THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Contents Display

[Page: S314]  GPO's PDF
---

   Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I bring to the attention of my colleagues a situation which I think bears some light.

   We have a unique set of circumstances surrounding the manner in which the energy bill is likely to come up before the Senate. I understand that unofficially a date has been set for February 11.

   What we have before us is a bill that has been proposed by the majority leader with the assistance of the chairman of the committee, Senator Bingaman. The problem with the process is that bill has not been referred to the committee of jurisdiction; that is, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

   The question is, Why in the normal course of events would a bill under the jurisdiction of the committee not be referred to that committee? To suggest that there is an effort to obstruct the process by giving Members input on the bill through the normal process of amendments is a travesty of the process associated with the traditions of the Senate.

   Let me outline where the inconsistencies are.

   The Commerce Committee is holding markups on aspects of the energy bill concerning CAFE standards , as they should. Senator HOLLINGS, chairman of that committee, insisted that prior to any developed input on an energy bill CAFE standards be addressed in the committee of jurisdiction; namely, Commerce. I have no objection to that. That is quite appropriate. But it brings me back to the reality that the committee of jurisdiction on the underlying bill has not been given the opportunity.

   In fact, the majority leader has indicated to the chairman of the Energy Committee that the matter not be taken up before the Energy Committee. One can only wonder why.

   Obviously, there are portions of the energy bill with which the majority leader disagrees. I can understand that. But to circumvent the committee process is what I find unacceptable.

   Let me give you another example of an inconsistency associated with the energy bill; that is, certain tax incentives that are proposed to expand our energy production, particularly in the area of renewables and new technology.

   The Finance Committee, which Senator Baucus chairs, is in the process of holding markups, in detail, on portions of energy-related tax matters. So here we have two committees, neither of which have the underlying jurisdiction associated with the energy bill, and their chairmen are proceeding with hearings on their portions of the energy bill; namely, those associated with tax provisions in the Finance Committee and those associated with CAFE standards in the Commerce Committee.

   So I would ask the majority leader why he refuses to allow the committee of jurisdiction to hold markups to encourage the participation of members of the committee to review, if you will, or have any input in the bill that is before the Senate as submitted by the majority leader.

   This bill has had no referrals to the Energy Committee. It has had absolutely no input from the minority side--Republican members--of that committee. I fail to understand the rationale of the majority leader in refusing to allow the committee of jurisdiction to hold a markup. Perhaps there is a concern the majority leader has relative to how any votes would go outside of the parameters of the legislation which he and Senator Bingaman have introduced.

   I think it is also a reflection on myself, as the ranking member, and Senator Bingaman, as the chairman of the committee, to have our committee circumvented by the dictate of the majority leader. Yet at the same time the majority leader, I assume, is knowledgeable and allows the Committee of Commerce and the Committee of Finance to address their portions of legislation that would be included in the underlying bill.

   I bring this matter to the attention of other Members because I think it suggests that clearly the majority leader is attempting to obstruct the legislative process. This bill belongs in the Energy Committee. The Energy Committee has every right to proceed to discuss and consider aspects of this very important legislation. After all, this is one of the President's underlying priorities, along with trade legislation and stimulus. And now that the majority leader has given us an opportunity to have a date to take up energy--namely, the date of February 11 --we find ourselves in the position where we have had absolutely no input in this legislation.

   We have had a bill in since over a year ago, a comprehensive energy bill. We can look forward to the debate and proceed with amendments to the majority leader's bill. We can consider substitutions. But I want my colleagues to know that the committee of jurisdiction has been circumvented, with no reasonable explanation. Yet the other committees have been allowed to proceed.

   I do not know whether to pursue this further, in the sense of asking my colleagues, collectively, if this is the way they believe the Senate should be run or whether we should proceed with a sense of the Senate relative to one committee, for all practical purposes, ostracized by the majority leader by not allowing the committee of jurisdiction to take up this matter. But I communicate to my colleagues that I believe this is a grave injustice. It is a reflection on myself and it is a reflection on the committee chairman, inasmuch as our responsibility has been circumvented. The majority leader has simply decided, without the input of the committee of jurisdiction, to proceed with this legislation coming up on the floor.

   I encourage my colleagues to reflect on what is happening. I think it is a retreat from tradition. I find it very objectionable, and I cannot understand why the majority leader would obstruct the process associated with the responsibility of a committee of jurisdiction.

   Mr. President, I am going to have more to say about this matter as time goes on, but I do appreciate the opportunity, in morning business, to bring this matter to the attention of my colleagues.

   I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

   The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

   Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

   Mr. REID. Will the Senator withhold for a unanimous consent request?

   Mr. KYL. Certainly.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Contents Display