[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 109 (Tuesday, July 22, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9666-S9667]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SENATE SCHEDULE
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I come to the floor to acknowledge the
schedule the distinguished majority leader has enunciated and to
respond to a couple of remarks he has made.
I share his view that we ought to do all we can to address the
question of energy policy in this country. I certainly recognize its
priority as we consider all of the competing issues we have to address.
I have indicated to him on several occasions that I was very concerned
about the decision he has made to limit the amount of debate on the
Energy bill to a matter of a couple of days. We will start on Monday
and obviously the scheduled recess is to begin on Friday. We have a lot
of amendments. If I recall, it is over 320 amendments pending. Frankly,
I don't know how one can accommodate the amendments contemplated in
that brief period of time.
In the last Congress, we voted 88 to 11 to pass a comprehensive
Energy bill, but it took 144 amendments and 8 weeks of floor debate to
reach that accomplishment. We spent significantly less time debating
the Energy bill this year. In total, we have spent about 9 days, with
24 amendments, and only 12 rollcall votes.
We have not addressed the many issues remaining. I am told not 320
amendments but 382 amendments are currently pending, including a
renewable portfolio standard to require utilities to generate 10
percent of their electricity from renewable sources by the year 2020.
It was in the Senate bill last year but dropped in the conference. That
is very critical to a number of Senators.
[[Page S9667]]
I am told the electricity title is now the subject of a redraft. We
have not had the opportunity even to see this title yet. I understand
it is being drafted; it is going to be one of the most critical parts
of the debate. The longer we go without having had the opportunity to
see it, the more difficult it will be to address it ultimately when it
is brought to the floor. It is an understatement to say electricity
policy is complicated. All one has to do is look at the experience over
the last few years in California to know how challenging and how
complicated those issues involving electricity are.
Last year's bill included a comprehensive framework to address global
warming. The current bill eliminates those provisions. We think that
also is a very important issue.
There are many other issues, including hydroelectric dam relicensing,
nuclear power subsidies, the Indian energy programs and policies that
remain unresolved, and of course the energy tax package that passed out
of the Finance Committee has yet to be included in the Energy bill.
That is a lot of work to do in a matter of a couple of days. I hope
we could take it up this week so we could be sure we can address all of
these issues in a timely way, in a way that would accommodate a good
and full debate. Even if we took up the Energy bill this week and spent
the next 2 weeks debating it, we would still be approximately a month
shorter in the overall consideration of the bill than we were last
year. Last year, we spent 2 full months. We have spent a little more
than a week debating the bill so far this year. We are far short from
the time dedicated, devoted to the issue of energy policy last year. If
we cut what remains of this month in half and limit the debate to a
matter of a few days, I am very concerned about our ability to complete
the work. I am very concerned about the ability to address in a
meaningful way many of the outstanding issues that still remain.
The distinguished majority leader also noted that he would hope that
this Energy bill would add to the economic portfolio we have attempted
to address this year. He mentioned the checks that will be going out
later this week. I am still troubled--in fact, I would hope the whole
Senate is troubled--by the fact that 6 million families with 12 million
children were left out when this bill was signed into law. These
families will not receive child care tax credit checks. We have
attempted to come to the Senate on several occasions to address this
inequity. On an overwhelming basis the Senate has committed to
addressing the inequity. Yet our House colleagues and this
administration have not engaged and have not weighed in on their behalf
to allow this work to be completed.
We will look for ways to address that particular issue this week,
next week, whatever length of time it takes because it is inexcusable
that we would literally carve out those who would benefit most. It
could generate the most economic activity were they included as we had
originally intended. That, too, is an issue of great concern.
We have to be concerned about the economy. We have lost, now, 3
million jobs since this administration has taken office. We have to go
all the way back to Herbert Hoover to find a time when any
administration has lost jobs. In every administration since Herbert
Hoover we have actually allowed the economy to grow to a net gain of
jobs being realized. This is now the first time in some 70 years where
that is not the case. Many believe that, in part, is a result of the
horrendous fiscal policy we faced. We are facing indebtedness now in
this fiscal year of some $400 billion. Take away Social Security and it
is over $550 billion, and that fiscal policy alone has resulted in this
devastating economic circumstance we are facing.
We will have a lot of discussion, and there is a great deal of work
to be done. First, on the economy; secondly, on fairness within the
economy especially for those working families whose incomes were
dramatically affected by the carveout, intentionally, of many of our
Republican friends as they wrote the tax bill but on energy, as well.
I hope we could begin sooner than next Monday so we could address
these issues in a meaningful and constructive and bipartisan and
comprehensive way.
I will certainly talk to the majority leader about this more directly
and personally as the occasions arise.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DASCHLE. Yes.
Mr. REID. To put this in proper perspective, the distinguished
Democratic leader is aware, to complete this bill in 5 days, would
require us to handle 77\1/2\ amendments a day. That has never happened
in the Senate and never will happen in the Senate. If we go to a 4-day
week, which we usually do here, coming late Monday nights, that would
mean 95 amendments a day.
I say to the distinguished Democratic leader, if we were fortunate
enough to be able to get Senators not to offer half of those
amendments, and worked a 5-day week, we would still have to do 38
amendments a day, which never has happened and never will happen.
I know this bill, to me, is very important in the sense it has in it
an alternative section that I think is quite good. I would like to
finish the bill. But it is not going to be finished when we have 382
amendments pending, and we only have 4 or 5 days to complete this bill.
It just is humanly impossible under any sense of one's ability to
understand the Senate or even one's imagination.
So I very much appreciate the Senator being here for those of us who
want an Energy bill. We want one with some debate or we will not have
an Energy bill. We have too many important issues that simply have to
be debated. So I extend my appreciation to the Senator for recognizing
we cannot do approximately 77 amendments a day.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the assistant Democratic leader makes a
very compelling argument. No one knows the management of the Senate
floor better than he does. He is here every day, and he is right. You
can't deal with 15 or 20 amendments a day, much less 70 or 80.
I think it minimizes, in some ways it demeans the debate about energy
policy in this country. To say about important issues such as the ones
we have outlined again this morning on renewable fuels, on
conservation, on nuclear energy, on electricity, on taxes, that we are
going to have debates about those extraordinary policy questions and
condense them somehow in a matter of a few hours as we debate energy
policy that could affect us for the next generation--that is not the
way to legislate, certainly not the way to manage an important bill
such as this.
These issues deserve attention. They deserve our careful
consideration, and they will simply not have that if we wait until next
week to address these issues. So, again, I thank the Senator for his
calculations about the management of these amendments. I hope we could
entertain this bill a lot sooner than next Monday to accommodate that
very problem.
I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding the distinguished
majority leader's time is not part of morning business. Is that right?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct.
Mr. REID. I am sure, if the Republican leader were here, he would
acknowledge that morning business should be divided fairly. The
Democratic leader's time has been calculated as in the Democrats' half
of the morning business; is that right?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that for fairness, the Republican
leader's time be calculated as in morning business, along with that of
the Democratic leader. That way the time will be divided fairly.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from Illinois.
____________________