Press Conference Re: Exclusion of Democrats from Energy Bill Conference

HEADLINE: PRESS CONFERENCE RE: EXCLUSION OF DEMOCRATS FROM ENERGY BILL CONFERENCE
 
PARTICIPANTS: SENATOR BYRON DORGAN (D-ND); SENATOR JEFF BINGAMAN (D-NM); SENATOR RON WYDEN (D-OR); AND REPRESENTATIVE EDWARD MARKEY (D-MA)
 
LOCATION: SENATE RADIO/TV GALLERY, THE CAPITOL BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C.

BODY:
SEN. DORGAN: Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for joining us today. I'm Senator Dorgan. I'm joined by two of my colleagues in the Senate and one of my colleagues from the House. We want to talk just for a moment about the energy conference.

We, all four of us, are conferees designated by the House and the Senate as conferees to the energy bill conference. We have not yet been invited to a conference meeting at which discussions are taking place or decisions are being made about the energy bill. And we are, as conferees, waking up in the morning and opening the newspaper and reading reports of what some staff person says that the chairman of the Senate Republican conferees and the chairman of the House Republican conferees have decided on the previous day, in some cases about very, very important issues.

For example, yesterday I read that a staff person reported a decision had been made by the two chairmen that we would not have a renewable portfolio standard in the energy bill. A very big issue, a very important issue for this country, a significant part of future energy that will help and strengthen this country. A decision is made in a circumstance in which conferees from our side of the political aisle are not involved, and deliberately so.

One other example -- and my colleagues will give you others. We on the floor of the Senate had a vote on an amendment that I offered dealing with hydrogen and hydrogen fuel cells. And we, by 67 votes, decided to set targets and timetables for hydrogen vehicles on the road. And those targets and timetables in 2010 and 2020, 2.5 million vehicles in 2020 -- those targets and timetables were supported by 67 senators in a recorded vote in the United States Senate, but that just disappeared in a conference, a conference that we were not invited to attend.

My point is very simple: In my judgment, we should have an energy bill; we need an energy bill. But the process by which this energy bill is being written, with only one party present and the other party deliberately excluded, I believe threatens the ability to get an energy bill.

And I think in many ways short-changes the American people.

Let me describe, finally, the best example of this I know. And I -- that some of you wonder whether we're just failing to attend meetings. This was a(n) e-mail sent out yesterday, and it says "This is to advise" -- this came to my office -- "This will be to advise you there will be a meeting of the energy bill Republican conferees tomorrow, Wednesday, October 1st, at 10:00 a.m. in the committee library, S.D. 370 regarding the electricity issue." That's obviously a very big issue, as you know. And this e-mail came to me, to my office, and it says, "One L.A. per member may attend. Please advise as to whether your senator will be attending this meeting." About 10 minutes later, the following e-mail appeared in my office: "Subject: Oops. Please disregard earlier e-mail unless you are a Republican energy bill conferee. Thank you."

That's all you need to know -- (laughter) -- about this process. And it will tell you volumes about why this process really is unfair and I think undermines the ability to write an energy policy that will have strong bipartisan support and that will get the best of what each party has to offer for this country's future energy policy.

Let me call on the ranking member of the Senate Energy Committee, Jeff Bingaman.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
SEN. DORGAN: Congressman Markey, thank you. You know, frankly, I refuse to believe that you had at your fingertips the lyrics of that country western song. But I grew up with country western music, and I think it's an appropriate verse.

Let me just mention one final point that I think all of us would agree on. We believe an energy bill is important because we believe there ought to be incentives for additional production that are produced in an environmentally sensitive way. You need a conservation title that works. You need an efficiency title that is strong and that works. And you need opportunities and incentives for renewable and limitless sources of energy. And we believe a good, strong energy bill will substantially help this country and improve its future. We fear that the process that is now under way jeopardizes the opportunity to get there.

We'd be happy to answer questions.

Yes?

Q The chairman of the conference has said that this is going to be held over until after the recess. You guys have told us what's wrong. What can you do in the next week and a half to change it?

SEN. DORGAN: Well, we're hoping -- I indicted to you that there is a meeting -- I think I indicated to you there's a meeting at the White House tomorrow. We've been called and invited to a meeting at the White House to talk about the progress on the energy bill. My hope would be that at that meeting, and beyond that meeting, as we reach some sort of conclusion on this bill, that there would be an inclusion of Democratic conferees and that we would begin to work together and try to provide for this legislation the best of what both parties can offer. But we'll see.

I mean, the reason we're here today is to say to you that we think this process is not a good process. We think it jeopardizes the prospect of getting a bill. And we, as conferees, don't think a process that has us reading in the newspaper decisions that are made by others and announced by staff is the right way to write an energy bill.

Q If these issues that you've outlined here end up in the final version of the bill -- (off mike)?

SEN. DORGAN: I don't know what happens. First of all, we don't know what's going to be in a final bill. I'm told by the chairman on our side that there will be some moment at which we are presented with what has been decided and then we will have an opportunity to try to get out of that package what was put in.

That also is a very unusual approach to this. But I think, you know, the electricity title hasn't yet been written, there -- several of the key pieces have not yet been written, or at least have not yet been announced. Let's wait and see exactly what those specifics are before we talk about what might happen in the future.

Yes, ma'am.

Q Have you had a chance to look over the ethanol and the DBE issue?

SEN. BINGAMAN: No, that's another one of the titles that hasn't been released. Ethanol, electricity and the tax provisions still have not been released. So we don't know what they're proposing in those areas.

SEN. WYDEN: Let me just add on an earlier question. What we hope to do and why we wanted to discuss what's happened so far is to see if we can bring an about-face in this kind of process, that those who are going to write -- write the bill are going to see that this might produce some short-term, you know, benefit -- they may be able to just force their will -- but that this is not a good way to proceed when the American people will see that they are out of step on so many of the key kinds of questions.

We know where the votes are. And so, when you ask what is it we hope to accomplish, we hope that as people get, for example, the news that there is absolutely no consumer protection in this bill whatsoever, we're hoping that this will require that they come back to us and say, Let's now talk about an area where Democrats and Republicans can find common ground, and let's try to come up with some consumer protection provisions in this legislation that could pass the Senate 70-30. That's the kind of bill we want. We don't go into this saying, Let's spend our time trying to figure out how to not produce a bill. We're trying to figure out a way to go back to the kind of approach Jeff Bingaman has used for years when he has been our leader on the Energy Committee, which is to try to find a way to get two- thirds of the senators or thereabouts to rally behind an approach, and that hasn't been done here.

Q If -- Senator Dorgan, if the -- if ANWR is not in the bill, but the (strong ?) ethanol provision is, but it does not include an RPS provision, would you be in favor of holding back the bill, trying to filibuster the bill --

SEN. DORGAN: That's too complicated a question. It's a three- part --

Q (Off mike.)

SEN. DORGAN: It's a fair question -- it's a fair question, but I think we're not prepared to respond because we don't -- these are major titles that are not yet complete. We don't have any notion of what might be in them. And I think my colleague said something that's very important: our goal here is not to be critics, it's to be participants. That's a very important goal for us. We are not participants because we have been excluded. We are critics of that exclusion, but that's -- our goal isn't to be a critic, our goal is to be a participant in this process.

Q Senator Craig said yesterday that your complaints are not new and that there -- there are some reported complaints also from Republicans in both the House and the Senate. And he says that -- you know, that this is just a matter of being briefed by your -- briefed appropriately by your staffers and going to a website and making sure that you inform yourself about what's going on, and that these are really pretty groundless kinds of complaints to make.

What is your response?

REP. MARKEY: Yes, those Republican senators take the same approach towards the privacy rights of Americans. Their view is that you have a right to a privacy policy, and the privacy policy would be you have no privacy rights, but you would have privacy policy. The same thing is true here. They tell you, well, you have a right to know what's going on; you have a right to effect the process, you just have to, you know, wait for us to notify you what the decisions have been, and then, we'll be more than willing to accept your obvious rejection of the lack of inclusion of consumer and environmental protections. And they consider that to be a fair process to protect very important interests in our country.

So, that's not the way Congress is meant to function. I have been in Congress for 27 years on the Energy Committee, and I've been a participant in its drafting of every one of these energy bills. And many of them took many weeks, late into the night, with Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, Northeast, Midwest and Southern members all meeting, trying to reconcile seemingly irreconcilable differences. And always, a conclusion was reached. This is just the opposite of the history of energy policy in our country, and there's no happy face which Senator Craig or any other senator can place upon the way in which they're treating the rights of the Democrats and environmental and consumer interests in our country.

Q Senator Dorgan, on another subject, the supplemental, you, I understand, are planning to offer an amendment on loan guarantees. And there's been some discussion on both sides. And Congressman Markey, I'd like for you to also comment. There's some talk about a loan versus grant, and maybe working some kind of compromise out. Is there an appetite in the Senate for that, and in the House?

SEN. DORGAN: Well, you're talking about the $20-plus billion for reconstruction aid to the country of Iraq, and I offered an amendment yesterday that lost 15 to 14 in the Appropriations Committee. The amendment would create an Iraq reconstruction finance authority. It would be run by the Iraq provisional government. They would securitize future production of Iraq oil and use that to reconstruct Iraq. It would be Iraqi citizens securitizing Iraqi oil for investment in Iraq. It lost 15 to 14 in the committee. I intend to offer that on the floor of the Senate, as well. And I'm hopeful that perhaps we will pick up some votes on the floor of the Senate and be able to prevail.

I also offered a second amendment saying because I couldn't pass the first, let's just turn the grants into loans. If the $20-plus billion are all considered grants, and they are, let us convert them to be considered loans. That also lost, 15 to 14.

I intend to offer both on the floor of the Senate, although my preference would be to pass the first and not have to offer the second.

But, you know, let me make one final point. Iraq is a country with substantial resources. It has liquid gold under the sand, the second-largest reserves of oil in the world. And it has every capacity, in my judgment, to be able to provide for its own reconstruction. And the reason that we're having this debate, as Ambassador Bremer says, Iraq has foreign debt. The largest foreign debt owed by Iraq is to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Wouldn't it be perverse to have the American taxpayer pay to reconstruct Iraq -- $21 billion, nearly -- and then have Iraq pump oil and sell it on the market so it can raise money in order to send money to the Saudis and the Kuwaitis. That's a perverse result, if I've ever heard of one.

And so, I'm going to push this amendment once again and hope I am able to get the support on the floor of the Senate that's necessary to pass it.

Q Have you talked to that one vote? Or have any possibility -- (off mike)?

SEN. DORGAN: Well, two people who voted for it -- excuse me -- two people who voted against it in the committee expressed sympathy for it. So I had 14 votes plus sympathy in the committee. (Laughter.) But at least one of those that were sympathetic indicated that while he felt obligated to vote against it in the committee, he felt like it could be something he might vote for on the floor of the Senate. So we'll see. You can't -- you know, sympathy doesn't result in vote counts here in the Senate. So, while I was pleased to have their sympathy, I would have been much more pleased to have two extra votes.

But I do think that, as you have heard others discuss, there's a lot of interest here in asking the question: Why should we, on top of $65 billion, almost $66 billion to the military, which I think the Congress will provide, and do so quickly, why should we be paying for the reconstruction of Iraq when Iraq has the capability to do the same for itself, and when five months ago, the following said that Iraq oil would pay for Iraq reconstruction: Dick Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz -- and there are more. All of them said the same thing five months ago: Iraq oil should pay for Iraq reconstruction.

SEN. WYDEN: How about after we hear from Ed Markey? Let's talk about energy again.

REP. MARKEY: Yes. We're hoping this --

Q I just want to get his --

REP. MARKEY: I will just say that on the House side, for the Democrats, sympathy would be a step up -- (light laughter) -- in terms of the interests which the Republicans have in Democratic views on this subject. And I'm afraid that the process which is going to unfold on the Iraqi reconstruction money will be identical to that on the energy bill; that is that we will not be allowed to, in any way, shape the form of that legislation, and we will be forced to vote on it without amendment. And I'm afraid that, unfortunately, that is the path that they appear to be following on these major issues as this Congress comes to a conclusion.

Q Senator Dorgan, does the way this is playing out make you regret at all the way you passed the energy bill here -- take the old bill out then pass it. The Republicans, you know, grabbed that immediately, said, "We're going to rewrite it," they didn't take that as a serious bill; you know it was sort of a trick really to get conference. Do you have any regrets about that?

SEN. DORGAN: Well, I certainly don't regret the Senate having passed an energy bill that we helped write; no, not at all. What I regret is that the process by which a conference committee is created is a process that excludes nearly one-half of the U.S. Congress. And I think that the two chairmen could easily have constructed a process here in which there was input from both sides, real conference meetings rather than virtual conference meetings. And in that circumstance I think there would be a much better chance of getting a better bill and a piece of legislation that would pass the House and the Senate. And that's still my hope. But I think as Senator Wyden said, it is not too late for an about-face on this, and perhaps tomorrow in the meeting with the president, we can talk about that with the president, because he wants an energy bill, we want an energy bill; what is the best way to get to that end point? It seems to me to have bipartisan cooperation to write a bill that can pass both the House and the Senate.

Q Senator Dorgan, you said you don't want to speculate on how you or your colleagues would vote on a hypothetical list of provisions of an energy bill. So what, precisely, do you mean, then, when you say that the processes used by Senator Domenici and Mr. Tauzin threaten or undermine the ability to have an energy bill? Are you holding out a threat of a filibuster?

SEN. DORGAN: Well I'll let my colleagues speak for themselves on this as well. The purpose of this is not to threaten anyone; the purpose of this is to say the way to get an energy bill signed into law is to include Republicans and Democrats in the process, to have conference committees at which conferees are invited and to be able to solicit the best of the ideas that are available in both caucuses in the House and the Senate. That has not been the case, and my point is that the risk of not being able to get a satisfactory bill to the House or the Senate comes from the process that's been developed. There's still time for an about-face. There's still time to construct this in the way conferees are supposed to work in a conference committee.

You might want to comment on that.

SEN. WYDEN: No, I think Senator Dorgan said it -- said it very well. I mean, everybody knows a senator carries around what amounts to a procedural nuclear weapon in terms of the filibuster. Nobody on our side wants it to come to that. As Senator Dorgan has said repeatedly, we want to meet our colleagues halfway. We want to find common ground. We have done that repeatedly in the past. Senator Dorgan's hydrogen legislation, a perfect example.

So it's our hope that right now, when there still is time, that our colleagues will see that history shows this is not a good way to write a bill, number one, and it will be very hard to implement if you don't figure out a way to find some common ground and to do it in a bipartisan way.

SEN. DORGAN: Last question. We have to run up. I'm sorry.

Q If a bill does come out of conference, it's pretty clear at this point that there are going to be some pretty appealing things in it, namely, ethanol and the liability standards after the big blackout. How difficult do you think it will be for people to support a filibuster and vote against this bill, given what -- even if you don't get let in on the process, you already know what's going to be in it?

SEN. DORGAN: Well, you know, of course, what the two chairmen have said. They're writing a bill that they want to create in a way that will pass the House and the Senate. I understand what they're saying. And yet just read the paper in the mornings and you ask yourself: Is what they are writing meeting that test? They put in ANWR. They dropped renewable portfolio standards requiring the utilities to construct 10 percent of their power from renewable sources of energy. That is not moving in the direction to meet the goals that they talked about.

So you know, I don't want to speculate what might happen at the end of this process, because, as Senator Bingaman indicated, several of the major pieces to an energy bill have not yet been either written or at least disclosed to us. And let's see when those are disclosed and written, and let's see what happens with the president's meeting tomorrow and perhaps discussions that might begin to create a conference committee that is a real one, rather than a virtual one.

Q Thank you.

SEN. DORGAN: Thank you.