Larry Craig

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 Tuesday, June 3.

Mr. CRAIG. I ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted and the Senate be in a period of morning business until the hour of 12:30 p.m. to allow Senators to pay tribute to our President pro tempore, Senator Thurmond.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, tomorrow from 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., the Senate will honor the service of our President pro tempore, Senator Strom Thurmond, as the longest serving Member of the U.S. Senate. By previous consent, from 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. the Senate will be in recess to allow the weekly policy luncheons to meet. At 2:15, the Senate will immediately resume consideration of S. 4, the Family Friendly Workplace Act. Members who intend to offer amendments to S. 4 should be prepared to offer those amendments during tomorrow's session. Therefore, Senators can expect rollcall votes throughout tomorrow's session of the Senate as we make progress on this important legislation. A cloture motion was filed this evening on the pending amendment to S. 4, and therefore Members can anticipate a cloture vote on Wednesday morning. As always, Members will be notified accordingly as any votes are ordered with respect to the legislation. Also, under the provisions of rule XXII, Senators have until the hour of 12:30 tomorrow afternoon in order to file first-degree amendments. It is the leader's hope that we can complete action on S. 4 midweek so we can continue action on the concurrent budget resolution and supplemental appropriations conference report this week. I appreciate all Members' cooperation and I thank Members for their attention.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Personal Safety and Community Protection Act. In recent years, a movement has swept the Nation to enable individuals to carry concealed firearms for their protection. Forty-two of the fifty States have some right-to-carry permit mechanism in place, and they are finding these laws make a significant impact on crime. The benefits of right-to-carry laws were verified by a landmark study released late last year. Following a comprehensive analysis of annual FBI crime statistics from all the Nation's counties, over 15 years, the authors concluded: [a]llowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase in accidental death or suicides. If those states who did not have right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,800 murders and over 3,000 rapes would have been avoided yearly . . . The primary author of the study, John R. Lott Jr. of the University of Chicago Law School, has pointed out that the benefits of concealed- carry laws are not limited to those who carry the weapons but extend to their fellow citizens, as well. The drop in crime is not necessarily the result of using firearms in self-defense, but of criminals changing their behavior to avoid coming into direct contact with a person who might have a gun--which in a concealed-carry State could extend to a wide cross-section of the public. The legislation I am introducing today builds on the experience of the States. It is designed to protect the rights of citizens no matter where they may travel in the United States, and to enhance the protection of our communities. This bill applies to any person holding a valid concealed firearm carrying permit or license issued by a State, and who is not prohibited from carrying a firearm under Federal law. In States that issue concealed carry permits, the individual would be able to carry a concealed firearm in accordance with State laws. In States that do not have right-to-carry laws, the bill sets a reasonable, bright-line Federal standard that would permit carrying except in certain designated places, such as police stations; courthouses; public polling places; meetings of State, county, or municipal governing bodies; schools; passenger areas of airports. The second part of the bill provides an exemption for certain qualified current and former law enforcement officers, who bear valid written identification of their status, from laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms. The bill does not override any existing training requirements or restrictions on gun ownership or use by current or former law enforcement officers. The individuals covered by this section of the bill have proven records of responsible, lawful gun use in defense of their fellow citizens and communities. Again, Mr. President, this portion of the bill takes a practical, experience-based approach to self defense and community protection. I'm pleased to note that my bill is a companion to H.R. 339, introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Cliff Stearns and cosponsored by more than 40 Members from nearly half the States. I urge all my colleagues to join us in protecting the rights of your constituents and enhancing the protection of your communities by supporting the Personal Safety and Community Protection Act. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Personal Safety and Community Protection Act. In recent years, a movement has swept the Nation to enable individuals to carry concealed firearms for their protection. Forty-two of the fifty States have some right-to-carry permit mechanism in place, and they are finding these laws make a significant impact on crime. The benefits of right-to-carry laws were verified by a landmark study released late last year. Following a comprehensive analysis of annual FBI crime statistics from all the Nation's counties, over 15 years, the authors concluded: [a]llowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase in accidental death or suicides. If those states who did not have right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,800 murders and over 3,000 rapes would have been avoided yearly . . . The primary author of the study, John R. Lott Jr. of the University of Chicago Law School, has pointed out that the benefits of concealed- carry laws are not limited to those who carry the weapons but extend to their fellow citizens, as well. The drop in crime is not necessarily the result of using firearms in self-defense, but of criminals changing their behavior to avoid coming into direct contact with a person who might have a gun--which in a concealed-carry State could extend to a wide cross-section of the public. The legislation I am introducing today builds on the experience of the States. It is designed to protect the rights of citizens no matter where they may travel in the United States, and to enhance the protection of our communities. This bill applies to any person holding a valid concealed firearm carrying permit or license issued by a State, and who is not prohibited from carrying a firearm under Federal law. In States that issue concealed carry permits, the individual would be able to carry a concealed firearm in accordance with State laws. In States that do not have right-to-carry laws, the bill sets a reasonable, bright-line Federal standard that would permit carrying except in certain designated places, such as police stations; courthouses; public polling places; meetings of State, county, or municipal governing bodies; schools; passenger areas of airports. The second part of the bill provides an exemption for certain qualified current and former law enforcement officers, who bear valid written identification of their status, from laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms. The bill does not override any existing training requirements or restrictions on gun ownership or use by current or former law enforcement officers. The individuals covered by this section of the bill have proven records of responsible, lawful gun use in defense of their fellow citizens and communities. Again, Mr. President, this portion of the bill takes a practical, experience-based approach to self defense and community protection. I'm pleased to note that my bill is a companion to H.R. 339, introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Cliff Stearns and cosponsored by more than 40 Members from nearly half the States. I urge all my colleagues to join us in protecting the rights of your constituents and enhancing the protection of your communities by supporting the Personal Safety and Community Protection Act. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for allowing me this time, and I also want to recognize his leadership in the efforts we have just concluded in bringing about a budget and a budget resolution. I think our majority leader, Trent Lott, is to be congratulated for a very positive and gallant effort.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to recognize a member of my staff who will be retiring next Friday after many years of service to me, the State of Idaho, the Senate, and the Nation. Norman G. Arseneault came to my office as an American Political Science Association fellow from the Forest Service, USDA more than 6 years ago. He served with distinction in that fellowship program, taking on numerous natural resources problems facing the State of Idaho and working diligently to find solutions. When he completed the fellowship, he returned to the Forest Service to resume what I am sure would have been a distinguished career. Shortly after he had returned to the Forest Service, it became clear to me that solutions to the natural resources problems we faced--the wilderness debate in my State, endangered species listing, and a host of others--would benefit from Norm's skills. I offered him a permanent staff position, and, fortunately for Idaho, he accepted. Since then, all in my office have benefited from Norm Arseneault's professionalism, good humor, and integrity. He has developed a reputation on the Hill and in the State of Idaho for honesty, straightforwardness, fairness, and competence. It has been my good fortune to have been among those who have known and worked with him on a day-to-day basis. As Norm moves on to a new phase in his life, I know the traits that have made him so effective in my office over the past 6 years will service him well in his future endeavors. I am proud to know Norm Arseneault and to have called him friend. I speak for all in my office when I say he will be dearly missed. We wish him the best and God speed.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, on Monday, many of us will be about the land, speaking to veterans on Memorial Day. Throughout this Nation's history and throughout the world's history valiant soldiers have struggled, distinguished themselves, advanced their cause, and fallen in battle. Yet a Memorial Day commemorating America's brave heroes was a long time in coming. A national memorial occasion was observed for the first time in 1886. It began with the Grand Army of the Republic, the organization of Union Army veterans. They started, on a nationwide scale, what some southern women in several Dixie cities had been doing as a local spring ceremony--remembering the Civil War dead by placing flowers on their graves. Since then, all too many generations have confronted the savagery of war and added their own list to the role of the fallen heroes. What began as a memorial to casualties of one war is now our day to honor those from all of our wars. In the beginning, Memorial Day was more popularly known as Decoration Day. I grew up, as probably the President did, knowing it as Decoration Day. I remember my folks saying now we have to go to the graves and to the cemetery to honor our dead In our family on Decoration Day. It was observed by decorating the graves with flowers and flags. That tradition is still a strong one and many thousands of Americans will go to the graves of their loved ones and to veterans and veterans' graves and memorials on Monday to recognize our veterans. Our emphasis today should be to remember the supreme sacrifice so many made to protect our great Nation and secure the freedoms we enjoy. Gen. John A. Logan, the commander of the Grand Army of the Republic, called for the observance of Memorial Day in 1886. Today, his words are still eloquent and meaningful, and it is fitting that we recall them. He said, ``Let no ravages of time testify to coming generations that we have forgotten as a people the cost of a free and undivided Republic.'' On this Memorial Day, 1997, that we are soon to celebrate, let us acknowledge the terrible cost and honor the fallen heroes who paid for it have made, by rededicating ourselves to their cause. Let us concentrate on preserving our Nation and honoring our cherished freedoms by recognizing those who preserve them for us. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am today introducing, with the cosponsorship of Senator Kempthorne, the Coeur d'Alene River Basin Environmental Restoration Act of 1997. This legislation would allow for a workable solution to clean up the historic effects of mining on the Coeur d'Alene Basin in North Idaho. This bill is similar to a bill (S. 1614) I introduced in the last Congress. This legislation establishes a process that is centered around an action plan developed between the Governor of the State of Idaho and a Citizens Advisory Commission comprised of fourteen representatives of affected State and Federal government agencies, private citizens, the Coeur d'Alene Indian Tribe; and affected industries. The responsibilities of this Commission are very important to the ultimate success of cleaning up the Basin. I would like to note that a Commission that mirrors the one in this legislation was created by the Idaho legislature and that legislation was signed into law by Governor Phil Batt. I am indeed pleased that Idaho has put in place the citizen committee that is the crux of this plan to clean up the Silver Valley. The Silver Valley of North Idaho has made contributions to the national economy and to all of our country's war efforts for well over a century. The federal government has been involved in every phase of mineral production over the history of the Valley. It is, therefore, appropriate that Congress specifically legislate a resolution of natural resources damages in the Coeur d'Alene Basin and participate in funding such a plan. I want to make clear this legislation does not interfere with the ongoing Superfund cleanup within the 21-square mile Bunker Hill site. This legislation sets up a framework for voluntary cleanup of affected areas outside this 21-square mile area. In drafting this legislation, I have worked with the mining industry, the Coeur d'Alene tribe, local governments, the Governor of Idaho, and citizens in North Idaho. It is only through the involvement of all these parties that a solution will be reached. Throughout this effort it has been clear that all parties want the Basin cleaned up, and they want the cleanup done with the concerns of local citizens and entities addressed and with controls and cleanup decisions made in Idaho, not in Washington, DC. These are the guiding principles that I have applied in developing this legislation. Local cleanup has already begun in the headwaters of the Basin's drainage. Nine Mile Creek and Canyon Creek have had proven engineering designs implemented within their drainages. The Coeur d'Alene River Basin Environmental Restoration Act of 1997 would assure this type of meaningful restoration could continue. However, the actions needed in each part of the Basin are not clear. That is why my bill calls for the Governor of Idaho and the Citizens Advisory Commission to develop an Action Plan that can address the varying conditions within the Basin. For example, engineering solutions will certainly work in portions of the Basin--but not every place. The steeper gradient streams in the upper Basin respond well to engineering fixes, but these types of fixes may only exacerbate problems in the lower, flatter portions of the Basin. Local input and control through the action plan can address such diversity and the need for varying environmental fixes. The Department of Justice is currently pursuing a lawsuit for alleged natural resources damages in the area addressed by this legislation. For the federal government to follow such a course is folly. When the federal government litigates under Superfund, the members of the legal profession benefit, as litigation eats away at whatever resources are available for a cleanup. Litigation does not benefit the citizens affected by a cleanup and certainly does not benefit the resources that are purported to be the primary consideration when such a suit is pursued. I do not intend to see cleanup resources in North Idaho squandered in litigation. It is my goal to see that Coeur d'Alene Basin cleanup is not litigated away. That is the reason we have introduced this legislation. it will clean up the Basin, not litigiously waste the Basin's resources.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to clarify some issues raised today on the Senate floor by a colleague of mine. Specifically, these issues had to do with a paper entitled ``Unforeseen Effects of the Much Touted Tobacco Tax'' published on May 16, 1997 by the Senate Republican Policy Committee, of which I am chairman. My colleague made several statements about the analysis but failed to address the substance of the paper's argument: That the $6.5 billion loss in state revenue over the next five years will hinder states' ability to provide services to their citizens. This loss of revenue will pressure states to accept a new program that includes many mandates and additional costs that will yet further strain their budgets. Finally, this substantial incursion to a state revenue source establishes a dangerous precedent for further such incursions by the federal government. It is a principle of the Republican party that the federal government should not place an unfunded mandate on the states, regardless of the reason. If the end is so laudable, then the federal government should provide the means for delivering it. In the last Congress, a proposal to prevent unfunded mandates was given the Republican party's highest priority. Introduced as the first bill in the Senate, S.1, passed (86- 10) with all Republicans supporting it, and sent to the President who signed it. The program debated today violated that principle by not only leaving states with an unfunded liability, but reducing their revenues for their own priorities. In short, the program being debated not only would increase states' spending but decrease their revenues at the same time. The paper put out by the Republican Policy Committee made that clear. The fact that my colleague chose to ignore it and the underlying problem of the program's approach, does not change the program's impact and should not diminish our concern that the states be treated fairly and honestly by the federal government. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank my chairman for yielding. Mr. President, I join what I hope is a majority of the Senators on this floor in opposing Hatch-Kennedy. I am not going to argue the merits of it one way or the other. I don't think that is the issue this morning. The issue is that a budget deal gets broken--a budget deal that has been woven together in a bipartisan format that gives both sides some recognized need and that produces a budget that is good for the American people. All of us are concerned about child health care, or there wouldn't be $16 billion in this budget agreement for children without health care. Therein lies the issue. I think it is important to note that, while my colleague from Oregon just talked about an analysis that said States would lose money, it is very likely they would lose money, and that is, in fact, one of the analyses. It could cost them up to $6.5 billion over 5 years. Again, it is against the very direction that we want to head in; that is, empowering the States to take care of their own needs instead of handing them a new Federal mandate and a new program from the top down, telling them what to do and how to do it. We do that, in essence, by stealing away from them the very revenue base that they have been using for these purposes. This would directly hurt the health and educational programs in 16 States that earmarked part of their tobacco tax for this purpose. This doesn't include the cost of the mandate included in the amendment that will be added on. According to the whip's office, there are 30 State mandates in the proposal. Therein is a substantial basis for the objection. This Congress has in a bipartisan manner expressed its desire and concern about the health needs of the uninsured young people of this country. That is what the debate ought to be about. My guess is that this Congress will work its will as the courts will work their will when it comes to the question of tobacco, when it comes to the question of: Should it be limited, and in what form ought it be limited? But let us not break a budget deal. For this is exactly what will happen with this issue. So I hope that we will resolve it in staying with our agreement. We think it is a good one and that this one simply disrupts what is an extremely valuable part of the total program. If we are moving toward empowering the States and the individuals to care for their own and their citizens, then Hatch-Kennedy goes directly against that thrust and prescribes again another very large, federally controlled, mandated program that is cross-grain or cross-directional to what we have been attempting to do all along. So when you look at all of the aspects that are incorporated in this legislation, it is not precedent setting. It is returning to the past. It is stepping backwards into a large, federally controlled bureaucracy that in the end probably doesn't produce the kind of health care that our citizens would want or that our citizens would expect of their way of life or their system of government. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am today introducing, with the cosponsorship of Senator Kempthorne, the Coeur d'Alene River Basin Environmental Restoration Act of 1997. This legislation would allow for a workable solution to clean up the historic effects of mining on the Coeur d'Alene Basin in North Idaho. This bill is similar to a bill (S. 1614) I introduced in the last Congress. This legislation establishes a process that is centered around an action plan developed between the Governor of the State of Idaho and a Citizens Advisory Commission comprised of fourteen representatives of affected State and Federal government agencies, private citizens, the Coeur d'Alene Indian Tribe; and affected industries. The responsibilities of this Commission are very important to the ultimate success of cleaning up the Basin. I would like to note that a Commission that mirrors the one in this legislation was created by the Idaho legislature and that legislation was signed into law by Governor Phil Batt. I am indeed pleased that Idaho has put in place the citizen committee that is the crux of this plan to clean up the Silver Valley. The Silver Valley of North Idaho has made contributions to the national economy and to all of our country's war efforts for well over a century. The federal government has been involved in every phase of mineral production over the history of the Valley. It is, therefore, appropriate that Congress specifically legislate a resolution of natural resources damages in the Coeur d'Alene Basin and participate in funding such a plan. I want to make clear this legislation does not interfere with the ongoing Superfund cleanup within the 21-square mile Bunker Hill site. This legislation sets up a framework for voluntary cleanup of affected areas outside this 21-square mile area. In drafting this legislation, I have worked with the mining industry, the Coeur d'Alene tribe, local governments, the Governor of Idaho, and citizens in North Idaho. It is only through the involvement of all these parties that a solution will be reached. Throughout this effort it has been clear that all parties want the Basin cleaned up, and they want the cleanup done with the concerns of local citizens and entities addressed and with controls and cleanup decisions made in Idaho, not in Washington, DC. These are the guiding principles that I have applied in developing this legislation. Local cleanup has already begun in the headwaters of the Basin's drainage. Nine Mile Creek and Canyon Creek have had proven engineering designs implemented within their drainages. The Coeur d'Alene River Basin Environmental Restoration Act of 1997 would assure this type of meaningful restoration could continue. However, the actions needed in each part of the Basin are not clear. That is why my bill calls for the Governor of Idaho and the Citizens Advisory Commission to develop an Action Plan that can address the varying conditions within the Basin. For example, engineering solutions will certainly work in portions of the Basin--but not every place. The steeper gradient streams in the upper Basin respond well to engineering fixes, but these types of fixes may only exacerbate problems in the lower, flatter portions of the Basin. Local input and control through the action plan can address such diversity and the need for varying environmental fixes. The Department of Justice is currently pursuing a lawsuit for alleged natural resources damages in the area addressed by this legislation. For the federal government to follow such a course is folly. When the federal government litigates under Superfund, the members of the legal profession benefit, as litigation eats away at whatever resources are available for a cleanup. Litigation does not benefit the citizens affected by a cleanup and certainly does not benefit the resources that are purported to be the primary consideration when such a suit is pursued. I do not intend to see cleanup resources in North Idaho squandered in litigation. It is my goal to see that Coeur d'Alene Basin cleanup is not litigated away. That is the reason we have introduced this legislation. it will clean up the Basin, not litigiously waste the Basin's resources.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise in support of the fiscal year 1998 balanced budget resolution. I congratulate the hard-working chairman of the Budget Committee for his leadership and dedication in bringing us to this point, as well as our distinguished majority leader. Am I especially happy to be able to use those 2 words, ``balanced budget.'' This budget resolution represents a victory for the American people; for sound, conservative principles; for those of us who have fought for years for a balanced budget; for the seniors who will be protected by a safer, sounder Medicare system; and for the workers of today and the children of tomorrow, who will benefit from a healthier economy and better jobs. Some may be disappointed because this is not a ``perfect'' budget; but it's a big improvement over the status quo; and there's a world of difference between this budget and the big-government, tax-and-spend budgets of just a few years ago. Less than 2 years ago, President Clinton was saying we didn't even need to balance the budget; then he said, maybe we could balance by 2005; but the new Republican majority elected in 1994, and reelected in 1996, insisted on a plan to a balanced budget by 2002--and now we've got one. Two years ago, when the first Republican Congress in 40 years took office, we found a Medicare system ready to go bankrupt in 2001. We said it was time to fix Medicare and we tried to slow its rate of growth to 6 or 7 percent a year, with pro-senior citizen, pro-consumer reforms. Some from the other side tried to hit us with 30-second attack ads, claiming that seniors' benefits would be slashed and burned. But the American people didn't believe them. Today, finally, we have a sober, responsible, bipartisan agreement that says Medicare must be repaired--so that Medicare continues to be there for our seniors who need it. And yes, in this budget agreement, Medicare grows at about 6 percent a year. Under this budget, Medicare part A will be solvent for a decade. The details that finally emerge later this year in a budget reconciliation bill will probably not contain all the structural, market-based reforms that Medicare needs for the long term, but this budget should be a good start. Four years ago, the President asked for, and Congress unfortunately passed, the biggest tax increase in history. Today, this budget agreement includes real, pro-family, pro-growth, tax cuts. We finally begin to roll back that last, huge tax increase. The skeptics said you couldn't balance the budget, cut taxes, and get bipartisan agreement. But this budget will do those things. Let's remember: What this budget begins to do is let the people keep more of their own money. Under this budget, we will finally begin to get spending growth under control. Will the government still be too big and intrusive? Yes. But the Federal Government will spend $1.1 trillion less over the next 10 years than it would have spent under previous policies. Spending growth will drop from 4.4 percent a year under previous policies to 3.1 percent a year under this budget--just barely more than inflation. The Government will finally begin to shrink relative to the size of the economy. Spending will still go up in nominal dollars, but it will drop from 20.8 percent to 18.9 percent of gross domestic product, by 2002. Of course, a lot depends on the enforcement provisions that will have to be part of the budget reconciliation legislation later this year. I'll be watching that legislation closely. We've learned from bitter existence in the past that permanent procedures are needed to keep spending from running wild. After all, the road to a $5.3 trillion debt was paved with good intentions. That's why we should have passed--and still need--a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. But the budget enforcement rules called for under this budget resolution should help keep us on course to a balanced budget by 2002. A majority of the people in America have seen the budget balanced exactly once or never in their lifetimes. The last two balanced budgets were in 1960 and 1969. A majority of Americans alive today were born after 1960. It's time for that destructive trend to end. It's time to create a better future for all Americans. This budget resolution is the right beginning of that promising future.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I certainly respect the comments of my colleague, and I will leave it at that because at this moment I would like to announce to my fellow Senators a joyous event in my family. Yesterday afternoon at 4:46 my daughter, Shae Czartoryski, with the help of her husband Jeff, gave birth to our first grandchild--Suzanne Craig's and Larry Craig's first grandchild --a beautiful baby girl by the name of Riley Anne Czartoryski. She came in at 6 pounds 6 ounces, and 20\1/2\ inches long, and yelling her head off. We are just tickled pink about that. So, as we talk about life and as we talk about joy, I wanted to share with all of you today a joy in my life, my first grandchild, the first grandchild of our family. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I have the privilege today to be here on the floor to support S. 717, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. First of all, I find it important to congratulate Senator Jeffords, Senator Coats, and Senator Lott, who have worked hard to reach a compromise that I believe this legislation supports. It is an important compromise because this is necessary and important legislation. As my colleagues have stated so well here today on the floor, IDEA is our Nation's core special education statute for children with disabilities. In 1975, when the original IDEA passed, Congress accepted responsibility in this area. Now it is our turn to live up to this commitment. I happen to have a son-in-law who is a fifth grade schoolteacher. He speaks to me about the difficulties in the classroom when there are not enough resources to be able to handle children who find themselves with these difficulties and the average child who is there in the classroom to learn. He finds himself dividing his time up among these, and sometimes in an inappropriate way, and not offering to all of the children the kind of time that their teacher and their instructor ought to give. In the bill before the Senate today we have a balanced approach which takes into account the needs and rights of the local school boards, teachers, parents and, most important, the students. Among its chief provisions is the flexibility it affords local school officials in making alternative interim placement of children with disabilities who bring weapons or drugs to school. This was an area of heated debate, and I am pleased to see the final bill includes an arrangement we can all work with. Likewise, I am pleased with the progress the committee has made on other controversial issues such as the recovery of attorney's fees and succession of services. While no parties involved will receive all that they hoped for, this balanced approach is fair, and, I think, it is sound public policy. There is, however, some work left to be done. Though perhaps not today, this Congress will, in the very near future, have to take up the issue of full funding for IDEA. There is a role for the Federal Government to play in education, and while those of us who believe in the right of the State and, most important, the right of the local school district to have the primary responsibility, the area of funding of targeted needs and special needs has been something the Federal Government has done well over the last good number of years, and IDEA, in my opinion, is one of those. When the law was originally passed in 1975, Congress promised to provide appropriations equal to 40 percent of the national average per pupil expenditure for education. Since S. 717 makes progress toward that important goal, I remained committed to seeing us reach the full funding level. I am confident, however, that this issue will be addressed during our consideration of the budget. Accordingly, I do not see the need for amending S. 717 at this time. Again, Madam President, I state my thanks for the work that has been done by all of those involved in the lengthy but successful process of bringing S. 717 to the floor. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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 further ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess from the hours of 12:30 until 2:15 for the weekly policy conferences to meet.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it stand in adjournment until the hour of 10 a.m. on Tuesday, May 13. I further ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted, and the Senate then begin consideration of S. 4, the Family Friendly Workplace Act.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, tomorrow morning the Senate will begin consideration of the Family Friendly Workplace Act. It is also hoped that the Senate will be able to complete action on S. 717, the IDEA legislation. As always, all Members will be notified as to when to anticipate any rollcall votes on either of these two matters. The Senate may also consider any other legislation or executive item that can be cleared for action.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Byrd amendment and in support of the shutdown prevention provision, the automatic CR in this bill. The purpose of this provision is simple: To prevent another government shutdown, in case all 13 appropriations do not become law by October 1. Democrat or Republican Congresses, divided or one-party government, the record has been consistent: The 13 regular appropriations bills are almost never all enacted by October 1. The shutdown prevention CR would take millions of innocent bystanders out of the line of fire if Congress and the President take longer than expected to finish the budget details this fall. It would protect Federal employees, small businesses supplying Government needs, patients in veterans hospitals, their families, and others. If the President vetoes this bill over the shutdown prevention provision: He is saying his power to shut down the government in October is more important to him than replenishing funds in emergency programs today. He is willing to delay putting money back into FEMA and DOD and other essential projects in this bill. He is saying he is not concerned whether disaster relief or operations in Bosnia or other functions are threatened by a shutdown this fall. Is he already planning to threaten us with a shutdown to get his way on the budget details, as they are negotiated this summer and fall? There is only one reason for opposing this provision: To keep alive the threat of shutting down the Government. Some Senators oppose this provision because they are afraid it might be used to prevent spending increases in some programs. But, whether they realize it or not, implicit in that argument is the willingness to use the threat of a shutdown to get those increases. The shutdown prevention provision does not undermine the budget agreement, it enforces it. It gives the President fallback leverage in case the Congress tries to pass spending cuts or new policy provisions he wants to veto. It gives the Congress fallback leverage in case the President demands unrealistic spending increases or policy changes. Which would do more damage to the spirit of the budget agreement: Temporary, 100 percent continued funding, or a shutdown? The shutdown prevention CR will not become a substitute for implementing the budget agreement. The automatic CR is not an end result, but a safety net. There are still plenty of details, priorities, cuts and increases that all parties in the appropriations process will be motivated to work out. There very well may be some disagreements that drag out the process of agreeing on and implementing all the details of the budget agreement. This provision simply ensures there will be time to work out all those details, without a government shutdown looming over the negotiations--and over the American people. There is no spending cut here. It is incredible: We keep hearing how many dollars will be slashed, how many jobs will not be filled, if we enact the automatic CR provision. How is it that continuing a function at 100 percent of current levels can be called a cut? Why must this provision be passed now? No matter when this provision is offered, opponents will use some kind of timing or procedural excuse to oppose it. Now they say it's too early. This fall they would say it's too late. Now is the best time to enact this provision, because now it is still an objective, neutral safety net, and because this provision will start the appropriations process with all parties on a level playing field. The best time to agree on the fair rules of the game is before the game starts. There is no way to write a CR provision that would automatically comply with the spending levels in the budget agreement, as the administration suggests. There are still thousands of details to be worked out over the coming months, in the normal legislative process, to implement that agreement. We do not know today, for a certainty, all the programs that will go up and which will go down in spending in the end. But this provision holds all current services and employees harmless until all those details in next year's budget are worked out. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me first thank my colleague, Senator Kempthorne, for his action and the work in developing this legislation that appropriately recognizes Vernon Baker, Edward A. Carter, Jr., and Charles L. Thomas in what I think can best be called retroactivity, certainly recognizing that there is a special pension tied to the Medal of Honor. The Medal of Honor was given to these African American soldiers and citizens and wonderful people in the appropriate fashion, finally, after a long, long wait. We had the opportunity to be at the White House for the ceremonies, and it was truly moving. Recognition of their outstanding courage and daring leadership during their service to their country in World War II was far too long coming, as I mentioned. However, their rewards should not be based upon the delay in their recognition, but based on the moment of their heroism. In the case of Vernon Baker, one of my fellow Idahoans--as Senator Kempthorne said, we had the privilege of getting to know he and his wife--more than 50 years have passed before the Nation did the appropriate thing in recognizing their courageous actions and bestowing them with the Congressional Medal of Honor. Now fairness demands that we couple this honor with the benefits entitled to them and the next of kin in the case of the deceased, effective to the dates corresponding to their actions. Mr. President, on behalf of a grateful Nation, I once more thank Vernon Baker for his gallant actions on that April day so long ago and encourage the support of my colleague's legislation to resolve this issue for America for all time.