mr. chairman , i rise regrettably in opposition to h.r. 6 , the energy policy act . 
while there are many good provisions in the act that make modest improvements in support of energy efficiency , there are major deficiencies in this bill . 
my constituents are very clear about the problems they face . 
first , gas prices are too high at the pump . 
second , our country will always have to rely on foreign-produced oil . 
third , the costs of electricity have been inflated by the manipulations of energy corporations which have not been required to refund their illegal profits . 
in addition , many are concerned about the effect of greenhouse gas emissions . 
this measure does not strongly address these issues . 
the cost of gas is a function of supply and demand . 
this body had the opportunity to enact a wisely balanced policy to reduce the demand for oil in this country and to address the supply of fuel by investing aggressively in alternative energy sources . 
the president 's own energy administration have said this bill will have only negligible impact on production , consumption and imports of oil . 
in fact , they said it will probably increase the price of gasoline by 3 cents per gallon . 
what this bill does is to authorize more money for existing energy producers to increase oil drilling in sensitive areas for sources of supply that will not greatly reduce future reliance on foreign oil . 
the president himself declared that with oil costing over $ 50 per barrel , the oil industry does not need further incentives to increase production . 
price alone does that . 
yet , this bill provides $ 8 billion in subsidies for the oil and gas industry . 
the president proposed $ 6.7 billion for tax breaks for energy with 72 percent invested in renewable energy sources and energy efficiency . 
instead , this bill reduces that investment to 6 percent . 
even an existing program to provide tax credits for wind power will sunset this year and has not been renewed in this bill . 
yet , high costs of electric energy must be reduced by use of renewable sources for power . 
a major way congress could have acted to reduce petroleum demand would have been to increase fuel efficiency standards for automobile fleets . 
a major report by the national commission on energy policy advocated enhancing oil security by reforming and significantly strengthening vehicle efficiency standards . 
within a relatively short time , expanding the production of vehicles with existing technologies could have reduced fuel consumption of automobiles and u.s. oil demand . 
yet , an amendment to increase fuel efficiency standards failed . 
the commission also advocated providing $ 300 million per year in manufacturer and consumer incentives for production and purchase of efficient hybrid-electric and advanced diesel vehicles . 
this bill falls short of that goal , providing only $ 35 million for 2006 for grants to develop hybrid technology and no funding for incentives to manufacture or purchase them . 
regrettably , the amendment to strike drilling for oil in the arctic national wildlife refuge also failed . 
drilling there would not address the near-term supply of oil and therefore gas prices and is not projected to have a major impact on reducing dependence on foreign oil . 
in fact , this country can not be self-sufficient in oil . 
we must reduce our demand . 
related to an issue of great concern to californians , the bill protects producers of the additive mtbe from liability for their knowing sale of a product which seeps into local water supplies rendering them toxic . 
initially , an amendment striking this was not allowed to be debated and voted . 
states like california could be stuck with paying the estimated $ 29 billion bill for cleaning up these sites of leaking storage tanks and polluted water supply . 
there are a host of other issues that affect my constituents on the coast of california . 
these relate to the ability to appeal decisions under the coastal zone management act and incentives for drilling for oil on the outer continental shelf . 
the bill removes the power of states to determine siting of liquefied natural gas facilities . 
there are also provisions which will reduce the incentive for states to clean their air , thus increasing global warming . 
in addition , the bill increases the power of the federal energy regulatory commission , the body which has failed to order appropriate refunds for california utility consumers based on the 2000-2001 manipulation of the power market . 
while i applaud a number of measures , like continuing the energy star program for appliances and providing grants of $ 50 million in 2006 to develop or promote photo voltaic technologies , these measures are modest compared to the overall need for investing in alternative energy sources and passing measures to decrease our dependence on petroleum . 
