Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Texas.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the Senator from New York brings an amendment to this Chamber--certainly, I think, with the most sincere of intent--to set aside $15 million; in other words, to mandate the gun surrender program that just a few weeks ago the Bush administration announced it was terminating, largely because it does not work. So what I thought I would do, for the next few moments, is sketch for us the facts about gun surrender programs over the last several years and why they do not work. As we know, there is no mandate in the law. President Clinton and Secretary Cuomo changed the description of the Public Housing Drug Elimination Program to allow public housing authorities to make grants available for gun surrender initiatives. It is interesting that of the 1,000 housing authorities this change affected, only about 100 took advantage of the program. There is a peculiar reason they took advantage of the program. Very early on, starting back in 1978, it became obvious gun surrender programs were a great photo opportunity for local law enforcement and, in some instances, certain housing agencies or groups. Never mind that they did nothing to deter crime. In fact, they were not taking off the streets guns being used in crimes. It was an opportunity to get rid of some old guns, some antiques, something that filled your closet that your granddad had given you that might not be worth anything and you wanted to get rid of any way; and you did not know how to get rid of it; and along came local law enforcement that said: ``We are going to have a gun surrender program.'' So you take a gun down to the police station and get $50 or $100 or $150 for it. The guns turned in belonged to people who least likely were involved in the commission of a crime. For example, senior citizens and spouses who had inherited guns that may have been their husbands' who had passed away were the ones most often who came to sell their guns. Some guns turned in were the cheap handguns purchased, as the Senator from Missouri mentioned, for the express purpose of selling them: You go out on the street and buy a gun for $15 or $20 and sell it for $100. Hey, let me tell you, folks are not stupid, they are going to play an advantage if they can find one, and in many instances they did. So let me give you a little history. In 1978, when we first saw gun buyback programs, overall crime was not significantly reduced in the 17-month period following the gun buyback program in Baltimore, MD. I believe that was the first one, in 1978. Who reports that? The Comptroller General of the United States. Then we look at the 1992 Seattle gun surrender program. It too failed. It did not reduce gun injuries, deaths, or crimes. It didn't save anyone from being victimized by crime. But it made for a great photo opportunity. In 1996, the program that collected the greatest number of guns, as was mentioned, was the Baltimore program. Yet the rate of gun killings rose 50 percent and gun assaults more than doubled while the program was in effect. This was the largest gun surrender program ever implemented, in terms of the number of guns purchased. Gun deaths shot up 50 percent. And assaults more than doubled. If you want politics and you want publicity, then gun surrender programs are great. You can show tables covered with 15- or 20-year-old guns that would never have been used in the commission of a crime. It is a great photo op. In 1998, according to the National Institute of Justice looked at various crime fighting measures and asked, ``What doesn't work?'' Their answer? Gun surrender programs. They failed to reduce violent crime in even two more cities: St. Louis, and Seattle. Many of us who live part time in this city saw the publicity that went on and the very good-faith effort the Washington, DC, police made in 1999 with their gun surrender program. More than half of the 2,912 weapons bought by the District of Columbia police for $100 were 15 years of age or older, according to the District of Columbia police themselves. The Senator from New York knows as well as I do that guns used in crimes are typically 9-millimeter or .38 caliber semiautomatic pistols. Those are the ones most often cited in crime reports that are used in the commission of a crime. Such are not the guns collected by these programs. Gun surrender programs don't work. That is why the Bush administration--the President, HUD Secretary Martinez--came forward and said: This is a bad use of scarce resources. If we are interested in making public housing safer--and we are--if we are interested in getting drugs out of public housing--and we are--then the $15 million the Senator from New York would waste on photo opportunities would better be used in law enforcement efforts within public housing and elsewhere. What the Senator from Missouri, the ranking member of the appropriations subcommittee, has said is that within the current law, it is an option. In other words, if a housing agency wants to divert some of its funds for a gun buyback, they can do so. But the reason none of them do it is because they know it doesn't work. They know that funds are limited, and they know that they can use their money elsewhere to more effectively improve the safety of the citizens who live within those housing units and the community at large. That is why gun surrender programs are on the wane today, are no longer popular, unless you are interested in a photo op. The facts are out there. They don't work. In many instances, unless you have good law enforcement on the street and you have let the criminal know that if he uses a gun in the commission of a crime he is going to have to do time, then the use of guns in the commission of a crime goes up. It has been proven in Baltimore. It is clearly true in Seattle. I don't think it changed the statistics in Washington, DC. We did get a lot of old guns and some antiques out of the closets of law-abiding citizens because it was a way for them to market them, in some instances, for a great deal more than they might otherwise have gotten for them. With that, I yield the floor and retain the remainder of our time.

Mr. CRAIG. I ask the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee on VA-HUD if that flexibility exists within the law. Does the chairman know that?

Mr. CRAIG. We have the chairman of the subcommittee on the floor. I have not read the specifics of the provision within the appropriation. But I was told by the ranking member that housing authorities, under this current legislation, have the option, if they choose, to do a gun buyback. Is that accurate or inaccurate? I don't want to misstate the reality of the legislation.

Mr. CRAIG. I am happy to yield.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will use such time as I might consume within our time limitation. I, too, enjoy engaging my colleague from New York on this issue. The Senator from New York, as I said while he was not on the floor, does, I think, bring this amendment with good intent. He has been an outspoken advocate of gun control and wants to eliminate crime in which guns are used. I certainly want to eliminate guns crime. We all do. Let me suggest to you today that while the Senator from New York might like to engage me in a theological debate, this isn't one. This debate is over $15 million and how it can best be used in housing authorities to combat crime and drug use. The committee has worked its will. They have said it is an option. If you want to do a gun surrender program, it is an option but it is not mandatory. Let me tell you one reason why. I think the Senator from New York would find this an interesting fact because it comes from New York City. If I may have the attention of the Senator from New York, I found this a fascinating problem because what is happening out there is that somebody is gaming a bad program.

Mr. CRAIG. That is all I need to have.

Mr. CRAIG. On your time only.

Mr. CRAIG. I yield back the remainder of my time, and I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. I understand that is within the unanimous consent time sequence that has already been established.

Mr. CRAIG. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CRAIG. I move to table the amendment for the vote at that time.

Mr. CRAIG. I would like to thank the Senators Harkin and Lugar for their efforts and leadership on this issue. I look forward to working with my colleagues to find an agreement that is acceptable to all parties on pesticide fees.

Mr. CRAIG. I would like to commend Senators Harkin and Lugar for their work in the Agriculture Committee on pesticide fees. As they and my colleagues know, the legal authorization for the collection of fees from pesticide manufacturers soon expires. The expiration of the so-called maintenance fee authorization will mean that EPA will face a significant funding shortfall as it attempts to implement FQPA. There has been a widespread consensus in Congress to prevent the tolerance fee rule from taking effect. We have postponed the rule for 2 consecutive years, and another year postponement is included in this bill, as well as the House's version. I would urge the Senate to follow the House's action and reauthorize maintenance fees at $20 million for fiscal year 2002. I would hope this is the first year of a multi-year fix. This would help maintain the critical base funding necessary to ensure that FQPA protections for public health are realized.

Mr. CRAIG. Again, I commend my colleague for bringing this matter to our attention. It is my understanding that this additional money could be used by EPA in a collaborative way between industry and the environmental community to strengthen EPA's information and assessment techniques. Better data, with enhanced methods to evaluate potential pesticide exposures, will result in more accurate and scientifically sound risk assessments, thereby contributing to better quality decisions by EPA. I look forward to working with my colleague from Iowa to include these funds in the final conference report.

Mr. CRAIG. I wanted to commend the Senator for bringing this matter to the attention of the Senate. It is my understanding that, in the last few years, over half of the applications received by EPA for new pesticides are for reduced risk, safer products. In addition, there is a commitment by everyone, environmental groups, industry, farmers, and others, that it is important to review the older pesticides to ensure they meet today's higher health and safety standards. Given that some of the older pesticides have had their uses adjusted as a result of FQPA, this additional money will help ensure that our farmers have a complete tool box to control the pests that threaten our agriculture. It will help bring new, cost-effective products to market and will help provide adequate alternatives for farmers. It also helps ensure that farmers have the tools they need to continue to provide a safe and abundant supply of food. I want to express my support for these additional funds as well.

Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator from Iowa yield?

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that some articles and some of those terrible statistics from different gun buyback programs be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG. Yes. Therefore, the statement I made was accurate. I said that within the law there is an option to use the money, if an authority wishes to, for the purpose of a gun buyback. Is that an inaccurate statement?

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, may I inquire how much time remains for both sides on the Schumer amendment?

Mr. CRAIG. Could you repeat that? The sponsor has how much time?

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will now speak on the Schumer amendment, and I will use such time as I might consume on that amendment.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I thank the majority leader for his willingness to move a large number of nominees forward and to work with Senator Nickles also and Senator Reid to bring us the number we have today. I trust that some can move tomorrow out of committee, and possibly by Friday we will even advance a good many more. But I must tell you that there are others hanging in committee-- some that have been there since April and May. I must tell you that I was very frustrated when the chairman of the Judiciary Committee asked about one nominee in particular and said we might get to him sometime next year. I do not know how to read that statement. But I will tell you, if I read it the way I thought it was intended, that is unacceptable. He has not had a hearing. And I know the chairman of the Judiciary Committee talked about the frustration of timing. But he has been before the committee since May 24. Things change around here substantially. All of us know that and accept that. But to suggest that we will not get to one of our President's important nominees for 1 year nearly after he is nominated, if that were to happen, September is going to be a pretty difficult month around here for all of us. I don't say that as a threat. I don't threaten. We know that. We don't do that in the Senate. But we cannot accept those kinds of statements coming from key chairmen of committees who have a responsibility to deal in a timely fashion with these nominees. If there is a problem, have the hearing, bring him out and vote him down. But don't suggest to him or to the administration that sometime next year we will have this happen. I was inclined to object. But thanks to Senator Nickles and also Senator Reid, and the work done here and the majority leader's willingness to advance it, I will not. But there are other opportunities. There is a very clear timeline to get an awful lot of work done in the Senate. I hope I am sending a message to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee that those kinds of statements and those kinds of actions cannot stand. Most importantly, if he chooses that, then vote him down and tell the administration that they have picked the wrong person--or people--and there are other nominees or someone who is more acceptable to that chairman and to the committee and to the Senate as a whole. As you know, I talked to the leader about the pure human side of this. People need to move their kids by August to get them in school. I think the majority leader has been sensitive to that. I mean that most sincerely, because the majority leader is moving a large number now, and that will allow them time to do what they need to do in the human sense. But it will be a real tragedy, if this Senate becomes part of a limiting factor on any administration's ability to bring together its team and execute the responsibility of the executive branch. I have spoken enough. I think my feelings are very clear. I must tell you that there will be an increasingly concerted effort, if those kinds of remarks and actions that follow are ones that will not move nominees, or give them their day, or vote them down and move on so we can fill these very important decisionmaking positions for our Government. I will not object. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, will the leader yield?

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, let me first thank my colleagues, Senators Murkowski, Hagel, and Domenici, for their work on this very important legislation. I enjoyed working with them and their staffs on this analytically complex issue. The results of our patience and hard work are two companion pieces of legislation that will provide the underpinning for a path forward on the climate change issue that will meet the nation's and global needs for economic progress, while ensuring our nation's energy and national security. In addition, it will provide a sound basis for productive engagement with our friends and allies that share the same needs. The first bill is the Climate Change Tax Amendments of 2001 which is essentially the same as S. 1777 that I introduced in the 106th Congress. This bill is an important element of the approach we should take as a nation because current U.S. tax policy treats capital formation--including investments that can increase energy efficiency and reduce emissions--harshly compared with other industrialized countries and our own recent past. Slower capital cost recovery means that facilities deploying new advanced technology will not be put in place as quickly, if at all. Based on our current understanding of the science available on climate change, I remain convinced that it is still premature for our government to mandate stringent controls on carbon dioxide emissions and pick winners and losers in technology. This bill assures that there will be a true partnership between tax policy and technology innovation in both research and deployment. Although the science of climate change has progressed rather dramatically over the last five years, many trenchant questions remain about what is happening to our climate system. However, the climate change issue is at a crossroads. We can and must make decisions on how to proceed. The bills introduced today ensure a more focused and coordinated effort to understand the outstanding and formidable scientific issues associated with climate change. While pursuing answers to those questions, the bills also create a comprehensive and systematic program to achieve the goals of reducing, avoiding, or sequesting greenhouse gas emissions. That program is manifest in both the technological research and development effort authorized in the Risk Management bill and a comprehensive and systematic approach that aggressively encourages voluntary actions to reduce, avoid, or sequester greenhouse gas emissions. To bolster and strengthen the voluntary action program we have proposed tax incentives in the companion Tax Amendment bill that should also stimulate the creative ways to reduce, avoid, or sequester greenhouse gas emissions without creating drag on future economic growth. Although some special interest groups have criticized voluntary programs as ineffective, my colleagues and I do not believe that past efforts were as clearly designed and planned or aggressively promoted as we have proposed in this legislation. The companion bill is the Climate Change Risk Management Act of 2001. This bill has as its roots in S. 1776 and S. 882, two bills that were introduced in the 106th Congress with the expressed intent to forge consensus on this issue. The principal objectives of the current legislation are to encourage the research, development, and deployment of the technologies that can meet our needs and the needs of developing nations. A key focus are the technologies that can help us reduce, avoid or sequester emissions of greenhouse gases. In addition the bill also encourages deployment of technologies that can sequester greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This approach is essential to assure that we can fully use all of our domestic resources to their fullest. This must include coal and nuclear power. An essential element in this legislation is the active engagement of developing countries. Our policy must recognize the legitimate needs of our bilateral trading partners to use their resources and meet the needs of their people. For too long the climate policy debate has been fixated on assigning blame and inflicting pain. This is harmful and counterproductive. Our best technology must be made available and our research activities must focus on developing country needs as well as our own. Moreover, we believe that the President has chosen the right path forward on this issue and we are committed to working with his Cabinet level task force on finding effective, technologically based approaches to attacking this important environmental and economic issue. Although these bills are comprehensive, there are still more steps Congress can and will take in the immediate future to ensure we are doing all that is reasonably and responsibly possible. For example, a key piece of this puzzle is better government-wide coordination of scientific efforts to solve the remaining mysteries of climate change. A strong and consistent recommendation from the National Academy of Sciences has been for us to solve this problem. Because that issue includes Federal agency ``turf battles,'' legislative committee jurisdictional constraints prevented us from fully addressing that issue in these bills. However, we will have this, and other key pieces (such as traffic congestion, agricultural, forest management, and ocean sequestration) not currently getting sufficient attention, ready to complete a comprehensive package on climate change before the end of the 107th Congress. But for now, the bills we introduce today are an important and aggressive attempt to shape and implement policy on climate change. It is a responsible effort to work with our friends and allies to: 1. Develop better policy mechanisms for assessing the effects of greenhouse gas emissions; 2. accelerate development and deployment of climate response technology; 3. facilities international deployment of U.S. technology to mitigate climate change to the developing world; 4. advance climate science to reduce uncertainties in key areas; and 5. improve public access to government information on climate science. All involved in this debate must stop politicizing science and help us get to the point where the issue is confidently understood. The American people have a right to know the whole truth on this issue. The success of any future government response to climate change depends on that more than anything else. I ask unanimous consent that the bill texts along with section-by- section analyses be printed in the Record.