The Honorable Pete V. Domenici Dear Chairman Domenici: I read today that you are seeking to conclude the conference on H.R. 6, the "Energy Policy Act of 2003," by October 1. If true, I can see no opportunity for a meaningful negotiation of the conferees on important issues. As you know, I raised no objections last week to your decision to provide all conferees' staff with Republican drafts of portions of the conference report for discussion. It is my understanding that at meetings to discuss the drafts, staff have raised various issues about provisions in the draft and those left out. I assumed this would lead to a second draft in which some matters were resolved subject to approval by the conferees, and others would be left for negotiations by the conferees. If, however, your intention is to merely listen to staff comments and make decisions on the content of the Conference Report only among Republican conferees, the process is clearly unacceptable. Staff comments cannot replace meaningful negotiations between all duly appointed conferees. There are two categories of issues for the conferees. The first, which have sometimes been called Tier I issues, are matters more suited to open negotiations by conferees rather than staff discussions. These are matters such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, various electricity provisions, and ethanol matters. In fact, our staffs have not even received first drafts on a number of these issues, including electricity and ethanol. It is my understanding that there have been no drafts provided to the Democrats on the tax provisions either. The second category includes a number of changes to the less controversial portions of the bill previously agreed upon in the last Congress. These include matters inserted into the drafts that were never considered in either body, or even any committee, and matters dropped that were approved in both bodies. At a minimum, they also deserve open negotiations by the conferees. At the opening of the conference I called for open meetings of the conference and true bipartisan negotiations. I had been led to believe that was your intention. If the reports are true that you do not intend to allow meaningful negotiations with the Democratic conferees, and instead will make decisions only among the Republican conferees, it would be a serious affront to the legislative process. Let me suggest a simple alternative: First, provide us with whatever second drafts you desire on each of the subjects. Second, provide adequate time for their review. Third, schedule open meetings to allow for serious negotiations over each subject. I would be pleased to discuss this matter at any time. Sincerely,
JOHN D. DINGELL cc: The Honorable W. J. "Billy" Tauzin, Chairman The Honorable Jeff Bingaman,
Ranking Minority Member
| |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
