[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 28 (Tuesday, March 7, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1817-S1828]
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--Continued

  Mr. MARTINEZ. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DAYTON. 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the quorum call be rescinded.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. DAYTON. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business 
for 10 minutes with the time charged against my hour under cloture.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Kirby Puckett

  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I rise today to note with sorrow the 
passing of one of Minnesota's greatest sports heroes, Kirby Puckett, 
who suffered a stroke on Sunday and died yesterday at the age of 45. 
Kirby Puckett was born and raised in Chicago, but he became a 
Minnesotan when he was drafted at the age of 22 by the Minnesota Twins.
  After two seasons in the minor leagues, he played his first major 
league game for the Twins on May 8, 1984, where he became the ninth 
player in baseball history to get four hits in his first game. Three 
years later, he appeared in the first of eight consecutive All Star 
games during which time he also won the American League's Most Valuable 
Player honors and Most Valuable Player in the American League 
championship series.
  When his great career was cut short by blurred vision caused by 
glaucoma in 1996, he sported a lifetime major league batting average of 
.318 with 2,304 hits, 207 home runs, and 1,085 runs batted in in 1,783 
games. But even those extraordinary statistics comprise only part of 
Kirby Puckett's greatness. He played baseball with an enthusiasm, a 
devotion, and an excitement that was thrilling to watch. Whether at bat 
or in center field, where he was a Golden Glove outfielder, he brought 
Twins fans out of their seats with spectacular game-winning plays.
  No Minnesota Twins fan old enough to remember our team's two world 
championships will ever forget Kirby Puckett. In 1987, with the Twins 
trailing the St. Louis Cardinals three games to two, Kirby tied World 
Series records by reaching base five times and scoring four runs to 
lead the Twins to victory in game No. 6. The next night the Twins won 
game 7 to win their first world championship and a Minnesota team's 
first professional world championship in almost 30 years.
  Four years later in another World Series game 6 with the Twins, this 
time playing the Atlanta Braves three games to two, Kirby Puckett was 
unbelievably even more spectacular than before. His over-the-wall catch 
saved the game-winning Braves home run and sent the game into extra 
innings which he then won with a home run in the bottom of the 11th 
inning. The next night the Twins won another game 7 and another World 
Series.
  During those years, Kirby Puckett was a wonderful representative of 
the Minnesota Twins and Major League Baseball. He hosted celebrity 
events for local charities, made countless appearances for others, 
signed endless autographs, all with his infectious Kirby Puckett smile. 
Andy MacPhail, now president of the Chicago Cubs, and general manager 
of the Twins during those World Series years, said yesterday:

       Kirby Puckett was probably the greatest teammate I've ever 
     been around. You always felt better when you were around 
     Kirby. He just had that way about him.

  The years following his retirement from baseball stardom were more 
difficult ones with his sterling reputation tarnished by marital 
discord and other public incidents. When his contract as executive vice 
president for the Twins expired at the end of 2002, Kirby Puckett 
retired from baseball and later moved to Scottsdale, AZ where he passed 
away. He is survived by his two children Catherine and Kirby, Jr. and 
his fiance Jodi Olson, to whom I extend my deepest condolences.
  The Kirby Puckett I will remember, as will a generation of Minnesota 
Twins fans young and old, will always be wearing a Minnesota Twins 
uniform, No. 34, leaping for flyballs, racing around the bases, making 
his greatest plays in the most important games, and doing so with a 
zest for the game and for life that was unmistakable and unforgettable.

[[Page S1818]]

  Thank you, Kirby, for those treasured moments, now forever our 
memories. Thank you, Kirby. May you rest in peace.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KERRY. 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. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted 
to proceed for 10 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Tribute to Dana Reeve

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today, we learned of the unbelievably 
tragic passing of a remarkably courageous, strong, and dedicated woman, 
Dana Reeve. Most Americans knew Dana as the wife of Christopher Reeve, 
and most Americans new Christopher as Superman and, as this 
unbelievable figure, capable of overcoming so many obstacles.
  I think the whole Nation was shocked and touched when they learned 
that Dana, not too long after the loss of Chris, herself was battling 
lung cancer. She was always ebullient and strong in that effort. At 
times, she was filled with doubt about her kids and the future, as 
anyone would be, but always unbelievably courageous. She was a 
passionate advocate after Chris passed away, and even before. She was, 
herself, an accomplished actress and singer, appearing off Broadway and 
on Broadway. She was, above all, a loving mother and a stunningly 
supportive and nurturing wife.
  Through her very selfless effort to be part of Chris's life in 
gigantic ways, bigger than most people could describe, after his 
accident, she became an inspiration to millions of Americans. This is 
no way for anybody who was touched by that family to adequately express 
our shock and our sorrow to her immediate family--to Will, age 13, and 
her stepchildren, Matthew and Alexandra, and to her friends, who were 
with her until the end.
  Dana was always a crusader, but with Chris's accident, she became an 
even more tireless, passionate crusader for the particular promise of 
medical research into stem cell treatments. After Chris's paralysis, 
she and Chris together created the Christopher Reeve Foundation, which 
has raised and distributed over $55 million in research grants, much of 
it aimed at speeding the development of stem cell treatments.
  I can remember visiting Chris at his home in New York. He had this 
elaborate exercise setup, which he went through, I think, almost every 
day, or whenever possible, always keeping his muscles as alive and 
growing as possible under the circumstances, with the belief that he 
was going to walk again. Dana believed in him and she believed in that 
possibility. Together with Chris she was deeply involved in the fight 
for increases in medical research funding, and she was an active 
advocate for the rights of the disabled.
  Many of my colleagues in the Senate had the opportunity to get to 
know her or talk with both she and Chris in the course of that 
advocacy. After Chris's death in 2004, Dana courageously kept up the 
battle to advance medical research. She became the chairwoman of the 
foundation, picking up where Chris had left off. She was responsible 
for developing the foundation's Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis 
Resource Center and for a program that has now distributed more than $8 
million for projects that improved the daily lives of people with 
paralysis.
  In October of 2004, I was particularly honored and moved to be joined 
by Dana on the campaign trail in Ohio. I cannot tell you how incredible 
it was that within 2 weeks of Chris passing away--less than 2 weeks--
Dana took the time, found the strength and courage and the sense of 
purpose somewhere, which she described to me as coming directly from 
Chris himself, to come out on the trail and fight for what he had been 
fighting.
  I will never forget the grace and the strength that she showed that 
day, and even a glow that she exuded in her love for Chris and her 
passion about the issue.
  Let me share, if I may, a few of the words that she spoke that day 
which I found so moving, but I also find important for all of us to 
focus on today. She said:

       Chris struggled for 9\1/2\ years, but it was essential to 
     him that every day bring some kind of forward progress, 
     either personally or globally. Despite the enormous 
     challenges he faced each morning, he awoke with focused 
     determination and a remarkable zest for life. Chris was able 
     to keep going because he had the support of his loved ones, a 
     dedicated nursing staff, the belief of his fans, and members 
     of the disabled community, and because he had hope--hope that 
     one day science would restore some of his function. Chris 
     actively participated in clinical trials. He was on a strict 
     exercise regimen and was recently in a clinical trial right 
     here in Ohio to breathe on his own. Chris could breathe off 
     his ventilator for hours at a time, thanks to science, and 
     scientists taking bold steps.
       Chris understood that all journeys begin with a single 
     step, and to take that first step one needs hope. His 
     vision of walking again, his belief that he would reach 
     this goal for himself and others in his lifetime was 
     essential to the way that he conducted his life.

  Dana went on to describe that while Chris led the crusade for 
research, she in turn put her energy into improving the quality of life 
for people who were living with diseases, inspired by individuals who 
could still benefit from research. She talked about how right there in 
Ohio, where we stood that day, the Christopher Reeve Paralysis 
Foundation had funded a number of items that kept people healthy and 
active despite the challenge of living with a disability. She did all 
of this because both she and Chris imagined living in a world where 
politics would never get in the way of hope.
  Dana shared that vision and she worked tirelessly to help achieve it. 
Today, the whole country will again remember this couple. They will 
remember them together and their dedication to furthering stem cell 
research. Here in the Senate, we have an opportunity to honor their 
memories and that work by fighting to advance stem cell research. We 
can do it. Mindful of all the ethical considerations that we 
understand, there is a way to do it and to respect life. We have the 
opportunity to take the steps that Dana and Chris would have been so 
thrilled to see, worked so hard to achieve, to finally see a stem cell 
bill passed through the Senate.
  In the end, none of their efforts, nor their lives were about policy. 
It was about hope and it was about values. It is about honoring their 
lives now that we should set about that task. They shared an 
unquenchable belief in the genius of America when we put our minds to 
it. They drew strength from the talent and dedication of the scientists 
they met and, in turn, they inspired them to go out and do even more. 
Chris stunned doctors by regaining some sensation in over 70 percent of 
his body and moving most of his joints, which people said he would 
never do. He did that because of science.
  Dana and Chris never lost faith that America and American science was 
the greatest hope for humanity. That is a faith that all of us should 
share for Chris and Dana and the millions of people who believe in the 
possibilities of this remarkable time and our remarkable country. A lot 
of people ask, How can we do that? The answer is simple. How can we 
commit ourselves to anything less?
  So to Will, Matthew, Alexandra, and Dana and Chris's friends and 
families, colleagues and supporters, I say the best thing we can do to 
complete their journey is by doing our best in ours. If we do that, we 
will give even greater meaning to two remarkable lives.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, 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. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                  Foreign Trade and National Security

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, in news reports last evening and this 
morning there was a suggestion that some sort of deal was being reached 
in the Congress, between the Congress and the administration, on the 
issue of the Dubai

[[Page S1819]]

Ports World Company managing six of America's large seaports. Let me 
point out there is no deal that I am aware of, but if there is a deal, 
it is being made by people who have not consulted many of us in the 
Congress.
  In any event, I think this proposal still lacks basic common sense. I 
want to speak about it for a couple of minutes.
  In the Wall Street Journal, the Secretary of Homeland Security, Mr. 
Chertoff, says: ``U.S. ports takeover''--again, by the Dubai Ports 
World, the United Arab Emirates-owned company--the head of our Homeland 
Security Chertoff says: ``U.S. ports takeover would tighten grip on 
security.''
  So he actually makes the case, the head of our Homeland Security 
agency, that allowing the management or the takeover of our six major 
port facilities, seaport facilities, would strengthen America's 
security. That is an unbelievable statement. I will describe why he 
says it. He said:

       Assuming the deal would go through, we intend to have a 
     deep look into their practices, certainly in the U.S. ports.

  That is a direct quote. That is almost unbelievable. So they 
apparently haven't had a deep look into their practices before the deal 
goes through. This is a circumstance where most of the American 
citizens understand what is being proposed and very strongly react to 
it in opposition.
  This country is the subject of many terrorist threats. We understand 
that terrorists from around the world want to strike inside this 
country. We have all this security in this country--some judged to be 
quite good, some very deficient. Go to an airport and see what happens 
when you want to board an airplane. You are going to have to go to a 
line and you are likely to have to take off your shoes and you are 
probably going to have to take off your belt and wristwatch and then 
they are wanding some little 6-year-old boy, spread eagle against a 
wall someplace because he set off the buzzer. So all of that happens 
before you get on an airplane. Why? Because airport security is very 
important.
  So is seaport security. We don't have seaports in my home State, but 
we are recipients of those containers that come on ships into our 
seaports. Somewhere between 5.7 million and 5.9 million containers a 
year come into our seaports at 5 or 6 miles an hour to go into the dock 
where those containers are lifted off by that crane and trucked off all 
across the country. All of us are recipients of what is coming into our 
seaports.
  Seaport security, frankly, is miserable; 5.7 to 5.9 million 
containers come into this country and 4 to 5 percent is inspected, all 
the rest is not inspected, and we believe somehow we are protecting our 
country?
  You will recall shortly after 9/11, there was a fellow from the 
Middle East, from Egypt I believe, who decided to put himself in a 
container, get it nailed up and put on a container ship, shipping 
himself to Canada. He had all the amenities you would need to travel in 
a container: he had a cot, a GPS locator, a radio, apparently, and a 
heater. He was in a container on a ship. He was a fellow they thought 
to be a terrorist shipping himself into Canada in a container for the 
purpose of coming into the United States.
  So seaport security is critically important. We have had vote after 
vote in the Senate to improve seaport security but the majority doesn't 
want to spend the money to do that.
  Now, with respect to the issue of seaport security, we are told that 
a United Arab Emirates wholly owned company called Dubai Ports World 
has been approved by something called CFIUS, one of those God-awful 
acronyms, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. 
They have approved the takeover and management, which would include 
security, by the way, of ports, six major seaports in this country, 
including New York and New Jersey and Baltimore and New Orleans, and so 
on.
  CFIUS, which is 16 or 18 of the agencies of the current 
administration getting together, said they think this will be just 
fine, so they approved it. They approved it without even the 45-day 
extension you would normally have if someone expressed some concerns 
about it.
  Now Mr. Chertoff, the head of Homeland Security, says our security 
will actually be better if the United Arab Emirates company takes over 
our ports. Chertoff says, ``U.S. ports takeover would tighten grip on 
security.''
  I don't know. Maybe he's not drinking the same water most Americans 
are drinking. I don't know how you come to this conclusion. Allowing a 
United Arab Emirates company to manage our ports is going to manage and 
improve our security? I don't think so. That doesn't make any sense.
  Let me describe the United Arab Emirates. I will do it in terms that 
do not suggest this is a bad country. That is not my point, although I 
must say that two of the hijackers who attacked this country on 9/11/
2001 came from the United Arab Emirates, a substantial portion of the 
financing for those terrorist attacks came through the financial 
institutions of the United Arab Emirates, Dr. Kahn from Pakistan, who 
was moving nuclear materials and nuclear knowledge and knowhow around 
the world, did that through the UAE ports. There are serious questions 
to be asked.
  But let me make another point; that is, the relationship of the 
United Arab Emirates to Osama bin Laden. The 9/11 report described a 
circumstance in which we had discovered, in 1999, where Osama bin Laden 
was at that time and our country was attempting to target Osama bin 
Laden. This is in early 1999. The CIA learned that Osama bin Laden 
could be found at a camp in the Afghan desert, and the U.S. military 
began to plan a strike against that camp. But the strike was called off 
because Osama bin Laden was apparently being visited by members of the 
royal family of the United Arab Emirates.
  In fact, let me read to you from the 9/11 Commission report. You will 
find this in the booklet published by the
9/11 Commission:

       No strike was launched.

  This is the strike against Osama bin Laden whom our Intelligence 
Committee said they had discovered. They knew where he was.

       No strike was launched. . . . According to the CIA and 
     defense officials, policymakers were concerned about the 
     danger that a strike would kill an Emirati prince or other 
     senior officials who may be with bin Laden.

  That is on page 138 of the 9/11 report, the former CIA Director 
George Tenet explaining why an attack against Osama bin Laden at a 
Afghan camp was called off said:

       You might have wiped out half of the royal family in the 
     United Arab Emirates in the process, which I'm sure entered 
     into everyone's calculation in all of this.

  The administration says the UAE has been helpful to our country in 
the fight against terrorism. If they have, and there is some evidence 
they have since 9/11, then this company appreciates that. But that 
appreciation, in my judgment, should not and will not extend to 
inviting the United Arab Emirates-owned company to manage America's 
seaports. It just defies common sense.
  The administration says: What about offending the United Arab 
Emirates by saying no? We would offend this country by saying no? What 
about offending common sense by saying yes? Most of the American people 
understand. They understand if you are going to have security in this 
country, security includes the United States deciding to provide 
security at its seaports. The United States can't manage its seaports? 
I don't understand that.
  I was interested in a piece yesterday in the Washington Post by 
Sebastian Mallaby. I don't know Sebastian Mallaby, but he is a pretty 
good reflection of those who are pushing this issue, saying that those 
who oppose having the United Arab Emirates company manage our seaports 
are demagogs. He said:

       The demagogs are poised to strike again.

  He said:

       If demagogs can turn a tiny ally such as Dubai into a 
     villain, you can bet they will do that with China.

  He's talking about China trade.

       The Dems will next play the China card.

  One of the things he points out, he says we have a trade deficit with 
China. He doesn't seem to care much about that. But he says if we are 
going to get serious about dealing with the trade deficit, we need to 
get serious about balancing the Federal budget. This person must have 
missed Economics 101. We did balance the trade deficit under the final 
years of the Clinton administration and the deficit continued

[[Page S1820]]

to rise. We keep hearing these folks say the reason we have a trade 
deficit is because we have a fiscal policy budget deficit, which is not 
true. We actually created a surplus here before President Bush took 
over, and the trade deficit continued to rise. Now we have the highest 
trade deficit in history and a substantial portion of that trade 
deficit is with the Chinese.
  It is interesting to me, all of these columnists, of course, tend to 
be apologists for public policies that don't work. But to suggest that 
somehow those who stand and oppose the management of American ports by 
a United Arab Emirates company are demagogs is elitist and it is wrong.
  The so-called group called CFIUS, which, by the way, almost turns 
down nothing. They have reviewed lots and lots of proposals, and they 
have approved them all, virtually. I think they disapproved eight of 
them out of many proposals. But the Coast Guard had written a 
classified memo to CFIUS--on February 27 that was disclosed publicly by 
Senator Collins, I believe, at the hearing. The report said the 
following:

       There are many intelligence gaps concerning the potential 
     for the UAE company's assets to support terrorist operations 
     and that precludes an overall threat assessment on the 
     potential DPW and P&O Ports merger.

  In fact, the Coast Guard restored a large number of potential 
vulnerabilities. That is directly from the Coast Guard's memorandum.
  One of the so-called intelligence gaps that the Coast Guard referred 
to was that no one had checked the backgrounds of the people in charge 
of the UAE company that would manage our ports. So when the Coast 
Guard's secret report was made public, the administration said the 
Coast Guard ought to say something pleasant. So the Coast Guard came 
out and issued a statement the next day saying:

       Upon subsequent and further review, the Coast Guard and the 
     entire CFIUS panel believe the transaction, when taking into 
     account strong security assurances by DP World, does not 
     compromise American security.

  Interesting--the Coast Guard statement doesn't say anybody had 
checked out the backgrounds of the officials at the UAE company. That 
is what their secret memo had said represented the vulnerability. But 
the highest ranking official in the Department of Homeland Security, 
who was part of this group and who reviewed this port deal, said this:

       The CFIUS review did not include background checks on the 
     senior managers of the company.

  It is quite clear the Coast Guard, in a classified memorandum, 
expressed concerns about the terrorist threat, about vulnerabilities as 
a result of the takeover of American ports by a UAE-owned company and 
then the Coast Guard, when the classified memo became public, was 
ordered--the Coast Guard, of course, works for the President, the Coast 
Guard said something softer, but the Department of Homeland Security's 
ranking official, Stewart Baker, quite clearly said:

       The CFIUS review did not include background checks on the 
     senior managers.

  This is a fascinating description of trying to put a patch on a hole 
that is too big. None of this adds up very much.
  I do want to make another point. This is about offshoring and 
outsourcing, and so on. The question is, Why would we be contracting 
with a foreign government, essentially--through a foreign company they 
wholly own--to manage our ports? This is the new global economy, we are 
told. If you don't get it, you are an isolationist, xenophobic stooge 
who can't figure it out. This is all part of the global economy.
  President Bush went to India last week. If you are asking the 
question: How is it that the management of American seaports should be 
done by the United Arab Emirates company and you don't understand it, 
you won't understand what the President said last week in India either. 
What the President said in India, in several speeches, was you need to 
understand this global economy of ours. He said things have changed. 
This is about outsourcing of jobs.
  I have some quotes from the President. The President says, about 
globalization: I guess generally outsourcing--you know outsourcing is 
not bad. People do lose jobs as a result of globalization, and it's 
painful to those who lose jobs, but the fundamental question is how 
does a government or society react to that? One of two ways. One is to 
say losing jobs is painful, therefore lets throw up the protectionist 
walls and the other is to say losing jobs is painful so let's make sure 
people are educated so they can find or fill the jobs of the 21st 
century.
  I have news for the President. Those 21st century jobs for educated 
Americans--he was visiting them in India. He was looking at them. He's 
looking at the engineers who are now working at jobs American engineers 
used to have. Why did those engineering jobs go to India? Because you 
can hire an engineer in India for one-fifth the cost of an American 
engineer. So the solution is not to say let's have an American lose his 
or her job and then get better educated. How better educated than going 
to school to get a degree in engineering and then losing it to somebody 
in the country of India who is able to work for one-fifth the price?
  So he said:

       You don't retrench and pull back. You welcome competition. 
     Understand globalization provides great opportunities.

  It is fascinating to me, the people who always talk about this are 
people who will never be outsourced. The President of the United States 
is never going to be outsourced. Do you think they are going to move 
his job to India? I don't think so--or China or Bangladesh or Sri Lanka 
or Indonesia? I don't think so.

       Our first great purpose is to spread prosperity and 
     opportunity to people in our own land and to the millions of 
     people who have not known it.

  How does that fit, spreading prosperity and opportunity by moving 
American jobs to China and to India?
  How does it spread prosperity and opportunity by deciding that a 
United Arab Emirates country will come and manage American seaports? 
How does that spread opportunity?
  The President says the United States will not give into 
protectionists and lose these opportunities. So the President, very 
much like the columnist, Mr. Sabastian Mallaby from the Washington 
Post, all use the same language. It is code language. They all 
understand it. It is elitist language: protectionist, building walls, 
isolationist xenophobes.
  We have a trade deficit of some $720 billion. Every single day, 7 
days a week, all year long, we actually import $2 billion more in goods 
than we export to the rest of the world. Every single day, 7 days a 
week, we sell $2 billion worth of our country to foreigners.
  I am not suggesting we shouldn't trade. I believe expanded trade is 
beneficial. But I am suggesting that we have a backbone, nerve, and a 
little will to stand up for our country's economic interests.
  Can we not tell China, for example, that they can't have a trade 
relationship with us that has a $202 billion surplus every year? Last 
year it was a $202 billion deficit with China. Do we not have the nerve 
to say to China trade is mutually beneficial, a two-way street, that is 
the way we insist on it, and if they are going to sell to us then they 
are going to buy from us? Don't we have that nerve and will. If not, 
why not?
  The same is true with others, especially Japan. With Japan it has 
been a couple of decades where we have had very substantial deficits 
year after year after year. And our country doesn't have the nerve or 
will to do anything about it.
  We still have folks walking around thumbing their suspenders and 
puffing on their cigars talking about globalization and how wonderful 
it is. No one ever lost a job to outsourcing--it is just American 
workers who lose those jobs.
  It is not just the jobs that are gone. It is the jobs left here that 
become priced by the China price--downward pressure on wages, downward 
pressure on benefits, stripping away retirement benefits and health 
care benefits. That is what is happening all across this country.
  The issue I started talking about--the issue of managing an American 
port by a United Arab Emirates firm--wouldn't even have been discussed 
here 20 years ago. It would have been laughed at. Are you kidding me? 
Are

[[Page S1821]]

you really serious? We will have America's ports managed by the United 
Arab Emirates given the climate we face today?
  Twenty years ago, you wouldn't be talking about a $700-plus billion 
trade deficit. Things have changed a lot.
  We have a President who cheerleads now for that trade strategy 
despite the evidence--all of the evidence year after year--that this is 
a bankrupt trade strategy. It is bankrupting this country. It is 
selling part of America piece by piece of every single day. All of 
these things relate.
  I only wanted to speak briefly--it turned out not to be so briefly--
about those who announced to the press or those who talked to the press 
resulting in news stories last evening that there is a deal in the 
works; perhaps the United Arab Emirates company could buy an American 
subsidiary and actually run the ports through a U.S. subsidiary. There 
is no deal in the works that I am aware of.
  I have introduced legislation that would overturn this decision. In 
one way or another we are going to vote on these things. I believe 
there are other colleagues who believe the same.
  We are going to go vote on these things no matter what kind of deal 
somebody else comes up with. I think there needs to be a good healthy 
dose of common sense expressed on some of these issues, and that is 
certainly lacking on trade, on national security, and on port security.
  I hope, perhaps, we can get those before the Senate soon.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in 
morning business for up to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              lobby reform

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise today to again address the very 
important issue of lobby reform and to applaud the efforts of many, 
particularly the bipartisan working group on which I was proud to 
serve--coming together and working hard to produce good lobby reform 
packages that will very soon be on the floor of the Senate.
  As I have said since the beginning of this discussion spanning 
several weeks, in so many ways there is no more important threshold 
issue to the functioning of our democracy and the health of this 
institution of Congress than these important reform issues. Clearly, 
they go to the heart and soul of our integrity and our own credibility.
  How can we address any other major national issue, whether it is 
health care, prescription drugs, foreign policy, or defense unless we 
have that core, central principle of integrity and credibility with the 
people?
  Unfortunately, we have lost that credibility to some significant 
extent over the past years because of some horrible situations and 
scandals that have developed.
  It is very appropriate and very necessary that we act as an 
institution to address these abuses and potential abuses which we need 
to stop from happening in the future.
  As I said, I was very proud to serve on an informal working group--
Republicans and Democrats coming together with this common purpose to 
address these central questions, to bring real meaningful, strong 
reform to our institutions, to develop consensus, not to play political 
partisan games but to develop real consensus and pass important 
legislation that could have major support on both sides of the aisle.
  I very much enjoyed that work with leaders on this issue--Senators 
Collins, Lott, McCain, Santorum, Kyl, and Isakson--of course, all those 
Republicans--joined by Senators Lieberman, Obama, Dodd, and Feingold, 
Democrats, as well as myself, a Republican, coming together to address 
this very crucial issue.
  We are about to put this legislation on the floor of the Senate, 
hopefully, very soon, later today. I encourage all of my colleagues--
Republicans and Democrats alike--to again come together for an 
important debate, to make a proposal about how to improve this 
legislation but to support the underlying bills which include major 
systemic reform. That is what I am going to do. That is why I joined 
this working group from the very beginning. That is why I participated 
in the discussions and debate which led to the bills coming to the 
floor.
  In addition to that, I am going to do what I mentioned a little while 
ago, participate in the debate on the floor and make some proposals to 
strengthen the bill, to make it even better before we report it out 
from the Senate.
  In doing that, I am going to make three specific proposals in areas 
which I think we need to address that are not in the underlying bill. I 
again want to outline those three proposals very briefly.
  The first has to do with an unfortunate scenario which has happened 
in the past of spouses and children of Members of Congress, House 
Members, Senators, getting a paycheck off that Member's reelection 
campaign. This has happened in the past. It is not some theoretical 
issue. In fact, family members have made substantial sums in the past 
in some instances off the campaign of the family member who is also a 
Member of Congress.
  I talk to folks back home in Louisiana all the time. When these 
circumstances made the newspaper a few months ago, I can tell you what 
the universal reaction was. The universal reaction was this is abuse. 
There was no discussion about what these family members were doing, 
weren't doing, what hours they were lobbying, weren't lobbying. The 
universal reaction was this was a way for the Member of Congress to 
basically increase his family income through the political process and 
is an abuse.
  I think the solution is really simple. I will have an amendment that 
proposes that solution. It is simply this: Ban it; to say a Member of 
Congress, the House, or the Senate can't have a spouse, can't have a 
dependent child on the campaign payroll. That is the simplest way to 
address it. That is the most direct way to address it. That will put 
the whole issue to rest for once and forever.
  Certainly, the huge majority of Members should embrace this idea 
because it would never cross our minds, quite frankly, a huge majority 
of Members, to do this. Let us put this potential abuse and real abuse 
in the past to rest forever.
  I encourage all of my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, to 
support this floor amendment.
  The second floor amendment addresses another very important area of 
campaign finance that has also been in the news; that is, with regard 
to Indian tribes.
  Again, this is not some theoretical discussion. This is not dreaming 
up a problem. This has been at the heart of the recent scandals and 
controversies which bring us to where we are today.
  In my opinion, a central problem is the fact that in current law 
Indian tribes, with regard to campaign contributions to Federal 
candidates, are treated in a whole different way than similar entities 
such as corporations, such as labor unions.
  With regard to corporations and labor unions, there are very clear 
and very strict laws that apply in terms of how those entities can 
raise PAC money, campaign funds that they can turn into political 
contributions and the overall limit that applies to a single 
corporation--a single labor union with regard to political 
contributions that election season. Those rules don't apply to Indian 
tribes.
  When it comes to Indian tribes, those rules I just referenced are out 
the window and basically no rules apply. There is no governance of how 
tribes collect and raise funds to give to political candidates. In 
fact, with so many having very lucrative casinos now, what they do is 
real simple. They write a check out of the casino operation and fund 
the entire political operation from which they give campaign 
contributions. Corporations can't do that--absolutely not. Labor unions 
can't even do that. I think the rules should be the same for Indian 
tribes.
  Likewise, the limits on campaign contributions should be the same as 
well. There should be an aggregate, an overall limit for what a 
specific tribe can give to Federal candidates just as there is for 
corporations through their PACS, just as there is for labor unions 
through their PACs.
  Again, I will offer a floor amendment that is pretty darned simple 
and pretty easy to understand. It will basically

[[Page S1822]]

say those same rules that apply with regard to the sources of funds and 
disclosure and aggregate limits that apply to corporations and labor 
unions, those exact same rules will apply in exactly the same way to 
Indian tribes.
  Third and finally, I will propose on the floor another amendment 
which relates to Members' families and the ability in some 
circumstances of a Member to increase his family income through 
involvement in lobby shops by a spouse.
  I think it is very important in this instance to distinguish between 
what I consider two pretty different cases. The one case is where a 
spouse was a registered lobbyist, a professional with expertise and 
professional background well before the Member was ever elected to 
office, or well before the marriage between the Member and the spouse 
ever occurred. In my mind, that is a very different situation than when 
a spouse gets into the lobbying business after the Member is elected or 
after the marriage occurs with a Member already being elected.
  In the first case, that spouse was a professional with background and 
expertise in this area well before the marriage happened or the Member 
was elected. In the second case, the cart came way before the horse. It 
is that second case I am concerned about, and it is that second case on 
which I believe we should pass a blanket ban that such a person 
shouldn't get into the lobbying business even after the Member was 
elected.
  Again, I think people back home view that sort of case pretty darned 
simply. It is a way for direct family members to get involved in lobby 
shops, and through that route directly supplementing that Member's 
family income.
  That absolutely tears at the integrity, at the credibility of our 
institutions, and I believe we must act to restore that credibility and 
integrity.
  Again, this is not some theoretical discussion. I wish it were. This 
is not some problem made up out of the blue. This is a practice that 
has happened before, that has been in the headlines, that has been in 
the news. So let us address it directly, boldly, and be done with it.
  In closing, I thank all of the leaders who came together in the 
important working group on lobby reform that I mentioned, particularly 
Senators Collins, Lott, McCain, Santorum, Kyl, and Isakson, and 
Senators Lieberman, Obama, Dodd, and Feingold. I worked closely with 
them. I believe the product we will bring to the Senate very soon, 
under the leadership of the two committee chairs, Senators Collins and 
Lott, is a strong, meaningful, worthwhile product.
  I hope we all come to this important debate with additional ideas. I 
hope we add to the bill and improve it, including through the three 
floor amendments I just outlined, and then report an even stronger and 
even better bill out of the Senate to address this crucial issue.
  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. OBAMA. 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. OBAMA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       ETHICS AND LOBBYING REFORM

  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the ethics and 
lobbying reform bill we will be considering this week.
  Over 100 years ago, at the dawn of the last century, the Industrial 
Revolution was beginning to take hold in America, creating unimaginable 
wealth and sprawling metropolises all across the country.
  As factories multiplied and profits grew, the winnings of the new 
economy became more and more concentrated in the hands of a few robber 
barons, railroad tycoons, and oil magnets. In the cities, power was 
maintained by a corrupt system of political machines and ward bosses. 
In the State of New York, there was a young Governor who was determined 
to give government back to the people.
  In his first year, he had already begun antagonizing the State's 
political machine by attacking its system of favors and corporate 
giveaways. He signed a workers' compensation bill, and even fired the 
superintendent of insurance for taking money from the very industry he 
was supposed to be regulating.
  None of this sat too well with New York's powerful party bosses, who 
finally plotted to get rid of the reform-minded Governor by making sure 
he was nominated for the Vice Presidency that year.
  What no one could have expected is that soon after the election, when 
President William McKinley was assassinated, the greatest fears of the 
corrupt machine bosses and power brokers became true when that former 
Governor became President of the United States and went on to bust 
trusts, break up monopolies, and return the government to its people.
  His name, of course, was Theodore Roosevelt. He was a Republican. 
Throughout his public life, he demonstrated a willingness to put party 
and politics aside in order to battle corruption and give people an 
open, honest government that would fight for their interests and for 
their values.
  I think today we face a similar crisis of corruption and a similar 
crisis of confidence. I believe we need similar leadership from those 
in power as well.
  The American people are tired of a Washington that is open only to 
those with the most cash and the right connections. They are tired of a 
political process where the vote you cast is not as important as the 
favors you can do. They are tired of trusting us with their tax dollars 
when they see them spent on frivolous pet projects and corporate 
giveaways.
  It is not that the games that are played in this town are new or 
surprising to the public. People are not naive to the existence of 
corruption. They know that over the years it has worn both a Republican 
and a Democratic face.
  Moreover, the underlying issue of how extensively money influences 
politics is the ``original sin'' of everyone who has ever run for 
office, including me. In order to get elected, we need to raise vast 
sums of money by meeting and dealing with people who are 
disproportionately wealthy. This is a problem that predates Jack 
Abramoff.
  So I agree with those on both sides of the aisle who believe we 
should not let half measures and partisan posturing on campaign finance 
reform derail our current efforts on ethics and lobbying, but I also 
think this is an issue and a conversation we are going to have to have 
in the months to come--the conversation about campaign financing. That 
is not, however, the topic that is before us this week.
  While people know that both parties are vulnerable to these problems, 
I do not think it is fair to say that the scandals we have seen most 
recently under the current White House and Congress--both legal and 
illegal--are entirely predictable or the standard fare. They are worse 
than most of us could have imagined.
  Think about it. In the past several months, we have seen the head of 
the White House procurement office arrested. We have seen some of our 
most powerful leaders of both the House and the Senate under Federal 
investigation. We have seen the indictment of Jack Abramoff and his 
cronies. And, of course, last week, we saw a Member of Congress 
sentenced to 8 years in prison for bribery.

  Now, there are some in the media who dismiss these scandals by 
saying: Everybody does it. The truth is that not everybody does it. We 
should not lump people together--those of us who have to raise funds to 
run campaigns but do so in a legal and ethical way with those who 
invite lobbyists into their offices to write bad legislation. Those are 
not equivalent. And we are not being partisan by pointing that out.
  The fact is, since our Federal Government has been controlled by one 
party, this kind of scandal has become, unfortunately, a regular order 
of business in this town. For years now, some on the other side of the 
aisle have openly bragged about stocking K Street lobbying firms with 
former staffers to increase their power in Washington--a practice that 
should stop today and never happen again.

[[Page S1823]]

  But what is truly offensive to the American people about all of this 
goes far beyond people such as Jack Abramoff. It is bigger than how 
much time he will spend in jail or how many Members of Congress he ends 
up turning in. It is bigger even than the K Street project and golf 
junkets to Scotland and lavish gifts for lawmakers.
  What is truly offensive about these scandals is they do not just lead 
to morally offensive conduct on the part of politicians; they lead to 
morally offensive legislation that hurts hard-working Americans.
  When big oil companies are invited into the White House for secret 
energy meetings, it is no wonder they end up with billions in tax 
breaks while most working people struggle to fill up their gas tanks 
and heat their homes.
  When a committee chairman negotiates a Medicare bill one day, and 
after the bill is passed is negotiating for a job with the drug 
industry, it is hardly a surprise that industry gets taxpayer-funded 
giveaways in the same bill that forbids seniors from bargaining for 
better drug prices.
  When the people running Washington are accountable only to the 
special interests that fund their campaigns, it is not shocking that 
the American people find their tax dollars being spent with reckless 
abandon.
  I have to point out that since the current administration took 
office, we have seen the number of registered lobbyists in Washington 
double. In 2004, over $2.1 billion was spent lobbying Congress. That 
amounts to over $4.8 million per Member of Congress.
  How much do you think the American people were able to spend on their 
Senators or Representatives last year? How much money could the folks 
back home, who cannot even fill up their gas tanks, spend on lobbying? 
How much could the seniors forced to choose between their medications 
and their groceries spend on lobbyists? Not $4.8 million--not even 
close.
  This is the bigger story here. The American people believe that the 
well-connected CEOs and hired guns on K Street who have helped write 
our laws have gotten what they paid for. They got all the tax breaks 
and loopholes and access they could ever want. But outside this city, 
the people who cannot afford the high-priced lobbyists and do not want 
to break the law are wondering: When is it our turn? When will somebody 
in Washington stand up for me?
  We need to answer that call. Because while only some are to blame for 
the corruption that has plagued this city, we are all responsible for 
fixing it.
  As you know, I am from Chicago, a city that has not always had the 
most stellar reputation when it comes to politics. But during my first 
year in the Illinois State Senate, I helped lead the fight to pass 
Illinois' first ethics reform bill in 25 years. If we can do it in 
Illinois, we can do something like that here.
  But we have to pass a serious bill that has to go a long way toward 
correcting some of the most egregious offenses of the last few years 
and preventing future offenses as well. This is not a time for window 
dressing or putting a Band-Aid on a problem to score some political 
points. I think this is a time for real reform.
  I commend the work the two committees that have dealt with this issue 
have already put in under the leadership of Senator Lott and Senator 
Dodd, Senator Lieberman and Senator Collins. I want to note that the 
Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, which was originally 
sponsored by those of us on this side of the aisle, has 41 cosponsors 
and, I think, established a good marker for reform. I commend my 
leader, Harry Reid, and his staff for their hard work in putting it 
together.
  But real reform means making sure that Members of Congress and senior 
administration officials are dealing with this in as thoughtful and 
aggressive a fashion as is possible. Let me give you some examples of 
some provisions that are already in, but also some provisions I would 
like to see included.
  Real reform means making sure that Members of Congress and senior 
administration officials wait until they leave office before pursuing 
jobs with industries they are responsible for regulating.
  I understand that former Congressman Billy Tauzin has said he was not 
negotiating for a job with the drug industry at the same time he was 
negotiating the Medicare bill, but the fact is this: While he was a 
Member of Congress, he was negotiating for lobbying jobs with not one 
but two different industries that he was responsible for regulating--
the drug industry and the motion picture association.
  That is wrong. This should not happen anymore. Real reform means 
ensuring that a ban on lobbying after Members of Congress leave this 
office is real and includes behind-the-scenes coordination and 
supervision of activities now used to skirt the ban. Real reform means 
giving the public access to now secret conference committee meetings 
and posting all bills on the Internet at least a day before they are 
voted on so the public can scrutinize what is in them. Real reform 
means passing a bill that eliminates all gifts and meals from 
lobbyists, not just the expensive ones. And real reform has to mean 
real enforcement because no matter how many new rules we pass, it will 
mean very little unless we have a system to enforce them.
  I commend Senators Lieberman and Collins for their efforts to create 
such an enforcement mechanism through an independent office of public 
integrity. While this proposal doesn't go quite as far as my proposal 
for an outside ethics fact-finding commission, it is still very good, 
and I am looking forward to working with them to try to get it included 
in the bill that has been marked up. But to truly earn back the 
people's trust, to show them we are working for them and looking out 
for their interests, we have to do more than just pass a good bill this 
week; we are going to have to fundamentally change the way we do 
business around here.
  That means instead of meetings with lobbyists, it is time to start 
meeting with the 45 million Americans who don't have any health care. 
Instead of finding cushy political jobs for unqualified buddies, it is 
time to start finding good-paying jobs for hard-working Americans 
trying to raise a family. Instead of hitting up the big firms on K 
Street, it is time to start visiting the workers on Main Street who 
wonder how they will send their kids to college or whether their 
pension is going to be around when they retire.
  All these people have done, our constituents, to earn access and gain 
influence is to cast their ballot. But in this democracy, that is all 
anyone should have to do.
  A century ago that young, reform-minded Governor of New York, who 
later became our 26th President, gave us words about our country that 
everyone in this town would do well to listen to today. Here is what 
Teddy Roosevelt said back then:

       No republic can permanently endure when its politics are 
     corrupt and base . . . we can afford to differ on the 
     currency, the tariff, and foreign policy, but we cannot 
     afford to differ on the question of honesty. There is a soul 
     in the community, a soul in the Nation, just exactly as there 
     is a soul in the individual; and exactly as the individual 
     hopelessly mars himself if he lets his conscience be dulled 
     by the constant repetition of unworthy acts, so the Nation 
     will hopelessly blunt the popular conscience if it permits 
     its public men continually to do acts which the Nation in its 
     heart of hearts knows are acts which cast discredit upon our 
     whole public life.

  I have come to know the Members of this body and know that the people 
who serve here are hard-working, thoughtful, and honorable men and 
women. But the fact is, the entire Congress has been marred and is 
under a cloud. Our consciences have been dulled by the activity of the 
few. We have to make certain we are sending a strong signal to the 
American public that we are no longer going to tolerate that kind of 
activity, that our conscience has been sharpened, and we are willing to 
take the steps necessary to restore credibility to this August body.
  I hope this week we in the Senate will take the first step towards 
strengthening this Nation's soul and bringing credit back to our public 
life.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. FRIST. I thank the Chair.

[[Page S1824]]

  (The remarks of Mr. Frist pertaining to the introduction of S. 2381 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I see the distinguished majority leader.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. For the information of my colleagues, we should have a 
vote somewhere in 25 minutes or so. Depending on the outcome of that 
vote, there may be another vote, either a roll call or voice vote, 
after which we will go back to lobbying reform. I need to talk to the 
floor managers. I would expect we will not have more rollcall votes 
after we finish these next two votes shortly. But I do want to talk to 
the managers. So what I will do is ask unanimous consent which, in 
essence, will be 20 minutes of debate equally divided and then we 
should have a rollcall vote. And then I will be talking to the managers 
about what we will be doing after that tonight. I don't expect rollcall 
votes after we handle these next two.
  I ask unanimous consent that there now be 20 minutes equally divided 
between Senator Snowe or her designee and Senator Ensign or his 
designee on the pending second-degree amendment, followed by a vote in 
relation to the amendment with no intervening action or debate; 
provided further that immediately after that vote, the Senate proceed 
to a vote in relation to the underlying Kyl amendment, as amended, if 
amended, with no further intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FRIST. 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. 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. Mr. President, we are now engaging in a debate over an 
amendment. The amendment has to do with the LIHEAP proposal that has 
been brought forth. This first amendment would say to Senators that 
instead of the original proposal that Senator Snowe put forward, where 
75 percent of the money went through the contingency fund, 25 percent 
goes through the regular formula, that now she has brought forward an 
amendment that would be 50-50, 50 percent through the contingency fund, 
50 percent through the regular formula. If we defeat this amendment, 
the underlying amendment would say 100 percent of the money goes 
through the regular formula.
  Why is that important? It is important because the 50 percent versus 
the 100 percent going to the regular formula, this is how it breaks 
down across the country. The red-colored States--this isn't Republican 
or Democrat, this just happens to be red-colored States in this case--
all would get more funding under the underlying amendment, the one 
where 100 percent of the money goes through the regular formula. The 
50-50 or the underlying bill that Senator Snowe has put forward, 
basically the white-colored States, 21 of them, would do better under 
her formula. So it really is a question of fairness. Because the 
underlying formula in the LIHEAP provisions, the way it is implemented, 
benefits those 21 States right now. So the first $2 billion that is 
spent per year benefits 21 States. That is historically what has 
happened. And what we are saying is: If you are going to put an 
additional billion dollars to help low-income people around the 
country, it should benefit people from all over the country and be more 
fairly allocated. That is really what the 100 percent of the money 
going through the regular formula does. It makes it fairer.
  Senator Snowe will make part of her arguments, and we had this 
discussion at lunch today. She will say that this is an emergency fund. 
This contingency fund is an emergency fund to be directed toward 
emergencies. That is not the way it has worked in the past. In the 
past, it has been divvied out earlier in the year when the cold States 
need it. And so when the warm States need it for air-conditioning in 
the summertime--and by the way, they need that air-conditioning, and in 
many cases it is a life-or-death situation because people can die from 
heat prostration and that is the real issue--the money is gone because 
it has been spent out of the contingency fund. That is why the only 
fair way to do it is to put it through the regular formula, divvy it 
out through the States. And then low-income people who need either 
heating or cooling assistance can receive that fairly.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am offering an amendment that essentially 
preserves the emergency funding that has been consistently part of the 
low-income fuel assistance program. I am offering my amendment as a 
second degree to the Kyl amendment that removes the emergency funding 
that has been part of this program for the last 5 years. So it would be 
a marked departure from historical practice and, unfortunately, a 100-
percent appropriation through a formula for low-income fuel assistance 
would not allow the President to respond to any situation that is 
clearly an emergency.
  Last fall, the President had the discretion, because we had an 
emergency funding under the legislation, under low-income fuel 
assistance, that, in fact, was supported by the Senate and the House 
and the President, and it became law a month ago that basically 
embraced the approach that we have here today pending before the 
Senate.
  The Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Nevada are suggesting 
that somehow we no longer need any emergency funding, that we will 
distribute all of those funds through a specific formula. But we cannot 
predict where or when that emergency will occur, denying the President 
the ability to respond to an emergency. Last fall the President had the 
discretion, because he had this emergency funding, to provide $14 
million to Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and to Florida as a result 
of the hurricane damage. The President had that capability. That will 
be removed by the underlying amendment. It simply does not make any 
sense to say that we should have a formula in the distribution of 
emergency funding when we don't know where the emergency is going to 
occur and when. We cannot predict that. That is why the President has 
it in a contingency fund so in the event that there are such 
emergencies, we can release that funding. That is what it has always 
been about.
  This is a historical departure from previous precedent, policy, and 
practice; in fact, a practice and policy that was embraced and endorsed 
by the Senate and by the House of Representatives and the President a 
month ago that became law in the Deficit Reduction Act.
  I am surprised we are here today to suggest that somehow we should 
now no longer have emergency funding, no longer have any contingency 
funding. In fact, the Senator from Nevada says that there is no 
remaining funding for warm States. I should mention to the Senator from 
Nevada that the President has set aside $101 million in fiscal year 
2006 emergency funds. This money has not been released. In fact, it is 
at the disposal of the administration to release in the event that 
there are potential emergencies this summer, so that there is money. 
And certainly we can address the concerns of the Senator from Nevada if 
he feels it is not sufficient.
  I, for one, felt we should increase the funding for the low-income 
fuel assistance program because the real value of this program has 
eroded over the last two decades. It essentially has the same value as 
it did in 1983. In 1983, it provided 50 percent of the cost of energy 
for a family. Today it provides 19 percent. That is not accommodating 
all the demands, all the people who are on

[[Page S1825]]

the list in various States across this country. Thirty-four Governors 
wrote a letter to the leadership of both the House and Senate saying 
how they have run out of funds. Even in addition to the significant 
State contributions for this purpose, they have run out of money. And 
rightfully so, understanding the cost of energy today. Now some have 
suggested--and they have suggested it from their positions in Arizona, 
in Nevada, in Alabama--that it has been a mild winter. But come to 
Maine and tell us about it being a mild winter. Then add to that the 
30- to 50-percent increase in the cost of home heating oil and natural 
gas, in addition to the increases this last year.
  The amendment I am offering today preserves the emergency funding. It 
provides for the formula funding as supported by the Senator from 
Nevada which I supported. It has two tiers of funding. One allows for 
emergencies and the other allows for emergency distributions. I regret 
that last week there was a chart distributed that misrepresented the 
distribution of funds. That was for that snapshot in time when there 
were emergencies so those States benefited from the release of funding 
because they had emergencies. But if you looked at it the next month, 
you would have discovered that there would have been a different 
distribution because we don't know when or where, nor can we possibly 
predict where, the emergencies will occur.
  So the White House supports this approach, supports the emergency 
funding. It supports the 50-50 distribution in my amendment that I am 
offering as a second degree to the Kyl amendment which essentially does 
away with the emergency funding and provides 100 percent through a 
formula. So any State that requires support from the emergency funds 
under this program would be denied if such an emergency should arise. I 
believe my second degree is a positive step in providing additional 
assistance for those in need of energy assistance this year.
  The Secretary of Health and Human Services supports this amendment to 
advance the funding, the 2007 funds to 2006, in order to provide for 
this billion dollar increase. We are just advancing the funding. This 
is budget neutral because there is no net increase in Federal spending. 
It is important to understand the facts. There is no net increase in 
Federal funding. We are advancing the billion dollars. We have 
compromised. We asked for $2 billion, which is what I thought we agreed 
to before we adjourned for the Christmas recess on December 23, that we 
would have a 50-50 percent allocation, 50 percent to emergency, 50 
percent to formula.
  Here we are today, now having to say: You know, we can't afford the 
billion dollars because it increases spending, which it does not, and 
now we decide that we don't need emergency funding for this purpose, 
and we will allocate all the funding through a formula so that the 
States that depend upon this money in the event there is an emergency 
will not be able to have it.
  I hope the Senate will support my amendment to the Kyl amendment. My 
amendment is fair. It is equitable. It is reasonable. This legislation 
should not be divisive. This isn't regional legislation. It is for all 
of the country. It is to benefit any region of the country. It is 
designed to ensure that regardless of where you live in America, if for 
some reason you have an emergency that affects your ability to have 
access to natural gas, to propane, to home heating oil, to the need for 
air-conditioning, for electricity, that this emergency funding will 
help to mitigate the impact of those disasters. That is what this is 
all about.
  I should add, it is very specific in the mandate in law in terms of 
how the contingency funds are used and where do these go. I should 
quote from the law and what it means. It says: To meet the additional 
home energy assistance needs of one or more States arising from a 
natural disaster or other emergency. That is why it simply makes no 
sense to distribute emergency funds through a formula because how do 
you know who is going to have an emergency? Why would you be 
distributing money to States that don't have an emergency for that 
distribution?
  That wasn't the attempt of this program. I would hope that we could 
come to an agreement on this question. At the very least, I would hope 
that the Senate would endorse my approach, which is a second-degree 
amendment that preserves the emergency funding and provides for a 50-50 
allocation between emergency and formulas. I think that is patently 
fair to all of the States, all of the regions in this country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, first of all, I wonder if the Senator from 
Maine would be willing to answer a question on my time. She says that 
this is offset. We have already had this argument, and we lost it. But 
it would be curious to get an answer to a question I have. You say that 
it is not going to increase the deficit at all because a billion 
dollars is taken out of next year's funding. I wonder if the Senator 
from Maine would be willing to agree not to come back and try to refill 
that money next year?
  In other words, there is $1 billion taken out next year and she is 
saying it is deficit neutral. Would the Senator be willing to commit to 
not going after more money next year?
  Ms. SNOWE. I am glad to answer the Senator's question. Obviously, I 
cannot forecast the future in terms of the extent of the needs that are 
required by any State. But I remain unchallenged when it comes to my 
fiscal credentials in the Senate. I have been more than happy to work 
with the Senator in terms of meeting our fiscal responsibilities on 
this issue and on any other question that benefits every State in 
America. From that standpoint, I would be more than happy to work with 
the Senator.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Reclaiming my time. I will answer the question because I 
can predict the future because I have seen it here enough. If you watch 
and learn from the past, you can predict the future. People will be 
going after this money and probably even more. These kinds of budget 
games are played all the time.
  I wish to make a couple of points to respond to what the Senator from 
Maine has talked about. First, there is $183 million in the contingency 
fund this year, and $100 million has been spent so far. There is $83 
million left in the contingency fund. She said this is for 
emergencies--the contingency fund is for emergencies. Well, other than 
post-Katrina, every other allocation since 2004 from the contingency 
fund has gone to all 50 States. She says it is only for emergencies. So 
all 50 States must have had emergencies every year.
  That is not what the contingency fund has been. It has gone to every 
State. Our point is that the contingency fund has not been allocated 
fairly. I mentioned the $183 million, and there is $83 million left for 
this year's contingency fund. Has anybody noticed that it is all being 
allocated in the wintertime, so when the warmer weather States need 
their contingency fund, there won't be any left? That is the point.
  She had problems with our numbers the other day. So we redid the 
numbers. We looked at the last 5 allocations of the contingency fund. 
As it turns out, in the last 5 allocations, 29 States do worse under 
her formula than if you adopt the underlying Kyl amendment--29 States. 
We are going to be passing this chart out to every Senator. The 29 
States are the red States on the chart I have here. If you see your 
State there in red, your Senator should be voting with myself and 
Senator Kyl to more fairly allocate this money that is for LIHEAP.
  The allocations that go out for LIHEAP are there for a very noble 
purpose. All we are asking is, if we are going to spend this money, 
let's do it fairly. For too long, the formulas have benefitted some 
States at the expense of others. The Senator from Maine is looking out 
for her State. I have no problem with her doing that. It is one of the 
things we are elected to do--to look out for the interests of our 
States--also the country, but particularly for our home State.
  I think the people in my State and the people in the other 28 States 
that are unfairly treated in the way that she has her amendment drafted 
deserve fair treatment, and we as Senators should fight for the people 
in our States.
  I yield the floor.

[[Page S1826]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, do I have any time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 40 seconds.
  Ms. SNOWE. That is enough to respond.
  The Senator from Nevada is incorrect with respect to my amendment and 
the way in which States it would benefit. Twenty-nine States would gain 
under my amendment. Unfortunately, the information the Senator is 
providing is inaccurate, as was the chart distributed last week that 
fundamentally misrepresented not only how this funding was distributed, 
but the fact is it was done on the basis of an emergency. If all 50 
States had the benefit of the emergency funding, it is because 
emergencies existed in those States. That is the point. It is at the 
discretion of the President to distribute and release that funding in 
order to enable the President to respond immediately to any natural 
disasters or emergencies. That is what it is all about.
  Under a formula for funding, States would receive it irrespective of 
whether an emergency occurred in their States. So 29 States would gain 
under my amendment. It is unfortunate that we are where we are, talking 
about this in that fashion, because the Senator released a chart last 
week that suggested this is the historical pattern. If it is the 
historical pattern, it is because there were emergencies. It wasn't 
distributed just for the sake of distributing it that way. It was done 
because there were emergencies in those particular States.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes 24 seconds.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, the Senator from Maine had a problem with 
the way we did this. It was the Congressional Research Service that did 
this. She said it was just a spot in time. So we said, OK, let's look 
at the last 5 allocations historically. How have these funds been 
allocated? She said 29 States would benefit under her formula. That is 
correct, 29 States would benefit under her amendment compared to her 
underlying bill. But 29 States would benefit more with the Kyl 
amendment than with the Snowe amendment. That is according to data from 
the Congressional Research Service. That is what we have to go from. 
That is our expert source we turn to for unbiased information. The 
chart I have is accurate if the people at the Congressional Research 
Service have done their jobs right. I have no way of knowing, other 
than they provide pretty good information to all Senators in a 
nonpartisan way. To say they are inaccurate--I don't believe that is an 
accurate statement; I will leave it at that.
  To sum this up and close this argument, it is about fairness. The 
underlying LIHEAP program was set up a long time ago, and it was set up 
to be biased toward many of the northern States, especially in the 
Northeast. The LIHEAP formula is drafted so that when we start adding 
money in, then it is going to be distributed more fairly to all States 
for heating and cooling. This is an additional billion dollars. Those 
other 29 States that are not treated as fairly in the original program 
need to be treated more fairly.
  Whether you are Republican or Democrat, you should look at our charts 
to find out how your State is treated under the Snowe amendment versus 
the Kyl amendment. Senators from the 29 States should, I believe, vote 
against the Snowe amendment, and then support the Kyl amendment.
  I yield back the remainder of our time.
  Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No.
  Mr. ENSIGN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2913.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 68, nays 31, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 34 Leg.]

                                YEAS--68

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

                                NAYS--31

     Allard
     Allen
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Nelson (FL)
     Reid
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thomas
     Vitter
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Byrd
       
  The amendment (No. 2913) was agreed to.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and move to 
lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2899

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I understand that we are now prepared to 
agree to the Kyl first-degree amendment without a rollcall.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be 
agreed to as amended.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 2899), as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. KYL. May I have just 30 seconds to thank all of those who 
participated in this debate, including the Senator from Maine and the 
Senator from Nevada. I think this 50-50 compromise that has been 
adopted will allow the various States to try to find a way to take care 
of the folks in their States who need this assistance. I appreciate the 
efforts of all involved to get it done.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                           Amendment No. 2898

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I now make a point of order that the Inhofe 
amendment, No. 2898, is not germane.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained and the 
amendment falls.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of greater 
funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP.
  As I have traveled around Illinois this winter, I have heard from 
many low-income families and senior citizens about the burden of rising 
heating costs. These families are being forced to spend considerable 
portions of their incomes on gas bills, and many of them simply cannot 
afford it. Some families are having to keep their thermostats low just 
so they can buy groceries. It is essential that States have the funding 
they need through LIHEAP to help these families pay their heating bills 
during the cold months.
  That is why, last year, I joined a number of my Senate colleagues in 
sending a letter to the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee 
requesting $3 billion in funding so that low-income families, disabled 
individuals, and senior citizens who live on fixed incomes have access 
to affordable energy when they need it most. We also asked that advance 
funding be allocated in the budget for LIHEAP. This would allow States 
to plan more economically in preparing for the winter heating season by 
purchasing fuels during the spring and summer months. Unfortunately, 
our request was denied.
  Months later, during consideration of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, 
Congress reauthorized the LIHEAP program from fiscal year 2005 to 2007, 
providing for a yearly appropriation of $5.1 billion. However, in the 
fiscal year 2006 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services 
Appropriations Act, Congress provided $2.2 billion for LIHEAP funding--
the same allotment

[[Page S1827]]

given to the program in fiscal year 2005. During Senate consideration 
of several bills in the final weeks of 2005, I voted for a number of 
amendments providing more funding for LIHEAP, but those amendments were 
defeated.
  Funding for LIHEAP has remained level for the past 20 years, but 
energy prices are at an all-time high. According to the Department of 
Energy, DOE, natural gas prices in the Midwest were expected to rise 
between 69 percent and 77 percent during the winter heating season. The 
National Energy Assistance Directors Association estimates that for 
families using natural gas, heating bills would average well over 
$1,500 per consumer, an increase of over $600 per consumer as compared 
to the winter of 2004-2005. As a result, we have seen an unprecedented 
rise in requests for LIHEAP assistance across the country. In Illinois, 
requests in 2005 were up 41.4 percent from the year before. That is 
nearly a quarter of a million Americans asking for help in my State 
alone.
  I think we often forget how much our working families need this 
program, and just how heavy the burden of heating one's home can be 
these days. In a thank-you note to the staff at Illinois LIHEAP, a 
woman in Lake County, IL, wrote:

       Having you help me and my mother this year with our utility 
     bill was a godsend. It was over my head and I didn't know 
     what I was going to do . . . My mother is on oxygen 24-hours 
     a day, and we couldn't be without electricity, so you see it 
     was a matter of life and death also for me.

  I commend Senator Snowe for her tenacity in pushing this legislation, 
and I commend Senator Jack Reed for his longstanding commitment to this 
issue.
  I hope my colleagues will recognize the importance of this problem 
and support this measure, as well as greater LIHEAP funding in the 
future. With natural gas prices increasing so severely, more Americans 
than usual are expected to apply for LIHEAP assistance in paying their 
heating bills.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today I rise to address the rising costs 
faced by Americans as they try to heat their homes this winter. 
Obtaining affordable heating assistance each winter, and cooling 
assistance during the summer months, is critical to hundreds of 
thousands of Pennsylvanians and millions of Americans. Unfortunately, 
projections from the Energy Information Administration this January 
show that on average, consumers will spend nearly 35 percent more for 
natural gas this winter than they did last winter.
  The primary Federal heating assistance program is the Low-Income Home 
Energy Assistance Program. I represent a Commonwealth that depends 
heavily on this program. My State also has a high percentage of elderly 
citizens; they are especially vulnerable to cold winter temperatures. 
Overall, the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare reports that it 
distributed LIHEAP funds to approximately 462,000 households during the 
2004-2005 winter, with 128,000 of these recipients being elderly.
  While I am pleased that my Commonwealth ranks second in the Nation in 
the total Federal LIHEAP assistance distributed, more has to be done to 
help Pennsylvanians in need. At current funding levels, only 15-percent 
of LIHEAP-eligible households are served in my home State.
  As a member of the Special Committee on Aging, I am pleased that 
Chairman Smith has recognized the importance of this program for many 
low-income senior citizens. This past June, my colleague from Oregon 
convened a hearing to examine the effect of energy prices on the 
elderly. However, much has changed across the national energy landscape 
since that hearing. The tragedies of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita put 
severe pressure on our energy industries, increasing costs of oil and 
natural gas. Now that the winter has arrived, the increasing cost of 
home heating fuel weighs heavily on the minds of the elderly and low-
income individuals, and it is time for the Senate to further address 
this vital issue.
  In the beginning of January, I chaired a field hearing for the 
Special Committee on Aging near my hometown of Pittsburgh, PA, to 
revisit this critical issue and hear from a variety of witnesses about 
ways in which the Government and private sector are helping the elderly 
and others stay warm. Representatives from the Department of Health and 
Human Services, Department of Energy, Pennsylvania State Department of 
Public Welfare, and private sector organizations and utilities 
testified in support of LIHEAP.
  The testimony of Pennsylvania State secretary of public welfare 
Estelle Richman was especially troubling. Secretary Richman testified 
that, by December 30, 2005, her agency had received over 320,000 LIHEAP 
applications. This is a 5 percent increase over 2005, which means that 
over 17,000 additional Pennsylvania households have requested heating 
assistance already this winter. Furthermore, the Pennsylvania 
Department of Public Welfare has already seen a 15-percent increase in 
crisis home heating assistance applications.
  Pennsylvania is not alone in facing such difficulties. According to 
Assistant Secretary for the Administration for Children and Families, 
Wade Horn, his agency assists nearly 5 million households each year. 
However, those who are eligible for these benefits far outnumber those 
who receive this assistance.
  As a Senate, we need to address this growing national problem. Each 
winter, our Government is faced with distributing emergency LIHEAP 
funds, while millions of Americans are stuck out in the cold. This past 
year, we tried, in a bipartisan fashion, to appropriate additional 
funding for LIHEAP. Unfortunately, we were not able to garner enough 
support for those provisions to pass.
  This year we find ourselves in a worse situation than we did last 
year. When I travel throughout Pennsylvania, I continually hear from my 
constituents their concerns about rising energy costs and what we, the 
Congress, are doing to help. Now we have our chance to provide 
additional assistance that will benefit millions of Americans in the 
short term. However, while we need to pass this additional LIHEAP 
funding, we also need to look toward long-term solutions for our 
Nation's energy needs.
  As we are all aware, there is no one solution to our Nation's energy 
problems. However, by increasing our domestic supplies and production 
capacity, we can take steps towards lowering the cost of energy for all 
Americans. We also need to promote alternative energy solutions that 
utilize state-of-the-art technological advancements like coal-to-liquid 
fuel advancements. Without this combination of current and new 
technologies, the costs faced by consumers at the pump and in their 
home heating bills will only continue to increase.
  While this is clearly a long-term problem that we, as a body, need to 
address, I am proud to support my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe, 
in her effort to provide additional LIHEAP funding this winter. This 
measure will assist thousands of Pennsylvanians and millions across the 
country. For this, as well as the reasons I have cited, I urge my 
colleagues to support this measure that assists countless senior 
citizens and low-income Americans.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Today's Senate action adding $1 billion for the Low-
Income Home Energy Assistance Program for this winter is a step in the 
right direction. It is the best we can do, and it deserved to pass. But 
no one should be under the illusion that we have now provided adequate 
assistance to millions of struggling families around the country, many 
of whom are elderly and disabled. The additional $1 billion is less 
than half what is needed to fully fund LIHEAP and guarantee the 
assistance these families need and deserve. A small step is better than 
no step, but it is still far from meeting the obvious need.
  Countless citizens in communities throughout America live year-round 
in constant fear of power shutoffs because they can't pay their energy 
bills, and they have no confidence that either Congress or the 
President is on their side.
  According to a report by the National Energy Assistance Directors' 
Association, since the winter of 2001-2002, the average yearly cost of 
heating oil has soared from $627 to $1474, natural gas from $465 to 
$1000, and propane from $736 to $1286. Yet the Republican Congress and 
the Bush administration continue to ignore the fact that millions of 
Americans can't afford these steep increases.

[[Page S1828]]

  Democrats have pressed for months to fund LIHEAP at the authorized 
level of $5.1 billion for the current fiscal year. We have urged 
Congress to act, but the Republican majority has blocked our efforts at 
every turn, and they continued to try to block our efforts to obtain an 
additional $1 billion for the program today. Families are paying a 
steep price for this neglect. The average LIHEAP grant has decreased by 
almost 10 percent since 2002 and is now only $288.
  In Massachusetts, the State government has provided $20 million in 
additional funds for LIHEAP this year.
  Low-income families are more fortunate in our State than in most 
other States on this issue, but we have exhausted all Federal funds, 
and need is still great. Even the poorest households with the highest 
bills will get no more than $840--less than half what is needed to get 
through the winter.
  As Self Help, a community action program in Avon, MA, ``Many of our 
clients have exhausted their benefits . . . The bottom line is that we 
need some kind of relief, as quickly as possible.''
  ABCD, a community action agency in Boston, reports that as of January 
17, the number of applicants applying for fuel assistance for the first 
time increased by 26 percent. Its clients are currently exhausting all 
of their fuel assistance benefits. Even a benefit of $765 buys only one 
tank of oil at today's price of $2.40 per gallon, when at least two or 
three tankfuls are needed to get through the winter, and no other 
source of funding is available.
  These aren't just numbers. They represent real people facing real 
hardships.
  For example, an elderly couple lives in a modest home on the 
outskirts of Haverhill and both receive Social Security benefits. Their 
home is heated with oil, and they use an old woodstove in the basement 
to supplement their steam boiler. Their $525 LIHEAP grant covered one 
delivery of 256 gallons of oil in late November. Attempting to cut wood 
for the woodstove, the husband fell from a ladder and was injured. If 
LIHEAP had been funded fairly, his injury could have been prevented. 
With this bill, the chances are 50-50 that his injury could have been 
prevented. We could have done better, and we should have done better. 
It is wrong to let people like this suffer.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I join Senator Snowe and others in 
supporting this legislation to provide additional funding for the Low-
Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP.
  This legislation will shift the $1 billion in fiscal year 2007 
funding, which we recently enacted in the budget reconciliation bill, 
to the current fiscal year, so it can be used this winter. Providing 
these needed funds in this way is not the best approach to get this 
done, but with Vermonters facing record heating bills and no other 
choices available to us at this crucial juncture, we cannot allow the 
perfect to be the enemy of the good. The fact is the burden of record 
heating prices this winter could financially wipe out many families and 
elderly Vermonters. No family in our Nation should be forced to choose 
between heating their home and putting food on the table for their 
children. No older American should have to decide between buying life-
saving prescriptions or paying utility bills. Unfortunately, these 
stark choices are a reality for too many Vermonters and for too many 
other Americans across the Nation.
  This legislation will bring the total funding available for LIHEAP in 
fiscal year 2006 up to nearly $3 billion. Certainly more is needed. 
That is why I have voted four times to increase LIHEAP funding to $5.1 
billion. Bipartisan amendments offered to the Department of Defense 
appropriations bill, the Transportation, Treasury, and HUD 
Appropriations bill, the Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
Education Appropriations bill, and the tax reconciliation bill received 
a majority of the Senate's support. Unfortunately, the majority party 
would not allow these amendments the opportunity for straight up-or-
down votes, and we were blocked from securing these needed supplements 
for LIHEAP in our earlier efforts.
  The Energy Information Agency forecasts that households heating with 
natural gas will experience an average increase of 35 percent over last 
winter. Households heating with oil will see an increase of 23 percent, 
and households using propane can expect an increase of 17 percent. 
Compounding these difficulties for families needing this help, wages 
are not keeping pace with inflation. The Real Earnings report by the 
Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that the average hourly earnings of 
production and nonsupervisory workers on private nonfarm payrolls were 
lower in December 2005 than they were a year ago, after accounting for 
inflation. Working families are continuing to lose ground, meaning more 
families also need LIHEAP assistance this year. Paychecks are being 
stretched thinner as families face higher prices for home heating, for 
health care, and for education. Vermont families and seniors need this 
relief from high energy costs, and they need it now.
  As I have said, this is not my preferred approach to providing LIHEAP 
funding, but Vermonters cannot wait for a better option. This help is 
needed now. I call on the leadership in the House of Representatives 
and on President Bush to support this legislation and to ensure its 
immediate enactment. I also urge the administration to join the 
bipartisan majority in Congress to replenish LIHEAP funding for next 
winter.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I believe we are ready to proceed to 
passage. That will not require a rollcall.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The bill (S. 2320), as amended, was passed, as follows:

                                S. 2320

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. FUNDS FOR LOW-INCOME HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE 
                   PROGRAM.

       Section 9001 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (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'';
       (2) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c);
       (3) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
       ``(b) Limitation.--None of the funds made available under 
     this section may be used for the planning and administering 
     described in section 2605(b)(9) of the Low-Income Home Energy 
     Assistance Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 8624(b)(9)).''; and
       (4) in subsection (c) (as redesignated by paragraph (2)), 
     by striking ``September 30, 2007'' and inserting ``September 
     30, 2006''.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, first I want to thank my colleagues for 
their cooperation in bringing to a resolution what has been more 
difficult than I thought it would be, addressing the LIHEAP issue.
  We have achieved passage, and we are now ready to resume the lobbying 
measure.
  I know Senator Reid is prepared to lay down his amendment tonight. 
Senators will be able to debate that amendment tonight, and we will set 
a vote on the Democratic leader's amendment sometime tomorrow morning.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thune). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________