mr. chairman , it is commonly heard that the world changed after september 11 , 2001 ; yet the energy bill did not . 
what congress is considering this week is virtually identical to that which came forth from dick cheney 's energy task force and the congressional process four years ago . 
the ever growing concerns about energy reliability , the enron scandal , skyrocketing gas prices , increasing demands on ever scarce supplies in unstable areas of the world all have not produced a change in the mindset of congress . 
at a time when we should call forth our best , the energy bill is both a mediocre effort and more appropriate for the 1950s than this new century . 
with the american energy experience over the last third of a century , public opinion has grown clearer while congress ' vision has not . 
with 10 percent of our energy use tied directly to our vehicular traffic , it is selfevident to the majority of americans that our fuel efficiency standards should be significantly increased . 
the japanese and europeans are already far ahead of us . 
even the chinese have now adopted more stringent fuel efficiency standards . 
congress can not keep up with the american public or the policymakers in china , japan or europe . 
the public knows that the arctic national wildlife refuge is the last place that america should look for oil , not the next place . 
the public supports investing in renewable energy sources , but this bill is heavily skewed towards more public subsidy of oil and gas interests , already awash in cash . 
these companies have ample money available to exploit energy resources in this country if they wish . 
alternative energy sources are shortchanged in this bill . 
it has been estimated that they get one dollar for every $ 363 invested in other sources . 
wind and solar energy are abundant , and non-polluting ; with a fraction of the resources lavished on traditional energy sources , alternative energy could increase the production and reduce cost . 
the public is not interested in cutting deals with special-interests at the expense of the environment and public health . 
this bill poses significant risk to air pollution and makes an unnecessary and unwise compromise with mtbe manufacturers at the expense of state and local authorities and the quality of local drinking water . 
i am opposed to a provision in the bill that shortchanges public participation in the hydropower relicensing process . 
by denying rights to private landowners , farmers , local businesses , tribes , fishermen , conservationists and others who share a direct interest in dam operations , the bill would make it less likely that license applicants would agree to an outcome that allows for energy generation as well as protection of the river ecosystem . 
in oregon , pacificorp is in the process of relicensing a number of dams on the klamath river . 
the company has been involved in an open and cooperative process with stakeholders , and i am concerned that the language in the bill would both undermine that progress as well as reduce incentives for other companies to engage in this type of open process . 
i am disappointed that congress defeated a number of democratic amendments that would have boosted fuel efficiency , removed language allowing drilling the arctic national wildlife refuge , kept in place important consumer protections , and reduced our dependence on foreign oil . 
i am pleased that one small , but important , step was taken by the acceptance of my amendment to establish a conserve by bike program . 
this amendment authorizes pilot programs and a national study that will help us better understand the benefits of converting trips from cars to bikes and how to educate people about these benefits in short , this bill looks at our energy problem through a rearview mirror ; it gives too much to the wrong people to do the wrong thing and is dramatically out of step with what the american public needs and wants . 
one can only hope that as it works its way through the senate , and as the public discovers what 's in this bill , that some of the more unfortunate provisions will be eliminated or modified . 
there will come a time in the foreseeable future when the needs of our country and the wishes of the public are heard and that will be reflected in an energy policy for this century that is cost effective and rational . 
