Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today in conjunction with my colleagues, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Allard, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr. Stevens, and Mr. Thomas, the Outfitter Policy Act of 2001. This legislation is very similar to legislation I introduced in past congresses. As that legislation did, this bill would put into law many of the management practices by which Federal land management agencies have successfully managed the outfitter and guide industry on National Forests, National Parks and other Federal lands over many decades. The bill recognizes that many Americans want and seek out the skills and experience of commercial outfitters and guides to help them enjoy a safe and pleasant journey. The Outfitter Policy Act's primary purpose is to ensure accessibility to public lands by all segments of the population and maintain the availability of quality recreation services to the public. Outfitters and guides across the nation provide opportunities for outdoor recreation for many families and groups who would otherwise find the backcountry inaccessible. Previous hearings and discussions on prior versions of this legislation helped to refine the bill I am introducing today. This process provided the intended opportunity for discussion. As well as it allowed for the examination of the historical practices that have offered consistent, reliable outfitter services to the public. Congress has twice addressed this issue with respect to the National Park System permits, originally establishing standards for Park Service administration of guide/outfitter permits on their lands in 1965 and amending that system in 1998. Therefore, it is appropriate to set similar legislative standards for other public land systems such as Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands. However, these and other land management agencies are now without Congressional guidance, and instead rules, permit terms and conditions and other intricacies are often left to local agency personnel. The Outfitter Policy Act would alleviate the discord involved in land management permitting, providing consistent guidance on the administration of guide/outfitter permits for the other Federal land management agencies. The Outfitter Policy Act provides the basic terms and conditions necessary to sustain the substantial investment often needed to provide the level of service demanded by the public. However, the bill provides the agencies ample flexibility to adjust use, conditions, and permit terms. All of which must be consistent with agency management plans and policies for resource conservation. The Outfitter Policy Act strives to provide a stable, consistent regulatory climate which encourages qualified entrants to the guide/outfitting business, while giving the agencies and operators clear directions. The Outfitter Policy Act is a measure that will facilitate access to public lands by the outfitted public, while providing incentives to outfitters to provide the high quality services over time. It is necessary to ensure that members of the public who need and rely on guides and outfitters for recreational access to public lands will continue to receive safe, quality services. I look forward to considering this legislation in the coming session of the 107th Congress.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today in conjunction with my colleagues, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Allard, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr. Stevens, and Mr. Thomas, the Outfitter Policy Act of 2001. This legislation is very similar to legislation I introduced in past congresses. As that legislation did, this bill would put into law many of the management practices by which Federal land management agencies have successfully managed the outfitter and guide industry on National Forests, National Parks and other Federal lands over many decades. The bill recognizes that many Americans want and seek out the skills and experience of commercial outfitters and guides to help them enjoy a safe and pleasant journey. The Outfitter Policy Act's primary purpose is to ensure accessibility to public lands by all segments of the population and maintain the availability of quality recreation services to the public. Outfitters and guides across the nation provide opportunities for outdoor recreation for many families and groups who would otherwise find the backcountry inaccessible. Previous hearings and discussions on prior versions of this legislation helped to refine the bill I am introducing today. This process provided the intended opportunity for discussion. As well as it allowed for the examination of the historical practices that have offered consistent, reliable outfitter services to the public. Congress has twice addressed this issue with respect to the National Park System permits, originally establishing standards for Park Service administration of guide/outfitter permits on their lands in 1965 and amending that system in 1998. Therefore, it is appropriate to set similar legislative standards for other public land systems such as Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands. However, these and other land management agencies are now without Congressional guidance, and instead rules, permit terms and conditions and other intricacies are often left to local agency personnel. The Outfitter Policy Act would alleviate the discord involved in land management permitting, providing consistent guidance on the administration of guide/outfitter permits for the other Federal land management agencies. The Outfitter Policy Act provides the basic terms and conditions necessary to sustain the substantial investment often needed to provide the level of service demanded by the public. However, the bill provides the agencies ample flexibility to adjust use, conditions, and permit terms. All of which must be consistent with agency management plans and policies for resource conservation. The Outfitter Policy Act strives to provide a stable, consistent regulatory climate which encourages qualified entrants to the guide/outfitting business, while giving the agencies and operators clear directions. The Outfitter Policy Act is a measure that will facilitate access to public lands by the outfitted public, while providing incentives to outfitters to provide the high quality services over time. It is necessary to ensure that members of the public who need and rely on guides and outfitters for recreational access to public lands will continue to receive safe, quality services. I look forward to considering this legislation in the coming session of the 107th Congress.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. CRAIG. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to Major Harry A. Amesbury, Jr. who after 29 years is finally being returned home to his family. On April 26, 1972, Harry was the commander of a C-130E aircraft on a night emergency resupply mission to the besieged city of An Loc, Republic of Vietnam. He knew there was a concentration of enemy anti-aircraft defenses because he made the flight the night before. His aircraft was struck by the intense enemy fire and shot down. He has been missing in action since that date, but not forgotten. An Idaho resident and career Air Force officer with over sixteen years of service to his country, he was survived by his parents Dr. and Mrs. Harry A. Amesbury, Sr., who are now deceased, his wife Mary Amesbury Predoehl, and four sons: Harry Kurt Amesbury, David John Amesbury, Robert Stephen Amesbury, and Alan Keith Amesbury. He is also survived by David's wife Marjan, their son Brendan, and the twins Cameron and Shannon, as well as, Stephen's wife Mary and their sons Ryan and Connor. I know I speak for all my colleagues in the Senate in expressing my profound sorrow to the Amesbury family for their loss. In a letter to his parents on 15 April 1972, just eleven days before his death, Harry wrote: ``I want you to know that if something should happen to me, that I am doing what needs to be done and I am doing what I think is right''. He was a thorough professional who believed in his country and his duties as an Air Force Officer. He knew that his fellow service members needed his help, so he didn't hesitate when called on to make that final flight. Harry received the Silver Star for his valor in attempting the mission to An Loc. He also received the Distinguished Flying Cross for a mission the previous day, when his aircraft was heavily damaged by enemy anti-aircraft fire. These final acts of courage, following days and years of courageous acts, demonstrate the commitment that Major Harry Amesbury had for military service, his dedication to our country, and the importance he placed on performing his duty. Unfortunately, this tragedy reminds us once again of the painful costs of answering the call of service to our country, and the sacrifices our military members make for others who need help. We will never know how many lives in An Loc were saved because of the valor of Major Harry Amesbury, but as we pay homage to his memory, let us rededicate ourselves in the days and months ahead to the ideals of our great nation, and keep faith with all brave Americans who choose to wear the uniform and ensure that their sacrifices were not made in vain. I hope it is of some comfort to the family that Major Harry Amesbury, Jr. is finally returning home to Idaho. It was always his plan to return to the State after completing his Air Force career, and even bought land over looking the Snake River, near Marsing, where he planned to build his retirement home. On Memorial Day at Mountain Home AFB, there will be an official ceremony which will include the rendering of military honors and one final opportunity to express appreciation for his service and his sacrifice. His family will then travel into the mountains, to a place that he loved to go with his children, and say goodbye in their own way. I am very proud to recognize Major Harry A. Amesbury, Jr. and tell him and his family, Thank You.

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am very pleased that the tax reconciliation package we have passed today contains an amendment that I offered along with Senator Landrieu. That amendment is the text of the Hope for Children Act, which we introduced back in January as S. 148. I greatly appreciate the consideration this amendment has received from Chairman Grassley, who has long been a leader in the area of adoption and foster care. He and Senator Baucus, along with the staff of the Finance Committee, have been extremely responsive to me and my staff as we worked through this amendment, and I thank them for their support of America's adopting families. As my colleagues know, this legislation will continue and improve on two current tax provisions that are helping so many Americans who seek to form families through adoption: the adoption tax credit and the exclusion for employer-provided adoption benefits. These provisions are due to expire at the end of this year, and the Hope for Children Act will remove that sunset. It will also double the basic tax credit and exclusion, to $10,000. For a family adopting a child with special needs, the current credit of $6,000 will rise to $10,000; perhaps more important to these families, their credit will no longer be tied to cumbersome and inflexible IRS regulations that exclude a wide range of legitimate adoption expenses related to children with special needs. Our legislation will also make it possible for more families to qualify for the full credit and exclusion, by lifting the cap on income eligibility. These are sound, necessary measures that truly help families. The Senate should be proud they are a part of our tax reconciliation package, and I hope they will be preserved in the upcoming conference with the House of Representatives. It is important to note that just last week, the House unanimously passed its version of the Hope for Children Act, H.R. 622. While that action suggests there is a consensus supporting the adoption tax credit, I strongly believe the Senate's version of that language is preferable, and I encourage the Senate's conferees to work to keep the Senate language intact. Mr. President, there are still hundreds of thousands of children in this country and around the world who are waiting for permanent, safe, loving families. It is these children who are the focus of the Hope for Children Act, and it is on behalf of these children that I thank all my colleagues for supporting an amendment that will help make the promise of adoption a reality. I look forward to seeing this language preserved by the conference, adopted by the House and Senate, and sent to President Bush to be signed into law.

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am honored to lend my support as an original cosponsor to the Cuban Solidarity Act of 2001. As many of us here know, the Cuban Solidarity Act of 2001 goes beyond what the original Helms-Burton Act of 1996 sought to accomplish. Not only does it send a clear signal to the Castro regime that there are consequences to violating political and religious freedoms and human rights, but that we are going to work fervently to bring about a change in his regime. Four years ago, I spoke here on the Senate floor in condemnation of the cowardly acts of the Cuban government in the shooting down of two civilian aircraft. I also expressed my concerns about the unauthorized use of confiscated United States-citizen-owned property. This bill contains a number of provisions that seek compensation from the Cuban government on both matters. In Castro's Cuba, dissidents are routinely subjugated to random arrests, exile, imprisonment and beatings for openly opposing the government. During the first two months of 2000, over 350 peaceful human rights activists were arrested. One of the most notable cases included that of Dr. Oscar Biscet of the Lawton Human Rights Foundation, who received three years in prison for protests against abortion and the death penalty. These violations of human rights taking place only ninety miles from the United States, are a threat to international peace. Furthermore, many observers are concerned that a successor to Castro is currently being groomed to maintain authoritarian control over the island. This bill will authorize the President to pursue a more pro-active policy towards changing the regime in Cuba from within. It does so by amending trade sanctions, which will give the President enhanced tools in supporting pro-democracy and human rights groups. Such new tools include authorizing the export of religious, educational and journalistic materials to individuals and independent groups, as well as office supplies, telephones and fax machines. These individuals and groups may include victims of religious persecution, farm cooperatives, political prisoners, and worker's rights groups just to name a few. The bill will also increase humanitarian aid in the form of food and medicine to children and the elderly. Another large component of this bill, is the support it gives to micro-enterprise efforts in Cuba. By helping self- employed Cubans start their own businesses, we will help to plant the seeds of independent thinking, democracy and entrepreneurialism which will ensure a more peaceful transition to democracy. Because Castro will not hold power in Cuba forever, we need to take the necessary steps to make sure a transition to democracy is possible and likely. It is time for a reinvigorated approach towards Cuba, one that includes bipartisan support. Therefore I am pleased to support the Cuba Solidarity Act of 2001, and I would urge others to do the same.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am glad to join my colleague and cochair of the Congressional Coalition on Adoption, Senator Landrieu, in offering this amendment to the tax relief bill. Our amendment will renew two expiring provisions of the Tax Code that are critically important to American families: the adoption tax credit and the exclusion for employer-provided adoption benefits. It will also modernize and improve these provisions, in response to what we have learned families really need and want in this area. Not a week goes by that I don't get a call, or an e-mail, or a visit from someone telling me what a help the adoption tax credit is to them, and how important it is for Congress to renew it. As my colleagues all know, this credit was added to the Tax Code in 1996, following years of effort. The idea was to allow families to keep a little more of their own hard-earned money to help absorb the extraordinary costs of adoption. Since these adoption tax benefits have gone into effect, tens of thousands of families have claimed it. More important, that means tens of thousands of children have, in part because of this tax credit, found loving, permanent adoptive homes. Yet there are many, many children still waiting for that happy outcome--more than 100,000 in America, and more around the world, and the adoption tax credit will expire at the end of this year. Furthermore, in looking at how the credit has worked since 1996, we have discovered that not all families are equally able to use the tax credit to help them cope with the true costs of adoption. That is why at the beginning of this Congress, we introduced S. 148, the Hope For Children Act, to extend and improve the tax credit so that it can continue to help Americans form families through adoption. That bill is cosponsored by seventeen of our colleagues, representing a wide political and geographic spectrum; the House of Representatives unanimously passed their version of the bill earlier today; and the bill has won the support of all segments of the adoption community. It is this bill, the Hope For Children Act, that is reflected in the amendment we are offering today. There are families who are sitting at the kitchen table today, trying to figure out if they can afford to open their hearts and homes to a child through adoption. Let us send a strong message of hope to those families, and to the thousands of waiting children, by passing this amendment.

Mr. CRAIG

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

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, it is my understanding we are in a period for morning business.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today I join with several of my colleagues to talk about an issue that has dominated the Senate and the Congress of the United States for many months. That dominance, I think, has been shared in most of the minds of our American citizens as we have worked to complete a budget for fiscal year 2002. Tax relief is an important component of that budget and an important issue to the American people. As a matter of fundamental fairness, the most heavily taxed generation in America's history, in my opinion, deserves tax relief. There is plenty of room in this budget for tax relief. Listening to some of the speeches in this Chamber last week, one would assume we were dramatically cutting the budget of the American people in order to give some of that money back. That is simply not true. The budget resolution increases overall spending by about 5 percent. Important national needs will be met. We are taking less than a third of the total surplus--surplus tax dollars--to provide tax relief. Without question, there is room in this budget to provide tax relief to that overtaxed American consumer taxpayer and to adequately fund a budget for America's citizens. According to the Tax Foundation, May 3 was tax freedom day this year. In other words, the average working American had worked from January 1 through May 3 just to pay his or her taxes. Said another way, on May 3, the American worker finally was beginning to put money in his or her pocket and provide money for the breakfast table of his or her family. The average American works the first 123 days--the first one-third of the year--to support the appetite of Government, and still we heard in this Chamber this past week the siren song saying that appetite was not big enough, that somehow it needed to grow ever increasingly larger. May 3 is the latest tax freedom day in the history of this country. Tax Freedom Day occurred as early as April 18 in 1992, before the record tax hike enacted in 1993. But from 1992 to now, another half- month has been added to the amount of time the average worker is required to work just to meet his or her tax obligation. May 3 is actually a national average because, because it brings in the State and local tax burdens. In Idaho, for example, at least that burden is less than in other States, and Idaho's Tax Freedom Day fell on April 25, making its citizens the tenth least taxed group of citizens of any State in the Nation. There is no wonder Idaho is a fast-growing State. Somehow the word is out that if you live and work in Idaho, because of our attitudes about government and the way we manage our government in Idaho, and thanks to my colleague, our Governor, Dirk Kempthorne, who once served with us in the Senate, we tax citizens less, even though we provide adequate government for their needs. Americans have never been more heavily taxed than they are now. The average American family pays 37 percent of its income in all taxes at all levels, half again as much as our parents paid in the 1950s. Stop and think about that. Compare the wages, compare the cost of living, compare everything else then relative to now, and yet today taxes have dramatically increased, by about half, compared to our parents' generation. No wonder the personal average savings rate in America is now a negative 1 percent. Government is taking away what the people otherwise would save - what they would save for their retirement, for their children's education, for their parents' care, or to build a better standard of living. Oftentimes we hear economists analyze the negative savings rate in our country compared with other nations of the world, and they say: It is a matter of culture. Certain nations have a culture of savings. My suggestion to our citizens is this: If you were granted the opportunity or the incentive, my guess is you would be saving a great deal more than you are saving now. When you are paying 37 percent of your income for taxes at all levels, you simply have less to live on, less to save, and, therefore, you are using more of what you have for necessities. The total Federal tax take this year will be 20.7 percent of the total economy. In other words, 20.7 percent of the gross domestic product of this country is required to pay for Government, the highest level ever, except for one year, 1944. Of course, we can all remember where the nation was in 1944. We were at the peak of World War II. We had committed this country to saving the world and saving the free world from tyranny and knocking down the powers of fascism. We had committed all of our resources to doing that. Only at that time, compared with now, did we have comparable tax burdens. In fact, in the six years of highest taxes in American history, two fell during World War II and the other four have been the most recent four. Where is the war today? Are we committed to saving all of the world from the direct threat of a powerful enemy of the kind we saw in World War II? That is not at all the case. Simply, our Government's domestic appetite has dramatically grown from 1944 to today, and as a result of that, our hard-working Americans have fallen victim to that appetite. Can anyone seriously claim that the Federal Government is now engaged in a life-and-death struggle, compared to World War II? I don't think so. Oh, we have a lot of problems to solve and challenges to meet. There is no doubt about it. We are attempting to address them. On the floor this week we are debating education and are committed to putting a substantial increase in Federal funding into what is a traditional State and local funding priority, to help enhance the ability of State and local educators and education-providers to improve the conditions under which our children learn. Still, on top of all that, we have the opportunity to provide the tax relief that will go a long way toward helping our economy and freeing the American people. The new budget provides for paying down more than $2.4 trillion worth of debt in the next 10 years. Some Senators said we are going to give all the money back to the taxpayers, that we are not going to deal with the debt. Somehow in the midst of all this debate, somebody did not look at the plain numbers in the budget resolution to recognize that, if we stay this course, over the next 10 years we are paying down $2.4 trillion of that debt. That is nearly twice the amount of tax relief that is in the budget and 50 percent more in debt relief than in the amount of tax relief requested by the President. So we clearly will have more debt paid down than tax relief. But in the balance of both, my guess is Alan Greenspan is going to say: ``Good job. That means Government will not grow larger. That means the appetite of Government has been curtailed. That means a freeing up of the domestic productive economy of this country, which means that monetary policy and fiscal policy are a good deal more in synch.'' This Senator is glad we are paying down the debt. I hope in my time of service here I can turn to my children and grandchildren and say: Of all the things my generation and I have not done for you, there is one good thing we did do for you in my lifetime, and that was to rid our country of debt and therefore to rid you of your obligation as current and future taxpayers of having to respond to that debt by a very large chunk of your tax dollars being consumed by it. That ought to be the responsibility and obligation of my generation. Clearly, we have set a course with this budget and this budget resolution for doing so. I think we have to go even further than that. The budget already calls for paying down debt at a fast pace - the fastest pace at which the debt can be paid down. The budget includes overall spending increases of about 5 percent. Frankly, in my State of Idaho, folks are not so sure why Government should grow at all, that 5 percent is maybe even too large. There is no question there are some very real needs out there. We are going to meet some of those needs. At the same time, it is important to recognize we can in fact give tax relief and pay down debt. This year's tax relief will only be about 5 percent of total revenues over the next 10 years. It will be about one-half of President John Kennedy's tax cut, adjusted for the times and the size of the economy. Yet we hear people now suggesting this is a devastating tax cut, that this simply destroys the revenue flow of Government. Yet in another era, another time, comparing economies in a fair way, the Kennedy tax cut was nearly double the one we are dealing with today. This year's tax relief will be about a third of the package that was enacted under President Ronald Reagan. Yet of course it was the Ronald Reagan tax cut that fueled the booming economy of the late 1980s.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me wrap up. With the passage of the budget resolution, and now with the beginning of the work of the Finance Committee to produce a tax bill, we are clearly receiving the message from the American people. We are acting on their goal for us, to deliver back to them in both the immediate and long term, some tax relief--to offer up to them the right--government may act like it is a privilege, but it is a right to keep a little more of their own, hard- earned money. Now is the time to stop the government tax man from being the uninvited guest at every wedding, the unwelcome intruder at family funerals, and the rude bill collector at every graduation. Maybe, just maybe, next year's Tax Freedom Day will come not in May but in April once again. If that is true, we will have accomplished a great deal more than anyone thought we could, not too long ago. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment I have put before the Chamber. It does not cut a program. It does not even take out the cost of living or an annualized increase based on that. What it says is that the Federal Government and the Department of Education and educational programs will no longer reward mediocrity. In title I, over the last 30 years, we have put in $120 billion and poor kids are still lower in achievement than middle-income kids who are outside the program. It failed. In this education bill before us, we are trying to change that. All I am saying is, if you do not measure up, and if the States do not improve the environment in which kids are learning--in other words, if kids do not improve--and it is measured by the tests and the standards within this bill--then no more Federal money goes out. In other words, we will not continue to fund mediocrity. We will set a standard and a precedence where improvement in our young people means we will reward that improvement with the use of the Federal tax dollars.

Mr. CRAIG. This Senator's amendment would not cut any program. It would allow continued funding at that level. It does not reward by allowing the increases in the spending. That is what is important. The Senator from Massachusetts mentioned that nothing would go forward. He is wrong. Everything goes forward, and the measurements are in place. What we are saying is, we are strong and definitive in saying that if you do not improve, you do not get the additional money.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I assume we are now proceeding on the Craig amendment, with 1 minute for each side.

Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield?

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

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to amend the Administrative Simplification provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. I am pleased that Senator Byron Dorgan and Senator Mike Crapo are joining with me in this effort today. I understand the benefits of administration simplification and support the goal of getting healthcare providers to use uniform codes to reduce overall costs through increased efficiencies. However, it was originally intended for the entire package of administrative simplification regulations to be released at one time. This would have allowed for system changes to be included in a comprehensive upgrade. These final provisions are now expected to be released over time, which will drive up the cost substantially for providers and health plans as they will be forced to adapt their systems with every new regulation. For example, identifiers for providers, plans and employers have yet to be finalized, making it impossible to incorporate this information into new computer systems. In addition to the costs of repeatedly updating systems to be incurred by providers, the overall cost of compliance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act is expected to exceed the costs of Y2K readiness. Small providers, like those in my state of Idaho, cannot afford the high cost in such a short time frame. A longer timeframe will allow these small providers to pay incrementally for systems upgrades. In addition, if health plans and providers hurry implementation of these provisions, there is the serious possibility that service problems will arise for consumers, including inaccurate payments and customer service issues. A longer implementation timeframe will also allow providers and plans to address any unanticipated consequences as they arise. For these reasons, with my colleagues Senators Dorgan and Crapo, I am introducing this legislation to delay implementation of the administrative provisions until the later date of either October 16, 2004 or two years after the final adoption of all regulations. The regulations that would be impacted by this legislation include electronic transactions, code sets, security standards for the electronic standards, and identifiers for health plans and providers. To avoid confusion, let me be clear that this legislation does not affect implementation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act medical privacy issues and does not deal with unique health identifiers for individuals. To ensure that providers, plans and the Department of Health and Human Services are working towards compliance to these provisions, this legislation calls for the General Accounting Office to evaluate the progress of implementation no later than October 31, 2003. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, May 8. I further ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of the proceedings be approved to date, 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 resume consideration of the Bolton nomination as under the previous order.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess from the hours of 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. for the weekly policy conferences to meet.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will have 45 minutes to complete debate on the Bolton nomination beginning at 9:30 tomorrow morning. A vote on confirmation of the nomination will begin at 10:15 a.m. with votes on amendments to the education bill stacked to follow. Following votes, the Senate will resume consideration of the education bill. Amendments will be offered and, therefore, votes will occur throughout tomorrow's session. Senators should also expect votes throughout the week in an effort to make significant progress on the education bill and to complete action on the conference report to accompany the budget resolution.

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, following the remarks of Senator Wellstone.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I think Senator Wellstone is expected on the floor soon. I suggest the absence of a quorum.