[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 167 (Wednesday, December 5, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12398-S12400]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      COMPREHENSIVE ENERGY POLICY

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the 
majority will be introducing a comprehensive energy bill this morning 
or perhaps

[[Page S12399]]

early this afternoon. I want to make my views known on that because it 
represents a departure from tradition in the Senate of bipartisanship 
within the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
  I believe we can anticipate the Democratic leader and the chairman of 
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will be introducing their 
bill this afternoon. This will not have any input from the minority.
  I am pleased, on the one hand, to see finally some acknowledgment by 
the other side of the aisle that energy is important to our Nation's 
security and it should be a priority of this Congress. I think it is 
also important to note--and I ask unanimous consent that the recent 
poll of the Ipsos-Reid Group be printed in the Record--76 percent of 
Americans have indicated energy should be taken up as the No. 1 
priority of this body.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   Citizens for Real Energy Solutions


                 Energy Poll Summary--November 14, 2001

       95 percent of Americans believe it is ``very'' or 
     ``somewhat important'' for the government act on energy 
     issues. Only ``security'' is a higher priority than energy 
     among voters today.
       72 percent believe that energy issues are a higher priority 
     than before the September 11 attacks and the war on 
     terrorism, including 70% of Democrats. This means 72 percent 
     of people think energy is a higher priority than it was when 
     the House passed HR 4 by a wide, bipartisan margin. (240-189, 
     with 36 Democrats voting in favor)
       86 percent think ``decreasing dependence on foreign oil and 
     gas is important to national security''
       Two-thirds (67%) of those surveyed agree that opening ANWR 
     can be done in an environmentally sensitive manner. 53% of 
     Democrats believe it.
       Of those who have ``read, seen, or heard anything about the 
     Bush Administration's National Energy Policy,'' supporters 
     outnumber opponents by an overwhelming 60 percent to 26 
     percent.
       And finally, 73 percent of those we polled--including a 
     majority of Democrats--find President Bush's repeated calls 
     for the Senate to pass energy legislation to be sufficient 
     reason to act.
       [The surveys were conducted by Ipsos-Reid, an international 
     public opinion and market research firm, from Oct. 5--Nov. 10 
     and from Nov. 9-12, 2001. These polls were based on randomly 
     selected samples of 532 and 733 adult Americans, 
     respectively. With samples of these sizes, the results are 
     considered accurate to within  4.3 percentage points and  
     3.7 percentage points respectively.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. While there is some satisfaction in seeing that the 
majority has agreed to prioritize energy, on the other hand I am 
absolutely dismayed at the partisan nature in which this bill was put 
together and the extraordinary means taken to remove the bill from the 
committee's jurisdiction.
  I am going to spend my time today talking about the process rather 
than the substance since neither I nor most of the other members of the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources were afforded the opportunity 
to see this legislation until it was introduced. I find it rather 
disappointing and I guess somewhat humorous that so much fanfare has 
been linked to this bill's introduction when in fact it is the second 
time this year alone we have had a similar occurrence. The leadership 
has taken over the responsibility of the committees of jurisdiction and 
basically proposed to introduce legislation that does not reflect the 
input of the minority. This was done first in the Finance Committee on 
the stimulus bill.
  I am a member of the Finance Committee, and I participated in the 
effort where the majority leader and the chairman of the committee 
basically introduced their version of stimulus and we found we had no 
input in it so we were at a stalemate. Now we see where we are on 
stimulus today. We are negotiating with basically the authority of the 
majority of two over the minority of one. We are not going to have 
opportunities to amend or even hardly be heard on our views, which I 
think is unreasonable, unhealthy, and undemocratic, but this is what 
was done as well in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
  There is no question the need for a comprehensive energy policy is a 
critical and pressing issue for this Nation and for this institution. 
At the beginning of this Congress, I sought out my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle and did what we could to get together to 
introduce comprehensive energy legislation. I think we tried to reflect 
their interests in the bipartisan and traditional way the committee 
worked. S. 388 and S. 389, which were the Murkowski-Breaux bipartisan 
bills, while not perfect, met the requirement and remain the only 
bipartisan comprehensive energy measure introduced in the Senate. I did 
not think and I still refuse to accept that the energy needs of this 
Nation should be a partisan issue, but evidently those on the other 
side believe they have a better energy bill and can do it better 
without us.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). Under the previous 
order, the Senator from Alaska has only a few seconds remaining. Under 
the previous order, at 11:45 a.m., other business will intervene.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed 7 minutes to finish.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, energy should not be a partisan issue. 
For over 3 months, our Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has 
been effectively dissolved. The committee was closed while this 
document was put together behind closed doors, with no input from the 
minority.
  The Democratic leader has selected his deputies and their special 
interests, whatever agreements were arrived at in deference to the 
Senate and the committee rules, blatantly bypassing the committee of 
jurisdiction.
  I ask unanimous consent that a release from the chairman of the 
committee dated October 9 be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     From: Jeff Bingaman, Chairman, Senate Committee on Energy and 
         Natural Resources.

  Energy Committee Suspends Mark-Ups; Will Propose Comprehensive and 
             Balanced Energy Legislation to Majority Leader

       At the request of the Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, 
     Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff 
     Bingaman today suspended any further mark-up of energy 
     legislation for this session of Congress. Instead, the 
     Chairman will propose comprehensive and balanced energy 
     legislation that can be added by the Majority Leader to the 
     Senate Calendar for potential action prior to adjournment.
       Noted Bingaman, It has become increasingly clear to the 
     Majority Leader and to me that much of what we are doing in 
     our committee is starting to encroach on the jurisdictions of 
     many other committees. Additionally, with the few weeks 
     remaining in this session, it is now obvious to all how 
     difficult it is going to be for these various committees to 
     finish their work on energy-related provisions.
       Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Bingaman said, the 
     Senate's leadership sincerely wants to avoid quarrelsome, 
     divisive votes in committee. At a time when Americans all 
     over the world are pulling together with a sense of oneness 
     and purpose, Congress has an obligation at the moment to 
     avoid those contentious issues that divide, rather than 
     unite, us.
       Bingaman will continue to consult and build consensus with 
     members of his committee, with other committee chairs and 
     with other Senators as he finalizes a proposal to present to 
     the Majority Leader.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. The letter says:

       At the request of Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, 
     Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff 
     Bingaman today suspended any further markup of energy 
     legislation for this session of Congress.

  Now that is pretty blatant, in my opinion, taking the authority away 
from the committee. So much for the legislative process, the value of 
the committee process, or the interests of this Nation and our fellow 
citizens. So much for the majority leader and the chairman of the 
Energy Committee defending the Standing Rules of the Senate and the 
rules of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Why was this extraordinary action taken? According to a press 
release, as I have indicated, the Democratic leader made this decision 
because he wanted to avoid, ``quarrelsome, divisive votes in the 
committee.'' The fact is we had the votes in the committee to pass it 
out, and it was generally known. It was known by the chairman, it was 
known by the majority leader, and it was known by the majority.
  One of the purposes of the committee is to test various proposals to 
provide the Senate with consideration and a recommendation. Our 
distinguished President pro tempore, Senator Byrd,

[[Page S12400]]

noted in his remarks on the history of the Senate that the use of 
committees in legislative bodies predated the first Congress. There are 
records of joint committees of the House of Lords and the House of 
Commons in the English Parliament in the 1340s. This history is 
especially instructive when he discusses the reforms that have 
occurred, especially those that opened the committee process and 
limited the autocratic power of committee chairs.
  Senator Byrd's discussion of these reforms in the 1970 Legislative 
Reorganization Act is particularly relevant. He quoted William White's 
description in the Senate committee in the mid-1990s as ``an imperious 
force. Its chairman, unless he is weak and irresolute, is, in effect, 
an emperor.''
  The 1970 reforms were intended to curb that power and open the 
process. The majority of the committee were given the power to call a 
meeting if the chairman refused, and I obviously have not gone to that 
extent.
  Later reforms opened our business meetings, with a few exceptions, to 
the public. Rule 16-3: to fix regular biweekly or monthly meeting days 
for the transaction of business before the committee. Further, the 
committee shall meet on the third Wednesday of each month while 
Congress is in session for the purpose of conducting business. Neither 
the Standing Rules of the Senate nor the committee rules provide an 
exception for the Democratic leader to abolish committees or order them 
to cease activities whenever there is a likelihood that there may be a 
bipartisan action that would conflict with his particular agenda.
  Those rules, according to the Democratic leader, now do not apply to 
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. I ask why. The reason is 
clear. We have the votes, so he is not going to let us vote. Apparently 
whenever it is convenient to the Democratic leader, the rules of the 
Senate can now be suspended and the rights of members of standing 
committees of the Senate can be abandoned. The majority of the members 
of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources have been ready, 
willing, and able to complete action on a comprehensive bill.
  Yes, there would be votes on amendments. What is wrong with that? 
Some would pass and some would fail. I have always been prepared to 
live with the results to bring a bill to the Senate, but at least there 
would be debate in public and an opportunity for all Members to 
participate. I believe virtually all the members of the committee share 
that view.
  Since the Democratic leader closed the committee, there has not been 
a single business meeting on energy and, in fact, there have been no 
business meetings at all. It is a sad state of affairs when the 
authorizing committee is precluded.
  This abuse of the legislative process is outrageous. This 
concentrated action by the leadership to deny the committee members the 
opportunity to advise the Senate is reprehensible. The majority leader 
has abolished one of the standing committees of the Senate and crafted 
partisan legislation behind closed doors with special interests without 
a whimper from the press. It is abundantly clear now this has been the 
strategy all along and that all rhetoric about national energy security 
and bipartisanship has been empty talk, devoid of any substance. We can 
write the Democratic speech now as the leader pleads with colleagues 
not to offer divisive amendments.

  We hear the partisan calls: We wanted to move an energy bill, but 
some Members insisted on offering amendments that he did not like, 
amendments that should have been dealt with in committee. We can 
probably imagine the editorials now, castigating Republicans for not 
accepting whatever may be in the proposal that it is about to be 
unveiled.
  We need an energy policy in this country. This Nation deserves better 
than this travesty. The American public deserves a fair, honest, and 
open debate on this critical issue. We need conservation, we need 
efficiencies. We need additional research. We need development. We need 
to deal with our infrastructure and our domestic supply for developing 
and refining transportation and transmission. We certainly need to 
provide for the security of our energy supplies.
  Maybe we are now at the stage where the country will have to live 
with a take-it-or-leave-it package, cobbled together in some back room 
by the Democratic leader. But this Nation deserves better. The Members 
of both sides of the aisle who serve on the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee deserve better. We deserve the opportunity to 
debate, discuss, and vote. This is an institution that did not fear and 
should not fear debate.
  I brought the nuclear waste legislation to the floor in an open and 
fully transparent process last Congress. I don't think the 
distinguished Democratic whip, my good friend, the senator from Nevada, 
would accuse me of being other than up front and honest with him. 
Although we disagreed on the subject, I was always willing to talk 
openly. This is the way the Senate should work.
  What has happened here is that not only have the views of the 
minority of the committee been silenced but the views of the Members, 
as well. I am certain the majority leader will take steps on the Senate 
floor to further restrict amendments.
  One of the interesting things about this is the elastic 
bipartisanship on this, the comity of the Senate that normally would 
have Senators consult with their colleagues whose States are affected 
by a given measure are also falling victim to the Democratic leader's 
assault on the institution. I understand included in the legislation 
put forward by the Democratic leader are provisions dealing with the 
development and transportation of natural gas owned by the State of 
Alaska. These provisions were again developed behind closed doors 
without consultation to either the Senators or the Governor of our 
State.
  Finally, make no mistake about it. While I support opening the gas 
line from Alaska, I am not here in the Chamber criticizing the 
companies, which is what many of our Democratic friends have done. As a 
consequence, I will have far more to say about the majority leader's 
proposal once we are given the courtesy of seeing it. Unfortunately, 
its introduction comes with a heavy price of the Senate and the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, is the time running on the one-hour 
provided for debate on the agriculture bill?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has not yet begun to run.
  Mr. CONRAD. When will that begin?

                          ____________________