[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 22933-22935]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                 ENERGY

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, a few months ago, the President signed into

[[Page 22934]]

law an Energy bill that did virtually nothing to prepare America for 
any kind of crisis for a disruption in the oil supply. Now, a few 
months after that new law was signed, a scavenger hunt is underway to 
come up with yet another bill to address the issues that Congress 
ignored in the 2005 Energy bill.
  The problem is that much of the new legislation tracks the 
troublesome trends of the bill that was signed. What I want to do this 
morning is spend a few minutes talking about why I think that is the 
case, why I think this legislation is misguided, and then to suggest 
some alternatives.
  The central problem, in my view, is that this new legislation 
essentially says to these well-stuffed, well-oiled energy lobbies: We 
will give you more than you got. This is on top of the fact that oil 
refiners have seen their profits skyrocket by 255 percent over the last 
year, an extraordinary fact--a 255-percent increase in profits for the 
oil-refining sector. And now we are talking about another piece of 
legislation to subsidize these folks and others who are literally 
swimming in cash today.
  I do not believe that one of Congress's top priorities, after the 
tragedy of Hurricane Katrina, should be to help these special interest 
lobbies that already are swimming in cash.
  There are too many Americans who are far from swimming in those kinds 
of funds. They are still trying to clean up the flood waters. They are 
mucking out their homes in the State of the Presiding Officer, 
Louisiana. They are trying to rebuild from the rubble of south 
Mississippi. Many of them do not have a dime to their name. I believe 
it would be shameful if Congress returns to business as usual writing 
blank checks for these powerful energy lobbies, using the storms in the 
wake of these hurricanes as an excuse, as a Trojan horse, for handouts 
to the powerful energy lobbies in this country.
  Let me outline the exact status of the subsidies that are on the 
books now and what was added in the bill in 2005. Under the laws 
already on the books before the Energy bill was enacted, oil and gas 
industries were on tap to get about $1.4 billion in tax breaks and 
other subsidies for a total of $6 billion in taxpayer subsidies over 
the next 5 years.
  With the Energy bill signed into law, the oil and gas interests will 
get another $2.6 billion of additional tax breaks and subsidies on top 
of what they were already slated to receive. That includes an ability 
to write off up to 50 percent of their costs in the first year, to name 
just one of the special interest breaks that was in the legislation. 
But now we are talking about letting those who have received these huge 
subsidies get another opportunity at the all-you-can-eat buffet.
  So the taxpayers and consumers who are footing the bill for hurricane 
cleanup, paying for tax cuts for some who are extremely affluent, are 
now going to be faced with the prospect of paying for additional 
subsidies for these energy interests.
  Two weeks ago, the House passed legislation to provide additional 
financial subsidies to benefit the oil refining industry. Under the 
House legislation, refineries would get a regulatory risk insurance 
program to cover all the refineries' costs if their production is 
reduced because of a delay in the permitting process.
  There is no limit on the amount of these subsidies for refineries, 
while the refineries get essentially guaranteed cost protection. What 
the Federal Government is essentially doing is pri-
vatizing the gains of these refineries and socializing the risks. There 
is absolutely nothing in the legislation to require refineries to 
protect consumers from the soaring costs they face today.
  In my view, there is no need for these refiners, whose profits 
increased more than 250 percent in the last year, to get even greater 
financial rewards on top of the subsidies they are already getting in 
the brandnew energy law. In effect, what we are talking about is the 
prospect that these energy lobbies will become triple-dippers. They 
already received big subsidies in the old law. Then they received 
additional subsidies in the just-signed legislation.
  We are talking about a third dip, a third round of subsidies, and I 
happen to think that is too much. Even the President said when oil is 
trading at upwards of $55 a barrel the oil companies do not need 
incentives to produce more. When the President, who certainly is not 
hostile to oil interests, says the oil companies do not need a deal 
from the Government, that ought to tell us something.
  With oil selling for what is getting to be close to $70 a barrel, 
Congress should not be giving more taxpayer money away to these energy 
interests.
  What I suggest is two practical steps that Congress ought to look at 
as we consider energy legislation in the days ahead.
  First, I think the Congress should freeze the new subsidies that 
Congress lavished on the oil interests that are now earning record 
profits from record high prices. Nobody is talking about taking away 
what was there before the 2005 law was passed. What was there before 
the 2005 law was passed would remain in place. What I am talking about 
this morning is freezing the new subsidies, the new dollars that 
Congress just passed, despite the fact that the President of the United 
States said it was not even needed. What I would propose by freezing 
those new subsidies is that the Congress redirect those dollars to help 
low-income Americans who are at risk, literally, of freezing in their 
homes this winter.
  For example, the $2.6 billion in new subsidies for oil interests 
could be used to pay for weatherization assistance to more than 1 
million low-income homes, taking basic steps to improve energy 
conservation. Adding insulation and sealing energy-leaking windows and 
doors can help these families reduce their heating bills substantially.
  Congress could help consumers further by using the Federal 
Government's purchasing power to make taxpayer energy dollars go 
further. The Federal Government is the largest consumer of energy in 
the country. The Federal Government could use its substantial 
purchasing power to get some real discounts in the marketplace for the 
Government's energy purchases. These cost savings could be achieved not 
only for direct energy purchases for Federal agencies' power needs but 
especially for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. Instead 
of reimbursing consumers for their sky high energy bills when they come 
due, the billions of dollars spent each year under the Low-Income Home 
Energy Assistance Program could be used up front to acquire lower cost 
energy to help low-income Americans.
  So the question is, Is the Federal Government going to be a smart 
shopper? Is the Federal Government going to use its marketplace clout 
for programs such as the one that serves low-income people to make sure 
that the Government gets more for its money?
  Everybody in the private sector shops that way. They are in a 
position to make volume purchases. They go to the people with whom they 
contract, and they say: We are going to buy a lot of your product, give 
us a deal.
  This is essentially what I am proposing be done for the Low-Income 
Home Energy Assistance Program: the Federal Government use its clout in 
the marketplace, the Federal Government use its purchasing power to get 
discounts for this program and to acquire lower cost energy to help 
low-income Americans.
  The bottom line is our country can do better. I believe we could have 
done better in the Energy bill that was just passed. It seems 
incredible that just a few months after that law was passed and there 
were great celebrations about what a difference it would make, now the 
Congress is back on a scavenger hunt to try to come up with legislation 
that does what should have been done in the first bill.
  The reality is we now have a second chance to do better. I am of the 
view that lives depend on the Congress doing better not just in homes 
where heat is going to be scarce this winter but for generations to 
come.
  When I came to the Senate floor to speak in opposition to the Energy 
bill a few months ago, I was sorry because that legislation failed to 
reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign oil by one drop. It failed to 
reduce the prospects that America would again go to

[[Page 22935]]

war in the Persian Gulf. After 9/11, it became clear that the energy 
policy was a national security issue and reducing our dependence on 
foreign oil had to be a national security priority.
  I am of the view that the great tragedy in the 2005 Energy bill is 
that it essentially ratified pre-9/11 energy priorities. For the longer 
term, Congress should look at smart, probusiness, and proconsumer 
initiatives. I am willing, for example, to look at a limited antitrust 
exemption to let oil companies coordinate the refinery shutdowns 
expressly to keep supplies up and prices down. So there can be plenty 
of opportunities to put together a business and consumer coalition to 
meet the needs of our public.
  I just suggested something that I suspect in the southern part of the 
United States, in the State of Louisiana, would be something that would 
be well received by oil refiners, but I am also saying that at a time 
when refiner profits are up more than 250 percent that we ought to be 
looking at other ideas that really help the consumer.
  When gas prices are topping $3 a gallon and we are seeing these 
increases in home heating prices, we know the public is prepared for 
change. I have laid out a number of areas this morning where change 
would be in the interest of the consuming public and be smart 
probusiness policy, but I think there ought to be more to an energy 
policy than just ladling out tax subsidies. We have done that again and 
again. The Congress just poured on more subsidies in the 2005 bill and 
did absolutely nothing to deal with the crisis that we have seen in the 
last few months.
  So at this crucial time, with the eyes of the country upon us, let us 
look at a fresh energy policy, one that will meet this country's 
national security needs, one that will meet the needs of our consumers 
this winter at a time when they are so vulnerable. And let us learn 
that just handing out subsidies willy-nilly is not going to make the 
real energy problems of this country go away.
  It is no time to further sate the appetites of the entrenched energy 
interests. It is time, and there is a chance now, for a fresh start on 
energy policy. This time, with the next Energy bill, let us do right by 
the people of this country.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________