colleagues from Arizona and Oregon indicated, once we were able 
to defeat the Lautenberg amendment and establish some very clear 
parameters for creating the permanency of the national instant check 
system and the funding of that check system and assuring that we were 
not creating extraordinary liability for private citizens who wish to 
involve themselves in sales, then I thought it was right and 
appropriate that we begin to move to clarify and define gun shows and 
how guns are sold at those gun shows.
  That is exactly what we have done this afternoon. I think it is a 
major step on an issue that has brought a great expression of concern 
across our country.
  What is important to understand is that there is no placebo. Many 
would rush to the floor hoping we can pass a myriad of laws. As I said 
with the Senator from California a few moments ago, the world would 
become instantly and dramatically safer. We hope what we do today will 
change the thinking in America. Law-abiding citizens have and will 
always have constitutional rights to own and bear arms for a variety of 
reasons. What we don't want to do is create a huge Federal bureaucracy 
that has so many tentacles in its webs that private law-abiding 
citizens get caught up in them.
  That is what would have happened in the Lautenberg amendment. Along 
with that was the fear that a promoter could be almost anyone who said 
they were in support of a gun show. They would have to become a 
licensed Federal firearms dealer. That is not the case nor should it be 
the case.
  Like many people know, when you go to the local drug store today and 
you want to charge it, you bring out your Visa card, they pass it 
through the machine and tell you nearly instantly if your credit is 
good, if you can charge against the card.
  What we want to be able to do to free up law-abiding citizens and to 
catch the criminal in the web, is to make sure that this instant 
background check is embodied in the law, and that the Justice 
Department and the politics of any Justice Department--be it Janet Reno 
or someone else, cannot manipulate the law. That is to assure an 
instant computerized check system which assures that felons are on it 
and adjudicated others are on it, those who find themselves defined by 
the law as being not sufficiently responsible for the ownership of 
guns. That is what it is all about. That is what we are about here 
today--in the area of gun shows, that this be done.
  Somehow, gun shows have been cast as some bazaar in which illegal 
criminal activity goes on. That is not true and everybody but a few 
politicians knows it is not true. Less than 2 percent of the guns sold 
through gun shows find themselves in criminal activity. We would argue 
that is too much. We are now asking law-abiding citizens to become 
involved with us in making sure that guns at gun shows, now that law-
abiding citizen is protected, will not be sold to a criminal or to a 
juvenile. So we do that and I think we strengthen the provisions by 
doing so.

[[Page 9562]]

  We also deal with another area my colleague from New York will be 
dealing with, potentially, later, and that is Internet sales. We are 
suggesting Internet transactions that are known to be legal activities 
or that could be legal activities are against the law. What we are not 
saying is you cannot advertise on the Internet. That is a first 
amendment right and I do not think the Senator from New York would want 
to infringe on the right of commerce, to speak out.
  Let me correct for the Record a dialog that the Senator from New 
York, who is now on the floor, and I had yesterday. He felt, reading my 
amendment that was agreed to yesterday, there was a problem. That 
problem dealt with the potential of interstate transactions, that are 
now prohibited, being opened up. In all fairness--I said he was wrong. 
As he read my bill, he was reasonably accurate, because the bill had 
been mishandled in its typing. What we were trying to define was the 
temporary situation of a gun show, because when we do tracking and when 
we do background checks and records, we are dealing with addresses, 
permanent locations--permanent locations of a business, a dealer of 
guns. A gun show is not permanent, it is temporary. It is at the 
convention hall or the fairgrounds. In doing the typing, legislative 
counsel misqueued the wrong paragraph.
  I must say, in all fairness, the Senator from New York was right. He 
found it. I agreed with him. We corrected it. We are now clearly back 
to Federal law being absolutely as it is. Interstate sales of guns are 
banned. Only under certain conditions of the Federal law can that 
happen. So we have corrected that also in this omnibus amendment, the 
Hatch-Craig amendment, that we think is right and responsible to do.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CRAIG. I will be happy to yield for a brief explanation by the 
Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Senator from Idaho for yielding.
  First, I thank him for his graciousness in correcting the Record of 
yesterday, which I very much appreciate.
  Second, I say to the Senator, we have received this new amendment 
about 45 minutes ago. My copy is a little warm, but I think that is 
because of our Xerox machine, not because of his. We are in the process 
of analyzing it and hope to very shortly be able to either agree or 
disagree. But given what happened yesterday, we want to make sure we 
know what is in the bill and that it is the same thing the Senator from 
Idaho thinks is in the bill. I appreciate his indulgence.
  But I do appreciate his words. They are meaningful to me, and I am 
glad we can conduct this debate, where we disagree so strongly, in a 
civil and fine tone.
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank my colleague from New York.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CRAIG. I will not yield for a moment. Let me correct another area 
the Senator from New York and I had a disagreement on, but that is a 
gentlemanly disagreement. We still disagree. That deals with pawnshops.
  In the Brady environment--that was the period of time in which we 
were building the national background check--a 3-day period was 
instituted, not to keep the gun from a person, but to check a person's 
background for the purpose of finding out whether it was legal for that 
person to own a firearm, whether the person was a felon or not. If, 
during that period of time, you pawned your gun at a pawnshop and then 
you went back to retrieve it, the pawnshop owner gave it back to you, 
no questions asked. It was your gun, your name was on it, you had the 
pawnshop ticket; as long as you could show ID, you got your gun back.
  ATF and this administration are now interpreting this differently 
through instant check. They are saying you have to go through a 
background check again, and there are lawsuits out there in the 
marketplace today because of that.
  It is very important for the Record to show what happens. If I am the 
person who takes a gun to a pawnshop and I pawn my gun, if I have my 
pawn ticket, within 24 hours the pawnshop owner must not only report 
the pawning of that gun to the local law enforcement authority with the 
serial numbers of the gun and my name--that is what goes on today in 
the law. So there is a background check, per se, because if my name 
happens to come up the name of a felon, I will never get that gun back; 
the law enforcement can go and collect it.
  But what is happening now is that I go in 3 months later to get my 
gun. I have my money and my ticket and my record is clear. The ATF, and 
this administration, are saying: Foul. You have to go through a 
background check.
  We are saying that is wrong. We are reinstating the Brady environment 
during the period of the 3-day waiting period.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CRAIG. I am happy to yield to my colleague from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Again, I want to go over the language. I agree with much 
of what the Senator said on the factual situation, but I would make one 
correction. The pawnshop exception was not part of Brady; it was added 
in. I remember this because I fought with then Chairman Brooks of the 
Judiciary Committee about it. It was added in the 1994 crime bill. 
Brady would have required the background check as is required today. 
The Brooks amendment exempted pawnshops from that check. And now, with 
the Craig amendment, we would go back to where the Brooks amendment 
was. Am I correct in that?
  Mr. CRAIG. To the Brooks amendment, yes. I was not in the House at 
that time. Of course, I knew Jack Brooks was a strong defender of 
second amendment rights. That sounds like a pretty reasonable 
rendition.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Just one point on the pawnshop exception. The reason it 
was put in Brady, no exception, the closing of the exception--the 
reason the administration went ahead and said that instant check 
required it was that, without the recheck, many people who were felons 
would get guns.
  Of the 5,000-some-odd people who went to pawnshops in this period 
between the Brooks amendment and the ATF's regulation, over 300 were 
found to be felons. In other words, they were missed in the first check 
and the second check found them.
  So I say to the Senator--and on this one we do not have to wait for 
the language because the Senator from Idaho has said the pawnshop 
exception in the language of yesterday will stay in the bill. I think 
that is a serious mistake. It will take us, in my judgment at least, a 
step back because many, many, many--in this case, close to 300; 294 
people who were missed in the first check--were stopped in the second 
check. These are felons. These are not people whom the Senator from 
Idaho or I generally bend over backwards to help get guns.
  So what is wrong with the second check when it is working? I urge the 
Senator from Idaho to reconsider and take the pawnshop exception out of 
this amendment.
  I yield my time. I appreciate the Senator's courtesy.
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator for his discourse on this. We believe 
pawnshops are now effectively regulated and their gun pawning activity 
is fully reported on a 24-hour basis to local law enforcement officers 
and that check goes forward. We think that is adequate and appropriate 
and right. That is the way it ought to be. I am not saying people who 
pawn guns ought not be checked, because they currently are.
  Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CRAIG. I will yield to the Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, yesterday I questioned the Senator from 
Idaho on his exclusion, which at that time was to ``determine qualified 
civil liability actions should not include an action--'' and then there 
was nothing further until we got down to ``immunity.''
  Now he has added a couple of other sections in there which were not 
in the bill yesterday.

[[Page 9563]]


  Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. LEAHY. If I might complete my question, I suggested yesterday, 
the way it was written we were giving immunity against suits. In fact, 
the court-stripping part further on would actually include suits 
against gun manufacturers.
  The Senator from Idaho suggested I was wrong in that, but I notice 
now it has been changed. Is that because I was right?
  Mr. CRAIG. No, it is not because you were right. It is because there 
was a section misqueued that was not included that was intended to be 
included.
  If I can go forward, because you deserve this explanation and you 
deserve this clarification because you raised the question in all 
fairness and honesty, all the immunity and exceptions within this 
section are tied to gun show transactions. It is very important to 
understand that. We are not talking about an environment outside gun 
shows; we are talking about an environment inside gun shows.
  The pending exceptions that the Senator from Vermont raised in 
question is a unique situation at a gun show. You and I go to a gun 
show. You are from Vermont, and I am from Idaho. We wish to transact 
the sale of a gun, but the gun is not there. It is at home in Vermont. 
You are selling it to me. You and I cannot do that under the law, 
because we cannot transact business interstate. So we go to a dealer at 
the gun show, and we agree that the dealer will handle the transaction. 
That dealer will do a background check on me, the purchaser, because 
you are selling it. You send the gun to the dealer, and the dealer 
sends it to me.
  That is the way it is currently being done in a voluntary way so that 
you and I do not find ourselves astraddle the Federal law on interstate 
transactions. That is what this section deals with.
  Mr. LEAHY. I am aware of that. I have purchased both handguns and 
long guns that way. I have had them shipped from out of State to a gun 
dealer in my own State.
  What I am concerned about--and the question I raised yesterday and 
the Senator from Idaho, apparently by this redrafting, feels I raised a 
valid question yesterday--at the end of this, you say:

       A qualified civil liability action that is pending on the 
     date of enactment of this subsection shall be dismissed 
     immediately by the court.

  Does this contemplate some cases that are now pending?
  Mr. CRAIG. It is possible at the time we get the law enacted that 
there could be pending litigation within this section of operation.
  Mr. LEAHY. Is the Senator aware of litigation now pending?
  Mr. CRAIG. I am not.
  Mr. LEAHY. But if there is some in any Federal or State court, 
whether it is Idaho or Vermont or Ohio or anywhere else, does not the 
Senator's legislation take out, not just Federal court, but even if 
there is a State court where there is a case pending, it would simply 
dismiss it?
  Mr. CRAIG. In these categories where people have found themselves 
immune if they do the following things--background check, through the 
registrant, under the conditions--it is important, do not think beyond 
the box. Think of the box of a gun show and gun show activities and the 
definitions therein of a special registrant and a new licensee. I am 
suggesting that we are trying to encourage people to become active in 
background checks and become increasingly legal by that.
  Mr. LEAHY. I understand this, and I find sometimes I am frustrated, 
but I accept that any time I purchase a weapon in Vermont, even though 
I am probably as well known as anybody in Vermont, they have to go 
through the usual record check. That is fine. I accept that.
  Mr. CRAIG. They better.
  Mr. LEAHY. They do, I can assure you, just as I accept easily the 
fact that I have to go through metal detectors and x ray machines when 
I get on an airplane. I am for that. I think it makes a great deal of 
sense.
  What concerns me, I tell my friend from Idaho, is that what this is 
saying, in this court-stripping part, this says my State of Vermont is 
being told, even if they have a case, a qualified civil liability 
action pending, it will be dismissed by this. We do not even know 
whether there are such cases pending around the country, but we are 
telling the 50 States of this country and their legislatures: If you 
have a case pending, tough, the Senate has just decided it for you.
  I am wondering, for example, whether this is covering current city 
lawsuits that are based, in part, on gun show sales. Some cities have 
brought some lawsuits based on gun show sales. Are we throwing their 
suits out?
  Mr. CRAIG. Let me reclaim my time to discuss that briefly, and then I 
will yield the floor because others wish to debate.
  Mr. LEAHY. Does the Senator understand my question? I think it is a 
valid question.
  Mr. CRAIG. Here is what we are saying. We are saying in this law that 
the people who abide by the law have done nothing wrong. If they go 
through the background check and do all the legal things, they have 
done nothing wrong; they are within the law. If the gun happens to fall 
into the hands of a criminal and is used in a crime and somebody wants 
to trace it back to them and make them liable, we are saying, no, no; 
you were a law-abiding citizen. You cannot say that they were wrong 
because their gun at sometime in the future fell into the hands of a 
criminal and was used. The Senator knows today those kinds of lawsuits 
are going on out there.
  Mr. LEAHY. Do we also dismiss the lawsuit against the manufacturers?
  Mr. CRAIG. No.
  Mr. LEAHY. It is hard to read it otherwise.
  Mr. CRAIG. I read it that way because of the transaction within the 
gun show. Think inside the box. Everybody likes to find the bogeyman 
outside the gun show. We are talking about a unique class of operatives 
inside a gun show. We are encouraging them to become increasingly more 
legal by using background checks. Legal in this sense: Law abiding 
citizens like you and me who might own a gun----
  Mr. LEAHY. I own a lot of guns.
  Mr. CRAIG. Want to make darn sure it does not fall into the hands of 
criminals. If we go through the background check as we sell it and the 
guy or gal is pure, we are OK. What if down the road the gun falls into 
the hands of a criminal and here comes your city or a city that says: 
You are liable because you are the seller we can trace to because of 
your record. I can say to you under this: Because you did it in a legal 
way, you are not liable. That encourages you to pursue legal 
activities. It does not deal with manufacturer liability. That is 
another issue for another day, not addressed anywhere in these 
amendments.
  Mr. President, that is as thorough as I can get with the Senator from 
Vermont. Let me conclude, because there are others who wish to debate.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CRAIG. No, I will not. I will let the Senator seek the floor to 
debate on his time.
  I suggest that the Hatch-Craig amendments are a major step toward the 
enforcement of gun laws in this Nation, of stopping criminals who use a 
gun in the commission of a crime, to make sure that the transaction 
does not result in guns falling into the hands of criminals, and still 
recognizing that the Internet is a fair and first amendment-protected 
expression as long as those expressions are not found to be illegal.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I see the following people on the floor who 
want to speak and want to be factored into this.
  On our side is Senator Collins, Senator DeWine, and Senator Sessions. 
Can I ask how much time they want.
  Ms. COLLINS. Five minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Ten minutes.
  Mr. HATCH. Five minutes for Senator Collins; 10 minutes for Senator 
Sessions; 10 minutes for Senator DeWine.

[[Page 9564]]

  We have Senator Durbin, Senator Schumer, and Senator Lautenberg on 
the other side.
  Mr. LEAHY. If I might, I say to the distinguished chairman, if he 
will yield to me----
  Mr. HATCH. Yes.
  Mr. LEAHY. Some of these amendments, at this point particularly, that 
have just arrived--I think the Senator from New York described it as 
being still warm from the copying machine. We have several Senators in 
the Cloakroom who are just looking at it, who have just received it. We 
are getting calls. My beeper is going off here. I am reading: Somebody 
wants to check this one, wants to check this one. Let's let the debate 
continue here for a bit while we try to do it.
  Mr. HATCH. Yes. But I want to figure out how we do it. I think we 
should go back and forth.
  Mr. LEAHY. I agree with that.
  Mr. HATCH. Can I ask the Senators on this side, how much time would 
you like, at least initially?
  Mr. LEAHY. We do not know.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HATCH. Sure. I yield to know how much time.
  Mr. SCHUMER. In response to his question, I say to the Senator that 
probably, when at least my staff's analysis of the proposal is 
finished, I would like to speak for maybe 10 minutes on it, maybe a 
little more. But I say to the Senator that I could not agree to any 
kind of time limit until we analyze the bill.
  The Senator from Idaho came over to me early this morning and said 
that I had been right in some of my complaints, I guess, about his 
proposal. I said, fine. Get me language and I will analyze it and I 
will not delay in any way.
  Mr. HATCH. We understand.
  Mr. SCHUMER. We got the language at 3:30, or maybe a little before 
that. It takes a little while to analyze. I do not think any of us want 
to go through the same problems we went through yesterday where we did 
not understand what was in the bill.
  Mr. HATCH. Let me put you down temporarily for 10 minutes, or more if 
you need it. I want an idea of the time.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HATCH. Yes.
  Mr. DURBIN. I really have questions that get down to the basics of 
whether or not the Craig amendment replaces yesterday's amendment or is 
added to yesterday's amendment. That is it. He left the floor, I am 
sorry, because it was a question I had.
  Mr. HATCH. I will try to answer those questions if I can. And Senator 
Lautenberg has indicated to me that he will need some extensive time 
here.
  Would you have any objection to allowing Senator Collins to go first 
for her 5 minutes?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HATCH. Yes.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Is it a gun-related issue?
  Mr. HATCH. I am afraid it is.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. It is.
  Mr. HATCH. It is on this amendment. She just wants to speak to this 
amendment for debate only.
  Ms. COLLINS. For 5 minutes.
  Mr. HATCH. Is there any objection to that?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I would be happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. HATCH. We can get some of these shorter remarks over, and then 
you could have adequate time. Could I then go to Senator Sessions for 
10 minutes?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I do think we need some time on this side to respond, 
but I do not want to close down the debate, very honestly, because we 
have patiently, or impatiently, listened to a fairly extensive debate.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, let's go back and forth from each side, as 
the Senator from Utah suggested, without locking down the time. One of 
the reasons why we have a concern, I say to my friend from Utah, is 
that yesterday we were trying to rush some of these votes forward. I 
raised the problem with the distinguished Senator from Idaho. I said: I 
thought there was a whole part of the bill missing. Basically, my 
argument was dismissed.
  Let's go on with the vote.
  This afternoon, they say: Oh, by the way, this part you said was 
missing, yes, it was. Now we have added it back in.
  I did not raise it nonchalantly. I thought it was serious. So I think 
that we ought to at least, if we have just gotten a hot piece of 
legislation still warm from the Xerox machine, get a chance to see it. 
It would be a lot easier to take a few minutes longer and make sure it 
is done correctly and we know what we are voting on than we go through 
as we did yesterday when the concerns that Senator Schumer and I raised 
were sort of dismissed, and now we find, yes, we were right, and we are 
back into the thing.
  Let's make sure everybody understands where we are going.
  I say to the Senator from Utah, maybe during the votes at 5 o'clock 
he and I might meet with interested parties to see if we can work times 
out.
  Mr. HATCH. Let me make this suggestion. I hope it will be found 
acceptable to colleagues on the other side. Since they are studying 
this amendment--and have had it for over an hour --since they are 
studying this amendment and need to finish their studies, I ask 
unanimous consent that Senator Collins be permitted to proceed for 5 
minutes and that Senator Sessions be permitted to proceed for 10 
minutes, and if Senator DeWine is here, let him get his until 5 
o'clock.
  Mr. LEAHY. Can anybody on this side speak?
  Mr. HATCH. Sure. If they need more time to study it--
  Mr. LEAHY. Couldn't we go side to side as we normally do?
  Mr. HATCH. That is fine. We would start with Senator Collins on our 
side for 5 minutes, and then on your side, and then back on our side.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Just to be sure.
  Mr. HATCH. Let the Senator go, and then Senator Sessions.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. If the distinguished manager would yield, we are 
talking about a sequence including the Senator from Maine for 5 
minutes, then over here?
  Mr. HATCH. Sure.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Then back to the other side? I have no problem with 
that as long as the time that we get over here is a reasonable slot of 
time.
  Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that the time between now and 5 
o'clock, when the votes start, be divided equally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). Is there objection?
  Mr. LEAHY. Between the two leaders?
  Mr. HATCH. Between the two leaders.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Reserving the right to object.
  Mr. HATCH. There will be more time afterwards.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. If you eat crow, you have to do it when it is warm.
  Mr. LEAHY. I yield to you.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Thank you. Because what happened is we had an 
extensive delivery by the distinguished Senator from Idaho. And if we 
are now going to divide up the time, it is a little out of balance. So 
I say this to the Senator from Utah, that if we agree to give up 10 
minutes now, and reserve, perhaps, 15 for our side, just to get a 
little bit of balance in here, and we are going to continue the 
debate----
  Mr. HATCH. That is fine.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Let's divide it equally.
  Mr. HATCH. OK. And I ask unanimous consent that the first speaker be 
Senator Collins.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to dividing the time 
equally?
  Mr. LEAHY. Between now and 5?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Between now and 5.
  The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Maine.
  Mr. HATCH. Our first speaker is the Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. I thank the distinguished chairman for his patience in 
working this out. And I also thank the Senators from Vermont and New 
Jersey for agreeing to this arrangement.
  Mr. President, I rise to support the provisions in the Hatch-Craig 
amendment requiring background checks at

[[Page 9565]]

gun shows. I believe we have very carefully crafted provisions that 
strike the right balance. I support the requirement that sales of 
firearms at gun shows pass the muster of an instant background check. 
Gun shows are a popular mechanism for buying and selling guns, and 
these legitimate business transactions should be made with the 
knowledge that the sellers are selling their firearms to lawful 
purchasers.
  What I opposed yesterday is something I will always oppose--and that 
is the creation of a Federal centralized recordkeeping system of gun 
owners. That would be a heavy regulatory burden that would seriously 
infringe on the privacy rights of millions of law-abiding American 
citizens who own guns. That is why I voted against the amendment 
offered by the Senator from New Jersey.
  I would like to make one brief comment regarding gun shows. I am very 
concerned that the publicity surrounding this issue has created the 
false impression that gun shows are somehow gathering places for 
criminals, anarchists, and mercenaries. Nothing could be further from 
the truth. In reality, thousands of Americans go to gun shows every 
weekend in this country. People who attend these shows live in every 
State in the Union. They come from all walks of life. They share a 
common interest in a part-time hobby that is deeply ingrained in our 
American culture. Many are sportsmen or target shooters; many others 
are collectors who enjoy showing, buying and selling their antique 
firearms.
  These are people who enjoy the tradition of responsible gun ownership 
in this country. This is a tradition--and a right--that we need to 
preserve.
  Our gun laws should be directed at the illegal misuse of firearms, 
not the lawful ownership of guns by law-abiding citizens. The first 
step we should take is to address the concerns the Senator from Alabama 
will speak on shortly that gun laws are not being strictly enforced. 
The Senator from Alabama has documented an appalling drop in 
prosecutions of gun-related offenses, gun control laws under this 
administration.
  That should be our first step.
  Second, the Republican package puts together reasonable restrictions 
that will ensure that guns do not fall into the hands of criminals 
through the mechanism of a gun show.
  I know the people who attend gun shows across America want to make 
sure they are selling to people who will use firearms in a responsible 
way that is the American tradition.
  This legislation before us strikes the right balance, and I urge 
support of the amendment. I commend those who have worked on this to 
respond to the concerns we raised yesterday.
  I yield back the remainder of my time to the chairman of the 
committee.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Hatch-Craig 
amendment to S. 254, the Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender 
Accountability and Rehabilitation Act. This amendment provides four 
important components in the efforts of combating juvenile violence and 
crime.
  I also want to thank the Majority Leader, Senator Lott, Senators 
Hatch, Craig and McCain for listening to my concerns and working with 
me to ensure the National Instant Check System applies to all sales 
made at gun shows.
  This amendment provides for more aggressive prosecution of criminals 
who use guns to commit crime, enhances penalties on criminals who use 
guns, increases protection of children from gun violence. Most 
importantly, this amendment mandates that individuals purchasing 
weapons at gun shows must undergo a background check through the 
National Instant Check System. This is the same requirement currently 
in place for purchases made at gun shows, when buying a weapon from a 
licenced gun dealer.
  Mr. President, gun shows are community events, usually held over a 
weekend at State Fairgrounds, convention centers, or exhibit halls. 
These shows have been going on for years and attract a wide cross 
section of gun owners. At the shows, people not only buy, sell, or 
trade firearms, they also exchange tips on hunting, gunsmithing, and 
firearm history.
  By implementing an instant check system at gun shows, law abiding gun 
buyers can receive their background check within minutes and be able to 
obtain the firearm they wish to add to their collection. On the other 
hand, criminals and other people who are not allowed to possess 
firearms can be identified and arrested for trying to purchase a 
weapon, in violation of the law.
  Mr. President, this amendment, of which I am a co-sponsor, provides a 
good balance between allowing law-abiding citizens to purchase weapons 
at gun shows without burdensome regulations and preventing criminals 
from obtaining weapons from individuals at gun shows.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). Who yields time?
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: What time is the 
vote scheduled for?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five.
  Mr. LEAHY. How much time is there for the Senator from Vermont?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 12 minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. I yield to the Senator from New Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from Vermont, and I thank the 
Chair.
  If the audience here or out there is mystified, I wouldn't be 
surprised, because I think we, too, are mystified. We are buried under 
a volume of language and words, and we are not addressing the point.
  The point is whether or not we are willing to say, if guns are sold, 
there has to be a measure of identification of the buyer. That is the 
question. Ask the parents in Littleton, CO, what they think. Should we 
have identified everybody who walks into a gun show? Describe the gun 
show as you will, we will talk about that in a minute. Should everybody 
who buys a gun at a gun show be identified? I think yes.
  The shallow arguments about, we have 40,000 laws on the books and 
therefore why do we need one more--well, you tell me what happened when 
Terry Nichols and Timothy McVeigh were out at a gun show selling guns 
to raise money for their terrorist operation. What is the point?
  Obviously, the laws that we have do not cover all of the situations. 
I say this. I just heard the distinguished Senator from Maine say it, I 
have heard the Senator from Idaho say it and others. There is no 
blanket accusation here that says everybody who goes to a gun show is a 
felon, an anarchist, a crook, a thug--not at all. But we want to 
protect those families who do go to gun shows with an earnest interest 
in seeing what is around and maybe buying a hunting rifle or what have 
you. Why should they be ashamed? Why should anybody be ashamed or 
unwilling to leave their name behind when they take this lethal weapon 
and stick it in their pocket? That is the problem. No matter how much 
language is thrown out here, we ought to try to cut through it and see 
what the mission is.
  The mission is to try to protect the NRA, not to protect the people 
of our country, the innocents who send their kids to school every day 
of the week and now pray that the children come back not only learned 
but safe and sound. That is the message we are trying to get across 
here.
  We hear this obfuscational language: Well, if they had this and they 
had that and they didn't have measles and they had some other 
condition, then it is all right.
  Stop with the loopholes. I offered an amendment yesterday which was 
clear and concise, which said that everybody who buys a gun ought to be 
identified and that those dealers who are unlicensed dealers, call them 
what you will, who can sell guns out of the trunk of their car in any 
quantity they want, to anybody they want, without getting so much as a 
name, except the cash on the barrelhead, walk away, someone buys 10 
guns, there is not an ounce of suspicion raised about that.
  We heard the Senator from Idaho yesterday say, well, a measly 2 
percent,

[[Page 9566]]

that is all, 2 percent of the guns sold in these gun shows, only 2 
percent, are unlicensed. Then he was gentleman enough and sincere 
enough to say, I made a mistake; it wasn't 2 percent; it is 40 percent. 
Forty percent. Two percent. That is a significant difference.
  So he said he realized only too late that 40 percent of the people 
who bought guns at gun shows bought them from unlicensed dealers--or 40 
percent of the guns sold, forgive me, were from unlicensed dealers.
  Well, that is pretty significant. That is a lot of guns floating out 
there that nobody has any record of, unless someone volunteers to leave 
their name. I do not see a lot of volunteers coming up throwing their 
photo ID on the counter and saying, hey, give me a dozen guns, will 
you. You don't see that happening.
  We ought to clear the air, clear the language here, tell the American 
people, as they were told yesterday--I want everybody within earshot to 
remember this--yesterday there were 47 of us who voted to close a 
loophole. There were 51 people who voted to leave it open, to make sure 
that those who want to buy a gun without identifying themselves could 
still have the liberty to do so.
  We hear all kinds of specious arguments--another bureaucratic 
imposition on free citizens in this country. We have laws in this 
country. We are a country of laws. It says so in our Constitution. If 
you have laws, you have to have a structure. You have to have an 
orderly process by which those laws are developed and enforced. Our job 
here is to develop them.
  So what is wrong with having people enforce laws that we think 
otherwise might bring harm and injury to innocent people? I do not want 
my grandchildren going to school with other kids who might be able to 
get their hands on a gun because a father or a relative left the gun 
unattended. I think it is terrible. I think they ought to be 
responsible for the actions that that child who takes the gun brings 
upon his or her classmates or friends.
  So we ought to clean up the language here so the American people know 
what we are talking about. Some of us are for closing the loophole and 
some of us are for leaving it open.
  The vote yesterday was quite a revelation. It should have been for 
the American public. Yesterday 51 percent of the people in this room 
said: Do not close the loophole. Do not take away the rights of someone 
who wants to be unidentified, anonymous, buying guns out there. Permit 
them to do it, because otherwise it is an infraction of their rights. 
If a neighbor wants to sell a gun to a neighbor, why shouldn't he be 
able to do it without having to go through the trouble of identifying 
him?
  Try to give your neighbor your car and not take note of the transfer. 
If that neighbor has that car and it still has your name on it, you are 
responsible for it, whatever it is that happens.
  We see immediately now in the presentation today some apologies. The 
apology is not for the American people. The apology is to those who 
might be inconvenienced because they have to identify themselves when 
they buy a gun. We ought not to be apologizing to them. We ought to 
apologize to every parent, to every family, to everyone who might be 
injured by a gun that is bought, 40 percent of those guns that come out 
of gun shows without any identification. That is what we are talking 
about. We are clearly divided on the issue.
  Now what has happened, there is kind of a fail-safe that has 
developed, because yesterday not only brought the picture into focus, 
but it also said to the American people, who are enraged by what is 
happening in these schools, enraged, pained--87 percent of the people 
in this country said close the loophole. But in this Senate, 51 percent 
said: No, don't close the loophole; we want to protect the rights of 
those who would buy guns as if it was in the dark of night.
  So today we see an attempt at a legislative redress for the error 
that was made yesterday that was caught by the newspapers. It was 
caught by television. It was caught by the public at large, who are 
indignant. We hear it couched in flowery phrases--I didn't know there 
was that exception, or I didn't know there was this exception--when 
they heard from their constituents and the constituents were angry and 
mortified by the fact that their representative voted to keep open the 
loophole.
  So now we are trying to figure out what it is exactly that is being 
proposed. If we are cynical and suspicious, we should be, because 
yesterday the vote was one way and today it suddenly dawns on them that 
maybe people who buy guns ought to really leave their name behind, 
regardless of whether the dealer is a federally licensed dealer or just 
someone who throws up a table and pays a $10 fee at a gun show. We are 
talking about the definition of ``gun show'' and the definition of 
``dealer.'' Nonsense. We ought to talk about the lives that we can 
save, about the children that we can protect. I hope that the debate is 
going to get into that area before this discussion is over.
  I hope that we look carefully at what is being proposed and study it 
because it came up all of a sudden--suddenly, to have an agreement 
that, OK, some people ought to have their names identified with their 
purchase but not for others.
  Mr. President, I yield back my time with the understanding that we 
are going to be discussing this after the votes we are going to take.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield such time as remains to the Senator 
from Ohio.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, all of us agree we need to do a better job 
of keeping track of guns that might fall into vulnerable young hands. 
That is why I support the amendment offered by the distinguished 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, which contains 
several measures that I have developed that would help to achieve these 
goals.
  Mr. President, the most effective method to assure that gun sellers 
and dealers are selling their products to law-abiding citizens is the 
background check. In 1993, Congress passed the Brady bill, which is 
designed, in part at least, to move us toward the National Instant 
Check System for gun sales. Due to this initiative, we have expanded 
and made more accessible the National Instant Criminal Background Check 
System, also known as NICS. Now, could this system be improved? The 
answer is, yes, it could be. For example, today, handgun checks are 
``name only'' checks, which frequently come back inconclusive because a 
potential purchaser may have a similar name as a convicted offender, or 
that potential purchaser could be using a false name, or an alias. When 
this happens, a manual check has to be performed.
  Mr. President, one way we can improve the instant check system is 
through technology that is now available, which can check a purchaser's 
fingerprint against a single print database. The time has come for this 
idea; it is an idea worth exploring. Our amendment would direct the 
Attorney General of the United States to study the feasibility of 
creating a single print instant check system and database to enable a 
voluntary, rapid, and accurate search of potential gun purchasers. 
Currently, there are 40 million fingerprint cards in the master 
criminal fingerprint file from which convicted offender prints could be 
placed online for an instant search. With a single print database, 
firearm dealers could facilitate the completion of a gun sale. A single 
print system could reduce the potential for felons to obtain firearms 
through the use of false identification. It would close a major 
loophole.
  Mr. President, we can also improve the system by ensuring that our 
records are accurate and up to date. I have often said that type of 
information is absolutely critical and vital to good police work. 
Information can and does save lives. Mr. President, our background 
check system is only as good as the information that is in it. The 
unfortunate fact is that serious record backlogs exist in many States.

[[Page 9567]]

Many of our State databases are simply incomplete, and many are very 
inaccurate. We have improved it over the years but we have a long way 
to go. Since the instant check system became effective last November, 
over 900 individuals who have been convicted for class one felonies--
murder, rape, serious assaults--were able to buy guns because the 
appropriate records were simply not available.
  Mr. President, States desperately need financial help to eliminate 
this dangerous records gap and to plug this loophole. Our amendment 
would provide $25 million to central repository directors to facilitate 
logging in, dispositions, including assistance to courts to automate 
their current records systems.
  Everybody will benefit from this more-thorough criminal history--law 
enforcement and the public, in general. We can improve our background 
check system by expanding it to include records of those who have not 
broken the law, but who are still prohibited under current law from 
possessing firearms. These people include involuntary commitments to 
mental health institutions and those subject to domestic restraining 
orders. Those are the people who, many times, are also falling through 
the cracks of our current system.
  This amendment would direct the Attorney General of the United States 
to develop procedures by which nonconviction and other data can be 
available for the instant check system, stopping people who are 
currently prohibited from possessing a firearm, but who the current 
system is not watching. This amendment would fully fund the National 
Instant Check System to pay for the operation costs of background 
checks. The FBI would be provided operations costs of performing 
instant checks, and also States serving as point of contact States will 
be reimbursed by up to $7 per background check.
  Finally, we need to better provide information not just on the 
lawbreakers, but on the guns they use to commit crimes. To accomplish 
this goal requires a strong investment in the national integrated 
ballistic identification network. This system combines the ballistic 
and forensic capabilities of the FBI and ATF to create one enhanced 
ballistic system for State and local law enforcement agencies. This 
amendment before us would provide funds, much-needed funds, to expedite 
this process.
  Mr. President, a greater investment of innovative thinking and 
resources is urgently needed to improve the National Instant Check 
System. This amendment would provide that investment. It would make the 
system more responsive, more accurate and, yes, more thorough. Most 
important, it would make our efforts to keep guns out of hands of 
children and criminals more effective. Mr. President, this amendment 
will save lives.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The remaining time is 1 minute 46 seconds 
controlled by the Senator from Utah.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, may I inquire of the state of time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 15 seconds remaining before the 5 
o'clock time for voting, and there will be 5 minutes equally divided 
between the two sides. At this point, the Senator controls 2\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. It is my understanding that I am eligible to spend the 
2\1/2\ minutes in favor of the Ashcroft amendment at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Thank you, Mr. President.
  The Ashcroft amendment is a very simple amendment. It recognizes that 
in addition to handguns, which require some special responsibility and, 
therefore, are prohibited for sale to minors, and are even prohibited 
in private sales to minors, and for them to be in the possession of a 
minor requiring the permission of parents, that the same kind of rules 
ought to apply to semiautomatic assault rifles as apply to handguns as 
it relates to minors.
  Right now, where handgun sales to minors are prohibited, 
semiautomatic assault rifle sales to minors are permitted. Where a 
minor, in order to have a handgun, has to have parental permission, a 
minor can own an assault rifle, a semiautomatic assault rifle without 
parental permission.
  The Ashcroft amendment simply wants to remove this disparity, because 
it expresses a belief that a semiautomatic assault rifle, assault 
weapon, ought to have the same level of responsibility attendant to it 
as a handgun.
  The Ashcroft amendment would prohibit private sales of semiautomatic 
assault rifles to minors, and it would require that they have parental 
permission in order for one even to be in the possession of a minor.
  This really makes the rules about handguns and semiautomatic assault 
weapons identical for all basic intents and purposes. There are some 
exceptions in the law for purposes of the possession of handguns that 
relate to employment. There are some minors, for instance, who are 
required in their employment to be involved with a handgun. Those 
exceptions would be the same basically as well.
  The thrust of this amendment is to say that this situation where 
semiautomatic assault weapons were not required to have the level of 
responsibility that we had assigned to handguns for juveniles, that 
should be changed so that assault rifles and the semiautomatic assault 
weapons have the same kind of responsibility requirements that had 
previously been applied to handguns resulting in the requirement that 
there be parental permission before there can even be possession, and 
that there would not be a potential for purchase in private sales.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this reasonable and simple 
change in the law.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). The Senator's time has 
expired. Who yields time in opposition to the amendment?
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will take this side's time.
  I have listened to the debate and read the amendment. It is deja vu. 
It is very similar to the Leahy law enforcement amendment that the 
Republican majority voted down yesterday. The Leahy amendment, which 
was the Democratic consensus position on gun control, included the 
enhanced parental penalties for the transfer of handguns, assault 
weapons, and high-capacity ammunition clips to juveniles and the ban on 
the juvenile possession of handguns, assault weapons and high-capacity 
ammunition clips. This amendment has a couple of changes. It increases 
the exceptions for such transfers.
  But if imitation is the highest form of flattery, then I guess I 
should be flattered where all the Democrats signed onto the one 
amendment that was voted down by the Republicans yesterday. Of course, 
I am going to support this amendment, because it is so similar to the 
form of what we had yesterday.
  I just wish it had adopted a couple of other consensus positions. I 
wish it included our gun ban for life for dangerous juvenile offenders. 
For the life of me, I cannot understand why the other side opposes my 
proposal, the Democrat proposal, that if you have a juvenile who is 
convicted of assault with a deadly weapon, is convicted of murder, or 
attempted murder, why that person should not be banned for life from 
owning a gun.
  I wish it had the money that we put into mine that was dedicated just 
to Federal prosecution of the firearms violations. I wish it had the 
resources for firearm tracing that we put under the youth crime 
interdiction initiative. But perhaps when they look at the rest of my 
amendment that will be in the next Republican package. I hope it is.
  To the extent that this primarily includes a number of the things 
that I had in my amendment yesterday, of course, I will be consistent 
enough to vote for it again this time.
  Ralph Waldo Emerson once said: ``A foolish consistency is the 
hobgoblin of

[[Page 9568]]

little minds.'' There are no hobgoblins on the other side. They don't 
mind being inconsistent in voting for it today when they voted for it 
yesterday.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent Ms. Collins be added as cosponsor 
of the Hatch-Craig-McCain-DeWine-Smith amendment that is pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not.
  Mr. HATCH. I ask for the yeas and nays on both amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
342. On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the 
clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) and 
the Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan), are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New 
York (Mr. Moynihan), would vote ``aye.''
  The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 2, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 115 Leg.]

                                YEAS--96

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--2

     Enzi
     Smith (NH)
       

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Inouye
     Moynihan
       
  The amendment (No. 342) was agreed to.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I know all the Senators are interested in what the 
schedule might be. It is that time of the week when we begin to have to 
make some decisions. I would like for us to finish this bill tonight. 
There have been a dozen or more amendments that have been considered 
and others I am sure have been accepted. We still have a large number 
of amendments, though, that are pending.
  I hope Senators will consider either not offering their amendments or 
agreeing to put them in a package of amendments. We are encouraging 
Senators on this side of the aisle to do that, and we have at least one 
that has been done that way.
  If we finish the bill tonight, then we will not have any votes 
tomorrow. If we do not finish it tomorrow, then it is essential we stay 
in tomorrow. This is important legislation. A lot of amendments have 
been offered. Others will be offered that are critical amendments and 
very important to Members on both sides. I have discussed this with 
Senator Daschle, and I know Senators on both sides and the managers are 
trying to work through a list of amendments that probably is still in 
the range of 40 or 50. We have to work very fast and hard to get 
through those.
  With that in mind, I say, again, that we will go as late as we can 
tonight. I know we have a delegation of eight or so Senators that is 
supposed to leave for Kosovo at 6:30 in the morning. We will have to 
ask them to delay that. We can keep going tomorrow and we can keep 
going, if it is the desire of the Senate, even into Saturday. I have to 
check with Senator Hatch and Senator Leahy. They are committed to 
getting this bill done.
  The reason we have to complete it this week is that next week we have 
to deal with supplemental appropriations, which I hope will be ready 
then. We hope to have something we can vote on concerning Y2K next 
week. We have the bankruptcy bill. We also have State Department 
authorization, defense authorization and defense appropriations and a 
satellite bill, all of which we would like to consider and get done 
before the Memorial Day recess.
  It is not a question of not wanting to complete this bill. It is just 
we do not have time next week. So we will either have to work through 
these amendments quickly or we will have to keep going tonight and over 
into tomorrow. Please work with the managers. They are trying to do the 
job and they need your cooperation. I say to those of you who are 
looking to leave tonight or tomorrow morning, right now it looks as if 
we will not be able to finish tonight and we will have to be in session 
tomorrow. We cannot even give you assurances that we will finish by 
noon. We will just have to keep going until we get it done.
  If we really cooperate with these managers, which happens quite 
often, I believe we can finish tonight. I looked down the list, and I 
think there are maybe four to six amendments that we really need to 
have discussion and votes on. I think we can find a way to complete 
that tonight or early in the morning.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.


                 Amendment No. 343, As Further Modified

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, it is my 
understanding that I have 2\1/2\ minutes to wrap up the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, in light of the action the Senate just 
took in adopting the ban on juvenile possession of assault weapons and 
large clips, I ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment by striking 
sections 503 and 504 which will do essentially the same thing.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CRAIG. Can the Senator from California clarify for us--we have 
all studied her original amendment, but what are you changing in your 
amendment that would be subject to a vote?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I will be very happy to answer that question. 
Essentially, a part of my amendment was also Senator Ashcroft's 
amendment, with some technical changes, particularly in the exemptions. 
What we are doing by this is accepting Senator Ashcroft's amendment and 
separating out the part of my amendment which would close the loophole 
in the assault weapons legislation and ban the importation of the big 
clips, just as these clips are now prohibited from domestic manufacture 
in this country.
  Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield for an additional question?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. CRAIG. In the original amendment, the Senator bans a class of 
firearm that is used in schools and colleges for professional target 
shooting and target practice. Has she taken that particular provision 
out?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. That is correct.
  Mr. CRAIG. All right.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as further modified, is as follows:
       On page 276, below the matter following line 3, add the 
     following:

                        TITLE V--ASSAULT WEAPONS

     SEC. 501. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Juvenile Assault Weapon 
     Loophole Closure Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 502. BAN ON IMPORTING LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING 
                   DEVICES.

       Section 922(w) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--

[[Page 9569]]

       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``(1) Except as provided 
     in paragraph (2)'' and inserting ``(1)(A) Except as provided 
     in subparagraph (B)'';
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``(2) Paragraph (1)'' and 
     inserting ``(B) Subparagraph (A)'';
       (3) by inserting before paragraph (3) the following new 
     paragraph (2):
       ``(2) It shall be unlawful for any person to import a large 
     capacity ammunition feeding device.''; and
       (4) in paragraph (4)--
       (A) by striking ``(1)'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``(1)(A)''; and
       (B) by striking ``(2)'' and inserting ``(1)(B)''.

     SEC. 505. DEFINITION OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING 
                   DEVICE.

       Section 921(a)(31) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``manufactured after the date of 
     enactment of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement 
     Act of 1994''.

     SEC. 506. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act and the amendments made by this Act except Secs. 
     502 and 505 shall take effect 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, if I may then discuss what is in the 
division of the question. When we passed the assault weapons 
legislation in 1994, there was a grandfather clause which permitted the 
continued importation of shipments of clips, drums and strips of large 
size, large size being defined here by more than 10 bullets.
  In the legislation passed in 1994, the domestic manufacture of these 
same clips and the sale of these same clips and the possession of these 
same clips was made illegal. The loophole is permitting the importation 
of foreign clips while we close off the manufacture of them 
domestically, the sale of the domestic clip. These new clips, 
manufactured after the ban, the fact of the matter is, are coming in.
  I submitted for the record BATF statistics that in 6 months 8.6 
million clips are approved for entry from 20 different countries, many 
of them as big as 250 rounds, 90 rounds, 70 rounds, 50 rounds, by the 
hundreds of thousands. We are trying to cut off that loophole.
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. I will be very brief.
  I do stand in opposition. Last year, we had the same vote on the 
floor, and it was to overturn the 1994 law that creates some 
exceptions. It is the exception that the Senator disagrees with now as 
it relates to the importation of a form of automatic loading device, 
better known as a clip.
  The vote last year was 54 to 44 in opposition to that amendment on a 
tabling motion. I hope we can continue to maintain that position. I 
think it is consistent with the law that we passed in 1994.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment, 
as further modified. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I move to table the Feinstein amendment 
and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table amendment No. 343, as further modified. The yeas and nays have 
been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) and 
the Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan) are necesssarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New 
York (Mr. Moynihan) would vote ``no.''
  The result was announced--yeas 39, nays 59, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 116 Leg.]

                                YEAS--39

     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Craig
     Crapo
     Enzi
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Leahy
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond

                                NAYS--59

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Smith (OR)
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Inouye
     Moynihan
       
  The motion was rejected.
  Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent that we vitiate the yeas and nays 
on the underlying amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of Senator Feinstein.
  The amendment (No. 343), as further modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Snowe 
be added as a cosponsor to the Hatch-Craig amendment.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the Chamber is not in order. I was 
unable to hear the request. I would like to hear it before it is agreed 
to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator renew his request?
  Members in the well will take their conversations to the cloakroom.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Snowe 
be added as a cosponsor to the Hatch-Craig amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I want to call to the attention of the 
Senate that we have possible Democrat amendments of 51 and possible 
Republican amendments of 22. We have disposed of 12 or 13.
  Look, this is ridiculous. We have been very fair. Both sides have had 
an opportunity to present what they wanted to present. We have had some 
terrible amendments here from one side or the other, and we fought them 
through and we have done what is right.
  Let me tell you something. I would like to move through this matter 
as quickly as we can. I would like to have colleagues on both sides 
reduce the number of amendments. If you absolutely don't have to have 
the amendment, let's withdraw it. This is a very, very important bill. 
We are talking about kids all over this country who are getting away 
with murder.
  We are talking about vicious, violent juveniles who are wrecking our 
country and wrecking our schools and creating gangs and doing things 
that are really causing this country chaotic conditions.
  We have a bill here that is bipartisan that really will do something 
about that. There have been wins on both sides, and I think to the 
betterment of this bill. I think it is time for us to get down and 
start working on it and get it done.
  I can't imagine why anybody in this body wouldn't want to get this 
bill done, especially with 2 years of work and all kinds of effort and 
work here on the floor by both sides.
  I want to compliment my Democratic leader on this bill for the good 
work he has done on this, and the work we have been able to do 
together. It is clear we can't pass this bill with 77 amendments.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order, and the Senator 
from Utah is going to be heard, especially if he is going to be 
praising me. I want him to be heard.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). We will please have order in 
the body.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. We clearly can't pass this bill if we have to have 73 
amendments. There is just no way we have time in this legislative 
session to do it.

[[Page 9570]]

This bill has virtually everything in it to help us to resolve these 
problems. We all have pet projects in the amendments that we bring up. 
It is time to start restraining ourselves and quit delaying this 
particular bill.
  I am getting to the point--we are not there yet, but we are getting 
to the point where I am going to start moving to table every doggone 
amendment that will come up. I am going to table them right off the 
bat, because I think we have gone way too far here. If we had a big 
partisan thing here where your side or our side was being mistreated, 
that is another matter, but this has been very fairly conducted, and 
everybody knows it.
  I think it is time to get serious about solving these juvenile 
justice problems in our society. This bill has been improved to a large 
degree. Some of us believe it has been hurt a little bit, but that is 
the process. Now it is time to sit down and get this done.
  Look, we have the Hatch-Craig amendment. Admittedly, our side has had 
more time on that amendment.
  I would like to get a time agreement. The minority has had that 
amendment for well over 2\1/2\ hours, maybe 3\1/2\ hours. I can't 
remember, but it has been a long time. We have had major, major 
amendments from them. But we have taken one-half hour to get it 
prepared. It is time to argue it. It is time to get it over with. We 
are willing to grant most of the time to the distinguished Senator from 
New Jersey, or others on the minority side. But I would suggest we set 
a time to vote on this amendment. I would like to get that over with, 
because I believe this is an amendment that virtually everybody in this 
body ought to support, because we have made real efforts to try to 
accommodate people on both sides of the floor. And we have incorporated 
Democrat ideas in this amendment as well. We have done it to try to 
bring this matter to an effective and decent conclusion.
  I know this: The majority leader means it. We are going to be in here 
all week, and it is just ridiculous to do that, especially when we have 
come this far and we have had this kind of an open debate. We have 
debated some of the more controversial and difficult issues, and both 
sides have been given every chance to speak on it.
  I suggest we come to a time agreement that gives most of the time to 
the distinguished Senator from New Jersey and those who are on the 
minority side who deserve a right to debate this amendment. We are 
willing to go ahead and do that.
  I just would like to get a time limit on it and then move on from 
there, and move to the similar amendment, which we would get a time 
agreement on.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, if the manager will yield.
  Mr. HATCH. I yield for a question only.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this is a fairly complicated change, 
as I see it, from the original Lautenberg amendment. But certainly it 
has to be considered, in all due respect to the Senator from Utah. I 
know how hard he worked and how serious he is about it. We have great 
respect and friendship. But I wonder, because we are not able to reach 
an immediate time agreement, whether or not we could put it aside so 
that we can discuss our differences and see if we can come any closer 
together to try to resolve it. I, too, like everyone else, wish to see 
this bill moved, but I think we have not had enough time to really 
debate it.
  Mr. HATCH. If I could respond to the Senator, we have people on our 
side who are going to move to table this amendment. I would like to 
avoid that by having a reasonable time for the Senator from New Jersey 
to argue this amendment. There is nothing complicated about it. We 
explained it in detail. It is easy to understand. Frankly, there is not 
one thing in here that is new and that can't be understood readily.
  I would be happy to sit down with the Senator and go over the detail 
of this amendment. I think he would be pleased with most all of it. But 
I would like to avoid a motion to table. I would like the Senator to 
have time to debate this amendment. But the way things are going, he is 
going to be cut off on his time. I don't want to have that happen, nor 
do I want this to evolve into a situation--we have been trying to be 
cooperative and trying to make this thing work. And it is apparent some 
people around here are trying to delay it.
  I am not accusing the distinguished Senator from New Jersey, but I 
believe we could get this bill finished tonight if we would sit down 
and get it finished. I don't see any reason we shouldn't. The sooner we 
get it finished, the sooner the kids in our society are going to 
understand what the game is and that we are going to stop some of this 
violent juvenile crime in this country. We are giving the tools to law 
enforcement to be able to do it. We have $50 million in here for 
additional juvenile prosecutors, just to name one thing out of that 
$1.1 billion in this bill. I would like to get a time limit. I am 
willing to give the Senator all of the time, but let's get a time limit 
on this and go from here.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HATCH. I am glad to yield to my friend.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, let's be realistic.
  First, I yield to nobody in this body in my support of good strict 
law enforcement. I would like to see this bill wrapped up and voted up 
or voted down. There are different suggestions I made to the 
distinguished Senator from Utah that might do that. But what I would 
suggest is that we be serious on this. Unfortunately, on something that 
should be a nonpartisan issue--juvenile crime--there are some things 
that have delayed us unnecessarily.
  Wednesday, Senate Republicans voted against a Democratic package, and 
then today voted for the exact same thing when it was introduced on the 
other side.
  For example, the Leahy amendment, which proposed stiffer penalties 
for the transfers to or possession of handguns and assault weapons, or 
high-capacity ammunition clips to juveniles, was voted down by the 
Republicans yesterday, and voted up by the Republicans today.
  Moreover, the Leahy amendment also proposed the ban of juvenile 
possession of handguns, assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition 
clips, which was again voted down by the Republicans yesterday, and 
voted up by the Republicans today.
  Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield on that point? The reason is it was 
part of an overall package that the Republicans couldn't accept. So we 
can certainly accommodate.
  Mr. LEAHY. Almost everything that was in that Leahy package is now 
being proposed on the Republican side. The $50 million for more 
vigorous enforcement of gun laws, ``juvenile Brady,'' the lifetime ban 
on gun ownership by dangerous juvenile offenders, the youth crime gun 
initiative on gun tracing, increased number of cities eligible for 
grants under the YCG-II. All the Democratic proposals of yesterday are 
now in the Hatch-Craig amendment of today.
  Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. LEAHY. Let me finish that one sentence, if I might. And I mention 
this one. I am pleased that when you voted it down yesterday that you 
are willing to vote it up today when you bring it up. That is OK. I 
will support a number of those things that come back. But that is what 
we have to avoid.
  I think, frankly, one way out of this--I just suggest it and I have 
suggested it to others--is that we debate the Craig-Hatch amendment, 
and the amendment of the distinguished Senator from New York, Mr. 
Schumer is going to have--we debate those as the Members want, set that 
vote for an early hour tomorrow morning, and when that debate is 
finished, let the Senator from Utah and the Senator from Vermont stay 
here and try to get through as many amendments either on the Republican 
or on the Democratic side that can be handled by voice vote, even if we 
have to stay here all night long to do that, so we then have a very 
clear shot of finishing.
  It is one suggestion.
  Mr. HATCH. If the Senator will yield.

[[Page 9571]]


  Mr. LEAHY. Of course, I yield.
  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. SCHUMER. Or more.
  Mr. HATCH. We will try for 30 minutes. If we need more, we will 
certainly give it every consideration.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HATCH. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Just a couple of points here.
  Mr. McCAIN. Regular order, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah has the floor.
  Mr. HATCH. Thirty minutes equally divided on Schumer, and then we can 
be back with a time agreement on----
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HATCH. Of course.
  Mr. SCHUMER. First of all, two questions. One, the Hatch-Craig 
amendment is a major overhaul of the way we license gun dealers in this 
country. The provision of special registrants, which is brand-new, 
could create----
  Mr. HATCH. That was in the underlying amendment. Hatch-Craig 
basically does the four things I discussed, and that is not a major----
  Mr. SCHUMER. We did not have any opportunity to address this special 
registrants issue. As I understand it, Hatch-Craig elaborates on the 
reporting requirements of special registrants and other important 
things. Let me say to my good friend from Utah, it is a major new way 
of dealing with firearm licenses.
  I understand the urgency that my friend from Utah places on the $50 
million for more juvenile prosecutors. It is something I share, because 
lives might be saved.
  How can we rush through a whole new way of dealing with firearm 
dealers, something that we first saw at 3:30, something we are vetting? 
That is my concern. We could rush it through and find that this type of 
provision has totally changed things.
  For instance, as I understand it----and I want to know about it 
before giving any permission for time limits----these special 
registrants don't have to keep any records. Someone could go to a gun 
show, be a special registrant, sell a gun, and there would be no way to 
see to whom they sold the gun, why, and where.
  That, to me, is extremely serious. I don't think it is fair, given 
that this is a major change, admittedly, to a gun show provision. I 
want to move this bill, but I would like to know more about that.
  Mr. HATCH. Yesterday, the Senator voted for the special registrant.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I voted against it.
  Mr. HATCH. You voted aye. We would like to make it mandatory, which 
we think corrects the problem.
  I worked hard to get that done and to resolve that because there was 
such a conflict between both sides.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will the Senator yield?
  Let's rehearse the history. The Craig amendment was added at the last 
minute. I asked the Senator from Idaho whether it had these provisions 
in it. He said no. He said I didn't understand the amendment.
  It was then voted on with the feeling by many Members, if not most, 
that those provisions weren't in the bill.
  Then this morning we hear--in all consideration, the Senator from 
Idaho was very gentlemanly, saying he was wrong--those new provisions 
were in the bill.
  So we have never had a serious debate on one of the most fundamental 
changes in the way we sell guns in this country.
  Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?
  I am prepared to do that. We argued it on our side. What I am 
suggesting is that your side has had this amendment now for a lot 
longer than we have had any amendment of yours and some of your 
amendments were much more extensive than this.
  I suggest we set aside the Hatch-Craig amendment, move to your 
amendment at this time, with 30 minutes equally divided, and then agree 
to a time agreement as soon as we are through with yours.
  We can stack the votes. That would be fine with me.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I say to the Senator, I have no problems with moving----
  Mr. HATCH. Then why don't we do that?
  Mr. SCHUMER. Again, I think it is significant. We ought to move. 
Would we vote on it immediately after the debate?
  Mr. HATCH. Let's make that determination then.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I would like to get a commitment that we would have a 
vote immediately after the debate on the Schumer amendment, and then I 
would like to take a little more time on it.
  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. SCHUMER. In all due respect, I cannot set a time limit until I 
have some assurance as to when we would vote on that amendment.
  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. SCHUMER. If the Senator will yield, I am not trying to delay, but 
I think we should have a vote.
  Mr. HATCH. That is what it looks like to me.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I spent a lot of time on this amendment. It is a 
significant vote.
  Mr. HATCH. Then give me a vote on my amendment. Go to my amendment. I 
will give you all the time on your side. We have debated it. We won't 
even make a point on our side. We will give you the time and vote on 
mine, bring yours up and vote on yours; or we will stack them together 
to accommodate Senators here, some of whom are Democrats.
  Mr. SCHUMER. The Senator made a proposal to me on my amendment. I 
think it involves discussion with some of my colleagues. If the Senator 
would yield on the whole package----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah has the floor.
  Mr. HATCH. I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to table the pending amendment, and 
I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table amendment No. 344.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii, (Mr. Inouye), the 
Senator from Wisconsin, (Mr. Kohl), and the Senator from New York, (Mr. 
Moynihan) are necessarily absent.

[[Page 9572]]

  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New 
York, (Mr. Moynihan) would vote ``no.''
  The result was announced--yeas 3, nays 94, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 117 Leg.]

                                YEAS--3

     Enzi
     Inhofe
     Smith (NH)

                                NAYS--94

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Inouye
     Kohl
     Moynihan
  The motion was rejected.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HATCH. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). The question is on agreeing 
to the amendment.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the question is on which amendment? Is it 
the Hatch-Craig amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. LEAHY. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have not been ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I could say this so Members will 
understand how we are going to proceed and how we are going to deal 
with this issue and others, I regret that we have had that much time on 
this vote. We had been trying to work out some way to make progress on 
this bill tonight and, hopefully, even get some amendments done tonight 
or complete it. At this point, it is obvious we are not getting enough 
movement to achieve that tonight. I know there are a lot of Senators 
who have commitments tomorrow and hoped we could complete it tonight. 
At this juncture, sufficient progress is not being made and it is 
unrealistic to attempt that.
  I have a unanimous consent request to deal with two of the amendments 
that are in line now, and we would have the two votes in the morning at 
9:30. After that, during the process of the night, hopefully more 
amendments can be accepted, combined, or even worked out, where we 
could have more than just the two votes in the morning, or the next 
couple of amendments would be in order.
  What I am saying here is, with this consent request, we would expect 
two votes at 9:30 a.m., and we would expect to keep going, and we will 
see where we are in the morning. Something short of that has not been 
achievable at this point.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that with respect to amendment 
No. 344--that is the Hatch-Craig amendment--debate be limited to 2 
hours equally divided in the usual form with no amendments in order to 
the amendment prior to the vote, and following that debate the 
amendment be laid aside.
  I ask consent that Senator Schumer be recognized to offer an 
amendment regarding Internet firearms, and that the debate be limited 
to 1 hour, that following that debate the amendment be laid aside and 
the Senate proceed to a vote in the order in which the amendments were 
offered, with 5 minutes prior to each vote for explanation.
  So we will come in at 9:30, have 5 minutes of explanation on the 
amendments, equally divided, and the votes will begin at 9:40 a.m. 
Friday.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, and I will not because I 
think this is a very good proposal, I wish we could actually be asking 
for more than this. I appreciate the managers' efforts to get us to 
this point. As I have noted to the majority leader, we started with 89 
amendments and we went down from there to about 40 amendments. I thank 
Senators Reid and Dorgan on our side. We are now down to around 20 
amendments. But those 20 are amendments where the authors have waited 
patiently for the opportunity to present them and have a debate. I hope 
they will do it tonight and tomorrow, and I hope we can do it on 
Monday. I believe we ought to use those days to have the remaining 
debate about these amendments. They are good amendments and they ought 
to be voted on. Senators have waited patiently.
  We also have a right to expect Senators to come forward and present 
their amendments in good faith and have debate. We are going to be here 
tomorrow, I assume, and I hope we will continue to conduct ourselves 
the way we have all week. This has been a good debate. We have had 
about the same number of amendments on both sides, Republican and 
Democrat. We have had good votes. Nobody has been playing political 
games here. We offer the amendments and have the debate in good faith. 
I hope we can continue to do that. I have no objection to the unanimous 
consent request.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I say to the 
two leaders that Senator Dorgan and I have worked very hard. As a 
suggestion, I think we are to a point on this side where we can lock in 
the full breadth of all the amendments in numbers and probably, with 
rare exception, as to time. So that is something the two leaders should 
look at tomorrow morning.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I could respond, I encourage Senator Reid 
to continue that effort, and I ask Senators Hatch and Nickles, who will 
work with him on that, to continue. I urge the managers, Senator Leahy 
and Senator Hatch, during the debate tonight, to sit down and see if we 
can't squeeze this down. Some of you are thinking that if we just stay 
with it and keep working tonight, we might actually see this thing 
concluded at 11, 12, 1, or 2. We have been thinking in those terms, but 
we have not been able to get an agreement beyond what we have right 
here. It is going to take, apparently, 3 hours of debate to get through 
these two amendments, which will put us to 10:15 or 10:30. At that 
point, it would be physically impossible to complete this action.
  So I hope we can complete it tonight, but I think there is no choice 
other than to be in session on Friday and have votes, which we have 
told the Members we would do up until at least noon on Friday. In this 
case, it could actually go beyond noon. The good news is, as we 
announced some time ago, there will not be recorded votes next Monday 
or Friday because of conflicts which we identified to the Members 2 
months ago. But that also makes it difficult for us to do the other 
things we have to do next week, including the supplemental 
appropriations, Y2K liability, and bankruptcy reform. We must conclude 
this bill either tomorrow or Saturday or sometime before we have to go 
to these other bills.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I shall 
not object, as the leader knows, this is a resolution which I and 
others had suggested earlier this evening. The leaders know that the 
Senator from Utah and I have talked probably a dozen times every hour 
on this, trying to get it through. I have worked with the leadership 
staff and the whip on this side, our leader, and others, as Senator 
Hatch has with those on the Republican side, trying to get these 
numbers down. I tell my friend from Mississippi that we have knocked 
down the numbers considerably. The Senator from Utah and I will be here 
this evening to try to get it down more. It is a difficult bill. The 
last crime bill took 11 days. We have a number of things on which we 
are unified, and we have some things that are going to require votes 
because they do divide us. But with good faith it can be done and 
should be done.

[[Page 9573]]

  I support the unanimous consent request.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I wasn't going to say anything--
reserving the right to object, and I will not, but listening to this 
discussion, can I reinforce--I as one Senator don't want to delay 
tonight and going into tomorrow, but can I reinforce the remarks of 
Senator Daschle?
  Some of us have amendments that are on point on this piece of 
legislation. We have patiently waited for days and were glad to do so. 
We don't intend to trivialize our amendments. We don't intend to 
trivialize the debate. We think these are important issues. That is why 
we are in the Senate, and we intend to go forward.
  I will tell you something else. It probably will be hard in the 
future to get cooperation from Senators who wait, and all of a sudden 
we find the debate relegated to midnight and on weekends with most 
Senators gone. That doesn't seem really acceptable to me.
  We will see what we agree to tomorrow. But I want to express my 
reservations about the direction of this. There is a whole lot of 
substantive debate that needs to take place, that hasn't taken place, 
and will take place.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, one reason I wanted the Hatch-Craig 
amendment voted on this evening is because all day long the President 
has been bad-mouthing the Republicans and the Attorney General has been 
bad-mouthing the Republicans, and I think taking unfair political 
advantage because of some of the votes we had yesterday. One of the 
things they are bad-mouthing the Republicans on is because we have 
closed that loophole with regard to gun shows. Today, the Hatch-Craig 
amendment does it. Then we find ourselves unable to vote on it.
  I am happy we are going to vote in the morning, but I suggest we move 
on ahead this evening. We have the unanimous consent agreement locked 
in. I suggest we line up some more votes for tomorrow right after we 
finish those two votes.
  If Senator Wellstone has an amendment he would like to bring up 
tonight, let's do it, and we will see what we can do. We will try to 
alternate between the two sides.
  If you are serious about your amendments, let's go at it tonight. We 
have about 3 hours of debate ahead of us right now. We will go from 
there.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator McConnell be the next one to lay 
his amendment down, following the debate on these two, and then--could 
I have the minority leader's attention, and also Senator Leahy?
  I ask unanimous consent that we go with the McConnell amendment right 
after we debate the two that we have the unanimous consent agreement 
on.
  Mr. LEAHY. I want to make sure I understand. What is the Senator from 
Utah requesting?
  Mr. HATCH. We have a unanimous consent to proceed to the debate on 
these two amendments tonight. As soon as that is completed, I suggest 
Senator McConnell be able to lay down his amendment, and we debate that 
tonight and schedule that for a vote tomorrow.
  Mr. LEAHY. For how long?
  Mr. HATCH. I think we can do that in a half hour or less; I ask 
unanimous consent.
  Mr. LEAHY. Why don't we start this debate, and we can interrupt the 
debate to make that request. Let me see what the amendment is.
  Mr. HATCH. All right. Let's just proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to urge the two managers, if 
you would tonight, to work to get a McConnell and a Kohl--or what other 
amendments are in order--get those two locked in, and a vote, and do it 
tonight. The Members would like to know what the timeframe is going to 
be tomorrow morning. If you could get that locked in tonight during the 
process of the debate, that will help facilitate moving forward.
  Having said that, then, we have had the last vote of the night. The 
next votes will be the two votes stacked in the morning at 9:40.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is under the control of the Senator 
from Utah and the Senator from Vermont.
  Who yields time?
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator from Utah yield? Are we under 
controlled time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are under 2 hours of debate.
  Mr. KENNEDY. On which amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 344.
  Mr. KENNEDY. That is fine. I had indicated to the floor manager that 
after the disposition or the general debate, I would wish to address 
the Senate on the underlying bill. I am glad to yield an hour, or do it 
tomorrow afternoon. I am glad to do whatever.
  Mr. HATCH. How much time does the Senator desire?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I would say 15 minutes. If other Senators have 
amendments and want to debate them, I will wait until they conclude 
that. If I can just have the assurance that I do it at the end of the 
debate on amendments tomorrow, that is fine with me.
  Mr. HATCH. That is fine with me.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield the time under my control to the 
Senator from New Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. President, just to put some order to the debate, to confirm that 
there is an hour available on each side, I ask what happens in the 
event of a quorum call in the debate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorum call is charged to the side that 
suggests the quorum call. If no one speaks, the time is charged.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, if we could have order, we can get this debate 
started.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The Senate will be in 
order.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I heard the distinguished Senator from 
Utah say that the loopholes have been closed in what was initially the 
Lautenberg amendment request to close the loopholes and now the 
redesign of the Craig-Hatch response. It says that they closed the 
loopholes, that they have taken care of the problem.
  I submit the problems are not taken care of. Maybe it is viewed by 
those who would like to just get this out of the way that the problems 
have been dealt with.
  What were the problems initially? Mr. President, the problem was 
simply around whether or not there were loopholes through which lots of 
determinations would be made as to who is the purchaser of a gun.
  The Senator from Idaho has said his revised amendment is going to 
close the gun show loophole. But it won't. And I think what we are 
seeing this evening is a response to what happened yesterday after the 
public had the chance to see the result of the vote count. It was 51 to 
47 against closing the loopholes that derive from gun shows. We had a 
strong debate. There were six Republicans who joined in with all but 
two Democrats to say close the loopholes. We don't want people to be 
able to buy guns. We don't want people to be able to be induced by a 
so-called dealer at a gun show.
  Over 4,000 gun shows a year are held, by the way. We don't want a 
dealer selling guns, someone selling guns who doesn't ask for your 
name, doesn't have to ask for your name, doesn't have to ask for your 
address, doesn't have to talk about anything that identifies this 
buyer. We are talking about buyers anonymous. That is what we are

[[Page 9574]]

talking about--gun buyers anonymous. That is a pretty horrible specter 
to contemplate--gun buyers anonymous.
  Mr. President, I want to make sure everyone understands what is 
happening here.
  Yesterday, we had a vote that was defeated on an amendment that I 
wrote, a vote of 51-47. The 47 votes included all but two Democrats and 
did include six Republicans.
  The fact of the matter is, when all was said and done, not enough was 
done because we lost the opportunity to close a loophole that applies 
especially to gun shows.
  Let me take a moment to describe what a gun show is for those who 
don't know. It is fairly popular across this country. The President, in 
an address he made a couple of weeks ago, talked about how as a child 
he would go to gun shows. It was a family event. People would go to see 
what was being offered. They were curious.
  I want to remove any suggestion, innuendo, or insinuation that says 
that gun shows are the gathering place for the degenerates, the thugs, 
the criminals. That is not suggested at all.
  There are over 4,000 gun shows a year across this country. That is 
pretty significant. That is 80 a week, on average. There are lots of 
legitimate hunters, sports persons, et cetera, who go to these shows.
  There is, however, an enormous loophole that should scare the life 
out of everybody in this country. That is the anonymous buyer, the 
buyer who can go in, step up to an exhibitor's table and say: I want to 
buy some guns.
  The person on the other side of the table says: How many?
  Give me 25. What do you have? Some nice sporting models, small ones 
with a comfortable pistol grip, those that we can trigger off a lot of 
shells? Because I like to do some target shooting.
  The seller doesn't have to say: Who are you? All he has to say is: 
These 25 guns will cost you $2,500. The man says: OK, here are 25 
fresh, hundred dollar bills, take these.
  They shake hands. The guy gathers up his 25 guns and off he goes, we 
know not where. We don't know who he is; we don't know what town he 
comes from; we don't know whether he just got out of a mental 
institution or, worse, a prison. We do not know anything about this 
man. Why in the world would there be resistance to closing that 
loophole? I do not understand it, I must tell you.
  I come from New Jersey. Maybe we do have different cultural views 
about how life functions. We do not have much room for hunting and we 
do not have as many hunters as in our great wide open Western States. 
But all of us--whether from the East, West, North, South--respect life. 
I never saw a family whose principal interest was not the safety of 
their children, the education of their children, the caring for those 
children. Yet they are willing, in this house of the people, the U.S. 
Senate, to say: Listen, one thing you have to do is you have to protect 
citizens' rights to buy guns. Why do we need more bureaucratic 
interference with that process?
  I don't understand, says one. Another says: Why should you have to 
wait a couple of days to get a gun? If you want to buy a gun, you ought 
to be able to buy it like a postage stamp--go to the store and buy it 
and get out of here.
  Frankly, I think that is the wrong way to go. I am smart enough to 
know we are not about to propose legislation to take away everybody's 
gun. There is a serious debate about how guns should be managed. I 
think it is an earnest debate that ought to be carried on here. But to 
simply dismiss it because they say it is a bureaucratic intrusion, it 
is yet another law? I remind everybody that America, this country of 
ours, is a nation of laws. That is what makes this society as great as 
it is. When you have laws, you have to have law enforcers, whether it 
is police, whether it is drug agents, whether it is the FBI, whether it 
is the Army; we enforce our laws. To deny that is something that ought 
to be done because we want to protect the anonymous buyer who walks up 
and says, ``Give me a couple of guns, here is the money'' and not think 
about protecting the well-being of the children is not to look at 
Littleton, CO.
  By the way, that is not a phenomenon that just existed there --Pearl, 
MS; West Paducah, KY; Oregon; Illinois. It has been throughout our 
society. School violence--we all tremble at the thought that our 
children are in a classroom where other kids have a gun, where other 
students are bent on violence, where they may be deranged, on drugs, 
psychotic. We all worry about that. I saw one of the parents from 
Columbine High School who said: This gun-toting society of ours is out 
of control. The worst thing is the accessibility of guns.
  We get into a perennial argument here about whether or not it is the 
gun or the person who does the killing. It is not just criminals, 
unfortunately, who do the killing--until sometimes they become 
criminals for the first time--an enraged husband; a mentally deranged 
person, young, old, who suddenly, in a fitful moment, takes out a gun 
and commits his or her first crime with the murder of another person.
  So what are we talking about? Frankly, I think at times we are 
talking gibberish, because the American public will not understand it. 
In a recent poll, 87 percent said it is necessary to close the loophole 
of anonymous buying at gun shows. That is what we are talking about. We 
failed to agree to that yesterday. Honestly, it was a very sorry defeat 
for us. Not for me personally--the fact that I authored the law. I 
authored the law with people's faces in mind, with an understanding 
about how much I love my children, four of them, and my six 
grandchildren. Heaven forbid anything ever happens to them.
  I know there is not a parent who can hear me who does not feel the 
same way about his or her children. There is no asset more valuable 
than our children--money, jewelry, houses--nothing means anything when 
it comes to our children.
  Why do we insist that the buyer, the anonymous buyer of a gun, has to 
have protected his right or her right to be free from this bureaucratic 
society, this great country that everybody loves? Everybody wants to 
move to America, but we call it the great bureaucracy at times, instead 
of the great democracy. It is foul language, as far as I am concerned.
  So we are offered a substitute. It is a substitute produced by two 
distinguished Senators, one from Utah and one from Idaho, who say they 
are going to close the loophole. But it does not. It does not require a 
background check for all gun sales at gun shows. Some licensees, 
Federal licensees, on a special form, do not require a background 
check. The provision for people who are not licensed would enable them 
to sell guns without, again, going through a background check.
  There is another loophole. There is a category now called ``special 
licensees,'' that the Hatch-Craig amendment would create--a new 
bureaucracy, by the way, strangely enough. They are willing to concede 
a bureaucracy that would issue these special licenses is OK. But other 
bureaucracies are dangerous, dangerous to your individual rights. They 
would not have to conduct background checks. He did not change his 
original position, which makes background checks voluntary for special 
licensees. So, if you want to sell a gun and you are a special 
licensee, you can do it if you feel like it. But you do not do it 
unless you feel like it. You do not have to go through that nonsense--
background check. It could take 10 minutes for a background check. Who 
wants to waste 10 minutes when you have a hot deal and you have other 
people there?
  What happens at the gun shows, as I understand it--and I have never 
been, but this is as I hear it--is that there are often discounts by 
these unlicensed dealers who have acquired their guns--who knows how in 
many cases. They could say: We are special collectors. It has been 
established some of these collections are from criminals. Special 
collector? Hey, we will give you a cheap deal on these guns. Where a 
legitimate licensed dealer has a price, it is out there, it is public. 
They do have some expenses in maintaining their license--not a lot, but 
the unlicensed

[[Page 9575]]

dealer: Here, I'll give you a real discount. Come here young man. You 
want to buy some nice guns?
  It ought not be that way. These loopholes are still available.
  It would not cover a flea market where there are tables with 100 or 
200 or even more guns. It would not cover a gun show that had 10 
exhibitors or fewer. Ten exhibitors could sell 500 guns, but they would 
not be covered. That is, if you will forgive me, a nonsensical hurdle. 
A couple of people could get together and say: You know what, let's put 
up one table. I have some of these to sell, she has some of those to 
sell, he has some of these to sell, and we will sell at one table, and 
that gets rid of two others, and we can reduce ourselves to 10 tables. 
Then we do not have to worry about those bureaucrats who want our 
names. Who are they? Imagine, those guys want our names, while we buy 
these lethal weapons.
  Then there is another category. It says that if firearm exhibitors 
are not more than 20 percent of all exhibitors, they are exempt as 
well. So you have to have more than 20 percent of the materials being 
exhibited--it could be sporting materials, could be lifeboats, could be 
all kinds of things, skis, you name it--but if the firearms people do 
not have more than 20 percent, they do not have to do anything to get 
these people registered who are buying these guns.
  It creates other loopholes. Even though prohibited persons are five 
times more likely to pawn their guns at a pawnshop than other citizens, 
this proposal from that side, those who say they are closing the 
loopholes, would say that anyone who has a claim ticket--whether they 
borrowed the money, they borrowed $200 for the gun--if they have the 
claim ticket, even if they do not show up for 60 days, if they pay the 
interest, they say the pawnshop dealer/owner has to just give them 
their gun without any questions--no questions asked.
  This bird may have been in jail for 60 days, but they are not allowed 
to ask: Where have you been for the last 60 or 90 days?
  Oh, no, that is a bureaucratic imposition; we do not want that. 
Another loophole. I do not, frankly, understand that.
  Why are we protecting those who might be criminals who want to redeem 
their guns when the ordinary citizen who goes to buy a gun from a 
legitimate licensed dealer has to identify himself and undergo a 
background check?
  There have been so many suggestions that the people who man this 
agency, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, are some kind of 
ogres, they are out to rob you of your independence, rob you of your 
thought. That is not true. They are there because we want them there to 
enforce the law.
  The right to own a gun is one that is often debated, but so far I 
have not seen anything that confirms the fact that every citizen has a 
right to bear arms. We are not considering that question now, but the 
Court has ruled many times since 1939 that in order to have a well-
regulated militia, the citizenry shall have the right to bear arms. 
That is quite a qualification.
  In addition to the pawnshop loophole, there is another loophole, and 
that is, now suddenly federally licensed gun dealers who may be in the 
State of Massachusetts or the State of New Jersey or the State of 
Illinois--you name it--now can only sell firearms at a gun show in the 
same State as that specified on the dealer's license. The Craig 
amendment will give dealers an out-of-State license. It will broaden 
the geography of where that license can be used to all across the 
country without any checking. Without any further discussion, that 
license now is a lot broader than what was intended.
  That is not closing a loophole to me; It is creating another one. It 
will make it harder for law enforcement people to crack down on shady 
dealers, and we do have some.
  Years ago, there were more gun dealers than there were gas stations 
in this country. Not too many years ago, there were over 250,000; now 
it is slightly over 100,000. What we did was change the fee for 
licensed gun dealers from $30 for 3 years--$30 for 3 years, $10 a year 
and you never were checked or asked any questions--to $200 for 3 years, 
and that includes some kind of a check and some kind of a test you must 
pass in order to get that license. While we have reduced the number of 
dealers, the Craig amendment will open it up.
  Everyone knows what the NRA response is going to be. That is the 
National Rifle Association. Their views were represented amply on the 
floor of the Senate. They say gun laws do not work; otherwise we would 
not have the kinds of killings that we do.
  I do not think it is the gun law. I think it is the accessibility of 
guns. But I do point out that the number of murders by guns have 
reduced somewhat, not significantly enough, but they have been reduced. 
This country of ours, this wonderful democracy in which we live, sees 
35,000 people a year die from handguns--35,000; 13,000 of them are 
murdered. Thirteen kids die every day from handguns, 4,000 a year. In 
20 years, over 75,000 children will have died from gunshots. We have 
18,000 suicides. We have 3,000 accidents from guns--guns, guns, guns, 
guns, guns, and people are dying from them.
  Yet, I hear this cry through this place: Protect the liberty of the 
gun owner. I want to hear them say one time: My God, we are sorry about 
what happened in Littleton, CO. Our hearts bleed for them. When we look 
at the families, when we look at the children who lost their 
schoolmates, when we look at those who were so frightened, we have to 
ask: What kind of protection are they entitled to? I think they are 
entitled to a lot of protection, but we continue here with loophole 
heaven.
  I thought that Littleton would shock some of our friends into the 
realization that the public is sick and tired of it. They do not want 
it, and I do not understand why it is that the NRA insists that this is 
an encroachment on their freedom just to say: Put your name down if you 
want to buy a gun. If you want to buy a car, you better put your name 
down or you are not going to buy the car.
  Yet, that rage, that sense of grief, that sense of anguish has not 
yet reached this place. Mr. President, 87 percent of the people in 
America in a poll said they want these loopholes closed. We lost that 
vote yesterday, and now they come back with this wolf in sheep's 
clothing wanting to pretend that the loopholes are closed. But they are 
not.
  I hope we will be able to get some control of gun violence in our 
society. There are a couple of ways we can do it: make parents 
responsible for what their kids do. If you give your child who is 
underage a car and he or she goes out and kills somebody, do you know 
who is responsible? It is the parent. Why then shouldn't a parent be 
responsible when a child takes a gun and kills his brother or his 
sister or his friend accidentally? We ought to get ahold of these 
things. This is an opportunity to show good faith to the American 
people, but we failed to take advantage of that opportunity to close it 
down. This will not take away their guns, except those we know do not 
qualify.
  We hear complaints about the Brady bill. The Brady bill stopped over 
250,000 unfit persons from fulfilling their desire to buy a gun--
250,000. That is a lot to me.
  I see my friend and colleague from Illinois is on the floor. If he 
wants to make some remarks, I will be happy to yield 10 minutes to the 
Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Jersey.
  To recount where we are in this arduous debate over gun control in 
light of the Littleton tragedy, yesterday my colleague from the State 
of New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg, offered a very clear amendment that 
said: If you want to purchase a gun at a gun show, you are going to be 
held to the same standards as a person who buys it from a licensed 
firearms dealer.
  In other words, we will do a background check and make sure that you 
are not a prohibited person under the law, make certain you do not have 
a criminal record, a history of violent

[[Page 9576]]

mental illness or something of that nature.
  It was a very good amendment, and I commend my colleague from New 
Jersey for his leadership. He envisioned this problem long before many 
of us did and, frankly, put before us a very straightforward option. I 
was happy to support him.
  Unfortunately, it did not receive a majority of support in the 
Senate. The sad reality is that 6 of the 55 Republican Senators voted 
for it and 41 of the 45 Democratic Senators voted for it--2 were 
absent--and it was not enough, so the Lautenberg amendment went down in 
defeat.
  That was a bitter disappointment. But even worse was the fact there 
was an amendment offered by the Senator from Idaho, Mr. Craig, which he 
purported to offer as an alternative to Senator Lautenberg's amendment.
  Let me tell you what has happened in the 24 hours since the Senate 
adopted that amendment. People have seen through it. It is transparent. 
It not only did not deal with the problem of gun shows and stopping the 
sale of guns to people who should not own them, it took a step 
backwards and made it easier for those sales to be made.
  So there has been a mad scramble in the last 48 hours from the other 
side of the aisle. Once the public had an opportunity to look at this 
Craig amendment, there has been a mad scramble to undo what the Craig 
amendment sought to accomplish.
  The NRA, the National Rifle Association, shot the Republican Senate 
leadership in the foot yesterday, and they have been hopping around all 
day today trying to figure out how they are going to salvage this mess. 
So they have come up with another amendment. It is unclear to me what 
they are thinking about, because they took a bad amendment, the Craig 
amendment, and added another bad amendment to it.
  In this case, two wrongs will not make a right. What we have now in 
this so-called Hatch-Craig amendment is an abomination. It doesn't 
address the gun show problem. Senator Lautenberg did that clearly.
  Let me tell you how bad this bill is, this Hatch-Craig second bill. 
This is Senator Craig's Thursday bill.
  This bill, sadly, sets up at least two, maybe three different 
categories under the law for sales at gun shows. In his original bill, 
he had some special licensee category, voluntary category, that you 
could sell a gun at a gun show under that category. No background check 
was necessary; it was not necessary, of course, to send the name and 
address and gun serial number into any group that might check to see if 
it had any criminal history, if that weapon might have been used in a 
crime to kill someone or in a drug deal that went bad. No.
  Then he came back today, and in this amendment they have created some 
more categories of how to sell guns at gun shows and they are just as 
difficult to follow.
  One says, licensed gun dealers at gun shows can sell a gun. I do not 
have a problem with that. That is what we are seeking here. That is 
what Senator Lautenberg is seeking here, so that the background check 
is accomplished.
  Then they had a provision in there that violates the Brady law we 
have lived under for so many years. Instead of giving law enforcement 3 
days to check on the background of a would-be purchaser at a gun show, 
they give them 24 hours. And if they don't get the completed inquiry 
back in 24 hours, they sell the gun. The presumption is on the side of 
the purchaser. We are saying to those in law enforcement: Take a back 
seat. We want to keep these guns moving. This is big business.
  Is that really what America wants? I do not think so.
  So we have these categories of who can sell guns at gun shows. It is 
a labored attempt by the National Rifle Association to accomplish 
nothing--nothing--other than to take away from law enforcement their 
authority to do what American people ask for under the Brady law.
  In this country what they said under the Brady law is, do not sell a 
gun to someone who has a history of having committed a felony or has a 
violent mental illness. The NRA has never liked that. They have tried 
to keep this gun show loophole alive. And they do it with this latest 
Republican amendment.
  What a sad, sad situation, where those with serious mental illness, 
fugitives, stalkers, straw purchasers can still run to these gun shows, 
and under this Hatch-Craig amendment they can find a way to get their 
hands on the guns. Is it a problem? There are 4,000 gun shows a year 
across America. They are in my home State of Illinois, and over 200 in 
the year 1998.
  When they had an investigation into these gun shows to find out who 
they were selling guns to without background checks, they found out it 
included a lot of felons prohibited from acquiring firearms who have 
been able to buy them at gun shows.
  In fact, the Department of Treasury and the Department of Justice 
found that felons buying or selling firearms were involved in more than 
46 percent of the investigations involving gun shows. This is a 
loophole that is producing guns right and left.
  We are still trying to trace the guns used by those two kids in 
Littleton, CO. At least three, if not all four of them, came out of gun 
shows. Is it important that we know how they were bought or sold? Of 
course it is. You go to any police department in America--start with 
Chicago; pick your hometown--and ask them whether tracing a firearm is 
an important part of a criminal investigation. They will tell you it is 
critical. Where did that gun come from? Who sold it to them?
  Let's try to establish a chain of purchase here and get down to the 
root cause of crime in America. The National Rifle Association talks 
about the second amendment and what they want to protect. And yet they 
come in with this amendment which literally takes away the power of law 
enforcement to try to enforce the laws and reduce crime.
  That isn't the end of it. One of the most insidious aspects of this 
amendment was put in that would exempt pawnshops from doing a 
background check on a gun that is resold to someone who pawns it.
  Picture this: A person needs money, picks up a handgun, walks into a 
pawnshop, hands it to the pawnshop owner, and says: How much are you 
going to give me? $20. He takes the ticket and the $20 and leaves.
  That pawnshop owner may, but is not required to, report to law 
enforcement where that gun came from, the source of it, as well as the 
serial number. If they do not, under the current law, when the person 
walks back in and says: Here is the $20 and the ticket; I want my gun 
back, they are required to say: First, we have to check and make sure 
you are qualified under Brady. If you have a criminal history of mental 
illness, we will not sell it back to you.
  The National Rifle Association, in this amendment, takes out that 
requirement. So the pawnbroker turns around and hands that gun back to 
the street.
  Is it important in a pawnshop? Consider this: It is five times more 
likely that criminals are going into pawnshops with guns than those who 
have not committed crimes--five times more likely. And the National 
Rifle Association, which insists they want to keep guns out of the 
hands of criminals, puts this provision in the law, which many on that 
side of the aisle are now lauding as a great improvement. It is not. It 
is a step backwards.
  Then there is the question about all the records of these gun 
purchases. If these records are not kept, we are basically tying the 
hands of law enforcement. It is no wonder to me that law enforcement 
across this country cannot understand the amendment that is being 
offered on the Republican side of the aisle.
  This is a sad situation. We have a national tragedy on our hands--270 
million Americans, 200 million guns, more gun crime than any country on 
Earth. We stiffen the penalties right and left. We are determined to 
reduce gun violence. Yet, when it comes to the most basic thing, to 
keep guns out of the

[[Page 9577]]

hands of people who do not need them and should not have them, to keep 
them out of the hands of kids, we face amendments such as this.
  It is really, in my estimation, unsettling. I cannot understand where 
a notion like background checks at gun shows--which enjoys the support 
of 87 percent of the American people--has such a tough time passing. 
Senator Lautenberg deserved 87 votes at a minimum on his amendment, an 
honest straightforward amendment to deal with gun shows. We could not 
get half of the Members of the Senate to vote for it.
  The best thing for us to do is to defeat the Hatch-Craig amendment. 
It is a step in the wrong direction. We are going backwards instead of 
forwards.
  The NRA, incidentally, put in one provision which they now put in 
everything. If you get involved in one of these purchases, and you sell 
a gun to somebody who kills another person, the National Rifle 
Association said, well, you should not be sued for that, should you? Of 
course you should be liable and accountable for that, as we all are for 
our actions.
  They build immunity into this law from civil prosecution, immunity in 
the law. Who is immune from prosecution in America? Foreign diplomats 
and some health insurance companies. That is it. And now the National 
Rifle Association says, and, of course, the people who sell guns at gun 
shows, make them immune from liability, too. That is so far over the 
line it is hard to explain, let alone defend.
  I salute my friend from New Jersey for his leadership on this issue. 
I hope my colleagues in the Senate will not be misled by this new 
Hatch-Craig amendment. If this is an effort to undo the damage done to 
those who voted for Mr. Craig's original amendment, they did not 
accomplish it. This second amendment compounds the problem. It makes it 
that much worse.
  Let's get back to the basics. Let's support Senator Lautenberg's 
amendment--a straightforward amendment, supported by law enforcement 
and families across America who are sick of school violence, sick of 
gun violence, and expect this Senate to meet its constitutional 
responsibility to pass laws to accomplish these goals and make America 
a safer place to live.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). Who yields time?
  The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  A lot of people have had a lot to say since the shooting in 
Littleton, CO. Much of it was sad, but some of it was thoughtful and 
even inspirational. So it was particularly unfortunate when a couple of 
weeks ago President Clinton added some comments to the mix that were 
not just unfair but outrageous and downright unforgivable. I bring this 
up this evening because even though his rhetoric and some of the 
rhetoric here on the floor has changed in the last 2 weeks, his 
sentiments are alive and well and regrettably evident on the floor of 
the Senate in this debate.
  I am referring to the President's comments on April 27, when he laid 
the blame for the Columbine High School tragedy on our culture. Except 
the President was not talking about the same cultural crisis that we 
are talking about here today and tonight--the breakdown of families, 
the powerlessness of communities, the alienation of young people, and 
the violence and brutality promoted by the entertainment industry. No, 
what the President chose to blame was, and I quote from the speech that 
was later released by the White House and printed on its web page, 
``the huge hunting and sport shooting culture of America.''
  He proceeded to talk about ``Americans' rights to responsible hunting 
and sport shooting'' and said that the:

       movement will evaporate [w]hen people from rural 
     Pennsylvania and rural West Virginia and rural Colorado and 
     Idaho start calling their congressmen and saying, hey, man, 
     we can live with this, this is no big deal, you know?. . .We 
     would gladly put up with a little extra hassle, a little 
     wait, a little this, a little that, because we want to save 
     several thousand kids a year.

  That was the President's quote. Now, where do you begin to list what 
is wrong with those comments? Well, let's start with the concept that 
all gun owners live in rural parts of the country or that the second 
amendment protects the right of hunting and sport shooting. Excuse me. 
I misspoke. The President limited it to responsible hunting and 
shooting. I am not sure what that means, but it probably involves new 
Federal regulations. What is more clear is the President's suggestion 
that those who take their individual civil liberties seriously are 
ignorant rubes who need reeducating in their responsibility to what he 
calls ``the larger community.''
  All of this would have been merely insulting to the tens of millions 
of Americans who own and use firearms for legitimate reasons, but then 
he gets to the truly unforgivable part. What is truly unforgivable is 
that he insinuated that law-abiding Americans are somehow responsible 
for what happened in Littleton and, worse, that if they refuse to 
tolerate encroachment upon their liberties, they do not care about the 
lives of children.
  It is a sad day in America when a President of the United States 
speaks to and implies that thought. That is right. The leader of the 
free world accused those who uphold the law as being responsible for 
those who flaunt the law. He accused those who would passionately 
defend their civil liberties as being bad citizens. He accused those 
who may have a firearm for the sole purpose of defending themselves and 
their families, accused these people of not wanting to save children's 
lives. Now, that is what is unbelievable.
  I can only say shame on him for attacking decent, law-abiding 
citizens, and shame on any in this Chamber who would follow his lead. 
To say that the hunters and sport shooters of America are responsible 
for what happened in Littleton is to say that safe drivers are 
responsible for the road-crazed, road-raged killers who drive others 
off the road. But it is worse than the automobile analogy, because 
unlike an automobile, a gun has the capacity to save lives as well as 
take lives. A firearm is a tool. In the hands of a criminal, it is used 
for evil. But in the hands of a law-abiding citizen, it can save lives. 
And it does save lives--an estimated 2.1 million times per year, 
generally without a shot even being fired. Of the 65 million Americans 
who own firearms, more than a fair number purchase them not for 
hunting, not for sport shooting purposes, but self-protection.
  They live in parts of the country where they really feel they need 
protection, and they have an American right of self-defense. They arm 
themselves for that purpose in a legal, law-abiding way. While hunters 
may do it for sport or they may do it to put food on their tables still 
in rural America, there are many Americans who own guns to protects 
themselves. It is in this area of self-protection that the question of 
encroachment on second amendment rights becomes not just a political 
question but one of life and one of death.
  Unlike President Clinton, the woman in a crime-ridden inner city does 
not have a personal security force protecting her night and day. Some 
choose, and women are choosing in increasing numbers, to obtain a 
firearm in a legal way to protect themselves. The obstacles to firearm 
ownership the President talks about--``a little wait, a little this, a 
little that, a little extra hassle,'' are to the woman, to the 
oftentimes single woman of America who chooses to go out and buy a gun 
for her self-protection.
  Think about it. She is doing it to prevent harm to herself and, if 
she is a single mother in a crime-ridden neighborhood, she may be doing 
it to protect her children. If you are wondering why law-abiding gun 
owners think gun control is a big deal, that is why. It is not because 
they are ignorant, nor have they been duped by the NRA or stampeded 
into making up horror stories. It is because they understand the 
purpose, the legitimate purpose, the constitutional right and purpose 
of the legal and appropriate use of firearms.
  A gun is a great equalizer. It enables the feeble, the disabled, the 
old, the

[[Page 9578]]

small to defend themselves against a more powerful aggressor. But with 
the right to keep and bear arms comes a solemn, a very solemn 
responsibility to use those arms safely and within the law.
  Those who do should be celebrated for their exercise of civil 
liberties in the great tradition of our country--not make the tragedy 
one of a cowardly cheap shot from the White House and the President.
  Let me say this about hunters and sports shooters in America, not to 
mention the collectors and the skilled crafts people who enjoy the 
history and artistry of firearms as a hobby: They have already been 
plundered, in some instances, by gun laws. Again and again in the past, 
when some effort to grab headlines was made, lawmakers reacted with 
another restriction, and another and another and another. Yesterday, 
when the Senator from New Jersey and I were debating an important 
issue, I talked about 40,000 gun laws. Many of those were the result of 
an illegal action and a political reaction.
  I am not saying that all of them are bad. But 40,000 at the city, 
county, State, and Federal levels? Do these 40,000 gun laws, stacked 
one upon another, make America a safer place? Well, in Littleton, CO, 
tragically enough, 20 of those 40,000 gun laws were violated by those 2 
young men, and some by other people who got guns for them. Some of 
those people have been arrested. Some of those are working, as they 
should, and those are the kinds of laws I support; law-abiding citizens 
support them, and guns rights defender organizations support them. But 
we haven't stopped violent crime and we have only piled all of these 
problems one on top of another.
  Perhaps it is time for a sea change in our thinking. Instead of 
forcing law-abiding citizens to put up with inconveniences, as our 
President might suggest, or outright erosion of their civil liberties, 
perhaps we should demand that this administration's inconveniences are 
the armed criminal. By prosecuting them, by going at them, as the 
juvenile crime bill does, and as the Hatch-Craig amendment does, to 
strengthen the hands of the law enforcement officers to make sure we 
enforce at least some of the 40,000 gun laws we have--that is what we 
should be doing, and that is what the chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee of the Senate is trying to do--to build on and strengthen the 
body of law that can be enforced, and to say to our U.S. attorneys: 
Enforce the law. Get out in the field and put those people behind bars 
who are breaking the law with the use of a firearm.
  So as we move through this debate, let's not follow the President's 
lead. Judging by the calls and letters and visits I am getting in the 
wake of the President's speech, the movement to secure the second 
amendment is not going to evaporate anytime soon. Law-abiding gun 
owners in America flatly reject the argument that the only way to 
control crime is through putting more burden on the exercise of their 
rights.
  Any Senator who takes his or her constitutional responsibility 
seriously should carefully consider what a vote for more gun control is 
going to do. What is it going to do? Prevent crime? On rare occasions, 
it might. But it will be a political pill, so that we can go home and 
say we did the right thing. Yet, Littleton happened. I suggest that we 
have the opportunity to make changes, and they are here tonight, they 
are here in the juvenile crime bill. It is outrageous and unforgivable 
to suggest that anybody in this body needs to vote in favor of more gun 
control in order to prove that he or she cares.
  Why don't we make changes in what our children are doing, in the 
access they have to violence on television, in the movies, in videos. 
That is what we are trying to do in ensuring that those who would prey 
upon others with the use of a gun in the commission of a crime be 
locked up and put behind bars. That is the message I am told Americans 
want to hear. That is the message my citizens in Idaho want to hear. 
They want to know that those who violate the laws will be arrested and, 
most assuredly, that the criminal element will be denied access to 
firearms.
  If you vote for the Hatch-Craig amendment, that is what you vote for. 
If you vote for the juvenile crime bill, as amended, you broaden the 
entire arena of changing the way we have done business in the past in 
dealing with violent juveniles and crime in America. We turn to this 
administration and we turn to the Attorney General and we say: Enforce 
the law. Go after the criminal. Make this country safe for those who 
are willing to defend their civil liberties and who believe strongly in 
their constitutional rights.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield such time as he needs to the 
distinguished Senator from Alabama.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair and the chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee, who is managing this bill.
  Mr. President, I want to say how much I have admired his skill, 
ability, and knowledge in moving this important juvenile crime package 
forward. It makes positive steps in every area that deals with juvenile 
crime and violence.
  We were shocked and saddened by the events in Colorado. It caused us 
all to rethink and rededicate ourselves to making improvements. We have 
been working for 2 years to try to get this bill up for a final vote. 
Maybe now we can have that become a reality.
  I hope we can continue to debate the issues and debate the amendments 
and vote. I just hope we don't have a group of Members who, for one 
reason or another, would rather not see a bill pass. If that is so, I 
think some people need to be held accountable for that. I am willing to 
debate and hear the amendments, vote on them, and put my record on the 
line and do what we can to pass this legislation. Without any doubt, 
there is a major step forward in putting additional regulations on gun 
shows, which has been discussed here today. We have several other 
amendments and provisions in this bill that crack down on the illegal 
use of guns, including substantially increasing penalties for a lot of 
different gun violations.
  Mr. President, I had the occasion to be a Federal prosecutor for 12 
years, a U.S. attorney. I served, before that, as an assistant U.S. 
attorney. I also was attorney general of Alabama. What I have been 
hearing in the last few weeks about what we need to do about law 
enforcement and what is wrong in this country really frustrates me. The 
President of the United States, after this tremendous tragedy in 
Colorado, proposes that we need to do something about it. As I recall, 
his basic solutions were that we need a juvenile Brady bill, which was 
already in our juvenile crime bill pending at that time. He said we 
need to step up liability for parents whose children go out and commit 
crimes, which is a very difficult thing to do if you adhere to the 
traditional rules of American and English criminal law: you have to 
have criminal intent to be guilty of a crime. We have never made people 
guilty of crimes unless they had reason to be responsible criminally 
for somebody else's crime. Maybe we can make progress and the States 
will make progress, but there is not a lot you can do there. The 
President proposed a couple of other matters that dealt with guns, and 
they are minor, not a realistic way to deal with what is happening with 
crime in America.
  I want to say that I have, from my experience, noted a real 
shortcoming in President Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno's 
Department of Justice.
  They have not prosecuted the laws effectively. They simply have not 
done so.
  In 1992, before President Clinton took office, President Bush had a 
program called Project Triggerlock. It enhanced, increased, and 
intensified the prosecution of criminals who use guns illegally, felons 
who possess firearms, people who carry firearms in the commission of a 
drug offense, or other criminal activity, people who traffic in

[[Page 9579]]

stolen guns, people who have sawed-off shotguns and fully automatic 
weapons. They were prosecuted intensely.
  In 1992, there were 7,048 cases of prosecutions under those laws that 
existed at that time.
  I direct your attention to this chart. It is the Executive Office of 
U.S. Attorneys' statistical data, which the Department of Justice lives 
by, which shows the number of prosecutions that have been going on in 
this country. In 1992, there were 7,048.
  I know that number, because I had a trigger lock prosecution team in 
my office. I was directed by the President and the Attorney General to 
do that. I was delighted to comply.
  I sent out a newsletter to share it with the chiefs of police. It was 
dedicated solely to laws and information on how to be more productive 
in prosecuting these criminals who are using guns and killing people, 
because I knew then and I know today that can save lives.
  Since this administration has been in office, look what has happened 
with those numbers. They have gone down now to 3,807, a 40-percent 
decline in prosecutions. That is a dramatic number.
  It really offends me. I consider it astounding that the President of 
the United States and the Attorney General of the United States would 
go around and say, ``Oh, we are the toughest people in America about 
guns; we want to do more about guns, and if you Republicans in Congress 
won't pass every law that we can think of to make some other event 
criminal.'' They do not care about prosecuting criminals. I have a 
record of it.
  In my tenure, we increased dramatically the number of gun 
prosecutions. I don't take a backseat to anyone over my commitment to 
prosecute people who use guns.
  This administration wants to prosecute innocent people with guns, 
people who have no criminal motive whatsoever, while they are allowing 
the serious cases to erode dramatically.
  They have more prosecutors today than they had in 1992, and they have 
a 40-percent reduction. It is just an offensive thing to me.
  I will also pull these charts, because I know how to read the U.S. 
attorney's manual. I did it for 12 years. They had to have several new 
laws, and some of them are pretty good. I am supportive of them. These 
are going to fight crime, they said.
  Look at this chart. This is shocking.
  Here is one:
  ``Possession of firearms on school grounds''--922(q).
  There are a lot of subparts: 922(c), for carrying a firearm in the 
commission of a crime by a felon carries 5 years without parole, if you 
are convicted of that.
  This is 922(q): ``Possession of a firearm on school grounds.''
  It was reported, I believe, that the First Lady at this press 
conference, when they wailed about gun laws and gun shows, said there 
were 6,000 incidents last year of firearms on school grounds.
  That is what they said.
  In 1997, this Department of Justice--and every U.S. attorney in 
America is appointed by the President of the United States--prosecuted 
five cases. In 1998, eight. That is nationwide. That is for the whole 
country.
  How is that stopping crime and making our communities safer? That is 
what I am saying. Is that making us safer?
  ``Unlawful transfer of firearms to juveniles''--that is a pretty good 
law--922(x)(1). That law passed and closed a little problem there, a 
loophole. It was closed several years ago.
  ``Unlawful transfer of firearms to juveniles.'' In 1997, this 
Department of Justice, which makes guns its priority, only prosecuted 
five cases; in 1998, six.
  Look at this one: ``Possession or transfer of a semiautomatic 
weapon''--that is the assault weapon ban that was allowed. There have 
been a lot of disputes about it, and a lot of debate about it, because 
it is really a semiautomatic weapon, but it looks bad. So they banned 
it.
  In 1997, there were 34 prosecutions; and, in 1989, 84.
  I think that begins to make a point.
  We don't need to be dealing in symbolism or politics. There is a 
Second Amendment right to bear arms. It is in my Constitution. I don't 
know. Somebody else may read in certain amendments they like and 
certain ones that they don't. But it is in the Constitution. And it 
gives the people the right to keep and bear arms. That is not going to 
be given away.
  We passed a lot of rules that are considered to be reasonable 
restraints on that. I prosecuted gun dealers for violation of 
regulations. So we expect them to adhere to the regulations we passed.
  But I will just say with regard to these cases that what we are 
suggesting: what we are hearing today, or in the last day or so, is an 
attempt to distract attention from the merits of a good, sound, tough, 
compassionate juvenile justice bill, and derail it on the basis of 
whether or not we have a sufficient bureaucracy at a gun show, where I 
will assure you that probably not more than 1 out of 1,000 guns in 
America are bought at gun shows, as if that is going to save crime. It 
is not going to save crime anymore than this law did, or this law did, 
or that law did.
  Next year, we will probably come in here and they will have a half 
dozen prosecutions under that law, and they want to have that kind of 
thing.
  What we need to do is go back to a serious prosecution, back to the 
seven, or maybe 10,000 prosecutions under the gun laws that are already 
in existence, and focus on them.
  I would just share this story with you because I think it is 
revealing.
  I have been raising this very issue with this very chart for over a 
year--this chart which I have been holding up for the Attorney General, 
the Chief of the Criminal Division, and the Associate Attorney General 
of the U.S. Department of Justice, and I have been asking why they are 
not doing their job. They don't have a very good answer, if you want to 
read the transcript.
  What has happened? Early this year we held a hearing. We set it for 
Monday, March 22, just a few months ago. It had been set for some time. 
We had asked the administration to come and testify, because we were 
going to ask them about this failure, this collapse, in Federal efforts 
on prosecutions.
  We had heard that U.S. attorney Helen Fahey, down in Richmond, was 
doing a triggerlock-type program, and being very successful. The chief 
of police in Richmond was just delighted. They had a 41-percent 
reduction in murder and a 21-percent reduction in violent crime. We 
wanted to highlight this.
  So we had a hearing. It made the administration nervous. We said: We 
are going to ask you about these numbers. We are going to ask you why 
you quit President Bush's Project Triggerlock, and why aren't you 
replicating and repeating what you are doing successfully down in 
Richmond?
  That was going to be on a Monday.
  On Saturday, March 20, the President of the United States--I guess 
the word got up to them that they had a little problem.
  So he had a radio address to the Nation. He focused it on gun 
prosecutions. He had the United States attorney Helen Fahey in his 
office, and the chief of police in his office. She was going to testify 
on Monday. And he talked about the very thing we talked about.
  I thought: Wasn't that interesting. Maybe we have finally gotten 
through to somebody.
  This is what he said:

       Today I am directing Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and 
     Attorney General Janet Reno to use every available tool to 
     increase the prosecution of gun criminals and shut down 
     illegal gun markets. I am asking them to work closely with 
     local, State, and Federal law enforcement officials, and to 
     report back to me with a plan to reduce gun violence by 
     applying proven local strategies to fight gun crime 
     nationwide. My balanced budget----

  He always says that--``my balanced budget.''
  What that has to do with this, I don't know.
       My balanced budget will help to hire more Federal 
     prosecutors and ATF agents so we can crack down on even more 
     gun criminals and illegal gun trafficking all across America.

  That was his radio address.
  On Monday, U.S. Attorney Helen Fahey testified that


[[Page 9580]]

       Project Exile [what they called the project in Richmond] is 
     essentially triggerlock with steroids.

  They basically took the Project Triggerlock activities and enhanced 
it.

       Plus community involvement and advertising . . . Project 
     Exile is simple and straightforward in its execution and 
     requires relatively limited prosecution and law enforcement 
     resources. The program's focus and message is clear, concise 
     and easily understood, and most importantly, unequivocal. The 
     message: An illegal gun gets you 5 years in Federal prison.

  That was President Clinton's U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of 
Virginia.
  On May 5 we had oversight hearings with the Department of Justice in 
the Judiciary Committee. I asked Attorney General Reno if she had 
gotten this directive, and what she was doing about it. She indicated:

       The prosecution by Federal Government of small gun cases 
     that can be better handled by the State court . . . doesn't 
     make such good sense.

  I cross-examined her a good bit about that because it was stunning to 
me. I said: Did you get a directive from the President? Did he send it 
to you in writing or did he call you on the phone or were you supposed 
to listen to the radio? How did you get this message? Are you going to 
do it?
  She steadfastly refused to make a commitment to replicate and 
reproduce the Project Exile in Richmond, VA, and to use that around the 
country--even though her own people are telling her of the 41-percent 
reduction in the murder rate and a 20-percent reduction overall of 
violent crime.
  This bill provides money for that. We have a proposal to increase 
substantially, perhaps as much as $10 million or $50 million to the 
Justice Department to replicate this project. We are going to insist on 
it. We believe it will save lives.
  The chart shows from 7,000 to 3,000 prosecutions, a 40-percent 
reduction. There are those who talk about caring about innocent victims 
of crime and doing something about crime. There are innocent people in 
America who have died because those cases weren't prosecuted, those 
criminals using guns were not prosecuted. They have gone on and killed 
other people. It is a shame and a tragedy.
  I believe what we have to do first and foremost is to create a 
climate and a mentality in this Department of Justice that they are 
going to use the laws they have been given and not to excuse themselves 
by discussing some new law that they have little or no intent on 
prosecuting effectively.
  That is the true fact of the matter. We are talking about thousands 
of cases.
  My view is if it is a good law and it is not unconstitutional and it 
is not too burdensome and we can figure a way to make it work, I am all 
supportive of it. I voted for and support several.
  The real problem is cracking down on the criminals who are using 
guns. The laws already on the books are the ones that are going to be 
used 99 percent of the time when those cases are prosecuted. If used 
effectively, we can remove dangerous criminals from our streets, reduce 
violent crime and murder, and save the lives of innocent people.
  I thank Chairman Hatch for all the work he has done, the leadership 
he has given, and the patience he as demonstrated in moving this 
legislation forward.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 19 minutes 44 seconds and the 
minority has 22\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. HATCH. I yield 8 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Senate 
Judiciary Committee, the Senator from Utah.
  I rise to address a number of provisions in the Hatch-Craig amendment 
that I am particularly concerned with, provisions that I have sought to 
move forward over the last several months and in the last several 
years, provisions that set or increase mandatory minimum sentences for 
gun crimes and drug crimes which endanger juveniles.
  First, we need to address federal firearms offenses and impose 
substantial penalties on violent firearms offenses. Those who misuse 
firearms to commit crimes impose a tremendous cost on American society 
and on our culture. They destroy lives, they destroy families, they 
destroy businesses, they destroy neighborhoods. We need to have a 
Federal policy with a zero tolerance for those who are misusing 
firearms to perpetrate violent crimes or to traffic in drugs--the kind 
of criminal activities that are destroying the very fabric of our 
culture.
  An essential part of this zero tolerance policy are mandatory minimum 
sentences that creates a serious deterrent for those who commit Federal 
violent and drug crimes, including carjacking and violent crimes on 
school grounds.
  In order for mandatory minimum sentences to provide such a deterrent, 
they need to be long enough to make the offenders think about 
committing these crimes. They need to think twice about what they are 
going to do. Those sentences also need to be long enough to protect our 
law-abiding citizens from these criminals for a long time, by putting 
the criminals away for substantial period of time.
  Current Federal law provides mandatory minimum sentences for 
possessing or using a firearm in the commission of a Federal crime of 
violence or drug trafficking. The current minimum sentence for 
possessing a firearm during such a crime is 5 years. This is a serious 
penalty for simply having a gun, not even showing it or firing it; just 
having it on your person. My amendment doesn't increase this penalty. 
We think it is sufficient as it is, particularly because there is truth 
in sentencing in the Federal system.
  We do, however, seek in this amendment to change the current minimums 
for using a firearm during such crimes. The current minimum sentence 
for brandishing a firearm in a violent Federal crime or drug 
trafficking crime is 7 years. In this amendment we raise that penalty 
to 10 years. We would raise the penalty for discharging a firearm and 
thereby endangering life and limb from a 10 year minimum to 12 years. 
The law does not presently provide any mandatory minimum for wounding, 
injuring or maiming with a firearm. We create a minimum 15-year penalty 
for those who actually cause physical harm with a firearm.
  Finally, the law currently provides a maximum penalty of 10 years 
imprisonment for knowingly transferring a firearm, knowing that it will 
be used in the commission of a crime. We would impose a mandatory 
minimum sentence of 5 years for knowingly facilitating gun violence by 
transferring a firearm to someone whom you knew was going to commit a 
crime.
  These penalties are serious, but the problem is serious. These 
penalties will help create a real set of incentives to tell criminals 
they better leave their guns at home.
  Let me also address mandatory minimum sentences for federal drug 
crimes. The current penalties for adults who target vulnerable 
juveniles by distributing drugs to minors or by selling drugs in or 
near schools are the same--both of these crimes currently carry a 1-
year mandatory minimum for both the initial and subsequent offenses. 
This amendment raises the mandatory minimum term for each of these 
crimes from 1 year to 3 years for the initial violation, and 5 years 
for subsequent offenses.
  This amendment is similar to two other provisions in the core bill we 
are debating, S. 254. One provision already included in S. 254 
increases the mandatory minimum penalties for adults who use minors to 
commit crimes. Adults should not be able to use minors to commit their 
crimes for them in order to escape penalty. Another provision in S. 254 
increases the penalties on adults who use juveniles to commit crimes of 
violence. Penalties are doubled for first-time offenders and trebled 
for repeat offenders.
  Together, these provisions send a clear message to adults who would 
prey on our children, attempting to ensnare them in the dangerous life 
of committing crimes, and often in the violent world of illegal drugs.

[[Page 9581]]

  Last year, I introduced all of these provisions in a package designed 
to target adults who use and exploit juveniles to commit crimes. It is 
time for us to send an unmistakably clear message that we will not, as 
a culture, tolerate those who use juveniles, who lead them or point 
them in the direction of lives of crime in an effort to avoid penalties 
for their own criminal action. The system already lets young people off 
with a slap on the wrist and a clean slate when they turn 18. Why 
should any adult risk serious jail time by committing the crimes 
themselves? Instead, have a juvenile commit it for them. I think it is 
time to make it clear that we will deal harshly with adults who use 
juveniles in the commission of crimes.
  Sadly, our current treatment of juveniles gives adults an incentive 
to exploit children in this way. We need to make sure it cannot be 
done. If a store sold candy for $5 to adults, but $1 to children, there 
would be a lot of adults sending kids in to buy candy for them. The 
same is sadly true with the criminal justice system. Lenient treatment 
of juveniles has too frequently caused adults to think they can get 
juveniles to perpetrate the crimes for them. We must make it clear that 
no adult can escape crime by having a juvenile commit a crime on his or 
her behalf. It is no wonder that in my home State of Missouri, a 20-
year-old in Poplar Bluff had her 16-year-old accomplice take the lead 
in a recent armed robbery. Why should she risk serious adult time in 
prison when she could have a juvenile do the crime for her? We cannot 
continue to encourage this intolerable behavior. Those who would 
corrupt our children deserve our stiffest sanctions. We need these 
enhanced penalties on adults who use juveniles to commit federal 
violent offenses and drug crimes.
  The provisions in S. 254 and those in this amendment correct the 
perverse incentives in the current system by severely punishing adults 
who endanger our children and attempt to ensnare them in the world of 
drugs and crime.
  Mr. President, I ask how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 40 seconds remaining.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Chair. I yield the remainder of my time to 
the chairman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to my colleague 
from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Jersey for 
the time and for his leadership. I understand there is movement on the 
other side to try to deal with the gun show loophole. I appreciate 
that. But I say to all my colleagues, if we pass the amendment 
sponsored by the Senators from Utah and Idaho, we will not close that 
loophole and we will be back here hearing about more tragedies from 
guns emanating from gun shows. There are six reasons for that which we 
should talk about.
  First and most egregious, the amendment creates and deals with 
someone called a ``special licensee,'' a person who would be licensed 
to sell in volume at gun shows who would not require background checks. 
This is overturning 31 years of having federally licensed firearms 
dealers with a new system that is as weak as a wet noodle. The 
licensees will not have to----
  Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield on that? My gosh, they do not have 
any controls at all on gun shows. This puts controls on it. It actually 
does what those on your side of the floor wanted to do yesterday, and 
our side of the floor did not do. Now we are correcting that. But right 
now there is no limit at all. We put limits on. We do exactly what the 
President was bad-mouthing Republicans for not doing today.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Reclaiming my time----
  Mr. HATCH. I will be glad to give you some of ours for this, but, 
look, that just is not quite accurate.
  Mr. SCHUMER. The point I make is this. We have always had the only 
people who can legitimately sell guns in quantity are federally 
licensed dealers. We are now creating an exception.
  I ask my colleague, the Senator from Utah, why we exempt these people 
from any reporting requirements? When you talk to our law enforcement 
people in either the Justice Department or in the Treasury Department, 
they say if one of these new licensees--because they have no reporting 
requirements whatsoever--were to simply pass guns out, we would have no 
way to check.
  My friend from Utah and many from the other side have talked about 
the need to enforce existing laws. This creates such a huge loophole we 
would never be able to enforce any existing laws.
  Mr. HATCH. If the Senator will yield, actually now in intrastate 
sales they do not have to do anything. There is no gun check at all. 
There is no instant check at all; there is no requisite check at all. 
What we do is solve that problem and we do it better than what the 
Democrat amendment was yesterday. And when we do it--I just want to 
correct the record.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Right now, for interstate, these people could go 
interstate. That is the basic problem. If these people, these federally 
licensed special licensees had to stay within their State, I would 
concede to the Senator from Utah that maybe it is nonexistent--but not 
a step backwards. But they can. So now for the first time we have 
people who can sell out of State who are not federally licensed dealers 
and who do not have any reporting requirements.
  There is sort of a split, almost a schizophrenia in the logic of the 
other side, which is we must enforce. We do not need new laws to 
enforce. But we take away every single tool of enforcement.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield on this point?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I am happy to yield to the Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I wanted to ask a question about the pawnshop loophole. 
Before I do, I want to thank my friend from New York because he does 
something around here that is very important. He reads every word of 
the bill.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you.
  Mrs. BOXER. And he finds out some of the fine print. We had a 
situation on the floor with the Senator from Idaho. I was on the floor 
at the time. The Senator from New York said to the Senator from Idaho: 
With great respect, I think you have a problem in your bill--and he 
pointed it out. The Senator from Idaho at that point argued 
vociferously with the Senator from New York, who held his ground and 
happily everyone reached agreement that in fact what the Senator from 
New York said was true.
  But what interests me is one of the loopholes that is not closed. 
That is this pawnshop loophole. I want to ask my friend from New York a 
question. Am I right in understanding that under current law, if 
someone goes back to retrieve a gun in a pawnshop, they must undergo an 
instant check?
  Let's say somebody puts his gun in the pawnshop and then goes out and 
commits a crime with another weapon and they come back to retrieve 
their gun. It is my understanding there is no instant check on that 
person. It is further my understanding that people who retrieve their 
guns from pawnshops are five times as likely to be criminals as those 
who would go to an ordinary dealer; is that correct?
  Mr. SCHUMER. The Senator from California is exactly correct. What we 
are doing now is making it easier because we take one of the barriers 
away for criminals to get their guns back at pawnshops. Why, for the 
love of God, are we making it easier for felons to get guns? It is an 
amazing thing. If the American people were all listening to this 
debate, they would be utterly amazed. Let me yield to the Senator from 
California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I say to my friend, whom I respect so much and I thank so 
much for his leadership on this, I think what we have created with the 
Craig bill yesterday is essentially a safe deposit box for criminals to 
put their guns in--a pawnshop--and never have to answer to any instant 
check or anybody looking at them when they come back to get their gun.
  Would that not be an accurate description of what the Craig amendment 
did yesterday, and it is not fixed in this amendment; am I correct in 
that?

[[Page 9582]]


  Mr. SCHUMER. I say the Senator is exactly correct. If I were a clever 
criminal, I would use a pawnshop after this law passes.
  Mrs. BOXER. It is very ironic, I say to my friend; we are doing a 
juvenile justice bill, and we are creating a tremendous injustice here 
because criminals will have a safe place to leave their guns and never 
have to undergo an instant check again when they pick their guns up 
from the pawnshop.
  I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Senator.
  I say to my good friend from Utah, who I know is very sincere in 
this, if the sponsors of this legislation were to accept a provision 
that says let's have the same reporting requirements for the special 
licensees as we have for the Federal dealers, he might be making a step 
in the direction--it would not be as strong as the Lautenberg bill, but 
it would move in that direction.
  I remind him of one other thing. Right now, the only people who can 
sell guns in large quantities at gun shows are federally licensed 
dealers. Under this legislation, for the first time--and that is what I 
was saying--we would have a new group of people allowed to sell guns in 
large quantities at gun shows. These are people who have not gone under 
the rigors of the check before becoming a Federal dealer. They are not 
people who have the licensing requirements. It is a loophole so wide 
you can drive a Mack truck through it.
  Our law enforcement people tell us, again, if we are talking about 
enforcement, I am sure we want to trace guns that criminals have. 
Everyone on the other side is saying tougher penalties for the 
criminals. I agree with that. One of the reasons I believe I befuddled 
some of the folks on the other side is I am a tough guy on law and 
order. I believe in tough punishment and have worked for it. But tough 
punishment and gun laws are not contradictory.
  The NRA and others always set up that straw man: Well, we need tough 
enforcement.
  Yes, we do. If the two people who brought the guns into Littleton 
High had lived, I would have wanted the book thrown at them. But may I 
say to my friends and my fellow Americans, I would have also wanted 
them never to have been able to get a gun, because punishing after the 
crime, while important and necessary, does not save a life.
  To say that we need tough laws and tough enforcement is correct. To 
say that that means we do not need gun laws is incorrect. And that is 
the basic illogic of the arguments I have heard made on the other side 
tonight. Tough punishment, yes; tough gun laws, yes.
  The Senator from Idaho talked about where the American people are. I 
will tell you--I agree with you--they are for tough punishment, no 
question about it. They are also for tougher gun laws. In a recent CNN 
survey, 4 percent said they did not think the gun laws ought to be 
toughened. In another survey--I forget who did it--87 percent said 
close the gun show loophole. They did not say come up with a mechanism 
by which other people can sell quantities of guns and never report to 
whom they sold those guns at a gun show. That is what this amendment 
does.
  Let's make no mistake about it. Is this a diluted version of the 
Lautenberg amendment? It is worse, because it gives the impression we 
are tightening the loophole.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time yielded to the Senator has expired.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask the Senator if he will yield me 1 more minute to 
finish my point.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. One more minute, yes.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Senator from New Jersey.
  We are trying to give the impression that we are toughening things 
up, but, in a sense, not only are we not because of these special 
licensees--and I still have not heard a single good reason why they 
should not have reporting requirements--but at the same time, we are 
creating a new mechanism. And sure as we are sitting here--and I say 
this to the American people because the Senate seems unable to 
understand the pleas of the American people--they are going to start 
using special licensees as opposed to federally licensed dealers all 
across America.
  Violence will increase, and we will be hearing calls for more tough 
punishment, which we will need because there will be more criminals and 
more gun deaths.
  I urge rejection of the Hatch-Craig amendment. If you want to do 
something real, pass the Lautenberg amendment. We will have a chance, 
hopefully, to revote on it next week, and then we will see who wants to 
close the gun show loophole.
  I thank my colleagues for their time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, how much time do the two sides have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah has 11 minutes 25 
seconds. The Senator from New Jersey has 10 minutes 37 seconds.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the Hatch-Craig amendment we offered 
earlier this afternoon requires every nonlicensed individual who 
desires to sell a firearm at a gun show to have a background check. 
They can get a background check through a licensed Federal firearms 
dealer or through a special registrant, but he must get a background 
check.
  The language in the amendment clearly states that a nonlicensed 
seller ``shall only make'' a sale at a gun show after getting a 
background check through the instant check system.
  ``Shall'' means ``shall.'' It does not mean ``maybe,'' ``sometimes,'' 
or ``if you want to''; it means ``shall.''
  The distinguished Senator from New Jersey says we are a nation of 
laws.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will the Senator from Utah yield for a brief moment?
  Mr. HATCH. I will on your time because I only have a limited amount 
of time and I want to get through these points.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I think we are out of time.
  Mr. HATCH. Let me see if I have enough time at the end.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I yielded a little to the Senator before.
  Mr. HATCH. I will be happy to at the end if we have some time, but we 
are short on time.
  The distinguished Senator from New Jersey says we are a nation of 
laws. He says we must close the loophole that allows nonlicensed 
individuals to buy a gun at a gun show.
  The Senator from New Jersey says the definition of ``gun show'' used 
in the amendment would exempt gatherings of fewer than 10 firearms 
exhibitors and, he said, would exempt gatherings of firearm exhibitors 
and other exhibitors where the percentage of firearm exhibitors is less 
than 20 percent of the show. This is untrue. The amendment defines a 
``gun show'' as an event at which we have either, A, 20 percent or more 
firearms exhibitors out of all the exhibitors at the show or, B, 10 or 
more firearms exhibitors. The language is ``or,'' not ``and.''
  Thus, if there are three exhibitors, one of which is a firearms 
exhibitor, this would constitute a ``gun show'' under the 20 percent 
rule--one out of three naturally being 33 percent, which is greater 
than 20 percent. The event need not satisfy the ``10 or more'' tests. 
It will be a gun show.
  If there are 10 firearm exhibitors out of 100 exhibitors, that will 
be a gun show under the ``10 or more'' rule. The event need not also 
satisfy the 20 percent. It would be a gun show.
  It is just that simple. There is no question about it. The threshold 
for what constitutes a gun show is low and it is certain: 20 percent 
firearms exhibitors or 10 or more firearms exhibitors.
  What does that mean? In fact, the definition of ``gun show'' in the 
Hatch-Craig amendment is more strict than Senator Lautenberg's original 
definition. He required 50 firearms and 2 or more firearms sellers. 
Thus, if 1 of 3 exhibitors at a gathering is a firearms dealer and only 
brings 49 firearms, Senator Lautenberg's amendment would not classify 
it as a gun show. The Hatch-Craig amendment would classify it as a gun 
show.
  The Republican amendment closes the loophole that the Democratic 
amendment left open. To talk about loopholes, we know a little bit 
about that. The Hatch-Craig amendment

[[Page 9583]]

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

[[Page 9584]]

  I thank my colleagues for their forbearance.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 90 
seconds without it coming from anybody's time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in many ways I feel that if the 
distinguished Senator from Utah and I were unconstrained by Senators on 
either side, we could write a bill that would be very helpful. But I 
hope we do not get carried away with partisan rhetoric here.
  The fact of the matter is that there have been a number of issues the 
Democratic side of the aisle has brought up that have been voted down 
by the Republican side--not unanimously, I might say; in fact, I can 
think of a couple where the distinguished Presiding Officer voted 
differently than the majority of his party--and then those parts were 
then put into a Republican bill. That is fine. I am not interested who 
takes credit; I am interested in stopping juvenile crime.
  In fairness, let's point out, when we talk about what the 
administration might or might not have done, in the past 6 years, the 
rate of violent crime has come down at a faster and greater level than 
at any time in my lifetime. I am 59 years old. That means through 
Republican and Democratic administrations, the rate of violent crime 
has come down faster than ever before in the 6 years of this 
administration. The rate of juvenile crime has done the same. We have 
stopped thousands and thousands of gun sales to those with felony 
records. Let's stop saying who has done it or who has not done it. 
Let's do what is best for our children. We are parents. We are 
grandparents.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 90 seconds have expired.
  Mr. LEAHY. I intend that as a compliment to my friend from Utah.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am managing the time on our side. I yield myself 
such time as remains for my response to what we have heard.
  Mr. President, I listened very carefully to the speeches. If I may 
say, the rhetoric that was used here--decrying the Federal Government's 
efforts to curb crime, incriminating crime fighting within the 
jurisdiction of the Federal Government, and saying that we are not 
doing our job--it is outrageous to listen to, I must tell you, because 
these things are concoctions. There are few people who I have more 
respect for in this place than the distinguished Senator from Utah, but 
that does not mean that I do not think he is wrong in some of the 
things he has just said. I am responding with admiration and respect.
  When we look at the ATF investigations, I hold here the report that 
is ``Gun Shows,'' issued January 1999, by the Bureau of Alcohol, 
Tobacco and Firearms, Department of Justice, Department of the 
Treasury. It says: Together ATF investigations paint a disturbing 
picture of gun shows as a venue for criminal activity and a source of 
firearms used in crimes. Felons, although prohibited from acquiring 
firearms, have been able to purchase firearms at gun shows. In fact, 
felons buying or selling firearms were involved in more than 46 percent 
of the investigations involving gun shows. Firearms involved in the 314 
reviewed investigations numbered more than 54,000. A large number of 
these firearms were sold or purchased at gun shows.
  What I hear here is concern about protecting average citizens from 
inconvenience. What a terrible thing. Why should they have this big 
brother looking over their shoulder? Why should we have speed limits? 
Why should we have laws against drugs? Why should we have laws against 
alcohol? Because this is a nation of laws. That is what we are about. 
That is what makes this society so distinctive. Instead, I haven't 
heard the pleas for the parents of those kids who have been killed by 
guns purchased, wherever they are. I haven't heard that. What I have 
heard is a nagging little complaint about, oh, what a pity, the 
infringement of the person who wants to go buy a gun who needs it in a 
hurry, sticks it in his pocket, walks out of the place without 
identifying himself.
  Yes, the Hatch-Craig amendment does close some of the avenues for gun 
purchase, but it does not close them all, because if you are a special 
licensed purveyor, you don't have to do any checking at all. That is 
what the amendment says. Perhaps it is careless, perhaps it is 
deliberate, but it does not protect against that.
  Then I hear a challenge to the President and his complaints about gun 
shows. He doesn't say that. He talks about gun shows with a degree of 
respect, but he says there are problems that have developed as a result 
of excesses available through gun shows.
  I think we have to look at what is happening. Federal gun 
prosecutions: Overall violent and property crimes are down more than 20 
percent each; the murder rate is down 28 percent, the lowest level in 
30 years; homicides, robberies, and aggravated assaults committed with 
guns are down by an average of 27 percent. And yet, when we go ahead 
and talk about what we have to do to protect our citizens, we hear, get 
more enforcement out there, get more of a bureaucracy.
  But when it comes to providing the money for ATF agents and Federal 
prosecutors, we have a heck of a time trying to get it. Despite the 
rhetoric, the NRA has never supported backing its tough talk with real 
money for State, local, and Federal law enforcement agencies to 
investigate, arrest, and prosecute gun criminals.
  Well, the reason for the decline in prosecutions is that we work more 
now with State and local agencies than we ever did before. Overall, the 
rate of convictions and incarcerations has grown pretty steadily.
  We are looking at what I will call straw men, reasons to find ways of 
not inconveniencing the gun buyer. Heaven forbid the gun buyer should 
have to obey the same laws that other people have to when they want to 
buy an automobile or buy liquor or what have you. There are 
regulations, and so it should be. That doesn't take away anybody's 
right to buy a drink or buy a car. You just have to fess up to it. If 
you want to buy a gun, in my view, you have to be able to say: This is 
my name; this is where I live; this is what I want to do.
  If the audience was not obscured through a television camera or not 
away from the folks in front of you but, rather, were the parents and 
the families of the kids in Littleton, they would find that Americans 
blame the Littleton incident in significant measure on the availability 
of guns. They do not say there is too little prosecution. They don't 
say that the gun laws are cumbersome. What they say is there are too 
darned many guns in our society.
  How much are each to blame for Littleton? Percentage responding, a 
great deal: availability of guns, 60 percent; parents, 51 percent; 
nearly all Americans support many gun control measures, particularly 
those aimed at kids; require background checks on explosives and gun 
show buyers, national poll, 87 percent.
  In here we have 51 percent who went the other way just yesterday and 
today want to, in my view, set up a smokescreen, pretend we closed all 
the loopholes. There is nothing malicious in it. They just happen to be 
wrong in the approach, because if they looked at their own amendment 
they would see there are loopholes--whether they are requiring Federal 
agencies to get rid of records so they are not kept for too long a 
time, leaving the pawnshop opening that we just heard about for someone 
who is away. I just spoke to the Senator from Idaho. I said: What would 
happen if the claimant, to retrieve a gun that is in a pawnshop, comes 
back 4 months later? Are they required to say anything about where they 
have been during this period?
  No. No, there is no requirement. The Senator from Idaho said there is 
no requirement. The guy could have been in jail for 90 days. But the 
fact is that he has come back. He has paid his interest. He has paid 
his $50 to retrieve his gun. Give him his gun back. Don't ask any 
questions.

[[Page 9585]]

  I ask you, is that bordering on the absurd? I think so.
  We, again, hear these lame arguments about why we couldn't adopt the 
Lautenberg amendment as it was originally. And today, shame has filled 
this place, embarrassment has filled this place, because calls have 
come in and newspapers have editorialized and said what is the matter 
with the Senate--87 percent of the people out there think that gun 
shows are a source of too many weapons.
  But not here. Here we worry about not the victim, not the parent, not 
the brother, the sister, or the child. No, we worry about the 
inconvenience or the big bureaucracy that may be created to make it 
inconvenient or slow down the pace of gun acquisition.
  Are there too few guns in this society? I ask anybody, too few guns? 
I doubt it. Something like over 200 million guns, that is enough to go 
around pretty well.
  They blame our culture. We heard a story the other day from the 
Senator from Michigan who said that in Windsor, Canada, just across the 
river, they see the same television, are exposed to the same cultural 
elements, prefer the same music, everything else, yet they have so far 
fewer crimes with guns--about 30 or 40 times more in Detroit than they 
have in Windsor. It has to do with the availability of guns, nothing 
more and nothing less.
  We ought to face up to it and not find different excuses for why it 
is that the gun wasn't involved. It is not the gun's fault, no; it is 
the trigger person's fault. But that trigger person would have had a 
heck of a time knifing the 13 or 15 people in the Columbine High School 
in the situation they were in. It was easy, however, with their 
weapons, with their explosives. It is time to face up to it.
  I wish we would pay the same attention to the victims: 35,000 victims 
in a year of handgun death, 13,000 of murder, in rough numbers, 18,000 
of suicides, 3,000 of accidents. When you compare us to the other 
societies with whom we associate and work, there is just no comparison. 
We are looking at societies that have less than 100 deaths a year from 
guns--the UK, Japan, and others. It just doesn't happen there. Why? 
These are similar people with the same kinds of problems we have. They 
have mixed societies and they have problems adjusting to conditions. 
But they don't have the guns laying around in every nook and cranny.
  So I hope that the American people will watch what happens here and 
see who voted against the Lautenberg amendment yesterday because there 
are a couple loopholes that have been covered and yet many opened. I 
hope when we vote tomorrow, the public will be watching because the 
answers will have to be given to them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Under the previous order, the Senator from New York is to be 
recognized to offer an amendment.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, be added as a cosponsor to this legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. Before I get into this 
amendment, I would like to make one final point, which I thought was 
relevant to the Senator from Utah. I went over to him privately, but I 
think the Record should show it because he mentioned my name in the 
debate. I will discuss this after I send up my amendment.


                           Amendment No. 350

   (Purpose: To amend title 18, United States Code, to regulate the 
    transfer of firearms over the Internet, and for other purposes)

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York (Mr. Schumer), for himself, Mr. 
     Lautenberg, Mr. Kohl, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Torricelli, and Mr. 
     Durbin, proposes an amendment numbered 350.

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 265, after line 20, insert the following:

     SEC. __. INTERNET GUN TRAFFICKING ACT OF 1999.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the 
     ``Internet Gun Trafficking Act of 1999''.
       (b) Regulation of Internet Firearms Transfers.--
       (1) Prohibitions.--Section 922 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after subsection (y) the 
     following:
       ``(z) Regulation of Internet Firearms Transfers.--
       ``(1) In general.--It shall be unlawful for any person to 
     operate an Internet website, if a clear purpose of the 
     website is to offer 10 or more firearms for sale or exchange 
     at one time, or is to otherwise facilitate the sale or 
     exchange of 10 or more firearms posted or listed on the 
     website at one time, unless--
       ``(A) the person is licensed as a manufacturer, importer, 
     or dealer under section 923;
       ``(B) the person notifies the Secretary of the Internet 
     address of the website, and any other information concerning 
     the website as the Secretary may require by regulation; and
       ``(C) if any firearm posted or listed for sale or exchange 
     on the website is not from the business inventory or personal 
     collection of that person--
       ``(i) the person, as a term or condition for posting or 
     listing the firearm for sale or exchange on the website on 
     behalf of a prospective transferor, requires that, in the 
     event of any agreement to sell or exchange the firearm 
     pursuant to that posting or listing, the firearm be 
     transferred to that person for disposition in accordance with 
     clause (iii);
       ``(ii) the person prohibits the posting or listing on the 
     website of, and does not in any manner disseminate, any 
     information (including any name, nickname, telephone number, 
     address, or electronic mail address) that is reasonably 
     likely to enable the prospective transferor and prospective 
     transferee to contact one another directly prior to the 
     shipment of the firearm to that person under clause (i), 
     except that this clause does not include any information 
     relating solely to the manufacturer, importer, model, 
     caliber, gauge, physical attributes, operation, performance, 
     or price of the firearm; and
       ``(iii) with respect to each firearm received from a 
     prospective transferor under clause (i), the person--

       ``(I) enters such information about the firearm as the 
     Secretary may require by regulation into a separate bound 
     record;
       ``(II) in transferring the firearm to any transferee, 
     complies with the requirements of this chapter as if the 
     firearm were being transferred from the business inventory of 
     that person; and
       ``(III) if the prospective transferor does not provide the 
     person with a certified copy of a valid firearms license 
     issued to the prospective transferor under this chapter, 
     submits to the Secretary a report of the transfer or other 
     disposition of the firearm on a form specified by the 
     Secretary, which report shall not include the name of, or any 
     other identifying information relating to, the transferor.

       ``(2) Transfers by persons other than licensees.--It shall 
     be unlawful for any person who is not licensed under section 
     923 to transfer a firearm pursuant to a posting or listing of 
     the firearm for sale or exchange on an Internet website 
     described in paragraph (1) to any person other than the 
     operator of the website.
       ``(3) Interactive Computer Service.--Nothing in this 
     section may be construed to provide any basis for liability 
     against an interactive computer service which is not engaged 
     in an activity a purpose of which is to--
       ``(A) originate an offer for sale of one or more firearms 
     on an Internet website; or
       ``(B) provide a forum that is directed specifically at an 
     audience of potential customers who wish to sell, exchange, 
     or transfer firearms with or to others.''.
       (2) Penalties.--Section 924(a) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) Whoever willfully violates section 922(z)(2) shall be 
     fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or 
     both.''.

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, the point I was about to make regarding 
the Orrin Hatch amendment, before we get into the substance of this 
debate--I doubt that we will take the whole hour on this one--is this: 
Under the Hatch-Craig amendment, there is a new category of people 
called ``special licensees'' who can sell at a gun show. They can sell 
guns en masse--lots of guns. Not only are they not required to do the 
paperwork, they are not required to do a background check. So when the 
Senator from Utah said before that they are toughening up the law, it 
is just not so.
  It is true that federally licensed dealers would have to do a 
background check; it is true that the law is a little toughened up so 
that individuals who sell to one another might have to do a

[[Page 9586]]

background check. But we create a whole new huge category of special 
licensees who can come to gun shows, sell en masse, do no background 
check and no paper recording. What a loophole.
  That is why the Hatch-Craig amendment, more than any other reason, is 
a giant step not forward but backward. That is why the amendment of the 
Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg, is what is needed. I ask my 
colleagues to look at that as part of the other debate.
  Mr. President, we are here today to debate an amendment dealing with 
Internet sales of guns. I want to thank Chairman Hatch and Senator 
Leahy for the opportunity to offer this amendment. We have known for a 
long time that gun shows are a loophole that have allowed people to buy 
guns without a background check. We know that. Well, there is another 
loophole that I believe is about to make a quantum change in the gun 
black market and is a disaster waiting to happen: At this moment, on 
your personal computer in your home, in your child's bedroom, there are 
thousands and thousands of guns available for sale by unlicensed 
dealers on the Internet.
  These guns, including assault weapons, automatic weapons and cheap 
handguns, are listed for sale on a no-questions-asked, honor system 
basis, which leaves it up to anonymous buyers and sellers to comply 
with Brady and State and local firearms laws. Any computer novice can 
so readily and so easily find gun web sites that owning a personal 
computer means having a gun show in your home 24 hours a day.
  Last month, for instance, a 17-year-old Alabama boy acquired a Taurus 
9 millimeter semi-automatic pistol and 50 rounds of ammunition over the 
Internet. He was caught only because his mother was home and UPS 
dropped off the package. Who knows what crime may have been committed 
with that Internet gun.
  Since 1968, it has been illegal for a felon to buy a gun. The reason 
we passed the Brady law is because enforcement had no mechanism to 
enforce that law. The Internet returns us to the pre-Brady period where 
disreputable people can get together and evade gun laws with little 
prospect of detection. Mark my words, if we don't pass an amendment 
such as this one, within a year or two, the Internet will be the method 
of choice by which kids, criminals, and mentally incompetents obtain 
guns. We will rue the day we don't pass this amendment. Passing this 
amendment now will save lives.
  What does it do? My amendment simply requires that any web site that 
is set up to offer guns for sale on the Internet be a federally 
licensed firearm dealer who will make certain that criminal background 
checks occur with each sale. It just makes the Internet Brady 
compliant--no more, no less.
  Let me show you what is available on the web by simply typing in key 
words like guns for sale, militia and AK-47. This is the Guns America 
Web site right here on this paper. Anybody can punch into it. Guns 
America boasts that it sells guns on the honor system, that there is 
``not an FFL dealer among the bunch of us,'' and that it will ``grow to 
hundreds of thousands of new listings every month.''
  Guns America, at this very moment, has 21 AK-47s and AK-47 copies for 
sale, with no questions asked--not a soul watching, not a stitch of 
oversight. It is solely up to anonymous buyers and sellers to comply 
with all gun laws. Let me tell you, the chance of getting caught 
breaking the law is as likely as mom finding the gun in junior's 
bedroom.
  Now, this one here is the Weapons Rack, another honor system weapons 
site. Since last week when I made this poster, the Weapons Rack has had 
3,300 visitors to its site. We don't know anything about these 
visitors. Did they buy? Did they sell? Were they kids? Were they 
felons? What we do know is that the number of visitors is indicative 
that sales on the Internet are growing exponentially. Remember, 5 years 
ago, practically nobody bought stocks on the Internet. Today, 30 
percent of all stocks are sold online.
  The internet is about to change the entire way guns are bought and 
sold in America. And if we don't get on top of it now and create and 
ironclad enforcement mechanism to ensure Brady compliance, I promise 
you just as sure as I am standing here, it will cost lives and we will 
sorely regret it.
  This is the Weapons Rack disclaimer: ``It is the sole responsibility 
of the seller and buyer to conform to [firearms] regulations.''
  Not exactly a confidence booster, is it?
  If either the seller or buyer don't want to comply, they go right 
through.
  GunSource.com has 3,600 guns for sale. Their disclaimer says, 
``Because user authentication on the Internet is difficult, we cannot 
confirm that each user is who they claim to be.''
  Isn't that amazing?
  Let me read that again. This is right on the Internet. ``Because user 
authentication on the Internet is difficult, we cannot confirm that 
each user is who they claim to be.''
  This is a chilling admission. It is also an invitation to those who 
cannot buy a gun from a licensed dealer to use the cloak of the 
Internet to find illicit sellers and arms sellers.
  Earlier this year eBay, the Nation's largest Internet auction site, 
put out this statement in conjunction with a directive banning the 
listing of guns on this web site. This is what eBay said. They said:

       The current laws governing the sale of firearms were 
     created for the non-internet sale of firearms. These laws may 
     work well in the real world, but they work less well for the 
     online trading of firearms, where the seller and the buyer 
     rarely meet face-to-face. The online seller cannot readily 
     guarantee that the buyer meets all the qualifications and 
     complies with the laws governing the sale of firearms.

  Listen to the experts. eBay said selling guns on the web is too 
dangerous because they had no idea who was buying and who was selling; 
no way to find out; no way to ask; no way to verify--the guns are sold 
purely on faith.
  My amendment is balanced, reasonable, and modest.
  It replaces blind internet faith with fully Brady compliance, no 
more, no less.
  It bans the unlicensed sale of guns on the internet by requiring 
websites clearly designed to sell guns to be federally licensed 
firearms dealers. It won't affect chat rooms. It won't affect newspaper 
want ads. It won't affect licensed firearms dealers.
  It requires internet gun sites to become ``middlemen'' and act as 
conduits for all sales by forwarding all gun sales to the appropriate 
firearms dealer in the buyer's state who will perform the Brady 
background check. In this way, it is just like a mail-order sale. You 
have an intermediary. When the gun is sold, it is sent to a gun dealer 
who then does the background check and gives the gun to the buyer.
  To prevent buyers and sellers from circumventing the website operator 
and from carrying out transactions which violate federal law--the 
amendment prohibits sites from listing information like an e-mail 
address or phone number that allows buyers and sellers to independently 
contact each other.
  Sellguns.com does this already. They are an FFL. This is an auction 
site where buyers e-mail bids for a particular gun through the website 
operator. The seller sends the firearm, the shipper pays, and the buyer 
sends the bid, plus fees and shipping, and SellGuns.com makes the match 
and identifies the seller's item with the buyer's request. It works 
well. It is happening now. We would require this to happen in every 
sale. It doesn't interfere with the transaction of guns; it just makes 
sure that kids and criminals can't get them.
  When a final bid is accepted, the buyer sends a check to 
SellGuns.com. The seller sends the gun to SellGuns.com. They trade, the 
check and the gun cross, and everybody is happy.
  That is the model for how all internet gun sales will proceed if this 
amendment passes.
  This amendment is also easy to enforce.
  Since these websites operate on a volume basis they have to make 
their sites easily accessible. Most sites are linked to common words 
like ``guns,'' ``AK-47,'' and ``militia.'' So gun sites

[[Page 9587]]

are actually easy to find and easy to put into compliance or put out of 
business if they refuse to comply.
  Some members have asked me about the difference between a gun ad in 
say, Guns and Ammo magazines or a newspaper want ad and gun sites on 
the internet.
  Number one: volume, The number of guns for sale right now on the 
internet--20,000, 50,000, 100,000 guns--dwarfs anything available in 
any publication.
  Number two: secrecy. Magazines are static publications. If the same 
individual keeps showing up selling guns, law enforcement can look at 
back issues and investigate. The internet is ephemeral. Sellers come 
and go. Ads appear and disappear.
  Number three: access. Gun sellers are in my home and your home. 
They're in the bedrooms of my ten year old and my fourteen year old 
daughters. Owning a personal computer means having a gun show in your 
home.
  All it takes is a curious and troubled teenager to cruise the web 
until they find someone willing to sell. At least with Guns and Ammo a 
kid has got to know the magazine exists and go to a magazine shop and 
buy it. This gun store is in your home whether you like it or not.
  Number four: anonymity. The web allows kids and criminals to use e-
mail to rapidly probe on-line sellers to see who is willing to bypass 
gun laws. And since it is impossible to monitor any transaction there 
is only the slimmest of chances that anyone would get caught.
  In a magazine ad it would be enormously time consuming and frankly 
involve luck to figure out who is willing to sell under the table.
  Number five: distance. The local want ads, are just that--local. The 
internet moves the transaction from a neighborhood market to a national 
market.
  Commerce on the internet is in its infancy. I agree with those who 
say that we ought to be very careful before we prohibit certain 
activities on the net.
  I believe that the internet is one of the reasons that American 
productivity is at an all-time high and growing at a remarkable pace.
  But this is an area that cries out for common sense regulation. it is 
rare that Congress is ahead of the curve. We usually have to be prodded 
by crisis to act.
  If we fail to close the internet loophole today--I promise you--it 
will not be the last time that we hear about this issue. A child, a 
criminal, a disturbed individual will exploit this loophole, evade a 
background check and commit a crime that will leave America in 
mourning.
  In Alabama, where a juvenile succeeded in buying a gun on the 
internet an ATF agent said:

       The sale of guns on the internet is part of the growing 
     cottage gun industry, replacing face-to-face firearms sales 
     between dealers and individuals at local shops with e-mail 
     messages and shipping orders.
       On the internet, the dealers don't know who they're dealing 
     with on the other end. You could be dealing with a career 
     criminal, a drug dealer or a high school student.

  Do we really want to leave the sale of guns over the internet 
completely unregulated?
  This bill I am presenting is a balanced, constitutionally sound bill 
which requires web sites that are clearly designed to offer guns for 
sale to be federally licensed firearm dealers--no more, no less.
  We learned from the Brady bill that the honor system doesn't work for 
guns. It might for most people. It doesn't for criminals. And it 
doesn't for kids who want to buy them and to do something terrible.
  Pass this amendment and we solve the major problem. Let it fail and 
we open a firearms cyberhighway that has no exit.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me clear up a point the Senator from 
New York made this evening before I discuss the amendment that is 
before us.
  He has made the allegation that the special licensee we have created 
in our amendment for dealing with gun shows is somehow not going to 
have to do background checks. Language in the bill says, referring to 
the special licensee, ``shall conduct his activities in accordance with 
all dealer record keeping required under this chapter for a dealer.''
  We go to that chapter, 18922, and he falls within that chapter, and 
that is the requirement of the background check.
  So it is our intent. We believe we have covered that intent.
  Let the record show that is what we believe the law to be as we 
proposed it in this form.
  I am happy to sit down with the Senator tonight or tomorrow, but I 
believe we have covered it adequately. There is no question of our 
intent here. It is not a loophole. The special licensee is a dealer. We 
put him into the dealer section with all other gun dealers. We will 
leave it at that for the evening.
  Very briefly; I want to get out of here.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I don't blame the Senator. I appreciate the courtesy.
  As I understand the special licensees, a background check would not 
be required; rather, the section of the law would require only 
certification.
  Mr. CRAIG. That is not true. The licensee would become a dealer and 
falls under the dealer section of the law, 922 paragraph T(1). Check it 
out, read it tonight, see if you don't agree with us. If you don't, we 
will be happy to discuss it tomorrow.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I appreciate that.
  Mr. CRAIG. Let me talk about the Internet for a moment.
  Somehow in the last day and a half we have heard this marvelous new 
word ``loophole.'' Everything has a loophole in it. Somehow through a 
loophole we are cramming everything today. It is a great mantra. I 
think Bill Clinton coined it in one of his phrases lately--handgun 
control loophole. Tonight we have a loophole in the Internet. It is 
called ``beam me up a gun, Scotty,'' except the Senator from New York, 
being the remarkable fellow he is, has not pioneered Star Trek 
technology to deal with guns.
  The Internet is an advertising medium. It is not a medium of 
exchange. You advertise on the Internet.
  Now, I am not a very good Internet surfer, but I know I can't push a 
button and see a gun come out from the screen. The Senator from New 
York knows it, too. In fact, he refers to Guns America Web Site. We 
pulled it up while he was talking. This is what it said:

       Please note, as a buyer you must first call the seller of 
     the gun, confirm price and availability, and arrange for an 
     FFL dealer in your State to receive shipment. Your FFL dealer 
     must send a copy of their license to the seller.

  My point is quite simple: If you buy a gun on the Internet, it 
somehow has to make contact with you.
  He referenced a young fellow who acquired a gun on the Internet and 
his mother intercepted it because a common carrier had brought it to 
their home. The common carrier violated the law. It is against the law 
in America today to send a gun through the U.S. mail or to allow one to 
be transferred by common carrier to be delivered to a recipient.
  I guess that is my point. He may not like the style of advertising or 
the rhetoric around the advertising, but there has to be a point of 
contact. How do you make the contact? How does the gun move from the 
seller to the buyer? Therein lies the issue here.
  If I believed what is being said were true, I would be alarmed. I 
don't think any of us want a gun show in our kiddie's bedrooms. It is 
great rhetoric tonight. The gun show isn't in the kiddie's bedroom. 
There is advertising on the Internet. The child can access the 
Internet. The child can't touch the gun. He cannot receive the gun. And 
the example that he applied was a violation of the Federal law. Again, 
one of those laws that we stacked on the books and somehow somebody 
slipped through it. That is what happens with laws some of the time 
unless we have this huge web of law enforcement.
  My guess is the common carrier is libel in this instance. I don't 
know the total story, but I do know the gun got

[[Page 9588]]

delivered to the home and it had to come through some form of common 
carrier. We believe that to be a violation of the law.
  The impact of this amendment is to simply restrict gun sellers to 
19th century advertising technology. That is, newspapers and fliers.
  On a more serious note, the amendment would be an extraordinary and 
unprecedented restriction on commercial speech. That is called a 
violation of the first amendment.
  I am not a constitutional lawyer and I am not going to debate that 
this is a constitutional violation. But my guess, if it were to become 
law, it would rapidly get tested in the courts because I believe it 
could be that.
  Our laws have never required an advertising medium to become part of 
the business that it advertises. For example, we don't require a 
newspaper to get a State liquor license before carrying alcohol ads. 
But in any event, that would be well beyond anything this Congress ever 
contemplated.
  In fact, Federal law confirms exactly the opposite: The Firearms 
Owners Protection Act, which became law in 1986, specifically confirms 
the right of individuals to make occasional sales, exchanges, and/or 
purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection, for 
a hobby, or to sell all or part of a personal collection of firearms 
within their State or their residence.
  I do not quite understand what the Senator from New York is talking 
about tonight about expanding beyond the boundary of a State. Yes, the 
Internet is national; it is international. But for a gun owner in New 
York to buy a gun out of California would be interstate activity, and 
that would be against the current law. I think the Senator from New 
York knows that.
  What we are suggesting in our amendment, because we do address the 
issue of Internet activities, this Congress would not want anything 
illegal going on in the Internet. If you use the Internet to offer a 
firearm to a felon, and you know it, you broke the law. That is what we 
are saying. If your intent is to sell to anybody on the Internet and 
not require the checking, you are breaking the law. That is what we 
would say.
  The Hatch-Craig amendment makes it a crime to knowingly solicit--that 
is what you are doing on the Internet, you are soliciting. You are not 
transporting guns, you are not putting them in the hands of kids, you 
are soliciting--to knowingly solicit an illegal firearm transaction 
through the Internet. That is what we do.
  We go a step forward and talk about explosive materials. There is a 
very real concern on the Internet today about bombs--not material, 
because you can't transport it, again, but the diagrams to build a 
bomb. I am opposed to that, too. But at least you have to go out and 
acquire the material to build one because the Internet doesn't ``beam 
it through to your home, Scotty,'' nor does it beam the gun.
  That is the reality. Our amendment is simple. We think it addresses 
the issue. I hope our colleagues tomorrow would vote for the Hatch-
Craig amendment that covers all of these issues very clearly, very 
succinctly.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I will answer a few points of the Senator 
from Idaho and maybe we can engage in a dialog.
  The Senator is wrong in one sense. The Internet does not just do 
advertising. Some sites just do advertising, and if there were no 
efforts to transfer guns, we would agree.
  How about when a web site offers guns and earns a fee when there is a 
sale? That is not an advertisement, it is a business. The more guns 
they sell, the more the web site makes.
  The second point I make, and this is the most important point, the 
Senator from Idaho got up and he said they give each other the name and 
address, and it is their responsibility to contact a firearms dealer.
  Say I am a 15-year-old and I want a gun, but I don't tell the seller 
that I want it, and I don't contact the firearms dealer. What is to 
stop me from doing that? That is the point here.
  Sure, in a perfect world, the Senator from Idaho would be right. But 
then we wouldn't be debating a juvenile crime bill. The fact that there 
are criminals, young and old, means there are people who won't obey the 
law. All we are trying to do is make it easy for law enforcement or 
even possible for law enforcement to make sure people obey the law.
  I guess I would ask my friend from Idaho if the 15-year-old has no 
intention of going through a licensed dealer, which is the law for an 
out-of-State sale, how do we stop him under present law? How do we stop 
him from getting the gun? That is the problem.
  Mr. CRAIG. I will respond briefly. The hour is late.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I appreciate that.
  Mr. CRAIG. We can conduct more dialog on this tomorrow.
  Under current law--in other words, we are talking about ``the law,'' 
not a vacuum but the law, let me read what Guns America says: ``As a 
buyer, you must first call a dealer.''
  The reason you have to do that is the gun is transferred through the 
dealer, not through the mail. Because the 15-year-old cannot----
  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask the Senator, what if he doesn't call the dealer?
  Mr. CRAIG. Then he will not get the gun.
  Mr. SCHUMER. They will still mail him the gun. They don't know he is 
15.
  Mr. CRAIG. The U.S. Postal Service says it is illegal.
  Mr. SCHUMER. But the U.S Postal Service doesn't open every package.
  Mr. CRAIG. I can't dispute that. In other words, he broke a law.
  Mr. SCHUMER. He got the gun.
  Mr. CRAIG. But he broke a law. You are going to create another law to 
be broken. Why don't we enforce the law we have?
  Mr. SCHUMER. Reclaiming my time----
  Mr. CRAIG. You have it.
  Mr. SCHUMER. The point is, the two gentlemen from Columbine High 
School broke the law. If we want to allow every kid to get a gun and we 
can then, after they create havoc, say they broke the law, we are in 
pretty sad shape.
  What we want to do here is prevent them from getting guns. To simply 
say a 15-year-old who purchases a gun on the Internet broke the law is 
not very satisfying to most Americans. They want to stop them from 
getting the gun, prevent him from getting the gun.
  So I suggest there in a nutshell is the whole argument. The Senator 
from Idaho says, since the law prohibits interstate gun sales, we 
should allow a 15-year-old who wants to violate the law to use the 
exact mechanism we have talked about, the Internet, to get that gun and 
then after he gets the gun we go after him.
  Mr. CRAIG. I am going to have to ask the Senator to yield because 
that is a very improper portrayal of what I just said. Be accurate, 
please.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Let me just finish my point and then I will be delighted 
to allow the Senator to respond.
  The 15-year-old wants to break the law, sends for the gun, gets the 
gun, and because the Postal Service is not going to open every package 
ahead of time, there is nothing that prevents the 15-year-old from 
getting the gun. In fact, the Postal Service has no way of knowing that 
gun is being shipped to an underage person. So they cannot even--there 
is not even a suspicion. Then, after that person gets the gun, we say 
that person broke the law.
  In fact, the only way we are going to know they broke the law is if 
they use that gun for a bad purpose. If there was ever a situation of 
closing the barn door after the cows got out of the barn, this is it.
  I simply ask my colleague to rethink his opposition to this 
legislation based on his own statement. He broke the law. How do we 
know it? The only human way we can know it, that is humanly possible, 
is after the gun is used in a crime. If the Senator would like me to 
yield, I will. I do not have to if he does not want to respond. Please. 
It is on my time.
  Mr. CRAIG. I will only comment this much further and then I am 
through for the evening. I have been sitting

[[Page 9589]]

here adding up the laws that your description broke. The seller has 
broken the law tonight by your definition.
  Mr. SCHUMER. No.
  Mr. CRAIG. Absolutely, if he sold to a juvenile.
  Mr. SCHUMER. The seller has no knowledge that the child is 15.
  Mr. CRAIG. I think he says he wants the knowledge here.
  Mr. SCHUMER. But the point is, if the child writes in ``25,'' there 
is no way the seller knows.
  Mr. CRAIG. If he doesn't check it out, he broke the law.
  Mr. SCHUMER. How is he going to check it out?
  Mr. CRAIG. Because it is his responsibility as a dealer.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I submit, none of the dealers and none of the 
advertisers on the Internet actually go check. If someone says they are 
above 25----
  Mr. CRAIG. It sounds like ATF isn't doing their job.
  Mr. SCHUMER. It doesn't sound like that to me.
  Mr. CRAIG. I counted that breaking the law. The juvenile is breaking 
the law.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Clearly.
  Mr. CRAIG. And the common carrier is probably breaking the law.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I don't think the common carrier did.
  But, again, my point is a simple one. They are all breaking the law, 
and there is no way to find out. This is not a question for the ATF. 
This is a question because the Senator would be one of the first if the 
ATF started opening every package to see if there were guns and 
knocking on the door of every person who ordered a gun to see what age 
they were, which is of course an absurd situation, we would all be in 
an outcry. So, to say that three people broke the law is not very 
satisfying. To say that Klebold and Harris broke the law in Littleton 
is not very satisfying to the parents who are grieving their children.
  By this simple piece of legislation, we might have stopped it. 
Without impinging on anyone's rights, without changing anything else, 
we might have stopped it.
  With that, I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Has all time been yielded back?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Amendment No. 329 more than any other we 
have seen so far cobbles together a number of proposals that have been 
around for a long time. Let me start with the NIH study, the $2 million 
study required by the amendment.
  I am concerned that this amendment singles out only a few potential 
influences on teen behavior. A better approach, in my view, would be to 
study all factors--the role of parents and schools, the existence of 
counseling and guidance efforts, the alienation of young from their 
peers, and media influences, among other things.
  The President has called on the Surgeon General to conduct just that 
type of review. Perhaps we should include the NIH and other experts in 
the Surgeon General study which is now underway.
  In our rush to respond to very real tragedies, we should take care to 
study all the factors, and to seek solutions that won't trample the 
First Amendment. To artificially limit the NIH study to only media 
influences may not be proper scientific design. The role of parents 
must be considered. Bad parenting can have devastating effects on the 
behavior of children. Just ask the child in an alcoholic family, or in 
a family where there is spouse abuse, or worse.
  I am also concerned about the two sets of antitrust exemptions being 
proposed in this amendment.
  I have spent a good deal of effort over the past several years 
working to eliminate unjustified antitrust exemptions from the law. The 
baseball antitrust amendment comes to mind as one that the Chairman of 
the Judiciary Committee and I worked on together for years until we 
finally succeeded last year.
  Do we have the views of the Department of Justice Antitrust Division 
on either of these proposed antitrust exemptions?
  Last time I examined this issue was when the Assistant Attorney 
General for Antitrust clarified that it would not violate the antitrust 
laws of television stations to agree on guidelines and viewer 
advisories to reduce the negative impact of violence on television. 
That was 1994. It was not illegal now. So, I do not understand the need 
for antitrust exemptions.
  My fear is that any such exemption might be abused and used to 
immunize anti-competitive conduct to the detriment of consumers viewers 
and other companies in and around the entertainment industries.
  I note that one of the exemptions tries at least to protect against 
legalizing group boycotts. Whether that language succeeds, I cannot 
tell as I read it here on the floor. But I do know that the language 
applies to only one of the two exemptions and does not reach all 
anticompetitive conduct.
  Does that create the implication that boycotts are an acceptable way 
to ``enforce'' rules or act anti-competitively? The language mandates 
enforcement but does not say how.
  Senators Brownback and Hatch had initially provided me with two very 
different amendments, and I assumed that the fight would have been over 
which amendment would win over the other--since they are inconsistent.
  It never occurred to me that they would simply slap them together 
into one inconsistent mass which will be impossible to interpret.
  The combined amendment that passed yesterday has major flaws. It 
defines the Internet in a way that could have major unintended effects 
on other laws.
  It hugely denigrates the role of parents--essentially the amendment 
considers parents almost irrelevant to the development of children into 
young adults. It blames most of the social problems of children on 
television, movies and music--an easy target even in the face of 
falling national crime statistics.
  Television programming and movie content is a tempting subject for 
demagoguery. It is much harder to deal with issues such as bad 
parenting and lack of parental supervision because then we can only 
blame ourselves.
  Contrary to the findings in the amendment, there is no substitute for 
parental involvement in the raising of our children.
  I am also very nervous about involving government in the day-to-day 
regulation of the content of television shows or movies and other forms 
of speech. I do not see how the government can step into the shoes of 
parents.
  The Supreme Court has noted that ``laws regulating speech for the 
protection of children have no limiting principle, and a well-
intentioned law restricting protected speech on the basis of content 
is, nevertheless, state-sponsored censorship.''
  Movies such as ``Saving Private Ryan'' or ``Schindler's List'' are 
violent. I admit it. But I do not think that such films should be 
discouraged because of any government enforced content standards.
  If this amendment were voluntary we, of course, would not need to 
pass it since the entertainment industry leaders can already work 
together to develop guidelines, standards, ratings and label warnings. 
That is why I worked out a deal, and signed a dear colleague letter, 
with Senators Hatch, Lott, Daschle, McCain and others in July of 1997.
  We agreed, based on clear guidance from the Justice Department, that 
entertainment industry leaders could meet to work out these guidelines 
and standards and that there would be no antitrust concerns.
  Antitrust laws permit meeting to work out voluntary guidelines.
  This slapped-together amendment goes way beyond that understanding.
  Letters dated January 25, 1994, January 7, 1994, and November 29, 
1993, from the Justice Department make it clear that industry leaders 
can work together to establish guidelines regarding violence in 
programming and movies.

[[Page 9590]]

  One bedrock principle of our democratic government and one of the 
basic protections of freedoms to enjoy as Americans is the First 
Amendment's guarantee that the government will keep itself out of the 
regulation of speech.
  When the Constitution says that ``Congress shall make no law * * * 
abridging the freedom of speech,'' I believe it means what it says. 
That provision ought to be respected until it is repealed which I hope 
never, never, happens.
  For years there have been crusades against the content of books and 
movies but government enforcement is not the answer--where do you draw 
the line?
  This goes back to the old joke about a conference of ministers of 
different faiths getting together and trying to start the meetings. 
They could never agree on the opening prayer so that had to cancel the 
conference.
  I know that some have fond memories of the days of content regulation 
when only separate beds could be shown on shows like Dick Van Dyke. One 
of the findings fondly looks back at these standards stating from page 
6 of the amendment that ``The portrayal of implied sexual acts must be 
essential to the plot and presented in a responsible and tasteful 
manner.'' What is ``essential to the plot'' and who decides that 
question? What is ``tasteful'' and should the government decide that?
  National crime statistics show crime has declined in recent years. I 
know that Mayor Giuliani keeps talking about that reduction in crime. 
What does this drop in crime statistics mean in terms of this 
amendment?
  Section 505 of the amendment allows for the ``enforcement'' of 
guidelines ``designed to ensure compliance'' with ratings and labeling 
systems. When you use words such as ``enforcement'' and ``designed to 
ensure compliance'' that does not sound voluntary to me. I hope that we 
take more time in conference to read this amendment and consider the 
possible problems posed by its language.
  I know some want to permit government enforcement of vague standards 
on the content of TV shows and movies. No one will know what is allowed 
and what isn't allowed. That is chilling, it violates the Constitution, 
and it relegates the role of parents to mere observers.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, on April 20, 1999 two Columbine High 
School students in Littleton, Colorado, swept into that school with 
sawed-off shotguns, one pistol, one semiautomatic rifle, and as many as 
60 homemade pipe bombs. Before they turned their guns on themselves, 
they killed 12 fellow students and 1 teacher and wounded 21 others. In 
doing so, they violated 17 separate federal and Colorado state Statutes 
relating to guns and explosive devices, not to mention a host of 
criminal laws criminalizing their assaults and murders.
  In a justified aftermath of horror and revulsion, wide-ranging public 
opinions across the United States demands that the federal government 
do SOMETHING, anything, to make this violence go away. The most 
prominent call is for more gun laws, many of which raise serious 
constitutional questions under the 2nd Amendment.
  Other attack Hollywood and the Internet for the pervasive violence in 
movies, music and the Internet, all easily available to the most 
impressionable of our teenagers. Any controls of this nature clearly 
run afoul of the 1st Amendment.
  Others blame parents, the lax law enforcement and the schools 
themselves. Few, curiously enough, recognize the reality of an evil 
that lurks in the minds of at least a handful of human beings and is 
clearly beyond the ability of any law to control.
  It would be wonderful if we could just pass a law through Congress, 
another gun control measure or another limitation on free speech that 
could prevent another Littleton, Colorado, or Jonesboro, Arkansas. But 
who, in the calm aftermath of this tragedy, believes that two or three 
more gun laws, in addition to the dozen and a half violated by the two 
Colorado teenagers, would have made the slightest difference in 
Littleton?
  The perpetrators of this violence were far beyond caring about 
adhering to human laws. They were bent on killing. The arena in which 
to reach and stop this evil is not Congress. It is in those places 
where the human heart can be touched; the home, the community and the 
church, and in the humility to recognize that no human efforts will 
ever eliminate all evil from human hearts.
  My children were in high school 25 years ago and I am struck by the 
thought that this kind of extreme violence involving school kids did 
not happen in America then and in my own high school years more people 
may have owned guns than do so today. I can't help but ask: What has 
changed? Why does this happen now?
  The Senate has begun a debate of a Juvenile Justice bill that will 
serve as a vehicle for a number of amendments relating to guns and 
explosives. At least eight different such proposals were submitted to 
Congress by President Clinton in the wake of the Littleton tragedy. 
This is the same President whose budget, bloated in so many other 
respects, makes drastic cuts in the field of effective law enforcement 
assistance. This year, for example, over President Clinton's objection, 
Congress will continue to fund a Byrne Grant program--a program that 
encourages cooperative drug enforcement and treatment mechanisms across 
the country and in my State of Washington. Last year Washington State 
received $10 million in Byrne Grants, without which our law enforcement 
officials would find it next to impossible to combat the biggest drug 
problem in our state--meth labs. Despite this success, the President 
proposes drastic cuts in this successful program.
  Clinton's budget also zeroes out funding for a huge law enforcement 
program--the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant and the Violent Offender 
Incarceration and Truth in Sentencing Incentive Grants, which 
Washington state uses to help fund prison construction, was gutted in 
Clinton's budget--from $772.5 million in FY 1999 to $75 million in FY 
2000.
  Far better to fund anti-crime programs that have proven to be 
successful than to ignore those successes and substitute new statutes 
on the backs of statutes that have been unsuccessful in attaining their 
own goals. Why not enforce the gun laws we already have than add new 
ones to those the Administration ignores?
  Let me make a point clearly here--I thrive on working as an elected 
official because I believe that sensible actions by government can have 
a positive impact on the lives of families and communities across 
America.
  One positive role for government is in promoting a safer society. As 
Washington State Attorney General and now as Senator, I have supported 
laws to make safer products for consumers including safe food, clothes, 
cars and highways. I have worked nearly every day in the last three 
years on the issue of school safety to change federal rules to give 
more flexibility to local school districts to expel violent students. 
Individuals in our society cannot assure a safe food supply or safe 
products or safe roads, so taking sensible steps to make lives safer is 
a proper function of government.
  Still, I am convince that more laws would not have prevented what 
happened in Littleton and, what is more important as we look forward--I 
believe that it is dangerous to promote legislation as a solution. What 
is wrong with the President's gun law proposal and any other 
legislation promoted under the banner of stopping violence? They are 
wrong because they are a mirage. We are repulsed by violence and the 
mirage of a federal government's answer to violence raises false hopes. 
The false hope that violence will be stopped by new federal laws is 
also wrong because it detracts attention from the need to fix what is 
wrong in individual families and communities the need to concentrate on 
those sick elements in our nation that promote violence and disrespect 
for life. This violence stemmed from an evil that found fertile ground 
in the hearts of two impressionable boys in Colorado

[[Page 9591]]

and another federal law will not eradicate that evil.
  There are things that government can do to make our society safer, 
including making our schools safer, and we have already passed one 
amendment to just that end, but the scope of evil which showed its face 
in Littleton is beyond the reach of government action. Controlling 
violence of this scope will come when people care more for each other 
and I, for one, will not join in any chorus of politicians promising 
that government will make that happen.
  I know that there are people of goodwill who disagree with me. They 
want so desperately to do something about this horrible event. I 
understand that desire. If I agreed, I would have already introduced 
legislation. But I believe that actions closer to home are far more 
likely to be successful. I know that this is a radical concept, but 
most of what is good about America is not made so by federal 
legislation. People across our country are searching their hearts and 
their communities for answers. In hundreds of local papers you can see 
that nearly every school district in America has already called 
together teachers, parents and community members to see what can be 
done locally. Local people in their churches of all denominations are 
getting together to see how they can do more to reach kids in trouble. 
And every parent in America has considered carefully whether his or her 
children are at risk of committing violence.
  We should allow this process of national soul searching to continue. 
If out of this process positive actions for the federal government 
emerge we should respond, but we should not hold not immediate federal 
action as false hope in place of the real actions and changes that will 
take place in communities, homes and schools across America.
  It is difficult in this body to face the fact that we don't really 
need new laws as much as we need the enforcement of the laws we already 
have. Even more important than that, however, is a thorough examination 
of the culture of violence in our society and a broad base societal 
demand that those who profit from that violence, in the media and 
elsewhere, be brought to show more responsibility and more restraint.
  I am concerned that the underlying Juvenile Justice bill suffers from 
the same defects. While it includes a few good ideas, it is another 
example of Washington, DC knows best. It spends money we don't have and 
tells every state and local government that we here in Washington, DC, 
know more about juvenile justice than those who spend their lives on 
the subject do.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, my friend from Utah attacked the motion 
picture theater industry yesterday for not enforcing their voluntary 
rating system. Though no system, voluntary or mandatory, can every be 
perfect, the fact is that the exhibition industry is doing an 
increasingly better job enforcing those movie ratings.
  The National Association of Theater Owners, the industry trade 
association, and its members have made ratings enforcement a top 
priority. The association has developed a videotape training series on 
the ratings and their enforcement for theater managers and employees.
  It has distributed hundreds of thousands of brochures through 
theaters to the public which explains the rating system.
  It has published weekly bulletins to its members and newspapers on 
new ratings.
  It has published educational articles for its members, and it has 
held industry-wide meetings twice a year in which code enforcement is 
emphasized.
  Recently, the Motion Picture Association and the National Association 
of Theater Owners began developing slide presentations for display 
during intermissions about the ratings.
  The motion picture theater industry may be the only industry in the 
country which voluntarily turns down millions of dollars in ticket 
sales to enforce a voluntary rating system. We should all encourage the 
industry to do more. But in our rush to judgement, let us remember to 
consider the facts.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to lend my voice in support of 
the juvenile justice bill currently before the Senate. This is an 
extensive, thoughtful approach to try to decrease the juvenile crime 
rate and to try to intervene in today's high-risk youth.
  I stand before you to tell you that this is not only an urban 
problem. In our largest city, Billings, we have about 80,000 people, 
small by most States' standards. However, we also have gangs. Size and 
closeness of community doesn't innoculate us from the effects of our 
society. Even our tribal population is affected by juvenile crime. 
Youth on our reservations are being solicited for gang enrollment at 
increasingly earlier ages. From Billings to Fort Belknap, from Helena 
to Havre, from Gallatin to Glasgow to Great Falls, no area of the state 
is immune from the problem of juvenile delinquency. This bill finally 
tries to provide a focused approach to both reach today's youth and to 
prosecute violent criminals.
  I would like to say that I agree and support all provisions of this 
bill. However, like most major legislation, there are some minor issues 
that cause me concern. But what we are really trying to do here is to 
intervene early in a youth's criminal career. By stopping the spree 
early, we prevent a lifetime of crime and create a contributing member 
of society.
  Let me highlight why this bill is so drastically different from any 
previous juvenile justice legislation. First and foremost, this bill 
establishes a $450 million block grant program for state and local 
governments to establish youth violence programs. This almost doubles 
the FY 99 spending in equivalent programs. These funds can be used for 
record keeping, detention facilities, restitution programs, anti-
truancy programs, gang intervention, crime training programs, and 
vocational training. In addition, it encourages the establishment of 
programs that will punish adults who knowingly use juveniles to help 
commit crimes. This is a key provision, since often adults will use 
kids in crime specifically because they are exempt from some of the 
stiffer penalties that apply to adults.
  I have long been a proponent of enforcing existing laws. Right now, 
there is little additional penalty for repeat juvenile offenders. This 
law provides for graduated penalties to put some real teeth into law 
enforcement. There is also a juvenile version of the ``Brady bill,'' 
which prevents a person convicted of a violent felon of possessing a 
firearm.
  Overall, this bill provides $1 billion specifically for juvenile 
crime programs. It covers everything from education to intervention. 
This comprehensive package will make significant strides in trying to 
keep our most precious commodity, our youth, out of harms way. I will 
be casting my vote in favor of this bill, and I encourage my colleagues 
to do the same.

                          ____________________