May 25, 2006
WASHINGTON – Today Senators Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Joe Lieberman (D-CT) joined a bipartisan group of Senators in calling on Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) and Chairman of the Senate Energy Committee Pete Domenici (R-NM) to include S. 2025, the Vehicle and Fuel Choices for American Security Act, in the energy legislation that the two Republicans are reportedly preparing to introduce this summer.

May 5, 2006
Wallingford, Ct.– Senator Chris Dodd, D-Conn., today once again called for his legislation to provide a rebate for Connecticut consumers to help alleviate skyrocketing prices at the gas pumps. He also urged the nation to invest in innovative alternative fuel technology that would help lesson the nation’s dependence on foreign oil and gas and provide for a cleaner environment. Dodd this morning toured Proton Energy Systems in Wallingford, Connecticut, which is currently working on a technology that only relies on water for power generation.

April 25, 2006
Washington, DC— Senators Dodd and Dorgan today renewed their effort to pass a Windfall Profits Rebate Act and said they plan to introduce the measure as an amendment to the Emergency Supplemental bill that will come before Congress soon.

March 8, 2006
“When it is bitterly cold or terribly hot, people in dire need should know that they’ll be able to stay safe. Yesterday, the Senate passed legislation to help provide people with the resources they need to heat or cool their homes. It was a fight up to the finish but I’m pleased to say that we were able to secure an additional $7 million to help Connecticut families in need.

January 30, 2006
(WASHINGTON, D.C.) --- U.S. Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Byron Dorgan (D-ND) said Monday Congress should enact a windfall profits rebate for consumers from big oil company windfall profits in the wake of Exxon’s announcement today that it rang up $36.13 billion in profits last year. That set an all time record for corporate profits.

“I support the rights of American companies to earn a profit but profiteering at the expense of the American consumer is unacceptable. Families across the nation are feeling the pinch not only at the gas pump but also when they open their home heating bills this winter while big oil companies are raking in record profits,” said Dodd. “It’s time for Congress to enact legislation to inject some fairness into the process. The Windfall Profits Rebate Act would do just that and I urge my colleagues to address this critical issue immediately.”

Watch Video

Let me say at the outset, that I do not begrudge any company, even an oil company, from making a profit. It is the engine that keeps our economy moving forward. But there is a big difference between profits and profiteering. And in the opinion of many, the big oil companies have been engaging in profiteering. The concept of profiteering is not a new one and this would not be the first time Congress has acted as a watchdog against profiteering. One of the most high-profile cases was during World War II, when Harry Truman, then a Senator, chaired an investigation into the profiteering that was going on among wartime businesses. The concept of profiteering is also not new to this particular industry, which operates in a market dominated by the OPEC cartel and a few large corporate conglomerates.

Over the past several years we've seen a steady and steep increase in the price of oil. In 2000, when the Northeast Heating Oil Reserve was established because of concerns I and others had about heating oil supply and price, crude oil was trading at near $30 per barrel. Today, just five years later, the price of crude has more than doubled. Refining capacity is near 100 percent, yet over the past 25 years, 176 refineries have closed across the country. And last month, the five largest oil companies recorded record third-quarter profits.

ExxonMobil earned $9.92 billion dollars in just three months - the largest quarterly profit ever reaped by an American corporation. In order to make that profit, they took in a record $100.7 billion in revenue in those three months, which to put those numbers in perspective, is larger than the annual gross domestic product of the United Arab Emirates, a large oil-producing nation. Shell Oil earned third-quarter profits of just over $9 billion; BP earned profits of $6.53 billion; ChevronTexaco earned $3.6 billion; and ConocoPhillips earned profits of $3.8 billion. That is a total of $32.88 billion in profits in just three months.

We all recognize that the Gulf Coast hurricanes temporarily shook the oil industry, as it did to other industries, interrupting the refining and distribution system across this country. And it may be some time before all operations are back to normal, but that does not explain the steadily rising oil and gasoline prices consumers and businesses experienced in the months before the hurricanes. There is evidence that the oil industry was deliberately restricting supply to boost profits.

In fact, one major oil company, in its 2004 annual report, says, "We achieved the highest net income in our history, $18.2 billion. This was 48 percent higher than in 2003, as a result of higher oil and gas prices." The report goes on to say that these higher profits occurred at the same time that the company produced 3 percent less oil than the year before. They produced less and saw almost a 50 percent jump in profits. That is not a coincidence, in the view of many. It was a deliberate move to raise prices by restricting supply.

It was also not long ago that Enron traders were caught on tape colluding to manipulate energy prices during the California energy crisis of 2001. One trader was recorded telling the operators of a power plant, "We want you guys to get a little creative and come up with a reason to [shut the plant] down." 3

So given the circumstances of fewer refineries operating at or near capacity coupled with increased demand for oil and gasoline, all we are asking is that these oil companies reinvest their profits to find alternative sources and types of energy. If not, then a portion of those profits - excess profits -- should be sent back to consumers.

Let me also be clear that this amendment, this windfall profits rebate, is nothing like the one imposed in 1980. First and foremost, this money would be rebated to consumers, while the 1980 windfall tax was passed to ensure that oil companies paid their fair share of taxes to the federal government. Just as important, this amendment would apply only to the large integrated oil companies - independent producers and refiners are exempt. The structure of the tax is different as well. In 1980, the tax was imposed on the difference between the market price of oil and a statutory 1979 base price, adjusted quarterly. The Dorgan amendment imposes a 50 percent profits tax only on profits over $40 per barrel. Domestic production need not suffer. If companies explore and develop new supply or add refining capacity, no tax is imposed. In 1980, the tax included nearly every barrel of oil produced and thus domestic production suffered. If oil companies do the right thing to increase supply, then there will be no windfall profits tax incurred.

If domestic production stays relatively constant next year at 5.2 million barrels a day and oil continues to sell near $65 per barrel, then the windfall profits tax would be approximately $65 million a day.

That is money that my constituents could use to offset the record high prices expected for heating fuels this winter or to combat the rising costs of most goods and services that are transported on trucks and rails. This is one simple solution that my constituents could tangibly benefit from.

It is clear that rising energy costs are a drag on the economy for individuals, families and businesses. While gasoline prices are coming down all across the country, they are still on average 32 cents per gallon higher than a year ago. As winter weather begins to bear down on us, consumers are bracing for higher heating costs. In Connecticut and across the northeast, residential consumers are expected to pay $315 more to heat their homes this winter.

This windfall profits rebate is a solution for working families across the country. It is more than the Administration or many of my colleagues have proposed. Every time we try and ease the financial burden on individuals and families, we are met with opposition. We have not been able to raise the minimum wage in over 9 years. We can't increase the funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and we have been unable to realistically address fuel efficiency.

The Administration has been asleep at the wheel for the last several years and was adamantly opposed to embracing conservation measures. In fact, in 2001, Vice President Cheney said, "Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis all by itself for sound, comprehensive energy policy." So you can imagine my surprise when the Administration trotted out a conservation program, headed by the "Energy Hog." I applaud their late arrival to the benefits of conservation, but I am disappointed that they have done nothing to stem the rising cost of fuel in this country. They brought the oil companies in when they were originally crafting an energy policy, but they have been unwilling to jawbone either OPEC or the large oil companies when individuals, families and businesses are suffering.

This is an amendment with tangible benefits to consumers without undermining the oil industry. If they do the right thing and invest their profits to increase supply, then, ultimately, we will all benefit.

I urge my colleagues to support the Dorgan amendment.

November 9, 2005
"Today we heard a lot of talk from top oil company executives. Talk is cheap. The price of gas is not. And while American families, businesses, and communities are paying more at the pump and more in heating costs, the five biggest oil companies took in a record $33 billion in profits this quarter alone. I've introduced legislation with Senator Dorgan to provide consumer relief in the form of a rebate check.