Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I assume that we are in morning business.

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the same thing can happen in the next month if this administration will act. If it does not act, I say to our trade ambassador today, ``What are you going to say to the nearly 30,000 men and women that are without a job today in the timber industry simply because of the aggressive dumping action on the part of the Canadians?'' ``What are you going to say, Mr. Ambassador, and, more important, what are you going to say, Mr. President, about the fairness and equity you talk about, about the jobs you talk about creating, while you, by your failure to act, may well be destroying jobs?" In the end, when you destroy the jobs, you destroy the mills and the infrastructure that has been an extremely important part of the forest products industry of our country. As those people stand in unemployment lines, many of the mills are near bankruptcy today because most of them have operated in the red for well over a year now. It is time that stopped and that we bring fairness back to the marketplace. That can be done by a single act by a trade ambassador and a President. They know they can do it. We asked them to do it, and we hope it will be done tomorrow if the Canadians fail to come to an agreement today. Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, in morning business today, let me make several comments on an issue that is very important to this country. It is kind of a quiet issue that has not been prominent in the headlines of the Washington Post or the Washington Times; but certainly in my State and every timber-producing State of the Nation, it has made a good many headlines over the course of the last year or 16 months. And that is the unprecedented flood of subsidized Canadian lumber flowing into the continental United States and into the markets of the 48 lower States. Normally, Canada is a supplier to our market, and we need their timber to round out the needs of the housing industry of our country and the home building industry. But to meet that need and still keep America's work force in the forest products industry employed, Canada's percentage participation in our market normally is somewhere in the high 20's or low 30's. In January, this month that is now today concluding, they reached an all- time high of about 37 percent of total market share. As a result of that, we now see in this country about 29,000 men and women who are unemployed as a direct result of a major dumping effort--let me repeat, as a direct result of a major dumping effort--on the part of the Canadian forest products industry into our market. In my State of Idaho, just in the last few days, we have had announcements of another 200 men and women laid off simply because the price of lumber, as a result of this huge volume of subsidized lumber pouring in from Canada, is so low that mills cannot operate. Ceda-Pine Veneer north of Sandpoint, ID; Crown Pacific in Bonners Ferry, ID; and two Louisiana Pacific plants in Chilco and Sandpoint have just announced layoffs or have shut down, and the story goes on and on, as is true across Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and the Southeast, as a result of what has happened with Canadian lumber imports. This administration, to their credit a good many months ago became aggressively engaged with the forest products industry in negotiating with Canada in an effort to resolve this issue. When I say that, it is about the only good thing I am going to say, because as we entered into those negotiations the forest products industry was told by our United States Trade Representative nearly 10 months ago that within 6 months, if the Canadians did not negotiate in good faith successfully, this administration would take action, and that action would be a temporary duty imposed until such time as a countervailing duty suit would be charged or the Canadians would come to the table with some form of a legitimate agreement to negotiate the differences between the two countries. That did not occur from the Canadians, and, as a result, finally this administration did say, ``We will have to bring a countervailing duty suit, and move toward a temporary duty.'' In late November of this year, the Canadians finally did bring some proposed agreements for us--the industry and our United States Trade Representative--to look at to see whether they would meet the criteria that we were trying to advance, which was a level playing field, recognizing the legitimate share of the market that the Canadians could have without destroying our industry. From that point, myself, Senator Baucus, and a good many others have asked the United States Trade Representative to become much more aggressive in insisting that this problem be solved now. It was in December, just before we recessed for Christmas, that Mickey Kantor did come to the Hill and sat down with myself, Senator Baucus, five or six other Senators from timber-producing States, and a good many Representatives from the House to talk about where we were in this negotiation. At that time, Mickey Kantor said to us, and it was conveyed to the Canadians, that if no agreements were reached through the current negotiation, that on January 31, 1996, he would impose a temporary duty against the Canadians, and we would then move to do a variety of other things, including reform NAFTA's chapter 19, to consider what is called suspension of liquidation on Canadian imports into this country, and do a variety of other things that would bring about some permanency and stability to this problem. Madam President, today is January 31. Canadians are now still negotiating with our trade ambassador, and I do not want to say nothing will be resolved, but I do want to say to our trade ambassador: If nothing is resolved by the end of the day, it is absolutely imperative for this country's credibility and for this administration's credibility with Canada and with the industries and the work forces involved that we move. And that tomorrow I would expect to hear from our United States Trade Representative an announcement of an imposed temporary duty against the subsidized lumber coming out of Canada while these other measures are forthcoming; that the United States lumber industry would probably move to file a countervailing duty case, and that case would go forward, but would literally take months and potentially a year. But what is important here and what this administration must face is that it is now time to make a decision, and they must make that decision. If they fail to, if they bend in any form to the Canadians, they will send the kind of message that I believe has been sent for the last 6 months: We just keep on talking. As we keep on talking, mills are closing down in my State. As I mentioned, 29,000 jobs in this country are now in suspension, and men and women are not working as a direct result of this phenomenal flood of Canadian lumber coming into the market. It is important that this administration recognizes the high level of importance of the decision that they are about to make today, which is if the Canadians still are only talking--and, oh, are they good at talking--that the talking is over; that it is time for the temporary duty to level this playing field to send a very clear message to the Canadians that we mean business; that while they have a right based on need and supply, on the Canadian Free-Trade Agreement, and on the North American Free-Trade Agreement to have access to our market, they absolutely do not have the right to intentionally dump, and we know that is what they are doing at this time. They have reached out to grab a very large share of the U.S. market, as much as 10 percent more than they have ever held. Stocks of Canadian lumber are sitting in lumberyards across this country, and they are even financing it to sit there and saying, ``You keep it until you sell it and then you pay us.'' I call that an aggressive antitrade effort. It is a dumping process and the Canadians know it. It is time they stop it, and the only way they will is when we speak directly and act decisively to solve this problem. Back in the early eighties, they played this game on us, and it was at that time in the Reagan administration that a duty was imposed and thousands of people went back to work in my State almost overnight as the markets rapidly improved. Of course, that also happened in other timber-producing States across the Nation. (Mr. ASHCROFT assumed the chair.)

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 now turn to the consideration of calendar No. 330, S. 1541, the farm bill.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, for now nearly 10 months, the U.S. Senate and the Senate Agriculture Committee have been working diligently to craft a new farm bill for our country. We all know that on September 30 of this immediate past year, the old farm bill expired. We also recognize that under the necessary budget changes and spending procedures and priorities that we were establishing, a large portion of the farm bill appeared and was a part of the Balanced Budget Act that we sent to the President, and the President vetoed it. That has placed American agriculture, in my opinion, in a very precarious situation. While they have worked with us through the year of 1995 in numerous hearings that the Senate Agriculture Committee, on which I serve, participated in, we began to hear a very clear message from American agriculture that current policy was not serving it as well as it should, that there was a great desire on the part of production agriculture to progressively move to the market and produce to market trends and market ideas instead of to the perpetuation of farm programs. Now, recognizing that, we also saw the clear importance that that transition American agriculture was talking about come in a way that all could live with. None of us wanted to shock the market. None of us, more importantly, wanted to create any kind of economic catastrophe in agriculture across this country. As a result, the Senate, in a very bipartisan way, worked diligently. We also have the mandate of the Senate Budget Committee to meet the criteria of the budget. That was to find additional savings for the year and then to spread those savings out over the 7-year period of the Balanced Budget Act to arrive at some 40 billion-plus dollars' worth of savings. All of that was accomplished. Of course, all of that was for naught when the President decided to veto that most important piece of legislation. Recognizing that that did not happen and that clearly American agriculture now has been asking us on a very regular basis over the last month, ``What are you going to do?'' it became important here in the Senate and in the House--the House acting yesterday--to mark up their version of the farm bill, and the Senate in the past week attempting to bring procedure forward, and on Friday last introducing S. 1541, the bill that I have just called up, to address the question being asked us. Most important, to craft critical policy that is time certain, that works in the marketplace of agriculture, that says to the farmer, ``Here is something you can now plan as you sit down with your banker and your financial advisers to plan for the coming year,'' so that we are timely. That is why we have the debate today and, hopefully, votes tomorrow on this and possibly other critical pieces of legislation. I believe that the Balanced Budget Act represented probably the most far-reaching, positive reform for U.S. farm policy in a generation, certainly in the time I have served in the U.S. Senate and in the U.S. House of Representatives. While we work to change and cooperate with agriculture and move into the marketplace, clearly, the product of effort that we presented in the last several months is as much or more reform than I think we have seen in farm policy here in the U.S. Congress in the last 60 years. The amendments allow farmers to sign a 7-year income support contract with the Federal Government. That contract takes the place of the old market-distorted target pricing system. As a result of that and the flexibility that we have offered in this program, clearly the farmers today who wish to stay in the program have by far the greater opportunity to look to the matter, as they should, in deciding what they will plant and not have to worry about the loss of their base in that kind of flexibility and also have the income support program that we have talked about, at a minimal level, but an important level, so that we do not create the type of downturns that we have seen. A declining series of payments through the year 2002 would provide the kind of genuine flexibility and smooth transition, as I have just explained, toward the marketplace and allow agriculture then to be responsive to the market moving into the next century. No longer will Government tell the farmer which crops to plant. In other words, no longer will farmers have to farm the Government program to stay in the program or to realize some benefit from it. No longer will that occur. It leaves the farmer free to decide what is the most productive effort for his or her land. I think this is the way it ought to be. Of course, the marketplace, then, largely becomes the determinator of value and that, of course is the way any business and industry really ought to operate. The balanced budget amendments that we have brought into S. 1541 have been endorsed by the American Farm Bureau Federation. Mr. President, I have a letter here from the President of the National Farm Bureau, Dean Kleckner. This letter was sent to me just the day before yesterday with a full endorsement of S. 1541. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG. There is no question this very vital farm organization, representing more people in production agriculture today than any other farm organization, recognizes the importance of this legislation and, most important, the importance of what it does; that it again moves the farmer toward the marketplace as all of us are concerned happens. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Bill Northey, the president of the National Corn Growers Association, be printed in the Record along with a letter from Robert Petersen, coalition coordinator for the Coalition for a Competitive Food and Agricultural System.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, S. 1541 brings savings to the program. All of us want to accomplish that. It was the farmer that stood forth as soon as anyone else to say that a balanced budget is critical to our country and that a balanced budget is critical to the vitality of American agriculture; that American agriculture stands a lot better chance of surviving in an economy that is vibrant, in an economy where the consumers have access to and opportunity to purchase, with greater purchasing power that we believe the balanced budget would ultimately bring. Export subsidies would be curtailed, and of course peanut and sugar programs have gone through major reform. While those programs still have their critics here on the floor of the Senate, all of us can stand forward--those of us who work to produce these reforms--and demonstrate that clearly all of the commodity interests of our country have been sensitive to the kind of reform that moves us to the marketplace. I do not think the argument today that the consumer is paying the bill fits anymore. What does fit is the sensitivity to a fair playing field, especially in those industries that have to compete and must compete in worldwide economies. I do not think anyone in this country wants to see the destruction of a vibrant industry, or opening the borders in a way that allows dumping from Third World countries, as we have seen in the past, especially if the production in the Third World country is well below the marketplace and if it is subsidized by the sponsoring governments. That is what we can avoid, and that is what we have avoided here while complying with GATT, while in recognition of NAFTA. Markets must be balanced and they must be fair. I have never yet heard of a farmer or rancher in my State who would not say, ``Give me a level playing field and I will compete with the best in the world because I am the best in the world but I cannot compete against open subsidies or in a situation that allows those subsidized crops to be dumped in my domestic market.'' That is, of course, what we try to accomplish here in the type of balance and the kind of reform that we have brought to these programs. Conservation programs remain a critical part of any good farm bill. American agriculture has led the way in water quality, in saving our soil, and recognizing the vital interests of that industry by a sound environment and responding to that environment. Conservation programs will be a critical part of the bill. While we will continue to work this summer to finalize greater portions of the conservation title that meet the kind of critical environmental needs that is important out there in farmland America, what we are doing here is a major step in the right direction. I think it offers the opportunity to forestall any intrusive kind of regulation that could occur because it demonstrates that American agriculture was not only responsive to its own needs but sensitive to the criticisms of others where they were appropriately placed. Mr. President, S. 1541 is identical to the original balanced budget amendment with two exceptions: First, there is an increase in the size of dairy operations that could qualify for livestock environmental assistance; and another portion that is critical to my State and critical to a good many others, as we create flexibility in program crop areas that allow farmers to move toward the market, we do not want that farmer who is currently receiving Government support to be openly competing against a farmer who does not or has never received that. In simple terms, Mr. President, that simply would not be fair. Everybody in agriculture understands that. As a result of that, in the area of fruits and vegetables, they would qualify for current law, meaning that farmers who farm to the program and are in it with the flexibility and get the benefit of the 7-year payment program would not be allowed to use their flex acres in those productions. My State of Idaho raises potatoes. It is critical to the State and, I like to think, important to the Nation. But it is a very sensitive matter as it relates to availability and supply. A rush to plant potatoes in a relatively strong market could ultimately destroy that market or cause tremendous dislocation by some projection of unusual increases in planting. We are recognizing the need for transition. Potato farmers are not saying they should not compete, but why should they or any fruit or vegetable farmer compete against somebody who is receiving direct Government program benefits, as they would through the transition period? The answer, we think, and the fair answer is, they should not. That is why those areas have been left as current law provides. Mr. President, that is a brief summary of what we are attempting to accomplish in S. 1541. I certainly hope other colleagues would come to the floor to debate this issue today. We think it is important that we resolve it through this month, hopefully by early next month, or no later than the 1st of March we could go to conference between the House and the Senate, work out our differences, and in late winter or early spring let American agriculture know what farm policy is going to look like for the next good number of years. That keeps us in cycle with the normal planting cycles of our country and something we need to be responsive to. I understand there will be other legislation proposed later on in the afternoon. Senator Leahy is working on a proposed offering that will take a serious look at because all of us recognize that farm legislation, when it is good legislation, has always demonstrated the bipartisan approach that every good farm bill has ever been crafted on. Certainly this side wants to work with the other side in dealing with that issue, in solving the problems that we currently have. More important than that, though, is the timely message. I hope today and tomorrow we can debate this issue and vote on these issues. Clearly, that will send a signal--the House having brought a bill out of their committee yesterday, and hoping to be able to move on that within the next few weeks--that comes a long way toward resolving the problems we want to resolve. With the flexibility and, I think, the simplicity, the certainty we are offering, the opportunity for transition in the markets and hopefully the profitability that I think can be produced by this type of program with farmers, we not only offer them up a good piece of work that I think we in the Senate can be proud of, but we say to American agriculture: We will partner with you, but we expect you to farm to the market and to be sensitive to market trends and to farm to the world consuming public. We will help you get there in the best ways Government can facilitate, and that is really all that any industry in this country should be able to ask for. It is a partnership that has long existed, and it is one that I think brings a kind of ability to American agriculture that they expect. Mr. President, I have no further comments at this time. We have the legislation now before us, and with recognition that no one is here on the floor, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. May I inquire of the Chair what is the current order?

Mr. CRAIG. Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, earlier this afternoon, I spoke on the floor of the importance of this Senate dealing with farm policy in a timely manner that sends the appropriate signals to American agriculture of what they can expect in the reform policy that the 104th Congress is proposing. This afternoon, I earlier spoke of the commodity programs and how they would be affected as we move with production agriculture much closer to the market and away from a Government program with which to farm. There is a good deal more that Government can do for agriculture and still stay out of the business of telling them what to grow and how to grow it, because I think that is the responsibility of the family farmer, and I think that family farmer, or anybody in agriculture today, ought to be attuned to the market and ought to be farming to the market and deciding what his or her business may be, to what the world needs and what our consuming public needs than what a Government program will provide them or not provide them in telling them what to do. In other words, what I am saying, Mr. President, is there are legitimate roles for the Federal Government in its association with agriculture. I think some of those obvious areas are in the area of research, trade and conservation. I say that because where Government should involve itself is where the individual farmer or family farmer really cannot help themselves or cannot help themselves in an individual way. American farmers, without question, lead the world in productivity. One American farmer today, and we have all heard it said, produces enough for himself or herself and 120 other citizens. It was not very long ago, at least it was not very long ago in this Senator's mind, when I was traveling as a national officer for the Future Farmers of America in the 1960's, the midsixties. I remember well giving speech after speech where I spoke of the productivity of the American farmer. I oftentimes said that the American farmer produces enough for himself and 52 other Americans or 52 other citizens of the world. I just got through saying in 1996 that the American farmer produces enough for himself or herself and 120 other Americans or world citizens. Is it possible that productivity has more than doubled in 30-plus years? That is absolutely right, Mr. President, and the reason it has is because of research, the kind of research long term that has been done in direct association with the Federal Government where we, as taxpayers and as policymakers, can recognize the importance of long-term investment in the research area and that is, of course, where our land grant colleges and universities and our ag research stations have worked so very well over the years. That is a legitimate role. That is the right kind of role that Government can play an important part in doing and, of course, that is where we ought to continue to work so closely together. The different varieties, the E. coli bacteria problem that has cost lives in this country, can be dealt with and solved by the simple application of some research and by the proper education that can be a part and should be a part of a Government's role in participating with production agriculture. In my State of Idaho, there are some extraordinary things being done. Just recently, I was part of an announcement between USDA and the Department of Energy working cooperatively in a new research program. You scratch your head and say, ``Well, what is the Department of Energy doing in agriculture?'' Because of the kind of technology that has been developed in DOE, in sensors, in the ability to use satellite and satellite technology, USDA and DOE are coming together in a project out in Idaho that literally links the farmer and his or her tractor and applicator on the ground with a satellite back to a computer to tell them exactly where they are in the field, how much fertilizer to apply or not to apply. Phenomenal efficiencies come from the application, a greater sense of environmental control comes from the application and, as a result, cost savings and extremely high levels of productivity. Could that be done by the individual farmer? No, it certainly cannot be done. Can it be done by industry? Not very well. When the kind of research and turnaround time is measured in decades, that is where Government can play a role, and that is where this Congress recognizes Government should play a role. It is a much better place for Government to be associated with agriculture than telling the farmer what to farm, telling them how to farm it, and oftentimes then saying, ``And we'll provide you a safety net at the end.'' While we recognize the importance of those kinds of commodity programs, what our bill says and what we are clearly saying in the 104th Congress, as we have said over the last decade to production agriculture, learn to farm to the market and not to the program. The other area that I mention this afternoon is in the area of trade. Obviously, if we are as highly productive as I mentioned we are, then we have to have a market for our crops. That kind of productivity, absent the market, says that we are not going to get the kind of price for the product that deserves to be had and certainly provide that kind of profitability. Therefore, it is important that we have a strong domestic trade policy and, as we know, trade means you have to involve governments, you have to cross political boundaries, and that cannot be accomplished very well oftentimes by the individual farmer unless it is the Government working with their farmers to accomplish that. In my State of Idaho, almost three-fourths of our annual wheat crop is exported. It has to move in world markets to maintain levels of profitability. In addition, we send large amounts of meat, peas, lentils, dairy products, and potato products to other countries around the world. Since the passage of NAFTA, we have seen some positive and some negative results. Cattle producers in my State are increasingly worried about the slaughter cattle moving in across the boundary, both from Mexico and from Canada. Now and in the future, we must be assured that our trade negotiations and our trade policy fairly represents American agriculture, and if we are to walk away from and work with agriculture to move away from the kind of direct Federal payment and safety net to productivity in the marketplace, we have to make sure that they have full access to foreign markets. That is a legitimate role of Government associated with agriculture. We also must continue our effort to develop and maintain the foreign market by investing in those markets, by working with production agriculture to teach foreign consumers how to consume the agricultural products of this country. That is an important and successful partnership that has worked time and time again over the years, whether it is actually the development of wheat products in China that my State has been involved in with the Federal Government and our wheat growers, to the marketing of lentils somewhere in the Middle East and to a market use and expanded diversity in their use in the recipes of the Mideasterners. That is all a role, once again, that Government plays very successfully. So let me urge my colleagues to support all of these approaches. It is one thing to say we are going to simply provide for agriculture, and historically that is some of what we did to what we have been saying for the last decade: American agriculture, farm to the market, be productive, do what you know how to do and do it well, and then we will help you break down the foreign barriers which will access you to the world so that you can be productive. The third area that I believe Government can play a cooperative partnership role in is in the area of conservation. For example, the CRP program, while originally quite controversial in its introduction, has proved to be a highly successful program in the saving of topsoil and the improving of water quality and wildlife habitat. In my State of Idaho, almost 850,000 acres went into CRP. The record is now very, very clear of the tremendously positive effect, converting those acreages into sod bases, and what allowing them to rest undisturbed has done for all of the areas I have mentioned, including wildlife habitat. Upland game bird population increases in my State have been very dramatic as a result of these programs. So that, again, is the kind of partnership that the Government can associate itself with, and I think oftentimes should. Targeting truly erodible lands, we can continue a successful program under a voluntary participation. I believe, Mr. President, voluntary is the key when we discuss agricultural conservation. We have made some changes over the years that I have not liked and that American agriculture has not liked. We, historically, did allow Government to work in a voluntary, cooperative way with production agriculture, except in the mid 1980's, when we started making some changes and making conservation policy mandatory, and dictating. We started saying to the USDA, ``You are going to be the cop out in the field saying, `You are doing it wrong, and you have to do it differently or suffer the consequences.' '' When that kind of news hit the ground--and we saw it in the late 1980's-- relationships and partnerships began to change. There was no longer the voluntary aspect that had caused the conservation program to be as successful as it was. And we heard about it, very loudly and clearly, this year as we held hearings on this issue in the subcommittee, which I chair. Conservation, partnership, cooperation, and voluntary relationships have proven very successful over the years. Any other form and our resource base suffers, and it should not have to suffer. Farmers and ranchers, in my opinion, always have been, and must always be, the original environmentalists. We are the groundskeepers, the stewards of the private land, and the private land is the largest base in this country. If we are going to have a positive environment, that private property base must recognize the responsibility it has, and it has successfully done so over the years, whether it is erodible lands or whether it is the wetlands that we dealt with in the sod buster provisions of the farm bill of a few years ago and now, working with that again, to not make it so punitive, to make it cooperative, to include wetlands in the CRP base, so that you reward the farmer for moving that land out of production and into a protected type of classification, is what we ought to be doing, because we all recognize the value of wetlands to our Nation as a habitat and as a filtering system to the aquifers and to the productive sector of our country. That is cooperation, partnership, and that is the way it ought to be. I am certainly pleased that the kind of legislation that I have helped craft this year in revamping and bringing forth the new farm bill fits these criteria and moves us in a direction that I think most of production agriculture wants to move in. It puts Government in a relationship that it ought to be in. Mr. SMITH addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, may I inquire, what is the pending business?

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to S. 1541 to the desk. In doing so, let me say this amendment is in behalf of myself, Senator Leahy, Senator Lugar, Senator Breaux, Senator Dole, Senator Johnston, Senator Cochran, Senator Graham of Florida, Senator Grassley, Senator Jeffords and Senator McConnell.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, this cloture and another one I filed earlier will occur back-to-back beginning at 1:30 on Thursday. Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the amendment that has just been filed for Senator Leahy and myself and others is a substitute to S. 1541 as I earlier introduced this afternoon. This substitute is an effort to put together a bipartisan coalition of Senators with all of us very intent on producing farm legislation as soon as possible to do exactly what I talked about doing earlier today; that is, sending a clear message to the agricultural community of this country as to the certainty and the timing of key farm bill legislation. There are a variety of adjustments in the substitute--the language which deals with $100 million per year in additional mandatory funding for crop-oriented conservation cost- sharing programs similar to S. 854 that was introduced by Senator Lugar and Leahy earlier this year. There is a grazing lands conservation initiative program which will encourage innovative rangeland management techniques across the country. Certainly in my State of Idaho and other States, this can be a valuable resource in improving livestock grazing lands. State technical commitments would make it possible for farmers to serve on these committees where they now do not have standing. There are some nutritional reauthorizations that would reauthorize food stamps and other nutritional programs for the period of time of this legislation. Much of this will be corrected and adjusted when the House, the Senate, and the President agree on welfare legislation. There is a Northeast dairy compact provision in there to allow New England States to implement a price enhancement compact. We wish we could have gone further. The House acted yesterday on dairy legislation. Certainly in conference, it is my hope that we can refine and clarify dairy policy inside the farm bill for the coming year. The dairy industry of our country has worked now for the last 6 months with the House and the Senate Agriculture Committees to arrive at a compromise that reduces the overall budget profile for dairy programs and creates greater flexibility in the program. We hope that can get accomplished. Certainly there is a conservation foundation in this program that creates a nonprofit foundation to promote conservation. I know this has been something Senator Leahy has worked at for a good number of years. There is legislation in here also to deal with wetlands and the Florida Everglades issue. There is a concern that I will express for the Record that deals with this section as it applies to the program and the restoration of these vital wetlands in Florida. There is a provision for eminent domain. I think it is very important that the Record show that this Senator and many others recognize that authority of the Government, but also recognize under a former Executive order on March 15, 1988, signed by President Reagan, that Federal departments and agencies must consider the takings implication and deal with willing seller-willing buyer. I certainly, through the balance of this legislation, activities, debate, and in the conference, will work with the Senators from Florida to assure that in all instances we have a willing seller-willing buyer relationship as the State of Florida and the Senators from that State work to maintain the Florida Everglades and any consideration there with private property acquisition for the purpose of enhancement of the Everglades. All of us want to see that valuable natural resource protected. But at the same time, it is very important that the right of the private property owner be maintained. Mr. President, I chair the Private Property Rights Caucus here on the Hill. We just brought out of the Judiciary Committee the private property rights bill that I think is sweeping in its protection of private property rights. It sets the Government on notice. Certainly this legislation, if that act would become law, would fall subject to that new law. That would be important.

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 there now be a period for the transaction of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be permitted to meet Wednesday, January 31, 1996, beginning at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing on the tax reform report issued by the National Commission on Economic Growth and Tax Reform. The PRESIDING Officer. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee To Investigate Whitewater Development and Related Matters be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, January 30, Wednesday, January 31, and Thursday, February 1, 1996, to conduct hearings pursuant to Senate Resolution 120.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, we have all been watching the reports as U.S. Army Specialist Michael New has become a casualty of the debate over American troops participating in U.N. operations. In violating a lawful order issued through the U.S. chain of command, he will be held accountable under the standards set by the U.S. Code of Military Justice for refusing to wear a U.N. cap and shoulder patch. Specialist New was to have been deployed to participate in Operation ``Able Sentry'' in Macedonia, the stated purpose of which is to observe the border and discourage, by its presence, the spread of hostilities into Macedonia. Mr. President, on October 10, Army Specialist Michael New reported for duty without wearing the U.N. shoulder patch and beret he and his unit were issued to wear as part of their uniform while deployed in Macedonia. On October 17, Specialist New was charged for failure to obey a lawful order in violation of Article 92: Uniform Code of Military Justice. On January 23, 1996, the trial on the facts in the special court- martial of Specialist Michael G. New began. On January 24, the court, composed of officers and enlisted personnel, found Specialist New guilty of the charged offense of failure to obey a lawful order to ``wear the prescribed uniform for the deployment to Macedonia.'' He was found in violation of Article 92: Uniform Code of Military Justice. Specialist New was sentenced by the court-martial members to be discharged from the U.S. Army with a bad-conduct discharge. Mr. President, the situation that has resulted from Specialist New's actions has caused me great concern. As one who feels very strongly about this Nation's sovereignty and responsibilities placed on our Armed Forces to protect and defend this Nation, I find myself very frustrated with what has happened. Mr. President, my sympathy with his decision to refuse to wear the U.N. patch and hat does not change the fact that we must abide by the standards set by the military code of conduct if we are to assure order and fairness in the military. Our military must rely on strict chain of command and order. That is without a doubt. However, the men and women who have chosen to serve this Nation and the American people should not be put in a position which forces them to bear allegiance to any nation or organization other than the United States of America. Michael New made the decision to serve in the Armed Forces in order to defend the United States, not the United Nations. In order to address this situation, I introduced legislation that prevents any member of the U.S. Armed Forces from being required to wear, as part of their military uniform, any insignia of the United Nations. Mr. President, I hope that we can deal with this issue by proceeding in the legislative process with hearings on S. 1370, which now has 25 cosponsors. In addition, there is still another, broader issue that must be addressed, and that is the use of U.S. Forces under U.N. command. Mr. President, I would just urge my colleagues to review S. 1370. We must not lose sight of the fact that the men and women who volunteered to serve in our Armed Forces, volunteered to defend the United States of America, not the United Nations. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, be added as a cosponsor of S. 1370.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will not object. The measures the Senator from Nebraska is presenting have been cleared by this side.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following the joint session of Congress this evening, the Senate stand in adjournment until the hour of 5 p.m. on Wednesday, January 24; that immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be deemed approved to date, no resolution come over under the rule, the call of the calendar be dispensed with, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and there then be a period for morning business until 5:30, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each.