[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 28 (Tuesday, March 7, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1808-S1815]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   MAKING AVAILABLE FUNDS FOR THE LOW-INCOME HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE 
                             PROGRAM, 2006

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 2320 which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2320) to make available funds included in the 
     Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 for the Low-Income Home Energy 
     Assistance Program for fiscal year 2006, and for other 
     purposes.

  Pending:

       Kyl/Ensign amendment No. 2899, to make available funds 
     included in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 for allotments 
     to States for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program 
     for fiscal year 2006.
       Inhofe amendment No. 2898, to reduce energy prices.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allen). Under the previous order, there 
will be 1 hour of debate equally divided between the Senator from 
Maine, Ms. Snowe, and the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Ensign, or their 
designees.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, first of all, I thank the majority leader 
for his considerable effort, patience, and perseverance in bringing 
this legislation to the floor on the basis of the commitment which the 
leader made in December prior to our adjournment that we would have 
this legislation to increase low-income fuel assistance for those 
States that clearly need it, given the rising prices of home heating 
oil and natural gas, given the fact that we are in the midst of the 
winter, and given the fact that this has a major impact on families 
across the country.
  I hope we will get beyond today, beyond the cloture vote and be able 
to secure the additional funding that is so essential to so many of the 
States and to so many individuals and families who depend upon it. It 
is absolutely critical that we provide these funds for this fiscal year 
in order to prepare for the summer and also to address the contingency 
necessity of providing additional funding this winter.
  I am joined in my efforts and I wish to thank my colleague, Senator 
Coleman, my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, Senator Grassley, 
Senator Sununu, Senator Specter, and Senator Santorum, as well as 
Senator Smith and Senator Kerry. I express my deep appreciation for 
their support.
  I first want to address some of the criticisms that were engendered 
last week because I think there has been a lot of misunderstanding and 
misinterpretation about exactly where we stand today and what the facts 
are.
  First of all, my underlying bill shifts the funding from fiscal year 
2007 to 2006. There is an additional $1 billion for the purposes of 
``contingency'' funding, otherwise known as emergency funding for 
emergency purposes. So it is budget neutral. We are just advancing it 1 
year because of the unusual circumstances and because of events between 
rising oil prices and a difficult winter which have eroded the value of 
the low-income fuel assistance. This would help to make it more 
consistent with the authorization level because of the dire need in so 
many States across the country, including my own.
  It does nothing to modify how those funds are disbursed to the 
States. The Senate decided 1 month ago when it passed the Deficit 
Reduction Act that 25 percent of the $1 billion would be appropriated 
through a formula funding and 75 percent would go to emergency 
contingency funding.
  The Congress decided--including the Senate, and it became law just a 
month ago--that the President would continue to have the emergency 
funding capability in order to disburse that part of the funding, 75 
percent to those States that needed it at that moment in time because 
there was an emergency. Emergencies are just that--emergencies.
  What the critics are saying about my approach is they now want to 
change it for the first time ever and take away the capability of 
having emergency funding under the low-income fuel assistance. It 
doesn't make sense. Because the States are facing an emergency, they 
ought to be able to have their funding. That would be taken away by the 
Kyl amendment, and it would be distributed to States irrespective of 
whether they need it, irrespective of the fact that no emergency 
occurred in their State.
  I understand that under the low-income fuel assistance program, you 
have part emergency and part formula. That is what it is all about.
  All my underlying bill says is advance the funding from 2007 to 2006 
for $1 billion. So we are not increasing the net level of funding for 
low-income fuel assistance. We have already agreed to it in the budget. 
It is not increasing spending. It is budget neutral. I don't change the 
way it is distributed. I am doing just exactly what was dictated by the 
U.S. Senate, and it became law in the Deficit Reduction Act a month 
ago.
  Now we are saying let us change the entire formula, let us change the 
entire approach through the Kyl amendment by distributing all of the 
funds through a formula and we will have no emergency funding.
  Let me remind my colleagues that just last fall, we had four States 
that benefited from the emergency funding as a result of the hurricane. 
Alabama received $2 million; Florida, $1.35 million; Louisiana, $12 
million; Mississippi $11.75 million--exactly because it was an 
emergency. The President had the authority, had the discretion to 
disburse those funds from the contingency funds under the low-income 
fuel assistance program. Under the Kyl amendment, the President 
wouldn't have that capability. It would be given to States that didn't 
experience the hurricane, that didn't have an emergency. We would not 
be able to have any emergency funding if we passed the Kyl amendment.
  I hope the Senate will continue the way in which we have approached 
it in the past. I hope we pass the underlying bill at the very least to 
advance that funding.
  Emergency contingency funds exist because we cannot predict the 
weather, whether it is in the South or the Northeast or the West. We 
can't predict. That is why we created an emergency fund under low-
income fuel assistance. Now, for the first time ever, we take away that 
capability.
  I think it is important for my colleagues to understand what is at 
stake. All of the funding under low-income fuel assistance would be 
distributed according to a formula. There would be no separate funding 
for emergency purposes as we provided in the gulf last fall. So four 
States were able to benefit from the emergency distribution as a result 
of the President's action.

  We need that discretionary capability because we are not weather 
forecasters. We do not know what will happen in America wherever it is 
going to happen. This is not a regional program. This benefits all 50 
States. In fact, in January 2005, in looking at the distribution, all 
50 States historically have benefited at some point from the emergency 
funding.
  Unfortunately, on Thursday night there was a chart distributed in the 
Senate that was misrepresentative of the facts. Even the Congressional 
Research Service said it was misleading. The fact is, it did not 
portray the facts. It showed a distribution of the funds in January 
2005 according to the emergency funding at that moment in time. But if 
you looked at it in February or March or April or this year, it might 
be radically different because the emergencies might have occurred 
elsewhere. That distribution was for that moment in time because of the 
emergencies

[[Page S1809]]

that resulted. That is not a constant pattern of distribution. It was a 
misleading chart. I don't blame my colleagues for voting for the 
interests of their respective States, absolutely. But I want my 
colleagues to realize and understand that chart was misleading. It does 
not represent what the emergency funding is all about. We cannot 
predict an emergency. So there were emergencies back in January 2005 
that represented those distributions, but that is not the way it 
happens all the time because we do not know when the emergencies are 
going to occur.
  I regret that chart was distributed on the basis that it represents 
how these funds are circulated and dispensed according to the States. 
They are dispensed according to need and necessity. That is what the 
emergency funding is all about.
  It is important to realize the value of the low-income fuel 
assistance program overall. In fact, it is one that many of the States 
have come to depend on, rightfully. I was in the House of 
Representatives when we first created this program during an energy 
crisis back in 1979 on the essential basis of helping to mitigate 
people's fuel bills, particularly for the low income and those who are 
disadvantaged who cannot possibly pay for the total cost of their oil 
bills, or in the summer for air-conditioning bills. We know it has 
profound implications on people's budgets, their inability to meet the 
rising costs, and especially so this year with 30 to 50 percent 
increases in their energy bills. That is in addition to the increases 
that occurred last year that were 20 to 30 percent.
  My constituents in the State of Maine cannot meet those rising 
prices. We are just attempting to hold them harmless with this funding, 
to hold them harmless to last year to maintain the status quo. What is 
the status quo? It is about meeting maybe a quarter of their fuel bill 
during the winter. Maybe. That depends on the rising price, and as we 
know, it has been an unpredictable pattern of rising prices. It is a 
very different thing when we have a price for a barrel of oil at $29 
compared to where we are today, with a fluctuation anywhere from $61 or 
$66 for a barrel of oil. That has a major impact on a family's budget. 
The value of low-income fuel assistance today from where it was back in 
the mid-1980s has declined to 19 percent of the real value of this 
program based on what we have provided under low-income fuel 
assistance.
  Back in the 1980s it represented, in real terms, 50 percent to 
families across this country. Now it has declined to more than 19 
percent.
  There was a survey recently conducted that illustrated this situation 
and why this program is so critical to so many families in my State and 
across America. It illustrated this point. It is tragic. It said that 
73 percent of households would cut back and even go without other 
necessities such as food and prescription drugs and mortgage and rent 
payments to pay for heat. We have seen that illustrated in the State of 
Maine. We have had some very dire and tragic situations where people 
have had to be hospitalized because of hypothermia.
  People say it is a mild winter. I invite Members to come to Maine and 
tell me about it. It has been a very cold winter.
  But this is also about the price. In the State of Maine, the price 
has risen 30 to 50 percent in addition to the price increases last 
year. Yet the funding for low-income fuel assistance has maintained the 
status quo. So there has been an erosion of support for families who 
depend upon this program just barely to meet, perhaps, a quarter of 
their overall fuel bills depending on the price.
  That is why I have asked, along with my colleague from Minnesota, 
Senator Coleman, my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, and so many 
others who have cosponsored this legislation, to advance the funding by 
1 year. It has already been provided for. It is budget neutral.

  I heard one possibility of using TANF funds to pay for this. Let me 
remind my colleagues, under the law, TANF funds are to go for families 
with children. It does not allow for the use of TANF funds for any 
other purpose. If States do so for ineligible individuals or families, 
the State is penalized up to 5 percent. Using TANF funds cannot be 
allowed for low-income seniors, for example, who otherwise are not 
eligible under the TANF law.
  I remind my colleagues that it is important to look at the facts and 
how the law works and what the implications are. I hope we can get 
beyond the regionalization of this low-income fuel assistance program 
bill and look at what is in the best interest of America, irrespective 
of where the necessity lies. Whether it is in the North, East, South or 
West, is it a need? Is it vital? Is it important? That is what this 
legislation is all about.
  That is why, in the wisdom of the Congress and the President, we 
established the contingency fund for emergency purposes so the 
President would have the discretionary authority to distribute those 
funds on the basis of need at that moment in time. The other funding is 
distributed according to a formula. I don't change any of that. I do 
not change existing law. I do not change what this Senate and the House 
passed that became law a month ago. I do not change that.
  The amendment offered by Senator Kyl changes all of that and places 
100 percent of the funding under the low-income fuel assistance program 
on a formula basis so there is no emergency funding.
  I hope my colleagues would vote for cloture so we can proceed. 
Whether we have amendments remains to be seen. But I am prepared to 
work with my colleagues, those who have differences of opinion 
regarding this legislation, to work it out, work it out for their State 
and what is in the best interest of their State, our States, and for 
all of America. This should not be a North, South, East, West issue. 
This should be an issue on the basis of what is right, what is fair, 
what is required, and what is needed. That is what this is all about. 
An emergency is an emergency. That is what the emergency funding is. 
That is what this contingency funding is.
  I impress upon my colleagues how important it is. It would be a 
dramatic departure to accept the amendment offered by the Senator from 
Arizona to redistribute all of the funds through a formula and have no 
capacity whatever for the President to distribute it on an emergency 
basis.
  I remind my colleagues this is not just about Maine or the North, it 
is about the South and the East and the West. This shouldn't be about a 
compass. This should be about America.
  I hope Members will look at the facts. The facts are we distributed 
funding under the emergency contingency fund last fall to help those 
States in the gulf as a result of the hurricanes for four States, 
including Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi. We gave them 
$15 or $14 million distributed by the President, rightfully, in 
response to an emergency.
  Taking the emergency funding and distributing it on the basis of a 
formula means that States are going to receive funding when there is no 
emergency. How did that make sense? That was not the intent, ever. The 
intent was to maintain the separate funding for this capability. That 
is what it was all about.
  Eleven States have totally obligated their winter heating fund for 
this winter, including my own State: Arkansas, California, Georgia, 
Iowa, Maine, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Rhode 
Island, Utah, and many of the other States. In fact, 34 Governors have 
written requesting this additional assistance. They are facing a crisis 
because applications are up and the funding is down. Increases of at 
least 20 percent are expected in 15 States alone.
  The funds expended for the low-income fuel assistance is equivalent 
to the amount Congress allocated in 1983. That was 23 years ago. What 
about the price of a barrel of oil? It is important to my State of 
Maine where 84 percent of the people qualify for low-income fuel 
assistance, and the State in general is around 80 percent; 80 percent 
for those dependent on home heating oil. A barrel of oil in 1983 was 
$29.
  By the way, the price should be going down as we go away from winter 
and toward the summer. But there is a dramatic change this year. The 
price is actually going up. And the future price for oil is much higher 
in January of

[[Page S1810]]

2007. That should raise a serious concern among all Members about the 
potential for price increases with respect to home heating oil and 
natural gas.
  A barrel of oil in 1983 was $29; today it is at least $61 a barrel. 
That is a difference of $32. We are basically losing the value of low-
income fuel assistance because the funding has remained the same. It 
has declined to about 19 percent of the real value of what it 
represented when we first created the program almost 27 years ago when 
I was serving in the House of Representatives.
  I have offered the underlying bill to advance the funding based on 
the recent formula. I do not change the funding. It is 75-25, 75 for 
emergency and 25 percent on formula. I am prepared to offer a 50-50 
that would actually allow many States to gain or stay the same if we 
want to talk about the formula but do not do away with the emergency 
funding. That would be the first time ever under this program, and we 
will not have the capability and the President will not have the 
authority or the prerogative to respond to those States that are in an 
emergency crisis, as was the case last fall with Hurricanes Katrina and 
Rita. That is the major departure, historically, from how we have 
obligated funds, both to formula and for emergency.
  Mr. President, 54 percent of my colleagues have voted for an increase 
in funding for low-income fuel assistance last year, requiring 60 
votes. That was requiring 60 votes. We worked very hard. We got 66 
votes last week on proceeding to this vital issue.

  So I hope my colleagues will support this cloture motion so we can 
move beyond and get to the heart of the matter, so we can discuss the 
differences and the implications of the underlying bill versus the 
amendments offered. I am prepared to work with my colleagues in any way 
to work it out. It is not, in my view, a matter of North versus South, 
East versus West or whatever. It is not sectional interests we are 
talking about.
  What we are talking about is doing what is right for whoever needs 
this program and depends upon it in a moment in time. That is what the 
emergency funding provides. It gives us that flexibility and that 
capability that will be done away with by the Kyl amendment. I truly 
regret there was this chart that was distributed last week because it 
gave an erroneous picture of the accurate distribution of funding 
because with emergency funding you cannot have a fixed picture because 
it depends on the emergency. And unless someone around here is a 
soothsayer, there is no way to know how that funding will be 
distributed.
  Yes, it was distributed at that moment in time that way. That is 
precisely because there were emergencies. But you do not know what the 
emergency is going to be a year from now, a month from now, 6 months 
from now. We are coming upon the hurricane season again. God forbid if 
anything else happens. The fact is, we need to have that flexibility, 
as we did last fall. We need to have that capability similarly for our 
States that need it, in Maine and the other cold-weather States 
currently.
  If we need more funding, I am all for it. But I know there is 
resistance by many to increasing the funding, regrettably. But this has 
fallen far short of the real value of this program, as I illustrated. 
We have not provided a real increase in the low-income fuel assistance 
program since it was created back in 1979 during my first term in the 
House of Representatives.
  Those are the facts. So I urge my colleagues to vote to proceed to 
the final consideration of this bill.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the efforts of the 
Senator from Maine. She has been our leader and our champion on this 
issue of funding LIHEAP. It has been a bipartisan effort, too. Senator 
Jack Reed of Rhode Island, on this side of the aisle, and many others, 
have spoken in favor of what she is attempting to do.
  To describe it very briefly, for those who are following this debate, 
it would put $1 billion more in the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance 
Program across America. We said we thought we would need $5 billion 
this year. Then we only appropriated $2 billion. And in some parts of 
the country the winter has been fairly mild, including the Midwest. In 
other parts it is still harsh and cold. But wherever you live, you have 
found the cost of heating your home has gone up dramatically, between 
30 and 50 percent.
  Now, imagine if you are on a fixed income, that you are a retired 
single woman, for example, a widow, and you turn to this program, as 
you have in years past, and this year you need it more than ever. Or 
imagine you are a woman I met, a mother in the city of Rockford, with 
three small children. She is divorced. She is working. She is trying to 
keep this little frame house she is living in warm enough so her kids 
can be well enough to go to school.
  She needs a helping hand from this program. She is a minimum wage 
worker. She works as a waitress. She does not make a lot of money, but, 
God bless her, she is trying. And this program says we will give her a 
helping hand. The sad reality is, as the Senator from Maine told us, 
there is not enough money in this program. So many of these people find 
themselves without the helping hand that we have promised all across 
the United States.
  All the Senator from Maine and others are saying is, let's put enough 
money in this program to help the truly vulnerable people in America. 
These people are our neighbors. These are fellow Americans, the parents 
and grandparents of people who made this the great country it is today.
  You look at the situation and say, this has so many echoes and 
memories of what happened in New Orleans. In New Orleans, when some of 
the nicest people in this world, who happen to be caught up in a flood, 
had nowhere to turn--and the Government was not there--the sad reality 
is that many of them suffered. We look back now, 6 months later, in 
horror to think that great city is still struggling to get back on its 
feet. Despite the best promises of President Bush and this 
administration, it is not happening.
  I wonder if that would have been the case anywhere else in America. 
Would that have happened anywhere else in America, that a city would 
have been devastated, and 6 months later it is still not receiving the 
attention it needs because of a lack of leadership from this 
Administration?
  What the Senator from Maine is saying, what we are saying, is that 
for individual families faced with the realities of life today, some of 
these programs make all the difference in the world. And the Low-Income 
Home Energy Assistance Program is one.
  I met with a woman in Rock Island, IL, a retired lady, a beautiful 
lady, who works down at the senior center now just doing volunteer 
work. She counsels the seniors on how to apply for LIHEAP assistance so 
they can pay their gas bills, which, of course, is what we use to heat 
the majority of our homes in the Midwest.
  So many of us believe that when we face these natural disasters and 
challenges in America, that it is a challenge to each one of us to come 
together as the American family. I can understand how the Senator from 
Maine feels. People say: Oh, this is just a big New England problem. 
Now, don't worry me because I happen to live somewhere else.
  It is an American problem, my friends. It was an American problem in 
New Orleans. It is an American problem in New England. It is an 
American problem when American families struggle for the basic 
necessities to survive. Those who would divide us on sectional lines, 
on lines of economic benefit, on lines of racial differences--those 
people are just wrong because this country is strongest when it stands 
together. And we stand together when some members of the American 
family are in need, and they are in need today.

  We need to stand behind the Senator from Maine on a bipartisan basis. 
We need to say to this administration: Do not leave more Americans 
behind--as happened in New Orleans. We cannot have it repeated in New 
England or in northern Illinois or anyplace across the United States. 
We need to come together.
  As I look at this bill, I think this is reasonable. It is reasonable 
for us to

[[Page S1811]]

stand up for our fellow Americans who need a helping hand with low-
income home energy assistance.
  Let me add something as well. Wouldn't it be great if America had an 
energy policy? Wouldn't it be terrific if we really had a plan that 
would move us away from our dependence on foreign oil? When the Senator 
quotes oil prices, do you know what control we have over oil prices? 
None. When the OPEC cartel and the sheiks decide production levels, and 
oil prices go up, America reaches into its wallet for its credit cards 
and cash, and the money goes right on the line, and not just to them 
but to the oil companies.
  It is similar with natural gas. Wouldn't it be great if we had vision 
and leadership in America today that moved us toward less dependence on 
energy from overseas? We wouldn't be caught when we stopped to fill up 
our cars, or provide energy to our homes and businesses, with 
dependence on oil cartels or fossil fuels that leave us dangling on the 
ends of strings, as the producers control the dance like puppeteers?
  That is the fact today because for too long we have let the national 
energy debate----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes have expired.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional 
minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. For too long, we have focused this energy debate on where 
can we drill for more oil. Can we go to a wildlife refuge in Alaska? 
The honest answer is, all the oil in that wildlife refuge would not 
provide the energy this country needs for more than 6 months over a 20-
year period. It is not an answer. It is not a solution. We control less 
than 3 percent of the oil reserves in this world. Yet we consume 25 
percent of the oil resources. There is no way we can drill ourselves to 
a point of self-sufficiency.
  We need leadership. We need innovative, sustainable, renewable 
sources of energy. We need better fuel-economy in our cars and trucks. 
America should be moving forward as some other countries are with a new 
vision on energy. Instead, we are faced with these crippling bills to 
heat our homes, and at the gas station to fuel our vehicles.
  Today, we need to vote to support the motion for cloture, bring the 
LIHEAP bill up, provide a helping hand to the most vulnerable 
Americans, and then sit down and get down to business about an energy 
policy that really works for our future.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine has 6 minutes 52 
seconds, and the Senator from Nevada has 30 minutes.
  Ms. SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I just want to make a couple points, and then I will reserve the 
remainder of my time.
  The Senator from Illinois mentioned Senator Reed, and I, too, would 
be remiss if I did not mention Senator Reed from Rhode Island, who has 
worked mightily on this issue and seeking increases in low-income fuel 
assistance and, in fact, has worked on that throughout the last year 
and this year as well. So I thank him for all of his efforts in that 
regard.
  Finally, regarding low-income fuel assistance contingency funds, 
under the law--I would like to read it to my colleagues because I think 
it is important to understand the purpose that was underlying the 
design and how this program would allocate the funding in emergency 
situations. The low-income fuel assistance contingency funds are 
released at the discretion of the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services. I quote from the law, the law we all supported:

      . . . to meet the additional home energy assistance needs of 
     one or more States arising from a natural disaster or other 
     emergency.

  That is the purpose of the contingency fund that is currently in law. 
That was supported by this Senate, by the House, and became law. It is 
what the White House wants. The President wants it. He wants to 
continue that authority and flexibility to be able to respond to 
emergencies when they arise. We have no way of predicting when they 
might arise. Therefore, it is important to have those funds set aside 
for exactly and precisely that purpose.

  The funding distribution is not altered under the underlying 
legislation that is pending before the Senate. It would be 
significantly altered by the amendment offered by the Senator from 
Arizona because we would no longer, for the first time in the history 
of the low-income fuel assistance program, have emergency funding 
capability, none whatsoever. So where we have provided millions of 
dollars to Alabama and Mississippi and Louisiana and Florida as a 
result of the hurricanes last fall, we would not have that capability 
in the future. We do not have any capabilities.
  I want to reiterate the fact that the graph that was distributed last 
week fundamentally misrepresented the allocation of funds. That was for 
one snapshot in time because emergencies existed at that moment in 
time. So if your State got that kind of money at that moment in time, 
it does not mean you get it the next time unless you had an emergency. 
That is what it is all about. You want your State to have the benefit 
of emergency funding under this program when an emergency arises, in 
the event it is necessary. If it is not, then you do not need that 
funding at that moment in time.
  We have the formula capabilities under the low-income fuel assistance 
program to provide and distribute the money to various States. That is 
another part of the program. But to do away with the emergency 
capabilities under this program, for the first time ever, is a dramatic 
departure from where we have been in the past, a dramatic departure 
even in the alteration of the funding formula, as represented by the 
amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona. It would be a dramatic 
departure in all respects, and it would have implications all across 
America.
  Let me remind my colleagues. I quote:

       [It is] to meet the additional home energy assistance needs 
     of one or more States arising from a natural disaster or 
     other emergency.

  As I said earlier, 34 of our Nation's Governors have recognized the 
crisis and have written to the Senate and House leadership respectively 
and said: Despite significant State contributions to emergency relief 
funds or supplementing existing State-Federal programs, with the record 
cost of energy nationwide, the Federal fiscal year 2006 funding for 
LIHEAP reflects a net decrease from the previous year's total. Exactly, 
because of the rising prices. That is what it is all about. It has been 
the status quo, as I said, for funding under LIHEAP, essentially since 
it was created, but most especially since 1983. That is a long time 
ago.
  I think we ought to do what is right. It will benefit all of our 
States depending on the need and whether an emergency arises. Then we 
have the formula to distribute the other funding according to the 
States and to a formula upon which we have all agreed. And it is fair 
and equitable. What is underlying all of this is to do what is right 
for all of America, for all of our States, and not to pit one State 
against another, one region against another. That is not what this is 
all about. This program is for all 50 States based on formula and based 
on emergencies.
  I hope we will not significantly alter this in a way that removes 
emergency funding capability that the President now has and what we 
certainly need and depend on in the event that occurs in any one of our 
States.
  So with that, I reserve the remainder of my time and suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will please call 
the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KYL. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me say a few words about this before 
Senator Ensign comes to the floor. The first vote we will have shortly 
will be the vote to proceed with the consideration of this legislation, 
a so-called cloture vote. After that, the subject the Senator from 
Maine has primarily been addressing will be the pending business.

[[Page S1812]]

It is an amendment which would establish how this additional billion 
dollars would be made available to the States to meet their emergency 
needs for either home heating or home cooling, as conditions warrant.
  There has already been about $2 billion spent, almost all of which is 
for the heating needs of those in the colder part of our country. Those 
of us who offered the amendment to provide a way in which the third 
billion dollars would be distributed have had in mind some very 
difficult circumstances in our home States over the last year or so. In 
fact, part of the problem is the fact that the money that is available 
in the fiscal year is used pretty much at the front end of the time to 
treat the cold climate problems. By the time we get to the summer, when 
the heavy heat requirements would authorize funding to be spent in 
States such as Arizona and Nevada, there has been little money 
available.
  Last summer, in response to the heat emergency there, when air 
conditioning bills were skyrocketing and a lot of people could not 
afford to pay them, bills which are much higher per household than home 
heating bills frequently are, there was no money available. We tried to 
get a contingency amount of money to apply to the problem. We literally 
had some people die. Yet by the time the money became available, it was 
too late.
  One of the things we are trying to do with this amendment is to 
preserve some of the money pursuant to a formula so that it is not all 
sitting in a contingent fund to be spent in cold States in the 
beginning of the year with nothing left at the end of the year.
  Let me cite some statistics from the city of Phoenix, for example: 
Arizona's LIHEAP program can only assist 4 percent of those who are 
eligible; 73 percent of the homes have an elderly or disabled or child 
under 5--this is in the city of Phoenix; these figures don't 
necessarily apply to everywhere in the State--18 percent have an energy 
burden of over 25 percent of their income. This is what I think folks 
don't realize. Air conditioning is a necessity when you have 115, 116, 
118-degree days. It is not optional. Especially if you are elderly or 
very young, you have to have air conditioning. When you are paying 25 
percent or more of your income for that air conditioning, it is a 
burden that too many people can't bear. That is why we are trying to 
get more of the funds allocated through a formula to the States that 
need that kind of help at the end of the year and not have it all 
sitting in a contingency where it is not available, as was the case 
last year.
  We need to fix this problem. There is already appropriated for fiscal 
year 2006 $2.183 billion--$2 billion pursuant to the existing formula, 
almost all of which goes to the cold States in the Northeast and 
elsewhere, and $183 million for contingency. So to the extent that 
there are contingency requirements, as the Senator from Maine has 
spoken to, there is funding currently available for that. What we are 
trying to do is ensure that the next billion dollars not only provides 
for that contingency funding and some additional contingency funding 
but that about three-fourths of it be distributed pursuant to a formula 
which is much fairer to those States that have not gotten the money in 
the past to assist their low-income folks to provide primarily for air 
conditioning. That is what the debate is all about.
  The pending amendment is my amendment that would provide for a 
formula distribution of the next billion dollars. There is still 
contingency money available but not as much as there would be under the 
proposal of the Senator from Maine.
  There is probably somewhere between zero and 100 an opportunity to 
try to work things out. It is my hope that in the time between now and 
the time we begin debating my amendment, we will be able to do so. I am 
certainly open to discussion about it. We need to make sure that 
wherever people are located, they are well taken care of. In the past, 
however, the way the money is distributed, virtually all goes to people 
in the colder States, with nothing left over for those folks who have 
to rely upon air conditioning. It is time we recognize that fact and 
modify the formula for the additional amount of money that is going to 
be spent if, in fact, money will be allocated, so it more accurately 
reflects the needs of the people in the hotter climates as well as 
those who have been the recipients of most of the money that has been 
allocated so far.
  I reserve the balance of the time for others, in particular the 
Senator from Nevada, when he arrives.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. COLEMAN. How much time do we have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine has 1 minute 18 
seconds, and there is approximately 24 minutes reserved to the Senator 
from Nevada and counting.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we use an 
extra 3 minutes of the other side's time for my discussion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COLEMAN. I rise to respond to my friend and colleague from 
Arizona. We are in agreement on the idea that the money should go where 
it is needed. What I would disagree with is that there is nothing left 
for those from other States, warm weather States. That is not what we 
are dealing with here.
  Two things about LIHEAP: One, it is not just another Federal acronym; 
it is a lifeline. I held hearings on this in St. Paul, where I heard 
from a woman named Lori Cooper, a working professional wife, mother of 
a 21-month-old baby. It is about scraping by on salary alone, and even 
with assistance paying the heating expense, it was a real hardship. We 
had a senior named Lucille Olson who told a story of the struggle to 
balance the cost of high health insurance and prescription drugs with 
ever-rising heating bills that represent about 30 percent of her 
monthly income.
  We are not talking about a Federal acronym. It is a helping hand.
  You may hear some of my colleagues contending that a warmer-than-
usual winter has somehow lessened the need. It may be a mild winter by 
Minnesota's standards, but certainly not by Virginia's. It was about 
minus 19 in St. Paul a couple weekends ago. If it is only 25 degrees, 
mild by Minnesota's standards, you still have to put about an extra 40 
something degrees in there to heat your home so seniors and working 
people can live there with some measure of comfort.
  We have 60 percent of all LIHEAP households in Minnesota heating 
their homes with natural gas. The price of natural gas has risen 
severely. It is a severe winter by national standards. LIHEAP is 
designed to soften that. We have heard it firsthand.
  I want to make clear the bill which I cosponsored would designate an 
additional $250 million for formula funding. But due to the nature of 
the formula governing allotments to States, this additional formula 
funding for Minnesota would provide a negligible increase. The 25/75 
split is exactly the same split the Senate approved a few months ago in 
the Deficit Reduction Act. What we do is we change the date assistance 
is available from 2007 to 2006. Again, 25 percent of the funding goes 
to predominantly warm weather States.
  This is about emergencies. It is about meeting the needs of 
emergencies. I have to say that we have been there. Senators from the 
northern States have been there when there has been flooding and 
tornadoes and hurricanes and other crises around the country. We 
haven't divided up regions. We didn't do that with Katrina and Rita 
when they swept across the gulf. We didn't do it in areas of Florida 
hit hard by hurricanes. We didn't do it in western States affected by 
wildfires. We are one great Nation. We come to the aid of those in 
need. This is about those in need. It is a severe winter where they 
can't afford the cost of natural gas, a lifeline, a helping hand, not 
an acronym for a program.
  The Senate has a tradition of putting aside its regional and partisan 
divisions. When Americans face desperate situations, the Senate comes 
together in the name of the same Nation with the spirit of cooperation. 
I have heard the President speak eloquently about the spirit of 
America, of what it is all about. That is what we are asking for today. 
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita have already made natural gas prices worse. 
In northern States such as mine,

[[Page S1813]]

this is about hardship. I have seen the faces of those who need this 
assistance, those who work hard to get back on their feet, to build a 
better life. A dramatic increase in heating costs like those 
experienced in Minnesota this year is a cruel burden. They deserve a 
lifeline, a helping hand. Please support me in providing increased 
LIHEAP assistance designed to meet the needs of those who need it most.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I commend Senator Coleman for his 
leadership and all the efforts he has made in regard to the pending 
legislation.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will call the 
roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ENSIGN. How much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 22 minutes 14 seconds, and the 
Senator from Maine has 57 seconds.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, my preference would have been that this 
bill not go forward simply because I believe this legislation is not 
paid for. It would be different if the proponents of this legislation 
had truly paid for it, in other words, offset this spending. Instead of 
offsetting this spending, they take in the money from next year, bring 
it into this year and then will try next year to restore the money. If 
they would have said: This is the priority, let's reset our priorities 
and let's cut some other type of spending to pay for this, the 
legislation would have been a lot more acceptable.
  That is the reason we raised the budget point of order last week 
against this legislation. We lost on that budget point of order. So now 
it looks as though the legislation has a chance of moving forward, and 
we have to determine how the money is spent. Is it fair to spend it 
across the country, or should it benefit some States at the expense of 
other States?
  The LIHEAP program is set up with a very complex formula. It is 
assistance for those people who are low income, who need help with 
their heating oil or with air conditioning expenses--for those who live 
in hot States such as myself, or in Arizona, or some of the other 
southern States around the gulf coast.
  The reason people are seeking this increase is because natural gas 
has exploded in price. Obviously, heating oil has done the same. So 
there is a need out there for assistance and we don't deny that. We 
think there is legitimacy to meeting that need. But it is a question of 
how do we now disburse this money fairly to the States.
  Let me get back to the LIHEAP formula--how we determine how the money 
goes to the various States. It was set up a long time ago when this 
program was first put in effect that it would benefit more of the 
colder States. When it was set up, the first amounts of money would go 
in and mostly benefit those cold weather States; and then if there was 
more money put into the program, it would be distributed more fairly to 
help States that are warmer. The proponent has put forward that three-
quarters of the money would go to continue to help those States that 
are in the colder regions of the country, and 25 percent of the money 
would then be distributed kind of equally across the country. That is 
not the way the program was intended to be set up.
  Additional moneys are supposed to be distributed fairly across the 
board. Mr. President, 28 out of the 50 States would lose under Senator 
Snowe's bill; 22 States would benefit. Those same 22 States benefit 
under the moneys that have already been spent this year--more than the 
other States benefit.
  We are not going to win the cloture vote. We fully admit that. We 
lost on a budget point of order, so we know we are going to lose on a 
cloture vote. After the cloture vote, there will be at least one 
amendment to change the formula so that other States are more fairly 
treated in this program.
  I believe this billion dollars should be more fairly distributed 
across the country. So that is what we are going to attempt to do. We 
hope all of the Senators will look to see whether their States benefit 
more under the amendment Senator Kyl and I are going to put forward or 
benefit under Senator Snowe. If they look from a selfish perspective to 
their own States, they will vote with our amendment.
  I think it is important when you are in the Senate to try to do what 
is best in the national perspective, but you also look to your State 
and your State's interest. When there is a pot of money out there, it 
is our responsibility to look to try to get our States' fair share of 
that money. That is what I am going to do for Nevada, and I know the 
Senator from Arizona is going to do that for the State of Arizona.
  While this cloture vote will go forward, that doesn't mean we won't 
have germane amendments--which our amendment is--and that we won't have 
germane amendments to vote on to more fairly distribute the money.
  How much time does the Senator need?
  Mr. KYL. A couple of minutes.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, last year, we had a debate on increasing 
LIHEAP funding, but we had to pay for it last year. We paid for it by 
allowing drilling in ANWR. The ANWR provision got stripped out in the 
Senate. So the amount of money to pay for LIHEAP was no longer present. 
I would like to see drilling in ANWR. I think it is important to 
diversify our energy supplies in America. The money would have been 
there and people would not have had objections. I agreed to that last 
year. This is purely deficit spending even though the proponents of the 
bill say it is not because of the phony budget games that are played 
around here. But because it is deficit spending, we are going to try to 
make sure that the money is spent fairly across the United States. That 
is what this whole debate is going to come down to in the next day or 
two.
  Mr. President, with that, I reserve the remainder of our time, and I 
suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, since I last spoke, I want to get a couple of 
the specific numbers on moneys actually spent under the formula that 
currently exists for providing low-income energy assistance for both 
the cold weather States and the warm weather States.
  I have some statistics that relate to three of the States in 
comparison with the State of Maine, for example. Nevada has about 
40,000 more people, or eligible households than Maine. Under the 
current formula, it receives about $22.7 million less than Maine. In 
the case of Arizona, with a population of about four times that of 
Maine, Arizona receives three times less money. In other words, Maine 
receives more than three times the money of Arizona, with Arizona 
having more than four times the population. Georgia had to spend $10 
million, up from $3 million last year, for its energy needs and for 
needy families.
  We are all interested in seeing that the low-income families have 
assistance. We want a formula that is fair. In the past, the formula 
has not been fair. Growing States such as Nevada and Arizona, which 
have far more population than some of the other States, receive far 
less money. As I said, in comparison of air conditioning bills versus 
heating bills, the air conditioning bills can be far greater--sometimes 
more than 25 percent of the income. That is what we are talking about 
here. We are trying to achieve fairness with the formula, not have the 
money all in a contingency fund which is spent early in the year on 
the cold weather, with nothing left for the hot weather folks.

  If the Senator from Oklahoma is ready, I yield to him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I have been on the floor numerous times to 
talk about priorities. We are on an unsustainable course in our 
country. The GAO says that. Anybody who looks at our books, our 
budgets, and our deficits would realize that. We have before us a $1 
billion expenditure that I am

[[Page S1814]]

sure we are going to do. I have done everything I can to keep us from 
doing it. Without paying for it, we will transfer that money to our 
children.
  I think it is important for the American public to know how awry we 
are in this body. I want to put forward and into the Record what the 
cosponsors of this bill did. They did, collectively, $777 million worth 
of earmarks last year. Those States of the cosponsors are going to get 
$145 million in LIHEAP money. The fact is, we spent over $770 million 
on earmarks.
  I wish to spend a few minutes reading some of them so we can see 
whether the American people think it is a priority. Do we help people 
who need heat with their homes or do we build the Katahdin Ironworks in 
Maine? Or do we build a new industrial park in Maine? Do we buy new 
land--the Rachel Carson land acquisition for $600,000? Do we pay for a 
new building for the city of Brewer, an administrative building? I 
cannot find in the Constitution where that is a responsibility of the 
Federal Government. We are going to build a new Bangor waterfront park. 
We spent $246,000 on earmarked lowbush blueberry research. Here is a 
George and Barbara Bush cultural center at the University of New 
England, $300,000. Do we do that and charge it to our children and 
grandchildren, or do we help people with their heat? To me, it is an 
obvious choice. But we refuse to make those hard choices here. We would 
rather spend the money and charge it to our children and grandchildren.
  Here is a Franco-American Heritage Center renovation project in 
Lewiston. And Bowdoin College in Brunswick, ME, gets $100,000 for site 
planning and renovation. Here is a purchase of land, Brainard Lakes, 
MN. Here is Midtown Greenway, Minneapolis, $1.5 million. Here is 
Augsburg College, in Minnesota, $1 million. I didn't know private 
colleges were part of the responsibility of funding from the Federal 
Government. Next we have Grand Portage in Minnesota, to establish a 
heritage center, $4 million. We are going to establish a heritage 
center for $4 million and we cannot help people with their heating 
bills. We are going to try to do both because it is politically 
expedient, but it is not politically expedient for our grandchildren.
  We gave $200,000 to the Hmong American Mutual Assistance Association. 
We gave $500,000 to the Minneapolis American Indian Center in 
Minneapolis. We sent $1 million to the Pine Technical College in 
Minnesota. We rehabilitated the Ames Lake Neighborhood, Phalen Place 
Apartments, in St. Paul with $150,000 of taxpayer money. Here is the 
Willard Pond in New Hampshire, $550,000. Then we have Roseview, a 
purchase of land for $2 million. Here is the Hubbard Brook Foundation 
and the Daniel Webster College. Here is the city of Portsmouth, to 
build an environmentally responsible library. We are going to build a 
library instead of paying for people's heating bills, and we are going 
to charge it to our children and grandchildren.
  We spent $150,000 for site preparation for improvements to White Park 
in Concord. We are going to restore Temple Town Hall in the town of 
Temple, $225,000. That is not a Federal responsibility; it is a State 
responsibility.
  Yet the American people are right to ask the question: How is it that 
we can have $775 million in earmarks from five States, and those five 
States under this formula would get $145 million in LIHEAP?
  I suggest that we shouldn't take it from our children and 
grandchildren. I suggest that we ought to pay for it, and the way to 
pay for it is either reduce the number of earmarks that are not 
legitimate under the Constitution, but are very politically expedient, 
or find the money elsewhere.
  I am not just picking on these items. This goes across this body 
throughout. The culture of earmarks is killing our country in terms of 
how much money we spend and who is paying for it. And who is actually 
paying for it is not us. We are shifting it to the next two 
generations.
  I will show this document in the Record--it lists the earmarks by the 
five cosponsors of this bill--and let the American public decide 
whether they think we ought to take $1 billion from our grandkids or 
cut out some of these projects that are not necessary right now. We are 
in a time of tremendous fiscal severity, and it is time we start acting 
as grownups.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the document that lists earmarks.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

      What Are Our Priorities--Earmarks or Low-Income Assistance?

       (Estimated number and cost of earmarks in FY2006*; 
     additional LIHEAP funding based on estimate of an additional 
     $250 million allocated through the standard formula and $750 
     million allocated through the contingency fund; contingency 
     fund allocation rates for each state are based on the average 
     distribution rate from the five previous releases from the 
     contingency fund)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Number of        Cost of       Additional
                              State                                  earmarks        earmarks     LIHEAP funding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maine...........................................................              38     $29,362,000     $16,277,940
Minnesota.......................................................              85     127,383,000      29,089,755
New Hampshire...................................................              50      46,338,000       8,845,527
Ohio............................................................             171     238,005,026      39,060,740
Pennsylvania....................................................             286     336,210,500      52,561,169
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             630     777,298,526     145,835,131
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Note: The number and cost estimate of earmarks for each state likely underestimate the total number and cost of
  earmarks. Only earmarks where a state is clearly and readily identifiable are used in the estimates.
Sources: Congressional Research Service, LIHEAP Clearinghouse, staff calculations.

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I want to help those people who cannot 
help themselves, but I have also discovered that there is very limited 
authorization for us in the Constitution for us to be paying the 
heating bills of people in this country. There is no such thing as 
compassion when you are using somebody else's money to offer 
compassion.
  The real answer to heating bills is solving our energy crisis and 
local communities taking care of their local citizens with their 
assets.
  I will not vote for cloture, although I know cloture is going to be 
invoked, but I think this is a great time that everybody in this 
country ought to be questioning the process here and the utilization of 
earmarks which could have paid for the heating bill, but instead we did 
things to help us back home, help us get reelected.
  I remind the Members of this body, Mr. President, when they take the 
oath of this body, they don't take an oath to protect their State or 
bring home the bacon. They take an oath to do what is in the best long-
term interest of this country, not what is in their best short-term 
political interest.
  I believe, as the American people look at this--I know this recent 
polling said 69 percent of the people in this country think we ought to 
eliminate earmarks, even if it hurts them. The only way we will get out 
of the financial mess we are in is start attacking the process of 
earmarks that greases the sled for spending that is out of control.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Maine yield back her 57 
seconds?
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time to my 
colleague, Senator Collins from Maine.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from 
Maine have an additional minute and only 2 minutes be reserved on this 
side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their 
cooperation. I realize I need to talk very rapidly.
  I understand that the Senator from Oklahoma listed earmarks that the 
Senator from Maine and I have jointly sponsored. I want to tell my 
colleagues that I am very proud of those projects, and I will stand 
here and defend every single one of them. But the fact is, that is 
irrelevant to the debate before us right now.
  I think it is so unfortunate to see this breakdown as certain States 
in certain parts of the country oppose what is a program that is 
absolutely essential to those of us who live in colder States.
  I supported all of the aid for Hurricane Katrina's victims in the 
gulf region. I routinely support programs that benefit other regions of 
the country. I think it is unfortunate and unfair and very 
disappointing for colleagues to oppose a program simply because it 
doesn't benefit their region as much as others.
  This is a program that is a matter of literally life and death to 
those of us

[[Page S1815]]

representing low-income and elderly constituents.
  I realize my time has expired. I urge my colleagues to support the 
motion to invoke cloture.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I will conclude by making two points. First 
of all, the question on cloture is not whether to allow the program to 
go forward but whether it will be paid for or, in effect, the money 
taken from next year, in which case then next year's money will have to 
be taken from the year after that, and so forth. So it is a question of 
how we pay for it.
  The average temperature in July of last year in Arizona was just 
under 100 degrees. It was about 98 degrees. It is a matter of life and 
death. Eighteen people died in Arizona, and there was no money 
available in Arizona for this program. By the time we found we could 
get a contingency of $183 million, it was too late.
  So while we would like to see the program continue, we would like to 
see it paid for and also we would like to see the formula modified so 
those people who suffer from the heat have as much of an opportunity to 
participate as those who have trouble from the cold weather. As a 
result, assuming that cloture is invoked, what we will be urging is 
that the next billion dollars be spent pursuant to a formula that more 
fairly divides the money among the various States, all of which have 
problems, but they are just different kinds of problems. And we will be 
able to debate that at that time.
  Mr. President, I yield back all of the remaining time so we can go 
ahead with the vote.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule 
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, 
which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on S. 2320: a bill 
     to make available funds included in the Deficit Reduction Act 
     of 2005 for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program for 
     fiscal year 2006, and for other purposes.
         William Frist, Lamar Alexander, Ted Stevens, Pat Roberts, 
           R.F. Bennett, George Allen, Pete Domenici, Rick 
           Santorum, Gordon Smith, John Thune, Richard G. Lugar, 
           Arlen Specter, John E. Sununu, Mitch McConnell, Lincoln 
           D. Chafee, Lisa Murkowski, Mike DeWine, David Vitter.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on S. 
2320, a bill to make available funds included in the Deficit Reduction 
Act of 2005 for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program for 
fiscal year 2006, shall be brought to a close? The yeas and nays are 
mandatory under the rule. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 75, nays 25, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 33 Leg.]

                                YEAS--75

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thune
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--25

     Allard
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Martinez
     McCain
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thomas
     Vitter
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burr). On this vote, the yeas are 75, the 
nays are 25. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having 
voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Mr. FRIST. I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on 
the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 2913 to Amendment No. 2899

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order with respect to 
amendment No. 2899 and now call up amendment No. 2913 as the pending 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Frist], for Ms. Snowe, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2913 to amendment No. 2899.

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To improve the distribution of funds to States under the Low-
                 Income Home Energy Assistance Program)

       Beginning on page 1, strike line 7 and all that follows 
     through page 2, line 5, and insert the following:
       (A) by striking ``for a 1-time only obligation and 
     expenditure'';
       (B) in paragraph (1), by striking ``$250,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 2007'' and inserting ``$500,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2006''; and
       (C) in paragraph (2), by striking ``$750,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 2007'' and inserting ``$500,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2006'';

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________