[Pages H3467-H3479]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

REFINERY PERMIT PROCESS SCHEDULE ACT

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 842, I
call up the bill (H.R. 5254) to set schedules for the consideration of
permits for refineries, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:

H.R. 5254

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Refinery Permit Process
Schedule Act''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this Act--
(1) the term ``Administrator'' means the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency;
(2) the term ``applicant'' means a person who is seeking a
Federal refinery authorization;
(3) the term ``biomass'' has the meaning given that term in
section 932(a)(1) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005;
(4) the term ``Federal refinery authorization''--
(A) means any authorization required under Federal law,
whether administered by a Federal or State administrative
agency or official, with respect to siting, construction,
expansion, or operation of a refinery; and
(B) includes any permits, licenses, special use
authorizations, certifications, opinions, or other approvals
required under Federal law with respect to siting,
construction, expansion, or operation of a refinery;
(5) the term ``refinery'' means--
(A) a facility designed and operated to receive, load,
unload, store, transport, process, and refine crude oil by
any chemical or physical process, including distillation,
fluid catalytic cracking, hydrocracking, coking, alkylation,
etherification, polymerization, catalytic reforming,
isomerization, hydrotreating, blending, and any combination
thereof, in order to produce gasoline or distillate;
(B) a facility designed and operated to receive, load,
unload, store, transport, process, and refine coal by any
chemical or physical process, including liquefaction, in
order to produce gasoline or diesel as its primary output; or
(C) a facility designed and operated to receive, load,
unload, store, transport, process (including biochemical,
photochemical, and biotechnology processes), and refine
biomass in order to produce biofuel; and
(6) the term ``State'' means a State, the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any other
territory or possession of the United States.

SEC. 3. STATE ASSISTANCE.

(a) State Assistance.--At the request of a governor of a
State, the Administrator is authorized to provide financial
assistance to that State to facilitate the hiring of
additional personnel to assist the State with expertise in
fields relevant to consideration of Federal refinery
authorizations.
(b) Other Assistance.--At the request of a governor of a
State, a Federal agency responsible for a Federal refinery
authorization shall provide technical, legal, or other
nonfinancial assistance to that State to facilitate its
consideration of Federal refinery authorizations.

SEC. 4. REFINERY PROCESS COORDINATION AND PROCEDURES.

(a) Appointment of Federal Coordinator.--
(1) In general.--The President shall appoint a Federal
coordinator to perform the responsibilities assigned to the
Federal coordinator under this Act.
(2) Other agencies.--Each Federal and State agency or
official required to provide a Federal refinery authorization
shall cooperate with the Federal coordinator.
(b) Federal Refinery Authorizations.--
(1) Meeting participants.--Not later than 30 days after
receiving a notification from an applicant that the applicant
is seeking a Federal refinery authorization pursuant to
Federal law, the Federal coordinator appointed under
subsection (a) shall convene a meeting of representatives
from all Federal and State agencies responsible for a Federal
refinery authorization with respect to the refinery. The
governor of a State shall identify each agency of that State
that is responsible for a Federal refinery authorization with
respect to that refinery.
(2) Memorandum of agreement.--(A) Not later than 90 days
after receipt of a notification described in paragraph (1),
the Federal coordinator and the other participants at a
meeting convened under paragraph (1) shall establish a
memorandum of agreement setting forth the most expeditious
coordinated schedule possible for completion of all Federal
refinery authorizations with respect to the refinery,
consistent with the full substantive and procedural review
required by Federal law. If a Federal or State agency
responsible for a Federal refinery authorization with respect
to the refinery is not represented at such meeting, the
Federal coordinator shall ensure that the schedule
accommodates those Federal refinery authorizations,
consistent with Federal law. In the event of conflict among
Federal refinery authorization scheduling requirements, the
requirements of the Environmental Protection Agency shall be
given priority.
(B) Not later than 15 days after completing the memorandum
of agreement, the Federal coordinator shall publish the
memorandum of agreement in the Federal Register.
(C) The Federal coordinator shall ensure that all parties
to the memorandum of agreement are working in good faith to
carry out the memorandum of agreement, and shall facilitate
the maintenance of the schedule established therein.
(c) Consolidated Record.--The Federal coordinator shall,
with the cooperation of Federal and State administrative
agencies and officials, maintain a complete consolidated
record of all decisions made or actions taken by the Federal
coordinator or by a Federal administrative agency or officer
(or State administrative agency or officer acting under
delegated Federal authority) with respect to any Federal
refinery authorization. Such record shall be the record for
judicial review under subsection (d) of decisions made or
actions taken by Federal and State administrative agencies
and officials, except that, if the Court determines that the
record does not contain sufficient information, the Court may
remand the proceeding to the Federal coordinator for further
development of the consolidated record.
(d) Remedies.--
(1) In general.--The United States District Court for the
district in which the proposed refinery is located shall have
exclusive jurisdiction over any civil action for the review
of the failure of an agency or official to act on a Federal
refinery authorization in accordance with the schedule
established pursuant to the memorandum of agreement.
(2) Standing.--If an applicant or a party to a memorandum
of agreement alleges that a failure to act described in
paragraph (1) has occurred and that such failure to act would
jeopardize timely completion of the entire schedule as
established in the memorandum of agreement, such applicant or
other party may bring a cause of action under this
subsection.
(3) Court action.--If an action is brought under paragraph
(2), the Court shall review whether the parties to the
memorandum of agreement have been acting in good faith,
whether the applicant has been cooperating fully with the
agencies that are responsible for issuing a Federal refinery
authorization, and any other relevant materials in the
consolidated record. Taking into consideration

[[Page H3468]]

those factors, if the Court finds that a failure to act
described in paragraph (1) has occurred, and that such
failure to act would jeopardize timely completion of the
entire schedule as established in the memorandum of
agreement, the Court shall establish a new schedule that is
the most expeditious coordinated schedule possible for
completion of preceedings, consistent with the full
substantive and procedural review required by Federal law.
The court may issue orders to enforce any schedule it
establishes under this paragraph.
(4) Federal coordinator's action.--When any civil action is
brought under this subsection, the Federal coordinator shall
immediately file with the Court the consolidated record
compiled by the Federal coordinator pursuant to subsection
(c).
(5) Expedited review.--The Court shall set any civil action
brought under this subsection for expedited consideration.

SEC. 5. DESIGNATION OF CLOSED MILITARY BASES.

(a) Designation Requirement.--Not later than 90 days after
the date of enactment of this Act, the President shall
designate no less than 3 closed military installations, or
portions thereof, as potentially suitable for the
construction of a refinery. At least 1 such site shall be
designated as potentially suitable for construction of a
refinery to refine biomass in order to produce biofuel.
(b) Redevelopment Authority.--The redevelopment authority
for each installation designated under subsection (a), in
preparing or revising the redevelopment plan for the
installation, shall consider the feasibility and
practicability of siting a refinery on the installation.
(c) Management and Disposal of Real Property.--The
Secretary of Defense, in managing and disposing of real
property at an installation designated under subsection (a)
pursuant to the base closure law applicable to the
installation, shall give substantial deference to the
recommendations of the redevelopment authority, as contained
in the redevelopment plan for the installation, regarding the
siting of a refinery on the installation. The management and
disposal of real property at a closed military installation
or portion thereof found to be suitable for the siting of a
refinery under subsection (a) shall be carried out in the
manner provided by the base closure law applicable to the
installation.
(d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
(1) the term ``base closure law'' means the Defense Base
Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of
Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) and title II of the
Defense Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and
Realignment Act (Public Law 100-526; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note);
and
(2) the term ``closed military installation'' means a
military installation closed or approved for closure pursuant
to a base closure law.

SEC. 6. SAVINGS CLAUSE.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect the
application of any environmental or other law, or to prevent
any party from bringing a cause of action under any
environmental or other law, including citizen suits.

SEC. 7. REFINERY REVITALIZATION REPEAL.

Subtitle H of title III of the Energy Policy Act of 2005
and the items relating thereto in the table of contents of
such Act are repealed.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Pursuant to House Resolution
842, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Boucher) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.

General Leave

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 5254.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, today's bill is part of an overall set of actions by
this body to deal with long-term energy security issues in our country.
The message that we hear from home is, America needs American energy.
One part of that need is for more domestic refining capacity. Witness
after witness at a number of our hearings in the Energy and Commerce
Committee have told us so.
Every emergency on energy has found us with less and less refinery
capacity to refine fuel, and now there is absolutely none to spare here
in the United States. Without more refinery capacity domestically,
prices are squeezed ever upward. We are relying more and more on
imported refined products as well as imported crude oil.
Why isn't there more domestic capacity? Why haven't there been any
new refineries in this country built in the last 30 years? One reason
is surely regulatory uncertainty caused by the bureaucratic delays in
the current permitting process. H.R. 5254 addresses that problem head
on, while preserving every single existing statute providing for
environmental protection and opportunity for public participation.
Every one.
Let me read that again. H.R. 5254 addresses that problem head on,
while preserving every single existing statute providing for
environmental protection and opportunity for public participation.
Every one. Not one of those statutes is repealed or modified.
What H.R. 5254 does do is set up a Federal coordinator who convenes
all officials, State, local and Federal, responsible for the permits
for a proposed refinery. Working as one team, the agencies will
integrate their action schedules and the process should move forward
expeditiously.
What role would a State play in this process? The bill provides that
the Governor of the State where the refinery would be sited designates
the State officials to participate in the scheduling coordination. If
the Governor of a State decides not to appoint any State officials,
nothing in this act can compel the State officials to participate in
the effort. The Federal coordinator will simply have to take that lack
of State participation into account in scheduling the remaining actions
of Federal permitting officials.
But if there is no State participation in that State, the process
will not go forward. Unless the State official is designated by his
Governor or her Governor, they cannot participate in the agreement.
Unless the Governor signs on, the State agencies cannot be subject to a
court order to stay on schedule. That is how the Governor of any State
where a proposed refinery would be located reserves the option of
participating or not participating in the process.
I would encourage any conference committee on this bill to further
clarify that the Governor has the option in the beginning to opt into
the process, instead of in the middle of it or at the end of it not to
participate.

{time} 1715

That is something that we reserve for a conference with the Senate.
For Federal energy officials, however, the process is not optional once
the request is made for the Federal coordinator to help.
Here, Mr. Speaker, I do acknowledge the work of the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Boucher), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) on
this issue.
The gentleman from Virginia spoke on this issue when the bill was
brought up under suspension last month. Following that debate, with the
cooperation of the House majority leadership, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Hall,
Mr. Boucher and I did try to get together to explore common ground on
this and other refinery issues.
Mr. Speaker, we did not reach resolution in time to incorporate some
of our negotiations in the new language in this bill, but I still look
forward, as we go to conference with the Senate continuing that
dialogue in this context and perhaps bringing others into the dialogue
as well.
Mr. Speaker, a separate provision in the bill before us today calls
on the President to designate three or more closed military
installations as potentially suitable for the construction of a
refinery. Why is this provision in the bill? Because we know of
communities with closed bases that are interested in siting a refinery.
We also know that the President of the United States is interested in
this provision, he has spoken to me about it personally. They feel that
the designation by the President would boost their chances of getting
the attention of potential commercial developers. We also recognize
that not every community with a closed base may want a refinery.
Nothing in this bill increases the likelihood that a community that
does not want a refinery on a closed base will get one. Why? There are
at least two reasons. The bill only encourages the local redevelopment
authorities to consider the feasibility and practicality of siting the
refinery. There is no requirement that they accept it.
Despite what you may hear in the debate, that decision is left up to
the community. The Secretary of Defense is required to give substantial
deference to the recommendation of the

[[Page H3469]]

redevelopment authority to site or not site a refinery on a closed
military base, explicitly preserving existing law.
Mr. Speaker, this debate is about our Nation's energy security. I
want to commend the leadership of this body for bringing the bill in a
timely fashion to the floor and expediting the bill. Mr. Speaker, there
are those who believe we have already run out of resources and ideas.
They say that we are all together in this, that we will just have to
learn how to make do with less. Today they urge us to do nothing. I do
not accept that. We have a refinery need in this country for 21 million
barrels per day. We have a refinery capacity for approximately 17
million barrels a day. Subtract 17 from 21, you get 4 million barrels.
Mr. Speaker, we can certainly find the political will to come
together to make it possible to reform the permitting process so that
it might be possible to add to some existing refineries, and, yes for
heavens sake, maybe even build one or two new ones.
That is what this bill is all about. It has passed the House floor
once under suspension of the rules, but it did not get the two-thirds
vote. I am hopeful today that we will get a majority vote and send this
to the other body so we can work with them when they report a similar
bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill that is before the
House and urge its rejection. The refinery bill today makes its second
appearance on the House floor in recent weeks. It was essentially the
same bill that was rejected by the House in May.
Since the bill's last appearance on the floor, a serious effort has
been made by the bipartisan leadership of the Energy and Commerce
Committee to find common ground between our position and the Republican
position. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), who
chairs the full Energy and Commerce Committee for his good faith effort
to produce a bipartisan bill.
I also want to thank the chairman of the Energy and Air Quality
Subcommittee, Mr. Hall, and the ranking Democrat on the full committee,
Mr. Dingell, for the time that they invested in seeking a bipartisan
compromise.
Unfortunately, the differences between the Republican position and
our position were simply too great, and the consensus bill could not be
produced.
While I commend the effort made by Mr. Barton and Mr. Hall to work
with us in trying to produce a balanced measure that we all today could
support, I must express disappointment that the Republican House
leadership chose to disallow all amendments on the refinery bill that
we are debating on the floor today.
The bill should have been structured in such a way as to provide an
opportunity to consider our Democratic substitute, which would make a
genuine difference in relieving the Nation's shortage of refinery
capacity.
While I will argue the merits of our more meaningful approach during
today's debate, we are now relegated to offering our alternative in
what is known as a motion to recommit, a procedure at the end of the
formal debate that does not offer a full opportunity for the House to
consider, in normal order, our proposal.
There is broad agreement that we have a shortage of refinery capacity
in the United States today. The gentleman from Texas acknowledged that
in his comments as well. There are simply not enough refineries in the
Nation to produce the gasoline, the diesel fuel and the other refined
products that we consume in the United States on a daily basis.
In fact, of the 20 million barrels we consume each day, more than 2
million barrels of refined product are imported each day. During times
of emergency, such as a hurricane that might disable some of our
refining capacity, we have no margin for error since we are not even
meeting our own daily demand with U.S.-based refineries, we are in a
highly vulnerable position whenever part of our already limited
refinery capacity is disrupted.
When that happens, we have to import even more refined product. And
we have to do it on very short notice. Arranging to buy the refined
product overseas, scheduling delivery of that product to the United
States, and then waiting on those shipments to arrive are all time
consuming and all occur at a time when because of the hurricane,
refinery fire or earthquake or other emergency, we simply do not have
enough refined product to meet current demand.
The inevitable result is a huge spike in gasoline prices. That is
exactly what happened in the weeks after Hurricane Katrina. And until
we add more refinery capacity, that is what will happen every time in
the future we have a disaster that takes down some of our limited
refining capacity.
On this much, Republicans and Democrats agree. To promote our energy
security and to protect Americans from future gasoline price spikes, we
need to build more refineries in the United States. The disagreement
that we have is over the best means to ensure that they are built.
The Republican bill now before the House is simply not the answer. It
weakens State environmental protection processes and procedures while
doing virtually nothing to assure that new refineries are, in fact,
built. The bill before us repeals the law requiring the States and the
Federal Government to work together to set deadlines and streamline the
process for issuing permits for new refinery construction.
That new requirement became law just last August in the Energy Policy
Act of 2005. Instead of repealing it, we should be giving it a chance
to work. Let us see if those provisions are satisfactory. And if they
are, perhaps that could resolve the need.
The bill before us adds a new layer of Federal bureaucracy by
creating a Federal coordinator to oversee State-permitting actions, and
States would be mandated to meet a Federal schedule for issuing
refinery construction permits.
States that have legitimate environmental concerns would find their
normal review processes short circuited under a mandated Federal
schedule for permit issuance.
And the bill proceeds from a deeply flawed assumption that the reason
that we have a refinery shortage is burdensome State permitting
processes. The real reason we do not have enough refineries is the
economic interests of the refiners, not environmental constraints.
Between September of 2004 and September of 2005, the Nation's
refiners enjoyed a 255 percent profit increase. When you are doing that
well, why change anything? Why make added investments in new refineries
when the status quo graces you with a 255 percent profit increase?
By interfering with State environmental permitting, the Republican
bill is truly a solution in search of a problem, and it ignores the
real problem. The oil companies themselves have told us that
environmental regulations are simply not the problem.
Here is what the oil company CEOs have said about regulations
governing their refining siting process. Last November, the CEO of
Shell testified to the Congress, ``We are not aware of any
environmental regulations that have prevented us from expanding
refinery capacity or siting a new refinery.''
Conoco's CEO testified, ``At this time, we are not aware of any
projects that have been directly prevented as a result of any specific
Federal or State regulation.''
The record before the Congress is clear. It is devoid of any evidence
that environmental permitting has delayed or prevented the construction
of new refineries. In fact, the record clearly shows that environmental
permitting is simply not a problem.
And yet, this bill weakens environmental permitting. It is the wrong
answer for the problem that we face. Mr. Speaker, there is a right
answer. Decades ago, our Nation created the Strategic Petroleum Reserve
to resolve, with regard to crude oil, the very same problem that we are
now having with regard to the refining of gasoline.
The Strategic Petroleum Reserve has proven to be an excellent shock
absorber, guarding our Nation against price spikes occasioned by
disruptions in crude oil deliveries. It works exactly as it was
designed to function.
Our Democratic proposal is to extend this proven and successful model
to solve the problem we now face with a

[[Page H3470]]

shortage of refinery capacity. We propose the creation of a Strategic
Refinery Reserve patterned on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. In
normal times the refineries that comprise the reserve would produce
gasoline and other products for the government fleet, including the
U.S. Department of Defense.
This step would enhance our national security. Refineries would not
operate at full capacity during these normal times. During times of
emergency, the refineries would sell gasoline into the commercial
market, protecting the American public from gasoline price spikes
should some of the U.S. refining capacity be shut down.
This sensible alternative, which the rule earlier adopted precludes
us from offering as a substitute, would be an effective means of
solving the problem which simply must be addressed.
I urge, Mr. Speaker, that the Republican bill be rejected and that
the House adopt our Democratic motion which will be offered at the end
of debate today, and that motion will contain the very sensible and, I
think, effective Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
5254. This bill recognizes the need for increased supplies of refined
petroleum products, and takes the necessary steps to increase our
refining capacity.
No new refinery has been constructed in the United States since 1976.
Yet the demand for gasoline exceeds domestic production by an average
of 4 million barrels per day. This was made worse in the aftermath of
the most recent hurricanes.
This growing gap must be met by importing refined petroleum products
from foreign sources. Refining capacity is not being increased due to,
in part, a permitting process that is overly cumbersome and capital
intensive.
This bill makes the necessary commitments to expand and diversify the
refining industry in this country. By reforming and expediting a
permitting process that is excessively slow and nearly impossible to
navigate, we will enable refiners to meet the energy needs of America's
citizens.
These facilities must still meet the strictest environmental
standards under current law. It does not allow any agency or facility
to short-circuit environmental compliance.
Mr. Speaker, for these reasons I support this bill and urge its
passage.

{time} 1730

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, for a second time this year the Republicans
are attempting to move legislation that would significantly alter
Federal law regarding the refinery permitting process without a
committee hearing, without a markup, without even allowing the bill to
be amended on the floor. This bill is a rerun of the Gasoline for
America's Security Act, the GAS Act, which was only approved by the
House by two votes after the Republican leadership twisted arms and
held the vote open for 45 minutes.
The GAS Act was a bad bill then and this is a bad bill now. While
proponents contend that the oil companies are unable to improve their
refinery capacity because of excessive regulation, the truth is oil
companies have intentionally reduced domestic refining capacity to
drive up gas prices.
I have here three memos, from Chevron, from Mobil, from Texaco, all
specifically advocating that these companies, these refineries, limit
their refinery capacity to drive up the price for gasoline for America.
From September 2004 to September 2005 the refineries' profits increased
by 255 percent. During the first quarter of 2006 Valero Energy Company,
the largest refiner in the United States, recorded profits 60 percent
higher than last year. Obviously, complying with Federal regulation
does not present these companies with a significant financial hardship
or hardship to put forth refining.
By pushing refinery legislation through the House without any
hearings, debate or amendments, we are doing the American people a
great disservice. I encourage my Republican colleagues to address real
legislation that can help the consumer at the pump rather than
legislation that provides additional handouts and free rides for their
friends in the oil industry.
I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 5254.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), a distinguished member of
the full Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, you know the bill on the floor today
really should be an easy vote for every single Member of this House.
And I think it is important to note that there are those that are a
part of the body who keep complaining about high gas prices, but then
they are going to turn around and vote against legislation like this
repeatedly. As we have brought solutions and action items to the floor,
they have chosen to cast a ``no'' vote.
The facts are pretty clear on this. We had 324 refineries in 1981.
Today we have 148. We have not built a new refinery in the country
since 1976. We have talked about refinery utilization already in this
discussion today. It is running confidently over 90 percent and
recently as high as 98 percent. That means one more hurricane in a
region packed with refineries is a big problem. This is something that
we need to recognize; certainly this leadership and this committee
does, and we hope other Members do, too. All of these statistics end up
meaning higher gas prices for our constituents when they go to the
pump.
What will it take for Members across the aisle to do more than just
complain? They didn't like the GAS Act last year because of
environmental concerns. Now the bill we have on the floor today does
not touch those existing environmental rules. All that is spelled out
in section 6 of this bill. There are those protections. They are there
still. We are not getting cooperation on this issue, and at some point
we have to conclude that Members who vote ``no'' over and over
repeatedly on energy legislation are simply telling their constituents
to get over it and live with higher gas prices.
We have had multiple hearings on the gas prices. We have had multiple
hearings on this issue. Our constituents are ready for some action. We
have heard from experts in the field that this bill will help. I urge
Members to vote in favor of the bill.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman from Virginia and I thank him for
his leadership on this issue.
Let me begin by saying that I have been in Congress for 30 years now
and served on the Energy Committee for 30 years, and this is absolutely
the worst energy bill I have seen since the refinery bill the House
defeated just over 1 month ago. In fact, it is the same exact bill
risen from the grave like some horror movie monstrosity to haunt this
House and our country once again.
This bill also comes to us, just 10 months ago, as I said, when
President Bush signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 into law. That bill
contained a refinery siting provision. Those provisions were praised at
the time by the Republican leadership and the President who claimed
that it promotes greater refinery capacity, so more gasoline will be on
the market, and it increases gasoline supply by putting an end to the
proliferation of boutique fuels. That is 10 months ago, on the greatest
energy bill that America had seen in a decade.
But now less than a year after the House passed and the President
signed the Republican energy bill into law, as people are screaming at
the pumps, as they are being tipped upside down and money is being
shaken out of their pockets, as the American people realize that the
Republican Party has allowed OPEC and the oil industry to take
advantage of every single consumer across the country, this House is
now poised to repeal the refinery siting law.
The Speaker, the Republican Speaker praised last summer and replaced
it with a brand-new refinery siting scheme. The House Republicans have
come up with just another new way of helping the oil and gas industry.
Apparently, they do not like the bill they enacted last year; they want
a new one. The problem is that the new snake oil that is being peddled
in this bill is no more effective than the old snake oil it

[[Page H3471]]

replaces or the snake oil the Republicans were peddling on the House
floor 2 years ago or 3 years ago or 4 years ago.
This bill will not reduce gas prices at the pump, it will not curb
spiraling gasoline or home heating oil gas prices. All it does is throw
more regulatory subsidies, taxpayer subsidies, at wealthy energy
producers who do not need any more government handouts.
Here is what the Bass refinery bill would do: Direct the President to
designate no fewer than three closed military bases to be turned over
to the oil companies for use as an oil refinery.
Mr. Speaker, this is one terrible bill. I urge the Members to vote
``no.''
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Herger), a distinguished member of the Ways and
Means Committee, a great catcher and left-handed pull hitter on the
congressional baseball team.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, gas prices are at a record high in my
northern California congressional district. Part of the reason is that
America's refining capacity is stretched to the limit. Yet effort to
expand our refining capacity faces up to 10 years of bureaucratic red
tape. At that pace, it is no wonder America has not built a new
refinery in 30 years.
This legislation cuts through some of that red tape by simply
requiring that the Federal agencies work together and stay on schedule
when refinery projects are being considered. I do not think it is too
much to ask that Federal bureaucracies work more efficiently. Families
and businesses throughout this country have to meet deadlines. Mr.
Speaker, the government should have to as well.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher)
has 15\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton)
has 20 minutes remaining.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering), the distinguished son from the
Magnolia State, the distinguished vice chairman of the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and I commend him
for his leadership on trying to address the energy supply and demand
and refining capacity of our Nation so that we can begin to see lower
gas prices, better energy supply and a better market for our people
here in the States.
It applies to both economic strength and national security. And I
wish that we could do more. To be honest, all of the hullabaloo is much
to-do about nothing. This bill does not change the clean air or clean
water requirements. EPA has given it priority status. It simply gives
an ability for us to coordinate among all government agencies the
permitting process which is too cumbersome and too long. This is the
only way we can help expedite in a reasonable way and a responsible way
to have the refining capacity necessary for our Nation.
It reminds me of my friends on the other side that when they see a
house burning, they will lay down in the street to keep the fire truck
from coming to make a difference and to put the fire out. That is what
we are trying to do, whether it is on OCS, on offshore production, on
additional refining capacity, or additional nuclear capabilities in our
country, anything that will increase our own independence and energy
supply.
On this side, we stand up in a responsible way, a rational way for
it; and on the other side, they will do everything to obstruct and
block and stop the progress that we need for greater energy production,
greater energy refining and greater energy independence.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, we certainly all know that
American consumers are facing an energy crisis. The high cost of energy
to heat and power our homes and to run our automobiles is sapping
family budgets across the Nation, and hurting the bottom line of
businesses across the Nation as well. We need to do more to make our
Nation energy independent and to reduce energy costs for our consumers.
We need to focus on alternatives to oil and other fossil fuels as well
by turning to alternatives like ethanol or biodiesel or nuclear power,
solar, wind power.
Just as it is wise to diversify your economic portfolio, we must
diversify our energy options, and we need to do more to incentivize the
production and distribution and use of alternative sources of energy.
And I am confident that we will, we can.
But while we work toward alternatives, we must also deal with the
reality of the current situation. We have too few refineries, and those
we do have are in areas that are vulnerable to natural disasters such
as the entire world recognized last year with Hurricane Katrina.
We have not built a new refinery in America since the 1970s. In that
time, of course, demand for gasoline has absolutely skyrocketed. The
lack of new refineries limits the supply of gas at a time of high
demand and it drives up costs for our consumers.
Too many on the other side of this debate look solely at conservation
or alternatives, and they ignore the law of supply and demand. The
brutal reality is that the greatest victims of this approach are the
lowest income Americans who are dependent on older, less fuel-efficient
vehicles. But they need help.
As well, energy security equals national security and that
fundamental caveat needs to be the impetus for this debate today. I
urge my colleagues to support this legislation that will serve as a
bridge to a more energy-independent America.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking Democrat on the full Energy and
Commerce Committee.
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and colleague, the
distinguished gentleman from Virginia, for this time.
I begin by observing that this bill and the arguments made on its
behalf are as phony as a $3 bill. My colleagues have seen this sorry
piece of legislation before and they voted it down. Since we considered
this legislation the first time, there have been no hearings. The
arguments made against it at that time are as good today as they were
then. And the committee has made no effort to go out and get the facts
or to learn what is going on so they could make an honest and factual
presentation to this body.
The harsh fact of the matter is the refinery shortage in this country
is an economic one. The oil companies do not make money in refineries.
The harsh fact of the matter is, as was told me in my office by the
head of one of the major oil companies, they do not need any help and
they do not want any help to build refineries because they have made an
economic judgment that it is better not to build because they make
their money elsewhere, and that is a far better way of spending oil
companies' money.

{time} 1745

Now, if we look at the remarks of Daniel Yergin, a respected oil
analyst, he tells us the industry has added the equivalent of 10 new
good-sized oil refineries over the last dozen years. In addition to
these expansions, recent announcements by the industry anticipate an
additional 1.1 million barrels of new refining capacity will be added
in coming years. Most importantly, this has been done under current
law.
A survey we conducted recently of State and local permitting agencies
provides further evidence that the environmental permitting process is
not preventing new refineries from being built or existing refineries
from being expanded. Only one new major refinery has requested an air
permit in the past 30 years. It got the permit, but it never got the
investors. Explain that, proponents of the bill.
The air permit has been granted not once but twice. According to our
survey, permitting agencies responsible for permitting half the
refineries in the

[[Page H3472]]

country have issued all, all, but two major expansion permits in less
than a year after receipt of a complete application.
This is an ill-advised bill, brought to the House under a parody of
the House rules, with no opportunity to amend and little time for an
intelligent debate. The rule is effectively closed and permits no
amendments by Members on this side of the aisle.
My colleagues on the Republican side have said that the Democrats
have not conducted themselves in good faith. Such remarks were made by
the chairman of the subcommittee. I would note, and I wish he were here
so that he could hear me say this, that those statements are not true.
We consulted through staff and Members alike with the Republicans to
come forward with a fair piece of legislation and a compromise bill
which would, in fact, work. We offered suggestions on behalf of our
side of the aisle through the distinguished gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Boucher), offering a meaningful substitute, including a refinery
bill which would have passed and which would have worked. It was a bill
which would have set up not just provisions relating to refinery
permits, but also relating to Federal movement towards the construction
of these refineries. If you want refineries, that is the way to get
them because industry will never construct new refineries because they
do not want them.
Now, one more curious thought. My Republican colleagues have said
that we will have an energy bill every week, and they are coming close
to it, but they are having some small difficulties because here they
have to bring the same bill up twice, once under suspension and lose,
and once now under a gag rule.
I would note for the benefit of my Republican colleagues that we
passed last year, with bipartisan support and my assistance to my
friend, the chairman of the committee, in drafting a piece of
legislation which included refinery legislation in it, the energy bill
of the last year, a good piece of legislation. I supported it. I worked
with the chairman to get it done. I would note in a curious, indeed a
most curious, action, that bill is substantially repealed by this very
strange piece of legislation.
It cannot be explained to me, I think, in a few words as to why it is
that that bill, touted as the solution to our Nation's energy problems,
has been now repealed at least insofar as the refinery permitting
provisions, and why we have to now rush ignorantly forward with a bag
upon our heads to pass a new piece of legislation which is going to
accomplish precisely nothing, except perhaps help my Republican
colleagues in a time of terror and fear.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy), another distinguished member of the
full committee, from the State that built our first refinery back in
the 1870s and the State that still today has substantial refinery
capacity.
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman.
Many times on this floor I have heard debate talk about how America
has lost some of its manufacturing capacity to other nations,
particularly at times with talk about defense issues such as strategic
metals. Many people lament that if we have lost that capacity at times
of problems or national security, national defense issues, where will
we get it from? We have to depend upon other countries to import that.
Well, we indeed are in the same situation now with our petroleum
products that are refined. We import 2 million barrels a day from other
countries, from Western Europe, from Saudi Arabia, from Venezuela, from
some countries that are more volatile politically than others. The same
thing occurs when we are importing other crude oil from other
countries, and we recognize the importance of not having to depend upon
other countries that one day may be a political friend, and the next
day may do such things as say we are cutting off the oil unless you let
us have nuclear weapons.
Here we are in that same situation when it comes to oil refineries.
It takes about eight to 10 years to go through the permitting process
for an oil refinery, a preposterous amount of time, but it is important
that all permits and all environmental needs are met. This bill does
not gut any of those.
As a matter of fact, what it does is it appoints someone to
coordinate and make sure that that process continues on and there are
no delays. Once a permitting takes place, it takes an additional 2 to 3
years to construct the plant. So, if we were to pass this today and the
Senate were to pass it and the President were to sign this, it would be
perhaps another 10 years, a decade, before products started to flow out
of there.
We simply cannot delay this anymore. It increases the demand, it
reduces the supply, and I believe if the law of supply and demand is
telling us anything right now, America is demanding that lawmakers
increase the supply.
We know that studies have been done telling us that price gouging is
not the issue. It is a matter of having adequate supplies of petroleum
and petroleum products. So, while we are working on conservation, while
we are working on getting hybrid fuel cell vehicles, we need to pass
this bill so we can get more of the supply here and reduce the cost.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Virginia said earlier, this bill
is a solution in search of a problem. I really want to focus on section
5 of the bill, and I would urge all my colleagues to read this bill,
together with the BRAC statutes and regulations in order to understand
what we are doing here.
But as written, section 5 of the bill requires the President to
designate at least three closed military bases as sites for oil
refineries, and then it requires the local redevelopment authorities,
or LRAs, to develop a reuse plan for an oil refinery. The BRAC statute
and the BRAC regulations give the final decision to the Secretary of
Defense, not to the local community. Under current law, the LRA is
charged with developing a reuse plan for a closed base.
Successful LRAs develop their plans in consultation with a myriad of
stakeholders in the local community, as well as representatives from
State and Federal agencies and private industry. Over a period of time,
often 18 to 24 months, the LRA painstakingly designs a plan that takes
into account the specific needs of the local community and has local
support.
The reuse plan is then submitted to the Secretary of Defense who has
the authority to approve the plan or reject it and require the LRA to
start over.
Now, I have no problem with an LRA or any local community deciding
that an oil refinery represents the best use of their closed facility.
If it makes sense for such a community, then they should do it. There
is nothing, nothing, in current law or in the regulations put forth by
the Office of Economic Adjustment at DOD that is an obstacle to
building a refinery. There is no problem.
We do not need section 5, but if you look at section 5, Designation
of Closed Military Bases, the presidential designate, it is mandatory,
no less than three closed military installations as potentially
suitable for construction of a refinery. Part B, the redevelopment
authority shall consider the feasibility and practicality of siting a
refinery on the installation.
The next section contemplates that they will do that in the context
of the redevelopment plan for the installation, and then it provides
the rest of it shall be carried out under the BRAC law.
So here we have a situation where the President of the United States
is going to designate, is going to order such a plan, and in that case,
the Secretary of Defense is almost certain to carry it out. The LRA has
no power to stop them.
And do not think that this language applies only to the 2005 BRAC
round. It applies to all bases closed pursuant to a BRAC round back to
1988 that still have an open or partially open reuse plan.
Now, supporters of this are circulating a Dear Colleague which says
that the redevelopment authority for each closed base will consider the
President's suggestions but is not required to accept them. Frankly,
that is

[[Page H3473]]

just wrong. The bill says that it requires the Secretary of Defense to
consult, and they define and the regs define consultation as explaining
and discussing an issue, considering objections, modifications and
alternatives, but without a requirement to reach agreement.
The supporters also say, and consistent with the language of the
bill, that it requires the Secretary of Defense to give, and I quote,
significant deference to the wishes of the LRA, and I want you to hold
this concept in your head for a moment. Secretary Rumsfeld, giving
significant deference to anybody, any agency, especially a local
redevelopment authority? That is simply not going to happen.
The fact is that there is no requirement that an LRA accept a reuse
plan in this bill. Of course not. The underlying BRAC statute makes it
clear that the reuse plan is not binding on DOD. LRAs do not accept
reuse plans. They propose them. The Secretary of Defense accepts reuse
plans or rejects them. That is his role.
Now, Mr. Speaker, communities that have suffered major base closings
like Brunswick in my district are reeling from the economic impact.
Jobs will be lost, the fabric of a community torn apart. These
communities need to plan for their future, but they do not need
interference from this Congress or from the President of the United
States. Please oppose this bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Barton) has 14 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Boucher) has 5 minutes remaining.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to engage
in a colloquy with the gentleman from Maine.
It is the clear intent of this opinion legislation to not require any
local community that does not wish a refinery, whether it be in the
private sector or on a closed military base, to opt out of the process.
I am checking with the majority parliamentarian staff, but I am willing
to take an amendment on the floor right now that changes that language
so that if the military base or local authority wants nothing to do
with it, that is it, if the gentleman from Maine is willing to vote for
the bill.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Maine.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, well, I would need to see the amendment.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. You write it. This is not a bogus offer. We are
not trying to do the nefarious intent that you claim we are, and if we
can work out the parliamentary language so that it does not violate
some rule of the House, I will take an amendment right now that you
offer, if you will vote for the bill.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, my amendment was
to delete section 5 of the bill.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I do not want to delete it, but I am willing to
clarify it if you are willing to vote for the bill.
Mr. ALLEN. That was my amendment. It was rejected by the Rules
Committee. We should at least have had a vote on that amendment on the
floor and we do not.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Hall), the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Air
Quality Subcommittee.

{time} 1800

Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I, of course, rise today in support of H.R.
5254. While there is a lot of talk about refinery plants and all that,
and while some plants have expanded, there haven't been any new ones
built in the past 30 years. All the time Mr. Markey's been up here,
there hasn't been one started, so far as I know, or built. Maybe
enlarged or worked on, but they remain dangerously clustered in the
gulf region. This bill would coordinate the permitting process for new
refineries so that needless delays would be eliminated while preserving
environmental protections.
One provision in the bill calls on the President to designate three
or more closed military installations as potentially suitable for the
construction of a refinery. Now, why is this provision in the bill?
Because there are communities with closed bases, such as the former
Lone Star Army Ammunition Base in my district in Texarkana, Texas, that
would like to have a refinery, because it makes good economic sense.
The gentleman from Maine does not want one. He is not having one
thrust upon him. Refineries bring jobs and a solid base to the local
community. The designation by the President would boost a willing
community's chances of getting the attention of a potential commercial
developer.
Opponents of this legislation claim that the legislation will
increase the likelihood that a community that does not want a refinery
on a closed base would get one. That is ridiculous, and that is exactly
wrong. Why? Because the bill only requires that three local
redevelopment authorities consider the feasibility and practicability
of siting a refinery. There is no requirement that they accept it. And
also because the Secretary of Defense is required to give a substantial
deference to the recommendation of the development authority to site or
not to site.
Helping a willing local community to site a refinery on its closed
military installation is good. It is good for the area. And, once
again, a city in my area, like Texarkana, on the far eastern side of
the State of Texas, close to four States, would have the support of
four States, probably eight Senators, and is not subject to the
vicissitudes of nature, but yet on an inside, navigable stream, with
good workers there and in other areas.
This is good for the community because it brings jobs and a healthy
tax base. It is good for the country because it adds needed domestic
refining capacity. It also lowers dramatically the cost of gasoline,
and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5254.
Mr. Speaker, I enclose for the Record a letter soliciting this from
the Texarkana people.

Texarkana Chamber of Commerce,

June 6, 2006.
Re H.R. 5254--Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act.

Hon. Ralph Hall,
Rayburn Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Hall: Let it be clear to all who are
concerned: this community was impacted by BRAC 2005 and we
would be glad to have the opportunity to attract a refinery
to our closed defense facility. Lone Star Army Ammunition
Plant (LSAAP) could be one of the facilities eligible for a
possible refinery as a result of the BRAC 2005 action. This
facility is within fifteen miles of our community and we are
excited that we could have the opportunity to provide our
citizens with the jobs associated with a refinery.
These energy-related jobs could also spur new technologies
which could highlight our region for years to come. The
resultant jobs and capital investment could help to offset
the loss of LSAAP and smooth the transition to privately
owned, tax paying entities on the property. Our local
university is working to develop a Master's level engineering
program and the technical jobs offered by a refinery would be
an integral piece of that program.
It looks like our community is going to have over 15,000
acres of land available for economic development. We can
think of no better place to start that development than with
a refinery.
As always, we appreciate your dedication to our region.
With best regards,
Linda Crawford,
President.
James Bramlett,
Mayor--Texarkana, TX.
Roy John McNatt,
Miller County Judge.
Horace Shipp,
Mayor--Texarkana, AR.
James M. Carlow,
Bowie County Judge.

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I wish to yield 4 minutes to
another distinguished member of the full committee on Energy and
Commerce from the great Granite State of New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).
Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Energy and
Commerce Committee for recognizing me and, Mr. Speaker, I rise in
support of this piece of legislation.
We have heard all the good reasons why the bill should pass. We need
new refinery capacity. We need more regional diversity in refinery
capacity. We are too reliant on oil as a feedstock for fuel in this
country, and we need to develop alternative energy resources.
Now, I know that there is work under way right as we speak to try to
figure

[[Page H3474]]

out a way that we can accommodate the interests of my friend from
Maine, Congressman Allen, and his concerns over the Brunswick Naval Air
Station, which is a BRAC'd naval air station in his district. I assure
you that this section 5 was never created with the intent of forcing
any kind of refinery capacity on any community in an area that didn't
want it. If they do not want it in Maine or somewhere else in the
country, they are not going to have it. There is no question about
that, and the language is very clear in that respect.
The fact is the Association of Defense Communities does not oppose
this bill and recognizes the protection of local authority that is
maintained by this piece of legislation. So if we can dispense with
that argument and pick up more support than we have already got. When
the bill got 237 votes, which is, at last count, a majority of votes in
this Congress, the last time it came up, it didn't get two-thirds, but
it got a majority. We will work to increase that margin if we can do so
in such a fashion that we can protect the ability of closed bases to
subsequently build refineries or biorefineries. We need biorefinery
capacity in the Northeast and this represents a potential great
opportunity.
Now, we heard from other Members that refinery capacity is tight for
economic reasons and not because of environmental permits. Let me make
a couple of points there. First of all, I have here a list of the major
permits and authorizations that were required for Arizona Clean Fuels,
and I would point out that there were 37 of them required, 37 of them.
This bill would not short-circuit one single one of those
requirements. Not one. But what it would do is it would allow them to
occur at the same time, instead of in succession, and it would make the
permitting process more seamless and occur, hopefully, more quickly.
It interests me that my friends are really supporting Big Oil, when
they say that Big Oil doesn't want it so we shouldn't make it more
possible. Well, Big Oil are not the only entities that necessarily
build refineries, and I would suggest that the industry that wants to
keep oil prices high might not want to make it easy to build more
refinery capacity. But I suggest don't give them the excuse.
This bill does not circumvent any environmental, Corps of Engineers,
local authority, or anything, but what it does do is, it takes away the
excuse that it takes too long to build a refinery. And we need more
refinery capacity in this country.
Another argument was made by my distinguished colleague from Michigan
that all we needed to do was to increase the size of the refinery
capacity that we have today. Apparently, my friend has forgotten that
last fall one of the major reasons why energy prices climbed by 50
cents a gallon in my part of the world was because a hurricane went
through the Gulf of Mexico and Louisiana. We need diversity of refinery
capacity in this country, and I mean by that geographic diversity.
What this bill will do is not promote bigger, fewer refineries, but
more refineries in more places around the country, and the potential to
have a biorefinery built in the Northeast, which is critical to my
district.
My friends, this is about energy. There is no question about that.
But it is also about energy diversity. We need more oil supplies, but
we also need more alternatives, and we are willing to do what we can
without bending good environmental policy to increase that capacity. I
urge support of this legislation.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, this legislation continues the Republican
leadership's approach of treating the big oil companies with special
attention while ignoring the needs of the American people. For years,
the Republican leadership has worked to give Big Oil everything they
could ever want: subsidies, environmental exemptions, loopholes, and
paybacks. The results have been spectacular for the oil companies, but
not for the American people.
ExxonMobil recently announced first quarter profits of over $8
billion and rewarded their CEO with a retirement package totaling
nearly $400 million. Chevron reported its profits are up 49 percent
from last year. But energy is costing the American family twice as much
as it did just 5 years ago.
The Republican leadership wants desperately to blame State and local
governments, to blame environmental requirements for the cost of
gasoline. That is the myth they want to create. But the facts are
completely different. Permits have been readily granted whenever
refiners have applied for them.
According to the Environmental Council of the States, there is simply
no factual record that supports the need for this legislation. The
State and Territorial Air Pollution Program administrators wrote to all
Members of the House to point out that this legislation will have the
opposite effect of what is intended. They say it would almost surely
delay the permitting process.
The Republican leadership wants to claim that this legislation solves
the Nation's gasoline problems. If anything, it will make it worse. Mr.
Speaker, we need to reject this legislation. It is based on a faulty
premise. It is only for the purpose of saying that we have done
something without actually doing anything that would provide real
relief to millions of American families.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the bill.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a
distinguished member from the Grand Canyon State (Mr. Shadegg), who has
the distinction of representing the last State in the Union to at least
permit a new refinery. It hasn't yet been built, but they at least
issued the permits for it.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Refinery
Permit Process Scheduling Act. If anything, I wish this bill went much
further.
One year ago, I went to New York and visited the New York Mercantile
Exchange. The traders on the floor that I spoke to said the exact
opposite of what we just heard on the floor of this House. What they
said was that this Nation is in desperate need of additional refining
capacity. They grabbed me by the lapel on the floor of the trading
mercantile and said, Do what you can to get additional refining
capacity built. That is not a windfall for the oil companies, that is a
windfall for consumers.
As the chairman of the committee mentioned, opponents of this bill
cite the experience of Arizona Clean Fuels in Yuma as an example for
why they say we don't need to improve the refining process or the
regulatory process governing the construction of a refinery. Yet that
example proves them wrong. It took Arizona Clean Fuels 5 years and 4
months, from December 1999 to April 2005, to obtain their permit.
It simply is not logical nor is it reasonable to say to investors in
a market, if you want to build a new refinery, you have to spend almost
6 years seeking the permit to build that refinery.
Our opponents on this bill say, Well, we don't need any additional
improvements to the process and we don't need to lower the
environmental standards. Yet it has been made clear over and over here
on the floor in the debate that we are not lowering environmental
standards. Indeed, the legislation calls for the EPA to be the primary
scheduling agency.
There has been no new refinery built in the United States for 30
years, since 1976. Opponents of the bill say, Well, that is all right,
we have made up that by increased capacity at existing facilities.
Well, let's see what we have done. We have dropped from 324 refineries
in 1981 to only 148 refineries today. Relying on ever larger existing
facilities, without constructing new ones, does not benefit the
consuming public, as Hurricanes Katrina and Rita have taught us.
This is good legislation. It needs to be enacted. And the experience
in my State proves this kind of regulatory improvement is absolutely
essential.
I urge the passage of the legislation.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, the Republican bill is not an effective way to address
the shortage in refining capacity. It tramples on State environmental
laws without effectively solving the problem.

[[Page H3475]]

The CEOs of the refinery companies have testified that the permitting
process for refinery siting is not burdensome and has not prevented the
construction of needed new refineries. The Republican bill, therefore,
weakens State environmental laws needlessly because it would do
virtually nothing to ensure that new refineries are, in fact, built.
By contrast, our Democratic alternative will be effective, it will
address our national refinery shortage, and it will do so by relying on
the proven and successful means by which we addressed several decades
ago disruptions in crude oil supplies. We simply would extend the
proven concept of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve by constructing a
strategic refinery reserve in order to address the problem of refining
capacity, very similar today to the problem we addressed decades ago
with regard to crude oil supply disruptions.
So, Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge rejection of the Republican bill,
and I urge that when we submit our motion to recommit that that be
approved by the House.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

{time} 1815

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to admit up front that the procedure for bringing
this bill to the floor has not been what I would have preferred it to
be, and I am going to side with my friends on the minority side about
their complaints about the procedure. It has not gone through the
regular order, and in the perfect world, it should have. Unfortunately,
we do not live in a perfect world.
We had to take some action on the majority side to show the American
people that we were serious about doing anything possible to help
alleviate some of these high energy prices, and it is certainly my
opinion and I think it is a fact that one part of that process has got
to be to make it possible to expand existing refineries and build new
refineries in this country.
It is a fact, plain and simple, that we are using over 20 million
barrels a day of petroleum products and we only have the refining
capacity for 16 to 17 million barrels. That is a fact.
It is also a fact that in the hearings we have had on our energy
price problem in this country in the Committee on Energy and Commerce
that I chair, it has been shown that one of the leading causes of the
higher prices has been the refining capacity shortage.
Now, historically the refining industry in this country has been a
loss leader. If you go back 10 or 15 years ago when we had the
integrated oil companies going from the production of the crude through
the distribution of the crude, when it came to refineries, they lost
money. So for a lot of reasons they shut down the refining capacity,
and we developed a shortage in refining capacity.
Today the margin, it is the called the crack margin, and it has
nothing to do with crack cocaine or cracks in concrete, it has to do
with the ability to go in and crack the molecules in the crude oil and
get the different levels of petroleum products out of that crude. That
crack margin is higher than it ever has been by an order of magnitude.
In some cases, the margin is probably approaching $30 to $35 a barrel
of the $70 or $72 price. So there is more than adequate profit, but
because of the regulatory impediments, it is almost impossible to go
through the permitting process in a timely fashion under existing
regulations and get a decision.
Now it is a true statement when my friends on the minority side say
there has been no refinery not built in this country in the last 30
years, because they did not get a permit. That is a true statement, but
it is only half true. The rest of the story is nobody in their right
mind would try to get a permit to build a new refinery because it takes
so long. So they are kind of beaten before they even start.
In the case in Arizona where an industrial group did go through the
process, to this day in spite of them saying they have the permits,
they have all but one. They still do not have the permit from the
United States Bureau of Reclamation giving them title to the land. In
this case, the land is actually owned by the Federal Government, and
they still have not cleared the title to that land. Now they are going
to, but they have not.
So the bill before us today is not a perfect bill. But at least it
says, let us appoint a Federal coordinator, let us work with the State
and local government. Let us set up a procedure where we coordinate all
of these permits. We do not override any State or Federal or local air
quality or water quality regulation, we just say let's coordinate it.
And oh, yes, let's let the President pick three sites out in the
country on closed military bases, of which we have dozens, and maybe we
can get the local redevelopment authority to work with State and
Federal officials to put a refinery there.
There is really no reason to oppose this bill. It is not going to do
any harm, and it might just do some good. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this
bill.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5254, the
Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act. Protecting our environment and
promoting energy independence are two of the most important jobs I have
as a Member of Congress, but before we can begin to consider building
more refineries, we must first change our consumption habits. American
consumption of oil has been increasing at an unsustainable rate. In
1995, we consumed 17.7 million barrels of oil per day, but today we
consume 20.5 million barrels per day.
The bottom line is we are not resolving our energy needs because we
are not conserving. We'll just continue to consume more and waste more,
consume more and waste more, and act like it doesn't matter. We are on
a demand course that is simply unsustainable.
We need to address rising energy prices by encouraging conservation
and this bill fails to do anything to impact that. This bill will not
affect gasoline prices or reduce our dependence on foreign oil. To feel
relief from the price at the pump, we must focus on decreasing our
consumption of oil and looking to alternative energy sources.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5254, the
Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act of 2006.
Though the Majority disingenuously argues that environmental
regulations are responsible for high gas prices, the facts don't
support their claim. Refining costs have increased because oil
companies have deliberately decreased capacity to boost profits. In the
late 1980s and early '90s, oil companies shut down 30 refineries in an
attempt to raise profit margins. The scheme worked: refinery revenues
increased by 255 percent last year.
In response to market pressure, refining capacity has increased in
recent years. Between 1996 and 2003, capacity increased by 1.4 million
barrels per day. As a result, the American Petroleum Institute believes
that H.R. 5254 is completely unnecessary. The free market that the
Republicans claim to love is working, but this legislation is about
politics, not about solving the priorities of America's working
families.
This legislation would: Allow the President to place new refineries
on closed military bases. The military base in my district would
probably be an appealing target for this President: it's the site of a
planned National Wildlife Refuge. Like many communities around the
country, the City of Alameda has undergone an extensive planning
process to convert the base to civilian use, but if the President said
the word, the City's work could be suspended while the federal
government decided whether or not it wanted to build a refinery on the
premises. Undermine environmental review processes and make state and
local environmental officials answer to a new refinery czar appointed
by President Bush.
The one good thing you can say about this bill is that it's not
another gift to oil companies--they readily admit that environmental
regulations have not prevented them from building new refineries. This
legislation is just another ill-conceived talking point for Republicans
desperate to appear responsive to rising energy prices. I won't play
that game and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no''.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Refinery
Permit Process Schedule Act (H.R. 5254).
About a month ago the House debated this legislation under Suspension
of the Rules, which makes it impossible for Members to offer
amendments. H.R. 5254 did not receive the needed two-thirds majority
necessary to pass under the Suspension calendar since many Members had
serious objections to the proposed legislation. But we are here again
today, considering this legislation without an open debate. Two
Democratic amendments were ruled out of order by the Rules Committee.
Representative Dingell and Representative Boucher offered a substitute,
which would have created a new Strategic Refinery Reserve to give our
country the ability to produce refined oil products during extreme
energy situations. Representative Allen offered an amendment that would
have struck

[[Page H3476]]

the section of the bill requiring three closed military bases be
considered as locations for refineries. So again today, we are
considering this bill without the opportunity for real debate.
H.R. 5254 is based on a false premise--that requirements for
environmental permits are to blame for the lack of refinery capacity.
Oil companies have openly stated that environmental standards are not
stopping them from building new refineries. In fact, the truth is that
oil companies simply do not want to build more refineries. The solution
that H.R. 5254 prescribes does not match the problem that our nation
faces with energy.
Instead of investing in sustainable energy sources to meet our
growing energy needs, we remain stuck in our old ways. Since the most
recent spike in gas prices in early May, Congress has not considered
one energy conservation piece of legislation. Instead we have
considered a bill to open the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
to drilling, and we will try again today to build more refineries. I
hear many of my colleagues express their commitments to sustainable
energy sources, yet we continue to focus our legislative efforts on
oil. We simply can not rely on oil to meet our future energy needs.
I would like to take the opportunity to discuss one point of this
bill that I find particularly disturbing. Section 5 directs the
President to designate three closed military bases for new oil refining
facilities. This section will ultimately force communities that have
already suffered from the closure of a military base to welcome
unwillingly an oil refinery in their backyards if the President and the
Secretary of the Army deem it worthy of a refinery. I am disappointed
that Representative Allen's amendment was ruled out of order by the
Rules Committee that would have struck this provision from the bill.
In late April, I joined with New Jersey Governor Jon S. Corzine,
Representative Frank Pallone and other New Jersey State legislators for
the Signing of the Fort Monmouth Economic Revitalization Act, which
creates a ten-member authority charged with overseeing the transition
and revitalization of Fort Monmouth once it closes in or before 2011.
Creating such an authority is an important step for communities to
protect their interests as communities are revitalized following a base
closure. What frightens me even more about this provision is that the
Secretary of Defense can override any decision made by a local
authority. The federal government can supersede a local decision. This
is not just about Fort Monmouth in my district in central New Jersey.
This is about communities who are already dealing with the closure of a
military base. This is about allowing the Federal Government to
overrule what state and local authorities believe is best for their
communities.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on this legislation because it does
not address our growing energy needs and is unfair to local
communities.
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 5242. This
bill is another example of the Republican's misguided priorities.
This legislation targets our states, communities, and environmental
laws as the culprits for high gas prices. But we know the truth. The
dirty little secret is that oil companies which made more than $110
billion in profits in 2005 and $16 billion in profits in the first
three months of 2006 do not want to build new refineries. They do not
want to spend the money! We learned from leaked corporate memos that
the major companies--Chevron, Texaco and Mobil would go so far as to
buy and shut down the competition in order to keep capacity tight.
The Yuma refinery is just one example. Twice since the 1990s this
proposed refinery received the necessary permits to be constructed and
operated. But the Yuma refinery has not been constructed because it
cannot find the financing. Bob Slaughter from the National
Petrochemical and Refiners Association testified before the House
Energy and Commerce Committee on May 11, 2006 that the proponents of
this project have an ``air permit, but they're having trouble getting
financing and actually getting that built.''
Just last week the Yuma Sun reported that the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality issued a draft renewal of the current air quality
permit already held by ACF--a full 6 months before the existing permit
is scheduled to expire. Proponents of this bill argue that states have
been delaying permits. Arizona Clean Fuels disagreed and stated ``ADEQ
has been very cooperative in working with us to make sure the project
does proceed.'' And the Environmental Council of States has written
that they are not aware of any credible report that our states are
denying or lagging behind on permitting of new refineries and the
expansion of existing refineries.
Mr. Speaker, it is time that this body considers legislation based on
facts and truths. The fact is that states are not delaying permitting
and environmental laws are not to blame. I urge my colleagues to
protect the authority of their states and the rights of all
communities--vote against this flawed legislation.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, show-me State motorists, like all
consumers, closely follow gasoline prices, and with good reason. They
have experienced dramatic increases and wide fluctuations in gas prices
over the past several years, spending millions of dollars more on
gasoline than they had anticipated.
Rural Americans, who rely heavily on transportation in going about
their daily lives, are being hit particularly hard by the high cost of
gasoline. This is especially true for farmers, many of whom are already
operating at a loss this year.
It is imperative that Congress work to address our nation's energy
needs through a comprehensive and proactive strategy that makes it
easier to promote alternative energy sources, to stop price gouging, to
increase production by expanding refining capacity, and to rollback
billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies to oil companies that are
making record profits.
The refinery permitting bill before the House today contains scant
assistance for the rural Missourians I am privileged to represent. It
would not lower their energy costs nor assure our nation's energy
security. Rather, it would change the permitting process for refineries
and would require the President to designate closed military bases for
consideration as locations for new refineries.
Designating closed military bases for refineries seems to make little
if any sense at all. I can't believe that we have used up all the
possible locations available for placing refineries and must now resort
to giving federal land grants to the oil companies to encourage them to
build new capacity. Closed bases are not abandoned land. In nearly
every case, the communities that surround these former installations
have reuse plans for these bases to benefit the local community. If
they want to place a refinery on a closed base, let them make that
determination.
Unfortunately, changing permitting rules and offering federal land to
oil companies will not entice them to build new oil refineries. While
more refineries would certainly help produce more gasoline, oil
companies have had the opportunity and financial capability for years
to increase their refining capacity. Permitting rules are not stopping
them, nor is there a lack of available locations for new refineries.
Rather, the inability to build profitable refineries has led oil
company executives away from constructing or resurrecting them.
The energy problems we are facing today must be addressed with
meaningful, comprehensive legislation. House Democrats have been active
in this regard, pressing for increases in the use of alternative fuel
produced from the corn and soybeans grown in Missouri's fields.
Democrats have also been pushing for passage of anti-price gouging
legislation since the energy markets were impacted by Hurricane
Katrina.
I have supported alternate legislation that would strengthen the
hands of the Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department,
targeting price gouging across the energy spectrum. It would also help
Americans who are struggling to deal with high gas prices and bracing
for record home heating and air conditioning bills, while creating a
Strategic Refinery Reserve to provide additional gas supplies during
energy spikes like the one we are currently facing. Unfortunately, this
more wisely drafted alternative has not even been allowed as an
amendment to this bill.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of increasing
government efficiency in considering new refinery applications in the
Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act.
Gas prices have risen as supplies have been stretched thin and U.S.
refineries have struggled to refine all of the oil we need. This bill
streamlines the cumbersome government processes that delay and
discourage new development and production, paving the way for
construction of new oil or biofuel refineries.
Domestic energy security depends on reliable supply through
exploration of oil and gas reserves on the outer continental shelf,
bolstering our refining capacity, and investigating alternative sources
of energy.
This bill is an important piece of ensuring American energy security
and I am proud to support it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). All time for debate has
expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 842, the bill is considered read and the
previous question is ordered.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Boucher

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I am in its current form.

[[Page H3477]]

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Boucher moves to recommit the bill H.R. 5254 to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce with instructions to report
the same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. STRATEGIC REFINERY RESERVE.

(a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish and
operate a Strategic Refinery Reserve in the United States.
The Secretary may design and construct new refineries, or
acquire closed refineries and reopen them, to carry out this
section.
(b) Operation.--The Secretary shall operate refineries in
the Strategic Refinery Reserve for the following purposes:
(1) During any period described in subsection (c), to
provide petroleum products to the general public.
(2) To provide petroleum products to the Federal
Government, including the Department of Defense, as well as
State governments and political subdivisions thereof who
choose to purchase refined petroleum products from the
Strategic Refinery Reserve.
(c) Emergency Periods.--The Secretary shall make petroleum
products from the Strategic Refinery Reserve available under
subsection (b)(1) only--
(1) during a severe energy supply interruption, within the
meaning of such term under part B of title I of the Energy
Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6231 et seq.); or
(2) if the President determines that there is a regional
petroleum product supply shortage of significant scope and
duration and that action taken under subsection (b)(1) would
assist directly and significantly in reducing the adverse
impact of such shortage.
(d) Locations.--In determining the location of a refinery
for the Strategic Refinery Reserve, the Secretary shall take
into account the following factors:
(1) Impact on the local community (determined after
requesting and receiving comments from State, county or
parish, and municipal governments, and the public).
(2) Regional vulnerability to a natural disaster.
(3) Regional vulnerability to terrorist attacks.
(4) Proximity to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
(5) Accessibility to energy infrastructure.
(6) The need to minimize adverse public health and
environmental impacts.
(7) The energy needs of the Federal Government, including
the Department of Defense.
(e) Increased Capacity.--The Secretary shall ensure that
refineries in the Strategic Refinery Reserve are designed to
enable a rapid increase in production capacity during periods
described in subsection (c).
(f) Implementation Plan.--Not later than 6 months after the
date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall
transmit to the Congress a plan for the establishment and
operation of the Strategic Refinery Reserve under this
section. Such plan shall provide for establishing, within 2
years after the date of enactment of this section, and
maintaining a capacity for the Reserve equal to 5 percent of
the total United States daily demand for gasoline, home
heating oil, and other refined petroleum products. If the
Secretary finds that achieving such capacity within 2 years
is not feasible, the Secretary shall explain in the plan the
reasons therefor, and shall include provisions for achieving
such capacity as soon as practicable. Such plan shall also
provide for adequate delivery systems capable of providing
Strategic Refinery Reserve product to the entities described
in subsection (b)(2).
(g) Compliance With Federal Environmental Requirements.--
Nothing in this section shall affect any requirement to
comply with Federal or State environmental or other law.
(h) Definitions.--The definitions contained in section 3 of
the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6202) shall
apply to this section.

SEC. 2. REFINERY CLOSING REPORTS.

(a) Closing Reports.--The owner or operator of a refinery
in the United States shall notify the Secretary of Energy at
least 6 months in advance of permanently closing the
refinery, and shall include in such notice an explanation of
the reasons for the proposed closing.
(b) Reports to Congress.--The Secretary of Energy, in
consultation with the Federal Trade Commission, shall
promptly report to the Congress any report received under
subsection (a), along with an analysis of the effects the
proposed closing would have on petroleum product prices,
competition in the refining industry, the national economy,
regional economies and regional supplies of refined petroleum
products, and United States energy security.

Mr. BOUCHER (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the motion be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit is the only means by
which the Democratic alternative to the Republican bill could be
brought to the House floor, and that is under the very restrictive
procedure that the Republicans have adopted which eliminates any
possibility for amendments, including a Democratic substitute.
I regret that that restrictive process does not enable the House to
consider our Democratic alternative in regular order.
The motion that I am offering would create a strategic refinery
reserve. That would be an effective means of resolving our national
problem with regard to limited refinery capacity. We would model the
refinery reserve upon the very successful strategic petroleum reserve
which has been an excellent shock absorber protecting Americans from
gasoline price spikes when there are disruptions in the delivery of
crude oil.
Under our amendment, the Secretary of Energy will be directed to
establish refineries with capacity equal to 5 percent of the total
United States demand for gasoline, home heating oil and other refined
petroleum products. The location of the refineries will be at the
discretion of the Secretary with a preference that they be sited well
away from the hurricane zone where we are concentrated today in our
existing refinery capacity.
During normal times, the reserve will not operate at full capacity.
The refineries during these normal times would sell refined product to
the Federal fleet, including the Department of Defense, a step which
would also enhance our national security.
Keeping the refinery reserve operational will ensure no lag time in
placing it online if it is needed in times of emergency, and in those
times when some portion of the Nation's refinery capacity is shut down,
the refinery reserve would protect Americans from gasoline price spikes
by selling their product into the commercial market.
This approach is sensible. It is based on a working and highly
successful model, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It would be
effective. It stands in stark contrast to the Republican proposal which
would weaken environmental laws while failing to address our critical
refinery shortage.
This motion also strikes section 5 which would direct the President
to select three closed military bases upon which refineries would be
situated, a provision which I find objectionable, which I think the
vast majority of Members of this House also find objectionable. We
would strike it in this motion.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) to
address those concerns.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Boucher-
Dingell motion to recommit. Passage of this motion would do a great
deal to improve refinery capacity and enhance the Nation's capability
to respond to natural disasters.
The motion would also strike section 5, that section of the
underlying bill that requires the President to designate at least three
closed military bases as sites for oil refineries.
Passage of this motion would guarantee that communities which have
had a base closed through the BRAC process will not be forced by
Presidential fiat to accept an oil refinery. If you have a closed
military base in your community or you believe in local control
concerning decisions of siting oil refineries, support the Boucher-
Dingell motion. If this motion fails and you care about the fate of a
closed military base in your community, I urge Members to vote ``no''
on the underlying bill.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this motion to recommit,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I certainly have sympathy for the
underlying concept of the motion to recommit. The concept is that the
United States Government should build, and perhaps even operate a
certain number of refineries for a strategic refinery reserve.
Conceptually, the idea is worth considering and we did consider it in

[[Page H3478]]

the discussions and negotiations that we had with Mr. Boucher and Mr.
Dingell. We never reached resolution, and there are a number of reasons
why we couldn't reach resolution, and those are the reasons for which I
oppose this motion to recommit.
First of all, we never really defined and the motion to recommit does
not define what a strategic reserve is. That is one of the problems.
Another problem with the motion to recommit is it actually has the
government operating the refinery. I do not believe that we really want
the Federal Government or the U.S. military, which is part of the
Federal Government, to be in the business of operating a refinery. If
they do not operate it, except in certain times, times of war, times of
national emergency, what do you with it the rest of the time? The bill
is silent about that.
And of course, conceptually, we have a problem on the majority side
of the aisle with government intervention of any kind. I will grant you
as chairman of the committee, I could see a set of rules which we were
never able to get to in our negotiations where you could set up certain
parameters and certain backstops and things where maybe we could
overcome that, but we simply were not able to pursue that, and the
underlying motion to recommit does not pursue that.
This is an idea that has some merit. It is quite possible that if the
Senate, the other body does something on refinery reform, that we might
yet make a bipartisan agreement with some of our friends on the
minority side. But for purposes of the motion to recommit at this point
in time I strongly oppose this and would urge all Members who are
prepared to vote for the refinery bill, the base bill, to vote ``no''
on the motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by
5-minutes votes on passage of H.R. 5254, if ordered; suspending the
rules and passing H.R. 5449; and suspending the rules and passing S.
2803.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 195,
noes 223, not voting 14, as follows:

[Roll No. 231]

AYES--195

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Obey
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Skelton
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--223

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--14

Bishop (NY)
Bono
DeLay
Filner
Ford
Gibbons
Gohmert
Lantos
Manzullo
Nussle
Oberstar
Olver
Reyes
Slaughter

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Two minutes remain in this
vote.

{time} 1852

Mr. GILCHREST changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. SHERMAN and Mr. HOLT changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 231, motion to recommit on
H.R. 5254, I was in my Congressional District on official business. Had
I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 238,
noes 179, not voting 15, as follows:

[[Page H3479]]

[Roll No. 232]

AYES--238

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Gene
Gutknecht
Hall
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Marchant
Marshall
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--179

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Skelton
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOT VOTING--15

Bishop (NY)
Bono
DeLay
Filner
Ford
Gibbons
Gohmert
Harris
Lantos
Manzullo
Nussle
Oberstar
Reyes
Rush
Slaughter

{time} 1859

So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Ms. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 232, on final passage of
H.R. 5254, I am not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted
``yea.''
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 232, final passage of H.R.
5254, I was in my Congressional District on official business. Had I
been present, I would have vote ``no.''

____________________