[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 12] [Senate] [Pages 16582-16583] [From the U.S. 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. [[Page 16583]] 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. ____________________