Mr. Chairman, as I noted at the subcommittee markup, world events have focused attention on our Nation’s energy needs. Indeed, gasoline at $2 per gallon has already focused our attention. While we should not expect that our actions today will have any immediate impact, we, nonetheless, are in a position to accomplish either considerable good or considerable harm over the long run.

I am disappointed that we have departed from the process that served Members of the Committee so well when we considered H.R. 4 during the last Congress. The bill this Committee reported then was supported by Members from both sides of the aisle, and as a result remained largely intact when passed by the full House.

Indeed, much of the Chairman’s Mark could have been enacted last year, such as the titles concerning conservation and energy efficiency and Department of Energy (DOE) programs. The prospects for enacting such consensus provisions, however, are jeopardized by a number of highly controversial provisions in the mark, most notably those which gut environmental protections in our hydroelectric laws and deregulate the electric industry.

First, I note my personal disappointment that the bipartisan hydroelectric language of the last Congress, which was developed and supported by all the relevant parties, has been abandoned. Instead, this bill tips the balance in favor of the industry, and undercuts the resource agencies’ ability to ensure hydropower projects protect our river systems. Indeed, this language ignores the fact that our Nation’s waterways are public resources in which many parties -- resource agencies, states, tribes, farmers, sportsmen and everyday citizens -- have interests that are just as important as those of the hydropower industry.

Second, it also is highly regrettable that the bill includes a controversial electricity title, the underlying theme of which is to undercut or outright repeal existing consumer protections under the Federal Power Act and the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA) of 1935. This seems particularly startling in light of the chaos that took place in West Coast markets only two years ago, about which FERC’s recent staff report paints a very troubling picture. The committee print also includes inadequate market reforms, dangerous siting procedures, and constraints upon the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) historic authority to reform unjust and unreasonable contracts. In light of the Commission’s recent findings, this last proposal is particularly puzzling.

Mr. Chairman, I commend to your consideration Representatives Boucher’s and Hall’s suggestions that we consider controversial electricity matters separately. As you know, I proposed a process and principles for discussion of possible modernization of PUHCA, which I am disappointed were declined. Under the circumstances,

I will again offer a substitute amendment that strengthens the tools FERC needs, and directs the Securities and Exchange Commission to take steps to ensure consumers and investors are not exploited by future Enrons. If we do not study and learn from recent history, we are likely to be doomed to repeat it.

I would also note that Title IX contains an extensive set of provisions addressing ethanol and MTBE in Reformulated Gasoline under Clean Air Act section 211(k). The 38 pages contained in this title were not available until last Thursday, after all legislative hearings were concluded and more than a week after completion of Subcommittee markup. It is regrettable that these important provisions, which relate to crucial gasoline price and supply issues, as well as major environmental concerns, should appear so late in the process.

Let me reiterate, Mr. Chairman, that I would much prefer to work on a consensus, bipartisan basis, as we did in the last Congress and in 1992 -- when the Committee reported the Energy Policy Act on a solid bipartisan vote of 42-1. I do not think the Committee does its best work, nor best serves the public interest, under the circumstances in which we find ourselves today.