Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, for the benefit of my colleagues, to review the bidding from yesterday, the distinguished chairman of the committee and I agreed on a unanimous-consent proposal that we have one-half hour on each of up to as many as 14 motions. I doubt there will be that many. But we will move them out seriatim here. I see my distinguished colleague from California, Senator Boxer, is on the floor prepared to go with her motion, to begin to debate her motion. So I would, with the permission of the Senator from Utah, yield to the Senator from California for that purpose.
I will make one important point, Mr. President. At the appropriate time I will make the motion. As I understand the parliamentary situation, debate must be concluded before I make the motion, otherwise the motion is subject to immediately being tabled, which I do not think my friend has any intention of doing. But just to make sure we do it by the numbers--I beg your pardon. I have been informed by staff we got unanimous consent yesterday that that is not necessary, that we can offer the motion. But I will offer the motion at this point.
[Page: S3432]
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I offer a motion to recommit the conference report with instructions to add provisions on the National Firearms Act statute of limitations. For the purpose of discussion of that motion, I send that motion to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is now pending.
The motion is as follows:
Motion to recommit the conference report on the bill S. 735 to the committee of conference with instructions to the managers on the part of the Senate to disagree to the conference substitute recommended by the committee of conference and insist on inserting the following:
SEC. . INCREASED PERIODS OF LIMITATION FOR NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT VIOLATIONS.
Section 6531 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (8) as subparagraphs (A) through (H), respectively; and
(2) by amending the matter immediately preceding subparagraph (A), as redesignated, to read as follows: `No person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any criminal offense under the internal revenue laws unless the indictment is found or the information instituted not later than 3 years after the commission of the offense, except that the period of limitation shall be--
`(1) 5 years for offenses described in section 5861 (relating to firearms and other devices); and
`(2) 6 years--.'.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be 30 minutes equally divided. Who yields time?
Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Chair for its assistance. I yield as much time as the Senator from California may need under my control.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank the Senator from Delaware for taking the leadership on this issue. Every motion that he will make today is a motion that is tough on crime. Every single motion that he will make, if it is carried by this U.S. Senate, will make this a better bill.
The motion that he just sent to the desk means a lot to the Senator from California because I offered it to this U.S. Senate. It was adopted unanimously. I have to say, it is inexplicable to me why this provision would have been stricken. I do know there are certain groups that oppose it, one in particular, the NRA. I cannot for the life of me understand why else this would have been stricken from the Senate bill.
Let me explain the amendment that I offered which is the subject of this motion. What we would do is simply make sure that under the National Firearms Act when there is a crime which deals with making a bomb, making a silencer, making a sawed-off shotgun, that there be a period of time of 5 years rather than 3 years for law enforcement to track down and prosecute the criminal who would commit such a crime.
There is an anomaly in the United States Code right now. These crimes are the only ones that have a 3-year statute of limitations. Let me explain why this is so bad and why we must fix it. If there is a crime where a terrorist makes a bomb and the bomb explodes and it kills people--and we have just, of course, revisited, as our President did, the tragedy in Oklahoma City, and the 1-year anniversary of that dreadful day is coming quickly upon us--if a criminal had a bomb in his home or in his farmhouse or in his truck or hidden away for a period of a year, let us say, while he made that bomb, the statute of limitations starts running from the day the bomb is made. In such a case law enforcement would have only 2 years to track down and put away such a criminal.
I do not understand why those who claim to be tough on crime would drop from this bill a commonsense provision. Striking this provision makes it easier to get away with making a bomb. It is that simple.
Who supports this Boxer amendment? How did I even learn about it? I learned about it from local law enforcement people who asked me to fight this fight. I learned about it from the Justice Department, who asked us to carry this fight. I learned about it from the Treasury Department, which heads the ATF, and they asked me to fight for this. Mr. President, 47 police chiefs told me to fight for this. For them, I offered this amendment to establish a 5-year statute of limitations for making a bomb, a sawed-off shotgun, or a silencer. It is pretty straightforward.
I think the American people understand this, and people can stand up here as long as they want, and I have respect for them. However, I must question them when stand up here and say, `Well, gee, Senator Boxer, if we kept your amendment in here, this whole bill would go down.' Show me one U.S. Senator of either party, show me one House Member who would truly stand up and say that a criminal who makes a bomb, who makes a silencer, who makes a sawed-off shotgun should get away with it because of a 3-year statute of limitations. If any disparity is warranted, bomb making ought to be a longer statute, because a bomb could be hidden in somebody's possession for a long time before it was detonated and before it was used.
The police chief of Oklahoma City supports this. Let me repeat that: The police chief of Oklahoma City supports this amendment. They know they need time to put together their case.
What are we doing here? Are we doing the bidding of the NRA, or are we doing the bidding of the American people? Are we trying to protect the people from these vicious crimes, these cowardly crimes? It is horrible enough when someone walks up to someone else and injures them with a weapon. That is a horrible crime and it should be punishable by the worst possible punishment.
It is unbelievable to me that this was stricken by this conference committee. I thought we were going to be tough on crime.
Last night, a simple proposal that would say if a chemical weapon was used, local law enforcement could call on our military to get help was defeated in this Republican Senate--defeated. Now, ask the average law enforcement person in the local community if they are experts on chemical and biological weapons. They will tell you no. Just as in my amendment, if you ask them, do you need more time to go after the cowards that would make a bomb, they would say, `We need more time, Senator. Fight for your amendment.' We did, and it passed this Senate, and it was dropped in conference. It comes back to us with this piece missing.
I am stunned that would be the case. There is no argument except the one that the distinguished chairman makes over and over again on each of these motions which is, `You know that your amendment, Senator, will kill this bill.' Well, I do not know that. I never got one letter, one note of opposition to this commonsense proposal supported by the police chief of Oklahoma City and all the other law enforcement people who know it takes time to put together these complex cases.
I say if anyone believes this is bad policy, if they disagree with me on substance, if they disagree with the police chief of Oklahoma City and all the other police chiefs, the Justice Department and the administration, why do they not come down here? I say if they agree that it is common sense that altogether these crimes should have a minimum of a 5-year statute of limitations, they should support the Biden motion to recommit.
It defies imagination that we are now here refighting important commonsense proposals included in the Senate version of this bill.
I hope that my Republican friends will support this motion. I think it is absolutely key that we not tie the hands of law enforcement. We are coming to the 1-year anniversary of Oklahoma City. We know the investigation is going on and is continuing. If you asked every American, no matter what political stripe, no matter what part of the country they are from, they would say that it is important to give law enforcement enough time to investigate these complex cases--that is all we are asking for. This does not cost any money. It simply gives law enforcement time, time to make sure that they have completed their investigation and those cowards who would blow up innocent people are put away and dealt with in the harshest possible fashion.
I say that is being tough on crime. I hope that we will have support for this motion to recommit. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I reserve whatever time I might have.
[Page: S3433]
Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I will not take long because, frankly, it comes down to one thing: that we have worked this bill out. We have worked hard with the House Members. It has been very difficult to do. They have made significant concessions to us, and rightfully so. We applaud them for doing so because we have our problems here, and they have their problems there.
Anybody who has been in this process very long understands that once you reach a conference report like this--especially this one, which has taken a year to get here--any change is going to kill the bill--especially this provision.
Section 108 of the Senate bill, in part, would increase from 3 to 5 years the limitations period for commencing actions for violations of the National Firearms Act. The reason it is opposed by Members of the House, and the reason I oppose this attempt to increase the limitations provision, simply put, is because it is unnecessary. It does absolutely nothing with regard to terrorism. The 3-year Internal Revenue Code statute of limitation period for licensed firearms dealers violating the National Firearms Act is more than an adequate time to commence prosecutions.
There is no sanguine reason to extend the period. This has nothing to do with terrorism. It may be a good idea in another context, but it is apparent that it would cause plenty of problems in this context because there are simply people in the House--and I suspect here--who disagree with the distinguished Senator from California, who is very sincere in putting this amendment forward.
The statute of limitations period should be built upon fairness. These types of statutes of limitation must protect the Government's ability to prosecute claims and violations of the law. Yet, they also have to protect citizenry from stale claims and bureaucratic abuse. In this area there are a significant number of people on both sides of the floor here, and in the House of Representatives in particular, who have seen unfairness by various bureaucratic abusers and do not want to change this.
The traditional 3-year limitations period here accomplishes this fine balance between public needs and private rights. If we look at the underlying National Firearms Act offenses subject to a 3-year limitations period, the violations either prohibit dealers from possessing or transferring illegal firearms, such as banned machine guns or sawed-off shotguns, or possessing or transferring them without the proper firearm identification serial numbers, or through fraudulent applications or records. The 3-year limitations period, historically, has been more than sufficient to prosecute claims under the act, some being substantive but many of an administrative or of a paperwork nature. Some are technical. And we have seen abuses. Extending the limitations period to 5 years does absolutely nothing except perhaps open the system up to abuse and unfairness. Frankly, that is why our colleagues in the House are against this amendment. That is why I am against it here today.
I am prepared to yield, and I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes of what I understand to be 5 minutes of remaining time.
The idea, of course, here, Mr. President, is that the proposal that is in the bill, the failure to do this in the bill does not make sense. Listen to some of the types of weapons covered. Poison gas, bombs, grenades, rockets having propellant charges of more than 4 ounces, missiles having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, mines--these are not playthings we are talking about. Remember, the statute of limitations runs not from the time the crime becomes public knowledge, but from the time the crime was committed. So if a terrorist builds a bomb secretly, keeps it in his barn for 2 1/2 years, and blows up a building with it, the Federal prosecutors only have 6 months to track the guy down and get an indictment for building that bomb.
Crimes covered by the National Firearms Act are serious. They involve illegal manufacture of rockets, bombs, missiles, and sawed-off shotguns. So I cannot understand why anybody would oppose bringing the statute of limitations for these crimes into line with almost every other Federal crime.
Here are a few examples of crimes with a 5-year statute: Simple assault; stealing a car; impersonating a Federal employee; buying contraband cigarettes; impersonating, without authority, the character Smokey the Bear. If we are going to give the Government 5 years to track down a guy who impersonates Smokey the Bear, why not track down a guy who is involved in producing poison gas in his garage or barn?
I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Delaware that, as usual, he has put this in exactly the right manner. There is no reason on God's green Earth why this should not have been kept in this bill. Again, just ask the American people. Sometimes things sound very complicated. When the Senator from Utah got up and discussed the law, he makes it sound too complicated for the average person to understand. When you tell the average person that if you get out there and impersonate Smokey the Bear, law enforcement has 5 years to track you down, prosecute you, and put you away, but if you make a bomb, they have 3 years, it makes no sense whatsoever.
When the Senator from Utah says I am very sincere, I appreciate that. He knows me and he knows that I am, and I know that he is as well. But this is not about my sincerity. This is about a tool that law enforcement has asked the Congress to give them. So in the remainder of my time, I am going to read into the Record the local police chiefs who have asked us to give them this tool. It does not cost any money and does not set up a new bureaucracy. It gives them a commodity they want: time. So I am going to read, in the time that remains, the people who said to me, `Senator, this is important. Let us get this statute of limitations extended so we can go after these bad, cowardly criminals and put them away.'
The police chiefs of San Jose, CA; San Francisco, CA; Berkeley, CA; Los Angeles Port, CA; Salinas, CA; San Leandro, CA; Indianapolis, IN; the police chief of Oklahoma City, OK; the director of police in Roanoke, VA; the chiefs of police in Bladensburg, MD; Edwardsville, IL; Rock Hill, SC; Old Saybrook, CT; North Little Rock, AR; Puyallup, WA; Yarmouth, ME; Kinnelton, NJ; Bel Ridge, St. Louis, MO; Charleston, SC; Jackson, MS; Salem, MA; Scottsdale, AZ; Cambridge, MA; Haverhill, MA; Millvale, Pittsburgh, PA; Newport News, VA; Dekalb County Police, Decatur, GA; Opelousas, LA; Eugene, OR; Mobile, AL; Portland, OR; East Chicago, IN; Louisville, KY; Alexandria, VA; Renton, WA; Waukegan, IL; Port St. Lucie, FL; Greensboro, NC; Miami, FL; Buffalo, NY; Oxnard, CA; Seattle, WA.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from California has expired.
Mrs. BOXER. Thank you. I hope people will listen to the local chiefs and support the motion of the Senator from Delaware.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, look, if the Senator's arguments are valid, why do we not make it a 100-year statute of limitations? I mean, we can make it that way. They can prosecute any time they want to prosecute.
The fact of the matter is that we are trying to balance our law enforcement needs. Most of these are paperwork violations that are going to be automatically ascertained within a very short period of time, certainly within 3 years. If we make it 5 years, they will wait 4 1/2 years before prosecuting on a paperwork violation rather than 2 1/2 years, which is sometimes the case now.
There is simply no reason to extend the statute of limitations for this act. Anyone who uses a bomb, as is the illustration by the Senator from California, or illegal weapon, under this act, will be prosecuted under the Criminal Code and receive far larger penalties than are under this act. The majority of these offenses are mere paperwork offenses and have little or nothing to do with terrorism. Essentially, it would permit bureaucrats, like I say, 4 1/2 years to start an investigation instead of 2 1/2 years. That is really sometimes what happens.
Let us get back to where we were; that is, that we have arrived at a compromise here, and we have had to bring the House a long distance to meet the needs of the Senate. They have cooperated and have worked hard. Chairman Hyde and the other members of the conference have all worked very hard on this, and this is where we are. There are those on both sides of the floor over there who do not like this amendment, and, frankly, it would be a deal killer and a bill killer. If we want an antiterrorism bill, we have to vote down this motion to recommit.
I am prepared to yield the remainder of my time.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
[Page: S3434]
Mr. BIDEN. 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. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 60 seconds of my time to the distinguished Senator from Delaware.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I would like to make two very brief points.
I do not believe this is a deal killer, No. 1. But No. 2, there are two pieces here. It is illegal to make a bomb. It is illegal to put together poison gas. That is one crime all by itself. The second crime is if you go out and use it. So, if you used a bomb to blow up buildings, a new statute of limitations starts to run.
There is a distinction between what is lacking in this bill across the board, between prevention and apprehension. We not only want to get the bad guys who do the bad things; we want to prevent the bad guys from being able to do the bad things. By allowing the statute of limitations to be like it is for Smokey the Bear impersonation, and everything else in the Federal code--just about--it gives us more time to track down the people who have prepared or are stockpiling this kind of material, whether or not they have used it. That is an important distinction.
I think this is an important amendment. I cannot believe for a moment that this would kill the bill, that you would have 35 people in the House vote against this because we made the statute of limitations for making poison gas the same as for impersonating Smokey the Bear. I find that unfathomable.
I thank my colleague for yielding me an extra minute.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 6 minutes and 20 seconds.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, let me answer the distinguished Senator.
There are people on both sides of the aisle over there who do not like this amendment. We have taken a year to get this done. It was done 1 month after we passed the Senate bill, which, by the way, was an excellent bill. The fact of the matter is, there are people over there who will kill this bill over any amendment at this particular point. Everybody knows that. This is not something new to us.
We have had to fight our guts out to get this conference and get the conference report done. Frankly, there are a wide variety of viewpoints on this bill and on some of the aspects of this bill.
Look, if somebody is making a bomb, it is very likely you could charge that person under conspiracy, or an attempt statute, or under a number of other statutes that have longer statutes of limitations. This is not--I do not want to call it a phony issue, but it certainly is not an issue that should allow a motion to recommit.
Frankly, 3 years is plenty of time to get somebody who makes a bomb. If they do not get it under this statute, they will get it under something else. But if you expand it to 5 years, then all of these paperwork violations--which primarily is what is prosecuted under this statute, and some of them very unjustly so in the past--all of those become dragged out for another 2 years.
Frankly, we want the law enforcement people, if they feel they have a legitimate reason to prosecute, to prosecute it, and do it quickly so the witnesses are available, so that a lot of other things can be done and the people can defend themselves.
So there are a number of legitimate reasons why people do not like this amendment and why people in the House would not want this in the bill. The purpose of this is to give the bureaucrats a new lease on life without really stopping terrorism. That is what we are talking about here.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill 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. Mr. President, what is the current business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. HATCH. I yield back the remaining part of my time. What is the current business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is now on the motion to table the Leahy motion.
Mr. HATCH. We do have the motion to table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Dole and myself, I also move to table the Biden-Boxer motion, and ask for the yeas and nays as well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. HATCH. It is my understanding that these votes will be back to back starting now.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
The question is on agreeing to the motion to lay on the table the motion of the Senator from Vermont. On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The clerk called the roll.
Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Florida [Mr. Mack] is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 61, nays 38, as follows:
So the motion to lay on the table the motion to recommit was agreed to.
Mr. HATCH. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, since these are two stacked votes, I ask unanimous consent that there be 1 minute for debate equally divided in the usual form prior to the vote on the motion to table the Biden-Boxer motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[Page: S3435]
Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, let me explain briefly what this is. First, right now there is a statute of limitations that if you go out and impersonate Smokey the Bear, you have 5 years to track them down, if you write a bad check you have 5 years. If you make poison gas, if you make a chemical weapon, if you have a rocket propellant charge of more than 4 ounces, if you produce missiles and hide them in your garage, and they find them, without them being used, they only have a 3-year statute of limitations. So if they did not find them until 1 year after you have made them, you have 2 years. If they did not find them until 2 1/2 years, you have 6 months. We want to make this a 5-year statute of limitations, just like impersonating Smokey the Bear.
This is mindless not to do this when you are talking about making poison gas and chemical weapons and grenade launchers.
Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. This is a National Firearms Act and 3-year limitation. These are mainly paperwork violations. If someone violates beyond that--and for even paperwork they can get them for conspiracy. They can prosecute them under a whole variety of statutes that have longer statutes of limitation.
This is not a serious issue to us in the Senate, but it is a very serious issue to those in the House. We have worked hard to fashion this compromise. It is a doggone good compromise. Our friends in the House have really worked hard to help us to get it done. Frankly, this motion, as well as others, would kill the bill. So I hope my fellow Senators will vote against this motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time for debate has expired.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this is a motion to table, is it not?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. HATCH. I do not have to move to table?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No.
The question is on agreeing to the motion to table the Biden motion to recommit the conference report on S. 735 to the committee on conference with instructions. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Florida [Mr. Mack] is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 46, as follows:
The motion to lay on the table the motion to recommit was agreed to.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BIDEN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.