[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 27 (Monday, March 6, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1778-S1780]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   MAKING AVAILABLE FUNDS FOR THE LOW-INCOME HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE 
                             PROGRAM, 2006

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2320) to make available funds included in the 
     Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 for the Low-Income Home Energy 
     Assistance Program for fiscal year 2006, and for other 
     purposes.

  Pending:

       Kyl/Ensign amendment No. 2899, to make available funds 
     included in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 for allotments 
     to States for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program 
     for fiscal year 2006.


                           Amendment No. 2898

                   (Purpose: To reduce energy prices)

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2898.

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, this is simply what I have called the 
energy price reduction amendment. Each year proponents of LIHEAP 
funding complain that energy prices have increased and therefore more 
assistance is needed. Yet subsidizing high prices does nothing to lower 
prices. Increasing the funding for today's LIHEAP without acting to 
reduce the price of energy tomorrow is not an acceptable solution.
  Home energy prices are excessively high because of two simple facts, 
two critical reasons: First, the demand for energy has increased along 
with the economic output. However, because natural gas is regarded as 
an environmentally preferable fuel, demand for natural gas has 
increased dramatically as more of it is used for electricity 
generation. We have gone through this with coal-fired plants. We have 
tried to have major advancements in clean coal technology, which we are 
doing right now. But right now, the one thing that is environmentally 
pure is natural gas and, for that reason, the demand is up. Second, 
with the rise in demand, the market should have responded with a 
corresponding increase in supply.

[[Page S1779]]

  I have here a chart, and this is from the Energy Information 
Administration. Domestic production of natural gas has actually 
declined. Not many people understand this, that the supply has actually 
declined. So not only do we have an increase in demand, but the supply 
has reduced, as is pointed out in this chart. I want my colleagues to 
recognize that I am reporting clear facts. I am ignoring partisan 
rhetoric, relying on recognized, unbiased experts from the EIA, not 
from the New York Times, not from the industry representatives. The 
EIA's consumer guide, ``Residential Natural Gas Prices: What Consumers 
Should Know,'' states that:

       One of the most significant factors why prices are so high 
     is due to weak production, noting that production decreased 
     by only .6 percent in 2004, declining below the 2002 level 
     and reaching the lowest production levels since 1999.

  The fact is that demand has increased and production levels have not. 
As a result, our constituents--the very same residents desperate for 
LIHEAP assistance--are facing artificially high natural gas prices.
  This chart is from the EIA. It illustrates how much residents of each 
of our States are paying for natural gas. Now I would encourage my 
colleagues to look and see what it is, and look at one of the higher 
elevations. It is from $16 in those regions there, all the way down 
to--I can't read it from here, but you can see it. It is such a 
disparity as you go around the Nation, and I think people need to know 
what their constituents are being forced to pay.
  EIA data has shown that production of natural gas has decreased 
dramatically. The National Petroleum Council, which is a nonpartisan 
entity charged by the Secretary of Energy, concluded that significant 
gas resources were effectively off limits for various reasons.
  The American Gas Association, a strong supporter of increased LIHEAP 
funding, came to the same conclusion. Both entities called for a 
better, more efficient process for producing natural gas.
  My amendment provides a more certain process for energy-related 
decisionmaking on public lands. It requires the Secretary to act on an 
energy-related application within 120 days. If the application is not 
approved, then the Secretary must inform the applicant as to the 
reasons and allow the applicant to modify its application.
  What is happening here is that these applications to produce on these 
lands, public lands, sit there and there is never any decision. 
Certainly it should be shorter than 120 days, but that should be 
adequate.
  Further, it clarifies existing practice and requires that a reviewing 
court accord a rebuttable presumption to the Secretary's determination 
that an energy project as mitigated does not have a significant 
environmental impact. The recently enacted Energy bill included 
significant energy efficiency improvements. In fact, it included so 
many that EIA modified its energy projections in some ways to 
incorporate the new law.
  My amendment would improve natural gas efficiency through the EPA's 
Natural Gas Star Program. This is a good program. It works, and it is 
being voluntarily complied with. Under my language, the EPA would be 
authorized to provide grants to identify and use methane reduction 
technologies, and the Administrator would be required to conduct a 
series of methane emission reduction workshops in oil and gas-producing 
States. The less gas that is leaked means more gas is available to 
consumers. It is a no-brainer.
  The lack of sufficient domestic refining capacity has received 
significant media attention. The public understands that tight capacity 
translates to higher prices of motor fuels.
  Yet some LIHEAP proponents might not realize that home heating oil, 
which the Northeast desperately needs, as you can see on this chart, is 
a middle distillate along with diesel fuel. Therefore, according to the 
Congressional Research Service:

       Because the residential and transportation sectors are in 
     potential competition for the same part of the barrel, any 
     unusual circumstances affecting the price and supply of one 
     of these fuels affects the supply and price of the other.

  Increasing refining capacity not only lowers the price of motor fuels 
but reduces the price of home heating oil as well.
  Although States have a significant role in permitting existing or new 
refineries, they face particular technical and financial constraints 
when faced with these extremely complex facilities. It wasn't long ago 
that I authored the Gas Price Act, and it was one that never even made 
it out of my committee. Yet it would have dramatically reduced the cost 
of refining. Right now we are at 100-percent refining capacity in 
America. Yet nothing is being done about it. Quite frankly, those 
individuals who are feeling the heat the most, who are not getting the 
heat the most in the Northeast are the ones who objected to the Gas 
Price Act.
  This amendment does not have the same provisions as the Gas Price 
Act; it merely establishes a Governor opt-in program that requires the 
EPA Administrator to coordinate and concurrently review all permits 
with the relevant State agencies. This program does not waive or weaken 
the standards under any environmental law that seeks to assist States 
and consumers by providing greater certainty in the permitting process.
  In fact, the Environmental Council of the States--an organization 
representing the State environmental directors--stated in a letter of 
support for similar language that the language:

       Does not weaken the standards and allows each State to 
     choose its best course.

  This improved process does more than just increase the process for 
production of heating oil; it also redefines one's idea of a refinery. 
My amendment provides Federal assistance to States for the permitting 
of ethanol plants or bio refineries, as well as facilities to produce 
ultraclean diesel or jet fuel from coal.
  Assisting the expansion of bio refineries and coal-to-liquids 
facilities provides even more slack in the system that will lead to 
lower home heating oil prices in the future.
  In its consumer guide, EIA points out that prices could even increase 
if there were disruptions to liquefied natural gas pipeline delivery 
systems, two very real points, especially to my friends in the 
Northeast. Keep in mind that if you divide the country up into sectors, 
the Northeast uses 31 percent--31 percent of the people residing in the 
Northeast use home heating oils, that in contrast with the Midwest, 3.2 
percent; the South, 2.1 percent; and the West, 0.7 percent. That is a 
huge disparity. They are the ones who are opposing the various things 
that we can do to refine the home heating oils as well as diesel fuel.
  Something has to be done. You can't say we want to have cheaper 
energy, we want to have a LIHEAP program to make it more affordable for 
people in the Northeast, and yet the legislators in the Northeast 
oppose consistently any major changes in our refining capacity. As I 
said, we are already 100-percent refining capacity now, and that was 
before Katrina, I might add.
  On the subject of liquefied LNG, I was astonished to learn that two 
members of the Massachusetts House delegation inserted a provision in 
the transportation bill in the dark of the night--I know this, I was 
the author of that bill--it happened in the middle of the night before 
it was taken up the next morning, to the detriment of the Northeast 
region. They slipped in a provision that blocks the construction of an 
already approved LNG terminal by maintaining an old bridge scheduled 
for demolition because it has been classified as a navigational hazard. 
This short-sighted stunt by a few Members means that the Northeast 
region will be deprived of supply that would reduce wholesale natural 
gas prices by up to 20 percent--up to 20 percent. It was an LNG already 
accepted terminal in Massachusetts.
  My amendment repeals that offensive provision so harmful to the 
entire Northeast. Bipartisan Members of this body, from the senior 
Senator from Maine to the senior Senator from New York, interested 
stakeholders from the AARP to the National Conference of Black Mayors, 
have all expressed their concern over how high energy prices are 
hurting their constituents.
  Members, voting for this amendment means you are voting to lower 
those prices. A vote for this amendment means you are voting to help 
the LIHEAP beneficiaries. This is something that makes so much common 
sense and something that is hard to understand here in Washington, DC. 
We

[[Page S1780]]

have to do something about increasing the supply of natural gas as well 
as home heating oils through the refining capacity as well as doing 
something to affect the supply.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________