Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with 11 original cosponsors, including Senators McCain and Daschle, entitled the ``Native American Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Technical Amendment Act of 2001.'' The legislation makes a simple, yet important, technical change to the ``Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment and Prevention Act'' by correcting a provision of last year's bill to ensure the coverage of breast and cervical cancer treatment for Native American women. The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program, funded through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, supports screening activities in all 50 states and through 15 American Indian/Alaska Native organizations. However, the CDC program provides funding only for screening services and not for treatment. Last year's bill, which passed the Senate by unanimous consent and had 76 cosponsors, gives states the option to extend Medicaid treatment coverage to certain women who have been screened by programs operated under the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program and diagnosed as having breast or cervical cancer. Through passage of the ``Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment and Prevention Act,'' for those women not otherwise eligible for Medicaid, States may elect to expand their Medicaid programs to provide breast and cervical cancer treatment as an optional benefit and receive an enhanced federal match to encourage participation. Last year's legislation restricts Medicaid treatment coverage to those who have no ``creditable coverage'' or treatment options. Unfortunately, the term ``creditable coverage'' is defined under the Act to include the Indian Health Service, IHS. In short, the reference to IHS in the law effectively excludes Indian women from receiving Medicaid breast and cervical cancer treatment, as provided for under last year's bill, regardless of whether a State chooses to provide that coverage. Not only does the definition deny coverage to Native American women, but the provision runs counter to the general Medicaid rule treating IHS facilities as full Medicaid providers. My legislation corrects these issues. During 2001, almost 50,000 women are expected to die from breast or cervical cancer in the United States despite the fact that early detection and treatment of these diseases could substantially decrease this mortality. While passage of last year's bill makes significant strides to address this problem, it fails to do so for Native American women and that must be changed as soon as possible. In support of Native American women across this country that are being diagnosed through CDC screening activities as having breast or cervical cancer, my legislation would assure that they can also access much needed treatment through the Medicaid program. I urge its immediate adoption. I request unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with 11 original cosponsors, including Senators McCain and Daschle, entitled the ``Native American Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Technical Amendment Act of 2001.'' The legislation makes a simple, yet important, technical change to the ``Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment and Prevention Act'' by correcting a provision of last year's bill to ensure the coverage of breast and cervical cancer treatment for Native American women. The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program, funded through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, supports screening activities in all 50 states and through 15 American Indian/Alaska Native organizations. However, the CDC program provides funding only for screening services and not for treatment. Last year's bill, which passed the Senate by unanimous consent and had 76 cosponsors, gives states the option to extend Medicaid treatment coverage to certain women who have been screened by programs operated under the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program and diagnosed as having breast or cervical cancer. Through passage of the ``Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment and Prevention Act,'' for those women not otherwise eligible for Medicaid, States may elect to expand their Medicaid programs to provide breast and cervical cancer treatment as an optional benefit and receive an enhanced federal match to encourage participation. Last year's legislation restricts Medicaid treatment coverage to those who have no ``creditable coverage'' or treatment options. Unfortunately, the term ``creditable coverage'' is defined under the Act to include the Indian Health Service, IHS. In short, the reference to IHS in the law effectively excludes Indian women from receiving Medicaid breast and cervical cancer treatment, as provided for under last year's bill, regardless of whether a State chooses to provide that coverage. Not only does the definition deny coverage to Native American women, but the provision runs counter to the general Medicaid rule treating IHS facilities as full Medicaid providers. My legislation corrects these issues. During 2001, almost 50,000 women are expected to die from breast or cervical cancer in the United States despite the fact that early detection and treatment of these diseases could substantially decrease this mortality. While passage of last year's bill makes significant strides to address this problem, it fails to do so for Native American women and that must be changed as soon as possible. In support of Native American women across this country that are being diagnosed through CDC screening activities as having breast or cervical cancer, my legislation would assure that they can also access much needed treatment through the Medicaid program. I urge its immediate adoption. I request unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to speak as if in morning business for a few minutes on two amendments that are pending to the bankruptcy bill-- amendments offered by Senator Wyden and Senator Smith related to discharge of debts and prohibition of discharge of debts related to the California energy crisis. I oppose the Smith amendment to the underlying Wyden amendment, and I also oppose the Wyden amendment. In my view, both amendments are unfair in that they give an unfair advantage to government agencies at the expense of private companies in the event that California utilities wind up in bankruptcy. They ensure that a large Federal utility like Bonneville, itself the beneficiary of billions of dollars of Federal investment, and other utilities will be paid ahead of the banks, small renewable energy generators, natural gas companies, and other creditors. Both amendments are not helpful in our current circumstance. The State of California and its utilities are trying desperately to keep the utilities out of bankruptcy. Without these amendments, they stand a good chance of succeeding. If the amendments are adopted, the utilities will almost certainly be forced to declare bankruptcy. I also oppose the amendments because, in my view, they are unwise. The consequences of the three largest utilities in California going bankrupt are unknown, as is the rest of the State's economy and the rest of our Nation's economy. But it is clear that it will not just affect the ratepayers served by the three utilities, or even just the people of California. It will affect all Americans. As Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, testified several weeks ago, ``it's scarcely credible that you can have a major economic problem in California which does not feed to the rest of the 49 States.'' In my view, the amendments are also unnecessary. If utilities are able to avoid bankruptcy, then the power suppliers that these amendments seek to protect will be paid. Even if they go bankrupt, those power suppliers stand a reasonably good chance of being paid--if not by the utilities themselves, then by the government, for the reasons that Senator Murkowski explained last night on the Senate floor. In my view, the amendments are also unworkable. By trying to jump certain creditors to the head of the line to receive payment, they will most likely force the remaining creditors to move to put the utilities into bankruptcy immediately so that the utilities' assets can be divided immediately, 6 months before the amendments in fact take effect. Even if the amendments are enacted, the generators would not likely receive any benefit from the enactment of the amendments. Finally, these amendments, in my view, are uncharitable in that the administration has declared the California electric crisis to be California's problem, and has left it to California to solve the problem. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which is the independent agency charged with seeing to it that electric rates are just and reasonable, has done little to help the situation. Governor Davis, and the State legislature in California, the utilities, and their creditors have been working valiantly in recent weeks, and even months, to fix this problem. All they are now asking of this Senate is that we not intervene and send the utilities into bankruptcy by adopting amendments of this type. In my view, Senators need to weigh the potential enormous harm to millions of Americans that would result in the adoption of these amendments against the illusory benefit that the amendments hold out for the few generators that would be benefited. In sum, to paraphrase Shakespeare, which is not done very often on the Senate floor, adoption of the amendments will rob California of that which cannot enrich the northwest generators and yet will make California poor, indeed. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so I can call up an amendment that is at the desk.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. I am glad to share it with the Senator.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, for clarification, this modification merely changes the effective date of the amendment. The amendment I offered will raise the amount authorized to be appropriated by this Congress for weatherization programs and for low-income home energy assistance programs. Those are programs that help individuals and families around this country who are faced with rising and enormously increased natural gas bills and electricity bills and those who will be faced with substantial increases in those utility bills this summer for air-conditioning purposes. It is important that we increase this authorization level and that we do so right away. It is also important that we appropriate money quickly. I am hoping we will see progress on that front, working with the administration in the next few weeks. I am certainly going to be urging the President and those in the Department of Energy to strongly support an appropriation in this area. This is an important thing to do. This is not a substitute for a comprehensive energy bill by any means. Senator Murkowski has introduced a comprehensive bill. I am working on developing a bill that is also much more broad in its reach and deals with the long-term energy needs of the country. This merely tries to deal with the immediate crisis. It is very important we do this. I am very pleased all Senators have indicated support for this measure. I yield the floor. I know Senator Murkowski wishes to speak on this same subject.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send a modification of my amendment to the desk.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that after the vote on this amendment, which I expect in the next 3 or 4 minutes after I speak and Senator Murkowski speaks, Senator Kerry from Massachusetts be allowed to speak as in morning business.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, there is an amendment that I sent to the desk and explained earlier on energy assistance. I ask unanimous consent that my colleague, Senator Domenici, be added as a cosponsor of that amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. We can vote that this afternoon.

Mr. BINGAMAN. It is the one I called up earlier.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, by way of explanation, am I correct in assuming that this does not preclude us from offering an amendment that can be adopted by voice vote?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will renew that request when we have more Senators on the floor. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I don't know if it is the will of the managers of the bill to have a vote at this time. I am certainly ready for a vote whenever time is appropriate. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, many consumers who cannot pay their energy bills have been protected so far by the so-called cutoff laws. Those are laws which prohibit utility companies from terminating service to customers during the winter. But these prohibitions against terminating utility service expire in March or in April, and when they do, the seriousness of the situation for low-income working Americans will become harshly obvious to all of us. According to a recent survey by the National Council of State Legislators, 18 States have extended income eligibility limits because so many people just above the current thresholds are struggling to pay their utility bills. Thirty-one States either have already increased or hope to increase benefit levels in an effort to keep net costs to those in need at the same level as in previous winters. Many States have expressed a serious need for additional funds to extend eligibility and benefit levels. The reality is that many States have already depleted their LIHEAP and weatherization funding, the funding that we appropriated for these programs in the last year. Without additional funds, assistance to low- income working families for the summer cooling season is going to be impossible. People tend to forget the severe toll the summer heat takes on many people in this country, particularly on our senior citizens. Just last year, the State of Texas was forced to impose a moratorium on utilities cutting off service during the summer. Usually there is a moratorium against cutting off utility service during the winter, but Texas was forced to impose it in the summer. According to the Austin American Statesman of August 11, 2000: With 54 heat-related deaths across Texas this summer, the state Public Utilities Commission on Thursday stopped electric companies from shutting off service for nonpayment until the end of September. The commission wanted to prevent any more deaths because fans or air conditioners were just not used for fear of high bills. The Texas experience last summer was especially heartbreaking in its magnitude--54 deaths. But this was not the first time this circumstance has occurred and it will not be the last. The chairman of the Texas commission lamented the fact that the process had taken so long. A moratorium on disconnections helps with the immediate problem of no service, but it does not address the bill that will eventually have to be paid by each of these families. Many who remember the days of childhood without air-conditioning forget the fact that most of us, including myself, did not live in the midst of concrete cities. These cities have been referred to as modern- day heat islands. During the summer, not just in the Southern States, it is our parents and grandparents who are most vulnerable during heat waves. Unfortunately, many seniors living on fixed incomes often consider air-conditioning a luxury, not a health necessity. This is not a partisan issue. The provisions of this amendment are the same or very similar to those contained in the bill introduced by Senator Murkowski, the same bill the majority leader cosponsored last week when he declared his support for LIHEAP on the Senate floor. But, he declared his support for it as part of a broader package that will not be brought to the floor until several months in the future. I hope the vision of a one-shot comprehensive energy bill does not cause delay our acting on such an immediate need, especially when human lives are at stake. Especially given the administration has been saying it will not even have a proposal to us for several more months. It seems every time they report on their progress it is to report the 2- month clock is starting again. Clearly, they are working in good faith on a comprehensive bill or comprehensive set of proposals for dealing with our long-term energy problems, but that does not relieve us of the responsibility to deal with this immediate problem and to deal with it now. I support taking a comprehensive look at energy. I think it is important to have a balanced framework in order to evaluate the various tradeoffs. In fact, I am working with colleagues in the Senate to put such a bill together. My experience is the last time the Congress passed a major energy bill, the Energy Policy Act of 1992, it took an entire Congress and it resulted in a Christmas tree with several strong branches on which to hang many ornaments, a tremendous number of which were never implemented and were never funded by the Congress. That is not the best approach to take in dealing with this immediate problem. Energy issues are complex, they often involve billions of dollars of investment, in very long-lived capital equipment. We need to focus on manageable sections in the interest of developing the best policy outcomes based on a common set of principles. I have a chart that shows what I consider to be fundamental principles for a long-term energy policy. I want to make the point that this amendment I am now talking about, and urging my colleagues to consider, is not an alternative to a long-term bill, but is consistent with such a framework. It is only distinct in that we are dealing with an immediate problem. These are some common principles that need to be dealt with for a successful long-term energy strategy. Let me briefly mention them. First, we need a new model of Federal-State cooperation to ensure reliable and affordable energy supplies. If we had had better coordination in the past, perhaps we would not be needing to consider the amendment I have brought up today. That we don't have them in place is not the fault of the federal government or that of any individual state. By their very definition, restructured markets have changed the very framework upon which many of our energy policies and institutions were based. Second, fuel and technology diversity need to be increased and emphasized. We need to have improved distribution systems for energy. Third, we need to have a balance of supply-and-demand-side options with a commitment to efficiency, environmental quality and climate change mitigation. Fourth, we need targeted tax and economic incentives to address market failures. We all recognize there are market failures, there are inefficiencies in the market. Finally, we have to have comprehensive research and development in order to ensure a full complement of technologies and fuels to meet our energy needs. All five of these items are principles for a long term policy. We are going to propose a set of provisions that incorporate those principles in the larger bill I mentioned before. But, we have immediate needs for energy assistance that cannot wait for months while we debate the very real energy issues this country faces. It was well recognized at the time we passed the appropriations bill last year that LIHEAP funding was going to be inadequate to do the job in this current year. Individuals, families, and small businesses that are suffering today from energy bills they cannot pay cannot just wait while we debate a long term energy policy. We should not wait. To borrow a catch phrase from President Bush, they need an immediate helping hand. The amendment I am offering today takes the first concrete steps in providing that hand, that assistance, the first concrete steps to put measures in place to address this remainder of this winter's financial distress and to deal with the high cost of electricity that we can all see coming at us this summer. The amendment raises the authorized limits governing the low-income home energy assistance program, raising the limit to alleviate financial burdens on low- and middle-income families in the near term. At present, it is only authorized in fiscal year 2001 at the $2 billion level. That is a base level that has been relatively flat since the mid-1980s--just to show how long we have gone without any change in this authorization. The amendment raises the base funding requirement to $3.4 billion for fiscal year 2001, each of the fiscal years 2001 to 2005. The increase comes close to addressing the erosion in the program due to inflation since President Reagan was in the White House. The amendment also gives States additional flexibility in this fiscal year on income levels for recipients by increasing eligibility from 150 percent of poverty to 200 percent of poverty. This change only applies for the remainder of this fiscal year but will give States the flexibility to help working families and senior citizens with whatever additional funds we can send to those States. This adjustment is at the request of many of our States. Third, the amendment raises the authorization levels for this fiscal year and succeeding years for the low-income weatherization program and the State conservation and emergency planning grants. The immediate increase in the authorization for the weatherization program of $310 million is for the remainder of this fiscal year and the fiscal year 2002 compared to the current appropriations level of $162 million. The weatherization program is a sound and long-term investment in energy efficiency. A one-time investment of weatherization yields savings of $300 to $470 per household annually thereafter. This program, however, requires trained staff. Erratic and insufficient funding of the weatherization program has diminished its effectiveness in recent years. Increased energy efficiency is the least cost solution to meeting our energy needs. The weatherization program was funded at nearly three times the current level in the 1980s. This amendment will increase the weatherization authorization in an attempt to catch up with the 1980s level in real dollars. The fourth thing this amendment does is increase the authorization for grants to State energy programs up to $75 million. This program funds State conservation and emergency planning. The extremely low level of funding in recent years has diminished the State's ability to implement State level conservation plans and to plan for emergencies in coordination with the Department of Energy and with neighboring States. I cannot overemphasize how critical it is to have better coordination of overall energy planning and emergency response preparedness. The power situation in the western states is just the most recent example of where better regional planning could have reduced costs and provided greater reliability. Heating oil markets in the northeast and gasoline supply problems in the midwest last summer are just a few examples of where a little more advanced preparedness could have reduced disruption and impact on consumers. I would note that for all the lamenting the lack of an energy policy on the part of many members of this body, it was the Republican majority that eliminated coordinated emergency planning from the Department of Energy budget in 1995. I urge the Congress to enact these amendments and to encourage the President to propose an emergency supplemental bill for these programs. Let's stop debating form over substance and get it done now. We all know that even if we adopt the amendment I have sent to the desk, it will only increase the authorization levels for these programs. We still need the funding. I very much hope the President will take the lead in requesting the increased funding from this Congress so we can actually send the assistance to the States and it can go to the families who need it. Finally, my amendment contains a package of provisions aimed at quickly increasing the energy efficiency of Federal facilities around the country. Many of these facilities are very wasteful in their use of energy and water--two commodities that could be in short supply this summer in many parts of the country. Federal agencies spend $4 billion per year to heat, cool, and power their facilities. Too much of that is wasted. If federal agencies aggressively reduce their energy waste, their neighbors will enjoy the benefits of increased supplies of electricity, and taxpayers will benefit by paying less for the power that would have been wasted. Under an existing Executive order, federal facilities are required to increase energy efficiency by 30 percent by 2005 and 35 percent by 2010 relative to 1985, but there is some evidence that this Executive order is not being aggressively implemented. This amendment calls for a concerted effort by facility managers to meet the Executive order targets early, thereby saving taxpayer dollars, reducing stress on the power grid and demand for fuels. Specifically, my amendment calls for each Federal agency to complete a comprehensive review this fiscal year of all practicable measures for increasing energy and water conservation and using renewable energy sources. The agencies then have 180 days to implement measures to achieve 50 percent of the potential savings identified in their reviews. That could result in a measurable reduction in federal energy consumption by this time next year, if we get started now. Federal agencies could also use this authority to investigate siting new generating capacity at their facilities, to further ease stress in our power system this summer. We won't be building many new central electricity generating stations before the summer, but we could start installing a lot of distributed generation at Federal facilities, particularly proven technologies such as ground-source heat pumps, that could dramatically reduce the power requirements for heating and cooling Federal buildings. My amendment also makes it easier for federal agencies to use partnering tools with the private sector, known as energy savings performance contracts (or ESPCs), to reduce energy costs through facility upgrade and replacement. ESPCs offer perhaps the fastest means for rapidly improving the efficiency of the existing building stock owned by Federal agencies. These are targeted measures that will help relieve the immediate needs of our citizens who cannot cope with the high energy bills this winter, and provide incentives for the Federal government to do its part to decrease energy consumption now. I urge the adoption of this amendment. Exhibit 1 National Energy Assistance Director's Association State-by-State Low- Income Home Energy Assistance Program Survey Responses (February 7, 2001) alabama The Alabama LIHEAP program estimates it will award regular benefits to 6.9% more households this year (75,000 vs. 70,146). Although higher benefits are being provided to those households that heat with propane or natural gas, more is needed since the cost of these fuels has already risen 50-65%. Alabama continues to provide weatherization and furnace repair services as part of its crisis program. california Requests for assistance by phone are running almost 60% higher than last year at this time. California's natural gas prices have risen 40-50% this year, but definitive information is not yet available on electricity rates statewide. The state's LIHEAP program allows the maximum eligibility criteria of 60% of sate median income and plans to increase the benefit levels for this year's eligible households in response to significant increases in natural gas and electricity prices. Supplemental funds are needed to increase both the benefit levels and the number of households served. Additional funding is also needed to increase the furnace repair and replacement programs. colorado Colorado expects to serve 41% more households this year than last (75,000 vs. 53,182). Program benefit levels have been increased by 125%, while eligibility has been expanded from 150% to 185% of the federal poverty guidelines. Natural gas and propane have doubled in price and the state's largest natural gas provider recently asked the Public Utilities Commission for another increase of about 5%. These increases have placed unreasonable burdens on low-income households, as well as those whose income is slightly over the current eligibility criteria. Colorado needs additional funds to increase eligibility to 200% of the federal poverty level, increase the benefit amount, increase outreach to ensure needy households are aware of the program, and increase funding for weatherization and the summer grants program operated by the Colorado Energy Assistance Foundation. connecticut Connecticut estimates it will provide LIHEAP benefits to 21% more households this year (68,000 vs. 56,340). According to representatives from the natural gas companies, prices are currently 39% higher this year and the State LIHEAP program reports oil prices are running 34.6% higher than last year. This year income limits for LIHEAP eligibility were raised to 60% of the State median income for all fuel types, as compared to last year's limit of 150% of the federal poverty income guidelines. All benefit amounts have also been increased. Additionally, $400,000 has been set aside for furnace repairs and/or replacements for households whose heating systems are determined to be unsafe or inoperable. Supplemental funding is needed in order to expand the application period. The program currently pays for fuel beginning November 1st, but would like to change that date to October 15th (the date when landlords are required to begin providing heat) and extend the last date for fuel to April 15th (the end of the utility moratorium). delaware Delaware expects a 12.6% increase in the number of regular benefits awarded (11,500 vs. 10,215) and a 6.9% increase in the number of households receiving crisis assistance (from 2,807 to 3,000), although these numbers do not include the summer cooling assistance program. Regular LIHEAP benefits have increased an average of 20% (from $206 to $241). Some households also receive up to $400 from the crisis program, although the average is $200. Eligibility for the regular program has remained at 150% of the federal poverty guidelines, but crisis eligibility guidelines were increased to 200% of poverty. In order to respond to numerous inquiries the state has received requesting assistance with furnace repairs/replacements, additional funding is needed. georgia The number of households assisted by Georgia's LIHEAP program is expected to double this year (120,000 vs. 60,710). LIHEAP eligibility has been expanded to 150% of the federal poverty guidelines and may be further increased to 60% of the state median income. The amount currently provided to households does not have a significant impact--the maximum $194 benefit cannot fill a propane tank so the household cannot benefit from energy assistance unless they are prepared to supplement the balance. All LIHEAP funds have been utilized for direct financial client benefit services due to the colder than usual temperatures and the rapidly rising fuel prices. Additional funding is needed to serve more households and keep the program open longer, as well as provide supplemental and crisis payments. florida Florida expects to serve 23% more clients this winter season than last year (42,500 vs. 34,393). In addition, the state is expecting to provide assistance this summer to an additional 31,000 clients for cooling assistance, about the same level as last year. Natural gas prices have increased by about 110%, while electricity prices at one utility have increased by 15.5%. Florida has increased its benefit level from a maximum of $300 to $1,000 per household. In addition, Florida is providing assistance to restore home power, including: paying deposits, late fees and reconnect fees; purchasing and/or repairing of non-portable heating equipment; repairing or replacing unsafe fuel oil or propane tanks; and paying fees required to assure the continuation or resumption of services. At the current rate of demand for services, the state expects to be out of funds by the end of March with little or no funds available for summer cooling. Additional funds would be used to address unmet needs and to continue providing services through the summer which is typically the state's peak demand time. idaho The number of households served by Idaho's LIHEAP program is expected to increase by 31% (30,930 vs. 23,529); average benefits are expected to increase by 14%. Fuel prices increased for natural gas by 48%; electricity by 6% and home heating oil by 40%. Although no change has been made to the LIHEAP income eligibility criteria (133% of federal poverty guidelines), this year the program application period will be extended to May 31st (rather than March 31st). Supplemental funding is needed to serve these additional eligible households, as well as to finance weatherization activities. illinois The number of households served by Illinois' LIHEAP program is expected to increase by 41% (350,000 vs. 247,000). Prices for natural gas, electricity, kerosene and electricity have increased from 2 to 4 times depending on the utility provider. The state has increased benefits increased by 35% and increased eligibility to 150%. If additional funding were available, the state would probably expand the program's eligibility and benefit levels. iowa In Iowa approximately 21% more households have been certified and approved than last year at this time (75,000 vs. 62,000). Last year the average residential customer spent $354 on their total gas bill for the period November through March. It is projected the same customer will spend $807 for the same period this year. Although the average LIHEAP benefit has increased from $204 to $306, an additional $351 per household is needed in order for this year's participating households to have the same percentage of their total household income going towards winter gas bills as last year's participating households. Iowa conducted a survey of last year's LIHEAP recipients to determine what these households do when faced with unaffordable bills. Over 20 percent reported going without needed medical care or prescription drugs in order to pay their heating bills and 12 percent reported without food in order to pay those same bills. The report, Iowa's Cold Winters: LIHEAP Recipient Perspective, documents an affordability crisis that existed prior to this year's rising fuel costs. Last winter, LIHEAP recipients experienced winter home heating burdens of 8.2 percent on average--this figure does not include winter non-heat electric burdens. Heating costs represent approximately 40% of a household's total energy bill. Last winter, the LIHEAP program was able to reduce the average heating burden of 8.2% to 3.5% of total household income. For comparison, the typical non-low income household's heating burden is less than 2%. In order for this year's participating households to have the same percentage of their total household income going towards winter gas bills as last year's participating households, the Iowa LIHEAP program needs an additional $20.5 million. To date, approximately 2,000 applications statewide that are not eligible for any benefit because the household was just over our income guidelines. Many of these households are elderly Iowans whose recent Social Security increase put them a few dollars a month over our maximum allowable income. These same households report tremendous out-of-pocket medical/prescription drug costs coupled with home energy bills they simply cannot afford without making extreme sacrifices. Federal rules would allow LIHEAP to increase our income guidelines from 150% of the federal poverty level to 185%. Unfortunately, this option cannot be considered at this time. In the absence of additional funding, the state plan's to continue to give, on average, a benefit of $306 to all eligible households that apply, and at some point in the future determine what if any supplemental payment we might be able to make. kansas Kansas expects to serve 18% more households this year (31,000 vs. 26,143). LIHEAP benefits have been increased by 31% to help offset the burden of higher gas prices--which are now more than double last year's rates. Supplemental funding is needed to provide benefits to additional eligible clients and bring the energy burdens of Kansas households to a manageable range. maine The number of households assisted by Maine's LIHEAP program is expecting to increase by 32% from (58,000 vs. 44,000). The state has already received 65,000 applicants this year, however they only have adequate funds to serve 58,000. As a result of the 40% increase in fuel costs this year, LIHEAP eligible households are utilizing the available funds so quickly the state is unable to handle the demand and all resources have been obligated. Unfortunately, the state has been forced to decrease funding for weatherizataion services, furnace repair, and administration. The income guidelines were increased from 125% of the federal poverty guidelines to 175% and the average benefit was decreased from $490 to $350 in order to serve the additional households this change would create. Maine desperately needs additional funds to increase fuel assistance benefits, increase emergency funding, and provide for furnace repair or replacement.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the amendment we are now discussing and that I have offered on behalf of myself and over 30 cosponsors addresses an important problem that is being felt this winter all across America. High energy costs have hit low-income and working Americans hard this winter, and this coming summer promises to be just as expensive in many parts of our country. The high heating bills this winter are the result of a combination of two primary factors: First, higher demand resulting from colder than average weather across the country, we have just seen another major snowstorm in the Northeast, and second, a supply shortfall that stems from lack of drilling 2 years ago when the oil and gas prices were so low. The combination of these two factors has resulted in natural gas and propane bills that are as much as 200 percent higher this year than they were last year. Heating oil prices have been well above last year's average as well. Natural gas prices and tight generating capacity are driving up electricity prices around the country. Of course, California is the area of our country that has gotten the most attention in this regard, but electricity prices in other parts of the country have also escalated. We can predict now that many people in southern States will be especially burdened this summer because of the high cost of trying to maintain air-conditioning. Applications for energy assistance have increased dramatically this year. Over 5 million households in the United States may be unable to pay their energy bills this winter. That is a figure that is up substantially from last year. The State-by-State increase in caseloads coming from assistance requests is illustrated on this chart that is provided by the National Energy Assistance Directors Association. When one looks at some of the figures on this chart, the point I am making becomes very clear. The chart is titled, ``Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, Increase in Caseloads'' as of the First of March. As of the first of March, the increase in caseloads in my State this year over last year is 100 percent. We have twice as many people requesting assistance. In Oklahoma, it is 50 percent above last year. In Louisiana, it is 91 percent above last year. In Mississippi, it is 50 percent above last year. I can go all around this chart and one can see the increases different States have experienced. There are over 20 States reporting increases greater than 26 percent. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the survey detailing the critical situation we have in each of our States be printed in the Record at the end of my statement.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the bill I am introducing today, the PILT and Refuge Revenue Sharing Permanent Funding Act, deals with an issue that I believe must be addressed in this Congress. The bill is a measure to make permanent funding for two important programs managed by the Department of the Interior: the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program, or PILT, in the Bureau of Land Management and the Refuge Revenue Sharing Program in the Fish and Wildlife Service. Those programs provide support to local governments in areas in which these two agencies hold land. Under the authorizations for these programs, the funds are to be provided as an offset to the local property tax base lost by virtue of the Federal ownership of these lands. Federal ownership of lands in the American West, in states like New Mexico, does not come without its share of burdens for local governments. If there is a fire or other emergency, they must help respond. If there is increased traffic to and from the site, they must maintain the public roads that provide the necessary access to the public. In enacting the original authorizing legislation, Congress decided that, as a matter of policy, it was appropriate for the Federal government to bear a fair share in paying for these costs, in lieu of the taxes that would be levied on any private landowner in these localities. But in setting up these programs, Congress decided to make them subject to annual appropriations, either partially, in the case of Refuge Revenue Sharing, or completely, in the case of PILT. In retrospect, this was a mistake. The annual appropriations process has never come even close to providing the funds agreed upon by the underlying authorizing law. Moreover, the amount made available has changed significantly from one year to the next, frustrating the ability of localities to plan effectively for the use of these funds. Many of the burdens they face as a result of Federal land ownership require expenditures and commitments that are long-term. If you want to have a reasonable system of county roads, you need to have a consistent multi-year plan. If you want adequate fire protection, you can't be hiring a dozen new firefighters in one year and firing them the next, as appropriation levels gyrate up and down. The Federal government needs to be a better neighbor and a more reliable partner to local governments in the rural West. Since the system of meeting our obligations to these localities through the annual appropriations process has not worked, I am proposing that we start treating our payments in lieu of taxes in the same way that we account for incoming tax revenues to the Federal government--on the mandatory side of the Federal ledger. By making the funding for these crucial programs full and permanent, we will be keeping the commitments to rural communities throughout the West made in the original PILT and Refuge Revenue Sharing authorizing legislation. It's a matter of simple justice to rural communities. I hope that enacting legislation along the lines of what I am proposing today will receive high priority in the next Congress. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the bill I am introducing today, the PILT and Refuge Revenue Sharing Permanent Funding Act, deals with an issue that I believe must be addressed in this Congress. The bill is a measure to make permanent funding for two important programs managed by the Department of the Interior: the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program, or PILT, in the Bureau of Land Management and the Refuge Revenue Sharing Program in the Fish and Wildlife Service. Those programs provide support to local governments in areas in which these two agencies hold land. Under the authorizations for these programs, the funds are to be provided as an offset to the local property tax base lost by virtue of the Federal ownership of these lands. Federal ownership of lands in the American West, in states like New Mexico, does not come without its share of burdens for local governments. If there is a fire or other emergency, they must help respond. If there is increased traffic to and from the site, they must maintain the public roads that provide the necessary access to the public. In enacting the original authorizing legislation, Congress decided that, as a matter of policy, it was appropriate for the Federal government to bear a fair share in paying for these costs, in lieu of the taxes that would be levied on any private landowner in these localities. But in setting up these programs, Congress decided to make them subject to annual appropriations, either partially, in the case of Refuge Revenue Sharing, or completely, in the case of PILT. In retrospect, this was a mistake. The annual appropriations process has never come even close to providing the funds agreed upon by the underlying authorizing law. Moreover, the amount made available has changed significantly from one year to the next, frustrating the ability of localities to plan effectively for the use of these funds. Many of the burdens they face as a result of Federal land ownership require expenditures and commitments that are long-term. If you want to have a reasonable system of county roads, you need to have a consistent multi-year plan. If you want adequate fire protection, you can't be hiring a dozen new firefighters in one year and firing them the next, as appropriation levels gyrate up and down. The Federal government needs to be a better neighbor and a more reliable partner to local governments in the rural West. Since the system of meeting our obligations to these localities through the annual appropriations process has not worked, I am proposing that we start treating our payments in lieu of taxes in the same way that we account for incoming tax revenues to the Federal government--on the mandatory side of the Federal ledger. By making the funding for these crucial programs full and permanent, we will be keeping the commitments to rural communities throughout the West made in the original PILT and Refuge Revenue Sharing authorizing legislation. It's a matter of simple justice to rural communities. I hope that enacting legislation along the lines of what I am proposing today will receive high priority in the next Congress. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the subject of energy, the energy prospects we face as a nation, and the need to develop new energy policies here in this Congress. The United States is currently experiencing unusually high and volatile energy prices. We have seen that in my State of New Mexico, and I assume we have seen that in the State of Florida, where the Presiding Officer lives. During most of the 1990s, in spite of robust economic growth and increased demand for energy, increased productivity, and reduction in energy use per dollar of gross domestic product, along with the introduction of market competition, all of those factors acted to hold down prices, but now we have finally exhausted the buffer of excess capacity that kept the system functioning with low prices and relatively minor bumps along the way. So that excess capacity is gone, and there are a number of factors and circumstances that have contributed to the current situation we face--the situation of inadequate supply, too much demand. Remedies are not as apparent as some would argue. The Republican energy package, which was introduced today by my colleague, Senator Murkowski, contains a number of provisions that I and many Democrats, I am sure, would be glad to support. In fact, many of those proposals are similar to, if not the same as, provisions originally introduced by Democrats in the last Congress. Much of what has been introduced today involves proposals to change the tax laws; and in some cases those proposals are meritorious; in other cases, they are not an adequate substitute for changes in actual energy policy. Just last week, President Bush made a very strong statement about tax policy and his determination not to modify his income tax proposals with other unrelated tax measures. This bill that was introduced today, with over 180 pages of tax proposals, seems to reflect some disconnect between the administration's views on the subject of tax provisions directed or targeted at this particular industry and the views of some of my colleagues on the Republican side in the Senate. I had hoped, and still hope, we can proceed on a bipartisan and collaborative basis to develop solutions to these critical problems. I strongly believe that a package with equal emphasis on both supply and demand measures, developed with bipartisan support, is the only way we can pass responsible energy legislation in this Congress. I hope we can proceed with the input of this new administration and with the input from the States and various stakeholders to develop such consensus legislation. It is important to step back and look at the current context. The restructured electricity and natural gas markets of today pose very different public policy challenges from the old regulatory models. Ever-increasing consumer demand for transportation fuels, compounded by the recession in Asia and subsequent determination by OPEC to actively intervene in the market, has increased the volatility and high prices of oil and natural gas. As the economic growth of recent years has used up the excess capacity in the fuels, power, and natural gas sectors, the frictions and imperfections in those markets have become very apparent. The old model of split responsibility between States and the Federal Government is no longer adequate. We need new mechanisms and policies to address regional needs and circumstances. We need a new model for ensuring short-term and long-term energy demand and supply needs and managing weather-related and supply emergencies. There are several regional energy boards and various planning commissions that could be reviewed as models for new legislation in this area. In consultation with the States, we need to determine how to ensure regional entities have adequate authority to do what is needed in those regions. We should evaluate whether an additional grant of authority from the Federal Government or a specific authorization of responsibility should be written into Federal statute. I will speak for a moment about infrastructure needs. Electric transmission lines, natural gas and oil pipelines, powerplants, and refineries have all become increasingly difficult to site. The No. 1 problem is not environmental permitting, as some persistently argue in public debate today. As our society has become increasingly urbanized and congested, local communities have become increasingly active in opposing the siting of new infrastructure, and tax incentives do not address this major hurdle. Certainly the environmental rules governing the permitting process could be streamlined to expedite processing and facilitate investments in new technologies not in the marketplace when the existing rules were written. We should consider the possibility of siting new infrastructure on existing rights-of-way or at Federal facilities or on brownfields. We also need to evaluate whether incentives or different policies at the State or Federal level are necessary to ensure adequate investment in new capacity. Overemphasis on short-term and spot contracts compounded by ongoing uncertainty with respect to the future regulatory environment have had a stifling effect upon investment. We need to develop a consensus on policies that provide greater certainty and a mechanism to address the public's growing resistance to siting new facilities. On the subject of supply diversity and efficiency, the counter to major new infrastructure projects is to emphasize increasing energy efficiency and development of smaller distributed generation. We need to enact national standards and policies for interconnection of distributed generation technologies to ensure diversity of fuels and technologies for the future. Commercial investment in new technologies and nonconventional fuels will require some degree of additional incentives. I introduced legislation in the last Congress to address these issues, and I am pleased to see similar provisions included in this Republican legislation today. Increasing the efficient use of energy is the single most effective and least-cost policy for both the short term and the long term. Investments in more energy-efficient lighting, more energy-efficient appliances, and more energy-efficient buildings generate benefits in terms of energy savings, emission reductions, and human health improvements. Improvements to installation practices for heating and cooling systems, including duct work, could take considerable pressure off the power grid and off natural gas supplies in the coming months. Expediting the replacement of older appliances with newer high- efficiency models would not only reduce energy consumption, it would create new manufacturing jobs. Projections of capacity constraints and high electricity prices in the New York urban area could be mitigated with a concerted effort to upgrade lighting, heating, and cooling systems in commercial buildings even before this summer is upon us. These improvements would immediately reduce pressure on the grid and save businesses money in the process. The National Conference of Mayors, at its recent meeting here in Washington, called for an increase of 10 percent in the efficient use of energy. Over the past decade or so, sales of sport utility vehicles and light trucks grew to become fully half the passenger vehicles sold in this country. Meanwhile, a moratorium on even studying increasing fuel efficiency was imposed by the Republican-controlled Congress in the last 2 years. I do not think we can even talk about a comprehensive energy policy without concrete policies to reduce oil demand. We cannot just produce our way to independence from foreign oil supplies. I call my colleagues' attention to this chart. The chart is entitled: ``Petroleum Use Increases Mainly in the Transportation Sector.'' This is for the period 1970 to the year 2020, and it shows a history and then a projection for consumption in the transportation sector, consumption in the industrial sector, consumption in the residential- commercial sector, and finally consumption in the electricity generation activity. The obvious conclusion one draws from this chart is that the growth consumption is in the transportation sector. That is the top line. That is because of the inefficiency of the vehicles we are driving more and more each year in this country. There can be no serious discussion about reducing our dependence on foreign oil without a discussion of what can be done to reverse these trends. I hope that is part of the debate we have over the next few months in this Chamber about our energy policy. On the subject of supply, I do agree with my Republican colleagues on the need to increase the supply of petroleum products. The U.S. has domestic natural gas and oil resources that can be developed in an efficient and environmentally sensitive manner. In fact, under the previous administration, oil and natural gas production on Federal lands and in the Outer Continental Shelf increased substantially. Let me repeat that, Mr. President, because most people are not aware of that. In the previous administration, oil and natural gas production on Federal lands and on the Outer Continental Shelf increased substantially. Production on State and private lands did not keep pace with production on Federal lands. Policies should first emphasize maximizing the recovery of resources currently open to development. The North Slope of Alaska in the vicinity of Prudhoe Bay is estimated to contain at least 32 and maybe as much as 38 trillion cubic feet of natural gas that is ready for development. Until now, producing and transporting the gas from the North Slope has not been economical. Producers are currently conducting a feasibility study for a pipeline to bring the gas to market in Canada and also in the lower 48. The U.S. Geological Survey has estimated that with additional exploration in the area, the potential resources could be double the current estimate which I have given of 32 to 38 trillion cubic feet. Such a project will involve a number of Federal and State agencies, Native groups, the Government of Canada, and many private stakeholders in ensuring the efficient processing of all permitting and certifications necessary to be a top priority of this Congress. I have committed to Senator Murkowski to work with him to facilitate any legislative actions that are appropriate to accomplish this. Another producing area with great potential is the deep water Gulf of Mexico. The gulf has had an explosion of development in recent years, in part due to royalty incentives to offset the higher costs of developing a frontier area. The Minerals Management Service is scheduled to hold a lease sale later this year for an area in the eastern planning area of the gulf. This chart shows what I am talking about. The green area is the sale 1881. The lease sale would cover a narrow strip of Federal waters directly south of the Alabama coastline which expands into a broader area 100 miles out in the gulf. The MMS, the Minerals Management Service, estimates 240 million barrels of oil and 1.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas will be developed from this area. Those figures could go as high as 370 million barrels of oil and 3.2 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Unfortunately, the Governor of Florida, Jeb Bush, the President's brother, has written to the Department of the Interior urging cancellation of this lease sale and any future lease sales in this entire eastern planning region. I certainly understand that Floridians may have concerns about the development close to their beaches, but most of this area is more than 100 miles from the State and in Federal waters. When the Minerals Management Service prepared the leasing plan for this 5-year-period, they had extensive public meetings and consultations with States. The State of Florida supported proceeding with this sale. This is not a wildlife refuge. It is a huge expanse of Federal water where industry has developed oil and gas for years and has developed it in a safe and environmentally sound manner. This is a sale which we should go forward with in order to meet the needs the country will have for additional supply in the future. A serious, long-term commitment to research and development of the next generation of powerplants is essential. Such a program should include all feasible fuels and technologies, with an emphasis on a fleet of technologies to ensure fuel diversity while meeting energy supply and emission reduction targets. Development and deployment of more efficient generating and end-use technologies are critical. Commitment to a coordinated research, development, and deployment program to ensure the safe and reliable operation of pipelines and transmission lines is also essential to restore public confidence in the safety of these systems. The Pipeline Safety Act, S. 235, which passed the Senate by a vote of 98-0 earlier this month, contains the framework for such a program for natural gas and oil pipelines. A parallel program exists within the Department of Energy for the electric transmission system, and I hope we will see a serious commitment to these programs in the budget that the President sends to Congress in the next week or so. The oil and gas industry has made great strides in increasing productivity and bringing down exploration and production costs. Development of 3D and 4D seismic analysis techniques, horizontal drilling, and deep water production systems are some examples that have enabled the industry to continue producing more oil and gas from the mature fields on shore and to set world records in deep water development in the Gulf of Mexico. A robust R&D program to maximize recovery, to address problems of operations in ultra deep waters, and to evaluate the potential of methane hydrates will be critical to future development of affordable natural gas supplies. I am concerned that the President maintain a serious commitment to funding critical energy research and development. We have shortchanged ourselves in the past by cutting investment in R&D to meet other budget objectives. We should not make that same mistake again this year. On tax policy, the Finance Committee will soon begin hearings on the President's budget and tax proposals. These hearings will give the Senate an opportunity to evaluate a range of tax incentives to enhance investment and distribute a generation from combined heat and power systems and fuel cells to renewable technologies and energy-efficient property used in business. Many of these proposals are included in the bill that was introduced today by Senator Murkowski. They have been included in legislation I have introduced and cosponsored in the past. We need to carefully analyze the need for policy measures versus changes in tax policies as we go through this debate over the next few months. The omnibus Republican energy bill is very generous in its modification of the Tax Code as a solution to many shortfalls, perceived and otherwise, in our energy policy. For example, at a time when oil and gas prices are at such high levels, with the major oil companies reporting record earnings, I believe it is valid to say that the industry does not need additional tax incentives in order to go forward and explore and produce petroleum products. What we do need are well-thought-out, countercyclical measures that give producers incentives to maintain investment in domestic exploration and drilling during a time of extremely low prices as we had a year or two ago. Top priority should be given to policies that correct market failures and meet major policy goals of increasing efficiency and diversifying technologies. We need to develop long-term policies, and I have been speaking about some of those long-term policies. In the interim, individuals and families and small businesses are suffering today from energy bills that they cannot pay. President Bush, during his campaign, made clear his support for ensuring adequate funds for the LIHEAP program--that is Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program--and for the low-income efficiency programs. In addition to the stress on families and individuals, higher energy prices are having an impact on our economy as well. Every dollar spent on these programs will be immediately and completely reinjected into the economy, unlike tax cuts that will not have an impact for months into the future. I urge the President to send those in Congress a request for a supplemental appropriation with his budget for next year, a supplemental appropriation so we can adequately fund the LIHEAP program and adequately fund the weatherization programs that are so important for many in our country. Our majority leader, earlier this afternoon, indicated we would not be addressing energy policy on the Senate floor until sometime this summer, June or July I believe was his estimate. That may be an appropriate time to address long-term energy policy because it will take several months to develop a good piece of legislation which we can support on a bipartisan basis. But that is too long to wait for attention to these immediate needs, the need to adequately fund the LIHEAP program and the weatherization programs. We are not at a crossroads where one path or the other needs to be taken in our national energy policy. The supply side only path that some have advocated would be both futile and destructive. The path of maximum efficiency--renewable and emission-free energy--is a very long road with many milestones along the way. It would be foolhardy to put all of our confidence in that path, as well. We need a commitment to parallel paths, with a focus on maintaining the core values of equity and affordability and environmental integrity. I believe we can do that if we get on with the consideration of the legislation I introduced the week before we had our recess to address our immediate needs for adequate funding of the programs that assist families to deal with the high cost of energy they are facing this winter. And then we need this bipartisan effort to develop some long-term policies. I am confident with good will on both sides of the political aisle we can come up with a bipartisan piece of legislation that will move our country forward and help us deal with these very real problems. I commend all of my colleagues for their interest in these energy issues. I hope we can work together constructively to address them in the months ahead. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Joseph Allbaugh to be the next director of the Federal Emergency Management Administration, FEMA. I was pleased to hear that Mr. Allbaugh has experience in dealing with natural disasters in Texas and in his home state of Oklahoma. I'm sure he learned during his tenure as chief of staff to former Governor George Bush that recovering from a disaster requires great collaboration and compassion. We learned that last year in New Mexico when we were faced with numerous forest fires, including the Cerro Grande fire that started near Los Alamos. Because of the U.S. government's role in starting a controlled burn that soon burned out of control, eventually burning hundreds of homes and thousands of acres of forest land, the New Mexico delegation drafted the Cerro Grande Fire Assistance Act, CGFAA, and got the bill signed into law on July 13 of last year. I emphasize that this was a delegation effort because I want Mr. Allbaugh to know that the New Mexico delegation worked side-by-side on every aspect of this fire compensation legislation. When it was introduced, all five members of the delegation were present. I hope that FEMA, under Mr. Allbaugh's guidance, will recognize the importance of collaborating with all members of the New Mexico delegation when it comes to the Cerro Grande fire, or any other disasters we are faced with in the future. Because of FEMA's strong track record under James Lee Witt of responding quickly and effectively to disasters, the CGFAA designated FEMA as the lead agency to compensate the victims of the Cerro Grande fire. FEMA responded quickly and set up an Office of Cerro Grande Fire Claims in New Mexico in August 2000. We are now almost six months into the claims process and we are beginning to face a few problems. I would like to point out to Mr. Allbaugh that the policy section in the Interim Final Regulations-- regulations that have governed the claims process thus far--says, ``It is FEMA's policy to provide for the expeditious resolution of meritorious claims through a process that is administered with sensitivity to the burdens placed upon Claimants by the Cerro Grande Fire.'' Based on the numerous complaints I have received recently about the claims process, it does not appear that the stated policy is being carried out as anticipated. Mr. Allbaugh has been nominated for a position that carries with it enormous responsibility. I trust that he will carry out his responsibilities with respect to the Cerro Grande fire claims process with the sensitivity urged in the regulations. Few of the fire victims have been able to begin rebuilding their lives and their homes because the final regulations are not complete. Many are hesitant to settle their claims against the federal government until the final regulations are published. Unfortunately, FEMA's 180- day deadline for settling claims is approaching for some claimants. We never anticipated that this deadline would come before the final regulations were in place. Nearly four months have passed since the comment period ended for the interim final regulations, yet we are still waiting for final regulations. I strongly urge Mr. Allbaugh to make it a top priority to ensure that the final regulations are published in the very near future. Moreover, I urge Mr. Allbaugh to keep in mind that the Cerro Grande fire is different from most, if not all, other disasters FEMA has responded to in the past. This fire was not a natural disaster. It did not start as an act of God. Because of the federal government's involvement, the government had a responsibility to respond expeditiously and thoroughly. The New Mexico delegation initiated that response by introducing compensation legislation. President Clinton responded by signing the legislation. It is now in Mr. Allbaugh's hands to make sure fire claims are responded to expeditiously and with compassion. I look forward to sitting down with Mr. Allbaugh in the near future to discuss his plans for carrying out the intent of the CGFAA. In the meantime, I will cast my vote in favor of Mr. Allbaugh.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to increase the authorization for low-income energy assistance, weatherization and state energy conservation grants and to increase the energy efficiency of federal facilities. I am offering this bill on behalf of myself, Senator Daschle, and many of my colleagues. Energy costs have been, and are expected, to remain especially high this year. We have had a long period of economic growth, enabled in part by extremely low oil and natural gas prices. But, we are finally experiencing the end of the excess capacity cushion that had kept the system functioning with low prices and relatively minor bumps along the way. Those extremely low oil and gas prices that consumers loved so much a few years ago devastated the domestic drilling industry. Drilling has recovered, so we will start seeing an impact on prices in the coming months as those supplies find their way to market. In the interim, unusually cold weather early in the winter has resulted in natural gas bills at least 70 percent-100 percent higher than last year. Heating oil and propane prices correlate closely with natural gas. Farmers, especially, are seeing huge increases in propane prices this winter and are looking at dramatically higher fertilizer prices this spring. Natural gas prices and tight generating capacity are driving up electricity prices around the country, and many people in the southern states with high air conditioning needs will be especially hard hit this summer. Applications for assistance have increased dramatically this year. Most states have already depleted the LIHEAP and Weatherization funds we appropriated for this year. Many states have laws prohibiting cutting off heating supplies during the winter, but when those prohibitions expire in March or April, the seriousness of the situation for low-income and working families will become harshly obvious. And assistance to low-income and working families for the summer cooling season will be impossible at current levels. Some will say we need to address these issues as part of some comprehensive energy bill, yet to be written. I disagree. We have immediate needs that cannot wait months, as we debate an ideal energy policy. The Administration has told us it will not even have its proposal to us for another two months. Individuals, families and small businesses are suffering today from energy bills they cannot pay. This bill authorizes changes to the LIHEAP program to help alleviate the financial burdens in the near term. The bill also focuses attention on investment in energy efficiency through the low income weatherization program, state conservation grants and the federal energy management program. This bill covers needed changes to existing authorizations. Next we need to ensure that full funding is forthcoming as soon as possible. Specifically, the base authorization for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program to $3.4 billion for fiscal years 2001 to 2005. The base funding has been relatively flat at roughly $2 billion since the mid-1980's. This increase comes close to addressing the erosion in the program due to inflation, but does not take into consideration the increase in population. The bill provides states with additional flexibility on the income level for recipients, by increasing eligibility from 150 percent to 200 percent of the poverty level. This change, which only applies for the remainder of this fiscal year, will give the states the flexibility to help working families. The bill also increases the authorization for the weatherization program to $310 million. The current appropriation is at $162 million, down from $300 million in the mid-1980s. The weatherization program is a long term investment in energy efficiency. A one-time investment in weatherization yields savings of $300-$470 per household annually thereafter. The program requires trained staff, erratic and insufficient funding of the program has diminished its effectiveness in recent years. Increased energy efficiency is the least cost solution to meeting energy needs. Even at $310 million the program is still lower in real dollars than in the 1980's. The bill increases the authorization for grants to state energy programs to $75 million. This program funds state conservation and emergency planning. The low level of funding in recent years has diminished the states' ability to implement state level conservation plans and to plan for emergencies in coordination with the Department of Energy and neighboring states. Finally, Executive Order 13123 requires federal facilities to increase energy efficiency by 30 percent by 2005 and 35 percent by 2010 relative to 1985. The Federal Energy Management Program requires federal facility managers to evaluate opportunities for energy and water efficiency improvements and opportunities for siting renewable projects. Federal agencies spend $4 billion per year to heat, coal and power facilities, we can and should do better. The bill includes several amendments to the program clarifying and enhancing the use of alternative financing tools to minimize the need for additional government outlays. The bill calls for a concerted effort by facility managers to meet those targets early, thereby saving taxpayer dollars, reducing stress on the power grid and demand for fuels. Companion measures, that I support, have been introduced by Senator Kerry, S. 295, Senator Feinstein, S. 286, to provide emergency loans to small businesses. There will be plenty of time in this Congress to consider the highly complex issues of U.S. energy supply and consumption. Senator Murkowski and I intend to proceed with a series of hearings to evaluate the different elements of our energy policy and systems. We need to focus on how we can ensure adequate fuel supplies and sufficient infrastructure to deliver those fuels, whether electricity, natural gas, or gasoline without degradation of environmental quality. We also need to look at issues of supply diversity and efficiency. Those efforts will require some time on the part of the Congress and the Administration, in consultation with the states and the various stakeholders. We should not allow that lengthy process, though, to prevent us from meeting clear and present needs. I urge my colleagues to support immediate passage of this bill and the small business bills. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.