What the country needs is a comprehensive strategy that reduces reliance on oil, promotes alternative sources of energy and mitigates damage done to the environment.

What the country is getting from the U.S. House of Representatives is something else altogether.

Last week, the House passed its latest version of the energy bill. Stripped out of the latest incarnation are many of the obscene pork projects sneaked into last year’s bill. But the legislation still heavily favors the oil and gas industries with more than $8 billion in tax breaks and attempts to open up sensitive environmental areas to oil exploration. The legislation would also protect the makers of the gasoline additive MTBE from lawsuits stemming from contaminated drinking water

While Republican lawmakers in the House are looking to give away billions to oil companies, which are already recording record profits, there are no incentives or requirements in the legislation to improve automobile fuel efficiency standards, and the bill doesn’t extend the tax break for people who buy hybrid vehicles. It’s disappointing that coal-fired plants that send their toxic pollution into Maine warrant special tax consideration, while environmentally conscious consumers are denied a tax incentive to buy a vehicle that cuts harmful emissions and reduces consumption of oil.

In addition to opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, the energy bill would also reduce regulations on oil pipelines and related construction and fund deep-water drilling research in the Gulf of Mexico. It would also limit local and state influence over the placement of liquefied natural gas terminals.

A poll conducted by The Associated Press and AOL found that more half of the people in the country will face financial hardship if gas prices remain at their current level – or go higher – for the next six months.

But, as President Bush has said, there is nothing in the energy bill that would lower gasoline prices for consumers. According to the survey, 29 percent of respondents blame oil companies for high gasoline prices; those same companies are the biggest beneficiaries of the energy bill.

If the Bush administration and its allies in Congress were serious about reducing the country’s dependency on foreign oil, there are many strategies that could make a difference. Reduced consumption holds the greatest promise for quick and sustainable results. The country can’t drill its way out of trouble.

But those strategies aren’t in the energy bill.

They are, however, part of bipartisan legislation that was introduced Thursday by Sen. Olympia Snowe and Sen. Dianne Feinstein. Their bill would increase the fuel efficiency standards for sport utility vehicles and other light-duty trucks. It would phase in high miles-per-gallon standards over the next six years until, in 2011, SUVs and light-duty trucks would be required to get 27.5 mpg.

The savings, in terms of energy consumption and the environment would be dramatic. According to Snowe’s office, the changes would save more than a million barrels of oil a day, reduce dependency on foreign oil by 10 percent and prevent 240 million tons of carbon dioxide. Such benefits should compel Congress to act, but it probably won’t.

Once again, the House of Representatives has attempted to disguise a giveaway to the oil and gas industry as energy policy, leaving better ideas out of the equation. The energy bill that passed last week is disgraceful. It’s time for people to stand up for the alternatives.