mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman from texas ( mr. sessions ) xz4003670 for yielding me the customary 30 minutes . 
mr. speaker , last week the republican leadership made a mockery of the democratic process with the bankruptcy bill by closing debate and not even allowing one amendment to that important bill . 
there was outrage across the country . 
and today we are considering the rule for another important bill , the energy bill , and the committee on rules made in order 31 amendments this time . 
i can only hope that the pressure to be fair is finally getting to them . 
but while this may seem to be a small step in the right direction , it is a far cry from where this house should be . 
and once again a majority of amendments were shut out from receiving a vote on the floor . 
important amendments on important issues like global warming , a topic not even mentioned once in this bill , and mtbe liability protection were denied a vote by the heavy hand of the committee on rules and the republican leadership . 
so we still have a long way to go before democracy is restored in this house . 
as for the underlying bill , we have seen this movie before . 
two years ago the energy bill did nothing to help consumers with high energy costs . 
it did nothing to help the environment . 
it hurt taxpayers . 
it was a lousy piece of legislation . 
and it failed , rightly , to reach the president 's desk . 
it is dja 2 vu all over again . 
it is a new congress . 
there is a new bill number and a new name for the bill . 
but let us be clear . 
this bill is actually worse than the bill the house considered in the last congress . 
mr. speaker , once again i will vote against this bill because it is nothing more than a giveaway to the oil , gas , and other energy industries at a time when they do not need these giveaways , because it will not lower energy prices for consumers , because it does not reduce our nation 's dependency on foreign oil , and because it harms the environment . 
our nation is facing a severe energy crisis . 
since january of 2001 , the price of crude oil has more than doubled , reaching an all-time high just last week of $ 58 per barrel . 
in just the last 7 weeks , gasoline prices have ballooned to $ 2.28 per gallon nationwide . 
in my home state of massachusetts , gas prices have risen over 40 cents per gallon in just 1 year . 
there the average driver has been forced to bear the financial burden of this dramatic increase , paying an additional $ 330 each year since 2000 . 
that is a tax increase courtesy of the bush administration and the republican congress . 
and despite this reality , the bill we are debating today does absolutely nothing to address the rising price of gas . 
instead , it gives kickbacks in the form of tax breaks and subsidies to oil and gas companies , which will actually increase the price of gas at the pump . 
in all , the energy industry would receive $ 8 billion in tax breaks under this bill despite their record-high profits . 
president bush is no friend of the environment , but at least he had the sense to propose some exploration of renewable energy sources . 
the president 's budget called for $ 6.7 billion in tax breaks for energy with 72 percent of these tax breaks going toward renewable sources of energy and energy efficiency . 
but under this bill , only 6 percent of the $ 8 billion in tax breaks goes for the renewable sources of energy and energy efficiency . 
it seems impossible , but the house republicans have actually made the president look like an environmentalist . 
in a recent statement before the american society of newspaper editors , president bush said , `` i will tell you with $ 55 oil , we do n't need incentives to oil and gas companies to explore . 
there are plenty of incentives . 
what we need is to put a strategy in place that will help this country over time become less dependent. '' if the president is really looking for that sensible strategy , he will not find it in this bill . 
so if this bill does not help control the price of gas at the pump , decrease our dependence on foreign oil , or invest in renewable sources of energy , what does it do ? 
unique to this year 's legislation is section 320 , language which would give the federal energy regulatory commission , ferc , sole authority to make decisions regarding the construction , expansion , and operation of liquefied natural gas facilities , lngs . 
currently both ferc and states play a role in the siting and environmental review of the proposed lng facilities . 
and the current process , mr. speaker , has not halted the construction of new lng facilities . 
so why is this provision in the bill ? 
to date , neither the house nor the senate has held a single hearing on this issue in supporting this language . 
the lng provision in this bill directly undermines the ability of state and local officials to ensure that any new lng facility is not sited in an area where it could pose a danger to the surrounding community . 
on november 21 , 2003 , the department of homeland security warned of an increase risk of terrorist attacks , noting of particular concern al qaeda 's continued interest in targeting liquid natural gas , chemical , and other hazardous materials facilities . 
in my district there is a proposal to construct an lng storage tank in fall river . 
if approved , the actual site would be just 1 , 200 feet from homes and over 9 , 000 people live within a 1-mile radius of the tank . 
the tankers that would deliver the lng would have to pass under two bridges in rhode island and two bridges in massachusetts . 
i could not think of a worse location for these tankers if i tried . 
so if this site were approved , thousands of american citizens would be in danger from an explosion or a spill . 
to their credit , like many other state and local communities , the residents of fall river , led by mayor ed lambert , have been on the frontlines fighting against this lng facility . 
they have instead pushed for more remote siting , in areas less densely populated . 
but if this bill passes , cities like fall river would have little ability to block or influence the siting of future lng facilities . 
so i am pleased that the rule makes in order the castle-markey amendment , which would strike section 320 from the bill ; and i urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this amendment . 
and , mr. speaker , i insert into the record a letter of opposition to section 320 from mayor ed lambert from fall river this morning . 
city of fall river , fall river , ma , april 20 , 2005 . 
dear members of congress : i am writing to express my concerns with language contained within the current draft of the energy bill . 
as the mayor of a community involved in this debate over lng import terminal siting , i am concerned that language currently contained within this draft of the energy bill would severely minimize or take away the right of local and state governments to participate in the process of siting lng import terminals . 
it appears to me that this bill would seek to give ferc overreaching authority when it comes to siting lng import terminals . 
i find it ironic that those who normally argue for states ' rights would want to give the federal government such broad and sweeping powers . 
further , i am not convinced that we are currently engaged in a process that would appropriately balance energy interests with homeland security concerns . 
mark prescott , chief of the coast guard 's deepwater ports standards division was recently quoted in an april 3 , 2005 newsday article as saying , `` is it easier to protect an offshore facility ? 
probably not , but the consequences of something happening there are far less than the consequences of something happening in a ship channel in the middle of a city. '' if the coast guard recognizes that lng import terminals , if placed in offshore or remote settings would pose less of a risk to the public in the event of an incident , then why does n't the rest of our government ? 
in this same article the coast guard also spoke to the issue of security for lng tankers in offshore or remote settings in conclusion , i vehemently oppose , and believe that other local and state officials around the country involved with this lng import terminal siting debate would also oppose , any attempts to remove or abridge a state or local community 's right to be involved with any and all review processes that pertain to lng import terminals . 
the goal of the federal government should be to listen to what state and local governments have to say and to use that input to set good national policy when it comes to siting these terminals . 
anything less than that is a dereliction of duty . 
thank you for your time and consideration . 
very truly yours , edward m. lambert , jr. , mr. speaker , we have heard about the mtbe provision in this bill . 
i will not go into detail about that again , but let me say that the gentlewoman from california ( mrs. capps ) xz4000620 brought forward a very thoughtful amendment regarding mtbe . 
this is a very real problem in many communities across the country , and the republican leadership should have at least had the guts to allow an up-or-down vote on the capps amendment . 
i can only assume that the leadership is once again protecting their corporate friends from a vote that they know they would lose . 
finally , this legislation would open the arctic national wildlife refuge , one of our nation 's few remaining environmental treasures , to oil and drilling . 
for years the oil industry has targeted this coastal plain ; and under the guise of national security , they have argued that without access to oil in the arctic , we will continue to be dependent upon foreign oil . 
though it is certainly a good soundbite , the reality is that even under the most optimistic scenarios , oil from the refuge would meet a tiny fraction of this country 's needs . 
so let us be clear . 
big oil 's priorities go beyond anwr . 
opening anwr to drilling sets a precedent for the opening of other protected areas in the future . 
so to my friends in california and florida , they should know one thing : they are probably next . 
mr. speaker , i can not say it more simply than this : the energy policy act is a bad bill , and it must be defeated . 
this bill will destroy the environment , reward special interests at the expense of consumers and taxpayers , and limit states ' rights . 
we have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to reduce and eliminate our dependency on foreign oil . 
we have an opportunity to develop wind and fuel-cell technology . 
we have an opportunity to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases and combat global warming . 
this bill squanders those opportunities . 
mr. speaker , i reserve the balance of my time . 
