Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006

Floor Speech

DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006 -- (Senate - October 26, 2005)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. REED. Mr. President, my colleague Senator Gregg offered an amendment to increase funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, by $1.276 billion yesterday. He will offset the spending by an across-the-board cut of almost 1 percent to all other programs funded by this bill--cuts to programs that protect the public health of our Nation, cuts to research to cure diseases, cuts to educational programs that help children reach their potential and build bright futures, and cuts to labor programs to help our workers remain competitive in the global economy. These cuts are very difficult and, indeed, I think should be avoided at all costs.

This is the wrong level of funding for the LIHEAP bill and, second, it is the wrong way to go about paying for these costs.

First, Senator Gregg based the amount of funding in his amendment on a letter Senator Collins and I wrote to the appropriators in September. We were pleased to be joined by 43 of our colleagues in requesting $1.276 billion in emergency spending for LIHEAP. Since that time, 51 of our colleagues have joined us to vote for an increase in spending to $5.1 billion, the full authorized amount. At this point, a majority of the Senate is on record supporting a much higher level of funding for the State grant program.

The second point about Senator Gregg's amendment is that the $1.276 billion level of funding requested in our letter is different from the money we have been discussing and voting on in the last several days. The $1.276 billion was for emergency funding that could be used by the President at his discretion. This would give the President the ability to target assistance to the States most in need of additional funding based on increases in energy prices and weather conditions.

Senator Gregg's amendment adds the additional funding into the State block grant program, not the emergency discretionary program. Ironically, because of the formula allocation of this program, the cold-weather States that Senator Gregg and all of us are attempting to help this winter may see only slight increases in funding.

I have been provided with different analyses of the LIHEAP formula and what States will gain and lose under the Gregg amendment. This, I must say, is a rather arcane formula which produces at least two interpretations. Based on data from the Department of Health and Human Services and a preliminary analysis by CRS, States, such as Minnesota, Washington, and Wisconsin, will see no increase in funding under Senator Gregg's amendment. Iowa will see an increase of under 3 percent. Oregon will see less than a 7.5-percent increase, and Maine less than 10 percent, hardly the targeting we need to ensure these States are prepared for the cold weather that is upon us and the high energy prices.

Under a second scenario, another analysis--and this is according to the Economic Opportunity Study also based on data from Health and Human Services--States, such as Maine, New Hampshire, Iowa, Minnesota, South Dakota, Alaska, Nebraska, Wyoming, and Montana, may receive only a slight increase under the Gregg amendment and less funding than they received last year when these States received both their block grant allocation and emergency funds. This will be less funding when energy bills are rising 50 percent, and the Gregg amendment is proposing $1 billion in increased spending.

The reason there are at least two different scenarios is because of the complex nature of this formula. The current LIHEAP formula favors funding to cold-weather States up to $1.97 billion in appropriations. For funds above that level, a new formula determines the allocation of funding. This new formula directs funding to warm-weather States in the South and Southwest.

Therefore, cold weather States in New England, the Midwest, and the North will see fewer additional dollars despite the increase offered by Senator Gregg. Cold weather States that need a substantial increase in assistance now to address rising energy prices will not get the funding they need under the amendment of Senator Gregg.

The amendment Senator Collins and I offered adds $2.92 billion to the State LIHEAP block grant program. This funding, coupled with the money currently provided in the Labor-HHS appropriations bill, will provide a total of $5.1 billion for LIHEAP, the level authorized in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This law was passed by this Congress and signed into law by the President just 3 months ago. The $5.1 billion level of funding acknowledges the program needs and would fully satisfy the demands caused by this winter and rising energy prices or at least go a substantial way to satisfy all the demands throughout the country. Our amendment adds the $2.92 billion to the block grant program which provides direct assistance to the States. Our funding level is sufficient to ensure both cold weather and warm weather States get the funding they need.

The other problem that the $1.276 billion level raises is, because of income data, because of cold weather, because of the number of Americans who qualify, we need every dollar we can get to help Americans this winter, particularly seniors. There are 32 million households eligible for LIHEAP assistance under the law, and yet we are serving only 5 million. So this is a situation where demand far exceeds needs even at robust funding levels, and at the $19.9 billion level, it is dramatically unsatisfactory. Seniors just received a $65 adjustment, but this is totally inadequate to deal with the soaring energy prices in all the cold States of this Nation. So I believe we have to do much more. In fact, the majority of the Senate believes that, in supporting a higher level of $5.1 billion total appropriation level for LIHEAP.

The other point I think is disturbing about the approach of the Senator is it would pay for this by cutting programs across the board, cutting very important programs that are necessary for all of us.

As the chairman, Senator Specter, pointed out, this is a barebones bill. It does not even have increases for inflation, and we are literally robbing Peter to pay Paul if, in fact, we support the approach of the Senator from New Hampshire. This support for across-the-board cuts will leave behind 37,000 needy students who could be served by title I and will reduce IDEA funding for special education by $98 million. It would drop the Federal share of excess special education costs from 18.6 percent in fiscal year 2005 to 17.8 percent in fiscal year 2006. It would mean a $63 million cut in the level for Head Start, $32 million below the level of last year, and here we have a program that would be serving, as a result, 4,400 fewer children.

We face a challenge this year, a particular challenge after Katrina, of ensuring that the second surge from that disaster, the surge of high energy prices and cold weather, does not leave families vulnerable. That is why I am so pleased that the majority of the Senate supports our approach of $5.1 total appropriation, and we hope, as the votes come, that we will reach the 60-vote margin we need to prevail. I hope we can, in fact, reach that margin.

I will join, again, Senator Collins in urging all our colleagues to support our amendment.

Mr. President, I also commend and thank Senator Byrd, first for his kindness in yielding to me and second because his title I amendment will increase funding. I thank the Senator for his valiant work in this regard and his concern for those who need that type of funding for their education and their future.

With that, I yield the floor.

Source