[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?
____________________