[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 7 (Tuesday, February 5, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Page S314]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    CONSIDERATION OF THE ENERGY BILL

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as ranking member of the Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee, I bring to the attention of my colleagues 
a situation which I think bears some light.
  We have a unique set of circumstances surrounding the manner in which 
the energy bill is likely to come up before the Senate. I understand 
that unofficially a date has been set for February 11.
  What we have before us is a bill that has been proposed by the 
majority leader with the assistance of the chairman of the committee, 
Senator Bingaman. The problem with the process is that bill has not 
been referred to the committee of jurisdiction; that is, the Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee.
  The question is, Why in the normal course of events would a bill 
under the jurisdiction of the committee not be referred to that 
committee? To suggest that there is an effort to obstruct the process 
by giving Members input on the bill through the normal process of 
amendments is a travesty of the process associated with the traditions 
of the Senate.
  Let me outline where the inconsistencies are.
  The Commerce Committee is holding markups on aspects of the energy 
bill concerning CAFE standards, as they should. Senator Hollings, 
chairman of that committee, insisted that prior to any developed input 
on an energy bill CAFE standards be addressed in the committee of 
jurisdiction; namely, Commerce. I have no objection to that. That is 
quite appropriate. But it brings me back to the reality that the 
committee of jurisdiction on the underlying bill has not been given the 
opportunity. In fact, the majority leader has indicated to the chairman 
of the Energy Committee that the matter not be taken up before the 
Energy Committee. One can only wonder why.

  Obviously, there are portions of the energy bill with which the 
majority leader disagrees. I can understand that. But to circumvent the 
committee process is what I find unacceptable.
  Let me give you another example of an inconsistency associated with 
the energy bill; that is, certain tax incentives that are proposed to 
expand our energy production, particularly in the area of renewables 
and new technology.
  The Finance Committee, which Senator Baucus chairs, is in the process 
of holding markups, in detail, on portions of energy-related tax 
matters. So here we have two committees, neither of which have the 
underlying jurisdiction associated with the energy bill, and their 
chairmen are proceeding with hearings on their portions of the energy 
bill; namely, those associated with tax provisions in the Finance 
Committee and those associated with CAFE standards in the Commerce 
Committee.
  So I would ask the majority leader why he refuses to allow the 
committee of jurisdiction to hold markups to encourage the 
participation of members of the committee to review, if you will, or 
have any input in the bill that is before the Senate as submitted by 
the majority leader.
  This bill has had no referrals to the Energy Committee. It has had 
absolutely no input from the minority side--Republican members--of that 
committee. I fail to understand the rationale of the majority leader in 
refusing to allow the committee of jurisdiction to hold a markup. 
Perhaps there is a concern the majority leader has relative to how any 
votes would go outside of the parameters of the legislation which he 
and Senator Bingaman have introduced.
  I think it is also a reflection on myself, as the ranking member, and 
Senator Bingaman, as the chairman of the committee, to have our 
committee circumvented by the dictate of the majority leader. Yet at 
the same time the majority leader, I assume, is knowledgeable and 
allows the Committee of Commerce and the Committee of Finance to 
address their portions of legislation that would be included in the 
underlying bill.
  I bring this matter to the attention of other Members because I think 
it suggests that clearly the majority leader is attempting to obstruct 
the legislative process. This bill belongs in the Energy Committee. The 
Energy Committee has every right to proceed to discuss and consider 
aspects of this very important legislation. After all, this is one of 
the President's underlying priorities, along with trade legislation and 
stimulus. And now that the majority leader has given us an opportunity 
to have a date to take up energy--namely, the date of February 11 --we 
find ourselves in the position where we have had absolutely no input in 
this legislation.
  We have had a bill in since over a year ago, a comprehensive energy 
bill. We can look forward to the debate and proceed with amendments to 
the majority leader's bill. We can consider substitutions. But I want 
my colleagues to know that the committee of jurisdiction has been 
circumvented, with no reasonable explanation. Yet the other committees 
have been allowed to proceed.
  I do not know whether to pursue this further, in the sense of asking 
my colleagues, collectively, if this is the way they believe the Senate 
should be run or whether we should proceed with a sense of the Senate 
relative to one committee, for all practical purposes, ostracized by 
the majority leader by not allowing the committee of jurisdiction to 
take up this matter. But I communicate to my colleagues that I believe 
this is a grave injustice. It is a reflection on myself and it is a 
reflection on the committee chairman, inasmuch as our responsibility 
has been circumvented. The majority leader has simply decided, without 
the input of the committee of jurisdiction, to proceed with this 
legislation coming up on the floor.
  I encourage my colleagues to reflect on what is happening. I think it 
is a retreat from tradition. I find it very objectionable, and I cannot 
understand why the majority leader would obstruct the process 
associated with the responsibility of a committee of jurisdiction.
  Mr. President, I am going to have more to say about this matter as 
time goes on, but I do appreciate the opportunity, in morning business, 
to bring this matter to the attention of my colleagues.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KYL. 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. REID. Will the Senator withhold for a unanimous consent request?
  Mr. KYL. Certainly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.

                          ____________________