Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

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 Wednesday, November 8, and Thursday, November 9, 1995, to conduct hearings pursuant to Senate Resolution 120.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select [[Page S 16830]] Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 8, 1995, at 2 p.m., to hold a closed hearing on intelligence matters.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 8, 1995, at 4 p.m., to hold a closed briefing regarding intelligence matters.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, today Senators Johnston, Kempthorne, and I are introducing legislation to expedite the opening of the waste isolation pilot plant. This legislation removes unnecessary and delaying bureaucratic requirements, achieves a major environmental objective, saves the taxpayers money and, most significantly for the Nation and Idaho, begins the process of successfully cleaning up and decommissioning the nuclear weapons complexes and temporary storage facilities. The waste isolation pilot plant is located in southeast New Mexico. It is truly a unique project. Its specific purpose is to provide for the safe disposal of transuranic radioactive and mixed waste resulting from defense activities and programs of the U.S. Government. The importance of WIPP, however, extends beyond its stated mission. Idaho currently stores the largest amount of transuranic waste of any State in the Union, but Idaho is not alone as a waste storage State. Washington, Colorado, South Carolina, and New Mexico also have large amounts of transuranic waste in temporary storage. Until the WIPP opens, little can be done to clean up and close these temporary storage sites. The agreement recently negotiated between the State of Idaho, the DOE, and the U.S. Navy, states that transuranic waste currently located in Idaho will begin to be shipped to WIPP by April 30, 1999. This legislation will assure this commitment is fulfilled. We cannot solve the environmental problems at sites such as Idaho's National Engineering Laboratory, or Rocky Flats Weapons Facility, or Savannah River, or others, without this facility in New Mexico. The reason is [[Page S 16823]] obvious, Madam President. Without a place to dispose of the waste, cleanup is impossible. Without cleanup, further decommissioning cannot occur. The goal of this bill is simple: To deliver on Congress' longstanding commitment and open the WIPP facility by 1998. This bill amends the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Withdrawal Act of 1992 in several very important and significant ways. It deletes obsolete language of the 1992 act. Of particular importance is the reference and requirements for test-phase activities. Since the enactment of the 1992 act, the Department of Energy has abandoned the test phase that called for underground testing in favor of aboveground laboratory test programs. Thus, the test phase no longer exists, as defined in the 1992 law, and needs to be removed so it does not complicate the ongoing WIPP process. Most important, this bill will streamline the process, remove duplicative regulations, save taxpayers dollars--repeat, save taxpayers dollars, hundreds of millions of dollars--and have the following effects: The existing law contains a 180-day waiting period between the time the Secretary of Energy makes a decision to operate the WIPP and the actual commencement of disposal operations. My bill eliminates this waiting period. The 180 days constitutes an unnecessary delay. Eliminating 180 days saves $140 million or more in operational expenses during the waiting period and will start the removal of this type of waste from the aboveground storage in Idaho and other affected States 6 months earlier than now scheduled. The bill requires the Secretary of Energy to determine if engineered or natural barriers in the facility are necessary. This change is consistent with the concept of allowing actions at the WIPP to be based on the technical needs of the WIPP. Section 7, ``Compliance With Environmental Laws and Regulations,'' will streamline DOE's compliance with applicable environmental laws. In other words, Madam President, we are not stepping aside from the current environmental commitment. We are assuring that all of it is met, but that it is met on time and under standard. Section 8 repeals the retrievability requirement which was an outgrowth of below-ground testing. With the replacement of the test phase by laboratory testing, retrievability no longer is needed. All tests are now performed in the laboratory and no transuranic waste is used in testing at the WIPP. The bill deletes the need for a decommissioning plan which is a duplicative and costly legislative mandate. This plan is covered by the disposal standards of the Land Withdrawal Act of 1992 and thus is not needed. It deletes the requirement for a no-mitigation determination. In a letter to Senator Kempthorne and me dated September 8, 1995, the Environmental Protection Agency started that a no-mitigation variance is duplicative because the WIPP is held by the other statutes to a higher standard. EPA states, ``A demonstration of nonmitigation of hazardous constituents will not be necessary to adequately protect human health and the environment.'' Despite this view, EPA further states that unless the current law is amended, the WIPP will be forced to comply with the no-mitigation standards. This unnecessary duplication would be time consuming and costly. It allows the Secretary of Energy to dispose of a small amount of nondefense transuranic waste in the WIPP. In my opinion, this is a cost effective and safe way to dispose of a relatively minor amount of waste. But just as important, I would like to make clear what my bill does not do. This bill does not remove EPA as the DOE regulator of the WIPP. DOE has stated numerous times that it does not want to self-regulate. The Department believes that having EPA as the regular will instill additional public confidence in the certification process and the facility itself, once it opens. I am skeptical regarding EPA. EPA has a poor record of meeting deadlines. The WIPP, as a facility, is ready to operate now and is basically waiting on EPA's final approval. The schedule DOE has established to meet the opening dates is an aggressive but not entirely workable timetable. It is aggressive only if EPA can accomplish its tasks on time. Because of EPA's demonstrated inability to meet schedules and to avoid imposing unnecessary large financial burdens on the taxpayer, there is a strong sentiment in the Congress to remove EPA from the WIPP regulatory role. Based on assurances made to me by the EPA, my bill does not follow this course. However, if EPA again falters, I will have to reconsider this position in future legislation. Idaho and the Nation need to have the WIPP opened sooner rather than later. Each day of delay is costly, and the potential dangers to the environment and human health resulting from the temporary storage of this waste continue. It is time to act. We must, if we are to clean up sites such as Idaho's. We must act to dispose of this task permanently and safety for future generations. This bill clears the way for action. I encourage my colleagues to become cosponsors of this legislation. We hope to move it expeditiously through the necessary committee and hearing process so that it can become law.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of routine morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 5 minutes each.

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 the bill be deemed read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Agriculture Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1103 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, under a previous consent agreement, at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow, Senator Specter will make a motion to commit the bill, H.R. 1833, an act to ban partial-birth abortions. The majority leader has announced that the vote on the motion to commit will not occur prior to 12:30 tomorrow. Senators can therefore expect rollcall votes during Wednesday's session.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, November 8; that following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be deemed approved to date, no resolutions come over under the rule, that the call of the calendar be dispensed with, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then immediately resume consideration of H.R. 1833, with Senator Specter to be recognized as under the previous order.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I join the many mourners who share in the loss of Israel's Prime Minister, Yitzhak Rabin. It is ironic that the man who has spent his life in working for peace has now given his life for peace. When I first heard the news, my reaction was disbelief. As all Americans who lived through the loss of President Kennedy know, the loss of a leader at the hands of one of your own, is a great loss to bear. But, as this Nation also knows, the best way to honor the loss is to continue on, and accomplish what has been left undone. It is my hope that Prime Minister Rabin's death will serve a purpose, it will help guide Israel and her neighboring nations in the Middle East into a lasting peace. A man's life can be ended, Mr. President, but his work, his legacy can live on. Prime Minister Rabin's dedication to peace is alive and well in Israel, and will serve the Israelis well as they work through this very difficult time. There are many moments in a great man's life that we can take time to recall: The award of the Nobel Peace Prize, his life as a soldier, and his life as a leader. Yitzhak Rabin lived a life of service to his people, and the nation of Israel. One only need note the number of people who, at one time his foe, sat beside him in the peace process as partners, and who have shared in the mourning of his death. Mr. President, I also would like to add in my support for the work that remains to be done. Shimon Peres, the acting Prime Minister and partner in peace with Rabin, having served as his Foreign Minister, will face many challenges in the coming days--may the road ahead rise to meet him. Mr. President, before closing I would just note an interesting quote in a Washington Times article today from a young Israeli, Eyal Mandelbaum, age 16: We were brought up on the idea that we are a Jewish nation and that never could a Jew kill another Jew . . . in our history, we lost the war against the Romans because we were divided. If we are divided, we lose. Mr. President, Mr. Mandelbaum's words carry an important message. I hope that it will be heard, because there is a great deal of work that remains to be done on the road to peace. Israel and her people are at a critical juncture. I share in the support that has been expressed by our President, my colleagues in the Congress, and my fellow Americans, to continue to support the Middle East peace process. Mr. President, this will test the strength of peace in the Middle East, but it is my earnest hope that peace, in the end, will win.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Lands to consider four miscellaneous land bills. The first is S. 1371, the Snowbasin land exchange bill, to exchange certain lands in Utah. S. 590, a land exchange for the relief of Matt Clawson, and S. 985, to exchange certain lands in Gilpin County, CO, will also be the subject of the hearing. The last bill to be considered is S. 1196, to transfer certain National Forest System lands adjacent to the Townsite of Cuprum, ID. The subcommittee will not receive testimony on S. 901 and S. 1169 as previously announced. The hearing will take place Tuesday, November 7, 1995, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. Those wishing to testify or who wish to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please call Mark Rey at (202) 224-6470.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the Cooperator Program Act exemplifies the export-based marketing that must occur if American agriculture is to lead the world into the 21st century. I am very proud to cosponsor this bill that will extend an extremely successful program. It is also my desire to lead the efforts on the Senate Agriculture Committee to include this bill as an important provision of the trade title of the 1995 farm bill. The Cooperator Program is part of the Foreign Market Development Program as currently administered by the Foreign Agriculture Service of USDA. The cooperators in Foreign Market Development Program are regarded by many as a cost-effective and successful partnership that has expanded agriculture exports. Idaho wheat producers especially rely on foreign market developments and the exports for their economic well-being. In fact, Idaho's wheat producers collectively export between 75 and 80 percent of their production every year. In 1994, the production, marketing and exportation of Idaho's wheat provided over 30,000 jobs and $1.09 billion in economic revenue in Idaho and the rest of the Pacific Northwest. The Cooperator Program Act of 1995 will strengthen the foreign market development efforts of the past by creating a separate line-item authorization for future annual appropriations process. I commend Senator Burns for his efforts to introduce this legislation and urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am very proud to introduce a bill today that I hope will serve as the framework for crafting the conservation title of the 1995 farm bill. The Resources Enhancement Act is a balanced approach to blending the successes of past policy with the changing scope of future needs. The role of conservation programs in American agriculture are sometimes overlooked and underestimated. Farmers and ranchers are the original environmentalists and because of their dependence on the land they continue to implement voluntary practices that are in the best interests of those resources. The Resources Enhancement Act will maximize the voluntary efforts of farmers and ranchers by extending the role of State and Federal agencies, as well as some private entities, as partners in that effort. This includes an extension of the immensely popular resource conservation and development districts through 2002. However, it is of the utmost importance that Government agencies are not placed in the role of policing the actions of these farmers. This bill emphasizes technical advice and cost share of projects for our Nation's farmers, rather than enforcement and penalties. The Conservation Reserve Program as currently implemented enjoys widespread support among Idaho farmers. CRP will be extended for at least another 10 years under the Resources Enhancement Act. The positive gains in soil conservation will be continued along with an increased focus on water quality and wildlife habitat. Idaho farmers will now be able to enroll hill tops and filter strips, rather than entire fields of productive land. A premium of up to 125 percent of productivity adjusted rental rates will be paid for those partial field enrollments. For those still submitting entire field bids, the enrollment criteria of an erodibility index of 8 is similar to the current program. To provide some stability to farmers and local economies, a floor will be established for reenrollments. That floor will be 80 percent of the average rental rate for other contracts in the same county. Common sense must also prevail in other farm programs, especially those relating to compliance with conservation requirements on highly erodible lands. This bill will increase the flexibility of producers in meeting the requirements of their approved conservation plans. For the first time, alternate conservation systems will be written into law and the use of on-farm research will be encouraged. Farmers from across the Nation will also benefit from expedited USDA decisions on requests for variances to their conservation compliance plans. The issue of good faith and unintended violations is also addressed. From this bill forward, good-faith infractions by the farmer will be treated in good faith by the Department. Those good-faith violations will not be subject to a penalty. For any other violation, the size of the penalty will equate to the size of the violation. Currently, a small area of noncompliance on a farm can place an entire operation at risk. The commonsense provisions of the Resources Enhancement Act will rectify that situation. Common sense also prevails in the sections of the bill that address reform of the swampbuster program. Improvements similar to the highly erodible section are made in swampbuster with regard to good faith violations and all penalties. This bill will also place authority for ag wetlands in its natural place--the Department of Agriculture. The restoration and enhancement of existing wetlands and creation of new wetlands will be enhanced with an increased emphasis on mitigation banking. [[Page S 16503]] The Resource Enhancement Act also ensures that the wetlands reserve program will be continued through 2002. This program allows for 20- or 30-year easements for wetlands or water quality to be placed on agricultural lands. The broad scope of resource conservation needs are addressed in this bill while recognizing the ongoing voluntary efforts of farmers and ranchers and maintaining a respect for private property rights. These resource needs are best addressed by continued voluntary efforts in this time of declining Federal resources. It makes sense that the regulatory burdens on farmers and ranchers are decreasing, since the level of past farm program payments is also declining. I commend Senators Dole, Grassley, and Lugar for their efforts in crafting this bill and urge our other colleagues to join us in supporting the Resources Enhancement Act of 1995.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, public Law 94-199, designating the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area, was signed into law December 31, 1975. Section 10 of the act instructs the Secretary to promulgate such rules and regulations as he deems necessary to accomplish the purposes of the act, including a ``provision for the control of the use and number of motorized and nonmotorized river craft: Provided, That the use of such craft is hereby recognized as a valid use of the Snake River within the recreation area--''. This language seems clear. However, the original intent of the act, the compromises and promises that allowed its passage, seem to have been forgotten or clouded with time. Assurances 20 years ago that long- established and traditional uses, such as motorized boating, are a valid use of the river and would be continued with the support of people who would otherwise have opposed the legislation. Yet, as the original participants disappear from the scene and new players arrive, these arrangements are being callously disregarded. Throughout the process leading to designation and the ensuing management planning efforts, the USDA--Forest Service has exhibited a bias against motorized river craft. During hearings on the act, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture Long testified on a proposed amendment that would have authorized the Forest Service to prohibit jet boats. He noted that there were ``times when boating perhaps should be prohibited entirely''. Senator Church responded to that testimony unfavorably, explaining: . . . jet boats have been found to be the preferred method of travel by a great many people who have gone into the canyon. This is a matter of such importance that Congress itself should decide what the guidelines would be with respect to regulation of traffic on the river and that the discretion ought not to be left entirely to the administrative agencies. In a clear indication of Congress' intentions, the jet boat ban was not adopted. Later, in its first version of a comprehensive management plan in 1981, the Forest Service attempted to bypass congressional intent by eliminating power boating from the heart of Hells Canyon for the entire primary recreation season, granting exclusive use of the river from Wild Sheep Rapid to Rush Creek Rapid to those using nonmotorized river craft. Responding to public outrage, the Chief reconsidered his decision, and issued a new plan allowing access to the entire river for a very limited number of powered craft. On appeal, Assistant Secretary Crowell overturned this decision, allowing unlimited day use by powerboats and citing failure on the part of the Forest Service to demonstrate a need for such severe restrictions. More recently, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Supervisor Robert Richmond initiated a review and revision of the river management portion of the comprehensive management plan. Despite the lack of any demonstrable resource problems, and in the face of overwhelming public support for motorized river craft, the agency again decided to close part of the river to powerboats. The new river management plan adopted in November 1994 would have closed the heart of the canyon to motorized river craft for 3 days a week in July and August, the peak of the recreation season. In response to the many appeals received, a stay was granted by the regional Forester, avoiding a disastrous implementation of the new plan in 1995. However, the regional forester's eventual decision on the substance of the appeals made clear that he supports the concept of a partial closure of the river to motorized river craft. The agency's intent to pursue a closure is quite evident. Even a partial closure is objectionable, as it is contrary to the intent of the law and the history of the river. The Snake River is different from most rivers in the Wild and Scenic System. It is a high-volume river with a long and colorful history of use by motorized river craft. The first paying passengers to travel up through its rapids on a motor boat made their journey on the 110-foot Colonel Wright in 1865, and a memorable journey that was. Later, the 136-foot Shoshone made its plunge through the canyon from Boise to Lewiston in 1870 and was followed by the 165-foot Norma in 1895. Gasoline-powered craft began hauling people, produce, and supplies in and out of the canyon in 1910, and the first contract for regular mail delivery was signed in 1919, continuing today. The Corps of Engineers began blasting rocks and improving channels in 1903. They worked continuously until 1975 to make the river safer for navigation. Today the vast majority of people--over 80 percent--who recreate in the Hells Canyon segment of the Snake River access it by motorized river craft. Some are private boaters, and others travel with commercial operators on scenic tours. This access is accomplished with a minimum of impact to the river, the land, or their resources. Most river users, motorized and nonmotorized, are willing to share the river. However, a small group of nonmotorized users objects to seeing powered craft. Those unwilling to share have a rich choice of alternatives in this geographic area, such as the Selway and Middle Fork of the Salmon rivers. Motorized users, however, don't have that luxury. The only other white water rivers open to them in the Wild and Scenic System are portions of the Rogue and Salmon rivers. Without a single doubt, the Hells Canyon portion of the Snake River is our Nation's premier white water power boating river. Mr. President, as you can see, the use of motorized river craft is deeply interwoven in the history, traditions, and culture of Hells Canyon. That is why Congress deliberately created a nonwilderness corridor for the entire length of the river. That is why Congress tried to make it clear that use of both motorized and nonmotorized river craft are valid uses of the river within the recreation area--the entire river for the entire year. It was not the intent of Congress to allow the managing agency to decide that one valid use would prevail to the exclusive use over the other. Quite clearly, the issue of power boating's validity will not be settled unless decided by the courts or unless Public Law 94-199 is clarified by Congress. The courts are already burdened by too many cases of this type, resulting in a waste of time, energy, and financial resources for both the United States and its citizens. The only practical and permanent resolution of this issue is to clarify congressional intent in a manner that will not allow any future misunderstanding. This is what I propose to do with this legislation.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, last Friday night, or early Saturday morning, this Senate passed a historic budget reconciliation bill that said to our country: We heard you. We heard you. We believe you. And we are, with every effort, attempting to reduce an ever-growing Federal Government that has consumed an increasingly larger part of the gross domestic product of this country, progressively enslaving the taxpayer to a higher and higher portion of the gross work of that taxpayer. Now, it is interesting that today is Halloween, and guess what is happening out there? The Democrats are, once again, yelling ``Trick or treat, America.'' They are saying, ``Boo,'' to Americans. Once again, they are trying to frighten, or use the tactic of fear in driving the American public in a direction that they have said so clearly for so long that they do not want to go. What did we hear in the debates of last week and over the weekend, as members of the other side were speaking in opposition to the action that the Congress spoke to? They are saying that Republicans are ghouls, goblins, monsters, vampires, demons, and werewolves, as it relates to the care and concern of the people of this country. They are saying that we want to take seniors' health care away, that we want to attack low-income and working people, that we want to kick students out of college and kick poor people out on the streets, that we want to dirty the water and cause the air to be unbreathable and, of course, to let people die in industrial accidents. How could the average American really believe that anybody who seeks public service in this country to formulate public policy would want to do any of those things? Well, I suspect you might slip a little of that by during Halloween and talk about the scariness, talk about the pranks and the tricks that are being played out there. Let me tell you, it is not Halloween. It never will be Halloween. It should never be Halloween. What is it? It is the harvest season of the last election; that is what it is. The Republican Party heard so loudly and so clearly what the American people were saying, and we are responding. The budget resolution of last Friday evening spoke about harvesting the economic security for seniors by providing for a Medicare program that has long-term stability, so they cannot be frightened or scared into thinking that their security is in jeopardy. It is about the harvest of more jobs by creating a productive economy, by controlling debt and deficit structure in this country that, by every economist's projection, is costing us anywhere from 2 to 2.5 percent growth in the domestic product of this country, which spells lack of opportunity or less opportunity for our young people. That is the harvest season of what the Republican Party is attempting to do, what this budget resolution is all about, and the work that will go on in the next several weeks before we put that on the desk of the President for his consideration. What does it say in the end? It does not say, ``Boo''; it does not say, ``Trick or treat''; it says to the American people that there will be a higher standard of living for all, that the expectation, in a generational sense, will continue to be there for a better, more productive lifestyle in our country, because we had a Government that did not get in our way, that did not strangle the great ingenuity, humanity, and the energy of this country. That is what we are saying on this Halloween day--no trick or treat and no boos. I am always so saddened when the other side attempts to use a cultural battle or attempts to frighten people in their effort to convince them that their policy is better than the ones we put forth. Let us debate it on its merits. Let the American people objectively decide what is best for them and then send that to us in the message that they did so clearly last November. At this time, let me yield to my colleague from Wyoming to speak to this issue.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I now would like to recognize Mr. Grams of Minnesota.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the time this morning and such time as may be necessary be involved in a special order.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed 1 minute to close the order.

Mr. CRAIG. I thank my colleagues for joining me on this Halloween day. I hope the message that we send to the American people is that the efforts we are involved in here in Congress are not a trick but a treat--a treat rewarding them for the profound statement they made last year in the dramatic realignment of the political structure of this country, toward a time when Government's budgets will be balanced, when its programs will be responsive, as concerned about the taxpayers as it is about those who should be the recipients of responsible and caring Government programs. So the day of Halloween ought not to be scary, but a profound statement to the American people that their Government in this representative form of government heard them and heard them well.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, let me first of all associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from Iowa in the introduction of the legislation that he has just, in a very thoughtful and important way, gone through for the Record and for the American people. I think the Senator from Iowa said something very important a few moments ago that is oftentimes missed. He is a farmer. I am a former farmer and rancher. And he, I, Senator Dole, and Senator Lugar, who also have farm heritage and background owning farmland, recognize the phenomenal valuable asset this land is to the American people. Farmers have been foremost, along with ranchers, environmentalists and conservationists. The legislation we have introduced today speaks to those interests in recognizing the important balance between conserving the land, protecting water quality, ensuring the environment, and allowing a productive environment also for the purposes of being able to farm in a profitable manner. I think this legislation does it, and it allows the farmer once again to take the initiative with USDA and its affiliate agencies as those who cooperate instead of regulators, as the Senator so clearly spoke of.

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Craig pertaining to the introduction of S. 1368 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') Mr. LIEBERMAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining my colleague from the House of Representatives, Majority Whip Tom Delay, in introducing legislation that will prohibit the requirement that members of the United States Armed Forces wear United Nations uniform items. 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 United Nations 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. The operations in Macedonia in which the American forces are participating are conducted under the auspices of the United Nations. A Norwegian general officer currently expercises operations control over the American task force Able Sentry. While a U.N. commander has operational control, it is my understanding that the command of the U.S. task force remains under the U.S. chain of command. Mr. President, on October 10, Army Specialist Michael New reported for duty without wearing the United Nations 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. Mr. President, I would also note that Michael New will have legal representation and receive due process under these standards, as is extended to any military member who stands accused of violating military rules. The Army has indicated to me that care will be taken to ensure military standards of justice and fairness prevail. 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. Therefore, in order to resolve this situation. I am introducing 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, there is still another, broader issue that must be addressed, and that is the use of U.S. forces under U.N. command. It is my understanding that except for some expertise that was provided by a limited number of American advisors, until the past 2 or 3 years, no American troops had served in U.N. peacekeeping forces. In my view, the United States should not assume responsibility for resolving every conflict that develops around the world. American combat troops are not, and should not be used as ``world policemen.'' Mr. President, I supported Senator Nickles' amendment to the fiscal year 1994 defense appropriations legislation which would have required congressional approval before American troops could serve under foreign command, except when the President certifies it is an emergency or that our national security is at risk. Unfortunately, the amendment was defeated on a 33 to 65 vote. This issue remains unresolved. Therefore I also support hearings in the Senate Armed Services Committee aimed at reviewing Specialist New's case and the proper role U.S. troops should play in international military operations. Mr. President, I would just urge my colleagues to review the bill that I am introducing today in the greater context of this situation. 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 text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining my colleague from the House of Representatives, Majority Whip Tom Delay, in introducing legislation that will prohibit the requirement that members of the United States Armed Forces wear United Nations uniform items. 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 United Nations 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. The operations in Macedonia in which the American forces are participating are conducted under the auspices of the United Nations. A Norwegian general officer currently expercises operations control over the American task force Able Sentry. While a U.N. commander has operational control, it is my understanding that the command of the U.S. task force remains under the U.S. chain of command. Mr. President, on October 10, Army Specialist Michael New reported for duty without wearing the United Nations 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. Mr. President, I would also note that Michael New will have legal representation and receive due process under these standards, as is extended to any military member who stands accused of violating military rules. The Army has indicated to me that care will be taken to ensure military standards of justice and fairness prevail. 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. Therefore, in order to resolve this situation. I am introducing 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, there is still another, broader issue that must be addressed, and that is the use of U.S. forces under U.N. command. It is my understanding that except for some expertise that was provided by a limited number of American advisors, until the past 2 or 3 years, no American troops had served in U.N. peacekeeping forces. In my view, the United States should not assume responsibility for resolving every conflict that develops around the world. American combat troops are not, and should not be used as ``world policemen.'' Mr. President, I supported Senator Nickles' amendment to the fiscal year 1994 defense appropriations legislation which would have required congressional approval before American troops could serve under foreign command, except when the President certifies it is an emergency or that our national security is at risk. Unfortunately, the amendment was defeated on a 33 to 65 vote. This issue remains unresolved. Therefore I also support hearings in the Senate Armed Services Committee aimed at reviewing Specialist New's case and the proper role U.S. troops should play in international military operations. Mr. President, I would just urge my colleagues to review the bill that I am introducing today in the greater context of this situation. 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 text of the bill be printed in the Record.