[Page S14639]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PASS THE CONTINUING RESOLUTION NOW

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise in support of House Joint
Resolution 108, the continuing resolution. I am pleased that Congress
and the President, after long negotiations, were able to work out this
agreement that would provide interim levels of funding for programs and
activities of the Federal Government until November 13, 1995.
I understand the President will sign this bill. Its expected
enactment over the weekend will avert a massive shutdown of the Federal
Government, and all of the many costly problems that would cause for
people in my State and throughout the Nation who depend on the Federal
Government for Social Security, Medicare, student loans, farm payments,
and other benefits and services--and for Federal workers who might
otherwise have been furloughed for an extended period starting as early
as next week. I expect that the administration will exercise its
spending authority to avoid furloughs that is provided for in this
bill.
I am also pleased that at my urging, working with White House Chief
of Staff Leon Panetta, the Appropriations Committee removed the
outrageously unfair and arbitrary provision in the bill which would
have prohibited any Low-Income Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
funding to be distributed to the States.
Several days ago, I alerted Appropriations Committee Chairman
Hatfield to my concerns about this matter in a letter, a copy of which
I ask be printed in the Record following my statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, in the letter, I observed that LIHEAP
is a highly targeted, cost-effective way to help 5.6 million very low-
income American families--or roughly 15 million individuals--to pay
their energy bills. More than two-thirds of LIHEAP households have
annual incomes less than $8000; more than one-half have incomes below
$6000. Further, the average LIHEAP recipients spend 18.4 percent of
their income on energy, compared with 6.7 percent for all households.
I pointed out that Minnesota is the third coldest State, in terms of
heating degree days, in the country, after Alaska and North Dakota.
Especially in cold-weather states like Minnesota and Oregon, funding
for LIHEAP is critical to families with children and vulnerable low-
income elderly persons, who without it could be forced to choose
between food and heat.
The LIHEAP program assists approximately 110,000 households in
Minnesota, and provides an average energy assistance benefit of about
$360 per heating season. In Minnesota, where the first snows have
fallen in some parts of the State, that heating season is already
underway, and many people are relying on this funding. While I believe
that more should have been released, considering the unique nature of
LIHEAP which historically releases the bulk of its funds to cold-
weather States immediately in October, I am pleased that at least some
of these funds--about $140 million--will be made available immediately
on Monday to help pay fuel bills, fix or replace furnaces on an
emergency basis, and help with weatherization against the coming
winter.
While final funding levels for LIHEAP for this winter and next will
likely have to be settled on the Senate floor, and in a conference
committee, interim funding for the first part of this winter will be
made available on October 1 to avoid large numbers of utility shut-offs
and other heating emergencies that could have resulted in serious
heating-related tragedies, including the deaths of people in cold-
weather areas whose furnaces fail and who are unable to get them
repaired or replaced, or other serious problems for those who are
unable to pay for the heating season's first fill of fuel without
LIHEAP assistance, or who are otherwise placed at risk by this
provision.
Mr. President, this is a compromise bill. It does not provide for
adequate funding levels for all Federal programs. But in general it
applies its spending formulas in a way that is fair and responsible,
and I urge its prompt enactment.

exhibit 1

September 26, 1995.
Hon. Mark Hatfield,
Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I write to urge you to drop from the
continuing resolution that is being prepared for likely
Senate floor consideration later this week the provision that
would prohibit all federal Low-Income Energy Assistance
Program (LIHEAP) funds from being released until enactment of
the FY 1996 Labor-HHS Appropriations bill, which could be
delayed until late November.
In my view, it is outrageous that recipients of energy
assistance are being singled out, among those who are helped
by all programs of the federal government, for this special
funding restriction. I hope you will agree that isolating for
especially harsh treatment families with children and
vulnerable low-income elderly persons, who without LIHEAP
assistance early this winter could be forced to choose
between food and heat, is deeply unfair, arbitrary, and even
mean-spirited, and should be opposed. It is especially
troubling that such an important decision could be made
without a single hearing, or even a public indication of the
Committee's intentions.
As you know, the huge reductions in this winter's LIHEAP
funding (approximately 25 percent) contained in the recently-
enacted rescissions bill was one of the main reasons I
insisted on an opportunity to try to amend the bill to
restore LIHEAP funding on the floor. Though that effort was
unsuccessful, I believe it showed the substantial support
which exits within the Senate for the program, and for its
goal of providing critical energy assistance to qualified
recipients.
While final LIHEAP funding levels will likely have to be
debated on the Senate and House floors, and again in
conference, interim funding for early this winter must be
made available on October 1 to avoid large numbers of utility
shut-offs and other heating emergencies that could result in
serious tragedies. These could include the deaths of people
in cold-weather areas whose furnaces fail and who are unable
to get them repaired or replaced, or other serious problems
for those who are unable to pay for the heating season's
first fill of fuel without LIHEAP assistance, or who are
otherwise placed at risk by this provision.
LIHEAP is a highly targeted, cost-effective way to help 5.6
million very low-income American families--or roughly 15
million individuals--to pay their energy bills. As the
Committee's report on the rescissions bill observed, more
than two-thirds of LIHEAP households have annual incomes less
than $8000; more than one-half have incomes below $6000.
Further, the average LIHEAP recipients spend 18.4 percent of
their income on energy, compared with 6.7 percent for all
households.
Minnesota is the third coldest state, in terms of heating
degree days, in the country, after Alaska and North Dakota.
Especially in cold-weather states like Minnesota and Oregon,
funding for LIHEAP is critical to families with children and
vulnerable low-income elderly persons, who without it could
be forced to choose between food and heat. The LIHEAP program
assists approximately 110,000 households in Minnesota, and
provides an average energy assistance benefit of about $360
per heating season. In Minnesota, where the first snows have
fallen in some parts of the state, that heating season is
already underway, and many people are expecting this funding
to be released, as long scheduled, on October 1.
This proposal to arbitrarily prohibit distribution of all
LIHEAP funds to the states on October 1 could wreak havoc in
the lives of eligible vulnerable elderly, families with
children, and other low-income people in my state and across
the nation. I urge you in the strongest terms to reject it.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Paul David Wellstone,
U.S. Senate.
Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
resolution be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be
laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
So the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 108) was deemed read the third
time and passed.

____________________