Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I ask unanimous consent the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 102, submitted earlier by Senators Lott and Daschle.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, scare tactics may boost your ratings, but they won't do much for your credibility--especially when you advertise fiction as fact. This weekend, NBC will air a miniseries that is so far from plausible it is indeed laughable. The plot for this hyped up film revolves around a horrifying nuclear accident stemming from the transportation of nuclear weapons and hazardous waste on a train from California to Idaho. Could this really happen, as the network originally advertised? Should you be staying up late at night to worry if your daily commute will include a rendezvous with spilled nuclear waste and Rob Lowe? Unfortunately, this movie only perpetuates Hollywood's warped depiction of all things nuclear. Because of past hype, Americans envision nuclear waste as a glowing green mass causing human and environmental meltdown on contact--not unlike the demise of the Wicked Witch of the West in the The Wizard of Oz. However, nothing could be farther from the truth. If and when Hollywood comes out with another ``scary'' nuclear waste film, they might remember a few lessons NBC forgot. First of all, nuclear weapons are not transported by train, nor are they ever armed en route. They are moved by specially crafted 18-wheelers with the latest security and safety technologies and armed Federal agents. Even if an accident should occur, U.S. nuclear weapons are all designed to survive without detonation if jolted or engulfed in flames. The plot of Atomic Train originally depicted the mutual transportation of both a nuclear weapon and nuclear waste, but NBC has changed any references to nuclear waste in the movie to ``hazardous'' waste. Wrong again. Federal regulations prohibit hazardous waste and nuclear waste from traveling along with nuclear weapons. Secondly, nuclear waste is not green, glowing, or horrific to look at and great care is taken in its transportation. Spent nuclear fuel is solid, irradiated uranium oxide pellets encased in metal tubes and is non-explosive. It is transported in metal casks which will survive earthquakes, train collision and derailment, highway accident or fire. To give credit where credit is due, the movie's trailer was right on one count--nuclear waste is transported far more frequently than most Americans realize. This is because the threat to both public and environmental health has been minimized by stringent safety protocols and close to 34 years of fine tuning. The possibility of radioactive materials harming the public en route is slim to none. Since 1965, more than 2,500 shipments of spent nuclear fuel have been transported safely throughout the U.S. without injury or environmental consequences from radioactive materials. That's a pretty good track record to go on. Materials contaminated by radiation are also transported across the country. In fact, the first shipment of transuranic nuclear waste was safely and uneventfully transported from Idaho's own National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in Carlsbad, New Mexico last month. It was carried in DOE certified containers and tracked by satellite during the 1,400 mile trip. The Western Governors Association worked for years to develop the safest route possible and notify all emergency responders of shipment dates, routes, and even parking areas. Such shipments will become a routine matter in the years ahead. INEEL celebrates its 50th Anniversary this year, and was the birthplace of harnessing the atom for electrical generation. Close to twenty percent of our electricity comes from nuclear energy, and remains one of the safest energy sources our country has available. Yes, nuclear waste requires special handling and precautions, but so do all of the chemical and industrial waste byproducts of our vibrant economy. Due to the outcry over NBC's, ``this could really happen,'' trailer, the broadcasting company has made the wise decision to pull the ads, make last minute script changes to fix some of the more blatant inaccuracies, and post a disclaimer at the beginning of the movie. Yes, this is a piece of fiction, and it is predictable that Hollywood would stray far from the truth, but it is downright irresponsible of the network to create mass hysteria to boost ratings. I can only hope that future films will promote a more intelligent plot line.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. But he broke a law. You are going to create another law to be broken. Why don't we enforce the law we have?

Mr. CRAIG. I can't dispute that. In other words, he broke a law.

Mr. CRAIG. No.

Mr. CRAIG. I am going to have to ask the Senator to yield because that is a very improper portrayal of what I just said. Be accurate, please.

Mr. CRAIG. The U.S. Postal Service says it is illegal.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might consume in opposition to the Feinstein amendment. Mr. President, the Senator from California and I over our years together here in the Senate have remained good friends even though we find ourselves on occasion in disagreement. This is one of those occasions. I wish I could join with the Senator from California and the Senator from Michigan and those who have spoken on the floor, in the most sincere of ways, in creating a magic wand that would take violence out of our schools and violence off our streets, and proclaim that our Nation is a violence-free nation. If we could do that together, then we would not be here debating this and our Nation would react differently than it is at this moment. All of us have mourned the loss of those marvelous young people in Littleton, CO. But it would be unfair for anybody to stand on this floor and portray that passage of the Feinstein amendment will solve that problem. It will not. It will not solve the problem of violence in our youth today or the feeling of disillusionment or the frustration which has produced these episodes of extreme violence in juveniles that this society has never seen in its history. I stand in opposition to the Feinstein amendment today because it would undo a provision of the law that was created in an interest of fairness, because in July of last year, when the Senator brought this to the floor, we argued it and 55 Senators said we ought not change this provision of the law. That is because, in 1994, Congress debated banning the future importation and manufacturing of high-capacity clips with more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Frankly, I was one of those who opposed banning this ammunition because I felt it had nothing whatsoever to do with controlling crime. Enforcement controls crime: Cops on the street with the ability to make sure, when they arrest somebody who uses a gun in the commission of a crime, that some attorney will not plea bargain them back to the street. Adult crime is going down today because we are locking people up, in part. And yet we are going to have a bill on the floor in the next few minutes which is going to make it even tougher for Federal prosecutors to walk away from their responsibility under the law; and that is to put people away who use guns in the commission of a crime. That is how you make the streets safer. Well, at least that is how you make the streets safer in relation to also protecting a private citizen's right to own and to collect. I think, however, even the sponsor has acknowledged it would be unfair to outlaw existing clips or some clips. She did in 1994. In all fairness to her, she has honestly said on the floor she made a mistake. I do not think she made a mistake at that time. I supported her in that, and we voted on it, and it became the law of the land. The ATF proceeded to do everything in its power to frustrate the law we had created. Specifically, it held up imports of legal clips for years, claiming that Congress only intended to grandfather domestic clips. This reading of the statute was obviously so wrong that even the Justice Department went to ATF and said: Sorry, it is unenforceable. So ATF had to give in; they couldn't jawbone their way outside the law. As a result of that, that importation was allowed as the law had designed. Consequently, the legal magazines finally were allowed to be imported years after the ban went into effect. Today, those who wrote the law are now trying to undo it. Of course, that is the right of Congress--I do not dispute that--to change the law if they wish. But I hope they would have good grounds to do so. I think the first provision of the Senator's law is the right thing to do. It is what the Senator from Missouri is doing, to tighten up on juvenile ownership and therefore force a greater level of juvenile responsibility. But hers is much broader than that, and I simply have to oppose it. History is not the only reason that this amendment is unfair, however. It also is unfair because it would overnight make certain legal, lawfully owned firearms obsolete. These magazines are still being imported because there is a market for them, yes. She has spoken to that market. I think that is fair and responsible because of the character in which we have tried to shape this particular market. It was unfair in 1994 to ban these magazines, I believe. It is unfair today. Again, I hope the Senator and I can find that magic wand. Congress is struggling mightily at this moment, and this Senate is, with the juvenile crime bill, to change the definition of how we treat juveniles in our society and to change the law, to treat them more like adults, to look at other dimensions that we believe are causing these levels of frustration and violent outbursts, from movies to videos. I wish we could even take our magic wand, if we found it, and make the parents of our society more responsible, but that won't happen either. We will try. In the end, I hope we can succeed. It is my judgment, I believe a fair judgment, to suggest that the Feinstein amendment will not make the Littletons go away, or any other act of violence in this country, unless we bring a whole combination of things and change the way our culture thinks and reacts, as it relates to its children and its future. I hope my colleagues will join with me this afternoon in opposing the Feinstein amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. It sounds like ATF isn't doing their job.

Mr. CRAIG. Then he will not get the gun.

Mr. CRAIG. We can conduct more dialog on this tomorrow. Under current law--in other words, we are talking about ``the law,'' not a vacuum but the law, let me read what Guns America says: ``As a buyer, you must first call a dealer.'' The reason you have to do that is the gun is transferred through the dealer, not through the mail. Because the 15-year-old cannot----

Mr. CRAIG. Has all time been yielded back?

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume. A lot of people have had a lot to say since the shooting in Littleton, CO. Much of it was sad, but some of it was thoughtful and even inspirational. So it was particularly unfortunate when a couple of weeks ago President Clinton added some comments to the mix that were not just unfair but outrageous and downright unforgivable. I bring this up this evening because even though his rhetoric and some of the rhetoric here on the floor has changed in the last 2 weeks, his sentiments are alive and well and regrettably evident on the floor of the Senate in this debate. I am referring to the President's comments on April 27, when he laid the blame for the Columbine High School tragedy on our culture. Except the President was not talking about the same cultural crisis that we are talking about here today and tonight--the breakdown of families, the powerlessness of communities, the alienation of young people, and the violence and brutality promoted by the entertainment industry. No, what the President chose to blame was, and I quote from the speech that was later released by the White House and printed on its web page, ``the huge hunting and sport shooting culture of America.'' He proceeded to talk about ``Americans' rights to responsible hunting and sport shooting'' and said that the: movement will evaporate [w]hen people from rural Pennsylvania and rural West Virginia and rural Colorado and Idaho start calling their congressmen and saying, hey, man, we can live with this, this is no big deal, you know?. . .We would gladly put up with a little extra hassle, a little wait, a little this, a little that, because we want to save several thousand kids a year. That was the President's quote. Now, where do you begin to list what is wrong with those comments? Well, let's start with the concept that all gun owners live in rural parts of the country or that the second amendment protects the right of hunting and sport shooting. Excuse me. I misspoke. The President limited it to responsible hunting and shooting. I am not sure what that means, but it probably involves new Federal regulations. What is more clear is the President's suggestion that those who take their individual civil liberties seriously are ignorant rubes who need reeducating in their responsibility to what he calls ``the larger community.'' All of this would have been merely insulting to the tens of millions of Americans who own and use firearms for legitimate reasons, but then he gets to the truly unforgivable part. What is truly unforgivable is that he insinuated that law-abiding Americans are somehow responsible for what happened in Littleton and, worse, that if they refuse to tolerate encroachment upon their liberties, they do not care about the lives of children. It is a sad day in America when a President of the United States speaks to and implies that thought. That is right. The leader of the free world accused those who uphold the law as being responsible for those who flaunt the law. He accused those who would passionately defend their civil liberties as being bad citizens. He accused those who may have a firearm for the sole purpose of defending themselves and their families, accused these people of not wanting to save children's lives. Now, that is what is unbelievable. I can only say shame on him for attacking decent, law-abiding citizens, and shame on any in this Chamber who would follow his lead. To say that the hunters and sport shooters of America are responsible for what happened in Littleton is to say that safe drivers are responsible for the road-crazed, road-raged killers who drive others off the road. But it is worse than the automobile analogy, because unlike an automobile, a gun has the capacity to save lives as well as take lives. A firearm is a tool. In the hands of a criminal, it is used for evil. But in the hands of a law-abiding citizen, it can save lives. And it does save lives--an estimated 2.1 million times per year, generally without a shot even being fired. Of the 65 million Americans who own firearms, more than a fair number purchase them not for hunting, not for sport shooting purposes, but self-protection. They live in parts of the country where they really feel they need protection, and they have an American right of self-defense. They arm themselves for that purpose in a legal, law-abiding way. While hunters may do it for sport or they may do it to put food on their tables still in rural America, there are many Americans who own guns to protects themselves. It is in this area of self-protection that the question of encroachment on second amendment rights becomes not just a political question but one of life and one of death. Unlike President Clinton, the woman in a crime-ridden inner city does not have a personal security force protecting her night and day. Some choose, and women are choosing in increasing numbers, to obtain a firearm in a legal way to protect themselves. The obstacles to firearm ownership the President talks about--``a little wait, a little this, a little that, a little extra hassle,'' are to the woman, to the oftentimes single woman of America who chooses to go out and buy a gun for her self-protection. Think about it. She is doing it to prevent harm to herself and, if she is a single mother in a crime-ridden neighborhood, she may be doing it to protect her children. If you are wondering why law-abiding gun owners think gun control is a big deal, that is why. It is not because they are ignorant, nor have they been duped by the NRA or stampeded into making up horror stories. It is because they understand the purpose, the legitimate purpose, the constitutional right and purpose of the legal and appropriate use of firearms. A gun is a great equalizer. It enables the feeble, the disabled, the old, the small to defend themselves against a more powerful aggressor. But with the right to keep and bear arms comes a solemn, a very solemn responsibility to use those arms safely and within the law. Those who do should be celebrated for their exercise of civil liberties in the great tradition of our country--not make the tragedy one of a cowardly cheap shot from the White House and the President. Let me say this about hunters and sports shooters in America, not to mention the collectors and the skilled crafts people who enjoy the history and artistry of firearms as a hobby: They have already been plundered, in some instances, by gun laws. Again and again in the past, when some effort to grab headlines was made, lawmakers reacted with another restriction, and another and another and another. Yesterday, when the Senator from New Jersey and I were debating an important issue, I talked about 40,000 gun laws. Many of those were the result of an illegal action and a political reaction. I am not saying that all of them are bad. But 40,000 at the city, county, State, and Federal levels? Do these 40,000 gun laws, stacked one upon another, make America a safer place? Well, in Littleton, CO, tragically enough, 20 of those 40,000 gun laws were violated by those 2 young men, and some by other people who got guns for them. Some of those people have been arrested. Some of those are working, as they should, and those are the kinds of laws I support; law-abiding citizens support them, and guns rights defender organizations support them. But we haven't stopped violent crime and we have only piled all of these problems one on top of another. Perhaps it is time for a sea change in our thinking. Instead of forcing law-abiding citizens to put up with inconveniences, as our President might suggest, or outright erosion of their civil liberties, perhaps we should demand that this administration's inconveniences are the armed criminal. By prosecuting them, by going at them, as the juvenile crime bill does, and as the Hatch-Craig amendment does, to strengthen the hands of the law enforcement officers to make sure we enforce at least some of the 40,000 gun laws we have--that is what we should be doing, and that is what the chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the Senate is trying to do--to build on and strengthen the body of law that can be enforced, and to say to our U.S. attorneys: Enforce the law. Get out in the field and put those people behind bars who are breaking the law with the use of a firearm. So as we move through this debate, let's not follow the President's lead. Judging by the calls and letters and visits I am getting in the wake of the President's speech, the movement to secure the second amendment is not going to evaporate anytime soon. Law-abiding gun owners in America flatly reject the argument that the only way to control crime is through putting more burden on the exercise of their rights. Any Senator who takes his or her constitutional responsibility seriously should carefully consider what a vote for more gun control is going to do. What is it going to do? Prevent crime? On rare occasions, it might. But it will be a political pill, so that we can go home and say we did the right thing. Yet, Littleton happened. I suggest that we have the opportunity to make changes, and they are here tonight, they are here in the juvenile crime bill. It is outrageous and unforgivable to suggest that anybody in this body needs to vote in favor of more gun control in order to prove that he or she cares. Why don't we make changes in what our children are doing, in the access they have to violence on television, in the movies, in videos. That is what we are trying to do in ensuring that those who would prey upon others with the use of a gun in the commission of a crime be locked up and put behind bars. That is the message I am told Americans want to hear. That is the message my citizens in Idaho want to hear. They want to know that those who violate the laws will be arrested and, most assuredly, that the criminal element will be denied access to firearms. If you vote for the Hatch-Craig amendment, that is what you vote for. If you vote for the juvenile crime bill, as amended, you broaden the entire arena of changing the way we have done business in the past in dealing with violent juveniles and crime in America. We turn to this administration and we turn to the Attorney General and we say: Enforce the law. Go after the criminal. Make this country safe for those who are willing to defend their civil liberties and who believe strongly in their constitutional rights. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me clear up a point the Senator from New York made this evening before I discuss the amendment that is before us. He has made the allegation that the special licensee we have created in our amendment for dealing with gun shows is somehow not going to have to do background checks. Language in the bill says, referring to the special licensee, ``shall conduct his activities in accordance with all dealer record keeping required under this chapter for a dealer.'' We go to that chapter, 18922, and he falls within that chapter, and that is the requirement of the background check. So it is our intent. We believe we have covered that intent. Let the record show that is what we believe the law to be as we proposed it in this form. I am happy to sit down with the Senator tonight or tomorrow, but I believe we have covered it adequately. There is no question of our intent here. It is not a loophole. The special licensee is a dealer. We put him into the dealer section with all other gun dealers. We will leave it at that for the evening. Very briefly; I want to get out of here.

Mr. CRAIG. That is not true. The licensee would become a dealer and falls under the dealer section of the law, 922 paragraph T(1). Check it out, read it tonight, see if you don't agree with us. If you don't, we will be happy to discuss it tomorrow.

Mr. CRAIG. I will respond briefly. The hour is late.

Mr. CRAIG. You have it.

Mr. CRAIG. And the common carrier is probably breaking the law.

Mr. CRAIG. Because it is his responsibility as a dealer.

Mr. CRAIG. Absolutely, if he sold to a juvenile.

Mr. CRAIG. I read it that way because of the transaction within the gun show. Think inside the box. Everybody likes to find the bogeyman outside the gun show. We are talking about a unique class of operatives inside a gun show. We are encouraging them to become increasingly more legal by using background checks. Legal in this sense: Law abiding citizens like you and me who might own a gun----

Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield for an additional question?

Mr. CRAIG. Can the Senator from California clarify for us--we have all studied her original amendment, but what are you changing in your amendment that would be subject to a vote?

Mr. CRAIG. They better.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.