Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Rules Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Con. Res. 130 and the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record in the appropriate place.

Mr. CRAIG. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 319.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Lands of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Friday, September 15, at 10 a.m. to conduct an oversight hearing. The subcommittee will receive testimony on Federal agency preparedness for the summer 2000 wildfires.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from consideration of the following resolutions; further, the Senate proceed to their consideration en bloc: S. Res. 294, S. Res. 342, S. Res. 347, S. Res. 353, and S. Res. 355.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of routine morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I know we are at or near the close of business of today's session of the Senate. I thought it important that we end up the week with a bit of an analysis of where we are and where we have to get in the next several weeks to complete the business of Government, to fund the necessary agencies, and to be responsible to the American people as it relates to the expenditure of their tax dollars. As most all Americans understand, we are now, fortunately, living with a balanced budget at our Federal Government level; that is, current operating budgets. Many of us in Congress for decades fought to get this budget balanced. It became balanced during a period of unprecedented economic growth in our country. I believe that a balanced budget contributed dramatically to that growth. At the same time as we worked to continue to balance that budget, many of us had wanted to now take some of the unprecedented surpluses of tax dollars that are coming into us and return them to the American taxpayer. We tried to do that this year in two forms: In the reduction or the elimination of the marriage tax penalty, about $1,400 per married couple; and in the near elimination of the death tax; in other words, the taxing of citizens of their wealth or their estates upon the incident of death. Those are two items extremely popular with the American people. Yet in trying to do that, we were told by this administration and by many of my colleagues on the other side that it would wipe out this surplus tax dollar amount--many statements such as that that couldn't be any further from the truth. The reality is that for those two tax packages that were passed by Congress and now vetoed by the President, we are talking of about a dime, one dime out of every surplus dollar, your surplus tax dollar, to be projected to come in to our Government over the next decade. Be that as it may, that is a problem we face. So here we are now working to finalize the work of the Government in the next 3 weeks, and we have an inordinate amount of work to get done. One of my frustrations as a leader on this side in trying to move the process along is that, for the last 6 months, we have heard the rumor, and we have watched the actions of the minority leader and the folks on the other side, which would indicate there was a stalling tactic going on, that somehow they didn't want to get the work done in a timely fashion, that they constantly objected to unanimous consents, and they asked for votes time after time on issues we had already voted on and had been thoroughly debated on the floor of the Senate, from which the political answers had come flowing forth on the debate. Let me give a couple of examples. I am one of those who always comes to the floor when there is a gun debate. Somehow, the other side is saying we have to have more votes on gun issues. Well, I will say this: We have already had 13 votes this session on the gun issue. I am not quite sure how many more we need, or will need, to express to the American people the intent of Republicans versus Democrats versus individual Senators as it comes to this issue. We have had rollcall votes on amendments 403 times; Democrats have proposed 231 and Republicans have proposed 172. Many of these amendments never would make it into policy and had been refused by the authorizing committees but were here either for time taken or for political expressions being made--not for substantive policy reform because we knew it would not happen. On the issue of ``Kennedy Care,'' or health care, we have already had eight votes; and we still are being asked to take more votes on the prescription drug issue, a Government-run proposal on the part of some. We have had seven votes on that. How many votes does it take to express to the American people the intent of this Congress or this Senate when it comes to a given issue? A once-a-week vote? A once-a-day vote? How about one thorough debate and one vote up or down? That clearly expresses the will and the intent of individual Senators. This last week we have had a very significant debate on the normalization of trade relations with China, known as PNTR, permanent normal trade relations. It is a very important debate and it was handled very well. Most of the amendments have been constructive. But while we have been trying to do this, recognizing our work schedule we have been trying to do a couple of other things. For example, we have been trying to offer up additional amendments, or appropriations bills, or conference reports that will finalize the work of Congress. This is what has happened. It confirms what many expected was true and that was an attempt to slow-roll us or stall us so we could not get our work done. Here is a quote from the USA Today of Friday, September 8. It says: Senator Minority Leader Tom Daschle has a simple strategy for winning the final negotiations over spending bills. Of course, those are the key items that we must finish to finish the work of the Congress so we can adjourn. What is it? He said: Stall until the Republicans have to cave in because they can't wait any longer to recess and get out on the campaign trail. Of course, the logic is simple if you are an insider and you know the workings of the Senate and you know how many are up for reelection. That is because 18 of the 29 Senators seeking reelection are Republicans and 11 are Democrats. There are a lot of vulnerable Republican Senators. I know they want to go home badly. So what is the tactic? Stall, object. One Senator can come to the floor and all he or she has to do is say: Mr. President, I object. That simple action in itself can either take hours or days of debate and break down the process. It can be called a filibuster, or gaining cloture on a vote; but ultimately, and without question, it is a stalling tactic--especially now in light of what the minority leader says. Finally, Tom Daschle has come clean. He has openly and publicly said their tactic is to stall. What does stalling really get us? To some who believe in big government, it could probably get them tens of billions dollars more in money to spend on Government programs and, in some instances, more Government control, more Government mandates and, frankly, more Government in your back pocket. People of my thinking would suggest that is bad policy. But the dollars we are talking about, the surplus dollars that we tried to get back to the American people in the form of tax relief, which was vetoed this year by the President, is the kind of money they now want to spend. Oh, these Republicans, if we just stall on them, they are so anxious to go home that they will buy their way out of it in the final hours of the 106th Congress. Senator Daschle, Democrats, listen to me, please. We are not going to buy our way out of it. I don't want to buy our way out of it. The American taxpayers don't want us to buy our way out of it. They want good, sound policy, recognizing important programs. But they also know we are increasing Government spending at a near record rate now and, at the same time, we truly do have a surplus that ought to go home to the American taxpayer from whence it came. It is not our money; it is the taxpayers' money. That is why Senator Lott, the majority leader of the Senate, and Congressman Dennis Hastert, the Speaker of the House, in a meeting with President, said: Mr. President, let's take 90 percent of the surplus, if you are not going to let us give it back in taxes, and let's use it to pay down the debt; 90 percent of the surplus could go against the debt. That leaves 10 percent of the surplus to spend on programs. Well, they can't even agree with that on the other side, when the American people are clearly saying: Give us tax relief. But if you can't do that, pay down the debt. For gosh sakes, don't spend that money. Get Americans debt free. Buy down that nearly $6 trillion debt in a way that is manageable, responsible to the economy--but, most importantly, in a way that is responsible to our young people and to their futures. It is a debt they will, obviously, have to assume. Mr. Daschle's answer is to stall. How do you stall? This is how you do it. When the leader comes to the floor and asks unanimous consent that H.R. 3615, the Rural Local Broadcast Signal Act--simple but important, and it is called the rural satellite bill--is ready to go, somebody from the other side stands up and says, ``I object.'' Senator Leahy did that for Senator Daschle. Stalling tactic? You bet. I call that stall No. 1. Here is stall No. 2: H.R. 1776, the national manufactured housing construction bill. It has 32 cosponsors, including Democrats such as Senators Bryan, Cleland, and Hollings. The Leader requested, on September 8, to go to a conference to solve our problems. This is for safety requirements for manufactured housing. Senator Leahy, for Senator Daschle, said, ``I object.'' Stall No. 2. Stall No. 3, H.R. 1259, Social Security and Medicare Safety Deposit Act, the lockbox: Democrats and the President are trying to take credit for that right now. They fought us for a year on it. Senator Ashcroft of Missouri was the one who came up with the idea. News stories are replete about Republicans talking about that idea for the last year and a half. And now, of course, because some folks on the other side of the aisle want credit when we proposed bringing that up to debate it, to have it, and to truly protect Social Security revenues, oops, stall No. 3. This time Senator Daschle himself came out and objected to reaffirm what he said to USA Today on September 8. They won't even let that go. Here is stall tactic No. 4, four district judges: We have been criticized all year because we won't confirm the judges the President has sent up. Majority Leader Trent Lott brings the judge bill to the floor, judges the Democrats want, judges the Republicans want, but, most importantly, judges that this President sent up. He brought the judges to the floor. Let's see. He brought a judge for Senator Durbin; he brought a judge for Arizona, and everybody agreed on these judges; Daschle himself objected, stall tactic No. 4. These are just functionary, important kinds of necessarily ``get done if you can'' kinds of things. We have time to do it. It doesn't require lots of debate. But it clearly appears to me that no action goes forth. And if we can stop that action, surely those Republicans in time will cave. Here is stall tactic No. 5, intelligence authorization: A request to go to the conference with Democrat amendments submitted to Daschle through a staff channel on September 7--no response from Daschle or others--with an indication that Democrats are preparing additional amendments, stall tactic No. 5. My goodness, aren't we going to get these authorizations done? They are very important. Here are four nominations to the U.S. Institute for Peace. I am not going to stand here and suggest the Democrats aren't for peace. We are all for peace. But at least they objected to moving nominations on the Institute for Peace; stall No. 6. A document that made stall No. 7 happen on the 13th of this month was a major report coming out of our Federal Government saying that violence in the media, violence in video games, violence on television, and violence in the movies is truly producing a culture of violence that could and appears to be translating into violent youth of America with young people witnessing over 100,000 acts of violence, actually watching on television, although acted and cast--8,000 murders during their young lifetime. Somehow that is important. We have been talking about it for years as being darned important. Senator Joe Lieberman, now Vice-Presidential candidate, proposed what is known as the ``Media Violence Labeling and Advertising Act of 2000.'' Senator John McCain supported him. It is bipartisan with Democrats and Republicans, and now a national issue made true by studies and analyses of our Federal Government as to the impact on young people. We brought it to the floor. That is S. 2497, bipartisan legislation, and there was objection to the unanimous consent to move it forward. For the week, that is stall tactic No. 7. What will next week hold? We are going to conclude PNTR on a vote on Tuesday, I believe. We have numerous appropriations bills that ought to be dealt with. Hopefully, we can and will deal with them and in doing so pick up the pace around here and get our work done so that we can adjourn--so that we can send a very clear message to the American people of the intent of this Congress to balance the budget; to hold sacred the Social Security surplus; to make sure that we deal with health care in a responsible way for our citizens; hopefully that we could give back a few of these surplus tax dollars, but if we can't do that, at least dedicate a large portion of it to debt buy-down so that young people in their lifetime won't have to finance the debt structure of the generation before them. Those are responsible and right things to do, and I hope we can do them. But I will be back next week to talk probably about stall tactic No. 8, No. 9, No. 10, and No. 11. At least I am going to until the minority leader comes to the floor and he recants and says that he didn't say this or that this isn't a strategy because if it is a strategy, it is bad politics, and it is darned bad government to simply say, no, we are not going to work until we get the right to spend billions and billions of dollars of more money. That is not bipartisan. Most importantly, that is bad policy. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Oklahoma. He so clearly spells out the frustration Americans have when we are going to be tough against terrorism and then see a President offering clemency. In 1982, the FALN detonated four powerful bombs in New York's financial district and demanded better treatment for 11 of their jailed comrades and members. One year ago this week, President Clinton freed 8 of those 11, shredding the longstanding policy of the United States of not granting concessions to terrorists. Any reasonable American has to ask, Why would the President do it? What is he doing setting violent terrorists free to once again roam the streets of America? None of these terrorists contested the evidence brought against them at trial. None of these terrorists apologized to their victims. In fact, at least one of the freed terrorists stated that he felt no remorse whatsoever for his crimes. None of these terrorists were ever asked to be let out of prison. The FBI asked the President not to do it. The Federal Bureau of Prisons asked the President not to do it. Had he bothered to ask the victims of the FALN and their families, they would have begged him not to do it. He did it anyway, and we are not quite sure why. Internal White House documents tell us, ``The Vice President's Puerto Rican position would be helped,'' clearly demonstrating an impulse to jeopardize public safety for political gain. Political gain by setting terrorists loose. A former political adviser to President Clinton put it this way: Anyone who doesn't believe the timing, and the likely substance of [President Clinton's] decision was linked to the [First Lady's] courtship of New York's large Puerto Rican [community] is too naive for politics. If there is one thing this administration has accomplished in its 8 years, it is to shatter my naivete or my trust that when the President stands up and speaks, that there is not some political or clandestine motive behind his very actions. One year later, what do we have? Eleven violent terrorists at large on our streets; two more to be released this coming year. True, there have not been any killings that we can link to the terrorists since that time, but they are loose on the streets of America demonstrating at least that this President has violated a cardinal rule in our country: the United States does not make concessions to terrorists. For that action, one year ago today, Democrats and Republicans stood on this floor and condemned this deplorable act. Interestingly, when I began to look into this, I saw that Al Gore's running mate Senator Joe Lieberman stood up to the President and condemned his actions. Even the First Lady stood up to the President and condemned his actions. Just about the only politician in Washington who has yet to stand up to Bill Clinton is Vice President Al Gore. As Vice President of the United States, Al Gore could have intervened. He could have talked to the President, said that this is madness to let terrorists loose after they have been convicted, to shred gun control laws. But Al Gore did not lift a finger to protect the FALN's next victims. All he said was, quote: I'm not going to stand in judgment of his decision. Not going to stand in judgment? When a madman killed 168 people in a single bombing in Oklahoma City, Al Gore said, and I quote: [T]o those of you who doubt our resolve in America, listen closely. If you plot terror or act on those designs, within our borders or without, against American citizens, we will hunt you down and stop you cold. I guess what he is saying is: Bomb innocent Americans, and Al Gore will stop you cold. But if you use small bombs, and you only kill a few Americans, and you fit our political needs, then we will release you. Mr. Vice President, maybe it is time you stand up and clarify for America what you really believe. Mr. Vice President, how hard is it to say: ``Violent terrorists belong in jail''? How hard is it to say: ``I will not reward terrorism''? How hard is it to tell the American people: ``I will not release violent terrorists from prison for political gain''? Al Gore is going to be in Manhattan today. I hope he will visit the corner of Pearl and Broad Streets where Bill Newhall was maimed, and where Frank Connor, Alex Berger, Harold Sherburne, and Jim Gezork lost their lives to an FALN bomb. Perhaps that will help Al Gore make up his mind. Or perhaps Al Gore should ask his running mate, Senator Joe Lieberman, how to stand up to Bill Clinton. Maybe Senator Lieberman could convince his running mate to stand up for the rights of innocent Americans against those who perpetrate violence. Maybe then Al Gore can prevent the President from putting more American lives in jeopardy. Mr. President, may I ask how much time I have remaining?

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I came to the floor to talk about a significant date in this Nation's fight against terrorism. This week marks the Clinton-Gore administration's decision to jeopardize American lives by surrendering to one of the most violent terrorist groups ever to operate on this country's soil. One year ago this week, President Clinton opened the jailhouse doors for 11 members of a terrorist group known as the FALN, which is dedicated to the violent pursuit of Puerto Rican independence. The FALN has claimed responsibility for some 130 bombings at civilian, political, and military sites in the United States. In all, the group murdered six Americans and maimed, often permanently, 84 others, including law enforcement officers. On one occasion, members attacked a Navy bus in Puerto Rico killing two sailors and wounding nine others. As a result, 16 members of this violent terrorist group were convicted of dozens of felonies against the United States, and as soon as these 16 were in prison, the bombings stopped. I note that these violent terrorists were convicted of at least 36 counts of violating Federal firearms control laws. So at the same time the Clinton-Gore administration was demanding more gun control--and we have heard it for hours and hours on end on the floor of the Senate and certainly the White House has spoken openly for gun control over the last number of years--not only were they failing to enforce current gun laws already on the books, but when those laws are enforced, they brush aside felony convictions as a political favor to their friends.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma for a moment to speak specifically about how this administration has mishandled the gun control laws of our Nation.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Friday, September 22, 2000 at 2:00 p.m. at Montana State University, Billings, in the Petro Theater, 1500 N. 30th St., Billings, Montana. The purpose of this hearing is to conduct oversight on the Summer 2000 wildfires. Those who wish to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510. For further information, please call Mark Rey at (202) 224- 6170.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Saturday, September 23, 2000 at 10:00 a.m. at City Hall, 200 Main St., Salmon, Idaho. The purpose of this hearing is to conduct oversight on the Summer 2000 wildfires. Those who wish to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510. For further information, please call Mark Rey at (202) 224- 6170. subcommittee on forests and public land management

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, while I came to the floor to speak on another issue, before I do that, I want to respond to the remarks of the Senator from Massachusetts. There is a very real difference between what Vice President Gore is talking about and Gov. George Bush is talking about. Senator Kennedy has effectively outlined it today. Senator Kennedy said let the Government run your health care; let the Government make your choices; let the Government control the process. The seniors of America do want choice. They want the same kind of health program Senator Kennedy has and this Senator has. They want choice, and they want flexibility in the marketplace. That is the kind of program we are talking about offering them. I cannot imagine we would want another federalized health care program where the Government tells the senior community of our country what kind of prescription drug they will get and where they will get it. Those are very real differences that I am afraid were avoided in the comments this morning.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. The bill language in titles II and III provides that they will function in much the same way, with a few differences. First, they are advisory to the Secretary in title II and to the relevant county in title III. In neither case do they actually approve projects, but their recommendation is required. If there is no recommendation under title II the money will ultimately be returned to Treasury under the terms of section 209. If there is no recommendation under title III, the counties can ultimately spend the money on title III projects under the terms of section 303. It is my expectation that the authority of neither of these sections will be required. I believe that the resource advisory committees will find consensus in developing and recommending title II and title III projects with the respective Secretaries or counties as the case may be.

Mr. CRAIG. The plain language of these sections provides such flexibility. I agree with some who have stated that would be the best policy, and the language would provide such an opportunity. I will leave it to the implementing agencies to decide how to best express the flexibility provided by these sections of statute.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and finally any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the record.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 357, submitted earlier by Senator Brownback and Senator Wellstone.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of H. Con. Res. 394, which is at the desk.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the President pro tempore of the Senate be authorized to appoint a committee on the part of the Senate to join with a like committee on the part of the House of Representatives to escort the Prime Minister of India into the House Chamber for the joint meeting on Thursday, September 14, 2000.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and a statement of explanation be printed in the Record.