madam chairman , i rise in strong opposition to this so-called comprehensive energy bill before us today . 
this energy package have a new wrapping and bow but it is the same white elephant gift for the american people that sadly passed in this house last congress . 
our nation 's energy policy must strike a sound balance by pursuing improvements in fuel technology and energy efficiency ; maintaining a clean environment ; and preserving our wilderness areas and public lands . 
instead , by refusing to commit to improving and investing in sustainable fuel technology , we are putting our technology and manufacturing industries at a competitive disadvantage when the rest of the planet is searching for alternatives to fossil fuels . 
we are missing an opportunity here ; as a future energy policy this legislation is bumbling along because of following the policies in this bill would be like driving into the future by looking through the rearview mirror with its heavily weighted dependence on fossil fuels . 
h.r. 6 falls depressingly short of addressing our energy needs in both the short and the long term . 
based on the pro-industry recommendations of the cheney energy task force report , this bill is anti-taxpayer , anti-environment , anti-consumer and is loaded down with special-interest giveaways . 
madam chairman , more than ninety percent of the subsidies in h.r. 6 would go to the oil , gas , coal and nuclear industries , leading to more pollution , more oil drilling and more radioactive-waste-producing nuclear power . 
by contrast , only about six percent of the tax breaks would go to energy efficiency and renewable energy incentives that could actually save consumers money and reduce our dependence on dirty energy sources . 
madam chairman , gas prices , gas prices , gas prices and more gas prices . 
it 's the most asked question i hear in my district and rightly so with prices in my home town of more than $ 3 a gallon and a national average price at a record level of $ 2.24 a gallon -- more than 50 percent higher than average gas prices in 2002 . 
according to the bush administration 's own energy department estimates , this republican bill will actually increase gas prices by 3 cents and will have virtually no effect on production , consumption , or barrel prices . 
american consumers are being squeezed at the pump while the big oil companies are reaping record profits and the republican leadership is passing an energy bill that will further raise gas prices . 
how in good faith can we go back to out constituencies with a national energy policy that does not address the future , does not address short term fixes or long term solutions . 
madam chairman , several provisions in h.r. 6 will weaken california 's rights as a state to govern itself . 
these include changes in : lng terminal siting , weakening the coastal zone management act , and expanding alternative energy projects situated on the outer continental shelf ( ocs ) . 
the bill will hand over exclusive jurisdiction for the siting of liquefied natural gas ( lng ) facilities to the federal energy regulatory commission ( ferc ) , preventing the states from having a role in approving the location of lng terminals and the conditions under which these terminals must operate . 
this bill even goes as far as making the states seek ferc permission before conducting safety inspections ! 
plus , they will be barred from taking any independent enforcement action against lng terminal operators for safety violations . 
h.r. 6 weakens california 's rights under the czma to object to a ferc-approved coastal pipeline or energy facility project when the project is inconsistent with the state 's federally-approved coastal management program . 
currently when there is a disagreement about a project , the secretary of commerce , through an administrative appeals process , determines whether and under what conditions the project can go forward . 
states can present new evidence supporting their arguments to the secretary . 
under h.r. 6 , states will not be allowed to present new evidence to the secretary , and the secretary will not be allowed to seek out evidence on his or her own . 
the secretary will only be allowed to rely on the record compiled by ferc . 
furthermore , the bill imposes an expedited timeline for appeals , which may not allow a full review of the facts . 
we have to protect our shores and near waters . 
h.r. 6 will give the department of interior permitting authority for `` alternative '' energy projects , such as wind projects , situated on the outer continental shelf ( ocs ) . 
it also grants the department of interior authority to permit other types of energy facilities , including facilities to `` support the exploration , development , production , transportation , or storage of oil , natural gas , or other minerals '' . 
another very dear issue in california is the fuel additive mtbe ( methyl tertiary butyl ether ) , i oppose shielding mtbe producers from product liability lawsuits , thereby forcing taxpayers to pick up the tab to clean up contaminated groundwater in places such as the salinas valley , the salad bowl of the world , which has already tested positive for mtbe . 
the bill even includes a $ 2 billion taxpayer-financed subsidy to mtbe producers to convert facilities to produce other chemicals . 
the obvious gouging of california consumers is significant evidence that the electricity energy market lacks much needed controls . 
does h.r. 6 correct this ? 
no -- instead of protecting americans from the market manipulation that has become all too prevalent , h.r. 6 is weighed down by special interest exemptions that will do more harm than good . 
the bill does not give federal regulators the tools they need to prevent and punish bad actors like enron who manipulate power markets . 
instead h.r. 6 offers cosmetic reforms . 
moreover , the bill does nothing to provide refunds to my constituents and west coast consumers who paid unjust and unreasonable electricity prices during 2000-2001 . 
madam chairman , it 's plain and simple -- h.r. 6 : fails to lower gasoline prices ; fails to improve our nation 's energy efficiency or promote sustainable alternatives ; fails to adequately address future infrastructure needs ; fails to learn from the lessons of the california electricity crisis ; and fails to prevent future `` enrons '' from manipulating energy markets at the expense of consumers . 
i urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation so we can develop a comprehensive energy policy that looks to the future and does n't rely on repackaged outdated technologies from the past . 
