Mr. President, I have one final point that I would like to make on behalf of this bill. There is a difficult balance which we are trying to achieve through these revisions in the Gun Control Act of 1968. We look to protect the rights of our citizens to be free of governmental constraints without easing our commitment to the battle against crime in this country. I believe that this bill strikes a good balance in these vital interests. Critics have focused upon the first half of this equation, suggesting that people should not have the rights afforded under this legislation. We are a country proud of our freedoms. It is this freedom which makes this country a great Nation. The citizens of this country have a right to be free in their persons and property. The fight against crime is the struggle for this freedom. I will be voting in favor of S.49 as a vote for the protection of our freedoms.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the subject of considering changes to the 1968 Federal Gun Control Act has been a topic of much debate in the Judiciary Committee for the past several Congresses. Last year alone it took the better part of four committee meetings and 6 months to finally agree on a compromise bill that was unanimously reported by the committee. As the ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee I believe this issue has received careful scrutiny and this bill is a product of compromise and revision.

Mr. President, in the 97th Congress when this bill was introduced, I had major concerns that it would gut many important law enforcement provisions in the 1968 Gun Control Act. It was for that reason that I raised concerns about provisions that would make it easier for convicted felons to gain access to guns and permit the interstate mail order sales of guns. The Treasury Department and some of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle raised similar concerns and there was agreement to offer substitute language to the original text of the bill. I give credit to Senator HATCH and the National Rifle Association for their willingness to compromise and develop a revised bill that would strike a fair balance between unnecessary restrictions and regulations on lawful ownership of rifles and handguns and the legitimate interests of law enforcement in carrying out their responsibilities. I believe the compromises that are now a part of this bill have resulted in a balanced piece of legislation that protects the rights of private gun owners while not infringing on law enforcement's ability to deal with those who misuse guns or violate laws.

During my 12½ years as a Member of this body, I have never believed that additional gun control or Federal registration of guns would reduce crime. I am convinced that a criminal who wants a firearm can get one through illegal, nontraceable, unregistered sources, with or without gun control. In my opinion a national register or ban of handguns would be impossible to carry out and may not result in reductions in crime.

There will be several amendments offered today that warrant close attention and I will listen to the authors' argument very carefully before deciding how I will vote. However, on the whole, I am satisfied with the revisions to the bill made in committee, and I believe this bill makes improvements to existing law.

Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, even before the ink was dry after the 1968 Gun Control Act was signed into law, many Members of Congress has second thoughts about the effects of their action.

That action amounted to a sweeping legislation attempt to curtail crime, political assassination, and social upheavals marked by extreme violence. In that climate of "Do something, do anything," firearms and the lawful owners of firearms were made scapegoats in a simplistic attempt to answer exceedingly complex human problems.

Only the citizens caught up in the maze of the 1968 Gun Control Act can adequately and persuasively convey the effect this ill-conceived law has had on their lives. Their stories poignantly reveal the end results of a vague and complex law which impacts much more on law abiding citizens who happen to own firearms than it impacts on violent criminals. This Congress must provide, by reform of the Gun Control Act of 1968, protection for scores of Americans who would otherwise fall prey to the misdirected 1968 law.

Although it was touted as a measure to curb crime, the Gun Control Act does not deal, or even purport to deal, with misuse of firearms. It is purely and simply a regulatory statute designed to control the transfer of firearms and to make each transfer a federally recorded and federally controlled transaction. That is the importance of the statute.

That significance has been lost amid all of the rhetoric about the 1968 act and its companion statutes. The Gun Control Act of 1968 is not directed at misuse of firearms, rather it is a highly technical, strict regulatory scheme that thrusts burdensome recordkeeping requirements on all who chose to legally own or engage in the business of selling firearms.

Put another way, most provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 deal with regulatory crimes rather than violations of a criminal, moral nature. And whenever you are dealing with regulatory crimes-a wrong only because the law says it's wrong-you will have people who have no intention of breaking the law caught up in the technical maze spawned by the Gun Control Act.

Literally anyone can inadvertently become a victim of the technical requirements of Federal gun laws. Yet any and all violations of that act are felonies, subject to criminal penalties. Under its provisions, no matter how diligently one tries to comply, an innocent technical mistake will result in a criminal record.

Try, if you will, to conjure up any other statute or regulatory law which calls for criminal penalties to be levied for a record keeping error. And bear in mind that under the Gun Control Act of 1968 your motives, your intent, matters little.

The Federal gun law can be likened to Government imposed speed limits, artificial numbers set by lawmakers. It doesn't matter what your motives are: if you exceed the speed limit, you have violated the law, no matter how unintentionally. At least in this instance the motorist is given signpost commands every few miles.

However, the Nation's firearms owners and dealers have not been given clear, identifiable signals governing firearms transactions. Instead, firearms owners and dealers must obey the commands of a vague, ill-defined, and arbitrary law. And unlike the motorist caught in a traffic violation, subject to a fine, a citizen charged with a recordkeeping violation under the Gun Control Act is labeled a felon for life.