[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 72 (Wednesday, June 5, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5031-S5032]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENERGY BILL CONFERENCE
Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, about 2 weeks ago I urged that the
House leadership go ahead and appoint conferees for the energy bill on
which we should be in conference at this point.
As Senators will remember, we passed the energy bill in the Senate on
April 25. The respective leaders of the two parties appointed conferees
on May 1. Since then, we have not seen any action on the House side to
appoint conferees so we could begin a conference with the House of
Representatives on this very important bill.
The House bill is in excess of 500 pages. The bill we passed in the
Senate after 6 weeks of floor debate is nearly 1,000 pages in length.
It will take several weeks to come to agreement on a joint proposal we
can take back to the two Houses and, hopefully, to the President.
The sooner we can get started, the better for everyone's point of
view. It is in the country's interests that we try to resolve the
differences between the House and the Senate and try to enact an energy
bill this year. As long as we do not have conferees named on the House
side, that makes it extremely difficult. I, again, urge the leadership
on the House side to appoint their conferees.
When I raised this issue last month, one of my colleagues announced
he had heard that the House of Representatives was going to appoint its
conferees on the first day back after the recess. Well, that would have
been yesterday, and we still don't have any forward
[[Page S5032]]
motion. I am getting ready to borrow Senator Lott's bloodhounds to go
looking for the House conferees.
We have an immense undertaking before us in terms of getting a
balanced and comprehensive energy bill to the President's desk. The
House bill is over 500 pages and the Senate bill is nearly 1000 pages.
There are some similarities between the bills, but some very important
differences, as well.
Conferences on authorizing legislation are never easy. The
bioterrorism bill, for example, took months to conference. The
bankruptcy bill has been in conference for over a year. To have a
successful conference on the energy bill will take a lot of careful
planning on the part of the leadership on both sides in both Houses of
Congress. As I mentioned before the recess, even the most elementary
questions, such as who should chair the conference, seem to be in
dispute, although I think that the precedents are clearly in the
Senate's favor.
We need to get going, and the actual naming of conferees by the House
of Representatives, whenever it happens, will only be a start to a
process of figuring out how the conference will be structured, whether
there will be subconferences, and which issues to address first. I am
anxious to start to work with whomever the House of Representatives
decides will be my counterpart to initiate the organizational
discussions.
To be most effective with the use of our time, we may have to think
about taking on the big issues first to see if there is an overall
energy bill that can achieve a critical mass of support on both sides
of both House and Senate. If we adopt an incremental approach of
working on minor issues first, and leaving all the hard issues to the
end, we may be still working on clearing the legislative underbrush in
December.
I hope that we can see some progress soon on starting the energy
conference.
____________________