[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.

                          ____________________