Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, Judge Learned Hand once observed: ``The successful competitor, having been urged to compete, must not be turned upon when he wins.'' For Microsoft and the rest of our domestic high-tech industry, it may be too late to heed Judge Hand's warning. Whatever justification the Justice Department used for its actions against Microsoft, the real measure of success in the Microsoft case is how it affects American consumers and the American economy. From their perspective, the verdict is clear: The Justice Department's suit against Microsoft is bad for consumers, bad for high- tech markets, and bad for the country. Mr. President, our anti-trust laws are unlike health and safety regulations. Their purpose isn't to protect the physical well being of citizens, but rather their pocketbooks. Like other forms of economic regulation, a successful effort requires two conditions. First, there must exist a market failure. Second, the government must be in a position to fix that market failure. The case against Microsoft fails both conditions. Our domestic computer markets are working just fine. For thirty years, they have been characterized by falling prices, rising performance, and increased choice: According to the Commerce Department, quality-adjusted prices for computer memory chips have declined 20 percent per year since 1985; A chip that sold for $1778 in 1974 cost just 47 cents in 1996; and according to the CBO, software prices have been falling between 3 and 15 percent per year on average. Meanwhile, new products are being introduced every day. There are currently over 25,000 applications designed to run on Windows, yet the fastest growing segment of the market includes so-called ``Microsoft- Free'' applications. Mr. President, I am one of the most computer illiterate members of the United States Senate, but I can pull airline flight information off the internet faster than anybody here. I use my Palm Pilot to do it. The Palm Pilot doesn't have any Microsoft products in it. You can browse the internet with your cell phone too. Again, no Microsoft. And just recently, Linux-based software writer Red Hat announced a partnership with Dell Computer to accelerate the commercial adoption of the Linux operating system. This new system would compete directly with Windows-based computers. Lower prices, better performance, increased choice--Mr. President, there is no market failure in our domestic computer industry. To suggest otherwise doesn't pass the laugh test. Nor does the suggestion that consumers are better off following Judge Jackson's ruling. All the evidence suggests just the opposite. One unique aspect of today's economy is that America's consumers are also America's owners. Fully one-half of American families own stock in American companies. Those families have been hurt by the Microsoft case. On April 3, Judge Jackson issued his finding of law. That day, the Nasdaq stock index crashed. It fell a record 349 points. That's a loss to Americans of about $450 billion--or about 5 percent of our national income. Gone, in one day. Mr. President, a basic premise of anti-trust action is to defend consumers. We want to protect competition, not competitors. Yet, in the Microsoft case, it was the competition that pointed the finger. Actual consumers were notably absent. So how did the markets treat Microsoft's competition following Judge Jackson's ruling? Poorly. Of the companies that testified against Microsoft--Intel, IBM, Compaq, Oracle, AOL, Sun Microsystems, Intuit, Apple, and Gateway--only one saw its stock rise in the month following the Judge's ruling. Every other stock had dropped, some by as much as 30 percent. This decline is no coincidence. According to a study recently published in the Journal of Financial Economics, whenever the government's antitrust suit has scored a victory against Microsoft, an index of non-Microsoft computer stocks falls. When Microsoft wins a round, those computer stocks rise. Judge Jackson may have ruled against Microsoft, but the markets have ruled against government interference in the New Economy. Mr. President, the only monopoly consumers need to worry about in the Microsoft case is the monopoly government regulation has over private industry. Having stood on the sidelines while American's high-tech community led the American economy into the twenty-first century, the government is now stepping in and telling those same corporations how to run their business. Economic regulation used to be popular in Washington, DC. At one point in the late 1970s, the federal government controlled the pricing and market access of all our transportation industries--trucking, airlines, rail, and pipeline--as well as the energy industry. Today, those regulations are gone, and we are all better off. The last twenty years of economic growth and prosperity demonstrates that those regulations did the economy more harm than good. In many ways, our anti-trust laws are the last toe-hold of economic regulation in the federal code. Unfortunately, it's a growing toe-hold. The number of investigations by the Justice Department under our anti-trust laws has exploded in recent years, rising from 134 in 1995 to 276 in 1997. Which begs the question, who's next? Now that the Justice Department has been turned loose, who are the other innovative companies that might want to ensure that their lawyer's retainers are fully paid? Intel: With a market share of 80 percent, Intel is by far the leader in sales of the microprocessor market for PCs. While this lead seems reasonable, since Intel invented the first microprocessor in 1971, innovation isn't a defense in anti-trust law. Intel's profit margins have exceeded 20 percent for the past five years. AOL: With almost 25 million online subscribers, AOL is the clear worldwide leader in online services. Investor Research says: ``The service has continued to make significant gains in the number of customers, despite charging a monthly fee of $21.95 that is higher than the industry's standard fee of $19.95.'' Do higher fees indicate monopoly rents? Cisco: Cisco Systems is the world's largest supplier of high performance computer internetworking systems. It supplies the majority of networking gear used for the internet. According to Investor Research: ``Demand for switches is being driven by a need for greater bandwidth by corporate users: Cisco dominates this market.'' Mr. President, the term dominates is bad in the anti-trust world. EBAY: EBAY operates the world's largest person-to-person online trading community, with more than 10 million registered users and 3 million items listed for sale. You can purchase antiques, coins, collectibles, computers, memorabilia, stamps, and toys on EBAY from other individuals. Profit Margins: 70 percent plus. Seven Zero. One irony in the Microsoft case is that Netscape, the frequently cited ``victim'' in the case against Microsoft, was in 1996 clearly a monopoly player in its own right, with over 80 percent of the browser market. Now, Netscape is owned by AOL, another monopoly-sized player. America's high tech community used to shun government interference. They would be smart to continue to do so. The companies that encouraged the Microsoft lawsuit made a Faustian bargain. Now that the government has focused on this industry, it may be difficult to turn its attention elsewhere. That's too bad. The case against Microsoft has hurt the high tech community where it counts--in its pocketbook. But the full cost of this ill-advised attack remains to be seen. Right now, America stands alone atop the New Economy. Increased government intervention is a good way to ensure that dominance doesn't last.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, earlier this week the Administration released, with much media fanfare, a draft document known as the climate change ``National Assessment'' that purports to assess ``the potential consequences of climate variability and change'' in the United States. I have received several media requests for comments on this document. The document is of considerable length, Mr. President--approximately 600 pages. Frankly, because of its length and the short time I've had to review it, I have been able to give it only a quick review. My preliminary conclusion is that the National Assessment could provide a useful contribution to the climate change debate if it stimulates more serious national interest in advancing climate science. What is clear to me, even after only a quick read, is that the National Assessment was produced in a style and method that is somewhat akin to writing good science fiction. The authors begin with a few baseline assumption, then apply a vivid imagination to extrapolate outcomes based on those assumptions. The literary application of science concepts makes the story intriguing to read, especially for readers with a scientific bent. But the National Assessment is not the only current document that talks about climate change science. The ``Pathways Report'' published last Fall by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, is also a stimulating read. But it takes an entirely different approach. One way you can tell that the National Assessment and Pathways Report are different in style is from the selection of punctuation. The National Assessment uses lots of exclamation points. Perhaps, that is one of the reasons why this document has gotten pretty good media attention already. The Pathways Report uses mostly question marks. The National Assessment takes a single, linear approach to the climate change question. It simply extrapolates continued worldwide growth in carbon dioxide emissions throughout the 21st century, and assumes that growth will correlate to steadily rising temperatures around the world. The implications of those increases in temperature and carbon dioxide concentrations supply the creative images that the National Assessment's authors offer up. The Pathways Report is dry by comparison. It is short on creative literature and long on technical issue framing--not particularly suitable for catchy media headlines, which may explain why many newspapers showed little interest in its existence or import. But its critical and thorough scientific analysis of the current states of our climate change knowledge is what makes the Pathways Report so important to policy makers. Now, if you are like me and you find out that America's National Research Council has just published the most comprehensive report in history on the state of climate science--you don't want to read all 550 pages! You want to cut to the chase and read the report's bottom line conclusion! And the last thing you want is a report that provides more questions than answers. But the Pathways Report authors are brutally honest. To best explain the current state of climate science they had no choice but to lay out a whole series of potentially show-stopping questions. Now, none of these questions asks ``Is global warming for real?'' No, in fact, once you begin to ponder the Pathway questions you realize that the climate change issue cannot be resolved with any simple thumbs up or thumbs down. Here are some of the scientific questions that the Pathways Report focuses on: How much do we know about the earth's capacity to assimilate natural and man-made greenhouse gas emissions? Do we need to learn more? What, in particular, do we know about the oceans' capacity to absorb carbon dioxide? How much of this absorption occurs naturally? What can be done to increase ocean assimilation of carbon dioxide? And these are just the opening round of questions. What is the effect of the oceans on our climate? What is the state of our understanding of ocean cycles and of other changes in ocean temperature and salinity, and of how those changes, in turn, affect climate? How do we evaluate the natural variability of the climate, including such phenomena as El Nino and the North Atlantic oscillation? Can we improve our understanding here? Mr. President, let me stop for a moment and reflect on a recent trip I made to Woods Hole, Massachusetts with the Senator from New Hampshire, Bob Smith, and our colleague from Rhode Island, Lincoln Chafee. We spent a day at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute exploring these questions with over 30 scientists. It was a real eye- opening experience. Dr. Berrrien Moore, who coordinated the publication of the Pathways Report, helped lead a discussion on where science and public policy intersect. Dr. Bob Weller and Dr. Ray Schmitt along with several other prominent ocean scientists of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, gave us progress reports and fascinating explanations of their work and its relevance to climate science. For example, Mr. President, did you realize that for each one degree change in the temperature of just the top three meters of ocean water, there is a corresponding one degree change in the temperature of the atmosphere above the surface of that water all the way to outer space? Did you know, Mr. President, that 80 percent or more of our climate variation is influenced by the oceans? Two themes came through clearly in those discussions, Mr. President: There are significant gaps in scientific understanding of the way oceans and the atmosphere interact to affect climate; and Scientists need more data, especially from the oceans to better understand and predict possible changes. Mr. President, it was humbling to get a glimpse of how much we don't know. Now let me continue with the rest of the questions the Pathways Report urges us to consider. How accurately can we predict climate trends whose recurrences are measured in years? In decades? In centuries? In millennia? Are we capable of plotting the effects, and counter effects, of these complexly interwoven trends on each other? Do we even have the capability to observe these trends and counter-trends accurately? Do we have the computational ability to integrate all these trends and counter trends into one big equation? How much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere emanates from the oceans? Does this amount vary from place to place and time to time? Does such variation matter? Those are just some of the questions that we policymakers cannot answer ourselves. But we need answers--and to get them, we will have to support the scientists on a more serious level than we have to date. But there are more questions, Mr. President. These next ones we should be thinking about ourselves and discussing with scientists and with all of our concerned constituents. Should U.S. policymaking on climate change rely primarily upon climate modeling performed by others outside the U.S.? Or should the U.S. have the capability to marshal data and scientific conclusions independent of foreign countries who may or may not share our domestic policy concerns? Again, Mr. President, let me pause for a moment and refer to the recent National Research Council's Climate Research Committee's report entitled ``Capacity of U.S. Climate Modeling to Support Climate Change Assessment Activities.'' First, let me thank Dr. Maurice Blackmon from the National Center for Atmospheric Research, for his patience with me and my staff. He has helped us have a balanced appreciation for these issues. That report provides valuable guidance on this subject. On page 5 of that report, the NRC's Climate Research Committee states: Although collaboration and free and open information and data exchange with foreign modeling centers are critical, it is inappropriate for the United States to rely heavily upon foreign centers to provide high-end modeling capabilities. There are a number of reasons for this including the following: * * * * * 2. Decisions that might substantially affect the U.S. economy might be made based upon . . . simulations . . . produced by countries with different priorities than those of the United States. Mr. President, the National Assessment depended on the use of foreign computer models only. The authors of that document are completely up- front about that fact, and I commend them for their honesty. However, for the reasons contained in the NRC's modeling report, I am uncomfortable relying on the conclusions in the National Assessment. The pace of science is dynamic and unpredictable. For example, just last month Science magazine reported on some intriguing experiments undertaken in the Indian Ocean. Those experiments raised the prospect that certain assumptions about aerosols incorporated in the Canadian and British climate models that underlie the National Assessment were fundamentally flawed. This means that the warming predictions from even these models are probably way too high. Dr. Neal Lane, a White House spokesman, acknowledged this at Senator McCain's hearing on May 17 and feels it may be several years before this can be resolved. Unfortunately, the National Assessment's vivid scenarios were sent to the printer before this new discovery became public. This seems to give us as policymakers only two choices: Either disregard the National Assessment and all the hard work that went into it, or re-do it with the assumptions corrected, this time using U.S. models. Mr. President, when we make tough, historic policy decisions around here on everything from multilateral defense strategies, to global trade, to international farm output, we use our own intelligence and analysis, we don't simply rely on the technical work of other countries which may not see the world through the American prism. With continued regard to America's climate modeling capability, Mr. President, I must ask--What are our national objectives? Do we have a national strategy in place to achieve those objectives? Is the strategy integrated and coordinated across all relevant agenices? Are NASA and DOE and NOAA and the National Center for Atmospheric Research, all building the same model using a common blueprint? Do we have adequate computational resources to fully exploit our evolving modeling capability? Do we have enough human talent dedicated to these tasks? What is our confidence level in the integrity of all observational data used to validate climate models? Are our measurements ``close enough for government work''? How can we be sure that the scientists are even measuring the right climate variables? Are there any important climate variables that are inadequately measured, or not measured at all? Do we build climate observing requirements into existing, ongoing operational programs? At sea? In the atmosphere? In space? Should we do more? How many ships at sea are measuring water temperature and salinity? How many weather balloons and satellites are measuring and transmitting data? Oceanographers I've visited tell me that they don't know the temperature or salinity of the ocean in most spots around the world today, much less ten or a hundred or a thousand years ago. Do we need a discretely funded activity for the development and implementation of climate-specific observational programs? Where are we on the technology to monitor relevant national and global data? Is it developed? Is it fully deployed? Will other countries fully support this? Have we assessed the capability and potential of U.S. and North American carbon sequestration, includng carbon sequestration through crops, forests, soils, oceans, and wetlands? How do we ensure that the science that informs U.S. policy making is objective and complete? Do scientists have unfettered access to each other's completed work, especially when that work is funded by the government? Is the process of peer review adequate to assure all viewpoints are examined? Regardless of politics, we in Congress share one tough job with our friends at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. Science must drive policy and not vice versa. I don't know how else to make sure that happens other than to guarantee that the science gets put out on the table and is subject to public discussion and public scrutiny. The American people have never been afraid of the truth. We'll deal with that. What we can't hack is being kept in the dark or being lied to by our own government. The National Research Council's Pathways and Climate Modeling Reports raise some profoundly important questions. Our best policy decisions could turn on the answers to any of them. We owe to our constituents and to future generations to seek answers and not hide from whatever turns up. The United States with its abundant resources, technological superiority, and economic power is in a unique position to provide leadership in scientific research that can lead to a more complete understanding of the natural and human influences currently at work in our oceans and atmosphere. What is needed, Mr. President, is a national commitment embodied in a government framework that provides a ``blue print'' for responsible action based on consensus. Chairman Murkowski and I have been working on that legislative ``blue print.'' Taken together, our bills provide that ``blue print'' for consensus. While S. 882, Chairman Murkowski's bill, appropriately focuses on our nation's enormous technological abilities, S. 1776, the bill I introduced last October constructs a complementary framework that ensures: A critical analysis, evaluation, and integration of all scientific, technological, and economic facts; A ``blue print'' for coordinated action that is both practical and conscientious so that the government will not neglect an issue or back us into less than optimum policy choices; The advancement of climate science by integrating and focusing it on core questions; Immediate actions that reduce greenhouse gas emissions in ways we will appreciate; The encouragement of technology development; No unnecessary burdens on citizens that can be caused by the government prematurely picking winners and losers; and Process for consensus for future government actions. Without consensus, Mr. President, our nation will languish in political stalemate, causing us to fall behind other nations in key technological areas. Some insist that we sharply reduce our reliance on carbon as an energy source. Again, cost impact estimates vary widely--from little economic impact to belief that such action will mortally wound our economy. Yet, there has been no serious effort to systematically and critically analyze this issue by our government. The National Assessment does not provide it. S. 1776 does. Another area of concern expressed in National Research Council Reports, and mentioned prominently in recent NAS testimony before the Senate's Energy and Natural Resources Committee, is the lack of governmental structure with the primary mission of coordinating climate programs. S. 1776 directly addresses this concern by providing a structure for coordination of all government action on climate change. This is merely one approach to this very complicated problem. We in Congress need feedback from experienced leaders in science, economics, and government to help us design the optimum structure for coordinating climate change policy. It has been ten years, Mr. President, since Congress enacted the Global Change Research Act of 1990. We have learned much since then. Much of the sensation generated by the National Assessment, stems from the vivid worst case scenarios described in that document. Let's not be provoked into rash action by these scenarios. Even the co-chairman of the National Assessment, cautions that: We're not making a specific prediction about what the future will be like. It would be farcical to try to do that. Indeed, the National Research Council recently testified before the Senate that the ``jury is still out'' on whether Human influence is even a significant factor in climate change. Instead, let's roll up our sleeves and pursue the more methodical approach: Answer the core science questions; Pursue the economic analyses; Take immediate, risk-free actions that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The NRC, based on its study of the successes and failures of the U.S. Global Climate Research Program established by the 1990 act, has provided Congress with excellent recommendations and pathways for future action. It would be irresponsible to ignore them. Moreover, it has also been almost 8 years since the Senate ratified the Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992. We cannot, nor should we, roll back our ratification of the Framework Convention. Instead, we should ensure that the United States is thoroughly and conscientiously responding to the Framework Convention commitments. Our ``blue print'' does precisely that. For example, the Framework Convention says take flexible action now. So does S. 1776. The Framework Convention says explore and integrate the science. So does S. 1776. The Framework Convention says climate change measures must be cost-effective. Every measure in S. 1776 stands on its own two feet. The Framework Convention says steps to mitigate climate change are effective if based on relevant science, technology, and economics, and continually evaluated. S. 1776 spells out how U.S. policy will--by law--be based on a combination of science, technology, and economics . . . and the President must reevaluate each of these factors each year. Mr. President, our legislation provides a framework for national consensus. Stalemate on the climate change issue should no longer be tolerated. We have the vehicle to move forward. We should do so expeditiously, and with the constructive support of the administration. I anxiously await the response to my April 3rd letter to the Chairman of the White House Climate Change Task Force, where I described how we could get there. I ask unanimous consent that the April 3rd letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG. The Senator has been very patient. I appreciate that.

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have reserved an hour of that time. I know there are other Senators who wish to speak. I will not use the whole hour. I would like to change the order. My colleague from Montana has a couple of minutes on an issue. My colleague from Minnesota wishes to speak for 10 minutes. Then I would assume my hour. We will not take all that hour. The Senator from Washington has comments she wants to make during this period of time. I ask unanimous consent that it follow in that order.

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. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, July 26, 2000, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. The purpose of this oversight hearing is to receive testimony on potential timber sale contract liability incurred by the government as a result of timber sale contract cancellations. 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. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, July 12, 2000, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. The purpose of this oversight hearing is to receive testimony on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement implementing the October 1999 announcement by President Clinton to review approximately 40 million acres of national forest lands for increased protection. 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. The hearing will take place on Thursday, June 29, 2000, at 10 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. The purpose of this hearing to conduct oversight on the United States Forest Service's Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, and Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Interior Columbia Basic Ecosystem Management Plan. 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. CRAIG. Mr. President, I object to further proceedings on this bill at this time.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk due for its second reading.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have come to the floor for the next few minutes to talk about something that is very important to our country. Last week, I rose in defense of the second amendment to our Constitution. Why? Because it is under relentless attack at this moment by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. It is under relentless attack by the White House and has been now for nearly 8 solid years. They want to deny that there is a second amendment, or that there are legitimate rights under that amendment, and they simply want to control or shape what many Americans believe to be their constitutional right under the second amendment, and that is the right to own a firearm in this Nation. The second amendment reads: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. It is a simple amendment, but, oh, what a powerful force it brings; and, oh, what important emotions it engenders in our country. The enemies of the right to keep and bear arms tell us that because the word ``militia'' is present, the second amendment only protects the right of the Government to keep and bear arms. If anyone in this body is a student of American history and understands the thinking of our Founding Fathers, they recognize their hostility toward a central government and their willingness to control a central government and give the citizens the greater expression of freedom but, most importantly, power over that central government. Somehow, our colleague would like to ignore those thoughts and the mind set and the belief of the framers of our Constitution. But let me tell you that our framers knew what they were talking about. They said, ``A well regulated Militia'' means, in the words of George Mason, ``the whole people''--``the whole people'' was the regulation militia-- ``except a few public officers.'' So never mind their restrictive reading of the Constitution. I think our scholars of history have widely recognized and rejected the idea that there is a narrow interpretation. They tell us the second amendment only protects hunting and sport shooting. Read the Constitution. It is so very clear. It doesn't even mention the words ``hunting and sport shooting.'' I don't believe the term ``sport shooting'' was something used in those days. Hunting certainly was perceived to be a right, and even a responsibility, and a necessary tool of many families to put food on the table. They cite Supreme Court cases--such as United States v. Miller--that state the second amendment protects private ownership of military-style weapons; then they try to ban private ownership of military-style weapons. How can you use the argument to argue its purpose and then turn and try to do quite the opposite? I will simply point out for a few brief moments this afternoon the real inconsistencies in the argument that is presented by my colleagues on the other side and the blatant ignoring of our Constitution by the White House. But then those of us who are observers of the White House are not terribly surprised by that. Am I being harsh? I don't think so, Mr. President. I think I am being very clear in what I say. Senate gun controllers have said they do not want to confiscate the guns of Americans. But then other leaders in other countries--including Great Britain, Nazi Germany, Cambodia, Australia, Cuba, and Soviet Georgia--have said the same, and they would only license and register, and not confiscate. And, of course, they did license, they did register, and then they confiscated. With my time remaining, let me point to a few examples as to why our Government said there was a right and why our Founding Fathers said under our Constitution there is a right. Every 13 seconds, the stories I am about to tell you are repeated across this Nation. Every 13 seconds in America, someone uses a gun-- not to kill someone else, but to stop a crime, to protect their property, to protect their life. Every 13 seconds across America, our citizens do what our Founding Fathers knew they must do as a free citizen; that is, protect themselves in the right of self-defense. That is so much what our second amendment is about. Let me tell you about this lady, whom I show here on the chart, from Spring Hill, FL, May 24 of this year. It says: ``A pistol-packing grandmother with a license to carry calmly approached a man with a knife who was scuffling with employees at a Wal-Mart and ordered him to drop'' the knife. He dropped the knife. She held him at bay. They called the cops, and the cops arrested him. Thank you, grandma, for being willing to defend your rights and the integrity of others. Let me talk about someone who invaded the home of one of our citizens in Benton Harbor in Berrien County. Prosecutor Jim Cherry announced Thursday he will not file homicide charges against a man who shot and killed Rodney Lee Moore last month at a Benton Harbor housing complex. Why? Because this man was defending his life and defending the life of his family. He had been attacked. He had been injured. And yet, he struggled, he found his gun, and he protected his person by taking the intruder's life. That is the right of a free citizen in a free society--to defend oneself and one's property. One more example. I know there are other colleagues on the floor who wish to speak on other issues. But it is an important example. It was the night of January 31 of this year in Apache Junction, AR, 25 miles from Phoenix. It began when a woman was getting into her SUV in a Wal-Mart parking lot in nearby Chandler. She was approached by a man riding a bicycle. He pulled out a gun, forced her into her SUV, and made her drive to an isolated area 15 miles away. He raped her. Then he abandoned her in the desert. According to the Chandler Police Department sergeant, Ken Phillips, ``He left her in a desert area and starts to drive away, but turns around, comes back, and he shoots her twice.'' The woman, suffering from bullet wounds in her face, her chest, and her arm, was miraculously able to walk a quarter of a mile for help. This dangerous criminal then drove his victim's SUV to the home of his former boss, Jeff Tribble. In that home, Mr. Tribble, his 28-year- old wife Bricie, and their 9-year-old nephew resided. The criminal broke into their house. What happened? Sergeant Phillips said that this gentleman's wife, Mr. Tribble's wife, got her gun and shot the criminal twice--once in the face and once in the chest--and he dropped dead. Then she called 911 to report the shooting of an intruder who had just hours before raped and shot another person. Those are the stories that are not being told to America today. And they happen every 13 seconds across our Nation. Two and one-half million Americans annually use the second amendment right to protect themselves, their property, their children, and their spouses. That is the right of a free citizen. That is why the second amendment is in the Constitution. I do not in any way by these statements fail to recognize the tragedies that occur when a gun is misused in our society. It is misused much too often. But it is time we speak out. I have said several times to those who may be listening or who might read my statement to call me or write me. Tell me about your story. Tell me about what happened in your community. Literally, citizens are now doing that. Tell me about the right of the free citizen to protect themselves and their property. It is very simple. It is, Larry Craig, U.S. Senator, Washington, DC, 20510. I would like to hear from you. I think it is time America is heard, about how other Americans use their sacred right of the second amendment to protect themselves and their loved ones. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I, too, was attending the joint committee hearing this morning on the situation at the laboratories at Los Alamos that Frank Murkowski chaired, along with Richard Shelby. I must tell you that it was shocking and angering to watch an administration that recognized a problem and failed to do anything about it--or very little--and then to ignore a Congress that recognized the problem after extensive hearings and which passed legislation last year into law; and we have a Secretary of Energy who ignored it and openly denied that he would do it. And then for the Secretary not to show up this morning at a hearing--I am not sure how we respond to it. But I will tell you how the American people ought to respond to it. They ought to say: Mr. Secretary, you have failed and you have failed us in the security of our country. We ask that we find someone better to serve in that capacity. That is what the American people ought to be saying. And I hope they will.

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. The hearing will take place on Friday, July 7, 2000, at 10:00 a.m. at the Myles Reit Performing Arts Center, 720 Conifer Drive, Grand Rapids, Minnesota. The purpose of this hearing is to conduct oversight on the July 4, 1999, blow-down in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area and other national forest lands. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. Those who wish to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please call Mark Rey (202) 224-6170. committee on energy and natural resources select committee on intelligence

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that the hearing scheduled before the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will begin at 9:30 a.m. instead of 9 a.m. as previously announced. The purpose of this hearing is to conduct oversight on the proposed expansion of the Craters of the Moon National Monument. 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 Mike Menge (202) 224- 6170. subcommittee on water and power

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, thank you very much.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I appear on the floor to speak about a provision of the Constitution of our country that has been under nearly constant attack for 8 years. In fact, we heard on the floor this morning two Senators speak about provisions in law that would alter a constitutional right. The provision I am talking about is part of our Bill of Rights--the first 10 amendments to our Constitution--which protect our most basic rights from being stripped away by an overly zealous government, including rights that all Americans hold dear: The freedom to worship according to one's conscience; The freedom to speak or to write whatever we might think; The freedom to criticize our Government; And, the freedom to assemble peacefully. Among the safeguards of these fundamental rights, we find the Second Amendment. Let me read it clearly: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. I want to repeat that. The second amendment of our Constitution says very clearly that ``A well regulated Militia'' is ``necessary'' for the ``security of a free State,'' and that ``the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'' What we heard this morning was an effort to infringe upon that right. Some--even of my colleagues--will read what I have just quoted from our Constitution quite differently. They might read ``A well regulated Militia,'' and stop there and declare that ``the right of the people to keep and bear Arms'' actually means that it is a right of our Government to keep and bear arms because they associate the militia with the government. Yet, under this standard, the Bill of Rights would protect only the right of a government to speak, or the right of a government to criticize itself, if you were taking that same argument and transposing it over the first amendment. In fact, the Bill of Rights protects the rights of people from being infringed upon by Government--not the other way around. Of course, we know that our Founding Fathers in their effort to ratify the Constitution could not convince the citizens to accept it until the Bill of Rights was established to assure the citizenry that we were protecting the citizens from Government instead of government from the citizens. Others say that the Second Amendment merely protects hunting and sport shooting. They see shooting competitions and hunting for food as the only legitimate uses of guns, and, therefore, conclude that the Second Amendment is no impediment to restricting gun use to those purposes. You can hear it in the way President Clinton assures hunters that his gun control proposals that will not trample on recreation--though his proposals certainly walk all over their rights. In fact, the Second Amendment does not merely protect sport shooting and hunting, though it certainly does that. Nor does the second amendment exist to protect the government's right to bear arms. The framers of our Constitution wrote the Second Amendment with a greater purpose. They made the Second Amendment the law of the land because it has something very particular to say about the rights of every man and every woman, and about the relationship of every man and every woman to his or her Government. That is: The first right of every human being, the right of self-defense. Let me repeat that: The first right of every human being is the right of self-defense. Without that right, all other rights are meaningless. The right of self-defense is not something the government bestows upon its citizens. It is an inalienable right, older than the Constitution itself. It existed prior to government and prior to the social contract of our Constitution. It is the right that government did not create and therefore it is a right that under our Constitution the government simply cannot take away. The framers of our Constitution understood this clearly. Therefore, they did not merely acknowledge that the right exists. They denied Congress the power to infringe upon that right. Under the social contract that is the Constitution of the United States, the American people have told Congress explicitly that we do not have the authority to abolish the American people's right to defend themselves. Further, the framers said not only does the Congress not have the power to abolish that right, but Congress may not even infringe upon that right. That is what our Constitution says. That is what the Second Amendment clearly lays out. Our Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment to tell us that a free state cannot exist if the people are denied the right or the means to defend themselves. Let me repeat that because it is so fundamental to our freedom. A free state cannot exist, our free state of the United States collectively, cannot exist without the right of the people to defend themselves. This is the meaning of the Second Amendment. Over the years a lot of our citizens and many politicians have tried to nudge that definition around. But contrary to what the media and the President say, the right to keep and bear arms is as important today as it was 200 years ago. Every day in this country thousands of peaceful, law-abiding Americans use guns to defend themselves, their families, and their property. Oftentimes, complete strangers are protected by that citizen who steps up and stops the thief or the stalker or the rapist or the murderer from going at that citizen. According to the FBI, criminals used guns in 1998 380,000 times across America. Yet research indicates that peaceful, law-abiding Americans, using their constitutional right, used a gun to prevent 2.5 million crimes in America that year and nearly every year. In fact, I believe the benefits of protecting the people's right to keep and bear arms far outweighs the destruction wrought by criminals and firearms accidents. The Centers for Disease Control report 32,000 Americans died from firearm injuries in 1997; under any estimate, that is a tragedy. Unfortunately, the Centers for Disease Control do not keep data on the number of lives that were saved when guns were used in a defensive manner. Yet if we were to survey the public every year, we would find 400,000 Americans report they used a gun in a way that almost certainly saved either their life or someone else's. Is that estimate too high? Perhaps. I hope it is, because every time a life is saved from violence, that means that someone was threatening a life with violence. But that number would have to be over 13 times too high for our opponents to be correct when they say that guns are used to kill more often than they are used to protect. What they have been saying here and across America simply isn't true and the facts bear that out. We are not debating the tragedy. We are debating facts at this moment. They cannot come up with 2.5 million gun crimes. But clearly, through surveys, we can come up with 2.5 million crimes thwarted every year when someone used a gun in defense of themselves or their property. In many cases, armed citizens not only thwarted crime, but they held the suspect until the authorities arrived and placed that person in custody. Stories of people defending themselves with guns do not make the nightly news. It just simply isn't news in America. It isn't hot. It isn't exciting. It is American. Sometimes when people act in an American way, it simply isn't reportable in our country anymore. So the national news media doesn't follow it. Yet two of the school shootings that have brought gun issues to the forefront in the last year, in Pearl, MS, and Edinboro, PA, were stopped by peaceful gun owners using their weapons to subdue the killer until the police arrived. How did that get missed in the story? It was mentioned once, in passing, and then ignored as people ran to the floor of the Senate to talk about the tragedy of the killing. Of course the killing was a tragedy, but it was also heroic that someone used their constitutional right to save lives in the process. A third school shooting in Springfield, OR, was stopped because some parents took time to teach their child the wise use of guns. So when that young man heard a particular sound coming from the gun, he was able to rush the shooter, because he knew that gun had run out of ammunition. He was used to guns. He was around them. He subdued the shooter and saved potentially many other lives. We have recognized him nationally for that heroic act, that young high school student of Springfield, OR. For some reason, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle never want to tell these stories. They only want to say, after a crisis such as this, ``Pass a new gun control law and call 9-1-1.'' Yet these stories are essential to our understanding of the right of people to keep and bear arms. I will share a few of these stories right now. Shawnra Pence, a 29- year-old mother from Sequim, WA, home alone with one of her children, heard an intruder break into the house. She took her .9 mm, took her child to the bedroom, and when the 18-year-old criminal broke into the bedroom, she said, ``Get out of my house, I have a gun, get out now.'' He left and the police caught him. She saved her life and her child's life. It made one brief story in the Peninsula Daily news in Sequim, WA. We have to talk about these stories because it is time America heard the other side of this debate. There are 2.5 million Americans out there defending themselves and their property by the use of their constitutional right. In Cumberland, TN, a 28-year-old Jason McCulley broke into the home of Stanley Horn and his wife, tied up the couple at knife-point, and demanded to know where the couple kept some cash. While Mrs. Horn was directing the robber, Mr. Horn wriggled free from his restraints, retrieved his handgun, shot the intruder, and then called the police. The intruder, Jason McCulley, subsequently died. If some Senators on the other side of the aisle had their way, perhaps the Horns would have been killed and Jason McCulley would have walked away. Earlier today, we heard the Senator from Illinios and the Senator from California read the names people killed by guns in America. Some day they may read the name Jason McCulley. I doubt they will tell you how he died, however, because it doesn't advance their goal of destroying the Second Amendment. But As Paul Harvey might say: Now you know the rest of the story. Every 13 seconds this story is repeated across America. Every 13 seconds in America someone uses a gun to stop a crime. Why do our opponents never tell these stories? Why do the enemies of the right to keep and bear arms ignore this reality that is relived by 2.5 million Americans every year? Why is it that all we hear from them is, ``Pass a new gun control law, and, by the way, call 9-1-1.'' I encourage all listening today, if you have heard of someone using their Second Amendment rights to prevent a crime, to save a life, to protect another life, then send us your story. There are people here who desperately need to hear this in Washington, right here on Capitol Hill. This is a story that should be played out every day in the press but isn't. So let's play it out, right here on the floor of the Senate. Send me those stories from your local newspapers about that law-abiding citizen who used his constitutional right of self-defense. Send that story to me, Senator Larry Craig, Washington, DC, 20510, or send it to your own Senator. Let him or her know the rest of the story of America's constitutional rights. I ask unanimous consent to proceed for one more moment.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I asked to proceed for 15 minutes. I had yielded some time to the chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to proceed for 15 minutes.

Mr. CRAIG. I yield the floor to my colleague, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner, for a statement before I resume my time.

Mr. CRAIG. Through 12:30?

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I certainly concur with my colleague that I hope we can move forward on these critical issues. We are now working hard at accomplishing some of those efforts. As he mentioned, the conference on the Patients' Bill of Rights is at work. We hope we can build a bipartisan compromise as necessary to produce that kind of program and law and protection for the American consumers of health care. There is a great deal of work to be done. I hope we can come together in a united and bipartisan way to resolve some of these issues, to move the appropriations bills forward, to make sure we complete our business in a timely manner. Of course, I understand, as I think my colleague from Nevada understands, that is going to take cooperation from both sides. Tragically, and sadly, we got into a bit of a nonproductive period prior to the Memorial Day recess. I hope the recess has cleared the air and we can come back in a productive way.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I understand there are two bills at the desk due for their second reading.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I object to further proceeding on these bills at this time.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today the Senate will be in a period of morning business, as the Chair has mentioned, until 12:30 p.m., with Senator Durbin and Senator Thomas in control of 1 hour each. Following morning business, the Senate will recess for the weekly party conferences. As a reminder, the official Senate picture will be taken at 2:15 p.m. today. I encourage my colleagues to be prompt in an attempt to complete the photo in a timely manner. When the Senate reconvenes, it is hoped the Senate can begin consideration of the Department of Defense authorization bill. Senators who intend to offer amendments to this important legislation are encouraged to keep their amendments germane in an effort to complete action on the bill prior to the end of the week. I thank my colleagues.