Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet for a hearing re Judicial Nominations, during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 16, 1999, at 3 p.m. in SD226.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 16, 1999 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be permitted to meet Wednesday, June 16, 1999 beginning at 9:30 a.m. until 1 p.m. in room SD-215, to conduct a markup.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 16, for purposes of conducting a Full Committee business meeting which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this business meeting is to consider pending calendar business.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 16, 1999 at 2:30 p.m. to mark up the following: S. 28, the Four Corners Interpretive Act, S. 400, to amend the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA); S. 401, Business Development and Trade Promotion for Native Americans, S. 613, to encourage Indian Economic Development, S. 614, Indian Regulatory Reform and Business Development Act, and S. 944, Oklahoma Mineral Leasing. The Committee will meet in Room 485, Russell Senate Building.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, June 30, 1999 at 2:00 p.m. in SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. The purpose of this hearing is to conduct general oversight of the United States Forest Service Economic Action Programs. 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 would like to announce for the public that a hearing has been schedule before the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Tuesday, June 29, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on fire preparedness on Federal lands. Specifically, what actions the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service are taking to prepare for the fire season; whether the agencies are informing the public about these plans; and ongoing research related to wildfire and fire suppression activities. Those who wish to submit written testimony should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510. For further information, please contact Mike Menge (202) 224-6170. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, during the last 2 weeks, we have been hearing from our colleagues concerned about the lamb industry in the United States and the Section 201 trade action filed by them. I would like to join them in commenting on the situation and dispel some myths and confusion surrounding the Section 201 trade action filed by a coalition representing the domestic lamb industry. The case now lies before the President, and I urge him to impose strong, effective restrictions that will curb the devastating surge of imports that has swamped the domestic lamb market and now threatens to drown an entire industry. Some worry the nations of Australia and New Zealand may retaliate against the United States if we take action to protect our domestic industries. They won't because they can't--not for at least three years. That is because of the laws that govern the Section 201 case-- laws that, let me be clear about this, are and have been a part of every single trade treaty this nation has signed since the Trade Act of 1974. That means all signatories to GATT also signed onto the Section 201 provisions. Importers say they have not done anything unfair. The U.S. lamb industry never said they had. Frankly, the Section 201 rules don't pertain to unfair trading. It is never alleged, never argued, never considered. The only things that matter in a Section 201 case are whether imports have risen drastically over the recent time period. There is also the question of harm. A section 201 case is a lot tougher to prove than dumping, or subsidies, or yes, unfair trading. The domestic industry is required to prove that imports are a ``substantial cause'' of significant injury or threat of significant injury. You will hear arguments from importers about how their actions aren't to blame. About how their price undercutting, their deliberate decision to swamp the market with cheap, imported product, in the face of ample notice of the harm being done, isn't to blame for the financial ruin now snaking its way through the domestic lamb industry. The International Trade Commission heard those arguments. They heard all about the Wool Act, about the coyotes, about grazing fees and organization. They heard it all, and those six Commissioners rejected those arguments. They rejected them when the Commission unanimously ruled that imports threaten the domestic lamb industry with irreparable harm. After that ruling, those arguments by importers are not a factor in this case. You will also hear talk of cooperation. Of how the New Zealand and Australian industries want to work with the domestic industry. Let me ask you, why are we hearing about cooperation now? Where was the importers' cooperation when fourth-generation ranches faced bankruptcy? When processors were losing accounts left and right to cheap imports? When the leaders of the domestic industry publicly announced their intention to file the Section 201 trade case? Nowhere, is the answer. As the domestic industry reeled under the unrelenting wave of cheap, imported lamb, the importers have been busy breaking records. Month after month in 1998, the imports flooded the domestic market, shattering records. When it ended, a record-making 70.2 million pounds of imported lamb had saturated the American market. But the importers are not finished yet. Even as the ITC conducted hearings, the level of imports were rising--in the first three months of 1999 alone, imports are up nine percent over 1998 levels, and an astonishing 34 percent above 1997 levels. If this pace keeps up, the record-making import levels of 1998 will be shattered, as will domestic sheep industry. I urge the President to curb this devastating surge of cheap imports. The domestic industry won a fairly fought legal case governed by laws embedded in this nation's trade treaties. To do anything less than ordering strong, effective trade restrictions would signal to industries in the United States and abroad that our laws will not be enforced. As I said before, the case now lies before the President. I urge him to act on the unanimous recommendation by the International Trade Commission for four full years of trade restrictions. This follows ITC's unanimous conclusion that the domestic lamb industry is seriously threatened by the deluge of imports that has swamped the U.S. marketplace and now absorbs one-third of all American lamb consumption. The six Commissioners were unanimous in their recommendation for trade restriction, but offered three options on how it should be applied. The ITC's options range from a straight quota to a straight tariff to a tariff-rate quota. The importers have already identified the one ITC recommendation which would do nothing to stop their already disastrous effect on the marketplace. A report of an interview with Australian Trade Minister Tim Fischer identified the ITC's tariff-rate quota as likely to have ``minimal effect on present Australian exports.'' Minimal effect. Esteemed colleagues, we did not create the 201 provision in our trade laws to have ``minimal effect.'' We did not create a provision that is tougher to prove that dumping, than unfair trading. We created the 201 provision as a just way for a domestic industry that has been injured or threatened by imports to turn to its government for help. The ITC offered three recommendations. The U.S. lamb industry has studied those recommendations and found the ``common ground'' among them. The industry needs strong, effective relief. Here is what they are asking for: A two-tier, four year tariff rate quota program with tariffs both below and above a set level of imports. In year one, tariffs would be 22 percent on lamb meat imports up to 52 million pounds, with a 42 percent tariff on imported lamb beyond the 52 million pound mark. Year two calls for a 20 percent tariff up to 56 million pounds, and a 37.5 percent tariff above the 56 million. Year three involves a 15 percent tariff up to 61 million pounds and a 30 percent tariff above the 61 million pounds. Year four, the final year, calls for a 10 percent below-quota tariff up to 70 million pounds and an above quota tariff 20 percent above the 70 million pounds. I join my colleagues in urging the President to order this request into action. It provides desperately needed, strong, effective relief to both curb this unprecedented, record-breaking, surge of imports and the devastating price undercutting that accompanies it. This case is important for this nation's agriculture community. It's being watched throughout our rural towns, farms and ranches. If the President does not implement an effective remedy for the lamb industry, which has followed our laws and proved its case, an unmistakable signal would be sent to agriculture and rural interests throughout the United States.

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 Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Tuesday, June 15, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. The purpose of this hearing is to conduct oversight on the issues related to vacating the Record of Decision and denial of a Plan of Operations for the Crown Jewel Mine in Okanogan County, Washington. 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. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. We have gone after gangs. We have gone after the juvenile offender. We have built in youth protection. We are concerned about gun safety. This Senate has put in gun laws. The Senator from Vermont said: OK, if you don't believe Craig and Hatch, let's say it one more time for the record: People who sell guns at gun shows will do background checks on those who purchase guns. I am sorry I sound as if I am stuttering, but that is what the other side demanded, that we say it again. And we have said it again. We have not changed the law; we just said it again for the record. I hope that is enough. We are going after crime control. We are giving our schools of America the tools of safety. If they had those tools maybe in Georgia this morning it might have worked. So I hope we will withstand the vote on the Lautenberg amendment, vote it down, and let the Craig-Hatch amendment stand with its corrections----

Mr. CRAIG. I ask my chairman for 1 more minute.

Mr. CRAIG. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, this morning we stand on the floor of the Senate in the wake of another shooting at a high school in America. My colleague from New York has just said in rather plaintive but appropriate terms: What's wrong in America? We know there is something desperately wrong. Yes, we struggle with this problem here. I do not question the sincerity of anyone who comes to the floor today to debate this issue. But it is very important for some of us to stand and make as clear as we possibly can the differences between the amendments about which we are talking. The reason there are an alleged 13 loopholes in the Craig-Hatch amendment is because there are 13 paragraphs, and the other side would suggest the whole thing is a loophole. That is simply not true--it has never been true--because, as the Senator from Oregon says, we are attempting to craft a very fine but important constitutional line between law-abiding citizens and their right to own guns unfettered by a Federal Government and the criminal who will seek and find a gun anywhere he or she wants and, of course, the disaffected youth of America who in some way find it necessary to express their frustrations or their sicknesses with the use of a firearm. What the other side has not said, but what they whisper loudly, is: The second amendment is a loophole. Let's wink and nod at it and then try to close it up. I cannot do that. I really do believe in our Constitution and I do believe that law-abiding citizens have rights. I must tell you, the other side is winking and nodding and saying: Oh, yes, they have rights, but we will close all of the doors up to that right and see if you can find the key to get through. So we came to the floor a week ago and began to strike a balance, recognizing that those constitutional rights must stand supreme for the law-abiding citizen, because the law-abiding citizen, in owning a gun under that right, accepts the responsibility of that gun. The Senator from New York is right; all he wants to do will not stop the criminal from getting a gun, because it never has. It is law enforcement that stops the criminal. It is the handcuff provision of this bill that says to Janet Reno: Put your cops on the street and arrest the criminal who uses the gun. Janet Reno, your record of law enforcement is dismal. You have winked and nodded at the law. And now it is time you wide-eyedly move to the streets and arrest the criminal who uses the gun. That is what the juvenile crime bill says. It says it loudly. It says it very clearly. Let's not wink and nod at our Constitution. Let's go at the criminal element of our society. Let's not create the kind of provision that the Lautenberg amendment does. It is not 72 hours; it is the old 3-day waiting period. Even that side said, once we get instant check, that goes away. That is what the law said. Now they want it back, even though we tried to honor our legal citizens by providing an instant check system. That is what the Congress has said for a decade: We will fund it. We will implement it. And we will demand that it be used. The law-abiding citizens, the gun owners of America, in gun-owning America, say: We agree. There is no argument there. So as the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee worked with his committee and here on the floor to craft a juvenile crime bill, it is so tragic that the other side tried to make it a gun control bill only. Let's see what we did. We put juvenile Brady in the bill. We said to violent juveniles: You lose all of your constitutional rights when you act violently as a juvenile felon. We have gone after gangs.

Mr. CRAIG. And serve the law-abiding citizens of America as we search out the criminal element.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator from California. Mr. President, it is important that I characterize in the appropriate fashion an amendment that passed the Senate that the Senator from California voted for, I believe. That was the Ashcroft amendment on semiauto assault weapons for young juveniles. She is wrong that it was tied to 18. It is tied to the 21 age limit that is already current law, as it relates to handguns and other restricted weapons. I helped craft that law, along with Senator Kohl, several years ago, and it became law, and we are very proud of it. She is absolutely right to be concerned about juveniles having guns. That is why we were very restrictive. Any juvenile who brings a gun to school is breaking the law. If it is a handgun and they are under 21 years of age, they have broken the law. What we are saying is that on private property, on a ranch or a farm where they are out hunting varmints, or if they are en route to a registered shoot, if they have permission from their guardian, they fall outside the law--guardian or parent. So what the Senator from California was talking about in her proposed amendment is, in part, not unlike what is in current law in many respects. It is true what she has said about long guns after 18 years of age. No question about it. But it is not true of the semiauto assault weapons, if you include the Ashcroft amendment that passed the Senate and is now incorporated into the juvenile justice bill. Mr. President, in the juvenile justice bill, as it relates to guns, we have crafted a juvenile Brady provision, a very important part of the bill. We have dramatically restricted gun shows and demanded, if this becomes law, background checks. We have now, with Senator Kohl and Senator Hatch, crafted a trigger lock provision that I think is an important piece of language and ought to become law. As I have just said, we have prohibited juveniles from owning semiauto assault weapons with extended loading devices. If we pass this bill, that becomes law. Senator Feinstein was able to pass an amendment that restricts certain importations of extended loading devices or clips. If we pass this bill, it becomes law. But if this bill becomes simply a gun control measure and not an extensive juvenile crime provision, it will not become law. I hope the Senator from California and others know that, that we ought to work cooperatively together to pass a much broader law and language to control violent juveniles and their actions than to play the politics of guns, because that is what we have heard for the last day on the floor, the last 3 days, is the politics of guns. The Senator from California and I have voted for some new gun control measures. We believe those are extensive measures that craft a window and close the window that she and others were objecting to. But it is interesting that once we close a window, they redefine and create a new window and say, and now this and now this, and the goalposts constantly move. Mr. President, if the goalposts are constantly moving, then there will be no juvenile crime bill because the other side will have killed it. I think it is tragic that, after two years in a bipartisan effort by the Senate Judiciary Committee to craft a much broader bill dealing with violent juveniles, we would see that prohibited by these actions. I hope we can get past that. I hope this afternoon we can craft a unanimous consent agreement for both sides to offer some reasonable amendments and that we can see final passage of this bill.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we are in morning business. We are not on the bill. This afternoon it appears we would be back on the bill. At that time it would be appropriate to introduce that amendment. Therefore, I object.

Mr. CRAIG. And the 6 minutes is in place by unanimous consent, is it not?

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to proceed for 6 minutes as in morning business prior to adjournment for lunch.

Mr. CRAIG. I would object, but I hope the Senator from California would not characterize that objection in the improper fashion. Both the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the ranking member, who are managing this bill, are not on the floor. The Senator from California knows that the leadership at this moment, both her leader and my leader, are trying to craft a unanimous consent agreement to allow the Senator from California and others to offer appropriate amendments. I am in no way attempting to obstruct. I say that I believe her offering is inappropriate and out of context of the way the Senate operates. Certainly, she knows, as I do, that we work through our leaders, and we also work through the managers of the bill. I do not oppose her arguing her point before the Senate in the appropriate fashion, but I certainly would object to the context under which she has offered it.

Mr. CRAIG. Very brief, unless you object to my unanimous consent to complete the morning?

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, how much time remains prior to adjournment for the Tuesday lunches under the unanimous consent?

Mr. CRAIG. I would allow that.

Mr. CRAIG. I object.

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 Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, May 26, 1999, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 510, a bill to preserve the sovereignty of the United States over public lands and acquired lands owned by the United States, and to preserve State sovereignty and private property rights in non-Federal lands surrounding those public lands and acquired lands. 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 Amie Brown or Mike Menge (202) 224-6170. subcommittee on water and power