BUT LET ME JUST SAY THIS, THE MANAGERS' AMENDMENT IS BASICALLY
           AGREED TO BETWEEN THE TWO MANAGERS. IT IS A MATTER OF MAKING
           THE FINAL DRAFTING CHANGES AS I UNDERSTAND IT. SO WE INTEND TO
           HAVE THAT DONE AND HAVE THAT FILED AND APPROVED HERE HOPEFULLY
           WITHIN PROBABLY EARLY THIS AFTERNOON, IT SEEMS TO ME. BUT WE
           WILL TRY AND DO THAT, BUT LET'S MOVE THIS AHEAD. LET ME JUST
           FINISH MY REMARKS ON THIS BECAUSE I FORGOT THE DISTINGUISHED
           SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA GET A CHANCE TO MAKE HER REMARKS?

           YOU SAID YOU WOULD BE TWO OR THREE MINUTES?
           
           

           MRS. BOXER: YES. LET ME SAY TO THE CHAIR I WANT TODAY DEFER TO
           SENATOR KERRY BECAUSE HE HAS GOT SUCH TIME PROBLEMS AND I HAVE
           CLEARED MY DECKS THIS MORNING SO I COULD BE HERE ALL DAY. SO I
           DECIDED IT WOULD BE FAIR TO ALLOW THE SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA TO
           TAKE MY TIME. AND I WILL WAIT.
           

           MR. HATCH: SENATOR KERREY HAS ALREADY SPOKEN, BUT IF HE DOES
           NEED, IF YOU DO NEED TO SPEAK I'LL BE HAPPY TO -- HAVE YOU
           FINISHED, SENATOR KERREY, OR DO YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING?
           IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO DO YOUR TWO OR THREE MINUTES.
           

           MRS. BOXER: THAT'S OKAY SENATOR. I WILL YIELD AND WAIT UNTIL
           YOU DO YOUR REMARKS AND SEE WHERE WE STAND THAT POINT.
           

           MR. HATCH: ALL RIGHT. AFTER SEVERAL DAYS -- I HAVE BEEN SAYING
           FOR A LONG TIME THE CONGRESS WILL DEAL WITH FIREARMS VIOLENCE
           AND HOW IT DOES IS AN EVVING PROCESS. WE BEGAN THIS DEBATE WITH
           FAIRLY ARDENT POSITIONS ON BOTH SIDES. AFTER SEVERAL DAYS OF
           DEBATE LAST WEEK REPUBLICANS TOOK A STEP TO REQUIRE BACKGROUND
           CHECKS AT GUN SHOWS. WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL COST AND REGULATORY
           BURDENS. AND WE PASSED THE SO-CALLED BILL ON THAT. THE
           HATCH-CRAIG BILL. THERE WAS SOME GLOATING ON THE OTHER SIDE, IF

           I DIDN'T MISCONSTRUE IT, ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE THERE
           WERE SOME SENATORS WHO WERE QUOTED TALKING ABOUT EATING CROW.
           WELL THESE COMMENTS WERE NOT CONSTRUCTIVE AT ALL. THEY MADE MY
           JOB MUCH MORE DIFFICULT ON OUR SIDE. SO WE ARE HERE TO DO WHAT
           IS BEST FOR OUR CHILDREN AND TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION. UNITED
           STATES INCLUDING THE SECOND AMENDMENT. WE ARE NOT HERE TO SCORE
           DEBATING POINTS, IT SEEMS TO ME. NOW I WOULD -- SO THAT TYPE OF
           COMMENTING, IT SEEMS TO ME, IS VERY UNCONSTRUCTIVE AND NOT
           CONDUCIVE TO GETTING BILL THAT WILL HELP OUR CHILDREN AND

           COUNTRY AS A WHOLE. I WOULD NOTE, HOWEVER, THAT THE EVOLUTION
           OF THIS MATTER CONTINUES. THIS TIME THE SUPPORTERS OF THE
           LAUTENBERG AMENDMENT ARE MAKING CHANGES TO THEIR PROPOSAL TO
           BRING IT CLOSER TO OUR PLAN THAT WE PASSED IN THE HATCH-CRAIG
           AMENDMENT. MY SENSE AND HOPE IS THAT OUR EFFORTS WILL CONTINUE
           TO EVOLVE AND WE WILL BE ABLE TO FIND COMMON GROUND. THAT'S --
           TO ME THAT WOULD BE A GREAT, GREAT ACCOMPLISHMENT. BUT I
           HAVEN'T SEEN THAT YET, BUT WE ARE EVOLVING TOWARDS THAT. I
           APPRECIATE MY COLLEAGUES HAVE RECOGNIZED THAT THE CONCERNS WE
           RAISED WERE LEGITIMATE AND THEY HAVE TAKEN SOME STEPS IN THIS

           CURRENT AMENDMENT TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS. BUT I CERTAINLY
           DON'T THINK THEY HAVE GONE FAR ENOUGH. I THINK THEY HAVE GONE
           TOO FAR IN MAKING -- IN MAKING IT LOOK LIKE THE ONLY MATTER TO
           CONSIDER ON THIS WHOLE BILL HAPPENS TO BE GUNS. NOW LET'S
           REVIEW HOW WE GOT HERE. UNDER CURRENT LAW, NONLICENSED
           INDIVIDUALS CAN SELL FIREARMS AT A GUN SHOW WITHOUT OBTAINING A
           BACKGROUND CHECK. THAT'S CURRENT LAW. THIS WAS THE LOOPHOLE
           THAT THE PRESIDENT, THE LAUTENBERG AMENDMENT SPONSORS AND
           OTHERS SAID THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT. YET THE BILL AS AMENDED

           LAST WEEK, THIS BILL, AS WE AMENDED IT WITH HATCH-CRAIG, NOW
           REQUIRES BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR THESE TRANSACTIONS AT GUN SHOWS.
           UNDER CURRENT LAW, PERSONS WHO ONLY WANT TO SELL FIREARMS AT A
           GUN SHOW ARE NOT LICENSED AT ALL. AND THEY PERFORM NO
           BACKGROUND CHECKS. OUR BILL AS AMENDED REQUIRES SELLERS TO
           OBTAIN A FEDERAL LICENSE TO SELL FIREARMS AT ANY GUN SHOW,
           BECAUSE THE SPECIAL LICENSEES OR TEMPORARY DEALERS ARE NOW
           INCLUDED IN THE GUN CONTROL ACT, THEY ARE SUBJECT TO THE

           BACKGROUND CHECK REQUIREMENTS. FURTHER, OUR BILL, AS AMENDED BY
           HATCH-CRAIG, PROVIDES CIVIL LIABILITY PROTECTION TO THOSE
           SELLERS WHO COMPLY WITH THE BACKGROUND CHECK REQUIREMENTS. NOW,
           OUR PROPOSAL ALSO PREVENTS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM TAXING
           BACKGROUND CHECK TRANSACTIONS. THE LIABILITY PROTECTION AND TAX
           RELIEF WERE POWERFUL INCENTIVES FOR PERSONS TO AGREE TO HAVE
           BACKGROUND CHECKS. SO THAT'S WHY WE PUT THEM IN THE HATCH-CRAIG
           AMENDMENT. LAST WEEK WHEN WE FIRST DEBATED THE LAUTENBERG
           AMENDMENT WE POINTED OUT SEVERAL PROBLEMS. RST, THE LAUTENBERG

           AMENDMENT'S DEFINITION OF GUN SHOW AS AT BEST UNFOCUSED. IF TWO
           NEIGHBORS GOT TOGETHER WITH 25 GUNS EACH AND SODA GUN, THEY
           WOULD HAVE BEEN SURPRISED TO FIND THAT THEY HAD CREATED GUN
           SHOW AND WERE CRIMINALS UNDER THE LAUTENBERG AMENDMENT BECAUSE
           THEY DID THOUGHT CONDUCT A BACKGROUND CHECK OR PERMIT FROM THE
           A.T.F. TO MEET. WE UNDERSTAND THE REVISED LAUTENBERG AMENDMENT
           NOW MODIFIES THE DEFINITION OF GUN SHOW TO MAKE IT MORE LIKE
           WHAT IS ALREADY IN THE BILL, WHAT WE PUT IN THIS THE
           HATCH-CRAIG AMENDMENT T ISN'T TOTALLY THAT WAY BECAUSE THEY
           STILL INTEREST THEIR 50-PERSON STANDARD AND SO FORTH. BUT

           BASICALLY THEY HAVE COME OUR WAY ON THAT. MY COLLEAGUES ON THE
           OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE COMPLAIN THE BILL'S CURRENT DEFINITION
           OF GUN SHOW WOULD ALLOW "HUNDREDS OF GUNS" TO BE SOLD AT FLEE
           MARKETS THAT DO NOT FALL UNDER THE TEN OR MORE EXHIBIT TORE OR
           20% OR MORE EXHIBIT TORE RULE. OF COURSE IF A VERY FEW SELLERS
           WERE SELLING HUNDREDS OF FIREARMS, THEY WOULD IN ALL LIKELIHOOD
           BE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS, AND THAT'S AN IMPORTANT WORD, IN
           THE BUSINESS OF SELLING FIREARMS WITHOUT A LICENSE. UNDER

           CURRENT LAW, SUCH PERSONS ARE SUBJECTS TO FINES, IMPRISONMENT
           -- PRISON SENTENCES OR BOTH. NOW SECONDLYTHE LAUTENBERG
           AMENDMENT ALLOWED THE IMPOSITION OF TAXES AND FEES ON
           BACKGROUND KHEKSZ THAT CONSTITUTE A SUBSTANTIAL COST FOR
           COMPLYING WITH THE LAW. NOW, WHAT DOES THAT DO?
           THAT'S GOING TO FORCE PEOPLE TO NOT GO TO GUN SHOWS WHERE THEY
           CAN LEGITIMATELY SELL THEM, WITH BACKGROUND CHECKS NOW THAT WE
           REQUIRE IN THIS BILL, AND TO GO OFF AND SELL THEM ON THE BLACK
           MARKET. SO WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO -- WHAT IT SEEMS TO ME WILL

           BE THE INEVITABLE RESULT OF SOME. APPROACHES UNDER THE
           LAUTENBERG AMENDMENT, IS WE WILL CREATE A HUGE BLACK MARKET IN
           GUN IS EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT WE WANT TO ACCOMPLISH. I AM
           SURE THE DISTINGUISHED SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY DOES NOT WANT TO
           ACCOMPLISH THAT NOR 0 ANYBODY ELSE ON THIS FLOOR, BUT THINK IT
           THROUGH. IT DOESN'T TAKE MANY BRAINS TO REALIZE THAT'S WHAT IS
           GOING TO HAPPEN. WE UNDERSTAND THE REVISED LAUTENBERG AMENDMENT
           DOES NOT "IMPOSE" TAXES ON SELLERS ON PURCHASES. HOWEVER THE
           TAX TO WHICH WE OBJECTED IS PAID BY THE PERSON OR ENTITY THAT
           CONDUCTS THE BACKGROUND CHECK, NOT THE NONE LICENSED BUYER OR

           SELLER. OF COURSE, THE LICENSEE, THE SPECIAL LICENSEE OR
           SPECIAL REGISTRANT, NOW IN THIS BILL, WILL PASS THIS FEE ON TO
           THE BUY YEAR SELLER WOL WHO WILL HAVE TO PAY IT. OF COURSE THEY
           WILL PASS IT ON. THEY WON'T DO IT OUT OF THE GOODNESS OF THEIR
           HEART. AS THEY DO THAT, PEOPLE WILL GO INTO THE BLACK MARKET TO
           SELL THEIR GUNS. EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT THE DISTINGUISHED
           SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY AND I AND OTHERS WHO ARE REALLY TRYING
           TO DO SOMETHING CON STRUCK ACTIVE IN THIS AREA, WILL OCCUR. IN
           SHORT, NOTWITHSTANDING ITS APPEARANCE THE REVISED LAUTENBERG
           AMENDMENT ALLOWS THE A.T.F. TAXING AUTHORITY LOOPHOLE. THE

           REVISED AMENDMENT SEEMINGLY CONCLUDES THAT WE WERE RIGHT. BUT
           IT DOES NOT CORRECT THE PROBLEM. SO ON THIS PROVISION WE HAVE A
           MAJOR CONCERN. NOW THIRD, THE LAUTENBERG AMENDMENT REQUIRES --
           REQUIRED GUN SHOW ORGANIZERS TO OBTAIN ADVANCED PERMISSION FROM
           THE A.T.F. BEFORE HOLDING A GUN SHOW. THAT DOESN'T TAKE MANY
           BRAINS TO REALIZE THAT THAT'S SOMETHING NOBODY WANTS TO AGREE
           WITH WHO BELIEVES THAT GUN SHOWS ARE A TIME HONORED RIGHT IN
           THIS SOCIETY UNDER THE SECOND AMENDMENT. NOW WE UNDERSTAND THE
           REVISED LAUTENBERG AMENDMENT THAT IS CURRENTLY BEFORE US THAT

           WILL BE AT THE END OF THIS AMENDMENT CHAIN TO BE VOTED UPON
           ELIMINATES THE ADVANCED PERMISSION REQUIREMENT. HOWEVER, GUN
           SHOW ORGANIZERS ARE STILL REQUIRED TO KEEP EXTENSIVE RECORDS SO
           THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL BURDEN THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED,
           REGULATORY, OVERREGULATORY BURDEN. NOW FOURTH, THE LAUTENBERG
           AMENDMENT IMPOSED EXTENSIVE RECORD KEEPING REQUIREMENTS FOR
           SALES BETWEEN NONLICENSED INDIVIDUALS, THUS DRIVING UP THE COST
           OF A BACKGROUND CHECK AND INTRUDING INTO THE PRIVACY OF

           LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS. NOW THAT'S JUST TYPICAL OF WHAT WE HAVE
           TO PACE AROUND HERE IN THE ZEAL TO SCORE POINTS ON GUNS. AND WE
           UNDERSTAND THE REVISED LAUTENBERG AMENDMENT MAY REQUIRE LESS
           RECORDS TO BE KEPT AND MAY REQUIRE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO
           DESTROY RECORDS HELD BY THE INSTANT CHECK OPERATOR. YET,
           DEALERS MUST STILL KEEP ALL RECORDS ON THE BUY YEAR. FURTHER,
           THE IMPLICATIONS THAT REQUIRING RECORDS TO BE DESTROYED AFTER
           90 DAYS CONVEYS A NEW BENEFIT IS NOT ACCURATE. 18 U S.C. 19-2

           DELFMT C, ALREADY REQUIRES INSTANT CHECK OPERATORS TO DESTROY
           RECORDS OF CHECKS APPROVED AND THE F.B.I. CURRENTLY DESTROYS
           RECORDS AFTER 90 DAYS. THERE IS NO NEW BENEFIT IN THIS SYSTEM
           COMPARED TO CURRENT LAW. SO THE LAUTENBERG AMENDMENT DOES TO
           THE IMPROVE CURRENT LAW AT ALL. IT JUST OBSCURES IT. NOW SOME
           HAVE COMPLAINED THE REPUBLICAN PLAN PROMOTES UNACCOUNTABLE
           INTERSTATE GUN PEDDLING BY DEALERS. UNDER CURRENT LAW, A DEALER
           FROM ONE STATE CAN GO TO A GUN SHOW IN ANOTHER STATE AND
           SOLICIT SALES. HE MUST RETURN HOME TO HIS LICENSED PREMISES,

           HOWEVER, TO SHIP THE FIREARM. AND THE SHIPMENT MUST BE TO A
           LICENSED DEALER. THAT'S CURRENT LAW. OUR BILL AS AMENDED SIMPLY
           ALLOWS ONE FEDERALLY LICENSED FIREARMS DEALER TO DELIVER THE
           FIREARM TO ANOTHER FEDERALLY LICENSED FIREARMS DEALER WHO IS
           LOCATED OUT OF STATE. HE STILL CANNOT DELIVER A FIREARM TO A
           NONLICENSED INDIVIDUAL, BUT ONLY TO A LICENSED DEALER. THUS THE
           PURCHASING DEALER WILL HAVE TO LOG THE FIREARM INTO HIS
           INVENTORY, WILL BE SUBJECT TO INSPECTION BY THE A. A.T.F.,

           BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS, TO FIND THAT FIREARM,
           AND WILL HAVE TO CONDUCT A BACKGROUND CHECK TO SELL THE FIREARM
           TO A NONLICENSED DEALER. THIS IS ABOUT THE MOST REGULATED SALE
           AFTER FIREARM FOR WHICH THE FEDERAL LAW PROVIDES. NEXT, SOME
           HAVE STATED THAT THE CURRENT BILL'S PROVISION FOR GRANTING
           CIVIL LIABILITY PROTECTION TO PEOPLE WHO COMPLY WITH THE
           BACKGROUND CHECK REQUIREMENTS IS NOT PRUDENT, AND THEY SAY THAT
           THE REVISED LAUTENBERG AMENDMENT PROVIDES NO IMMUNITY FOR
           PEOPLE WHO TRANSFER GUNS TO FELONS AND OTHERS WHO INTEND TO USE

           THE GUN TOSS COMMIT VIOLENT CRIMES -- OR FELONIES, EXCUSE ME.
           THE BILL AS AMENDED RECOGNIZES THAT PERSONS WHO ACT PROPERLY
           WITH FIREARMS -- THIS IS THE BILLS AMENDED BY HATCH-CRAIG,
           RECOGNIZES THAT PERSONS THAT ACT PROPERLY WITH FIREARMS
           INCLUDING FIRE ARMS TRANSACTIONS SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO SUIT.
           INDEED ONLY YESTERDAY THE SENATE RECOGNIZED THE VALUE OF
           PROVIDING LIMITED IMMUNITY TO PERSONS WHO ACT PROPERLY WITH
           FIREARMS BY WE STOWING QUALIFIED IMMUNITY ON PERSONS WHO
           PROPERLY USE CHILD SAFETY LOCKS. THIS WAS A KEINSEN TIFER IN

           THE KOHL-HATCH H. CHAFEE CHILD SAFETY LOCK AMENDMENT. AND THE
           SAME REASONS FOR AFFORDING CIVIL LIABILITY PROTECTION APPLY
           HERE. SO KEEP IN MIND, WE'VE INVOLVED TOWARDS HAVING SOMETHING
           THAT BRINGS BOTH SIDES TOGETHER. THE CURRENT LAUTENBERG
           AMENDMENT WILL SPLIT BOTH SIDES APART AND WILL RESULT, IN MY
           OPINION, IN MORE BLACK MARKET SALES IN THIS COUNTRY, TO THE
           DETRIMENT OF THE COUNTRY. FURTHER, SOME COMPLAIN THAT OUR BILL,
           DISMISSES CERTAIN SUITS. THESE ARE ONLY THOSE SUITS AT WHICH NN

           LICENSED INDIVIDUALS HAVE SOLD A FIREARM THROUGH A LICENSED
           DEALER WHO CONDUCT ADD BACKGROUND CHECK. IN PERSONS ARE NOW
           VOLUNTARY HAVING BACKGROUND CHECKS PERFORMED AT GUN SHOWS, THEY
           SHOULD NOT BE PENALIZED FOR DOING SO. THAT'S SOMETHING WE WANT
           TO ENCOURAGE. WE WANT TO GIVE INCENTIVES FOR THAT. I ALSO NOTE
           THAT THE BILL PROVIDES NO IMMUNITY FOR CRIMINAL SALES OF
           FIREARMS IF A SELLER KNOWINGLY TRANSFERREDS A FIREARM TO A
           BUYER THAT WILL USE THAT FIREARM TO COMMIT A CRIME OF VIOLENCE
           OR A DRUG TRAFFICKING CRIME, HE IS SUBJECT TO SEVERE CRIMINAL

           PENALTIES. FURTHER, IF THE SELLER IS CONVICT RIGHT SIDE OF THAT
           OFFENSE, THE BILL EXPRESSLY PROVIDES THAT HE IS NOT ENTITLED TO
           CIVIL IMMUNITY. THUS, HE CAN BE SUED FOR COMPENSATORY AND
           PUNITIVE DAMAGES. NOW, SOME COMPLAIN THE BILL AS AMENDED DOES
           NOT IMPOSE STIFF ENOUGH PENALTIES, ON SPECIAL LICENSEES AND
           SPECIAL REG RESTAURANTS FOR THE FAILURE TO OBTAIN A BACKGROUND
           CHECK. HOWEVER, CURRENT LAW SUSPENDS THE LICENSE AND IMPOSES
           THE FINE ON DEALERS WHO DO NOT CONDUCT A BACKGROUND CHECK. OUR
           BILL MAINTAINS THE CURRENT PENALTIES FOR BACKGROUND CHECK

           FAILURES, AND IMPOSES TOUGH MANDATORY MINIMUMS FOR THE KNOWING
           TRANSFER OF A FIREARM TO A JUVENILE WHO WILL USE THAT FIREARM
           IN A CRIME OF VIOLENCE. THAT'S A MAJOR CHANGE, AND WE PUT IT IN
           OUR BILL. IN FACT, A LOT OF THESE THINGS THAT WERE REQUESTED BY
           THE PRESIDENT, WE HAVE IN THE BILL. WE HAD THEM IN THERE BEFORE
           HE REQUESTED THEM. I SUSPECT HE MIGHT HAVE HAD SOMEBODY LOOK AT
           THE BILL. NOW FURTHER, THROUGH OUR AGGRESSIVE FIREARMS
           PROSECUTION PROGRAM, THE "CUFF" PROGRAM AND THE PROSECUTION

           REPORTING REQUIREMENT WE ENSURE SOME OF THESE VIOLATIONS WILL
           ACTUALLY BE PROSECUTED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. SOMETHING THAT
           HASN'T BEEN UNDERTAKEN IN EARNESTNESS OVER THE LAST SIX YEARS,
           I'LL TELL YOU THAT. REMEMBER, OF THE THOUSANDS OF POSSIBLE
           CASES THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ONLY PROSECUTED ONE BRADY CASE, ONE
           BRADY BACKGROUND CHECK VIOLATION FROM 1996 THROUGH 1998. OF THE
           THOUSANDS OF POTENTIAL -- THEY CLAIM 225,000 TURNED-BACK
           FELONS. ONE PROSECUTION. THE LAUTENBERG AMENDMENT NOT ONLY

           FAILS TO INCLUDE THE TOUGH MANDATORY MINIMUMS FOUND IN THE
           REPUBLICAN PLAN, IT A QUAY HE ISS IN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S
           ALMOST COMPLETE FAILURE TO PROSECUTE BRADY VIOLATIONS. THIS
           MAKES NO SENSE. IF WE IN CONGRESS -- IN THE CONGRESS PASS
           CRIMINAL STATUTES, IT IS THE DUTY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO
           ENFORCE THOSE LAWS. OUR BILL RECOGNIZES THAT WE HAVE A PROBLEM
           AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, AND OUR BILL DOES SOMETHING ABOUT
           IT. NOW, SOME HAVE ALSO STATED OUR BILL HAS THE POTENTIAL FOR
           INVADING THE PRIVACY OF GUN OWNERS BY ALLOWING SPECIAL REG

           RESTAURANTS AND SPECIAL LICENSEES TO CONDUCT BACKGROUND CHECKS.
           THIS ARGUMENT GOES THAT BY REQUIRING THE INSTANT CHECK OPERATOR
           TO DESTROY RECORDS OF AN APPROVED BACKGROUND CHECK
{END: 1999/05/19 TIME: 12-00 , Wed.  106TH SENATE, FIRST SESSION}