Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet on Tuesday, April 1 at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing to consider the nominations of: Ricky Dale James to be a Member of the Mississippi River Commission; Rear Admiral Nicholas A. Prahl, NOAA, to be a Member of the Mississippi River Commission; and from Richard W. Moore, nominated to be Inspector General of the Tennessee Valley Authority; and other pending nominations. The meeting will be held in SD 406.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Tuesday, April 1, 2003, at 10 a.m., to hear testimony on Taxpayer Alert: Choosing a Paid Preparer and the Pitfalls of Charitable Car Donations.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Tuesday, April 1, 2003, at 12 p.m., to hear testimony on the Nominations of Mark Van Dyke Holmes, to be Judge of the United States Tax Court; Diane L. Kroupa, to be Judge of the United States Tax Court; Robert Allen Wherry, Jr., to be Judge of the United States Tax Court; and Harry A. Haines to be Judge of the U.S. Tax Court.

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, April 1, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., to hold a hearing on NATO. Witnesses Panel 1: ``A View From Brussels.'' The Honorable Nicholas R. Burns, U.S. Permanent Representative to North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Brussels, Belgium. 9:45: Business Meeting to ratify the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management. Panel 2: ``New Members & A Changing Alliance.'' Dr. Ronald D. Asmus, Senior Transatlantic Fellow, German Marshall Fund, Washington, DC; Mr. Bruce Jackson, President, Project on Transitional Democracies, Washington, DC. Full committee open: Senator Lugar will preside, March 31, 2003.

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, April 1, 2003, at 9:45 a.m., to hold a business meeting to ratify the ``Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management'' and on the ``Safety of Radioactive Waste Management,'' T. Doc. 106-48. The Committee will consider and vote on the following agenda item: Treaty: Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management, and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, T. Doc. 106-48.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a judicial nominations hearing on Tuesday, April 1, 2003, at 10 a.m., in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226. Panel I: The Honorable Bob Graham; The Honorable Bill Nelson; The Honorable Mary Landrieu; The Honorable Bill Frist. Panel II: Carolyn B. Kuhl, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit. Panel III: Cecilia M. Altonaga, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Florida; Patricia Head Minaldi, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Louisiana.

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 Tuesday, April 1, 2003 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing on Intelligence Matters.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support of the Armed Services Committee be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 1, 2003, at 9:00 a.m., in open session to continue to receive testimony on the impacts of environmental laws on readiness and the related administration legislative proposal in review of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 2004.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Seapower of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 1, 2003, at 2:30 p.m., in open session to receive testimony on Navy and Marine Corps development priorities, procurement priorities, and Navy shipbuilding programs, in review of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 2004 and the future years defense program. Witnesses Panel I: Admiral Vernon E. Clark, USN, Chief of Naval Operations; General Michael W. Hagee, USMC, Commandant of the Marine Corps. Panel II: The Honorable John J. Young, Jr., Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition; Vice Admiral Michael G. Mullen, USN, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Resources, Requirements, and Assessments.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, last week, the Washington Post saw fit to print an article entitled ``Many Willing, But Only A Few Are Able.'' Ostensibly about the U.S. and British-led force of the coalition now fighting in Iraq, the Post's article mocks the sovereign nations of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau--three of our country's most steadfast allies in the Western Pacific. This is both offensive and undeserved. As Chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee's subcommittee with responsibility for our relations with the freely associated states, I would like to set the record straight. In making this statement, I am speaking not only for myself but also on behalf of Senator Domenici, the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The citizens of these nations deserve better. The Post would have its readers believe that these Pacific islands are nothing more than banana republics. This is not the case. It is obvious to me and anyone familiar with the special relationship between our Nations that the Post is unaware of the islands' historical significance and continued role in our national defense. The Post's failure to learn the most basic facts about our allies is sloppy and irresponsible. These islands endured occupation by Japan under a League of Nation's Mandate and then saw some of the bloodiest fighting during World War II. It was the residents of these islands who endured the contests for Enewetak, Pelilieu, and Kwajalein. After the War, the islands were placed under the United Nations' Trusteeship system. The United States brought self-government and the development of political institutions. The Congress of Micronesia rejected both integration with the United States and independence in favor of sovereignty and free association and Congress overwhelmingly ratified the Compacts of Free Association. An important aspect of that relationship is the ability of citizens of the freely associated states to attend the United States military academies and serve in the United States Armed Services. As we speak, there are citizens of all three countries serving in Iraq in every branch of the U.S. military, ready to make the ultimate sacrifice. Marshallese citizens are fighting with the 101st Airborne Division and the Third Infantry Division, in harm's way and approaching Baghdad. The Federated States of Micronesia has hundreds of its people on active duty. Indeed, the son of the current President of Micronesia, Leo Falcam, is a Lieutenant Colonel with the U.S. Marines and commands an air squadron in Okinawa. Clearly, the Marshall Islands and Micronesia are contributing to the war effort. The Compact of Free Association has guided our relationship with these nations for nearly 20 years. During that time, these nations have been among our strongest allies in the United Nations and elsewhere. Their sons and daughters have known oppression and have volunteered to serve with our citizens to end despotism and terrorism. It is offensive to read articles like that published by the Washington Post that denigrate foreign nations and their citizens in an effort to ridicule President Bush and the administration. The Post conveniently forgets the outrages committed by Saddam Hussein against the Kurds and the people of Iraq and now chooses to insult good and decent people who have the courage to stand with the United States. As I said, I take issue with this article. So while the reporter and editor of the Post congratulate themselves on one more cheap and vulgar attack on the Administration, I would like to offer my apology to the thousands of citizens in our freely associated states. We owe them our gratitude for their commitment. The Post should be ashamed.

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Regular order.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, as our country faces imminent war with Iraq, and current events of the day may turn our attention overseas, it is essential to remember the ongoing battle that many of our young citizens face each day here at home. Our youth are the future of this Nation and must be protected. We not only value the young people of this country, but recognize that they are capable individuals and can take an active role in creating a healthier living situation. I come to the Senate floor today to talk about a tremendous initiative between the public and private sector that has been reaching out to youth for 20 years: Project Safe Place. I am pleased that the Senate unanimously adopted S. Res. 70, a resolution introduced by Senator Diane Feinstein and myself to designate the week of March 16, 2003, as National Safe Place Week, in recognition of this partnership. Over the past 20 years, Project Safe Place has acted as an outreach effort of the YMCA Center for Youth Alternatives--a short-term shelter for youth at risk. Nearly 64,000 young people have received help at over 12,200 designated Safe Place locations. Young people can easily recognize a safe place under a well-known symbol of safety for in- crisis youth. The success of the program, beginning in Louisville, KY, has prompted the implementation of this youth shelter outreach program in over 100 cities throughout the United States. Even though the program has already been established in 41 States across the country, there are still too many communities that don't know about this valuable youth resource. Safe Place is a nationally acclaimed program that is easily implemented in communities across the country. This program unites the business sector, volunteers, and youth service agencies in a community to provide temporary safe havens for youth in crisis. I urge all my colleagues: if your State does not already have a Safe Place organization, please consider facilitating this worthwhile resource so that young people who are abused, neglected, or whose futures are jeopardized by physical or emotional trauma will have access to immediate help and safety in their community. National Safe Place Week celebrates that outstanding program and honors the efforts of thousands of dedicated Safe Place volunteers who selflessly devote time and resources to protect our Nation's young people. I hope this commemoration helps to raise awareness of the number of troubled young people in our Nation and provides more youth and their families with the knowledge that help is often right in their own neighborhood.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I first ask unanimous consent I become a cosponsor of amendment No. 274.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the senior Senator from South Carolina on a sense-of-the-Senate amendment expressing that Congress well ought to act sooner rather than later in strengthening our Social Security Program for the long term, for the young men and women today who are beginning to invest in the system and who have grown increasingly to believe it will be unreliable and not there when they get to be of Social Security age. Why? The statistics have been talked about this morning, but here we are again. Year after year, trustee report after trustee report has been played out, spoken to, shown on the floor of the Senate. Hearings after hearings, month after month in our committee rooms, have given us the same message. Whether it is the junior or senior Senator from South Carolina, they both agree on the outcome. They may disagree on the reasons, but the trustees are always reflecting the graph or the chart that is so effectively displayed here. This comes directly from the Social Security trustee report of 2002 that we are speaking to this morning. Current retirees and those approaching retirement age are going to get their money. Why? Because Social Security in that sense is solvent. But what we are concerned about, and why we begin to express a degree of urgency about reform for Social Security, is that you do not reform Social Security today for tomorrow, you reform it today for 40 years down the road, or 50 years down the road. It is like an insurance account. We are the board of trustees responsible for establishing and sustaining its actuarial soundness so we do not have to dump large sums of general fund money into it at the last minute to keep it whole. I think all of us agree with the general understanding and the overlook that the trustees and the studies have shown. Social Security is solid today for our seniors. I am chairman of the Special Committee on Aging. We have spent a lot of time looking at this issue. Some folks take umbrage when they hear that Social Security will be broke. I don't know of anything that would express it differently than this bright red ink that would suggest at about 2020 it breaks beyond the black ink, or the break-even, and it heads into deficit. That is exactly what the junior Senator from South Carolina is talking about and what I am talking about. Last month, Alan Greenspan of the Federal Reserve was before our Subcommittee on Aging. He was not there to talk about interest rates. He was there to talk about global aging. He testified that the country faced ``abrupt and painful'' adjustments down the road as related to Social Security if we do not address it sooner rather than later. He simply meant that baby boomers were going to get cut. In essence, this is what is going to happen: I am a baby boomer. I am afraid my grandkids are going to say to me: Grandpa, we can't afford you anymore. We can't afford a huge bump in our taxes just to pay for your well- being. And I would not blame them, when we look at the kind of tax scale that will result if you stand here and say there is nothing required now and in the future to deal with this red ink, except leave the trust fund alone, and that in some magical, mythical way you can take it out of the general fund of the Treasury of the United States, and that you don't spend it, or at least you don't borrow it back to Government to spend on other programs until such time as it is necessary and on call and Government can afford to pay for it. Those are the issues at hand. That is what this resolution is about, to push us forward and into action in the near future, to make the kinds of adjustments that will assure my grandchildren that Social Security is going to be there for them and that grandpa isn't going to break them by demanding they keep Social Security whole, because he did not have the common sense and the good judgment to deal with it in the appropriate fashion. I hope I do have that common sense and good judgment. Certainly, the group that has been looking at it and the group that reports and talks about insolvency down the road and the need to adjust are doing a great service to this country. Last November, Peter Fisher, the Under Secretary of Treasury for Domestic Finance, compared the unfunded promises in Social Security and Medicare to those of a spendthrift insurance company unable to make good on its promises. When I asked Alan Greenspan, well, let's compare Social Security and Medicare and fixing it, he said: Frankly, Social Security is not that difficult. Why? Because you have real figures and exact numbers in a relative sense. You have demographic studies that project the number of people who will come online, and you can make the adjustments for it. Medicare is tied to a very dynamic health care system. It is growing and changing, and its costs will grow and change. It is a much more difficult task at hand, if you will, than that of us building up the backbone to deal with Social Security. To his credit, our President appointed the blue-ribbon panel to explore ways of addressing this challenge. The President's bipartisan commission to strengthen Social Security was cochaired by former Senator Pat Moynihan, our colleague and former Finance Committee chairman. He is an undisputed expert on Social Security, with unique bipartisan credibility. Now the President's bipartisan commission has come forward with three models to strengthen Social Security. Many of us are studying those models to determine what is the best way to reform not the politically possible, because we are going to have to convince ourselves and the public about reform--and that is what we are about to do, I hope--but what is the right way to reform Social Security, to create the dynamics 30 or 40 years down the road, to assure that young people who are now beginning to invest in it with their hard-earned tax dollars--their withheld dollars from their payroll--to assure that it will be there for them. This week, the trustees have done their job, and they have done it well. They have talked about it, and they have determined a status quo or do-nothing plan versus a variety of others. The do-nothing plan is what the trustees laid before us on Monday. And the do-nothing plan is the plan represented right here, in all of the bright red ink that is either displayed by my chart or by the chart of the Senator from North Dakota. I think my chart is prettier, but the charts are the same. Democrat or Republican, the figures don't lie, and we can't lie about them. We both agree that herein lies the problem. A dynamic economy--people working softens it, and that is what this tax cut is about, getting people back to work, putting money in the market, creating jobs. We are going to have to tighten our belt a little bit on the other side. We are going to have to quit spending at the rate we are spending while we are stimulating the economy and putting people back to work. That helps the bottom line and softens the deficit a little bit. But most economists agree, if you do not give a tax cut, and you continue to spend at the rate you are spending, you are going to have deficits for a long time to come. You can't cut your way out of them. You have to grow the economy and put some money back in the Treasury, and in doing that, for the short term, you strengthen Social Security. But this is what is true about the long term, and in the long term are people like me at 55, 50, 57 years of age. I am 57. And in a short time we are coming online--62, 65, 67 years of age, eligible for Social Security, being part of that baby boom generation, that tidal wave of people hitting the Social Security system. The Senator from North Dakota talked about the doubling of the numbers of recipients. That is what this red ink is all about. We need to create dynamics in the system, and change it, and assure that the right kind of investment is going in, that the right kind of energy and multipliers are at work there, to assure that not only is the system going to be there in the long term for me, but, most importantly, that the system is going to be there for the young people who are investing in it today. I am not alone in condemning the do-nothing plan.

Mr. CRAIG. If I could have an additional 2 minutes to wrap up.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding me the time. Whether it is former Senator Bob Kerrey, Democrat from Nebraska, whether it is former Senator Pat Moynihan, Democrat from New York, whether it is Republican Larry Craig of Idaho or Republican Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, the reality is, we all understand we must act now, sooner rather than later, to recreate, strengthen, and ensure the future for a Social Security system that is good for my grandkids to put their money in, that is a sound investment that will yield for them a reasonable supplemental income in their retirement years. I am not alone in condemning the do-nothing plan. Our former colleague, Senator Bob Kerrey, from Nebraska wrote a letter to another former colleague, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, from New York, on the eve of his assuming the cochairmanship of the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security. He wrote: Dear Pat, In that I have a great and abiding interest in your success on the 2001 Social Security Commission and that I am willing to provide free advice, I offer the following two suggestions: 1. Start talking about the details of the most popular plan in Washington to fix Social Security. . . . It is called the do-nothing plan. The do-nothing plan discloses no details. . . . Citizens who want to know the rest of the details must look to the Social Security Trustees who will tell them this: The do-nothing plan proposes to cut benefits 25 to 33 percent by 2043. 2. Wealth should have a goal. . . . Our goal is to eliminate poverty amongst eligible Social Security beneficiaries. By the way, the do-nothing plan will increase poverty rates. For every year we delay strengthening Social Security, it will only become more difficult to do. The challenge calling out to this generation in Congress is how to sustain Social Security beyond this generation of retirees without overburdening our children and grandchildren with excessive taxes on their labor or huge cuts in retirement income. It is not too late. We can still do the right thing. We can save Social Security by embracing the framework provided by the President's Commission and working to strengthen it soon. David Walker, the Comptroller at the General Accounting Office, testified just this January before the Aging Committee that we have: a, window of opportunity to craft a solution that will protect Social Security benefits for the nation's current and near-term retirees, while ensuring that the system will be there for future generations. We should embrace that window of opportunity for the sake of our children and grandchildren. As I said: Here we are again. The trustees are trying to get Congress and the public to face the future with confidence and action. The challenge for us is to respond. That is why the Aging Committee has been and will be holding hearings and briefings this year. We will continue to highlight the work of the--nonpartisan and bipartisan--General Accounting Office, the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security, the Congressional Research Service, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Social Security trustees. The call to action begins with understanding what the trustees have told us again this week. The consequences of the do-nothing plan will be devastating for today's workers and tomorrow's retirees. That is what the study was all about. That is what the commission has been about. That is what this amendment is all about. I thank the Senator from South Carolina for bringing forward this concurrent resolution, urging us forward now, to begin to act. Hopefully, by 2004, 2005, or 2006, we will have developed the political will to do the right thing for the Social Security system and its future. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Baucus in introducing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, on behalf of ourselves and more than half of our colleagues in the United States Senate: Senators Alexander, Allard, Allen, Bennett, Bond, Breaux, Brownback, Bunning, Burns, Campbell, Chambliss, Cochran, Coleman, Collins, Cornyn, Crapo, Dole, Domenici, Dorgan, Ensign, Enzi, Frist, Graham of South Carolina, Grassley, Gregg, Hagel, Hatch, Hutchison, Inhofe, Johnson, Kyl, Landrieu, Lincoln, Lott, McConnell, Miller, Murkowski, Nelson of Nebraska, Nickles, Reid, Roberts, Santorum, Sessions, Shelby, Smith, Specter, Stevens, Sununu, Talent, and Thomas. This is an extraordinary showing of support for a bill, and I believe it is a testament to the gravity of the threat addressed by the legislation: the abuse of our courts through lawsuits filed to force law-abiding businesses to pay for criminal acts by individuals beyond their control. The businesses I am talking about are collectively known as the U.S. firearms industry. The lawsuits in question claim that even though these businesses comply with all laws and sell a legitimate product, they should be responsible for the misuse or illegal use of the firearm by a criminal. These actions are pursued with the intent of driving this industry out of business, regardless of the thousands of jobs that would be lost in the process and the impact on citizens across the Nation who would never contemplate committing a crime with a gun. Let me be clear about this. These lawsuits are not brought by individuals seeking relief for injuries done to them by anyone in the industry. Instead, this is a politically-inspired initiative trying to force social goals through an end-run around the Congress and state legislatures. The theory on which these lawsuits are based would be laughable, if it weren't so dangerous: to pin the responsibility for a criminal act on an innocent party who wasn't there and had nothing to do with it. They argue that merely by virtue of the fact that a gun was present, those who were part of the commercial distribution chain should be held responsible for the gun's misuse. This isn't a legal theory--it's just the latest twist in the gun controllers' notion that it's the gun, and not the criminal, that causes crime. The truth of the matter is that there are millions of firearms in this country today, yet only a tiny fraction of them have ever been used in the commission of a crime. The truth of the matter is that again and again, law-abiding firearm owners are using their guns, often without even firing a shot, to defend life and property. The truth of the matter is that the intent of the user, not the gun, is what determines whether that gun will be used in a crime. The trend of abusive litigation targeting the firearms industry not only defies common sense and concepts of fundamental fairness, but it would do nothing to curb criminal gun violence. Furthermore, the burdens it seeks to impose would jeopardize Americans' constitutionally-protected access to firearms for self defense and other lawful uses. The bill that more than half of the United States Senate has already endorsed is a measured response that would put a stop to this abusive trend without endangering legitimate claims for relief. Let me emphasize that it does not insulate the firearms industry from all lawsuits or deprive legitimate victims of their day in court, as some critics have charged. Indeed, it specifically provides that actions based on the wrongful conduct of those involved in the business of manufacturing and selling firearms--breaches of contract, defects in firearms, negligent entrustment, criminal behavior--would not be affected by this legislation. It is solely directed at stopping frivolous, politically-driven litigation against law-abiding individuals for the misbehavior of criminals over whom they had no control. The courts of our Nation are supposed to be forums for resolving controversies between citizens and providing relief where warranted, not a mechanism for achieving political ends that are rejected by the people's representatives in Congress and the state legislatures. I hope all our colleagues will join us in taking a measured, principled stand against this abusive litigation by supporting the Protection of Lawful Commerce In Arms Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Baucus in introducing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, on behalf of ourselves and more than half of our colleagues in the United States Senate: Senators Alexander, Allard, Allen, Bennett, Bond, Breaux, Brownback, Bunning, Burns, Campbell, Chambliss, Cochran, Coleman, Collins, Cornyn, Crapo, Dole, Domenici, Dorgan, Ensign, Enzi, Frist, Graham of South Carolina, Grassley, Gregg, Hagel, Hatch, Hutchison, Inhofe, Johnson, Kyl, Landrieu, Lincoln, Lott, McConnell, Miller, Murkowski, Nelson of Nebraska, Nickles, Reid, Roberts, Santorum, Sessions, Shelby, Smith, Specter, Stevens, Sununu, Talent, and Thomas. This is an extraordinary showing of support for a bill, and I believe it is a testament to the gravity of the threat addressed by the legislation: the abuse of our courts through lawsuits filed to force law-abiding businesses to pay for criminal acts by individuals beyond their control. The businesses I am talking about are collectively known as the U.S. firearms industry. The lawsuits in question claim that even though these businesses comply with all laws and sell a legitimate product, they should be responsible for the misuse or illegal use of the firearm by a criminal. These actions are pursued with the intent of driving this industry out of business, regardless of the thousands of jobs that would be lost in the process and the impact on citizens across the Nation who would never contemplate committing a crime with a gun. Let me be clear about this. These lawsuits are not brought by individuals seeking relief for injuries done to them by anyone in the industry. Instead, this is a politically-inspired initiative trying to force social goals through an end-run around the Congress and state legislatures. The theory on which these lawsuits are based would be laughable, if it weren't so dangerous: to pin the responsibility for a criminal act on an innocent party who wasn't there and had nothing to do with it. They argue that merely by virtue of the fact that a gun was present, those who were part of the commercial distribution chain should be held responsible for the gun's misuse. This isn't a legal theory--it's just the latest twist in the gun controllers' notion that it's the gun, and not the criminal, that causes crime. The truth of the matter is that there are millions of firearms in this country today, yet only a tiny fraction of them have ever been used in the commission of a crime. The truth of the matter is that again and again, law-abiding firearm owners are using their guns, often without even firing a shot, to defend life and property. The truth of the matter is that the intent of the user, not the gun, is what determines whether that gun will be used in a crime. The trend of abusive litigation targeting the firearms industry not only defies common sense and concepts of fundamental fairness, but it would do nothing to curb criminal gun violence. Furthermore, the burdens it seeks to impose would jeopardize Americans' constitutionally-protected access to firearms for self defense and other lawful uses. The bill that more than half of the United States Senate has already endorsed is a measured response that would put a stop to this abusive trend without endangering legitimate claims for relief. Let me emphasize that it does not insulate the firearms industry from all lawsuits or deprive legitimate victims of their day in court, as some critics have charged. Indeed, it specifically provides that actions based on the wrongful conduct of those involved in the business of manufacturing and selling firearms--breaches of contract, defects in firearms, negligent entrustment, criminal behavior--would not be affected by this legislation. It is solely directed at stopping frivolous, politically-driven litigation against law-abiding individuals for the misbehavior of criminals over whom they had no control. The courts of our Nation are supposed to be forums for resolving controversies between citizens and providing relief where warranted, not a mechanism for achieving political ends that are rejected by the people's representatives in Congress and the state legislatures. I hope all our colleagues will join us in taking a measured, principled stand against this abusive litigation by supporting the Protection of Lawful Commerce In Arms Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill I am introducing today, on medical nutrition therapy, be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, March 26, at 10 a.m. in Room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony regarding the issues uncovered as a result of the Blue Ribbon Panel's findings on Aerial Fire Fighting Safety and to learn what the agencies are doing to respond to the recommendation of that report. (Contact: Frank Gladics 202-224-2878 or Jared Stubbs at 202-224-7556). Because of the limited time available for the hearings, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I am here in the Chamber this afternoon to speak to the nomination of Jay Bybee of Nevada to the Ninth Circuit Court. I call it the Ninth Circuit Court of Western States. I know the State of the Presiding Officer is part of the Ninth Circuit, as is my State of Idaho. It is a circuit that has caused us great frustration over the last good number of years as many of its cases have been overturned. In fact, just this term, the Supreme Court in one day overturned three cases or reversed three cases of the Ninth Circuit. Some call it the most dysfunctional court of the land. I believe it to be that. Idahoans are extremely frustrated when a San Francisco- oriented judge makes a decision on an Idaho resource matter that is so totally out of context with our State and the character of our State and her people that Idahoans grow angry. That is why it is not unusual that I and others over the years have offered legislation to divide the Ninth Circuit. That has been spoken to on more than one occasion in this Chamber, and it will be again this year. I and my colleagues from Idaho are supportive of that kind of legislation, and it is that kind of legislation the Presiding Officer has just introduced: to change the character of this court to be more reflective of the broad scope of its authority than just to have, if you will, California judges making decisions for Idaho, Washington, Oregon, Alaska, and other States. It is the largest court in the land, and it is a court that clearly needs our attention. It begs for our attention. The outcry in my State and in other States, such as Alaska, demands it. But today we have an opportunity to improve it, and that is to confirm Jay S. Bybee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. I am confident the Senate will consent to the appointment of Professor Bybee, who enjoys bipartisan support and, in these current times as we debate judges in this Chamber, bipartisan support is in itself unique. That must speak to the uniqueness of this individual. A review of Professor Bybee's credentials demonstrates he is, as the American Bar Association has concluded, a highly qualified person for this position. Professor Bybee's education, his private legal career, his work as a law professor, and his extensive Government service, have prepared him well to serve as a circuit judge. Let me briefly review his background. Professor Bybee received a BA magna cum laude and with highest honors in economics from Brigham Young University. He also attended the J. Reuben Clark Law School at BYU, graduating cum laude. I also note he was an editor of the BYU Law Review. Those are high credentials from a very well-qualified, recognized law school. Following his graduation from law school, Professor Bybee clerked for Judge Donald Russell of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and then was engaged in private practice of law at the distinguished firm of Sidley & Austin. There he handled regulatory and antitrust matters, including civil litigation in Federal courts and administrative law matters before the Interstate Commerce Commission. Professor Bybee began his career in public service first as an attorney in the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Policy, then as an attorney on the appellate staff at the Civil Division. During this period, he worked on a variety of departmental issues and judicial selections, was the principal author of the Government's briefs in more than 25 cases, and argued cases before a number of Federal circuits. Professor Bybee also served as an associate counsel, as the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, mentioned, to George H. W. Bush. Professor Bybee has had an excellent career as a law professor, beginning at the Paul M. Hebert Law Center at Louisiana State University. He is a founding faculty member at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas William S. Boyd School of Law. As an accomplished scholar in the areas of administrative and constitutional law, Professor Bybee has taught courses in civil procedure, constitutional law, administrative law, and seminars on religious liberty and the separation of powers. My colleague from Nevada was talking about his phenomenal knowledge of the Constitution and its authority and responsibility and our responsibility to it as we craft law. He has a distinguished record in publications in a phenomenal variety of legal areas. Professor Bybee presently serves as an Assistant Attorney General, heading the Office of Legal Counsel at the U.S. Department of Justice. Supervising a staff of attorneys, Professor Bybee has the principal responsibility for providing legal advice to the Attorney General on constitutional, statutory, and regulatory questions. In addition, the office reviews orders to be issued by the President or the Attorney General for form and legality. The Office of Legal Counsel also advises the President and the executive branch agencies on constitutional and statutory matters. It is clear from his educational record, his private practice, his outstanding credentials as a law professor, and his distinguished career in public service that Professor Bybee is well qualified to serve on the Ninth Circuit and will be an outstanding judge. In fact, I am quite confident he will lift the quality of that court in its decisions substantially. Professor Bybee comes highly recommended. As a result of that, clearly he brings distinguished service to an area that cries out for the need of astute minds. As Senator Hatch mentioned, one of his supporters is William Marshall, Professor of Law at the University of North Carolina. I note that Professor Marshall worked in the Clinton administration as Deputy Counsel to the President and in the Justice Department reviewing judicial nominees. In Professor Marshall's letter in support of Professor Bybee, he writes: He-- meaning Professor Bybee-- is an extremely impressive person. To begin with, he is a remarkable scholar. . . . I think what I have said and the record I have spoken to clearly exemplifies that. I believe him to be one of the most learned and respected constitutional law experts in the country. He is also an individual with exceptional personal qualities. I have always been struck by the balance that he brings to his legal analysis and the sense of respect and deference that he applies to everybody he encounters--including those who may disagree with him. He is someone who truly hears and considers opposing positions. Most importantly, he is a person who adheres to the highest of ethical standards. I respect his integrity and trust his judgment. That is a quote from the letter of William Marshall, Professor of Law, University of North Carolina. That endorsement rings loud in these Halls as it speaks well to the person who is before us today. Other letters of support from law professors with whom he worked and associates throughout the Nation speak highly of Professor Bybee. They note his personal integrity, his professional ability, his clear and thoughtful scholarship, and his exemplary personal qualities. Even those who disagree with him politically are impressed with Professor Bybee and strongly support his nomination. That is the record. The record is clear. I am pleased that we see the kind of bipartisan support that most judicial nominees who come to this floor deserve. I support his nomination. He brings integrity and quality of mind to decisionmaking and judgment to the Ninth Circuit Court, a court of which my State of Idaho is a part. I strongly endorse Professor Bybee. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, there should be no doubt that energy is vital to our economy and that it contributes to our wealth and strength as a nation. While it is true that human intelligence, a skilled workforce, and the human spirit are essential to our economy and to our future, without useable energy, these virtues are not, of themselves, tools to make a physical difference. As we look out decades and centuries into the future, determining whether we will have enough energy and finding the sources from which we will get it are extremely important endeavors. Will we get our energy from oil or from coal? Will it come from solar collectors and wind farms? Will it come from nuclear fission? I submit that the answer we work to provide to this question today will have a profound effect on the future quality of life for our children and grandchildren. This is part of the reason why energy policy is so controversial. It is because the stakes are so high. Although fossil fuels will last for many decades yet--perhaps centuries--the reality is that we must begin to plan for the time when fossil fuels might not be so plentiful. Taken together, fossil fuels provide us with well over 70 percent of the energy we consume in this country. Much of that energy is imported. When you take oil, coal and natural gas out of the equation, what are our options for the long term future? The significant potential contributors to our energy picture that are not fossil fuels are likely to be nuclear, hydropower, renewables such as solar, wind and geothermal, and fusion energy. We must pursue all of these options as if our future depended on it, because it does. It is in this context, that I want to focus my colleagues' attention today on the subject of fusion energy. Fusion energy is the power of the sun and the stars and has been the subject of a decades-long research effort in the United States and around the world. The bad news is that the ultimate goal of practical fusion energy here on earth has proven to be far more difficult than the early pioneers of fusion research ever envisioned. But the good news is that there has been fantastic progress in the past decade, to the point where now there is almost no doubt that large excess amounts of fusion energy can be created in the laboratory. The question is: Can fusion energy be made practical and affordable? When proven practical, fusion will be capable of producing huge amounts of base-load energy for our cities and our economy with no air or water pollution. Its fuel is virtually inexhaustible. It cannot blow up or melt down. Perhaps most tantalizingly, given our present circumstances, no nation or region will have a monopoly because everyone will have the fuel--a common component of water. I am very proud today to stand with my good friend from California, Senator Feinstein and introduce the Fusion Development Act of 2003. The Fusion Development Act of 2003 is meant to hasten the day when we can answer the question of practical and affordable fusion energy in the affirmative. Last month, President Bush announced that the United States would be joining international negotiations on a major next step experiment on the road to fusion energy, known as the ITER project. One of the primary purposes of this bill is to authorize the Secretary of Energy to participate fully in this international magnetic fusion burning plasma experiment called ITER. ITER is intended to establish once and for all that magnetically- controlled fusion energy reactions can produce power plant-sized amounts of fusion energy and establish the scientific basis for doing so. Further, ITER will demonstrate some of the technologies necessary to construct a fusion power plant such as large superconducting magnets and plasma control systems. ITER will be an international science experiment of a scale and importance second to none. The siting and financing of ITER are currently being negotiated between Europe, Japan, Russia, Canada and China. This bill will help give the Administration the license it needs to move forward and stake out a good place at the table of the ITER experiment. The importance of the ITER experiment dictates that the United States must have a strong position as the project moves forward. In addition, our bill sets as a goal that the United States should develop the scientific, engineering and commercial infrastructure necessary to be competitive with other nations in this new frontier of energy. In this regard, it requires the Secretary of Energy to submit to Congress a plan to strengthen our existing fusion research efforts and to address the critically important issues of fusion materials and technology. I ask that my colleagues devote their time to the extraordinarily important subject of our present and future energy supply. The deeper one delves into this subject, the more self-evident it becomes that fusion is a must-have technology for the future. The bill we are introducing today will help bring us closer to the time when energy is less of a global political issue and energy production has minimal impact on our natural environment. Fusion is an important part of this vision and this goal. I therefore urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, there should be no doubt that energy is vital to our economy and that it contributes to our wealth and strength as a nation. While it is true that human intelligence, a skilled workforce, and the human spirit are essential to our economy and to our future, without useable energy, these virtues are not, of themselves, tools to make a physical difference. As we look out decades and centuries into the future, determining whether we will have enough energy and finding the sources from which we will get it are extremely important endeavors. Will we get our energy from oil or from coal? Will it come from solar collectors and wind farms? Will it come from nuclear fission? I submit that the answer we work to provide to this question today will have a profound effect on the future quality of life for our children and grandchildren. This is part of the reason why energy policy is so controversial. It is because the stakes are so high. Although fossil fuels will last for many decades yet--perhaps centuries--the reality is that we must begin to plan for the time when fossil fuels might not be so plentiful. Taken together, fossil fuels provide us with well over 70 percent of the energy we consume in this country. Much of that energy is imported. When you take oil, coal and natural gas out of the equation, what are our options for the long term future? The significant potential contributors to our energy picture that are not fossil fuels are likely to be nuclear, hydropower, renewables such as solar, wind and geothermal, and fusion energy. We must pursue all of these options as if our future depended on it, because it does. It is in this context, that I want to focus my colleagues' attention today on the subject of fusion energy. Fusion energy is the power of the sun and the stars and has been the subject of a decades-long research effort in the United States and around the world. The bad news is that the ultimate goal of practical fusion energy here on earth has proven to be far more difficult than the early pioneers of fusion research ever envisioned. But the good news is that there has been fantastic progress in the past decade, to the point where now there is almost no doubt that large excess amounts of fusion energy can be created in the laboratory. The question is: Can fusion energy be made practical and affordable? When proven practical, fusion will be capable of producing huge amounts of base-load energy for our cities and our economy with no air or water pollution. Its fuel is virtually inexhaustible. It cannot blow up or melt down. Perhaps most tantalizingly, given our present circumstances, no nation or region will have a monopoly because everyone will have the fuel--a common component of water. I am very proud today to stand with my good friend from California, Senator Feinstein and introduce the Fusion Development Act of 2003. The Fusion Development Act of 2003 is meant to hasten the day when we can answer the question of practical and affordable fusion energy in the affirmative. Last month, President Bush announced that the United States would be joining international negotiations on a major next step experiment on the road to fusion energy, known as the ITER project. One of the primary purposes of this bill is to authorize the Secretary of Energy to participate fully in this international magnetic fusion burning plasma experiment called ITER. ITER is intended to establish once and for all that magnetically- controlled fusion energy reactions can produce power plant-sized amounts of fusion energy and establish the scientific basis for doing so. Further, ITER will demonstrate some of the technologies necessary to construct a fusion power plant such as large superconducting magnets and plasma control systems. ITER will be an international science experiment of a scale and importance second to none. The siting and financing of ITER are currently being negotiated between Europe, Japan, Russia, Canada and China. This bill will help give the Administration the license it needs to move forward and stake out a good place at the table of the ITER experiment. The importance of the ITER experiment dictates that the United States must have a strong position as the project moves forward. In addition, our bill sets as a goal that the United States should develop the scientific, engineering and commercial infrastructure necessary to be competitive with other nations in this new frontier of energy. In this regard, it requires the Secretary of Energy to submit to Congress a plan to strengthen our existing fusion research efforts and to address the critically important issues of fusion materials and technology. I ask that my colleagues devote their time to the extraordinarily important subject of our present and future energy supply. The deeper one delves into this subject, the more self-evident it becomes that fusion is a must-have technology for the future. The bill we are introducing today will help bring us closer to the time when energy is less of a global political issue and energy production has minimal impact on our natural environment. Fusion is an important part of this vision and this goal. I therefore urge my colleagues to support this legislation.