Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, it is with great honor that I congratulate the Lewiston Elks Club, Lodge No. 896, on its 100-year anniversary. The organization has overcome multiple obstacles in its efforts to continue the fellowship among its members, and more important, its consistent and significant contributions to the local community. Lodge No. 896 was first chartered on March 8, 1904 by just eight members. The organization envisioned by the original eight founders has grown to include more than 13,000 members over the past century. Today it is the largest Elks Club in Idaho. Successful recruitment efforts bring in 15 to 18 new members each month, making the Lewiston lodge one of the Nation's best. Together, the Elks have made countless positive impacts on the Lewiston area, and have been stellar ambassadors of our great State. The Lewiston Elks Lodge has endured two devastating fires, the first of which occurred in 1904 after the club's second meeting. The second fire happened in 1969, and spurred the group to move the lodge to a new location overlooking the beautiful Snake River, which passes through Lewiston. It was at its present location that disaster made a third attempt. In 1998, the lodge was closed for more than 18 months after a landslide on the hillside below threatened the structure. Despite these obstacles, the Lewiston Elks have continued their community service. The service projects carried out by the Lewiston Elks are significant. They serve people of all ages, and from every walk of life. Some projects include making Christmas baskets, supporting a drug awareness program, poster contests, and an annual food caravan for needy families. The Elks also express their support for individuals and groups in the community by sponsoring a number of awards recognizing Boy Scouts, Cub Scouts, Special Olympics, and Teenager of the Month and Year. Education is another area that the Elks are firm in their support. The Lewiston club offers yearly scholarships to local youth ranging from $100 to $1,000. Perhaps one of the greatest contributions from this organization is the support it offers to the Idaho State Elks Rehabilitation Hospital. The modern hospital, located in Boise, serves nearly 12,000 patients a year and is working on a proposal to provide rehabilitation services to military veterans returning from war zones. With the support of the Lewiston Elks and other organizations, the hospital plans to open a new Hearing and Balance Center in the next few months. On behalf of the citizens of the Lewiston area, and the entire State of Idaho, I thank Lodge No. 896 for their commitment to their community. It is the standard set by the Lewiston Elks that encourages local youth to strive to improve themselves, and for neighbors to help one another. Their selflessness has allowed everyone in the community to benefit. Congratulations to the Lewiston Elks for their endurance and dedication for the past 100 years.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for his comments and the work that he has done to keep the gun laws in this Nation clean, appropriate where necessary, and enforceable without the entrapment of law-abiding citizens. I thank him for that work, and I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the Senator from California is now on the floor to offer her amendment. So we can expedite matters, under the unanimous consent agreement, the McCain-Reed amendment is to be set aside for the purposes of the introduction of an amendment by the Senator from California.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Colorado for his excellent amendment and for his willingness to stand up and speak out on these critical issues. I now yield 10 minutes of my time to the Senator from Utah.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, under the unanimous consent request, this amendment currently before the Senate, the Feinstein amendment, would be set aside for the purposes of the introduction by our leader, Senator Frist, of the DC gun ban repeal. That amendment will not be offered today, so we are now on full debate for the balance of time until votes start at 11:30 on the two issues before the Senate and the balance of the whole bill. Certainly, there are other amendments besides the assault weapons ban introduced by the Senator from California, the gun show loophole by Senators Reed and McCain. Also, we will have votes today, and it is critical for Senators who want to debate on armor piercing by Kennedy and the Frist-Craig alternative, also on conceal and carry, offered in behalf of Senator Ben Campbell, that some have debated. For a few moments, let me debate one general topic. The clock has started for all of us on the 2-hour balance of time equally divided between us on this issue. For a moment today, I will talk about attitudes of the American public as it relates to the second amendment in the Senate today. The Senator from New York talked about why we are at the eleventh hour debating the gun show loophole. We are because he and his colleagues introduced it, obviously, believing it was a timely topic to debate at a time when we have a very narrowly prescribed bill to deal with the legitimacy of law-abiding citizens in the manufacture of firearms. He has decided to add or attempt to add this to the bill. Our President has asked for a clean bill. Let me talk about where the American people are. Once again, we find ourselves in a political season. And once again, we find ourselves debating and arguing about gun ownership in America. The second amendment is clear. Many who are strong advocates of that amendment believe it is extremely clear. We have heard over the last several days Senators with honest differences of opinion take to the Senate floor and claim their vows to represent the folks back in their home States. Let's take a few minutes to look at some of the relevant research from respected polling from the firm Zogby International. Zogby recently surveyed 1,200 voters nationwide on firearms issues. As a conservative, I don't view Zogby as a conservative pollster; some call him middle of the road, some call him middle left. I guess what I am saying is Zogby and his polling are largely respected by many across the country. The Zogby International group, working with the John Goodwin Tower Center for political science at Southern Methodist University, looked at and decided to poll in a unique way. They said: Let's examine the difference between the George Bush States in 2000, the red States, and the Al Gore States, the blue States. For the balance of my comment, think red and think blue and remember that map we saw after the last Presidential election when the vast majority of America was red except for a few blue strips along the west coast line and the east coast line. Here were the questions asked of 1,200 voters--not citizens, voters; those who said they voted in the last election--as to the attitude of Americans on firearms. They asked: Do you agree or disagree that American firearm manufacturers that sell a legal product which is not defective--meaning a quality product used for the intent of its manufacture--should be allowed to be sued if a criminal used their product in a crime. What are the answers? The answers are, there were enough laws on the books. In the Bush States, 69 percent agreed they should not be sued; in the Gore States, 63 percent agreed they should not be sued and they ought not be sued; military people in those States, 70 percent; veterans, 71 percent; nonmilitary, on the average 66 percent. A very strong majority of the American people made it very clear. The answer came back loudly, from every demographic group opposed to these kinds of lawsuits. That is why we have S. 1805 before the Senate. American minds are made up. These are junk and frivolous lawsuits. They ought not be filed. They also said a manufacturer of a product ought to be held liable if that product is defective, if it malfunctions, and if that defectiveness or that malfunction might create an injury. That is exactly what we continue to allow to happen. Opposition in the Bush States on that issue, 74 percent; while 72 percent of the voters in the Al Gore States voiced opposition. Interestingly, across the board those most strongly opposed to these lawsuits against the firearms industry are current members of the military and their family. Their opposition collectively measured at 83 percent. This is not from a conservative right-wing pollster. This is from Zogby himself. When certain gun organizations heard about this, they called the Zogby polling group and asked, Are these valid? The answer from Zogby: Yes, we ran them again. We were not so sure, and we believe they are accurate and valid. Which of the following two statements regarding gun control comes closer to your own opinion? Of course, those were the figures we showed in the first chart. There needs to be new and tougher gun law legislation to help fight against crime. That is what we are debating now in the Senate. That was question A: There are enough laws on the books. What is needed is better law enforcement of current laws regarding gun control, by a better than 2 to 1, 66 to 31. In essence, the American people are saying no new gun laws; we have plenty of them on the books. That is not about laws but going after criminals. That is common sense in America, and we never want to doubt the common sense of the average American when they are well informed about an issue or when they just suggest that somebody is playing politics with an issue and it really does not make any sense. Sixty-nine percent in the Bush States; 63 percent in the Gore States; and those numbers are extremely strong. So what are we saying? We are saying that moderates solidly favor better law enforcement--62 percent to 34 percent. They are saying: Leave the gun owner alone. Gun control laws do not work. Somehow, the American people have settled into understanding what most people understand, with common sense: If you do not use the laws to go after the criminal element in our country, if you try to blame their problem on somebody else or their malfunctioning in society, and you try to reach through and sue somebody else, the American people are saying: No, we don't go there anymore and we won't tolerate that. Those are the issues at hand. That is the underlying purpose for why we are here today debating S. 1805. We think it is fundamental to the American people to allow them to speak and say: Enough is enough; 30- plus lawsuits by municipalities or political jurisdictions, and 21 of them already thrown out of the courts. Our courts are now full of many of these. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent in defense of law- abiding manufacturers and licensed firearms dealers. It is time we say, no, if that third party is trying to be held unaccountable by going after somebody else who is a law-abiding, legitimate citizen. Let's return to old, historic, fundamental tort law. It is the individual who is responsible for their actions, not someone else. I think we were all taught that as a child. If we were not taught that by our parents, then I guess I have to say shame on our parents because that is pretty fundamental. You are responsible for your actions. If you misact, you might be punished for it. In society, if you misuse a gun, you ought to be punished for it instead of trying to pass it on to somebody else who is a law-abiding citizen playing by the rules that society has laid down and of which our Constitution so clearly speaks. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the gun show loophole bill now being introduced by Senator McCain and Senator Reed is before us for full debate at this moment. Let me talk for a few moments about this issue and what it is and what it is not, and what has been done and what has not been done. I believe some of the language used on the floor deserves to be clarified for the Members who might be looking in. The Senator from Rhode Island said yesterday that a good many States have already closed the loophole. I think he meant that 15 States have preexisting processes. Long before you go to a gun show, if in fact you are in the market to purchase a gun, you pick up a permit by which to purchase. States do backgrounds and have backgrounds and do that kind of thing. He did mention, though, North Carolina and spoke greatly about how North Carolina had closed the loophole, and then gun shows flourished. Well, numbers are not any different in the number of gun shows. North Carolina requires a handgun permit to purchase a handgun. So they do a check, a normal check, the kind you would normally do. You have to have that going in or coming out of a gun show to acquire from any activity, other than a one-on-one private sale. So to examine all of those issues, none of the States have the kind of regulatory structure that is being asked to be imposed on all gun shows in all States by the McCain-Reed gun show amendment. Clearly, what we have is an effort to create a blanket Federal policy across 1,000 gun shows, attended by millions of people annually, which is legal, responsible commerce. Well, it has also been argued that gun shows are now the venue by which terrorists acquire firearms. It is interesting that the reason they suggest that is because the terrorists who acquired a firearm through a gun show, or through a straw dealer who bought a firearm at a gun show, are arrested and in jail. Somehow the law must have worked. It did work because if you are an illegal alien in this country, you cannot acquire a firearm. If you are a felon, you cannot acquire a firearm. It catches up with you if you are a law breaker. In this instance, those they know of are three. There were three they can talk about. Does a purchase of three make the gun show venue a wide open market for terrorist activities? Absolutely not. It never has and it never will. What we know, what the statistics show from the Department of Justice, is that the reality would suggest there are possibly a couple of percentage points, 1.5, 2 percentage points, that we can actually understand as it relates to firearms obtained through gun shows, used in criminal activity. The Bureau of Justice Statistics is, I believe, by far the most reputable accumulator of this kind of information. They suggest that it has been a constant, all the way through, possibly about 1 percent. So that is the reality we deal with on this issue. Let me put forth another scenario. This is a question they cannot answer because they have set up a major, new tripwire for an individual. Let's say an individual goes to a gun show. He or she looks around and they find a particular gun in which they are interested. It is not being offered by a licensed Federal firearms dealer; it is being offered by a collector or an individual who bought a table and has two or three firearms to sell. He likes it. The dealer or the person says, take my card. So he takes his or her card and he goes home and talks to his spouse; the spouse says, you have enough guns, you don't need another gun. That conversation goes on for quite a while. Finally, they agree that maybe for the collection, or for whatever purpose this citizen would want to own that gun, that they will buy it. They call the fellow on the business card. The purchase goes about. Now, has that gun been purchased illegally? I do believe under the Reed-McCain amendment you have set up a major new tripwire for innocent, law-abiding citizens who, after the fact of a gun show, purchase the gun. It can be argued that it was outside the gun show, but the point of contact was inside the room, inside the organized gun show. What if 2 or 3 years later you realize that particular collector, who you met at the gun show and visited with and you saw his particular collection at the gun show, has that one firearm that you want to add to your collection? Does that point of contact, therefore, require, under Reed-McCain, a background check? I believe it is a phenomenally gray area and a critical area for an awful lot of law-abiding citizens who, once again, out of a desire to put up a law that doesn't work, when you create a Federal bureaucracy, you throw them into the middle of the bureaucracy when they in every way have been law-abiding citizens. I believe that is a phenomenal risk to place on our citizens, and that is exactly what we are doing--placing a risk on a citizen when we have never before said that this was a problem. The ATF did research a few years ago and found out that less than 2 percent--1.7 percent--of firearms involved in criminal activity came from a gun show and they said, oh, there is a loophole. If there is a loophole in a gun show, there is one outside of a gun show. The laws that pertain to every citizen outside the gun show today pertain inside the gun show as well. Yet McCain-Reed says that is not good enough. This is a special activity--1,000 legal activities that go on across our Nation a year, and millions of people attend them not just to acquire a gun but to get information, to collect, do all kinds of things you do at normal shows. So our Federal Government is going to decide to regulate one more activity of commerce out there in the free marketplace. Why? To set up a charade that hasn't worked and won't work any differently than it has outside the gun show. Let's stay with the laws we have. Let's go after the criminal element. Let's keep S. 1805 a clean bill so we can get it to the President for his signature. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Colorado. He has worked with us and has the concealed-carry bill we will be voting on later today.

Mr. CRAIG. I think the Senator sees it clearly, as I see it. That has established a very big gray area. Of course, if that weapon fell into the hands of a criminal who misused it, and if that trace came back, that is a field day for a lawyer inside a court saying, you bet, that contact was made, that sale was initiated at a gun show, when the scenario could have been just as the Senator explained it.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, would you notify me when I have used 5 minutes of my remaining time?

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, why are we on the floor today debating a law, not debating a proposed law? We are debating this law because some years ago, when the Congress put it in place, they said, let's sunset it to force Congress to come back and look at it to see whether or not it worked. Because at that time there was a concern and somebody sought a political placebo to go home to their constituents and say, look what I did for you to protect you and therefore the world is safer. But many of us said, wait a moment, let's watch the law and see if it works. Let's put a sunset in it and come back and revisit it. That is what we are doing today. In September of 2004, the assault weapons ban expires and the great debate is whether we ought to extend it for another period of time or whether we should not. The rationale to extend it is based on the fact it worked. If it is a good law in place, it ought to be extended. I think the argument today is, fundamentally, did it or did it not work? That is the business of statistics and polling and data. The Senator from California, who offered the extension, used tracing data. I am using data that has been put forward by the Justice Department. Let's compare the two. I am not saying the Senator from California's data is wrong. What she presented to the Congress, and to the Senate, is an accurate presentation. But let's put it into the context of how it was intended to be used because I don't believe it was intended to be used for this debate. What is tracing data from BATF? This is a phrase to remember when you are talking about tracing data: Not all crime guns are traced--period. Not all gun traces are of crime weapons. Not all traces are of crime weapons. For example, if you get a search warrant and you go into a house and you find firearms and the police department wants to know from whence they came, you do a trace. Were they used in the commission of a crime? No. In other words, it is an intelligence-gathering piece of information for the law enforcement community. In 1994, in the passage of the assault weapon ban, there was this bubble of public interest because there was a lot of accusation out there that semiautos and assault weapons were the common weapon of the criminal. A lot of traces were done during that period of time. It tapered off over time. So if you argue it worked, the law worked--it didn't. It was simply reassessing the value of the trace at that time and the need to trace. Back to the same premise: Not all crime guns are traced and not all gun traces are of crime guns. It is an information-gathering tool by BATF. Let's turn to this statistic. Let's turn to the 2 percent of semi- autos used in the commission of a crime pre-1991; same difference after the passage of the bill and the implementation of the bill. Where do my figures come from? My figures come from the Justice Department, from extensive surveys of criminals now in prison as to how they gained their gun, and through additional information and polling data; a different purpose and a different educational informational flow. The Senator from California, BATF, mine, the Justice Department--are they inaccurate? No. But, if you are really talking about a reason, a basis from which to extend the current law, and you look at this and some people stand on the floor and say, oh, you have to stop this because this is the weapon of choice of criminals and they are using it all the time, that simply is not true. Those facts do not bear out. That is not a valid basis from which to argue the extension of the semiauto ban. The Senator from California said ``all'' law enforcement--and she went through several. Many law enforcement groups have said: Extend it. Why? I guess it is logical. I will tell you one that didn't, though, the Western States Sheriffs' Association. The elected sheriffs of the Western States of this Nation, when the Brady Center brought them a resolution and said, here, we want you to pass this supporting the extension of the semiauto ban, they voted on it and voted it down by a very large margin. Why? They looked at the statistics and saw that this bill would have more to do with stopping law-abiding citizens from owning the gun of their choice and very little to do with the crime element. Let us return to the weapon that is the choice of the criminal. It is not packing around a rifle. Somehow they are just visible on the street. It is the handgun. It always has been the handgun. It is the choice, tragically enough, of most of the criminal element. Sure, there is a small percentage--less than 2 percent. Pictures have been shown graphically about the assault weapon and what it is. Well, what is a semiauto rifle? I went through that argument yesterday. A semiauto rifle, semiauto shotgun, a semiauto pistol is one that you pull shot by shot, trigger by trigger. You do not depress the trigger and rapid-fire your entire amount of ammunition within the weapon itself.

Mr. CRAIG. I thank you, Mr. President. I allot myself 2 more minutes.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar 381, S. 1637, at 10:30 a.m. on Wednesday, March 3, 2004.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now recess until 2:15 p.m. for the weekly party lunches.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we proceed with 2 minutes of debate prior to the vote. The Frist-Craig amendment is the pending amendment. I would like to close. I ask the Senator to proceed.

Mr. CRAIG. I yield back the remainder of my time and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 2, 2004, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to receive testimony on the Defense authorization request for Fiscal Year 2005 and the Future Years Defense Program.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 2, 2004, at 10 a.m., to consider the President's Proposed FY 2005 Budget for the Forest Service.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 2, 2004, at 9 a.m., to hold a hearing on foreign assistance oversight.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 2, 2004, at 3 p.m., to hold a hearing on North Korea.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 2, 2004, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on ``Review of Current Investigations and Regulatory Actions Regarding the Mutual Fund Industry.''

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 2, 2004, for a hearing on the final report of the Department of Veterans' Affairs Capital Asset Re-alignment for Enhanced Services (CARES) Commission. The hearing will take place in room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building at 2:15 p.m.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 2, 2004, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed business meeting.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Competition, Foreign Commerce, and Infrastructure be authorized to meet on The Rise of Obesity in Children on Tuesday, March 2, 2004, at 2:30 p.m. in SR-253.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Personnel of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 2, 2004, at 2:30 p.m. in open session to receive testimony on Active Component, Reserve Component and Civilian Personnel Programs, in review of the Defense Authorization Request for Fiscal Year 2005.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Subcommittee on Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services be authorized to meet for a hearing on Suicide Prevention and Youth: Saving Lives, during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 2, 2004, at 10 a.m.