Energy Policy Act of 2003
ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2003
UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENTS. 824
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 12:15 p.m. today the Senate proceed to the consideration of calendar item No. 83, S. 824, FAA reauthorization.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
ORDER OF PROCEDURE
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the list of amendments that I will send to the desk be the only remaining first-degree amendments in order to S. 14 other than any amendments which may be pending at the time this agreement is entered; that any listed first-degree amendment be subject to second-degree amendments which must be relevant to the first degree to which offered; and that if any first-degree amendment on the list is described as "relevant," that the definition of "relevant" be "related to the subject matter of the bill" and/or "energy related"; provided, further, that following the disposition of the amendments which may be offered from the list, the bill be read a third time; further, that the Senate then proceed to the consideration of calendar No. 85, H.R. 6, the House Energy bill, and that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 14, as amended, be inserted in lieu thereof; I further ask that H.R. 6 then be read a third time and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mrs. BOXER. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader has the floor.
Mr. FRIST. I will suggest the absence of the quorum shortly, and we will have a discussion in a few minutes among ourselves.
Mr. President, in terms of the course of the day, we would like to work out the unanimous consent request just objected to, which had to do with getting the amendments on both sides of the aisle, which we have finally done after about a week and a half of discussion. That is real progress. It allows us to focus and give some order to the range of issues that must be discussed on the Energy bill. They are all very important amendments.
It is absolutely critical that we come to an agreement on what those amendments are so we can further that discussion.
Mr. DORGAN. Will the majority leader yield for a question?
Mr. FRIST. Yes.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wanted to ask a question about the issue of relevancy. That piqued my interest because we have had experience here with respect to the definition of relevancy on amendments.
Could the majority leader explain it to me so that I understand the unanimous consent request that he had propounded dealing with relevancy? I think there is some merit in the discussions going on to try to get a list. I am not wanting to be destructive to that effort, but I would like to understand the discussion about relevancy. That has become an increasingly important issue for many of us.
Mr. FRIST. Indeed, Mr. President. In response to my distinguished colleague, the issue of relevance has become an issue. Therefore, in the unanimous consent request I said, " 'relevant be related to the subject matter of the bill' and/or energy related." That is really to add what I think the Senator's concern isis this relevancy going to be so tight that something having to do with energy will be excluded? By adding this clause, "energy related," it is the understanding that we will consider other amendments on the list.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if the majority leader will yield further, that would satisfy my concerns, if I understand exactly what is intended by the leader. As I indicated, we have some concerns about the relevancy issues and the determination of what is relevant. If the wording is as the majority leader suggested, that would satisfy my concerns.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, do I understand correctly that there are 350 amendments pending?
Mr. FRIST. Yes.
Mr. DURBIN. Has anybody looked at those and decided which ones are relevant?
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, normally, we look at them when we get themboth sidesand we make decisions and talk with the proponents and we winnow down the list. The answer is, not yet.
Mr. DURBIN. That is my concern then, Mr. President. In all fairness to the Parliamentarian, the definition of relevancy, even as we define it may turn out to be a lot different when individual amendments are actually offered. I would object to the UC if it includes reference to relevancy until we have had a chance to look and determine whether my amendments or any others are irrelevant. Amendments have been written and a decision can be made.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection was already heard on the proffered unanimous consent.
Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator will yield, my understanding from the majority leader is that it is not the relevancy determined by the Parliamentarian, but they must be related to the subject of energy, which is infinitely a broader definition. That is my understanding.
Mr. DASCHLE. If the majority leader will yield, there is one other clarification I think is important, and that is we have had a lot to do with putting the list together. There is no relevancy requirement for first-degree amendments. If it is stated as an amendment to the Energy bill, it can be on any subject matter. If it says relevant, then we will use, as the distinguished majority leader has noted, the criteria he has laid out, subject generally to the energy issue.
So the relevancy requirement is only a requirement in those areas where relevancy is listed as a factor in the amendment itself. There is no relevancy with regard to first-degree amendments.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader has the yield.
Mr. FRIST. I am happy to yield to the Senator for a question.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask the leader, in reference to second-degree amendments, is there a relevancy requirement?
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, there always has been on the first degree to which they are offered.
Mr. FRIST. Once again, I renew the unanimous consent request that I propounded and the proposal as spelled out before.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, first of all, I'll comment on this relevancy issue. I believe there is an understanding among the managers and the leadership. So I am confident we will be able to take care of the concerns just expressed.
With regard to the schedule, we will be turning to one more amendment on energy, which Senator Campbell will be putting forward in a few minutes.
After that, at 12:15 today, we will be turning to consideration of the FAA reauthorization. My intent is to complete this FAA reauthorization before we leave for the weekend.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I briefly want to thank the leaders, particularly the majority leader, for helping to get the last Senators to sign up. This means we will get an Energy bill that contains plenty of what people want. It has ethanol and, before we are finished, it will have all of the what people want with reference to the continuation of wind and related energies.
This just means people will have every opportunity to look at amendments, and they have listed everything under the sun. There will be a chance to work on them. We thank everyone for cooperating. It looks to me that, with the majority leader and minority leader helping us, after we return from the recess, we can complete this bill in a week, based upon us finally having this list. I thank everybody.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
The Senator from Colorado is recognized.