MR. HATCH: MR. PRESIDENT, YOU I YIELD FIVE MINUTES -- HOW MUCH
           TIME REMAINS?
           ON BOTH SIDES.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR HAS 19 MINUTES AND 44
           SECONDS.
           

           MR. HATCH: HOW MUCH ON THE OTHER SIDE?
           
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE MINORITY HAS 22 1/2 MINUTES.
           

           MR. HATCH: HOW MUCH WOULD THE SENATOR LIKE ME TO YIELD?
           
           

           A SENATOR: APPROXIMATELY TEN
           

           MINUTES THE MR. HATCH: I YIELD EIGHT MINUTES TO THE
           DISTINGUISHED SENATOR FROM MISSOURI.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM MISSOURI.
           

           MR. ASHCROFT: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. AND THANK YOU TO 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
           THAT HAVE BEEN PROVISIONS THAT I HAVE SOUGHT TO MOVE FORWARD
           OVER THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS AND IN THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS. THE
           PROVISIONS THAT SET OR INCREASE MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCES OR

           MANDATORY -- MANDATORY OR MINIMUM SENTENCES R GUN CRIMES AND
           DRUG CRIMES THAT ENDANGER JUVENILES. FIRST, WE NEED TO ADDRESS
           FIREARMS OFFENSES AND IMPOSE SUBSTANTIAL PENALTIES ON VIOLENT
           FIREARM OFFENSES. THOSE WHO MISUSE FIREARMS TO COMMIT CRIMES,
           THEY IMPOSE A TREMENDOUS COST ON THE AMERICAN SOCIETY AND
           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 TILTS THAT -- CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES
           THAT ARE DESTROYING THE VERY FABRIC OF OUR CULTURE. AN
           ESSENTIAL PART OF THIS ZERO-TOLERANCE POLICY IS A MANDATORY
           MINIMUM SENTENCE THAT CREATES A SERIOUS DETERRENT TO THOSE WHO
           COMMIT FEDERAL VIOLENT AND DRUG CRIMES, INCLUDING CARJACKING OR
           VIOLENT CRIMES ON SCHOOL GROUNDS. BUT IN ORDER FOR MANDATORY
           MINIMUM SENTENCES TO PROVIDE SUCH A DETERRENT, THEY NEED TO BE

           FOR A LONG ENOUGH PERIOD TO MAKE THE OFFENDERS THINK ABOUT
           COMMITTING THESE CRIMES. THEY NEED TO THINK TWICE ABOUT WHAT
           THEY'RE GOING TO DO. AND THOSE SENTENCES NEED TO BE LONG ENOUGH
           TO PROTECT OUR LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS FROM THE CRIMINALS FOR A
           LONG TIME BY PUTTING THE CRIMINALS AWAY SUBSTANTIALLY IF THEY
           DON'T THINK TWICE. CURRENT FEDERAL LAW PROVIDES MANDATORY
           MINIMUM SENTENCES FOR POSSESSING OR USING A FIREARM IN THE
           COMMISSION OF A FEDERAL CRIME OF VIOLENT OR DRUG -- OF VIOLENCE
           OR DRUG TRAFFICKING. THE CURRENT MINIMUM SENTENCE FOR

           POSSESSING A FIREARM DURING SUCH A CRIME IS FIVE YEARS. THIS IS
           NOT A SERIOUS PENALTY FOR HAVING A GUN, NOT SHOWING IT OR USING
           IT, JUST HAVING IT -- PARDON ME. THIS IS A SERIOUS PENALTY FOR
           HAVING A GUN, NOT JUST SHOWING IT OR USING IT. JUST HAVING IT
           ON YOUR PERSON. MY AMENDMENT DOESN'T INCREASE THIS PENALTY. WE
           THINK IT'S 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 -- DRUG CRIME
           IS SEVEN YEARS. AND WE WOULD IN THIS AMENDMENT RAISE IT TO TEN
           YEARS. WE WOULD RAISE THE PENALTY FOR DISCHARGING A FIREARM AND
           THERE THEREBY ENDANGERING PEOPLE FROM TEN YEARS TO 12 YEARS.
           AND THE LAST DOES NOT PRESENTLY PROVIDE ANY MANDATORY MINIMUM
           FOR WOUNDING, INJURING OR MAIMING WITH A FIREARM. WE WOULD
           CREATE ONE OF A -- A MAXIMUM -- PARDON ME, A 15 15-YEAR PENALTY

           FOR THOSE WHO ACTUALLY CAUSE PHYSICAL HARM WITH A FIREARM.
           FINALLY, THE LAW CURRENTLY PROVIDES A MAXIMUM PENALTY OF TEN
           YEARS IMPRISONMENT FOR KNOWINGLY TRANSFERRING A FIREARM KNOWING
           THAT IT WILL BE USED IN THE COMMISSION OF A RHYME -- CRIME. WE
           WOULD IMPOSE A MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCE OF FIVE YEARS FOR
           KNOWINGLY FACILITATING GUN VIOLENCE BY TRANSFERRING A FIREARM
           TO SOMEONE THAT YOU KNEW WAS GOING TO COMMIT A CRIME. NOW,
           THESE PENALTIES ARE SERIOUS BUT THE PROBLEM IS SERIOUS. THESE

           PENALTIES WILL HELP CREATE A REAL SET OF INCENTIVES TO TELL
           CRIMINALS THAT THEY BETTER LEAVE THEIR GUNS AT HOME. LET ME
           ALSO ADDRESS MANDATORY MINIMUMS ON DRUG CRIMES. THE PENALTIES
           ON ADULTS WHO TARGET VULNERABLE JUVENILES BY DISTRIBUTING DRUGS
           TO MINORS AND SELLING DRUGS IN OR NEAR SCHOOLS. BOTH OF THESE
           CRIMES CURRENTLY CARRY A ONE-YEAR MANDATORY MINIMUM FOR BOTH
           THE INITIAL AND SUBSEQUENT OFFENSES. THIS AMENDMENT RAISES THE

           MANDATORY TERM FOR EACH CRIME TO THREE YEARS FOR THE INITIAL
           VIOLATION AND FIVE YEARS FOR SUBSEQUENT OFFENSES. IT 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 MINIMUMPENALTIES FOR ADULTS WHO USE
           MINORS TO COMMIT CRIMES. ADULTS SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO USE
           MINORS TO COMMIT THEIR CRIMES FOR THEM AND 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 TRIPLED FOR REPEAT
           OFFENDERS. TOGETHER, THESE PROVISIONS SEND A CLEAR MESSAGE TO
           ADULTS WHO WOULD PREY ON OUR CHILDREN AND ATTEMPT TO ENSNARE
           THEM IN THE DANGERS OF COMMITTING CRIMES, ON WHICH IN THE
           VIOLENT WORLD OF ILLEGAL DRUGS. -- ON WHICH IN THE VIOLENT
           WORLD OF ILLEGAL DRUGS. LAST YEAR I INTRODUCED ALL OF THESE
           PROVISIONS IN A PACKAGE DESIGNED TO TARRYING ET ADULTS WHO USE
           AND -- TARGET ADULTS WHO USE AND EXPLOIT JUVENILES TO COMMIT

           CRIMES. IT'S TIME FOR US TO SEND AN UNMISTAKEABLY CLEAR MESSAGE
           THAT WE WILL NOT AS A CULTURE TOLERATE THOSE WHO USE JUVENILES,
           WHO LEAD THEM TO, POINT THEM IN THE DIRECTION OF LIVES OF CRIME
           IN AN EFFORT TO AVOID PENALTIES FOR CRIMINAL ACTION ON THE PART
           OF THE ADULTS THEMSELVES. THE SYSTEM LETS YOUNG PEOPLE OFF WITH
           A SLAP ON THE WRIST AND A CLEAN SLATE WHEN THEY TURN 18. WHY
           SHOULDN'T ANY ADULT RISK SERIOUS JAIL TIME BY NOT COMMITTING
           THE CRIMES THEMSELVES?
           INSTEAD, HAVE A JUVENILE COMMIT IT FOR THEM. I THINK IT'S TIME
           FOR US 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 CHILEN IN THIS WAY. WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT 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
           IT FOR THEM. SO, TOO, WITH THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. LENIENT
           TREATMENT OF JUVENILES HAS FREQUENTLY CAUSED ADULTS TO THINK WE
           CAN GET JUVENILES TO PERPETRATE THE CRIMES FOR US US. WE MUST

           MAKE IT CLEAR THAT NO ADULT CAN ESCAPE CRIME BY HAVING A
           JUVENILE COMMIT A CRIME IN HIS OR HER BEHALF. NO WONDER IN MY
           HOME STATE THAT A 20-YEAR-OLD IN POPLAR BLUFF HAS 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 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 THANK THE CHAIRMAN. AND I

           YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME. A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT?
           
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY.
           

           MR. LAUTENBERG: I YIELD TEN MINUTES TO MY COLLEAGUE FROM NEW
           YORK.
           

           MR. SCHUMER: I THANK THE SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY FOR THE TIME
           AND FOR HIS LEADERSHIP. AND I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I
           UNDERSTAND THERE'S MOVEMENT ON THE OTHER SIDE TO TRY AND DEAL
           WITH THE GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE. I APPRECIATE THAT. BUT I WOULD SAY
           TO ALL OF MY COLLEAGUES THAT 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

           WHERE GUNS EMANATED FROM GUN SHOWS. THERE ARE FOUR REASONS FOR
           THAT -- OR SIX ACTUALLY. THAT WE SHOULD TALK ABOUT. FIRST AND
           MOST EGREGIOUS, THE AMENDMENT CREATES AND DEALS WITH SOMEONE
           CALLED A "SPECIAL LICENSEE," A PERSON THAT WOULD BE LICENSED TO
           SELL IN VOLUME AT GUN SHOWS WHO WOULD NOT REQUIRE BACKGROUND
           CHECKS. THIS IS A -- THIS IS OVERTURNING 31 YEARS OF HAVING

           FEDERALLY LICENSED FIREARM DEALERS WITH A NEW SYSTEM THAT IS AS
           WEAK AS A WET NOODLE. THE LICENSEES WILL NOT HAVE TO --
           

           MR. HATCH: WOULD THE SENATOR YIELD ON THAT?
           
           

           MR. SCHUMER: I WOULD BE HAPPY TO YIELD.
           

           MR. HATCH: MY GOSH, THEY DON'T HAVE ANY CONTROLS GHT NOW AT GUN
           SHOWS. THIS IS GOING TO PUT CONTROLS ON IT. THIS ISN'T
           OVERTURNING ANYTHING. IT ACTUALLY DOES WHAT THOSE ON YOUR SIDE
           OF THE FLOOR WANTED TO DO YESTERDAY AND OUR SIDE OF THE FLOOR
           DIDN'T DO. NOW WE'RE CORRECTING THAT, BUT RIGHT NOW THERE'S NO
           LIMITS AT ALL. AND WE PUT AMENDMENTS ON AND WE DO EXACTLY WHAT
           THE PRESIDENT WAS BAD-MOUTHING REPUBLICANS FOR TODAY.
           

           MR. SCHUMER: JUST RECLAIMING MY TIME --
           

           MR. HATCH: WELL, I'LL BE GLAD TO GIVE YOU SOME OF OURS FOR
           THIS. BUT, LOOK, THAT JUST ISN'T QUITE ACCURATE.
           

           MR. SCHUMER: OKAY. THE POINT I WOULD MAKE IS THIS -- THAT WE
           HAVE ALWAYS HAD THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO CAN LEGITIMATELY SELL GUNS
           IN QUANTITY ARE FEDERALLY LICENSED DEALERS. WE ARE NOW CREATING
           AN EXCEPTION. AND I GUESS I WOULD ASK MY COLLEAGUE, THE SENATOR
           FROM UTAH, WHY DO 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, MANY FROM THE
           OTHER SIDE, HAVE TALKED ABOUT THE NEED TO ENFORCE EXISTING
           LAWS. THIS CREATES SUCH A HUGE LOOPHOLE THAT WE WOULD NEVER BE
           ABLE TO ENFORCE ANY EXISTING LAW.
           

           MR. HATCH: WELL, IF THE SENATOR WOULD YIELD, ACTUALLY --
           ACTUALLY NOW IN INTRASTATE SALES, THEY DON'T HAVE TO DO
           ANYTHING. THERE IS NO GUN CHECK AT ALL. THERE'S NO INSTANT
           CHECK AT ALL. THERE'S NO REQUISITE AT AL WHAT WE DO IS SOLVE
           THAT PROBLEM, AND WE DO IT BETTER THAN WHAT THE DEMOCRAT
           AMENDMENT YESTERDAY. AND WE DO IT --
           

           MR. SCHUMER: JUST RECLAIMING MY TIME.
           

           MR. HATCH: I JUST WANT TO CORRECT THE RECORD.
           

           MR. SCHUMER: RIGHT NOW, FOR THE INTERSTATE -- THESE PEOPLE
           COULD GO INTERSTATE, AND THAT'S THE PROBLEM. IF THESE SPECIAL
           LICENSEES HAD TO STATE WITHIN THEIR STATES, I WOULD CONCEDE TO
           THE SENATOR FROM UTAH THAT MAYBE IT'S A NONEXISTENT BUT NOT A
           STEP BACKWARDS. BUT THEY CAN'T. FOR NOW FOR THE FIRST TIME
           WE'LL HAVE PEOPLE WHO CAN SELL OUT OF STATE, WHO ARE NOT
           FEDERALLY LICENSED DEALERS AND WHO DO NOT HAVE ANY REPORTING
           REQUIREMENTS. THERE'S SORT OF A SPLIT, ALMOST A SCHIZOPHRENIA
           IN THE LOGIC OF THE OTHER SIDE, WHICH IS WE MUST ENFORCE, WE

           DON'T NEED NEW LAWS TO ENFORCE, BUT WE TAKE AWAY EVERY SINGLE
           TOOL OF ENFORCEMENT. I WOULD ASK -- I WOULD BE HAPPY TO YIELD
           TO THE SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA.
           

           MRS. BOXER: I WANTED TO ASK A QUESTION ABOUT THE PAWNSHOP
           LOOPHOLE. BUT BEFORE I DO, I WANT TO THANK MY FRIEND FROM NEW
           YORK. BECAUSE HE DOES SOMETHING AROUND HERE THAT'S VERY
           IMPORTANT. HE READS EVERY WORD OF THE BILL BILL.
           

           MR. SCHUMER: I THANK THE GENTLE GENTLELADY.
           

           MRS. BOXER: AND I FINDS OUT SOME OF THE FINE PRINT. NOW, 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'VE GOT 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 AND THAT IS THIS PAWNSHOP LOOPHOLE. AND 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?
           SO LET'S SAY SOMEBODY PUTS THEIR GUN IN THE PAWNSHOP AND THEN
           GOES OUT AND COMMITS A CRIME WITH ANOTHER WEAPON, THEY COME
           BACK TO RETRIEVE THEIR GUN. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THERE'S NO

           INSTANT CHECK ON THAT PERSON. AND 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 GENTLELADY -- THE SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA IS
           EXACTLY CORRECT. AND 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. AND WHY IN THE LOVE OF GOD WE
           ARE MAKING IT EASIER FOR FELONS TO GET GUNS, IT'S AN APAYS --
           AMAZING THING. IF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WERE ALL LISTENING TO
           THIS DEBATE, THEY WOULD BE UTTERLY AMAZED. I WOULD YIELD
           FURTHER TO THE SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA.
           

           MRS. BOXER: MY LAST QUESTION TO MY FRIEND, WHOM I RESPECT SO
           MUCH, AND I THANK SO MUCH FOR HIS LEADERSHIP ON THIS.
{END: 1999/05/13 TIME: 21-00 , Thu.  106TH SENATE, FIRST SESSION}