Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. The Parliamentarian may have suggested something other than, but for the purpose of the legislative intent--and sometimes debate can be enlightening--legislative intent, as far as this Senator is concerned, is exactly as the Senator from Nevada described and the Senator from Arizona described, if there is a matter which is neither in the House bill nor the Senate bill, and if it ends up in conference, that matter is subject to a point of order--and for the very reasons which my colleague described. I do not know how that is confusing language. If it is, I am certainly committed to trying to straighten it out. I believe that is the appropriate way to go.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I join with my colleague from Kentucky in expressing my deep sense of sorrow, as well, over the passing of two members of our family. And I speak of both the wife of our colleague from Hawaii, Senator Inouye, who lost his beloved Maggie a week or so ago and, of course, the recent news we received over the weekend of the passing of Erma Ora Byrd. These are members of our family, in a sense. I have known both Mrs. Byrd and Mrs. Inouye since I was a child. My father was a Member of this body and was elected, in fact, to the Senate on the same day Robert Byrd was, in 1958. So I have had the privilege of serving with Senator Byrd both indirectly and directly for these now more than 40 years. In fact, I have the unique privilege of being his seatmate in this body, something which I have enjoyed immensely over the past decade and a half that I have sat at this seat in the Senate next to the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia. I certainly remember Maggie Inouye. She was wonderful to my parents and was good to me over the years. To watch two of our colleagues about whom we care so deeply go through the tremendous suffering they are going through as a result of the loss of their life mates is something all of us--regardless of where we sit in this Chamber, to what party we belong, in what direction our ideological compass may lead us--we all have a deep sense of loss for these wonderful people. Dan and Maggie Inouye were very close to my parents, as I mentioned. She was born in 1924 and attended schools in Hawaii and then went on to receive degrees at the University of Hawaii and Columbia University and was highly respected in the area of speech pathology. She was a remarkable woman in her own right who could have had a very distinguished career independently of her husband. She and Dan met in 1947, and as Dan Inouye likes to tell the story, on the second date he proposed marriage. Not one to delay at all, he had met the person he clearly decided was going to be his life mate. And for the next 57 years, they were just that. They celebrated the birth of their son Kenny who was again a wonderful child and has done a remarkable job in his own right. I will remember Maggie best for her grace and poise and I was saddened to hear of her passing after a long battle with cancer earlier this month. I went out to Hawaii last week and attended Maggie's funeral along with Senator Stevens and his wife Catherine. It was a long trip, and I know that Dan did not expect a large number of his colleagues to make that journey. It was not a hard trip to make. It would have been harder not to make it in my case, given the closeness of our families over the years. And for me I knew there was nowhere else I could be than being present with Dan and his family to celebrate the life of Maggie. During the visitation period prior to the funeral service, I was deeply moved by watching literally a couple thousand people express their condolences to Dan, to his son Kenny, Kenny's wife, Jessica. Each expression was heartfelt. It was personal. These were relationships that were solidified over years of friendship with Dan Inouye, with his wife Maggie, and the constituents and friends of theirs from Hawaii. I was also moved by the peacefulness of the funeral service, and most especially by the very touching and eloquent eulogy delivered by Maggie's longtime friend, Sumi McCabe. I would like to close by offering my thoughts and prayers, once again, to Dan, to his son Kenny, and to his daughter-in-law Jessica. As we mourn the loss of this wonderful woman, let us remember that her spirit will be with us and that her inspirational legacy will live on in the generations to come of her family. So again, to our friend Dan, we want to express our deep sense of loss and our sense of solidarity with him. Mr. President, to lose, just a few days later, of course, the wife of our great friend and leader, Senator Byrd, was a major blow as well. Certainly, the history of Erma Ora Byrd is well known to all of us. As Senator McConnell just pointed out, she was the daughter of a coal miner. She had been the life mate, for 69 years, of our colleague from West Virginia. It was clear to anyone who had the fortune of knowing them that they loved each other very deeply. Erma Ora James was born in Floyd County, VA, in 1917. The daughter of a coal miner, as I just mentioned, her family moved to Raleigh County, WV, where she met Robert while attending the Mark Twain Grade School. They were married when they were both 19 years of age in 1937. Shortly thereafter they began a loving family that has grown to two daughters, five grandchildren, and six great-grandchildren. Even though she was content to remain out of Washington's limelight, Erma became quickly known and loved for her commonsense values and her devotion to her family. Erma also became well respected for her advocacy on issues affecting children across West Virginia and, of course, our Nation as well. Two academic scholarship programs at Marshall University and West Virginia University, respectively, have been named in her honor as a result of her efforts. Four years ago, at the couple's 65th wedding anniversary, Senator Byrd said of his wife: Erma and I are complete and whole, a total that is more than the sum of its parts. In my life, Erma Ora Byrd is the diamond. She is a priceless treasure, a multifaceted woman of great insight and wisdom, of quiet humor and common sense. I wish that more people could know the joy I have had in finding one's soul mate early in life and then sharing that deep companionship over many happy years. Mr. President, my thoughts and prayers, along with those of our colleagues, I know, are with Senator Byrd and his family in these hours. I wish to extend my sympathies to Robert; his daughters, Mona and Marjorie; their husbands, Mohammed and Jon; Robert and Erma's grandchildren, Erik, Darius, Fredrik, Mona, and Mary; and Robert and Erma's great-grandchildren, Caroline, Kathryn, Anna, Emma, Hannah, and Michael. Knowing of Senator Byrd's love for poetry, I am reminded of a passage in Thomas Gray's ``Elegy in a Country Churchyard,'' which happened to be my father's favorite poem. Gray's ``Elegy'' says in one of its stanzas: Large was his bounty, and his soul sincere, Heaven did a recompense as largely send: He gave to Misery all he had, a tear, He gained from Heaven ('twas all he wished) a friend. Robert gained a wonderful friend, obviously, and a companion--a life companion--in Erma. It is my hope that her spirit remains with us and will inspire all of us and future generations to come.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I understand this amendment requires public disclosure of certain holds--namely, those that rise to the level of expressing an intent to object to proceeding to a measure or matter. Any such objection would have to be submitted in writing and disclosed in the Congressional Record and printed in the Senate calendar of business. Quite frankly, if a Member's objection rises to that level, it is probably appropriate to publicly disclose such. But the term ``hold'' is used to apply to a much broader form of communication between Members and the leader. A hold is generally considered to be any communication in which a Member expresses an interest in specific legislation and requests that the Member be consulted or advised before any agreement is entered with regard to the issue. In that sense, a hold is a Senate mode of communication, rather than a procedural prerogative, and when used to communicate a Member's interest in a matter, it is more of an informal bargaining tactic, not an intent to derail or delay consideration of a measure. Such informal communication is not only important to the workings of this body, but it facilitates the development of unanimous consent requests and facilitates the consideration of legislation. In some respects, such informal holds act much like the Rules Committee proceedings in the House whereby Members present their position with regard to offering amendments to legislation. There is no such process in the Senate and often times informal holds, or consent letters, are the only means by which the leadership knows who has an interest in an issue and needs to be consulted in order to craft a unanimous consent agreement. This amendment does not affect such informal consultation and so will not impede the ability of the leadership to move the business of the Senate. However, when the communication rises to the level that a Member will object to proceeding, it is appropriate that it be disclosed. Consequently, consistent with the purpose of the bill before us, this amendment would provide greater transparency of the legislative process and increase public confidence in the outcome. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, the Bush administration seeks for the fourth time in 5 years to increase the indebtedness of the United States--this time by $781 billion. This body's consideration of that increase allows us a moment to take stock of the abysmal fiscal health of our country. As a Washington Post editorial pointed out yesterday morning, this President solemnly pledged upon taking office to payoff $2 trillion in debt held by the public over the next decade. It is patently obvious that President Bush has not just failed but failed spectacularly to deliver on his pledge. He has managed to amass more debt than any President in history, with no end in sight. By the end of this year, our gross Federal debt is expected to surpass $8.6 trillion, or nearly $28,000 for every man, woman, and child in America. This amount represents an increase of approximately $3 trillion since President Bush took office. This dramatic runup in the debt has real costs for America's families--both today and for future generations. It puts upward pressure on interest rates for things like student loans, home mortgages, and automobile loans. It raises the cost of capital for business investment. Each of these, in everything but name, represents a tax increase on American families and businesses. More directly, instead of investing in America's most important priorities--like education, health care, and homeland security--the taxpayers of today and tomorrow must spend more money paying off yesterday's debts. In the late 1990s, interest on the debt represented a declining share of our total budget. Today, that share has begun to rise once again, a trend that would continue under the budget put forward by the administration and the leadership in this body. For 2007 alone, taxpayers will spend $247 billion dollars on interest on the debt instead of American troops and veterans or American families and children. Our leaders have to be candid with the American public about the sources of this unprecedented level of indebtedness. The administration is not incurring these debts in order to invest in education. They are not supporting States and local communities struggling to meet their school funding needs out of property taxes. The administration is not incurring these debts to improve our infrastructure. States, municipalities, and local communities are struggling desperately just to maintain the infrastructure they have-- roads, bridges, ports. They are struggling to maintain a 20th century infrastructure, let alone build a 21st century one. Certainly, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have had a cost. So have the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and natural disasters. Though the President has been quick to blame factors like these, the truth is the tax policies of his administration have played a far greater role in creating the budget deficits accumulated on his watch. Under those policies, this administration has spent close to $125 billion on tax benefits for the few most fortunate households in America--those 0.2 percent of individuals making more than $1 million per year--while doing little, if anything, for families in the middle and those working hard to get themselves in the middle. In a time of war and fiscal and economic strain, this administration has delivered a tax windfall to the most fortunate. Never before has a President made this choice during a time of war. Regrettably, this kind of shortsighted leadership has been rubberstamped repeatedly by the leaders of this Congress on the other side of the aisle. I would have hoped, at a minimum, that we as a body could adopt measures to restore some semblance of fiscal sanity, such as pay-as- you-go budget procedures or a smaller debt limit increase. Unfortunately, neither of these common sense reforms was adopted. Indeed, the majority even rejected an amendment by the Senator from Montana to merely study the impact that foreign-held U.S. debt is having on our Nation's long-term well-being. We cannot erase what has happened in the past, but we can demonstrate to the people of our country going forward that the Senate is willing to take commonsense steps to put our Nation back on firmer budgetary footing. That, regrettably, has not happened in the Senate today. However, many of us will continue the effort to place our nation's fiscal house on firmer ground.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to discuss S.A. 3111 to the fiscal year 2007 budget resolution which I sponsored with my colleague, Senator DeWine. This amendment, which helps our Nation's firefighters perform their critical duties more safely, was adopted by unanimous consent. I thank the Chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Gregg, and the committee's ranking member, Senator Conrad, both for their work on the budget resolution and for their consideration of this important issue. I would imagine that this amendment, which creates a special reserve fund to pay for the assistance to firefighters grants, is not the way that everyone would choose first to provide critical resources to the FIRE Act and SAFER Act grants. However, this amendment does demonstrate the commitment of the Senate to increase conditionally funding for our firefighters in a manner consistent with the need to be fiscally responsible. Clearly, the need for these grants is irrefutable. Across our country, fire departments are in desperate need of obtaining updated equipment and more expensive firefighter training--two activities that are crucial to ensuring that firefighters can carry out their expanded responsibilities safely and effectively in this post-9/11 world. In fiscal year 2002, there were over 19,000 FIRE grant applications seeking almost $2 billion in support for eligible activities. In fiscal year 2005, there were over 27,000 FIRE grant applications seeking over $4 billion for such activities. The manmade and natural hazards that firefighters are expected to face today have strapped the ability of municipalities and States to provide for their needs. Therefore, it is imperative that the Federal Government expand its commitment to support our firefighters. I think that very few people who are not firefighters stop and think about how much we ask of our firefighters in today's world. They still perform their traditional duties of extinguishing fires, delivering emergency medical services, and ensuring that fire codes are inspected. However, many firefighters have also taken on new homeland security responsibilities that include responding to and handling hazardous biological and radiological agents. According to a national needs assessment study of the U.S. Fire Service published in December 2002, most fire departments lack the necessary resources and training to properly handle terrorist attacks and large-scale emergencies. More specifically, the study found that, first, using local personnel, only 11 percent of fire departments can handle a rescue with emergency medical services at a structural collapse of a building with 50 occupants. Nearly half of all fire departments consider such an incident beyond their scope. Second, using local personnel, only 13 percent of fire departments say that they can handle a hazardous material incident involving chemical and/or biological agents with 10 injuries. Only 21 percent have a written agreement to direct the use of nonlocal resources to handle the situation. Third, an estimated 40 percent of fire department personnel involved in hazardous material response lack formal training in those duties. And finally, the study found an estimated 60 to 75 percent of fire departments do not have enough fire stations to achieve widely used response-time guidelines. Many fire departments are often stretched so thin that they cannot respond to fires with sufficient personnel to initiate an interior attack on a structural fire safely. Moreover, the need for additional firefighters--both paid and volunteer--on our Nation's streets is great. According to National Fire Protection Association standards, a minimum of four firefighters is required to initiate an interior attack on a house fire. The study goes on to conclude that 73 percent of fire departments serving populations between 10,000 and 25,000 lack such personnel, 82 percent of departments serving populations between 25,000 and 50,000, 76 percent of departments serving populations between 50,000 and 100,000, 56 percent of departments serving populations between 100,000 and 250,000, 41 percent of departments serving populations between 250,000 and 500,000 people, 40 percent of departments serving populations between 500,000 and 1 million people, and zero percent of departments serving populations at least 1 million people. Over the past 5 years, FIRE and SAFER grants have been highly successful in enabling fire departments to acquire the resources they demand and hire the people they need. Over $3 billion in assistance as been provided to well over 20,000 fire departments in all 50 States thus far. Yet the job of ensuring that all communities receive the assistance they need and deserve is far from done. America's firefighters are always the first ones in and the last ones out. They risk their own lives to save the lives of others. They stare danger in the face every single day because they know they have a duty to fulfill. We must recognize their contribution to our domestic safety to see to it that they have the necessary equipment and personnel they demand in order to perform their critical duties safely. I look forward to working with Senator DeWine and my colleagues during the appropriations season to help ensure that the maximum amount of aid is delivered to all of our firefighters.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, as a statement of priorities and a vision of where we want our nation to be in the years to come, this budget fails the test of responsible leadership. Instead of correcting the mistakes of the past few years, this budget repeats and compounds those mistakes. It adds to record levels of national debt. It favors the fortunate few over everyone else who is working hard and playing by the rules. It does far too little for the most vulnerable and needy Americans--our children, our seniors, our veterans. Unlike China, India, and other countries, it invests only a minute fraction of our resources in research and development. We've seen where this agenda has led us--it represents a stunning failure to address any of the major challenges of our era, like globalization, security, stagnant incomes, and rising income inequality. America has always been blessed with great natural resources. But in spite of these physical resources, our greatest strength has always been our human ones--the American spirit of ingenuity, creativity, and old fashioned hard work. Regrettably, the budget before this body fails to make the necessary investments to build and maintain the strength of our human capital, America's greatest asset. This may not be intentional; I presume that President Bush and my colleagues across the aisle believe just as strongly in boosting our nation's economic competitiveness. But regardless of their intentions, the fact is that mismanagement, misplaced priorities, and misguided faith in outdated economic ideologies continue to set us back. On Friday of last week, an article appeared on an international news wire that is rather stunning in its implications for the budget resolution now pending before the Senate. The headline of this article, Mr. President, reads, ``China to Boost Science, Tech Spending by Nearly 20 Percent.'' The story continues: ``China will increase its spending on science and technology by nearly 20 percent this year in a move to remain competitive in the face of international challenges, the government said . . . The State Council, or cabinet, last month said 2.5 percent of China's gross domestic product (GDP) would be allocated to spending on research and development over the next 15 years, up from 1.23 percent in 2002.'' ``The government,'' the article goes on to say, ``will not only allocate more money but also encourage all segments of society, including companies, to put emphasis on research and development through measures including tax incentives.'' Finally, it quotes the Minister of Science and Technology as telling the National People's Congress, ``Without progress on science and technology, it would be very hard to reach our target of becoming a well-off society.'' On one level, we as Americans should welcome the decision by virtually any country to invest more in science and technology. In fact, if more nations were to make a similar decision, the world as a whole would greatly benefit by peaceful advances in commerce and in finding solutions to some of the planet's most intractable problems. But this news from China should also serve as a reminder to Americans, as we consider our budget priorities for the upcoming year and our vision for the future, of the commitment it takes to remain a leader in the global economy. Even with the passage of the amendment to increase Labor, Health, and Human Services funds offered by Senators Spector and Harkin, of which I was a cosponsor, this budget regrettably falls short. The average American family over the last few years has been working harder and harder just to tread water. A household earning the median income made $1,600 less in 2004 than they did 4 years earlier. Meanwhile, during the same period, the average family's health insurance premiums have risen by $3,600, or 57 percent. Their energy costs continue to rise--even though many parts of the country had warmer than usual weather this winter, families can still expect to pay more than $250 extra this year to heat their homes. If they have a child attending a public 4-year college, that bill has gone up by 57 percent since 2000, as well. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim that this budget sets us on a path to fiscal responsibility. But as the Senator from North Dakota, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, has pointed out time and again before this body, that is anything but the case. Instead of saving for the retirement of the baby boomers--which is already beginning--we're borrowing like there's no tomorrow. In 2000, we had a budget surplus of $128 billion; in 2006, largely as a consequence of the fiscal recklessness of this administration and the majority party in the Congress, the Federal Government is expected to run a deficit of $371 billion. Under this administration, the president and his allies will have added $3 trillion to our national debt by the end of this fiscal year. That would put America's public debt at more than $8.6 trillion, or around $28,000 for every man, woman, and child in America. Further, under the current administration, the share of that debt held by foreign creditors has more than doubled. And it's not just the Federal Government that's borrowing, but the economy as a whole. Our personal savings rate in January was negative 0.7 percent, the 10th consecutive month for which it was effectively zero or below. Our current account deficit continues to set new records; it was an unprecedented $805 billion in 2005. This dramatic run-up in the debt has real costs for America's families--both today and for future generations. It puts upward pressure on interest rates for things like student loans, home mortgages, and automobile loans. It raises the cost of capital for business investment. Rising interest rates, caused by America's growing indebtedness, represent a de facto tax increase on American families and businesses. This administration's fiscal recklessness has also hurt our ability to address our nation's most important priorities, like education and health care, that strengthen our economic competitiveness and allow more Americans to share in greater prosperity. This budget provides a clear illustration of this failure, with the drastic cuts it would make in these areas. The budget proposed by the Bush administration and my colleagues across the aisle would make the largest cut in our Nation's commitment to education in the 26-year history of the Education Department. These cuts will adversely affect students at all levels of learning. Investment and competitiveness begin with our children. As I have said many times before, education may be expensive, but ignorance costs more. As I noted earlier, college tuition and fees have increased 57 percent for a public 4-year college. They have risen 32 percent for a private 4-year college since 2000. Yet instead of helping middle class families meet these skyrocketing college costs, this budget proposes to once again freeze the maximum Pell grant award at $4,050. In 1975, a Pell grant covered 80 percent of the cost of a public, 4-year college education; today, it covers only 40 percent. Surely we can do better than this for America's families. A college education should be a gateway to a better life for anyone willing to work for it, not just a privilege for those who can afford it. This budget also continues to underfund K-12 education. The president and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle tout their commitment to education in the No Child Left Behind law. But this law is underfunded by $15.4 billion this year. The budget also cuts Head Start, afterschool programs, and child care, all of which prepare our children to learn better and help parents keep their kids in school and off the streets. While countries like China are increasing their investments in science and technology, this budget would make a commitment in these areas that is little more than cosmetic. President Bush has talked a great deal about his so-called ``American Competitiveness Initiative,'' but under the budget he sent to the Congress, he would actually cut overall R&D funding in real terms for the first time since 1996. As a share of the economy, total Federal R&D funding would fall below 1 percent for the first time since fiscal year 2003. One of the casualties would be biomedical and cancer research through the National Institutes of Health. Just two months ago, President Bush signed into law the first cut to NIH funding since 1970. Now, he has proposed further cutting funding for 18 of the 19 institutes in Fiscal 2007, including the ones conducting research on two of America's leading causes of death: cancer and heart disease. The administration's proposals are reflected in the budget before this body today, which carries the same low level of overall discretionary spending. So while countries like China are setting goals like boosting R&D funding to 2.5 percent of Gross Domestic Product by 2020, we have nothing but a catchy slogan and cuts in the kinds of investments we need to stay strong. This budget increases costs for entrepreneurs and small businesses. President Bush likes to say that his high- income tax breaks have benefited small business owners, but in reality, the distribution of benefits to small business owners has followed the same pattern as it has for everyone else--those with the highest incomes have received the most, and everyone else has been stuck with the bill. Among Americans with small business income, more than half of the benefits of the 2001 and 2003 tax breaks have been spent on those making more than $200,000 a year, or less than 8 percent of all small business owners, according to the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. So while few small businesses have gained anything meaningful from the tax breaks, the administration this year is proposing to increase their cost of capital by charging a new fee for Small Business Administration loans. This would be a direct tax increase on one of our most important engines of growth. For an administration that claims to value small business, the record fails to live up to the rhetoric. This budget fails the test of economic leadership not only by cutting investments in American competitiveness, but by abandoning our most basic American values. As Americans, we proudly look out for the least fortunate among us. Unfortunately, this budget fails to do this. It asks struggling parents to work more hours, but cuts the child care that helps them do it. It cuts funding for children's hospitals, like Hartford's Connecticut Children's Medical Center in my home state. Children's hospitals like CCMC train 30 percent of the Nation's pediatricians and more than 50 percent of the nation's pediatric specialists. This budget cuts food aid for senior citizens, pregnant women, and children. It cuts housing assistance and freezes funding that helps homeless veterans find work. By adopting this budget, the president and his allies in the Congress would continue to walk away from one of America's bedrock principles: that everyone in our nation should have an equal opportunity to live a free and meaningful life. While some of the amendments considered by this body appear on the surface to rectify some of the cuts this budget would make to vital priorities, they in reality fail to live up to their billing. The amendment offered by Senator McConnell, for example, claimed to support port security, which should be one of our nation's highest priorities. It would have done so, however, through a budgetary gimmick that would result in an across-the-board cut to other areas, including, ironically, homeland security and national defense. It also would have provided no new funds beyond the already specified discretionary spending cap. Instead, it would have offered nothing more than non- binding instructions to the Appropriations Committee about how to allocate the funds under its jurisdiction. For this reason, I supported the port security amendment offered by Senator Menendez instead of the McConnell amendment. The Menendez amendment would have provided the funds we need for this critical priority without making other cuts, and done so in a fiscally responsible manner by shutting down tax shelters and closing corporate tax loopholes, measures that have already passed this body on a bipartisan basis but which have not become law. In the last few years, the American economy has weathered the storm of terrorist attacks, a downturn in the business cycle, natural disasters, and war. This is a testament to the strength and resiliency of the American people. But I wonder how much more our Nation can take of mismanaged economic policies and wrong priorities; of underinvestment in people, ideas, and innovation; and of an agenda that increases the burden on the most vulnerable members of our society rather than lightening it, before we do irreparable harm. If we want to continue to increase living standards and expand the capabilities of our society so that all may benefit, we must continue to invest in people, ideas, and innovation. We need a budget that will make our Nation stronger and more vibrant. We need more than just cosmetic solutions to the major challenges of our era. Above all, we need our government's priorities to reflect the values of the American people, like opportunity and responsibility, and the American vision of shared prosperity, expanding freedoms, and a just society. Regrettably, the budget offered by the President and by my colleagues across the aisle fails to accomplish these goals and fails to make the changes necessary to put our Nation back on the right course. Mr. President, I have filed an amendment that will restore crucial investments to support our children and families in the fiscal year 2007 budget. I am joined on the amendment by Senators Kennedy, Clinton, Harkin, Mikulski, Murray, Durbin, Lieberman, Cantwell, Kerry, Salazar, Baucus, Schumer, Lautenberg, Kohl, and Lincoln. It is important that we shift priorities and resources toward young children and families, to create an environment for healthy development and to help parents give their children the best possible start in life. Children represent one- quarter of our population but 100 percent of our future. We must nurture their growth and education as they provide the human capital that will determine our Nation's success in the global economy. Today our families are working harder to pay for basic needs such as housing, fuel, health care, and childcare. At the same time, real income has decreased over the past 4 years. As a result, many hard- working families are finding it more difficult to make ends meet. If our Nation is going to compete with the rest of the world, we must prepare our children for this challenge. It is essential that we cultivate the potential of each and every child. How can we know who may be a Nobel laureate, who may take us further into space, or who may be our future President, if we do not give them all an equal chance to thrive? We all agree that we should not burden our children and grand children with great debt. Nor should our Nation abandon their need for health care, education, and other necessities. As I said earlier, the amendment focuses on crucial assistance to children and families. The amendment is very simple. It takes several initiatives which have bipartisan support and restores the investments to a level that the Congress has already agreed to--in previous authorization or spending measures. This amendment would increase resources by $3.3 billion in the fiscal year 2007 budget resolution for five programs: the childcare and development block grant by $540 million; Head Start by $520 million; 21st Century Community Learning Centers by $1.5 billion; Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act programs by $105 million; and the community services block grant by $650 million. In addition, it reduces the Federal deficit by $3.3 billion and pays for itself by closing corporate tax loopholes that were passed by the Senate in the tax reconciliation bill in February. This amendment attempts to renew investments that have failed to keep pace with our Nation's needs. This proposal will restore the community services block grant to $650 million, the level Congress appropriated in fiscal year 2002; the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act initiatives to $200 million for the level authorized for fiscal year 2004; and restore funding to the level of $7.2 billion for Head Start to keep pace with inflation and recent across-the-board cuts. In addition, the amendment brings the investment in afterschool up to $2.5 million, the level authorized for 21st century community learning centers in the No Child Left Behind Act. The childcare and development block grant investment will reach a level of $2.66 billion from its previous level-funding of $2.06 billion, if the amendment passes. We must invest in our children and improve their lives. Each day, 12 million children ages 0 to 4 spend much of their day in out-of-home child care while their parents work. In a majority of cases, having both parents work is a necessity, not a choice. Currently, about one in seven children who are eligible for childcare and development block grant--CCDBG--subsidies are receiving assistance. With childcare costing between $4,000 and $10,000 a year, many families simply can not afford to pay for the care they need. Average child care fees for a year exceed 10 percent of the median household income in most States. Not only is childcare an essential support for hard- working families, it is an important early education opportunity for children. With respect to Head Start, only 50 percent of eligible children are enrolled in Head Start classes. Costs are rising for transportation, heating, and cooling, health insurance, and supplies. Some centers have cut back hours and days of service to children and let teachers go. Our children deserve a high-quality opportunity to learn and thrive through Head Start, and we should give more children that chance. As they struggle to reach their own potential and achieve financial stability, working families require support. Community services block grant initiatives serve 15 million individuals, 6 million families and 3.7 million children. Forty-four percent of those receiving funds are gainfully employed, but they may still have trouble affording the cost of heating their home, putting food on the table, or sending their children to a quality childcare program. While each Federal dollar spent leverages more than $5 in State, local and private funding, the Federal investment is still essential to helping hard-working people get ahead. At the very least, we must keep children from harm. Each year, nearly 3 million cases of child abuse and neglect are reported, and nearly 1 million of these cases are substantiated. States lack the resources necessary to investigate suspected cases, to protect children, and to prevent abuse and neglect from occurring. The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act--CAPTA--helps communities maintain and expand efforts to improve children's lives. The amendment seeks to increase this important investment. All of our children and families deserve a fair start. We know that investments in children pay dividends later in life. But it takes financial commitment and an understanding that we cannot waste a day of a child's life, leaving that child to play catchup later. Families are asking for our help. I ask my colleagues to join me in heeding their call and supporting this amendment.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, let me, if I may, respond to some of the things that have been said. I see my good friend from New York is here as well. I expect he may want to share some thoughts. I will not be long. First, let me say to my good friends from Maine and Arizona, they are truly wonderful friends, and I have worked on countless occasions with both of them. I regret we are in this situation as well. I say to my friends, this is a matter that is extremely important. We have all worked very hard in a bipartisan fashion to bring up both this lobbying reform and ethics reform package. So I am still confident, despite the differences that occurred yesterday, that we are going to achieve that goal. I had hoped we would be able to finish it by this week so we would not end up having an elongated debate about the subject matter. I do not think it needs that much time. I am sorry that is not going to occur. Let me also quickly say to my friend from Arizona, much of what he has said I agree with. I am a product of this place in many ways. I have been here a long time. I sat here on the floor as a page back--I think Jefferson was President when I sat on the floor here, that is how long ago it was--watching Lyndon Johnson sitting as Vice President of the United States, and with the all-night civil rights debates, and so forth. So I am very much a product of this institution. My father served here, and so I have great reverence for the Senate. I too regret what has happened in many ways, that we do not spend the time to work out matters, as we have done on this bill. I think this bill has been a good example of how the Senate ought to function in many ways. That is not to say we are all going to agree on every amendment offered, but we created a process by which this can be done. I am disappointed we come here on Tuesdays and leave on Thursdays. There was a time when we used to come on Monday and stay until Friday, and there was ample time during the week for consideration of matters. Part of the difficulty is, today, when you know you have to come in on a Tuesday at about 5 and leave on Thursday at about 5, then in order to deal with all the matters in front of you, you start doing things or offering things in a fashion you might not otherwise were there more of an opportunity to deal with it. I counted up last night. I suspect, if I am correct, that there are about 60 legislative days left in this session. Assuming we will probably adjourn sometime in September for the fall elections, we have 60 days left to deal with a variety of issues. My colleague from Arizona is right. Look, the numbers are there. The American public is not happy with how they see their national legislative body functioning. There are many reasons for that, not the least of which is there are issues out there which they confront every single day that are staggering to them--their health care problems, employment issues, the education quality in our country. We all know what the issues are. We do not have to do a survey. They want to know whether we are going to pay attention to the matters they grapple with every single day. This is also an important issue because it has to do with how we are perceived as a body. So I am not going to minimize this at all. I am not going to stand here and suggest we are all--at one time or another we have done things that I suspect if we had the chance to do them again, we would do them differently. I will let my colleague from New York address and express what his intents were and what his purposes were, but he raised what, as my colleague from Arizona said, is a very important issue. All of us know that. We have had major hearings. My friend from Maine has had major hearings on this question already. The Banking Committee has had hearings. The other body has already passed, at least out of the Appropriations Committee--my good friend Congressman Jerry Lewis has passed--I think 60 to 2 was the vote, something like that yesterday, a similar proposal dealing with this question about our port security. So none of us minimalize this issue. This is not some extraneous matter that has marginal importance to people here. It is timely. It is important. It is critical. People are worried about it. I would hope, because the hour of 2:15, or whatever the time for this cloture vote is to occur, has not arrived, that there might still be an opportunity for us to find some way to be able to say--next week, the week after, whenever it is here--that we have a chance for an hour or two to raise an important issue, have a good debate in the Senate--in fact, the leader mentioned 2 hours; I think 3 or 4 or 5 hours--for us to discuss an issue of that importance, and with that agreement being reached, we then would agree there will be no other extraneous matters brought up on this bill, and then we could move forward with it so we do not end up tying ourselves in a knot with cloture motions and voting against or for and whatever we are going to do here, delaying the consideration of this bill. I will leave it to my colleague from New York to explain what his intentions are, what he would like to do. But having talked to him, I believe he is going to suggest we have something like that. I realize that causes some heartburn for others. But nonetheless, my hope is that we can get away from this, get back to where we were yesterday morning, moving rather smoothly through a process that Senator Collins and my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, and Senator Lott and I were trying to create, with having one amendment going back and forth from either side, and getting down to a number where we actually had a good possibility of concluding the consideration of this bill by this evening. That may not happen now because of the delay here. But my appeal would be to the Republican leader--I just heard the Democratic leader-- to see if in the next hour or so we can't come to some agreement here to get back on this bill. Let's avoid the cloture votes and get through this legislation. Let's keep it a clean bill, if we can, despite the temptation to bring up other issues. Set aside some time for this debate, and discuss it here on the floor, dealing with the port security issues. That way I think we have satisfied our roles to deal with timely questions, to deal with this important matter, and avoid the kind of acrimony that can truly cause this place to crater again. Again, I say I will let my friend from New York explain what he did. But I understand his motives to at least bring up this very important matter, and one that all of us care deeply about. We are hearing about it from our constituents. Again, to my friend from Arizona, for whom I have the greatest respect and admiration--I have loved working with him over the years on many matters--I too worry. If more committees conducted themselves as the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee does--my Committee on Banking, by the way--with oversight, looking at issues--I think the Armed Services Committee is doing a pretty good job on a lot of these issues. That is the role of the Senate: to be engaged in the debate, the discussion, to provide the time here on the floor, with that Monday through Friday, so we have a good opportunity here to discuss the important issues of the day. Again, the leadership has to work this out. A lot of us are at fault because we ask the leaders, we say: I can't be around on Friday. I can't be here on Monday. Can you wait until 6 o'clock on Tuesday? All of a sudden, you are arriving on Tuesday and leaving on Thursday night. No other job in America allows you to come for a couple days a week in order to do business. So I am sorry in a way we are finding ourselves in this truncated situation. I regret we are in this situation, but we can get out of it as well. My hope would be we would find an opportunity to provide a window to discuss port security, which is critical, and clean this bill up. Let's deal with the issues before us. My friend from Maine said it well earlier: We need to get back on this question. I agree with her on that point. That appeal is out there. I will leave it up to the leaders to decide how to proceed, but I hope that will be the case. Madam President, I see my friend from New York.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Will the majority leader yield for a question?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wonder if the majority leader might give us an idea because we would like to get back to the bill. As one of the managers, my hope would be that we can get back to it right away. I would like to see us clean up this bill and get it done as soon as possible. Could you give us some sense of when you think we might do that? I know there are a lot of matters to deal with, but this is very important.

Mr. DODD. Would it be possible, since this issue is one that many Members care about--in fact, the vote of the House Appropriations Committee yesterday was 62 to 2 on a similar provision, and I know there is talk of a resolution of this matter without ever going to the bill. But if we can agree that next week or so we might allocate an hour or two to do that, my view is we can move forward today and clean up this lobbying reform issue quickly--by agreeing to an hour or so next week to deal with this issue, if necessary, and we can move through this bill, I think, by tonight.

Mr. DODD. I thank the leader. I was suggesting that, if necessary, if we could agree to an hour or two after this bill is considered--and you may be right that we would not have to--then we might get to this reform bill today. That is all it would take to do so. We have taken the position that extraneous matters should not be on the bill. My fear is--and I say this having been around here a quarter of a century--once you bump this off, the budget issue next week, immigration, and a recess for a week or two, we will not get back to this. If we don't stick to this, other matters can take over--another explosion somewhere in the world--and this institution finds itself dealing with a issue that would not be the lobbying reform issue. I have seen it happen so many times. Here is an opportunity, I say with all due respect, to give us that assurance, if necessary, and let us get back to the bill.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank the leader for responding to several questions. I appreciate that very much. I don't disagree. In fact, this may be very good news that we have heard in the last hour or so about the port security issue. Like all of us, I think the leader said it well. The devil can be in the details here. We are going to want to examine what was included there. As I understood, my colleague from New York and the Democratic leader were willing to forgo offering this amendment that Senator Schumer has proposed on this bill for the simple assurance that, if necessary, they would like the opportunity to bring this up at a later time. Many of us applauded that decision. In fact, the Democratic leader offered a unanimous consent request that would have done that, it would allow us to get back to the reform bill. I see a number of my colleagues here. My colleague from Maine knows as well as I do these things can slip, and once they start to slip, other matters can overtake us, and we don't get back to the matter. We have seen it on asbestos and other matters. I am worried that will happen if we allow too much time to pass before we get back to the legislation. I made the appeal earlier today to reach some accommodation among the leaders so we will be allowed to go forward with this bill that the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee worked so hard on and the Rules Committee worked so hard on. We did our job. I think we can get this done in fairly short order. My colleague from Georgia was involved, as well, in the Rules Committee trying to put this together. Again, I make the plea, I don't think there is any necessity at this juncture for the Schumer amendment to come up on this bill, but I think my colleagues can understand why the Senator from New York would like some assurance down the road, if necessary, that we can get to this particular proposal. It is not an extraordinary request. We do this all the time. That would allow us to move forward on this bill and try to keep extraneous matters off until we have completed the bill. I thank the majority leader for responding to my questions. I am disappointed, to put it mildly, that we are not going to get to this bill. I raise the concern, having been here for some time and having watched the process work, that if we don't proceed quickly on this measure, then my fear is that we will not get back to it, and the window of opportunity to have done something on these critical issues will have been lost. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, if we could see the amendment our colleague would like to offer, it would be helpful to us. Why don't we do that while I am talking about this amendment, and then before we break from this, we can agree to what the Senator wants. I need to see what the amendment is.

Mr. DODD. But I understand there are five amendments. I want to know which amendment.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish to spend a couple of minutes this morning commenting on the provisions offered by the Democratic leader, Senator Reid of Nevada, which is a comprehensive amendment that covers a lot of the waterfront related to the matter before us, and that is greater transparency and accountability by Members of this institution as well as those who lobby us, who come to us and petition us as paid representatives of various public, private, and nonprofit entities, so we have a better opportunity to restore a lot of the confidence that has been eroded in how this institution performs its public function. My colleague from Nevada, the chairman of the Democratic team here, has put together a very good proposal. It has been endorsed and supported by over 40 of our colleagues as part of the larger Reid bill. It is called the Honest Leadership Act. It covers a lot of ground. I want to identify the provisions in this bill. I know my colleague from Nevada has done that already, but it deserves repetition. As someone who has now spent more than a quarter of a century in this body, I have great respect for my colleagues and their integrity. We all know that laws are not only written for the majority who abide by the law, but occasionally we write laws because there are those who step outside the boundaries, particularly when it comes to public responsibility and trust. I am not suggesting by this amendment, nor is the Democratic leader, that my colleagues in any way, at least the overwhelming majority, are violating not only the law of the land but even ethics, a sense of responsibility, a sense of good conduct. But we have learned painfully over the last number of months that there are people, unfortunately, who serve in public life, who serve in this great Capitol building, who do take advantage of their position for private gain, who have abused that public trust and have caused this institution and its Members to suffer once again the derision of our constituents, of people who are disappointed about how we conduct our business. It is a painful thing to go through. I have often said I would be willing to take the 99 Members I serve with in this body and compare their ethics and morality to almost any other group of people, and I am sure they would stand up very well. But the facts are that we have people who do abuse the process, and we need to be cognizant of that and respond to it. That is what Senator Lott and I are doing. That is what my colleagues, Senator Lieberman and Senator Collins, are doing with their proposal which is part of the underlying bill. Senator Reid, on behalf of more than 40 of our colleagues, has put together a comprehensive proposal to try and deal with many of these issues. I am sure there are matters with which some Members may disagree, may want to fine-tune in some way, may not necessarily support every dotted ``I'' and crossed ``T.'' But the overall direction of the provisions included in this proposal is one that should enjoy broad support. We hope when the vote occurs later this morning, we can have strong support for it. Let me mention several things it does. One, it bans all gifts, including meals, from lobbyists, the assumption being that this is no longer acceptable. There is no connection between the work of someone petitioning government on behalf of a client or an organization and simultaneously offering some gift to the Member or to the staff of that Member as a way of ingratiating themselves on behalf of the cause they represent. It may be innocent enough. We may find it obnoxious, even, in some cases, considering some of the things that are called gifts. But nonetheless, the perception--perception is reality in the business of public life--that Members of Congress or their staffs are receiving some unrelated item or gift or service or activity as a result of the relationship has come to be unacceptable to most of us here. And again, perceptions are such that we suffer as a result of that kind of conduct. We also impose some additional restrictions of disclosure on the revolving door issue, requirements under the bill's revolving door provisions. This has to do with Members and senior staff who serve here and then leave and go into private life and become lobbyists and use that relationship to come back and have an immediate, direct influence on the legislative process as a result of those close, personal relationships. The revolving door has tried to have additional disclosure requirements and even extend to some degree the amount of time before such a person could come back and lobby their Member or other Members of this body or their senior staff. We also deal in the Reid proposal with congressional travel. It bans lobbyists or anybody affiliated with them from being involved in congressional travel. Again, I say ``congressional travel.'' Travel can be a very important element of service in the U.S. Congress. Members, from time to time, need to get out around the country and need to engage in foreign travel. We are not talking about that. We are not talking about related travel in which Members should be engaged. We are talking about those travel expenses that are unrelated. The most egregious case recently is the matter involving Members of the other body on a golfing excursion in Scotland. When people look at that, they assume maybe all of us are doing those sorts of things. That is not the case, but that is the perception. We need to limit what we talk about here in terms of the travel in which Members of Congress can engage. In my view, if you are traveling on behalf of your public responsibilities as a Member of the Senate or a Member of the Congress, then that is something we ought to allow. In fact, we ought to encourage it. If the travel is unrelated to that nexus of your public responsibility, we ought to try to limit it, if not ban it altogether. The Reid proposal does that. It allows only bona fide 501(c)(3) organizations to pay for congressional travel for factfinding, educational purposes. It retains the requirement for Ethics Committee approval for travel beforehand so that if Members think it may be questionable, they can get a ruling ahead of time. It requires certification that the trip is not planned, supported, or paid for by lobbyists. It imposes per diem rates on acceptable third-party-paid travel and lodging. I point out, Mr. President, it tightens the ban on the so-called K Street project. This is controversial. My colleague from Mississippi was patient in the Rules Committee in listening to the K Street project provision that was offered by my friend from Illinois. It was pointed out in committee that there are already prohibitions in existing criminal law for people who would suggest that there was going to be a price that someone would pay if they hired or did not hire someone else based on their political affiliation. We thought it was so important to establish this principle in the rules of this body that we have codified the prohibition against those who would pressure outside employers to make a hiring decision based primarily on party affiliation. This is wrong, it is an abuse, and it ought to be stopped. The Reid proposal does just that. It is especially egregious where it is accompanied by a threat-- implicit or explicit--that a Member might take or withhold certain actions based on the hiring decision. We have learned that has happened. It is unfortunate. The businesses that did that were unwise and shortsighted, but nonetheless it has occurred. This proposal includes the ban on the so-called K Street-type projects. There are new civil and criminal penalties to combat public corruption. It would require new certifications by lobbyists on gifts and travel and by trip sponsors and increase penalties for knowing, willful, and corrupt violations under the False Statements Act. It would prohibit dead-of-night legislating, require a final vote on conference reports in a public meeting, which, again, I think is critical here. We know if you are getting this legislation out, getting it to be public on the Internet so people have an opportunity to read, as well, what we are about to do, what actions we are about to take--I know this becomes difficult under certain circumstances, particularly at the end of a session if you are dealing with continuing resolutions which can be very large and so forth. It imposes burdens on this institution. But I think we bear a responsibility to make sure the public has a clear idea, or at least the opportunity for a clear idea, to understand what we are about to do, what actions we are about to take, and how they would affect them. So I urge my colleagues, again, to support this kind of provision. Not all are people on this side or the other side of the aisle. So that is what is being proposed by Senator Reid of Nevada. I hope in looking at this, in conjunction with the underlying accomplishments--let me say once again to my colleagues, I think the work of the Rules Committee was a good effort, and we are proud of what we did. Again, this is a dynamic process that doesn't happen all at once. What is reform one day is not the next, and you go back and forth. I always loved this line, and you have to be careful. There was a wonderful Republican Party chairman in New York who once said that the last refuge of the scoundrel was patriotism--until they invented the word ``reform.'' People sometimes hide behind that language as a way to achieve certain ends. What we have done here with the underlying bill--and I think with the Reid proposal--is strengthen this legislation. It is going to make us all better Members, help restore confidence in this institution and its individual Members. I emphasize what I said at the outset. I have great confidence in the ethical, moral behavior of my colleagues. People I have total disagreements with on policy matters, I trust them as to how they conduct themselves in these public arenas. But every profession learns that the laws are not written for the majority who obey the law. Laws and codes of ethics are written for those in the minority who violate that trust and confidence. So we write these provisions and include these proposals in statutory law and in our code of conduct not because we believe every Member is somehow on the brink or cusp of engaging in irresponsible behavior but because we recognize and understand that from time to time there will be people who serve with us who will violate that public trust and confidence. That is why we have these codes of conduct, why we have statutory language that prohibits the behavior that we have outlined in these proposals. So I urge my colleagues, when the time comes in roughly an hour or so, to support the Reid proposal. It is offered on behalf of more than 40 of us in this body. We think it is a sound proposal that would strengthen an already good bill. I urge my colleagues to cast and ``aye'' vote for the Reid amendment.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I urge our colleagues to come over to speak if they wish.

Mr. DODD. Cost-of-living increases. If we could see the amendment, I will be glad--let me start and then he may offer that. I ask unanimous consent that our colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, and Senator Lieberman be added as cosponsors to the Santorum- Dodd-Obama amendment. I believe that is what my colleague was interested in being heard on.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 2942, as modified, on behalf of myself, Senator Santorum, Senator Obama, Senator McCain, and Senator Lieberman. This is to extend the ban on gifts from lobbyists to include meals from lobbyists as well.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, this amendment is simple and straightforward. It would ban meals from lobbyists in the same way that the current bill bans all other gifts. For purposes of the Senate gift rule, it would ban meals outright. The Rules Committee has reported an amendment that bans all gifts. But in an effort to deal with the meal issue, the language of the underlying bill would allow for meals to be paid for by lobbyists but would require, within 15 days of receiving a meal from a lobbyist or a foreign agent, that the name of the person providing that meal and the value of the meal be disclosed on the Member's Web site. In effect, we are banning meals almost without language. The idea that every 15 days we would be reporting these meals probably would result in a ban outright anyway. But it is dangerous to leave language in there because Members could inadvertently forget to report, as well as staff members and the like. It seems to me the better course to follow is to ban these meals outright and to avoid any possible problems that may occur as a result of people having meals and failing to report these in an adequate way or to misreport the details. It unnecessarily creates a tripwire for staff who may attend meetings or events where food is served but where the value is difficult to determine. None of us want to do that. What we are trying to do with this bill is not to play gotcha or to catch people but to set some very clear bright lines about what is permissible or impermissible behavior. Clearly, you can make a case-- and Members have--that meals are very much a part of a culture where business is done. I know many Members and staff over the years have had meals where they discuss legislation or upcoming amendments. There is nothing inherently corrupt about it, but the meal is paid for. And the perception is that there is an undue advantage given to those who are able to take a Member or a senior staff member out for a meal, to then ask them to support a particular provision or oppose something. That creates the impression that Members are somehow being unduly influenced. I will not stand here and suggest that that is the case, but the perception could be that it is the case. All of us who serve in public life understand that perceptions are more real than reality in many cases, and the average citizen doesn't have the opportunity to do that. Members of our constituency who would like to talk to us rarely get the opportunity that a lobbyist has to sit down. I happen to believe that lobbying is a right. I think it is included in the first amendment of the Constitution to be able to petition your Government. I don't want to be party to things that limit people's ability to come and petition their Government. That is what it is really about. The word ``lobbyist'' has become a pejorative word associated with evil doing. The idea of petitioning your Government is a very important right, but I don't think it necessarily means that petitioning your Government gives you the right to then necessarily be able to give gifts or provide meals to the person whom you are petitioning. The average person can't do that. We don't think lobbyists should be able to do so as well. Our language very simply takes it off the table. It is the cleanest way to do it. I know there are fact situations that our colleagues can identify that are probably going to be disadvantageous to them, but overall I think we are better off without this. It is cleaner. It is a bright line. Let there be no questions about it whatsoever; if you are a registered lobbyist, a foreign agent, then you cannot provide the meals or the gifts that you have in the past. As a Member, it is simple. If you are having a meal with them, you pay for your own meal or set up a meeting where there is not a meal involved and listen to the petition that that lobbyist wants to bring to you, what cause he or she wants to make to you. But the idea that you are going to be able to sit down and break bread at their cost as a way of engaging in that first-amendment right is something we believe should be eliminated. We include it with the gifts, generally. The nexus between giving a gift, buying a meal, and petitioning your Government cannot be made, in my view, and, therefore, needs to be separated. Therefore, we have offered this amendment to create that bright line and to eliminate not only gifts but also clearly to eliminate the meals as well. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. DODD. If my colleague would withhold, maybe we can temporarily set this aside if Senator Inhofe wanted to go forward with his amendment. He can explain his amendment. If the Senator would withhold a minute, Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD. Yes.

Mr. DODD. And he could offer it as a first degree, also.

Mr. DODD. My colleague is on his way over to offer the second-degree amendment.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, my colleague from Delaware has asked to be recognized. Before he does that, I am going to send a modification--an amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Santorum, and Senator Obama to the desk and ask for a modification to be accepted of that amendment. I ask unanimous consent to temporarily lay aside the Reid amendment for purposes of considering this amendment and then we will go right back to the Reid amendment.

Mr. DODD

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