Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) last week discontinued any further consideration by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee of major energy legislation for the rest of the session, reportedly after it became clear that Republicans on the committee had enough votes to push through a bill that would call for the opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

This prompted President Bush to make a personal plea to the Democrat-controlled Senate to move quickly on energy legislation, saying it was closely linked to national security and the economy. “..I urge the Senate to listen to the will of the senators and move a bill, move a bill that will help Americans find work and also make it easier…to protect the security of the country,” he said.

At the direct urging of Daschle, Senate Energy Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) last Tuesday suspended formal mark-ups of comprehensive energy legislation and a national energy security bill for this session of Congress, in favor of a stripped down set of only the most critical issues.

Bingaman said he has been asked by Daschle to propose “comprehensive and balanced energy legislation” that could be added to the Senate calendar for potential action before Congress adjourns for the year. Such legislation would include only those “things that are urgent, urgent, urgent,” such as energy security measures, said a press aide for the Senate committee.

Daschle plans to invoke the seldom-used Senate Rule 14 to to bring the Bingaman-proposed energy bill straight to the Senate floor, bypassing the Senate Energy Committee and any opposition from Republicans.

The fate of the energy bill on Capitol Hill was extremely fluid last week. One natural gas lobbyist, who met with Bingaman’s senior staff, said the comprehensive energy bill “is not out of play,” but he fears that Daschle may use it as a “negotiating tool to get something else” from Republican senators. He’ll let them have “anything but ANWR.” As for the future of energy security legislation, the lobbyist said that probably will be attached to another bill.

The Senate Energy press aide noted that Bingaman’s proposed “Energy Infrastructure Security Act,” which calls for criminal background checks of “sensitive” energy personnel and stepped-up protection by law enforcement authorities of the nation’s energy facilities, provides a clear outline of “what the committee believes needs to be acted on” before the Senate adjourns.

Angered by Daschle’s and Bingaman’s actions, key Republican committee members last week were preparing to respond with their own comprehensive energy bill, which would include ANWR and possibly be attached to an appropriations bill. Sen. Frank Murkowski (R-AK), the ranking minority member on the committee, called the moves by the Democrat leaders the “height of irresponsibility” because they were “locking out Republicans” and were an “affront” to the entire committee process.

Daschle’s action last week came only days before the Senate Energy Committee was to mark up an energy security bill and resume markup of comprehensive energy legislation, both of which had been delayed following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks..

In a prepared statement, Bingaman said, “It has become increasingly clear to the Majority Leader and to me that much of what we are doing in our committee is starting to encroach on the jurisdictions of many other committees. Additionally, with the few weeks remaining in this session, it is now obvious to all how difficult it is going to be for these various committees to finish their work on energy-related provisions.”

And “perhaps most importantly,” he noted, “the Senate’s leadership sincerely wants to avoid quarrelsome, divisive votes in committee. At a time when Americans all over the world are pulling together with a sense of oneness and purpose, Congress has an obligation at the moment to avoid those contentious issues that divide, rather than unite, us.”

Several energy security proposals are being looked at to send to Daschle, according to the Senate Energy Committee. One would give the energy secretary and attorney general widespread authority to direct energy companies to conduct extensive criminal background checks on persons who operate “critical energy infrastructure facilities” to determine if they are a security threat.

Under the proposal, energy companies would be required to fingerprint employees in sensitive positions — those that have access to critical equipment and “sensitive” information — and then submit the fingerprints to the U.S. Attorney General’s Office for identification and criminal history checks. It calls for the Department of Energy (DOE) to issue regulations to identify the positions that would be subject to criminal history checks, establish the conditions under which criminal history information would be used, and limit the disclosure of such information.

The proposed measure also would seek to deter companies from making hasty decisions based on arrests that are “more than one year old for which there is no information of the disposition of the case,” or arrests in which the charge was dismissed or the accused acquitted. Employees would have the right to “complete, correct and explain” information contained in their background checks.

The initiative would seek to tighten the security for all “critical energy infrastructure” facilities, including generation or transmission of electrical energy; and the production, refining, transportation and storage of petroleum, natural gas, or petroleum products. In short, any facility whose “incapacity or destruction…would have a debilitating impact on the defense or economic security of the United States.”

Also being considered is a proposal that would permit the energy secretary to contract with state or local law enforcement authorities to protect property and facilities that are under the control of a power marketing administration. This may not require legislative action, but rather could be resolved through administration action, the committee press aide said.

State/local authorities would carry firearms, execute and serve warrants, make arrests without warrants if they suspect a felony or misdemeanor is being committed in their presence, and conduct search and seizures without warrants. Under the proposal, the energy secretary also could authorize federal law enforcement officials to enforce federal laws and regulations that govern the property and facilities owned, leased or otherwise under the control of a power marketing administration.

Lastly, one proposal would excuse energy companies that join together to share information related to security concerns of any antitrust action, provided no competition issues arise. To the extent companies “gather and analyze information to better understand security problems related to critical energy infrastructure facilities,” and “communicate or disclose information to help avoid or correct a security problem,” they would be exempt from antitrust review.

Specifically, the proposal would require the energy secretary to establish the “standards and procedures” for energy companies to develop and carry out voluntary agreements to assist in collecting and communicating security-related information. The voluntary agreement may not be carried out unless approved by the attorney general after consulting with the Federal Trade Commission, the bill said.

Provided there is no injury to competition, energy companies that take action under authorized voluntary agreements will be shielded from “any civil or criminal action brought under the antitrust laws,” according to the measure.

©Copyright 2001 Intelligence Press Inc. Allrights reserved. The preceding news report may not be republishedor redistributed, in whole or in part, in any form, without priorwritten consent of Intelligence Press, Inc.