John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Most vigorously opposed, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill, I rise in opposition to the rule, and I rise in opposition to the previous question. None of them are in the public interest and none of them should be voted for. The simple fact of the matter is that if this bill is as good as the chairman of the subcommittee has just indicated, then they ought to give us a fair and an open rule. That is not before us today at all. It is a rule which denies a number of Members the opportunity to offer amendments, one of the traditional classical rights of a Member of this elected body, and one of the distinguishing characteristics of this body versus many of the others. That right is denied. Very specifically, with regard to the question of the conservation in the hydro relicensing provisions, that provision is a bad provision. It is opposed by State conservation organizations, by State regulatory entities, and it is also opposed by every hunting, fishing, conservationist, and environmentalist group in the United States. It is a bad provision. It puts the thumb of the electrical utility on the licensing and relicensing process. It denies citizens and citizens' groups rights to be heard before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. It sees to it that we have a skewed result. It does not, for example, require that fishways be included in dams which are relicensed, so as to denigrate the opportunity of fish to migrate up and down the stream. It does deny citizens the right to be heard before regulatory agencies. The communities of interest in this country oppose it. Conservationists say it denies them the right to be heard. I had sought to have an opportunity to offer an amendment to this, one which would be the exact same language that was bipartisan last year and on which the chairman of the Committee, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), sent a Dear Colleague letter around describing the amendment that I would like to have offered today, saying, ``The hydroelectric licensing language contained in Division A of H.R. 4 is a bipartisan consensus provision that carefully balances energy and environmental priorities to achieve the significant breakthrough in licensing reform.'' They are afraid of that. They will not allow that amendment to come to the floor so they say, you cannot offer it. The reason is, it probably would have carried. So if you were to believe that this is a bipartisan package, then my suggestion to you is, take a look at the rule and ask the Members of the Republican side why it is they do not allow us to offer amendments to this bill. What are they afraid of? Why is it they refuse to allow us to protect fish and wildlife and conservation values which were negotiated over many years with the industry in question and which would permit the industry a fair opportunity to be heard, but also the ordinary citizen? Vote ``no'' on the bill. Vote ``no'' on the rule, and vote ``no'' on the previous question. All of the above are outrageous.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I have one more speaker and he is not here right at the moment.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, briefly reclaiming my time, they have very carefully strained these amendments in the Committee on Rules so that they are either inoffensive to my Republican colleagues, or they are ones on which the Republican colleagues would lose. My Republican colleagues have also denied us the right to offer the amendments which we would most assuredly have won on. There is very great finesse in the Committee on Rules. Mr. Chairman, I again yield the remaining time to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, this is a bad bill. It is an odd mishmash of special interest provisions, deregulatory actions, degradation of our environmental laws. It gives away billions of dollars to powerful industry, courtesy of the taxpayer. It undermines existing environmental protections. In the area of hydroelectric power, the bill undercuts safeguards for dam relicensing, jeopardizing not only fish but the overall health of our river systems. It weakens the Safe Drinking Water Act and environmental protections and safeguards in oil and gas production. H.R. 6 eliminates requirements for public participation and deference to the States in decisions where electric transmission lines can be sited and whether natural gas facilities should be constructed in coastal waters. It undercuts natural resource agencies' role in determining whether transmission lines should be constructed in our national forests and on other public lands. But that is not all. Certain favored industries get big benefits. Energy consumers are left unprotected. I guess average customers and consumers were not in the room when the Vice President held closed-door meetings of his Energy Task Force. It is hard to imagine a better case for increasing consumer protections than the debacle that took place in 2000-2001 in California and other West Coast electricity markets. In fact, a recent report by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, whose Chair was appointed during the administration, found that so many companies participated in Enron's scams that it was necessary to launch multiple new enforcement proceedings, many of which would be adversely impacted by this legislation. Most shocking, FERC found some practices that significantly raised consumer prices were not only not illegal under current law, but would be sanctified under this legislation. If there was ever a case for legislative reform, this is it, but this legislation is not legislative reform. It does not help consumers. It only includes cosmetic reforms while repealing important consumer protections under the Public Utility Holding Company Act and weakening protections under the Federal Power Act. Indeed, it also sanctifies fraud. So if the Members like fraud, vote for the bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher). (Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle). (Mr. DOYLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished minority whip, my good friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, before I yield my remaining 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) to close, I gather my good friend, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) has one speaker remaining, and that that speaker will be closing; is that right?

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield my remaining time to my good friend, the distinguished minority whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, my substitute amendment replaces the electricity provisions of H.R. 6. My amendment is supported by all of labor, by all of consumer groups, by the public power industry, and by a host of other consumer and business organizations. This is the first time that the House of Representatives has considered changes to the Nation's energy laws since the Energy Policy Act of 1992. Given the volatility and market manipulation that occurred in California and other West Coast markets during 2000 to 2001, and the real need for reform, I wish I could muster kinder words for this portion of the bill which the amendment changes. Unfortunately, title VI underscores the continuing lack of consensus about the direction of the Nation's electric markets. In the rush to produce an electricity title, a strange, hybrid, amphibian monster has come forth. It has produced something which has neither competition nor market reform and, indeed, there is not mention of the word ``competition'' anywhere in the bill. Instead, title VI combines elements of industry deregulation with provisions favoring special interests. Sadly, neither of these has much to do with protecting consumers or investors in this critical industry. Among its deficiencies, title VI repeals the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935. It ties Federal regulators' hands in reviewing unjust and unreasonable electricity contracts. It codifies into permanent law a patchwork of different transmission regimes, placing some lines under Federal jurisdiction and others under State jurisdiction. While the utility may tell us that this last provision takes care of things, do not believe it, because it is going to make a fine controversy, which will continue to plague us. Just as important, the bill lacks fundamental reforms needed to prevent recurrence of the abuses which the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission uncovered at its recent western markets investigation, and proposes only limited and superficial market reforms. It is both because of what the title does and what it does not do that I am offering this substitute amendment. My amendment takes a different tack, setting aside deregulation proposals like PUHCA repeal; and instead, provides for a number of common-sense reforms. By curbing fraud and manipulation, which is not done under the committee bill, my amendment will protect consumers and reassure Wall Street and small investors that the industry is again stable. This amendment gives FERC broad authority to take action against fraud in both electricity and natural gas markets. The Commission's report recently found that some of the abuses in western markets during 2000 and 2001 were not even illegal. This bill would correct that. The amendment also gives FERC the necessary tools in the form of audit trail authority and robust transparency requirements to detect and deter manipulation. One disturbing aspect of the Enron scandal was the timing of the Securities and Exchange Commission's decision this year to revoke Enron's ``exempt'' status under PUHCA, under which they have committed all manner of outrage on consumers and investors alike. My amendment would also reform FERC's market-based energy rate policy and permit refunds for electricity overcharges from the date it began, not just from the date upon which they were filed with the FERC. Finally, the substitute amendment increases civil and criminal penalties to the level of the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation enacted in the 107th Congress. If my colleagues wish to vote for reform, this is the proposal. It is not one which is sought by the special interests; but it is one which is sought by consumers, investors, and others. I urge my colleagues to vote for protection of consumers and investors and against future Enrons. In short, vote for the Dingell substitute amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I have in my hand a letter from the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association. It will be useful information for my friends, the chairman of the subcommittee and the chairman of the committee. It says, Dear Representative Dingell: Electric cooperatives do not endorse the electricity title of H.R. 6. We have serious problems with the repeal of Public Utilities Holding Company Act (PUHCA), and with incentive rates and participant funded transmission. H.R. 6 expands Federal Energy Regulatory Commission jurisdiction over electric cooperatives' transmission through the so-called ``FERC Lite'' provision. The Dingell amendment is more narrowly crafted and related to fraudulent, manipulative or deceptive practices. For the information of my good friends on the other side of the aisle, the public power folks support our amendment, not the committee bill.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, with all respect for all of my colleagues, there are certain things that are very simple and very clear here. The bill before us does not address the problem. It repeals PUHCA. It eliminates the merger protections. It has virtually no protections in it against fraud. It raises the bar significantly for FERC to modify contracts. And it fixes it so that you cannot get speedy refunds going back to the date that the wrongdoing occurred. Now, what does the substitute do? It gives FERC broad antifraud authority in every part. And I would note that it is supported by both the public power people and by the co-ops. It directs FERC to establish audit trails that do other things, including requiring transparency of transactions and rate-making so as to more easily detect and deter wrongdoing. It requires the SEC to review existing PUHCA exemptions to prevent future Enrons from obscuring its actions, and I would note that SEC and FERC have pointed out the huge number of improprieties associated with Enron. It increases civil and criminal penalties, and it reforms FERC's authority to permit refunds of unjust and unreasonable market-based rates back to the date that they began. If my colleagues represent any place West of the Continental Divide in the United States, they should support the amendment because the amendment is crafted to address the problems which we found in the different reviews which took place of the misbehavior of Enron and others in the electrical utility industry. I would note that the abuses there cost consumers billions, not millions, billions of dollars, and in almost every State West of the crest line of the Rocky Mountains, including California but also including Nevada and Utah and Washington and Oregon. If my colleagues want to stop fraud, if they want to stop wrongdoing, if they want to protect consumers, if they want to protect the American investing public, if they want an honest rate-making system, vote for the amendment.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, in order that I can give my full and undivided attention to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), for whom I have immense respect even though he is dead wrong on this one, I yield myself 2 minutes to close. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green). (Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John).