[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 19352-19354]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              SECRET HOLDS

  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I think if you walked down the streets of 
the small towns in North Carolina or Oregon and asked people what the 
``secret hold'' is in the Senate, my guess is you would not find one 
out of a thousand people who would have any idea what this 
extraordinarily important rule is here in the Senate. As the President 
knows, it is possible for any Member of this body to put a hold on a 
bill or nomination, and do it in secret. It is one of the most 
extraordinary powers a Member of the Senate has.
  Senator Grassley and I have led, over more than 5 years, a bipartisan 
effort to try to change it, to have some sunlight over the secret hold. 
We have been fortunate to have the support of Senator Lott and Senator 
Dodd. Senator Byrd has been exceptionally helpful on it. I am very 
hopeful that we will finally get this changed when the Senate resumes 
in January, after the election.
  Senator Frist has been very kind meeting with us. He, of course, 
became the leader and had a lot on his plate besides the question of 
reform of Senate rules. But we saw again last week why this is so 
important. Right in front of the desks here in the front of our 
Chamber, we saw Senators scurrying around, trying to figure out who had 
a hold on their bill; who, in effect, was using in these last few days 
of our proceeding with our work before the election, who was holding up 
legislation they had worked on for months, and in a couple of cases, 
for years.
  I think this is fundamentally wrong. The rules of this body and the 
precedents established, as Senator Byrd has taught us so well, make so 
much sense. But this is a flagrant example of abuse of the rules, to 
have in the last few days of a Senate session Senators scurrying about 
here in the front of the Chamber, trying to figure out who is objecting 
to something they have worked on.
  I think we all ought to be held accountable. If you object to a 
nomination or a piece of legislation, fine. But with that right should 
come accountability. I am very hopeful we can get those rules changed. 
And in the spirit of changing those rules, Senator Grassley and I have 
said we are in effect going to jump-start the process by making it 
clear that if we have an objection to the consideration of a nomination 
or a bill, we are going to come to the floor and announce it.
  For that reason, I want to take a few minutes and outline why I 
publicly have placed a hold on the nomination of Deborah Majoras to 
chair the Federal Trade Commission. She now serves in a recess 
capacity. Of course, the FTC is the agency that is in a very strong 
position to protect the American consumer from price gouging at the gas 
pumps. But instead of doing its job, the Federal Trade Commission, in 
my view, has chosen to waste the taxpayers' money by very recently 
issuing a self-serving report that they use to justify their lack of 
enforcement action to block oil companies from merging.
  In making these comments, I want to make it clear that there are a 
host of reasons why gasoline prices are going up. Worldwide demand is 
certainly a big factor. We see that higher demand is contributing to 
higher prices, particularly in the case of China. Certainly the 
mischief of OPEC is a very significant factor. Certainly the inability 
to put in place the kind of conservation practices our country needs in 
the transportation sector. There are a host of reasons why gasoline 
prices have soared. But the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), our 
independent body that audits these kinds of issues, said in an 
important recent study that the oil industry mergers the Federal Trade 
Commission keeps approving are a significant factor in why gasoline 
prices are so high.
  In fact, the GAO found that the oil industry mergers that went 
through in the 1990s increased concentration in the oil industry 
significantly and increased gasoline prices for consumers by as much as 
7 cents per gallon on the west coast of the United States.
  Let us acknowledge there are a variety of reasons that gasoline 
prices have soared. But the GAO has found in an independent review that 
the policies of the Federal Trade Commission with respect to mergers 
have hammered the consumer, especially on the west coast of the United 
States, and in effect caused a shift of dollars out of the pockets of 
the consumer and into the pockets of those oil companies that benefit 
from these mergers.
  In effect, the Federal Trade Commission again and again has tried to 
offer excuses for their inaction on this oil company merger issue. In 
their recent report, the Federal Trade Commission tries to excuse their 
inaction by claiming that gasoline prices at the pump are determined by 
world oil prices.
  Again, no one disputes that can be a factor. But the record shows 
there is a lot more to this than the Federal Trade Commission's 
simplistic analysis.
  Yesterday, for example, the price of a barrel of oil soared to $49 
per barrel, just short of the all-time highest price

[[Page 19353]]

on record. Yesterday's price is 15 percent higher than the price of oil 
was just before the Memorial Day weekend.
  In effect, there is a 25-percent difference in recent gasoline prices 
that cannot be explained by the Federal Trade Commission's simplistic 
analysis. Clearly, there is a lot more going on in U.S. gasoline 
markets than can be accounted for by world oil prices alone.
  In the hearings we held in the Commerce Committee, I have repeatedly 
cited the need on a bipartisan basis to make the case for why we need 
the Federal Trade Commission to do a better job of watchdogging these 
oil company mergers and protecting the consumer against anticompetitive 
practices.
  I have asked repeatedly about this new study from the GAO. I have 
asked about the fact that the FTC issued a report which I think vastly 
oversimplifies the reasons why gasoline prices are so high and is an 
excuse to look the other way on this issue of oil company mergers. But 
the GAO is not alone in documenting how the Federal Trade Commission 
regulators have been missing in action when it comes to protecting the 
American consumer at the gas pump.
  Since 2001, according to Bloomberg News, oil industry mergers 
totaling $19.5 billion have been unchallenged by the Federal Trade 
Commission. Bloomberg reports also that these unchecked mergers have 
played a role in contributing to the highest gasoline prices in the 
past few decades.
  According to our review and the Federal Trade Commission's own 
records, the agency imposed no conditions on 28 of 33 oil mergers since 
2001.
  You can see the result of the Federal Trade Commission's inaction on 
this issue at gas stations in Oregon and across the country.
  Nationwide, the GAO found that between 1994 and 2002, gasoline market 
concentration increased in all but four States. As a result of Federal 
Trade Commission merger policies, 46 State gasoline markets now face 
significant concentration which is almost double what we faced in 1994.
  The Federal Trade Commission, oil industry officials, and consumer 
groups in effect now agree that in concentrated gasoline markets--and 
there are 46 gasoline markets, and I represent one of those markets--
the oil companies do not need to go out and directly collude in order 
to raise prices. They don't need to go off to a steakhouse somewhere 
and sit down and in effect set the prices. The Federal Trade 
Commission's own general counsel said recently:

       It may be possible in selected markets for individual firms 
     to unilaterally increase their prices.

  So what you have is the Federal Trade Commission's general counsel in 
effect admitting that the oil companies in these concentrated markets 
have so much clout that in specific instances, they can price gouge 
with impunity.
  Despite all of the evidence that gasoline markets around the country 
have become concentrated, and in these concentrated markets, individual 
firms can raise prices and extract monopoly profits, the Federal Trade 
Commission sits on its hands.
  The General Accounting Office, in a May 2004 report, identified two 
major changes that even occurred in the gasoline market as a result of 
the wave of oil industry mergers and increased concentration during the 
1990s.

       First, the availability of generic gasoline, which is 
     generally lower priced than branded gasoline, had decreased 
     substantially. Second, refiners now preferred to deal with 
     large distributors and retailers which has motivated further 
     consolidation in distributor and retail markets. The net 
     results of these changes are likely to be higher prices and 
     fewer choices for consumers when they purchase gasoline, 
     especially in the concentrated markets. We have seen almost a 
     doubling of the markets that are concentrated in recent 
     years.

  Despite the troubling findings of the General Accounting Office's 
report, Deborah Majoras has given no indication that she would in any 
way change the Federal Trade Commission's review of oil mergers. My 
sense is that Ms. Majoras hopes the General Accounting Office report 
disappears, that somehow Members of the Senate, who are busy and have 
lots of assignments, are going to go on to other things and are going 
to forget about this report which documents that the policies of the 
Federal Trade Commission are hammering the people I represent in Oregon 
and up and down the west coast.
  As far as I could tell, when she is not trying to ignore the General 
Accounting Office report, she has taken steps to discredit the work of 
the General Accounting Office as she did in a letter to me.
  An additional reason for my concern is that at virtually every 
opportunity, Deborah Majoras passes on the opportunity to even use her 
office as a bully pulpit to say that she is concerned about this issue. 
When she came for her confirmation hearings, she didn't even mention 
high gasoline prices among the issues she thought warranted 
consideration in her opening statement.
  She didn't provide one significant new action she would take to 
address this urgent consumer issue. On August 16, Ms. Majoras received 
a recess appointment, and in the weeks since her recess appointment, 
there is no evidence that anything is going to change. As far as I can 
tell, the evidence indicates the campaign of inaction on competitive 
prices in the gasoline markets will continue. For example, Deborah 
Majoras announced that her priority as Federal Trade Commissioner is 
going to be involved in the national campaign on obesity. Well, I don't 
take a back seat to anybody in terms of fighting this problem. In fact, 
Senator Frist and I have introduced legislation directed at the growing 
problem of childhood obesity. I hope Deborah Majoras will testify at 
the hearing to be held the first week in October on the Frist-Wyden 
legislation to tackle this serious problem of obesity.
  But I come to the floor to say one reason I will continue the public 
hold I have on the Majoras appointment is that as she works on the 
important issue of obesity, she also needs to turn her attention to 
those oil companies feeding off American consumers' hard-earned money. 
As far as we know today, on her watch it is going to be business as 
usual in the gasoline market, with more oil company mergers, more 
concentration of oil and gas industries and higher gasoline prices for 
consumers at the pump. In my view, it is hard to find a more important 
consumer protection issue that the Federal Trade Commission has a 
responsibility for than overseeing competitive prices in our gasoline 
markets. High gasoline prices act like a tax on the consumers that 
reduces their purchasing power.
  On average, gasoline prices are 20 cents a gallon higher than they 
were at this time last year. These higher prices mean a typical family 
is spending $600 more this year to fill the gas tanks in their car than 
they were a year ago.
  Despite the urging that I and other colleagues have done, it has been 
hard to see the administration take any action to give the consumer a 
break from these record-high gasoline prices they have been paying 
throughout the year. I think it is interesting that there was a new 
development with respect to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in the last 
24 hours. In the last 24 hours, the administration announced it is 
negotiating to provide loans of oil from the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve at the request of oil refiners to help keep their refineries 
supplied because of shortages of crude oil supplies in the Gulf of 
Mexico following the recent hurricanes.
  I want to be clear. If there are significant supply shortages that 
can be relieved by the release of Strategic Petroleum Reserve oil, then 
I am all for making that oil available. That is what the Strategic 
Reserve was created to address. But I think it needs to be pointed out 
that this administration has a double standard with respect to using 
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. They are willing to use the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve to help big companies when they are in a jam, but 
they are not willing to use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to help the 
little guy when the little guy is getting clobbered.
  So I very much hope we will see a change in the administration's 
policies with respect to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Let's use it 
when we

[[Page 19354]]

need to help companies, which seems to be the case with respect to the 
situation in the Gulf following the recent hurricanes. But let us not 
have a double standard that says we will use the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve to help the big and powerful and sit on our hands when the 
little guy is getting hammered.
  Let me close simply with one last point with respect to the role of 
the Federal Trade Commission. I intend to keep the public hold on the 
Majoras appointment for as long as it takes, until that time when we 
see changes at the agency that will promote competition in our gasoline 
markets. Ms. Majoras has given no indication at her confirmation 
hearing or since then that she is going to change the Federal Trade 
Commission's oil companies' merger policies, which the GAO found in an 
independent review have increased gasoline prices for consumers.
  Ms. Majoras didn't even believe high gasoline prices were enough of a 
problem for consumers to mention them in her opening statement at the 
confirmation hearings. When I and others pressed her at the hearing to 
say what she would do to protect consumers from higher gasoline prices, 
we were not given one example of how to address this urgent issue. She 
subsequently offered the committee a blueprint for inaction. Out of 
seven so-called commitments she wanted to make, three are a 
continuation of the status quo, and three essentially are public 
relations activities. Only one would involve something new--an 
investigation of a refinery closure using a subpoena, which is sort of 
like sending a search party after a horse that was turned loose years 
ago.
  Since her recess appointment more than 4 weeks ago, Ms. Majoras has 
made it clear that protecting consumers from getting gouged at the gas 
pump is simply not a priority.
  For these reasons, I have placed a public hold on the Majoras 
nomination. I intend to continue to object to any unanimous consent 
request for the Senate to consider this nomination, until we see that 
there are going to be some changes at the Federal Trade Commission to 
protect gasoline consumers, particularly the ones I represent on the 
west coast of the United States, who are now getting mugged at the gas 
pump.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________