Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Again, I think the Senator has summed it up. The price of oil has doubled in the last 5 years. The Senator from Arizona asks about last year. I think, again, speaking off the top of my head, it was somewhere in the middle sixties somewhere, the price of oil per barrel. But I think the bottom line is, the Senator from Arizona is correct, it is now well over $70 a barrel. And that is vastly higher than the amount the President says would warrant an incentive.

Mr. WYDEN. The General Accounting Office has said this program will cost, at a minimum, $20 billion. I am looking at the headline of the newspaper that ``GAO Sees Loss in Oil Royalties of At Least $20 Billion,'' but one of the calculations has been $7 billion.

Mr. WYDEN. The Senator is absolutely right. It is Congress that kept ladling out this money and the President, to his credit, has been making the point that these subsidies are not needed.

Mr. WYDEN. The Senator has summed it up very well. And at least reduce royalties.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I intend to withdraw my unanimous consent request at this time, and my staff is happy to work with Senator Stevens, as we have done on so many issues, to see if we can work something out that is acceptable.

Mr. WYDEN. reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I am going to withdraw----

Mr. WYDEN. I ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, reclaiming my time, just so we can make sure all the dots are connected, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be voted on during the next group of amendments.

Mr. WYDEN. I will be happy to.

Mr. WYDEN. Of course. I will tell my good friend from Alaska, I have been surprised that somebody hasn't come to the floor to speak against my amendment or to second-degree it, or anything of the sort. I have been here since last night, I will say--reclaiming my time--I have been here since last night discussing this, and no Senator, Democrat or Republican, has come and opposed the amendment that I am offering. No one has tried to second-degree it. I think at this time what I would like to do----

Mr. WYDEN. Once again, under our unanimous consent agreement.

Mr. WYDEN. That is not the amendment that I offer. I will tell the Senator that I am trying to roll back the subsidy program that is the granddaddy of all of them. This is the one that is going to fleece taxpayers the worst. This is the one that the General Accounting Office says at a minimum will cost taxpayers $20 billion. So the Senator from Florida, who has had a great interest in energy policy and serves on the committee, is talking about something else, but he has made the point again that there are a host of these subsidies. But the billion-dollar program that the Senator from Florida is talking about is peanuts compared to what we are talking about here. What we are talking about here--I see the distinguished Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, is here. He was, I know, a close friend of Senator Johnston, who was the original author of this program. Senator Johnston has said that he didn't intend anything like what this program has turned out to be. Congressman Pombo, the chair in the other body of the natural resources committee, said: You don't need this incentive. Nobody has ever called Congressman Pombo anti-oil. Even the people at Shell Oil say you don't need this kind of incentive in this climate. The Senator from Florida makes a good point that there are a variety of subsidies that go out to oil companies, but the one that the Senator from Florida is talking about is really small potatoes compared to what we are talking about here. I appreciate the question.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, by way of responding to the distinguished Chair, the Senator is not asking for special treatment. What we do in the Senate again and again--it is the common practice, something that goes on every week--is we have debates on amendments and then Senators have those amendments put into a group, and when there has been a group of amendments put together and all Senators on both sides of the aisle have been notified that there will be votes, then there are votes. That is all that I have asked for. There is no request for a specific time. Do it at 1, 2, 3. Do it whenever we have a block of amendments so we can get on and hear from Senator Cornyn and Senator Salazar, and I now see the Senator from North Carolina and the Senator from Pennsylvania here as well. I don't understand why we can't get a commitment that at some point-- what goes on here regularly, that Senators get votes as a group of amendments is considered--that be done. I come back to the point, having had now considerable amount of discussion, that not one Senator has said they want to defend the oil royalty relief in its current form. I think that is incredible. I certainly expected some opposition. I was pleased when Senator Kyl and Senator Lieberman said they wanted to be cosponsors. I expected people to come on over here and oppose it. And I think the reason there is no vocal opposition to this program is exactly what we saw in the energy conference committee last year. You can't defend this program in broad daylight. That is why it was sweetened in the middle of the night. A program that made no sense, was already a boondoggle, got even sweeter with additional sums now going out the door. I have noted that if the litigation of this program is successful, it is possible that the Government will be out a sum close to the entire cost of the supplemental program. So I repeat to the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, nothing would please me more than to enter into an agreement to allow others to go forward, and my amendment could be voted on in exactly the way the Senate customarily does business; that is, when we have a block of amendments, a group of amendments that Senators have had a chance to discuss and consider, we would then take a vote. But for some reason, we are not going to do that with respect to this multibillion-dollar subsidy program, a program that has the Government subsidizing these companies through royalties when oil is $70 a barrel, and the President of the United States says we ought to be out of the subsidy business when oil is over $50 a barrel. I have a unanimous consent request ready to go so I can satisfy colleagues. I now see the distinguished Senator from New Jersey is here, the Senator from Florida is here, and the Senator from Pennsylvania is here. There are a lot of folks who would like to have a chance to speak, and nothing would please me more than to let them get about that business. I have not been here as long as the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, but I have not had an instance such as this ever happen to me in the Senate when I ask: Can I get a chance, as part of a group of amendments, or at some point, an up-or-down vote, and no efforts are being made to work something like that out. I think it is unfortunate. I am going to have to remain at my post, and colleagues who want to ask questions--does the Senator from Florida seek to ask a question?--I will be able to respond and reclaim my time.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, having said that, I want to state once again that I am anxious to work with all of the Senators who are on the floor, and I am sure there are others hovering about the Chamber, to get on with the business of the Senate. All I want to be able to do is what I think is pretty customary in the Senate, and that is to get a vote at some point--at the time when we have the next set of amendments. But clearly, there are those here who don't want to allow that. So I think I will just have to persist. One additional area I want to focus on, I say to my colleagues, is that I and others, particularly a bipartisan group on the Energy Committee, have been trying to get an explanation from the Interior Department for months and months about what is going on with this program. What we would like to do is see if we could get some accountability. A number of Senators wrote back in January to express our concerns. We never got an answer. And what I would like to do is highlight a few points of the Senators' concerns because I think, once again, they go to this point about whether there is going to be some accountability in a multibillion-dollar program that has been costly to our taxpayers. The Senators said, in a January 24, 2006, letter: There is a series of steps the Interior Department can take to remedy the flaws with this program. For example-- The letter notes-- you could reinstate the full audits of the royalty relief program that have been scaled back during the Bush administration. Now, as to auditing this program, auditing a multibillion-dollar program that you can't justify at a time of $70-a-barrel oil costs, you would think that having these audits would be pretty much a no-brainer. You would say that the Interior Department, particularly after they have been criticized by their Inspector General on this particular point, would be willing to step up the audits. They would be willing to take some steps, some concrete steps, to make sure that so many taxpayer dollars weren't being wasted. Unfortunately, that has not taken place. We haven't seen the audits that even the Inspector General has called for in the program. Another step that has been noted by the Senators would require enforcement of existing rules for this program, such as those requiring companies to start paying royalties when market prices reach a threshold level. Again, we have seen no response--no response--to practical, concrete suggestions that Senators have made to make sure we get some accountability into this particular program. I also note that Senators have indicated they would be supportive of legislation that would require greater accountability for this program so that, in effect, it would be possible for people to see how it actually works in broad daylight. That, too, is probably too logical, and I would only say that given the fact that this program was sweetened--and expensively so--behind, essentially, closed doors last year, it seems to me that at a minimum we ought to have greater openness for this program, additional funding for auditors, and that, too, has not been forthcoming. So concrete suggestions made by Senators to better watchdog this program and to protect the billions and billions of taxpayer dollars that are needed are highlighted by our challenge right here, which is: As we debate an emergency spending bill, a bill that is an emergency because the Government really doesn't have the money to pay for it, we are still seeing billions of dollars go out the door needlessly. In addition, the letter from the Senators states: We are troubled by the suggestion that companies involved in the program have made differing representations of the costs to the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Department of Interior. These are both Federal agencies. In order for the Congress to carry out its own oversight responsibilities and probe the magnitude of these discrepancies, what the Senators asked is for information with respect to oil and gas prices over the last few years. Once again, it looks to me like a very reasonable kind of request, and I want to highlight again that when you have an out-of-control program, when you have Senators making practical suggestions like having better audits, like having better enforcement of existing laws, saying we ought to follow up on discrepancies in the information that is furnished to the Government, that strikes me as a no-brainer. Every Member of the Senate should say: Of course, we want to watchdog the way these monies are being spent. I would like to read a little bit about these disparities in the costs of the program. Johnnie M. Burton, Director of the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service--I am just going to read from a report, a news report on it--said the disparities, the differences in the information that was furnished by the industry ``were mostly the result of deductions that the regulations let companies take, reducing the sales price they report to the government.'' Now let's just think about that. The companies take these deductions; that reduces the sales price that is reported to the government; and still the Department of Interior won't step in and say: We are going to try to straighten out these discrepancies in the information about this program. To read further, the Director of this program said that she, ``had not known and could not explain why companies were reporting higher sales prices to their shareholders and to the Securities and Exchange Commission than to her office.'' Once again, that is an extraordinary statement, a statement that comes from the Director of the Minerals Management Program. And she wraps it up, when she is asked by the news media to respond--and I will quote here from the news reports: I can't answer because I don't know. We don't look at SEC filings. We don't have enough staff to do all of that. If we were to do that, then we would have to have more staff and more budget. You know, there is such a thing as budget constraint, and it has been real tough, let me tell you. So what we have is the Government not even getting the straight story about the program. You have Senators saying that different representations of costs by the companies are being given to the SEC and the Department of Interior, and yet the person who runs the program says: I don't know, can't do it. Can't get to the bottom of how a multibillion-dollar program operates. Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, this is the granddaddy of all of the oil subsidy programs. My friend, Senator Nelson from Florida, came to the floor to talk about a particular subsidy he was concerned about and said that the cost of the subsidy was about $1 billion. That is certainly a lot of money to the people of South Carolina and the people of Oregon. This program that I am saying we ought to rein in and get some accountability over involves, according to the General Accounting Office, a minimum--a minimum--of $20 billion. And, if the litigation that surrounds the Royalty Relief Program is successful, we would see the cost to the Government be $80 billion. I have been at this for several hours. No Senator of either political party has come to the floor and made a case against my amendment. I have been pretty surprised about it. I was pleased to have Senator Kyl and Senator Lieberman sign on as cosponsors of my particular effort. But I would sure like to have a dialogue in the Senate with respect to the program. I think we have a good handle on how to reform it. We would say: You can have royalty payments when you need them. It is not rocket science. It is very straightforward. If the price of oil goes down, if the President of the United States says we are going to have a disruption of our oil markets, then you can stay royalty relief. It is not a complicated proposition. But all I can conclude is that Senators--we have had a number of Senators come over and yet nobody has said anything against my amendment. That seems to say, well, just chew up our day letting this fellow from Oregon hold forth. I have not had to do this in my time in the Senate. It is not a whole lot of fun when you have colleagues and friends who obviously put in a lot of work, a lot of time into amendments that they feel strongly about. I have asked on several occasions to see if I could just get an opportunity to have a vote, up or down, in some kind of fashion, at some point when we do the next block of amendments. But we haven't been able to get that agreement, so here we are, working through lunchtime on this particular program. I will also tell the Senate with respect to where we are right now that the amount of the subsidy that is out there today could increase-- this is in an article from U.S. News and World Report--fivefold. So we are talking about billions of dollars that go out the door today, and if the litigation is successful, then we will see vast additional sums going out. In the speech that the President made earlier in the week, the President, to his credit, said that he really didn't see the case for subsidies with the price of oil well over $70 per barrel. I don't see anybody making that argument. I don't see anybody making it outside of the Senate. And as I have said over the course of the morning, I don't see anybody making it in the Senate today. I wish somebody would because maybe then we could begin a real discussion and we could get on with what the Senator from Mississippi desires, which is to complete his important legislation. But we have not been able to have that kind of debate, nor have we been able to get a commitment to have this amendment come up as part of a block. About the only thing we know for certain is we have a program that is completely out of control, and even the original author of the legislation, our former colleague, Senator Johnston, has indicated that. Under the Energy bill that was signed into law last summer, the companies were given new subsidies in the form of reduced royalty fees. The way that came about is we did not have any floor votes, we didn't have extended debate as we are having this morning; it was done after midnight in the conference committee. It was done after the claim was made that this would not cost anybody anything. That is pretty farfetched. The General Accounting Office says it will cost a minimum of $20 billion. The Senate has indicated that we are concerned about the practices of lobbyists. I say to Senators, this is a classic case. This is one you would write in the textbooks, of how a small group of lobbyists can figure out a way--essentially behind closed doors and in the dead of night when people are not exactly following debate about energy policy, after midnight--to work their will. So I am doing something I have not done in the Senate and that is to say I am going to stand here and try to do my very best to protect taxpayers. I think it is critical right now, when we are dealing with emergency spending legislation. This program alone uses up a decent portion of the tab for this piece of legislation. Colleagues have talked a bit about tax breaks and the like, but we have not had any real discussion before today about royalties under the Minerals Management Program. That is what we are talking about here. The House discussed it in its legislation. I think that is why we ought to discuss it. I don't think this is going to harm in any way the incentives to produce oil in this country. We certainly need to do that. We are as dependent on foreign oil as we were 20 years ago. I personally think getting a new energy policy is about the most patriotic thing we can do in our country. Getting a new energy policy is about as red, white, and blue as it gets. But you sure don't get a new energy policy if you are going to keep sweetening, with billions of dollars, a program that doesn't work, a program that has lacked oversight, lacked accountability. By the way, I have mentioned it has been bipartisan. I see the distinguished Senator from Alaska, Senator Stevens. I have highlighted the fact that the previous administration, the Clinton administration, somewhere, someplace in the bureaucracy, was not watchdogging this program, was not watching the threshold that was needed to ensure that this money would be used wisely. By the way, they were talking about $34 a barrel at that time. Now the price of oil is over $70 a barrel. The President of the United States says we don't need subsidies when it is over $50 a barrel. My hope is we can get this Minerals Management Program under control. It needs to be under control. The bill that came over from the House addresses the royalties issue as well. I think it is time for the Senate to step up. This is a subsidy that is not needed at this time. I wish some Member of the Senate would come to the floor and say, Let me tell you why the subsidy is needed. We have three Senators on the floor and certainly a lot of others have been coming through at various times, but Senator Johnston, who made the case years ago that this program was needed in the 1990s--I think Senator Stevens probably knows the most about the history of the program of any of us--I think Senator Johnston's argument in the 1990s was the gulf coast was hurting. The gulf coast had gotten clobbered. Senator Johnston and others were concerned about how things were going to go in the future. The price of energy had dropped very dramatically. The concern of Senator Johnston was that you were going to see very little investment unless you had changes in the Government's policy. I know people at that time--I have seen the press reports--were comparing the Gulf of Mexico to the Dead Sea. We are not faced with anything like that. In fact, the program worked well in those middle 1990s. Now we have a very different situation. Now we have a very different climate. In fact, those are virtually the words that were used by one of the lawyers from the Shell Oil Company. The lawyer from the Shell Oil Company said we don't need royalty relief in this kind of environment, in this kind of climate. I hope we will get the Senate to dig into the merits of this. I have read the comments from news reports, from Senator Johnston. Senator Johnston told the press recently: The one thing I can tell you is this is not what we had intended. Given all of the fuzzy and confusing language that was in this program, what we have seen is the companies, those that have tried to milk this program in every way possible, have been able to do it. I was particularly troubled by some of the changes the Secretary of Interior, Secretary Norton, made administratively. But I think the Senate, in going forward with this discussion, ought to reflect on some of the comments that have been made by people who I think have been about as supportive of the oil industry as they possibly could be. In the other body, the chair of the natural resources committee, Congressman Pombo, says: There is no need for an incentive. They've got a market incentive to produce at $70 a barrel. Think about that comment of Congressman Pombo. Congressman Pombo is saying there is no need for incentives right now. I wanted to be sensitive in my amendment to the fact that things can change. We always have to deal with that in any legislative proposal. What I said is, look, the President of the United States says we could have a supply disruption. If the President of the United States says, for example, that with prices going down we need to reinstitute the program, so be it. But that apparently is not acceptable to some here in the Senate so we cannot get an opportunity at some point to get a vote. But this is high-stakes stuff, folks. This is not small sums of money. Senator Nelson raised a question that was important to him about a particular subsidy program he was concerned about. It involved $1 billion. But as a number have noted, if the legal battles that are taking place right now about the Royalty Relief Program are successful, we are talking about upwards of $30 billion in additional royalty relief over the next few years. How much more do we need to prod those who care about this to look at reforming this particular program? Certainly they don't need more incentives to go out and drill. Nobody needs to prod the oil industry in that regard. We have seen a great deal of effort on the part of the Senate to make it attractive to be in the energy business. But what I am seeking to do, with the support of Senators Kyl and Lieberman and I know other Senators, is to get this program under control, is to have some accountability. It seems to me what we are faced with is essentially a trifecta of subsidies. First, you have the companies getting tax breaks. The Joint Tax Committee has estimated that the costs of those would be in the vicinity of $10 billion. I am beginning to think we are making some headway on that particular point because we are hearing Senators on both sides of the aisle say they want to review those tax breaks. When we had the executives come before the Energy Committee, I went right down the row and asked each one of them if they needed the tax breaks in the new Energy bill. When it got to broad daylight, they said they didn't need those particular tax breaks. So I think we are making some headway. I then went to the Senate Finance Committee and was able to get a modest reduction in the tax breaks the companies would get. That is now in the reconciliation bill. I think it is the only actual cut in tax breaks the companies have gotten in quite some time. I am hopeful that will make its way into the reconciliation legislation. Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus have been extremely helpful in that regard. But the first part of the trifecta is essentially the tax breaks. I am hoping we can get Senators of both political parties at a minimum to review them, review them comprehensively--something that hasn't gone on. Yesterday, to their credit, Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus indicated they would begin that particular review. The second part of the trifecta is we have mandatory spending programs. That was one that Senator Nelson spoke about earlier, one that involves $1 billion. Then we come to the Royalty Relief Program, which is the big daddy, the granddaddy of all the subsidy programs. That is the one I have said I am not going to let the Senate duck any longer. It appears both the Chair and the ranking minority member have left the floor. I think that is unfortunate because I want to try to work out an effort to move ahead on this. But I will continue.

Mr. WYDEN. Yes.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, let me say I am going to have staff work with the Parliamentarian for a bit--my staff and Senator Salazar's staff, and others--to see if we can address the concern of the Senator from Colorado. Maybe we can get a number of Senators involved in this so we can lock in some actual votes. I would be very pleased to get a commitment from the distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator Cochran, to have my amendment included in the next group of votes. That is a pretty simple request-- something that goes on here very often. It seems to me if we cannot do that, and I am not included, then I guess I have to stay at my post here and say that I think the taxpayers ought to get some protection and we ought to stop the ripping off, the persistent plundering of tax revenue, at a time when the President and everybody else says you cannot justify these kinds of incentives. If I can get a commitment from the distinguished chairman from Mississippi to have my amendment included in the next group of votes, and we will get an up-or-down vote, I would certainly like to save my larynx and let the Senate get about its business.

Mr. WYDEN. So if the Senator from Colorado propounds a unanimous consent request asking that he be allowed to speak for a couple of minutes so as to be able to offer his amendment, at the end of those 2 minutes, what he has offered is set aside and the business of the Senate would once again be my amendment, the Chair is advising that that could be done?

Mr. WYDEN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President: However much I would like to do what the Senator from Colorado has suggested, I cannot do that without losing my place on the floor, is that correct?

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, let me propound this to the Chair. My understanding is if I yield to the distinguished Senator from Colorado for purposes of these unanimous consent requests, I would lose the opportunity to be considered, after he discussed this, automatically. My understanding is I cannot yield to the Senator from Colorado without losing my place. Is that correct?

Mr. WYDEN. Once again, as part of the unanimous consent agreement, I do yield for a question.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am under the impression that I cannot yield to my friend--I certainly would like to--without in essence losing my right to stay on the floor. As I said earlier when we had questions from the Senator from Arizona and others, I would very much like to get a time commitment, because I know the Senator has important legislation he would like to have considered, and I also see my friend from Texas, Senator Cornyn. This is not my favorite way of getting the business of the Senate done. But my understanding is I cannot give up the floor to another Senator for purposes of their having consideration of their amendments. Reluctantly, I tell my good friend, a wonderful addition to the Senate, that I cannot do that at this time. I also see our friend from Arizona here. He may be working his magic with the leadership and the Chair so as to be able to at some point lock in a vote. I would be happy if I could get a commitment that the Senate would vote on this amendment. I would be happy to let colleagues proceed for several hours and have a chance to do their important work. I note once again that not one Senator of either political party has come to the floor and said they want to defend this multibillion dollar program in its current form. That is an astounding thing. I was very pleased to get Senator Kyl this morning as a cosponsor of the legislation, and Senator Lieberman and others. But what is stunning is in this place you can hardly get everybody to agree to go out and get a soda pop. Yet in discussing this legislation, nobody has stood up and said they are going to defend the Royalty Relief Program in its current form.

Mr. WYDEN. To respond to my friend from Arizona, he is very good at working out arrangements to get votes on these matters that are so important to the public interest. Perhaps it is possible, through his good offices, to persuade Senator Cochran and others that we can make arrangements. I am not anxious to hold up the time of the Senate. By the way, I was here late last night, and I would have been prepared to vote last night. So this Member was prepared to vote last night. I am prepared to vote now. I am prepared to give up the floor as long as there is a commitment that we get a vote. But the handling of this program is a disgrace. You cannot make an argument for having no accountability whatsoever at a time when billions and billions of taxpayer dollars are used. That is what happened during the energy legislation where in the dead of night, not only was the program preserved, the program was sweetened at a time when the President says you cannot make the case for these kinds of subsidies. We will continue with this discussion. My door, as always, remains open to colleagues. I would like to think I was bipartisan before it became fashionable to be bipartisan. I note that Senator Kyl is a cosponsor of the legislation. Senator Lieberman has joined on as a cosponsor of the legislation. I remain anxious to work with Senators to get this worked out. We have been talking a lot about lobbyists. We have had a lobbying reform bill and the Senate has acted. It was not all I wished it were, but at least it was a beginning. Talk about special interests and about the clout of lobbyists, this program is a textbook case of how a handful of savvy lobbyists can hotwire the political process and end up costing taxpayers billions and billions of dollars. The law itself, through the handiwork of all these lobbyists, is full of confusing language, language that has lent itself to a wide variety of interpretations. We are almost running a lawyers full employment program with this particular initiative. It will be in court endlessly, as far as I can tell. It was a program that was sweetened by the administration, even at a time when the President said you didn't need added incentives when oil was over $50 a barrel. I have mentioned some of the problems we saw in the previous administration. I guess nobody was home watchdogging the particular program there in the minerals department because they were supposed to have a threshold in terms of when subsidies would be dispensed. But what you have seen with this particular program is how a handful of insiders, very clever lobbyists, have been able to get the Government to give away billions and billions of dollars. I don't understand how any Member of the Senate could go home, face a town meeting in their particular community, and make the case for having this program in its current form at this crucial time. Do Senators want to go home, meet with folks in grange halls and senior centers and the like--I just got clobbered on the way to a meeting about these prices--and say, gosh, we have to continue this royalty relief program? Essentially what you have is a multiyear fiasco. It began in 1995. At that time, with the price of energy low, you could make a case for this particular program. But over the years, and particularly in the last few years with high prices, what you have is a situation where you have a program mushrooming in cost, mushrooming in terms of the toll it takes on taxpayers. The Bush administration has even confirmed that the Government will lose billions of dollars in royalties. So this argument some have made that this program costs nothing--we heard that in the energy debate last year. It is an argument that the Royalty Relief Program costs nothing. Now that is contradicted by the Bush administration itself, which has indicated that it is going to have to waive billions and billions of dollars in royalties. There is a lawsuit underway, as I have noted. The lawsuit challenges what amounts to one of the few restrictions on the cash drawer the oil companies look to, and I gather that the oil companies have a pretty good chance of prevailing there. So we would see even more money shoveled out the door in the days ahead. Some have called this program one that was noncontroversial. I will tell you that I don't think you can explain this to anybody in broad daylight. That is why the actions with respect to sweetening the program were taken in the middle of the night. After the CEOs of all of the major oil companies have come before a joint hearing of the Senate Energy and Commerce Committees, saying, in response to my question, that they agreed with the President's position that when the price of oil is more than $55 per barrel, they don't need incentives to explore for oil and gas, I wish one Senator would come to the floor today and say here is why we need the Royalty Relief Program. I note that I have been trying to get a vote on this particular amendment since last night. Not one Senator has come to the floor and said that they oppose my amendment. I cannot get a commitment for a vote up or down. And given what has happened with these oil interests and this program, that is not acceptable to me, and I cannot imagine that it is acceptable to the American people. We have a supplemental that is going to cost $100 billion. If the litigation is successful, we will see the Government out of up to $80 billion. The General Accounting Office estimates the minimum cost of this program will be $20 billion. So at some point, it seems to me, the Senate has to step in and say we are going to have some accountability here for taxpayer money; we are not going to sit on our hands when the money pours out the door. In terms of the timeline, there are a couple of dates that I think are particularly important. In January of 2004, the Department of the Interior apparently expanded the royalty incentives--the incentives the companies would be getting under this particular program. About a year after that, the President of the United States made his statement with respect to what kind of incentives there should be for people in the oil business. He said, as I have noted today, with oil at $70 a barrel, the Government ought to get out of the business. That is the President of the United States. The President said we don't need these incentives. By the way, he made no distinction in terms of the kind of companies involved. He just said the Government doesn't need to be pouring out subsidies when the price of oil is $70 a barrel. The next key date was in the summer of 2005----

Mr. WYDEN. Very good.

Mr. WYDEN. I thank my friend. Before we got into seafood marketing and the question of earmarks, it seemed to me that your point was a very logical one, sometimes too logical for the Senate. That is, how do you get a vote around here? What I was asking the distinguished chairman of the committee is if we could get agreement to have a vote at a time certain or conceivably to have my proposal included in the next group of amendments to be voted on. But, yes, I say to the distinguished Senator from Arizona, without that commitment, I am very much convinced that we won't get an up-or-down vote on this outrageous boondoggle, a huge expenditure of many billions of dollars that as recently as the energy conference, there were no votes. It was done in the middle of the night. It was snuck in after midnight. The reason why: Because nobody was able to do what I am trying do right here on the floor of the Senate, which is to say, we are going to do this in broad daylight. If Senators want to vote in favor of a program that subsidizes, when we are over $70 a barrel and the President of the United States says we don't need those subsidies, then Senators can so vote.