Herb Kohl

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I call up my motion, which is at the desk, to reject the $16 billion cut to the child support program which is in the House bill but which is not in the Senate bill. The House position will result in $24 billion in child support payments going uncollected, and would impact families in every single State. The child support program is a proven success and it has won high praise in the President's 2006 budget for providing a $4 return on every dollar invested in the program. The House conference report is opposed by a wide range of interests, including the National Governors' Association and the National Conference of State Legislatures. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in sending a message to the conferees that the Senate will not support cutting benefits for over 17 million children.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to send a motion to the desk to instruct conferees on the budget reconciliation package.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am offering the motion on behalf of myself and Senators Snowe, Harkin, Cornyn, Obama, Rockefeller and Kennedy. We are asking conferees to reject the deep cuts that the House made to the child support enforcement program. Perhaps some of my colleagues would like to speak on this matter, and so I will keep my comments brief. I would hope that this would be a simple vote for my colleagues. The Senate needs to send a strong message to conferees that the cuts the House supported are unacceptable. I would like to remind my colleagues what those cuts are, and what they mean. The House slashes funding for the child support enforcement program by 10 percent, which is nearly $16 billion which will be cut in the next 10 years. In addition, the House language prevents States from drawing down Federal funds based on their performance incentive payments. What does that mean for States, and more importantly, what will it mean for hard working American families? According to the Congressional Budget Office, the House cuts will reduce child support collections by nearly $7.9 billion in the next 5 years and $24.1 billion in the next 10 years. My State stands to lose $308 million in Federal funding over the next 10 years, and will lose approximately $468 million in child support collections. Cutting the child support enforcement program is counterproductive. It means cutting one of the most successful, cost-effective Federal programs in existence. In 2004, the program collected $21.9 billion, while total costs were kept at $5.3 billion, which is greater than a $4 dollar return on every dollar the Federal Government invested. In fact, collections are rising faster than expenditures. Child support programs are increasing their cost-efficiency. Being cost-effective, however, is not the greatest achievement of the child support program. Sixty percent of all single parent families participate in the child support program, and participants are primarily former welfare families or working families with modest incomes. It is proven that the child support program directly increases self-sufficiency and that families receiving child support are more likely to leave welfare and less likely to return. So these cuts have no place in a deficit-reducing measure. If congress cuts this program, it will ultimately push more people onto other Federal aid programs. I would also like to remind my colleagues that the Senate already has a strong record on this issue. Two weeks ago we unanimously adopted an amendment offered by Senator Harkin, a sense of the Senate in opposition to these cuts. Members from both sides of the aisle have consistently opposed the cuts, with the backing of a number of groups, ranging from the National Governors Association to the Information Technology Association of America. I strongly urge my colleagues to find out how these cuts will affect their constituents, and would urge them to vote based on the families these cuts will impact.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor of the amendment offered yesterday by the Senator from Rhode Island to the tax reconciliation bill. This amendment addresses a concern that is on the mind of many Wisconsinites as winter quickly approaches--the increased cost of home heating. The timing of this amendment could not be more relevant. Last week, executives from several major oil companies attempted to defend their record-breaking profits over the last quarter, in a hearing before the Senate Commerce and Energy Committees. Despite their efforts, they were unable to provide adequate answers. More importantly, they were unable, or unwilling, to provide solutions that would ease the burden on American consumers. I would like to remind my colleagues that while prices at the pump have declined slightly, we are not yet in the clear. Winter is just around the corner, and with colder temperatures comes higher heating bills. I know my constituents in Wisconsin are worried not only about the costs of filling their cars, but also the costs of heating their homes. As the profits of these oil companies continue, what answers can I provide to these constituents, these hard-working Americans, about how they will pay their heating bills? I believe the amendment of the Senator from Rhode Island was a first step towards offering my constituents some piece of mind when it comes to heating their homes. This amendment would have created a temporary, 1-year levy on the excess profits of U.S. oil companies to provide $2.92 billion for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. Because this would only be in place for 1 year, and only effect profits made in 2005, this amendment would have no effect on gas prices or do anything to increase dependence on foreign oil. The amendment offered a simple, short-term solution that would provide real help to those who will need it most, when the temperature starts to drop. The Energy Information Administration has forecasted significantly increased home heating costs this winter. For those using home heating oil, the average increase in price will be $325 over last year. While that might not be much to the oil executives, I can assure you that it could mean going without heat for some families in Wisconsin. I believe it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to protect consumers when the market fails to do so. I am deeply disappointed that the amendment failed in last night's vote. I assure my constituents that I will continue to work towards a comprehensive solution to high heating costs.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, they say that timing is everything. And the timing of the Congress's actions these days is indicative of our priorities. Yesterday, the House rightly voted against the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education appropriations bill that under funded job training, education and health care. Last night, the House voted to pass a reconciliation spending package that would cut programs such as child support, food stamps, and Medicaid. Also last night, the Senate passed $60 billion worth of tax cuts. What does that say to hard working Americans about the priorities of this Government? I want to make it clear to my colleagues that I support many of the provisions that are included in this legislation. I support tax provisions aimed at helping Gulf States recover from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. I support extending the tuition deduction, the research and development tax credit, and a deduction for teacher expenses, among others. And I strongly support the extension of the increased exemption amounts for the alternative minimum tax. In fact, I would support much broader reform of the AMT. More and more middle class individuals and families will find themselves impacted by this onerous tax if Congress does not act soon to correct it. I would also support some capital gains and dividend rate reform. I want to make it clear to my constituents that I am not opposed to tax cuts--when the time is right--when we are in surplus. In 2001, I supported the tax cut legislation, based on the fact that we were running a surplus. It stands to reason, then, that during these times of record deficits, that we can ill afford the tax package the Senate approved yesterday. I want to repeat what I just said--I am not opposed to tax cuts. That is why I supported the alternative package of extensions offered by Senator Conrad. This amendment contained nearly identical extension provisions. The amendment even went further on the AMT then the underlying bill, ensuring that no more taxpayers pay the tax over 2005. The difference? The alternative was fully paid for, through a series of offsets. It remains a mystery to me why so many of my colleagues chose to add to the deficit rather than responsibly extend these important provisions. I would have hoped that more of my colleagues that voted against this alternative would have come to the floor to give their reasoning. Adding $60 billion to the deficit is not something any of us should take lightly. When we are cutting fundamental programs in order to reduce the deficit, when we are faced with continued costs associated with rebuilding after the hurricanes, when costs associated with Iraq and Afghanistan continue to mount--is that the time to extend tax cuts without paying for them? For me, the answer is a resounding no. Timing is everything. When we were in surplus, I supported tax cuts. Times have changed, and we can no longer afford to adopt tax legislation without paying for it. Yesterday, the Senate had a chance to show our constituents that we can make difficult budget decisions, just as so many American families do every month. But instead, the Senate chose to pass the buck on that decision, and add $60 billion to our growing deficit. Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Cantwell anti-price gouging amendment to S. 2020, the tax reconciliation bill. This amendment is identical to Senator Cantwell's Energy Emergency Consumer Protection Act of 2005, a bill that I co-sponsored with 29 colleagues. This amendment will, for the first time, give our Federal Government the needed tools to prosecute those unscrupulous individuals and companies that seek to take advantage of emergencies and disasters by price gouging consumers in the sale of gasoline and other petroleum products. We have all seen the suffering caused to consumers when gas prices spike in the wake of disruptions in supply caused by natural disasters. While gas prices have come down from their record levels of over $ 3.00 per gallon in many places in the last few weeks, they are still too high. And the experience of this past September teaches us that the danger to consumers resulting from tight supplies and high demand remains acute. We cannot allow consumers to remain vulnerable to price gouging and market manipulation the next time our essential energy supplies face disruption. Recent experience shows us beyond doubt the need for this amendment. Allegations of price gouging and drastic price spikes were unfortunately commonplace in the immediate days following the Hurricane Katrina disaster--including, for example, gas being sold at $6.00 per gallon in the Atlanta area. It appeared that the human suffering caused by loss of life, housing, and employment, was compounded by some unscrupulous individuals and businesses who took advantage of the emergency by gouging consumers. Yet, under current law, the Federal Government had virtually no ability to prosecute such price gouging. This amendment will correct this critical deficiency. This amendment contains several important provisions. First, it gives the President the authority to declare an energy emergency during times of disruptions in the supply or distribution of gasoline or petroleum products. Second, the amendment, for the first time, declares illegal under Federal law selling gasoline or petroleum products at a price unconscionably high or when circumstances indicate that the seller is taking unfair advantage to increase prices unreasonably in times of energy emergency. Those who violate this law face civil penalties of up to $3,000,000 per day and criminal penalties, including jail terms of up to 5 years for individuals, as well. The amendment also forbids market manipulation in connection with the sale of gasoline and petroleum products and empowers the experts at the Federal Trade Commission to write regulations setting forth specific conduct constitution market manipulation. Additionally, our amendment gives States attorneys general the power to enforce these provisions as well. These measures are an urgently needed deterrent to prevent all those would seek to profit from disasters such as Hurricane Katrina by price gouging consumers in the price of gasoline or other essential energy supplies. Our amendment will protect consumers--both those who were the victims of Hurricane Katrina and those who may be victimized in the future--who suffer every day at the gas pumps from the real and growing economic pain caused by high gas and energy prices. As ranking member on the Senate Antitrust Subcommittee, I believe that this measure is necessary to prevent unscrupulous companies from ever again using a natural or manmade disaster to justify uncompetitive gas price hikes. All of us can agree that profiteering and price gouging in the price of an essential commodity like gasoline is simply unacceptable. Such conduct violates every principle of free and fair competition. We must give the Federal Government the necessary tools to prevent such misconduct, and prosecute those who do so. I urge my colleagues to support the Cantwell amendment.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference report accompanying H.R. 2862, the Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006, but I do so with some reservations. To be sure, this bill funds many programs and agencies vital to the Nation's security and economic strength, and the conferees should be complimented for drafting a balanced spending bill. However, this appropriations measure is also supposed to fund local law enforcement and juvenile crime prevention programs, and in the past, it did so successfully. Unfortunately, this year's version does not adequately fulfill the very important responsibility of supporting law enforcement and crime prevention programs. Let us first consider the Edward J. Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program. For more than 30 years, Byrne grants have paid for State and local drug task forces, community crime prevention programs, substance abuse treatment programs, prosecution initiatives, and many other local crime control programs. Talk to any police chief or sheriff back in your home State and they will tell you that the Byrne program is the backbone of Federal aid for local law enforcement. We should not walk away from a program with more than 30 years of success supporting our local police chiefs, sheriffs, and district attorneys. Sadly, this conference report takes a step in that direction by providing a little more than $416 million for the Byrne grant program. That number represents a cut of more than $200 million from last year's level. Slashing the Byrne program in this manner will have a real and negative impact on local police departments, district attorneys, and community crime prevention programs. The COPS program is another victim of this conference report. Though my colleagues should be commended for increasing the overall COPS Program from last year's level of $388 million to $478 million this year, I am discouraged that we have zeroed out the Universal Hiring Program completely this year. We should remember that just 3 years ago, the overall COPS program received more than a billion dollars, and $330 million of that was for the hiring program which simply puts more cops on the streets. And that simply has led to a reduction in crime. Do we want to risk this success by abandoning a program that works? Perhaps the biggest disappointment is how the title V Local Delinquency Prevention Program is treated in this appropriations bill. The title V program is the only Federal program solely dedicated to juvenile crime prevention, and the conference report dedicates $65 million to it. But after one takes away all of the national earmarks that are housed in title V--all worthy programs that I support like the Gang Resistance, Education and Training, GREAT Program--title V is left with a mere $5 million to spread across the entire country. That amount is not enough to build robust juvenile crime prevention programs. I should hope that in the future, we can, at a minimum, fund the title V program at the Senate-passed level of $80 million and do so free of national program earmarks. To be sure, these other programs deserve federal dollars and should be funded as separate line items in order that title V can have sufficient program funds to operate successfully. Make no mistake, juvenile crime prevention programs supported by title V are worth our support. According to many experts in the field, every dollar spent on prevention saves three or four dollars in costs attributable to juvenile crime. And who can put a dollar value on the hundreds, even thousands of young lives turned from crime and into productive work and community life by the juvenile crime prevention initiatives supported by title V? We can and must do better. This conference report is the product of many long hours of negotiations and hard work. Subcommittee Chairman Shelby and Ranking Member Mikulski and their staffs deserve praise for a balanced product. Indeed, this bill is the result of compromise and I will vote in favor of it. But I hope that next year we can do a better job at helping our overworked local police officers and giving a ray of hope for disadvantaged children who desperately need our help.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Elder Justice Act. I applaud the leadership and commitment that Senator Hatch and Senator Lincoln have shown to protecting our Nation's senior citizens by reintroducing this legislation. As Ranking Member of the Special Committee on Aging, I am pleased to join Senator Smith, our Chairman, as an original cosponsor of this important bill. I also want to commend the bipartisan Elder Justice Coalition for its role in developing and moving this bill forward. In particular, I would like to acknowledge the contributions of Wisconsin members of the Coalition, including the Coalition of Wisconsin Aging Groups, the Wisconsin Association of Area Agencies on Aging, and the Wisconsin Board on Aging and Long Term Care, among many others. Passage of the Elder Justice Act is long overdue, and we look forward to working with the Coalition to ensure that it becomes law as soon as possible. In the past forty years, our Nation has made great strides to address the ugly truth of child abuse and domestic violence in our society. We have made a difference by making comprehensive legislation designed to combat these terrible issues a top priority. Today, I ask the Congress to once again focus on the issue of abuse only this time, to focus on the grim reality of elder abuse, neglect and exploitation. For the past 25 years, Congress has held hearings on the devastating effects of elder abuse; yet no comprehensive action has been taken. Abuse of the elderly is certainly nothing new, but as our Nation has aged and the Baby Boom generation stands on the cusp of retirement, the prevalence of elder abuse will only get worse. The time to act is now. The shame and scandal of abuse, neglect and exploitation of our Nation's seniors can no longer be ignored or tolerated. I am pleased that the Elder Justice Act includes one of my top priorities--a provision mandating a national criminal background check system for nursing home, home health and other long-term care employees. While the vast majority of employees are hardworking, dedicated and professional, it is simply too easy for people with abusive and criminal backgrounds to find work in long term care. Today, seven States, including my home State of Wisconsin, are engaged in a pilot project to require FBI criminal background checks before hiring a new employee. The Elder Justice Act will ensure that once the pilot is over, we will move to a national criminal background check system so seniors in all fifty states will be protected. I want to thank Senators Hatch and Lincoln and their staff for working with me to once again include this provision as a key part of the Elder Justice Act. I very much appreciate their efforts and look forward to working with them to see that it becomes law. In addition to the background check provision, the Elder Justice Act takes a number of steps to prevent and treat elder abuse. First, it will improve prevention and intervention by funding State and local projects that keep older Americans safe. Second, it will improve collaboration by bringing together a variety of different Federal, State, local, and private entities to address elder abuse. The bill ensures that health officials, social services, law enforcement, long-term care facilities, consumer advocates and families are all working together to confront this problem. Third, it will develop expertise to better detect elder abuse, neglect and exploitation, by training health professionals in both forensic pathology and geriatrics. Fourth, it will develop victim assistance programs for at-risk seniors and create ``safe havens'' for seniors who are not safe where they live. Finally, it will give extra resources to law enforcement officials to investigate cases of elder abuse and make them a top priority. Once again, I thank Senators Hatch and Lincoln for bringing the issue of elder abuse to the forefront by re-introducing this important legislation. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting it.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Elder Justice Act. I applaud the leadership and commitment that Senator Hatch and Senator Lincoln have shown to protecting our Nation's senior citizens by reintroducing this legislation. As Ranking Member of the Special Committee on Aging, I am pleased to join Senator Smith, our Chairman, as an original cosponsor of this important bill. I also want to commend the bipartisan Elder Justice Coalition for its role in developing and moving this bill forward. In particular, I would like to acknowledge the contributions of Wisconsin members of the Coalition, including the Coalition of Wisconsin Aging Groups, the Wisconsin Association of Area Agencies on Aging, and the Wisconsin Board on Aging and Long Term Care, among many others. Passage of the Elder Justice Act is long overdue, and we look forward to working with the Coalition to ensure that it becomes law as soon as possible. In the past forty years, our Nation has made great strides to address the ugly truth of child abuse and domestic violence in our society. We have made a difference by making comprehensive legislation designed to combat these terrible issues a top priority. Today, I ask the Congress to once again focus on the issue of abuse only this time, to focus on the grim reality of elder abuse, neglect and exploitation. For the past 25 years, Congress has held hearings on the devastating effects of elder abuse; yet no comprehensive action has been taken. Abuse of the elderly is certainly nothing new, but as our Nation has aged and the Baby Boom generation stands on the cusp of retirement, the prevalence of elder abuse will only get worse. The time to act is now. The shame and scandal of abuse, neglect and exploitation of our Nation's seniors can no longer be ignored or tolerated. I am pleased that the Elder Justice Act includes one of my top priorities--a provision mandating a national criminal background check system for nursing home, home health and other long-term care employees. While the vast majority of employees are hardworking, dedicated and professional, it is simply too easy for people with abusive and criminal backgrounds to find work in long term care. Today, seven States, including my home State of Wisconsin, are engaged in a pilot project to require FBI criminal background checks before hiring a new employee. The Elder Justice Act will ensure that once the pilot is over, we will move to a national criminal background check system so seniors in all fifty states will be protected. I want to thank Senators Hatch and Lincoln and their staff for working with me to once again include this provision as a key part of the Elder Justice Act. I very much appreciate their efforts and look forward to working with them to see that it becomes law. In addition to the background check provision, the Elder Justice Act takes a number of steps to prevent and treat elder abuse. First, it will improve prevention and intervention by funding State and local projects that keep older Americans safe. Second, it will improve collaboration by bringing together a variety of different Federal, State, local, and private entities to address elder abuse. The bill ensures that health officials, social services, law enforcement, long-term care facilities, consumer advocates and families are all working together to confront this problem. Third, it will develop expertise to better detect elder abuse, neglect and exploitation, by training health professionals in both forensic pathology and geriatrics. Fourth, it will develop victim assistance programs for at-risk seniors and create ``safe havens'' for seniors who are not safe where they live. Finally, it will give extra resources to law enforcement officials to investigate cases of elder abuse and make them a top priority. Once again, I thank Senators Hatch and Lincoln for bringing the issue of elder abuse to the forefront by re-introducing this important legislation. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting it.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I would like to address an issue that I know my constituents in Wisconsin are worried about; indeed, something that all Americans should be concerned about. On Tuesday, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) announced the most recent outlook for home heating costs. For the average family, the cost of heating oil will increase approximately $325. And for families relying on propane, they can expect to pay an increase of about $230. I would like to stress that this is the average; in some areas, the prices could be much higher. And while these increased costs will place an undue burden on all sectors of the economy, the heaviest toll will clearly be on middle and low-income families. Yesterday, executives from several major oil companies were called to Capitol Hill, to defend the nearly $33 billion they earned last quarter. The answers they gave, for why Americans could expect to pay significantly more to heat their homes this winter, often were directed at the economics of supply and demand. The Chairman and CEO of ConocoPhillips argued that prices are ``a function of longer-term supply-and-demand trends, and lost energy production during the recent hurricanes.'' John Hofmeister, the President of Shell Oil Company, told Senators that the industry is doing everything in its power to ``supply shortfalls.'' Given the testimony of Mr. Hofmeister, I find it surprising to note that currently, American companies are actually exporting products that could be used for home heating. According to the EIA, between January and August 2005 more than 48 million barrels of refined product was exported out of the U.S. This amount is 24 times the size of what is stored in the Northeast Heating Oil Reserve. While some of this went to both Canada and Mexico, large quantities were also sent to Argentina, Chile, France and Peru. I believe my constituents would be shocked to hear that while the oil companies are blaming high prices on low supplies, they are also reaping the benefits of exporting home heating oil abroad. That is why, on November 4th, I, along with 11 of my colleagues, wrote to several of the major oil companies and refiners, asking them to voluntarily halt all unnecessary exports of products that could be used for home heating. Such action would not be without precedent: in 2000, some refiners, including Shell Oil, voluntarily suspended heating oil exports after consulting with then Energy Secretary Richardson. We have not yet heard a response from any of the companies. I remain hopeful that these companies will help American consumers by temporarily suspending their unnecessary exports. Yesterday's hearing, however, did not inspire confidence in the companies to act on behalf of consumers rather than profits. That is why I am introducing the Stop Heating Oil Exports bill today. My legislation would grant emergency powers to the Energy Secretary to halt all unnecessary exports in the face of a serious price spike or supply shortfall. It is that simple. If the Secretary finds that demand will heavily outpace supply, then he or she should be able to stop exports--thereby temporarily improving supply, and preventing a major price spike, such as the one we can expect this winter. Yesterday, the oil companies cautioned those of us in Congress against policy changes that would amount to long-term involvement in energy markets. I would assure these executives that my legislation is a simple, short-term answer that is designed to protect American consumers. The companies have a chance to do the right thing, to increase supply and avoid the significantly increased home heating prices that have been forecasted. I believe that in the future, if they fail to use such an opportunity, the Energy Secretary should have the power to intervene on behalf of consumers. I would remind my colleagues that in 2000, as many as 4 refiners voluntarily suspended exports, citing ``market conditions'' and the desire to ensure adequate supplies of home heating oil for the winter. And I would remind the President of Shell that his company was one of them. Americans across the country could face potentially life-threatening conditions this winter, when temperatures drop and home heating prices soar. I believe that the oil companies have it in their power to prevent such a crisis--if they fail to use it, I believe it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to protect American families. I ask unanimous consent that the text of our legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I would like to address an issue that I know my constituents in Wisconsin are worried about; indeed, something that all Americans should be concerned about. On Tuesday, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) announced the most recent outlook for home heating costs. For the average family, the cost of heating oil will increase approximately $325. And for families relying on propane, they can expect to pay an increase of about $230. I would like to stress that this is the average; in some areas, the prices could be much higher. And while these increased costs will place an undue burden on all sectors of the economy, the heaviest toll will clearly be on middle and low-income families. Yesterday, executives from several major oil companies were called to Capitol Hill, to defend the nearly $33 billion they earned last quarter. The answers they gave, for why Americans could expect to pay significantly more to heat their homes this winter, often were directed at the economics of supply and demand. The Chairman and CEO of ConocoPhillips argued that prices are ``a function of longer-term supply-and-demand trends, and lost energy production during the recent hurricanes.'' John Hofmeister, the President of Shell Oil Company, told Senators that the industry is doing everything in its power to ``supply shortfalls.'' Given the testimony of Mr. Hofmeister, I find it surprising to note that currently, American companies are actually exporting products that could be used for home heating. According to the EIA, between January and August 2005 more than 48 million barrels of refined product was exported out of the U.S. This amount is 24 times the size of what is stored in the Northeast Heating Oil Reserve. While some of this went to both Canada and Mexico, large quantities were also sent to Argentina, Chile, France and Peru. I believe my constituents would be shocked to hear that while the oil companies are blaming high prices on low supplies, they are also reaping the benefits of exporting home heating oil abroad. That is why, on November 4th, I, along with 11 of my colleagues, wrote to several of the major oil companies and refiners, asking them to voluntarily halt all unnecessary exports of products that could be used for home heating. Such action would not be without precedent: in 2000, some refiners, including Shell Oil, voluntarily suspended heating oil exports after consulting with then Energy Secretary Richardson. We have not yet heard a response from any of the companies. I remain hopeful that these companies will help American consumers by temporarily suspending their unnecessary exports. Yesterday's hearing, however, did not inspire confidence in the companies to act on behalf of consumers rather than profits. That is why I am introducing the Stop Heating Oil Exports bill today. My legislation would grant emergency powers to the Energy Secretary to halt all unnecessary exports in the face of a serious price spike or supply shortfall. It is that simple. If the Secretary finds that demand will heavily outpace supply, then he or she should be able to stop exports--thereby temporarily improving supply, and preventing a major price spike, such as the one we can expect this winter. Yesterday, the oil companies cautioned those of us in Congress against policy changes that would amount to long-term involvement in energy markets. I would assure these executives that my legislation is a simple, short-term answer that is designed to protect American consumers. The companies have a chance to do the right thing, to increase supply and avoid the significantly increased home heating prices that have been forecasted. I believe that in the future, if they fail to use such an opportunity, the Energy Secretary should have the power to intervene on behalf of consumers. I would remind my colleagues that in 2000, as many as 4 refiners voluntarily suspended exports, citing ``market conditions'' and the desire to ensure adequate supplies of home heating oil for the winter. And I would remind the President of Shell that his company was one of them. Americans across the country could face potentially life-threatening conditions this winter, when temperatures drop and home heating prices soar. I believe that the oil companies have it in their power to prevent such a crisis--if they fail to use it, I believe it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to protect American families. I ask unanimous consent that the text of our legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, the decisions made by the Base Realignment and Closure Commission are final. All around the country communities are now forced to deal with the difficult reality of how to approach the redevelopment and transfer of a local military facility that is being closed. In my State of Wisconsin, the city of Milwaukee is faced with the difficult prospect of what to do after the 440th Airlift Wing leaves Mitchell Field. The community, the State, and our congressional delegation fought long and hard to protect the proud men and women of the 440th, but we were not able to convince the Commission that closing the 440th would be a mistake. Senator Snowe offered an amendment that I believe will make the process of transferring and redeveloping base properties easier and faster. Senator Snowe proposed to allow the property to go directly to a local redevelopment agent and avoid the current complicated and time consuming process. A faster process means a quicker return to economic vitality, and I support that. Senator Snowe also proposed that the local community not have to pay for the land the Federal Government is giving up. It is only fitting that in these communities that have given so much to our military men and women that we give something back. Pulling up stakes and removing an important economic engine is bad enough, but to then expect the redevelopers to pay for the land as well just adds insult to injury. It is unfortunate that this amendment that will make the transition process easier for Milwaukee and communities around the country was not accepted.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I rise today to speak briefly about an amendment Senator Jeffords and I had hoped to offer to the Defense authorization bill. I understand it is not considered relevant, so we won't get a vote. That is unfortunate. I cannot imagine what is more relevant to the defense of our Nation than an amendment that would do something concrete about high energy prices, about national security, and about economic security--all with one vote. Our amendment, which we are introducing today as a freestanding bill along with Senator Feinstein, would authorize the Department of Energy to build enough refining capacity to meet the energy needs of the Federal Government--primarily the Department of Defense--and also to supply the private market in times of shortages and price spikes. There is bipartisan agreement that increasing refining capacity in the United States would help avoid the kinds of energy price spikes we have seen in the last few months. There also seems to be clear evidence that, despite generous incentives from the Government and soaring profits, the oil companies are not interested in building the new refineries we need. And in a free market, of course, that is their choice. But in a democracy, we in Congress are charged with making a different choice. We need to do what is best for our national and economic security. And, in this case, that would be to stop begging and bribing the oil companies. By building our own refining capacity, we would be able to supply the fuel needs of the Federal Government at what it actually costs to make that fuel. And we would also be able to hold in reserve refining capacity that we could access to bring down the cost of gas in times when shortages raise prices. Today, the Senate is holding important hearings on energy. I am concerned, however, that instead of offering answers and solutions, the oil companies will blame OPEC for the high price of gasoline, diesel fuel, and home heating oil. We should not let them get away with that because OPEC is only part of the story. While the price of gasoline rose to record levels in recent months, the oil companies were earning increasingly high profits on each gallon of gasoline. One measure is the ``domestic spread,'' the retail gasoline pump price minus the cost of crude oil and taxes. During the 1900s, the domestic spread was about 40 cents per gallon for regular gas. This number has grown sharply since 2000. The domestic spread averaged above 50 cents per gallon between 2000 and 2004, and has reached as high as over 70 cents per gallon in recent months. In other words, the oil companies are earning much more today for a gallon of gas, even factoring in the higher price of crude oil. Growing oil company profits also demonstrate this point: Oil industry profits, after tax, increased by $100 billion in the 5 years from 2000 to 2004, as compared to the previous 5-year period. ExxonMobil's earnings for the first 9 months of 2005--over $25 billion--already exceeded its full-year earnings for all of 2004. So obviously, these companies are doing much more than just passing along higher crude oil prices to customers. One major reason for these soaring prices and profits is the oil industry's failure to increase refining capacity in the face of rising demand for refined petroleum products. A new refinery has not been built in the United States since the 1970s, and many oil refineries have been closed. In 1985, refining capacity equaled daily consumption of petroleum products. By 2002, daily consumption exceeded refining capacity by almost 20 percent. As domestic supply falls short of domestic demand, three very dangerous things happen: 1, we are forced to rely on more imports. 2, we pay higher and higher prices for our fuel. And, 3, our economy is increasingly vulnerable to disasters and disruptions--like those we saw in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The bill we are introducing would authorize the Department of Energy to create a refining capacity equal to 5 percent of current domestic consumption. These refineries would supply the Federal Government's need for petroleum products, estimated to be roughly 2 percent of U.S. consumption. The extra 3 percent of capacity would be available for emergencies and market disruptions. This ``Strategic Refining Reserve'' would have a direct effect on energy prices to the consumer. It would get the Federal Government out of the private market where its huge demand for energy drives up prices. And it would increase the amount of oil that can be refined in this country in times when the oil companies' refining capacity is tapped out. We have a duty to protect consumers, our economy, and our national security from an industry that often seems focused only on the short- term bottom line. We have a duty to respond with concrete help for the families and businesses that tell us daily of the enormous financial threat posed by soaring energy prices. And we have a duty to make sure our military has access to a steady, affordable supply of domestically refined fuel. Though we will not be able to offer this proposal as an amendment to the DOD authorization bill, we have introduced it as a bill, and we plan to continue to look for opportunities for a vote. We need to take sole control of fuel prices away from the oil companies. We need to take charge and bring the price of fuel down by building this ``Strategic Refinery Reserve.'' I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I rise today to speak briefly about an amendment Senator Jeffords and I had hoped to offer to the Defense authorization bill. I understand it is not considered relevant, so we won't get a vote. That is unfortunate. I cannot imagine what is more relevant to the defense of our Nation than an amendment that would do something concrete about high energy prices, about national security, and about economic security--all with one vote. Our amendment, which we are introducing today as a freestanding bill along with Senator Feinstein, would authorize the Department of Energy to build enough refining capacity to meet the energy needs of the Federal Government--primarily the Department of Defense--and also to supply the private market in times of shortages and price spikes. There is bipartisan agreement that increasing refining capacity in the United States would help avoid the kinds of energy price spikes we have seen in the last few months. There also seems to be clear evidence that, despite generous incentives from the Government and soaring profits, the oil companies are not interested in building the new refineries we need. And in a free market, of course, that is their choice. But in a democracy, we in Congress are charged with making a different choice. We need to do what is best for our national and economic security. And, in this case, that would be to stop begging and bribing the oil companies. By building our own refining capacity, we would be able to supply the fuel needs of the Federal Government at what it actually costs to make that fuel. And we would also be able to hold in reserve refining capacity that we could access to bring down the cost of gas in times when shortages raise prices. Today, the Senate is holding important hearings on energy. I am concerned, however, that instead of offering answers and solutions, the oil companies will blame OPEC for the high price of gasoline, diesel fuel, and home heating oil. We should not let them get away with that because OPEC is only part of the story. While the price of gasoline rose to record levels in recent months, the oil companies were earning increasingly high profits on each gallon of gasoline. One measure is the ``domestic spread,'' the retail gasoline pump price minus the cost of crude oil and taxes. During the 1900s, the domestic spread was about 40 cents per gallon for regular gas. This number has grown sharply since 2000. The domestic spread averaged above 50 cents per gallon between 2000 and 2004, and has reached as high as over 70 cents per gallon in recent months. In other words, the oil companies are earning much more today for a gallon of gas, even factoring in the higher price of crude oil. Growing oil company profits also demonstrate this point: Oil industry profits, after tax, increased by $100 billion in the 5 years from 2000 to 2004, as compared to the previous 5-year period. ExxonMobil's earnings for the first 9 months of 2005--over $25 billion--already exceeded its full-year earnings for all of 2004. So obviously, these companies are doing much more than just passing along higher crude oil prices to customers. One major reason for these soaring prices and profits is the oil industry's failure to increase refining capacity in the face of rising demand for refined petroleum products. A new refinery has not been built in the United States since the 1970s, and many oil refineries have been closed. In 1985, refining capacity equaled daily consumption of petroleum products. By 2002, daily consumption exceeded refining capacity by almost 20 percent. As domestic supply falls short of domestic demand, three very dangerous things happen: 1, we are forced to rely on more imports. 2, we pay higher and higher prices for our fuel. And, 3, our economy is increasingly vulnerable to disasters and disruptions--like those we saw in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The bill we are introducing would authorize the Department of Energy to create a refining capacity equal to 5 percent of current domestic consumption. These refineries would supply the Federal Government's need for petroleum products, estimated to be roughly 2 percent of U.S. consumption. The extra 3 percent of capacity would be available for emergencies and market disruptions. This ``Strategic Refining Reserve'' would have a direct effect on energy prices to the consumer. It would get the Federal Government out of the private market where its huge demand for energy drives up prices. And it would increase the amount of oil that can be refined in this country in times when the oil companies' refining capacity is tapped out. We have a duty to protect consumers, our economy, and our national security from an industry that often seems focused only on the short- term bottom line. We have a duty to respond with concrete help for the families and businesses that tell us daily of the enormous financial threat posed by soaring energy prices. And we have a duty to make sure our military has access to a steady, affordable supply of domestically refined fuel. Though we will not be able to offer this proposal as an amendment to the DOD authorization bill, we have introduced it as a bill, and we plan to continue to look for opportunities for a vote. We need to take sole control of fuel prices away from the oil companies. We need to take charge and bring the price of fuel down by building this ``Strategic Refinery Reserve.'' I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I support the Enzi amendment. This amendment would provide $1.6 billion in emergency funding to address the desperate funding needs of schools who have taken in displaced Katrina students and the schools that have been damaged or destroyed by the hurricane. Over 2 months ago, hundreds of thousands of children in the gulf region were displaced from their homes, their communities, and their local schools. Neighboring communities have welcomed these students with open arms. It is only fair to provide school districts the funds necessary to educate and care for dislocated students left in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. I know some are concerned about funding for displaced students who are attending private schools. However, this provision is carefully crafted to ensure that funding flows directly to school districts, much like similar provisions in Title I and special education. This program will not set up a national school voucher program. Rather, it simply ensures, on a temporary, one-time basis, that all students in need and schools that take them in have access to the relief they need. In this extraordinary circumstance, I believe that this provision takes a balanced approach, and we will continue to monitor its implementation. It is my hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting the Enzi amendment, thereby supporting students who became displaced through no fault of their own.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am in reluctant but adamant opposition to the reconciliation bill before us. I say reluctant, because I am glad to see the Senate using the reconciliation procedure for the purposes for which it was intended: making difficult choices to reduce spending. And reluctant because some of the policy changes incorporated in this bill are necessary and worthy of the Senate's support. One such provision relates to extension of the Milk Income Lost Contract, MILC, program. MILC, which expired at the end of the last fiscal year, provides counter-cyclical support for the nation's dairy sector. It is targeted. It is fair. It is essential. Moreover, it enjoys the President's support. It makes sense as part of the balanced Agriculture package in this bill. But my opposition to the entire package is adamant because this bill is just one piece of a fiscally and morally bankrupt budget. Though this bill asks for sacrifices from seniors, students, farmers and working families, the budget of which it is part will add over $30 billion to the deficit over the next 5 years. Though this bill makes real cuts in Medicaid, Medicare, aid to farmers and funding for conservation programs across the country, the budget of which it is part will add $3 trillion to the national debt by 2010. If this bill was what many on the floor have argued--a carefully crafted compromise to cut $39 billion from our growing federal deficit, I would have to think hard before opposing it. But the budget calls for today's bill to be followed with $70 billion tax cut, the bulk of which will go to those with more than $1 million in annual income. I am willing to make the hard choices to bring our budget deficit down. I am not willing to support taking needed services away from those that need them the most--and use those cuts as a fig leaf to hide tax breaks for those who need them the least. Our budget is the most basic expression of what we stand for as a government. Is this budget really what we want to vote to say? That we are the sort of country that threatens our own economic stability by piling deficit upon deficit? That we show our fiscal toughness by chopping aid to those in need? That we show our compassion only to those whose biggest problem is finding a really good tax shelter for their growing capital gains? Make no mistake, this bill is the first piece of the budget that says just that, and for that reason alone, it deserves our solid opposition. But beyond that, there are individual provisions in this bill to which I take exception. One is the use of this bill's extraordinary fast track procedures to accomplish what big Oil's proponents have not been able to get through the Senate in the past: opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. I have long supported protecting this valuable and fragile natural wonder, and I think it is unfortunate that we are drilling in this wilderness for a relatively small payback. Those on the other side of this issue who use the current high price of oil to justify the violation of this pristine area are short sighted. According to the Department of Energy's own analysis the oil from the refuge will only lower the price of a barrel of oil by one penny. In addition, this oil will not come on line for almost a decade. Instead of threatening our natural heritage, I believe we should be looking instead at encouraging conservation efforts, and taking a careful look at high oil company profits. We do need to act to lower our dependency on foreign oil, but we cannot drill our way out of dependency. I'm also particularly disappointed that the bill we are considering today contains harmful program cuts that would fall disproportionately on the most vulnerable in our society. This legislation cuts funding for health care provided through the Medicaid program, which provides health insurance to poor children, pregnant women, and elderly. My Republican colleagues argue that we must cut waste and fraud in Medicaid and I am not opposed to that. However, I do not agree with the arbitrary way they have gone about cutting funding from this critical safety net program--without which millions of Americans would be uninsured--and using that money to pay for tax cuts for people with high incomes. I'm also concerned about the increased burden this bill places on seniors through additional cuts in the Medicare program and an increase in Medicare Part B premiums. I hope my colleagues will support several of the amendments offered today to help minimize the impact these cuts could have on our Nation's elderly. I urge my colleagues to reject this bill--and the irresponsible and cruel budget of which it is part.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the appropriations conference report for Agriculture, Rural Development, FDA, and related agencies. Our conference allocation of just over $17 billion was a $258 million reduction from the Senate-passed level, but I think we did a good job preserving the Senate priorities. This bill contains funding vital for research, conservation, nutrition programs, rural development, and the Food and Drug Administration. Some of the bill's highlights include the following: For research programs, including the Agricultural Research Service and the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, the bill provides an increase of nearly $66 million to support work on solutions to many problems faced by farmers--including research programs for BSE or mad cow disease, Johne's Disease, soybean rust, and countless other programs. The conservation title of this bill contains funding for important watershed improvements, including soil and water erosion control, flood control, and watershed dam rehabilitation. The Natural Resources Conservation Service received an increase in this conference report of more than $12 million over last year. Nutrition programs also received increases over last year in this conference report. Child nutrition programs receive $12.6 billion, an increase of more than $870 million to provide school lunches to low- income kids. The WIC program received $5.257 million, an increase of nearly $22 million, and language proposed by the administration to restrict eligibility and cap administrative funds was not included. The Food Stamp Program received an increase of more than $5.5 billion, and the Commodity Supplemental Food Program received an increase over last year as well. In the rural development title, more than $700 million is provided for the Rural Community Advancement Program. The Rural Housing Service received an increase of $105 million above last year's level, bringing the total loan authorization level of more than $5 billion to provide housing to low-income rural Americans. The Food and Drug Administration received nearly $1.5 billion this bill, an increase of nearly $40 million over last year's level. This includes increases for medical device review, drug safety, food defense and BSE. The bill Senators have before them is a product of multiple hearings, regular proceedings in both the House and Senate, nearly a 3-hour conference meeting, and countless staff hours. While this may seem unremarkable, it is, in fact, the first time since the fiscal year 2002 bill that the Agriculture appropriations bill has come through this process in the regular order. At the end of the day, while not perfect, I believe we have produced a good bill, one that comes as a result of much hard work and compromise on all sides. I thank Senator Bennett and his staff--John Ziolkowski, Fitz Elder, Hunter Moorhead, Dianne Preece, and Stacey McBride--for once again working with my staff as closely as they did. On my side, I thank Galen Fountain, Jessica Arden, Bill Simpson, and Tom Gonzales worked very hard as well. Together both sides made every effort to protect Democratic priorities, as well as Republican priorities, for the good of everyone. I believe the strong bipartisan relationship we have on this subcommittee has resulted in a bill for which all Senators should be proud to vote. I urge Senators to do just that and vote in favor of adopting this conference report. Before I yield the floor, I ask unanimous consent that time be allotted for the following Senators to speak on this conference report on the Democratic side: 5 minutes for Senator Murray, 10 minutes for Senator Dorgan, and 15 minutes for Senator Harkin. I yield the floor.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Bingaman amendment. This amendment provides $74 million in much needed additional support for the AIDS Drug Assistance Program. Yesterday, the Senate overwhelmingly defeated an amendment by Senator Coburn that would have increased ADAP funding at the expense of the Centers for Disease Control construction and renovations account. CDC buildings and labs haven't been updated in years, and in some cases decades. Today, we are asking CDC to do more to protect public health than ever before, especially in light of important priorities like avian flu preparedness and combating bioterrorism. It doesn't make sense to cut the funds that would help them build the facilities to do it, which is why I could not support the Coburn amendment. The Bingaman amendment will help provide additional funding for lifesaving medications to nearly 150,000 low-income, uninsured or underinsured people in the United States. And it does not cut other important public health programs to do it. The CDC estimates that over 212,000 people in the U.S. who have been diagnosed with HIV are not receiving treatment, making this additional ADAP funding a critical priority. I urge my colleagues to help those not receiving treatment by supporting this important amendment.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today as a proud cosponsor of the Byrd amendment. This amendment would increase funding for title I by $5 billion. The No Child Left Behind Act authorized $22.7 billion in fiscal year 2006 for title I, which serves low-income, disadvantaged students and schools across the Nation. Unfortunately, this bill falls $9.9 billion short. This modest $5 billion increase is only half of the difference between the authorized amount in NCLB and the Senate bill level. I strongly believe that one of the Federal Government's primary roles is to improve education for disadvantaged students. Without adequate funding, we will put States, school districts, teachers and ultimately, students, at an even greater disadvantage as many will be unable to meet the requirements in the new law and it will be the students who will suffer. I hope my colleagues will support this important amendment.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Clinton amendment. This amendment would fully fund IDEA for this year by adding $4 billion, the difference between the amount appropriated in the Senate bill and this year's authorization level. As a proud co- sponsor, I am hopeful the Senate will act today to set IDEA on a path toward full funding. Despite substantial increases in IDEA funding over the past several years, the Federal Government has not lived up to its commitment to pay for 40 percent of the costs of special education. This is one of the top concerns of educators in Wisconsin. As a result of this funding shortfall, local school districts continue to devote a large part of their budgets toward special education, which makes it more difficult for them to adequately fund other vital education programs. This problem has only gotten worse as financially strapped States and local governments are cutting funding for education in order to balance their budgets. This amendment would provide much needed relief. My home State of Wisconsin would benefit from an additional $70 million in special education funds. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, subsequently making good on our commitment to special education students and their teachers.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Antitrust Investigative Improvements Act of 2005, a bill I am cosponsoring with Senators DeWine and Leahy. This important measure will give the antitrust criminal enforcers at the Department of Justice a vital tool to investigate, detect, and prevent antitrust conspiracies. It will allow the Justice Department, upon a showing of probable cause to a Federal judge, authority to obtain a wiretap order for a limited time period to monitor communications between those suspected of engaging in illegal antitrust conspiracies. The current Federal criminal code lists over 150 predicate offenses for which the Justice Department may obtain a wiretap during the course of a criminal investigation. These offenses include basic white collar crimes such as mail fraud, wire fraud, and bank fraud. However, under current law, if the Government is investigating a criminal antitrust conspiracy, such as a scheme to fix prices to consumers, the Government cannot obtain a wiretap of the suspected conspirators. This inability to obtain wiretaps unquestionably severely handicaps the detection and prevention of such conspiracies. Only with the consent of a member of the conspiracy who has already agreed to cooperate with the Government may the Government surreptitiously record the meetings of the conspirators. There is no logical basis to exclude criminal antitrust violations from the list of predicate offenses for a wiretap. A criminal antitrust offense, such as price fixing, is every bit as serious--and causes every bit as much financial loss to its victims--as other white collar crimes, such as mail fraud or wire fraud. A price-fixing conspiracy raises prices to consumers, stealing hard earned dollars from citizens as surely as does a salesman promoting a bogus investment from a ``boiler room'' or, indeed, a thief with a gun. Moreover, by its secret nature as an agreement among competitors, such a conspiracy is likely harder to detect than a fraudulent offering over the phone or through the mail. A properly issued wiretap, therefore, is even more necessary to detect criminal antitrust conspiracies than other white collar offenses. Detecting, preventing, and punishing criminal antitrust offenses are one of the principal missions of the Justice Department's Antitrust Division. Such offenses are punished severely with corporations facing fines of up to $100 million and individuals subject to jail terms of up to 10 years for each offense. Indeed, last year we passed legislation raising criminal penalties to these new levels. Yet, despite the damage these conspiracies do to the economy and individual consumers, our law enforcement agencies lack the one vital tool essential to uncover these secret conspiracies--the ability to obtain a wiretap to monitor communications between the suspected conspirators upon a showing of probable cause. This legislation will remedy this defect by granting to our law enforcement officials the necessary means to protect consumers and end illegal antitrust conspiracies. I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Kennedy amendment. I am proud to cosponsor this amendment, which will increase the maximum Pell grant by $200--increasing the current $4,050 maximum award to $4,250. This modest increase is crucial to our efforts to ensure equality of access to higher education for all students. The Pell Grant program is the largest need-related post-secondary student grant program administered by the Department of Education. However, for three consecutive years the maximum award has remained stagnant, accounting for less than 40 percent of the costs of attending a public, four year institution. Pell grant recipients have a median family income of only $15,200, so these grants truly target the most needy students. This amendment would provide an additional $10 million in need based aid to Wisconsin and give 1,360 new students the opportunity to make the dream of higher education a reality. Our Nation's well-being depends on our ability to provide greater access to higher education, regardless of financial means. I hope my colleagues will support this important amendment and provide the funding that our students need to succeed.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, we are staring at an approaching disaster. Again, we face a disaster that will largely affect the poor, underprivileged, elderly, and handicapped. Again, it is a disaster that will threaten lives and drive people into bankruptcy. But this time Congress can take action to avoid this disaster. The question is will we act? Today the approaching disaster is not a hurricane but high energy prices. Estimates are that the costs of heating the average home with natural gas will skyrocket 70 percent over last year in the Midwest. This is on top of the double-digit increases between 2003 and 2004. Utility companies in the State of Wisconsin believe that the homeowners will face heating bills in my State that are 40 percent higher than last year. For working families, these dramatic increases come on top of several months of increasing prices at the gas pump. These high prices will force many to make difficult choices about how to spend their money, which bills to pay, and which to avoid. For many, the thermostat will be turned down to dangerous levels, prescriptions will go unfilled, and groceries will not be bought. For many elderly folks, the choice to stay warm will be dangerous, even fatal. Many disabled Americans will endanger their own health in an effort to keep their bills low. The Federal Low-Income Home Heating Assistance, or LIHEAP, can help make some of these choices easier. LIHEAP is an extremely effective program that allows low-income people around the country to avoid being delinquent on their heating bills. The problem is that there has not been a significant increase in the funding of this program for many years, and now the rising prices have made the current funding levels unacceptably low. In past years LIHEAP has only been able to help roughly 17 percent of the eligible households, but now with rapidly rising prices the $2 billion in funding will not even be able to meet that level. Adding $3.1 billion to LIHEAP will allow us to head off this impending catastrophe. I have voted for this amendment before, and I am glad to have the opportunity to support it again today. This money is absolutely necessary to keep my constituents safe and warm through the long Wisconsin winter. Without this money more working class people in my State will face high utility bills this winter and utility shutoffs come spring. Until Congress and the administration can figure out some way to bring energy prices down, relieving the pressure on low-income Americans should be a top priority.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today, as Breast Cancer Awareness Month comes to a close, to urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring S. 757, the Breast Cancer Environmental Research Act. It has long been believed that the environment plays some role in the development of breast cancer, but the extent of that role is not understood. Today, less than 30 percent of breast cancers are explained by known risk factors. There are studies exploring the effect of things like diet, pesticides, and electromagnetic fields on breast cancer incidence, but in most cases, these and many other environmental factors that are also suspected to play a role have not been fully investigated. We need a collaborative, comprehensive, national strategy to explore these issues. The Breast Cancer Environmental Research Act would create a uniquely targeted research plan, similar in design to the incredibly efficient Department of Defense Peer Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program. This bill would authorize $30 million a year for 5 years for the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, NIEHS, to award grants to study the relationship between environmental factors and breast cancer. Under a competitive, peer-reviewed grantmaking process that involves patient advocates, the NIEHS Director would award grants for the development and operation of up to eight centers for the purpose of conducting multidisciplinary research. It would require collaboration with community organizations in the area, including those that represent women with breast cancer, as an integral component of the centers. Inherent in its structure would be the kind of efficiency, and public accountability that has made an overwhelming number of my colleagues, as well as scientists and consumers, so supportive of the Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program. In honor of Breast Cancer Awareness Month, I urge my colleagues to join me and continue to fight the war on breast cancer, and invest in getting the answers to eradicating this disease.