[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 16 (Friday, February 10, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1058-S1064]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               LOW INCOME HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I would like to begin my remarks today 
speaking about a topic that I have been involved with, along with many 
of my colleagues for months now. That is LIHEAP funding.
  If you look at a weather map, you will see that temperatures across 
much of the United States are only expected to be in the thirties and 
forties today. Winter has finally arrived. In Providence, the high is 
only projected to be 19 degrees. A nor'easter is on its way up the east 
coast; they forecast snow that will hit here in the DC area tomorrow, 
all the way up to New England, and so winter has arrived.
  I wanted to mention the weather forecast because we are at the end of 
the second week of February, and there is no new funding for the Low-
Income Home Energy Assistance Program, and as far as I know, there are 
no plans by the majority to bring to the Senate a vote on a $2 billion 
LIHEAP funding proposal. This funding proposal was removed from the 
Department of Defense Appropriations bill conference report. It was one 
of a few items that was stripped out, there were many other nondefense 
items that were included in the Defense Appropriations conference 
report in December, but for some reason this was dropped. I think a 
reason it is adversely affecting thousands and thousands of Americans 
across the country, ranging from the Northeast into the mid-Atlantic, 
across the Midwest, out into the far West. People are struggling with 
rising energy prices, and today, falling temperatures.
  On Monday, a bipartisan letter signed by 34 Governors urged Congress 
to pass $2 billion in immediate additional LIHEAP assistance. These are 
Governors from across the country, Governors that are of both party 
affiliations, Governors who are trying to respond to these conditions 
of both weather and extraordinary price increases.
  The letter states:

       LIHEAP applications are projected to increase by as much as 
     25 percent in some States . . . If Congress does not increase 
     LIHEAP funding in the next few weeks, state programs across 
     the country could run dry and the number of households unable 
     to meet their basic heating needs could skyrocket.

  I ask unanimous consent that both of these letters be included in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                                 February 6, 2006.
     Hon. Bill Frist,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate.
     Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
     Speaker, House of Representatives.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives.
       Dear Senator Frist, Senator Reid, Speaker Hastert, and 
     Representative Pelosi: For several months this winter, states 
     have taken steps to help assure that our most vulnerable 
     residents are not overwhelmed by the sharp rise in home 
     heating costs. This has often meant significant state 
     contributions to emergency relief funds or supplementing 
     existing state-federal programs. Despite these actions by the 
     states and the record cost of energy nationwide, federal 
     funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program 
     (LIHEAP) reflects a net decrease from the previous fiscal 
     year's total. We urge Congress to join the, states in meeting 
     the well-documented need for additional home heating 
     assistance by passing $2 billion in immediate additional 
     LIHEAP assistance.
       Governors supported the progress that was made when LIHEAP 
     was authorized at $5.1 billion in the Energy Policy Act of 
     2005, but were disappointed when Congress appropriated only 
     $2.16 billion for FY 2006. While we appreciate the 
     President's recent release of an additional $100 million of 
     emergency LIHEAP funds and Congress' proposal to add $1 
     billion for FY 2007, urgent action is needed to address the 
     Energy Information Administration (EIA)'s prediction of a 30 
     to 70 percent rise in consumer energy costs this winter.
       Covering dramatic increases in natural gas and heating oil 
     prices presents a potential hardship for our citizens. LIHEAP 
     applications are projected to increase by as much as 25% in 
     some states. As noted above, many states, energy industry 
     leaders, and private citizens have done their part by 
     increasing investments in the program. We are asking

[[Page S1059]]

     you to join us by sending legislation to the President that 
     provides enough funding to meet our low-income citizens' 
     energy needs for 2006. If Congress: does not increase LIHEAP 
     funding in the next few weeks, state programs across the 
     country could run dry, and the number of households unable to 
     meet their basic heating needs could skyrocket.
       Our states are in the process of documenting the potential 
     shortfalls in LIHEAP funding and the supplemental funding 
     states have already provided. We look forward to sharing that 
     information with you shortly. Thank you for your 
     consideration of this request and your continued commitment 
     to assisting our neediest families. We hope that you will 
     take this opportunity to actively support the LIHEAP program.
           Sincerely,
         Governor Frank H. Murkowski, Alaska; Governor Janet 
           Napolitano, Arizona; Governor M. Jodi Rell, 
           Connecticut; Governor Ruth Ann Minner, Delaware; 
           Governor Rod Blagojevich, Illinois; Governor Mitch 
           Daniels, Indiana; Governor Thomas J. Vilsack, Iowa; 
           Governor Kathleen Sebelius, Kansas; Governor Kathleen 
           B. Blanco, Louisiana; Governor John Baldacci, Maine; 
           Governor Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., Maryland; Governor Mitt 
           Romney, Massachusetts, Governor Jennifer M. Granholm, 
           Michigan; Governor Tim Pawlenty, Minnesota; Governor 
           Brian Schweitzer, Montana; Governor Dave Heineman, 
           Nebraska; Governor John Lynch, New Hampshire, Governor 
           Jon S. Corzine, New Jersey; Governor Bill Richardson, 
           New Mexico; Governor George E. Pataki, New York.
         Governor Michael F. Easley, North Carolina; Governor John 
           Hoeven, North Dakota; Governor Bob Taft, Ohio; Governor 
           Brad Henry, Oklahoma; Governor Ted Kulongoski, Oregon; 
           Governor Edward G. Rendell, Pennsylvania; Governor 
           Donald L. Carcieri, Rhode Island; Governor Jon 
           Huntsman, Jr., Utah; Governor James Douglas, Vermont; 
           Governor Timothy M. Kaine, Virginia; Governor Christine 
           O. Gregoire, Washington; Governor Joe Manchin III, West 
           Virginia; Governor Jim Doyle, Wisconsin; Governor Dave 
           Freudenthal, Wyoming.
                                  ____



                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                 Washington, DC, January 25, 2006.
     Hon. William H. Frist,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Majority Leader Frist: High energy prices are 
     threatening the health and economic well-being of low-income 
     households across the United States. No family in our nation 
     should be forced to choose between heating their home and 
     putting food on the table for their children. No senior 
     citizen should have to decide between buying life saving 
     prescriptions or paying utility bills. Unfortunately, these 
     stark choices are a reality for too many Americans across the 
     nation. We strongly urge you to take immediate action to help 
     low-income Americans by bringing a measure to the floor that 
     provides an additional $2.92 billion for the Low-Income Home 
     Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), as supported by the 
     majority of the Senate.
       Since October 5, 2005, the Senate has voted six times to 
     increase LIHEAP funding to $5.1 billion. Bipartisan 
     amendments offered to the Department of Defense 
     Appropriations bill, the Transportation, Treasury and HUD 
     Appropriations bill, the Labor, Health and Human Services and 
     Education Appropriations bill, and the Tax Reconciliation 
     bill received a majority of the Senate's support. 
     Unfortunately, these amendments were not given the 
     opportunity for a straight up-or-down vote. In December, 63 
     Senators supported a successful motion to instruct, which 
     directed the Budget Reconciliation Conference Committee to 
     provide $2.92 billion in additional funding for LIHEAP in FY 
     2006. Yet, the conference report for the Budget 
     Reconciliation bill includes only $1 billion, with this 
     spending designated for FY 2007. Procedural maneuvers are 
     preventing vital assistance from reaching Americans. These 
     families and seniors deserve help from the federal 
     government.
       As you know, the Department of Defense (DoD) Appropriations 
     Conference report originally provided an additional $2 
     billion for LIHEAP. The LIHEAP funding provided by the DoD 
     conferees was designated as emergency funding. The emergency 
     designation funding is warranted given the high cost of 
     energy this winter, and the lack of growth in workers' wages. 
     Unfortunately, other more controversial matters included in 
     the conference report prevented the retention of the LIHEAP 
     money in final action on that bill.
       The Energy Information Agency forecasts that households 
     heating with natural gas will experience an average increase 
     of 35 percent over last winter. Households heating with oil 
     will see an increase of 23 percent, and households using 
     propane can expect an increase of 17 percent. In addition, 
     wages are not keeping pace with inflation. The Real Earnings 
     report by the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that the 
     average hourly earnings of production and non-supervisory 
     workers on private nonfarm payrolls were lower in December 
     2005 than they were a year ago, after accounting for 
     inflation. Working families are continuing to lose ground, 
     meaning more families also need LlHEAP assistance this 
     year. Paychecks are being stretched thinner as families 
     face higher prices for home heating, health care, and 
     education.
       We respectfully request that you bring a measure to the 
     Senate floor at the end of this month, or at the latest, 
     early February, that funds LIHEAP at the $5.1 billion level 
     supported by the Senate. We also urge that these resources be 
     allocated in such a way that they will benefit all states and 
     ensure they receive this necessary assistance promptly. 
     American families and seniors have been waiting too long for 
     relief from high energy costs. Thank you for your 
     consideration for this essential request.
           Sincerely,
         Jack Reed, Maria Cantwell, Byron L. Dorgan, Paul S. 
           Sarbanes, Charles E. Schumer, Edward Kennedy, Tom 
           Harkin, Jeff Bingaman, Barbara Boxer, Herb Kohl.
         John F. Kerry, Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, 
           Daniel K. Akaka, Max Baucus, Barbara A. Mikulski, 
           Patrick J. Leahy, Debbie Stabenow, Carl Levin, Mark 
           Dayton, Joseph R. Biden, James M. Jeffords, Patty 
           Murray, Dick Durbin, Robert Menendez.

  Mr. REED. According to the National Energy Assistance Directors 
Association, the following States have exhausted their LIHEAP funding 
or will do so by the end of the month: Alabama, Arkansas, California, 
Georgia, Iowa, Maine, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Rhode Island, 
Utah, New Hampshire, Washington, and Ohio. This is a broad-based 
problem, transcending all regions of the country and, again, a direct 
reflection of high energy prices and falling temperatures.
  High energy prices are threatening the health and economic well-being 
of low-income families and seniors across the United States and we must 
provide additional LIHEAP funding this winter.
  On Tuesday, the Energy Information Administration released its Short-
Term Energy Outlook. The data was not encouraging. Despite our 
relatively mild winter, households heating primarily with natural gas 
can expect to spend 24 percent more on fuel this winter than last 
winter. If a household is heating with oil, it can expect to pay 16 
percent more. Those households depending on propane can expect to pay 
14 percent more this winter than last. And to quote the EIA, the Energy 
Information Administration:

       Should colder-than-normal weather occur for the remainder 
     of the heating season, expenditures could be significantly 
     higher than currently projected.

  These are costs that are piling up on working families and at the 
same time they are seeing their wages stagnate, not keeping up with 
inflation and not keeping up, certainly, with energy costs. Working 
families are continuing to lose ground, meaning more families need 
LIHEAP assistance as a result. So the paychecks are being stretched 
thinner and thinner as families face higher prices for home heating, in 
addition to health care, in addition to education. So we have to do 
something, and I believe we should do something.
  At least five times over the last several months, the Senate has, by 
majority vote, supported an increase in LIHEAP spending at least to the 
$2 billion mark. But, because of the procedural rules, budget 
objections, we could not prevail, even though we had a majority of 
Senators on both sides of the aisle. I think that sends a strong signal 
that not only can we act, we should act.
  Now I will urge the majority leader to take immediate action to help 
these low-income Americans by bringing a measure to the floor that 
provides the full $2 billion in additional LIHEAP funding. And, I also 
ask the President, and the White House to stand on the side of American 
families to urge this to be done. They should release a public 
statement supporting additional LIHEAP funding.
  Also, the White House can act immediately by releasing the remaining 
$100 million in LIHEAP contingency funds provided in the fiscal year 
2006 Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations bill. If you go back to 
the Governors of our States, who are close to this problem, if you look 
at the States that are exhausting their LIHEAP funds--and it is still 
only February--we could have 8 more weeks of rather cold temperatures. 
Indeed, if the weather evens out, we should have 8 more weeks of cold 
temperatures because it has been mild to this point. But these States 
of Alabama, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Iowa, Maine, Oklahoma, 
Oregon, South Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, New Hampshire, Washington, 
and Ohio need this assistance and we should give it to them.

[[Page S1060]]

                               The Budget

  I will make more general comments about the budget. Part of it is, of 
course, the inability to respond to the heating crisis. I think there 
is a much greater set of issues confronting us with the budget the 
President sent up. I have deep concerns about the President's fiscal 
year 2007 budget. It neither meets the pressing needs of the American 
people nor addresses the long-term challenges that lie ahead. Clearly, 
we are in for another year of policies that do not help the average 
family or bring down the deficit. I suspect these are the two major 
criteria most Americans will judge this budget on: Will it assist 
families, working families, in the country to move forward? Will it 
begin to tackle some of the long-term problems we face?
  It is tremendously disappointing that the President's budget has cut 
funding for programs that are important and vital to the well-being of 
children, education, economic success, and the safety of Americans. 
While the budget was appropriately invested in national security, it 
unfortunately leaves our citizens behind here at home in many different 
capacities. In addition, the President's budget seeks to make costly 
tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans permanent, at a time when we 
are facing one of the largest deficits in the history of the country.
  The administration strains to show progress reducing the deficit, but 
in fact it exaggerates the deficit in the short run and understates it 
in the future by leaving out big-ticket items, such as war costs. We 
will shortly receive an approximately $100 billion supplemental for 
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would be unfortunate not to 
support our troops in the field, but we have responsibilities of not 
only supporting troops in the field but doing it in a responsible 
way. And it is not by accumulating each year billions of dollars in 
supplemental appropriations; it is in trying to deal with these costs. 
Certainly it is including those costs in any projection of the way 
ahead with respect to the budget of the President.

  The President also has not clearly indicated how we are going to 
attempt to fix the alternative minimum tax. This is a tax which is 
gradually encroaching on the middle class of America. It was originally 
designed to provide default for those wealthier Americans who could, 
through very shrewd but legal tax planning, avoid any significant tax 
liability. Now, because of the design of our tax system, it is reaching 
down into the middle class. It is a multibillion-dollar problem we have 
to address. Once again, that is not in the budget.
  We know these large deficits will increasingly hamper our ability to 
sustain the economy in the long run. And no matter how rosy a picture 
the administration tries to paint, neither the President nor future 
fiscal outlooks look particularly bright given this current deficit 
situation.
  This first chart shows what has happened over the last several years. 
When President Bush took office, the Congressional Budget Office 
projected large and growing Federal budget surpluses under existing 
laws and policies, the so-called baseline. We can see in the year 2000 
there was a $236 billion surplus. That was projected to go to $281 
billion, $313 billion, $359 billion, all the way to the year 2006 with 
a $505 billion surplus. That is the projection.
  The reality is the surplus has been declining, until 2002 it reached 
a minus $158 billion, a deficit of $158 billion, and the numbers go 
down, go down in 2004 to $413 billion. There was a slight improvement, 
and one can argue about whether that is a one-time phenomenon based on 
some tax provisions we passed. The forecast of CBO for 2006 is $337 
billion. That is a huge swing just at a time when we are approaching 
significant challenges with respect to the baby boom generation in 
Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid.
  This has been a huge reversal of fortunes. In 2000, CBO was 
predicting a $5.6 trillion 10-year surplus from 2002 to 2011. This has 
turned into a deficit of $2.7 trillion. That is, by my rough 
calculation, roughly an $8 billion swing from positive to minus. One 
can just see the difference in 2006: a $505 billion surplus to a $337 
billion deficit. That is an $800 billion-plus swing between the 
projections and the reality, the result of the policies the President 
has adopted, the result of some costs which could not be avoided--
certainly in response to 9/11--but many other costs which were capable 
of being, if not avoided, then properly funded. Certainly the tax cuts 
contribute significantly each step of the way as we go forward.
  Instead of sound budget policies preparing for the immediate 
retirement of the baby boom generation, the Bush administration and the 
majority of Congress have refused to adopt the kind of budget 
enforcement rules which help achieve fiscal discipline in the 1990s.
  Let me remind you that when I arrived in the Congress in 1990, taking 
office in the House in 1991, we were looking at continuous deficits 
many years preceding and projected to go forward. We adopted not only 
budget rules but budget policies. They were not supported by the 
Republicans. This was a Democratic initiative of President Clinton 
together with a Democratic Congress that actually reversed the 
situation. So this number, $236 billion, was the result of quite 
aggressive and quite responsible actions in the 1990s by Democrats and 
a Democratic President to move from deficits to surpluses to begin to 
store up what we thought would be surpluses so that we could deal 
realistically and fairly with the oncoming and expected issue of 
demographic change in the United States of an older population 
increasingly aging and requiring additional services. All of this was 
reversed through the policies of the Bush administration.
  We have pursued a policy, as I mentioned before, of trying to 
stabilize and reconstruct Iraq by supplementals, not by including even 
a fraction or a significant fraction of the known cost in our 
underlying budget. Having taken at least seven trips to Iraq and four 
to Afghanistan, I can tell you it is a long-term process to do it 
right, to get it to a point where it is not worse off than it would 
have been without our intervention. That takes resources.
  We have also had these tax cuts which continue to sap our strength.
  If we look at the Bush tax cuts, they are nearly 90 times larger for 
millionaires than for middle-income households, hugely 
disproportionate, having adverse macroeconomic effects, having adverse 
fiscal effects in terms of the budget, and not helping the families who 
all of us will stand up here and pledge are at the top of our list to 
help: those low- and middle-income families who are struggling with 
increased costs. This is astronomical. Families are struggling with 
health care, retirement issues, loss of jobs, stable employment--one 
does not have to go across this country too far to see communities that 
have been traumatized by closing factories. Every time we listen to a 
news report, we are hearing another company, another major company, 
such as Ford and others, say they are closing factories. That impact is 
severe and traumatic to families. They are grappling with that and 
retirement funds which seem to be evaporating. People who worked their 
whole lives and thought they would have adequate retirement and health 
care from their employers are finding that is becoming almost a mirage, 
in some cases, and at the same time, there are usually disproportionate 
tax advantages through these tax cuts given to the wealthiest 
Americans.
  The average amount of the 2001 to 2004 tax cuts for households of 
more than $1 million of income was $103,000 in 2005. The comparable 
figure for those households between $50,000 and $75,000 in household 
income is $1,200, most of which is probably eaten up before they 
receive it by increases in health costs, increases in energy costs, 
increases in the cost of simply trying to get by day to day. Middle and 
lower income families are paying a price for these tax cuts, and it is 
a price they are finding very difficult to bear each day going forward.

  There are specific areas of concern in this budget which have to be 
mentioned. With respect to health care, the President, during his State 
of the Union Address, said that it is the Government's responsibility 
``to provide health care for the poor and the elderly.'' But his budget 
proposal only serves to undermine the commitment of our Nation to care 
for those less fortunate.
  The President spoke about access to care and proposed a modest 
increase in funding for community health centers. At the same time, 
however, his budget eliminates funding to those programs which educate 
and train the medical

[[Page S1061]]

personnel who are necessary to provide high-quality, culturally 
competent care to those who will be served in these facilities. We are 
literally disinvesting in those long-term assets--in this case, the 
human assets of highly trained physicians and physician assistants and 
nurses and technicians we will need to man this health care system 
going forward.
  We can look at the projections. The huge increase in seniors requires 
additional resources and additional redeployment of these resources. 
That is not taking place in this budget.
  I am also disappointed that the budget provides no additional funding 
for nursing education at a time when my State of Rhode Island and every 
State in the country is seeing a huge demand for nursing care. The 
nurses are a vital component of our health care system. In my State of 
Rhode Island, they are reaching out across the globe, spending three or 
four times what it costs to hire a local American nurse simply to fill 
their ward so they can continue to function.
  This is an irony, too, because we are all looking for those jobs and 
those skills which will not be shipped overseas, which will not be 
digitized and sent away. Nursing is one of these high-quality skills. 
So it is not only for health care benefits, it is also for economic 
development. Yet we are struggling to try to help the nursing 
profession provide the resources to train new nurses in America. The 
result, of course, is we are taking them from overseas. This might 
benefit us in the short run but not in the long run. We have to ask 
ourselves: What is it doing to the health care systems in places such 
as the Philippines and other countries that are struggling to have 
adequately trained professionals in their ranks? We are essentially 
reaching out and taking them away. We have to do better. We can do 
better.
  The budget eliminates funding for primary care and allied health 
professional training under title VII and decimates the scholarship 
program designed to encourage more disadvantaged and minority students 
to enter the health care workforce. Here again, we are trying to match 
up the talent and skills of Americans with the jobs we need to do, and 
we know we will need to do them in the future. That does not make sense 
to me.
  His budget also eliminates the Universal Newborn Screening Program 
and the Emergency Medical Services for Children Program which help 
States institute effective newborn screening programs and promote 
research through improved trauma care for children.
  There is no one in either body who will come to this floor and not 
speak about our obligation to the children of America. This is the 
sanctity of protecting them. But here are programs that operate 
effectively and efficiently to do that--screening newborns to detect 
very early if they have medical problems we must deal with rather than 
waiting later when these problems have, in some cases, overwhelmed the 
child and the family. This is a sensible, efficient approach to 
delivering health care services. It is not being supported in the 
budget.
  The National Institutes of Health, the leading source of basic 
biomedical research, is also facing a reversal in funding. Less than 2 
months ago, President Bush signed into law the first cut to NIH funding 
since 1970. Now he is proposing to cut funding to 18 of the 19 
institutes, including the institutes conducting research on cancer, 
heart disease, and diabetes.
  The National Institutes of Health, over the last several years, has 
been an example of a bipartisan commitment to raising their funding 
level, recognizing, again, that in order to confront health care issues 
in the country, we need the infrastructure of research, and not just to 
deliver effective treatment, but also we hope to get a bit of a handle 
on the explosion of costs in the health care system. When we stop 
investing adequately in the National Institutes of Health, we are 
locking ourselves into a situation where we will not have the new 
breakthrough drugs, the new breakthrough technologies, and we will not 
be able to deal with the host of issues confronting us. This is, again, 
a reversal of a decade of progress on a bipartisan basis to keep 
funding robustly the National Institutes of Health.
  Health care services essential to our elderly population also were 
not spared. His proposed cuts to Medicare will inflict pain on the 
Nation's elderly without solving the growing cost of health care.
  We all have to recognize, given demographics, given changes in the 
delivery of medicine, that the cost of health care has to be addressed. 
Not very much of what the President is doing is designed to address 
that cost. This is an issue which transcends party, transcends reason, 
transcends all of our individual interests, and it needs leadership by 
the President.
  This budget is simply tweaking and cutting adversely benefits to 
seniors and not dealing in a responsible way with the acceleration of 
costs.
  Medicare providers have already borne the brunt of several years of 
payment freezes and reductions, and once again, they are going to be 
included in this budget proposal.
  I am also dismayed about the proposal to further cut home health care 
providers. The President talks about the importance of increasing 
access to home- and community-based services for the elderly and 
disabled seeking alternatives to traditional institutional-based care, 
but by cutting reimbursements to home health care providers, this 
budget sets in motion the exact opposite policy. Instead of encouraging 
people to move out of institutional-based care, which is typically more 
expensive, into home-based care, this policy would reverse that 
trend. Medicare spending on home health care has already fallen 
dramatically, from 8.7 percent in 1997 to 3.8 percent in 2005. There 
has been a squeeze on home health care and I think eventually that 
squeeze will provide a real disincentive for using what is both humane 
and efficient and effective care for seniors.

  The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, projects a 
decline of 2.6 percent of total spending by 2015 in the absence of a 
2006 payment freeze. So what we are seeing is the rhetoric talks about 
the logic of moving people from expensive institutional care, 
hospitals, and other settings, into their homes. And, frankly, most 
people I know who are sick, the first thing they want to do is get out 
of that hospital. They recognize the wonderful care they are getting 
but to be home is just as helpful sometimes as any type of prescription 
in recovery for an individual. Yet we are contradicting that sensible 
policy in this budget.
  With respect to education, we also see some of these cuts that are 
impacting adversely our educational programs at a time when everyone 
stands up and says we are in a global economy and we need to have the 
best educated students in the world. We have to emphasize programs that 
will make us competitive because we are in a struggle that is going to 
define the future of this country, its prosperity--indeed, its 
security. That struggle rests in large part on providing generation 
after generation of well-educated Americans.
  We have new challenges. New Americans coming from around the globe 
who are coming into our public school systems require language training 
and cultural sensitivity and a host of other challenges that, frankly, 
didn't exist in the 1950s when I was going to grammar school and high 
school--grammar school at least. These challenges have to be met, and 
they cannot be ignored.
  The President's budget, once again, showed his promise to retain 
America's competitive edge is not a promise that is backed up by the 
resources that are necessary. We understand we have to invest in math 
and science. This is increasingly a more technologically driven world. 
We are looking at countries around the globe, China and India, that are 
committed to bringing up their math and science capabilities. They have 
literally hundreds of millions of talented, bright people. They are 
beginning to make their presence on the world scene felt, their 
economic presence particularly. They are devoted to education. We have 
to be, also. That requires emphasis on math and science. But our 
students need more than just that; they need literacy and history and, 
most of all, qualified teachers in every subject matter.
  The President's budget proposes a $2.1 billion cut to Federal 
education funding. This is the largest proposed cut in the 26-year 
history of the Department of Education, at a time when the President 
and his Cabinet stand up

[[Page S1062]]

and say this is probably the most important thing we can do to build 
the economic strength and vitality of America for the next several 
decades. Once again, the President has proposed eliminating the LEAP 
program. This is a Federal-State matching program that allows 
assistance for higher education support for low- and moderate-income 
Americans. It gives grants to the States. The States have to match the 
grants with their own money. It is a very valuable program. In total it 
proposes to eliminate 48 federally funded educational programs, 
including GEAR UP, Teacher Quality Enhancement, Even Start, TRIO Upward 
Bound/Talent Search programs. These TRIO programs are designed to go 
into minority communities and find students that have the talent but 
not necessarily the type of support they need to get through high 
school and commit themselves to go on to higher education. We have to 
do that.
  We understand, again, if you look at the demographics, that this 
country is becoming significantly less White and more of people who are 
African Americans and Latinos--all of them. If we are not reaching out 
today into these communities and finding young people of talent and 
giving them the support and giving them the idea--which, for affluent 
families is obvious--that they can go to college, they should go to 
college, we are going to find ourselves decades from now--perhaps even 
sooner--with a population where we have not utilized their talent and 
we are not able to compete on a global scale.
  All of these programs help do that. To eliminate them without any 
ability to respond in a meaningful way to these needs, to me, is 
shortsighted and wrong.
  The Bush budget freezes the maximum Pell grant at $4,050. This is the 
fourth year in a row they proposed freezing this grant, and we know 
what is happening to college tuitions, they are going up. In 1975 the 
Pell grant covered 80 percent of the cost of a 4-year public college 
education. Today it covers about 40 percent.
  Senator Pell was my predecessor in Rhode Island, from whose wisdom we 
all benefit today. He recognized back in the 1960s that if you allow 
young people to go on to college, you will reap benefits that are huge 
over many years. I wouldn't hesitate to say that a lot of the leading 
members of our community--in business, in politics, in anything you 
name--one of the reasons they are able to participate at this level is 
because 30 years ago, in 1967 and 1975, they were able to go to college 
and pay for it because there was a Pell grant that was providing 80 
percent of the cost of their 4-year public college education.
  Today, who are we leaving behind because they are saying: I would 
love to go on to college, but I can't afford it? Who are we leaving 
behind who will go to a school but not the school they could have gone 
to with this financial assistance and, as a result, whose career and 
whose contribution might be limited? I do not think this policy makes 
sense.
  The President's budget also proposes to eliminate the Perkins Loan 
Program, leaving students with fewer resources to help them meet the 
cost of attending college. Perkins loans are another complement in our 
Federal arsenal of support to education that helps students make their 
way through college.
  The majority has just pushed through a budget reconciliation bill 
which will cut $12.5 billion from higher education. This budget is 
saying we are going to cut more. We just made $12.5 in reconciliation 
cuts. How can we continue to do that? How can we cut the funds that we 
presumably have committed to spend and now send up a budget that will 
continue this very constrained support for higher education? And it is 
not just higher education.

  If you look at some of the early education initiatives that are so 
necessary to children who have not yet even reached school, you have 
scientists each day pointing out how important it is for early 
childhood education to give children the skills and talents and the 
very idea that education is something they have to pursue vigorously 
all their lives. If you look at this budget you see, again, huge 
shortcomings. The President's budget proposal freezes funding for the 
Federal child care and development block grants for the fifth year. The 
administration's own budget figures show that 400,000 children will 
lose childcare assistance by the year 2011, and this is on top of the 
250,000 children who have already lost childcare assistance since 
fiscal year 2000. These are huge numbers with huge impacts in every 
community across the country.
  At the same time, because of the way the economy has been performing, 
the number of low-income children has been increasing. Poverty is 
increasing in the United States today as a result of many factors--
globalization, the economic policies of the administration. We saw in 
the 1990s, again, not only a reversal from a deficit to a surplus, we 
saw poverty levels starting to decline. Along with those descending 
poverty levels we saw a lot of other positive social benefits. The 
numbers and percentages of abortions dropped because the economic 
situation for families seemed to be improving. This whole approach is 
increasing the demands of more low-income people, while at the same 
time decreasing the resources available. It does not make a great deal 
of sense.
  Additionally, the budget would provide no additional funding for the 
Head Start and Early Head Start Programs, freezing funding at $6.7 
billion. This results in the Head Start Programs in our country having 
to make very tough choices--eliminating almost 19,000 children, 
squeezing, again, the payments and the benefits they give to their 
workers, attacking or undermining the quality of the comprehensive 
services that are the cornerstone of the Head Start Programs. This is 
not good.
  The President's budget also eliminates the community services block 
grant, which is critical to so many communities across the country. 
Again, this notion of the community service block grant was to give the 
local community leaders the resources because they have the sensitivity 
and clearer vision to what their particular community needs. When you 
squeeze these community service block grants, you put a huge burden on 
property tax payers because those individuals, all of us, will support 
local government. That is not as efficient or fair a mechanism for 
raising revenues as income tax or anything else, but that is the 
reality because local communities will have to put more burden on their 
local property tax payers or eliminate these services. That is an area 
of great concern, also.
  It is not just health care and education, there are many other areas. 
One is energy. The President said in a frank admission, which we all 
appreciated, that the United States is addicted to oil. But like many 
people with addictive problems, I don't think the administration is 
seeking meaningful treatment. Gasoline consumption in the 
transportation sector represents about 44 percent of total oil 
consumption in the United States each year. If you include diesel fuel, 
that number jumps to 57 percent. To bring about any serious reduction 
in our dependence on foreign oil we have to increase the fuel 
efficiency of our cars and light trucks. So we need an increase in our 
CAFE standards. That is the first place we need to go that yields the 
biggest bang for the buck that will put us on a path to reduce 
significantly our energy consumption.
  But that is not what the President is talking about. He is talking 
about renewing the fight for drilling in ANWR, a fight that culminated 
on this floor just a few weeks ago in a rejection of that proposal.
  He is not pressing for the immediate technological fix of moving up 
CAFE standards. Once again, I believe this approach plays to our 
strength as a nation. We continually point to our technological 
innovation, our ability to use technology to solve problems. Here is a 
huge problem. Why don't we apply technology? I am always disconcerted 
when you look around the globe and see companies such as Toyota, for 
example, who have launched very successful hybrid automobiles. Where 
are the hybrids in significant numbers, and sufficiently sophisticated, 
by our own manufacturers? Ford has the Escape hybrid vehicle. This 
technology is not something beyond our capacity and capability, but the 
nation needs a budget and policy that will support technology 
development. You need action in Congress that will increase CAFE 
standards and increase gasoline mileage.

[[Page S1063]]

  If we are talking about tax policy to help us avoid dependency on 
foreign oil, it is not cuts to dividends and capital gains and huge 
benefits to the wealthiest, it is perhaps providing tax support for 
those people and those companies that will put vehicles that get 45 or 
55 miles per gallon on the road. We can build it. That might give us an 
advantage or another opportunity to reassert ourselves as the premier 
leaders in automobile technology in the world and the premier 
manufacturers, a position that we are losing.
  In December, Senator Snowe and I wrote a bipartisan letter, signed by 
30 Senators, asking the President to fully fund energy efficiency and 
renewable energy programs authorized in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 
When we passed the Energy Policy Act, we increased funding for energy 
efficiency provisions and renewable energy programs. Our letter must 
have been lost somehow because the budget cuts key energy efficiency 
programs such as building code programs, Energy Star, weatherization 
programs, and industrial energy efficiency.
  I had a visit yesterday from architects from the American Institute 
of Architects. These are local Rhode Islanders. They pointed out that a 
huge amount of our energy is wasted because buildings are not properly 
designed and properly built to contain energy and use it efficiently.
  We could have significant savings with improved building technology. 
It begins with some of these rather everyday programs such as building 
codes, weatherization, industrial energy efficiency--these programs are 
being cut.
  I agree with the President. We need to end our addiction to oil. But 
to do that, our budget needs to support programs, initiatives, that 
reduce our dependency in the short and long term, and funding for 
energy efficiency and renewable energy programs will reduce our demand 
for fossil fuels such as natural gas and petroleum. Supporting energy 
efficiency and renewable energy is the best approach we can take to 
deal with the issue of energy dependency in the United States.
  I have already spoken about the LIHEAP program. We must support 
LIHEAP funding because we have low-income families struggling and 
literally suffering today because they are caught in this vise of cold 
weather and high energy costs, and we have to give them relief.
  The President also speaks, as we all do, about the need for good 
housing in this country. But again, this budget does great harm to the 
Housing and Urban Development Department. Overall, the Bush HUD budget 
proposes $33.6 billion in discretionary spending authority, as compared 
to $34.3 billion last year. That is a 2-percent cut--$622 million off 
the top.
  I don't know anybody in this Chamber or our colleagues in the other 
body who will come to us and say we have solved the affordable housing 
problem. In fact, I think they would say this is perhaps one of the 
most persistent and difficult problems we have to face in every 
community in this country, the ability to rent affordable, decent 
housing, or the ability of a young family to buy a starter home. It is 
excruciatingly difficult.
  Yesterday, we had representatives from our disabled community in our 
office, who are down here talking about the issues confronting them. 
The No. 1 problem they have is finding affordable, adequate housing for 
disabled Americans.
  We talk about our commitment to people with disabilities, but when we 
have put resources to the rhetoric, too often the resources aren't 
there.
  At a time when people need better housing, this budget is not 
responding. The President proposes to cut funding for programs to 
assist at-risk people with their housing needs, including a $190 
million cut in programs to assist the elderly with housing costs, and a 
$118 million cut in programs to assist persons with disabilities with 
housing costs--that is the No. 1 concern of many families--and a $35 
million cut in programs to support lead hazard reduction in public 
housing.
  The section 8 voucher program is also underfunded, threatening 
families with the loss of their vouchers, threatening families who are 
now being helped to afford their housing and seeing that help 
disappear.
  The President's budget will also cut the Community Development Block 
Grant Program by $736 million. We all know, because we have mayors 
coming into our offices constantly, that CDBG funds are a key element 
in allowing local leaders to help develop their communities. That is 
the kind of money that can be used very adroitly to leverage other 
funds to help economic development, to help renewable housing--all of 
these things which are so important. That cut will be devastating to 
the mayors in every community across this country.
  The administration also proposes zero funding for the Brownfields 
Economic Development Initiative, which is a very smart way to redevelop 
formerly contaminated lands in our urban areas. These are areas of 
former industrial production that can be renewed, if we can 
environmentally restore or remediate the property.
  There are also cuts to the Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Communities 
Program. All of these things go right to the ability of municipalities 
and counties to provide viable economic development which supports jobs 
and families in communities across the Nation.
  Public housing programs, which serve more than 1 million children and 
more than one 1 million families with seniors in residence, would 
experience deep cuts.
  The HOPE VI Program, which pays for the rehabilitation or replacement 
of dilapidated and rundown housing, takes public housing and transforms 
it into mixed-income housing.
  We have seen one example in Rhode Island--a project in Newport, RI--
which is transforming the whole neighborhood.
  This HOPE VI program is going to be eliminated in the President's 
budget. It is the only significant source of Federal money for new 
housing and new opportunities.
  The President also proposes to cut the public housing capital fund, 
which is the capital investment for public housing agencies. He 
proposes a $260 million cut there. Finally, the public housing 
operating fund is level funded.
  Again, how do you level fund operating for residents and public 
housing at a time when costs all are going up, particularly energy 
costs?
  I don't think there is any expert sitting around suggesting that the 
spike to $60 per barrel is a temporary phenomenon. Once OPEC realized 
they can get away with charging $60 a barrel and not provoke an 
economic meltdown yet in the world economy, that will be their target 
for the next several years, if not for the foreseeable far future. We 
are stuck with huge energy expenses, and those expenses will hit public 
housing and community-based activities heavily. If we don't respond by 
at least helping a bit, it is going to be an excruciating burden on 
municipalities and counties all across our country.
  Let me finally also comment about the Defense budget. As I mentioned, 
this budget is highly invested in defense, and at this moment in 
history that approach seems to be unavoidable. I believe we should be 
responsible and pay for it rather than continuing to borrow these 
funds. But you can't avoid the obvious. We are still threatened by 
implacable, ruthless enemies. We are still engaged in a very difficult 
challenge in Iraq and Afghanistan. As a result, we have to continue to 
spend on our own protection and our national security.
  But the administration again refuses to recognize that this is not a 
passive phenomenon. They talk about a long war, they talk about a 
generational struggle, but each year they come to us and say this is 
emergency funding for Afghanistan, for Iraq, for many provisions on the 
war on terror.
  Since September 11, this administration has requested $440 billion in 
supplemental funding. A significant part of that, I believe, has to be 
internalized in the regular budget process. It is tough. It will 
require very tough, difficult choices, but it is the truth; it is 
reality.
  The other thing I think we have to do, and the President has to lead 
us in, is we have to ask the American public to make sacrifices. There 
are people sacrificing today. Soldiers, marines, airmen, sailors, and 
their families are sacrificing dramatically. But that is a rather small 
spectrum of Americans.
  I challenge anyone here to say what the President has asked of the 
average

[[Page S1064]]

American in terms of sacrifices necessary to support this war on 
terror. He certainly hasn't asked them to put their hands in their 
pockets and pay for it. He hasn't challenged them to stand up and do 
many other things.
  This is reaching a level that takes on a moral proportion. We cannot 
continue this struggle without at least some commitment as a whole 
nation, not just those men and women in uniform and their families but 
the whole Nation to become engaged and involved in this effort.
  As I said, many of the provisions in the budget of the Defense 
Department, the supplemental budget, I believe should be included in 
the regular budget process.
  The President's budget has requested authorization for 482,400 
active-duty soldiers and 175,000 active-duty marines since 9/11. Yet 
the Army has maintained an active-duty force of over 500,000, and the 
Marines have ranged from 178,000 to 180,000 personnel.
  In a sense, the President is sending up a budget which has a 
significantly less number of personnel that are on active duty.
  Again, that is not something that we know is going to go away. We 
have come a long way in the sense in March of 2003 or May of 2003 that 
we would have very few people in Iraq and Afghanistan, that it would be 
resolving itself.
  We are in the midst of a very difficult insurgency, and these troops 
will be needed on duty and in uniform for at least the next years, or 
several years. I believe that should be included in the budget.
  The Army and the Marine Corps have a huge pricetag for rehabilitation 
of the equipment they have been using--$68 billion. Many of my 
colleagues who have gone to Iraq and Afghanistan understand that. They 
are operating in the summertime at 120 degree temperatures in a sandy 
climate. That eats up the equipment. We have helicopters operating at 
15,000 feet in thin air, and that chews up the engines in very 
difficult conditions. We know that. We know we have a price tag of $68 
billion, and, yet a small fraction of that is being, I think, 
inadequately included in the budget. When it comes to defense and 
national security, we have to provide the money to do it reasonably and 
responsibly.
  We are looking at a deficit as far as the eye can see. As we look at 
the huge commitment by our fighting men and women in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, I would think you would see a shift in the administration 
approach; I would think you would see the President stand up and say we 
have to pay for these things. It is a long-term effort, and we can't 
let this devastate and overwhelm us because we know eventually, as we 
have seen in the past, there is no free lunch.
  We can borrow the money today--billions and billions of dollars--but 
eventually interest rates will start creeping up, start shutting off 
economic productivity here in this country, and we will see inflation 
begin to bump up. We will see all of the dangers and all of the 
difficulties that we thought in the mid-90s we had turned the corner 
on, at least because our policies were taking hold in terms of dealing 
with the deficit, funding reasonably and responsibly, and actually 
seeing that result in not only economic growth but growth that was 
lifting up all of our citizens. We are looking at increases in income 
and wages, not just at the top level but at the middle- and low-income 
levels of our economy.
  The reverse is true today--huge increases in upper income 
compensation and benefits--spectacular. If you were in such a position, 
you would be quite wealthy. But if you look at the bottom wages, they 
are stagnant and falling. That is not going to produce the kind of 
country that will support families, support individuals, and make us 
more productive in the future.
  I hope we will look carefully and closely at this budget and make 
appropriate changes.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________