Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period for morning business until the hour of 3 p.m., with the time equally divided in the usual form.

Mr. CRAIG. Yes. The Senator from Idaho asks unanimous consent that the unanimous consent request he just made become active immediately following the time of the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Can I not register that at this time, with the intent that it occur at 2 o'clock? That is my intent, not to shut off debate but simply to register a motion to table at this time. I call for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Vote On Amendment No. 3922

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, it is my understanding we have a unanimous consent agreement to hold a vote on or about the McCain amendment at 2 o'clock, is that correct?

Mr. CRAIG. With that in mind, Mr. President, I move to table the McCain amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CRAIG. Since 1991, the marketing assessment has raised $279 million. That was my quote. That is a fact the Senator cannot dispute. This 132,000-ton purchase is a step toward preventing the forfeiture of a much larger amount of sugar. USDA has estimated that 600,000 tons could be forfeited at a much higher cost to the Government--the Senator from Arizona is correct--based on current programs and current forfeitures. Pulling that sugar from the market now costs substantially less. The purchase saves the Government money and promotes the stopping of this kind of effort based on forfeiture, and that does save the American taxpayer money. The purchase would not have been necessary and there would be no threat of forfeiture if sugar producers were not required, under the WTO and the North American Free Trade Agreement, to import about 15 percent of our consumption. I happen to have voted against the North American Free Trade Agreement because I felt this was a loophole that would potentially cost the producers of the State of Idaho their crops and maybe their farms. Now, of course, reality begins to bear itself out. Further compounding the problem has been extensive import quota circumvention by a term that is now well known by those of us who are interested in agriculture. It is known as stuffed molasses. Low prices for other crops driving producers to beet and cane sugar production and extremely favorable weather conditions for the last 2 years have all contributed to the oversupply of sugar and the need for Government intervention. Stuffed molasses, as my colleagues know, is a way of circumventing the law by loading up molasses with sugar, moving it through import into this country, then pulling it in and refining the sugar out of it. It is kind of like covering up, violating the law, if you will, in a legal way. It certainly violates the spirit of the trade agreement. Allowing sugar prices to continue to fall will put more sugar farmers out of business, but it will not help consumers one bit. There is a general assumption on the part of those who oppose the sugar program that once you drop the price of sugar to the world price, all of a sudden candy bars get cheaper, soda pop gets cheaper, confectionery foods get cheaper, and we know that is not the fact. It has never been the fact. We might transfer a little profitability from the sugar farmer to the candy maker or to the soft drink producer, or to those who generally supply confectionery goods to the consumers of this country. Does it translate through to the farmer? No, it does not, and it never has. While the price food manufacturers and makers of candy--cereal, ice cream, cookies, and cakes--pay for sugar--they will always pay that amount. That is the character of the way the industry works. They simply either make a little more or make a little less, based on the margins in which they buy. The truth of the matter is that in the U.S., the sugar program has saved the consumer money by stabilizing the price across the board and, therefore, consistency. I remember long before I served in the Senate, without this sugar program, there were dramatic fluctuations in the marketplace. People were going in and out of business. Confectionery producers and soft drink suppliers were arguing at one point that sugar was so dramatically high that they had to raise their prices, and then sugar fell dramatically, but those prices did not come down. U.S. consumers pay about 20 percent less for sugar than does a consumer in other developed countries of the world. It is strange that I could use that figure--and it is a figure of fact, well established in the marketplace. Why don't other developed countries' consumers pay what we do? They buy on the world market. They buy, as the Senator from Arizona suggests, at a much cheaper price. The reason is the stability we have offered and, therefore, the averages that are very important to look at when you are looking at an overall price of the issue. Do I support the program? Yes, I do. Am I apologetic for it? No, I am not. The reason is very simple. Over the years, we have worked to craft a program that balances itself out and, in large part, has paid for itself. As we work to create a more open market and phase these kinds of programs out, I will support those efforts, too. It is very important for the whole of this country that I think we create that kind of stability. I hope we can do so. At the appropriate time, I, or the chairman of the subcommittee, will move to table the amendment of the Senator from Arizona for the simple reason that we think it would destabilize the markets of this country. It certainly would have a dramatic impact on my State and the 1,000- plus farmers who make up the sugar portion of Idaho's agriculture production. With that, I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG. I will not at this time. Let me finish my statement.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the McCain amendment today. I certainly will not rise to the challenge the Senator from Arizona has placed. I never rise to the challenge of the editorial board of the New York Times or the tabloid test of NBC's ``Fleecing of America.'' I did that once with the ``Fleecing of America.'' I did because they were wrong. They had misused their facts, as they are misusing them now, and the Senator from Arizona has brought in those facts. The reality is, I stand on the floor today to defend about 1,000 farmers in my State of Idaho, and I think you will hear from others today who defend American agriculture and its productive power and its ability to sustain itself within a world market and our willingness to put up reasonable safeguards to assure that sustainability at the local level. In my case, in Idaho, with nearly 1,000 sugar beet farmers, it is necessary and appropriate. I stand, not to apologize whatsoever, but to strongly support what I think is a necessary and appropriate program. As with other commodities, those of us from agricultural States know that many in agriculture today are in crisis. They are at or below break even by a substantial amount. There is no difference between the potato farmer of Idaho or the sugar beet farmer of Idaho or the corn farmer of Iowa today. In the case of sugar, prices this year compared to last summer are down by about 26 percent, and as a result of that, the Government has responded aggressively and appropriately to the crisis in rural America, making approximately $70 billion of total expenditures since 1966 to America's agricultural producers. I am not going to apologize for that, and here is why: Banks are not going under; farms are not going under; America's food supply on the shelf is more abundant, safer, and of a higher quality than ever, at a lower price. The American consumer today spends less of his or her consumer dollar for American food, including sugar, than any other consumer in the world. Should we apologize for that? I think not. What we have tried to do-- and I think we have been reasonably successful--is balance out a domestic program with foreign competition while consistently working to open up foreign markets and clearly to liberalize the whole of the agricultural programs of this country. USDA recently did purchase sugar. The Senator from Arizona has spoken to that. The reason they did was to try to stabilize the market and stabilize the price. There is no question that thousands of jobs in rural America depend on that action. I defended that action and I do now with no apology. Sugar policy has run at largely no cost to the U.S. Government since 1985. I say that because what the Senator from Arizona failed to talk about was the amount of money directly contributed by the industry itself. In fact, it has been a revenue raiser. Since 1991, $279 million have been placed in the Treasury by a special marketing tax paid directly by the sugar producers. Did the Senator from Arizona mention that? Oops, I guess the Wall Street Journal did not mention it, nor did the New York Times mention it, nor did the ``Fleecing of America'' mention it. Of course, if they did not mention it, it ``ain't'' worth mentioning. The probable net cost of the announced purchase and removal of sugar has been more than covered by the revenues of the sugar policy. As I helped other Members of this Senate design that policy, that is exactly what we tried to do: to balance it out so the industry itself was self- financing.

Mr. CRAIG. There is time remaining for this or other amendments.

Mr. CRAIG. It would allow debate to continue.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing scheduled for July 21, 2000, at 9:30 a.m., to receive testimony on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement implementing the October 1999 announcement by President Clinton to review approximately 40 million acres of national forest lands for increased protection, has been postponed until Wednesday, July 26, 2000, at 2:30 pm. The hearing will take place in lieu of the previously scheduled hearing to receive testimony on potential timber sale contract liability incurred by the government as a result of timber sale contract cancellations. The hearing will take place in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. Those who wish to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please call Mark Rey at (202) 224-6170.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I want to ask the Chairman about a small provision in report language, under the Natural Resources Conservation Service. The report encourages the agency to interface with a consortium of universities on developing carbon dioxide emissions trading credit models. I am just seeking clarification on the academic nature of the efforts described and the intent of the Committee. In numerous appropriations bills and reports, the Committee and the Senate have reiterated the position, consistent with the unanimously- passed Byrd-Hagel resolution, that the Kyoto Protocol on global climate change and control of greenhouse gases has not been approved by the Senate and must not be implemented by the Administration through the regulatory backdoor. Every year, language to this effect has been included in a growing number of appropriations laws, including the Agriculture Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2000. My question arises because emissions trading is inextricably, and most visibly, linked to the limits envisioned in the Kyoto Protocol. I assume there is no intention in the report language to be inconsistent with our longstanding position on Kyoto and no implied endorsement of emissions trading. I would read the report as simply encouraging the agency in giving technical assistance to an academic research project relevant to agriculture.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President. I want to thank the Chairman for his willingness to look at this, and for all he does for American agriculture and a safe, secure, food supply. Montana Food Stamp Standard Utility Waiver

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President. I want to thank the Senator from Mississippi, for drafting an excellent FY2001 Agriculture Appropriations bill that will help meet the needs of our nation's farmers and agricultural communities. I especially want to thank him for working closely with me to ensure that issues affecting the Idaho agriculture are addressed in the bill. I know that the Senator from Mississippi works hard with limited resources to fund worthwhile and fiscally responsible agricultural research programs. One important area of agriculture research involves increasing the shelf life of our food, while maintaining its quality, and one of the most promising methods is irradiation. In Idaho, Idaho State University is home to the Idaho Accelerator Center (IAC) which is proposing a research program to investigate the effects of small amounts of irradiation--as compared to conventional food irradiation-- on the behavior of potatoes. IAC and several Idaho-based partners have been studying the positive effects of low doses of x-ray and electron beam irradiation on the storage properties and shelf life of potatoes. Significant improvement in shelf life has been demonstrated over the entire range of standard storage conditions, with virtually no decline in quality. The results indicate that long term storage losses can be reduced to very low levels and that shelf life during transport, storage by vendors and by consumers is extended indefinitely. It is believed that these findings will also hold true for other commodities such as onions, sugar beets, etc. These results are achieved without chemicals, radioactive materials or other environmentally harmful processes. The irradiation is provided by the electron beams produced from compact, portable high-energy electron-linear accelerators. While I know that the project is not funded in the Senate bill, I want to ask the Chairman to consider the IAC proposal during Conference on the bill. This is a worthy project and one that I am confident will lead to real results that will benefit our farmers and consumers.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I join with all of my fellow Senators today to express our feeling and mourn the death of our colleague, Senator Paul Coverdell. I always find these kinds of circumstances difficult to speak to, to find the appropriate words to reflect my emotions or to in some way express my love for a man such as Paul Coverdell and the way he worked for all of us and for his country. I grew up in a ranching environment in the State of Idaho. Oftentimes I think back to those experiences when I am caught in emotion or when I cause myself to sit down and contemplate how to deal with an issue or a situation. My experience with Paul was largely a part of our time in the Senate, a leadership time. I was one of four Senators elected by the Republican majority to lead them in the 106th Congress; Paul Coverdell was a part of that leadership team. He was secretary of what we call our Republican conference, or all Members on the Republican side. It was through that relationship that I grew to know Paul and to appreciate the tremendous talents that he had. We all know he was an activist on the floor on many occasions, in pursuit of what the leadership team and ultimately the Republican conference decided was a direction we ought to head in or an issue we ought to debate. He did it with phenomenal energy and talent. When I think of that relationship, I can only come to this analysis; I think it so well fits Paul: A team approach, as in a western ranching environment. We all remember the great cattle drives that used to come out of the Southwest into the plains of the West to graze, thousands of head of renegade cattle moving all in one direction. The reason they were moving in one direction was because there was a trail boss who headed up this drive. There were a group of wranglers on horseback who were out there working day to day to keep that drive shaped and headed in the direction in which the trail boss wanted them to head. There is no question that in the Senate Trent Lott is our trail boss. He decides the direction with the consent of the herd, if you will, and head Members. There is a group who are the wranglers, who work with that herd, to help shape it and keep it moving. Paul Coverdell was one of those wranglers and probably the best among us. He was constantly out there from daylight until dark and, if it were on the range, we would say in all kinds of weather because he was doing what he was asked to do but more importantly because he believed in what he was doing and he was very passionate about it. All of us are here for a reason; some of us for larger reasons than others. Clearly, to be here with the kind of passion and energy that Paul Coverdell from the State of Georgia came here with is unique. As a result, he was selected to be one of those wranglers, to follow the leadership, to follow the directions of the trail boss, to make sure that we all stayed headed in the right direction. I will miss him. I will miss his talents as a wrangler. He was a great American and history will record that. He has made his mark. But never once in the business of making that mark, or leading, shaping the herd, or wrangling the herd, did he ever do it for Paul. He did it for his country and for what he believed was the right cause and the right belief. Paul, I think God has called you to a different trail herd. He obviously needed a hell of a good wrangler, and He's got one. We will miss you. We love you. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to express my concern over this egregious and unjustified action by the Department of the Interior that will have severe negative economic consequences on citizens and communities in Idaho and many other states around the country. The Department has announced that it intends to ban recreational snowmobile use in virtually every national park that now allows them, although snowmobiles have been an established use in these parks for more than four decades. This announcement was made by Interior Assistant Secretary Don Barry on April 27th in an orchestrated press conference that amounted to a public lynching of the snowmobile community. This new policy was made without consultation with Congress, the snowmobile manufacturers, the nearly four million snowmobile users, or with the many gateway communities to the national parks that are dependent on business generated by snowmobile visitors. Although Assistant Secretary Barry claimed that this ban is necessary because of air pollution, noise and wildlife disturbance caused by snowmobiles, the truth is that there is simply no evidence that snowmobiles cause such harm. In fact, in a shocking admission before the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Mr. Barry conceded that snowmobiles had never been found in violation of any environmental standard in any national park. I understand Mr. Barry has since left the Department to be employed by the Wilderness Society, an organization that has actively advocated the exclusion of snowmobiles from national parks. The major snowmobile manufacturers have made great progress in producing machines that are cleaner and quieter than ever before. The manufacturers, the snowmobile users and the gateway communities are willing to work with the Department of the Interior to develop reasonable plans and programs to achieve agreed to environmental goals. I believe this is the best course for the Department to follow. I bow to no one in my love for our majestic national parks. I fully support reasonable and reasoned efforts to protect and preserve them. But to ban snowmobiles completely in the national parks is totally unnecessary. It is an abuse of bureaucratic power, and it is the duty of Congress to uphold the law and prevent this from taking place. I feel it is important for all to understand that snow machines do not run roughshod over the national parks as has been stated on the floor. Travelways are designated and adhered to. The issue of where snowmachines travel is a matter of management by the park service, not of whether or not they should be in our national parks. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Dr. Lori Fussell that explains a number of misconceptions on pollution from snowmobiles be printed in the Record to clarify several of these issues.

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. We yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, before I deliver my remarks on the marriage tax penalty, for just a moment, let me say that our colleague, Paul Coverdell, is struggling at this moment. Our prayers and thoughts are with him and his wife Nancy as he struggles with his health in an Atlanta hospital. He is a champion of the issue of the marriage penalty tax relief.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Reserving the right to object, and I will not, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Collins retain 15 minutes in morning business prior to the Interior bill following the comments of the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maine, and I want to recognize her leadership in this area. In the last couple of years, I have begun to focus my attention on childhood type 1 diabetes. What the Senator from Maine is offering today is clearly moving us well in advance. I ask the Senator to allow me to be a sponsor of her legislation. The Senator's effort struck a particularly loud chord with me, because it was exactly one year ago today that the Senate and I lost a friend and colleague, Ken Foss, related to his diabetes. This Senate and this Congress should focus on diabetes, as we have cancer and other health areas in our country, to move more quickly toward a cure. The Senator is so right in recognizing we have already moved a long way and there is a great deal known. My rather limited reading suggests that the great push forward might well break us into those areas of remedy, at least for type 1, and there is a great deal of work going on. My congratulations to the Senator for her leadership in that area. I stand to help in any way I can.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me?