Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 654, submitted earlier today by Senator Brown.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution and the preamble be agreed to en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements related to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10:30 a.m. tomorrow, Thursday, September 11; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and that there be a period of morning business for up to 1 hour, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the Republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the second half; and that following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of S. 3001, the Department of Defense authorizations bill. I further ask that there be a moment of silence at 12:30 p.m. to honor the victims of the September 11 attacks.

In addition to the moment of silence tomorrow, at 11:45 a.m. on the West front steps of the U.S. Capitol, there will be a bipartisan, bicameral congressional ceremony to honor those who lost their lives and heroically saved others in the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order following the remarks of Senator Lieberman.

I thank Senator Mikulski and Senator Brown. I will be very brief.

In the United States today, there is a nursing shortage approaching a crisis. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, more than 1.2 million new and replacement nurses will be needed by 2014. We are not educating enough nurses to meet this need, which is why the U.S. Department of Health foresees a nursing shortage of over 1 million by 2020. Yet, even with such an enormous need for nurses, U.S. nursing schools turned away--turned away--41,000 qualified applicants for baccalaureate and graduate nursing programs in 2005 because they do not have the resources to train more nurses. If community college nursing programs are included in these numbers, 150,000 well-qualified applicants are turned away each year from nursing programs.

The College Opportunity and Affordability Act includes an important new program which will enable our colleges to train more nurses to meet the nursing crisis. It provides extra capacity for nursing students in a very simple, efficient, and cost-effective way.

The nursing provision in title VIII provides colleges, community colleges, and universities a grant for each additional student their nursing program enrolls over their previous average enrollment. The nursing program gets a $3,000 grant for each additional student, money which will help defray the increased cost required to teach and train that student. With this program in place, nursing programs can expand to admit an additional 10,000 student nurses each year, or more, at modest costs.

I thank Chairman Mikulski, and I thank Huck Gutman of my office for his outstanding work over the last year. This is an outstanding program, and we are going to begin to address a serious problem.

I yield for Senator Brown.

Mr. President, today there is some good news and some bad news. The bad news is that oil is at $123 a barrel and working people are paying $4 for a gallon of gas, and this coming winter residents of the Northeast could be paying over $5 for a gallon of heating oil.

But, there is some good news. Today, the CEOs of ExxonMobil, Shell, BP and ConocoPhillips are celebrating. They're feeling pretty good. And, they have good reason to feel that way.

ExxonMobil reported today that it made over $11.68 billion in profits over the 2nd quarter alone, breaking its own record for the largest quarterly profit of any American company in the history of the world.

But, ExxonMobil is not alone. Shell's 2nd quarter profit jumped by 33 percent to $11.56 billion; and BP's 2nd quarter profit jumped by 28 percent.

As a matter of fact, since George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have been in office, the five largest oil companies have made over $640 billion in profits. This includes $212 billion for ExxonMobil; $157 billion for Shell; $125 billion for BP; $80 billion for ChevronTexaco; and $66 billion for ConocoPhillips.

Believe it or not, the Big 5 oil companies made more profits during the 2nd quarter, than they did during the entire year of 2002.

Now, with the exception of my Republican friends here in Congress, there are very few people in this country who believe the oil companies give one hoot about the well-being of the American people. Our Republican friends are saying that if we just give these huge oil companies more acres offshore to drill for oil, they will certainly do the right thing, as they always have, for the American people. Let's just trust those big oil companies because they are really staying up day after day, night after night, worrying about the well-being of the American people. That is what their full-page ads in the New York Times and all their ads on television are telling us.

Well, it is good to see there are at least some people in America who believe that. I don't, but apparently my Republican colleagues do.

Let me tell you, big oil companies are so concerned about Americans paying high prices for gas and oil that this is what they are doing with their profits:

In 2005, ExxonMobil gave its CEO, Lee Raymond, a $398 million retirement package--one of the richest compensation packages in corporate history. They weren't going out looking for new land to drill on, they weren't building more refineries, and they weren't working on energy efficiency. They gave their CEO a $398 million retirement package.

In 2006, Occidental Petroleum, gave its CEO, Ray Irani, over $400 million in total compensation.

The situation is so absurd and the greed of the oil companies is so outrageous that these companies are not only giving their executives huge compensation packages during their life here on earth, but they have also created a situation, if you can believe it, where these oil companies have carved out huge corporate payments to the heirs of senior executives if they die in office. I guess this is what happens when you have more money than you know what to do with.

According to the Wall Street Journal, if the CEO of Occidental Petroleum dies in office, his family will get $115 million. The family of the CEO of Nabors Industries, another oil company, would receive $288 million. This would be funny if it were not so pathetic in the sense of the impact this type of spending has on the American people.

Not only are huge oil companies using their record-breaking profits on big compensation benefits for their CEOs, but they are also spending large sums of money buying back their own stock. In other words, when they are making these very large profits, they are not going out drilling for more oil, as our Republican friends are suggesting.

In fact, While Americans are struggling to pay for the skyrocketing price of gasoline; big oil companies are having an entirely different problem. For the past seven years, big oil companies are struggling to figure out what they are going to do with all of their windfall profits.

Let me quote from a headline taken from the front page of the Wall Street Journal way back on July 30 of 2001, ``Pumping Money: Major Oil Companies Struggle to Spend Huge Hoards of Cash.'' According to this 2001 article, ``Royal Dutch/Shell Group said it was pumping out $1.5 million in profit an hour and sitting on more than $11 billion in the bank.'' That was in 2001. Since that time Shell's profits have more than tripled.

On April 18, 2005, Fortune Magazine published an article with the Headline ``Poor Little Rich Company,'' referring to ExxonMobil. According to this article, ``ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond, suddenly has a new anxiety: how to spend the windfall wrought by $55 a barrel oil. By the end of April [of 2005], Exxon will have a cash hoard of more than $25 billion. . . . At a time when domestic energy production is declining and drivers are paying a record $2.15 a gallon [remember, this was in 2005], American consumers, not to mention politicians, are likely to start focusing on whether Exxon is spending enough to find oil and gas. While Exxon is returning more money to shareholders via dividends and buying back more of its stock, its spending on drilling and other development activities actually declined in 2004--even though crude prices jumped by a third.'' That was when the price of oil was $55 a barrel and gas was $2.15 a gallon. Today oil is over $123 a barrel and gas is about $4 a gallon.

What is happening today? Big oil companies are spending even more on stock buybacks and CEO compensation and less on trying to produce more oil.

For example, ConocoPhillips recently announced that it plans to give all of the $12 billion in profits it made last year back to shareholders, paying more than $3 billion in dividends and spending the rest to buy back shares of its own stock. To put this in perspective the money that ConocoPhillips is spending on stock buybacks and dividends is enough to reduce the price of gas by 9 cents a gallon throughout the entire United States.

Now, I want my Republican friends to listen closely. They have been saying over and over again that big oil desperately needs all of these windfall profits to drill for more oil.

But, guess what? According to the CEO of ConocoPhillips, James Mulva, ``We like the discipline of the share repurchase. If we find that we have more cash flow, it's not really going to be going toward capital spending.'' In other words, ConocoPhillips won't use their windfall profits to drill for more oil, or invest in renewable energy, or explore for new sources of oil discoveries no matter how much their profits rise.

Overall, since 2005, the five biggest oil companies have made $345 billion in profits and spent over $250 billion buying back stock and paying dividends to shareholders.

Last year, ExxonMobil spent 850 percent more buying back its own stock than it did on capital expenditures in the United States.

The $38 billion in windfall profits that ExxonMobil gave back to shareholders last year could have been used to reduce gas prices at the pump throughout the United States by 27 cents a gallon for the entire year.

Mr. President, let's not kid ourselves. One of the major reasons as to why Americans are getting ripped-off at the gas pump has to do with the tremendous power and influence that big oil companies have in the Congress. As a matter of fact, since 1998, the oil and gas industry has spent over $616 million on lobbying activities.

Who have they hired? Well, on April 8 of this year, The Hill reported that Chevron hired former Majority Leader Trent Lott, a Republican; former Senator John Breaux, a Democrat; their sons Chester Trent Lott, Jr. and John Breaux, Jr.; and Trent Boyles, who was Lott's Chief of Staff to lobby Congress on issues relating to trade, climate change, and energy taxes.

ExxonMobil has hired former Senator Don Nickles, a Republican from Oklahoma, who served in this body for 24 years, to lobby Congress on behalf of their issues.

These are just a few of the hundreds of lobbyists that big oil and gas companies have hired to influence Congress, many of them former Senators, former Congressmen, and former Congressional staffers.

That is one of the reasons why, among many other reasons, this Congress, in recent years, has decided to give some $18 billion in tax breaks to oil companies despite their record-breaking profits.

In addition, since 1990 big oil companies have made over $213 million in campaign contributions. And that is a simple fact.

Lo and behold, what we are hearing today--just coincidentally, no doubt--is that the most important thing we can do in terms of the energy crisis is to provide more land offshore for the oil companies to drill at a time when they already have some 68 million acres of leased land, which they are not drilling on today.

The American people want action, and there are some things we can do--not in 15 or 20 years but that we can do right now.

First, we need to impose a windfall profits tax on big oil companies so that they would be prohibited from gouging consumers at the gas pump.

Unfortunately, instead of taking away big oil's windfall profits and giving it back to the American people, Republicans want to provide even more tax breaks to big oil. In fact, Sen. McCain has a plan that would give ExxonMobil a $1.5 billion tax break.

Now, we have heard Republicans give three reasons as to why they are opposed to a windfall profits tax.

First, Republicans claim that the last time Congress enacted a windfall profits tax in 1981 it had the effect of increasing our dependence on foreign oil. Wrong. Mr. President, when Congress repealed the windfall profits tax in 1988, the U.S. was importing 7.4 million barrels of oil a day. Today, the U.S. is importing over 13.4 million barrels of oil a day. We are far more dependent on foreign oil today without a windfall profits tax than we were 20 years ago when we had a windfall profits tax.

Secondly, my Republican friends tell us that the windfall profits tax didn't work because Congress repealed it in 1988. That is also wrong. While I would have structured it differently, the fact of the matter is that from 1981 until 1988 when the windfall profits tax was repealed, the price of oil fell from $35 a barrel to less than $15 a barrel. In addition, gas prices at the pump fell from $1.35 a gallon to 90 cents a gallon--a drop of 45 cents a gallon. And the Federal Government collected over $80 billion in revenue.

The reason why the windfall profits tax was repealed was due to low oil and gas prices, which makes perfect sense. If oil and gas prices are low, big oil companies are not making windfall profits and there is no need for a windfall profits tax. If gas prices at the pump were only 90 cents a gallon, I would be one of the first Senators to say we don't need a windfall profits tax. But, they are not. They are over $4 a gallon.

Finally, Republicans claim that big oil companies need to keep their windfall profits so that they can increase production and build more refineries. That particular argument is laughable.

Big oil companies have been making windfall profits for over seven long years--and they are not using these profits to build more refineries and they are not using it to expand production. Instead, they are using this money to buy back their own stock, increase dividends to their shareholders,

and enrich their CEOs, as I have explained earlier.

Not only do we need to impose a windfall profits tax on these extremely powerful oil corporations, but we also have to address what I perceive is a growing understanding that Wall Street investment banks, such as Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase, and hedge fund managers are driving up the price of oil in the unregulated energy futures market. In other words, they are speculating on energy futures and driving up prices.

There are estimates that 25 to 50 percent of the cost of a barrel of oil is attributable to unregulated speculation on oil futures. We have heard from some leading energy economists, and we have heard from people in the oil industry themselves who tell us that 25 to 50 percent of the cost of a barrel of oil today is not due to supply and demand or the cost of production but is due to manipulation of markets and excessive speculation. In essence, Wall Street firms are making billions as they artificially drive up oil prices by buying, holding, and selling huge amounts of oil on dark unregulated markets.

Some of my Republican friends claim that the increase in the price of oil has nothing to do with speculation, but it is interesting to me that we have had executives of major oil companies--major oil companies--who have come before Congress and who are saying, ``Why is oil $125, $130, and $140 a barrel?'' Do you know what they say? The CEO of Royal Dutch Shell testified before Congress and said: ``The oil fundamentals are no problem. They are the same as they were when oil was selling for $60 a barrel.''

This is not some radical economist. It is not some left-winger. This is a guy who is the head of Royal Dutch Shell.

The CEO of Marathon Oil recently said: ``$100 oil isn't justified by the physical demand in the market.''

I know my Republican friends have a lot of respect for the oil industry, a great competence in them. They love them and give them huge tax breaks. So maybe they should listen to what some of these guys are saying in terms of oil speculation.

For those who believe that excessive speculation is not causing oil prices to climb higher, let me just say this. Over the past 7 years, Enron; BP; and Amaranth were caught redhanded manipulating the price of electricity; propane; and natural gas. Each time, supply and demand was to blame and each time the pundits were proven wrong. Excessive speculation; manipulation and greed were the cause. Enron employees are in jail for manipulating the electricity market in 2001; BP was forced to pay a $300 million fine for manipulating propane prices in 2004; and the Amaranth hedge fund collapsed after manipulating natural gas prices in 2006.

The Stop Excessive Speculation Act introduced by Majority Leader Reid begins to seriously address this problem. We need to pass this bill as soon as possible.

The bottom line is that it is time for the United States Senate to say no to big oil companies and greedy hedge fund managers and yes to the American people.

Mr. President, today there is some good news and some bad news. The bad news is that oil is at $123 a barrel and working people are paying $4 for a gallon of gas, and this coming winter residents of the Northeast could be paying over $5 for a gallon of heating oil.

But, there is some good news. Today, the CEOs of ExxonMobil, Shell, BP and ConocoPhillips are celebrating. They're feeling pretty good. And, they have good reason to feel that way.

ExxonMobil reported today that it made over $11.68 billion in profits over the 2nd quarter alone, breaking its own record for the largest quarterly profit of any American company in the history of the world.

But, ExxonMobil is not alone. Shell's 2nd quarter profit jumped by 33 percent to $11.56 billion; and BP's 2nd quarter profit jumped by 28 percent.

As a matter of fact, since George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have been in office, the five largest oil companies have made over $640 billion in profits. This includes $212 billion for ExxonMobil; $157 billion for Shell; $125 billion for BP; $80 billion for ChevronTexaco; and $66 billion for ConocoPhillips.

Believe it or not, the Big 5 oil companies made more profits during the 2nd quarter, than they did during the entire year of 2002.

Now, with the exception of my Republican friends here in Congress, there are very few people in this country who believe the oil companies give one hoot about the well-being of the American people. Our Republican friends are saying that if we just give these huge oil companies more acres offshore to drill for oil, they will certainly do the right thing, as they always have, for the American people. Let's just trust those big oil companies because they are really staying up day after day, night after night, worrying about the well-being of the American people. That is what their full-page ads in the New York Times and all their ads on television are telling us.

Well, it is good to see there are at least some people in America who believe that. I don't, but apparently my Republican colleagues do.

Let me tell you, big oil companies are so concerned about Americans paying high prices for gas and oil that this is what they are doing with their profits:

In 2005, ExxonMobil gave its CEO, Lee Raymond, a $398 million retirement package--one of the richest compensation packages in corporate history. They weren't going out looking for new land to drill on, they weren't building more refineries, and they weren't working on energy efficiency. They gave their CEO a $398 million retirement package.

In 2006, Occidental Petroleum, gave its CEO, Ray Irani, over $400 million in total compensation.

The situation is so absurd and the greed of the oil companies is so outrageous that these companies are not only giving their executives huge compensation packages during their life here on earth, but they have also created a situation, if you can believe it, where these oil companies have carved out huge corporate payments to the heirs of senior executives if they die in office. I guess this is what happens when you have more money than you know what to do with.

According to the Wall Street Journal, if the CEO of Occidental Petroleum dies in office, his family will get $115 million. The family of the CEO of Nabors Industries, another oil company, would receive $288 million. This would be funny if it were not so pathetic in the sense of the impact this type of spending has on the American people.

Not only are huge oil companies using their record-breaking profits on big compensation benefits for their CEOs, but they are also spending large sums of money buying back their own stock. In other words, when they are making these very large profits, they are not going out drilling for more oil, as our Republican friends are suggesting.

In fact, While Americans are struggling to pay for the skyrocketing price of gasoline; big oil companies are having an entirely different problem. For the past seven years, big oil companies are struggling to figure out what they are going to do with all of their windfall profits.

Let me quote from a headline taken from the front page of the Wall Street Journal way back on July 30 of 2001, ``Pumping Money: Major Oil Companies Struggle to Spend Huge Hoards of Cash.'' According to this 2001 article, ``Royal Dutch/Shell Group said it was pumping out $1.5 million in profit an hour and sitting on more than $11 billion in the bank.'' That was in 2001. Since that time Shell's profits have more than tripled.

On April 18, 2005, Fortune Magazine published an article with the Headline ``Poor Little Rich Company,'' referring to ExxonMobil. According to this article, ``ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond, suddenly has a new anxiety: how to spend the windfall wrought by $55 a barrel oil. By the end of April [of 2005], Exxon will have a cash hoard of more than $25 billion. . . . At a time when domestic energy production is declining and drivers are paying a record $2.15 a gallon [remember, this was in 2005], American consumers, not to mention politicians, are likely to start focusing on whether Exxon is spending enough to find oil and gas. While Exxon is returning more money to shareholders via dividends and buying back more of its stock, its spending on drilling and other development activities actually declined in 2004--even though crude prices jumped by a third.'' That was when the price of oil was $55 a barrel and gas was $2.15 a gallon. Today oil is over $123 a barrel and gas is about $4 a gallon.

What is happening today? Big oil companies are spending even more on stock buybacks and CEO compensation and less on trying to produce more oil.

For example, ConocoPhillips recently announced that it plans to give all of the $12 billion in profits it made last year back to shareholders, paying more than $3 billion in dividends and spending the rest to buy back shares of its own stock. To put this in perspective the money that ConocoPhillips is spending on stock buybacks and dividends is enough to reduce the price of gas by 9 cents a gallon throughout the entire United States.

Now, I want my Republican friends to listen closely. They have been saying over and over again that big oil desperately needs all of these windfall profits to drill for more oil.

But, guess what? According to the CEO of ConocoPhillips, James Mulva, ``We like the discipline of the share repurchase. If we find that we have more cash flow, it's not really going to be going toward capital spending.'' In other words, ConocoPhillips won't use their windfall profits to drill for more oil, or invest in renewable energy, or explore for new sources of oil discoveries no matter how much their profits rise.

Overall, since 2005, the five biggest oil companies have made $345 billion in profits and spent over $250 billion buying back stock and paying dividends to shareholders.

Last year, ExxonMobil spent 850 percent more buying back its own stock than it did on capital expenditures in the United States.

The $38 billion in windfall profits that ExxonMobil gave back to shareholders last year could have been used to reduce gas prices at the pump throughout the United States by 27 cents a gallon for the entire year.

Mr. President, let's not kid ourselves. One of the major reasons as to why Americans are getting ripped-off at the gas pump has to do with the tremendous power and influence that big oil companies have in the Congress. As a matter of fact, since 1998, the oil and gas industry has spent over $616 million on lobbying activities.

Who have they hired? Well, on April 8 of this year, The Hill reported that Chevron hired former Majority Leader Trent Lott, a Republican; former Senator John Breaux, a Democrat; their sons Chester Trent Lott, Jr. and John Breaux, Jr.; and Trent Boyles, who was Lott's Chief of Staff to lobby Congress on issues relating to trade, climate change, and energy taxes.

ExxonMobil has hired former Senator Don Nickles, a Republican from Oklahoma, who served in this body for 24 years, to lobby Congress on behalf of their issues.

These are just a few of the hundreds of lobbyists that big oil and gas companies have hired to influence Congress, many of them former Senators, former Congressmen, and former Congressional staffers.

That is one of the reasons why, among many other reasons, this Congress, in recent years, has decided to give some $18 billion in tax breaks to oil companies despite their record-breaking profits.

In addition, since 1990 big oil companies have made over $213 million in campaign contributions. And that is a simple fact.

Lo and behold, what we are hearing today--just coincidentally, no doubt--is that the most important thing we can do in terms of the energy crisis is to provide more land offshore for the oil companies to drill at a time when they already have some 68 million acres of leased land, which they are not drilling on today.

The American people want action, and there are some things we can do--not in 15 or 20 years but that we can do right now.

First, we need to impose a windfall profits tax on big oil companies so that they would be prohibited from gouging consumers at the gas pump.

Unfortunately, instead of taking away big oil's windfall profits and giving it back to the American people, Republicans want to provide even more tax breaks to big oil. In fact, Sen. McCain has a plan that would give ExxonMobil a $1.5 billion tax break.

Now, we have heard Republicans give three reasons as to why they are opposed to a windfall profits tax.

First, Republicans claim that the last time Congress enacted a windfall profits tax in 1981 it had the effect of increasing our dependence on foreign oil. Wrong. Mr. President, when Congress repealed the windfall profits tax in 1988, the U.S. was importing 7.4 million barrels of oil a day. Today, the U.S. is importing over 13.4 million barrels of oil a day. We are far more dependent on foreign oil today without a windfall profits tax than we were 20 years ago when we had a windfall profits tax.

Secondly, my Republican friends tell us that the windfall profits tax didn't work because Congress repealed it in 1988. That is also wrong. While I would have structured it differently, the fact of the matter is that from 1981 until 1988 when the windfall profits tax was repealed, the price of oil fell from $35 a barrel to less than $15 a barrel. In addition, gas prices at the pump fell from $1.35 a gallon to 90 cents a gallon--a drop of 45 cents a gallon. And the Federal Government collected over $80 billion in revenue.

The reason why the windfall profits tax was repealed was due to low oil and gas prices, which makes perfect sense. If oil and gas prices are low, big oil companies are not making windfall profits and there is no need for a windfall profits tax. If gas prices at the pump were only 90 cents a gallon, I would be one of the first Senators to say we don't need a windfall profits tax. But, they are not. They are over $4 a gallon.

Finally, Republicans claim that big oil companies need to keep their windfall profits so that they can increase production and build more refineries. That particular argument is laughable.

Big oil companies have been making windfall profits for over seven long years--and they are not using these profits to build more refineries and they are not using it to expand production. Instead, they are using this money to buy back their own stock, increase dividends to their shareholders,

and enrich their CEOs, as I have explained earlier.

Not only do we need to impose a windfall profits tax on these extremely powerful oil corporations, but we also have to address what I perceive is a growing understanding that Wall Street investment banks, such as Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase, and hedge fund managers are driving up the price of oil in the unregulated energy futures market. In other words, they are speculating on energy futures and driving up prices.

There are estimates that 25 to 50 percent of the cost of a barrel of oil is attributable to unregulated speculation on oil futures. We have heard from some leading energy economists, and we have heard from people in the oil industry themselves who tell us that 25 to 50 percent of the cost of a barrel of oil today is not due to supply and demand or the cost of production but is due to manipulation of markets and excessive speculation. In essence, Wall Street firms are making billions as they artificially drive up oil prices by buying, holding, and selling huge amounts of oil on dark unregulated markets.

Some of my Republican friends claim that the increase in the price of oil has nothing to do with speculation, but it is interesting to me that we have had executives of major oil companies--major oil companies--who have come before Congress and who are saying, ``Why is oil $125, $130, and $140 a barrel?'' Do you know what they say? The CEO of Royal Dutch Shell testified before Congress and said: ``The oil fundamentals are no problem. They are the same as they were when oil was selling for $60 a barrel.''

This is not some radical economist. It is not some left-winger. This is a guy who is the head of Royal Dutch Shell.

The CEO of Marathon Oil recently said: ``$100 oil isn't justified by the physical demand in the market.''

I know my Republican friends have a lot of respect for the oil industry, a great competence in them. They love them and give them huge tax breaks. So maybe they should listen to what some of these guys are saying in terms of oil speculation.

For those who believe that excessive speculation is not causing oil prices to climb higher, let me just say this. Over the past 7 years, Enron; BP; and Amaranth were caught redhanded manipulating the price of electricity; propane; and natural gas. Each time, supply and demand was to blame and each time the pundits were proven wrong. Excessive speculation; manipulation and greed were the cause. Enron employees are in jail for manipulating the electricity market in 2001; BP was forced to pay a $300 million fine for manipulating propane prices in 2004; and the Amaranth hedge fund collapsed after manipulating natural gas prices in 2006.

The Stop Excessive Speculation Act introduced by Majority Leader Reid begins to seriously address this problem. We need to pass this bill as soon as possible.

The bottom line is that it is time for the United States Senate to say no to big oil companies and greedy hedge fund managers and yes to the American people.

Madam President, I suspect if people are watching what is going on here, they do not have any clue or understanding of what is taking place because, in fact, it is fairly incomprehensible. It is pretty hard to understand why bill after bill dealing with issues of enormous consequence for millions of Americans is being filibustered by the Republicans, which means we have to get 60 votes to end the debate, votes which we obviously don't have. From the beginning of the session, there have been 91 filibusters, which is more than anyone has ever seen in the Senate.

The reason the Republicans are filibustering today is because they want to pass the so-called Gas Price Reduction Act. That is the title of their bill. But I would argue that the title of this bill is a complete misnomer. The so-called Gas Price Reduction Act will not lower gas prices today, which stand at about $4 a gallon.

All over this country, people are deeply upset about having to pay these outrageously high gas prices. They are worried about what oil prices will be in the winter. They understand the impact of these oil prices on food and other aspects of our economy. And the Republican legislation is entitled ``The Gas Price Reduction Act,'' but it is not going to reduce these gas prices which are so high today. That is not my view, that is President Bush's view. That is the view of everybody in the world. That is our Republican friends' view. They are saying, quite appropriately and correctly, that if you drill now, maybe in 10, 15, or 20 years, there will be some impact on prices. Well, maybe there will be and maybe there won't be, but there is no argument that in the midst of a crisis today, what they are proposing will have zero impact on our economy right now.

So whatever the merits or lack of merits--and I am not sympathetic to drilling in environmentally sensitive areas in the Outer Continental Shelf--what we should be clear about is that the Republican proposal will do zero to address the crisis of high energy prices today. And again, that is not just my view. President Bush's own Energy Department has said that increased drilling offshore would have ``no significant impact'' on gas prices until the year 2030, and even then its impact would be negligible. That is what President Bush's own Energy Department is saying.

So perhaps our Republican friends might want to change the title of their bill from ``The Gas Price Reduction Act'' to the ``No Significant Impact on Gas Prices; Maybe By 2030 Act.'' That would at least be a more accurate description of what they are trying to do. Maybe there will be some impact by the year 2030, but let's not fool the American people. The American people are angry, they are frustrated about what is going on today. And we could argue whether the Republican policy is good or not good, but let's not kid anybody, it is not going to have any impact on gas and oil prices now.

For those who think it is okay not to do anything or see any impact until 2030, I guess they could support what the Republicans are doing. But I know what is going on in Vermont; that is, workers can't afford $4 a gallon for gas when they are driving 50 miles to work and 50 miles back, and they surely can't afford the price of oil that is coming down the pike next winter. They do not want action in 20 years, they want action now. And in my view, Madam President, that is what we should be doing.

With the exception of my Republican friends here in Congress, there are very few people in this country who believe the oil companies give one hoot about the well-being of the American people. Our Republican friends are saying that if we just give these huge oil companies more acres offshore to drill for oil, they will certainly do the right thing, as they always have, for the American people. Let's just trust those big oil companies because they are really staying up day after day, night after night, worrying about the well-being of the American people. That is what their full-page ads in the New York Times and all their ads are telling us.

Well, it is good to see there are at least some people in America who believe that. I don't, but apparently my Republican colleagues do.

Let me just mention to you, Madam President, just how much concern the oil companies have for the American consumer. While the American people have been paying $4 and more for a gallon of gas, ExxonMobil has made more profits than any operation in the history of the world over the past 2 consecutive years, making $40 billion last year alone. Oil prices are soaring, and ExxonMobil is making recordbreaking profits. But ExxonMobil, of course, is not alone. Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Shell and B.P. have also been making out like bandits. In fact, the five largest oil companies in this country have made over $600 billion in profits since George W. Bush has been President. Yes, they are deeply concerned about the high price of gas and oil. Yes, they really are. It is really upsetting to them. Last year, the major oil companies in the United States made over $155 billion in profits--in just 1 year.

Let me tell you, Madam President, big oil companies are so concerned about Americans paying high prices for gas and oil that this is what they are doing with their profits. You see, our Republican friends would suggest that what the oil companies are trying to do is explore new areas, do new drilling, produce more oil, and lower prices. Well, I don't think so, frankly. I will tell you what they are doing with their huge profits.

In 2005, ExxonMobil gave its CEO, Lee Raymond, a $398 million retirement package--among the richest compensation packages in corporate history. They weren't going out looking for new land to drill on, they weren't building more refineries, and they weren't working on energy efficiency. They gave their CEO a $398 million retirement package.

In 2006, another one of those oil companies that is staying up nights worrying about the American people, Occidental Petroleum, gave its CEO, Ray Irani, over $400 million in total compensation--again, beyond comprehension to ordinary people.

In fact, there were articles recently in the press suggesting that one of the major problems ExxonMobil had is that they had so much cash in hand, they literally did not know how to invest it or how to get rid of it. That was their major problem.

The situation is so absurd and the greed of the oil companies is so outrageous that these companies are not only giving their executives huge compensation packages in their lifetimes, but they have also created a situation, if you can believe it, where these oil companies have carved out huge corporate payments to the heirs of senior executives if they die in office. I guess this is what happens when you have more money than you know what to do with.

In other words, if, according to the Wall Street Journal, the CEO of Occidental Petroleum dies in office, his family will get $115 million. The family of the CEO of Nabors Industries, another oil company, would receive $288 million. So it is not only giving out huge compensation packages; if the CEO dies in office, the family gets a huge package. Madam President, this would be funny if it were not so pathetic in the sense of the impact this type of spending has on the American people.

Not only are huge oil companies using their recordbreaking profits on big compensation benefits for their CEOs, but they are also spending large sums of money buying back their own stock. In other words, when they are making these very large profits, they are not going out drilling for more oil, as our Republican friends are suggesting. Overall, since 2005--3 years ago--the five largest oil companies have made $345 billion in profit and spent over $250 billion of that $345 billion buying back stock and paying larger dividends to their stockholders. That is what they are doing with their money. They are not going out and saying: Gee, how can we do more drilling? Gee, how can we lower the price of oil? They are buying up stock and increasing the benefits to their shareholders.

Last year, ExxonMobil, the largest oil company in our country, spent 850 percent more buying back its own stock than it did on capital expenditures in the United States. And that is a fact.

Let's not kid ourselves. The big oil companies--and I know we are not supposed to talk about this too much in the Senate, but anyone who doesn't believe these oil companies have huge political influence over what goes on here in Washington is surely kidding themselves. Since 1998, the oil and gas industry has spent over $616 million on lobbying. In a 10-year period, they have spent over $616 million in lobbying. Now, what does that mean? It means they hire the best law firms in town, they hire former leading Republicans and Democrats--anybody can come in and work with Members of Congress--to get their way. That is one of the reasons why, among many other reasons, this Congress, in recent years, has decided to give some $18 billion in tax breaks to oil companies despite their recordbreaking profits. Over $616 million in the last 10 years on lobbying, and since 1990 they have made over $213 million in campaign contributions. And that is a simple fact.

Lo and behold, what we are hearing today--just coincidentally, no doubt--is that the most important thing we can do in terms of the energy crisis is to provide more land offshore for the oil companies to drill at a time when they already have some 68 million acres of leased land, which they are not drilling on today.

The American people want action, and there are some things we can do--not in 15 or 20 years but that we can do right now. Not only do we need to impose, in my view, a windfall profits tax on these extremely powerful oil corporations, but we have to address what I perceive is a growing understanding that Wall Street investment banks, such as Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase, and hedge fund managers are driving up the price of oil in the unregulated energy futures market. In other words, they are speculating on energy futures and driving up prices.

There are estimates that 25 to 50 percent of the cost of a barrel of oil is attributable to unregulated speculation on oil futures. I know the Presiding Officer's committee has had hearings on this issue and other committees have had hearings on this issue. We have heard from some leading energy economists, and we have heard from people in the oil industry themselves who tell us that 25 to 50 percent of the cost of a barrel of oil today is not due to supply and demand or the cost of production but is due to manipulation of markets and excessive speculation. In essence, Wall Street firms are making billions as they artificially drive up oil prices by buying, holding, and selling huge amounts of oil on dark unregulated markets.

Some of my Republican friends claim that the increase in the price of oil has nothing to do with speculation, but it is interesting to me that we have had executives of major oil companies--major oil companies--who have come before Congress and who are saying, ``Why is oil $125, $130, and $140 a barrel?'' Do you know what they say? The CEO of Royal Dutch Shell testified before Congress and said:

The oil fundamentals are no problem. They are the same as

they were when oil was selling for $60 a barrel.

This is not some radical economist. It is not some leftwinger. This is a guy who is the head of Royal Dutch Shell.

The CEO of Marathon Oil recently said:

$100 oil isn't justified by the physical demand in the

market.

I know my Republican friends have a lot of respect for the oil industry, a great competence in them. They love them and give them huge tax breaks. So maybe they should listen to what some of these guys are saying in terms of oil speculation.

Some people have suggested or implied that those of us--including people in the oil industry--who believe speculation is driving up prices are into some kind of conspiracy theory, that we just want to demonize Wall Street or big investment banks such as Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. Well, I would like to briefly read an excerpt from a research paper done by Goldman Sachs US Economic Research dated June 2, 2008. This is what they say, and I find this interesting:

Lawmakers and regulators have begun to respond to these

concerns--

Concerns about high oil prices--

but we still think it is unlikely that there will be any

significant legislative changes enacted this year. In fact,

it is entirely possible that Congress will adjourn for the

year without enacting any further legislation focused on

commodity speculation.

And then this is the interesting thing they say:

However, the debate itself could break the rise in energy

prices for a brief period until there is greater certainty

regarding the legislative and regulatory outcome.

In other words, what Goldman Sachs is saying is that even the debate on speculation in the oil industry could have an impact on slowing down oil prices, and it may well be that is the case. We have seen that in the last 2 weeks or so.

Let's talk a little bit about recent history and speculation and market manipulation in terms of the energy market.

In 2000 and 2001, our friends at Enron successfully manipulated the electricity market, and the results, of course, were that in California and on the west coast electric rates went up by 300 percent. It is interesting to remember--and I remember this--what Enron was saying at that time. They were saying don't blame us, it is a supply and demand issue.

I gather those Enron officials, who may be in jail today, are perhaps still saying that, but we know a little bit differently.

We also know that BP artificially increased prices on the propane gas market. They were fined for that over $300 million. We also know Amaranth, a hedge fund, manipulated prices on the natural gas market. In fact, in 2006, Amaranth cornered the natural gas market by controlling 75 percent of all the natural gas futures contracts in a single month.

In other words, the idea of manipulation and speculation and control of a market is not a new idea. We have seen three instances in the last 8 years, with Enron, BP, and Amaranth doing just that.

Given that reality, why would we think it is so shocking that is taking place right now in terms of oil?

Let me conclude by saying it is imperative that we move now in terms of addressing the energy crisis. People all over this country are hurting. They want us to act, and we must act. To my mind, one of the things we have to do is to move this country aggressively forward in terms of energy efficiency and in terms of sustainable energy.

Our Republican friends talk about wanting to grow more energy, increase energy supplies. Let me inform them the Sun does that, the wind does that, geothermal does that, biomass does that. It is incomprehensible to me that time after time legislation has come before this body--including today--which will simply extend the tax credits that have been given for sustainable energy, and we cannot even do that.

There are huge economic gains, not to mention moving forward in terms of global warming and reducing greenhouse gas emissions if we do that. Yet we cannot even get the votes to do that.

We can move forward in terms of a windfall profits tax. We can move forward in speculation. We can move forward in terms of energy efficiency. We can move forward in terms of encouraging the growth of sustainable energy. Those are the things that we can do now. I believe those are the things the American people want us to do.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, It is with great pleasure that I inform you, my colleagues, and the Nation that Vermont's Champlain Housing Trust was selected as one of two recipients of the 2008 World Habitat Award, an honor presented annually by the United Nations.

Each year on World Habitat Day, the United Nations Agency for Human Settlements, which promotes socially and environmentally sustainable towns and cities with the goal of providing adequate shelter for all, presents these awards. Established in 1985, the World Habitat Awards are bestowed on projects that provide practical and innovative solutions to current housing needs and problems. One award is for a project in the global north and the other for a project in the global south.

I have a particularly deep and lengthy interest in the Champlain Housing Trust. It was established as the Nation's first municipally funded community land trust in 1984, when I was mayor of Burlington, VT. It has grown substantially, and today it is not only the first but the largest, community land trust in the country. It has provided a model for securing perpetually affordable housing that has been adopted by many other cities and municipalities across the Nation.

The program came into being because, in the 1980s, Burlington faced a number of housing challenges--and we were looking for innovative solutions. Among other issues that we faced was the reality that low and moderate income households, in the face of rapidly rising and fluctuating house prices, were threatened with displacement. We also believed that decent and affordable housing was a right of all people and not just a commodity for financial gain by a select few. As mayor of Burlington, I was very fortunate to have an outstanding staff as well as strong community input in helping to formulate this concept. Among many others who played an active role in developing what was initially called the Burlington Community Land Trust were Terry Bouricius, John Davis, Peter Clavelle, Michael Monte, Brenda Torpy, and Amy Wright.

When I entered the House of Representatives, my interest in land trusts did not abate. Encouraged by the growing land trust community across the Nation, I successfully introduced legislation that encouraged the use of the land trust model the Burlington community land trust had helped establish so that this model could be expanded to communities across the country.

Meanwhile, ably directed by Brenda Torpy and a legion of committed staff and volunteers over the past two and a half decades, the Champlain Housing Trust has continued to grow and expand its geographic reach, and has been met with unparalleled success. Thousands of low and moderate income families have been able to experience homeownership, while the trust has made great strides both toward revitalizing Burlington's historical Old North End neighborhood and expanding to three different counties in northwestern Vermont.

The Champlain Housing Trust is a model of democracy at the grassroots, involving homeowners, as well as government officials and members of the larger community, in its governance.

It has been a successful experiment that has revealed to the nation and, as this U.N. award demonstrates, to the world as well, how through the land trust concept, home ownership can be combined with making housing perpetually affordable.

The 2008 World Habitat Award is in recognition of all who have worked on establishing and expanding land trusts, all who have bought land trust homes, and all who have helped disseminate the land trust concept. And, in particular, it is a celebration of the wonderful work done by the Champlain Housing Trust.

Mr. President, the State of Vermont has lost one of its greatest teachers, Graham Newell. I wish to honor this remarkable man, an important figure in our State's history in government as well as throughout its system of education.

A seventh generation Vermonter who grew up in the Northeast Kingdom of Vermont, Newell returned to Vermont to teach after earning his degree in classics from the University of Chicago. For eight decades he was the quintessential educator, beginning and ending at his beloved St. Johnsbury Academy and teaching history and social sciences to college students for many years as well, serving as a professor and chair of the Social Sciences Department at Lyndon State College.

Graham Newell was a man who so highly regarded the field of education that he entered politics to be its champion in the State legislature. First elected to the Vermont House in 1953, and later elected to the Vermont Senate, he served as the chairman of both the House and Senate Education Committees. Throughout his tenure in the legislature in Montpelier, Graham Newell worked tirelessly to ensure educational opportunities for students with disabilities. Indeed, Vermont's special education bill preceded comparable legislation on the Federal level

by 20 years. He was also instrumental in the formation of the Vermont State College system and he authored a fair dismissal bill for educators.

Although Graham Newell was a Vermont delegate to the Republican National Convention in 1956 and 1964, he was one of the great practitioners of a long Vermont tradition of nonpartisan politics. He became involved in government reform, serving on the Little Hoover Commission that reorganized Vermont's State agencies, and he was appointed by President Kennedy to the National Advisory Commission on Inter-Governmental Relations. A founding member of the American Civil Liberties Union of Vermont, he championed a strict separation of church and State by opposing public busing for parochial schools.

As the resident Vermont historian at Lyndon State, he was responsible for naming all of its buildings after notable Vermonters. And, in a wonderful instance of turnabout is fair play, St. Johnsbury Academy recently honored him by renaming its foreign languages building Newell Hall.

Above all he valued equality and equal opportunity, principles that no doubt derived from his Vermont upbringing, his long study and admiration for Roman history and from his work in education.

Graham Newell taught Latin at St. Johnsbury Academy well into his nineties, long after he retired from his professorship at Lyndon State College. The indelible mark he made on the communities of St. Johnsbury and Lyndonville will not soon be forgotten. These communities need only look to the countless students whose lives he touched to see the effect he had on them.

Mr. Newell earned countless awards as an outstanding educator, historian and model citizen, including being named the Vermont Chamber of Commerce's Man of the Year in 2005.

It is exemplary citizens such as Graham Newell who have earned Vermont its reputation for civic leadership and principled politics, for sound reasoning in government, and for rising above partisan labels. Today, we honor his memory by recognizing his great commitments: to responsible citizenship, to superior education for all, to teaching, and to public service, and to shaping a future that will be worthy of our past.

How much time remains on our side?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 7 minutes and that the remaining 15 minutes be reserved for Senator Dodd.

Mr. President, the Senator from Alabama said that what the LIHEAP legislation is about is subsidizing fossil fuels. No, that is not accurate. What the LIHEAP legislation is about is keeping people alive in Alabama, in Arizona, in Texas, in Vermont, in Maine, and all over this country. The Senator from Alabama should know that people are dying this summer, when the heat gets to 110 degrees and when electric rates are soaring and they do not have the money to pay those electric bills.

The Senator from Alabama and others should know the CDC, the Centers for Disease Control, have made it very clear that more people die from extreme heat exposure and exposure to the cold than all other natural disasters combined.

Let's be clear what we are voting on this morning. When the Senator from Alabama and others say: Well, we are spending money trying to keep the elderly and the sick and children alive when the weather gets 20 below zero, we are. I will vote for those proposals, rather than hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks for the wealthiest 1 percent.

I will vote to make sure people in Vermont do not freeze in the winter, while we give tax breaks to ExxonMobil that enjoys recordbreaking profits. That is what we are talking about, priorities. Do we keep the old and the sick and kids alive when the weather gets cold or when the weather gets very hot or do we spend money on people who make huge campaign contributions? That is part of what this debate is about.

I have the floor. I will not yield.

Some other people are saying what we should be talking about is energy policy. Well, of course, we should. The energy policy of this country is way out of whack. We are spending $700 billion a year importing foreign oil. We need to move to sustainable energy. We have not moved to energy efficiency. There is an honest debate about where and how much drilling should take place. But that is not what this debate is about.

Since 1981, we have had LIHEAP. It has been supported in a bipartisan manner from everybody from President Bush on down. It is a program that has worked. What everybody in this Chamber understands is the price of home heating oil is soaring, the price of electricity is soaring, and the people will become sick and die and be forced to leave their homes if we do not significantly expand LIHEAP funding in order to make sure they can pay their bills.

Let me reiterate to my friend from Alabama or anybody else: This is not a cold-weather State bill. Am I worried about what is going to happen in Vermont this winter? You can bet on it.

I believe I have the floor.

In Philadelphia, PA, in June, 17 people died from heat exhaustion. In Arizona, over the years, hundreds of people have died because they lack the ability to stay cool in the summer.

This legislation is supported by the AARP because they understand, the largest senior group in America, what will happen to older Americans if it is not passed.

This legislation is supported by the National Governors Association because they know the financial problems facing States and the need for the Federal Government to act. This legislation is supported by the Southern Governors Association because they know what hot weather does to peoples' health, especially the old and the sick when they cannot stay cool.

What we are dealing with is literally a life-and-death situation. People in the hot-weather States will die when temperatures get to be 115 degrees, and they cannot afford the electricity to stay cool with air-conditioning.

People will die in the Northern tier when the weather gets 20 below zero, and they cannot afford the high cost of home heating oil or gas.

The American people are sick and tired of all the partisanship which is going on. Every Member of the Senate can write a press release telling their constituents why they voted no. But you know what, I do not think the people are going to believe you. If we have enough money for tax breaks for ExxonMobil, we have enough money in this country to make sure people do not freeze to death and that people do not die of heat exhaustion.

I hope we can come together while we disagree about other aspects of energy policy. I hope we can finally come together and go back home, whether it is to the South or the North, and tell the American people, we understand what high energy prices are doing to them. We are going to stay with you. We are not going to let the most fragile people in our country, the most vulnerable people in our country, suffer unnecessarily when we know how to help them.

I yield the floor.

I agree with the previous speaker, the distinguished Senator from Ohio, about the need for a national energy policy. He and I may disagree as to what that policy should look like, but at a time when we are spending $700 billion a year importing oil from abroad, at a time when we are contributing toward global warming, at a time when the oil companies are enjoying recordbreaking profits, at a time when some people will tell us, experts will tell us, that speculation is driving up the cost of a barrel of oil by 25 to 50 percent, I think we need a new energy policy.

But I sincerely hope my good friend from Ohio will not penalize the millions of low-income people who are not here on that debate. For them, it is a life-and-death issue, in some cases, about whether we double LIHEAP funding in order to provide the benefits they desperately need. There are many reasons that any of us can give for not voting for a piece of legislation, but I hope in terms of the very important LIHEAP vote, we do not have folks coming up, well, I believe in LIHEAP; I am not voting for A or B; this is why--if we do not double the amount of money for LIHEAP at a time when home heating oil costs will be double what they were a couple of years ago.

Natural gas prices, as the Senator from Ohio said, are rising very rapidly. People throughout the country, in the southern part, are unable to afford electricity and are trying to get by without air- conditioning at a great threat to their health. I hope those people will not be held hostage to the debate we are having.

Yes, of course, we need a national energy policy. Yes, of course, this current policy is a disaster. But, please, let's not create a situation where people die and people suffer. Who gets LIHEAP? My friend from Ohio knows who gets LIHEAP. Those are the elderly people who get LIHEAP. Those are lower income families with children. Those are people with disabilities. Please, let's not hold those people hostage tomorrow while we continue the debate.

So, I say to my good friend from Ohio, count me in as someone who will continue to fight for a national energy policy. I happen to disagree with the Senator on some of the particulars, but we need a national energy policy. Of course, we need to lower the cost of energy.

But, right now, when we are seeing in the northern tier of the country, in the Northeast, a doubling of the price of home heating oil, people will go cold, people will freeze if we do not provide them with the help they need. I hope I can count on my friend's support tomorrow for that legislation.

I am very happy to say, in terms of LIHEAP, we are getting very significant bipartisan support for this legislation. This bill which, as I mentioned, would double the amount of money we are spending on LIHEAP--it is S. 3186, the Warm in Winter and Cool in Summer Act. It now has 52 cosponsors, 35 Democrats, 13 Republicans, and 2 Independents. I want to thank all of them. I want to thank Majority Leader Reid, Senators Obama, Durbin, Murray, Landrieu, Leahy, Cantwell, Jack Reed, Kerry, Kennedy, Schumer, Levin, Cardin, Brown, Klobuchar, Menendez, Casey,--and I want to thank you, the Presiding Officer, for your strong support for this legislation--Bingaman, Lautenberg, Stabenow, Bill Nelson, Baucus, Salazar, Wyden, Whitehouse, Rockefeller, Dodd, Tester, Mikulski, Biden, Kohl, Dorgan, McCaskill, and Boxer.

I also want to thank 13 Republican cosponsors of this legislation. It is no secret that we are in the midst of a lot of partisanship, a lot of bad feelings. But I am very glad that 13 Republicans have come on board this legislation. They are Senators Grassley, Snowe, Stevens, Coleman, Smith, Sununu, Collins, Murkowski, Gregg, Lugar, Bond, Dole, and Specter.

I appreciate their support, as well as Senator Lieberman, the other Independent, in addition to myself. I thank Senator Reid, the majority leader, for trying to push this legislation.

Not only do we have a significant amount of support in the Senate, we are getting support from dozens and dozens and dozens of organizations from all over this country who understand the importance of LIHEAP and the need to substantially increase funding.

Now, one of the organizations that has been very active and actively involved in this issue is the AARP, which is the largest senior group in this country. I would like to, if I may, read briefly from a statement that the AARP made in support of the legislation that is coming up tomorrow.

And that is:

AARP fully supports the Warm in Winter and Cool in Summer

Act. This legislation will provide needed relief for many

older persons who may not receive assistance despite their

eligibility due to a lack of funding. Older Americans who are

more susceptible to hypothermia and heat stroke know the

importance of heating and cooling their homes. They often

skip on other necessities to pay their utility bills.

However, today's escalating energy prices and the Nation's

unpredictable and extreme temperatures are adding to the

growing economic hardship faced by seniors. LIHEAP is

underfunded and unable to meet the energy assistance needs of

the program's eligible households. Studies show that while

LIHEAP serves more households than ever before, only 16

percent of eligible households received assistance in 2006.

Let me repeat that. Only 16 percent, in 2006. The need is now substantially greater because of the rising cost of fuel and because of the recession we are in currently.

AARP finishes by saying:

An estimated gap of almost $28 billion now exists between

what LIHEAP pays and total energy costs facing the eligible

LIHEAP population.

So we are very appreciative that AARP is supporting this legislation. Let me mention a letter that I received yesterday from the National Governors Association. The National Governors Association, representing all 50 Governors in this country, is also supporting this legislation. Let me read briefly from this letter.

I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.

The letter states:

Dear Senator Reid and Senator McConnell: On behalf of the

Nation's governors, we write to express our support for

increased funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance

Program for fiscal year 2008.

Bipartisan efforts, such as the ``Warm in Winter and Cool

in Summer Act'' (S. 3186), which would add $2.53 billion in

LIHEAP funding for FY 2008 and split this funding equitably

between the LIHEAP base formula grant and the contingency

fund, are a step in the right direction. This approach will

help ensure that States receive an equitable share of the

energy assistance.

I thank the National Governors Association. The letter was signed by Governor Granholm and Governor Rell of Connecticut. We appreciate their support.

I come from a State where the weather gets 20 below zero. In a moment, I will be talking about what some of my constituents experienced last winter and the fears they have for the coming winter and why it is absolutely imperative that we substantially increase LIHEAP funding.

What I want to do right now is read about what is going on in America today, in July and in June of 2008, in terms of the impact that high temperatures are having on some of our most vulnerable citizens, primarily the elderly.

We gathered some headlines and brief articles about events and tragedies that are occurring right now.

From the Mississippi Daily Journal:

An autopsy report confirmed a Monroe County, Mississippi,

man died as a result of heat stroke Sunday.

Later on in the article it states:

When the temperatures hit the high 90s, North Mississippi

Medical Center emergency department starts seeing more heat-

related

illnesses, particularly heat exhaustion [hospital officials

said.]

Then there is an article, which I am sure you are familiar with, which comes from the Philadelphia Inquirer. This was June 14, 2008. This was rather astounding because Philadelphia is not in the middle of the South. This is the way the article reads. It says:

The National Weather Service warned last week that the

four-day hot spell that began June 7 could be deadly--and the

projection proved all too true. As of yesterday----

This is the article on June 14--

As of yesterday, the deaths of 17 people in Philadelphia

has been linked to the heat during those four days. Most lack

air conditioning in their homes. In several cases fans and

open windows proved insufficient.

That is from the Philadelphia Inquirer. I know that is one of the reasons you are such a strong supporter and why Senator Specter is also a strong supporter.

That was in Philadelphia. In Modesto, CA, ``Heat Claims Life of Elderly Modesto, California Woman.''

In Woodland, CA, ``4 Deaths Blamed on NorCal Heat Wave.''

Last week's Northern California heat wave is being blamed

for killing at least four people.

June 12, 2008, The Capital, the newspaper in Annapolis. It reads:

An elderly man was found dead inside his stifling Orchard

Beach, Maryland home early this week, marking the first heat-

related fatality in Anne Arundel County, Maryland in three

years.

The article goes on:

Maryland recorded 21 heat-related deaths in 2007, 43 in

2006 and 47 in 2005, according to the Maryland Emergency

Management Agency. The county Health Department said Anne

Arundel had three heat-related fatalities in 2005.

``Every summer, we see an increase in call volume related

to heat-related emergencies,'' Chief Tobia said. And

tragically, this death highlights the absolute importance of

staying cool, staying hydrated and checking in on your

neighbors.''

Arizona Republic, Phoenix, AZ, June 9, 2008. Headline: ``69 Valley Facilities Give Water, Aid to Homeless.''

Blue Swadener, a spokesman for St. Joseph the Worker, said

there were 50 heat-related deaths in Maricopa County, AZ

between May and September 2007.

On and on it goes. This is only a sampling of headlines dealing with heat-related deaths. Let me talk a little bit about what is going on in some of the northern States, especially in Vermont. A couple of months ago, I asked Vermonters to write to me telling me about their experience with high energy costs and a very tough economy. These are some of the letters I received from Vermont. A moment ago we talked about what is going on in warm weather States, when the weather becomes very hot. This is from Vermont. The first letter comes from a mother who lives in rural Vermont:

We have two small children (a baby and a toddler) and felt

fortunate to own our own house and land but due to the

increasing fuel prices we have at times had to choose between

baby food [and] diapers and heating fuel. We've run out of

heating fuel three times so far and the baby has ended up in

the hospital with pneumonia two of the times. We try to keep

the kids warm with an electric space heater on those nights,

but that just doesn't do the trick . . . Please help.

That is what we are talking about. That is why we need to increase LIHEAP so that children do not get cold and end up in the hospital or that elderly people in the southern part of this country die or end up in the hospital because of heat exhaustion.

Another letter I received from a small city in Vermont:

I am a single mother with a 9 year old boy. We lived this

past winter without any heat at all. . . . To stay warm at

night my son and I would pull off all the pillows from the

couch and pile them on the kitchen floor. I'd hang a blanket

from the kitchen doorway and we'd sleep right there on the

floor. By February we ran out of wood and I burned my

mother's dining room furniture. I have no oil for hot water.

We boil our water on the stove and pour it in the tub.

I know there are a lot of reasons to vote against anything. Please do not hold these people hostage to the ongoing energy debate we face in this country. Yes, of course, we need an energy policy. Yes, of course, what we are doing today is absurd. But there are people who will die. There are people who will end up in the hospital. There are people who get sick. There will be people who have to take money out of their medicine budget, out of their food budget to pay for heat in the winter or air-conditioning in the summer. Let us not punish those people. I know all the excuses, all of the reasons that people can give for voting no. Hold them. Don't use them tomorrow. Let the people back home know you are going to stand up for some of the most vulnerable people in this country while we work on a national energy policy.

At a time when home energy bills are soaring, what this legislation does is basically double the amount of LIHEAP funding. It fulfills what the authorization level was. That is what it does, not more than that. What it understands, as I mentioned earlier, is that while millions of people today are receiving LIHEAP funds, millions more who are eligible for the program simply are not getting into it because there is not enough funding available. What happens is, as home heating prices soar, either fewer people will be able to receive benefits or else the benefits people receive will be simply inadequate because States have to cut back. That is why the National Governors Association is supporting this legislation.

I made this point the other day, but it is worth repeating: When there is a flood, when there is a fire, and then there is a natural disaster, CNN and the other TV cameras are there. They cover it. All of us are concerned about the enormous problems facing the Midwest in terms of the flooding there. We are concerned about the terrible forest fires taking place in California. As a nation, we have to address those problems. But I ask my colleagues to understand that just because CNN is not in a house which has no heat when the weather gets 20 below zero, don't think that is not as important an issue. Do not think that suffering is not as real. In fact, according to the Centers for Disease Control, over 1,000 Americans from across the country died from hypothermia in their own homes, not out on the street, from 1999 to 2002, which are the latest figures we have available. They froze to death in the United States. That is why LIHEAP as a program was created, and that is why we have to expand the mission of LIHEAP to address the reality of today, that while our economy is declining, energy costs are soaring. More and more people are in need of LIHEAP.

As I mentioned earlier, this is not only a cold weather issue. Over the past decade more than 400 people died of heat exposure in Arizona, including 31 in July of 2005 alone.

Let me wrap up my remarks by thanking all of the Members of the Senate--I think there are 52 or 53 cosponsors, including 13 Republicans--for their support. I thank the AARP and the dozens and dozens of other organizations for their support. I thank the National Governors Association for their support. Every person in the Senate is a politician. We know how the system works. We know we can give any excuse under God's sky for voting no on an issue. We can vote no any time we want to. We can write a press release explaining why we are voting no. I hope tomorrow Members of the Senate will not exercise that option. I hope tomorrow Senators will not force millions of the most vulnerable people--LIHEAP is primarily for the elderly; it is for people with disabilities, for families with kids--please, do not punish those people, do not force those people to go cold or get sick or die because of heat exhaustion because of the debate we are having here right now. There is widespread support that this legislation should be passed, that funding should be substantially increased. That is what we are doing.

I hope tomorrow we can have a very significant and good vote on this important piece of legislation so the American people can see that in the midst of all of this partisanship, Members of the Senate have come together to say that no one in our country will freeze to death this winter or die of heat exhaustion.

This is an important issue. The vote is tomorrow. I look forward to widespread support from both sides of the aisle.

I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

National Governors Association,

Washington, DC, July 25, 2008.

Hon. Harry M. Reid,

Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Hon. Mitch McConnell,

Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Reid and Senator McConnell: On behalf of the

nation's governors, we

write to express our support for increased funding for the

Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) for fiscal

year (FY) 2008. Bipartisan efforts, such as the ``Warm in

Winter and Cool in Summer Act'' (S. 3186), which would add

$2.53 billion in LIHEAP funding for FY 2008 and split this

funding equitably between the LIHEAP base formula grant and

the contingency fund, are a step in the right direction. This

approach will help ensure that states receive an equitable

share of the energy assistance provided, which is what

Congress envisioned when it authorized the multi-tiered

formula. This kind of equity is an important goal.

Additional funding will support critically needed heating

and cooling assistance to millions of our most vulnerable

citizens, including the elderly, individuals with

disabilities and families that often have to choose between

paying their heating or cooling bills and buying food,

medicine and other essential needs. With greater financial

support, states will be better able to maintain and

potentially increase benefit levels, as well as potentially

increase outreach to eligible families in need of rising

energy cost assistance.

Governors applaud bipartisan efforts to increase funding

for heating and cooling assistance and fully support adding

$2.53 billion in LIHEAP funding for FY 2008 to help our

nation respond to existing home energy needs.

Sincerely,

Governor Jennifer Granholm,

Chair, Health and Human Services Committee.

Governor M. Jodi Rell,

Vice Chair, Health and Human Services Committee.

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

Madam President, all of us recognize there are very strong differences of opinion in Congress about how to resolve the major energy crisis facing working families throughout our country. I have my views on this issue, and other Members have different points of view, and that is the way it is.

I am happy to report, however, that there is an increasing unanimity of understanding around one very important fact regarding this energy crisis; that is, if we do not dramatically increase funding for the highly successful Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, usually known as LIHEAP, senior citizens on fixed incomes, the disabled, and working families with children are in serious danger of either freezing to death this coming winter or perhaps dying of heat stroke this summer because they are unable to pay their home energy bills. We cannot allow that to happen.

I am happy to announce, in a tripartisan effort, that more and more Senators understand that reality and are prepared to work together to protect our citizens. S. 3186, the Warm in Winter and Cool in Summer Act, the LIHEAP legislation that I recently introduced, now has 53 cosponsors--53 cosponsors--38 Democrats, 13 Republicans, and 2 Independents. I thank all of those cosponsors for their support. I am absolutely confident that as soon as this bill gets on the Senate floor, not only do we have the 50 votes, I am quite confident we are going to have 60 votes and perhaps more.

I also thank majority leader Harry Reid for filing a cloture motion last night on the motion to proceed to this very important legislation. Senator Reid understands, as I think most of us do, that it is absolutely essential for the health and well-being of millions of our citizens that this bill be passed, and passed as soon as possible. My hope is that after passage in the Senate, we can get it over to the House before the August break and see it pass in that body as well. That may be overly optimistic, but that is what I would like to see.

Let me say a few words about why this bill needs to be passed.

At a time when home energy bills are soaring, this legislation would nearly double the funding for LIHEAP in fiscal year 2008, taking it from a little more than $2.5 billion to $5.1 billion--a total increase of $2.53 billion. This is, in fact, what Congress has authorized for

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 4 minutes.

Mr. President, let me begin by suggesting that a number of my Republican friends who come to the floor speak under the mantra: Drill, drill, drill; it is going to solve all our problems. Well, you know what. The American people, the people in Vermont are disgusted, angry, and frustrated that they are paying $4.10 for a gallon of gas. The people in my State--the Northern part of this country--are worried sick about how they are going to be able to heat their homes next winter when the price of home heating fuel may well be double what it was just a few years ago. Well, you know what. Drill, drill, drill is not going to solve the problem because President Bush's own Energy Department has told us very clearly that increased drilling offshore-- what many of my Republican friends want--would have ``no significant impact'' on gas prices until the year 2030. Even then, its impact would be negligible.

So if you are outraged about paying $4.10 for a gallon of gas, it is of no help at all for our Republican friends to say: Well, gee, maybe in 20-some-odd years we may be able to lower the cost of gas by a few cents a gallon. We must do a lot better than that. We have some folks who think we should drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Well, President Bush's own Energy Department told us in 2005:

Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would only

reduce gasoline prices by a penny per gallon and only in 20

years when drilling is at or near peak production.

So if we are serious about addressing the energy crisis this country has, and we don't want to wait another 20 or 25 years to lower gas prices by a few cents a gallon, we have to start looking at some other options. The first option we have to look at is taking a hard look at the excessive speculation which is now taking place in the energy market.

We have heard experts, energy economists, come before one committee or another to tell us, in fact, that the price of a barrel of oil today may be 25 to 50 percent higher than it should be under normal processes--supply and demand and the cost of production--because of excessive speculation. So we have to move aggressively on the speculation issue.

Second, because I know ExxonMobil feels that the public doesn't trust them, it is nice to see so many of my

Republican friends who have such confidence in the oil industry, and who believe that if we allow the oil companies to drill offshore in areas where there has been a drilling moratorium, to ignore the fact that there are over 60 million acres of land they already have leases on, and people believe if a oil company is given more land to drill, then prices will go down. I am glad to see some people have confidence in the oil companies. I personally do not.

While oil prices have been soaring, it is important to point out that, year after year, oil companies have been making record-breaking profits. Year after year, they have been paying their CEOs huge and excessive compensation packages. Year after year, instead of investing in new machinery to, in fact, drill for more oil, they have been using their profits to buy back stock and raise the price of the stock.

Last year alone, ExxonMobil used $38 billion of their windfall profits to buy back their own stock in increased dividends to their shareholders. Mr. President, $38 billion is enough money to reduce gas prices at the pump by 27 cents a gallon for an entire year. But it is interesting to know that some of our Republican friends have so much confidence that if we gave our friends in the oil companies even more territory to drill on, in environmentally sensitive areas, they will absolutely do the right thing, that the oil companies are staying up nights--ExxonMobil and the others--worrying about the American consumer. If you believe that, I have a couple of bridges to sell you.

I think we have to take a hard look at the continued greed of the oil companies. It would be a nice thing if we had a President of the United States who wasn't, in fact, an oilman. It would be a good thing if we had a Vice President who wasn't part of the oil industry. It would be nice if we had a President of the United States who would bring the oil industry into the Oval Office and say, gentlemen--and they are gentlemen--stop ripping off the American people. You have to start lowering your prices.

Thirdly, when we deal with the myriad of problems we have in terms of energy, we have to be mindful not only of the greed of the oil companies, not only of Wall Street speculation, but we have to understand that right now--right now--this summer and this winter there are millions of Americans who need and will need immediate help to deal with the coming winter, as to whether they are going to be heating their homes, whether they are going to be going cold, and in fact we have to worry about people now in the southern States who are seeing temperatures of 110, 115 degrees, who cannot afford the rapidly increasing price of electricity, and are seeing their electricity turned off.

If you are old and you are sick and frail, do you know what. That 115 degree temperature is not particularly healthy for you. What we need to do--and I hope we can get the bill on the floor immediately--is substantially increase funding for LIHEAP. We have legislation that would double LIHEAP funding. I am proud to say this bill has tripartisan support. We already have 49 cosponsors, including 12 Republicans. I have little doubt that if we can get that bill on the floor, if the Republicans do not continue to object to Senator Reid's effort to bring it up, we can get not only 60 votes but maybe a lot more. There is companion legislation in the House. We can move this quickly, while we continue the debate on energy policy, and we should come together. We have the votes to significantly expand LIHEAP funding and make sure that old people who are trying to exist in 115 degree temperatures in the Southwest do not get sick from heat exhaustion because they don't have electricity, which is a problem that LIHEAP could address.

Of course, as part of this overall debate, it is very clear to many of us that we must, finally, in a significant way, a dramatic way, in a way that Vice President Gore was talking about a few days ago, break our dependency on fossil fuel, on foreign oil, and move this country to sustainable energy and energy efficiency.

That is an outline of where we want to go. I think some of my Republican friends are talking about very insignificant lowering of prices in 20 years or 25 years. I think we have to pass the speculation bill that is on the floor right now.

It is interesting to me that we have had executives of major oil companies who have come here to Congress--and people are saying, ``Why is oil $125, $130, $140 a barrel?'' Do you know what they say? The CEO of Royal Dutch Shell testified before Congress:

The oil fundamentals are no problem. They are the same as

they were when oil was selling for $60 a barrel.

That was the CEO of Royal Dutch Shell. My friends say it is supply and demand. That is not what a number of executives from the oil industry, who presumably know something about the issue, are saying.

The CEO of Marathon Oil recently said:

$100 [this is back when it was $100 oil] isn't justified by

the physical demand in the market.

The senior vice president of ExxonMobil, Stephen Simon, told the House Energy and Commerce Committee:

The price of oil should be at $50 to $55 per barrel.

So you have folks from the oil industry, who, I suspect, know something about oil fundamentals, who are telling us that the price of oil today is way, way, way higher than it should be. One of the reasons they point to is the role of speculation. By ``speculation,'' we mean that as a result of an action by Senator Gramm back in 2000, with the so-called Enron loophole, energy trading has been deregulated. We have seen the results in a number of areas. Some people say: You guys are talking about speculation; you are into conspiracy theories. You are pointing out the bad guys there, and you are trying to create demons.

Let's look at recent history. Is the idea of speculation in energy markets a new idea? Well, in 2000 and 2001, our friends at Enron successfully manipulated the electricity markets, and the results, of course, were that in the western part of our country, electric rates went off the wall. I remind you that during that discussion you may remember that what Enron was saying was: Don't blame us; this is supply and demand. Well, some of those people who were telling us that, I suspect, are in jail now, because as everybody knows, Enron manipulated prices big time until they were finally uncovered. Enron collapsed, and some of their executives, I believe, are now in jail. That was manipulation of the electricity markets in 2000 and 2001.

That is not all that has happened in the last decade. In 2004, energy price manipulators moved to the propane market. Many people use propane to heat their homes. That year, the CFTC, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, found that BP artificially increased propane prices by purchasing enormous quantities of propane and withholding the fuel to drive prices higher. In other words, they manipulated the propane market and prices went up. By the end of February of 2004, BP controlled almost 90 percent of all propane delivered on a pipeline that stretches from Texas to Pennsylvania and New York. BP's cornering of the propane market caused prices to increase by 40 percent during the month of February 2004, which eventually caused them, because of their illegal manipulation of the propane market, to pay a $303 million fine.

So, again, when we are talking about speculation, and people say you are into conspiracy theories, etc, etc, etc--we have, in 2000 and 2001, Enron manipulating the electric market; and, in 2004, we have BP manipulating the propane market.

But it goes on. In 2006, energy price manipulators moved to the natural gas market. When Federal regulators discovered that the Amaranth hedge fund was responsible for artificially driving up natural gas prices--natural gas. So we had electricity, propane, and now we are on natural gas. Amaranth cornered the natural gas market by controlling as much as 75 percent of all of the natural gas futures contracts in a single month. The skyrocketing cost of natural gas, because of Amaranth's control of the market, cost American consumers an estimated $9 billion. Shortly after Amaranth was suspected of manipulating natural gas prices, the hedge fund collapsed.

Today, there are many who believe that what happened in electricity, what happened in propane, and what happened in natural gas is now happening in oil. I think we should not be

shocked by that, given the recent history I have mentioned. I think we have to move very aggressively in dealing with speculation.

Let me take this opportunity to say a few words about the LIHEAP legislation. The bill we introduced would increase LIHEAP funding by going from $2.5 billion to over $5 billion. Basically, it is a doubling of funding. That, in fact, is the amount that has already been authorized. We should be very clear. In terms of the need to increase LIHEAP funding, we are literally dealing with a life-and-death situation. People will die. People will die of exposure to cold. People will die of heat exhaustion if we do not move, and if we do not move quickly.

It is important to understand, because CNN cameras do not go there-- they do not go to an old person's house in Tucson, AZ, who is struggling with 110 and 115 degree temperatures without electricity. They don't go to a low or moderate income home in Vermont and Maine when people are trying to stay warm, when the temperature gets 20 below zero. The truth is that more people have died from the extreme heat and hypothermia since 1998 than all natural disasters in this country combined, including floods, fires, hurricanes and tornadoes. I know we all see and appreciate the pain people in the Midwest are experiencing today with the floods. We appreciate and want to respond to the crisis in California with the fires. But the fact is that more people die from exposure to cold and to heat than from these natural disasters, as terrible as they are.

To give you an example--this is hard to believe, and many people don't know this--over the past decade, more than 400 people have died of heat exposure in Arizona. That is one State. That is 400 people in the last decade, including 31 people in July of 2005. All of these deaths could have been prevented if these people had had air conditioning.

What I worry about is that electricity prices are going up because fuel prices are going up. Our economy is tanking, and we are seeing a record number of disconnects. So I ask people to be concerned about what happens when it gets 20 below zero in Vermont and in Maine. I also ask people to be concerned about what happens when people get disconnected from their electricity in Arizona, Nevada, Texas, and other States.

Let me simply conclude that, clearly, we are in the midst of a major energy crisis. There are a number of aspects to that crisis and they have to be addressed. I hope that, as a Congress, while we debate those issues, we come together, as I think we are, in saying that no one in this country this year should die of heat exposure, no one in this country should die through being frozen to death when the temperature gets very low in the northern part of our country.

I thank, again, the 49 cosponsors of this legislation. It is tripartisan. Both Independents are on it. We have 12 Republicans on it. The rest are Democrats. I thank them all. I thank Senator Reid for trying his best to try to get that bill to the floor as soon as possible. The AARP and dozens of other national organizations know how important it is that we pass an increase in LIHEAP funding and do it as soon as possible.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I understand that there are a lot of differences in this body on the issue of speculation, which presumably is going to come up next week, on the issue of the role of the large oil companies and the enormous profits they are making, and there are differences of opinion about how fast and how aggressively we should go to sustainable energy and energy efficiency. But in one area, it appears to me there is less and less of a difference of opinion, and that is that more and more Members of the Senate understand that we are facing--right now, this summer, and in this coming winter--an energy crisis in terms of people going cold and perhaps freezing or dying from heat exhaustion this summer.

I am very proud to say that we have had tripartisan support for a very substantial increase in the LIHEAP legislation bill I have offered; that is, S. 3186, the Warm in Winter and Cool in Summer Act. That bill now has 47 cosponsors--34 Democrats, 11 Republicans, and 2 independents. At a time when more and more Americans are concerned about the partisanship here in Congress, I am happy to say that this bill has very strong tripartisan support.

I wish to thank the 34 Democrats who are cosponsors, including Senator Obama, Majority Leader Reid, and Senators Durbin, Murray, Landrieu, Leahy, Clinton, Cantwell, Jack Reed, Kerry, Kennedy, Schumer, Levin, Cardin, Brown, Klobuchar, Menendez, Casey, Bingaman, Lautenberg, Stabenow, Bill Nelson, Baucus, Salazar, Wyden, Whitehouse, Rockefeller, Dodd, Tester, Mikulski, Biden, Kohl, Dorgan, and McCaskill. I thank all those Democrats for their support, and the 11 Republican cosponsors we have, including Senators Snowe, Stevens, Coleman, Smith, Sununu, Collins, Murkowski, Gregg, Lugar, Bond, and Dole. I also thank the Independent, Senator Lieberman, for joining me as a cosponsor. Both Independents are on that bill.

Let me also thank Majority Leader Reid for completing the rule XIV process and putting this bill directly on the calendar. Senator Reid understands, as I think most of us do, that this bill has very strong support. For the health and well-being of many millions of people, whether in the Northeast or in the South, it is absolutely imperative that we pass this legislation as soon as possible.

In that regard, I want to express disappointment that just this morning, my Republican friend, Senator Cornyn, objected to a UC for passage of this bill and then objected to putting this bill on the floor and even giving us the opportunity to vote on it today. I hope my Republican friends and the Republican leadership reconsider this action because the truth is, there is a lot of support on the Republican side for increasing LIHEAP. I think it is imperative that we work together and we work as quickly as possible and we take a very strong load of anxiety off the shoulders of people from all over this country by passing this bill and getting a similar bill passed in the House.

This tripartisan bill would nearly double the funding for LIHEAP in fiscal year 2008, taking it from $2.57 billion to $5.1 billion. That is a total increase of over $2.5 billion. This, in fact, is the amount at which LIHEAP is authorized. We should make no mistake about it, the issue we are dealing with is a life-and-death issue. It is life and death today, and it will be life and death next winter.

I would like to report a statistic that is not widely known. When CNN gets its cameras out, they go to the tornadoes and the floods and the forest fires, and that is appropriate. Those are terrible tragedies we are all concerned

about. The truth is that more people in this country have died from the extreme heat and hypothermia since 1998 than all natural disasters combined. That is an interesting point, and you probably didn't know that. I didn't know that. But that is the case. And that includes floods, fires, hurricanes, earthquakes, and tornadoes.

The ``problem'' is what happens when maybe an old person in Florida can't afford electricity and has her air-conditioning turned off. She will die. Or a person with an illness in the State of Vermont, when the weather gets 20 below zero and he doesn't have the money to heat his home, he will die as well. And people die one at a time, not in great CNN-type disasters, but the reality is that more people die from extreme heat and extreme cold than they do from other types of emergencies. In Vermont and throughout New England, people are extremely worried that they will not have enough money to afford the price of heating oil next winter. A newspaper in my State of Vermont, the Stowe Reporter, recently editorialized that the lack of affordable heating oil could turn into New England's version of Hurricane Katrina next winter. We cannot allow that to happen.

The problem is not just in the Northeast. The point I have to reiterate over and over, this is not just a cold weather problem for my State of Vermont and New England. This is a hot weather problem as well. It is not just a cold weather issue, it is a hot weather issue as well.

Over the past decade, more than 400 people died of heat exposure in Arizona. Let me repeat that. Over the past decade, more than 400 people died of heat exposure in Arizona, including 31 in July of 2005 alone, 31 people in 2005 in Arizona. All of these deaths could have been prevented if these people had air-conditioning.

Without increased support from the Federal Government, Arizona will be out of LIHEAP funding before the end of this month. But if this bill passes, Arizona will see an infusion of $24 million in LIHEAP funding, triple what they currently receive.

Let me quote a letter I received from the mayor of Phoenix, AZ. His name is Phil Gordon. I thank Mayor Gordon for sending me this letter. He is strongly supportive of this legislation. This is what the mayor of Phoenix, AZ, Phil Gordon, writes:

I am writing to express my support for the Warm in Winter

and Cool in Summer Act. Currently Arizona can only provide

assistance to 6 percent of eligible LIHEAP households. . . .

To make matters worse, Phoenix continues to experience

extreme heat. In the past month alone, we have had 15 days

with temperatures at or above 110 degrees. This extreme heat

is especially hard on the very young, the elderly and

disabled who are on fixed incomes and can no longer afford to

cool their homes. . . . Arizona Public Service reported that

there was a 36 percent increase in the number of households

having difficulty in paying utility bills and an increase of

11,000 families being disconnected compared to a year ago.

Rising energy and housing costs are placing enormous strains

on low-income households across Arizona.

What Mayor Gordon of Phoenix is talking about is taking place all over this country. We are in the middle of a recession. People are losing their work. Wages are going down. The price of fuel in general is going up. That includes electricity. If you are dependent on electricity for air-conditioning, and your electricity gets shut off and you are old and you are sick, you have a serious problem. That is what this legislation is going to address.

In my State of Vermont and throughout New England and the Northeast, people are extremely worried that they will not have enough money to afford the price of heating oil next winter.

A newspaper in my State of Vermont, the Stowe Reporter, recently editorialized that the lack of affordable heating oil could turn into New England's version of Hurricane Katrina next winter. We cannot allow that to happen.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, over 1,000 Americans from across the country died from hypothermia in their own homes from 1999 to 2002, the latest figures we have available. In other words, they froze to death because they could not afford to heat their homes. How many of these deaths were preventable? All of them, according to the CDC. We will probably not know for several years how many Americans died last winter because they could not afford to heat their homes--but one death is too many.

And, I want all of my colleagues to understand. This home energy crisis that we are in extends far beyond New England and the Northeast. Today, people in the South and Southwest are struggling to pay for the skyrocketing price of electricity, which has tripled in some parts of the country.

The result is that essential utility services are being cut-off because they cannot afford to pay their bills. What that means is that elderly, frail and sick people trying to stay alive in 110 degree temperatures face a major health crisis if their electricity is shut off.

In other words, whether you are living in the north or the south or the east or the west, our country is facing a national emergency and it is about time that the President of the United States and the Congress treated it as such.

And, while energy prices are soaring, LIHEAP funding is 23 percent less than it was just 2 years ago, completely eviscerating the purchasing power of this extremely important program. In fact, after adjusting for inflation, the Federal Government spent more money on LIHEAP 20 years ago than it is spending today.

To demonstrate how important LIHEAP is right now for southern States dealing with a major heat wave, I want to give you just a few examples of what I am referring to.

Over the past decade, more than 400 people died of heat exposure in Arizona, including 31 in July of 2005 alone. All of these deaths could have been prevented if these people had air conditioning. Without increased support from the Federal Government, Arizona will be out of LIHEAP funding before the end of this month. But, if this bill passes, Arizona will receive an infusion of over $24 million in LIHEAP funding--triple what they currently receive--to keep their residents cool this summer.

Due to a lack of LIHEAP funding, the State of Texas only provides air conditioning assistance to about 4 percent of those who qualify. Recently, I received a letter from Shawnee Bayer from the Community Action Committee in Victoria, TX. In her letter, Ms. Bayer writes:

The temperatures in our area have been 100 to 110 degrees

for 16 consecutive days. I fear it is going to be very tragic

at the current pace we are going with so little LIHEAP

funding available. . . . There are so many who need our

assistance, like the elderly lady in her 80s who recently

almost died due to kidney failure; now she doesn't want to

use her air conditioner because she is afraid she won't be

able to pay the bill. . . . She just called me last

Thursday and has pneumonia; she could hardly talk. . . .

Last year she was placed in the hospital in the ICU due to

a heat stroke as a result of using only a fan, not the air

conditioner. I see children every day who have not eaten

because the parents, grandparents and in some cases great

grandparents are just trying to keep the electricity on .

. . . the electric bills in our area have tripled.

That is in Victoria, TX. In addition, I also received an e-mail from DeAndra Baker from the Community Action Agency in Giddings, TX, who said:

We have a gentleman who is 78 years old and on a fixed

income of $770.00 a month. . . . Due to the extremely high

temperatures he is unable to afford to keep his home cool.

His doctor provided a statement that he must have his air

conditioner turned on at a minimum of 80 degrees to avoid

congestive heart failure and he is not even able to afford

that much. Sadly, he will not continue to run his A/C or fans

and will be at serious risk unless LIHEAP funding is

increased soon.

That is what is going on in the State of Texas. If this bill is signed into law, Texas will receive over $47 million to help keep their residents cool this summer. But it is not just Texas.

Without additional support from the Federal Government, the State of Georgia will not be able to offer any LIHEAP assistance whatsoever to its residents this summer. Currently, Georgia has a waiting list of 28,000 people hoping to receive some relief from the hot weather this summer. To demonstrate the desperate need for more LIHEAP funding, let me tell you about an e-mail my office received from the executive director of the Community Action Agency in Gainesville, GA, Janice Riley. According to Ms. Riley, their agency has been out of LIHEAP funding since last December. She was particularly distressed about two families in Georgia who she could not help because of a lack of LIHEAP funding. This is what she had to say:

One family that came in after we ran out of LIHEAP funds

was the Jones family. . . .

Mr. Jones, came to our office requesting assistance with his

electric bill. He has a wife and five children. . . . They

got behind with all their bills when he was injured on the

job six months ago. . . . Their daughter is paralyzed from

the neck down from a fall she had at six months of age. I

wish we could help them. Another participant that did not

receive LIHEAP funds and is now facing disconnection or

homelessness is Ms. O'Brien, a 33 year old, single parent

with 5 children between the ages of 7-16, and a newborn

grandchild which she has taken in. . . . Her power was turned

off last week because she was unable to pay it. . . . Her

need for assistance is based on the high costs of living, not

from her lack of work ethic and heroic efforts to maintain

her household.

That is what is going on in the State of Georgia. If this bill is signed into law, the State of Georgia would receive over $70 million to make sure their residents stay cool this summer.

In addition, unless S. 3186 is signed into law soon, the State of Kentucky will not be able to keep any of their residents cool this summer through the LIHEAP program. According to the executive director of the Community Action Agency in Kentucky, Kip Bowmar:

February of 2008 marked the first time in the program's

history that all 120 Counties in Kentucky ran out of LIHEAP

funds, forcing us to close our doors as fuel prices were

soaring and people needed help.

If S. 3186 is signed into law, the State of Kentucky will receive nearly $35 million to keep their residents cool this summer and warm in the winter.

In Florida, Hilda Frazier, the State director of the LIHEAP program, has estimated that they will serve 26,000 fewer households this year because of the reduction of available LIHEAP funding and the rising cost of energy. According to Ms. Frazier, thousands of families in Florida are being turned away from LIHEAP offices each and every month because they do not have any money. Of the 2 million LIHEAP eligible households in Florida, they will be able to assist fewer than 4 percent of them.

The State of Arkansas is also rapidly running out of LIHEAP funding. The LlHEAP coordinator in Benton, AR, recently had to deny assistance to over 430 families there because they had no money. If this bill is signed into law, Arkansas would receive nearly $26 million to help keep their residents cool this summer.

Moving on to California, Joan Graham, The deputy director of the Community Action Agency in Sacramento, CA, recently wrote that:

Every day, we are turning away at least 50 families who

qualify for LIHEAP because we lack resources. Energy bills

have increased 30% over last year, yet our funding has not

increased. In 2006, there were 29 heat-related deaths in

Sacramento County. One senior who passed away due to extreme

heat was afraid to turn on his air conditioner because he

knew he would be unable to pay the electric bill. We know

there are more like him out there at present.

If this bill is signed into law, California will receive over $100 million to keep their residents cool this summer and warm next winter.

Why is LIHEAP so important in the south in the summertime?

According to the Centers for Disease Control, the annual mortality rate from extreme heat in the U.S. has exceeded the death tolls of floods, tornadoes, and hurricanes combined since 1998. Meanwhile, fewer resources have been allocated to heat-related problems than to other extreme weather events.

In other words, while more people in this country are dying from heat exposure than any other natural disaster in this country combined; the Federal Government spends less money preventing these deaths from occurring than any other natural disaster we face.

From 1999-2003, over 3,400 deaths in this country were due to excessive heat. All of these deaths were preventable and air conditioning is the best way to prevent these deaths, according to the