Floor Statements

Mr. President, first, I commend my colleague, Senator Collins, for her leadership on this issue and for the eloquence and persuasiveness of her statement today. She has truly been in the forefront of all these efforts to increase the funding for the Low- Income Home Energy Assistance Program.

Motion to Instruct Conferees

Mr. President, I send to the desk a motion to instruct conferees on behalf of myself, Senator Collins, Senator Kennedy, Senator Snowe, Senator Lieberman, Senator Leahy, Senator Bingaman, Senator Coleman, Senator Salazar, Senator Stabenow, Senator Clinton, Senator Lugar, Senator Harkin, Senator Smith, Senator Kohl, Senator Dayton, and Senator Corzine.

Mr. President, I have very little to add to what Senator Collins said. Her remarks were compelling and eloquent. With the increase in prices, with the severity of the winter which is already upon many parts of this country, Rhode Island, and particularly Maine, it is obvious we need more funds just to keep what we were able to do last year. In fact, even if we are successful--and I hope we are--in authorizing the full allocation of $5.1 billion, there will still be a significant number of Americans who qualify for the program who will not be able to receive any type of help this winter. So this is an important step, but it is certainly not a complete solution to the problem of low-income people struggling to heat their homes.

As the Senator also pointed out so accurately, there is a real dilemma. Many families will have to give up food to heat their homes, and they will have to make other sacrifices. This is an extraordinary burden and particularly so this winter because of the huge increase in heating costs and the severity of the weather that is predicted for the region.

There has been some suggestion, or objection, I should say, to our proposal on several grounds. There is a suggestion that we have been inconsistent in what we have asked for. Last September, Senator Collins and I authored a letter, and we were joined by 40 of our colleagues, for an increase of about $1 billion. Forty-three Senators, including myself and Senator Collins, wrote to the Appropriations Committee. What we were asking for was allocation of emergency funding, funding that would go to the President so that at his discretion he could identify

areas of the country under severe conditions and make allocation of these funds.

What we are talking about today is fully funding the State grant program. One of the reasons it is essential to fully fund the State grant program at the level of about $5.2 billion is because of the complexity of the formulas. Unless we fully fund this program, many of the States that are in the most dire circumstances won't receive funding.

Essentially, what happens is there is a front loading of funds to the areas of the country that are affected by winter, but as the funds in LIHEAP increase, appropriations and allocations go to areas of the country--the Southwest, the Southeast--that have problems in the summertime and need cooling assistance. The irony would be if we increase money but do not really increase it to the full level, we would be funding--and I think it is appropriate to do that--States that are not affected by the winter and providing very little for the States such as Wisconsin, Maine, New Hampshire, and others that need the heating assistance today. So that is the rationale underlying our request.

I point out that we have brought this issue to the floor on numerous occasions, and we have had the support of a majority of the Senators on both sides of the aisle and across the country. This is not a regional issue; this is a national issue. This is not a Republican or Democratic issue; this is a bipartisan issue. We have had that support because the majority of our colleagues recognize the reality. Prices are up, the temperature is down. People are going to suffer if we do not act.

There has also been a suggestion that this is inappropriate because it is not offset by cuts in other programs. Well, I would hasten to add that in the next few weeks we are going to consider many programs and funding requests that are not offset. Today, if one reads the newspapers, the Pentagon is preparing about a $100 billion supplemental request for funding in Iraq and Afghanistan. That may come down; it may go up. No one is proposing that we not consider that because it will not be offset by cuts in other programs. I think we are going to see, at least in the House version of the tax reconciliation bill, significant tax cuts which I believe are not offset. I think we should move to a balanced budget. I think we should take the tough steps that we took in the 1980s. I came here as a Congressman in January 1991, and we were running huge deficits every year. It took us a while. It was under the leadership of President Clinton that we were able to reverse that.

At the end of the 1990s, in the year 2000, we were looking at a projected surplus. Lo and behold, it is now the year 2005, and we are back into annual deficits and a projected deficit over many years before us. So we can do it, but I suggest those are not strong arguments to stop us from doing what we have to do today to help people who really will suffer if we do not take appropriate action.

I hope my colleagues would join Senator Collins and I--and again I would point out that this is a bipartisan, broadly based group of Senators who are coming together to make a simple request that I think is compelling, given the obvious reality, huge increase in prices, falling temperatures, people who will give up eating to heat their homes, people who will take drastic steps. Unfortunately, we read about it every winter in our part of the country, Senator Collins and I, where they turn the stove on at night, they go to sleep, and there is a fire, an explosion, a terrible tragedy. They are just trying to keep warm. We can help them. I hope we will.

I am pleased and proud to be doing this with my colleague and friend, Senator Collins from Maine.

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I, too, at the appropriate moment will offer a motion to instruct the conferees. I will offer the motion in conjunction with Senators Collins, Kennedy, Snowe, Lieberman, Leahy, Bingaman, Coleman, Salazar, Stabenow, Clinton, Lugar, Harkin, Levin, Smith, and Pryor.

This motion to instruct conferees is about LIHEAP, the Low Income Heating Assistance Program. Each of us, at this point, is very familiar with the struggle that is taking place today. If you were in New England over the weekend, as I was, or in many other parts of the country, you understand that temperatures have fallen and many families are having to perform a juggling act with their budgets in order to heat their homes.

According to EIA's most recent short-term energy outlook, released last week, energy costs for the average family using heating oil are estimated to hit $1,454 this winter, an increase of $255. That is a 21- percent increase over last year's heating season. Natural gas prices could hit $1,024 for an average family using natural gas. That would be an increase of $282 or a 38-percent increase. For a family using propane, prices are projected to hit $1,269, an increase of $167 from last heating season, and that is a 15-percent increase.

Despite these sharp increases in fuel costs, we sadly continue to fund LIHEAP--the one program that can provide sufficient help to these families--at the same level as last year, which in reality means an actual cut in the level of assistance we can provide low-income consumers this winter's heating season.

The responsible thing for Congress to do is to fully fund LIHEAP at the full $5.1 billion authorized in the Energy Policy Act enacted earlier this year. Indeed, we have tried to do that on numerous occasions. Today marks the fifth time in the last 2 months that Senator Collins and I, along with some 30 other colleagues, have made an attempt to fully fund LIHEAP. We offered amendments to the Defense bill, the Transportation-Treasury-HUD bill, Labor-HHS bill and, most recently, the tax reconciliation bill. On each occasion, we reach across the aisle and across the country to provide more assistance for the LIHEAP program. While we did not reach the 60-vote margin needed to pass these amendments under the budget rules, in each instance, a majority of this body was on record supporting full funding for LIHEAP.

My preference, of course, was to provide funding to fully fund LIHEAP on an emergency basis through an appropriations bill. Those opportunities have passed. Budget reconciliation is the last train that is leaving the station. That is why I come to the floor and will offer, at the appropriate time, a motion to instruct budget conferees to insist on a level of funding for LIHEAP that is sufficient to fully fund the program at its fully authorized level.

The heat-or-eat dilemma is not just rhetoric. The RAND Corporation conducted a study and found that low-income households reduced food expenditures by roughly the same amount as increases in fuel expenditures. In some respects, this is a tidal wave not of rising water, like Katrina, but of rising energy prices.

We have all had the opportunity to visit our constituents and get a firsthand glimpse of the struggle they are faced with. A few weeks ago, I visited with Mr. Aram Ohanian, an 88-year-old veteran of the U.S. Army in World War II, living on a $779-a-month Social Security check. Money is so tight that he sometimes has to eat with his children or go to a local soup kitchen. He also gets assistance from our Rhode Island food bank. These heating price increases to Mr. Ohanian will be very difficult. He received LIHEAP assistance last year, but that assistance will be relatively less this year because of rising prices and greater demand.

Last month, the Social Security Administration announced that cost- of-living adjustments for 2006, on average, are about $65. That $65 increase to Mr. Ohanian is not going to take up the slack in terms of these tremendous increases in fuel prices.

The motion to instruct conferees that we will submit at the appropriate moment calls for LIHEAP to be funded at the fully authorized level. Under the best-case scenario, if we fully fund LIHEAP, there would still be a significant number of Americans who qualify for the program but will not get any help. LIHEAP would still only serve about one-seventh of 35 million households that are poor enough to qualify for assistance. But at least we are taking a step by fully funding this important program.

I urge my colleagues to support this motion when it comes to the floor for a vote.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, the instructions that the Senator from Pennsylvania sent to the Chair, in my understanding, would designate the full amount of LIHEAP funding that is currently in the appropriations bill as emergency spending.

I understand the motivation. This bill is underfunded. There are valuable programs that need additional resources. Both the Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator from Iowa strove mightily to try to provide those resources. They are attempting today to try to free up about $2 billion to classify some money as emergency spending, LIHEAP money. I understand the motivation, but I think it is extremely poor policy.

This LIHEAP program is composed of two components. There is a regular formula program which each and every year every State in this country depends upon to provide heating and cooling assistance to its citizens.

The application process begins before the heating and cooling season. It is usually conducted from community action centers. This whole infrastructure suddenly now is going to be declared an emergency process. That would send a terrible signal throughout this country about our commitment to low-income heating assistance. It would open a situation of uncertainty and a situation that would be counterproductive to helping poor people struggling with heating bills in the winter and cooling bills in the summer.

This would, again, in my view, create a terrible precedent. We have over the last several weeks in this Chamber supported funding of LIHEAP, not on an emergency basis, but on a full authorization basis of $5.1 billion. We did it last evening. Unfortunately, because of procedural obstacles, we needed 60 votes. Last evening, a majority of this Senate voted to increase LIHEAP funding to $5.1 billion, offsetting it by a temporary windfall profits tax. Previously, even a larger majority of the Senate voted simply to appropriate $5.1 billion. Today we are on this floor saying not only are we not talking about $5.1 billion, we are talking about the regular formula money in the regular program suddenly is an emergency. That is not the emergency funding that LIHEAP sometimes gets. This funding supports year in and year out the needs of people who we know have low income. They are seniors, they are disabled, and they are low-income working families, and they will anticipate heating and cooling bills. There is no emergency here.

One of the real problems is, because we call it an emergency, no funds can be disbursed until the President declares an emergency. When will that declaration take place? Will it take place in August so these community action agencies can start requesting applications, processing applications, or will it take place in October or November or January? If it does, then this is going to cause chaos.

We were looking weeks ago at the chaos caused in the wake of Katrina because Federal programs were not realistically grounded in what was happening. This policy is going to throw a monkey wrench into the normal operations of the LIHEAP program.

It also sends a terrible signal, if it is adopted, because we are saying that no longer do we have a regular program committed to helping poor people--seniors, the disabled--with their heating and cooling bills. What we have is something that may or may not exist every year.

I know people will stand up and say, Oh, come on, the reality is they are going to have to declare it this year as an emergency. I do not entirely agree. But more importantly, when next year we are looking, under excruciating budget pressure, for additional resources, there will be the susceptibility to taking this approach, saying we will use this gimmick again. I suspect the administration--I am not the expert in budgets, but I expect the administration will say: This is a great deal they have handed us. We can send up the programs we like in the regular budget and say all of this LIHEAP is just emergency.

I am terribly concerned about this. Again, we have spent the last several weeks in this body, on a bipartisan basis, a majority of our colleagues saying not only is this not an emergency program, this is a program that should be funded even more than $2.1 billion.

So I must express my deep opposition to this proposal. I immensely respect Senator Harkin and Senator Specter. I know they are laboring under excruciating budget constraints that are squeezing out money for programs that are necessary for America's families, America's children, America's health care, America's future. But in this desperate moment, it is not a time to undercut a program that serves every State in this country well and serves people who need help, particularly as this winter approaches. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Parliamentary inquiry: Can the Chair state how much time is remaining on all sides?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 2 minutes prior to the completion of the time so I could respond to the comments of the Senator from Pennsylvania and Senator Harkin. I think it appropriate that I be able to respond to his comments.

Mr. President, I respect immensely the Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator from Iowa who tried to take a budget that is inadequate and fulfill many programs. But

I strenuously object to the classification of LIHEAP in this way as an emergency program.

There are two components of LIHEAP. This is a program that has been appropriated for years and years and has built up a locked-in structure in every State to go ahead and solicit applications and to process the applications. They have to have some sense that this program is going to be in place, not depending upon our Presidential emergency declaration at some time in the year.

There is another component which is emergency. That is additional funds. But we are creating bad policy and bad precedent.

There are a number of programs in this Labor-HHS bill that could also been declared emergencies.

We have a children's vaccination program that provides vaccines. The States have offices that have to deal with it. They have to predictably know they are going to have these funds.

This is bad policy and bad precedent. It is being forced because the budget is inaccurate. I think it is a desperate moment to do this. It would send a terrible signal to people throughout this country and State and local community agencies that are dedicated to this program that they can no longer depend upon the formula for LIHEAP funds which they have been now for almost 20 years.

I hope my colleagues will reject this proposal.

I yield the floor.

motion to instruct conferees

Parliamentary inquiry: What is the pending business?

The Kennedy amendment being set aside, I would send an amendment to the desk.

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

I offer this amendment along with Senator Kennedy, Senator Schumer, Senator Kohl, Senator Rockefeller, Senator Kerry, Senator Carper, Senator Leahy, Senator Lieberman, Senator Dayton, and Senator Stabenow.

Mr. President, this amendment is about LIHEAP, the Low Income Heating Assistance Program. Each of us, at this point, is very familiar with the struggle that is taking place today--and if you were outside early this morning, you understand temperatures are falling--that many families are having to heat their homes for this winter. According to EIA's Short-Term Energy Outlook released last week, energy costs for the average family using

heating oil are estimated to hit $1,500 this winter, an increase of $325 over last year's heating season. Natural gas prices could hit $1,000, an increase of $300. For a family using propane, prices are projected to hit $1,300, an increase of $230.

Despite these sharp increases in fuel costs, we sadly continue to fund LIHEAP, the one program that can provide sufficient help, at the same level as last year, which in reality means an actual cut in the level of assistance we can provide low-income consumers this winter's heating season.

The responsible thing for Congress to do is to fully fund LIHEAP at the full $5.1 billion authorized in the Energy Policy Act enacted earlier this year. Indeed, we have tried to do that--not once but three times--in the past few weeks. Senator Collins and I, along with some 30 of our colleagues, have offered amendments to the Defense bill, the Transportation-Treasury-HUD bill, and the Labor-HHS bill to fully fund LIHEAP. We have reached across the aisle and across the country to provide more assistance for the LIHEAP program, and in each instance a majority of this body has gone on record to support full funding.

Today, I come to the floor to offer another amendment to fully fund the LIHEAP program. This time I seek to offset that increase with a temporary 1-year windfall profits tax on large oil companies. This tax would be on the excess profits large integrated oil companies have earned as fuel prices reached record heights over the past year.

My amendment draws from Senator Schumer's legislation to define windfall profits. My amendment creates a temporary levy on the excess profits of U.S. oil companies and foreign companies that do substantial business in the United States. I would like to thank Senators Dorgan and Dodd for proposing the windfall profits tax, and Senator Schumer for his modification to this proposal.

The temporary levy applies to major integrated oil companies which have an average daily world-wide production of crude oil of at least 500,000 barrels for the taxable year. Under our revenue mechanism companies will calculate the average of annual profits for the years 2002 to 2004, subtracting the highest year, and then adding 10 percent. The resulting number is the reasonably inflated average profit for calculating the amount of windfall profits. Any profits earned from U.S. operations in 2005 that exceed this reasonably inflated average profit are deemed a ``windfall profit'' and is taxed at the rate necessary to raise the required $2.92 billion needed to fully fund

I thank the Chair.

My amendment would fully fund the LIHEAP program, providing a 1-year temporary windfall profits tax on large oil companies. Previously, a majority of this body has voted to fully fund LIHEAP. We have not had an offset. This would be an offset. The mechanism I propose would be based upon Senator Schumer's proposal. It does not have the problems that were identified by Senator Domenici with respect to the Dorgan and Dodd proposal.

My amendment will tax these companies at an equitable rate. It will raise $2.92 billion. It will fully fund LIHEAP, and it will provide relief to families throughout this country who literally struggle, who either choose to heat or to eat. I think we can do much better to help our families. There has been majority support of this bill. I hope we have sufficient support that we can actually provide the resources to provide help to struggling families this winter.

I urge all my colleagues to support the amendment.

I retain any time I have remaining.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Budget Act, I move to waive the applicable sections of the act with regard to the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I oppose the tax reconciliation bill now before us. This bill illustrates the cynicism of the whole reconciliation process this year, which, at the end of the day, is just a vehicle to short circuit a full Senate debate on the President's unfair tax cuts.

The fiscal year 2006 budget resolution instructed the Finance Committee to report up to $70 billion of tax cuts. Only half of those tax cuts were to be offset by reconciled spending cuts, so the net effect of reconciliation would be to add to the budget deficit. In the current economic and budget environment, there is no justification for enacting tax cuts that increase the deficit and must be paid for by adding to the debt.

For various reasons, the bill before us does not contain the full $70 billion of tax cuts. Most notably, it does not include provisions to extend the temporary capital gains and dividend tax cuts passed in 2003 and set to expire in 2008. It would be wise and prudent budget policy to abandon the effort to extend those debt-financed tax cuts, which go to taxpayers in the highest income brackets. But what you see is not what you are going to get. Those provisions will be back. In fact, the Majority Leader has said he will not bring a conference report to the floor that does not include an extension of the capital gains and dividend provisions.

Even without any capital gains and dividend provisions, this tax bill provides benefits mainly to upper-income taxpayers. An analysis by the Joint Economic Committee democratic staff finds that about $43 billion of the tax cuts can be allocated by family income group. Of those, about 80 percent would accrue to the 20 percent of families with the highest incomes, That fraction will rise when the extension of the capital gains and dividend tax cuts is added in conference.

``What you see is not what you are going to get'' is a phrase that also applies to the spending piece of reconciliation. There is much to criticize in the Senate's $35 billion spending reconciliation bill, but any conference bill that comes before us is likely to be far worse, with much larger cuts to benefits that middle- and lower-income families rely on that will be way out of all proportion to any tax cuts they might receive.

The Senate can take a step toward restoring fiscal discipline by voting down this tax reconciliation bill.

Mr. President, the Senate is undertaking a long awaited debate on S. 467, Terrorism Risk Insurance Extension Act of 2005. This bill extends the important program that allows for the Federal Government to share the risk of loss from future terrorist attacks with the insurance industry for 2 more years, to 2007.

As we all know, terrorism remains a clear and present danger. The need for terrorism insurance is real, pressing, and a long-term issue. In the post-9/11 world, it is important to keep the existing TRIA program in place, while continuing to work with the private sector-- both policyholders and insurers--to craft a longer term program that addresses all the needs of policyholders.

I want to particularly commend Minority Leader Reid, Chairman Shelby, Senators Sarbanes, Dodd, Bennett, and their staffs for their tireless efforts in bringing this issue to the forefront of the Senate's legislative agenda.

The need for terrorism insurance coverage has been widely established as an economic issue, rather than just simply an insurance issue. In the past year, we have heard that many American businesses-- policyholders--are already receiving exclusion notices from insurers informing them that they will not be covered on policies beyond TRIA's sunset date. As a result, there has been increasing uncertainty about the availability of adequate terrorism

coverage beyond 2005. Clearly, a Federal backstop is vital to ensuring the ongoing availability of terrorism risk coverage.

The other key reason to act on this issue is the fact that should another catastrophic event occur, the Federal Government will likely be on the hook for the total amount of the damage.

An important aspect of this debate is making certain that terrorism insurance coverage is available in the workers' compensation market. Workers' compensation is unique insurance coverage in that law requires that it cover acts of terrorism and war. For close to a century now, workers' compensation has been a safety net available to all workers and their families, replacing lost wages, and paying for medical needs and death benefits regardless of the cause of the workplace injury or death. A strong workers' compensation system is integral to helping victims and their families rebuild their lives.

In my State of Rhode Island, the burden of providing workers' compensation falls to one mutual insurance compan, Beacon Mutual, which was created by the State to ensure that there will always be workers' compensation available to companies in the State. With less availability of reinsurance, the concern for one company conceivably underwriting the entire market for workers' compensation was significant and would have created a very tenuous situation for the company, the State, and its residents. Extending TRIA will address the various problems that employers, insurance companies, and State workers compensation pools alike have had to endure in the absence of a Federal backstop.

I would note, however, that although S. 467 is an improvement on the administration's proposal for the trigger for a terrorist incident--$50 million in the first year of the extension and $100 million in the last, down from $500 million, I remain concerned that because of the concentration of risk and their small capitalization, a higher trigger level for State fund companies put these funds uniquely at risk. A number of terrorist targets could create a result where workers' compensation losses could exceed property losses, but still not reach the proposed higher trigger. As we move towards finding a long-term solution to terrorism insurance coverage, I hope we can work to better address this issue.

There remains a great need to do something because, as it has been stated very plainly during this debate, the situation without a Federal terrorism risk insurance program could be very dire. Extending TRIA is absolutely the right thing to do to protect the economic security of our country. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I look forward to its speedy adoption and signature into law.

Mr. President, the Senate is undertaking a long awaited debate on the need to strengthen the private pension system. It is imperative that current and future retirees are assured that they will receive the pension benefits they have been promised so they are able to enjoy a secure retirement.

I am deeply concerned about the growing economic insecurity of today's workers. Despite recent economic growth, a healthy jobs recovery has yet to take hold, wages are failing to keep pace with inflation, income inequality is growing, employer-provided health insurance coverage is falling, and private pensions are in jeopardy. Indeed, strong productivity growth has translated into higher profits for businesses, but not more take home pay for average workers. The stagnation of earnings in the face of soaring prices for gasoline, home heating, food, and health care is squeezing the take home pay of workers.

Any wage gains we have seen seem to be concentrated at the top of the earnings distribution, while the largest losses are at the bottom. Over the past 4 years, average household income has fallen for all income groups except a small slice at the very top of the distribution. Those developments stand in sharp contrast to what happened in the 1990s, when wage and income gains were strong for all income and earnings groups.

At the same time that earnings are stagnating, the average worker's retirement prospects are more uncertain than ever. Twenty years ago, most workers with a pension plan could expect to receive a defined benefit based on years of service and salary. Today, defined contribution plans--which shift most of the investment risk and responsibility onto workers--have become the dominant form of pension coverage. As a result of this increased risk and responsibility, average workers may end up with inadequate retirement savings.

Despite the shift away from traditional pensions, defined benefit plans remain a critical source of retirement support, with 44 million workers and retirees relying on such plans as a source of stable retirement income. However, as we have seen by the recent pension terminations in the airline industry, the real risk of defined benefit plan defaults further exacerbates workers' uncertainty and concern about their retirement prospects.

The Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation estimates that total underfunding in PBGC-insured pension plans is about $450 billion, more than $100 billion of which is in plans sponsored by financially weak companies and at reasonable risk of default.

And what of the status of PBGC itself, which serves as a backstop to the defined benefit pension system? At the end of 2005, the PBGC reported a cumulative deficit of $22.8 billion in its single-employer program. That figure is a slight improvement from a year earlier, when the shortfall was $23.3 billion which is the largest deficit in the program's 30-year history, and a sharp deterioration from only a few years ago when the single-employer program was in surplus. The deficit is expected to get worse in 2006, as PBGC will account for additional liabilities that it has taken over for the new fiscal year resulting from a number of major airlines and manufacturing companies who have defaulted on their pension obligations.

While the PBGC has sufficient assets to pay benefit obligations for a number of years, without changes in funding, the agency will eventually run out of

money. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that PBGC's cumulative deficit will increase to $87 billion over the next 10 years, and suggests that there is a significant likelihood that all of PBGC's assets will be exhausted within the next 20 years.

The increased number of pension defaults means lost benefits for participants whose earned benefits exceed the statutory maximum benefit guarantee; premium increases for healthy plan sponsors remaining in the system; and ultimately the risk of a taxpayer bailout of the PBGC.

Clearly, the private pension funding system needs reform and the bill before us today, S. 1783, the Pension Security and Transparency Act of 2005, is movement in the right direction. I know that Chairman Enzi, Ranking Member Kennedy, Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Baucus, and their staffs worked long hours to get to this point.

The bill tightens the funding rules to ensure that defined benefit plans are adequately funded. Limiting the use of credit balances to prevent companies with unfunded plans from avoiding plan contributions and requiring an accurate accounting of each plan's true financial condition are important steps.

But we must also avoid imposing unnecessarily burdensome funding requirements on plan sponsors that are playing by the rules. An asset valuation approach that doesn't allow for short-term fluctuations in the stock market will only exacerbate the inherent volatility in pension plan funding and increase funding burdens during economic downturns when companies can least afford them.

The bill also requires truth-in-funding disclosures for companies with underfunded pension plans so participants and other stakeholders can learn the true financial condition of their pension plans, as well as the potential loss of benefits if the plan terminates. This is an especially important safeguard for workers whose pension benefits exceed the PBGC's maximum benefit guarantee limit.

In order for the PBGC to remain a viable insurance program that continues to protect workers and retirees, its current funding gap must be closed. Recognizing this, the bill increases PBGC premiums to $30, while ensuring that companies whose plans pose the greatest insurance risk actually pay the additional premium for that risk.

S. 1783 would also prohibit companies from funding nonqualified plans under certain circumstances, including bankruptcy, significant underfunding of regular pension plans, or the termination of an underfunded regular pension plan. This is a positive development in addressing inequities of what has become a two-tiered pension system. Too often, the executives of those companies that default on their pension obligations escape with padded executive retirement packages while the average worker is left holding the bag. Companies that underfund or default on their regular pension obligations should be prohibited from funding and paying out benefits from special executive pension plans.

Finally, as new types of defined benefit plans evolve, we must ensure that older workers are protected and don't lose the benefits they have been promised.

The Pension Security and Transparency Act makes positive strides toward ensuring that workers will receive the full pension benefits they have earned. While the bill reflects difficult compromises, it is important that we act now to preserve the financial health of defined benefit pensions. I urge my colleagues to not stop here. We must continue work to improve our pensions system to ensure that Americans who work their entire lives have the financial security they deserve and worked so hard for when they retire.

Mr. President, after 2\1/2\ years of insurgency warfare in Iraq, it is a stunning indictment of the Bush administration that this Senate has to ask for a plan. And we are asking on behalf of the American people because their disquiet with Iraq is not a function of political bickering, it is a function of not understanding what the plan is because the President has not presented us with a viable, coherent plan.

I believe an important part of that plan is the phased redeployment of American forces without a deadline. I believe that is being embraced by people around the world. Yesterday, Tony Blair spoke about the possibility of withdrawing British troops in 2006. Talabani, the Iraqi leader, spoke about it. John Reid, the Defense Secretary of Great Britain, talked about it.

I think we have to have from the administration a notion of when our forces will come out of Iraq or redeployed within Iraq. It is important not only for Iraq, it is important for our security across the globe. How can we defend ourselves in the future if we do not know if our forces will be freed up to respond to other crises? How can we pay for these troops if we don't know when they will be coming out of Iraq? I think it is important to do this and essential to any plan. I hope that is something we can agree on today.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2523

Parliamentary inquiry: What is the status of the floor?

Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Tennessee will seek recognition after the Senator from Connecticut. How much time did the Senator want?

I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of Senator Dodd's time, Senator Alexander be recognized for 3 minutes, and at the conclusion of Senator Alexander's time I be recognized for 15 minutes.

That is perfectly all right. I think to expedite consideration of the Energy bill, I revise my consent rather than 15 minutes, 10 minutes.

I have no objection.

Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for the amendment offered by Senator Levin from Michigan. I was pleased to work with a number of my colleagues on this amendment, including Senator Levin, Senator Biden, Senator Harry Reid, Senator Kerry, Senator Feingold, Senator Kennedy, Senator Durbin, and particularly Senator Dodd. Senator Dodd and I had the privilege of traveling together through Iraq just about 3 weeks ago. Our trip was very illuminating. His participation is one I deeply appreciated.

We all understand that there are over 160,000 American troops in Iraq. They are serving magnificently, and they have paid a difficult price for their service. We have lost soldiers and sailors and airmen and marines. We know how important it is to succeed in Iraq.

But the American people are concerned. A Pew Research poll conducted last week found that those polled believed that Iraq was the most important problem facing the country today. A second poll conducted by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal, however, found that 64 percent of those polled disapproved of the way President Bush is handling this situation in Iraq.

At the heart of that, I believe, is a sense that there is no plan. There are slogans--``Stay the course.'' There are

slogans--``When the Iraqis stand up, we stand down.'' But a slogan is not a plan, and the American people and this Congress should demand a plan.

That is the essence of the Levin amendment. We are not collectively a Commander in Chief. We should not presume to think so. He is responsible for such a plan, and he has to provide, not just to us but to the American people, a sense that there is a plan that is leading to an outcome which is successful in a timeframe which is feasible. What the American people are seeing, however, is chaos without a plan.

I did not vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq. At that time, my concerns were, after the initial decisive military victory, that we would be swept up in a difficult situation. That is what has come to pass. I thought the cost would be huge then, but I did not expect that we would enter the phase after military operations, the conventional attack, with essentially no plan. That was a surprise to me and a surprise to so many others.

According to an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer, when a lieutenant colonel briefed war planners and intelligence officers in March 2003 on the administration's plans in Iraq, the slide for the rebuilding operations or phase 4-C, as it is known in the military, was simply this: ``To be provided.'' We are still waiting. We are still waiting for a plan that works, that is measurable, and that will give the American public the confidence that our course ahead will lead to success.

We all know in February of 2003 when General Shinseki was asked about the troop strength we needed there, he said several hundred thousand soldiers. He was dismissed--and that is a kind word for the treatment he received. Secretary Rumsfeld said the estimate was `` . . . far from the mark.'' Secretary Wolfowitz called it ``outlandish.'' In fact, it was very accurate, very perceptive--prophetic, indeed, because after our initial entry into Iraq, after the first days of fighting, it became more and more obvious we needed more troops to, among other things, secure ammo dumps that were prolific throughout the country. Perhaps we have lost that window where more troops will make a difference, but we certainly have not gone past the point where a good plan will make a difference, and we need that good plan.

The Congressional Research Service has summarized dozens of reports and articles, cataloging mistake after mistake. In their words:

The lack of reconstruction plan; the failure to adequately

fund reconstruction early on; unrealistic application of U.S.

views to Iraqi conditions by, for example, emphasizing

privatization policy; the organizational incompetence of the

CPA; changing deadlines . . .

Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

I could add, a very unwise de-Baathification process and the disestablishment of the Iraqi army. But the litany goes on and on. It was ad hoc, off the cuff. It was not a plan that worked and it is not working today.

We need this plan. That is what the Levin amendment calls for. Give us a plan. Not just us, but give the American people a plan. We have made progress in Iraq. We have had elections. But that progress is fragile and reversible. We have to have a coherent way ahead. And again, hope is not a plan.

This amendment is not, as some would characterize it, cut and run. It asks the President to lay out conditions. It asks to define a mission. It asks to catalog the resources necessary. Then it anticipates--and I think this is prudent--that we would have a phased redeployment of troops.

Just today, in London, Prime Minister Blair talked about British troops coming out next year, 2006. Jalal Talabani, the Iraqi President, said the troops are coming out in 2006. British Defense Secretary John Reid--no relation--said that we are likely to see troops come out next year if conditions allow. So the idea of looking ahead with a good plan and making a good-faith estimate as to troop levels seems to me the appropriate thing to do. It is a campaign plan. It is a campaign plan which will give us an idea of how long we will be there.

We need not simply to reflect what is happening on the ground in Iraq. We cannot sustain indefinitely 160,000 American troops in Iraq.

It will bring our land forces, our Army, our Marines to their knees. They are overstretched. They have a billion dollars of built-up maintenance on helicopters and vehicles. And the personnel turmoil is excruciating. We owe it to them to have a plan. And we must be able to show how we are paying for this plan.

This plan would also ask the President to talk about a definition of ``success,'' talk about the conditions, talk about situations which would cause those conditions to be reevaluated. The Levin amendment is asking for the obvious. Show us the way ahead, not in a slogan but in concrete, measurable elements that will constitute a good plan. We have been waiting for 2\1/2\ years for such a plan.

What is the mission? It has changed. One of the initial missions was to deny the Iraqi Government weapons of mass destruction. We find they had none.

Then, of course, the mission was to root out terrorist insurgents that might be collaborating with Saddam Hussein's regime. The evidence strongly suggests there was no such material collaboration. But today there are thousands of hardened terrorists that we are in the process of rooting out--after the attack, not before.

Then, of course, there was the mission of creating a democratic oasis in Iraq that would be transformative of the entire region.

Is that still the mission? If it is the mission, we are going to need many decades, billions of dollars, and to mobilize the strength of this country, not just militarily but for technical and political assistance, and we haven't done that.

The President doesn't suggest--from everything I have heard and from everything I have seen--that he intended to do that.

What is the mission? What are the resources? We are spending about $4 billion to $6 billion a month in Iraq and Afghanistan. How long will we spend that much money, and when we finish how much will we have to spend to reconstitute our equipment, to reorganize our troops? Tell us. It is important because we make decisions on this floor that are based upon assumptions about how much we will be spending years ahead in Iraq, and we have to have those numbers. We need the conditions. More than that, we need all this tied into our troop strength in Iraq.

That is essentially what the American people are looking at very consciously.

How long will their sons and daughters be committed to this struggle?

I believe we have to succeed, and I am here because we can't succeed without a coherent plan, not one that is made up of slogans and good intentions but one that is premised on real conditions, hardnosed, and something that will help us and help the American people to understand our commitment and help us to succeed in that commitment.

I hope very strongly that the Levin amendment is agreed to. The Republican counterpart makes a few changes, but the critical change is it essentially takes out the notion of a plan.

The opposing amendment would strip out something vital in the Levin amendment; that is, a campaign plan that would help show, project, the phased redeployment of American troops. I think that is essential.

If Tony Blair can speak off the cuff in London today about the phased withdrawal of British troops, and Talabani, the Iraqi President can do it, and John Reid, the Defense Secretary of Great Britain can do it, then certainly the President of United States can do it. And we ask him to do it. In fact, if we agree to this amendment, it will require him to do it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the second storm surge from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita--high energy prices--threatens to overwhelm working families and senior citizens. The Energy Information Administration forecasted that households heating with natural gas will spend $306, or 41 percent, more for fuel this winter than last winter; households primarily using heating oil can expect to pay $325, or 27 percent, more; and households heating primarily with propane can expect to pay $230, or 21 percent, more.

Low-income families and seniors need assistance from the Federal Government in order to guarantee energy security in this high price environment. To provide immediate help this winter, I am working with Senator Collins to secure $5.1 billion in funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. Over the last 4 weeks, we have offered two amendments to increase funding for LIHEAP. While a majority of the Senate supported these amendments, we have been unable to reach the required 60 vote supermajority needed to waive the budget point of order on emergency spending.

Oil companies reported record profits for the third quarter of this year. As oil prices go up, low-income hard working Americans struggle to pay their heating bills. That is why fully funding LIHEAP is vital, and I believe oil companies should help shoulder the cost through a temporary, one-year windfall profit tax on integrated oil companies.

The President also has been silent, failing to ask for any funding for LIHEAP in the supplemental appropriations request he sent to Congress. In addition, Energy Secretary Bodman has repeatedly stated that the administration is against a windfall profits tax.

The Administration's National Energy Policy Report, the National Petroleum Council's report, Balancing Natural Gas Policy, and the National Commission on Energy Policy's report, Ending the Energy Stalemate, emphasized that energy efficiency is essential to managing the nation's short- and long-term energy challenges. Unfortunately, despite all of the agreement, federal funding for energy efficiency is not keeping pace.

In September, Senator Snowe and I wrote a bipartisan letter signed by 33 of our colleagues urging the Administration to request $500 million for the Weatherization Assistance Program, WAP, and $100 million for the State Energy Program, SEP, in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. President Bush and Secretary Bodman called on the American people to conserve energy and invest in energy efficiency,

and the American people are responding. I am disappointed that the administration did not seek additional funding for these key programs in their supplemental appropriations request.

Indeed, SEP helps states implement energy efficiency and energy emergency preparedness programs in all sectors of the economy, thereby, reducing energy consumption for residential consumers, schools, hospitals, the agricultural sector, commercial enterprises, and industry. For every Federal dollar invested in SEP, over $7 is saved in energy costs. SEP funds would immediately be directed to energy efficiency projects to bring energy usage down. Instead of our bipartisan request of $100 million, the Energy and Water Appropriations Conference Report provides only $36 million for the program in FY2006. This is almost a 20-percent cut from this year's funding level. This cut means States will not be able to provide rebates to homeowners for energy conservation, schools and hospitals will be ill-equipped to reduce energy usage, and small business will not receive needed energy efficiency upgrades. Basically, every sector of the economy will be harmed in the midst of an energy crisis.

I hope that the Senate will provide more funding for LIHEAP, SEP, and the weatherization program before the worst of the winter season hits.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to one of Rhode Island's brave soldiers, Lance Corporal Holly A. Charette, who was killed in Iraq on June 23, 2005. In honor of her sacrifice, I am introducing a bill, along with Senator Chafee, to name the post office at 57 Rolfe Square in Cranston, RI, the ``Holly A. Charette Post Office.''

Twenty-one year old Holly Charette died when a suicide bomber in Fallujah attacked the military convoy in which she was riding. This was the deadliest attack on women in the U.S. military since the start of operations in Iraq, and yet another example of the violence that continues to plague our soldiers serving in this conflict.

Those who were close to Holly describe her as a happy and positive young woman loved by all those who knew her. She was a cheerleader at Cranston East High School, where she worked hard in college-prep courses. Her teachers remember her as a ``bright, shining star.''

Holly had dreams of becoming a postal worker. Instead, in 2002, she made the choice to serve her Nation by joining the U.S. Marine Corps.

She was deployed to Iraq in March of this year with her unit from Camp Lejeune, NC, and assigned to Headquarters Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force. It was here that Holly was able to combine her dreams of postal service with that of serving her Nation.

During her service in Iraq, Holly utilized her strong organizational skills to take on and complete various administrative tasks, including that of mail delivery to the troops. She became known as the ``Marine who brought the good news.'' Holly never forgot a name, and would often stop Marines in the mess hall to let them know that they had mail.

The day that Holly was killed, she was working with Iraqi security forces to prevent insurgents from gaining a foothold in that country.

Her tragic passing has touched the lives of Rhode Islanders. Holly's presence will be deeply missed by all those who knew and loved her.

This legislation will pay proper tribute to this remarkable young woman, and commemorate her valor for future generations. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Lance Corporal Holly A. Charette by supporting this bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation to name the post office in Cranston after Lance Corporal Charette be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to one of Rhode Island's brave soldiers, Lance Corporal Holly A. Charette, who was killed in Iraq on June 23, 2005. In honor of her sacrifice, I am introducing a bill, along with Senator Chafee, to name the post office at 57 Rolfe Square in Cranston, RI, the ``Holly A. Charette Post Office.''

Twenty-one year old Holly Charette died when a suicide bomber in Fallujah attacked the military convoy in which she was riding. This was the deadliest attack on women in the U.S. military since the start of operations in Iraq, and yet another example of the violence that continues to plague our soldiers serving in this conflict.

Those who were close to Holly describe her as a happy and positive young woman loved by all those who knew her. She was a cheerleader at Cranston East High School, where she worked hard in college-prep courses. Her teachers remember her as a ``bright, shining star.''

Holly had dreams of becoming a postal worker. Instead, in 2002, she made the choice to serve her Nation by joining the U.S. Marine Corps.

She was deployed to Iraq in March of this year with her unit from Camp Lejeune, NC, and assigned to Headquarters Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force. It was here that Holly was able to combine her dreams of postal service with that of serving her Nation.

During her service in Iraq, Holly utilized her strong organizational skills to take on and complete various administrative tasks, including that of mail delivery to the troops. She became known as the ``Marine who brought the good news.'' Holly never forgot a name, and would often stop Marines in the mess hall to let them know that they had mail.

The day that Holly was killed, she was working with Iraqi security forces to prevent insurgents from gaining a foothold in that country.

Her tragic passing has touched the lives of Rhode Islanders. Holly's presence will be deeply missed by all those who knew and loved her.

This legislation will pay proper tribute to this remarkable young woman, and commemorate her valor for future generations. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Lance Corporal Holly A. Charette by supporting this bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation to name the post office in Cranston after Lance Corporal Charette be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, I believe we are on the Inhofe amendment pending before the Senate?

Mr. President, I rise to address some of the issues that have been presented by the amendment of Senator Inhofe. I do so with some perspective on issues of prayer at service academies. I spent 4 years as a cadet at West Point, 2 years as a faculty member at West Point, and today I am the chairman of the board of visitors at West Point. I am the first to recognize the importance of prayer, not only in the life of the service academies but in the life of people everywhere.

Over the course of 200-plus years of history, prayer has become an important aspect of life, not only at West Point but at Annapolis and other institutions.

Interestingly enough, when I was a cadet, there was a much more significant structure of religious participation. We were actually ordered to go to chapel, ordered to participate in activities. That was struck down in 1972 as an unconstitutional infringement.

This is a very difficult issue because it does implicate serious constitutional concerns, as well as the desire to maintain the traditions and the customs of the military and the service academies. Interestingly enough, my perspective now, after about 30 years, is that the faith communities at West Point are even more vital and vibrant today than years ago when cadets literally were ordered to participate in religious activities. In fact, last summer, as part of the operations of the board of visitors, I asked that the chaplains come together on an informal basis, and we talked about religious participation at West Point. What I heard from the chaplains is that it is alive and well, that it is something important to the individual lives of cadets and to the community at West Point. That is why

I think, as we try to legislate these activities from the perspective of the U.S. Congress, we might be inviting more problems than we are solving.

As I look at the amendment of Senator Inhofe, it speaks of voluntary, nondenominational prayer at otherwise authorized activities of the academy, subject to the limitations of the Secretary of Defense, more or less. The real problem in the context of military activities is, what is voluntary? There is a strong sense that there is not much that is voluntary in the military. Anyone who has served on active duty understands that even in some cases volunteering isn't voluntary. I know I had a first sergeant in the 82nd Airborne Division who would walk in and pick three people and inform them they had just volunteered. That is a cultural aspect and a legal aspect of military service. So even though this speaks to voluntary, nondenominational prayer, the real issue in the context of the military is, Is it voluntary?

That issue is now being debated. One of the reasons prompting this particular legislative amendment is the fact that the Naval Academy has been questioned about a prayer at their luncheon meal. Whether it is nondenominational is not the point. The question is whether it is voluntary. I do not think we are going to escape that analysis and that issue by passing this legislation. In fact, my fear is by passing this legislation we are going to essentially invite litigation about a whole series of religious expressions at service academies, not just prayer in the mess hall at lunch but prayer at graduation ceremonies, at promotion ceremonies--all of that.

Frankly, on a practical basis, this legislation is not necessary. First, the superintendents already have the authority to prescribe what is happening at the academies--either explicitly or implicitly the current religious expression at the academies is being authorized by the superintendents.

Also, I think, given the fact that they are doing this and it seems to be working fairly well, this legislation does not give them any more authority than they have already. As I suggested previously, it raises, certainly, the profile, so it might engender the kind of controversies that will lead to seriously questioning and perhaps cutting back existing religious expression at these service academies. So I do not think, as a matter of either policy or of good sense, this legislation is in order or necessary.

In addition, what is happening at the academies now is not so much the sole issue of the propriety of prayer or religious expression at different authorized activities. There is another big issue out there that we have to recognize. It comes from the recent activities at the Air Force Academy, where there have been serious reports about proselytization, of superior officers using their rank and position to try to proselytize cadets, to try to insert in the activities of the academy a pronounced and sectarian religious approach. I think we are all familiar with many of the stories from the Air Force Academy.

As a result, the Secretary of Defense has issued interim guidance with respect to proselytization and other religious activities. I would note that the language of Senator Inhofe recognizes the right of the Secretary of Defense to do that. In fact, I would assume it lends further support and credence to the guidance that he is developing and will issue because, as the language says, ``subject to such limitations as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe.''

I think what we are seeing, in terms of this legislation, is several results which might be unintended by those who are supporting it. First, I think rather than clarifying and settling the issue of religious expression at the service academies, it will prompt further discussion, debate, and perhaps even litigation. Second, it does specifically recognize that there is an ongoing process by the Secretary of Defense to redefine appropriate modes of religious expression at the academies. And, as I read it, it does give sanction to those activities--in fact, legal sanction to those activities.

So for many reasons I think the legislation is not the most appropriate way to deal with this issue. Ultimately, my sense is that these issues, because they are dominated by constitutional concerns, will be settled in court, not by legislative enactment. There is nothing we could do legislatively to correct such constitutional faults. I think to try to do that misconstrues what we are about and what we could practically do.

As a result, I hope this legislation could be withdrawn, but I suspect that is not the case. So I think we should make some changes in the legislation in that at least reflects the fact that all of us are bound by the Constitution of the United States.

Again, I have been involved with these academies since I was 17 years old. I have seen personally the important role that prayer and religion play in the lives of cadets, soldiers, and officers. I recognize and cherish the customs of these academies, and these traditions. I think it is unfortunate that we may unwittingly be starting a dynamic that will seriously erode these customs and traditions, and I think perhaps to the detriment of the academies and to the military service and to the young men and women who proudly wear the uniform of our Armed Forces. So I hope we can avoid that.

But I think, also, we have to recognize that we are all governed, particularly when it comes to issues of prayer in the public space, by the Constitution of the United States, and that there is nothing, as I said before, that we can do that can insulate activities within the military from the Constitution. There is nothing we should do. I think whatever language we adopt today has to more explicitly reflect that clear, and I think obvious, fact.

As I mentioned before, the Secretary of Defense is dealing today with the issue of religious activities at the Air Force Academy. He has also indicated that, if his interim guidelines are practical, workable, and appropriate in his view, that he intends to extend those to the other service academies, effectively doing what this legislation is proposing to do. I think we should give the Secretary of Defense a chance to do that. I think he is working in a way that is evenhanded, appropriate, recognizing that soldiers are bound by the Constitution. That is their duty. That is their obligation.

I say if we march down this road, I think we are raising serious issues that are going to complicate the facts even more than they are today. So I hope we could wait. I hope we could wait until these guidelines have been fully vetted by the Secretary and he has made a decision with respect to their propriety, their appropriateness. Indeed, once again, as the amendment suggests, ultimately whatever the superintendents of the academies do will be subject to the guidance of the Secretary of Defense. Frankly, that guidance today, if you look at it, is drawing mixed reviews from both the proponents of the separation of church and state and those who want a much more aggressive posture when it comes to religious expression in public places. Maybe that is a good sign. Maybe the Secretary has struck that balance between the constitutional demands of separation of church and state and the individual's desires and needs to express themselves to the Divine.

I hope we could forbear on this one. If not, then I think we have to make some changes in the text to reflect the overarching constitutional imperatives that are at the heart of this debate.

I retain the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

My preference would be to try to amend the Senator's amendment.

Mr. President, I yielded to the Senator. Would he like to use his time? I retain the remainder of my time.

Let me understand. Is it in order now for me to propose a second-degree amendment which would then require just a short explanation and debate, and then we can move to a vote on the second- degree amendment, and then on the underlying amendment?

We are agreeing, as I understand it, that as soon as the Senator yields his remaining time, it would be in order for me to offer a second-degree amendment. I will do so. I will speak briefly on the second-degree amendment, and I think it would be in order to either entertain additional debate by the Senator from Oklahoma and others or to set a time for a vote.

I think the most efficient course is simply to allow my second-degree amendment, allowing Members to vote essentially on my amendment first, then voice vote the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma--if it succeeds, then the underlying amendment. That was my preference.

No. My preference is that we entertain a second-degree amendment and vote, and if the second-degree amendment is agreed to, then the underlying amendment would be voted on. There would be a series of votes. Mine would be voted on first.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, the Senator from Oklahoma has offered to modify his amendment the way I suggested and then, having modified the amendment, schedule votes. I have no objection to that.

Mr. President, I would like to be recognized as in morning business.

Mr. President, recently Senator Collins and I introduced an amendment to the proposed budget reconciliation bill to fund a $2.9 billion increase in the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program by placing a temporary 1-year windfall profit tax on big oil companies. I filed this amendment to the budget reconciliation bill to begin the dialog, and I intend to call for a vote on my amendment when the Senate debates the tax reconciliation bill in the next few days.

Last week, oil companies reported record profits for the third quarter on surging oil prices. Chevron posted profits of $3.6 billion. BP's profits rose to $6.5 billion. Royal Dutch/Shell profits grew to $9 billion. And ExxonMobil profits gushed up 75 percent to nearly $10 billion. According to BusinessWeek, that equals $150 million in profit for every working day in the past 3 months.

This year has been an exceptionally lucrative one for the oil industry and an exceptionally impoverishing one for American families and seniors. Profits going to big oil are money coming out of wallets of working families and seniors and wealth draining out of our communities.

Fully funding LIHEAP is a vital imperative. I believe the big oil companies should help shoulder the cost. Rising energy prices could financially wipe out working-class families and seniors this winter. Americans are experiencing extraordinarily high runups in energy prices that jeopardize the ability of many families to keep their homes warm during this coming winter season. Energy costs to the average family using heating oil are estimated to hit $1,500 this winter, an increase of almost $325 over last winter's heating season. For families using natural gas, prices could hit $1,000, an increase of $300.

For a family using propane, prices are projected to hit $1,300, an increase of $230. For families living in poverty, energy bills are now over 20 percent of their income, compared to 5 percent for other households. People who are living in poverty, many of whom are working, are paying 20 percent of their income for heating bills. That is compared to 5 percent for the rest of America's families.

Let me tell you what this amendment means. If we are successful, it would add $2.9 billion to the LIHEAP program to bring total funding to $5.1 billion this winter. With $5.1 billion, the National Energy Assistance Directors Association estimates that LIHEAP could serve 12 million families this year. This is double the number of families served last year but still only one-third of those eligible. Even with this increased funding, we would not reach all the families who qualify, but we would reach those families who are most in need, particularly in this very difficult winter heating season.

States could also increase the level of benefits to help these rising costs, in addition to enrolling more personnel in the program.

This amendment means that seniors will not have to choose between buying lifesaving medication and paying their natural gas bills. Working families will not have to decide between putting food on the table or putting heating oil in their tanks. And what is the cost of this amendment to big oil? It is about 10 percent of their profits from one quarter of 1 year, or in the case of ExxonMobil my amendment would represent just one-third of their profits for one quarter. This is a small price to pay to keep American families safe and warm this winter.

Two weeks ago, I wrote an open letter to the oil industry asking that they act as good corporate citizens and take this step voluntarily. I was pleased to hear that Senator Grassley, the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, reiterated my plea recently, and I hope that we will be able to work together on this effort. I also hope that Senator Gregg, the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, will join Senator Collins and me in our efforts to increase LIHEAP funding through this temporary windfall profits tax. I also hope the administration will join our bipartisan effort to help American families. Unfortunately, to date, the administration only appears able to say no to American families and seniors and yes to the oil industry.

Last month, Secretary Bodman said no, the administration would not seek

additional funding for LIHEAP this winter. The supplemental appropriations request the administration sent to Congress last week did not include funding.

Recently, Secretary Bodman, answering questions on whether the administration would support oil companies voluntarily donating profits to LIHEAP, said, ``No, sir. I wouldn't support it. It is similar to a tax.''

In 1980, Congress enacted the Crude Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act. This legislation established LIHEAP. Twenty-five years later, with energy prices overwhelming workers' salaries and seniors' Social Security checks, it is time for Congress again to take action and tax windfall profits to aid in energy assistance.

I also want to mention it is my intention that when we consider the tax reconciliation bill this month, I will offer an amendment to provide a tax credit to working American families to help them pay for their energy bills this winter. Our Nation's priorities must be to help these families, and I hope working together with my colleagues we can provide that help and assistance.

Mr. President, I inquire how much time is remaining in morning business on the Democratic side?

I yield the remainder of the time to the Senator from Massachusetts.

In morning business.

Mr. President, the intention this afternoon, awaiting Senator Levin's return, is we will discuss further the Dorgan amendment on a Truman Commission approach and then a Byrd amendment with respect to a second Deputy Secretary of Defense for Management, I believe, and then Senator Nelson and others in regard to the SPD offset amendment. So we are prepared to return at 2:15 p.m. and continue to work on the bill.

Mr. President, I look forward to Senator Stevens' comments and reserve time for myself and others to make additional comments and then move to a vote.