Who’s afraid of a big, bad oath?

November 9, 2005

Two weeks ago, executives from the oil industry announced unprecedented windfall profits. Exxon Mobil announced that its third-quarter net income jumped 75%, to $9.92 billion. Its profit in the first nine months of this year — $25.42 billion — already equals its full-year earnings for 2004, and the company’s sales are expected to exceed those of Wal-Mart. Royal Dutch Shell reported a jump in profits to $9.03 billion; Chevron posted a $4 billion profit.

Republican lawmakers, most of whom recently backed an energy bill that offered the industry more taxpayer subsidies and tax breaks, are starting to wonder if they might suffer politically for siding with an industry that’s charging Americans considerably more for energy while enjoying obscene profits. Given the circumstances, that’s probably a good idea.

The concerns prompted the Senate Commerce Committee, led by industry ally Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), to hold a hearing, asking CEOs from the nation’s biggest oil companies to explain themselves. For some reason, however, Stevens didn’t want the executives to be under oath.

Senate Commerce Chairman Ted Stevens rejected calls by some Democrats to have the executives sworn in, saying the law already required them to tell the truth.

“There is nothing in the standing rules to require that witnesses be sworn,” the Alaska Republican said. “These witnesses accepted the invitation to appear before the committee voluntarily. I shall not administer an oath today.”

Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii and the ranking Democrat on the Commerce Committee, said the CEOs should want to testify under oath.

“If I were a witness I would prefer to be sworn in so the public knows what I was about to say is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth,” he said. “If I were a witness I would demand to be take the oath.”

I’ve been to dozens of Hill hearings and I’ve never seen a committee chairman decide to skip the swearing in process, especially for high-profile witnesses. For a hearing like this one, that’s generating media interest, it’s a no-brainer.

This is just bizarre. Stevens’ explanation makes even less sense. If the law already requires witnesses to tell the truth to Congress, then why would any committee ever swear in a witness?

So much corruption, so little accountability.

  • Stevens’ motivation seems to be to give the corporate moguls a chance to whitewash themselves to the public but not be legally liable for the truth of their statements. A more transparent and dishonest bit of political theater there couldn’t be. Unfortunately for Stevens, the obscene profits are already a matter of public record so this dog and pony show isn’t, or shouldn’t be, the end of the story by any means. Let’s hope the Dems don’t let it drop.

  • Whether sworn or not, the bigger issue is that in our allegedly “capitalistic” society, the American taxpayer should not be paying subsidies and tax breaks to immensely profitable businesses. Period. Due to the positively successful operations of these companies, as reflected by their huge profits, these companies prove they do not need these subsidies and tax breaks to be successful and each and every one of the tax breaks and subsidies should be eliminated. These companies simply do not need these subsidies and tax breaks.

  • Curmudgeon has this one nailed. It’s
    the Republicans holding a faux
    hearing to get this monkey off
    their backs. The machinations
    behind crude oil price
    surges and spiking oil profits
    have never been exposed, and
    probably never will be. I have a
    feeling the Democrats don’t want
    to get to the bottom of it, either.
    After all, they’ve had their chances.

    This hearing is simply a charade.

  • O.k. thats explains it. When I read the article I took it to mean that they were asking them to take the oath as a extra step, something out of the odinary. I see now that thats what they want me to think. So it’s normal procedure to take the oath when you appear.

  • Wiggling out of testifying under oath is a clear signal that what we are hearing are lies and half truths at best. Remember that Bush and Cheney agreed to be questioned about the Plame leak but only on their terms–together and, significantly, not under oath. They might as well put a flashing neon sign in front of them as they testify–“Liar! Liar!” This lets them say that they mispoke or forgot or were misinterpreted later when/if they are caught in their lies. However, you can only get away with this crap if everybody lets you. The Dems should have gotten up and left en masse if what they were about to hear was suddenly not required to be under oath. They should have had a press gathering after to explain that they weren’t going to waste their time participating in a sham perpetrated by Republicans to whitewash their obscene profits and subsidies. They should explain to the public that these hearings are typically under oath and that the Republicans changed the rules to shield the oil company executives so they could lie with impugnity. You have to call a skunk a skunk.

  • Frak – I may be mistaken, but I believe that it was the 9/11 Commission that Shrub and President Cheney sat together during. I don’t think this happened during the Plame investigation (although I believe Shrub wasn’t under oath for that one either). I could be wrong, and would welcome correction. If they did the same thing for both, the only repsonse would be to vomit on all members of the Senate/Congress who supported such rules.

    Where were all those idiots when they were passing the energy bill? Once again it is shown that our(the country’s) senators are either idiots, thieves, or both.

  • Oops, Rambuncle. You’re right, they sat together and not under oath, for 9/11. (Face red) They did not have to testify under oath in the Plame matter either though. Cheney, at least, was questioned by investigators on Plame, but not under oath at the Grand Jury. I think vomiting on member of Congress is still appropriate, nevertheless. There’s plenty of reason to feel to queasy. 🙂

  • One of the executives claimed that the reason behind high prices was that the Saudis basically told them what the price would be and that was it. No mention of the “traders” whose pure speculation on what the future might bring (Quite possibly influenced by what kind of day they’ve been having or whether they got laid the night before.) controls prices more than OPEC does nowadays.

  • I agree with some of the other posters – dog and pony show, pure and simple. Slap ’em around, make it look like you give a crap (see the headlines on MSNBC, etc.), but don’t even go so far as to make them culpable for even outragous lies…

    But, now that Shub and the Goopers in congress are about as popular as a French Kiss at a Family Reunion, they at least had the deceny to wait until after the hearings to exchanges checks and payola.

    -jjf

    • Comments are closed.