mr. chairman , serious problems deserve respectful consideration . 
the intense polarization of the energy debate has been compounded by the leadership 's insistence on repeatedly forcing congress to consider essentially the same bill . 
congress had a great opportunity to produce a balanced energy policy that is diversified , reduces our dependence on oil and invests in alternative energy , but our leadership chose to essentially recycle an old bill that favors special interests over consumers . 
this is not the way to make policy . 
american energy policy is at the crossroads and our national security is being compromised daily by our dependence on foreign energy supplies . 
today , oil is at over $ 50 per barrel and we still have n't passed reliability standards to address the electricity blackout that assaulted the northeast and midwest in 2003 . 
blackouts cost consumers $ 80 billion , and yet this bill caps the necessary spending to do an acceptable job of providing reliability . 
partisan politics have paralyzed this congress into deadlock and our nation 's energy has suffered the consequences . 
although i appreciate chairman barton 's willingness to extend hearings on energy this year prior to the 109th congress 's consideration of the energy policy act , i was very disappointed that a letter that 14 of my colleagues and i sent to chairman barton at the beginning of february requesting that our committee invite the national commission on energy policy to testify went unanswered . 
in february , secretary bodman testified of his familiarity with the ncep 's report and of his willingness to work with congress to produce a bill in a bipartisan fashion . 
if the ncep was able to bridge the differences between republicans and democrats , industry and labor , perhaps we could have too . 
and yet , here we are again , with a bill strikingly similar to the one we considered over two years ago . 
there is a laundry list of problems in this bill . 
there is nothing in this bill that reduces our consumption of oil or reduces the price of oil . 
the energy information agency has stated in a 2004 report that under policies proposed by the energy policy act , by 2025 , u.s. consumption is projected to increase to 28.3 million barrels per day and our country would increase its imports of foreign oil by 85 percent . 
it even found that gasoline prices under the bill would increase more than if the bill was not enacted . 
the bill 's provision protecting manufacturers of mtbe from liability for contaminating water supplies means that taxpayers will bear billions of dollars in cleanup costs , while at the same time paying mtbe manufacturers $ 2 billion in subsidies . 
in a much anticipated ruling yesterday in the southern district of new york , a federal judge who had consolidated over 80 mtbe lawsuits brought by local governments and state attorney generals , ruled that all of the cases can proceed against the oil industry . 
including the mtbe liability waiver in the bill would essentially undermine this ruling , while at the same time cutting off the most effective tool that states and local governments have utilized to clean up their drinking water . 
new york , which banned mtbe on january 1 , 2004 , will long be dealing with the repercussions of mtbe contamination . 
the new york state department of environmental conservation says there are about 10 , 000 mtbe spills throughout the state . 
the average cost per clean up is about $ 1 million which translates to a cost of about $ 10 billion statewide . 
in and around jamaica , queens , where more than a million nyc residents and businesses rely on groundwater instead of surface water from the upstate reservoirs , mtbe has contaminated much of the groundwater supply in the aquifer . 
gasoline refiners choose less expensive mtbe from among a number of oxygenate options and knew at the time of the contamination risk that mtbe posed to groundwater . 
the refiners should therefore pay for mtbe remediation efforts . 
perhaps most insulting to the taxpayers is the billions to be spent to prop up the ailing nuclear power industry . 
i have long supported shutting down indian point nuclear power plant because of safety concerns for new yorkers . 
yet , the republicans in congress have ignored these safety issues and instead provided tax dollars to subsidize building new power plants . 
while i am not opposed to nuclear power , these tax dollars would be better used to insulate homes and assist renewable energy production methods in being brought to market . 
the fact of the matter is that this bill has some bad provisions that are simply anticonsumer and anti-environment . 
h.r. 6 weakens laws such as the safe drinking water act and the leaking underground storage tank program that protect the environment and the public health . 
this bill will allow oil drilling in the alaska national wildlife refuge , even though the oil wo n't be available for a decade and even then at levels that would not significantly affect oil prices or imports . 
i am proud that two of my amendments were accepted into the energy policy act . 
the first , which i introduced during the house energy and commerce committee consideration of h.r. 6 , expresses the sense of congress that energy cooperation between the united states of america and israel is mutually beneficial , acknowledges the cooperative agreement between the u.s. and israel and states the department of energy should report on past and future cooperative energy projects between the u.s. and israel . 
my second amendment expanded opportunities for producers of renewable fuels , such as p-series fuels , to get grant funding . 
currently , there is no available technology that can convert much of the urban biomass waste into ethanol . 
yet there is at least one such technology that can convert urban biomass waste into components for another doe recognized alternative fuel , called p-series fuels . 
since p-series fuels are not derived from petroleum , the doe concluded that p-series fuels would effectively help replace petroleum imports . 
doe also found p-series to have environmental benefits because of the reductions in hydrocarbon and co emissions , toxics , and greenhouse gases . 
by virtue of my amendment , producers of alternative fuels like p-series fuels will be able to responsibly address three problems : the need for non-petroleum energy sources , solid waste management , and affordability . 
this is good energy policy . 
our energy policy is intricately tied to our national security and our economic well-being . 
as the co-chair of the congressional oil and national security caucus , i know we need to ensure that our energy policy is diversified , reduce our dependence on oil , and create skilled jobs while reducing energy costs . 
we must ensure that we create policies that will protect the environment and our consumers . 
unfortunately , this simply can not be achieved under this energy policy act , and so i must vote against it . 
