Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment by the Senator from Wisconsin. Despite its superficial appeal, the effects of his amendment would be devastating not only to the Ute Tribes in Colorado, but also for every other tribe and State who are attempting to resolve disputes over water rights through negotiated settlement rather than endless litigation. The Senator from Wisconsin pretends that his amendment will save money--he is wrong. Indian litigation is the closest this country has come to the situation Dickens described in Bleak House. There are law firms that probably can no longer even remember who the partner was who first brought the litigation, but generations have profited-- generations of lawyers both within and without the Government. The Colorado Ute Settlement Act was a remarkable accomplishment, and it has served as a model for other settlements in Utah and Arizona. It would be unconscionable to overturn that settlement, especially for the specious arguments put forward by the opponents. Mr. President, even Secretary Babbitt has grudgingly endorsed completion of the Animas-La Plata project because of the importance of fulfilling the Federal obligations under the negotiated settlement. Remember, this is Secretary Babbitt--the Secretary who wants to take down a really big Federal dam, the Secretary who has waged an incessant war against farmers, ranchers, miners, and those who work the land to produce the food, fiber, and material to support this Nation. This is the Secretary who repeatedly has decried what he views as an individualistic concept of private property and who has attacked State jurisdiction over water resources. This is the Secretary who would have used the Reclamation Reform Act as a lever for Federal regulation of farm operations and proposed Federal definitions of what constituted beneficial use to override State water law in his proposed lower Colorado regulations. Even this Secretary, no friend to any farmer, Indian or non-Indian, has supported funding the Animas-LaPlata project. Mr. President, the funding in this appropriation measure is not some incidental addition from the Congress. This administration requested $10 million for the Animas-LaPlata project for work on the Ridges Basin Dam and Reservoir, and for preconstruction activities, cultural resource mitigation, environmental compliance, and endangered species studies. I hesitate to mention that the Fish and Wildlife Service is proximately responsible for the situation on the San Juan, and at least in this Senator's view, should bear all the costs associated with species recovery and mitigation. This administration--the same one that opposed $5 million to provide potable water to the rural residents at Fort Peck--this administration supports funding this project. That is how important having the Federal Government fulfill its obligations under the Colorado Ute Settlement Act is. Mr. President, I oppose the amendment by the Senator from Wisconsin and urge my colleagues to support the action taken by the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. CRAIG. The fiscal year 1997 Defense authorization bill also provided authorization for a surety program at the INEL to improve waste minimization efforts in the new stockpile management modernization program. Was it the intent of the committee to also provide funding for this activity within the waste management section, which received an additional $138.4 million from the President's budget request?

Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator from New Mexico indulge me in turning to another section of the energy and water appropriations bill, S. 1959; specifically the Waste Management Program under the Defense environmental restoration and waste management section for further clarification?

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the oversight hearing regarding the conditions that have made the national forests of the Southwest susceptible to catastrophic fires and diseases scheduled for Tuesday, July 30, 1996, before the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management will now begin at 10:30 a.m. instead of 9:30 a.m. as previously scheduled. subcommittee on oversight and investigations

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have but a few comments. I find it important to make them in support of the Cohen amendment. Mr. President, this debate, in my opinion, is not about being soft on a bunch of thugs. At the core of this debate is the effectiveness of mandatory unilateral sanctions as a tool of foreign policy to encourage change in Burma. It is about the best policy to pursue that will bring about the changes that we all want to see in the nation of Burma. As we address this situation, it is important that the United States engage other nations. A multilateral effort to evaluate the situation in Burma and develop ways we can work both independently and collectively will encourage the improvement in human rights and will move Burma toward a free and democratic society. Mr. President, I support the Cohen amendment and all that it addresses. We all can encourage humanitarian relief, drug interdiction efforts, and the promotion of democracy. I believe that these activities, in addition to denying multilateral assistance through international financial institutions, and the establishment of a multilateral strategy will provide the best roadmap to reach the goals we seek in Burma. I congratulate Senator Cohen for his effort in offering this amendment.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I want to discuss some concerns I have about section 569 of the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill, H.R. 3540--limiting funds for Burma. Before I begin outlining my concerns, I want to thank my colleague from Kentucky, Senator McConnell, for pursuing this issue. While we may disagree on the details of the best policy to pursue with Burma, we wouldn't even be having this important discussion without his leadership on this issue. In addition, I doubt that we would be pursuing a much needed comprehensive, multi-national policy toward Burma. Without such an effort, we could certainly find ourselves on the floor of the Senate in the future, reacting to some catastrophic event in Burma, having done nothing constructive in the interim. Mr. President, Burma is a nation I have never visited or studied. I do not come to the floor today to debate this issue as an expert on Burma. However, I know more than a little about its poor record on human rights. What we need to debate here is the efficacy of mandatory unilateral sanctions in the case of Burma. While we all hope for some small signs of change, I think we all share the concern that hope is not enough to live on--especially for the Burmese people. We recognize the problem there and want to develop a policy to address that problem. Any change will be slow in coming. However, while patience and persistence will rule the day, we need to nurture an environment in which all Burmese people are respected and treated both humanely and fairly. In short, we need to look at putting forward a policy that will encourage the changes we seek. In addition, that policy should not negatively impact U.S. nationals and business--without the benefit of establishing changes in Burma. The United States represents a small percentage of foreign investment in Burma. It is my understanding that depending on the survey, the U.S. ranks anywhere from third to seventh. Regardless, the private investment presence there is not on a grand scale that would likely have any crippling effects on the operations of the current government in Burma, the State Law and Order Restoration Council--commonly referred to as the ``SLORC.'' In addition, indications from our trading partners in Europe and the region do not demonstrate movement toward the application of sanctions. Cutting off this trade by prohibiting U.S. nationals' private investment will not affect the current governing regime in Burma. However, it will affect American companies and American jobs. Unilaterally forcing American companies out of Burma at this time will simply provide an economic opportunity for other nations, who will quickly step forward to assume the contracts and business opportunities of the departing American companies. American companies have taken risks and borne all the startup costs for the contracts they hold in Burma. If their departure results in replacement by companies from our trading partners in Europe and the region, any influence we might have wielded in this foreign policy game is lost. All indications at this time lead me to believe that any gap left by U.S. companies in Burma will quickly be filled by others. In addition to the loss of that private level of interaction between Americans and Burmese, the benefit of jobs for Burmese citizens with American companies is also lost. Mr. President, in order for the United States to encourage Burma to move toward a free society, an American presence should be felt. This is best done by private investment in the local economy. Private investment and other nongovernmental cultural exchanges can provide an important link with the people of Burma. Mr. President, let me be perfectly clear, I do not support oppressive actions such as those taken by the SLORC in its efforts to prevent the citizens of Burma from exercising their basic human and political rights. Likewise, I do not support abandoning the 43 million people who live in Burma by withdrawing all American presence. Many times, unilateral sanctions hurt only those at the bottom of the economic scale, when the intended targets are those at the top. Mr. President, at the core of this debate is the efficacy of unilateral sanctions as a tool of foreign policy to encourage change. And, more specifically, the usefulness of unilateral sanctions in the case of Burma. I feel very strongly that mandatory, unilateral sanctions are not the most effective tool of foreign policy. I do not support impacting private industry in this manner if the projected policy will not yield the intended response. We must all realize that while we seek change, Burma is not South Africa, nor is it Iran. We face a unique situation, and the effectiveness of mandatory unilateral sanctions must be judged independently. Mr. President, it is very important, not only for the United States but for other nations as well, to evaluate the situation in Burma and what ways we can work both independently and together, that will encourage the improvements in human rights and will move Burma toward a free and democratic society. I support amending section 569 of this bill to address the concerns I have outlined here today. We can encourage humanitarian relief, drug interdiction efforts, and promote democracy. I believe that these activities, in addition to denying multilateral assistance through international financial institutions, and the establishment of a multilateral strategy will provide the best roadmap to reach these goals.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to stress the importance of ongoing research in the area of precision agriculture. Precision agriculture is also commonly referred to as site specific agriculture or intelligent farm systems. Precision agriculture is an exciting area of agriculture that enables farmers to produce in a manner that conserves fertilizer, energy, fuel and water while still producing a high quality and high yield crop. In a bill that Mr. McConnell recently introduced, precision agriculture is given additional attention. I commend Senator McConnell for his efforts and note for the Record that myself, Senator Kempthorne and Senator Cochran are all original cosponsors. I ask Senator Cochran, is this his understanding?

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will take but a brief moment. Let me thank the majority leader and our colleagues from Nevada for the kind of work that has produced this unanimous-consent agreement. I trust now that we will be able to move expeditiously on the issue of nuclear waste. While it is an issue of great contention on the part of some of our Members--and certainly our colleagues from Nevada have great concern about what ultimately occurs here--I think we have, with this UC, an opportunity for a final conclusion and to express the will of the Senate--and, hopefully, the House--on an issue that is of national importance. I thank the Senators for their cooperation. Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I am attempting to understand this amendment and would like to work with the Senator from Vermont. It has not had the kind of airing I would hope for, and there is a question, as the chairman just said. I do not want to object this evening to this, but I would like to sit down with the Senator from Vermont prior to the consideration of it.

Mr. CRAIG. Under that understanding and consideration of the Senator from Vermont, I will not object. Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I hope the Senate will join with me and others this afternoon in a motion to table this amendment. We have just crafted a new 7-year farm bill. In a rough and tumble way, we have planned for agriculture, at least as it relates to Government's involvement. We made major changes in the sugar program. We eliminated marketing allotments, we implemented a 1-cent penalty on loan rates, we created the assessment of $300 million coming into the Treasury all in a sense to create a more balanced field for the production of sugar in our country while there is a more equitable flow of import sugar into our refiners. The Senator says, let us change the game one more time. I hope that the Senate will work its will, but understand that once we have crafted a farm bill that we would stay with that farm bill for the period of time of that policy. And that is why I hope we will support a motion to table.

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I submit an amendment regarding temporary agricultural workers. My amendment mandates an immediate General Accounting Office [GAO] study on the availability of an adequate work force for our Nation's labor intensive farm and ranch sectors. In addition, the study will review the effectiveness of the existing H-2A nonimmigrant worker program. This report will be concluded within 3 months of the agricultural appropriations bill enactment. This same amendment was supported by a bipartisan group of 10 Senators during the immigration reform legislation and accepted on an unanimous consent basis. I urge my colleagues to accept this amendment and avoid a potential agricultural labor shortage this fall.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I submit an amendment regarding reforms to the H-2A Temporary Agricultural Workers Program. Let me start by publicly thanking my good friend, Al Simpson. The senior Senator from Wyoming has been tireless in his efforts to maneuver immigration legislation through the 104th Congress. While, I am very appreciative of his efforts in general, I want to address an issue that is of utmost importance to this country's farmers and ranchers. That issue is the impact of immigration reform on the supply of agricultural labor. There is very real concern among Idaho farmers and throughout the countryside that these reforms will reduce the availability of agricultural workers. Farmers need access to an adequate supply of workers and want to have certainty that they are hiring a legal work force. In 1995, the total agricultural work force was about 2.5 million people. That equates to 6.7% of our labor force that is directly involved in production agriculture and food processing. Hired labor is one of the most important and costly inputs in farming. U.S. farmers spent more than $15 billion on hired labor expenses in 1992--one of every eight dollars of farm production expenses. For the labor-intensive fruit, vegetable and horticultural sector, labor accounts for 35 to 45 percent of production costs. The competitiveness of U.S. agriculture, especially the fruit, vegetable and horticultural specialty sectors, depends on the continued availability of hired labor at a reasonable cost. U.S. farmers, including producers of labor-intensive perishable commodities, compete directly with producers in other countries for market share in both U.S. and foreign commodity markets. Wages of U.S. farmworkers will not be forced up by eliminating alien labor, because growers' production costs are capped by world market commodity prices. Instead, a reduction in the work force available to agriculture will force U.S. producers to reduce production to the level that can be sustained by a smaller work force. Over time, wages for these farm workers have actually risen faster than non-farm worker wages. Between 1986-1994, there was a 34.6-percent increase in average hourly earnings for farm workers, while nonfarm workers only saw a 27.1 percent increase. Even with this increase in on-farm wages, this country has historically been unable to provide a sufficient number of domestic workers to complete the difficult manual labor required in the production of many agricultural commodities. In Idaho, this is especially true for producers of fruit, sugar beets, onions and other specialty crops. The difficulty in obtaining sufficient domestic workers is primarily due to the fact that domestic workers prefer the security of full-time employment in year round positions. As a result the available domestic work force tends to prefer the long term positions, leaving the seasonal jobs unfilled. In addition, many of the seasonal agricultural jobs are located in areas where it is necessary for workers to migrate into the area and live temporarily to do the work. Experience has shown that foreign workers are more likely to migrate than domestic workers. As a result of domestic short supply, farmers and ranchers have had to rely upon the assistance of foreign workers. The only current mechanism available to admit foreign workers for agricultural employment is the H-2A program. The H-2A program is intended to serve as a safety valve for times when domestic labor is unavailable. Unfortunately, the H-2A program isn't working. Despite efforts to streamline the temporary worker program in 1986, it now functions so poorly that few in agriculture use it without risking an inadequate work force, burdensome regulations and potential litigation expense. In fact, usage of the program has actually decreased from 25,000 workers in 1986 to only 17,000 in 1995. Our amendment will provide some much needed reforms to the H-2A program. I urge my colleagues to consider the following parts of our amendment as a reasonable modification of the H-2A program. First, the amendment will reduce the advance filing deadline from 60 to 40 days before workers are needed. In many agricultural operations, 60 days is too far in advance to be able to predict labor needs with the precision required in H-2A applications. Furthermore, virtually all referrals of U.S. workers who actually report for work are made close to the date of need. The advance application period serves little purpose except to provide time for litigation. Second, in lieu of the present certification letter, the Department of Labor [DOL] would issue the employer a domestic recruitment report indicating that the employer's job offer meets the statutory criteria and lists the number of U.S. workers referred. The employer would then file a petition with INS for admission of aliens, including a copy of DOL's domestic recruitment report and any countervailing evidence concerning the adequacy of the job offer and/or the availability of U.S. workers. The Attorney General would make the admission decision. The purpose is to restore the role of the Labor Department to that of giving advice to the Attorney General on labor availability, and return decision making to the Attorney General. Third, the Department of Labor will be required to provide the employer with a domestic recruitment report not later than 20 days before the date of need. The report either states sufficient domestic workers are not available or gives the names and Social Security Numbers of the able, willing and qualified workers who have been referred to the employer. The Department of Labor now denies certification not only on the basis of workers actually referred to the employer, but also on the basis of reports or suppositions that unspecified numbers of workers may become available. The proposed change would assure that only workers actually identified as available would be the basis for denying foreign workers. Fourth, the Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS] will provide expedited processing of employers' petitions, and, if approved, notify the visa issuing consulate or port of entry within 15 calendar days. This will ensure timely admission decisions. Fifth, INS will also provide expedited procedures for amending petitions to increase the number of workers admitted on 5 days before the date of need. This is to reduce the paperwork and increase the timeliness of obtaining needed workers very close to or after the work has started. Sixth, DOL will continue to recruit domestic workers and make referrals to employers until 5 days before the date of need. This method is needed to allow the employer at a date certain to complete his hiring, and to operate without having the operation disrupted by having to displace existing workers with new workers. Seventh, our amendment will enumerate the specific obligations of employers in occupations in which H-2A workers are employed. The proposed definition would define jobs that meet the following criteria as not adversely affecting U.S. workers: 1. The employer offers a competitive wage for the position. 2. The employer will provide approved housing, or a reasonable housing allowance, to workers whose permanent place of residence is beyond normal commuting distance. 3. The employer continues to provide current transportation reimbursement requirements. 4. A guarantee of employment is provided for at least three-quarters of the anticipated hours of work during the actual period of employment. 5. The employer will provide workers' compensation or equivalent coverage. 6. Employer must comply with all applicable federal, state and local labor laws with respect to both U.S. and alien workers. This combination of employment requirements will eliminate the discretion of Department of Labor to specify terms and conditions of employment on a case-by-case basis. In addition, the scope for litigation will be reduced since employers (and the courts) would know with particularity the required terms and conditions of employment. Eighth, our amendment would provide that workers must exhaust administrative remedies before engaging their employers in litigation. Ninth, certainty would be given to employers who comply with the terms of an approved job order. If at a later date the Department of Labor requires changes, the employer would be required to comply with the law only prospectively. This very important provision removes the possibility of retroactive liability if an approved order is changed. Again, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and avoid actions that would jeopardize the labor supply for American agriculture.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I introduce a bill of critical importance to our Nation's cattle producers. The Joint United States- Canada Commission on Cattle and Beef is designed to resolve some of the existing differences in trade practices between the two countries. As a former rancher, I have a firsthand understanding of the challenges that face the cattle industry. The prolonged down cycle is especially troubling because it affects the livelihoods of thousands of ranching families in Idaho and across the country. These beef producers are the largest sector of Idaho and American agriculture. Over 1 million families raise over 100 million head of beef cattle every year. This contributes over $36 billion to local economies. Even with the extended cycle of low prices, direct cash receipts from the Idaho cattle industry were almost $620 million in 1995. These totals only represent direct sales; they do not capture the multiplier effect that cattle ranches have in their local economies from expenditures on labor, feed, fuel, property taxes, and other inputs. Over the years, cattle operations have provided a decent living and good way of life in exchange for long days, hard work, and dedication. While the investment continues to be high, the returns have been low in recent years. The problems facing the cattle industry in recent years are complex. The nature of the market dictates that stable consumption combined with increased productivity and growing herd size yield lower prices to producers. This, combined with high feed prices and limited export opportunities, has caused a near crisis. Many Idahoans have contacted me on this issue. Some suggest the Federal Government intervene in the market to help producers. However, many others have expressed fear that Federal intervention, if experience is any indication, will only complicate matters and may also create a number of unintended results. I tend to agree with the latter. Time and again, I have seen lawmakers and bureaucrats in Washington, DC, albeit well-intentioned, take a difficult situation and make it worse. This does not mean that I believe Government has no role to play. I have supported and will continue to support measures of proven value. However, I will continue to follow this situation closely with the hope that free market forces will, in the long run, aid in making cattle producers more efficient, productive, and profitable. The cattle industry is part of a complex, long-term cycle; however, there are producers who might not survive the short-term consequences. The Beef Industry Assistance Resolution addresses a number of these short term issues. These are issues that were raised at a hearing of the Agriculture Committee that I chaired a few weeks ago. The resolution has five sections--antitrust monitoring, market reporting, private sector self-regulation, recognition of barriers to international trade, and emergency loan guarantees. Section 1 encourages the Secretary of Agriculture and Department of Justice to increase the monitoring of mergers and acquisitions in the beef industry. Investigation of possible barriers in the beef packing sector for new firms and with other commodities is encouraged. Section 2 directs the Secretary of Agriculture to expedite the reporting of existing beef categories and add additional categories. These categories include contract, formula and live cash cattle prices, and boxed beef prices. The Secretary is also encouraged to increase the frequency of captive supply cattle from every 14 to 7 days. I am especially interested in the improved reporting of all beef and live cattle exports and imports. The second section also directs the Secretary to capture data on a previously unrecorded segment of the market--away from home consumption. While this market consumes approximately half of the Nation's beef production, very little is known about it. Section 3 encourages two very important measures within the private sector. First, meat packing companies are encouraged to fully utilize a grid pricing structure which will provide producers with a more complete picture for the particular type of the cattle they produce. Second, agricultural lenders are encouraged to consider the total asset portfolio, not just cash flow, when evaluating this year's beef loans. Even the best operators will have great difficulty cash-flowing a cattle outfit because of the prolonged period of low prices. Section 4 recognizes a number of barriers to international trade that adversely affect American beef producers. The section is meant to elevate the importance of all trade issues and specifically references the elimination of the European Union hormone ban and animal health barriers between the United States and Canada. Section 5 recommends that emergency loan guarantees be made available to agricultural lenders with cattle industry loans. I am disappointed that the President zeroed out funding for this program in his fiscal year 1997 proposal. I have heard from a number of lenders that a high number of loans are questionable for this fall. The Beef Industry Assistance Resolution is a measure designed to provide immediate, short-term solutions to some of the serious problems facing the cattle industry. I know that a number of my colleagues have legislation pending in regards to the cattle market. I would comment that I see this resolution as a starting point, not an ending point for cattle industry issues. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I introduce a bill of critical importance to our Nation's cattle producers. The Joint United States- Canada Commission on Cattle and Beef is designed to resolve some of the existing differences in trade practices between the two countries. As a former rancher, I have a firsthand understanding of the challenges that face the cattle industry. The prolonged down cycle is especially troubling because it affects the livelihoods of thousands of ranching families in Idaho and across the country. These beef producers are the largest sector of Idaho and American agriculture. Over 1 million families raise over 100 million head of beef cattle every year. This contributes over $36 billion to local economies. Even with the extended cycle of low prices, direct cash receipts from the Idaho cattle industry were almost $620 million in 1995. These totals only represent direct sales; they do not capture the multiplier effect that cattle ranches have in their local economies from expenditures on labor, feed, fuel, property taxes, and other inputs. Over the years, cattle operations have provided a decent living and good way of life in exchange for long days, hard work, and dedication. While the investment continues to be high, the returns have been low in recent years. The problems facing the cattle industry in recent years are complex. The nature of the market dictates that stable consumption combined with increased productivity and growing herd size yield lower prices to producers. This, combined with high feed prices and limited export opportunities, has caused a near crisis. Many Idahoans have contacted me on this issue. Some suggest the Federal Government intervene in the market to help producers. However, many others have expressed fear that Federal intervention, if experience is any indication, will only complicate matters and may also create a number of unintended results. I tend to agree with the latter. Time and again, I have seen lawmakers and bureaucrats in Washington, DC, albeit well-intentioned, take a difficult situation and make it worse. This does not mean that I believe Government has no role to play. I have supported and will continue to support measures of proven value. However, I will continue to follow this situation closely with the hope that free market forces will, in the long run, aid in making cattle producers more efficient, productive, and profitable. The cattle industry is part of a complex, long-term cycle; however, there are producers who might not survive the short-term consequences. The Beef Industry Assistance Resolution addresses a number of these short term issues. These are issues that were raised at a hearing of the Agriculture Committee that I chaired a few weeks ago. The resolution has five sections--antitrust monitoring, market reporting, private sector self-regulation, recognition of barriers to international trade, and emergency loan guarantees. Section 1 encourages the Secretary of Agriculture and Department of Justice to increase the monitoring of mergers and acquisitions in the beef industry. Investigation of possible barriers in the beef packing sector for new firms and with other commodities is encouraged. Section 2 directs the Secretary of Agriculture to expedite the reporting of existing beef categories and add additional categories. These categories include contract, formula and live cash cattle prices, and boxed beef prices. The Secretary is also encouraged to increase the frequency of captive supply cattle from every 14 to 7 days. I am especially interested in the improved reporting of all beef and live cattle exports and imports. The second section also directs the Secretary to capture data on a previously unrecorded segment of the market--away from home consumption. While this market consumes approximately half of the Nation's beef production, very little is known about it. Section 3 encourages two very important measures within the private sector. First, meat packing companies are encouraged to fully utilize a grid pricing structure which will provide producers with a more complete picture for the particular type of the cattle they produce. Second, agricultural lenders are encouraged to consider the total asset portfolio, not just cash flow, when evaluating this year's beef loans. Even the best operators will have great difficulty cash-flowing a cattle outfit because of the prolonged period of low prices. Section 4 recognizes a number of barriers to international trade that adversely affect American beef producers. The section is meant to elevate the importance of all trade issues and specifically references the elimination of the European Union hormone ban and animal health barriers between the United States and Canada. Section 5 recommends that emergency loan guarantees be made available to agricultural lenders with cattle industry loans. I am disappointed that the President zeroed out funding for this program in his fiscal year 1997 proposal. I have heard from a number of lenders that a high number of loans are questionable for this fall. The Beef Industry Assistance Resolution is a measure designed to provide immediate, short-term solutions to some of the serious problems facing the cattle industry. I know that a number of my colleagues have legislation pending in regards to the cattle market. I would comment that I see this resolution as a starting point, not an ending point for cattle industry issues. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Yes.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon, once again, to find myself in opposition to my colleague from New Hampshire on an issue that we both feel very strongly about. So for the next few moments let me say to my colleague from New Hampshire that while I disagree with him on this issue--and we very clearly disagree--we remain good friends and working partners on a lot of other issues. I must look at his amendment and what he has said about his amendment in relation to the sugar program in the new farm bill and take issue with it on an item-by-item basis, as I think is necessary. It is important for the record, so that the facts of this issue come forward. Mr. President, when I first came to Congress in 1980, I came from a farming and ranching background, and for the 1980's, I remained actively involved with my family in farming and ranching. But I must say that my family never was involved in raising program crops. So I, frankly, did not know a lot about farm programs. I did not know a great deal about farm programs and program crops. It was not until I became a Congressman, representing the First Congressional District of Idaho, that I found it necessary to look at these programs on a program-by- program basis, Mr. President, and try to understand what they were all about. My colleague from New Hampshire and I are pretty much alike. We are fiscal conservatives. We tend to be free marketers. And so when I began to look at the sugar program, I saw something that I had heretofore not understood. One of the first things I found out about it was that no check went to the farmer. The farmer, whether he be a cane grower or a sugar beet raiser, never received a check from the Federal Government. They received their payment from the sugar processor, who they were contracted with to raise the beets, or to raise the cane. So there was no, if you will, direct subsidy to the farmer, direct check to the farmer, as is true in other program crops. One of the reasons this program had been developed, in a way, in that nature was because both the plant itself, the sugar beet, and the beet itself, in storage, are quite perishable. Because it was a nonrecourse loan program, it would not have been wise for the Federal Government, in this instance, to produce a loan when there was no collateral. And so as a method of even marketing into the system, it became the sugar processor who was the individual who took loans out from the Government inside a Government program, a sugar program, and they used, as collateral, refined sugar. So there was no direct payment to the farmer. So the Senator from New Hampshire is wrong today. We will not hear a story about the plight of the small farmer. The small farmer, in this case the sugar beet raiser, whether it is in North Dakota or whether it is in Idaho, does not receive a check from the Federal Government. They receive a stable price for their product from a refiner that is engaged in a nonrecourse loan program with the Federal Government, which allows that refiner to market sugar into the market in a stable way. So I am sorry that I will disappoint my colleague from New Hampshire. No story about the plight of the small farmer. Although I am very much concerned about the small farmer, I will tell my colleague from New Hampshire, with the hundreds of thousands of acres of sugar beets in Idaho, it is a good and profitable crop. One of the reasons it is is not because they get a check from the Government, but because the industry, through the program, is allowed to develop a loan relationship with the Federal Government, which creates stability in the marketplace. Therefore, it affords a stable price for the crop, and that creates stability at the farm itself. That is a point that I think is very important to remember. So, in essence, the amendment that my colleague from New Hampshire is offering today, which is a cap, if you will--or it says loans are limited to those under $10 million--there is not a refiner in the market that grosses less than $10 million. So the amendment, for all intents and purposes, destroys the sugar program as we know it. The second point, this is not just a refinement of the existing program. This is a killer amendment of a program that we spent over 12 months negotiating about with the industry and the growers associations. The reason we did that is because I, along with my colleague from New Hampshire, said it was time to reform the farm bill and get Government out of agriculture as much as we could. As a result of that, we put major reforms into the sugar program.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, so the point I think that my colleague and I are trying to make here is that, if there is a role for Government in agriculture--I think there is one, and I think it ought to be a very limited one--I see it in one of two or three areas. That is not to directly prop up or to subsidize a producer who has to produce to a market but allowing Government to help facilitate at no cost to the taxpayers anomalies within a market environment that only the Government can maybe help in because of their scope and their size, or in an instance where there is direct competition from foreign markets in which cheap product is produced either because of ``near slave labor'' or because of subsidized Government programs in other producing areas of the world than the necessity of a relationship there where our Government can facilitate without it being a cost to the taxpayer. In all of those instances the sugar program meets those tests. In the area of trade, where you have real political consideration and political powers vying against each other that distort the marketplace, I believe our Government can be a facilitator to production agriculture, and it works in this instance. And it works so to create stability in the marketplace. When you create stability in the marketplace you benefit the small farmer producer, and you do in real terms because you do not have the kind of gyrations in the market where one year wheat is worth a great deal of money and the next year you ought to plow it under because it is worth no money. That is the kind of instability we saw in the sugar pProgram in the late 1970's and the early 1980's. Those are some of the issues and items that I learned, Mr. President, when I got here as a freshman Congressman and I knew very little about sugar. I also learned something else: That when we began to make reforms in the program starting back in 1980 when we found out that we could not operate under the kind of program we were living under, and because of the boom and bust in the marketplace, with the tremendous influence of dumping raw cheap foreign sugar on our market we came back to a Government program, or at least a program where the Government became a participant to facilitate. When we did that we said something very important. We said that this ought not be a subsidy--that it ought to be no net cost to the taxpayer. Since 1980 my colleague from New Hampshire knows as well as I do that this has been a no net cost to the taxpayer because that is what the law says. And in that context, while I was listening to my colleague a few moments ago, I became frustrated when he began to insinuate that this was costing the taxpayer money--or that in fact it was costing the Government money--that is a nonrecourse loan if defaulted upon costs the taxpayer money. Two years ago, when we did have some default because the loans were collateralized on refined sugar, the Government took the sugar, sold it, and made money--no net cost. Technically inside the law my colleague from New Hampshire, the Senator from New Hampshire, is right. From a technical point of view he is absolutely right--that, if the price of refined sugar had dropped dramatically, there might be a loss. But the law says no net cost to taxpayers. As a result of that we have put the loan rate at a rate to cover those margins, and it has no cost. He used an example of the veterans; the homeowner. I must tell my colleague from New Hampshire, my Senator friend, that he knows this--that when the Government loans money on a house they have the house as collateral. And if the person who borrows walks away from the house--and that happens--the Government has the house and they sell the house. They have the sugar and they sell the sugar. He used student loans. Student loans are the only area where Government loans do not have collateral. Many students have walked away from their loans and the taxpayers had to eat them. That was increasingly so until the Senator from New Hampshire and I came in the early 1980's and said, ``No. You can't do that kind of thing anymore. If we are going to loan money to students they have to pay it back.'' That became an increasing prerequisite of student loans throughout the 1980's and into the 1990's as we increasingly provided more money in the student loan program. So if you loan money to a GI, in many instances on education, that is an outright gift. If you loan money to a student, you hope they pay it back. They are obligated to pay it back. If they declare bankruptcy and walk away from it, even though we put a no-bankruptcy clause in, some of them do not. Most of them do, thank goodness. But if the Federal Government borrows money on a house and the person walks away from the house, they can follow the person legally through the channels; and, if the person does not have any money, the Government has the house. That is the reality. We know those things. In a nonrecourse loan to the refiner the Government has the sugar. The example of default cannot be painted to be dramatic because it hardly exists. It rarely exists. Over the last 2 years it has existed, and, when it did, the Government took the refined sugar, sold it, and made a little money above and beyond their expenses. Mr. President, if the Government can operate a program like that that creates stability in the marketplace, that keeps thousands of farmers producing, that disallows the dumping of cheap sugar in our market and does so in a way that is of no net cost to the taxpayer, I would say that is probably a pretty good program. Maybe that is the way Government ought to work in this instance. It creates the kind of stability we want. The amendment that the Senator from New Hampshire offers imposes an eligibility test for participation in what is now a new sugar program. For over 12 months we worked at defining a new program, and we put it in a 7-year farm bill. Growers began to plant to that farm bill this spring. I would have hoped that my colleague would have accepted those reforms. But I understand that he does not. He wants the program eliminated. That is his choice to offer on the floor his amendment, and clearly he does that because nobody in my opinion can largely agree with his $10 million revenue threshold to establish it. If a refined cane miller or a sugar beet processor has annual revenue which exceeds $10 million they are not eligible for the program as written in the farm bill. Currently all U.S. raw cane millers and sugar beet processors have annual revenues above $10 million. Thus, no domestic produced sugar would be eligible for current loan programs if this amendment were enacted. This amendment will invalidate and render useless the hard-fought reform that I have just mentioned that won on this floor of the Senate by 61 to 35 vote. In the loan program, while I think I have discussed that in a reasonably thorough way, Mr. President, USDA cannot make loans directly to the sugarcane or the sugar beet grower, as I have mentioned. The reason is that raw sugarcane and beets are perishable, and although my colleague did not specifically speak to the collateralization of the loan, the loans are collateralized by refined sugar, and that is why the Government has not lost any money on this, not only by actual practice but by the law itself. The loan rate for raw cane sugar is 18 cents under the new program and has been frozen at that level since 1985. The farm bill makes that freeze level a permanent one. The current loan rate is well below the domestic market price of 22 cents. So you have that cushion of protection between the 18 cents and the 22 cents. USDA loans on sugar have consistently been repaid, as I have mentioned, with interest. It sounds as if our Government, in this instance, was a pretty good banker. The sugar program has been operated at no net cost. Meanwhile, U.S. consumers continue to buy sugar at a price some 28 percent below the average price in the rest of the world's developed countries. For just a moment, Mr. President, let me speak briefly again about the nonrecourse versus recourse loans that go to the heart of the amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire. Currently, all sugar loans, along with wheat, cotton, rice, and corn, are nonrecourse loans. This means that the only way to collect repayment of the loan is to assume the collateral. Rather than collect massive stocks, USDA operates the program so that there are no loan forfeitures or cost to the Government. What the opponents suggest is that this system be changed to basically a recourse loan program and the $10 million threshold. Under this system, the Government could use any means necessary to collect the value of a loan. No other commodity has a recourse loan. Those are some facts that I think are extremely important as we deal with this issue. Mr. President, because we are now just at the beginning of a new farm bill, and while all of us spent nearly 2 years crafting this document-- and the Senator from New Hampshire was directly involved in trying to change it with amendments in this Chamber, which was certainly his right and his prerogative, so he and I and everyone else have had a substantial part in shaping the new farm policy, but we did it. We put it in effect for 7 years. As a result of that, scores of farm organizations around the country have said now it is time to leave it alone and let it work for a while under the promises that the Government collectively made would be a part of the program. The American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Sheep Industry, the Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers, the Soybean Association, National Association of Wheat Growers and Barley Growers, the National Corn Association, the National Cotton Council, the National Council of Farm Cooperatives, the National Sorghum Producers, the National Milk Producers Federation, the National Peanut Growers Association, the National Pork Producers Association, and the National Sugar Farmers and Processors, all of them have basically said now that you have crafted a farm bill, we urge you to stay with it because this is something you just do not change overnight. Certainly in my State of Idaho, the millions and millions of dollars of investment it takes to farm and to produce means that you do not quickly change the program if you change it overnight. Of course, the Congress has the right to do that. But we understand the importance of making sure that the program is stable. I hope I have portrayed my opinion of the effects of this amendment by the Senator from New Hampshire. If not, I am sure he will correct me, and I will stand corrected if I am wrong. But I think it is important to remember that this is a program that since the early 1980's we have refined and shaped and reshaped so that we create stability in the market; that we offer a supply of sugar which is substantially less expensive than sugar and sweetener around the world; that we are in compliance with GATT, and as we move toward that, one of the things which is clearly understandable is that our level of participation in the program reduces as other governments around the world subsidize, sugar levels reduce because of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. All of that is part of how our Government has worked, and I believe properly so, under the direction of the Congress and under the new farm bill that we have before us. So I hope that my colleagues in reviewing this amendment will reject it. I certainly do not plan to second degree it, and I do not know of anyone else who does. It is not my intention to want to put cute words around it, to try to hide the impact. I believe this program is strong enough to stand on its own, as it has in the past, as it did by a 61 to 35 vote several months ago on the floor of the Senate. And I hope that Senators, in reviewing this, could reject it out of hand and allow the program, which we have effectively refined and developed, to operate for a period of time to see if we get the savings. Let me also conclude by saying that one of the things which is very important to remember--and I am not sure whether the Senator's amendment would therefore forfeit this figure--one of the results of the program and the no net cost to the taxpayer is the assessments that are generated through the new program that will produce about $300 million in deficit reduction. Now, if the Senator is still going to say let us keep the assessments but let us kill the program, then, in essence, he has created a new tax on producers, because we not only eliminated marketing allotments, we implemented a 1-cent penalty effectively lowering loan rates and we have an assessment that will generate about $300 million in deficit reduction to the Treasury over the life of the program of 7 years. As a result of that, we think we have put together a positive reform package not only for the American taxpayer, but, in this instance, for the producer-processor to create a stable market for the commodity that they produce. I yield back the time. Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I concur with the remarks of Senator Kempthorne. In addition, I understand that, currently, it is nearly impossible to eradicate yellowstar thistle once it has infected the narrow, arid canyon lands of the West, and in particular, the canyons of the Clearwater, Snake and Salmon Rivers of my home State. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the research to control this weed is reaching a critical stage, where practical biological controls should be available for public use within the next few years. Is it the intention of this bill to fund research with direct and immediate practical applications for the agricultural industry?

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, my colleague, Senator Shelby, from Alabama, will be coming over shortly to lay down an amendment in relation to adoption tax credit. In cosponsoring this amendment with him to the welfare reform bill that would provide a refundable tax credit for the adoption expenses, I am excited about this legislation and feel that this is an important time to move it. It has not even been a year since our last joint effort to pass the amendment to H.R. 4. That amendment was overwhelmingly supported, and I hope my colleagues will respond to our efforts today in an equally positive manner. This amendment provides tax credit support to families as they struggle with the bureaucratic process involving adoption. Many people who are aware that I have become an adoptive parent recognize the roadblocks that all of us face when we choose this course in the process of building a family. I have had that experience. I do not want others to have the kind of difficulty that many families do in this process. That is why I have worked with others to assure that we make all-out efforts to build an adoption tax credit so that adoptive families, or those who use adoption to build families, can find it as rewarding and no more difficult than those who are successful in building a family in a natural way. This amendment changes the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 by providing a refundable tax credit for adoption expenses. It also excludes employees and military adoption assistance benefits and withdrawals from IRA's used for adoption expenses from gross income. What does an adoption tax credit have to do with welfare reform? Frankly, not much, Mr. President, if we are discussing our current welfare system, but a great deal, I think, if we are discussing a dramatically reformed system. Then we want innovation and creativity. The current welfare system has created a dependence on Federal programs while the envisioned system encourages independence. Welfare spending has been growing at an alarming pace, but so has the number of children living in poverty, and so has the number of children who need families. Providing a future for these children by uniting them with loving families who can provide not only their financial welfare but also their emotional welfare has to be a goal of this Congress. As we move toward a system that promotes greater strength in the American family, we ought to encourage efforts like this by using the adoption tax credit. Too often we read stories about the tragic experiences couples have endured in order to adopt a child. It is my hope that our work here will lead to more happy stories and fewer heartbreaking reports. Adoption is a too often overlooked option to get the best of all worlds: uniting a child with a loving, nurturing family. I think we need to keep focused on that single fact by continuing our efforts to improve this process. I am pleased to be here again, with my colleague from Alabama, Senator Shelby to offer this important amendment today. We need to give adoptive families a fairer shake. I urge my colleagues to support improving access to adoption, by voting for the Shelby amendment. I certainly hope this Senate will respond as willingly as they did on H.R. 4 in the inclusion of this amendment in our welfare reform package. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that the hearing scheduled before the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Lands of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to receive testimony regarding S. 931, S. 1564, S. 1565, S. 1649, S. 1719, and S. 1921, bills relating to the Bureau of Reclamation, has been postponed from Tuesday, July 30, 1996, at 2:30 p.m., to Thursday, September 5, 1996, at 2 p.m. and will take place in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. For further information, please call James P. Beirne, senior counsel (202) 224-2564 or Betty Nevitt, staff assistant at (202) 224-0765. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to speak today on the important yet controversial topic of welfare reform. As this Congress works through the rigors and challenges of welfare reform, I am reminded of my upbringing in Idaho, where I learned that charity begins in the home. Having grown up in a rural western State, I can remember the days when the county clerks were the ones who handed out public assistance. Today that task has been assumed by the Federal Government and operated thousands of miles away from the recipient. Obviously, the war on poverty was launched with good intentions, but it has become a miserable failure. Unfortunately, the plight of the poor today is worse than it was before we began our massive assistance programs. Since 1965, when our current welfare system was started, the American taxpayers have spent trillions of dollars--yes, trillions. The current budget is in the hundreds of billions and its growth continues to spiral upward. Incredibly, with this extraordinary growth in spending, the number of children living in poverty has also risen. We need real reform in the welfare system. Throwing unlimited money at this problem has proven not to be the answer. Welfare spending was intended to provide a safety net for children, likewise to provide a hand up and out of poverty for those in need. What it has become is a way of life and not short term assistance. With dramatic reforms and an emphasis on getting people into real permanent work situations, we can provide these children and their parents with a future. All one has to do is to look at the successes States are achieving that are already out there operating under waivers to the current policy. I would argue that these same States have done a much better job at designing programs to meet the needs of their people than has the Federal Government. It is just plain common sense that the State can identify problems quicker and develop solutions faster, as they can see the problems as they really are. One of the ways these States are achieving successes is through block grants. Governors have supported this. Our Governor in Idaho supports this. We can provide block grants to the States and give them the flexibility to use funds in a variety of ways, including to supplement wages for those recipients who are working. In closing, I support welfare reform. Everyone here supports welfare reform. We must find ways to overcome bipartisan differences in our efforts toward our single common goal--providing a helping hand up and out of poverty while preserving the dignity of those in need.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, my amendment will bring the child support enforcement language in this bill in line with Federal law on privacy protections. I understand it has been accepted by the committee, so I will keep my remarks brief. I sincerely appreciate the help and support of the chairman, Senator Roth, and the ranking member, Senator Moynihan. Mr. President, part of our effort to reform the welfare system in this country has been to ensure that parents are responsible for the financial support of their children. Efforts to streamline the ability of States to identify and collect child support payments from dead-beat parents is a big part of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996. In our ardent effort to accomplish this, however, we must also remain mindful of legal protections that should be provided for private entities that would be required to supply necessary information for the enhanced enforcement of child support payments. It is important to note that the private entities that will be required to participate in the bill's support enforcement efforts should be able to operate within the constraints of existing laws designed to protect privacy. Current privacy protections in Federal law (18 U.S.C. Sec. 2703), require that private information can be provided only pursuant to a warrant, court order, or administrative subpoena. The bill's current provisions, which allow States to obtain information by merely requesting it, would be in conflict with this Federal statute. Without addressing this issue, the bill would put private entities such as telephone companies in a needlessly difficult situation. My amendment will resolve this problem. In short, Mr. President, what my amendment would do is allow States the ability to obtain this information in the simplest manner, while complying with Federal statute, by requiring only an administrative subpoena for the procurement of private information for the purposes of child support enforcement. It will also provide these private entities with the necessary protection from lawsuits. An administrative subpoena is not an onerous or time-consuming requirement for State agencies. In fact, in the States where it is currently used, the device actually streamlines the process of obtaining necessary information. Under an administrative subpoena, if preapproved conditions and standards are met, an agency has the authority to issue a subpoena without having to submit individual cases for a court's approval. In fact, it is my understanding that some States allow certain individuals, within an appropriate agency, the authority to issue subpoenas. For example, that could include a caseworker, who is working directly with the issue, to issue an administrative subpoena. This procedure is recognized by courts, and allows agencies to quickly obtain information, while providing private entities the necessary protection from lawsuits based on the unauthorized release of private information. Mr. President, the private entities involved, such as telephone companies, have a good record of complying with these requests, and working with agencies within the constraints of the law. Given that fact, and an expressed desire on the part of industry to be able to continue those efforts under this legislation, this minor change needs to be made. Otherwise, we could see a new problem arise with less timely compliance on the part of industry, if the protections of an administrative subpoena are not guaranteed. As I mentioned before, I thank the committee for their assistance and for accepting this amendment. amendment no. 4908 (Purpose: To provide for child support enforcement agreements between the States and Indian tribes or tribal organizations) On page 411, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following: ``(4) Families under certain agreements.--In the case of a family receiving assistance from an Indian tribe, distribute the amount so collected pursuant to an agreement entered into pursuant to a State plan under section 454(33). On page 411, line 3, strike ``(3)'' and insert ``(4)''. On page 554, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the plasma quench technology amendment will yield valuable results for our defense and aerospace industries in the near future. I understand it has been accepted by the committee, so I will keep my remarks brief. I sincerely appreciate the help and support of the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Stevens and the ranking member, Senator Inouye. Mr. President, my amendment would provide $2 million from funds available under title IV of the legislation before us, to support development of an innovative metallurgic technology called plasma quench developed at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, to be used in producing ultra fine titanium powder and developing an injection molding of titanium metal. Titanium metal is of critical significance to a wide variety of strategically important manufactured products, and the need for titanium in the production of such products is set to increase dramatically. In the transportation and aerospace areas the feasibility of many advanced products is predicated on a high-quantity, low cost supply of titanium that simply does not currently exist. At the same time that U.S. aerospace companies and other manufacturers are becoming more dependent on titanium, the sources for processed titanium metal are increasingly moving offshore, becoming more expensive. High capital and operational costs, in addition to the waste disposal costs associated with the standard Kroll process for titanium production are largely to blame for this migration. This situation threatens to seriously diminish the leverage and control exercised by U.S. manufacturers over this important strategic material. The plasma quench process represents an alternative to the Kroll process that could have a radical impact on the world's titanium market by dramatically reducing the capital and process costs, and eliminating the waste stream associated with titanium production. While commercial- scale production of other metals using this process has already been demonstrated, much developmental work is necessary to prove the viability of the process with regard to titanium. Mr. President, this is an important step in assuring the cost- effective, viable, and readily accessible production in the United States. As I mentioned before, I thank the committee for accepting this amendment.