[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 124 (Saturday, July 26, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Page S7518]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                 LIHEAP

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would just say what an honor it has 
been to serve with Senator Domenici. There is no more effective 
advocate, no more courageous Senator in terms of speaking the truth 
about complex matters in words that Americans can understand, and no 
stronger Senator in committing to a sound economic policy than Senator 
Domenici. We are going to miss him in this body, there is no doubt 
about it.
  I wish to briefly share a few thoughts about the LIHEAP legislation 
that was offered.
  First, I would note that the Democratic leadership has proposed two 
pieces of legislation at this point in time over the last few weeks 
that would deal with energy. One is speculation, which I am open to in 
seeing what we can do to tighten that up, but it produces not one 
barrel of energy. They also tried to move today a $2.5 billion energy 
subsidy to subsidize the purchase of fuel oil for people in America, 
and they want to spend it. There is no money whatsoever to pay for it, 
so it is going to be treated as an emergency, adding to the debt this 
Nation already has. I would just suggest that if you are looking at 
sound energy policy, it seems to me that Senator Alexander has it 
right: We should find more and use less.
  I would suggest it is crystal clear that the LIHEAP legislation that 
is designed to use $2.5 billion of the taxpayers' money--actually, 
money we don't have because we are already in debt--to subsidize the 
utilization of more energy--really some of the dirtiest energy we have 
in America; burning dirty fuel oil in private home furnaces--that is 
not consistent with a sound energy policy.

  So I reject the LIHEAP bill first and foremost because it is unpaid 
for, it adds another $2.5 billion to the national debt, and it is on 
top of an already $2.5 billion LIHEAP piece of legislation. This is not 
good leadership from the Democratic side on matters important to 
America.
  You remember the dispute we had over automobile gasoline. The prices 
went up, and some suggested we should cut the tax. We said no, that is 
not good policy. Why would you want to encourage the utilization of 
more gasoline by cutting this tax? It is just not good policy.
  We need to do something fundamental about energy. It is an even worse 
policy to tax the American people or add debt to our grandchildren to 
subsidize the utilization of some of the Nation's most dirty energy.
  The very people from that area of the country--the Northeast 
primarily--are the ones who have consistently objected to the 
production of more energy. Time and time--I have been here 12 years, 
almost. I know where the votes have come from. The very people pushing 
for this subsidy to burn more dirty fuel oil are the people who had 
objected and successfully blocked attempts to produce more, cleaner 
energy in America, and it is not good.
  We need to talk about this. We need to get serious about America's 
energy policy. I know my fine colleague, the great advocate from 
Vermont, tried to argue that this is a fair allocation of money and 
that it is not regionally biased in favor of Vermont or some of our 
Northeastern States, that it helps rural Southern States with air-
conditioning. Well, I am just looking at the numbers in the bills. I 
have the numbers State by State right here. In Vermont, they have one 
Congressman. They got $17 million. I guess that is less than--$17 
million under this program. Alabama, with seven Congressmen--seven 
times the population--got a total of $18 million.
  Look, this is a gimmick. It is a transfer of wealth to a certain 
group of people for political reasons, and we are going to send the 
debt to our grandchildren. It is not good policy.
  We ought not to go to the LIHEAP bill because we need to be talking 
about how to produce more energy. If we produce more energy and we 
produce cleaner alternative energy sources, if we build nuclear plants 
that some of these same people have opposed, if we were building 
another 100 nuclear plants instead of the 100 we have--and we haven't 
built one in 30 years--if we had been building them the way France has, 
where 80 percent of their energy is from nuclear power, we wouldn't be 
in the crisis we are in today, but they blocked that. So I just protest 
a little bit. Count me as saying no on that question.
  I see some of my other colleagues are here, and I yield the floor at 
this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.

                          ____________________