By Republican Members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee

With a new congressional session comes a recycling of the old proposal to raid the jurisdiction of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. This seems a bizarre moment to advance the idea that a group, which didn’t stand up to the Barack Obama-Nancy Pelosi axis on its radical energy and environmental initiatives, should now take over the work of the committee that did. (Rep. Doc Hastings’s Opinion piece, “One Energy Panel Better for Nation,” POLITICO, Nov. 22)

The fact is that unparalleled tenacity and teamwork characterized Energy and Commerce Republicans while we were in the wilderness. Our members blended this tenacity with meager resources and went up against the power of a united Democratic majority.

Remember cap and trade? What was supposed to be an unstoppable, greased-pig markup on the Obama administration’s signature cap-and-trade bill was turned into a fight by the 23 determined Republicans on Energy and Commerce.

Four long days and nights spent in Room 2123 of the Rayburn building found Republicans sharply disputing Democrats and their theories about global warming and the U.S. economy. Deals were offered and rejected, while 300 Republican amendments piled up on the clerk’s desk and majority members were forced into extended debate on 47 of them.

The process exposed the ragged seams of the majority strategy and laid bare the failings of their absurd cap-and-trade scheme. Today, the tattered Waxman-Markey bill is gathering dust on a Senate shelf, consigned in part by the sunburn it received from exposure to the Energy and Commerce Committee.

But some say that success in blocking this threat to the American economic system is yesterday’s news. They now say that the hard work keeping energy available and affordable is done — it’s someone else’s turn to take over. Some even say that consolidating power over every facet of U.S. energy in a kind of college of congressional cardinals seems like an innovation.

We note that if those things were to happen, they can’t stop by stripping just the Energy and Commerce Committee of its responsibility.

The line for surrendering responsibility gets long fast. In alphabetical order, first comes the Agriculture Committee. That would necessarily lose oversight of both the Rural Utilities Service, which regulates electric co-ops, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which oversees energy commodities. And what about the Foreign Affairs Committee’s oversight of international energy issues — including nuclear 123 Agreements?

Or the Homeland Security Committee’s responsibilities for energy as part of emerging threats, infrastructure protection and emergency response? Or the Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s authority over domestic policy and government management? Or the Science and Technology Committee’s jurisdiction over energy research and development? Or the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee’s pipeline jurisdiction? Or ... well, the list goes on and on, doesn’t it?

Putting all of Congress’s energy eggs in one superbasket might make sense in a sweeping and comprehensive restructuring of the House system — until the idea is confronted with the sacrifice of knowledge and good sense for the sake of creating an artificial efficiency.

It’s no accident that energy is our committee’s first name, because it is inextricably linked to the U.S. economy.

Even if you don’t care much about the jobs, growth and opportunity fueled by energy, separating energy policy from environmental policy seems a particularly bad notion. In a jurisdictional sense, dividing these intertwined matters would create an environment committee invested with actual power — and unencumbered by the inconvenience of actual knowledge.

Instead of a committee with a built-in brake on radicalism, we fear we would have a panel with legislative authority and subpoena power that is dominated by people who, in varying degrees, view energy as the enemy.

Energy policy is more than digging and drilling. It covers energy markets, generation, efficiency and conservation, information, interstate transmission, electric reliability, nuclear power and rate-making, plus all the regulators of those areas.

The Natural Resources Committee has a strong lineup of expert members who understand and ably handle public land issues. We bow to their wisdom in those matters, because we respect their judgment and informed views. But the effective management of public lands is hardly an analog to the assembly of U.S. energy policy that drives world energy policy.

Policymaking on the Energy and Commerce Committee is about applying a unique storehouse of knowledge and experience — some of it hard-earned, indeed — toward ensuring reliable, low-cost energy for making and doing things that generate a robust American economy.

What’s being proposed is a grab. It is not a thoughtful reorganization of energy jurisdiction, nor does it advance the “all-of-the-above” strategy that Republicans advocate for cutting reliance on foreign energy, improving the environment, reviving the U.S. economy and putting people back to work.

Some say change isn’t easy, but we haven’t had enough. Others have been talking about how changes over the past four years turned their lives upside down — and they just turned to Republicans to undo the recent past.

The Energy and Commerce Committee is equipped to begin working on energy policy on the first day of the new Congress. Others will have to go to school first.

Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) serves as the ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Reps. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.), Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), John Shimkus (R-Ill.), Joseph Pitts (R-Pa.), Mary Bono Mack (R-Calif.), Greg Walden (R-Ore.), Lee Terry (R-Neb.), Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), Tim Murphy (R-Pa.), Michael Burgess (R-Texas), Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.), Steve Scalise (R-La.) and Bob Latta (R-Ohio) serve on the committee.

Click here for the link to the op-ed.