Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today the Senate was presented with a false choice on the conference report to H.R. 3199, the USA PATRIOT Act. That is why I voted against the motion to invoke cloture. There is a better way that gives us the time we need to thoughtfully debate some very weighty constitutional and civil liberty issues. With 90 percent of the PATRIOT Act already permanently authorized, we can and should extend the provisions expiring on December 31, 2005, for 3 months. Let me be clear, those of us advocating for a 3-month extension support reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. What we want to do is keep the law intact, exactly as it is right now, so that we can more carefully debate these important matters without feeling rushed by the impending adjournment of this session of Congress. Like almost everyone in this Chamber, I voted for the PATRIOT Act shortly after the September 11 terrorist attacks. I believed the PATRIOT Act would bolster the ability of Federal authorities to conduct criminal and intelligence investigations, to bar and expel foreign terrorists from the United States, to separate terrorists from their sources of financial support, to punish acts of terrorism, and to assist victims of the events of September 11. While I had reservations about some parts of this legislation, the need to address the obvious threat, combined with the fact that many of the more untested provisions in the act were set to expire on December 31, 2005, prompted me to vote for the bill. The provision of greater investigative authority to our Nation's law enforcement officials is a matter that raises many issues, most particularly, the need to balance Government power and civil liberties. Certainly, there is a great onus upon the Department of Justice, DOJ, to utilize the awesome authority of the PATRIOT Act in a circumspect and cautious manner. At the same time, Congress has a responsibility to conduct vigorous oversight on the use of the PATRIOT Act's powers and to carefully debate any changes to these powers. In the spring, in anticipation of the impending need to reauthorize the sunsetting provisions of the PATRIOT Act, I cosponsored S. 737, the Security and Freedom Enhancement, SAFE, Act of 2005. This thoughtful, bipartisan legislation was introduced by Senator Craig on April 6, 2005, and seeks to revise and improve--not eliminate--several of the more controversial provisions of the PATRIOT Act, including roving wiretaps, sneak-and-peek searches, and FISA orders for library and other personal records. Many of the proposed revisions to the PATRIOT Act in S.737 were ultimately incorporated in some form into S. 1389, the Senate version of the PATRIOT Act reauthorization. S. 1389, the USA PATRIOT Act Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act, passed by unanimous consent in July and the Senate immediately appointed conferees so that the House and the Senate could begin discussing their very different visions of the reauthorization. Unfortunately, the House waited until November to appoint its conferees, which in large part is why we are now in the position of having very little time to debate and resolve the differences between the two bills. The Senate's version of the PATRIOT Act attempted to deal with many of the civil liberties issues that have come to the fore since the passage of the PATRIOT Act. In particular, S. 1389 would require that the Department of Justice convince a judge that a person is connected to terrorism or espionage before obtaining their library records, medical records, or other sensitive information. It would require that targets of sneak-and-peek searches are notified within 7 days, instead of the undefined delay that is currently permitted under the PATRIOT Act. The Senate bill also would prohibit the issuance of ``John Doe'' roving wiretaps, which identify neither the person nor the place to be put under surveillance. Additionally, S. 1389 would give the recipient of an order for sensitive personal information the right to challenge the order in court on the same grounds they could challenge a grand jury subpoena, as well as provide a right to challenge the gag order that currently prevents people who receive a request for records from speaking out even if they feel the Government is violating their rights. The legislation also requires increased reporting by the DOJ on its use of PATRIOT Act powers and sets a 4-year sunset on three provisions regarding roving wiretaps, business record orders, and ``lone wolf'' surveillance. Unlike the Senate bill, the House version proposed to permanently reauthorize all but two of the expiring provisions--instead it sunsets FISA orders for library and other personal records and the roving wiretap provision after 10 years--and placed few, if any, limits on many of the expanded law enforcement powers in the PATRIOT Act. Unfortunately, the conference report has removed or weakened some of the most important limits on enhanced investigative powers in the Senate bill, particularly those relating to FISA orders for library, medical, and other types of business records about people, National Security Letters, and notification of sneak-and-peek searches. We need to reauthorize the expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act, but we need to do so with procedural safeguards like those in the Senate bill. The Senate is known as the more contemplative body in Congress for a reason, and I think we should take the time we need to truly debate and discuss some important civil liberties issues that the conference report implicates. For this reason, I have cosponsored Senator Sununu's bill, S. 2082, which would extend the expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act until March 31, 2006. I believe that 3 months is enough time for us to come back after the holidays and work out the differences between the House and Senate versions of the PATRIOT Act reauthorization. I would encourage all of my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, it is a privilege to be here today to say a few words about my colleague and friend, Jon Corzine. He has honored this Senate and he has honored the people of New Jersey with his service. I did not know Jon before he came here. I heard about his campaign. I heard about his success on Wall Street. I, frankly, must confess, I did not know what quite to expect. Having seen the movie ``Wall Street,'' I almost thought that Michael Douglas would walk in the door in a $3,000 suit and with expensive accoutrements. Jon surprised us all because he is not like that. He might have found his success on Wall Street, but his values were formed in the heartland of America and in the U.S. Marine Corps. He believes very deeply in values that are important and central to our party and to the people of this country: the notion of opportunity for all and the notion that this is a community, not just a collection of individuals. His service in this body has exemplified those values and made us all extraordinarily proud. I served with Jon on the Senate Banking Committee. As the chairman and ranking member at various times of the Housing and Transportation Subcommittee, I was familiar with all of Jon's efforts in making real progress on issues of importance to the people of New Jersey and the people of this country. My friend and colleague, Senator Sarbanes, has pointed out some of these, and I would like to, for the Record, amplify again what Jon has done. The Federal Housing Administration Multifamily Housing Program provides insurance to those seeking to build multifamily rental housing. The program has played a critical role in the development of affordable multifamily rental housing. However, as the cost of building new housing has dramatically increased in recent years, Federal multifamily mortgage insurance loan limits have failed to keep pace with inflation. In 2002, Senator Corzine led the way to secure passage of a provision to raise FHA multifamily loan limits by indexing them to the annual construction cost index to ensure that the program keeps pace with inflation. In 2003, Senator Corzine further improved the FHA multifamily loan program by securing passage of legislation to boost those limits in high-cost communities around the country. Specifically, his legislation raised the loan limits in high-cost areas to 140 percent of the statutory base limit and by 170 percent on a project-by-project basis. These increases have been vitally important in the construction and rehabilitation of affordable rental housing in high-cost States such as New Jersey and my own State of Rhode Island where the shortage of affordable housing has become a crisis. Jon recognizes that at the heart of every family's efforts to educate their children, to find work, to hold work, is the need for safe and affordable housing. Senator Corzine has been on the vanguard of that effort. I salute him for that. He has also been particularly concerned about housing for veterans. The Veterans' Administration Home Loan Program provides access to home financing for veterans who often, because of their time spent serving our Nation, have not had the opportunity to build up the credit they need to qualify for a conventional mortgage. Senator Corzine's legislation to increase veterans' home purchasing power, which became law as part of the Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 2004, raised the loan limits available under the VA Home Loan Program to allow veterans to obtain mortgages of up to $333,700, the same level available in the traditional mortgage market. Finally, the Senator from New Jersey has been a fierce advocate for mass transit funding, not in his home State of New Jersey but across this country. He has been particularly effective, though, in helping his home State. Senator Corzine was instrumental in providing legislation to help build a commuter rail tunnel under the Hudson River as part of the recently passed Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users. The language that Senator Corzine included will expedite the proposed rail tunnel under the Hudson River and require the Federal Transit Administration to sign a Full Funding Grant Agreement with New Jersey Transit that will provide the Federal funding needed to complete the tunnel, and in so doing not only will he assist the people of New Jersey, but he will assist the economy of this Nation, since so much is dependent upon transit access through New Jersey to the Eastern Seaboard, Boston, New York and down to Washington. We all are going to miss Senator Corzine immensely in the Senate, but he is going forth now to a mission that is equally important; that is, to serve the people of New Jersey as their Governor. I know he will be successful. And I know those values of opportunity and community and fairness and tolerance and decency that exemplified his service in the Senate will mark him as a remarkable Governor for the State of New Jersey. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I offer this motion along with my colleague, Senator Collins from Maine. I will shortly yield to her the last 30 seconds. I also offer it on behalf of myself and other Senators, including Senator Lautenberg. The reality is very clear to so many poor families in this country. Energy prices are rising, temperatures are falling, and they are going to be in a very vulnerable and very disadvantaged position. This amendment would add $2.9 billion in additional funding for LIHEAP. It would bring it up to the authorized level of $5.1 billion. We have considered this proposal in various procedural means four times. A majority of the Senate has always supported it. I hope it continues to do so. I yield my remaining time to Senator Collins.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. 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. REED. 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. REED

Mr. REED. 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. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

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

Mr. REED. 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

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. 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 LIHEAP. This is a temporary 1-year measure. The tax rate is set simply to fund the authorized level of LIHEAP. In America no family should be forced to choose between heating their home and putting food on the table for their children. No senior citizen should have to decide between buying fuel or buying pharmaceuticals. But, unfortunately, this sadly is the case and this winter it will be the case in too many situations. 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 gone out and had the opportunity to visit with constituents and get a firsthand glimpse of the struggle they are faced with. I visited a few weeks ago 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, and money is so tight that sometimes he has to eat with his children or go to a local soup kitchen, and he also has to get assistance from a food bank. These price increases to Mr. Ohanian will be very difficult. He received assistance last year with respect to LIHEAP funding, but that assistance will be relatively less this year because of rising prices and maybe because the demand will be much more. Last month, the Social Security Administration announced that cost- of-living adjustments for 2006 on average is about $65. That $65 increase to Mr. Ohanian is not going to take up the slack in terms of these tremendous fuel prices. Now, this amendment would increase LIHEAP funding by $2.92 billion. In fact, even if we did this, there would still be a significant number of Americans who qualify for the program but will not get help. But at least we are taking a step toward fully authorizing this very important program. I hope we can, in fact, support this effort. Some have objected not because the LIHEAP program does need money but because there was no offset. Today there is an offset. This windfall profits tax will pay for the additional cost of LIHEAP, and I can't think of anything more appropriate than asking fuel companies, oil companies to take some of their very extraordinary profits and put them back so that poor people can buy their products. I think that is fair. I think it is just. I think it makes a lot of sense. I asked them voluntarily, sent a letter to all the oil executives saying: Would you pledge 10 percent of your profits to the local community agencies that provide support? I have heard but from one company, CITGO, who talked about their plan to give bulk fuel. Everyone else has said nothing. They are going on as if American families are not in desperate situations because of the price of heating oil. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues, in fact, are able to support this method which fully pays for the increase to LIHEAP which so many of us agree is absolutely necessary. I yield back the Senator from Montana any time I have.

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

Mr. REED. Parliamentary inquiry: What is the pending business?

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

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. 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. REED

Mr. REED. 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. REED

Mr. REED. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2523

Mr. REED. 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.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I have no objection.

Mr. REED. 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.

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