ON THE DAY BEFORE Thanksgiving, the U.S. Congress brought forth
a constitutional turkey. The Congress decided that the
Second Amendment did not mean what it said ("...shall not
be infringed") and passed the Brady bill.
Our Second Amendment rights hang by the slenderest of
threads. Not only is the Brady waiting period and background
check now law, but also many guns are on the verge of
being banned as well. Many members of Gun Owners of America
have asked how did we get to such a place?
Problem Didn't Arise Overnight
Senators and Congressmen may not know the difference between
a semiautomatic deer rifle and Rambo's machine gun. But
these politicians know when an organization is serious about
an issue. A group like the American Association of Retired
Persons (AARP) can work its will because politicians know
the AARP talks to a lot of people and makes a dangerous enemy.
The image of the National Rifle Association (NRA) is less
clear on Capitol Hill these days. This problem began during
the unlamented regime of former Executive Vice President
Warren Cassidy. NRA lobbyists under Cassidy stopped opposing
gun control bills and started offering NRA-approved versions
of the same legislation.
This tactic was first tried during the debate on
so-called "cop-killer" bullets. The NRA brokered a
"compromise" that passed the Senate with but one
dissenting vote [former Senator Steve Symms (R-ID)]
and the House by 400-21.
One would think that a "compromise" that wins the support
of militant anti-gun Senators like Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and
Howard Metzenbaum (D-OH) would not be much of a compromise.
But there was a greater danger to this method: The NRA was
sending our pro-gun allies mixed signals. They were being
told that voting for gun control bills was A-OK, so long as
the NRA was allowed to write part of those bills.
Remember staunch pro-gunners like Rep. Jack Fields of Texas
appearing on the television program "48 Hours" because they
were lobbying their colleagues for the so-called
"instant check?" These pro-gunners were pushing a gun
control bill that the NRA was strongly supporting. The
instant check was touted as an alternative to a waiting
period in Virginia in 1989.
But the instant check creates a computerized list of gun
owners, as even the Congress' Office of Technology
Assessment admitted in its 1991 report, Automated Record
Checks of Firearm Purchasers: Issues and Options:
The fact remains that computerized criminal records
systems maintain, as standard operating procedure,
transaction logs to document who is using the system,
when, [and] for what purposes. Transaction logs are
needed to help assure system accountability and security.
The Virginia transaction log does not include the names
of firearms purchasers, but the potential exists
egardless of legal prohibitions.
As the noted writer and attorney David Kopel has written in
an Independence Institute monograph on waiting periods:
Significantly, the instant check is subject to the same
problem of creating a gun and gun-owner registration
system as is a waiting period. As the [1989 Justice
Department] Task Force observes, "Any system that
requires a criminal history record check prior to purchase
of a firearm creates the potential for the automated
tracking of individuals who seek to purchase firearms."
It was this ability to keep a computer file on all gun
purchasers that, once it was in place, became the basis for
Virginia's "one gun per month" law which passed in 1993. Had
the computer system not already been set up and paid for,
the state of Virginia's ability to administer any gun
rationing law like this one would have been virtually
impossible. Neal Knox, a prominent NRA board member, makes
this very point in the September 1993 issue of Guns & Ammo
magazine. He says that the one-handgun-a-month law "can be
enforced only if state agencies are allowed to create a
computer registry of all sales."
The NRA's alternative to Brady turns out to be a permanent
means of building a national, centralized, computerized
gun registration scheme. When the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco
and Firearms (BATF) tried this in 1978, the NRA, with Neal
Knox's leadership, slapped them down. But starting in
1989, the NRA, under Warren Cassidy, has chosen to fight
gun control with . . . national computerized gun control.
Jim Baker of the NRA was quoted by USA Today on October 26,
1993 (P. 7A) as saying: " We already support 65% of the Brady
bill, because it moves to an instant check, which is what
we want."
And even before the voting started, Jim Baker was conceding
defeat. Readers of the Tuesday, November 16 issue of USA
Today learned this:
"It doesn't make a heck of a lot of difference" whether
the Brady bill is voted on separately or as part of
the crime package, says NRA lobbyist Jim Baker. "Whether
it's before Thanksgiving or when they get back in January
(the Brady bill) is going to happen."
Imagine getting ready for a championship game and your coach
tells you your side is beaten before you've taken the field.
Would you give your best effort? The NRA was publicly conceding
defeat even before the first vote was taken. Yet one week
earlier, the NRA was discouraging attempts to block the assault
weapon ban because, according to Capitol Hill sources, those
attempts would "cost us votes on Brady." If Brady was "going
to happen," why didn't the NRA fight an earlier bill that never
won a filibuster-proof-majority -- the ban on certain rifles,
shotguns and magazines? So long as the other side could not
muster 60 votes, that ban could have been easily stopped by
a filibuster. By not fighting when we could win, and by
conceding defeat before another difficult battle, the NRA
may have allowed the two bad bills to pass -- not just one.
The NRA did accomplish one legislative objective with the
Senate passage of the Omnibus Crime Bill. It was able to
very quietly attach its Hunter Harassment bill as an
amendment even while Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) was
attaching her ban of semiautomatic firearms to the same
bill (see vote below).
NRA Sends Mixed Signals To Congress
Anyone who has ridden a "neck-broken" horse knows how easy
it is to control a horse looking for clear direction.
You steer the horse by laying the reins on his neck in
the way you wish him to turn. But you cannot tell the
animal two things at once. For example, if you pull back on
the reins while you spur him forward, you are telling him
to both "stop" and "go."
Politicians are a lot like horses. They need clear direction
or they wander all over the map. Mixed signals can be disaster.
The most dangerous mixed signal is when an anti-gun vote is
tolerated. The NRA has given money and mailed its members
urging votes for politicians who undermined our gun rights.
Consider the case of Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA).
A senator from Pennsylvania would help, not hurt his political
future, by being a leader when it comes time to pass pro-gun
bills and oppose anti-gun bills. Fully 60 percent of the
state's eligible citizens have hunting licenses. Yet Senator
Specter has done precisely the opposite.
Specter's non-vote in the Judiciary Committee in 1989 kept us
from killing the semiautomatic rifle ban in committee, a loss
which cost the NRA and GOA money and time which might have been
spent regaining our rights rather than defending them. The
NRA's "Official Journal," published in the American Rifleman
in September 1989 noted on page 62 that "Specter Abstains
on Crucial Vote."
Had Senator Specter voted correctly, there would have been no
need for the "compromise" bill passed by the Congress in 1989
which bans domestic assembly of banned rifles and shotguns
from foreign parts. The BATF is interpreting that law to
make a criminal of any individual who puts a folding stock
on a legally imported SKS rifle.
In 1992, while he was up for reelection, Senator Specter
voted to limit debate on the so-called crime bill, S. 1241,
with its national waiting period and ban on 14 types of
rifles and shotguns. If a senator from a pro-gun state
like Pennsylvania didn't think that was a fight worth
fighting, what example did that set for senators who
represent other relatively less pro-gun states?
When it came time to vote on final passage of the crime
bill on July 11, 1992, Senator Specter bravely decided
not to vote. Every vote against the bill was a way of
encouraging President Bush to veto this terrible legislation.
Again, Specter was missing when we needed him.
It has been said that all that is necessary for evil to
triumph is for good men to do nothing. A Senate made up of
99 senators like Arlen Specter and one like Howard Metzenbaum
will pass virtually as much gun control as 100 Howard
Metzenbaums.
What did the NRA do in 1992 to punish Arlen Specter for his
treachery? During the primary, in which Specter was opposed
by a strong pro-gun challenger, the NRA issued a letter dated
April 19, 1992, to its Pennsylvania members. The letter said,
"Arlen is a pro-gun leader we must fight to keep." For a
"pro-gun leader we must fight to keep," Senator Specter
(1) never takes the lead on any pro-gun legislation, and
(2) sometimes takes the lead on anti-gun legislation.
According to the records on file at the Federal Election
Commission (FEC), the NRA's Political Victory Fund donated
$9,900 to Specter's reelections direct contribution not
exceeded by any other Senate candidate. But Specter was not
the only curious beneficiary of NRA funds.
Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-CA) has been a zealous supporter
of waiting periods. A GOA member in his district has
carried on quite a correspondence with Mr. Gallegly.
Gallegly, like Specter, can sound really pro-gun. Gallegly
has also voted for the Brady bill-three times. Despite
his voting record, Gallegly received $9,900 from the NRA
in campaign donations during the 1991-92 election cycle.
California had two Senate races in 1992. One of them featured
Bruce Herschensohn, a Republican. After the LA riots that
year, Herschensohn was asked what solution he would propose
to prevent such violence. Herschensohn suggested that honest
people be allowed to carry guns. No weaseling from this
candidate. The NRA Political Victory Fund rewarded this
pro-gun stalwart (who lost by just 48-43% to anti-gun
Barbara Boxer) with $9,500 in direct contributions and
$475 spent on his behalf. (By contrast, the NRA spent $86,412
to defeat anti-gun Beryl Anthony (D-AR). A serious effort
requires serious money.)
What if the NRA took the money it spends on ingrates like
Specter and Gallegly and invested that same money in
Herschensohn? Herschensohn might have won. With Herschensohn
in the Senate, the assault weapons ban doesn't survive by
one vote-it would have died unless Vice President Gore was
present to break the tie (which he was not that night).
What message does this send to swing voters and moderates? It
seems clear they are being told implicitly that if they defy
the NRA but seem likely to win, that the NRA will support
them. This is obviously not the road to influence in Congress
for any lobby. Most members care little about issues and
much about reelection. Groups able to affect the latter have
their way on the former.
NRA Candidate Ratings Shown to be Overly High
Readers of NRA president Robert Corbin's column in the "NRA
Official Journal" (American Rifleman, December 1992, P. 46)
would be certain we had little to fear from this Congress:
But by the time the votes were counted, 54 A-rated
candidates had been elected. Instead of losing 27
allies in Congress, we gained 27, for a total of 197
A-rated representatives and over 45% of the House.
If the NRA's math was correct, we would need to lobby a mere
21 B-rated Congressmen to get the 218 votes required to kill
the Brady bill. In other words, a strong pro-gun majority
should be easy to get, since "A"s should be highly reliable.
Let's compare that number with the votes on Brady on November
10, 1993 in the House of Representatives. Preemption of all
state waiting periods over five days got just 175 votes total.
Only 189 Representatives voted against the Brady bill on
final passage.
The candidate rating prepared by Gun Owners of America (and
published in Guns & Ammo) proved to be far more accurate.
We calculated there were but 43 sure A-rated Representatives.
An additional 60 earned lower grades of A-minus because of
their support of the instant background check.
Why did GOA give these people as high a grade as an A-minus
for supporting that dangerous bill? Because the NRA had told
these Representatives that they must support the instant
check. If the NRA, with all its money and members, is telling
people to support a gun control bill, it is hard for other
groups to really punish people for voting for that gun
control bill.
The NRA's confused message is not only confusing politicians.
It is confusing everybody else. We cannot be surprised
that politicians do not believe that they will be held
accountable for anti-gun votes in the face of mixed signals.
What Is Bob Dole Doing?
Senate Republican Leader Bob Dole of Kansas is known as a
player of political hardball. A former (and possibly
future) presidential candidate, Dole did not rise so
high by being deaf to strong lobbyists.
But events in the Senate demonstrate that either (1) someone
is not telling Bob Dole what to do or (2) Bob Dole isn't
listening.
Remember the political climate. On November 2, 1993,
anti-gun politicians were bounced in both New Jersey and
Virginia. (The defeat of just one Senator, Joe Tydings of
Maryland, has been credited with killing gun control for
over a decade.) These elections would seem to have put the
chill on gun control for another decade.
Yet the U.S. Senate has passed a ban on certain rifles and
shotguns, a ban on magazines with over 10 rounds capacity,
and agreed to a waiting period. All this in the same month
as those elections. How did this happen?
To the astonishment of most experts, Senator Dole and his
fellow Republicans agreed to hurry up procedures for
considering all the gun control bills. Opportunities to
filibuster the legislation were mostly avoided. A number of
killer amendments could have been added to make the filibuster
work. For example, anti-gunners could have been forced to
vote first on imposing the death penalty in the District of
Columbia before they could vote for the Brady bill. It is
entirely possible that the Senate would still be stalemated
at that point, given such a choice.
This strategy had worked well in past years so GOA asked a
few Senate offices to have their Senators filibuster the bill.
But GOA was told by one Senate staffer, who wishes to
remain anonymous, that "The NRA asked us not to filibuster."
We were told that Senator Dole's vote count was the basis
for this decision.
It should be noted that when Senator Dole and the GOP put
principles over fear of being accused of gridlock, they
successfully filibustered the President's economic stimulus
package earlier in the year. Unfortunately, they did not hold
the Second Amendment in as high as regard.
It should also be noted that a determination to filibuster
could have stopped the semi-auto ban from being attached to
the Omnibus Crime Bill in the Senate, and could have slowed --
and maybe even stopped -- the Brady bill.
At the most difficult point of all to filibuster -- on the
motion to send the Senate -- passed Brady bill over to the
House-two unsuccessful efforts were made to end the filibuster.
This makes it clear that a filibuster could have succeeded
had the Republicans (and a handful of Democrats) wanted to
fight. As we have seen earlier, they decided that it would
be unlikely that there would be consequences for deserting
the gun owners.
Then, with three senators on the floor, Senator Dole allowed
the Brady bill to become law. Had he -- or any other Senator
who had decided to stay around -- objected, the Senate would
have been unable to act. The Senate needs a quorum to
conduct business, and a single objection would have
collapsed the charade of three Senators acting for the
whole body.
Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell (D-ME) told a
Knight-Ridder luncheon on November 30 that it is possible
to mount six separate filibusters on any bill. These
filibusters would each take time, perhaps even days, to
be stopped. When a legislative body, like the Senate,
approaches adjournment, every delay can mean victory. Yet
many of these opportunities were lost by unanimous consent.
Had Senator Dole, or any other Senator, really wished to stop
the gun control express, all it would have taken was the
no vote of one of them.
Had Senator Dole been willing to organize a determined effort
to block these bills, the Senate could still have been
debating so-called "assault weapons" at the Thanksgiving
break and Brady would not have been discussed until the
start of 1994. Had Senators been allowed to offer amendments
on issues that the anti-gun lobby hates, like Washington,
D.C.'s lack of a death penalty, both gun control bills could
have been blocked, or at least slowed down. According to
the Associated Press, Senator Dole was willing to prevent
"some Republican senators [from] keep[ing] open the option
of filibustering Brady." Every delay works to our
advantage -- yet our side was not delaying matters.
The closer the vote is to the November 1994 elections, the
more frightened politicians are of pro-gun voters. The closer
the vote is to November 1994, the less time the other side
has for counter measures.
Yet even when our allies were finally allowed to filibuster
and won on Brady twice (Friday, November 19), Bob Dole was
reported, by Legi-Slate's Hill News Service on November 20,
to be willing to negotiate. The dead Brady bill was suddenly
revived.
The "compromise" negotiated by Bob Dole was described by
the Associated Press on November 20 this way:
Gun control opponents, as part of the deal, had given
up their insistence that the federal waiting period
supersede longer delays approved by some states.
Republicans who gave up their filibuster got little
in the compromise, mainly the four-year expiration
language.
The "four-year expiration language" actually can become
five years, simply by request of the Attorney General. So
the only thing we got was . . . nothing. This is a
compromise?
The story being spread by some in Washington is that Bob Dole
did his best to fight given the realities of the Senate.
Given that the NRA had shown an unwillingness to punish
anti-gun Senators (the other 99 need only glance at
reelected Arlen Specter), they have a point.
But the Dole compromise that got the bill moving was
described by Majority Leader Mitchell as "a fig leaf
so small it wouldn't cover a midget," according to the
New York Times. And Senator Mitchell was correct.
California still has a two-week wait. New York still has
a six-month wait. Pro-gunners who fought waiting periods
(and won) in places like Texas and Arkansas now find their
victories snatched away in Washington. Had we made a
similar "compromise" to end World War II, we would have
given Japan the states of California, Nevada and Arizona
in exchange for . . . nothing.
But Bob Dole and company chose to give up many chances to
fight these bills this year. In fact, Senator Dole was quoted
in the Washington Post on November 21 (while the filibuster
was going on) as saying: "We finally decided . . . let's get
the Brady bill behind us." There was no need to help those
who would take away our rights to do so more quickly. A
football team that offers no resistance as its opponents
march to the one-yard line, should not expect to keep them
out of the end zone.
And negotiations always favor those who are less willing
to compromise. Yet during the critical November 20-21 period,
what was Bob Dole saying? According to the New York Times of
November 22: "Let's get the best deal we can and move on."
Dangers of Endorsing Compromise Bills
On Capitol Hill there is an unwritten rule: If you ask for
something to be part of a pending bill and you get it, you
are expected to endorse the final result.
The NRA's work for the instant check was met with acceptance.
It was made part of the Brady bill this year even without
lobbying by the NRA. Amendments were made that would seem
to have the support of the NRA. Then this terrible bill was
passed. The NRA found itself in an impossible dilemma. To
support Brady (even with amendments) is to support national
gun control. To oppose Brady meant backing out on any
understanding either the NRA had reached with the Senate or
which Senators believed the NRA had reached with the Senate.
To pass Brady before Thanksgiving, the House had to accept
the Senate version of Brady or the Senate had to accept the
House version of Brady. GOA obtained a copy of a memo
circulated by the NRA on Monday, November 22, urging "the
House Rules committee to write a rule that will call up
the Senate-passed bill for a vote." (The memo is reprinted
below. Note the fax signature at the very top of the memo.)
Had the House Rules Committee done as the NRA asked and put
the Brady bill on the floor, Brady might well have passed even
earlier than it did.
Now the NRA may argue that it was adopting a tactical approach.
They knew that the House would reject the rule and were
setting themselves up to oppose Brady. We can only
hope so.
But these clever strategies are getting so clever that all
the anti-gun lobby need do is take the NRA at its word to get
a gun control bill passed. Our rights may be marginally more
protected if Jim Baker, rather than Sarah Brady, writes the
latest gun control bill. But these clever tactics make it
difficult to hold anyone accountable. And in the long run,
accountability is needed so that pro-gun Americans can
make intelligent decisions on election day.
When politicians vote for the NRA compromise gun control bill,
how can the NRA (or anyone else) justifiably criticize these
people for supporting gun control? A memo released on this
matter by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX) illustrates
the problem. She said:
[A] complete substitute bill was offered by Senators Dole
and Mitchell. This legislation, which I supported,
differed drastically from the original Brady Bill. It
provided for accelerated implementation of the
national instant-check [sic], which I and other gun
rights supporters have long sought, followed by
elimination of any waiting period. THE NRA DESCRIBED
THE SENATE'S APPROVAL OF THIS SUBSTITUTE BILL
AS A VICTORY. [Emphasis added.]
This is exactly how the NRA described the passage of the
first national gun control law since 1968. On November 20,
1993, the Senate passed a bill that would certainly impose
a minimum of five days waiting period everywhere in the
United States. Yet the Associated Press reported that NRA
"spokesman Bill McIntrye" was saying that the instant
background check also in the bill "will be a victory for
gun owners."
NRA Board member Tanya Metaksa took an even stronger stand
in an interview with the Washington Times (Nov. 25, p. A20)
after Brady was sent to President Clinton's desk:
I think this agreement was a victory for those who see
flaws in the current bill. This is a much different
Brady bill. This bill sunsets into what we've been
supporting for several years [the instant check]. If you
look at it in the long range, it's our bill in five years.
The NRA has put itself in a position where it must praise
terrible defeats because the anti-gunners gave them the
NRA's form of gun control, too.
Dole told reporters that he accepted the "compromise"
proposed by Metzenbaum (pass Brady now, you can try to pass
a new law changing it next year) for two reasons, one being:
"Sooner or later, the Brady bill would have passed."
The Brady bill is now law. Bob Dole is counting on getting
60 votes to modify Brady, when he only had 43 votes to stop
it. (The 43 votes were three more than needed to continue
filibustering the bill. Now Dole needs 60 votes to stop a
filibuster that the pro-Brady forces might mount in opposing
any changes.) What will finally happen is uncertain. But this
mess didn't happen overnight. And there is lots of blame to
go around.
NRA FEDERAL AFFAIRS TEL: 202-223-8141
Nov. 22'93 12:11 No.009 P.02
VOTE NO ON THE RULE AND HELP BRING THE SENATE PASSED BRADY
BILL TO THE HOUSE FLOOR FOR A VOTE!
The NRA supports the creation of a national instant background
check system in as short a time as possible. While not perfect,
we believe the Senate passed "Brady bill" will accomplish this
in a more expedited fashion than that passed by the House.
Furthermore, the Senate bill contains several important
reforms which are not in the House. We urge the House
Rules committee to write a rule that will call up the Senate
passed bill for a vote!
SENATE PASSED BRAD - HOUSE PASSED BRADY
$200 MILLION FOR RECORD - $100 MILLION
IMPROVEMENT IN THE STATES
MANDATORY SUNSET
4 years plus optional 5-year mandatory
year at request of Attorney General.
FEDERAL FIREARMS LICENSE REFORMS - NO CHANGE
License fee increase to
recover license costs.
Increased penalties for theft
of firearms.
Regular publication of
revoked licenses and
federal laws.
Allows face to face firearms exchanges
between Federally licensed dealers.
REQUIRES MULTIPLE HANDGUNS PURCHASES - NO CHANGE
TO BE NOTICED TO STATE AND
LOCAL POLICE
REQUIRES STATES TO DEVELOP A PLAN - NO CHANGE
TO INCORPORATE RECORDS OF
ADJUDICATED INCOMPETENTS AND
COMMITMENTS FOR BACKGROUND
SCREENING OF FIREARMS PURCHASERS.
*************************************
FROM THE HORSE'S MOUTH (Part I)
How Dole and Other Key Senators Plotted to Surrender Our Rights
Selected Events from the Congressional Record, November 24,
1993 --The Day the Brady Bill Was Allowed Out of the Senate
and Onto President Clinton's Desk
Introduction
During the days before Thanksgiving of 1993, Republicans (and
a handful of Democrats) successfully filibustered the Brady
bill. Brady supporters were then going to have to wait until
1994 to get their bill passed.
But instead of living through such a "waiting period,"
anti-gun Senators began demanding that the Senate return
the week following the Thanksgiving break to vote on the
Brady bill.
Of course, this displeased many Senators, since they were not
planning on returning from their vacation until late January
of 1994.
The pro-gun forces had the upper hand. After all, it was the
pro-Brady forces who needed to recall 60 Senators to break
the filibuster.
[Remember, while the opposition needs to muster 60 votes to
end a pro-gun filibuster, we only need one or two Senators
to make sure the normal rules of the Senate are followed.]
So if the Minority Leader, Senator Bob Dole of Kansas, really
wanted to defeat the Brady bill, he should have let the
anti-gun forces try to muster their 60 votes. It would have
never happened. There is no way they could have gotten 60
Senators to end their vacation early to return to Washington.
That is why Senator Dole's actions are so confusing. Had he
continued the fight, the Brady bill would now have to be passed
in an election year -- a fact which greatly increased our
chances of defeating the bill. Instead, Dole kept trying to
strike a compromise. As you read the following text, notice
how many times Dole says he wants to work out a deal to
get the issue behind him (that is, pass the Brady bill).
Senate Debate
Mr. Dole: Mr. President, I have listened with great
interest to both my friend, the majority leader, and
my colleague from Oregon. There are still negotiations
going on. I am not certain what will happen. But I think
there is -- even on this side, even though some may
oppose the legislation -- a majority of Members who would
like to get the issue behind them for a number of reasons.
In the first place, many have already made plans next
week, as the Senator from Oregon has, and these include
people who voted for cloture, against cloture, or whatever.
I think there is a feeling that we are so close....
I do not know why we cannot resolve it without bringing
our colleagues back here next week. As the majority
leader has stated, I have had a few calls, and there are
not many happy voices on the other end. Nobody wants to
rush back, not because they do not want to work, but
they have made other plans in their states for very
important meetings on health care and other issues, and
they feel it is important to spend some time with
their constituents.
[Ed. note: The pro-gun forces didn't have to rush back. If the
Brady forces wanted to force a vote to end the filibuster, then
Dole should have let them ruin their own vacation. Why was
Dole so willing to give in?]
We are going to try to make a decision one way or the
other, because I know the majority leader wants to conclude
business today fairly quickly. Now we are working on still
another proposal which we intend to give the majority
leader fairly soon.
I have been advised that we are trying to find even
another compromise, and I think that is true of most
Democrats. If it is all politics, then we cannot work
it out. We will have to come back next Tuesday and see
what happens next Tuesday. If not, if we cannot get
cloture, we can try to get it Wednesday, and if we
cannot get cloture, then it all goes over to next year.
Maybe for some, that will be a victory. Maybe for some
on this side, it will be a victory. Maybe for some on
that side, it will be a victory. I think there is a
broad middle here, as indicated by the Senator from
Oregon, of conservatives, moderates, whatever, who
would like to resolve this issue.
Dole Admits His Side Opposed
Mr. Dole: That is correct. The Senator was citing some
figures and the Record reflects, I think, that there are
a majority on our side who oppose the bill. IT TOOK A
CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF PERSUASION TO GET THEM TO EVEN
LET US PROCEED because they feel very strongly about
it. I do not quarrel with their position. Like any other
issue, some Members on each side feel strongly about it.
[Ed. note: Dole was actively lobbying pro-gun Republicans
to soften their opposition to the Brady bill! By doing this,
Dole could then proceed to reach a compromise with Senator
George Mitchell (D-ME), the Majority Leader.]
I do believe we could get the cooperation of everyone on
our side to let us proceed in a manner recommended by the
Republican leader. So we are going to give it one more shot,
and I will be in contact with the majority leader.
GOP Pressure for Surrender
Mr. Warner: Mr. President, I am among only eight Republicans
who have stood steadfast in support of the Brady bill. I have
done so for many years. Therefore, I have not been part of
the group negotiating. Like my distinguished colleague from
Oregon, Senator Hatfield, I have been on the sidelines.
I commend my colleague from Oregon for his comments on behalf
of the leadership. I wish to join him.
I have now had the privilege of serving 15 years with
the distinguished Senator from Maine and our distinguished
Republican leader, Senator Dole. This body has tremendous
confidence and respect for both of these leaders. While
I do not know all the details respecting this controversy,
I somehow intuitively feel both are proceeding in good
faith to represent the respective interests in their two
parties and are trying to reach an equitable
reconciliation. I commend both.
It has been particularly difficult for Senator Dole. Believe
me, there is no Senator who has a stronger knowledge in the
Senate on the effects of guns that our distinguished
Republican leader, a World War II hero. HAVING VOTED FOR
THE BRADY BILL SOME TWO YEARS AGO, IT MUST BE VERY
DIFFICULT FOR HIM TODAY. I hope as his name is bandied
across this Nation one way or another associated with
this problem, there is an understanding of the unique
problems that face leaders as they try and reconcile
strong differences. Oftentimes they have to take positions
that are not totally consistent with their own personal
long-range goals. That is one burden of leadership they
both accept.
I have voted for the Brady bill before. I have known both
Jim and Sarah Brady, as all of us have, for these many,
many years. I knew Jim long before he was White House
Press Secretary and indeed knew his lovely wife. I am
proud that they are constituents of mine in the
Commonwealth of Virginia.
I wish our leadership well. I know they are taking
into consideration the fact that many of our colleagues
are traveling afar today on official business. . . .
I think there are very good reasons for the absence of
many Members on official business. Therefore, it is my
fervent hope the leadership will be able to bridge this
gap.
******************************
The Brady Bill Passes
Unanimous Consent Agreement by Mitchell, George (D-ME) and
Dole (R-KS). H.R. 1025 and S. 1785. Brady Handgun Violence
Prevention Act - Conference Report [CR page S-17090,
44 lines]
Mr. Mitchell: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
Senator Dole's bill, which he shall have until 4 p.m.
today to introduce, making amendments to the Brady bill,
be placed directly on the calendar, that the majority
leader, after consultation with the Republican leader, may
turn to its consideration at any time; that when the bill
is considered, it be under a time limitation of 4 hours
equally divided in the usual form; that no amendments or
motions be in order to the bill; that the bill be modified
with the consent of the two leaders; that at the conclusion
or yielding back of time, the Senate, without any
intervening action or debate, vote on passage of the bill;
that the Senate now proceed to consideration of the
conference report to accompany H.R. 1025, the Brady bill;
that the conference report be agreed to and the motion to
reconsider be laid upon the table.
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act
[CR P. S-17091, 230 lines]
The Vice President: Is there objection?
Hearing none, the request is granted and the conference
report is agreed to.
[Ed. note: Normally, a filibuster can only be defeated
when 60 Senators vote to end it. However, another way to
kill a filibuster is for all the Senators present on the
floor to agree to suspend the normal rules. When Vice
President Al Gore asked if there were ANY OBJECTIONS TO
SUSPENDING THE RULES, no one objected. All it would have
taken is one Senator who was present in the room to object.
Senator Dole was on the floor at that moment and he refused
to object. Thus, the rules were suspended, the filibuster
ended abruptly, and the Brady bill was passed.]
So, the conference report was agreed to. (The conference report
is printed in the House proceedings of the Record of
November 22, 1993.)
Mr. Mitchell: Mr. President, I thank the Republican leader
for his courtesy and cooperation. We have been negotiating
on this issue off and on for 2 1/2 years. I think that while
there are many people who will be pleased that it has been
enacted, no one is more pleased than we are if for no other
reason than the issue is now largely behind us. I thank him
for his usual courtesy in discussing the matter. It has been
a very lengthy and tedious negotiation.
Second, we have agreed to give the Republican leader until
4 p.m. today to introduce the bill, to which we have already
agreed to have it brought up with no amendments and a vote
because we do act in good faith and we know that it is going
to be a bill that is consistent with the points that we have
been discussing.
So I want to say to those of my colleagues who, having heard
this order, raise a question that we have agreed to a very
expedited procedure on a bill we have not seen, that
although we have not seen the bill, we know essentially
what is going to be in it.
Third, I said privately to the Republican leader a moment
ago, there are many ironies in this situation, not least
of which are the following two: WE HAVE JUST NOW ENDED A
LENGTHY FILIBUSTER, and the price of ending the filibuster
was that we had to agree to bring up a bill and not
filibuster it. That is here in the Senate. In the House,
the Republicans regularly criticize the Speaker for bringing
up bills under a closed rule, and yet here the Republicans
have demanded that the bill be brought up under a
closed rule. . . .
[Ed. note: Senator Mitchell says they have just ended a
lengthy filibuster. In other words, the filibuster had been
succeeding and the only way the Brady forces could stop it
was to wait until there were only three Senators on the
floor -- Bob Dole being one of them. All three were willing
to suspend the normal rules and to end the filibuster.
Dole could have objected to suspending the rules. He did not.]
I WANT TO MAKE CLEAR TO THE REPUBLICAN LEADER THAT HE
HAS NOT ASKED FOR NOR HAVE WE GIVEN AN AGREEMENT OR A
COMMITMENT TO SUPPORT THE MEASURE. We do not know that
yet. Obviously, we want to see it; we want to review it.
This has been the subject of very lengthy and, as I said,
tedious negotiation. But we are committing ourselves in
good faith to having it brought up, debating it, and I
expect to do it very early in the session next year. I
will, of course, as always, consult with the Republican
leader before making a decision on that. So that matter
can be dealt with.
[Ed. note: Notice that Senator Mitchell makes no promises as
to the future of Dole's amendments. Neither Mitchell nor
anyone else has committed themselves to pass the changes
Dole will be seeking. Thus, the so-called compromise
Dole garnered could be nothing more than a total and
complete victory for Sarah Brady.]
IN THE MEANTIME, THE BRADY BILL HAS NOW BEEN PASSED. I
hope that the President will sign it shortly. I want
to congratulate all of those who have worked so long
and hard to make it possible for the Brady bill to
become law, not the least of which, of course, includes
Jim and Sarah Brady themselves who have worked tirelessly
on this matter for many years; Senator Metzenbaum, who
was the original sponsor and author of the bill and
who for many years was a lonely voice; Senator Kohl
of Wisconsin, who has committed himself to this subject
and worked very hard on it; and SENATOR DOLE, WHO, ALONG
WITH MYSELF, HAS BEEN AT THE CENTER OF THE DISCUSSIONS
ON IT FOR THE PAST 2 1/2 YEARS. SO I THANK MY COLLEAGUE
VERY MUCH FOR HIS COOPERATION. I am pleased to say that
we will not have to come in next week and we can now
leave for Thanksgiving and Christmas and then return
next year refreshed and ready to roll.
[Ed. note: Senator Mitchell says they'll be "ready to roll"
now that the Brady issue is settled. This is one reason that
it was imperative for Dole and others to continue
filibustering the Brady bill. As long as it remained
bottled-up, it served as a "buffer zone" between the
anti-gun forces and our rights. Now that Brady is law,
the anti-gunners can move to the next item on their gun
control agenda.]
***********************************
From the Horse's Mouth (Part II):
How the Brady Bill Passed
"Please realize that NRA acquiesced in passage of the
Brady Bill only after we achieved a number of amendments
to the bill, the most significant of which is a provision
exempting holders of concealed weapons permits (among others)
from the federal waiting period."
***Letter by Robert C. Nagle, NRA's Research and
Information, writing on behalf of NRA President
Wayne LaPierre, March 13, 1994
"I sat there with the majority leader [Sen. George
Mitchell] and everybody else had gone home, and we
made an arrangement. We let that [Brady] bill pass."
***(Senator Bob Dole (R-KS), August 23, 1994
(p. S 12363 of the Congressional Record)
