mr. chairman , i rise today in opposition to h.r. 6 , the energy policy act of 2005 . 
for the third time in 5 years , the house republican leadership has passed up an historic opportunity to craft an energy policy for the 21st century . 
with oil prices hitting record levels and repeated predictions that the cost of a barrel of oil could hit over $ 100 in the coming years , we should be focusing our efforts on alleviating our nation 's dependence on fossil fuels . 
instead , h.r. 6 is stuck in the past . 
modeled after the energy plan developed by vice president cheney 's secret energy committee 4 years ago , h.r. 6 reflects the philosophy that the only solution to the high price of oil is more oil . 
however , analyses by the u.s. department of energy 's energy information administration indicate that even if the provisions of h.r. 6 becomes law , america 's imports of foreign oil will still increase by as much as 85 percent during the next 20 years , thereby increasing our dependency . 
h.r. 6 should have been an honest , bipartisan effort to halt america 's growing dependence on fossil fuels for energy . 
it could have been focused on developing new technologies , improving energy efficiency , promoting renewable energy , and conducting the research and development that could produce the breakthroughs that would power the world of tomorrow . 
i have no objection to supporting some new or additional oil and gas exploration or production because , until we develop the energy alternatives of the future , we must continue to meet our oil and gas needs . 
unfortunately , the majority of the bill 's eight billion dollars in energy tax incentives are for oil and gas production . 
that 's billions in tax breaks , paid for by our children and grandchildren , going to energy companies that have been earning record profits . 
even president bush admitted recently `` ... .. 
with $ 55 oil , we do n't need incentives for oil and gas companies to explore. '' his fiscal year 2006 budget called for $ 6.7 billion in tax breaks for energy with 72 percent going toward renewable sources of energy and energy efficiency . 
in contrast , h.r. 6 only provides six percent of the tax benefits for renewable energy and energy efficiency . 
in addition , h.r. 6 irresponsibly sacrifices environmental protection for petroleum production . 
exposing our great natural treasures , especially the north carolina coastline , to exploitation and possible degradation is not responsible . 
for example the bill shuts states out from the appeals process for offshore mineral development , thereby limiting coastal states ' ability to protect their coastlines from unwanted energy development . 
i am also dismayed that h.r. 6 continues to provide liability protection for methyl tertiary butyl ether ( mtbe ) manufacturers for past contamination of water supplies . 
so republicans believe when somebody gets sick from mtbe , these companies should not be held accountable . 
that 's just plain wrong . 
if it becomes law , the provision will force local governments to foot the bill for removing mtbe from water supplies . 
it was this single issue that scuttled the energy bill last year . 
despite this , the republican leadership 's arrogance demands that this provision remain in the bill . 
gas prices in america continue to reach record heights . 
natural gas prices have increased raising the cost not only of the gas itself but of derivative products like fertilizer . 
gas prices and energy costs affect every american . 
this problem is particularly acute in farm country . 
unfortunately , the republican congressional leadership wasted an opportunity to develop a prudent energy policy that directly addresses these issues and instead developed a bill that serves as a tremendous handout to oil companies . 
as a result , i oppose h.r. 6 . 
