Statement of Congressman John D. Dingell, Ranking Member
Committee on Energy and Commerce

DEBATE ON THE RULE FOR H.R. 6,
THE ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005

April 20, 2005

I rise in strong opposition to this rule because the rule before us protects special interest giveaways that Members should have the right to vote on. For example, this rule does not allow an amendment that I submitted with Mr. Boehlert of New York and Mr. Udall of New Mexico related to the egregious hydroelectric relicensing provisions in the bill. Nor does it allow an amendment by Ms. Capps of California to strike the unjustified, and unjustifiable, gifts to the producers of MTBE. And it blocks Mr. Stupak from trying to stop oil and natural gas companies from drilling in the Great Lakes.

First, I tried to fix the hydroelectric section of this bill, which creates new rights and procedures for the licensing of dams that generate electricity from our rivers and it gives these new rights to one party only – the electric utilities. Under the bill they are given the exclusive right to a trial-type hearing for disputed issues of material fact. None of the other parties who currently participate in the relicensing process – states, Indian tribes, conservationists, sportsmen, irrigators, or ranchers – are afforded the same right.

The bill also allows utilities ALONE to propose alternatives to the resource protections recommended by the Secretaries of Interior, Agriculture, or Commerce that MUST be accepted if they meet certain criteria. Again, none of the other legitimate parties are given this right. This is simply and fundamentally unfair.

The rivers that produce power are public resources - not the private dominion of electric utilities. While hydropower is an important part of the fuel mix, it is not without its drawbacks, namely the detrimental effect that dams can have on lands, fish, wildlife, and the communities that depend on these resources. That is why the Federal Power Act has long recognized that a balance must be struck between the need for power and the protection of these precious resources.

The amendment that we submitted would have corrected some of the most egregious offenses of this section. Our amendment would have applied these new rights to all parties equally, and in a workable fashion. By not allowing this bipartisan amendment, this rule makes a bad bill even worse.

Second, the rule also forecloses a vote on the billions of dollars bestowed in this bill on the producers of MTBE. Ms. Capps’ amendment would have struck the liability waivers for MTBE producers, saving state and local taxpayers tens of billions of dollars of cleanup costs. Also, the amendment would have struck the two billion dollar handout of taxpayer money to those same producers. It appears that the Republican leadership will stop at nothing to protect these folks.

Finally, Mr. Stupak sought to offer a simple, straightforward amendment prohibiting any Federal or state permit or lease for new oil and gas drilling in or under the Great Lakes. Are we being allowed to debate and vote on his amendment, which could inconvenience powerful oil and gas producers? No.

I urge my colleagues to reject this rule, and allow this House to vote on these and the other special interest giveaways sprinkled liberally throughout this bill.

- 30 -

(Contact: Jodi Seth, 202-225-3641)