mr. chairman , while vice president cheney still refuses to release the records of his energy task force , it is obvious from the bill under consideration today who participated in the task force and who shaped the energy policy act before us .  for the uninitiated , let me tell you , it was the big oil , coal , natural gas , and nuclear energy companies and concerns who shaped this legislation .  according to the congressional research service , u.s. energy consumption has almost tripled between 1950 and now .  the u.s. has 3 percent of the world 's oil reserves -- but now uses 25 percent of the oil produced in the world .  in 2003 , our nation used approximately 20 billion barrels of petroleum per day -- while producing just under 6 billion barrels of crude oil .  how much has our energy use increased ?  our petroleum usage in 2003 was almost 3 times higher than it was in 1950 .  our consumption of natural gas in 2003 was almost 4 times greater than in 1950 .  our consumption of coal in 2003 was double the amount we used in 1950 .  in fact , today , in 2005 , 86 percent of the energy we consume is still generated through the use of non-renewable fossil fuels .  america 's energy policy at this critical time should pioneer the use of renewable fuels and move our nation away from dependence on fossil fuels .  at a minimum , national energy legislation should reduce our dependence on foreign oil however , the u.s. energy information administration has concluded that the legislation before us today will not support the development and wide usage of renewable fuels or even reduce our reliance on foreign oil .  in fact , the energy information administration concludes that the bill will reduce oil imports by just over 1 percent by 2025 -- 20 years from now .  while not taking any responsible steps to lay the foundation for a new energy policy in america , the bill before us does provide $ 8 billion in tax breaks for the energy industry .  in keeping with the basic irresponsibility of this legislation , less than 10 percent of these tax breaks will go to the renewable fuel industry .  h.r. 6 would also allow drilling in the arctic national wildlife preserve despite the fact that the u.s. geological survey has estimated that there is less than a year 's supply of oil in the preserve .  only 15 percent of federal land in the rocky mountain states is currently off-limit to oil drilling .  a total of 42 million acres of federally held land are currently leased to oil and gas companies .  there is no reason to expand drilling to include alaska 's wildlife preserve .  similarly , h.r. 6 would provide $ 2 billion to support research on recovering oil and gas resources from the deep waters in the gulf of mexico -- despite the fact that oil companies are generating record profits .  h.r. 6 would also limit the liability of mtbe manufacturers for pollution to drinking water supplies despite the fact that the use of mtbe was not mandated and that there was evidence even before it was widely used that it could be harmful to drinking water supplies .  the costs of cleaning up mtbe pollution will be in the billions of dollars -- far more than many local jurisdictions can afford to pay from their own resources .  while the groups who met with vice president cheney were clearly focused on maintaining the status quo in america 's energy policy , there are in fact many things that can be done to decrease our dependence on fossil fuels and particularly to decrease our dependence on foreign oil .  we can support increased energy conservation .  we can revamp -- not repeal -- the public utility holding company act .  we can implement policies to reduce the ability of energy traders to manipulate markets and rates .  further , we can increase spending on the development of bioenergy and other renewable fuels .  for example , the 2002 farm bill authorized $ 150 million in spending in fiscal 2006 to support bioenergy initiatives .  however , the president 's short-sighted fiscal 2006 budget proposes to limit expenditures on these initiatives to just $ 60 million .  such reductions in spending on bioenergy -- especially given the provisions of the h.r. 6 -- are misguided .  h.r. 6 does not provide the new energy policy we so desperately need .  i urge a no vote on this legislation .  