[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 52 (Tuesday, April 26, 2005)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E765-E766]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. JOHN F. TIERNEY

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, April 21, 2005

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 6) to ensure 
     jobs for our future with secure, affordable, and reliable 
     energy;

  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Castle-Markey 
amendment to strike Section 320 of H.R. 6.
  The bill that the Committee reported last week provides the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) the authority to approve LNG import 
terminals. Although this provision allows FERC to consult with state 
governments, this signals a departure from current law whereby states 
and localities play a significant role in siting decisions. Protecting 
the health, welfare, and safety of the surrounding communities--as well 
as preserving the environment and not disturbing commerce--are critical 
factors when determining where to site an LNG facility. Let me ask: who 
knows better than the local officials how a proposed facility will 
affect their area? To diminish their role in the process, as this 
provision will, only does a disservice to our constituents who trust us 
to act wisely on their behalf. At a time when there is a proliferation 
of onshore and offshore proposed LNG projects, and as there currently 
exists no framework to make sure that we are meeting our national 
demand for natural gas in a way that makes sense and best meets the 
regional needs of American communities, Congress should be 
strengthening the rights of those in our cities and towns and ensuring 
they have a vocal and viable role in the process. Section 320 does the 
opposite. I believe it should be struck from the bill, and urge my 
colleagues' support for the Castle-Markey amendment.
  Section 320 is one of a number of provisions in H.R. 6 that tramples 
on the rights of states:
  This bill provides unnecessary liability protections for 
manufacturers of MTBE, thus forcing the clean-up cost of drinking-water 
Contamination to states and localities instead of sending the bill 
where it belongs: to the polluters themselves. This legislation doesn't 
just reward polluters, it pays them--giving the MTBE production 
companies $1.75 billion in so-called ``transition costs'' as the 
pollutant is phased out by 2015. That is irresponsible and 
fundamentally unfair to the American taxpayers.
  The bill also repeals the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA). 
PUHCA limits the geographic size and types of subsidiaries energy 
companies can operate. The law is necessary to help states regulate 
large, multi-state electricity companies by keeping their corporate 
structures transparent. Without PUHCA, states will find themselves 
helpless to protect their consumers against the actions of scandalous 
energy companies like Enron.
  This bill grants the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) 
jurisdiction over reliability standards for electricity transmission 
networks, allowing the FERC to approve new power lines over states' 
objections. It abolishes states' rights to meaningful input and 
participation in decisions over power lines and transmission networks.
  The bill also fails to recognize and reflect successful practices 
being put into use at the state level. Initiatives like California's 
plan to limit carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles and New 
York's efforts to organize a consortium of Northeastern states to begin 
reducing power-plant emissions show promise and ought to be promoted on 
the federal level.

  We had the chance to encourage state innovation with this bill, but 
its authors and GOP Leadership squandered that opportunity. I am a co-
sponsor of Rep. Tom Udall's renewable portfolio standard bill (H.R. 
983), which was offered as an amendment to the energy bill before the 
Rules Committee but was not made in order. This amendment would 
establish a state renewable energy account program along with setting 
guidelines for a renewable portfolio standard. Another missed 
opportunity here means another missed opportunity to enlist the states 
as our partners in promoting innovative energy programs to lead us 
toward a stable energy future instead of undermining states' rights.
  This bill also deals a serious blow to the environment. Longstanding 
public health and environmental laws are under assault in this bill.
  Saturday's New York Times reported that H.R. 6 includes a provision 
that, should it become enacted into law, would constitute one of the 
most sweeping changes to the Clean Air Act in 15 years. The provision 
would allow communities to delay cleaning up their dirty air, and 
complying with national air quality standards, if their pollution is 
derived from other heavily concentrated areas. This undermines the 
intent of the Clean Air Act and may lead to increased cases of asthma, 
which, according to the EPA, already afflicts 20 million Americans, 
including 6.3 million children.
  Hydraulic fracturing, an invasive oil and gas recovery technique, 
that may contaminate drinking water has been removed from the Safe 
Drinking Water Act. News reports indicate that the Halliburton 
Corporation is the largest practitioner of hydraulic fracturing and has 
been lobbying for this provision.
  Rather than seizing an opportunity to address skyrocketing gas prices 
(the average price is $2.28), reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and 
foreign oil, improve our fuel efficiency standards, and bolster the 
incentives to develop and utilize alternative energy sources, the 
energy bill before us today upholds the unacceptable status-quo and 
exacerbates our many current problems, as it:
  Authorizes $8 billion in tax breaks for oil, gas, and nuclear 
companies, while directing less than $600 million to promote renewable 
energy and conservation-related initiatives;
  Opens Alaska to oil drilling, although the U.S. Geological Survey 
projects that the Arctic Refuge has only approximately 3.2 billion 
barrels of economically recoverable oil, equivalent to what the U.S. 
consumes in less than 6 months, and would take between 10 and 12 years 
to introduce the oil into the marketplace; and
  Exempts companies drilling on public lands from paying royalties for 
oil and natural gas

[[Page E766]]

extracted from public lands, which is required under current law and 
has resulted in billions in additional revenue for states over the past 
five years.
  The bottom-line with this bill, however, is that--as its previous 
incarnations have done--it reinforces the wrong priorities at the 
expense of consumers, the environment, and American taxpayers. I urge 
my colleagues to oppose H.R. 6.

                          ____________________