[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16586-16588]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                 LIHEAP

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have been watching the debate over the 
intervening time this week and, frankly, I am appalled that we cannot 
address energy prices at this time, because we cannot get together from 
a bipartisan standpoint.
  Today the Senate voted on a motion to proceed to S. 3186, a bill to 
provide funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or 
what is commonly referred to as LIHEAP. I have a long history of 
supporting the LIHEAP program and have voted for almost every increase 
in the program that has been proposed in Congress. But today's vote is 
different. It is not a vote about making sure our low-income citizens 
have the heating and cooling assistance they need, because they already 
do under the existing program. There is $100 million still left in the 
program. Most of that money was for heating last winter, but we had 
that much left over.
  So what is the emergency here? On top of the existing surplus in the 
program, the program will also be fully funded for the coming winter 
when we pass a continuing resolution which will keep all the Government 
programs running at the level they were funded at last year. So let's 
not pretend the LIHEAP program is not in place or that it will not be 
funded for the coming year.
  As you well know, each year the Congress appropriates the Government 
funding needs through 13 appropriations bills. Each bill is handled by 
separate subcommittees of the full Senate Committee on Appropriations. 
I applaud the Appropriations Committee and its subcommittees because 
they have done a good job of preparing and marking up their various 
appropriation bills.
  But there is one problem. Our majority leader has announced we will 
not be passing any of these bills this year. Instead, we will be 
passing a continuing resolution that I referred to. Why this 
announcement? Why can't we pass any appropriations bills this year? 
There is still plenty of time. I can tell you that Republicans have 
many amendments prepared for those bills that would allow our Nation to 
produce more domestic oil. But the anti-oil extremists calling the 
shots in the Democratic Party cannot allow votes on finding more oil 
because they know those votes would succeed. That is what this is all 
about here. That is why we have had a very difficult time and have had 
to vote against cloture.
  If we could do what is normally done in this great legislative body, 
and that is bring up our amendments and vote them up or down or move to 
table them if they want to, we could get this matter over in a very 
short period of time. But our friends on the other side know it would 
be a considerably different bill than the Band-Aid bill they have had 
on the floor, the speculation bill.
  We need a comprehensive approach to it and, as Members on both sides, 
we need to vote on these important amendments.
  Unfortunately for the Democratic Party, the poor are beginning to 
wake up that the liberals who they have always looked to are behind the 
war on the poor. By the ``war on the poor,'' I refer to the movement by 
the extremists to close off every good domestic oil resource, which is 
the direct cause of the high energy prices we Americans face. We have 
heard of the $700 billion we are spending overseas when we have oil 
right here in America that would alleviate this type of expenditure and 
keep the money home.
  Democrats have begun to recognize the position they are in and are 
trying to have it both ways with today's vote.
  Earlier this month a group of protesters came to Capitol Hill, 
calling on Congress to stop the war on the poor--some of that is 
obscured by signs, by groups, and Congressmen--who are closing off 
America's energy resources. Included in this group were pastors and 
civil rights leaders, calling on this body to unlock America's oil 
resources for the benefit of Americans, and especially for the benefit 
of lower income Americans.
  One of the participants was Bishop Harry Jackson. I wish to quote 
some of his remarks for the Record. These are his words:

       I am a registered Democrat but this has nothing to do with 
     partisan politics. Unless the public understands that there 
     are specific people and organizations that are fueling this 
     war against the poor, nothing will change and the poor will 
     continue to suffer. We will unmask those behind this war, 
     regardless of their political party or ideology. Party labels 
     and partisan ideologies are meaningless when it comes to 
     protecting the lives of America's most vulnerable citizens.

  That is Bishop Harry Jackson, a Democrat, who has been calling the 
bluff here.
  By the way, you can see more about the ``stop the war on the poor'' 
movement on the Web at www.stopwaronpoor.org.
  Democrats in Congress must choose between the very well-funded 
extreme anti-oil interests or the poor, because on energy prices there 
is no compromise between the two. To be honest, I believe Americans 
have put their finger on this conflict even before their 
Representatives in Congress have fully begun to understand it.
  However, the fact that this vote was scheduled today when it was not 
even necessary is an indication that they are beginning to catch on.
  Look at this photo of the protesters:

       My Family Needs Affordable Energy.
       Food or Fuel, Don't Make Me Choose.
       Congress Needs To Act.

  I think Congress does need to act. These are folks who are being hit 
hard.

[[Page 16587]]

  This next chart has a couple of examples of the Democrats' war on the 
poor. Both these examples were referred to during the war on poor 
protest. Here we see that Representative Henry Waxman--great friend of 
mine, no question, I care a great deal for him--but he passed a bill 
that bans the Federal Government from purchasing oil sands from Canada, 
unless he can prove it has a lesser greenhouse gas footprint than 
gasoline. In other words, we would be turning away 1.5 million barrels 
of oil a day from a friendly neighbor in favor of oil from the Middle 
East and Russia. What about the greenhouse gas footprint of shipping 
that oil all the way across the world and all the way over here?
  Representative Waxman's section 526, 2007 Defense bill bans the 
Federal procurement of oil shale, oil sands, and coal to liquids. It 
turns away 1.5 million barrels a day from Canada, our neighbors to the 
North, our friends to the North, in favor of oil from the Middle East 
and Venezuela.
  Let me go further here. Last year, Representative Mark Udall, who 
represents Aspen, CO, passed a 1-year moratorium on commercial oil 
shale leasing.
  Keep in mind, Estonia has been developing oil from oil shale for over 
90 years--Estonia. I might add that Brazil has been developing oil from 
oil shale for decades. It can be done. We know how to do it. We have 
the companies willing to do it. We have people willing to put up the 
capital to do it. Oil shale has plenty of oil, and we can develop it, 
but instead we say no.
  Last year Representative Mark Udall, who represents Aspen, CO, passed 
a 1-year moratorium on commercial oil shale leasing. At first I thought 
he was seeking a little extra time for comments, but a year moratorium 
on leases is a very long time. But believe it or not, after the solid 
year that will expire this September, he is now trying to extend the 
moratorium for another year when we are sending $700 billion every year 
overseas to some who are not our friends, with not a dime of that 
coming back to benefit us.
  I guess there are not too many poor in Aspen. I love Aspen and the 
people there. It is a beautiful place, but it is no secret that it is 
home to very many wealthy elites and environmentalists. I have no 
problem with Representative Udall in choosing the elite and anti-oil 
crowd over the poor. That is his constituency. But let's be honest 
about the choices we are making around here. Ironically, the local 
governments in Colorado's oil shale areas support oil shale 
development. But it is the wealthy environmentally minded citizens like 
the good people of the not so nearby Aspen who are opposing it.
  I addressed the environmental benefits of oil shale production 
earlier in my remarks, but extreme views are sometimes extremely hard 
to change.
  The American people are not asking for a big appropriation or some 
difficult action by Congress. They are not asking us to give oil 
companies subsidies or environmental loopholes. All they ask is they 
are asking this Congress to stop locking up our domestic oil resources. 
They are asking us to stop relying on foreign governments who are much 
smarter than we are about developing their own oil resources. They are 
asking us to find more oil and use less oil, and that is our theme over 
here because it is true, it is right, and it should be followed.
  Let's be honest about why the Senate has brought up this amendment 
today, this LIHEAP amendment. It is because the Democrats are trying to 
please the anti-oil extremists by not allowing any votes on oil 
drilling or on appropriations bills or on development of our oil shale 
lands where we have at least 3 trillion barrels of oil--about 2 
trillion of which, most experts say, are recoverable.
  At the same time, the Democrats must pretend they have not sold out 
the poor by their policies that force high gas prices. I am not 
inclined to play their political game and support their effort to shift 
the debate away from unlocking our Nation's energy potential and I am 
particularly not inclined to support this vote, because this proposal 
busts the budget while not providing any additional benefit to the 
LIHEAP program.
  As I have said before, the LIHEAP program has a $100 million surplus 
right now. And when we pass the continuing resolution either in 
September or October, it will carry the same program over for the next 
year. There is no problem at all with regard to the LIHEAP or the low-
income energy proposal we already have in law that has a $100 million 
surplus.
  So this is a sham. And it was a shame today to see that happening on 
the floor of the Senate, when we could be addressing the fact that we 
have it within our own power to develop our own resources to bring down 
the price of gas so the poor will not be spending up to 50 percent of 
their income on gas just to stay alive.
  This is a joke. I hear the lamentations over there like they really 
care about solving the energy crisis. Come on. They are dominated by 
the anti-oil extreme environmentalists whom they are afraid to buck. If 
you look at the facts and if you look at what is going on and you look 
at what we can do if we were allowed to, it is embarrassing. Some of 
our good Democratic friends would vote for offshore oil drilling. I 
think a number of them would vote to develop our oil shale knowing that 
could mean a great future for our people. And literally, with the high 
price of oil today, it could very well be the answer. I know some of 
them really would like to develop our oil resources in our country 
today. There may even be some who, having thought it through, are 
willing to develop ANWR. Now we find that there are 98 billion 
potential barrels of oil up there in the Northwest. Are we going to 
continue to sit on our hands and spend $700 billion of our Treasury for 
overseas oil when we have it within our means to alleviate that?
  That is what they are arguing. I care for every Democrat on the 
floor, every Democrat on the other side. I work with them all the time. 
I try to bring us together. But on this issue, they plain cannot break 
through the stranglehold these extreme environmentalists have on them 
and allow us to develop our own resources so that the poor are not left 
holding the bag, which is where they are right now. It is not just the 
poor, it is everybody in America who is paying $4-plus per gallon of 
gas. Look at this woman's poster on this chart: ``My family needs 
affordable energy.'' They should have the word on there ``now.''
  ``Food or fuel, do not make me choose.''
  ``Congress needs to act.'' There ought to be a word ``now'' there.
  Frankly, while we develop the oil resources, if we are permitted to 
do it, if our colleagues will wake up on the other side, and let us go 
forward and get this done, we will develop wind, solar, geothermal, 
solar thermal, we will develop not only hybrids but plug-in hybrid 
cars. No one on this side has said no to that. We've been promoting 
alternatives over here.
  In our Utah papers today was a little company in Utah called Raser 
Technologies that will have a truck, and they are talking about fleets 
of trucks that can get up to 140 miles per gallon. These would be plug-
in trucks with up to 140 miles a gallon. Tesla Motors has developed a 
car that gets 120 miles per gallon. My Clear Act that we passed in the 
2005 Energy bill provides for an accentuation of hybrid vehicles. It 
gives incentives to do that--not just hybrid vehicles but alternative 
fuel vehicles and alternative fuel infrastructure. You have seen the 
ads, you have seen the Honda ad talking about a fuel-cell vehicle they 
have already developed. What does that mean? It is a hydrogen vehicle. 
Nuclear power is one of the ways we can produce a lot of hydrogen in 
this country. But we have stopped nuclear development for so long now 
that we do not have the hydrogen to be able to service those. We can 
put those vehicles out within the next 5 to 10 years, and Americans 
could be driving them. There is not one drop of pollution, not one 
ounce of pollution in all of those vehicles. But we cannot get the 
hydrogen because we do not have nuclear power and some of the other 
power we have to have. It is going take time to get us there. In the 
interim, meantime, we have to have oil.

[[Page 16588]]

  The last time I heard, as I have said many times on this floor and 
otherwise, our cars, our trains, our planes, our ships, our trucks--
they run on oil. Until we can get all of these other things going, we 
need to have oil. And we have it within our power to be able to have 
oil domestically so that we are not throwing $700 billion away every 
year and funding some people who are our enemies.
  That is what is amazing to me, that some are so locked up with these 
extremists that they cannot--they know it is true, but they cannot do 
anything to promote any oil development. There is something terribly 
sick about that in a body this important. Should not this body be brave 
enough to do its best in the interests of our country to create more 
energy and use less as we develop all of these other alternative forms?
  They have even distorted T. Boone Pickens' words when he said we 
cannot drill ourselves out of this problem. He did not mean we should 
not be drilling; he said we need to do all of these things. That is his 
pitch. That is his energy program. He happens to be right. But until we 
get all of those other alternative forms going, and these alternative 
vehicles, we have to have oil, and we will continue to need oil. 
Without it, the people who are left the most poor, the people who are 
left without, the people who will struggle the most are the poor. I do 
not understand why my colleagues cannot see that. I do not understand 
it because they claim to be for the poor. But these extremists take 
precedence over the poor.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________