April 1, 2003

Mr. Chairman, my amendment quite simply strikes Title III of this legislation and replaces it with the bipartisan compromise language that we developed together in the last Congress. That compromise was adopted by this committee, and later by the full House.

Unfortunately, what we have before us is a complete departure from bipartisan consensus. It is an attempt to give the hydropower industry unprecedented advantage during the licensing process at the expense of protections for fish, wildlife, and other natural resources.

Let me remind my colleagues what the Chairman’s mark does:

• It confers super-party status on license applicants by allowing them to propose alternatives to resource protection conditions, and it gives them special procedural rights that are not granted to other legitimate stakeholders like states, tribes, sportsmen, or concerned citizens.

• It dilutes environmental protections included in current law and would overturn nearly 100 years of fish and wildlife protections.

• It creates a costly new subsidy program for a mature industry that does not need the support of the taxpayers at a time of increasing deficits.

On the other hand, the compromise I offer today introduces flexibility into the process and recognizes that there may be less costly means of meeting licensing requirements without sacrificing protections for natural resources, fish, and wildlife.

Now, I listened to the comments made by my Republican colleagues in the subcommittee and I want to comment on some of their assertions.

Some said that the Committee Print merely injects flexibility into the licensing process by allowing alternative conditions to be considered by the resource agencies. If it is flexibility you want, then my compromise is what you’re looking for: it allows any party to a licensing process to propose an alternative that must be accepted under certain conditions. The Chairman’s mark gives this right to one party and one party alone: the utility.

This is a fundamental difference. If you believe that our rivers are the private dominion of utilities, then you should vote against my amendment. If you recognize, however, that our rivers are public resources in which many stakeholders have legitimate interests, then vote for the compromise.

Proponents of the Chairman’s mark have said that they seek "balance" in the relicensing process. How can you claim "balance" when you place your thumb on the scale in favor of one party?

Proponents have also said the licensing process is too long; that the agencies drag their feet and that the resource protections they require delay the process. I find these arguments interesting when judged against the language in the bill.

First, the committee print practically guarantees a longer process. It gives license applicants the right to an on-the-record, trial-type hearing if they disagree with resource conditions. Currently at the Department of Interior, these types of proceedings can take up to two years. Second, the Committee Print allows the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to involve its Dispute Resolution Service in the process – another three months. The FERC, itself, in a May 2001 report directed by the last Energy Policy Act, looked at this very question and found that the inclusion of resource conditions did not result in a longer process.

Finally, I want to comment on the assertion that the Chairman’s mark will protect fish and wildlife. The Committee Print allows only a license applicant to propose an alternative to a fishway prescribed by the Secretary of Commerce, which the secretary must accept so long as it is no less protective of "fish resources." The compromise allows an alternative fishway so long as it will be "no less effective than the fishway initially prescribed." The difference is subtle, but important.

Fishway prescriptions have been a part of public law since before the adoption of the Federal Power Act. Indeed, they date back to the General Dam Act of 1906. The Congress has always recognized that fish passage is vital not only to the preservation of migratory fish species but also to the overall health of a river. The Chairman’s mark drastically shifts the balance. If a license applicant can simply substitute a hatchery for the natural and necessary movement of fish upstream and downstream of a project, then the consequences will be lasting and destructive to river health.

That is why fish and wildlife organizations and sportsmen’s organizations are opposed to this language. We should reject this title of the Chairman’s mark and adopt the compromise that we all agreed on last year and that I offer today.