Leahy:  Relief At The Pump Obstructed By Republican Actions

 

WASHINGTON (Wednesday, June 11, 2008) – In a statement today, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) admonished Republican efforts to thwart the Senate’s consideration of the legislation to provide Americans with relief at the pump.  As gas prices continue to soar, averaging over four dollars per gallon across the country, Senate Democrats sought to bring the Consumer-First Energy Act to the floor for debate, but Republicans have obstructed the debate with procedural tactics. 

 

The Consumer-First Energy Act includes a Leahy-sponsored measure to hold the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) cartel accountable or anticompetitive practices.  The bill also rolls back tax breaks for oil companies that are posting record profits, and proposes a windfall profits tax for those same companies.  The bill would also protect consumers from price gouging, and would limit speculation in unregulated commodities markets. 

 

In May, the Senate Judiciary Committee, which Leahy chairs, held a hearing to explore the skyrocketing price of oil.  During the hearing, oil executives testified that their corporations would post profits if the price of oil was $55-$65 a barrel.  Oil is currently selling for over $130 a barrel.

 

The Republican objection is one in a series that has prevented the Senate from debating legislation to protect American workers, legislation to restore habeas corpus rights, and bipartisan legislation to confront global climate change.

 

Leahy’s statement follows.

 

Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.)
On The Consumer-First Energy Act Of 2008

June 11, 2008

 

I am disappointed that those across the aisle would not join with us to move to consider and debate the Consumer-First Energy Act of 2008. 

 

This legislation is designed to protect consumers from artificially high fuel prices, to curtail the massive giveaway of taxpayer resources through the continuing tax breaks to oil companies, and to recapture a portion of the windfall profits they are making at the expense of hardworking Americans.  While the presumptive Republican presidential nominee today recognized that gas prices can be expected to continue to climb, I continue to wonder why so many Republican Senators voted along party lines to ignore one of the biggest problems facing families across the country. 

 

Did they not want to debate why oil and gas companies should not continue to benefit from tax breaks while raking in record profits?  Did they not want to debate why members of the OPEC cartel, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, when acting anticompetitively and fixing output so as to artificially raise oil prices, should be held accountable through laws intended to protect competition, market forces and consumers? The NOPEC provisions of the bill are drawn from the bill I cosponsored and the Judiciary Committee has reported repeatedly over the last several years, including in May 2007. Or did Republicans not want to debate why the administration has failed to crack down on excessive speculation and manipulation of the oil commodities markets?

 

I guess none of us should be surprised that so many Senate Republicans voted to prevent debate over these concerns and this legislation.  The Bush-Cheney administration opposes it and has already threatened a veto.  Senate Republicans are simply doing what they have been doing for the last seven years – falling in line. 

 

We need a President who will stand with the American people, not with the oil companies and market speculators.  I know that both President Bush and Vice President Cheney have longstanding ties to the oil industry, but over the last seven and one-half years, American consumers have suffered enough.  This administration has stood by and watched as the price of a gallon of gasoline has gone from $1.45 to over $4.00.  I would have thought that an oil man who claims to be from West Texas would recognize that when top executives of the oil industry come before the Senate Judiciary Committee and testify under oath that they would make profits if oil were sold anywhere from $55-$65 a barrel but that it is, in fact, selling for over $130 a barrel, action needs to be taken.  I would have hoped that the President who promised the American people when he ran for office that his family’s close ties with the Saudi ruling family would help him successfully persuade them to increase oil production and cooperation would recognize that his two recent, unsuccessful trips to the Middle East to beg the Saudis to increase oil production should lead to effective government action by the United States, not a threat to veto legislation.  Most of all, I would have hoped that Senators would join together to debate this matter and take action to help the American people. 

 

President Bush’s ballyhooed statement in his State of the Union a couple of years ago that we must end the oil addiction was nothing more than empty words.  They rank with his space travel initiative that went nowhere and more tragically with his hollow promise to rebuild New Orleans. 

 

Their votes against debating the Consumer-First Energy Act ranks with their votes against debating the bill to correct the Supreme Court’s Ledbetter decision that locked American workers out of the courts, their votes against debating the restoration of habeas corpus, their votes against debating comprehensive bipartisan legislation to begin to confront global climate change, their vote against debating congressional voting rights for the District of Columbia, and their votes on so many matters that Republican Senators have acted to block.  I hope that when the Majority Leader moves for reconsideration of the vote on the Consumer-First Energy Act Senators will search their consciences and do the right thing by voting to allow Senate consideration of that legislation in the best interest of the American people.  

# # # # #