Making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2006 Part IV

MAKING EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2006 -- Part IV

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. I ask a procedural point for those following this debate.

I ask the Senator from Oregon, it is my understanding that what the Senator is doing is consistent with the Senate rules which allows a Senator to take the floor and offer an amendment. As long as he can stand and offer his amendment and speak to it, he controls the floor, which is what the Senator from Oregon is doing. Many people have seen this depicted in movies and otherwise, but this is the classic element of the Senate procedure, that a Senator can insist on his right to have an amendment voted on. Clearly there is a disagreement in the Senate. Until that disagreement is resolved, as long as the Senator from Oregon can stand, if I am not mistaken--he can correct me if I am wrong--he is asserting his right as a Senator to do so.

Mr. WYDEN. I thank my colleague from Illinois. That is essentially my desire.

What we have seen, particularly in the discussion between the distinguished Democratic leader and the chairman of the committee, is it is the intent of those who oppose this amendment that they will not allow a vote. Not now, not at any point. That is what we have learned as a result of the discussion between the distinguished Senator from Nevada and the distinguished chairman of the committee, for whom I have a great deal of respect but simply disagree with on this point.

We have heard people say, I am asking for special treatment, that I want to go first. That is not the case. I respect the rights of all Senators. I offered the last amendment before the Senate adjourned last night which made my amendment pending this morning. I have asked a variety of times now to work something out with Senator Salazar and the chairman of the committee, the chairman from Mississippi, and that is not possible, so the distinguished Senator from Nevada, Senator Reid, called the question. He basically asked, are we ever going to get a chance to vote. It is clear we will not.

That is very unfortunate. In a few minutes--my friend from Colorado has been here and has been so patient--I will probably take one last crack at seeing if we can protect taxpayers' interests and see if we can work something out to do what the Senate normally does, which is to cluster these amendments. If that is not the case, I could talk until I fell over, frankly, but it is clear the folks who are opposed to this do not want to vote in any way, shape, or form. They are saying at a time of record profits, at a time of record prices, we ought to keep ladling out this money. As the Senator from Illinois said, this is on the people's land. We are talking about oil companies extracting oil not from land they own but from land that belongs to the people of this country.

So a judgment was made in the 1990s, give energy development a break from the price of oil, when the price of oil is low, when production is down. It made sense then. It boosted production in those critical times. However, it certainly does not make sense to argue for a program when the price of oil is over $70 a barrel and you compare that to what we saw when this program originated; the price of oil was $16 a barrel, a fraction of what people are paying, and production was also down at that time.

This comes down to a question of choices. Whose side are you on? Are you on the side of the taxpayer in an instance where the General Accounting Office has documented what a rip-off this program has become or are you on the side of a handful of special interests that have figured out a way to hotwire this special program that gives them such great advantages?

I wish the case were, as the distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator Domenici, has indicated, the problems were with the Clinton administration and then the next administration cleaned them up, but as I read into the record, the problem got worse. It got worse twice. First, as a result of the actions by the Secretary of the Interior; second, as a result of what was done in the energy conference agreement.

By the way, some of what we heard in the energy conference agreement was just preposterous, not from the Senator from New Mexico, but some in the energy conference agreement said: Oh, this oil royalty program has no cost. It doesn't cost anything at all.

Now, I do not know how in the world you argue that when the General Accounting Office and others have talked about billions and billions of taxpayer dollars flooding out the door. But I think it shows to what extraordinary lengths some will go to protect this program, which is such an inefficient use of taxpayer dollars.

My goodness, there are a lot of ways you could use $20 billion to $60 billion. How do you explain you are trying to pay for an emergency spending bill when the Government does not have the money to cover the emergency spending and yet you are still shoveling out billions and billions of taxpayer dollars, at a time when the President of the United States, to his credit, has said we do not need these incentives when the price of oil is over $50 a barrel?

So this has been, for this Member of the Senate, a very unique experience. I wish we could get a vote on this amendment. I think this does a disservice to the taxpayers of this country.

I wish to mention what it means in terms of the globe. I, like all Senators, see the men and women who honor us every single day by wearing the uniform for our country. They put themselves in harm's way. They risk their physical health, their mental health, their well-being, and put their families at risk because they honor us every day by wearing the uniform of the United States. It seems to me the people who wear that uniform and are fighting today on our behalf in Iraq deserve an energy policy that is going to make it less likely their kids and their grandkids are going to be off in the Middle East another time in the next few years in a war with implications for oil. To do that, to make our country's energy secure, we have to stop programs that rip off the taxpayers like this Royalty Relief Program.

Now that I see Senator Domenici here, I say to the chairman, I have tried to indicate in the course of the day that, frankly, one of the best things we have been talking about over the last few years comes from a Senator from your side of the aisle, Mr. Thomas. Senator Thomas makes the important point that we are probably losing something like a third of all the oil from existing wells, and we don't have incentives to go and do that drilling from existing wells.

I have been supporting Senator Thomas because I think it is good for production, and I think it is good for the environment, especially right now, because what we have learned in terms of environmental protection is that you can get more out of existing wells, capturing the gases, what is called sequestration, in order to protect the environment.

So I want it understood by colleagues: One, I want to work in a bipartisan way; two, I think that arguably what Senator Thomas has talked about is one of the best new ideas to get a fresh energy policy that is red, white, and blue. But I do not see how you are going to get incentives for the kind of constructive thing Senator Thomas has been talking about if you are shoveling money out the door for wasteful programs like royalty relief.

So I see the Senator from New Mexico is on his feet. I say to the chairman, the distinguished Senator from Colorado had asked I recognize him first. But let us structure this so the Senator from Colorado can ask his question, and then we will structure this so we can hear from the chairman of the committee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SALAZAR. Through the Chair, I ask permission to ask a question of my colleague from Oregon.

Assuming that in a few minutes or a few hours you give up the floor, which you currently now claim to make the very passionate argument you have been making for the last 4 hours, would it be----

Mr. WYDEN. Five hours.

Mr. SALAZAR. For the last 5 hours, as you have tried to get a vote on this amendment you have offered, would it be in order, then, for us as a Senate to come to some kind of an agreement on how we move forward with the orderly processing of additional amendments that go beyond the amendment you are offering now?

Mr. WYDEN. The distinguished Senator from Colorado has not actually propounded a unanimous consent request, but it is very much my interest in accommodating the Senator from Colorado.

I think, frankly, colleagues, to repeat, for those who are just coming in, after the discussion between Senator Reid and the Senator from Mississippi and the objection that was made by the distinguished chairman of the committee, it is evident that it will not be allowed that there be an up-or-down vote on the granddaddy of all of the subsidy programs for the oil industry.

This is the big one. This is the one that counts. And the Senate will not, as a result of the discussion between the Senator from Nevada and the Senator from Mississippi, be allowing a vote on it. I believe that is a bad deal. It is a bad deal for taxpayers. It is a bad deal for our country. I do not believe that is the way the Senate ought to be doing business. But that is the judgment of the Senate. I respect the judgment of the Senate.

And let us now----

Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, may I ask my colleague from Oregon to yield a minute of time to me while maintaining his right to the floor?

Mr. WYDEN. I certainly want to do that as part of our consent agreement. I think we are winding down to a close.

The Senator from New Mexico is no longer standing, but if he desires to ask a question, I want to give him the opportunity to do it.

Does the Senator from Colorado seek to ask a question?

Mr. SALAZAR. I seek to ask a question and to make a unanimous consent request that following the conclusion of your presentation here that we move forward to the consideration of an amendment I will send to the desk, and to establish also that Senator Conrad from North Dakota be given the opportunity to send an amendment to the desk and to speak on it, as well as I believe there are Senators on the chairman's side who would also like to offer an amendment, including Senator Coburn. So hopefully we could come up with some kind of arrangement that allows us to move forward in an orderly fashion that can then assure that several other amendments can be considered yet this afternoon.

Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. WYDEN. Reserving the right to object.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon still has the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Thank you, Madam President.

I am very interested in getting on with this. I do want to show deference to my good friend, the chair of the full committee, Senator Domenici. So what I would like to do next, before we try to finally work this out, is to, again, consistent with the unanimous consent agreement--if the chair of our full Energy Committee, on which I am proud to serve, would like to be recognized for a question, I would be happy to do that.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I say to the Senator, I have no question at this point. I thought the Senator was getting close to a point where he was going to withdraw his amendment, after which time I was going to speak. If that is not the case, then we will do something else.

Mr. WYDEN. Reclaiming my time, so the Senate is clear, I have absolutely no intention of withdrawing my amendment. But it is evident, as a result of the discussion between Senator Reid and Senator Cochran, that there is no inclination or willingness on the part of some in the Senate for us to do what we customarily do, which is to take up these amendments, Senators talk about them, and after a number of them are talked about, we cluster the votes, we inform Senators of both political parties, and the Senate is held accountable.

I see the distinguished Senator from Virginia here, Mr. Warner, who, again, has seen many more instances of the Senate trying to work its will than I. But I would only say, in the time I have been here, virtually every week the Senate does what I have been seeking, which is that Senators discuss their amendments, they are then clustered, and at some point the Senate has a vote.

I have made it clear I am not interested in being first in line. I am not interested or committed to being part of even the first cluster of votes. That is not asking for special treatment. That is asking that the Senate do what it has done again and again and again. It is the custom of the Senate but apparently will not be the practice that is followed with respect to this sweetheart deal that wastes billions of taxpayer dollars at a crucial time in our country's history.

Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. WYDEN. I am happy to yield for a question.

Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator, while you have been here many hours, I have been here a few this afternoon. This is a very unusual setting. You speak of your rights. We have rights, too. You have the floor. We cannot debate the issue the way things are. If you would like to debate this, I would like to debate it because you have had some free time here to talk about something that is not so.

I have already asked you once, and I will ask you again--I will ask you whether or not--I will ask it a different way: How much do you think the Congressional Budget Office says your amendment--this great amendment that is going to stop all of this thievery--can you tell us how much it is going to yield to the taxpayers of the United States? I will tell you the answer. The Congressional Budget Office says zero.

You understand, this great amendment that has been spoken of, this process that he has--I don't know what it is. It is an amendment that sets a threshold. It sets a threshold that is higher than the threshold that exists that was already established by the Secretary of the Interior.

I don't know how in the world, I ask the distinguished Senator, that is going to yield anything to the people of this country. Maybe you can explain it to us. I believe it is going to yield zero because the amendment is meaningless the way it is drawn. It is not a program. It is not a process. It is an amendment that sets a new threshold, I say to Senator Salazar, a threshold that is not even needed because the Secretary has already set a threshold that does more for the taxpayer than his amendment.

So I don't know what we are down here arguing about. I have been waiting my turn until I cannot wait any longer.

So I have just violated the rules. I didn't ask a question, I gave a speech. I hope you listened. The speech is: The Congressional Budget Office says this grandiose amendment that is going to stop the grandfather of all thievery is going to yield zero dollars to the Treasury of the United States. I assume that means that it is not effective, it does nothing. It does nothing because--I just told you why it does nothing. It sets a threshold that is higher than the existing threshold; therefore, it yields nothing.

I don't know what else we can do. Why should we let you have a vote on that? I am going to offer an amendment to that, a second-degree amendment that is very simple. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to offer a second-degree amendment.

Mr. WYDEN. Reserving the right to object----

Mr. DOMENICI. I withdraw the request and yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon has the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I would like to respond briefly to the Senator from New Mexico, who I thought was going to ask a question. I see he is leaving the floor, but I would first say that if the distinguished Senator from New Mexico thinks what I am proposing is meaningless, I can't figure out why so many people have spent so much time and so much effort trying to avoid a vote on it. I don't get that. If this is so meaningless and so useless, it would seem to me we could have disposed of it about 10:15 in the morning.

It is clear that the reason there has been all this opposition to the amendment is because it really does address a key kind of question, and that is saving taxpayers money. If it were meaningless, we could have gone to a vote hours and hours ago. The people who have pushed the hardest for this program have always tried to do it in the shadows. This program was expanded after midnight in the energy conference committee. The distinguished Senator from New Mexico has left the floor, which is unfortunate because I would like to engage him in a dialog.

All that I have sought, as demonstrated through Senator Reid, is an opportunity to vote on this issue.

To once again deal with the key point the Senator from New Mexico has made, nothing in this amendment says the threshold couldn't be lower for dispensing this money. It simply says we should set an upper level that reflects what the President of the United States has said. If this amendment is as meaningless as the distinguished Senator from New Mexico has said, let's go to a vote. Let's vote on it and save taxpayers money.

The General Accounting Office says this program is going to cost a minimum of $20 billion. If the litigation is successful, it will be $80 billion. While I have great respect for the Senator from New Mexico, his argument that all of this never costs or saves anything is what we have been hearing for years. We were told in the energy conference agreement between the House and the Senate that this program costs taxpayers nothing. Backers of this program in the debate between the House and the Senate said with a straight face that royalty relief costs taxpayers nothing. Now we have heard an argument that an effort to rein in the cost of this program is meaningless as well. I guess because, once again, we are hearing that none of this costs money. It doesn't save any money. I guess this program just happens by osmosis.

That is not what the General Accounting Office says. If the litigation involving this Royalty Relief Program is successful and taxpayers are out $80 billion, the people of this country are going to remember this day. They are going to say that the Senate had a chance on a bipartisan basis to do something sensible, and that is to reconfigure this program to ensure that there is royalty relief when it is needed. The legislation says the President can run the Royalty Relief Program if there is any evidence that it would disrupt supply. The amendment says that if the price goes down, of course, the original rationale for this program, royalty relief could be paid.

This amendment puts in place the kinds of safeguards we need for a changing environment in the energy field. What it doesn't do is continue to write blank checks to a handful of special interests who even the author of the program has now described as getting something and being part of a program that was different than what he intended. This is not somebody who is hostile to the program; this is somebody who wrote the law and said this is not what was intended.

Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. WYDEN. I am happy to yield. I thank the distinguished Senator from Nevada for coming to the floor earlier and trying to get the opportunity for a vote on my amendment.

Mr. REID. Madam President, the Senator from Oregon has clearly established that he will not get a vote on this most important amendment. I am disappointed. There are many disappointed Senators. I am sure there are millions of disappointed Americans. There are a number of Senators here who wish to offer amendments. For lack of a better way of describing this, I reflect back on a time when I was doing something similar to the Senator from Oregon, and Senator Byrd was the leader of the Democrats at the time.

He said to me: Would the Senator yield? And I said yes. He said: How much longer are you going to talk? So I reflect back on those days. I told him I had a goal that I wanted to make. He said: Fine. Shortly thereafter, we went on to other matters.

I am wondering, because we have other Senators on both sides of the aisle to either offer amendments or do some voting, does the Senator have an idea how much longer he has a right to maintain the floor?

Mr. WYDEN. I appreciate the Senator's question, particularly in deference to colleagues on both sides of the aisle and all the help the distinguished leader has given me throughout. I would say that I would stay here all night. I would stay here until they literally had to take me off the floor because I couldn't stay here any longer to save taxpayers billions and billions of dollars on what amounts to the biggest giveaway to the oil industry. This is the one which really counts. Various other programs are a small fraction of the cost of it. I would stay here for as long as it took, if I thought the other side was willing at any point in any kind of fashion to allow an up-or-down vote on whether we are going to be on the side of the taxpayers or whether we are going to continue to side with the oil companies and protect a program which all the independent auditors say is a great waste of money.

But what we have seen over the course of the last 5 1/2 hours is that the Senate is not going to be able on this issue to operate the way it customarily does, where you have amendments debated and discussed and then they are clustered for a vote. As summed up by the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, they think something like this, once again, doesn't cost anything, when everybody who has looked at it independently says it is a huge drain of taxpayer money. I want to protect the middle-class folks and the folks who are hurting, whose taxpayer money flows in to Government and then flows out for this program at a time when the President of the United States has said the subsidy is not needed.

I would stay here all through the night if I thought the opponents were ever going to allow a vote. It is clear they are not.

We are going to come back to fight this another day, just as in the conference agreement, where those special interests sweetened the pot.

Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for another question?

Mr. WYDEN. I am happy to yield.

Mr. REID. I say to my friend from Oregon--an athlete, went to college on a basketball scholarship, certainly he has the stamina to stand as long as necessary--that the point has been made. I, therefore, ask at the end of his speaking for another 3 minutes that we go into a quorum call and when the quorum call is called off, Senator Cochran then would be recognized.

Mr. WYDEN. Reserving the right to object, and it is not my desire to object, I think the point has been made. This is a sad day for the taxpayers of this country. When folks pull in to the gas station tonight and in the days ahead and they pay these record prices and they see these record profits, I hope they may have heard a little bit of the discussion here today, that while they are getting clobbered at the pump, the taxpayers are spending needlessly billions and billions of dollars, billions of dollars that are being wasted, not by my determination but by independent auditors. I wish that today we could have done right by all those middle-class folks and our citizens who pull up to the gas station. This is the big one, folks, in terms of energy subsidies. This is the one with the most money. This is the one there is no logical case for when oil is $70 a barrel. I am going to be back making this fight again and again, if the people of Oregon are willing.

Madam President, in deference to my colleagues who have been extraordinarily patient in the course of the day, while I do not withdraw my amendment, I yield the floor.

http://thomas.loc.gov/