Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I, too, have come to the floor this morning to thank you, and certainly the Senator from Iowa, the Senator from Wyoming, who has been involved with us, along with our leader, Trent Lott, Senator Burns of Montana, Senator Roberts, and myself in looking at the current agricultural situation in this country, which is very concerning to all of us as commodity prices plummet in the face of what could be record harvests and as foreign markets diminish because of the Asian crisis and world competition. As a result of that, we have come together to look at tools that we could bring to American agriculture, production agriculture, farmers and ranchers, that would assist them now and into the future to build stability there and allow them not only to invest but to save during years of profit in a way that is unique for American agricultural. In 1986, when this Congress made sweeping tax reform, they eliminated income averaging. I was in the House at that time and I opposed that legislation. I remember an economist from the University of Virginia saying that it would take a decade or more, but there would come a time when all of us in Congress would begin to see the problems that a denial of income averaging would do to production agriculture; that slowly but surely the ability to divert income during cyclical market patterns would, in effect, weaken production agriculture at the farm and ranch level to a point that they could not sustain themselves during these cyclical patterns. Bankruptcies would occur; family operations that had been in business for two or three generations would begin to fail. We are at that point. We have been at that point for several years. I remember the words of that economist in a hearing before one of the House committees echoing, saying, ``Don't do this. This is the wrong approach.'' In those days, though, I wasn't, but others in Congress were anxious to crank up the money and spend it here in Washington and return it in farm products, recycle it, skim off the 15 or 20 percent that it oftentimes takes to run a government operation, and then somehow appear to be magnanimous by returning it in some form of farm program. That day is over. We ought to be looking at the tools that we can offer production agriculture of the kind that is now before the Senate in the legislation that we call the Family Investment and Rural Savings Act, not only looking at a permanency income averaging, but looking at real estate depreciation, recapturing, and a variety of tools that we think will be extremely valuable to production agriculture at a time when they are in very real need. Also, the transition payments' extension that we have talked about moving forward to give some immediate cash to production agriculture, that is appropriate under the Freedom to Farm transitions in which we are currently involved, becomes increasingly valuable. I join today and applaud those who have worked on this issue, to bring it immediately, and I hope that we clearly can move it in this Congress, to give farmers and ranchers today those tools--be it drought or be it a very wet year or be it the collapse of foreign markets. Prices in some of our commodity areas today are at a 20-plus year low, yet, of course, the tractor and the combine purchased is at an all-time high. I do applaud those who have worked with us in bringing this legislation to the floor, and I thank the chairman for the time. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I, too, have come to the floor this morning to thank you, and certainly the Senator from Iowa, the Senator from Wyoming, who has been involved with us, along with our leader, Trent Lott, Senator Burns of Montana, Senator Roberts, and myself in looking at the current agricultural situation in this country, which is very concerning to all of us as commodity prices plummet in the face of what could be record harvests and as foreign markets diminish because of the Asian crisis and world competition. As a result of that, we have come together to look at tools that we could bring to American agriculture, production agriculture, farmers and ranchers, that would assist them now and into the future to build stability there and allow them not only to invest but to save during years of profit in a way that is unique for American agricultural. In 1986, when this Congress made sweeping tax reform, they eliminated income averaging. I was in the House at that time and I opposed that legislation. I remember an economist from the University of Virginia saying that it would take a decade or more, but there would come a time when all of us in Congress would begin to see the problems that a denial of income averaging would do to production agriculture; that slowly but surely the ability to divert income during cyclical market patterns would, in effect, weaken production agriculture at the farm and ranch level to a point that they could not sustain themselves during these cyclical patterns. Bankruptcies would occur; family operations that had been in business for two or three generations would begin to fail. We are at that point. We have been at that point for several years. I remember the words of that economist in a hearing before one of the House committees echoing, saying, ``Don't do this. This is the wrong approach.'' In those days, though, I wasn't, but others in Congress were anxious to crank up the money and spend it here in Washington and return it in farm products, recycle it, skim off the 15 or 20 percent that it oftentimes takes to run a government operation, and then somehow appear to be magnanimous by returning it in some form of farm program. That day is over. We ought to be looking at the tools that we can offer production agriculture of the kind that is now before the Senate in the legislation that we call the Family Investment and Rural Savings Act, not only looking at a permanency income averaging, but looking at real estate depreciation, recapturing, and a variety of tools that we think will be extremely valuable to production agriculture at a time when they are in very real need. Also, the transition payments' extension that we have talked about moving forward to give some immediate cash to production agriculture, that is appropriate under the Freedom to Farm transitions in which we are currently involved, becomes increasingly valuable. I join today and applaud those who have worked on this issue, to bring it immediately, and I hope that we clearly can move it in this Congress, to give farmers and ranchers today those tools--be it drought or be it a very wet year or be it the collapse of foreign markets. Prices in some of our commodity areas today are at a 20-plus year low, yet, of course, the tractor and the combine purchased is at an all-time high. I do applaud those who have worked with us in bringing this legislation to the floor, and I thank the chairman for the time. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I helped craft that indemnity payment. It is very important we do work with the House. Senator Conrad, I, and others, deserve to go to conference. Senator Dorgan was a part of that. I can understand a rush to immediacy. That is in the next fiscal cycle. I think it is important we deal with it in a fair and balanced way. As it is written, already the circumstances of agriculture have changed significantly enough. We deserve to look at it in a broader spectrum. We, the Senate, tonight acted to bring some immediacy to the difficulty you are expressing. There may be more to be done in the coming weeks as this whole difficulty with production agriculture increases across our country.

Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. There is no question it does. Is it something new? No. Is it advanced? You bet it is. When the crops dried out in the field and the banker wants you to pay your bills and you can pay them sooner than later, then it is a big help. This is not opening up Freedom to Farm. This is advancing a payment that is already built within that structure. That is why there is the budget impact about which the majority leader spoke. I hope we can work together to resolve this, as we thought we had, so that this can move forward this week to deal with the problems that are very current in our agricultural sector.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I had the privilege of working with Senator Conrad on crafting the indemnity payment. We cooperated with Senator Cochran in getting it in the agriculture bill. We are going to go to conference right soon. We think that will be in the new fiscal year. You talk about immediacy of payment? We hope that will be available by late this year to deal with some of these agricultural problems. But I must say, it has not been shaped to my satisfaction. Senator Conrad and I have talked about how we would work within the conference to make sure that it is a legitimate approach toward a true disaster environment. This is a broader approach that deals with more farmers. The definition under which Senator Conrad and I shaped that--he being the primary author--dealt with double, back-to-back disasters. It is narrower by scope. We may want to adjust that some. I would not think tonight we would want to just accept it as it was originally crafted with its narrowness. The problem is already much larger today than when we passed it, by character of the drought and heat in Texas and in other States. It is already broader. We will want to look at that again. It is not that I am objecting. I am saying I think we will be working together in the conference of the Ag approps to make that a viable approach as we originally thought it ought to be.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to join with my colleagues from Missouri and Kansas in their amendment to eliminate the marriage penalty. There has been a growing level of frustration amongst most of us in the Senate and, I am sure, our colleagues on the other side of the Rotunda, as the Congressional Budget Office and others predict and justify by their analysis higher and higher budget surpluses, as to what we will do with this revenue. As most of my colleagues know, I, amongst others, have fought for decades to bring about a balanced budget knowing that from that budget we would have opportunities to significantly change the way our Government does business, but most importantly, the way our Government impacts the lives of American citizens in the form of rules and regulations and laws, because balanced budgets limit Government, but most importantly, as a result of the kind of impact the Federal Government, through its taxing policies, have on wage earners' ability to earn and to spend their money for themselves, for their families, for their children. Over the course of creating tax policy the last good number of decades, one of the great tragedies that I think the public recognizes is that Congress can use tax policy as a form of social engineering. You can cause the public to move their moneys in one direction or another by the way you tax them. You can also cause the public or individuals to act differently. There was a recent article in a newspaper, a national wire story just this past week. More couples are living together without being married than ever in the history of our country. They cited a lot of reasons. One of the reasons they didn't cite was tax policy. But in talking with citizens of my State and couples who have chosen to live together without marriage, the marriage penalty is clearly one of those issues. Tragically enough, that is either by intent or by mistake, but the reality is clear: Tax policy driven by this Congress and by the American Government has caused a lifestyle change in our country, a change in the forming of the family unit that many of my colleagues today have said, and rightfully spoken to, as being the foundation of our society, the strength of our communities and, therefore, the strength of our country. Tax policy should not do that, and here we are in an opportune time, an opportunity that we have never had in the years I have spent here, to make these kinds of changes, and we ought to do it. I must also tell you that with the projected surplus over the next 5 years of $500 billion plus, there are a lot of other things we can do. For future generations, we ought to fix the Social Security system. Fix it, I mean by not making it a chain letter, by not creating a tremendous precipice of problems as it relates to the year 2018 or whenever the spiking of the baby boomers arrives and those necessary checks must go out to our citizens. We ought to fix it now. On that issue--I don't often side with this President--but I think he is right. We ought to use this opportunity to stabilize and change and adjust the Social Security system. By offering this amendment today, what my colleagues are not saying is don't fix Social Security. They are saying we have an opportunity to address a nagging problem inside the tax structure of this country, while at the same time we ought to deal with Social Security. I hope the House and the Senate, before we adjourn this fall, speak very clearly to these issues. The public deserves a tax cut. When you have a surplus that you have collected from the American taxpayer, you ought to give it back, or at least you ought to give a substantial portion of it back. Polling shows that the American public also expects us to pay off the debt, and one of the ways you pay off the debt or you eliminate a major portion of the debt structure of this country is by dealing with Social Security, because the debt is, in fact, the money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust funds by the character of the unified budget under which we finance the activities of our Government. I am going to support Senator Ashcroft and Senator Brownback today in their effort. We must deal with this. It is timely that we deal with it now, and I think it is important that the Senate express itself with this opportunity. The marriage penalty is a major first step in addressing what needs to be significant tax reform in this country that I hope can come in the 106th Congress that will convene in January of next year. I applaud my colleagues today for bringing this issue to the floor for debate and for a vote, and I hope the Senate will concur with them. I yield the floor. Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3352 (Purpose: To provide for greater access to child care services for Federal employees)

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I understand each side has 5 minutes. If the desk will notify me when I have used 2 minutes. Mr. President, my amendment to the Kyl amendment attempts to clarify what I think is important that we do. The Indian Affairs Committee has the authority to hold hearings to move legislation, to bring it to the floor as it relates to Indian gaming. We created IGRA, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, and the National Indian Gaming Commission for the purpose of regulating Indian gaming. Indian gaming is regulated. But the Senator from Arizona, without hearings on this in the authorizing committee, steps in and makes significant changes in the Indian gaming law. Now, the Senator from Arizona and I agree that gaming ought to be regulated; it ought to be controlled, the access ought to be controlled. We want it limited. But in this case, it isn't a matter of limiting, it is a matter of outlawing, stopping something that is already out there, already working, already has stood the test of officialdom, and we believe it meets those standards, and that is the National Indian Lottery. So I hope that my colleagues will stand with me in saying we want regulation and control.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I join the Senator and ask for the yeas and nays on the Craig amendment.

Mr. CRAIG. I appreciate that. We don't want this kind of stepping in and simply wiping out, with the appropriate committee not holding a hearing to understanding what is exactly going on. That is the intent of my amendment--to maintain the integrity of the National Indian Gaming Commission and the recognition of the relationships between the Indian Nations and the United States itself and the treaty relationship that is clear and has been well established. I retain the remainder of my time.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona quotes a letter crafted in 1992. Since that time, the tribe in the State of Idaho has a compact that has been established. The attorney general of the State of Idaho believes this is significant. The topic of children is an interesting item. The Presiding Officer, I and everyone else is very concerned with children's access to the Internet. We recognize the need to provide legislation to block that, and we should. What I am talking about is something that is already official, that is already underway, and we have not heard a great hue and cry about the damaging of or the destruction of children. There is something else that is interesting. We heard from New Jersey and we heard from Nevada. They are protecting their big gaming interests. There are already exceptions in this bill. There are five exceptions in this bill to use the Internet system to traffic information about gaming. The Senator is not pure on this. Let's be real, and let's be honest about it. Let's use the committees we have. Let's use the law, the rules, and regulations to govern, control, and regulate Indian gaming structured in a certain way to protect it so that children don't have access to it; so that there is an official screening process; that it is effectively monitored and controlled. I agree that we ought to control the Internet system, and we ought to make sure that there is not unlimited access. That is exactly what we are trying to do here today. But let's not destroy the laws that we have created for Native Americans in this country--the controls, and the regulatory system that is established out there. We heard from the former chairman of the committee. We have already heard from the chairman of the committee. He is saying no hearings were held. A Senator from outside the committee reaches in and changes substantially the structure of the IGRA law and the National Indian Gaming Commission law. What I am telling you this morning is that you have an option to keep whole the law of the land, which we crafted to control Indian gaming, while at the same time protecting the Internet from open access from offshore gaming from the kind of things that the Senator from Arizona has an absolute right to be concerned about. I, too, am concerned, and I hope that my colleagues will join with me in voting for the Craig amendment to protect the integrity of the Indian Gaming Commission, and the national Indian gaming law that we have established. With that, I yield the remainder of my time. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I join with my colleagues from Oregon, both of my colleagues from Oregon, and certainly the Senator from Florida, who have worked with us to craft the legislation that is now before you. For several years, I have tried to deal with the H-2A problem, only to be unsuccessful. I must tell you, Mr. President, I have watched the problem grow across America in a most inhumane way because the workforce is needed and the workers come. They come across our borders illegally, they are subjected to inhumane environments, in many instances, and, as a result, a great problem has grown, not only for a workforce seeking work, but also for the individual or individuals who provide the work, American agriculture. We have here a rare opportunity. It is an opportunity to fix a problem before it truly becomes a crisis on both sides. And in fixing that problem, my colleagues from Oregon and Florida, and myself involved, have attempted to approach it in a very commonsense way. That is to avoid the conflicts for millions of Americans, and recognizes, as Senator Wyden just said, that the American worker should come first, but in a state of near full employment where the unemployable, or those who choose not to work, are the only ones remaining. Clearly, we are at a point of crisis, and we must offer that opportunity to farm labor, to those who are willing to, and under a condition now that I think is much more presentable. Growers want and need a stable and predictable workforce, a legal workforce. They don't like playing around the edges of illegality. Let us make this workforce legal under the conditions that have been spelled out in this legislation. I think that provides a good, fair, market-based compensation. Prevailing wage is the wage issue here, and that is as it should be. Unemployed workers, and those hoping to move from welfare to work, want and need to be matched up with decent jobs. That is what our society ought to be directed toward. American citizens should have first claim, as I said, to American jobs, but all workers would rather be working legally and hope for protection of basic labor standards. These goals are not always met. In fact, current Federal law and its bureaucratic implementation are hurting growers and workers which have created a system that has created a monstrous bureaucracy. The Senator from Oregon talks of the multitude of pages necessary and in an attempt to determine who is and who isn't legal, of course, the employer oftentimes being held liable. This is why I am pleased I can join with my colleagues in proposing what I think is phenomenally constructive reform in the H-2A Agricultural Guest Worker Program. Failure to fix or replace this program means the Federal Government is completely ignoring the needs of a significantly changed agricultural labor market. Many employers who meet legal standards of diligence when they hire a worker really have no idea if the next raid by the Immigration and Naturalization Service will scare off their workforce and their crops will rot in the field. That is not an exaggeration. Just a few weeks ago that happened in the State of Georgia, just to our south: One county, a raid; the rest of the county was cleared out of a workforce which left crops rotting in the fields. It is an issue in Georgia, in Florida, in Idaho, in Oregon, in New York, in Kentucky--all over the country where this particular type of work force is necessary. California growers and local officials have made a real effort to address this shortfall with welfare-to-work efforts--which does not appear to be helping. The GAO study that has helped prompt the kind of urgency that the Senators from Oregon spoke to estimated that as many as 600,000 farm workers, or 37 percent of the 1.6 million, are not legally authorized to work in the United States--600,000. That is a problem, a very big problem, a problem created by laws and by a Department of Labor, and I am pleased that they have worked with us to resolve this issue. As workers disappear from U.S. fields--and crops stay there, instead of moving to stores and consumers--U.S. food will be replaced by foreign imported food. This means a mainstay in our economy--the U.S. agriculture industry-- is threatened with a major breakdown. And our families are threatened with an increased risk to their health and safety because of food-borne diseases. Also, the current H-2A program has been a red-tape nightmare. Even when growers meet all deadlines, GAO found that DOL misses its statutory deadlines 40 percent of the time. The current H-2A program has been completely ineffective as a means of obtaining temporary and seasonal workers--supplying only about 24,000 out of 1.6 million farm workers. In the 1996 Immigration Law, and in appropriations over recent years, Congress has made it a priority to secure our borders and crack down on illegal immigration. What is needed is a bipartisan effort to reform the current H-2A system, having the following components: Creation of a new, voluntary national registry of migrant farmworkers to which growers can turn for workers they know are legal. If enough domestic workers cannot be supplied through the registry, growers could apply for legal guest workers through an expedited, reformed H-2A program. The new program would resemble current H-2A, but it would have faster turnaround, less red tape, and greater certainty for employers. It would also have continued protection for workers, and greater flexibility for employers, related to conditions of employment, such as housing, transportation, and market-based wages. I invite my colleagues to support me in this important endeavor. Mr. President, again, I appreciate the bipartisan work that has gone into this initiative and that we were able to bring it promptly to the floor. I hope there is a strong majority, a bipartisan vote in the Senate to move it to conference. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. CRAIG. The yeas and nays have not been ordered.

Mr. CRAIG. I will be happy to provide that. I made the mistake of amending the Bryan amendment and, as a result, now I have amended your amendment, as amended. That is the appropriate way to do it.

Mr. CRAIG. It is a technical correction. The intent of the amendment is as originally presented to you.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let's talk about that tragic situation in Jonesboro, AR. What the Senator from Illinois is proposing would not have solved the problem in Jonesboro, AR, even though that young child obtained his gun from a grandfather who had locked his house and the child entered the home without permission and the gun was locked in a case. I don't know how we legislate against that. My guess is, we do not, not very successfully. All of a sudden grandpa becomes the criminal, and you are going to go after grandpa at a time when his grandchild has done that onerous act? Now, the Senator mentioned 15 States that have similar laws and yet the courts very seldom use them and juries very seldom give decisions because we know the parent is in a horrible situation at the time that kind of accident occurs. They are the victim, and they become the criminal. We all know that underage children in our care who act as those children do, we are every bit as much the victim. Why don't we pass the legislation that I have proposed that incorporates the forces of the Federal Government, the State government, and local government, and goes after criminals who use guns and criminal acts and bring down our crime rates and work to take the guns out of the hands of the juveniles where the killings are really going on in this country? No, it isn't as dramatic; it doesn't make for the political speech in the Chamber, but it sure makes the streets a lot safer. It doesn't take law-abiding citizens and make them criminals. That is what this Senate ought to be doing, and I hope the Senate will do that tonight. It is the right and the responsible approach. Let me, once again, briefly go through my proposal. It is patterned after the Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative that is working right now in Philadelphia. It incorporates the Project Exile in Richmond, VA, where a Federal prosecutor says, ``Report to me felons who are using a gun in the commission of a crime, and I will prosecute them, and I will put them away.'' He has, and the crime rate has plummeted. Bring those two forces together and we make this world a safer place. And we take guns out of the hands of juveniles. No, we don't deal with the accident. I am not sure I know how to do that. I don't think we can do that here. I don't think we can make parents criminals. We have chosen not to do that in the past for a variety of reasons. We have argued safety. We have educated safety. We hope parents and adults will be responsible with their rights. In this instance there is a clear division. It is an important division. Our institutions have to recognize that juveniles in our society today are more violent than they have ever been, and we are searching for answers to that. We do not know all of the answers, but we do know we have a problem. Our problem is to penalize the parent who has tried to act responsibly? I don't think so. It is certainly our job to encourage greater parental responsibility, and we all know that a person who owns a gun in a law-abiding way has a responsibility for his or her right in this society. And we encourage that. But we say a $10,000 fine and a Federal offense and you are a criminal if somebody misuses the gun? I hope not. I hope that is not the case. I retain the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, in section (2) of my original amendment, this was the same language with the same intent. Senator Specter, who has this initial program in Philadelphia, had some concerns about the language. I will be happy to provide you with a copy. It doesn't change the intent of the amendment at all. Mr. President, the Senator from Illinois, in all respects, I am sure, approaches this Senate with the right intent, an intent that I think all of us would honor--that is, to try to make the world a safer place, to try to make people more responsible. There is a problem, a very real problem. Our bills are different, and I think they are very incompatible in that regard. I hope the Senator from Illinois can support my legislation. I wish I could support his, but I cannot. Mr. President, here is the reason I cannot. The Senator from Illinois would like to take a victim and make that individual a criminal. In other words, if an adult owns a gun and a child of that adult, or a friend of that adult who happens to be less than 18 years of age, or a nephew, finds that gun and that gun is used in an accident or in the commission of a crime, or certainly when a death occurs, the victim--the person who had his or her gun stolen from them--all of a sudden becomes the criminal. That is an interesting juxtapose in our society from which we really have tried to stay away. We have focused on criminals and criminal acts. But a failure to make secure or to abide by what the Senator would say is a safekeeping of all 300 million guns in this society would make a person a criminal. We know how guns are used. In high crime areas, they are used for self-protection. In high crime areas and urban housing--not the nice, suburban household the Senator might envision in his debate--oftentimes a gun is kept loaded. Is that house totally secure? Do children come and go from it? Is it in a high-rise suburban environment, where there might be gang violence, where some members of gangs might have full access to the house because they are cousins or the children of that person using that gun for self-protection? That is very possible. Those exceptions are not provided for here. They must be provided for here if the Senator from Illinois is to have a law with any teeth in it. The reality is simple. We reverse, for the first time in our society, the kind of a test as it relates to an act of violence. In this case, the person who has the gun stolen from them all of a sudden becomes the criminal. That is an interesting and strange argument that we have never had put before us before. All of us are interested in controlling violent acts and criminal acts that occur in the commission of a crime. My amendment moves very directly to do that. In fact, my amendment is a movement in a direction that I think is extremely positive and is already underway. It is already underway because what it says is that the Federal firearm laws we have on the books will be implemented and they will be enforced. Judges don't like them. They don't like to play around with them. They don't necessarily like to prosecute them. Yet, where it happens, crime rates go down and life becomes much safer. What I am talking about and what I wish the Senate to vote on and place into law is the Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative, which is currently a 17-city demonstration project aimed at reducing youth firearm violence and expanding this initiative by putting some real teeth in it, much like the model of the Richmond, VA, program that I will discuss in a few minutes. My idea, although it is not novel, is that when most Federal firearm laws were enacted, the notion was to punish criminals who commit violent firearm crimes, not to go after the innocent victim who might have had their guns stolen from them. This has not happened. We already heard on the floor yesterday that this administration has cut the prosecution of violent acts where guns are used by nearly half. They simply don't pursue the criminal. Yet, it ought to happen. My amendment suggests that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, in consultation with the attorney general, work with the State of Pennsylvania and the city of Philadelphia to establish a demonstration program where the objective will be to identify, apprehend, and prosecute all persons who commit firearm violations. Let me tell you about something happening in Richmond, VA. Down there, a Federal prosecutor said to law enforcement officers, ``If you will report to me felons who are arrested in the commission of a crime who are using a firearm, I will prosecute them. Plain and simple. No plea bargaining. We are going to prosecute.'' That Federal officer handed out this little card to every cop in Richmond, VA. This card has a listing of all of the Federal gun possession crimes. It goes on to list them. There is a number to call. An individual officer can call the ATF, and there is a pager number. Here is the rest of the story. Gun-related homicides dropped from 140 last year to only 34 this year. Now, what I am saying is what we ought to be doing in Richmond and in Philadelphia, and a lot of other places across the Nation, is incorporating Federal authority along with local authority to go after the criminal who uses the gun. I am sure the Senator from Illinois and I have voted for laws or bills that create laws that say if you do thus and so, and you use a gun, it is a Federal firearms violation. But we don't get the courts to prosecute them, and we don't follow through; we don't insist. This administration, by their own statistics, has truly been asleep at the switch. Let's incorporate juveniles, education, tracking, gun trafficking, and all of those combinations together, and go after the people who are truly responsible. Guess what happens? The crime rate goes down. Incorporate that with the kind of work that has already been done and you will create a safer place. The Philadelphia Exile Project--generally called Project Exile all over the country--creates that kind of dynamic. Then I go on to expand it, so that we go from 50 cities to, by October of 2000, 75 cities, and by 2002, to 150 cities and counties across our country. This is the kind of proactive thing that goes directly at the problem. What does it say? It doesn't say to the innocent victim who has had their property stolen and it gets used in a crime, and if you didn't do all of these right things, guess what, you are the criminal. Now we haven't criminalized a child taking a car and having an accident against the parent--especially if they stole the car, took it without permission. Yet, today we would be doing that with guns. I think that is wrong. I think the Senator from Illinois is right. He should be able to support my amendment because it goes at the root cause. It incorporates all of the agencies, and it makes real the very thing that he and I want done. We want the laws enforced. We want criminals prosecuted. We know that 90 percent of the crime out there is the result of not new action, but old action --people with criminal records. That is what this is all about. We have taken the concept of going after the criminal, we have incorporated it with the juvenile crime gun interdiction initiative, brought those kind of things into combination, and I think we have a dynamic force here. What do we do? We provide new information about illegal firearm activities to communities. We identify differences in adult, juvenile, and youth illegal firearms activities. We extend access to firearm-related enforcement information. We initiate community, State, and national reporting on firearms trafficking. We enable enforcement officers to focus their resources where they are likely to have the greatest impact on illegal trafficking to juveniles and violent youth gang members. I think for those who were listening yesterday, when we look at the deaths created by juvenile activities with firearms today, the vast majority of the 95 percent are in that higher bracket. The accidental are there--not insignificant, but very, very small. That is the reality of what I attempt to do. It incorporates demonstration projects today that are working. It makes them Federal law. It expands them across the Nation. It goes after the criminal, and not the innocent victim who has had their property stolen. My colleague from Illinois would like to make them the criminal. That is a strange position to have in Federal law. We ought to leave that alone. I retain the remainder of my time. Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I send a modification of my amendment to the desk.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, a few moments ago you talked about this destroying lottery systems. The national Indian lottery is up and operating today, and State lotteries are not falling by the wayside. In fact, they are stronger than ever in their level of participation. They are as tightly regulated as is this national lottery. That is the reality with which we talk about this, tightly regulated control. Do I advocate 10-year-olds using this? I do not, and they cannot. There is a screening process. They would be in violation of it. They would have to go through all of the procedures of an adult. Yes, I guess if they stole their parent's credit card in the first instance it might work; in the second, it would not. Any winnings would be repealed and they might be in violation of the law. So you can talk about scare tactics, if you will. The reality is we have a national Indian lottery today that is deemed legal on the Internet. The amendment by Senator Kyl attempts to make it illegal. That is the reality with which we are dealing. I suggest that any effort to talk about great fears and scare tactics just doesn't fit because it is tightly, tightly controlled. What the Senator from Arizona talks about, about offshore, I agree with an unlimited approach in an unregulated way. That is what is important. That is what my amendment does. We should allow Indian gaming to be regulated under Federal law as it currently is.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I say to fellow Senators, don't be fooled by this amendment. For the first time, we take the victim, the person who has had his or her firearm stolen, and we make them the criminal. For the first time, we say you can become a Federal criminal without ever being involved in the crime. That is what this amendment does. Don't fall for the analogy of the pit bull. If the pit bull is chained in the backyard, and there is a fence around the yard, and the yard is locked and somebody gets in that yard and inside the circle of the pit bull and is injured, it is not the owner's fault. That is the law. I hope you can join with me in opposing this. Don't make the victim the criminal. Don't say that the person should become a Federal criminal who is not even associated with the crime. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I say to my fellow Senators, they are being asked to vote in just a couple of minutes on what I think is an extremely important amendment. We move the Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative, that is now a demonstration project in Philadelphia, nationwide over a period of 5 years. With the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, working with counties, States and local law enforcement agencies, to provide information on the illegal activity of firearms in communities, to create adult, juvenile and youth illegal firearm activities, identify them and control them, to make firearm violations Federal violations prosecutable and move it in that direction. Mr. President, if this Senate wants to move against youth violence with the misuse of firearms, this is a major initiative and a major step in that direction. I hope my colleagues will work with us as we expand this from 17 demonstration projects to 50 to 75 to 150 across the Nation in high-crime areas going directly at juveniles and the misuse of firearms and prosecuting felons who use firearms in the commission of a crime, which is already a Federal violation of law, but now goes unprosecuted. I hope my colleagues can join with me in supporting this amendment.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have been informed that the second degree I sent to the desk needs a correction. I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 3268 be corrected as ordered in drafting.