Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, it is important that facts be facts. The Senator from New Jersey and I did negotiate on the spousal abuse issue because there were some differences. When those differences were worked out, we agreed. So it is not correct to characterize on the floor that I opposed him. He and I agreed, we shook hands, and we voted for it. And I do not run from that vote at all. So let's set that one aside. Let's talk about the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which the Senator said some minutes ago had endorsed his legislation. We called the National Sports Shooting Foundation today, and they said they do not endorse the Lautenberg legislation. Just last Monday, the president of NSSF said the industry supports backgrounds checks at gun shows provided the FBI does not maintain the names in violation of the law and the White House agrees to a more aggressive prosecution of felons turned up by the background checks. That is what they said. They did not, by my checking today, support the Lautenberg amendment. I am also told by Governor Bush's office here in Washington that his office has now called the Lautenberg office to say they do not support, nor have they endorsed, the Lautenberg amendment. That is possibly why that placard a few moments ago that said George W. Bush supported the legislation has been taken down. I do not know that to be a fact. I have not talked with Governor Bush, but it is my understanding at this moment that that is the case from the Governor's office here in Washington. I will set that one aside. Let's talk about the facts. The facts are that there are 40,000 gun laws in America. Twenty of those were violated at Columbine High School in that tragic event which all of us mourn. We are here today in a juvenile justice bill trying to create a much stronger environment in which to deal with juveniles who act in violent and illegal ways. That is what we are trying to do. That is what the chairman of the Judiciary Committee has worked for over 2 years to do. We are going to be treating violent juveniles more like adults--a significant change in our society and in our culture. And we should. We must. Well, then, why are gun shows a part of it? Because every time some people get an opportunity to talk about opposing guns, they take that opportunity. I do not deny them that right, but what is important is that we deal with the character of the law in the right and appropriate way. Private citizens are allowed to sell guns in private transactions--at gun shows, in the middle of the street, or in the privacy of their home. That is what the law says. There are liabilities to that. If you sell to a minor, that is against the law. If you sell in an interstate transaction, that is against the law. If you sell to a felon, you better be careful; you will be liable. Those are the laws that exist today. If you are a licensed dealer of guns, making your living from guns, then the laws are manyfold and you walk a very tight rope. You keep records, as you should, and you do background checks to deny felons access to guns or those who have an adjudicated problem that would make them unstable in the ownership of guns. Those are the laws today with which we deal. There are some 5,000- plus gun shows annually that nearly 5 million people attend across America, where 60 percent of the gun transactions are done within the context of federally licensed firearms dealers, and 40 percent are not. We are saying something distinctively different than the Senator from New Jersey, who says: Federally controlled, federally defined, in a bureaucracy of recordkeeping that puts the private citizen at a tremendous liability, even though they are law abiding and do all the right things. We are saying we ought to allow background checks to private citizens if they are involved in those transactions. Our amendment would do that, would create a special registry to access, for that citizen, the NICS, instant background check system of the FBI. That is right, and it is proper, and it will go a long ways toward dealing with illegal activity--some exist; I cannot deny that. But clearly even the Justice Department says that of the guns that are sold at gun shows, less than 2 percent are found to be in illegal activities. That is this Justice Department. That is Bill Clinton's Justice Department. Yet, Bill Clinton, our President, who tried to characterize gun shows as being a bazaar for criminal activity, is wrong, and he knows it. But when he can play politics with this issue, he runs to do so, even though his own Justice Department would argue that the statistics are substantially different. We also provide for a unique status of licensure. But what we do most importantly is we do not increase the liability or the recordkeeping responsibility of the private citizen. No tripwires here, no failure to dot the ``i'' or cross the ``t'' of a Federal process for which the ATF can come into your home and find you liable. That is not the way it should be. Private citizens have rights in this country, and they even have rights to own guns within the law and under the Constitution. That is what we guarantee here with clearer definition and clearer process. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, not objecting but clarifying, if I may, do I retain my time or is that simply used up in this----

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, we have to deal with the facts and we have to deal with what is in print. Is there a liability exemption? Yes. If you are a new registrant, and you do a background check, and you play by the rules at a gun show, or if you are a new licensed dealer at a gun show, those are the incentives to get there. We are not exempting anybody. What we are saying, by definition--on page 14 it clearly spells out what a qualified civil liability action is. What the Senator from New York just said is not true. I have not changed any Federal law except to deal with gun shows. I am sorry he has misinterpreted it that way. You cannot have it both ways. If you are a registered firearms dealer, and a Federal dealer, you have to meet those standards and qualifications. You do not ramble around the country. You do not do interstate sales. That is against the law. And he knows it. But what we are saying, to encourage background checks, to encourage participation at a gun show--under the legal status now, remember, these guns that are sold by individuals without background checks are legal under the law, but we want to tighten it up. So we say, we will protect your liability, not your negligence but your liability, if you get a license and become registered and do background checks and keep a record. And if you choose not to do that, but you still want to protect yourself, we are putting a new registrant in each gun show qualified by the ATF and the FBI, and you walk over to them and say: I want to sell gun ``X'' to person ``Y.'' Run a background check on them to find out if they are a legal citizen. That is the new law. That is the incentive. If you believe in the right of free citizens to own a gun, but you want to create incentives to create the kind of thing we are talking about here, then you vote for this amendment. But you do not change the law; you do not create interstate trafficking. That is against the law now, and it will always be. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, you are being asked to table the Lautenberg amendment and to vote up or down on the Craig amendment. There are very real differences in these two amendments. First of all, there are 40,000 gun laws spread across America. There are 5,000 gun shows and 5 million people attending them on a regular basis. The question is, Is there a loophole in the law through which illegal activity is going on? If the 1986 gun act is right --that many of you voted on--that says that private citizens have the right to engage in legal transactions, then there is no loophole. In fact, this Justice Department says that less than 2 percent of the guns found in criminal use were sold at gun shows. What do we do about it? There were 20 laws broken in Littleton, CO. Many people are dead. Laws were broken and now people are being arrested for having violated those laws. What I offer is a reasonable way to begin to shape gun shows and allow law-abiding citizens the right of access to the FBI instant check system so if they are engaged in the sale of a gun they can make sure that they are safe in that sale. Therefore, we provide an instant check capability at a gun show. What the Senator from New Jersey did not say is if you are selling at a gun show and you are a licensed dealer, you already come under Federal law. No child, no juvenile walks into a gun show and buys a gun. It is against the law in this country and it is against the law in every State. Nothing should be represented to say anything different. That is the law. There is a 40-percent sale at a gun show between private citizens, private citizens who are protected under the 1986 gun act who do not engage in gun sales for business purposes. The Senator from New Jersey goes on to say when two people meet and there are 50 guns present and they exchange a gun, that is a gun show. You have a lot of friends and neighbors that are gun collectors and all of a sudden they find themselves libel. He also goes on to say promoters must register. Who is a promoter? How about the Mariott Hotel across the street from the convention center of the gun show that has a sign on the marquee; ``Gun sales. People attending the gun show stay here.'' Is that a promotion? I don't know how to define that definition. These are the realities of the issues we deal with. I have a much more aggressive, voluntary approach that rapidly begins to tighten down while at the same time protecting the civil liberties of our citizens.

Mr. CRAIG. I yield to the chairman.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, one other area that concerns me a great deal is the definition by the Senator from New Jersey of ``gun show.'' I have spoken to that to some extent. But I am tremendously fearful that law-abiding citizens, who are legitimate collectors of guns, all of a sudden will find themselves, where more than one should meet, automatically by definition of the Federal law a gun show. That is wrong. It should not be that way. But certainly if it becomes that way, their liability to even talk about guns and trade guns or exchange guns amongst their friends who are collectors is dramatically curtailed. Also, I do not think the Senator from New Jersey has done an effective job of refuting what ``gun show promoter'' means. Because he says that the term ``gun show promoter'' means any person or organization that plans or promotes and operates a gun show. These are the people who find themselves not only liable but having to get Federal licensure to do so. Does that include the Marriott Hotel next to the Convention Center with a sign out front: All gun show exhibitors stay here. We promote gun show X in city Y or Z? It could. Because we all know that what we mean here as legislative intent oftentimes becomes vastly different once interpreted by the Federal bureaucracy. Those are my concerns as they relate to these issues. I hope my colleagues will clearly understand those before they take the opportunity to vote this afternoon. I retain the remainder of my time and relinquish the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. I yield myself time. I want to make a correction to one of the statements I made just a minute ago. Because I insist others use right figures, I must use the same rules. I said 98 percent. I am wrong. It is about a 60-40 percent relationship at gun shows; about 60 percent are sold by licensed firearm dealers that require background checks. By the estimation of ATF and the Justice Department, there appears to be about 40 percent of sales that are private by definition of the law. That is a much more accurate statement than the one I just made. But it is clear the State of California does have a law that requires all private sales, all transactions, to be subject to background check. I retain the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. CRAIG. I will allow the Senator to debate this on her own time. It is important we keep the record very clear. She said there are no background checks at gun shows. Only 98 percent of the transactions are background checked. She cannot come to the floor and make a broad statement that says there are no background checks. That is within itself a clearly false statement. In the State of California, the very gun show where there were found to be some violations of State law--and probably Federal law--somehow the State of California can't control it, either. Or should they? Therein lies the question. In the case of my legislation, private transactions would be given the opportunity of sanctuary, and it would be a tremendous incentive. I think what we need to do here is create incentives. In the State of California there are no incentives; there are mandatory laws, and apparently those laws were broken, at least in some instances. It is important the record show that it was instances of probably less than 2 percent. It is important the record show that well over 98 percent of sales at gun shows--not by ATF but by the Justice Department's own figures--are background checked. Those are the facts. They shouldn't be just intentionally generated for this debate. They come from the Justice Department itself. I retain the remainder of my time.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize teachers across America for the vital work they do. I come from a family of educators, so I have seen firsthand the grueling work teachers go through every day--not for their own gain, but because they care about each and every one of our children. Teachers are not the highest paid people, they are not in the most glamorous profession--but they are, and should be, among the most respected people in our country. That is why it was so important that we declared this week as the 14th Annual Teacher Appreciation Week and that we recognized May 4, 1999, as National Teacher Day. Mr. President, the resolution that we passed yesterday states that education is key to the very foundation of American freedom and democracy we all enjoy, that teachers have a profound impact on the development of our children, and that much of the success we enjoy here in the United States can be attributed to our teachers. The resolution also states that while ``many people spend their lives building careers, teachers spend their careers building lives.'' Mr. President, I want to take a couple of minutes to recognize a teacher from my home state of Idaho who has truly spent her career building lives. Judy Bieze teaches first grade in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. Judy got her start with a bachelor's degree in elementary education from Illinois State University, began teaching elementary students in 1971, and hasn't stopped since. For the past 14 years, she has blessed the children of Idaho. She is an active member of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, the International Reading Association, the Panhandle Reading Council, and the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. She is a lead teacher in her school and has received numerous grants to do everything from providing books for parents and children to check out and read to underwriting a district-wide inservice training in spelling. Somewhere amongst all of this, Judy finds time to teach some of Idaho's children. In fact, Judy humbly reflects that her greatest accomplishments come in 6- and 7-year-old bodies. It is no wonder. Judy practices some techniques in her classes which some may call innovative, while others call them back to the basics. For instance, during the course of the year she takes time to recognize each child in her class as the ``Special and Unique'' person and works each day to recognize each child's accomplishments. Furthermore, she believes that parents must be actively involved in their child's education. From encouraging parents to be involved in classroom activities to weekly letters home to detail what their child has been doing in school, Judy recognizes that parents are first and foremost in a child's education. Judy has stated that each day she is ``rewarded by the large and small accomplishments of the children entrusted to my care.'' Last year, Judy's peers recognized these accomplishments and her commitment to the education of our children by choosing Judy Bieze as the Idaho State Teacher of the year for 1998-1999. Judy believes that each child is a unique, unrepeatable miracle. On behalf of the great state of Idaho, I am glad that Judy chose to come to Idaho and work her miracles with our children. I am proud of the work she does, and am pleased that I have the opportunity to recognize her accomplishments today. It is my hope that other teachers will see what she has done, see how she cares for our children, and strive to follow her lead. With teachers like Judy leading the pack, I have great confidence in the future of our country.

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 Thursday, May 13, 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 statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510. For further information, please call Amie Brown or Mike Menge (202) 224-6170. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Noxious Weed Coordination and Plant Protection Act of 1999''--a comprehensive bill which will focus the effort of federal agencies in fighting noxious weeds and other plant pests. In January I introduced the Plant Protection Act, S. 321. This bill generated a lot of discussion and several suggestions for improvement, much of which is reflected in the bill I am introducing today. The Noxious Weed Coordination and Plant Protection Act of 1999 retains most of S. 321 but includes a section on federal coordination of noxious weed removal. Mr. President, I ask that the bill and a section-by-section analysis be printed in the Record. The material follows:

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Noxious Weed Coordination and Plant Protection Act of 1999''--a comprehensive bill which will focus the effort of federal agencies in fighting noxious weeds and other plant pests. In January I introduced the Plant Protection Act, S. 321. This bill generated a lot of discussion and several suggestions for improvement, much of which is reflected in the bill I am introducing today. The Noxious Weed Coordination and Plant Protection Act of 1999 retains most of S. 321 but includes a section on federal coordination of noxious weed removal. Mr. President, I ask that the bill and a section-by-section analysis be printed in the Record. The material follows:

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my distinguished colleagues, Senators Murkowski, Hagel, Byrd, and others, in introducing the Energy and Climate Policy Act of 1999. I commend Chairman Murkowski and Senators Hagel and Byrd for their leadership on this very important legislation. Sufficient scientific information and public interest exist to justify the encouragement and acknowledgment of responsible actions by private entities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, even though all scientific, technological, economic, and public policy questions have not yet been resolved. The global climate issue presents profound questions in these areas that require comprehensive, integrated resolution. Current scientific research, experimentation, and data collection are not adequately coordinated or focused on answering key questions within the United States, as well as internationally. Moreover, public access to scientific, economic, and public policy information is severely limited. The public's right to know is not being satisfied. Open and balanced discussion leading to public support for best approaches to climate policy resolution is urgently needed. This measure does not depend on future regulatory mandates, an approach preferred by the current Administration to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It also provides a valid alternative to S. 547, the Credit for Voluntary Reductions Act, introduced recently by my friends and colleague Senator John Chafee. The key difference between Senator Chafee's bill and our bill is that our bill is not dependent on the Kyoto protocol or any other regulatory mandate. It is my belief, Mr. President, that voluntary measures should be encouraged through incentives rather than in anticipation of future domestic or international regulatory mandates. Mr. President, I am also very concerned about the Administration's strong desire to drastically cut carbon and its seeming willingness to do so by whatever regulatory measure available. Demonstrative evidence of the Administration's thinking on this issue is contained in the April 10, 1998, EPA General Counsel memo to Carol Browner, describing EPA's authority to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act. This memo, in my opinion, clearly overstates EPA's authority to regulate pollutants under the Clean Air Act. Moreover, this memo is indicative of the Administration's penchant for finding regulatory fixes for problems. Its allies in this campaign are those in the international community who are either indifferent to, or against our economic interests. we all know, or should know, that at this moment in history, when you cap carbon you cap economic growth. We need a whole new paradigm for handling this serious political issue. People care about it on all sides, and now Congress will be involved in this issue during this session. Let's get serious about the science and fully inform the American people so that whatever the outcome, they'll know that their government was working for them and not against their important economic interests. Let's force the current Administration to stop politicizing science and get to the point where the issue is confidently understood. There is simply no compelling reason for our government at this time to force Americans to take preventive measures of uncertain competence against a problem that may or may not lie in the earth's future. It is for these reasons that I, along with Senators Murkowski, Hagel, and others, are continuing to work on the next step in this very important response to the climate change issue--a more comprehensive proposal that will include provisions that address: (1) Policy mechanisms for assessing the effects of greenhouse gas emissions; (2) Accelerated development and deployment of climate response technology; (3) International deployment of technology to mitigate climate change; (4) The advancement of climate science; and (5) Improving public access to government information on the broad spectrum of scientific opinion on the causes and effects of climate change. Mr. President, significant green-house gas emission reductions can be achieved through voluntary measures that are warranted even as we answer yet unresolved key questions about the global and regional climates. What is required now is an approach that will encourage public support for appropriate action. I believe this bill paves the way for such public support, and, by reasonably addressing the important economic and political issues associated with the current climate change debate, sets the proper tone for future discourse that will ultimately lead to a safe and economically prudent resolution of this highly charged issue.

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to join with my colleagues in an expression directed by House Concurrent Resolution 92, which deals with the situation that occurred in Columbine High School in Littleton, CO. I come this afternoon with no answers, and I wish I had some. Like most of us, I have thought a great deal about the crisis from the moment we watched it unfolding on national television late last week. I guess in all of this, I have been struck by how quickly some people rush to explain what happened and offer solutions to prevent such a terrible crime from ever happening again. I wish I had a crystal ball and could do that. But that is not what has occurred; I don't have a crystal ball that can show all that clearly. The investigation of the crime is not yet completed, and the community is still in shock. My guess is it is only natural to react by trying to make some sense out of all of this, to locate the exact point where something terribly, terribly wrong happened, to tell everyone to stay away from that point, and to pass a law that would keep everyone away from that point, so that it would shield us and our kids and our communities from harm. While it may be natural, my guess is that at this time it would be a mistake. It would be a mistake to designate the point and rush to judgment, because that judgment may be different tomorrow, based on the facts that are now unfolding. I don't believe there is a Senator on this floor who has all of the answers. I am impatient to have more information, and I hope it will come out, because I would like to think that Columbine--the situation that happened in that high school is a point of time we will all stop and think about and deal with as an issue which we will never allow to happen again. I just came off the Capitol steps a few moments ago from speaking to a marvelously beautiful group of students from Payette, and Parma, and Middleton, ID. They asked me, ``Senator, what can you do to make our schools safer?'' I said, ``You know, I am not sure I know what to do, because those young men at that high school in Colorado broke 17 laws, State and Federal''--laws that say it is against the law to possess a destructive device, or a bomb; laws that say that manufacturing a destructive device is wrong and against the law; laws that say the use of an explosive or incendiary device in the commission of a felony is against the law. They broke all of those. The law was there and it didn't stop them. How about setting a device designed to cause an explosion upon being triggered? That is against the law. It is a violation of State law in Colorado. It didn't stop what happened there in Littleton. There is a law regarding the use of a firearm or destructive device to commit a murder that is prosecutable in a Federal court. That is against the law. Yet, those two young men defied the law. The use of a firearm or a destructive device in relation to other activities is against the law. I could read all 17 of these laws, and not one of them saved one child or that teacher, that coach, at that high school. Maybe if you had stacked all the laws against the front door, in book form, you would have blocked the entry of those kids with their bombs for just a moment in time, and that school might have been saved. But nobody did that. We could rush to judgment today and pass a lot more laws and take those books of laws and stack them up against the schoolhouse door. My guess is that not one more child in America would be safer. Laws are important, and I am not suggesting they are not. They direct a civil society to, hopefully, do better things. But they need to be carefully-thought-out laws. My guess is that the breaking point is at hand, when America as a culture had better turn and look at itself and ask, ``Why?'' When those kids asked me what I could do this afternoon, I asked them, ``What are you, as students, prepared to do?'' It ``ain't cool'' to rat on a fellow student. Peer pressure is such that young people don't talk about another young person with their principals or superintendents--even if the young person said, ``I am going to kill somebody,'' or do something else wrong. It isn't cool. Yet, if you don't do something, maybe it is Columbine that happens. I would like to see our schools become zones for education. Drug- free? Absolutely. Gun-free? Absolutely. But zones for education, not primarily socialization and the mixing and all of the kinds of things that go on in schools. Let's set some rules. How about a dress code? How about random inspection of lockers? If you are going to educate and you are going to make a safe haven for education, maybe it is time you bring discipline back to schools and you say to the bad actors: You are out. I don't know that that is the answer, but I think it is time our society talks about it, because we have passed a lot of gun laws in the last decade in this Congress and children died last week in Littleton, CO, in spite of all those gun laws we passed, all those bomb laws we passed. I don't think there is a Senator on the floor who is going to rush out and say it is against the law to buy a pipe--nor should they--or against the law to go out and buy a propane canister to fuel your barbecue. But those were tools used in bombs in Littleton's high school. There is no Senator who will do that, because there may not be any political bounce in it and it just would not make common sense. So let us let the survivors mourn in Littleton, CO. Let us let that community heal. Let's let the law enforcement people try to make sense of what made these young men tick, by their diaries, by their web page, by their play-acting, by the evil that invaded their hearts. Then maybe we, as public people, can help reshape our very wonderful culture. Yes, maybe it will take some changes in law. There is no disputing what I represent, and most people in this body know I am a strong supporter of second amendment rights. I am also a strong supporter of first amendment rights. I am not going to trample on those rights, and I am going to supply formidable debate and opposition to anybody who will on this floor try to reshape them in the name of safety and security. But I am willing to put those rights on the line, and I am willing to say--to a culture that has failed to recognize that along with rights comes responsibility--that it is now time to get responsible. That is what I told those young people a few moments ago on the steps of their Nation's Capitol--that I was going to fight to secure for them the kind of freedoms my forebears had fought to secure for me; that I had accepted the responsibility that came with those rights and they, too, must; that passing laws in the U.S. Congress does not a safer world make, unless the laws are enforceable and unless people genuinely agree with them. So I think it is appropriate that our leader has asked us to take pause, not rush to judgment, not play to the politics of the moment, but to take a deep breath and think awhile, let a community heal just a bit, speak to it in the form of the resolution that is now before us, allow the investigators to patch together this weird and terribly evil story. And then let's examine it as a Congress, as an American culture, and say to ourselves we must become more responsible--responsible as legislators, responsible as parents, responsible as a culture, in taking our rights in a way that demonstrates the responsibility that goes with them. I say to the citizens of Littleton, CO, how terribly sorry I am. My wife and I mourn with them. We have three beautiful children and a grandbaby, and we are so glad that they are safe and happy today. We know there are parents in Littleton, CO, who have lost something that can never and will never be replaced. So I am pleased that today, as a Congress and as a Senate, we are speaking to the people of Littleton, CO, and then we will step back and allow the healing process to begin as the investigative work is completed. Then, and only then, is it right and proper that we engage. And I will not be a vehicle to obstruct that engagement. That would be wrong. But we will soon have a juvenile crime bill on the floor. That is the appropriate place to talk about how to deal with this issue, and from sound information make quality judgments about how we may help our culture reshape itself in a responsible and caring fashion. I yield the floor. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my distinguished colleagues, Senators Murkowski, Hagel, Byrd, and others, in introducing the Energy and Climate Policy Act of 1999. I commend Chairman Murkowski and Senators Hagel and Byrd for their leadership on this very important legislation. Sufficient scientific information and public interest exist to justify the encouragement and acknowledgment of responsible actions by private entities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, even though all scientific, technological, economic, and public policy questions have not yet been resolved. The global climate issue presents profound questions in these areas that require comprehensive, integrated resolution. Current scientific research, experimentation, and data collection are not adequately coordinated or focused on answering key questions within the United States, as well as internationally. Moreover, public access to scientific, economic, and public policy information is severely limited. The public's right to know is not being satisfied. Open and balanced discussion leading to public support for best approaches to climate policy resolution is urgently needed. This measure does not depend on future regulatory mandates, an approach preferred by the current Administration to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It also provides a valid alternative to S. 547, the Credit for Voluntary Reductions Act, introduced recently by my friends and colleague Senator John Chafee. The key difference between Senator Chafee's bill and our bill is that our bill is not dependent on the Kyoto protocol or any other regulatory mandate. It is my belief, Mr. President, that voluntary measures should be encouraged through incentives rather than in anticipation of future domestic or international regulatory mandates. Mr. President, I am also very concerned about the Administration's strong desire to drastically cut carbon and its seeming willingness to do so by whatever regulatory measure available. Demonstrative evidence of the Administration's thinking on this issue is contained in the April 10, 1998, EPA General Counsel memo to Carol Browner, describing EPA's authority to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act. This memo, in my opinion, clearly overstates EPA's authority to regulate pollutants under the Clean Air Act. Moreover, this memo is indicative of the Administration's penchant for finding regulatory fixes for problems. Its allies in this campaign are those in the international community who are either indifferent to, or against our economic interests. we all know, or should know, that at this moment in history, when you cap carbon you cap economic growth. We need a whole new paradigm for handling this serious political issue. People care about it on all sides, and now Congress will be involved in this issue during this session. Let's get serious about the science and fully inform the American people so that whatever the outcome, they'll know that their government was working for them and not against their important economic interests. Let's force the current Administration to stop politicizing science and get to the point where the issue is confidently understood. There is simply no compelling reason for our government at this time to force Americans to take preventive measures of uncertain competence against a problem that may or may not lie in the earth's future. It is for these reasons that I, along with Senators Murkowski, Hagel, and others, are continuing to work on the next step in this very important response to the climate change issue--a more comprehensive proposal that will include provisions that address: (1) Policy mechanisms for assessing the effects of greenhouse gas emissions; (2) Accelerated development and deployment of climate response technology; (3) International deployment of technology to mitigate climate change; (4) The advancement of climate science; and (5) Improving public access to government information on the broad spectrum of scientific opinion on the causes and effects of climate change. Mr. President, significant green-house gas emission reductions can be achieved through voluntary measures that are warranted even as we answer yet unresolved key questions about the global and regional climates. What is required now is an approach that will encourage public support for appropriate action. I believe this bill paves the way for such public support, and, by reasonably addressing the important economic and political issues associated with the current climate change debate, sets the proper tone for future discourse that will ultimately lead to a safe and economically prudent resolution of this highly charged issue.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. No, no. Because you would have to use it. If it sat idle, it would lose anywhere from 8 to 10 percent a year on interest it could be earning.

Mr. CRAIG. If the Senator will yield just briefly, and I will let him have the floor for the remainder of his time, the Government is not going to pay interest on money they can do nothing with.

Mr. CRAIG. You don't loan it out to a bank. You don't play it in the stock market. You loan it back to the Government and the Government uses the money that they borrowed.

Mr. CRAIG. The Federal Government has borrowed money from the trust funds, as the Senator knows. That is the law that was created.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will certainly be happy to try to respond to the Senator. The Senator has been here a good deal longer than I, has spent a good deal more time on this issue than I, but he also understands the term ``the debt held by the public.'' Any time you decrease the debt held by the public, you increase the ability of Government to pay their obligations to Social Security. Because those obligations will not be ingrained in new spending--be it discretionary or entitlement spending--we set it aside and we do not obligate it except for, as you would have in this instance, a reduction of debt and a decline, therefore, of interest paid on debt. That specifically is what the language does. I think it is quite clear and it is quite obvious that we are not obligating Social Security trust funds anymore to entitlement spending or to discretionary spending. And, therefore, when the obligations of the trust fund come due, you have money available because you did not obligate it. Therefore, this Senator and I do not have to go to the public to raise taxes to pay for a system for which the public had already been taxed. I am not a budgeter, nor am I on the Finance Committee, but I have worked with the chairman of the Budget Committee in the crafting of the language. I find it quite clear, not very confusing at all.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the debate today on the floor on S. 557 is not a fraud; it is a real shakeup with reality that a lot of our Senators and some Members of this Congress don't want to face, because for years we have had the tremendous flexibility in this country of borrowing money from the Social Security trust fund and spending, and spending, and spending. I think the American public is suggesting to us that that time ought to come to an end. There is no question that, in 1994, it began to come to an end. Some Senators can't face the reality of the changes that occurred then. But the American economy did, and it responded robustly when Government curbed its appetite to progressively spend a greater amount of the gross domestic product of this country. And it is now with a balanced budget and a surplus, generated by Social Security payroll taxes, that we have an opportunity to turn to the American people and, for the first time in a long while, say to the American people that we can not only ensure your Social Security without a new tax increase, but we can modernize it for future generations so that it will be a reliable and an earning annuity of the kind that most people would like their retirement account to be. At the end of this fiscal year, the Social Security trust fund will hold an estimated $853 billion. This year alone, it is projected to run a $127 billion surplus. The Social Security trust fund's $853 billion balance equals roughly half of the total Federal budget for this year. It equals America's total income tax payment for this year. Every cent of every dollar that every American pays in income tax will just equal the Social Security trust fund balance. Yet, how much actual money has been set aside for Social Security's $853 billion balance? Not one cent. Not one cent. Why are we, then, arguing about the concept, if not the reality, of an idea that begins to set it aside? Now we are starting to split the hairs on how it is set aside. I don't think it is time for that anymore, because I believe the American people no longer trust us. You cannot argue Social Security from 1935 to today and say, ``Trust us,'' because the American people have said, ``You spent the money, you indebted the country.'' We are saying that time should stop. Of course, the White House is playing one of the most phenomenal double standards that I have ever seen a White House play, because, as we know, President Clinton proposes quite the opposite today from what he proposed a year ago. I have not seen the Senator from South Carolina, in any way, try to defend what his President is talking about--and I am glad he isn't--because what the President talked about is raiding Social Security this year, when last year he said that every penny of it ought not to be spent, except for Social Security. What we are suggesting to the President is that he honor his first commitment instead of his latter commitment. What was it called? Save Social Security first. This year, he wants to spend $158 billion of the surplus, and he just sent up a bill for $6 billion more. Perhaps the time has come when defending the definition of ``is'' really isn't worth defending because what was last year isn't this year. The American people are very wise to the man in the White House who says one thing one day and contradicts himself the next day with a straight face. President Clinton's proposal reminds me of St. Augustine's confession on having prayed for chastity-- ``but not just yet.'' Over the last holiday, I traveled home to my State of Idaho. I spoke to hundreds of people across my State about Social Security. I called it ``seniors to seniors'' town meetings. I asked the high school teachers to send their seniors from high school, and I asked the AARP and the senior centers to ask if their seniors would attend. We had the charts and we had the graphs of Social Security, and where it is, and where it is from the 1983 act, and how it will be solvent to 2014 or 2015, and then by 2034 it is in trouble. Everybody sat and listened and anticipated. Then we talked about the surplus and the opportunity to modernize, as a result of that, to transition ourselves generationally into the 21st century with the true annuity program that not in any way blights the American economy but probably creates the kind of energy and driving force it deserves. It was not where we just played the old pyramid, Bismarckian game of Social Security where you had 1 retiree versus 8 or 10 at the base paying. The Senator from South Carolina is right when he talks about the working person today and that response, because in 2034--I think I might be around then--I am going to be a Social Security recipient. I am going to be getting more than $1,000 a month in Social Security. There are going to be two people out there working, each one of them paying $500 out of their hard-earned money so I can live well. That is a travesty. I have a feeling that my grandkids are going to turn and say, ``Grandpa, we can't afford you anymore. You are a liability to us because we can't afford to put our kids in college because your Social Security is costing us too much.'' So what does that have to do with the debate this evening? It has a great deal to do with this debate, because what we are talking about is a generational opportunity. I am not going to debate Reagan economics. That would be like debating FDR and blaming him for the big Government we have today, and forgetting Congresses from FDR to today that could have made those changes. We have changed a lot since Ronald Reagan and George Bush. My guess is, decades from now we will change a lot more from what the Senator from South Carolina or the Senator from Idaho will do or would be about to do. That is the way our Government should work. It is not stagnant. It is not static. It is dynamic, sometimes for positive and sometimes for negative. But today and tomorrow, a balanced budget and a true surplus on the operating accounts means we have a generational opportunity to make a change like none I have seen in the years I have had a chance to serve Idaho in the Congress. Idahoans find it hard to believe that the President and future Congresses can resist the temptation to raid future surpluses and spend them. Why should they trust us? That is what we have done in the past. Sure enough, we have a balanced budget, and now we are at war in Kosovo, and here comes a new bill for $6 billion. What are we going to do? My guess is we could tighten our belt just a little bit, guarantee the stability of Social Security and the integrity of the trust fund, and recognize the priority of war, as past Americans did, over certain kinds of domestic spending, and spend accordingly. That is going to be the test of this Congress in the coming days, and it is a legitimate test, it is a responsible test. So I thank Senator Abraham, Senator Domenici, Senator Ashcroft, and others who, like many Americans, said, you know, we have an opportunity, and let's build a lockbox safeguard to assure that we can make this generational shift to modernize Social Security for the 21st century, to guarantee it to those who are receiving today and those who will receive from this system in the near future, but possibly--just possibly--create an environment where we can make some changes for the future. I say it is nothing short of historical. I believe it to be true. For the first time since Social Security began over 60 years ago, we would set aside all its moneys for all its intended purposes. This would amount to about $1.8 trillion over the next 10 years. The Abraham-Domenici-Ashcroft proposal would require 60 votes for the Senate to dip into the Social Security surplus. And it would require the money be set aside by instituting and then lowering a limit on the public debt. It is a legislative money belt for Social Security. It is not a straitjacket for government. We recognize there are true emergencies. While as much as 29 days ago we would not have recognized ourselves in war, we now must recognize that we are at war. So we have shown the flexibility for that concern. It would allow an exemption for real Social Security reform. It would save not only Social Security money but Federal money too. Setting aside Social Security surpluses also means retiring Federal debt. I don't care how the debt was generated. The public holds the debt in a general sense. It may have been generated by defense spending or social spending. Government borrowed the money and spent it. The debt is not categorical to each area of government. We all know that. So I think it reasonably unfair to debate it in that manner. That is why we focus on the debt as debt held by the public. According to the Congressional Budget Office, compared to spending that $1.8 trillion, as has been done until now, setting it aside would reduce Federal interest payments $468 billion over the next 10 years. Some Senators want to talk about a tax increase to fund the largess of Government. How about running the system right so we save that kind of obligation and outlay? $468 billion worth of savings in 10 years is pretty darned good. It can be done, and we should do it now with a balanced budget and a surplus. We save Social Security's $1.8 trillion surplus for its modernization of the system, and we save $468 billion in interest payments as a result. Guaranteeing Social Security and guaranteeing savings--who wants to be against that? Now there are going to be some who will find rather unique arguments to say we have to vote ``no'' against this. It is a political trap for the year 2000. How about a political reality for the 21st century? That is what this legislation is all about--guaranteeing Social Security and guaranteeing savings. Who wants to be against that? The same people who wanted to raid it for $158 billion this year. I would expect the American people do not find that too surprising. John Dillinger hated bank vaults. It made his job harder. Big spenders in Washington will hate this lockbox because it leaves their appetite for spending without food. In last year's State of the Union Address on the other side of this very Capitol, President Clinton said: I propose that we reserve 100 percent of the surplus-- that's every penny of any surplus--until we have taken all the necessary measures to strengthen the Social Security system for the 21st century. What a difference a year makes, or a word, or the opportunity to focus the American public in a different direction. Now he proposes not to keep his promise. But, rather than admitting he opposes it because of his desire to keep his hand in the Social Security cookie jar, he uses the same old scare tactics to which he has always resorted when cornered. The administration has sent us a veto threat on the Social Security lockbox. That has been about the 40th or 50th veto threat we have had from this administration in a reasonably short period of time. It is also out of date--remarking on a proposal that is far different from what we debate here today, because that veto threat had the question of money management in it. And that was taken care of by the authors of this bill. Why did President Clinton claim to oppose the security lockbox? First, he claimed that it would hurt in times of recession. If we are in a recession, we can declare that to be an emergency and we all know that. However, the proposal before the Senate would not even apply in a time of recession. We have taken that safeguard. Second, President Clinton claims it would limit the Treasury's ability to manage the Government's normal cash flow. This, however, has been addressed in the legislation now before the Senate. In addition, limits already exist on Treasury's ability to borrow and have since 1917. Listen to your Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. President. Does President Clinton want us to abandon the statutory debt limit that now exists? I presume, under his Treasury's twisted logic, that he would oppose the existing legal limits if it were now being offered for the first time. It is ironic that he uses his Treasury Secretary to make his opposition for him. This is the same Treasury Secretary that just 3 years ago circumvented the existing statutory debt limit by raiding Social Security trust funds for billions of dollars. Let me repeat that: The President who appoints a Secretary of the Treasury and says leave every dime in the trust funds is the same President whose Secretary of the Treasury just 3 years ago moved the law around existing statutory debt limits by raiding Social Security trust funds for billions of dollars. They called that disinvestment. ``Scheme'' is a better word. I call their opposition now disingenuous, because if that was disinvestment, what they say today is truly disingenuous to what this Congress wants to do and what the American people have demanded and are now asking for. Other than these, President Clinton offers no reason with any justification to argue opposing the lockbox. He claims it will not help the Social Security trust fund, and others are now claiming that, too. Yet saving the surplus is what he proposed just a year ago. I guess now that we are proposing it, it is not a good idea; when he proposes it, it is a good idea. Does he claim that his spending of $158 billion of the Social Security trust fund over the next 5 years will help Social Security? President Clinton also claims, again, that his phony transfer scheme would help Social Security. I could go on in those details, but other Senators are waiting to speak on this issue. There ought to be no schemes or gimmicks this time. This is a very straightforward proposal. I guess it is honesty that frustrates the other side. It is clarity, it is easy to understand by the American people. The idea that you just cannot spend at will anymore, you have to balance your budget and you have to face the hard truth of spending, and maybe the honest truth that if you are going to spend more, you have to tax more. Then you give the Congress a choice: Should we cut spending to balance the budget, or should we shift our priorities in a time of war, while assuring to the American people that their pensions, their retirement, their security will remain stable and that the Congress will not raid it. That is what the issue is here. It is not a matter of quoting history anymore. It is a matter of looking into the future. It is a matter of taking the unique opportunities today that we have to move forward. In those town meetings that I held across Idaho less than 3 weeks ago, I think senior citizens left feeling that Social Security for themselves was intact; they also left recognizing that probably their grandchildren did not expect it to be there for them, that they would pay three or four times more money into it and get three or four times less out of it. I think it is time that we think about all generations of Americans, young and old alike. I voted for the 1983 Social Security Reform Act. I am proud that we built that strength and that stability into the system, but I am not at all proud of the way this Congress spent the reserves in those trust accounts and built the debt that it built. While there is a lot of fingerpointing as to how that debt got there, there is one easy way to solve it; that is, to vote no. Finally, we have a Congress that is willing to face up to it. Out of that Congress comes a balanced budget. Out of that balanced budget comes a surplus. Out of that surplus comes the unique opportunity to strengthen and modernize Social Security. We do that by assuring to the American people that we will no longer borrow it off into all branches of government, but that we will lock it up, we will pay down debt, we will increase the strength and the financial stability of our government and we will honor the trust funds' commitments to recipients of Social Security. That is what the debate is about today. That is what we have created with S. 557. No more, no less. We don't need to quote a lot of history. The American people know what we have done. Most importantly, they are extremely excited about what we are proposing to do. For the first time, there is a strength of honesty and stability to their government with balanced budgets and surpluses that they have not seen for a long while. They are not fearful of debt anymore because debt begins to decline. More importantly, we begin to pay it down so that we have the strength to honor our commitments in the future. That is what S. 557 is all about. I am amazed it finds opposition. I think it ought to be bipartisan. It is, without question, the way to save Social Security: Honor its commitments and project its strength and its modernization into the 21st century. I yield the floor. Mr. VOINOVICH addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I think, be it Senator Allard or his wife or myself or my wife or any American, we woke up this morning to watch the morning news to be saddened by the situation in Kosovo but to be brought to tears by the situation in Littleton, CO. It is a tragic time and a very sad day for America. I concur with my colleague from Colorado, there are no easy answers. There were brave people and there were wonderful young people who lost their lives. So let me join with my colleague from Colorado in expressing our concern, our sympathy, and our condolences to all involved in this tragic issue.