|
|
|
|
SUBSCRIBE
The leading Copyright |
< Back to current issue of Immigration Daily <Back to current issue of Immigrant's Weekly
[Congressional Record: October 28, 2000 (House)]
[Page H11457-H11462]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr28oc00-157]
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 4577, DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH
AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS
ACT, 2001
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer the motion to instruct that
I presented yesterday pursuant to clause 7(c) of rule XXII.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The Clerk will report the
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Ms. DeLauro moves that the managers on the part of the
House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the bill, H.R. 4577, be instructed to insist on the
highest funding level possible for the Low Income Home Energy
Assistance Program in FY 2001 and FY 2002.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young)
each will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
{time} 1100
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we had a very cold winter this past winter, and not only
people in my community, but people all across this country, seniors and
working families, saw their budgets stretched to the limit, making
choices between food and heat and rent and heat and other kinds of
cruel choices that they should not have to make.
Last winter, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP,
provided critical assistance to low-income families facing skyrocketing
home heating oil prices. Eligible families were able to receive
assistance and to defray high heating costs. LIHEAP has proven to be
one of the most important safety nets that this government offers to
low-income families. However, this program is chronically underfunded.
Since 1995, there has been approximately a 35 percent drop in the
number of households that receive LIHEAP assistance, due to a reduction
in funding levels.
Mr. Speaker, winter is just around the corner. These same groups are
confronted again with high energy prices. Home heating oil prices are
projected to rise an estimated 50 percent, and natural gas is expected
to increase 40 percent. Winter bills are likely to increase $290 more
than last winter, which was the warmest on record.
When the average recipient is the poorest of the poor, those
averaging a household income of less than $10,000 per year, these costs
are unconscionable. Households are forced to pay high energy costs,
will be forced to reduce those budgets again, for food, for medicine
and other household necessities. Current funding levels will not
sustain the large rise in energy costs. As a result, additional LIHEAP
funds are needed to allow the program to purchase the same amount of
home energy as was purchased last year.
As elected officials, we do not have the ability to manipulate
weather projections to prevent a harsh winter, though we kind of think
we can do whatever we would like to do. We are in a position, however,
where we can use the offices that we have to increase funding for a
proven program that will provide one of the most basic needs. The
President did the right thing a month ago by releasing $400 million in
emergency LIHEAP funds. I urge my colleagues to do the same: fund
LIHEAP at an adequate level to make sure that those vulnerable groups
have the means to keep themselves warm this winter and next; funded at
the level of $550 million and also, that we forward-fund for $1.6
billion for the year 2002.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the gentlewoman that we do intend
to support this motion to instruct, but before we get to that point and
actually formally accept it, I wanted to point out that we have already
agreed to fund the LIHEAP program above the President's request, not
only for this year, but for next year as well. The LIHEAP program was
fully funded in the preliminary conference agreement at the President's
requested level of $1.1 billion for fiscal year 2001, plus an
additional $300 million for any emergency that might develop. With
recent negotiations, we added another $300 million to this program,
bringing the total funding for fiscal year 2001 to $1.7 billion. We
have agreed to advance-fund another $1.4 billion for fiscal year 2002,
so that States will be able to adequately plan for next year. The
President requested only $1.1 billion for next year, so we again are
above the President's request.
We have also provided an additional $600 million in the fiscal year
2000 supplemental bill this past spring, the same amount requested by
the President for emergency spending in this program for this year
because of the recent increases in fuel prices. So we have really gone
above and beyond the President's request; but we understand the
importance of this program, and we do not want any to suffer through
the winter without adequate heat, and we are not going to allow that to
happen.
I might also say that there are some States where an extremely hot
summer also causes severe problems, and deaths occur because of
excessive heat, and we are not going to allow that to happen. We are
also going to provide cooling assistance for those people who are
exposed to that type of temperature fluctuation.
So the gentlewoman and I, I think, are together on this; and I think
both sides of the aisle are together on this, so we are more than happy
to accept her motion to instruct.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the gentleman; and I might just add that that while, in fact,
the President did put in $1.1 billion, there are a number of us who
also spoke not only with the majority party here, but also with the
President about increasing those dollars, because of the fact that,
particularly those of us who in the Northeast and some other places
where we have extremely cold winters, that, in fact, what we needed to
do was to see those numbers increased.
The other reason why we have moved in this direction is because, in
fact, over the years, this program has been dreadfully undercut in
terms of costs, and there has also been the reluctance to forward-fund
to the following year, which is critically important in order for us to
move forward.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr.
Sanders).
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time, and I thank her for bringing forth this very, very important
resolution.
It is no secret that in this country we are facing a major energy
crisis. It is no secret that the price of home heating oil, propane,
kerosene, natural gas has been increasing very, very substantially. It
is also no secret that we are the richest country in the history of the
world, and that it would be an absolute outrage if any senior citizen,
if any low-income American went cold this winter or had to take funds
from their food budget in order to pay the heating bill. This is
America, and elderly people should not go cold or should not go hungry.
Last month, I authored two letters signed by over 100 Members of
Congress, including 20 Republicans, and the first letter urged the
President to immediately release $400 million in emergency LIHEAP
funding to deal with the energy crisis we are currently facing, and I
am grateful that the
[[Page H11458]]
President did that. The second letter urged Congress to increase
funding for LIHEAP by 50 percent, from $1.1 billion to $1.65 billion
for both fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2002, and that is what we are
discussing here right now.
The issue is one of priorities. There are people in the Congress who
have voted for huge tax breaks for the richest 2 percent of the
population. If people are prepared to vote for tax breaks for
millionaires, we should be absolutely certain that no one in America
goes cold this winter. Let us substantially increase funding for LIHEAP
and ease the minds of elderly and lower-income Americans that this
winter will not be a brutal one.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), who is chairman of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I, of course, rise in support of the Low-Income Energy
Assistance Program, LIHEAP, that provides badly needed Federal energy
assistance to the poor through funds to the States, permits States to
help low-income individuals pay home heating or cooling bills, and pay
for the low-cost weatherization of their homes.
LIHEAP is a critical lifeline for low-income families, individuals
with disabilities, and senior citizens. We have worked to ensure that
the lifeline is strong enough to help those who are unable to afford
the costs of heating their homes through the severe winter months and
the costs of cooling their homes through the sweltering summer months.
In fiscal year 1999, 3.4 million households received help with their
heating bills, and 748,000 households received winter crisis aid. In
addition, cooling aid was provided to an estimated 480,000 households,
summer crisis aid to 194,000 households, and weatherization assistance
to 87,000 households.
It is important to keep in mind that the House already voted to
appropriate $1.4 billion for 2001; and as the chairman said, the
appropriators have gone well above what the President has requested. We
have done our duty.
Now, it is irresponsible, however, for this administration, for 8
years, to fail to develop a coherent energy policy that would have
addressed these skyrocketing costs associated with continued reliance
on foreign oil. Would it not have been more appropriate for our
Democrat colleagues to join with us in calling on this administration
to get its collective head out of the sand on our long-term energy
needs? As good as LIHEAP is in providing assistance, it is needed
because fuel costs are not kept in check. Our fuel costs have not been
kept in check because this administration will not come to terms with
the long-term energy problems we continue to face.
So, today we have before us a short-term fix for a very long-term
problem.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute and 15 seconds for
a question for the chairman.
Mr. Speaker, in the gentleman's remarks, did he say included in the
appropriations bill, which I understand we have not come to a vote on
that bill yet, but that there was the $1.65 billion in forward-funding
for the year 2002?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. DeLAURO. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, what I said was, and let me
double-check that, we have agreed to advance-fund $1.4 billion.
Ms. DeLAURO. So that it is not the $1.65 billion that would bring it
up to the same level we are talking about?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. No, if the gentlewoman will again yield, it is
$1.4 billion. The President requested only $1.1 billion, so we went
$300 million over the President's request.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, we are asking for 2001, and as I understand
it, the gentleman said it was $1.7 billion for the year 2001. That must
have been something that just happened, because it was not at that
level earlier. But I am talking about the year 2002 in forward-funding,
it is $1.4 billion.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will yield,
that is correct; and this is the amount that the administration agreed
to and the minority agreed to.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman said $1.4 billion?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Ms. DeLAURO. Well, we are asking for $1.6 billion.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 10 seconds to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley).
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut
(Ms. DeLauro) for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join the gentlewoman in calling on the
Congress to appropriate $1.65 billion this year and next year for the
Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program.
Mr. Speaker, as many of my colleagues here today can tell us, there
is a winter fuel crisis looming on the horizon; and we need to act, and
we need to act immediately. With energy prices rising at record levels
all over the Nation, we need to ensure that our most vulnerable
citizens are able to get the heating oil that they need. The LIHEAP
program helps seniors, helps working low-income families heat their
homes in the winter and cool their homes in the summer.
Mr. Speaker, without this assistance, many Americans would be forced
to choose between heating and eating. Mr. Speaker, no one should ever
have to make that choice. Because of OPEC's production cuts, our oil
stocks are 30 million barrels below what they were last year, and even
last year's supply was much too little.
{time} 1115
It is no surprise that as a result of that low stock that the prices
are as high as they are.
Before senior citizens have to choose between buying groceries and
paying their utility bills and before families discover that they
cannot keep their children warm enough, my Republican colleagues need
to act. For these people, heating their homes is not a luxury, Mr.
Speaker. It is really a matter of life and death.
It is a tremendous program. It is a very important program, but it is
woefully underfunded. For the past 3 years, we have funded LIHEAP at
the same flat level; and, Mr. Speaker, as anyone in Massachusetts can
tell my colleagues, that level has not kept pace with either inflation
or fuel costs.
As a result, for the last 3 years, fewer and fewer eligible families
have received assistance. If nothing changes, about 10 percent of the
people who need help will get help. It is time this Congress acted to
make sure people receive the LIHEAP help that they so desperately need,
and I urge congressional appropriators to recognize how important
LIHEAP is by including $1.65 million in this fiscal year.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. English).
Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida
(Chairman Young) for yielding the time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise as a long-time strong supporter of the LIHEAP
program to support this motion. LIHEAP, indeed, has been underfunded
for many, many years, and it is an important priority for this year to
put more funding into LIHEAP.
Let me reiterate the point that the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Young) has already made, under the President's budget, he had proposed
only to fund LIHEAP to the tune of $1.1 billion, plus $300 million for
emergency funding. The position that had been worked out on our side of
the aisle with some collaboration was that instead, we would put in
$1.4 billion for the LIHEAP program, plus $300 million for emergency
funding.
Mr. Speaker, I think there is a strong case to be made for increasing
beyond the $1.4 billion. But let us understand what is really at work
here. As the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) noted, one of
the real problems here is that we have a failed energy policy in this
country.
We are anticipating this winter that energy costs are going to go
through the roof; and that is going to have a huge impact on low-income
households, seniors and others are going to be forced to choose between
heating and eating, as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley)
noted. That is because not only have we underfunded LIHEAP, but also
because we have not placed regulatory policies that are antiproduction.
[[Page H11459]]
We need to tackle this problem from a number of different directions.
Yes, let us increase LIHEAP funding; but that in, itself, is no excuse
for not having an energy policy in this country.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say that one of the things that often does not
come out in these debates is when people just make flat-out statements
about energy policy in this country. The fact of the matter is, in
1995, the Republican majority in this body cut the weatherization
programs by about 50 percent. They continually underfund any kind of
research and development into energy alternatives, biomass, wind,
solar, et cetera; and then come out and talk about an energy policy.
These are very, very big pieces of an energy policy, and which they
have continuously, continuously undercut the President's request and
other Members' request for these things.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr.
Baldacci).
Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) for this resolution and for yielding me the
time; and her leadership on these issues are greatly important as we
address them on a national stage.
The first thing I would like to address is the issue about funding.
The $1.6 billion that is being discussed in this resolution and the
$1.4 billion that was forward funding leaves a gap of $200 million,
whether it was in the President's budget or it was in the negotiations
or the discussions.
The reality is people are paying $77 more per month higher than
normal bills and, on average, are going to pay $464 for the season
because more people are asking for the assistance in Maine. 50,000
Maine households, 50,000 Maine families were given the help they needed
to make ends meet. So the explosion in the numbers utilized, the cap
agencies that have been trying to take the applications have a waiting
list as long as you can see; and we are here not funding adequately to
the level that we are funding this year.
Mr. Speaker, recognizing that, on average, families are going to be
paying $602 more for a heating season. In reference to an energy
policy, I think it is highly ironic because every year the
administration tries to raise the fuel efficiency standard in
automobiles, there has always been a congressional earmark to prevent
it from happening.
When we tried to establish a Northeast Heating Oil Reserve, the
leadership on the other side did not support it, dragged their heels,
and did not even give the President the authority to release from the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And I would argue, as a Northeasterner and
many Northeasterners pay attention to fuel oil prices, it was almost
reaching $40 a barrel when the President announced he was going to
release from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and the prices are now
$31 or $32 a barrel.
So the actions that the President and the administration have been
able to take through executive action have had an impact. The amount of
money that has gone for emergency assistance has been helpful. It is
now Congress' part, yet again, to do its responsibility in adequately
funding LIHEAP to make sure that not only forward funding but forward
funding to the levels that are necessary, and anybody that does not
think the prices are going to increase is just fooling themselves.
As a friend of mine used to say, they go up by telegraph but they
come down by pony express; and if we do not recognize that we have to
adequately fund it this year, then we are just fooling ourselves and
putting it off for next year. I think together we should recognize that
heating one's home, whether in Maine or anywhere else, is not a luxury.
At every level, local, State and Federal, public servants should take
the steps that are necessary to ensure that not a single resident, not
a single resident is left out in the cold, and we should complete our
work here today on the House floor.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I take this additional time to say one of the reasons
that it has taken us so much time to conclude these negotiations is
they cannot take yes for an answer. We agreed to this motion to commit.
I said we are at $1.4 billion, which was the request of the minority
and the President; and we agreed to the $1.4 billion.
Now my colleagues are moving the goal post again. Now my colleagues
are going to go to $1.6 billion. We are going to agree to the $1.6
billion. But then are my colleagues going to come back and go to $1.8
billion and $1.9 billon?
Why do we not do this all at one time and save the time for
negotiation?
On gas prices, the great political move of releasing from our
Strategic Petroleum Reserves was simply that, political, because, first
of all, it was about worth a day and a half of our consumption in the
United States.
But let me tell my colleagues what happened. The oil was sold to a
company who bought the oil and then turned around with a nice big
profit and sold it again before it got to the refinery and the
consumer.
Now, how did that affect those of us who put gasoline in our
vehicles? It did not affect me. And I do not think it affected anybody
in this Chamber, because when I buy gas and the people in my
neighborhood buy gas, the price of gasoline did not go down one penny
since the release of the oil reserve, maybe others in other parts of
the country have better news than that.
But I can tell my colleagues that my constituents did not save even a
penny a gallon on the release, the political release, of that strategic
fuel oil reserve.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Goss), my distinguished colleague, the chairman of the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Young), my friend and colleague, the distinguished chairman of the
Committee on Appropriations for affording me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate him; and I want to congratulate
the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) for working in a
bipartisan way to deal with what has actually provided some relief for
some people who have need.
I think this is Congress doing its thing. I think we are, in fact,
rescuing the administration from some bad policy consequences that have
taken place. I think it is good that the American people can look and
see that here we are on a Saturday focusing on these kinds of problems
and responding to them in a very, very positive way especially, I would
also say, in a bipartisan way.
I think that one of the things that has been addressed slightly here,
and I have heard a little so far in the debate on this about the
underlying problem, heating oil is not something we have just
discovered and the need for it and the need for it on an affordable
basis.
We have debated for a long time how we go about providing affordable
heating oil. Incidentally, coming from Florida, we are interested in
low-cost energy as well because we have a lot of senior citizen who
need to have some climate control. When it gets very hot in the summer,
we have the reverse problem. And we actually do need to provide air
conditioning for some of those folks, sadly enough we have death in
this country during hot spells as we all know, and providing
appropriate air conditioning is an equal cost.
I come from New England, so I understand the LIHEAP problem. But I
live in Florida and proudly represent the southwest coast of Florida,
the lower part of it; and I understand the other problem as well. We
have to provide an answer for the whole problem. That gets us to the
energy policy.
I honestly believe that we do not have a comprehensive consistent
energy policy that works. I am afraid that if we had an energy policy,
it would have been confounded by what is now a clearly failed foreign
policy in the Middle East, I am sorry to say. I am sure we are all
sorry to say that.
I know that the Secretary of Energy, Secretary Richardson, who is a
fine man, a former colleague of ours, has gotten up and announced that
the administration was indeed caught asleep at the switch on their
energy policy. I think I am using his words, maybe it was caught
napping or asleep or something. But anyway, he basically said they had
been inattentive. They had not done their job, and he is right.
I noticed that there was some talk about the release of the surplus
and the
[[Page H11460]]
impact on the marketplace. I think from the cards and letters and
talking to the people I talk to and representing the people I
represent, nobody noticed that we had any relief at the gas pump.
I think my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) is
right, if there was any relief, we sure did not see it. I do not know
who else did.
Apparently, it did not help the people with the LIHEAP heating cost
problem in New England much either. Actually, the amount of energy
involved was a day and a half use, a day and a half of consumption. So
that was a gesture, that was not a solution.
Mr. Speaker, I think that it is worth noting that just yesterday,
Saddam Hussein manipulated the oil market price again; and that has a
bigger consequence than anything that the executive branch has done so
far to solve the oil crisis and the LIHEAP concerns that we are talking
about here this morning.
Now, most Americans when they go out in the morning, they want to
turn the key in their car; and they want their car to start. I know
that the candidate of choice from our friends across the aisle is
suggesting that somehow when we turn our car key that our car is going
to come running into life and start and take us to work on some kind of
new magic technology that has not been invented yet, so that we are not
going to need oil and gas and internal combustion engines.
Well, that is fine, but I have to go to work today and tomorrow and
the next day; and that magic technology is not here. Until it is here,
thank you, we need to find affordable oil.
Mr. Speaker, we have talked about what happened in places like
Chicago, how the regulations of the EPA confounded the price of
gasoline, how the infrastructure failure and the refineries failed to
be able to provide for the marketplace demand. All of these kinds of
things have come together and we are not talking about that. We are
talking about, there is a problem, Government handout.
I think the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) was on a correct path,
when he suggested that if $1.4 billion is not enough, then $1.6
billion, $1.8 billion. Where does this end? This ends in providing
socialized, free oil for everybody in America. Great idea.
They tried it in Russia, the most corrupt systematic problem of the
Soviet command marketplace was probably the gas pump and it still is.
So that is not the solution.
We need an energy policy; and I hope our friends across the aisle
will help us encourage the next administration, whichever side it is
on, of developing a good energy policy. I would point out I think those
who are aware of the oil and gas industry might be able to do better
with an energy policy, and I would suggest that America might be well
served by having some people who know about energy making decisions
about energy.
Mr. Speaker, the other point that is sort of curious to me is that I
have heard some talk about people being in the pocket of oil and gas.
Oil and gas is what we need. That is what we are out there trying to
find right now.
{time} 1130
If there is anybody that doubts it, do not go to the gas station when
one runs out of gas. Wait for the next solution to one's car. Then see
how far down the road one gets.
So I am very happy that this has come forward. I think we need to
find a realistic underlying solution to energy policy. In the meantime,
it is entirely appropriate that Congress, in a bipartisan way with
Republican leadership, is providing relief. I congratulate the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Young).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I think this all sounds well and good, and it is very
nice and a very nice speech. But let us take a look at the facts. Since
the 1980s, there has been unprecedented attack on energy conservation
programs by the United States Republican Party.
Reagan-Bush repeatedly proposed to zero out energy efficiency and
renewable energy programs. Quite frankly, it is their legacy,
shortsighted energy policy that has put the gas pump prices as high as
they are today. My colleagues refused to invest in energy independence.
This year alone, Republicans cut renewable energy research $106 million
below the President's request in the Energy and Water bill; it was $211
million in the President's request for energy research in the Interior
bill.
I mentioned before 50 percent cut in the important weatherization
assistance programs. Not too long ago, 35 Republicans last year,
including the major leaders of their party, wanted to cut and abolish
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
I might add that this was one of the first Republican proposals on
energy policy when they took the majority was to kill the Low Income
Home Energy Assistance Programs, the same families that are trying to
pay for their heating bills and their cooling bills which they talk
about today. They also wanted to count LIHEAP payments as income for
the purposes of determining assistance on their food stamps.
They have not been for an energy policy. They have not been for the
LIHEAP program. So the speeches sound nice, but the facts are there.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Dingell).
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) for this motion. I want to urge my colleagues
to support it.
But I want to say a few words about energy policy. I keep constantly
hearing from the other side of the aisle, and I say this more in sorrow
than in anger, that this country needs an energy policy. The simple
fact of the matter is we have an energy policy. That energy policy is
the energy policy that was crafted by Mr. Reagan, by Mr. Bush, and by a
group of Republican Presidents, with the support of their Republican
colleagues in this Chamber and in the other Chamber.
The simple fact of the matter is, it is a free market policy. It is
one which says, let the market go to whatever levels that it will go
to, to rise or to fall, without government interference. That is the
energy policy of the United States.
To implement that energy policy, which I think is probably, in good
part, unwise, my Republican colleagues have sought at different times
to cut money for SPR, to sell off SPR. It has shown itself in budget
and appropriation actions led by my Republican colleagues.
They have also opposed energy conservation measures, the use of
alternative fuels and programs which would enable this country to move,
not in absolute terms totally towards independence, but at least in
good part.
It should be noted that it is not long back that my Republican
colleagues were criticizing SPR as taking oil out of one hole in the
ground and putting it in another hole in the ground.
More recently, they have come out and have criticized SPR and have
tried to cut back on it. They have tried to sell it off. They reduced
the amount of money which we have put into this thing. They have
generally been critical of that program.
Having said this, the policy is there. It is a policy that was
crafted by Reagan, by Bush, and by their Republican colleagues up here.
It is a policy which does not consider the good needs and the important
concerns of this country, to have a ready supply of emergency oil
available through SPR. It is also a policy which does not consider the
need to have conservation measures in place functioning and working.
My Republican colleagues over there have consistently sought to
prevent this country from having fuel efficiency standards for
appliances, for refrigerators, for water heaters, for air conditioners.
The curious thing about that opposition is that it was done in
opposition to the policies that were stressed by that industry, which
recognizes, not only their social responsibility to have a good energy
use in the appliances which they create, but also that the country
needs that kind of thing because it is necessary for the conservation
of energy and for the readiness of the United States in times of
crisis.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
[[Page H11461]]
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to join others in giving credit to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentlewoman from Connecticut for
really, in effect, working together to see that the purpose of this
resolution has been achieved. I think that everybody is clear that this
particular item will come out of the conference. So our effort here
today to instruct the conferees will have incredible success, Mr.
Speaker, since we know that this has already been done.
But we have to be here today for some purpose as we wait for the
President to come back from California, maybe in Florida next, but we
are waiting for him to come back from California now. We are waiting
for White House negotiators to reengage. We have to be here, so we may
as well be here to talk about some issue.
I have the highest, highest regard for the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Dingell). It has been an honor to be able to serve with him on the
Committee on Commerce, to see his great understanding of the rules and
traditions of the House, and to try to, just by watching him, learn
from some of that understanding of what we do and how we do it.
I am sure he is also aware that we have not had a Republican
President for the last 8 years. So how the energy policy of the country
is still reflective of that is a surprise to me.
But I was also surprised when the Department of Energy could not
secure our nuclear codes. I was surprised when they could not maintain
our most important and critical security information. So maybe I am
just here to be surprised.
I think taxpayers, voters, people who are at the gas pump understand
that a Department of Energy that cannot watch those two briefcases is
likely not to have its eye very closely on the price at the gasoline
pump. That is what has happened there.
While we are here, though, talking about issues that are already
accomplished in terms of the additional money for LIHEAP, it is going
to happen, I would like to take just a minute to talk about something
that has not been done yet; and that is to encourage the President when
he does return from California, and he does get the tax bill we passed
this week, to sign that tax bill.
That tax bill is likely to be, I would almost bet will be the last
opportunity we have in this Congress to vote on tax relief, in all
likelihood the last opportunity we have to vote on Medicare
adjustments. How this President could let that tax bill go unsigned and
even, in fact, veto the bill would be something hard for the American
people to understand.
The message we got on Tuesday, interestingly, did not use the word
veto. In fact, it carefully did not use the word veto. When the bill
was ready to be voted on on Wednesday, we get another letter that says,
like all tax relief, it is just somehow not quite good enough. They
were for all for these tax cuts in theory, but they are never for a
single one of these tax cuts in practice.
I hope the President carefully rethinks that, looks at the pension
modernization and things that relate to both pensions held by union
members, the 415 issue, small businesses that really are hampered today
in offering pension protection to their associates and employees. This
bill opens the door for small business to be able to compete with big
business in offering pensions.
It expands the IRA amounts in a way that begins to catch IRA
contributions up with what has happened since IRAs were first enacted.
In terms of Medicare, there is tremendous help for seniors in Medicare,
more help for rural hospitals, more help for rural nursing homes, long-
term care. Tax credits are given in this bill and should be extended to
the American people. The Medicare provisions lower out-of-pocket costs.
They put more doctors in emergency rooms, more ambulances in rural
areas.
I hope the President reconsiders his veto threat, looks at this bill
again, and gives the kind of relief and kind of Medicare assistance
this bill gives.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, might I inquire as to the time
remaining on both sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Young) has 11 minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms.
DeLauro) has 14 minutes remaining.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds. The gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) who was speaking, it might be interesting to
note that just last year voted to abolish Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
Someone who was concerned about our national security ought to be
concerned about the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter).
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut
(Ms. DeLauro) for bringing this to our attention.
Mr. Speaker, I know that the original intent of their instruction was
to talk about LIHEAP. We have gone far afield and I am going to join
the field. But I must say that it was a bipartisan coalition of us who
pushed very hard to get the President of the United States to open up
SPR and give up some of the reserve because those of us who live in the
Northeast had gone through a very bad winter last year and this year
looked bad. We had seen people have to go into shelters because they
could not afford to heat their houses and pay for food. We do not want
to see that happening again.
There was almost a panic starting to set in. Whatever one may think
about the release, it worked, obviously he did not release enough to
see us through the winter. We did not want him to. It did have the
effect of making the OPEC countries reduce the price of oil. It has
been beneficial, and I again thank him for doing that.
Now, with talking about the alternative fuels and lack of energy
policy, I agree we surely do not have one.
I remember the golden age of exploration, under Jimmy Carter's
administration, when we talked about hydropower, geothermal power, wave
power, wind power, photo power, photovoltaic cells, and the grand daddy
of them all, fusion. We were really intent in the United States to
making sure that we would not forever be dependent on foreign oil.
But that came to a screeching halt in 1980 with Reagan, and we went
back to the old way of allowing oil companies to do what they would
with us and, as a previous speakers said, let market forces have their
will with us.
I appreciate the bipartisan support that we have from the Northeast.
I understand that in Florida they have some problems with weather. But
they do not know what it is like when people are freezing.
My city of Rochester last year had more snow than any city in the
Northeast of comparable size. If we want to have an energy policy in
this country, we have got to get back to putting a little money in for
some research and development, or we will have this debate forever.
But there is no doubt and history shows that the Reagan
administration killed renewable energy resources and money for
research.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Mica).
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, this debate on Saturday is not about people
freezing to death or support for or against LIHEAP. Republicans are for
providing energy assistance to low-income, disabled, the poor, elderly.
There is no debate about that question here today.
We are here on Saturday because the other side is in desperate
straits. They are trying to bail out their failing Presidential
campaign, their congressional failing campaigns across the country,
because the American people have finally said that we have had enough.
We have had enough of the partisanship from the other side of using
this arena and putting politics before people.
This is not about low energy assistance. It is a great program. It is
a program that has grown from $50 million during the energy crisis, I
believe, of the 1970s to a $1 billion program. It is a little bit of
difference about helping people, making certain that the program works.
Even the President of the United States, I remember, presented us
with budgets that proposed some trimming, some economy in this program.
But we are for providing assistance to the poor and the disabled.
[[Page H11462]]
But, Mr. Speaker, we are here on a Saturday because they want to put
politics before people. We have HMOs closing around this country. I had
a gentleman write to me and said, ``You all are debating whether I can
sue an HMO. I have been dropped by my third HMO which went under.''
Nursing homes are closing around this country, and the poor and
elderly are being deprived of care because they want to put politics
before people.
{time} 1145
It is sad, but I heard George W. Bush say the other day it is sort of
a fitting end to the close of an era of contentiousness, an era of
disgrace; that they, the American people, I think, want to put behind
them. It is sad that we are here now, and they are using this as a last
stage putting people behind politics. It is not about LIHEAP, it is not
about people freezing to death, it is about changing the direction of
this country.
They had their chance. I heard the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Traficant), a Democrat, say they had 48 years, not mentioning the last
8 years, and they blew it. This is not about LIHEAP. It is about
changing the direction of this country. It is about other issues at the
last minute, like putting provisions in at the last minute to provide
amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.
I was offended today when I heard someone say that we did not know on
the Republican side about immigration. My grandparents were immigrants
and they came in legally to this country, not illegally, and they
worked in the factories of this country and they toiled. But if we
throw in this provision to allow millions, we have cast aside our laws.
What good are our laws? We might just as well tear up our laws and
throw them away.
What does it mean to be an American if the President can cast aside
the very basis for immigration. What made this country great is people
coming here legally under the laws. So this is not about LIHEAP, this
is not about low-energy assistance, it is about other greater issues.
____________________
 Follow @ilwcom Share this page | Bookmark this page The leading immigration law publisher - over 50000 pages of free information!
© Copyright 1995- American Immigration LLC, ILW.COM |