Deficit Reduction Act of 2005--Conference Report
DEFICIT REDUCTION ACT OF 2005--CONFERENCE REPORT
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am sure it will come to no one's surprise that I desire to use this time to discuss the appropriations bill, the Defense appropriations bill that is before the Senate in the form of a conference report.
Over the night I have been thinking--as a matter of fact, too many nights I have been thinking about this conference report. As I thought about it, I thought about some of the comments that have been made that this is something new; that people should not put--I should not put a nongermane portion into this conference report because it is a violation of the rules.
I remember the times we discussed Senator Byrd's steel loan guarantees or the mountaintop mining problem. I remember Senator Conrad coming to me in a conference report dealing with the great problems of disaster funding in South Dakota and the Devils Lake issue. I remember Senator Dorgan on that one, too. I remember Senator Harkin coming to me and asking me to deal with the multibillion-dollar environmental program and agriculture authorization program in an appropriations bill. I remember Senators Jeffords, Kohl, and Leahy asking me to deal with the Northeast dairy compact. I remember Senator Bill Nelson telling me about the terrible problems of the shuttle disaster and ensuring key operations at the Kennedy Space Center.
For Northeast Senators on LIHEAP, in this bill, at my urging, there is a provision for $2 billion as emergency funds for LIHEAP. The House was further reluctant to agree to that until we worked out the funding mechanisms for repayment of that money on an emergency basis when the funds come in from the sale of spectrum.
Similarly, it went to the Budget Committee. They agreed that the estimate in the bill for ANWR of $2.5 billion for revenues from bidding was low and they, in fact, have agreed that there will be approximately $5 billion coming in.
But they can't, under the procedures, change the estimate under the Budget Act.
In this bill, we have allocated that money to repay emergency funding for other programs, emergency funding that the House would not agree to before including the $1.1 billion for homeland security.
Some people say to me: What you are doing is dragging this in front of people. You want them to vote with you. I haven't talked to anyone in connection with what I have done in this bill and said I will do this if you will vote for this bill. I have done it because I believe those things are right to do. If the Senate believes they are right to do, they are going to vote for cloture on the conference report. If they want to send it back to the House, they will vote against the cloture on the conference report or they will vote in favor of a point of order against the conference report. And then it goes back to the House, the House has to reconstitute itself, and we have to appoint new conferees.
The House has sent word this morning to forget about that. They heard what I said, and they said we will ask for a continuing resolution for the Defense Department appropriations until we all come back. Our people have gone home for Christmas, they say. I don't know whether they will.
But all I know is we are at a crucial juncture of a series of things, and one of them is, in fact, the subject I have dealt with now for 25 years since Senator Jackson and Senator Tsongas came to me and said stop the filibuster against the bill called ANILCA in 1980. President Clinton wanted it very much. And they said we will set aside 1.5 million acres of the Arctic as you have requested, and it will be open to oil and gas development until that process is finished. It will not became part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge until that is over.
For 25 years now, I have tried to get that commitment fulfilled. We passed a bill and Clinton vetoed it. We have had it before several Senate sessions, and it has always been filibustered on the other side. This year, we are successful in getting it in the reconciliation bill, which is the bill before the Senate right now, at urging of a bipartisan group in the House. They urged me to allow them to defeat that so there would be easy passage for this bill over there. It was passed very quickly, and it is before us now. They said put the amendment on the Defense appropriations bill and we will help you get it passed in the House. They did that. An overwhelming majority voted for it.
Now we hear all sorts of things--I am getting tired of being accused of so many things--outrageous, cantankerous Senator who is responsible for the bridges. I wasn't responsible for the bridges. They arose in the House. But I did defend them here in the Senate.
As a practical matter, history is behind us now, and we have before us a bill which is the Defense bill.
I have managed this bill, or the Senator from Hawaii has managed this bill, since 1981. I don't think there are any two Senators who know any more about funding for the Department of Defense than the two of us. We pride ourselves in doing a good job, and we have done the best possible job we can now. We have I think two of the best staff directors in the Senate. Sid Ashworth sits beside me now and Charles Houy is always beside Senator Inouye.
We have a bill before the Senate now and a conference report that provides $446.7 billion to the Department of Defense. It has a $50 billion contingency for Defense. It is a conference report which should be voted on.
I hear some people say they are going to oppose cloture on the conference report. I can't imagine anyone voting against cloture on a conference report for Defense. You can argue about some of the amendments that were attached to it. That is fine. They can be voted on individually by points of order. But the conference report on Defense is for the troops. The conference report on Defense really goes far beyond the amendments that are on this bill.
Those who vote against this conference report must know that what they are doing is they are setting up a delay in the process of getting money to the troops.
I have argued since July that this bill should not be delayed. I am not responsible for the delay. What I am responsible for now, since this the last bill, is attaching three important amendments to it.
One deals with Avian flu. That issue was raised by Senator Harkin. When I managed the bill on the floor, I first said that is extraneous, and we shouldn't put it in the bill. The more I thought about it, I went to him and said: You are right. Let us take this to conference and see what we can do.
We took it to conference and what resulted was not only money for avian flu, but the money for avian flu was approximately the same as Senator Harkin sought.
But we have added liability compensation provisions to it. This is a stronger amendment now than Senator Harkin asked me to add to the bill.
I ask: Are we going to vote against getting ready for the pandemic? If this bill falls, we will go back into conference. But a point of order against this bill under rule XXVIII, as I understand it--I will explain that in a minute--will take all of those, and it is a matter for the Senate to decide.
If a rule XXVIII point of order is raised against the conference report, the conference report in its entirety collapses. Rule XXVIII does not act similar to the Byrd rule and the offending provisions are taken out of the bill. A brandnew conference will have to be convened and new conferees will have to be appointed by each House. When the conference convenes, the conferees have to be circumspect about including any matter not committed to the bill by each bill from the House.
In other words, we will go back and be in conference, and we will come back and still be right where we are now. The items for the avian flu would be added. It may be that ANWR would be deleted.
I have to tell you, if we are going to a new conference, I am going to argue to put it back in. It should be there, and the votes in the conference are there to put it back in.
We are going to face up to ANWR either now, or Christmas Day, or New Year's Eve, or sometime--however long we stay in. We are going to face the question of should we keep the commitment made by Senator Jackson and Senator Tsongas.
This bill goes beyond, though, in terms of the subject matter that should be discussed.
We have to realize that ANWR is germane to the bill. Nothing is more germane and essential to national defense than energy. Our Department of Defense consumes 110 to 112 million barrels of oil. I have a chart concerning that. That is the consumption of Department of Defense.
The consumption during this global war on terror has risen to 133 million barrels of oil. This is a 20-percent increase in demand due to the general war on terror.
ANWR supports national security because it unquestionably will increase the national supply.
So when you vote on the question of whether this is beyond the scope, sure it was not in either bill, but is it germane?
Is it part of national defense? Listen to what Senator Jackson said at the time we debated the oil pipeline amendment, which Senators will remember was passed by one vote when the Vice President of the United States broke the tie.
In almost every issue I have been involved in since I have been here about Alaska, it has been a narrow vote. Why? Because extreme environmentalists think it is their playground, that they should set the policies for Alaska.
Here is what Senator Jackson said as chairman of the Energy Committee. This involves national security. It is a national security issue. He said this:
It involves national security. There is no serious question today that it is urgently in the national interest to start North Slope oil flowing to markets.
Today we have a pipeline. I ask unanimous consent this report be printed in the RECORD following my remarks. It is titled ``Prudhoe Decline Highlights U.S. Oil Dependence.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. STEVENS. It shows Alaska's oil has decreased. Here are the figures. At one time we went up to 1.885 million. We actually have an ultimate capacity of 2.1 million. There were some surges where we transported more than 2 million barrels a day. Its design capacity is more than 2 million barrels a day. Now, throughput is 935,000. I was informed recently that the amount going through at this time, the average production, is down to 381,000. We have a pipeline designed to carry 2 million barrels of oil and it is running at a little over 30 percent throughput.
Where is the oil to come from? ANWR. It should have come from ANWR. If President Clinton had not vetoed our bill in 1995, it would be coming through now.
I urge my colleagues to think about what ANWR means and why we are here. We are here because every time we have been here, we have been frustrated by filibuster. Is it unethical to try to find a way around a filibuster, to try and find a way so we can fulfill our constitutional right--that is, to have an issue decided by a majority vote? All I am asking is to have an issue decided by majority vote.
Cloture is a creature of the Senate. The concept of unlimited debate is a creature of the Senate. I abide by it. I believe in it. However, we also have the process to curb that; that is, to have cloture on a bill. Now it is cloture on a Defense bill. I don't ever recall having to get cloture on a Defense appropriations bill.
As I said, in the 1973 timeframe when we had the Alaska oil pipeline built, a most controversial bill at that time, there was not one Senator who suggested a filibuster. We all knew oil was a matter of national security. It was agreed it would be an up-or-down vote. As a matter of fact, we had two votes. We had the first vote, and because one person was off the floor, we then had a second vote. That person came back to the Senate. He was standing right outside the door. When he voted, it created a tie. The Vice President then broke the tie.
We are at the point now where we should recognize what we have done is to finally have found a way to get a vote on the basic issue in the Senate in a way that will take the bill to the President. It is a DOD bill. It is a bill the President will sign, I am certain. But keep in mind what else is in this bill.
Before I get to that, I have to remember my good friend Judge James Buckley. I said before in the Senate, he was one of the first ones to oppose drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. In January of this year he sent me a letter, unsolicited. He says this in the final paragraph:
Having visited the Arctic on nine occasions over the past 13 years (including a recent camping trip to Alaska's North Slope), I don't think I can be accused of being insensitive to the charms of the Arctic qua Arctic. I just don't see any threat to the values I cherish.
He changed his mind. He said, do your best to get it drilled.
I ask unanimous consent to have his letter printed in the RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, beyond that, we have a series of problems I would like to mention in closing. Then I will be back. That is the question of the point of order.
In 1996, we overturned a point of order on the aviation bill. It was a question of the FAA conference report, conference on the FAA. Senator Hollings, my great friend, Fritz Hollings, offered an amendment to that bill. The Chair ruled that Senator Hollings' amendment exceeded the scope of the conference. The Senate voted 56 to 39 to overturn the ruling of the Chair. I was part of that debate and in support of Senator Hollings. There are still in the Senate a series of people who voted to overturn that Chair. Senator Chafee's father, the former Senator Chafee did, Senator Conrad did, Senator DeWine did, Senator Domenici did, Senator Feinstein did. We have a whole series of people. My great friend, brother, Senator Inouye did, Senator Jeffords did. We have a series of Members who did. Senator McConnell did. Senator Pryor's father did. Senator Reid did. So did several other Members here today.
I am making the point it is not something new to ask the ruling of the Chair be disagreed with. We seek to settle the disagreement over whether the amendments are within the scope--they technically are beyond the scope--but should the scope be adhered to in the circumstances today? Should they be adhered to for avian flu? Is there any Senator who wants to protest against that? Should they be adhered to on Katrina? Sure, if there is advance appropriations on Katrina, I found ways to advance moneys to the people in those disaster areas and repay them with future income.
The House of Representatives has approved that. The Committee on the Budget says if you make the assumptions I make, it is a fair way to do things. No, they did not say ``fair way'' but a way to do things.
When you look at it right now, the issue comes down to my amendment and that is ANWR. ANWR, to me, is the most significant thing we can do today because we are down now to importing almost 60 percent of our oil. No matter what anyone says, that is an enormous burden on our economy. It is such a great burden that the scope of it has to be detailed in order to find the solutions for the problems we face.
Remember, in defense now, 7 of the 10 suppliers of this country for petroleum for defense are not U.S. suppliers. Did you know that? Of the 10 suppliers of petroleum to defense, 7 are foreign countries. Twenty percent of the petroleum the DOD purchases comes from Middle East countries that embargoed our oil in the past.
We are dealing with a matter of security to increase our domestic supply. Our State not only produces oil, we refine in Alaska a considerable amount of the jet fuel used by our military. A considerable portion of our military comes to Alaska each year: 52 million gallons in Elmendorf, 21 million gallons in Eielson, 3.5 million gallons for Coast Guard, 76.5 million gallons in terms of our total purchases from our refined oil.
I do believe we have more than doubled our energy imports since 1969 and we are exporting now approximately half a billion a day for foreign oil. If that money were spent in the United States--we only spent $1 billion of it in the United States--it would produce 12,500 jobs. In 2003, we outsourced 1.3 million jobs by importing oil rather than producing it in the United States.
In the area where the distinguished occupant of the Chair comes from, Louisiana produces a substantial portion of this oil, but many of the facilities down there have been damaged or are in need of repair.
We should be doing everything we can to diversify the sources of our energy supplies. By developing the coastal plain, we will create between 700,000 and 1 million jobs. We will put $60 million back into the economy each day, money that will be paid to U.S. employees and paid to the United States, which will increase the flow of taxes into our Treasury.
I apologize for being slightly tired and sort of disconnected in terms of how I deal with this process, but I summarize by this: We have disaster assistance, we have home energy assistance, LIHEAP, we have interoperable equipment for the first responders, we have emergency preparedness for the cities and the States, we have border security, 1.1 billion of real money, 1996 money.
There is no other money available for 2006. It includes money for infrastructure and border assistance. And we also have money for agricultural assistance.
The amendment of the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Cochran, really does a tremendous job in meeting some of the disaster needs beyond those which will be met by my amendment.
I will have more to say later. But, Mr. President, I urge the Senate to think. We can either pass this bill soon and do our job and fulfill the demands and desires of millions of people, or we can pull this bill down, the conference report down, and ask the House to reconstitute another committee, a conference committee, and go back into the conference committee with approximately the same conferees and try to reach a different result.
I, frankly, do not see there would be much difference. As a matter of fact, if I am a member of that conference committee, it will produce the same result. So face up to the issue now and decide whether you want to provide for energy independence in the future, whether you want to provide for LIHEAP, for disaster, for first responders, for border security, or whether you just want to continue debating ANWR.
Thank you very much.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have asked for this time to share with the Senate the letters of support I have received as chairman of the Defense Subcommittee in support of the Department of Defense appropriations conference report. These groups include public safety groups, including: Association of Public Safety Communications Officials International, called APCO; Congressional Fire Services Institute; International Association of Chiefs of Police; International Association of Fire Chiefs; Major Cities Chiefs Association; Major Counties Sheriffs' Association; National League of Cities; and National Association of Counties.
In addition to that list, there are letters from labor: Veterans of Foreign War; Naval Reserve Association; American Legion; American Petroleum Institute; Competitive Enterprise Institute; Ducks Unlimited; National Association of Manufacturers; Campaign for Home Energy Assistance; National Defense Council; Edison Electric Institute; Reserve Officers Association; and Chamber of Commerce.
Also in support are the Air Transport Association and the American Gas Association.
Having read that list, I want to read from some of those letters, which I consider to be very significant. Before getting to that, however, I have just received an announcement from the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee that if this conference report is not approved, the House believes that a continuing resolution should fund the Government. I do believe we ought to listen to the voices from the House concerning what is going to happen if this conference report is not approved.
The Association of Public Safety Communications Officials International, which includes all of these people I have talked about now, in terms of all of the associations with regard to public safety, has said they support this measure, that it can provide $1 billion for the Department of Homeland Security. There is $1 billion in State and local governments preparedness grants.
I have the letter from American Legion which specifically points out that they have reviewed the conference report and support its enactment. It states specifically:
The American Legion continues to support the further development of domestic sources of energy to include increasing petroleum exploration and production in an environmentally sensible manner so as to reduce America's reliance on foreign petroleum.
That is a very positive statement concerning the ANWR provisions.
Veterans of Foreign War have written to me saying they believe this conference report should be approved as quickly as possible. I will ask to have their letter printed in the RECORD.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute says that, yes, there should be a vote now on this conference report. They specifically applaud the provision that will provide for initiating exploration and development of the Arctic plain and states that environmental groups have spread misinformation about ANWR for years.
I will ask for that to be printed in the RECORD. It points out the legislation passed by the House will limit oil and gas drilling only to involve 2,000 acres of the 1.5 million acres of the Coastal Plain and states there is strong support for this provision.
I have a memo from Unions Responsible for ANWR Development. It specifically urges support of this legislation because ANWR will create thousands of jobs to the members of America's union organizations. It is signed by the International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO; the Seafarers International Union, AFL-CIO; the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Change to Win Federation; the United Association of Plumbers & Pipefitters, AFL-CIO; Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO; United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Change to Win Federation; and the Building & Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO.
It specifically includes a letter from John Engler, who is the head of the Nation's largest industrial trade association representing large and small manufacturers in every industrial sector. It specifically says:
We simply cannot afford to pass up this opportunity. The NAM will consider as possible Key Manufacturing Votes in the 109th Congress NAM voting record all votes--including points of order, cloture and/or other procedure votes-- on this bill.
The Naval Reserve Association has written to me indicating that they, too, would like to have this spending bill to provide assistance for Guard and Reserve members passed as soon as possible.
The American Legion, as I said, has indicated their support for this bill.
Ducks Unlimited has sent out a release that indicates that $1 billion for conservation funding will be dedicated to voluntary, private, landowner-friendly programs administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and they ask for the immediate approval of this bill. They sent a similar release to the House of Representatives expressing their overwhelming support for this bill. I think this is one of the great organizations of the United States with over a million supporters that ought to be listened to.
The Edison Electronic Institute also supports this bill. They state:
[This] conference report that was approved in the House earlier this week provides a total of $2.5 billion in base funding and $1.7 billion in emergency assistance funding for a total of $4.2 billion for the LIHEAP ..... double the highest funding level ever achieved--for this program, and it is due to the ever-increasing cost of energy. This assistance is necessary. Particularly, this assistance is necessary for the States and local governments affected by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma.
There is also a letter from the Campaign for Home Energy Assistance. This is really a copy of their release. It says:
The Defense appropriations bill appears to be our best and possibly last opportunity for an increase for this vital program.
They have issued a call to action.
The Campaign for Home Energy Assistance urges you to call your Senators today and ask them to vote for this Defense appropriations bill. .....
The National Defense Council likewise has written to us urging that after decades of debate concerning energy resource issues, this bill be passed. They have a fairly long statement on their position. Unquestionably, this is very important support for the bill from the National Defense Council Foundation.
The Reserve Officers Association of America issued a call to action asking for support for this bill, for passage of this conference report. I urge Members to consider their support.
I have a letter from the American Gas Association written to us, sent out as a release urging support of this legislation to finally approve the provisions that have been passed not only by the House but by the Senate in this calendar year.
There is almost an unlimited number of letters that have been coming into our office urging support. As I indicated in my opening comments, the Air Transport Association sent a letter also. They sent a copy of that letter to me urging that the enactment of this bill be swift. I think it is very interesting that the Air Transport Association, representing the U.S. airline industry which has taken such a hard hit on the increase in gas prices, should show overwhelming support for this bill.
I have sent every Member a letter outlining what is coming with regard to the rule XXVIII point of order. I wish to put that letter in the RECORD so there is no mistake about what I have told the Members concerning our position on this potential rule XXVIII point of order.
My chief of staff points out to me the items in Congressman JERRY LEWIS's release. As I understand, it is not proper under the rules to announce the vote in the House; therefore, I will not disclose it. I am sure it is proper to say the House overwhelmingly passed this bill. It urges a vote now on the conference report and wants this conference report to be passed. It does not want to be forced to rely on a continuing resolution to support the Department of Defense.
Mr. President, I have tried to outline some of these items. I will be bringing more before the Senate as they are received.
I again repeat my request that the letters I read be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
U.S. SENATE,
Washington, DC, December 19, 2005.
DEAR MEMBER: A Rule 28 point of order against the Defense Appropriations Conference Report may be raised. I ask you to think very carefully about your position on this issue because vital funding and programs are at stake in this decision.
A Rule 28 point of order will apply to all provisions in the bill that are beyond the authority of the conferees. These provisions include:
The Hurricane Supplemental, which contains $29 billion for hurricane victims. Included in this supplemental is funding for education expenses, housing, and reconstruction efforts in the disaster areas.
The Gulf Coast Recovery Fund provides short and long-term disaster relief funding for Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Texas, and Florida.
Avian Flu Liability language included with funding that will encourage the vaccine industry to return to the United States, so that we may be able to create Avian Flu vaccines here at home.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) is funded on an emergency basis in FY06 with $2 billion for home heating assistance.
$3.1 billion is included in the bill for homeland security. Included is funding for Interoperable Communications Equipment Grants to state and local governments, which will help first responders communicate in the event of a natural disaster or terrorist attack.
Emergency Preparedness Grants to state and local governments. All states are assured a certain level of funding. Funds will be allocated based on threat and risk levels.
Funds for increased border security, helicopter replacement, and security infrastructure, which is funded on an emergency basis.
An additional $1 billion for farm bill conservation programs, which will help farmers and ranchers meet current challenges and ensure the productivity of their land for future generations.
If a Rule 28 point of order is sustained, the entire Defense Appropriations Conference Report will fall. Rule 28 does not allow us to strike specific provisions from a conference report; it kills the conference report altogether. Since the House has voted, it will be necessary to appoint new conferees in the House and the Senate, and we will have to start over.
Some Members have suggested that we could simply return to conference with the House, strip the provision regarding development on the Arctic Coastal Plain, and pass the bill with the provisions listed above. This is simply not possible. A portion of the funding for these initiatives and programs comes from the revenue ANWR will provide.
We tried to pass bills that funded these priorities, but we could not find an agreement to do so on an emergency basis. These provisions were included in this bill because we were able to generate additional federal revenues, including revenue generated by development on the Arctic Coastal Plain, which will provide the funds we need and repay emergency spending. If a Rule 28 point of order is sustained, forcing us to begin a new conference, many of the items listed above will need to be stripped from the bill as well. We cannot pay for them without the additional revenue ANWR will provide.
With best wishes,
Cordially,
Ted Stevens.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I don't know how many more times I will be before the Senate before this matter comes up tomorrow. I do hope it will come to the floor early tomorrow because we need time to consider the points of order that will lie against the conference report.
To me, approval of the conference report really means we are putting aside the debate that might take place on the individual items that may be raised here. The conference report is not subject to amendment, but it is possible to have almost unending delay on the points of order. They are debatable and, therefore, the reason for the cloture motion is primarily to reduce debate on these various points of order we will have and find some way to assure there will be an early passage of the conference report.
This is a conference report providing enormous assistance to the Department of Defense, particularly the $50 billion in emergency funding that is primarily required to support those who are in our uniform defending the Nation in terms of their activities in the war on terror. I urge the Senate to vote cloture to limit that debate. We will have the points of order. We will have the points of order under the Budget Act under rule XXVIII, but there is no reason to have unlimited debate on those points or order.
The cloture motion is for the best interest of the Department of Defense to get this bill to the Department of Defense as quickly as possible. If those points of order are sustained, obviously, we will have to go back to conference, have a new conference, and we will have to appoint new conferees. The House is spread all over the country. How quickly we can do that, I don't know.
I do believe that it is in the best interest of the Nation to adopt this conference report. It does not contain items, as far as this subject, ANWR, is concerned, that have not passed before. We have approved ANWR before in this Reconciliation Act, and the House has passed the act before. We have added provisions I described dealing with the funding that will come in from ANWR. But otherwise it was considered before and passed by the House of Representatives previously.
I don't know how much more time I have. Has my time expired?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I don't know who is to come next. I don't want to charge any time to the pending measure. That was the understanding. So I will just let the time run for a minute.
I will again remind the Senate that the money that is in the bill that is before us, the conference report that is before us, that its emergency funding will not survive another conference. It will only survive this conference because the money that was predicted to be available from income from the sale of oil and gas leases in ANWR--and the OMB did increase its estimate from $2.5 billion to $5 billion. However, they did not increase that for budget purposes. They confirmed the fact that it would come in. So we have allocated that money under this bill, particularly to LIHEAP, to low-income housing assistance. That cannot survive another conference if ANWR is deleted.
So for those people who want that money, and it has been pointed out that is an enormous increase due to the situation that exists because of the fantastic increase in home heating costs, it does not have to be spent. It is there in reserve to be spent. We do not mandate that they spend that money. We make it available to them on an emergency basis if it is necessary, and it may well be necessary through the balance of this winter.
So I do urge the Members of the Senate to vote for the conference report, vote for cloture on the conference report, and help us prepare for the points of order that may be raised after the cloture motion has been approved. I am getting tired, and I apologize.
Now is my time expired?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. STEVENS. I yield the floor.
http://thomas.loc.gov/