Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, this amendment would transfer $50 million from the Missile Defense Program to the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program which is designed to secure nuclear materials and nuclear weapons in countries around the globe, principally the former Soviet Union. A few facts I think are in order. First, with respect to missile defense funding, in the emergency supplemental appropriations bill for the global war on terror, there was an additional $50 million appropriated that was not required or asked for by the Agency. With this money, even with this amendment, the Agency still would have sufficient money to carry out its programmed operations for this year. Again, we are just transferring $50 million from this rather expensive program overall. Let me briefly recap where we are with respect to the program. The administration has already requested and Congress has provided funds for 30 interceptors. There are nine already in the ground. There are others being constructed. There are 21 that are in some aspect of construction. Yet in the fiscal year 2006 budget, there is a request for 10 additional operational interceptors, plus 8 test interceptors, for 18 in all. Again, these are in addition to the 30 interceptors that are already planned for. In addition to that, I must point out that the production rate capacity for these interceptors is 12 per year. So we are asking for more missiles than can be produced in 1 year. So there are ample funds with respect to missile defense. We are asking for more missiles than can be produced in 1 year--many more missiles than can be produced. This is a situation that I believe calls for readjustment of funds, moving it to another compelling need. One of the compelling needs I urge on my colleagues is to fund the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. President Bush and President Putin met in Bratislava months ago and created a unique opportunity for additional funding of the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. This meeting took place after preparation of the budget. So moving $50 million from missile defense to the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program will allow this country to carry out the pledge President Bush made to President Putin to more aggressively secure 15 additional sites. There is one final point I would like to make. There is often the argument, well, we shouldn't fund the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program because there are so many unobligated funds; they can't use the money. In August of this year, the Missile Defense Program had $844 million in unobligated funds. If the Missile Defense Agency has $844 million in unobligated funds, I don't think anyone would stand up immediately and say they can't use it, don't need it, et cetera. The same goes for the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. We have needs out there. The greatest threat to face this country, in my view, is the combination of terrorists and nuclear materials. We are going after the terrorists. We have to also aggressively go after nuclear materials. We can do this. This is a very modest transfer of funds for a program that is vitally important to fulfill the pledge that the President made with President Putin, and it will not in any way impair the funding available for missile defense. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Levin amendment, which establishes a commission to look into the treatment of detainees by our national security forces. Let me say as an initial point, I am a strong supporter of the McCain-Graham amendment which would clarify the law. But the issues we are confronting today with respect to Abu Ghraib and with respect to other notorious incidents is not simply a failure of law, a failure of lacking legal precedent; it is a failure of leadership and a failure of institutions. Unless we look carefully, objectively, and independently at this leadership and these institutions, we will be bound to repeat the mistakes of the past several years. I urge my colleagues to support the Levin amendment. What prompts me to support this amendment is the belief and understanding that the treatment of our soldiers on the battlefield is a function of how we treat our opponents. If we do not have high standards of treatment, then we cannot make the moral claim that our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines should be similarly treated. I understand the nature of our adversaries might reject those claims, might reject standards, but if we reject those standards, then our ability to protect our soldiers is diminished substantially. I think also one just has to take note of the events of the last several years and understand that not only is there a legal and moral premise to our use of suitable standards of conduct, there is a very practical one. The incidents of Abu Ghraib, the reports of abuse of prisoners, have been a disastrous situation with respect to our progress in the Middle East. It is harming our efforts to convince people that we are there not to exploit them, not to abuse them, but to try to lift them up. It is essential we get to the heart of these failures of leadership, institutional direction, and policy. I think it is also essential that we have accountability. One of the essential aspects of any military organization is accountability. Everyone who enters the military, particularly an officer, learns that the first rule is they are responsible for what happens and what fails to happen on their command. There has been a dearth of accountability when it comes to these issues of abuse of detainees. The plan seemed to be from the very beginning to portray this as the fault of aberrant soldiers. In fact, if we look at those people who have been prosecuted, those people who have been brought to justice, it is a handful of enlisted soldiers. We know this process, this approach, was not simply the result of a few soldiers. It was the result of decisions that were made at the very highest level. Today, in the International Herald Tribune, COL Larry Wilkerson, a former chief of staff to Colin Powell, pointed out that, in his words: There was a visible audit trail from the Vice President's office to the Secretary of Defense down to the commanders in the field authorizing practices that led to the abuse of detainees. That suggests to me that the evidence has accumulated where we need to take a good look not just at individual soldiers, not just compartmental reviews of certain aspects, we have to take the approach that Senator Levin suggests, a comprehensive review by an independent panel on the model of the 9/11 Commission to look at how we came to this point; not just to establish accountability I think that is principal and important but to ensure that we do not do it again, to ensure that when we enter into a conflict everyone understands the law, everyone follows the law. That is to the benefit not only of the protection of our troops but also to claiming the moral high ground, aiding our mission, aiding our military forces in the field, by creating an image in the world that we are bound to the highest standards and we are not there for self-interest but to help other people. If we fail to pursue this commission, we will see a situation where what has happened in the past will happen again. It will be replicated time and time again. It will create a terrible situation within our military forces. It will appear, as it appears now, that the only people who are punished for these abuses are low-ranking, enlisted personnel. They bear the brunt, but the officers who directed it, the officers who could have stopped it, the civilian leaders in our Government who might have directed it or encouraged it, will walk away. That is unfair and that is so corrosive that it will undermine our military forces in the future. I urge passage of the Levin amendment. I reserve the remainder of time on our side and yield the floor.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kerry, Senator Feingold, and Senator Lautenberg be added as cosponsors.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself and Senator Levin.

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

Mr. REED. Mr. President, we have spent the last several days making difficult decisions about national priorities with respect to spending. We also have to continue to make these difficult decisions within the context of the Defense bill. The amendment I propose today, along with Senator Levin and my colleagues, would transfer $50 million from the Missile Defense Program to the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. I believe this amendment properly reallocates scarce resources so we can deal with an immediate threat. That immediate threat is the proliferation of nuclear materials and nuclear weapons. When President Bush first took office in 2001, he made missile defense one of his highest priorities. Since fiscal year 2002, approximately $45 billion has been spent on missile defense. In fact, this represents a huge amount. If you look back to 1984, when President Reagan began the search for a strategic defense initiative--we have spent, since President Bush took office, half again the amount of money that was spent from 1984 to 2002. This has been a huge program. It has been named as a priority by the President. In fact, the Missile Defense Agency, as a result, rushed to field a system--any system--in fact, a system that many claim--and it seems to be the case--does not work very well. So last year, six ground-based interceptors were placed in silos at Fort Greely in Alaska. Two interceptors were placed in silos in Vandenberg Air Force Base. In September 2004, President Bush declared that this missile system was operational. A seventh interceptor was put in place at Fort Greely last month. Now, one of the critical aspects of declaring a system operational, it seems to me, is successful testing. Unfortunately, this element-- successful testing--seems to be absent from the present ground-based system. In fact, it is highly questionable whether this is at all operational. In missile defense, interceptor tests are critical, and they should involve a real missile intercepting a real target. These tests are the only means to truly assess whether a missile defense system has a chance to work against an enemy missile. The first intercept flight test of the system was conducted in December 2002, and it was a failure. Over the next 2 years, seven other planned tests that were contemplated were canceled because of technical reasons. In December 2004, 3 months after the missile defense system was declared operational--3 months after we supposedly had a working system--the Missile Defense Agency conducted only the second integrated flight test on this multibillion dollar system. It failed. On February 14, 2005, there was another integrated flight test, and it, too, failed. After three consecutive failures, Lieutenant General Obering, the Director of the Missile Defense Agency, established an Independent Review Team to examine test failures and recommend steps for improving the test program. The team made some interesting observations. The team's report stated: With the focus on rapid deployment of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system, there was not always adequate opportunity to fully ground test the system prior to each flight attempt. The team also found: Schedule has been the key challenge that drives daily decision making in the program. What you have here today has been a rush to failure, a succession of flight test failures, a premature declaration of operational characteristics of the system. No one will argue that the development, in a deliberate way and in a technically feasible way, of a missile defense system is not a good thing for the country, but what has happened over the last several years has been this rush to failure. In addition to the evaluation team I previously mentioned, General Obering requested RADM Kate Paige to direct a Mission Readiness Task Force to study the review team's recommendations and put the program on a path to success. This task force made the following recommendation: There will be a significant increase in ground testing of all systems, components and processes before resuming flight testing. Contractors will be held accountable for their performance. The first flight test will not be an intercept test and the first intercept test will not take place for more than a year. I commend General Obering and the Missile Defense Agency for implementing these recommendations, for realistically assessing their technical capacity, for realistically beginning to test on the ground before they fly, for doing the things that are both prudent and necessary in this regard. The next interceptor flight test is not scheduled until a year from now, so we will not know until fiscal year 2007 whether the problems that led to the past test failures have been fixed. Let me evaluate where we are. We presently have nine interceptors in the ground, but we do not know if they will work because we have not had a fully successful flight test. In addition, the administration has requested and Congress has provided most of the money for 30 more interceptors. So we have nine in the ground which we have not adequately tested, and we have also, through the President's request and the majority's concurrence, purchased 30 more of these interceptors. Yet in the President's fiscal year 2006 budget request, he requested long lead funding for an additional 10 operational interceptors. These are in addition to 30 interceptors we are already buying on top of the 9 we have in the ground, all of which have not been adequately tested. Furthermore, it must be noted there is also the issue of production rate capacity. Production rate capacity for the interceptor is 1 per month, or 12 per year. That means the Defense Department is seeking funding for more missiles than can be built in 1 year. As we all know, this is an annual authorization process. There is no need to pay for more interceptors than can be built in 1 year, especially when there is no guarantee that any of them will work in operational circumstances. At this point the responsible thing to do is to slow down funding and reallocate the money to a more pressing threat. That is what this amendment does. This amendment takes $30 million from the long lead procurement for more interceptors and $20 million for funding for initial construction of silos to house these interceptors and increases funding for the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program by $50 million. As we all know, the goal of the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program is to eliminate the threat of unsecured nuclear material from falling into the wrong hands. A 2001 task force, chaired by former Senator Howard Baker and former White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler, studied nonproliferation programs for almost a year and concluded: The most urgent unmet national security threat to the U.S. today is the danger that weapons of mass destruction or weapons-usable material in Russia could be stolen and sold to terrorists or hostile nation states and used against American troops abroad or citizens at home. That was before September 11. Certainly since September 11, this warning is much more ominous and should be much more closely followed. It is estimated that Russia has approximately 16,000 nuclear weapons stored at 150 to 210 sites. Only about 25 percent of these sites have received any upgrades for security in the past 5 years. At the rate planned in the fiscal year 2006 budget request, it would be around 2011 or 2012 before work at only a portion of the sites would be completed to bring them up to the levels of security and safety that we would feel confident this nuclear material would not be stolen, misplaced, or somehow diverted into the wrong hands. Because of the agreement between President Putin and President Bush at the February summit in Bratislava, we have a unique opportunity to improve security at an additional 15 sites. The problem, of course, is funding. The cost of securing these 15 sites is $350 million, funding that is not in this budget. This project deserves top priority. This amendment provides some funding--not complete funding--$50 million toward securing nuclear material. As I have said before, I support the concept and, deployment of a system that has been tested and truly works for national missile defense. I think it is a system we should pursue. But I also believe the Missile Defense Agency is more than adequately funded for its fiscal year 2006 mission, and some money can and should be diverted to more pressing needs without harming this missile defense program. This amendment does not affect the funding or deployment of the first 30 ground-based interceptors. They will continue to be built and deployed. Again, this is all in a situation in which we haven't had a truly effective, complete flight test of even the first missiles we have acquired. This amendment does not touch $53 million included in the bill for long lead funding for eight test missiles. It is essential to produce these missiles for testing. This amendment simply takes into account that only 12 interceptors can be produced in a year so the funding for the 6 that cannot be used should be reallocated to the dire threat of nuclear proliferation so that no one, no terrorist, can obtain nuclear material or a nuclear device because we have been negligent in securing those materials along with other countries, and use those weapons against our soldiers in the field or citizens here at home. We have an obligation. The most existential threat that faces this country is a terrorist, nonstate actor obtaining a nuclear device, surreptitiously moving into the United States or some other area of vital interest to the United States, and detonating that device. The more we do to resist and thwart that threat, the more we are responding to the true threats that confront this country. I retain the remainder of my time.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask that amendment No. 2409 be called up for immediate consideration.

Mr. REED. This amendment strikes section 6031 of the reconciliation act which pertains to case management services. States have the ability to identify groups such as children and adults with AIDS, children in foster care, other vulnerable groups, and find comprehensive services. These services include educational and social as well as medical services. The underlying reconciliation bill will force these services to be paid for by third parties, the State or others. That will decrease the use of these services and actually end up costing more to the States, and it will disrupt many of the very appropriate programs we have. In fact, many of these programs save money by dealing with these people. I would point out that this legislation does not require an offset, nor does it require a supermajority vote since we are striking language in the underlying bill. I reserve any time I have.

Mr. REED. I thank the Chairman for his clarification regarding dispensing fees. I look forward to working with you as this process moves forward to ensure that any reforms in the Medicaid pharmacy payment system will provide adequate reimbursement to pharmacies for dispensing Medicaid prescriptions since beneficiary access to lifesaving medications depends on pharmacies to dispense them. medicaid waivers

Mr. REED. Mr. President, this bill will hurt programs that exist today that help children, people with AIDS, a host of people. I received this information not from the Clinton administration but from providers in my own community, Christian Brothers who deal with children, social workers who deal with adults.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, my amendment would restore the ability of HUD to preserve and rehabilitate affordable housing. The FHA upfront grant and below-market sales programs are designed to help local governments purchase FHA foreclosed multifamily properties in order to preserve and rehabilitate these units into affordable housing. Currently, the money for this program comes from the FHA General Insurance Fund, not from appropriations. This gives HUD significant flexibility in providing these funds if the need arises. The proposal before us today will restrict HUD from using the FHA General Insurance Fund to support both the below-market sales program and the upfront grant program. It is a program of about $50 million a year. My amendment would strike the language prohibiting the use of these funds to allow them the flexibility to continue this program. Because it strikes language, no supermajority vote is necessary, and no offset is necessary. I retain the remainder of my time.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I engage my colleague, the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, in a colloquy about his intent regarding Medicaid pharmacy dispensing fees in the Medicaid pharmacy reimbursement reform section of the Budget Reconciliation Act. As I understand the intent of these provisions, States are required to pay dispensing fees to pharmacies for Medicaid prescriptions, but there are no specific minimum fees set forth in the bill. States are given some guidance regarding the factors to use when setting the fees, but there are no requirements to do anything more than take those factors into ``consideration'' when setting fees. I am concerned that the States will not be able to accurately account for these factors when setting these dispensing fees. As a consequence, pharmacies will be paid significantly less for the drug product that they provide to Medicaid recipients. This could make it difficult for Medicaid recipients to continue to obtain their prescription medications from their neighborhood pharmacy, and many pharmacies may have to close or reduce hours. The total payment to pharmacies for the drug product and dispensing fee must be adequate to pay pharmacies to buy the drug, dispense the medication, and have a reasonable return. It is my understanding that States would have to pay double or triple the dispensing fees currently being paid to he pharmacies just to break even. I am also concerned that States do not have any guidance or direction in the bill on how to set their dispensing fees for generic drugs in relation to brand name drugs. While the bill does say that States should set dispensing fees for non innovator multiple source drugs higher than innovator multiple source drugs that are therapeutically equivalent and bioequivalent, I urge that the language require that fees for generic drugs in general be set higher than fees for brand name drugs. This will encourage the dispensing of generic drugs which can be one-fifth the cost of a brand name drug.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2396.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I strongly oppose the so-called Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005. This reconciliation bill and the administration's budget are fiscally irresponsible and reflect misguided priorities. As a matter of fact, the reconciliation bill at the end of the day will further increase the deficit by more than $35 billion over the next 5 years. In 2 weeks, both the Senate Finance and the House Ways and Means Committees are expected to report a second reconciliation bill that will cut taxes by $70 billion. This $70 billion reduction in tax revenue will more than eliminate the effect of the cuts to critical programs in the reconciliation bill that we are considering this week. With the enactment of two reconciliation bills, there is a real effort by this administration and the majority to perform a bait and switch on the American people. Significant portions of the reduction that are achieved in this reconciliation bill are achieved by cuts in programs on which low- and moderate-income Americans rely. The Senate reconciliation package includes a total of $39.1 billion in spending cuts over 5 years, of which $10 billion will come from Medicaid and Medicare. The House reconciliation package could have cuts as high as $50 billion over the same period, with $9.5 billion coming out of Medicaid. In contrast, the benefits of the second reconciliation bill that this body will soon undertake will go overwhelmingly to high-income individuals. The tax reconciliation bill is expected to extend many provisions from the 2003 tax cut that expire in 2008 to 2010 that lower the rate on dividend income and capital gains. Just extending these provisions through 2010 is likely to cost nearly $23 billion. The bill before us today includes a series of spending reductions that target pharmaceutical pricing and reimbursement, curtail the definition of `targeted case management' under Medicaid, and eliminate the `HMO slush fund' under the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 and the Federal Housing Administration's affordable housing preservation programs. A provision to update reimbursements for doctors will have a direct impact on seniors in the form of higher Medicare part B premiums. Republicans have tried to disguise these cuts by restoring funding for the State Health Insurance Program SCHIP for States such as Rhode Island, allowing parents of severely disabled children to `buy-into' Medicaid, and by increasing student financial aid. Meanwhile, the House reconciliation bill is truly an even worse deal for low-income and vulnerable Americans, as it would impose new copayments on Medicaid beneficiaries and allow States to scale back coverage. It also would tighten rules designed to limit the ability of elderly people to shed assets in order to qualify for nursing home care. And, for the first time, people with home equity of $500,000 would be ineligible for nursing home care under Medicaid. The House bill also includes $844 million in cuts to food stamps, overturns a critical court ruling, Rosales v. Thompson, which allows for Federal support of abused and neglected children in foster care who reside with family members, weakens States' ability to establish and enforce child support orders, and raises interest rates and fees that students pay on their college loans. The House package takes almost $20 billion out of child support and student loans alone, compounding the effect on struggling working families. I commend Chairman Grassley and the rest of the Finance Committee for their diligence in attempting to craft a reconciliation measure that would not directly impact Medicaid beneficiaries. By contrast, the House, targeted beneficiaries through increased Medicaid cost sharing among other program changes. In an effort to further minimize the impact of the reconciliation bill on these populations, I offered two amendments. The first amendment would restore Targeted Case Management services, TCM, to assist eligible high-need Medicaid beneficiary groups, such as children in foster care, children and adults with HIV/AIDS, children with developmental disabilities and mental retardation, individuals with substance abuse disorders and mental illness, and at-risk tribal populations, access to needed medical, social, educational, and other services. States have flexibility whether to offer TCM services and which population to cover, and, nearly every state now offers TCM services. We should not jeopardize an essential bridge to services for these populations. By focusing cuts on Medicaid and other essential Federal programs, the reconciliation package will most harshly impact those who cannot advocate for themselves--abused and neglected children in foster care, at-risk youth, single parents, the disabled, persons with mental illness, and vulnerable elderly. I understand that the intent of the TCM provision was to codify a HHS policy from January 2001. Again, I applaud the Chairman for attempting to clarify this provision, however, I am deeply concerned that the provision, when implemented, will severely restrict the providers' ability to serve our most vulnerable Medicaid beneficiaries. The second amendment would strike the Banking Committee's portion of the reconciliation bill that eliminates the ability of HUD to use the FHA General Insurance Fund to provide grants to help preserve FHA- foreclosed multifamily properties as affordable housing. Given the current affordable housing crises in our country, the grants are more important than ever and should be maintained. I am disappointed that these and other amendments that would have addressed many of the deficiencies of the bill failed. One such amendment was Senator Cantwell's amendment to protect the Artic National Wildlife Refuge from drilling. Earlier this year, the Senate Budget Committee included in the fiscal year 2006 budget resolution provisions that paved the way to arctic drilling. Senator Cantwell offered an amendment to strike language authorizing artic drilling from the reconciliation bill, which would undo this exploitation of the budget process and permit an open debate of the issue. Unfortunately, her amendment failed. The bill not only opens up the Artic to oil and gas development, but does so in a way that does not accord this pristine wilderness protection under existing mineral leasing laws and regulations, existing environmental protections, and existing rules of administrative procedure and judicial review. In short, it affords the Arctic Refuge less protection than current law affords other refuge or public land that is open to oil and gas development. Drilling in the Artic will not help us address our nation's energy problems. It is yet another giveaway to big oil companies. The reconciliation bill also includes a provision that would extend agricultural commodity payments until 2011. Extending existing subsidy programs will continue policies that are bad for the environment. While the bill extends the life of subsidy programs and three conservation programs until 2011, it does not extend the life of four other conservation programs past 2007. These programs, which restore wetlands, grasslands, and other wildlife habitat and protect farmland and ranchland are critical to meeting some of the Nation's most significant environmental challenges. In the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, escalating home energy prices, and stagnant wage growth, taking money from important federal programs in order to pave the way for billions of dollars in tax cuts shows how out of touch the majority and administration are with hardworking Americans. The bill before us is lamentable, and I only hope that those who support it today will reassess their positions in the weeks ahead as we consider other reconciliation bills that will further add to our deficit and continue a path towards misguided priorities.

Mr. REED. Madam President, while the Enzi-Kennedy amendment passed on a voice vote, I want the record to reflect my opposition to this amendment. We have all seen the devastation of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and I certainly understand and share my colleagues' desire to address the needs of displaced school children. Unfortunately, this amendment, which frankly is more than 2 months overdue, falls far short of the help needed for the affected families and public schools. It falls short financially, since it provides less money than these schools need in order to re-open and serve the children of the Gulf Coast. It also falls short constitutionally by making payments to private religious schools on behalf of students who fled these hurricanes and are now attending such schools across the country. Now, I understand that these hurricanes did not differentiate between public and private school students, and that we need to be able to provide some assistance for all students affected by them. However, this amendment is not the answer. As my colleagues are very well aware, we currently have a mechanism in current law to provide support to students in private schools. We do it everyday under Title I and Title V of NCLB, and under IDEA. These children should have been helped over 2 months ago with the funding mechanisms we already have in place. That is why this amendment is not about getting help to these students. This is about using these students' needs as a pawn to further the Republican agenda of vouchers. In addition, we are doing a disservice to families displaced by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita by not informing them that this assistance is just for this school year. No where in this legislation is there a requirement that parents be notified that this assistance is temporary and that it will not be renewed beyond August 2006. Instead of being fair to these parents by providing them with transparent information, this amendment fails to include a provision to notify parents that this assistance is time-limited. We have an obligation to inform parents receiving this assistance that this funding is a one-time deal. Without clear language on this point, language which I suggested to the sponsors of the amendment, parents will have an unfounded expectation that this aid will be there next year and perhaps even for years to come. These families are settling down in new communities, and they may lack the resources, ability, or desire to go back to the gulf coast. Of course, we want to help families in their moment of need and distress. I understand my colleague, Senator Landrieu's position on this matter, and her sincere desire to help her constituents. I too believe this assistance to schools, both public and private, is important, needed, and appropriate. But this amendment could and should have been structured in a way that contains clear notification requirements and that mirrors current law. This legislation is not the direction we should be heading. This legislation is a stalking horse for a national voucher program. At the same time, it provides less funding than is needed to repair and fund our devastated public schools. It provides very little accountability for the use of taxpayers' funds and provides little or no enforcement of the civil rights protections that would exist if money were sent through existing funding mechanisms. I want to thank Senators Enzi, Alexander, Kennedy, and Dodd, because I know that they have worked very hard to improve this amendment, and I appreciate their efforts. I urge my colleagues to continue to work to address the concerns I have raised as this bill moves forward.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I understand Senator Byrd will now offer his amendment. I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of his remarks that I be recognized for up to 10 minutes to speak on amendment No. 2194.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Corzine, and the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, be added as cosponsors to my amendment.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I send a modification of this amendment to the desk.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, the Gregg amendment would appropriate $1.2 billion into the State block grant program for LIHEAP. That would mean, because of the arcane nature of the formula, States such as Minnesota, Washington, and Wisconsin will see no increase, Iowa will have under a 3-percent increase, and Oregon has less than a 7.5-percent increase. In sum, the States that need this help right away, the cold-weather States, will see little help from the amendment. Moreover, his amendment is funded by cutting valuable programs--Head Start, education for disabled Americans, a host of programs--that cannot be made up. As our chairman and ranking member said, this amendment probably will be disregarded in conference because they will not fund but be taking away what very little exists already--title I, Head Start, and a host of other programs. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. We will try again for a real LIHEAP amendment.

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.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, Senator Collins and I have proposed an amendment that would raise LIHEAP funding to a total of $5.1 billion. That is absolutely necessary as we approach the winter with rising fuel prices, rising natural gas prices. Our amendment will help all States. I want to make it very clear all of our funding goes into the State block grant program, so no State will be disadvantaged. My colleague from New Hampshire has introduced a complementary amendment that does not provide, in my view, sufficient funding. At his level of funding, States such as Minnesota, Washington, and Wisconsin will receive no new money. I think that is unfortunate because those States and the citizens of those States deserve the kind of support that will be necessary this winter. Fifty-three Senators have already joined us to support the increase in LIHEAP spending to the $5.1 billion total mark. I hope they will continue to support us. There is a second storm surge coming from Katrina, and that is rising energy prices that have overwhelmed vulnerable families throughout this country. In addition, my colleague from New Hampshire is proposing to fund this with an across-the-board cut. That across-the-board cut will disappear in conference. As Chairman Specter has pointed out, this bill is bare bones. When the conferees arrive and look at the funding for Head Start and look at funding for other critical programs, I do not think they are going to allow this supposed increase in LIHEAP funding. Also, we are paying for this LIHEAP increase by taking away valuable programs: 37,000 students in title I will be denied services because of these cuts. We are going to reduce IDEA spending. We are going to reduce Head Start spending. We are essentially robbing Peter to pay Paul, taking from some who need to give to others who need. That is not fair. It is not appropriate and it is unnecessary. This is an emergency. Just as the storm damage in the gulf was an emergency, this is an emergency. I urge support of the Reed-Collins amendment and opposition to the Gregg amendment. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. REED. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, quickly, Senator Collins and Senator Gregg and I are trying to put more money in the State block grant program. Mr. President, $1 billion will not provide assistance in many States that need it now, Wisconsin and other States that are going to see a very difficult winter. Only by supporting our amendment will we reach all the States, all the people who need it. These cuts, as Senator Harkin suggested, are illusory; they will not be made. Frankly, I don't think it is appropriate, when we are trying to help poor people in the wintertime to heat their homes, we think about offsets; we think about that when we are providing tax cuts for very wealthy Americans. I urge passage of Reed-Collins and the rejection of the Gregg amendment.

Mr. REED. I move to waive the applicable section of that act for the purposes of the pending amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.