Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. What I want to point out is that there is an established procedure in dealing with laws which impact Indian gaming. Mr. President, the Kyl bill ignores this procedure and changes IGRA without the input of the Indian Affairs Committee or the National Indian Gaming Regulatory Commission. The Kyl bill does this in a number of ways, including placing new restrictions on tribal gaming operations, overrides and nullifies existing State tribunal pacts, makes illegal some forms of Indian gaming determined by the courts to be authorized under IGRA. Those who would support the bill claim that it does not impact IGRA. I cannot agree with that argument. If it, in fact, sought no change in IGRA, why do they then oppose the amendment that would guarantee no change? Because that is exactly what my amendment does. The truth of the matter is that the bill severely limits authority granted IGRA. The Craig amendment does not expand Indian gaming. Let me repeat: The Craig amendment does not expand Indian gaming. And that would be argued by the Federal courts. The amendment would only protect a gaming enterprise if it were already legal under IGRA. The amendment would only protect a gaming enterprise that was already sanctioned by a State-tribal compact, the very kind of thing that this Congress set up in the law that created IGRA. The amendment would not allow for any form of new Indian gaming. The reason these issues are important--and the Senator from Arizona was exactly right when he spoke in general terms about the possibilities of my amendment, speaking specifically to one Indian tribe. That Indian tribe happens to be in my State, and they have established what is known as the National Indian Lottery. They have withstood three separate Federal court tests and have argued that they are legal, and the courts have so ruled. Yet, the Internet Gaming Prohibition Act that Senator Kyl has just offered amends section 1084 of the so-called Federal Wire Act to include lotteries. Only by his act would they become illegal. By the current law, and by the current regulatory process, they are legal; and they have been found that. This tribe has been sued. They have taken their issue to court and have successfully won. Lotteries are defined as class III gaming and are governed by the terms of the tribal-State compacts, the rules and the regulations, the National Indian Gaming Commission. Idaho's case is no different. And that is certainly the case that I argue here tonight. In 1992, the Coeur d'Alene Tribe signed a compact with the State of Idaho which specifically provided for the conduct of these National Indian Lottery games. Article 621 of the compact authorizes the tribe to conduct lotteries, so-called State lotteries to the compact, defined in article 419, to include a variety of things. The compact was approved by the Secretary of the Interior in February 1993, and, therefore, noticed in the Federal Registry. Since that time it has fallen under regulation. What the Senator from Arizona is doing tonight--and I agree with him--is making illegal that which is unregulated, and provides either an outright prohibition or establishes regulatory effort. Now, he has exempt a variety of things, exempt very powerful gaming organizations. So I do not think the Senator can argue tonight that there have not been some exemptions. He says he is after the offshore kind of Internet activity. I agree with him. The kind I am trying to protect is onshore, legal and regulated by IGRA and the National Indian Gaming Commission. I could not stand here tonight and argue for an unregulated activity. We expect them to be fair. We expect them to be honest. We expect them to be controlled and only to be made available to adults. That is exactly what is happening here and why I argue it. All of the regulations that this Congress has put in place is adhered to by the National Indian Lottery. It is regulated, as I said, at the Federal level. It is regulated at the State level. It is regulated at the separate governmental or tribal level. And that is the way it should be. It is audited regularly by Arthur Andersen. It is protected so that only adults can participate in it. And that is constantly scanned. My amendment would simply say that these kinds of activities--legally sought--would be regulated under the current regulatory process, because it is Indian gaming; and we have established the IGRA and the National Indian Gaming Commission for that purpose. The amendment of the Senator from Arizona would deny that right and place, by its adoption, this as an illegal activity where the Federal courts have ruled that under current process it is legal. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I stand on the floor this evening in support of the concept of the Kyl bill, and I support the second-degree amendment that the Senator from Nevada has just successfully placed on it. I believe that unregulated Internet gaming is and can be dangerous. It must be monitored closely and restricted to adults. To date, the only form of gaming regulated at the Federal level is Indian gaming. I am not a big fan of most Indian gaming. We have struggled with it in my State for some time. However, through the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, known as IGRA, Congress established clear and precise laws governing all forms of Indian gaming. Authority to regulate Indian gaming was given by Congress to the National Indian Gaming Regulatory Commission. In addition, developments in Indian gaming are followed closely by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and its counterparts in the House. In fact, it is my understanding that the committee has held a series of hearings this year on examining the possible changes in IGRA.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the desk and ask for its consideration.

Mr. CRAIG. Not at all. I am about ready to explain it, but you can have it read if you wish.

Mr. CRAIG. The Senator from Illinois can say a good many things on this floor, but he cannot say something I did not say and attribute it to me. I did not say there was not a responsibility to manage and handle your guns in a law-abiding and safe way. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I think many of us have spoken tonight to the issue of Internet gaming and our opposition to it; most assuredly, our opposition to unregulated offshore Internet gaming. The Senator from Arizona has brought forth an amendment that controls that, in fact, prohibits that. But it also prohibits something else that we in the Congress and law, by agreements, treaties with American Indians, have said is separate, should be, and should be regulated. And we have said Indian gaming should be regulated. And it is. But the Senator from Arizona has made the exception as it relates to any Indian gaming on the Internet. I am saying, that is an intrusion that should not be allowed. Regulate? Absolutely. Control? Absolutely. Build and maintain a tribal-State compact? Absolutely. We have wrestled with this issue over the years. When I was in the House, I worked with a Congresswoman from Nevada. We were outruled by the courts. The Senator from Hawaii has clearly spoken to the issue of the courts. What I am saying is that I sense there is a clear and important division. Through the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Congress established a clear and precise law governing all forms of Indian gaming. And I think it is important that I repeat that--all forms of Indian gaming. Authority to regulate Indian gaming was given by Congress to the National Indian Gaming Regulatory Commission. I believe the Kyl bill ignores this procedure and IGRA. I do not believe we can ignore that as a Congress. The Kyl bill does this in a number of ways, including placing new restrictions on tribal gaming operations, and overrides and nullifies existing State-tribal compacts. My amendment simply sets the issue of Indian gaming aside as it pertains to that. But it recognizes, as I think we all should, that Indian gaming via the Internet ought to be regulated and it ought to be controlled. And that is exactly what is happening today. So I hope that for any of my colleagues who might be listening this late into the evening, that we could revisit this for a short time tomorrow, because the Internet Gaming Prohibition Act by Senator Kyl goes in and amends section 1084 of the Federal Wire Act to include lotteries. It is excluded there today. Decisions have been rendered on behalf of Indians as it relates to this in Federal courts. We think this is the appropriate decision, and it exempts them currently. And they are regulated now. This is not an unregulated activity that I advocate by this amendment. It is a fully regulated activity under Federal law, under the Indian gaming laws as controlled by the National Indian Gaming Commission. That is the appropriate intent of this amendment. I retain the balance of my time. Mr. ENZI addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay the amendment on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3263

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me only make a few comments as it relates to what Senator Chafee has said, because I think it is important that we understand the reality of some of what he has portrayed. The pit-bull argument sounds not only exciting, it sounds horrifying. Now, there is a little thing in law called, in this instance, the first bite. In other words, if it is known that the dog is dangerous, then there is a responsibility. If it is not known that the dog is dangerous and the dog has never shown dangerous tendencies, then the owner is not liable, and that has stood up in court. But if the dog is known to be dangerous, and the dog is chained in the backyard, and the backyard is fenced, and the gates are locked, and a child crawls in the range of the dog that is chained and is injured, the owner is not liable. But what the Senator is saying is, if you have a gun in your house and your house is gained access to by someone, oh, yes, if the door is open and a child invites another child in, and that child finds a gun and misuses it, then, of course, the owner of the gun is liable. I don't believe that is the pit-bull argument. And I don't think it can be, because the owner may have put the gun away, and did in this instance. What if the owner had it locked up but the child of the owner knew where the key was? Now, who is liable there? A lot of definitions go on wanting and my argument still holds, I do believe, that the victim in this instance, the owner of the gun, who has had the gun stolen from him, all of a sudden becomes the criminal. The pit-bull argument cannot and does not hold in this instance, nor should it. We understand those kinds of arguments. You can store your gun in safety, and all of a sudden it is taken and used and you are liable. The victim should not be the criminal. I retain the remainder of my time.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG. I have no objection.

Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, we have before us this afternoon an amendment offered by the Senator from California that is one of those feel-good amendments. Obviously, the Senator from Illinois has taken the feel-good debate to its ultimate. All of us are dramatically concerned and frustrated when anyone dies in this country accidentally. There is no question that there is always a quick rush to mind saying that there ought to be a law against that--especially if it appears to be an accidental death that occurred because somebody was negligent. Even more reason to want to do something to disallow that kind of an accident from happening. Now, I do not apologize for the fact that I am an active member of the National Rifle Association, and I believe in trigger locks. I agree with the Senator from Illinois and the Senator from California that trigger locks ought to be employed in the storage of a gun for safekeeping reasons, but I do not believe trigger locks ought to be used on loaded guns. The gun that killed the child that the Senator from California so dramatically spoke of was a loaded gun, and therein lies the difference. No FBI agent, no Federal agent of law enforcement in our country or State or local law enforcement agent with proper firearm training ever puts a trigger lock on a loaded gun. Why? Because the manufacturer says don't do it. And why does the manufacturer say don't do it? Because trigger locks are not a guarantee of safety--a jostling of the trigger lock, a dropping of the gun, a jamming of the trigger lock object that surrounds the encasing for the trigger could cause it to fire. That is the reality. I know. I am a pistol shooter. I know about which I speak. But I am for trigger locks. I am for gun safes. I am for drawers with locks on them because I want firearms safely stored in this country so that the citizens who use firearms legally under the second amendment can be guaranteed that that right will never be abridged. What the Senator from Illinois talks about this afternoon is, in fact, tragic, and, of course, the Judiciary Committee spoke to this issue and said that everyone ought to be made aware of them. Certainly everyone who purchases a gun ought to have a full understanding and knowledge of the use of trigger locks for safekeeping. Should it be a Federal mandate? I don't think so. Most importantly, it should not offer a sense of false security. That is what is important. And yet I will tell you that the Senator from California speaks of panaceas: But for the trigger lock no child will die. The Senator from Illinois: But for a trigger lock the world will be safer. No, it won't be if the gun is loaded. Now, if the person who owns the firearm is responsible, if the person who owns the firearm does not plan to use it for personal protection and needs it immediately for their access or personal protection, that gun ought to be unloaded. The ammunition ought to be stored separately from the firearm. That is the rule of the game. That is what you are supposed to do as a law-abiding citizen. That is how you properly handle a firearm. Well, let's talk about tragedies in this country. There is no question that when a small child finds a firearm which a parent has left loaded, and that small child plays with it and either kills him or herself or kills a brother or sister, oh, my goodness, what a phenomenal tragedy. I mourn; we all mourn. Parents who have acted so irresponsibly as to cause their child to die under those circumstances are the responsible parties. The gun should have been unloaded. The gun should have been properly stored. If it were unloaded, it should have a trigger lock on it. But it does not happen that way all the time. Cars are never intended to kill people, but they kill people every day. Teenagers should drive safely, but they don't. They are very irresponsible at that age. Dramatic accidents happen such as just happened on the East-West Highway locally and teenagers are killed by a very safe car. They acted irresponsibly. They should not have done what they did. While the number of privately owned firearms in this country has quadrupled since 1930, the annual number of accidental fatalities--and that is what the Senator from Illinois is talking about, accidents--not intentional shootings, accidents--the number of accidents involving fatalities with firearms has declined 56 percent nationwide, against a phenomenal increase in the number of firearms owned by citizens, law- abiding citizens. We don't count the criminals. Firearms are involved in 1.5 percent of accidental fatalities nationwide, and they are oftentimes the most dramatic or they are oftentimes the most dramatized on the front page of a local, State or national newspaper. And I know why. Because the Senators from Illinois and California speak with the same emotion I do, especially when it is a small child who is involved in that kind of a situation. But let me tell you what is going to kill small children this summer on a 5-to-1, 6-to-1, 10-to-1 basis. It is not going to be a gun. It is not going to be a gun. It is going to be the very thing that the Senator from Illinois has in his drinking glass right now. It is going to be water. More children are going to drown this summer in neighborhood pools and backyard swimming pools--by the hundreds--than will die by a gunshot. And yet the Senator from Illinois is not proposing to outlaw or put locks on swimming pools. Now, all of those deaths are just as accidental. But, you know, one size fits all and if we have a Federal law, it is going to take care of everybody, and everybody will be safe and the world will be better, and politics will be more clear. It does not work that way. It should not work that way. We are supposed to be a land without Federal mandates, and yet this year more children are going to die by drowning. Remember, accidental fatalities this year: 4.8 percent by drowning, 1.5 percent by a firearm. But if you really want to get big numbers, more children are going to die this year by falling, probably out of the high chair under the supervision of a careful mother who accidentally turns away or inadvertently turns away or momentarily turns away from her infant child, or maybe the father, and that number is going to be about 13.5 percent, but that does include older people, too. In other words, the reality with which we speak this afternoon is not all black and white, not at all. Death by falling, 13.5 percent; vehicles, cars, 47 percent; poisoning, 11 percent. When somebody dies by poisoning or by accidental poisoning, it isn't as dramatic because the national media isn't as intent on getting rid of our second amendment rights, so they don't publicize that as much. And they really don't have anything against backyard swimming pools so that only usually is covered by the local or the State media simply because of the tragedy of the loss. Well, those are the realities with which we speak on this issue. Proper storage of firearms is the responsibility of every gun owner, and also education, safety, training and careful consideration. All factors that relate to an individual's particular needs are key to this responsibility. That is really the issue here. And I know the Senator from Illinois and I would wish that everybody was appropriately educated on gun ownership, had been through the right schooling or the right training, would always unload their firearm and store it a long way away from its ammunition. That is not what happens. People oftentimes become not careless, but they just assume. We have seen teenagers breaking into homes. That is stealing. That is theft. And yet we pass laws on that. We have laws against teenagers breaking into homes and stealing things, including guns, and yet they still do it. That is why it is important that we talk about this issue this afternoon. Oh, it is politically very popular. It is the right thing to do in an election year, but it may be the wrong thing to do when it comes to safety and security if it isn't appropriately handled. I recommend trigger locks. If I owned a pistol-- and I don't--I would have a trigger lock on it. And it would be empty with a trigger lock on it. But that is the reality of the kind of issues that we debate here. A general firearm safety rule that must be applied to all conditions is that a firearm should be stored so that it is not accessible to untrained or unauthorized people. That is the right rule. That is the one that really fits. That is the one that really works well. And then you don't have the accidents to talk about. Antigun groups overstate the number of firearm-related deaths among children by defining ``children'' to include anyone through the age of 19. The statistics that have been talked about here on the floor include teenagers acting violently. The reason is, 84 percent of firearm-related deaths--that includes homicide, suicides, and accidents among persons zero to 19 years of age--are accounted for by adolescents and young adults from 15 to 19; 84 percent, 15 to 19 years of age. No; the examples cited by the Senator from California, while very dramatic and very emotional, are clearly the exception, the horrible exception, and not the rule. So, when we talk statistics this afternoon, and we talk about children, we are talking about zero to 19, by those statistics. At least that is what I am told. The anti-firearm Children's Defense Fund and other gun control advocates have applied, if you will, the trick to all of the national statistics and data relating to that 1 child for every 90-odd minutes, 10 children out of 5,000--all of those figures. The reality is zero to 19, if anyone listening is interested in those kinds of statistics. So a few moments ago I was giving you figures about these dramatic deaths that occur when a firearm is misused. The annual number of firearm accidents among children in 1995 fell to an all-time low in 1995--181 children. That is below the age of 15. We are pleased about that number, although terribly saddened, because I think some of the educational programs that some independent groups are using out there right now are helping educate young people to stay away from firearms if they don't understand them and if they have not been properly trained to use them. Other types of accidental fatalities among children--children of the same category--where there were 181 killed by firearms, there were 3,095 killed in auto accidents. The Senator who is presiding at this moment has worked to dramatically lessen the impact of airbags when they are deployed because mishandled, and the child in an improper seat can be killed by an airbag in a car. I am not sure this Congress has responded to that in a timely and appropriate fashion, although Senator Kempthorne has worked over time to make that happen. It just so happens, it is a 30-to-1 relationship of children who will be killed in auto accidents every year compared to those young people who might be killed by the mishandling of a gun. I mentioned the local swimming pool. It is a hot day out there. We are fortunate being in an air-conditioned building. Tragically enough, there will probably be more children drowned today across this country accidentally than will be killed by a firearm. The statistics bear it out--1,024 in 1995 killed by drowning. Fires, suffocation, falling--I have talked percentagewise. Let's talk statistics. Fires: 833 children burned to death in 1995; suffocation, ingestion of an object--we have all--not all of us, many of us--have raised small children. We know how frightened we are about a child's choking on an object, getting something in that mouth, picking up something and swallowing it. Mr. President, 213 will die, on an average basis, annually because of that. We haven't outlawed small objects, I guess because we cannot, although some here might want to try. But that is the reality of what we deal with. And the statistics go on and on. There were 44,583 deaths amongst children in 1995; .04 percent firearms. All the rest were the kinds of things that we can do very little about. We should try where we can. We can change the deployment impact of airbags. We probably cannot outlaw backyard swimming pools. We probably cannot mandate better caretakership at the community swimming pool. And somehow, we just can't teach moms and dads about child safety seats and not putting young children in the front seats of their cars. And that still goes on. So, those are some of the facts and statistics that we will talk about today, probably more than once, as we deal with this issue. I do not in any way try to misrepresent the intent of the Senators who have offered the amendment. But I will speak to reality based on knowledge. Manufacturers and anyone else knowledgeable in the use of a firearm will say not a trigger lock on a loaded gun--no, no, not at all--because you risk even a greater chance of accidental death. Trigger locks are recommended and should be used on unloaded guns. But that is the reality. So if we mandate it by Federal law, we risk even greater numbers of accidents. You even risk a great number of people violating laws because of the inability to accommodate or live up to this. That is the issue we deal with. That is the issue we will debate for a substantial period of time today. It is very important that we understand it, because, try as we may as a Congress with good intent, as a Senate and Senators who care a great deal, we cannot legislate out of this life of ours accidental death or we wouldn't have any of the 44,000 children who will die this year die, be it by gun or by car or by drowning or by falling or by choking. Let me close by saying I forgot to talk about the bicycle and the tricycle and the accidents that occur when children use those in an unsupervised way. We read about that on a regular basis, tragically enough. But I don't think the Senate is going to try to outlaw the tricycle or bicycle today--only the gun--or at least legislate it being mandated as to its management, its handling. That is the issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, 72 of you have just said that gun safety is important, and that we ought to educate, and we ought to use Byrne funds to do so--local law enforcement, State law enforcement, and private entities that teach licensed gun safety. We have also said that gun dealers ought to have safety devices available. But we have also said there is a States rights issue here. Thirty-four States now have consent to carry. Safety is an issue. And guess what. Accidental deaths are declining, and they are declining because of education, not because of Federal mandates. Even manufacturers say you put a trigger lock on a loaded gun and it is dangerous. Trigger locks I agree with. They are for empty guns. They are for stored guns. They are not called child locks, they are called safety locks. We believe in that. But why should it be a Federal mandate? It should not be. The vote you just cast is the right vote. It mandates certain requirements at the local level be provided, and it allows education, and, more importantly, it says train and educate, don't control from the Federal level. Do the right thing. Vote to table. You have cast a sound vote; 72 Senators have said that the right action was the action you have just taken.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I move to table the Boxer amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have sent the amendment to the desk. I thank my colleagues from California and Illinois for raising the issue of firearms safety. All of us are concerned about it. We should be. There is no question that this Senate should express itself. But I think it is wrong to suggest that one size fits all and that Washington has the right answer. Even as the Senator from California was speaking, she was talking about local community and State law that was changing the character of gun ownership and the management or the safe handling of guns. And that is exactly what my amendment offers. It recognizes that there is no quick fix to the tragedy of juvenile crime and firearm accidents. But it does recognize the importance of making available safety devices of all kinds to fit all circumstances, not just a trigger lock but a safe, a box, a lockbox, all of those kinds of things that should be required and made available to gun purchasers by the community of interests that sells guns and small business people who offer those types of firearms to the public. First, it expands the definition of ``safety devices'' to include, as I have mentioned, a variety of devices besides just trigger locks. I think it is important that we do that. My amendment requires that vendors have these safety devices available for sale, but it does not require that a vendor sell a safety device along with every firearm. It certainly does say that a vendor must make these available and that the purchasing public become aware of it. It is also important that my amendment helps to ensure that this new requirement is entirely tort neutral. The amendment provides that it does not establish a standard of care or it further states that evidence regarding compliance or noncompliance with this requirement is inadmissible in court. The amendment, therefore, does not hurt nor help a plaintiff or a defendant. Finally, my amendment helps to ensure that State and local authorities are prepared to train members of the public in the safe possession, carrying, and use of firearms. As you know, 34 States have now passed and empowered our citizens to carry concealed weapons for protection. Therefore, it is critical that we as a citizenry advance the cause of education. My amendment allows for Byrne grant funds to be used by State and local law enforcement agencies to train the public in the safe handling of firearms and to make a positive contribution in that education. The statistics that are real that I have spoken to this afternoon and that the Senator from California has spoken to can be dramatically reduced by education, by training, and by understanding. It is evident because we see the decline in gun accidents today. We also know that there are a variety of organizations out there that are actively involved in working to train our citizens as it relates to the safe use of firearms. So my amendment is much broader. It is not a mandate, but it certainly requires the full complement of gun safety equipment and necessary attributes to be sold and made available to gun owners, and it provides education and educational moneys for local and State law enforcement agencies to begin to train and educate our citizenry as it relates to this important issue. More and more States are moving to the right of citizens to carry guns. Thirty-four States have now said, by their action, that the citizen is empowered to carry a weapon for the purpose of protection; yet there is a decline in the number of accidental deaths by guns. That can come, as it is coming, by education. We are empowering, by this amendment, our State and local governments to do just that. Let me close by saying this: The provision that I offer is an amendment that was offered and adopted by the Judiciary Committee last year during its markup on S. 10, the juvenile crime bill. I urge my colleagues to agree with the consideration and the judgment of the Judiciary Committee. Senator Orrin Hatch, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, is a cosponsor with me of this amendment. It has had full consideration and acceptance by that committee. So it is not something that is quick to judge. It is something to recognize that as we debate the safety of the use of firearms, that we assure the public the availability of equipment and devices to ensure and broaden that safety and, most importantly, it provide the necessary educational components to offer that.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. CRAIG. I will be offering a first-degree amendment in a few moments if this is accepted. I think for the sake of all Senators understanding what is in that amendment, I will require an additional 5 minutes of time for the explanation of that amendment.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I appreciate the willingness of the Senator from Illinois to modify his amendment. I think it is necessary and appropriate, and certainly the public understands that hunting is a lawful right and opportunity in this country. Certainly, foreign citizens who are here that go through the legal and necessary steps should be allowed that opportunity, and to acquire a gun for that purpose while here is necessary and fitting. I agree with the Senator from Illinois that he deals with a very important area of the law. We have seen it misused by aliens in this country. Our second amendment is something that we honor, that many of us feel is a very important right of our citizens under the Constitution. It should not be abused by those who are guests in our country, legally or illegally. I think the Senator from Illinois speaks clearly to that in the amendment. I appreciate his offering it. Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for yielding. Let's talk money. The program has been fully funded. Some $37.5 million in the last 4 years has been provided. The FBI budget has been almost tripled in the last 10 years. Let me talk about Janet Reno. Here is what Attorney General Janet Reno said, on May 26, 1994: She does not intend to charge for such access, provided that there is sufficient appropriations. Guess what? We have given them every dime they requested and many, many millions more. Sorry, Janet Reno. Why don't you stay with your word? That is what you told us. That is what we believed when we passed the Brady bill. What is this? This is a gun tax. Let's talk about it for what it is. The FBI asked for money and we gave them money. In fact, we tripled their budget in the last 10 years. Why? Because we are interested in law enforcement. We want criminals caught. Most importantly, we want criminals prosecuted. We do not want law-abiding citizens taxed.

Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3233, as Amended

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today legislation is being introduced by my colleague from Oregon, Gordon Smith, along with Senators Wyden, Graham of Florida, Gorton, Bumpers, and McConnell. This bill would deal with a situation that is a problem today and could well be a crisis tomorrow. The Senate now has an opportunity to do what our Federal Government does all too rarely, and that is fix a problem in a timely and commonsense fashion before it inflicts great hurt on millions of Americans. Mr. President, I am talking about agricultural growers and their need for a stable, predictable, legal workforce that would receive good, fair, market-based compensation. I am talking about unemployed workers and those hoping to move from welfare to work, who want and need to be matched up with agricultural jobs, if possible. American citizens should have first claim to American jobs. All workers would rather be working legally and know they can claim full legal protections only when their employment situation is open and lawful. Farm employers need to be provided with a secure work force. Workers need to be assured of basic legal and labor standard protections. These goals are not being met today. In fact, current federal law, and its bureaucratic implementation, are hurting growers and workers. In fact, current Federal laws and their bureaucratic implementation are hurting both growers and workers. This is why I am pleased to join with my colleagues in the introduction of what we will call AgJOBS. This stands for the Agricultural Job Opportunity, Benefits and Security Act. This bill will represent the culmination of work that has been going on for years amongst our colleagues, to resolve the issue of the necessary labor force for American agriculture. We have examined all of the issues involved with trying to ensure a supply of legal temporary and seasonal labor. We understand that that employers in many cases need guest workers and that employees, domestic and guest workers, need more and better jobs. We have looked at all sides. The result is a consensus bill that we think is nothing less than remarkable, and I commend my colleagues on this very important bipartisan effort. The key elements of our bipartisan proposal would include the following: The creation of a new, voluntary, national registry of migrant farm workers to which growers can turn for workers they know are legal. If enough domestic workers could not be supplied through the registry, growers could apply for legal guest workers through an expedited, reformed H-2A program. The new program would resemble the current H-2A program, but it would have much, much faster turnaround, less red tape, and greater certainty for employers, continued protections for workers, and greater flexibility for employers, related to conditions of employment such as housing, transportation, and market-based wages. The crisis is at hand not only on the farm but with the worker who is attempting to get across our borders today. With the tremendous heat in the South right now, there are warnings out to workers hoping for a job opportunity in this country: Do not try to traffic the area or you could die--simply by using the transportation methods in which so many workers are travelling today. Current law has created a phenomenal situation that is most inhumane. Two years ago, Senators Wyden, Gorton, and others joined with me in requiring the General Accounting Office to study the current H-2A Guest Worker Program. As a result, the GAO has estimated that at least 37 percent of all farm workers in the United States are not here legally, not legally qualified to work. How they got the figure is amazing: They went out and asked, and the workers, by self-disclosure, admitted that they were here illegally. The current H-2A program has been a red tape nightmare. Too often, when growers need a timely response to their needs, with produce in the field, it cannot be done. Even when growers meet all the deadlines the Government sets for them, then the Government fails to meet its own deadlines. In fact, GAO's study found that, when growers made timely applications, the Department of Labor still missed statutory deadlines 40 percent of the time. The bureaucracy grinds to a halt sometimes because it doesn't understand the needs in the field, and sometimes because it doesn't want to supply the workforce. Current H-2A has been completely ineffective as a means of obtaining temporary and seasonal workers, supplying only about 24,000 out of the 1.6 million farm workers necessary on an annual basis. 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 immigrants. That is exactly what we want and what our citizens want. But as a result, serious spot shortages of farm labor are multiplying from Florida to New England, Kentucky to Colorado--to California and Idaho, and across the Nation. For example, California growers and local officials have made a real effort to address the shortfall with welfare-to-work efforts. But it is not happening. We are at near full employment in our economy. People are simply not available to do agricultural-style work. And sometimes the needs of agriculture are uniquely not matched to the needs or capabilities of available domestic workers. Because of the robust counterfeit ID industry and current Federal laws, we have many of these illegals moving into our country who are, in fact, carrying what appear to be legal credentials. Employers do not want that to happen, but the law actually punishes them if they are too diligent in inquiring about the legal status of job applicants. Current law has created an unwinnable Catch-22 for employers. Most have no realistic way of ensuring their work force is entirely legal. A single Immigration and Naturalization Service raid, netting a handful of illegal workers, can scare and clean out thousands of workers in surrounding counties. It happened just a few weeks ago in the Georgia onion fields. The employers in such cases typically have complied with the law. But, of course, the crops were left rotting in the fields. That is not what the American farmer needs. It is certainly not what the American consumers need. As workers disappear from U.S. fields, and crops stay there instead of moving to the stores, not only are the farmers hurt, as I mentioned, but consumers are hurt. And then we have to reach inevitably toward an effort to import foods, much of which may not meet our health and safety standards. This means a mainstay of our economy, the U.S. agriculture industry, is threatened with a major breakdown. This means that our families are threatened with the increased risk of exposure to food-borne illnesses on imported, foreign foods. And it happens simply because the current H-2A system won't supply the kind of labor that is necessary. Let's be humane and let's be responsible. Let's move the AgJOBS bill introduced today, so it can be signed on the President's desk and become law this year. It is critically necessary that we do this. We have reached out to the Department of Labor to work with them and be sensitive to their concerns in the crafting of this legislation to streamline the H-2A program. We have tried to anticipate and answer every objection that might be raised to this kind of reform. We have tried to solve problems before bringing this bill to the floor. I thank my colleagues for this tremendous effort, especially Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon, Senator Wyden, Senator Graham of Florida, and Senator Gorton, who have worked very closely, to make this legislation a reality. We think this bill will create a win-win situation so those who wish to enter our country to work at our agricultural jobs can enter legally, so they can enter in a safe way instead of in the backs of trucks or almost literally in tin cans where, as a result of tragic accidents, they oftentimes lose their lives. We saw another tragic example of this in recent days. We can do better. We can pass the AgJOBS reforms. I am pleased to be a part of the introduction of this legislation today.