[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 165 (Monday, December 19, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13977-S13982]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  ANWR

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I wish to bring to the attention of 
the body the extremely troubling tactics that some in this body have 
used over the past few days to try to push through a legislative 
proposal that, standing on its own, does not have the support of a 
majority of the U.S. Congress. And I think these tactics reflect poorly 
on this body and its leadership. Discarding the rules that govern all 
of us demonstrates contempt not only for the need to have and follow 
rules, but for the history, and future, of the United States Senate.
  To be clear, I am talking about the inclusion of the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge drilling provision in the Department of Defense 
appropriations bill, a provision we all know is controversial and has 
not been able to pass Congress on a variety of occasions.
  Drilling in the Arctic has absolutely nothing to do with funding the 
Defense Department. The distinguished minority leader has already 
submitted into the Record a letter from five retired U.S. generals who 
are arguing this very point: Funding for our brave men and women in 
uniform should not be jeopardized by including a highly controversial 
and unrelated provision to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 
for drilling.
  I ask unanimous consent that this letter be again printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                December 17, 2005.
     Hon. Bill Frist,
     Majority Leader,
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Minority Leader,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC
       Dear Senator Frist and Senator Reid: We are very concerned 
     that the FY2006 Defense Appropriations Bill may be further 
     delayed by attaching a controversial non-defense legislative 
     provision to the defense appropriations conference report.
       We know that you share our overarching concern for the 
     welfare and needs of our troops. With 160,000 troops fighting 
     in Iraq, another 18,000 in Afghanistan, and tens of thousands 
     more around the world defending this country, Congress must 
     finish its work and provide them the resources they need to 
     do their job.
       We believe that any effort to attach controversial 
     legislative language authorizing drilling in the Arctic 
     National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to the defense appropriations 
     conference report will jeopardize Congress' ability to 
     provide our troops and their families the resources they need 
     in a timely fashion.
       The passion and energy of the debate about drilling in ANWR 
     is well known, and a testament to vibrant debate in our 
     democracy. But it is not helpful to attach such a 
     controversial non-defense legislative issue to a defense 
     appropriations bill. It only invites delay for our troops as 
     Congress debates an important but controversial non-defense 
     issue on a vital bill providing critical funding for our 
     nation's security.
       We urge you to keep ANWR off the defense appropriations 
     bill.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Joseph P. Hoar,
                                General, U.S. Marine Corps (Ret.).
                                                 Anthony C. Zinni,
                                General, U.S. Marine Corps (Ret.).
                                               Claudia J. Kennedy,
                             Lieutenant General, U.S. Anny (Ret.).
                                                      Lee F. Gunn,
                                   Vice Admiral, U.S. Navy (Ret.).
                                                Stephen A. Cheney,
                      Brigadier General, U.S. Marine Corps (Ret.).

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Madam President.
  For the benefit of my colleagues, I would like to read from the 
Senate's Web page and the Web page of the Senate Committee on Rules and 
Administration--the very places the American public would refer to when 
interested in learning how the Senate has said it will conduct 
business. I have printed copies of the relevant pieces of these U.S. 
Government Web sites, and I ask unanimous consent that these be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                      Standing Rules of the Senate


       chapter 28: conference committees; reports; open meetings

       2. Conferees shall not insert in their report matter not 
     committed to them by either House, nor shall they strike from 
     the bill matter agreed to by both Houses. If new matter is 
     inserted in the report, or if matter which was agreed to by 
     both Houses is stricken from the bill, a point of order may 
     be made against the report, and if the point of order is 
     sustained, the report is rejected or shall be recommitted to 
     the committee of conference if the House of Representatives 
     has not already acted thereon.
                                  ____


            History of Committee on Rules and Administration


                            I. INTRODUCTION

       All legislative bodies need rules to follow if they are to 
     transact business in an orderly fashion. Legislatures must 
     have established rules if they are to operate fairly, 
     efficiently, and expeditiously.
       Mr. Jefferson wrote in his Manual of Parliamentary Practice 
     that whether the rules ``be in all cases the most rational or 
     not, is really not of so great importance. It is much more 
     material that there should be a rule to go by than what that 
     rule is; that there may be a uniformity of proceeding in 
     business, not subject to the caprice of the Speaker or 
     captiousness of the members. It is very material that order, 
     decency, and regularity be preserved in a dignified public 
     body.''
       The first Senate understood this concept, and on the next 
     day after a quorum of the Senators appeared and took their 
     oath of office, a special committee was created to ``prepare 
     a system of rules for conducting business.''
       The committee consisting of Senators Ellsworth (Conn.), Lee 
     (Va.), Strong (Mass.), Maclay (Pa.), and Bassett (Del.) was 
     appointed on April 7, 1789, and on April 13, it filed a 
     report which ``was read, and ordered to lie until tomorrow, 
     for consideration.''
       The following day the report was read again, but 
     consideration thereof was put off until April 15. On April 
     16, the new set of rules, consisting of 19 in total, was 
     adopted, but on April 18, another rule numbered XX, not 
     reported by the committee, was adopted.
       The members of this first committee were qualified for 
     their task; all five were lawyers with experience in various 
     legislative bodies. Senators Ellsworth, Strong, and Bassett, 
     in addition to their other legislative experiences, were 
     members of the Federal Convention. Mr. Lee had been President 
     of the Continental Congress as well as a member of other 
     legislative bodies, and Mr. Maclay had served in the 
     Pennsylvania Provincial Assembly.
       Other special committees formed to revise or reexamine the 
     Senate rules and to recommend changes therein, were created 
     from time to time until April 17, 1867. On this date a 
     committee of three Senators was appointed ``to revise the 
     rules of the Senate, and to report thereon early in the next 
     session.'' This committee became known as the Select 
     Committee on the Revision of the Rules and, as such, was a 
     continuous committee until December 9, 1874, when it was 
     designated as a standing committee to be known as the 
     Committee on Rules.
       From 1789, when the first committee was appointed, until 
     1867, the beginning of a continuous committee on rules, the 
     Senate created nine special committees to revise the rules 
     of the Senate, but only seven (3) filed reports to the 
     Senate, and, pursuant to such reports during that time, 
     the Senate adopted three general revisions of its rules, 
     none of which were at the beginning of a new session. 
     During that same period, the Senate

[[Page S13978]]

     occasionally amended its existing rules and adopted 
     various procedural orders, some or most of which were 
     included in the body of the rules when each next general 
     revision was adopted.
       The select committee, begun in 1867, consisted of three 
     Senators and was directed by resolution adopted on April 13, 
     ``to revise the rules of the Senate, and to ``report thereon 
     early in the next session.'' The committee filed its report, 
     which was ordered printed, on February 21, 1868, and the 
     Senate adopted this general revision of its rules on March 
     25, 1868. On December 21, 1874, the Senate adopted a 
     resolution instructing the standing Committee on Rules ``to 
     consider the propriety of revising and reclassifying the 
     rules of the Senate,'' and that it report accordingly at the 
     earliest day practicable. The committee made its first report 
     on March 2, 1875, which was ordered printed and recommitted.
       On July 14, 1876, the committee filed another report on 
     rules revision; the Senate proceeded to consider this report 
     on December 18, 1876, which it recommitted on the same day. 
     On December 26, 1876, the Committee filed another report 
     which was ordered to lie on the table. The Senate began 
     consideration of this report on January 15, 1877, and after 
     three days of consideration and the adoption of various 
     amendments, the revision of the rules was adopted on January 
     17, 1877.
       On March 2, 1883, the Senate adopted a resolution 
     instructing the standing Committee on Rules ``to sit during 
     the recesses of Congress, at Washington or elsewhere, for the 
     purpose of revising, codifying, and simplifying the rules of 
     the Senate.'' On December 10 of that year, a report was 
     submitted, which the Senate began to consider on December 13 
     and continued with from time to time until January 11, 1884, 
     when another general revision of the rules was adopted.
       On May 10, 1976, the Senate adopted Senate Resolution 156 
     (submitted by Mr. Byrd, the majority leader) to authorize and 
     direct the Committee on Rules and Administration to prepare a 
     revision of the Standing Rules of the Senate. On November 7, 
     1979, a report was filed pursuant to the above resolution in 
     the form of Senate Resolution 274 (submitted by Mr. Byrd for 
     himself and Mr. Baker, the minority leader), to revise and 
     modernize the Standing Rules of the Senate without 
     substantive change in Senate procedure and to incorporate 
     therein certain other rules of the Senate. The resolution was 
     called up on November 14, 1979, and passed by a vote of 97 to 
     0, after a brief discussion thereon.
       Between 1884 and 1979, many changes were made in the rules 
     of the Senate and its procedure. The history of these changes 
     has been piecemeal. Some amendments to the rules were 
     proposed by the Rules Committee in the form of resolutions 
     reported by that committee and adopted by the Senate, and 
     some resolutions amending the rules in various ways were 
     submitted, considered, and passed immediately or soon 
     thereafter without reference to a committee. Some changes 
     were made by the Senate agreeing to unanimous consent 
     requests to that effect, and precedents and practices of the 
     Senate since 1884 have had a great effect on the rules and 
     procedure. Additionally, some changes were made by a 
     combination of the above methods. For example, one of the 
     most controversial provisions of the changes in the Senate 
     rules since 1884 includes the cloture rule. The Committee 
     on Rules reported S. Res. 195 on May 16, 1916, to amend 
     Rule XXII to provide for a cloture procedure. It was 
     debated but did not come to a vote. On March 7, 1917, the 
     Senate was called into special session, and Senator Martin 
     of Virginia submitted a resolution (S. Res. 5) to provide 
     for a cloture procedure. It was similar to the resolution 
     reported by the committee and was adopted on March 8, 
     1917. A number of amendments have been made to this rule--
     some reported and adopted; and some submitted, called up 
     for consideration without reference to a committee and 
     adopted. The so-called post-cloture amendment to rule 
     XXII, adopted in 1979, was called up without reference and 
     adopted, but the Committee on Rules and Administration had 
     reported a resolution in the previous Congress containing 
     a section therein that was very similar to the resolution 
     adopted in 1979.

         II. Rules Committee--A Brief Sketch of its Development


    HISTORY OF SPECIAL COMMITTEES ON RULES BEFORE THE CREATION OF A 
                      STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES

       The Senate first convened on March 4, 1789 without a quorum 
     (only eight Senators appeared) and without any rules. It was 
     not until April 6 that a quorum of the membership appeared. 
     During the interim, the Senate adjourned from day to day 
     without transacting any business except acting on proposed 
     communications to absent members requesting their attendance. 
     On April 7, a special committee to prepare and propose a 
     system of rules was created (Journal, p. 10) as follows: 
     ``Ordered, That Mr. Ellsworth, Mr. Lee, Mr. Strong, Mr. 
     Maclay, and Mr. Bassett, be a committee to prepare a system 
     of rules to govern the two Houses in cases of conference, and 
     to take under consideration the manner of electing Chaplains, 
     and to confer thereupon with a committee of the House of 
     Representatives.'' ``Ordered, That the same committee prepare 
     a system of rules for conducting business in the Senate.''
       This committee performed its assignment and filed a report 
     on April 13, 1789, proposing 19 rules for conducting business 
     in the Senate. The report was adopted on April 16, 1789, 
     which gave the Senate the following 19 rules (Journal, p. 
     13):
       The, report of the committee appointed to determine upon 
     rules for conducting business in the Senate, was agreed to. 
     Whereupon, ``Resolved, That the following rules, from No. I, 
     to XIX, inclusive, be observed.''
       I. The President having taken the chair, and a quorum being 
     present, the journal of the preceding day shall be read, to 
     the end that any mistake may be corrected that shall have 
     been made in the entries.
       II. No member shall speak to another, or otherwise 
     interrupt the business of the Senate, or read any printed 
     paper while the journals or public papers are reading, or 
     when any member is speaking in any debate.
       III. Every member, when he speaks, shall address the chair, 
     standing in his place, and when he has finished, shall sit 
     down.
       IV. No member shall speak more than twice in any one debate 
     on the same day, without leave of the Senate.
       V. When two members rise at the same time, the President 
     shall name the person to speak; but in all cases the member 
     first rising shall speak first.
       VI. No motion shall be debated until the same shall be 
     seconded.
       VII. When a motion shall be made and seconded, it shall be 
     reduced to writing, if desired by the President, or any 
     member, delivered in at the table, and read by the President, 
     before the same shall be debated.
       VIII. While a question is before the Senate, no motion 
     shall be received unless for an amendment, for the previous 
     question, or for postponing the main question, or to commit 
     it, or to adjourn.
       IX. The previous question being moved and seconded, the 
     question from the Chair shall be: ``Shall the main question 
     be now put?'' And if the nays prevail, the main question 
     shall not then be put.
       X. If a question in debate contains several points, any 
     member may have the same divided.
       XI. When the yeas and nays shall be called for by one-fifth 
     of the members present, each member called upon shall, unless 
     for special reasons he be excused by the Senate, declare, 
     openly and without debate, his assent or dissent to the 
     question. In taking the yeas and nays, and upon the call of 
     the House. the names of the members shall be taken 
     alphabetically.
       XII. One day's notice at least shall be given of an 
     intended motion for leave to bring in a bill.
       XIII. Every bill shall receive three readings previous to 
     its being passed; and the President shall give notice at 
     each, whether it be the first, second, or third; which 
     readings shall be on three different days, unless the Senate 
     unanimously direct otherwise.
       XIV. No bill shall be committed or amended until it shall 
     have been twice read, after which it may be referred to a 
     committee.
       XV. All committees shall be appointed by ballot, and a 
     plurality of votes shall make a choice.
       XVI. When a member shall be called to order, he shall sit 
     down until the President shall have determined whether he is 
     in order or not; and every question of order shall be decided 
     by the President, without debate; but, if there be a doubt in 
     his mind, he may call for the sense of the Senate.
       XVII. If a member be called to order for words spoken, the 
     exceptionable words shall be immediately taken down in 
     writing, that the President may be better enabled to judge of 
     the matter.
       XVIII. When a blank is to be filled, and different sums 
     shall be proposed, the question shall be taken on the highest 
     sum first.
       XIX. No member shall absent himself from the service of the 
     Senate without leave of the Senate first obtained.
       Two days later (April 18) the Senate adopted the following 
     motion, giving the Senate a total of 20 rules (Journal, p. 
     14): On motion, Resolved, That the following be subjoined to 
     the standing orders of the Senate:
       XX. Before any petition or memorial, addressed to the 
     Senate, shall be received and read at the table, whether the 
     same shall be introduced by the President, or a member, a 
     brief statement of the contents of the petition or memorial 
     shall verbally be made by the introducer.
       After the first session of the first Congress, a 
     considerable number of orders and resolutions to study a 
     particular rule or a general revision of the rules were 
     adopted before the Rules Committee became a standing 
     committee. This review will concern itself only with the 
     creation of special committees which were concerned with a 
     general revision of the rules as opposed to those created to 
     explore a certain procedure or particular operations of the 
     Senate. There were more special committees created to study 
     general revisions of the rules than there were general 
     revisions adopted; some committees never filed a report and 
     others filed reports which were rejected.
       During the entire history of the Senate, only seven general 
     revisions of the rules since 1789 have been adopted, namely: 
     March 26, 1806; January 3, 1820; February 14, 1828; March 25, 
     1868; January 17, 1877; January 11, 1884; and November 14, 
     1979. The last three revisions were considered and reported 
     by the standing Committee on Rules before being adopted by 
     the Senate.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Madam President.
  Let me start with reading from the Senate Web page's description of 
the legislative process--our description to

[[Page S13979]]

the public as to how we do business in our Nation's Capitol.
  Under the heading ``Conference Committees; reports; open meetings,'' 
the first sentence reads:

       2. Conferees shall not insert in their report matter not 
     committed to them by either House, nor shall they strike from 
     the bill matter agreed to by both Houses.

  This section goes on in more detail, but let me turn to what our 
constituents, members of the public whom we expect to abide by the laws 
we pass, would find if they visited the Senate Committee on Rules and 
Administration Web site:

       All legislative bodies need rules to follow if they are to 
     transact business in an orderly fashion. Legislatures must 
     have established rules if they are to operate fairly, 
     efficiently, and expeditiously.

  The committee Web site goes on to quote from Thomas Jefferson's 1801 
edition of the ``Manual of Parliamentary Practice,'' saying that:

     . . . whether the rules ``be in all cases the most rational 
     or not, is really not of so great importance. It is much more 
     material that there should be a rule to go by than what the 
     rule is; that there may be a uniformity of proceeding in 
     business, not subject to the caprice of the Speaker or 
     captiousness of the members. It is very material that order, 
     decency, and regularity be preserved in a dignified public 
     body.''

  A logical follow-up question is then: How is it that we find it 
acceptable to knowingly break our own rules? I am truly astonished at 
the contempt I see certain of my colleagues showing for this 
institution on this issue.
  I could stand here and read at length from the history of the Senate 
rules, as written by the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, 
to reflect on how our rules came to be. I will not do that. But I do 
encourage my colleagues to read up on this history, because if we go 
forward on the path that some have set, I worry what it means for the 
future of this body. It most definitely opens the door to future 
abuses. If you don't like the rules, you break them. In fact, those who 
want the drilling provision included in the defense spending bill, 
recognizing that it breaks Senate rules, have actually put language 
into the conference report that says once the bill is signed into law, 
Senate rule 28 would come back into effect.
  In fact, let me read the exact language:

       Section 13, Legislative Procedure: Effective immediately, 
     the Presiding Officer shall apply all of the precedents of 
     the Senate under rule 28 in effect at the beginning of the 
     109th Congress.

  So apparently you can break the rules because you will immediately 
reinstate the rules. Is this the message the Senate is willing to send 
to the American public? I have more faith in this body than to believe 
we are willing to sink so low.
  Let's imagine the consequences if, in fact, this conference report is 
accepted. You can't move an unpopular proposal through the legislative 
process? No need to worry. You just attach language to an important 
funding bill that says you want to reinstate the rules after you have 
broken them. Is this the precedent that we, Members of both parties, 
want to set, a precedent that says you can break the rules because you 
will put them back in place? I sincerely hope not.
  Additionally, how will we respond when our constituents ask us, how 
is it that the very people who make the laws that govern public 
behavior simply ignore the rules governing their own behavior? What 
will we say?
  Madam President, I hope when it comes time for the Senate to go on 
record as to whether it believes its rules are important enough to 
stand, that a majority of this body will take the honorable position 
that this institution's rules are worth defending.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I am sad to hear a Senator say that 
this amendment that is controversial, the amendment to allow 
exploration and development of the Arctic Coastal Plain, has never 
passed the Senate. It passed the Senate this year as part of the 
reconciliation package. It passed both bodies in 1995 and was vetoed by 
President Clinton.
  With regard to the question of the concept of matters being added to 
conference reports, we voted in 1995 on a motion to overturn the Chair. 
It was a motion to overturn the Chair on the aviation reauthorization 
reform bill. It was the last bill before the Congress at that time. At 
that time, there was an appeal from the Chair, and there was a vote to 
overturn the Chair. The Chair was not sustained. On that vote, there 
were a series of Senators, here now, who voted to disagree with the 
Chair.
  We are not changing the rules at all. Rule XXVIII is not affected by 
the amendment I am presenting to the Senate. I have been around here 37 
years. I know the rules. I was chairman of the Rules Committee for a 
while. As a matter of fact, I think I wrote, during the time I was 
Rules Committee chair--I am still on the Rules Committee--the comments 
the Senator read.
  As a practical matter, the right to disagree with a ruling of the 
Chair is inherent in any body, any legislature. In Roberts Rules of 
Order, it is a little different than it is here. But we have the right 
to appeal the ruling of the Chair. When we do, it is not destroying the 
rule. It represents a difference of opinion.
  Do you know what the difference of opinion now is? It is whether this 
amendment, which is the amendment to go forward, as the Congress 
indicated in 1980 in the Alaska National Interest Conservation Lands 
Act, with the exploration and development of the Arctic Plain of 
Alaska, whether that is part of and related to national security.
  Oil is related to national security. I will provide the statistics 
later on how much oil the Department of Defense uses. This is an 
amendment to pursue domestic production of oil, without which we will 
be in great difficulty. The largest consumer of oil in the United 
States is the Department of Defense. If the opposition disagrees with 
us on that position, then let's see whether the Senate believes that 
this is a matter that is in the interest of national security.
  We should not be having people say that it has never been done, that 
I am trying to do something that breaks the rules. We don't break the 
rules. We are living by the rules. This amendment is here because of 
the rules. I intend to enforce the rules. One of the procedures in this 
Senate is to appeal the ruling of the Chair. We haven't had that ruling 
yet. There appears to be a presumption that it will happen.
  But let's go back to 1980, to that time when we had the Alaska oil 
pipeline amendment. At that time, we had the same opposition from the 
extreme environmental groups. It was going to destroy Alaska. It was 
going to destroy caribou. It was going to be inconsistent with our 
environment. There was no filibuster. There wasn't even the threat of 
filibuster. The Senate at that time agreed that oil was a matter of 
national security, and we don't filibuster national security issues. As 
a matter of fact, in defense matters, on the defense Appropriations 
bill, et cetera, we need 51 votes, not 60, on various matters with 
regard to compliance and whatnot of the Senate. There are exceptions 
here. They could get a couple of 60-degree votes when we have this bill 
before the Senate.
  But the point I am trying to make is, the Senate, at the time we 
passed the Alaska oil pipeline amendment, did not filibuster. What has 
happened is the constant filibuster now during this decade by people 
who persist in trying to reverse the provisions of the 1980 act.
  I will never forget the 1980 act because that act, in 1978, had been 
blocked by my then-colleague, Senator Gravel, in the closing minutes of 
the Congress in 1978. It had passed the House. It passed the Senate. It 
had gone to conference. It came out of conference, and Senator Gravel 
blocked that by demanding that the bill be read after the adjournment 
resolution had been presented to the Senate.
  In the next Congress in 1979, my good friend Senator Jackson of 
Washington came to me and said: Ted, if you want to be involved in 
consideration of this bill this year, you must come back to the 
Interior and Insular Affairs Committee. I had left that committee to 
come to the Appropriations Committee. But as a matter of fact, I did. I 
left the Appropriations Committee and went back to the Interior and 
Insular Affairs Committee. We worked on that same bill then for 1979 
and 1980.
  That was a period of extreme stress for me. I lost my wife in the 
1978 accident that happened after the blocking of that bill. We all 
knew that we had to

[[Page S13980]]

come back in. As a matter of fact, the flight we were on was a flight 
to raise money to come back and ask people to help us lobby for the 
passage of something to get that bill done.
  At that time Alaska's selection of lands under the act were blocked 
by what was called a freeze. They were blocked by an order made by 
President Carter under the Antiquities Act. We could not go forward 
without getting an act passed. So I split off from my then-colleague 
and said: I am going to help you. I only want one thing in this bill 
for sure. And that is, I wanted the right to continue to explore the 
Arctic Plain. The two Senators in charge of that bill, Senator Tsongas 
of Massachusetts, Senator Jackson of Washington said: You are right. 
And they put in the amendment that created section 2002 in the 1980 
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. It was their 
amendment.
  These people are filibustering fulfilling the commitment of Senator 
Tsongas and Senator Jackson. As a matter of fact, I did vote for that 
bill and, at the time, there were enormous full-page ads in newspapers 
in my State which said: Come home, Ted. You no longer represent us. We 
can't trust the Congress.
  I said: I trust the Congress. I particularly trust Senator Tsongas 
and Senator Jackson. Unfortunately, God willed otherwise. Those two 
gentlemen left us prematurely and, as a consequence, we have fought now 
for 25 years to fulfill that commitment.
  Let me tell you a little bit more history, Madam President. I was in 
the Department of Interior during the Eisenhower days. In 1958, I 
helped write the order that created what was known as the Arctic 
Wildlife Range. In that range, 9 million acres in northeast Alaska, oil 
and gas exploration was permitted.
  The reason I asked for this amendment in 1980 was that I wanted to 
continue the fact that oil and gas exploration would be permitted.
  I see I am close to the end of my time. I will finish my statement 
later; others want to speak but I want to finish with this one comment, 
with the permission of the Chair.
  I am not trying to turn over the rules. I am not trying to do 
anything that others have not done. We have a full right to appeal the 
ruling of the Chair, should it take place, that we disagree with the 
basic assumption that oil is not needed in the interest of national 
security. And those of us who will vote to make sure we vote on this 
conference report are ones who believe in national security. We cannot 
mention the vote in the House, but we can mention the statements in the 
House. See what they said on the House floor. We believe in national 
security. This amendment must go through as part of the National 
Security Defense Appropriations Act of 2005.
  I yield the floor. I will be back throughout the day, Madam 
President.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I wish to make a couple quick points 
regarding the remarks of the Senator from Alaska.
  Let's be clear, the Senate has never passed the version of the Arctic 
drilling that is included in this Department of Defense bill. That is 
simply not the case.
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator didn't say that.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. The Senator indicated we passed this provision before, 
and we had not. And if the Senator is not breaking the rules, why does 
he need to create language that explicitly reinstates the rule? He 
can't have it both ways--have language that says the rule doesn't apply 
in this instance but will go right back into effect. It clearly is 
breaking the rule, and the Senator is trying to set a precedent for all 
this. The aviation bill from the midnineties--I remember that one--they 
didn't have the votes to put in this special interest provision for 
Federal Express business. It is something that never passed any 
committee in the whole Congress. Yes, they violated the rules and 
abused the rules to get that one done, too. I wouldn't use that as a 
precedent. It is merely a precedent of the abuse that is occurring 
here.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, is it possible for me to regain the 
floor?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Yes. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, let me say this. If it was possible to 
have an appeal of the ruling of the Chair in 1996, it is possible now. 
That is not breaking the rules. With regard to the version of this 
bill, we took the bill that passed the House and have added to it the 
provisions that allow funding for disaster areas and other items, but 
the basic portion of this bill that is coming to us in this amendment 
is, in fact, the bill that passed the House before.
  Again, I want to say this. I think there is a lot of really extreme 
comments about this Senator's actions. They can't come close to really 
offending the rules themselves. I have done nothing illegal. I have 
done nothing immoral. I have done nothing wrong. I am pursuing--as a 
matter of fact, there hasn't been a ruling of the Chair yet, but 
thinking there might be, we followed the procedure that was established 
by the distinguished minority leader in 2000. We put a provision in 
there saying, look, if there is a ruling and consideration of this 
amendment, we do not want to disturb the rules.
  By the way, after the aviation ruling that I mentioned, the Federal 
Aviation Reauthorization Reform Act, the rule wasn't changed; it was 
the interpretation of the Parliamentarian. The Parliamentarian believes 
that after a Chair is overruled, the rule is no longer enforceable. It 
is still there, but it is a question of enforcement, not a question of 
repealing.
  Even if we have an appeal of the Chair, and the Chair is overruled, 
we won't take rule XXVIII out of the rules. It will be a question of 
whether the Parliamentarian will tell the Chair that based upon 
precedent that rule would no longer be enforceable.
  So we put a provision in the bill saying in the event a ruling of the 
Chair is overturned and there is a situation where the Parliamentarian 
would advise the Chair that means rule XXVIII is no longer enforceable, 
then we use the same approach of the Senator from Nevada, and we say 
that will not be the case. We do not intend to destroy the rule. We 
intend to support the rule. We don't want it to be in hiatus.
  After the 1996 act, it was inoperable for 4 years because of the 
interpretation of the Parliamentarian, based upon precedent. I am not 
criticizing the Parliamentarian; that is the basic precedent of the 
Senate. Once the Chair is overruled, that rule is unenforceable until 
reinstated. We are saying that is not our intent this time. We don't 
intend to attack the rule. We want the rule to stay in place. We want 
to make sure anybody who votes for this, in the national security 
interest, that we must proceed with oil exploration in the Arctic, is 
not being told, Oh, you are going to destroy rule XXVIII. It wasn't 
destroyed in 1996. It was made inoperable by an interpretation of the 
Parliamentarian.

  By the way, again, that was consistent with precedent. We are saying 
that precedent will not apply to this bill, the Department of Defense 
appropriations bill, when it comes before the Senate.
  This is going to go on for a long time, but one thing I know is that 
I am not violating the rules. When I proceed with this amendment in the 
conference report, which I fully intend to do, and trust the Senate--I 
am putting my faith in the Senate to support national security as a 
part of the conference report.
  Remember now, we don't have an amendment. We have a conference report 
now. That is treated in a different manner than an amendment to the 
bill. I am not offering an amendment to the bill. I am managing a 
conference report on the Defense appropriations bill for 2006. As such, 
I expect that bill to pass, and I expect that bill to pass containing 
the provision which is in the interest of national security, that we 
now proceed with exploration and development of the Arctic Plain as was 
intended by two great Senators, Senator Scoop Jackson and Senator 
Tsongas. It was their concession to the State of Alaska, as President 
Carter insisted on withdrawing 105 million acres of Alaska. Only 1.5 
million acres were assured for the future development of our State. One 
point five million were assured for the future development of the 
State, and 105 acres were set aside and not available for development. 
There can be no oil and gas development in those other areas. In this 
area,

[[Page S13981]]

we allowed 1.5 million acres to stay open for development.
  More will be said later. I thank the Chair for her patience.
  Mr. REID. Parliamentary inquiry, Madam President: If the Chair is 
overruled on rule XXVIII exceeding the scope point of order, would that 
set a precedent that would lower the standard for enforcement of that 
rule to such an extent as rendered almost impossible to enforce?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. It would lower the standard with 
respect to enforcing the rule.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, let me say this. Clearly what is being 
attempted by the distinguished Senator from Alaska is wrong. As the 
Senator will recall, we had another Parliamentarian who was fired over 
a matter similar to this. This is absolutely wrong what is being 
attempted here.
  This is the Defense appropriations bill, and to wave the flag of 
national defense, even at the very best, if ANWR goes forward, it will 
be 10 years before any oil is produced. Oil companies made, as I 
indicated last night, $100 billion last year. This is a speck of oil 
if, in fact, it goes forward.
  I know how strongly the Senator from Alaska feels about it. Why not 
do it the right way? Even though I voted against this being inserted in 
the reconciliation, which I think was wrong, it was done according to 
the rules, and the Senator from Alaska and what he wanted prevailed. To 
do it this way is absolutely wrong. It shows that if it is 
inconvenient, if the rules are inconvenient, then just overrule them. 
We will play around with it. We will sustain the Parliamentarian at one 
point, overrule him in another, and then come back in the same bill and 
pretend as if nothing had ever happened. This has never been done 
before.

  It shows absolute contempt for the rules of this body, and it shows 
that Lord Acton was right. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power 
tends to corrupt absolutely. That is what we have here. That is what is 
going on in Washington.
  I will be happy to run through what I think are the ethical lapses 
that have taken place in this town, led by the Republicans over the 
past year, but that is not necessary. I believe what we have is 
intellectual games being played in a negative fashion. This is 
absolutely wrong to do this, to hold up this bill.
  We will have a vote. As things now stand, we will vote on cloture 
probably on Wednesday. Following that cloture vote, there will be a 
vote in upholding the ruling of the Chair, and we will see what happens 
at that time. The votes are very close. I would not be a betting person 
either way on either cloture or this rule, but understand that sticking 
this in this bill has nothing to do with the national defense of this 
country. It has everything to do with breaking the rules to the 
convenience of the powerful.
  I am disappointed that this happened. I think it is wrong. I think 
when the history of this body is written, if this is allowed to go 
forward, it will be a dark day in the Senate.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President----
  Mr. REID. Madam President, let me just finish. I have one additional 
thing to say.
  Mr. STEVENS. Pardon me. I apologize.
  Mr. REID. I will be finished just quickly.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The minority leader.
  Mr. REID. Regarding conversations we had on this floor about this has 
been done before, returning to the Chair and later fixing it, it has 
not been done before. This is a unilateral fix of a precedent in the 
same bill. Anything that has been done before has been done on a 
bipartisan basis. I was part of changing it back with Senator Trent 
Lott. It was the right thing to do. Scope of conference is very 
important. It should not be changed willy-nilly. It should not be 
changed because it is inconvenient. The precedents of this body are 
extremely important, and I think they are being played with at this 
time. It is really unfortunate.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I again apologize to the Senator from 
Nevada. I thought he had completed his statement.
  I want to read to the Senate the comments I made in 1996 at the time 
the point of order was pending on the FAA conference report, just to 
show I have maintained a constant position with regard to this. I said 
this:

       Mr. President, this is a rather difficult situation. We 
     have just passed, recently, a Defense appropriations bill. I 
     was the chairman of that conference. Before it was over, we 
     had a whole series of other bills, a series of legislative 
     items. It was not necessary to raise a point of order. 
     Everybody knew we had exceeded the scope of the conference.

  Now, this is 1996. I am again quoting:

       I ask any chairman of a conference if he or she has ever 
     really been totally restricted by this rule? . . . When the 
     leader became aware that Senator Kennedy was going to raise 
     this point of order, the leader determined to raise it 
     himself. I take it that having done that, there is no 
     question this is a rather significant occasion. I hope it 
     will be a rather narrow precedent.
       I point out to the Senate that this provision is not only 
     the only matter that exceeds the scope of the conference. We 
     had to include, at this administration's request, special 
     authority for the executive branch to purchase and deploy 
     explosive detection devices. We put in here the provisions 
     that pertain to the rights of survivors of victims of air 
     crashes. We put in the provisions requiring passenger 
     screening companies to be certified by the FAA. That is not 
     required under any existing law. We put in restrictions on 
     underage pilots, following the one disaster that involved a 
     young girl who was a pilot. We put in a provision requiring 
     the FAA to deal with structures that interfere with air 
     commerce.
       My point is, as we get to the end of a session, we, of 
     necessity, include in a bill extraneous matters totally 
     beyond the scope. We know they are beyond the scope. As 
     the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Committee, I 
     knew all those items we brought to the floor earlier this 
     week were beyond the scope of the conference, but we did 
     not anticipate anyone would raise a point of order.
       Anticipating that Senator Kennedy would bring this point of 
     order before the Senate, the leader made this point of order. 
     I ask the Senate to keep in mind this will be a rather 
     limited precedent, in my opinion. I do not know whether the 
     Chair will agree with me, but clearly when you get to the end 
     of a Congress, some things have to be done. We did not have 
     time to take up separate bills. We held a hearing on the bill 
     in the Senate Commerce Committee dealing with the rights of 
     victim-survivors of air disasters. They pleaded with us to 
     include that bill in this legislation. We have done so.
       In other words, this point of order is not only valid, in 
     my judgment, against the amendment offered by Senator 
     Hollings, but against the other provisions where we have 
     exceeded the scope on various matters on this bill.

  What I am saying is we have had this process year after year. I know 
of other amendments that have gone into bills like this at the last 
minute where people tried to get passed something that did not pass 
before, and because of the circumstances they passed.
  In this instance, again, the Senate is going to hear this over and 
over again, that this is a matter of national security that I have for 
25 years tried to support the position taken by the Senator from 
Washington and the Senator from Massachusetts that this area should be 
open to oil and gas exploration. We have had two environmental impact 
statements. They have proved that no permanent damage will be done to 
this area. We have disproved all the allegations concerning destruction 
of wildlife. As a matter of fact, there are seven to eight times more 
caribou on the North Slope today than there were at the time the oil 
pipeline was built and at the time we were told if that pipeline is 
built there will never be another caribou in Alaska, in effect. They 
said we would destroy it.
  The other day, they called it the Serengeti. I do not want to point 
out the Senator who said it, but one Senator went up there and viewed 
it. When that Senator got off the helicopter, that Senator said: What 
the blank is this all about? That person had looked over the area when 
it was snowing and said: Why would someone possibly block this?
  I have to say that this is the beginning of a long debate. I yield 
the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The minority leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, if a Senate filibuster over ANWR stops a 
Defense bill, the legislation can be quickly modified and passed. So 
there is no impact on military finances. If someone proposing this 
loses, then we will reconstitute the conference and ANWR will be out. 
Now, this is not me talking. This is the distinguished

[[Page S13982]]

President pro tempore of the Senate, Mr. Stevens, quoted in yesterday's 
Fairbanks Daily News-Miner.
  Senator Stevens said: If the Senate filibuster stops the Defense 
bill, the legislation will be quickly modified and passed. There is no 
impact on military finances. If we lose, the distinguished Senator went 
on to say, we will reconstitute the conference and ANWR will be out.
  That is the point. I appreciate the honesty of the interview with my 
friend from Alaska with this newspaper because that is the way it is. 
If we prevail, that is, those who oppose this being in the bill, on the 
point of order which will likely be on Wednesday, then the Defense bill 
goes forward. No one voting on this point of order will stop the 
Defense bill. No one voting for cloture will stop the Defense bill. 
This bill will go forward. There is a continuing resolution that takes 
us to the end of the year, and we need not get that far. If, in fact, 
we have a majority of the Senators who vote on this point of order and 
it prevails, then the bill will go forward, just as the Senator from 
Alaska said yesterday in the Fairbanks newspaper.
  So I would hope that there would come a time--we could go home today. 
We could be finished today. The Senator from Alaska knows he has the 
votes to do what he did on reconciliation again. As soon as the new 
session of this Congress convenes, we could take this out and goodwill 
would prevail. We would go home tonight, and we would be home 4 or 5 
days before Christmas.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. REID. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. STEVENS. I agree. I agree with the statement the Senator read. I 
think that is true. I am not accusing anyone of delay. I would be happy 
to have a time agreement on the conference report, and I would be happy 
to have a time agreement on any type of point of order or motion to be 
raised on the conference report. I will be glad to have a vote on the 
conference report by voice vote if it passes. I am anxious to let 
people get home. I will be happy to get time agreements, and I do 
believe if we lose we can go back to conference and protect the 
Department of Defense.
  I am not accusing anyone of harming the Department of Defense. I am 
urging people to think about national defense.
  Would the Senator agree to any type of time agreement?
  Mr. REID. I will be happy to consider anything that is reasonable. I 
am sure there are things we can do.
  Mr. STEVENS. Good.
  Mr. REID. One of the things I think would be appropriate, the way I 
understand things now, if everything is here by midnight tonight and 
cloture is filed, there will be a Wednesday cloture vote. After that 
Wednesday cloture vote, there will be a vote on this point of order. 
That would be Wednesday.
  If it is necessary that there be cloture invoked on the Defense 
authorization bill--and I am not sure that is necessary, but it is 
possible--the two cloture votes would be back to back.
  So I would be happy to consider working out some reasonable time 
agreement. Maybe we could even have the vote on the point of order 
first.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator. I think that is the way to go.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.

                          ____________________