Congressional Budget for the United States Government for the Fiscal Year 2006

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2006

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, those who advocate drilling in the Arctic claim that the drilling is needed to reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign oil. But what is included in the Senate budget resolution doesn't increase U.S. energy security. To the contrary, it is a license to export Alaskan oil outside the United States. With the inflated revenue projections of $2.5 billion from drilling in the Arctic included in the budget, the Federal Government will be forced to sell the oil to the highest bidder to even come close to reaching that amount.

Under the Senate budget, if the highest price is in South America, oil from that wildlife refuge would have to go to South America. If the highest price is in the Far East, Arctic oil would have to go to the Far East. If the highest price is in the Middle East, Arctic oil would have to go to the Middle East.

With the weak dollar, it would be a virtual certainty that the highest price for Arctic oil would be outside our country. It would not reduce our dependence on foreign oil one drop to export Arctic oil overseas, but that is exactly what could happen under the Senate budget resolution.

Now, last Congress, the House, in passing its Energy bill, recognized that drilling in the Arctic wildlife refuge won't help our Nation's energy security if the oil from that drilling is exported overseas. The House-passed Energy bill explicitly prohibited the export of oil from the Arctic wildlife refuge. But the Senate budget resolution fails to include an export prohibition. In fact, it invites exports by assuming revenues that can only be met by requiring the oil to be sold to the highest bidder, at a time when the dollar is weak.

If the goal is energy security, then including the Arctic drilling in the budget resolution in this fashion is the wrong way to go about it. We can get more energy security, and we can get it sooner than from Arctic oil drilling under the Senate budget resolution.

Last week, the President renewed his push for drilling in the Arctic by arguing it would produce nearly 10 million barrels per day. But the President acknowledged that that amount of oil would not be produced until 2025. We can get that much energy security and more, and we can get it now instead of waiting until 2025. We can get that added energy security by changing the current policies on exports of oil and petroleum and providing the right incentives for producers to develop the billions of barrels of recoverable oil that are in U.S. reserves but are not being developed today.

Right now our country is exporting about 1 million barrels a day of petroleum products. That happens every single day. We could in effect get 1 million barrels a day more oil for our country, 10 percent more energy security, and we could get it right now by ending those exports.

By comparison, the administration's Energy Information Administration says the amount of oil that the President says would be produced in the Arctic would only reduce our Nation's dependence by 3 percent, from 68 percent to 65 percent dependence on foreign oil. I seriously doubt the OPEC cartel will stop its anticompetitive practices because of a tiny increase in Arctic production 20 years from now that even the Energy Administration says would reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 3 percent. Our country can get more than three times that amount of increased energy security and we can get it now rather than 2025 by stopping exports of U.S.-produced petroleum products, and under the unrestricted export language of the Senate budget resolution we could end up with no additional energy security--no additional energy security, absolutely not. We can do much better than a 3-percent increase in energy security. We can do better than the 10-percent increase in security our country would get from eliminating exports. In fact, our country could produce an additional 40 billion barrels of oil, enough to replace all of our country's imports of oil for the next 10 years, and we could get that additional oil from existing reserves that could be produced in our country if the right incentives were provided.

If we want to get serious about energy security, we can start today. We should eliminate the budget resolution's license to export Arctic oil out of our country. We should replace the budget's Arctic oil export license with policies that provide real energy security for our Nation.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, every time one turns around, the costs of the prescription drug program go up and up. The bipartisan Snowe-Wyden proposal is the only proposal that is being offered in the Senate to take steps to protect taxpayers and seniors. This does not undermine anything. Nothing is going to change other than the Snowe-Wyden legislation provides an additional tool in order to hold down the costs and protect taxpayers.

Without this proposal, Medicare is going to be like a fellow standing in line at the Price Club buying toilet paper one roll at a time. Nobody in America shops that way. If one is buying a car or buying anything at a store, they try to get the best value. That is what this legislation is all about. In fact, the only areas where anything is required is when the private sector says an additional boost in bargaining power is necessary or in the case of what are called the fallback plans which are so important in the rural areas where there are no restraints at all in terms of what can be charged.

Given the mounting concern about the cost of this program, where it has gone up almost every couple of months since it was signed, I would think that the other side, the opponents of the Snowe-Wyden legislation, would say: All right, we are going to oppose Snowe-Wyden, and here is our proposal. The fact is, the other side seems to say the status quo is just fine. The status quo with the costs going into the stratosphere is something that apparently they are not too upset about. Senator Snowe and I see it differently. We believe it is important to provide an additional tool, the kind of tool that is used in the private sector, and we think it will be meaningful.

Ultimately, this vote is a vote about whose side the Senate is on. If my colleagues vote for this bipartisan legislation, they stand with taxpayers and seniors who would like this additional tool so that marketplace forces can be used to hold down costs. If my colleagues vote against this, in effect they are voting for the status quo because, I would just emphasize, there is no other proposal being offered by the opponents. They seem to say everything is fine.

We do not. We think there is a bipartisan approach that makes sense. It is the approach that is used every single day in the private sector of this country. It uses marketplace forces to get the best possible deal, and ultimately what the Snowe-Wyden proposal is all about is whether common sense is going to prevail.

I hope my colleagues will support it. Several additional colleagues--Senators LEAHY, CANTWELL, and KOHL--would like to serve as cosponsors.

I particularly want to thank Senator Conrad for his patience as this has been developed and gone through various iterations. I note my friend Senator Hatch, who has great expertise in this area as well, wants to speak.

I wrap up by thanking Senator Snowe. We have been at this for 4 years. Both of us support this legislation. This is an important effort to try to get it right. When we started, nobody expected that the costs would escalate the way they have. This is likely to be the only vote the Senate gets to cast this year on prescription drug cost containment. I hope my colleagues will not pass up the opportunity to take a bipartisan step in the right direction, the direction of making this program work at a critical time when seniors are going to start signing up for the benefit that starts next year.

I yield the floor.

http://thomas.loc.gov/