mr. chairman , i regret that i can not support this legislation . 
there is nothing i 'd rather vote for than a balanced energy bill that sets us on a forward-looking course -- one that acknowledges that this country is overly dependent on a single energy source -- fossil fuels -- to the detriment of our environment , our national security , and our economy . 
but at a time of sky-rocketing oil prices , this bill does n't do what it needs to do -- help us balance our energy portfolio and increase the contributions of alternative energy sources to our energy mix . 
the bill is not all bad , of course . 
i support most of the provisions developed by the science committee , and i commend chairman boehlert and ranking member gordon for their bipartisan approach . 
in particular , i 'm pleased that the science committee bill included generous authorization levels for renewable energy and energy efficiency r & amp ; d . 
as co-chair of the renewable energy and energy efficiency caucus , this funding is very important to me . 
i am also pleased that this bill includes the clean green school bus act , a bill that chairman boehlert and i drafted that authorizes grants to help school districts replace aging diesel vehicles with clean , alternative fuel buses . 
h.r. 6 also includes provisions from my bill , the distributed power hybrid energy act , which would direct the secretary of energy to develop and implement a strategy for research , development , and demonstration of distributed power hybrid energy systems . 
it makes sense to focus our r & amp ; d priorities on distributed power hybrid systems that can both help improve power reliability and affordability and bring more efficiency and cleaner energy resources into the mix . 
unfortunately , though , this bill -- like the ones we 've debated twice before -- remains all too reminiscent of that old western movie -- '' the good , the bad , and the ugly. '' in fact , over the years it has only gotten worse and uglier . 
one of the ugliest parts is the provision that would open to drilling the coastal plain of the arctic national wildlife refuge . 
on that question , congress is being asked to gamble on finding oil there . 
so , we first must decide what stakes we are willing to risk , and then weigh the odds . 
the stakes are the coastal plain . 
the u.s. fish and wildlife service says it `` is critically important to the ecological integrity of the whole arctic refuge '' which is `` america 's finest example of an intact , naturally functioning community of arctic/subarctic ecosystems. '' estimates are that there is six months ' supply of economically recoverable oil in the refuge 's coastal plain . 
while the economically recoverable amount could increase along with higher oil prices , we know for certain that drilling will change everything on the coastal plain forever . 
it will never be wilderness again . 
we do not need to take that bet . 
there are less-sensitive places to drill -- and even better alternatives , including conserving energy and more use of renewable resources . 
but the idea of opening the refuge is only one example of misplaced priorities or flawed policies concerning this legislation . 
this bill would provide oil and gas companies massive forgiveness of royalty payments . 
it would shift the cost of mtbe cleanup from mtbe manufacturers to taxpayers -- an unfunded mandate on our communities . 
that should not have been included in the bill . 
further , the bill significantly weakens the clean air act by exempting states from having to clean up their dirty air if some of their pollution comes from `` upwind '' states . 
it would exempt industry from requirements of the safe drinking water act when they inject diesel fuel and other harmful chemicals into the ground during drilling . 
it would repeal the heart of the national environmental policy act for energy projects by eliminating the requirement that agencies examine alternatives that could lead to lesser harm or greater benefits . 
it would repeal the public utility holding company act , a law that protects consumers and investors from corporate abuses . 
and then there are all the things the bill would not do . 
it would not increase vehicle fuel economy standards , which have been frozen since 1996 . 
raising cafe standards is the single biggest step we can take to reduce oil consumption , since about half of the oil used in the u.s. goes into the gas tanks of our passenger vehicles . 
the bill does not give federal regulators the tools they need to prevent and punish the enrons of the world who manipulate power markets . 
the bill does not suspend deliveries to the strategic petroleum reserve and instead put the oil on the marketplace , which could bring gasoline prices down . 
most importantly , according to analyses conducted by the department of energy 's energy information administration , our need for imported oil will increase by 75 percent in twenty years under provisions in this bill . 
coloradans on average are already paying $ 2.25 for a gallon of regular gas . 
this bill will do nothing to bring those prices down . 
of the bill 's total $ 8.1 billion in tax incentives , $ 7.5 billion ( or 93 percent ) is for traditional energy sources such as oil , natural gas , and nuclear power . 
the oil and gas industries are getting these massive subsidies from the taxpayer at the same time that their profits have never been higher . 
i do n't always agree with president bush . 
but i think he is absolutely right about one thing -- at $ 55 a barrel , we do n't need incentives to oil and gas companies to explore . 
instead , we need a strategy to wean our nation from its dependence on foreign oil . 
colorado is uniquely positioned to take advantage of alternative energy opportunities , such as wind and sun . 
voters approved amendment 37 last year , which is making a difference in our energy supply . 
colorado is leading the nation in this area . 
not only are we producing cleaner , cheaper energy , we are also providing economic development in rural colorado in places like sterling and holyoke . 
in fact , i am going to be doing a harvesting energy tour in northeastern colorado this weekend with former colorado house speaker lola spradley , representatives from the colorado farm bureau and the rocky mountain farmers union and renewable energy companies to talk about how renewable energy can be an economic development boon for rural colorado . 
but we need federal incentives to help move renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies to the mainstream , and yet only 7 percent of the incentives in this bill would promote their development . 
that 's why -- along with my colleague representative zach wamp , who co-chairs the renewable energy and energy efficiency caucus with me -- i offered amendments to the bill to make it more balanced . 
our amendments would have extended the renewable energy production tax credit until 2008 , would have extended the tax credit that individuals receive for purchasing hybrid vehicles , and would have increased and extended the business and residential solar tax credits . 
unfortunately , the republican leadership did n't allow them to be debated and voted on . 
i also tried to improve the resources committee 's energy bill provisions with an amendment dealing with oil shale language in the bill . 
the bill requires the interior department to set up a new leasing program for commercial development of oil shale , with final regulations to be in place by the end of next year . 
in other words , it calls for a crash program to meet a short , arbitrary deadline . 
my amendment would not have barred oil shale development . 
instead , it would have said that before we leap again , we should take a look and have a clear idea of where we are apt to land . 
colorado has the most significant amounts of oil shale -- and also the most experience with oil shale fever . 
in colorado , we have had several bouts of oil shale fever . 
the last one started during the 1970s energy crisis and ended abruptly on `` black sunday '' in 1982 . 
that was when exxon announced it was pulling out of the colony shale project , an event that left an impact crater from the western slope to downtown denver . 
that was followed by an exodus of other companies that had been working on oil shale -- which led to an exodus of jobs and of coloradans who had nowhere else to turn . 
under my amendment , interior would be told to prepare regulations for a new oil shale leasing program -- and to get them finished `` promptly '' after finishing the analysis required by nepa and the regular process for developing new federal regulations . 
unfortunately , the republican leadership of the resources committee opposed my amendment , and so it was not adopted . 
the result is that this part of the bill is much uglier than it should be . 
in conclusion , mr. chairman , we need a plan in place to increase our energy security . 
thirteen percent of the twenty million barrels of oil we consume each day comes from the persian gulf . 
in fact , fully 30 percent of the world 's oil supply comes from this same volatile and politically unstable region of the world . 
yet with only 3 percent of the world 's known oil reserves , we are not in a position to solve our energy vulnerability by drilling at home . 
this bill does nothing to tackle this fundamental problem . 
for every step it takes to move us away from our oil/carbon-based economy , it takes two in the opposite direction . 
i only wish my colleagues in the house could understand that a vision of a clean energy future is not radical science fiction but is instead based on science and technology that exists today . 
given the magnitude of the crisis ahead , we can surely put more public investment behind new energy sources that will free us from our dependence on oil . 
two days ago , at the opening of the abraham lincoln museum in springfield , president bush attempted to draw parallels between his goal of expanding freedom in the world and lincoln 's effort to expand freedom in the u.s. i have some questions about that comparison , but i do think it is good to consider lincoln 's example when we debate public policy . 
in fact , i wish president bush and the republicans would draw a few more parallels to lincoln in their approach to energy policy -- because , as that greatest of republican presidents said , `` the dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate for the stormy present . 
our present is piled high with difficulties . 
we must think anew and act anew -- then we will save our country. '' and while we are not engaged in a civil war , our excessive dependence on fossil energy is a pressing matter of national security . 
we have an energy crisis . 
we need to think anew to devise a better energy policy in order to save our country from this energy crisis . 
unfortunately , too much of this bill reflects not just a failure but an absolute refusal to think anew . 
provision after provision reflects a stubborn insistence on old ideas -- more tax subsidies , more royalty giveaways , more restrictions on public participation , more limits on environmental reviews -- and a hostility to the search for new approaches . 
maybe we could have afforded such a mistake in the past . 
but now the stakes are too high -- because , as i said , energy policy is n't just an economic issue , it 's a national security issue . 
america 's dependence on imported oil poses a risk to our homeland security and economic wellbeing . 
and so , mr. chairman , i must vote against it . 
