Comprehensive Entitlement Reform Commission Act of 2005

Mr. President, I am deeply disappointed that this budget resolution assumes deep cuts and unprecedented fees for the Small Business Administration, the SBA. The administration's request of $624 million is insufficient to meet the needs of small businesses in this country that need access to capital, counseling, and Federal contracts. By the SBA's own calculation, the request is $18 million less than what was available to the Agency last year when congressional initiatives and disaster supplementals are excluded. If this budget is adopted, the Agency will have been cut more than 37 percent since 2001. In context, that means it will have suffered the largest cuts of all 24 Federal agencies.

To address this shortfall, I introduced S.A. 3072 to increase SBA's fiscal year 2007 budget of $624 million by $151 million, for a total of $775 million. The amendment would have paid for this increased spending by closing abusive corporate tax loopholes and would, among other things, have prevented the administration from increasing the cost of disaster loans, from imposing a new fee on SBA's largest loan and venture capital programs, from eliminating the SBA's microloan programs, and from weakening business assistance to women, minorities, veterans, Native Americans, and those trying to cut through redtape to contract with the Federal Government.

This budget resolution comes after 5 years of drastic budget cuts which have

eroded SBA's core programs and left the Agency with one of the worst morale problems in the Federal Government. SBA's largest lending program, the 7(a) program, is now more expensive than ever for small business borrowers and lenders, and the administration is proposing to add new ``administrative fees'' for larger 7(a) loans, 504 loans, and SBIC or venture capital deals. These fees are the first time the SBA has attempted to pass along administrative costs to lenders and small business borrowers, but the administration is pushing for them because they will generate $7 million in savings. We are told that some 7(a) borrowers will pay $625 more per loan, some 504 borrowers will pay $1,625 per loan, and the majority of companies that get an SBIC investment will pay $45,000 more. This is in addition to the excessive fees these small business borrowers already pay to cover the loan subsidy cost. This would set a bad precedent. To prevent the administration from imposing a new fee on small business borrowers, my amendment provided $7 million to the SBA's budget for next year to offset this proposal.

Deep budget cuts for SBA have also meant less transparency and accountability when it comes to the oversight of small business contracting. After pressure from our Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, the SBA hired additional procurement center representatives, PCRs--the Government officials responsible for monitoring the bundling of large contracts and for helping small businesses cut through redtape to compete for Federal contracts--now bringing the number of PCRs nationwide up to 58. But many of these are not full-time PCRs. To avoid further reports of contracting abuses, large businesses receiving small business contracts, and Federal agencies missing their small business goals, my amendment provided $10 million for 100 additional PCRs to ensure robust contracting oversight throughout the Nation.

For the fifth year in a row, this budget continues on the path of providing unrealistic funding by cutting critical programs, such as the Small Business Development Centers or SBDCs, Women's Business Centers and SCORE, forcing SBA's counseling partners to spend fewer hours with clients because the Federal matching grant isn't keeping pace with inflation or demand. Despite the budget's failure to account for inflation costs, these programs continue to play an integral role in helping entrepreneurs from underrepresented communities. These cuts, when combined with 5 years of budget cuts for the SBA as a whole, would leave the SBA ill-prepared to meet the demands of the growing entrepreneurial sector. I strongly oppose flat funding these resources for small businesses and so proposed an additional $23 million in my amendment to bring Small Business Development Centers from the outdated $87.1 funding level to $110 million, proposed $4.95 million to bring SCORE funding to $7 million, and $4.7 million to bring the Women's Business Centers to a level of $16.5 million.

All of this pales in comparison to the mismanagement of the response to recovery of the gulf coast region. The SBA's disaster loan program, essential to the recovery of business owners, homeowners, and renters after a disaster, almost ran out of money twice in February. Instead of getting their fiscal house in order like every American family must do, the President now proposes to raise the cost of disaster loans and no longer guarantee our most vulnerable borrowers fixed interest rates. Although they could still have up to 30 years to pay off a loan, if they don't pay it off in 5 years, the interest rate will go up. Instead of telling us how this will help disaster victims, we are told this will save the SBA an estimated $41 million. We should not be saving money on the backs of disaster victims. Instead, we should help them to rebuild their homes and businesses. To prevent raising disaster loan interest rates, my amendment provided $41 million to the SBA's budget for next year.

The $151 million in my amendment would have provided real money to our appropriators and to small business programs in desperate need of funding. Unfortunately, this amendment did not garner bipartisan support. While I am disappointed with this outcome, I am pleased that we were able to work out a bipartisan compromise with Senator Snowe, the chair of the Small Business Committee. Our compromise, S.A. 3134, would increase the SBA fiscal year 2007 budget by $130 million, and although it would not add any additional funds to the budget resolution, it is a bipartisan effort to address many of the issues that my amendment 3072 attempted to address. There is bipartisan support for the 7(j) technical assistance program and the HUBZONE Program, which Senator Bond from Missouri worked hard to put in place and I joined with him in cosponsoring it when he was chairman for SBDCs and SCORE and Women's Business Centers; for the Microloan Program and microloan technical assistance, both of which the President has tried to eliminate for several years now. We all support U.S. Export Assistance Centers and Veterans Business Development, Small Business Innovation Research, and Small Business Technology Transfer Program. While I would have liked to have seen higher funding levels for the PRIME and New Markets Venture Capital Program, I am glad that our amendment reflects continued funding for these vital programs. We made a strong bipartisan statement that minority lending numbers must be increased, with about $1 million more toward Native-American outreach. And we agreed to reject the proposals to raise the cost of disaster loans and to impose a new fee on the lending and venture capital programs. Overall, amendment 3134 is sending an important signal to all that there is broad bipartisan support to increase funding for these vital small business programs.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, Senators Landrieu, Lieberman, Levin, Nelson of Florida, Vitter, and Coleman for joining us to cosponsor this amendment, the entire Senate for agreeing to the amendment, and Senators Conrad and Gregg for their help in putting together a more realistic budget for small businesses.

Mr. President, I am grateful to both of the managers and appreciate the courtesy.

Amendment No. 3143

Mr. President, I have an amendment which I send to the desk and ask for its appropriate consideration in the line of votes, as we decide on that later.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, the President's budget proposal includes a concept to increase TRICARE--this is the DOD, Department of Defense, health care program--fees and copayments for military retirees under the age of 65 and for their dependents.

All of us recognize there is this spiraling cost to health care. I understand that. And it affects everything we are doing in the country. The Department of Defense is, needless to say, no different. It has those increases. But the answer is not found in tripling the fees for retired officers, doubling them for senior enlisted retirees, and demanding more from every military retiree under the age of 65 who uses the health care system, when you look at the other costs that are already going up for all of those folks.

Most importantly, there are a series of better ways that have been recommended to bring down the cost of health care for those retirees. So you do not have to go immediately to fees and copayments in order to solve the problem of the increase in costs.

In successive budget requests, the Bush administration has asked for increased fees and copayments for veterans health care, which is increasingly shifting the burden of that care from some veterans on to others, and it is driving some veterans out of the system altogether, which is, obviously, not fair.

My amendment will restore the funding for TRICARE so that military retirees are not saddled with these increased costs and fees. We pay for it by closing a number of tax loopholes. I think by doing so, we keep faith with people who have served our country for 20 years or more.

They did not ask to change the terms of their commitment to the military when things got tough, and I do not think we should be ignoring and changing our commitment to them now.

Mr. President, I yield back such time as may remain.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent my modification be accepted at the desk.

Mr. President, the Bush budget triples the fees for officers who are retired under the age of 65 who put in their 20 years of service, and doubles the fees and copays for senior enlisted folks, again, after their 20 years of service to the country.

There are several other ways to cover the costs of increased health care under TRICARE. We could stimulate the use of lower cost mail-order pharmacies. We could negotiate with drug manufacturers who secure discounts under TRICARE, which we don't do. You don't have to take it out of the hide of the retirees themselves.

We pay for this. It is paid for by closing a number of tax loopholes and it is fully paid for so we do not have to raise copays on retirees who put in 20 years of service in uniform.

Mr. President, I compliment our colleague from Maine for her conscientious efforts, as well as her fiscally responsible efforts. I ask unanimous consent to add my name to her list of cosponsors and again tell her how much we appreciate all of the many issues that have landed in her lap this year and what an incredible job she has done, working with Senator Lieberman to address those. I ask unanimous consent to add my name as a cosponsor, please.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3047.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I cannot imagine that the rest of my colleagues in this body are not hearing the same thing I hear, as I travel back each week to Arkansas, from my constituents. Always in the top three issues they bring up in the most passionate of ways happens to be how in the world are we in this Nation going to deal with the number of uninsured in this country, particularly in the small business arena?

Those Americans who are working hard, those trying to provide for their families, those keeping the framework and the foundation of our small communities together, those working in small businesses, how are we going to do a better job in this body in helping to provide health insurance for those who are uninsured and their families?

I rise today with my good friend Senator Durbin to propose an amendment to the budget resolution to provide $7.8 billion over 2 years to fund refundable tax credits targeted to small businesses with up to 100 employees so they may help purchase group health insurance for their low-wage workers.

I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Clinton, Kohl, and Cantwell as cosponsors of my amendment, and to take this opportunity as well to note that our amendment is endorsed by the National Association of Business Owners and the Small Business Majority.

Mr. President, my amendment would dedicate funding to help small businesses that are struggling to provide health insurance to their employees, and would do so in a way that is fiscally responsible. My amendment is completely offset by closing corporate tax loopholes that have been agreed upon by the Finance Committee as well as by this entire body, the Senate. These are ways in which we can make fiscally responsible decisions in closing loopholes that exist and pay for something that is absolutely vital to working families.

Unfortunately, the budget resolution before us doesn't specify either an amount to promote expanding health insurance coverage for employees of small businesses or a way to pay for it, which leads me to believe-- as do other Americans out there listening to this debate--that this is simply a priority for us.

We cannot continue to act as if this issue doesn't exist. The President has mentioned it year upon year in his State of the Union Addresses, and yet we are seeing increases by the millions of individuals who are finding themselves uninsured. There are nearly 46 million Americans currently without health insurance, including 456,000 Arkansans in my home State of Arkansas. Twenty percent of working-age adults are uninsured. These are people who are working and playing by the rules to provide for their families. This number is so alarming to me that addressing this problem should be a national priority.

Those who lack health insurance don't get access to timely and appropriate health care. They have less access to important screenings and state-of-the-art technology and prescription drugs. Working families need our help with this problem--and they need it now.

Senator Durbin and I have a bill to help small businesses afford health insurance, and a refundable tax credit to employers as an integral part of our proposal. Our responsible tax credit is targeted to help those who need it the most.

Low-wage workers and small businesses are significantly more likely to be uninsured than high-wage workers, and firms with a high proportion of low-wage workers are much less likely to offer insurance. Our tax credits are targeted to the firms and employees who need the most incentives to purchase health insurance coverage. Our tax credit goes to the employer because small employers believe offering health insurance has a positive impact on recruitment, retention, employees' attitude, performance, and health status.

The budget resolution fails to address this huge problem in our country. The budget is a blueprint, and it should clearly represent America's working families' needs and priorities. It is supposed to reflect what our choices will be when it comes time to spending the tax dollars of this country. This amendment is about priorities.

We must make a priority this growing number of uninsured in our country. They are working families, playing by the rules, trying desperately to contribute to their great Nation. One of

the things we can do is provide the employers the incentive they need to provide the kind of health insurance working families can use and need.

The underlying proposal Senator Durbin and I have offered presents working families' ability to have the similar kind of health insurance that I and all of the Federal employees here have access to. What greater opportunity to provide greater choice at a lower cost. This is the tool that can make that happen. Providing a tax incentive to small businesses to be able to purchase and assist their employees--their low-wage workers--with the ability to engage in the insurance market and provide the ability to mitigate against their health care and their health care costs is absolutely essential, not just for the quality of life of working Americans but also think of what it does for our economy.

We have a great opportunity in this budget to set priorities that are important to the working families of this country. I urge my colleagues, let us come together and do something for our small businesses and working families--and do something now.

I ask my colleagues to support our amendment and look forward to the opportunity we have to do something about the escalating costs of health care and what it means to working families in this Nation.

I request the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague.

I come to the floor today to offer an amendment on behalf of rural America. If there is anything that has been consistent in this administration's budget, it has been that there has been more asked from rural America in terms of the burden of cuts that have happened and a disproportionate share of the labor-intensive ideas of how we are going to deal with incredible spending.

I offer this amendment on behalf of rural America. I thank Senators Salazar, Pryor, Harkin, and Kohl for joining me in this effort.

I am pleased to ask unanimous consent to add Senators Durbin and Schumer as cosponsors.

Mr. President, our amendment would restore approximately $2 billion in discretionary cuts proposed for programs administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in fiscal year 2007. To pay for these investments in rural America, our amendment would raise the discretionary cap by $2 billion and offset these expenditures by closing corporate tax loopholes which have passed the Senate on numerous occasions.

The proposed discretionary cuts for USDA impact a variety of conservation, rural development, nutrition, and forestry programs that are vitally important to our communities across this great Nation.

Mr. President, you and all other Members of this Senate have rural areas in your States and know the difficult times they are going through. They do not have the tax base. They may not have the corporate citizens in those areas that help them build this economy. These programs are vital to them in terms of developing the kind of economy they want and can have. They are not asking to be a major metropolitan area. They are simply asking to be the best they can possibly be.

The discretionary spending would decline $208 million in fiscal year 2007 in conservation. Rural development would see a decline of $421 million less than in fiscal year 2007, and research would see a 14.6 percent reduction from the fiscal year 2006 appropriations.

I ask all of my colleagues, whether you represent a major metropolitan area or rural America, you know the fabric of this country depends on all of us. Please do not ask for a disproportionate share of rural America, and do not devastate the incredible advances they have already been able to make. Let us help them grow with the rest of America in their great effort.

I urge my colleagues to support me in the WIC Program, the nutrition program, the conservation program, and all of the others that rural America depends on.

Amendment No. 3136, As Modified

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

Mr. President, I call up my amendment numbered 3106 which I described to my colleagues.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

I appreciate my colleagues' attention on this and encourage their support in supporting rural America.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, in this administration's budget, time and time again rural America has been asked to give disproportionately, whether it is to deficit reduction, the war in Iraq, or anything else. Quite frankly, I think it is important for us to look seriously at the priorities of this budget but, more importantly, to look at rural America and what it means to the fabric of this country.

There are cuts in this budget to supplemental nutrition programs for women, infants, and children. USDA's rural housing program is cut by $259 million, resource conservation and development council, world business enterprise grant, telemedicine, State and private forestry programs, cooperative agriculture and food safety research units--all of these issues are critical to rural America. They don't have the corporate tax base or corporate citizenry out there that is going to support them.

If we want the way of life in this country to be maintained with both the fabric of this country being built by our urban areas and our rural areas, it is essential that we support the people and the working families in those areas.

I ask my colleagues to look at conservation, WIC, all of these programs and how important they are in your State.

Mr. President, I ask that the pending amendment be set aside, and I call up my amendment, No. 3071, and ask for its consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I thank the managers of this bill for accommodating this amendment. I am very grateful.

I rise with Senators Clinton, Kennedy, Bingaman, Dodd, Menendez, Kerry, Lieberman, Cantwell, Schumer, Landrieu, Mikulski, Salazar, Lincoln, Durbin, and Kohl to offer an amendment to the FY 2007 Budget Resolution to restore Title I funding within the No Child Left Behind Act. Certainly, NCLB has come under fire as schools across the country struggle to comply with its requirements, particularly for higher student test scores and teacher qualifications. My colleagues and I have gone on record several times about what we need to do to change the NCLB, to respond to the urgent concerns and needs in all of our communities, including those in my state of Hawaii.

However, today, we are not talking about deficiencies in the Act, but a shortfall in its funding, and about misplaced budget priorities. This budget resolution is similar to the President's budget in its stated priorities. It has debt-financed tax cuts that largely benefit the well-off and special interests. It presents a five year plan, which does not recognize the significant negative impact on revenues that tax cuts will have beyond the next five years. It proposes $14 billion in net mandatory spending cuts. It also omits war costs beyond 2007. We somewhat improved the measure by increasing veterans and defense funding, even if I do not fully agree with the budget gimmick that was used to offset these increases.

However, if we pass this budget as is, we fail our students and teachers once again by underfunding education. The President's FY 2007 budget proposed the largest cut to federal education funding in the Education Department's 26-year history, a $2.1 billion reduction. As approved by the Budget Committee, the budget resolution did not do much better, including the same total amount for discretionary spending, with no guarantee that education would be increased. We must not underfund an area that represents the future of this country. As we debate the need to remain competitive in the world, and worry about other countries overtaking us in producing scientists, engineers, and professionals in other areas important to our industries and national security, we cannot let education take the hit.

The Title I funding shortfall, the amount below authorized levels, is $12.3 billion for FY 2007. This increases the cumulative Title I shortfall since NCLB's enactment to $43.7 billion. Actual funding has barely increased since 2002, which continued to grow the gap between authorized and actual funding. The rightful amount in FY 2007 for Title I, as authorized, should be $25 billion. This budget resolution puts the amount at $12.7 billion.

Mr. President, we are being realistic with our amendment, given our current budgetary climate. We are asking for a modest, responsible increase of almost $3 billion, which is what the President's initial budget requests sought to do. Let me underscore that point--our amendment would do what the President said he wanted to do in previous years, which is to secure an additional $4 billion in funding--$1 billion annually--since FY 2004. Actual increases since then add up to just over $1 billion. In addition, the amendment is fully offset by closing abusive corporate tax loopholes.

If we don't pass our amendment, Mr. President, 3.7 million students will not be served by the Title I program. A total of 29 states stand to lose Title I funding, according to the Department of Education, including Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.

Another 7 states will be level-funded, including Alaska, Delaware, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming.

The remaining states that gain overall funding will still have many districts--maybe even a majority of those districts--lose funding. In addition, we must not forget history--even if states would gain this year, they likely lost in a previous year. My state of Hawaii is in this last category, for example, having received $47.5 million in FY 2005, and more than a million dollars less in FY 2006 including across- the-board cuts, at about $46.4 million.

To extend this last point further, many states will have cuts a second year in a row, and some would be cut for four or even five years in a row. Twenty-nine states will receive less Title I money than they did two years ago in FY 2005: Alaska, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

Fifteen states will receive less Title I money than they did three years ago in FY 2004: California, Connecticut, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

Nine states will receive less Title I money than they did 4 years ago in FY 2003: Connecticut, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, and North Dakota.

Three states will receive less Title I money than they did 5 years ago in FY 2002, which is less than they got before NCLB: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota.

The District of Columbia will receive less money than it did in FY 2004 or FY 2005.

The Northern Mariana Islands will receive less Title I money in FY 2007 than it had received in any of the years since the NCLB's enactment.

Let me remind my colleagues who we are hurting by failing to adequately fund Title I. This comprehensive education program focuses help on disadvantaged children--those from lower-income families. Title I helps these students meet state and local academic standards, with scientifically-proven instructional support, in basic subjects such as reading, language arts, and mathematics. Title I provides support through guidance, health, nutrition, and social services. It also provides resources for comprehensive school-wide planning, professional development, curriculum development, parental involvement, and acquisition of instructional materials and equipment. Now some may say that federal assistance does not help all schools, only Title I schools, but that is not true--the statewide accountability system required under Title I applies to all public schools. So this program, this central piece of the NCLB, works to meet urgent needs in all of public education.

Students, school faculty and staff, parents, and education administrators have been trying, mightily in some cases, to meet the challenges posed by NCLB and raise student academic achievement. We need to do this--to ensure that our citizens have the knowledge and skills they need to succeed when they leave school and enter the workforce or other pursuits. However, this is very difficult to do if they lack adequate funding.

I can give you concrete examples of how our schools are suffering that I

just heard of this week, when I met with a representative of Hawaii's PTSA, our affiliate of national PTA. Some students in Hawaii are having bread and water for lunch. Why? Because the schools don't have enough resources to ensure that parents know how to apply for reduced and free lunch. Parents who have raised funds to install air conditioners in hot classrooms, to allow students and teachers to concentrate on learning, cannot do so because the education system cannot afford the additional electricity costs. Students are not receiving extra help through tutoring in reading and math because funds are needed for other services that are deemed essential. Hawaii's schools are suffering because they need a greater infusion of resources, and we need to help them from the federal level, as we said we would when we approved the

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

Mr. President, I yield my time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Boxer and Johnson be added as cosponsors of my amendment.

Mr. President, this amendment restores $3 billion to title I in No Child Left Behind educational programs. The amendment was offered because this budget resolution underfunds title I by more than $12 billion. You should know that a $3 billion increase would bring title I up to what the President requested since fiscal year 2004. Without this increase, 29 States could lose title I funding, and another 7 States would be level funded.

Vote aye on the amendment.

I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, at this point, we are going to begin the amending process again. The sequence on our side will be Senator Cornyn, Senator Vitter, then I understand we go to Senator Stabenow and Senator Akaka.

We will do Senator Cornyn and then Senator Vitter, and then I presume we will go to Senator Stabenow and then Senator Akaka, then Senator Collins, then Senator Lincoln; right?

I yield Senator Cornyn 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise to support this amendment. I think it is an excellent idea and hopefully it will be successful. Stabilization money is certainly available. It is walking-around money. We don't need to have it sitting there, and we should use it for reducing the deficit.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Louisiana.

Amendment No. 3025

I would suggest that we reach a unanimous consent agreement that on the list you identified, everybody be granted 5 minutes.

And that will come off your time when the Democratic Members make offers, and when we make offers, it will come off of our time.

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

I ask unanimous consent the following amendments be agreed to en bloc: Amendment 3078, Senator Vitter and Senator Landrieu; amendment 3041, Senator Baucus; amendment 3134, Senators Snowe, Vitter and Kerry; amendment 3045, Senator Lautenberg; amendment 3123, Senator Coleman; amendment 3136, as modified, Senator Conrad.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Sure.

Mr. President, we are 10 minutes away from the big show, which may go on for a long time. It may be a big, long show. In any event, I want to alert Members we are going to go to 10-minute votes. We are going to be holding the 10-minute votes as strictly as possible. The first vote will, obviously, not be 10 minutes. And we are going to start voting at 1:30. We have pending so many amendments that we could be here well into the evening. Cooperation is needed if people do not want to be here well into tomorrow morning.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. President, I yield the Senator from North Dakota 2 minutes.

Mr. President, just for the edification of our colleagues because it is going to get a little confusing around here with all the amendments we have, we are going to begin the amendment voting process with the amendment of Senator Lieberman on homeland security. That will be followed by Senator Clinton's amendment, followed by Senator Specter's amendment on education, followed by the amendment of Senator Reed of Rhode Island on LIHEAP, followed by Senator Lautenberg's amendment on TSA fees, followed by Senator Sarbanes's amendment on function 300, followed by Senator Dorgan's amendment on tribal issues, followed by Senator Cornyn's amendment on reconciliation, followed by Senator Stabenow's amendment on veterans, followed by Senator Akaka's amendment on title I, followed by Senator Collins's amendment on homeland security, followed by Senator Lincoln's amendment on small business--oh, we are stopping at Senator Collins's amendment, and then we are going to order the next group of amendments.

So that is the basic concept.

Yes.

Mr. President, I wish to amend the prior list of how we will proceed with votes. We will begin with Senator Reed and his LIHEAP amendment. We will follow that with Senator Clinton on health care, followed by Senator Specter, and then we will go to Senator Lieberman. Then the list will continue as outlined in the prior discussion.

I ask unanimous consent that for the amendments which are pending, there be 2 minutes equally divided prior to each vote.

Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that no second degrees be in order, with the exception of the Clinton amendment which might be subject to a second degree or further side by side.

Mr. President, we made a very strong commitment to LIHEAP a few weeks ago. We passed an additional billion dollars on the Senate floor. In other vehicles, we have passed even more money for LIHEAP. This amendment does not fund LIHEAP because nothing in this bill is binding on the Appropriations Committee. What it does do, however, is raise the cap by $1 billion and raise taxes by $1 billion. It will be up to the Appropriations Committee to decide whether they are going to fund LIHEAP at this year's level or next year's level or last year's level. The history is pretty strong. LIHEAP gets well funded around here and you can pretty much presume that the Appropriations Committee will do that. But they will do it within the cap, and that is the way it should be. Therefore, I hope Members will reject this amendment because it is basically a tax-and-spend amendment.

I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays be deemed to have been ordered on all amendments that are proceeding here.

I ask unanimous consent that seconds be deemed to have been approved for all the yeas and nays for the balance of the amendments.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, we will now go to the Specter amendment. Senator Specter and those in opposition had not expected this amendment to come up so quickly. I hate to slow the voting down.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I see the cosponsor of the amendment is on the Senate floor. Would he like to take the time allocated to him?

The Senator has a minute. Proponents of the amendment have a minute.

Amendment No. 3048

I yield back the time.

Mr. President, we have increased the funding for national defense by $30 billion in this bill in the core budget. We have increased it by $40 billion in the ancillary budget which funds alongside the core budget, putting it up to $90 billion. We have increased border and port security funding by $4 billion, and we already have in the pipeline something like $5 billion of unspent money for first responders and something like $3.5 billion for interoperability. This amendment is not needed, and it is a tax-and- spend amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3137

We are willing to accept this amendment. I ask unanimous consent the yeas and nays be vitiated and the amendment be agreed to.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3102

Mr. President, this amendment doesn't guarantee that any money goes to the tribal authorities. All it does is raise the cap by $1 billion--increases taxes by $1 billion. It is entirely up to the Appropriations Committee how they spend money. We have no control over that. The practical effect of this amendment is simply tax and spend.

I move to reconsider the vote and move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Change of Vote

Mr. President, with the approval of Senator Landrieu, I ask unanimous consent that her amendment No. 3112 be withdrawn.

Mr. President, for the edification of our colleagues, when we complete the Collins amendment, the next five amendments after that--we have pending the Stabenow, Akaka, and Collins amendments--and the next five amendments after that will be the Lincoln amendment No. 3047; Grassley, an unnumbered amendment; Inhofe, No. 3093, I believe; Lincoln, No. 3106; Kerry, No. 3143.

We are now on to Senator Stabenow.

Amendment No. 3141

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, we are waiting for Senator Conrad. For the moment, we will have to skip over Senator Collins. I understand we are hopefully going to have an understanding relative to the next two amendments, which will be the Grassley and Lincoln amendments.

That brings us to Senator Inhofe. We will come back to Senators Collins, Grassley, and Lincoln after this Inhofe vote.

Amendment No. 3093

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on the five amendments we have put in order, the yeas and nays be deemed to have been granted, along with the seconds of those yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays be vitiated on the Collins amendment No. 3064, and I ask unanimous consent that it be agreed to.

Under the previous agreement, Mr. President, we are now going to turn to the Lincoln amendment No. 3106, followed by the Kerry amendment No. 4103, followed by the DeMint amendment No. 3087.

Amendment No. 3106

Mr. President, on our side it is Senator Stabenow, Senator Akaka, Senator Lincoln. I should intercede, Senator Vitter will be paired with Senator Landrieu on an amendment for Louisiana.

Very well.

Mr. President, this is a difficult matter for this Senator because I have proposed many times to my colleagues doing away with the stabilization fund. So this amendment puts me in a quandary to the extent that if we can assure that with this amendment we would eliminate the stabilization fund, I would be with the Senator.

The problem we face here is, No. 1, the stabilization fund is $6.2 billion, it is not $10 billion. No. 2, because of the way the budget resolution works, we cannot direct the Finance Committee on how to make the reduction. I wish we could, but we cannot.

What we would be doing, in effect, by the Senator's amendment is telling the Finance Committee to cut $10 billion out of Medicare. They could do that in any number of ways without affecting the stabilization fund at all. In fact, colleagues may recall last year the Senate told the Finance Committee to take out the stabilization fund. I call it the slush fund. I think it is an absolute waste of money. I absolutely agree with the Senator on that point. But we all know at the end of the process, the stabilization fund was left intact because the way the budget process works, we give an instruction about how much finances to cut, but we cannot tell them how to do it.

So I want my colleagues to know that is the circumstance we face with this amendment. I thank the Senator for the good faith of his amendment.

Mr. President, I thank the two Senators from Louisiana, especially Senator Landrieu, for working with her colleague Senator Vitter on this important amendment for their home State that has obviously been so badly damaged by Hurricane Katrina. I thank Senator Landrieu and Senator Vitter for working together in a bipartisan way to begin to rebuild additional resources as their State has been so hard hit.

I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. President, I very much thank the Senator.

I see the Senator from Michigan is on the floor. Would the Senator from Michigan be prepared to present her amendment?

I yield 3 minutes--is that sufficient time?

I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Michigan, and then next on our side will be Senator Akaka, and then I think Senator Collins is in line, and then Senator Lincoln.

Senator Stabenow.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, if it is agreeable to the chairman, I have a report I am supposed to do at the luncheon that is going on. If I could give the time at this point to people, would that be appropriate?

Could we do 4 minutes? Because we have a bit of a time constraint, could we do 4 minutes?

No. It would be 4 minutes for each of the Senators.

Mr. President, we will have no trouble getting a sufficient second.

Perhaps we could give a second to the yeas and nays asked for by the Senator from Arkansas at this time. There now appears to be a sufficient second.

Mr. President, I ask the Parliamentarian if he could give us a breakdown on the time remaining between now and 1:30.

Mr. President, we have calls out to two other offices of Members who indicated an interest in offering amendments in this time period.

As we have heard from the Parliamentarian, we only have 15 minutes left on our side. When we put in a quorum call, that time will be charged equally. I alert those Senators whose offices have been called that time is rapidly running through the hourglass. I hope very much those who have been called and who have asked for time will come. Time is rapidly evaporating.

I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I yield 2 additional minutes to the Senator from Arkansas.

Mr. President I call up an amendment at the desk. It is a substitute on the energy amendment I offered earlier. I ask unanimous consent to modify my previous amendment.

I thank the Chair.

I ask the Parliamentarian to give us an update on the time.

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

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

Mr. President, could we get an update on the time situation?

Two minutes?

I ask the chairman, could I get 2 additional minutes to give to Senator Kerry?

The chairman, once again, is gracious to provide another 2 minutes. I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes from his time to our time and I give 4 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. President, I assume I have no time remaining.

Mr. President, may I ask the Senator from New Hampshire for 2 minutes so I might offer an amendment.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman again for his courtesy.

Amendment No. 3148

Mr. President, I want to say to the Senator from Nebraska that while on this side we agree that we have long-term challenges, very deep long-term challenges, with the fiscal health of the country, we believe the amendment the Senator from Nebraska has offered is too narrow in scope.

Mr. President, for that reason, I send an amendment to the desk to be considered at the same time as the amendment offered by the Senator from Nebraska. Basically, the difference is this: We think everything ought to be on the table. We think everything ought to be on the table, not just entitlements but domestic discretionary spending, the revenue side of the equation, that all ought to be considered.

I will be happy to.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have a letter printed in the Record from AARP in opposition to the Hagel amendment, indicating they agree that the Hagel amendment is too narrow in scope, and that we ought to have a broader look at all of the problems facing our fiscal future, not just focus on one part.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Might we put in a quorum call? We have a little bit of a glitch.

No objection.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, if we could ask our colleagues, we know the list that has been put in, and if colleagues who have amendments about to be considered will be closely attentive to what is happening here so we don't have dead time, that would be very helpful to the process.

After this amendment, next is the Lieberman amendment. So we alert Senator Lieberman and his staff. Then we will have the Lautenberg amendment. If those Senators can be ready to go.

Mr. President, could I just alert colleagues, we have now done a vote count. We have over 60 votes pending. We can only do three votes an hour. That would take us 20 hours. I urge colleagues--there are other vehicles coming. We have had a lot of votes already on this budget resolution. We have a lot more votes scheduled. I would urge colleagues to come to us and remove some of their amendments from consideration.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, can I alert colleagues again? We have colleagues who are missing votes. They are missing votes because of the time deadline. We have had Democrats missing votes and we have had Republicans missing votes. We don't want you to miss votes. We want you to make votes but at the same time we have to stay on schedule.

I yield the time to the ranking member on the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus.

I yield time to the Senator.

Mr. President, this is truly a sweeping amendment. I hope colleagues are listening. This amendment seeks to lock in the current level of discretionary spending, not just for this year but permanently. I hope colleagues are listening. This seeks to lock in the current level of spending for homeland security, for veterans health, for NIH, not just for 1 year but permanently because it would take 67 votes to increase it.

I hope my colleagues will reject this amendment. This is an amendment which goes against every democratic impulse of this body.

Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.

Mr. President, I am prepared to withdraw my amendment No. 3148 and Senator Hagel is also prepared to have his amendment No. 3127 withdrawn. We are also prepared to withdraw Lincoln amendment No. 3047. We have managed to work out an understanding on all of these matters, so I ask unanimous consent to have those amendments withdrawn.

Mr. President, it is also our understanding that Senator Grassley would not offer his amendment that was the matching amendment to the Lincoln amendment that has now been withdrawn.