[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 23719-23720]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                             STATE OF PLAY

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have great respect for the Republican 
leader and appreciate very much his efforts at asserting his ability to 
bring his caucus's agenda to the Senate. When we were in the minority, 
we tried to do that on many occasions, and I certainly do not deny him 
the right to do it.
  Let me make sure everybody understands the state of play. The current 
bill pending is the Railroad Retirement Act. Our Republican colleagues 
have filed an amendment that actually combines the comprehensive energy 
bill with the question about whether or not we ought to drill in ANWR 
with the question on whether or not we ought to allow cloning in this 
country.
  I must say, in all my years, I do not recall a more unusual marriage 
of issues involving public policy than this one. What the Republicans 
are saying is not only should they have the right to offer this 
amendment but they want to extend debate on their own amendment.
  They actually are now advocating we not vote for cloture, which is 
the Democratic position. We had expressed some concern about an 
amendment of this kind on this bill, and we will have an opportunity to 
vote on cloture on the bill as soon as we dispose of the cloture motion 
on this particular amendment. We may have a unanimous vote on this 
amendment on cloture, which is an extraordinary situation given the 
complexity of these issues and the unusual juxtaposition of the two 
issues together.
  I am confident there will be those who are going to be confused with 
our colleagues' strategy, but certainly that is their choice.
  Let me simply say three things: First, these are very important 
questions. Energy policy alone should dictate a debate in the Senate 
that would require days, if not longer, to ensure we carefully consider 
all of the ramifications of energy policy, additional production, 
additional efforts at conservation, additional ways in which to 
research alternative energy sources, our infrastructure, the 
environmental questions associated with where we draw our additional 
production. All of those questions will be addressed. Ought they be 
addressed as an amendment to the railroad retirement bill? Is this the 
best forum within which to address something as complex, controversial, 
and as far-reaching? I think even our Republican colleagues would have 
to say it is not.
  The question of cloning may also fall into that category. As complex, 
as difficult, as extraordinarily sophisticated

[[Page 23720]]

as this whole question of public policy is, is this the right place, an 
amendment to the Railroad Retirement Act, to take up the issue of 
cloning? I think not.
  It is for that reason I have said this Senate will take up, consider 
carefully, and dedicate whatever time is required to both issues early 
next year. We are trying to address railroad retirement now. We have to 
address the farm bill soon. We have the Defense appropriations bill 
upcoming. We also have the economic stimulus plan in addition to 
terrorist insurance--all of those issues in what amounts to a few days 
remaining in this session of Congress.
  Our colleagues have been demanding we take up energy, with all of its 
complexity, and cloning, with the controversies associated with that 
issue as well. That is virtually an impossibility unless we are in 
session between Christmas and New Year's, and I do not think anyone is 
serious about a schedule of that kind.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote against cloture on this amendment, 
vote for cloture on the bill, so we can bring our debate on railroad 
retirement to closure. That is the way we can address these issues in a 
careful, constructive, and meaningful way.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I want to engage the two leaders in a 
brief colloquy.
  I have requested an opportunity to bring the two leaders into a short 
colloquy relative to the urgency of trying to work out a schedule that 
is compatible with the business at hand of the Senate, and the 
interests, of course, of our President relative to some of the items he 
has decided are priorities, including energy and trade promotion, and 
recognizing the vote we have before us, which is a convoluted vote 
because we are basically taking up three issues: Cloning, as well as 
energy and, of course, railroad retirement.
  What we had hoped to be able to negotiate was an up-or-down vote on 
an energy bill. As the leader knows, we had a good deal of debate 
within the committee prior to the change of majority. The House of 
Representatives passed H.R. 4. That is what is before us. The Senator 
from Alaska is now in the position of wanting to work with the majority 
leader in ensuring we can expedite the business of the Senate, and I do 
not initiate undue delays by objecting to unanimous consent agreements.
  I ask the majority leader, while on the one hand he assures us he is 
willing to take up an energy bill as a priority sometime when we get 
back, to give us an indication that we will finish that bill, that we 
will not be in a situation where he will pull it down because of 
objection one way or another and we never get to an energy bill.
  The rights I have as a Senator are obviously limited. It is not my 
intent to delay, but I must do whatever parliamentary opportunities I 
have to encourage this.
  As the majority leader knows, in July we entered into a unanimous 
consent agreement. That was not granted for a time certain--when I say 
``time certain,'' I mean a day certain--on the issue of Iraq and 
whether to terminate under the sanctions our sale of oil from Iraq. I 
understand the majority leader will respond to me soon. In view of the 
fact we have lost two American lives over there, with illegal smuggling 
of oil, this is a bit of a priority.
  Can the two leaders perhaps get together and give some assurance we 
could take up an energy bill when we come back after the first of the 
year, and take it up in such a way to offer an opportunity for 
amendments, an up-or-down vote, and resolve it and move on to the other 
matters the majority leader believes are appropriate and necessary? 
From the view of broad interest, this matter should be resolved once 
and for all. Obviously, the House has done their job; the Senate has 
yet to do its job.
  As the majority leader knows, the fact the authority has been taken 
away from the authorizing committee and left in the hands of the 
majority leader leaves us in a bit of a bind as far as having any input 
on whatever energy bill might come up. All I ask is the assurance to 
take up an energy bill and dispose of it in a reasonable timeframe.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if I could respond, I know some of our 
colleagues are trying to catch airplanes. We need to get on with this 
vote.
  I am very sympathetic to the Senator from Alaska. I have been in 
exactly his position three times now in the last month. I was in his 
position when we tried to address the unemployment compensation bill on 
the airline security legislation. I was in it when we tried to address 
the firefighters legislation as an amendment. I was in it for the last 
week as we have attempted to bring closure on an up-or-down vote on 
this bill, the Railroad Retirement Act. In all three cases, of course, 
the Senate has worked its will and Senators have used their 
prerogatives under Senate rules to extend debate. We have not had an 
up-or-down vote on my three priorities.
  We all face these circumstances where as much as we would like to 
bring a particular bill or amendment to closure with an up-or-down 
vote, as I have attempted in the last month on those three issues, 
Senators have used their prerogatives as Senators under the rules to 
continue the debate. We will have to see how the energy debate plays 
itself out, especially with regard to ANWR.
  I have already stated very emphatically my desire to bring up the 
energy bill prior to the Founders' Day recess, to have a good debate, 
to talk about all of the issues, including those which are 
controversial. It is my expectation we will do just that. We will have 
a good debate and have many votes on many of the issues that the 
Senator has so passionately addressed in the Senate Chamber.
  I ask for regular order.

                          ____________________