[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.
____________________