Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for the amendment offered by Senator Levin from Michigan. I was pleased to work with a number of my colleagues on this amendment, including Senator Levin, Senator Biden, Senator Harry Reid, Senator Kerry, Senator Feingold, Senator Kennedy, Senator Durbin, and particularly Senator Dodd. Senator Dodd and I had the privilege of traveling together through Iraq just about 3 weeks ago. Our trip was very illuminating. His participation is one I deeply appreciated. We all understand that there are over 160,000 American troops in Iraq. They are serving magnificently, and they have paid a difficult price for their service. We have lost soldiers and sailors and airmen and marines. We know how important it is to succeed in Iraq. But the American people are concerned. A Pew Research poll conducted last week found that those polled believed that Iraq was the most important problem facing the country today. A second poll conducted by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal, however, found that 64 percent of those polled disapproved of the way President Bush is handling this situation in Iraq. At the heart of that, I believe, is a sense that there is no plan. There are slogans--``Stay the course.'' There are slogans--``When the Iraqis stand up, we stand down.'' But a slogan is not a plan, and the American people and this Congress should demand a plan. That is the essence of the Levin amendment. We are not collectively a Commander in Chief. We should not presume to think so. He is responsible for such a plan, and he has to provide, not just to us but to the American people, a sense that there is a plan that is leading to an outcome which is successful in a timeframe which is feasible. What the American people are seeing, however, is chaos without a plan. I did not vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq. At that time, my concerns were, after the initial decisive military victory, that we would be swept up in a difficult situation. That is what has come to pass. I thought the cost would be huge then, but I did not expect that we would enter the phase after military operations, the conventional attack, with essentially no plan. That was a surprise to me and a surprise to so many others. According to an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer, when a lieutenant colonel briefed war planners and intelligence officers in March 2003 on the administration's plans in Iraq, the slide for the rebuilding operations or phase 4-C, as it is known in the military, was simply this: ``To be provided.'' We are still waiting. We are still waiting for a plan that works, that is measurable, and that will give the American public the confidence that our course ahead will lead to success. We all know in February of 2003 when General Shinseki was asked about the troop strength we needed there, he said several hundred thousand soldiers. He was dismissed--and that is a kind word for the treatment he received. Secretary Rumsfeld said the estimate was `` . . . far from the mark.'' Secretary Wolfowitz called it ``outlandish.'' In fact, it was very accurate, very perceptive--prophetic, indeed, because after our initial entry into Iraq, after the first days of fighting, it became more and more obvious we needed more troops to, among other things, secure ammo dumps that were prolific throughout the country. Perhaps we have lost that window where more troops will make a difference, but we certainly have not gone past the point where a good plan will make a difference, and we need that good plan. The Congressional Research Service has summarized dozens of reports and articles, cataloging mistake after mistake. In their words: The lack of reconstruction plan; the failure to adequately fund reconstruction early on; unrealistic application of U.S. views to Iraqi conditions by, for example, emphasizing privatization policy; the organizational incompetence of the CPA; changing deadlines . . . Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. I could add, a very unwise de-Baathification process and the disestablishment of the Iraqi army. But the litany goes on and on. It was ad hoc, off the cuff. It was not a plan that worked and it is not working today. We need this plan. That is what the Levin amendment calls for. Give us a plan. Not just us, but give the American people a plan. We have made progress in Iraq. We have had elections. But that progress is fragile and reversible. We have to have a coherent way ahead. And again, hope is not a plan. This amendment is not, as some would characterize it, cut and run. It asks the President to lay out conditions. It asks to define a mission. It asks to catalog the resources necessary. Then it anticipates--and I think this is prudent--that we would have a phased redeployment of troops. Just today, in London, Prime Minister Blair talked about British troops coming out next year, 2006. Jalal Talabani, the Iraqi President, said the troops are coming out in 2006. British Defense Secretary John Reid--no relation--said that we are likely to see troops come out next year if conditions allow. So the idea of looking ahead with a good plan and making a good-faith estimate as to troop levels seems to me the appropriate thing to do. It is a campaign plan. It is a campaign plan which will give us an idea of how long we will be there. We need not simply to reflect what is happening on the ground in Iraq. We cannot sustain indefinitely 160,000 American troops in Iraq. It will bring our land forces, our Army, our Marines to their knees. They are overstretched. They have a billion dollars of built-up maintenance on helicopters and vehicles. And the personnel turmoil is excruciating. We owe it to them to have a plan. And we must be able to show how we are paying for this plan. This plan would also ask the President to talk about a definition of ``success,'' talk about the conditions, talk about situations which would cause those conditions to be reevaluated. The Levin amendment is asking for the obvious. Show us the way ahead, not in a slogan but in concrete, measurable elements that will constitute a good plan. We have been waiting for 2\1/2\ years for such a plan. What is the mission? It has changed. One of the initial missions was to deny the Iraqi Government weapons of mass destruction. We find they had none. Then, of course, the mission was to root out terrorist insurgents that might be collaborating with Saddam Hussein's regime. The evidence strongly suggests there was no such material collaboration. But today there are thousands of hardened terrorists that we are in the process of rooting out--after the attack, not before. Then, of course, there was the mission of creating a democratic oasis in Iraq that would be transformative of the entire region. Is that still the mission? If it is the mission, we are going to need many decades, billions of dollars, and to mobilize the strength of this country, not just militarily but for technical and political assistance, and we haven't done that. The President doesn't suggest--from everything I have heard and from everything I have seen--that he intended to do that. What is the mission? What are the resources? We are spending about $4 billion to $6 billion a month in Iraq and Afghanistan. How long will we spend that much money, and when we finish how much will we have to spend to reconstitute our equipment, to reorganize our troops? Tell us. It is important because we make decisions on this floor that are based upon assumptions about how much we will be spending years ahead in Iraq, and we have to have those numbers. We need the conditions. More than that, we need all this tied into our troop strength in Iraq. That is essentially what the American people are looking at very consciously. How long will their sons and daughters be committed to this struggle? I believe we have to succeed, and I am here because we can't succeed without a coherent plan, not one that is made up of slogans and good intentions but one that is premised on real conditions, hardnosed, and something that will help us and help the American people to understand our commitment and help us to succeed in that commitment. I hope very strongly that the Levin amendment is agreed to. The Republican counterpart makes a few changes, but the critical change is it essentially takes out the notion of a plan. The opposing amendment would strip out something vital in the Levin amendment; that is, a campaign plan that would help show, project, the phased redeployment of American troops. I think that is essential. If Tony Blair can speak off the cuff in London today about the phased withdrawal of British troops, and Talabani, the Iraqi President can do it, and John Reid, the Defense Secretary of Great Britain can do it, then certainly the President of United States can do it. And we ask him to do it. In fact, if we agree to this amendment, it will require him to do it. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. Parliamentary inquiry: What is the status of the floor?

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

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, the second storm surge from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita--high energy prices--threatens to overwhelm working families and senior citizens. The Energy Information Administration forecasted that households heating with natural gas will spend $306, or 41 percent, more for fuel this winter than last winter; households primarily using heating oil can expect to pay $325, or 27 percent, more; and households heating primarily with propane can expect to pay $230, or 21 percent, more. Low-income families and seniors need assistance from the Federal Government in order to guarantee energy security in this high price environment. To provide immediate help this winter, I am working with Senator Collins to secure $5.1 billion in funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. Over the last 4 weeks, we have offered two amendments to increase funding for LIHEAP. While a majority of the Senate supported these amendments, we have been unable to reach the required 60 vote supermajority needed to waive the budget point of order on emergency spending. Oil companies reported record profits for the third quarter of this year. As oil prices go up, low-income hard working Americans struggle to pay their heating bills. That is why fully funding LIHEAP is vital, and I believe oil companies should help shoulder the cost through a temporary, one-year windfall profit tax on integrated oil companies. The President also has been silent, failing to ask for any funding for LIHEAP in the supplemental appropriations request he sent to Congress. In addition, Energy Secretary Bodman has repeatedly stated that the administration is against a windfall profits tax. The Administration's National Energy Policy Report, the National Petroleum Council's report, Balancing Natural Gas Policy, and the National Commission on Energy Policy's report, Ending the Energy Stalemate, emphasized that energy efficiency is essential to managing the nation's short- and long-term energy challenges. Unfortunately, despite all of the agreement, federal funding for energy efficiency is not keeping pace. In September, Senator Snowe and I wrote a bipartisan letter signed by 33 of our colleagues urging the Administration to request $500 million for the Weatherization Assistance Program, WAP, and $100 million for the State Energy Program, SEP, in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. President Bush and Secretary Bodman called on the American people to conserve energy and invest in energy efficiency, and the American people are responding. I am disappointed that the administration did not seek additional funding for these key programs in their supplemental appropriations request. Indeed, SEP helps states implement energy efficiency and energy emergency preparedness programs in all sectors of the economy, thereby, reducing energy consumption for residential consumers, schools, hospitals, the agricultural sector, commercial enterprises, and industry. For every Federal dollar invested in SEP, over $7 is saved in energy costs. SEP funds would immediately be directed to energy efficiency projects to bring energy usage down. Instead of our bipartisan request of $100 million, the Energy and Water Appropriations Conference Report provides only $36 million for the program in FY2006. This is almost a 20-percent cut from this year's funding level. This cut means States will not be able to provide rebates to homeowners for energy conservation, schools and hospitals will be ill-equipped to reduce energy usage, and small business will not receive needed energy efficiency upgrades. Basically, every sector of the economy will be harmed in the midst of an energy crisis. I hope that the Senate will provide more funding for LIHEAP, SEP, and the weatherization program before the worst of the winter season hits.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to one of Rhode Island's brave soldiers, Lance Corporal Holly A. Charette, who was killed in Iraq on June 23, 2005. In honor of her sacrifice, I am introducing a bill, along with Senator Chafee, to name the post office at 57 Rolfe Square in Cranston, RI, the ``Holly A. Charette Post Office.'' Twenty-one year old Holly Charette died when a suicide bomber in Fallujah attacked the military convoy in which she was riding. This was the deadliest attack on women in the U.S. military since the start of operations in Iraq, and yet another example of the violence that continues to plague our soldiers serving in this conflict. Those who were close to Holly describe her as a happy and positive young woman loved by all those who knew her. She was a cheerleader at Cranston East High School, where she worked hard in college-prep courses. Her teachers remember her as a ``bright, shining star.'' Holly had dreams of becoming a postal worker. Instead, in 2002, she made the choice to serve her Nation by joining the U.S. Marine Corps. She was deployed to Iraq in March of this year with her unit from Camp Lejeune, NC, and assigned to Headquarters Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force. It was here that Holly was able to combine her dreams of postal service with that of serving her Nation. During her service in Iraq, Holly utilized her strong organizational skills to take on and complete various administrative tasks, including that of mail delivery to the troops. She became known as the ``Marine who brought the good news.'' Holly never forgot a name, and would often stop Marines in the mess hall to let them know that they had mail. The day that Holly was killed, she was working with Iraqi security forces to prevent insurgents from gaining a foothold in that country. Her tragic passing has touched the lives of Rhode Islanders. Holly's presence will be deeply missed by all those who knew and loved her. This legislation will pay proper tribute to this remarkable young woman, and commemorate her valor for future generations. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Lance Corporal Holly A. Charette by supporting this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation to name the post office in Cranston after Lance Corporal Charette be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to one of Rhode Island's brave soldiers, Lance Corporal Holly A. Charette, who was killed in Iraq on June 23, 2005. In honor of her sacrifice, I am introducing a bill, along with Senator Chafee, to name the post office at 57 Rolfe Square in Cranston, RI, the ``Holly A. Charette Post Office.'' Twenty-one year old Holly Charette died when a suicide bomber in Fallujah attacked the military convoy in which she was riding. This was the deadliest attack on women in the U.S. military since the start of operations in Iraq, and yet another example of the violence that continues to plague our soldiers serving in this conflict. Those who were close to Holly describe her as a happy and positive young woman loved by all those who knew her. She was a cheerleader at Cranston East High School, where she worked hard in college-prep courses. Her teachers remember her as a ``bright, shining star.'' Holly had dreams of becoming a postal worker. Instead, in 2002, she made the choice to serve her Nation by joining the U.S. Marine Corps. She was deployed to Iraq in March of this year with her unit from Camp Lejeune, NC, and assigned to Headquarters Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force. It was here that Holly was able to combine her dreams of postal service with that of serving her Nation. During her service in Iraq, Holly utilized her strong organizational skills to take on and complete various administrative tasks, including that of mail delivery to the troops. She became known as the ``Marine who brought the good news.'' Holly never forgot a name, and would often stop Marines in the mess hall to let them know that they had mail. The day that Holly was killed, she was working with Iraqi security forces to prevent insurgents from gaining a foothold in that country. Her tragic passing has touched the lives of Rhode Islanders. Holly's presence will be deeply missed by all those who knew and loved her. This legislation will pay proper tribute to this remarkable young woman, and commemorate her valor for future generations. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Lance Corporal Holly A. Charette by supporting this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation to name the post office in Cranston after Lance Corporal Charette be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

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

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

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to address some of the issues that have been presented by the amendment of Senator Inhofe. I do so with some perspective on issues of prayer at service academies. I spent 4 years as a cadet at West Point, 2 years as a faculty member at West Point, and today I am the chairman of the board of visitors at West Point. I am the first to recognize the importance of prayer, not only in the life of the service academies but in the life of people everywhere. Over the course of 200-plus years of history, prayer has become an important aspect of life, not only at West Point but at Annapolis and other institutions. Interestingly enough, when I was a cadet, there was a much more significant structure of religious participation. We were actually ordered to go to chapel, ordered to participate in activities. That was struck down in 1972 as an unconstitutional infringement. This is a very difficult issue because it does implicate serious constitutional concerns, as well as the desire to maintain the traditions and the customs of the military and the service academies. Interestingly enough, my perspective now, after about 30 years, is that the faith communities at West Point are even more vital and vibrant today than years ago when cadets literally were ordered to participate in religious activities. In fact, last summer, as part of the operations of the board of visitors, I asked that the chaplains come together on an informal basis, and we talked about religious participation at West Point. What I heard from the chaplains is that it is alive and well, that it is something important to the individual lives of cadets and to the community at West Point. That is why I think, as we try to legislate these activities from the perspective of the U.S. Congress, we might be inviting more problems than we are solving. As I look at the amendment of Senator Inhofe, it speaks of voluntary, nondenominational prayer at otherwise authorized activities of the academy, subject to the limitations of the Secretary of Defense, more or less. The real problem in the context of military activities is, what is voluntary? There is a strong sense that there is not much that is voluntary in the military. Anyone who has served on active duty understands that even in some cases volunteering isn't voluntary. I know I had a first sergeant in the 82nd Airborne Division who would walk in and pick three people and inform them they had just volunteered. That is a cultural aspect and a legal aspect of military service. So even though this speaks to voluntary, nondenominational prayer, the real issue in the context of the military is, Is it voluntary? That issue is now being debated. One of the reasons prompting this particular legislative amendment is the fact that the Naval Academy has been questioned about a prayer at their luncheon meal. Whether it is nondenominational is not the point. The question is whether it is voluntary. I do not think we are going to escape that analysis and that issue by passing this legislation. In fact, my fear is by passing this legislation we are going to essentially invite litigation about a whole series of religious expressions at service academies, not just prayer in the mess hall at lunch but prayer at graduation ceremonies, at promotion ceremonies--all of that. Frankly, on a practical basis, this legislation is not necessary. First, the superintendents already have the authority to prescribe what is happening at the academies--either explicitly or implicitly the current religious expression at the academies is being authorized by the superintendents. Also, I think, given the fact that they are doing this and it seems to be working fairly well, this legislation does not give them any more authority than they have already. As I suggested previously, it raises, certainly, the profile, so it might engender the kind of controversies that will lead to seriously questioning and perhaps cutting back existing religious expression at these service academies. So I do not think, as a matter of either policy or of good sense, this legislation is in order or necessary. In addition, what is happening at the academies now is not so much the sole issue of the propriety of prayer or religious expression at different authorized activities. There is another big issue out there that we have to recognize. It comes from the recent activities at the Air Force Academy, where there have been serious reports about proselytization, of superior officers using their rank and position to try to proselytize cadets, to try to insert in the activities of the academy a pronounced and sectarian religious approach. I think we are all familiar with many of the stories from the Air Force Academy. As a result, the Secretary of Defense has issued interim guidance with respect to proselytization and other religious activities. I would note that the language of Senator Inhofe recognizes the right of the Secretary of Defense to do that. In fact, I would assume it lends further support and credence to the guidance that he is developing and will issue because, as the language says, ``subject to such limitations as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe.'' I think what we are seeing, in terms of this legislation, is several results which might be unintended by those who are supporting it. First, I think rather than clarifying and settling the issue of religious expression at the service academies, it will prompt further discussion, debate, and perhaps even litigation. Second, it does specifically recognize that there is an ongoing process by the Secretary of Defense to redefine appropriate modes of religious expression at the academies. And, as I read it, it does give sanction to those activities--in fact, legal sanction to those activities. So for many reasons I think the legislation is not the most appropriate way to deal with this issue. Ultimately, my sense is that these issues, because they are dominated by constitutional concerns, will be settled in court, not by legislative enactment. There is nothing we could do legislatively to correct such constitutional faults. I think to try to do that misconstrues what we are about and what we could practically do. As a result, I hope this legislation could be withdrawn, but I suspect that is not the case. So I think we should make some changes in the legislation in that at least reflects the fact that all of us are bound by the Constitution of the United States. Again, I have been involved with these academies since I was 17 years old. I have seen personally the important role that prayer and religion play in the lives of cadets, soldiers, and officers. I recognize and cherish the customs of these academies, and these traditions. I think it is unfortunate that we may unwittingly be starting a dynamic that will seriously erode these customs and traditions, and I think perhaps to the detriment of the academies and to the military service and to the young men and women who proudly wear the uniform of our Armed Forces. So I hope we can avoid that. But I think, also, we have to recognize that we are all governed, particularly when it comes to issues of prayer in the public space, by the Constitution of the United States, and that there is nothing, as I said before, that we can do that can insulate activities within the military from the Constitution. There is nothing we should do. I think whatever language we adopt today has to more explicitly reflect that clear, and I think obvious, fact. As I mentioned before, the Secretary of Defense is dealing today with the issue of religious activities at the Air Force Academy. He has also indicated that, if his interim guidelines are practical, workable, and appropriate in his view, that he intends to extend those to the other service academies, effectively doing what this legislation is proposing to do. I think we should give the Secretary of Defense a chance to do that. I think he is working in a way that is evenhanded, appropriate, recognizing that soldiers are bound by the Constitution. That is their duty. That is their obligation. I say if we march down this road, I think we are raising serious issues that are going to complicate the facts even more than they are today. So I hope we could wait. I hope we could wait until these guidelines have been fully vetted by the Secretary and he has made a decision with respect to their propriety, their appropriateness. Indeed, once again, as the amendment suggests, ultimately whatever the superintendents of the academies do will be subject to the guidance of the Secretary of Defense. Frankly, that guidance today, if you look at it, is drawing mixed reviews from both the proponents of the separation of church and state and those who want a much more aggressive posture when it comes to religious expression in public places. Maybe that is a good sign. Maybe the Secretary has struck that balance between the constitutional demands of separation of church and state and the individual's desires and needs to express themselves to the Divine. I hope we could forbear on this one. If not, then I think we have to make some changes in the text to reflect the overarching constitutional imperatives that are at the heart of this debate. I retain the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. REED. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. REED

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

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

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. There was initially a 5-minute opportunity for me to speak on my amendment. Will that take place immediately or be postponed until after the vote on the Levin amendment?

Mr. REED

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

Mr. REED. In morning business.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, recently Senator Collins and I introduced an amendment to the proposed budget reconciliation bill to fund a $2.9 billion increase in the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program by placing a temporary 1-year windfall profit tax on big oil companies. I filed this amendment to the budget reconciliation bill to begin the dialog, and I intend to call for a vote on my amendment when the Senate debates the tax reconciliation bill in the next few days. Last week, oil companies reported record profits for the third quarter on surging oil prices. Chevron posted profits of $3.6 billion. BP's profits rose to $6.5 billion. Royal Dutch/Shell profits grew to $9 billion. And ExxonMobil profits gushed up 75 percent to nearly $10 billion. According to BusinessWeek, that equals $150 million in profit for every working day in the past 3 months. This year has been an exceptionally lucrative one for the oil industry and an exceptionally impoverishing one for American families and seniors. Profits going to big oil are money coming out of wallets of working families and seniors and wealth draining out of our communities. Fully funding LIHEAP is a vital imperative. I believe the big oil companies should help shoulder the cost. Rising energy prices could financially wipe out working-class families and seniors this winter. Americans are experiencing extraordinarily high runups in energy prices that jeopardize the ability of many families to keep their homes warm during this coming winter season. Energy costs to the average family using heating oil are estimated to hit $1,500 this winter, an increase of almost $325 over last winter's heating season. For families using natural gas, prices could hit $1,000, an increase of $300. For a family using propane, prices are projected to hit $1,300, an increase of $230. For families living in poverty, energy bills are now over 20 percent of their income, compared to 5 percent for other households. People who are living in poverty, many of whom are working, are paying 20 percent of their income for heating bills. That is compared to 5 percent for the rest of America's families. Let me tell you what this amendment means. If we are successful, it would add $2.9 billion to the LIHEAP program to bring total funding to $5.1 billion this winter. With $5.1 billion, the National Energy Assistance Directors Association estimates that LIHEAP could serve 12 million families this year. This is double the number of families served last year but still only one-third of those eligible. Even with this increased funding, we would not reach all the families who qualify, but we would reach those families who are most in need, particularly in this very difficult winter heating season. States could also increase the level of benefits to help these rising costs, in addition to enrolling more personnel in the program. This amendment means that seniors will not have to choose between buying lifesaving medication and paying their natural gas bills. Working families will not have to decide between putting food on the table or putting heating oil in their tanks. And what is the cost of this amendment to big oil? It is about 10 percent of their profits from one quarter of 1 year, or in the case of ExxonMobil my amendment would represent just one-third of their profits for one quarter. This is a small price to pay to keep American families safe and warm this winter. Two weeks ago, I wrote an open letter to the oil industry asking that they act as good corporate citizens and take this step voluntarily. I was pleased to hear that Senator Grassley, the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, reiterated my plea recently, and I hope that we will be able to work together on this effort. I also hope that Senator Gregg, the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, will join Senator Collins and me in our efforts to increase LIHEAP funding through this temporary windfall profits tax. I also hope the administration will join our bipartisan effort to help American families. Unfortunately, to date, the administration only appears able to say no to American families and seniors and yes to the oil industry. Last month, Secretary Bodman said no, the administration would not seek additional funding for LIHEAP this winter. The supplemental appropriations request the administration sent to Congress last week did not include funding. Recently, Secretary Bodman, answering questions on whether the administration would support oil companies voluntarily donating profits to LIHEAP, said, ``No, sir. I wouldn't support it. It is similar to a tax.'' In 1980, Congress enacted the Crude Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act. This legislation established LIHEAP. Twenty-five years later, with energy prices overwhelming workers' salaries and seniors' Social Security checks, it is time for Congress again to take action and tax windfall profits to aid in energy assistance. I also want to mention it is my intention that when we consider the tax reconciliation bill this month, I will offer an amendment to provide a tax credit to working American families to help them pay for their energy bills this winter. Our Nation's priorities must be to help these families, and I hope working together with my colleagues we can provide that help and assistance. Mr. President, I inquire how much time is remaining in morning business on the Democratic side?

Mr. REED

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