[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 83 (Wednesday, June 16, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H4178-H4191]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
UNITED STATES REFINERY REVITALIZATION ACT OF 2004
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 671, I
call up the bill (H.R. 4517) to provide incentives to increase refinery
capacity in the United States, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of H.R. 4517 is as follows:
H.R. 4517
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 ``United States Refinery
Revitalization Act of 2004''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
[[Page H4179]]
(1) It serves the national interest to increase refinery
capacity for gasoline, heating oil, diesel fuel, and jet fuel
wherever located within the United States, to bring more
supply to the markets for use by the American people. Forty-
eight percent of the crude oil in the United States is used
for the production of gasoline. Production and use of refined
petroleum products has a significant impact on interstate
commerce.
(2) United States demand for refined petroleum products,
such as gasoline and heating oil, currently exceeds our
domestic capacity to produce them. By 2025, United States
gasoline consumption is projected to rise from 8,900,000
barrels per day to 13,300,000 barrels per day. Diesel fuel
and home heating oil are becoming larger components of an
increasing demand for refined petroleum supply. With the
increase in air travel, jet fuel consumption is projected to
be 760,000 barrels per day higher in 2025 than today.
(3) The refinery industry is operating at nearly 100
percent of capacity during the peak gasoline consumption
season and is producing record levels of needed products at
other times. The excess demand has recently been met by
increased imports. The United States currently is importing 7
percent of its refined petroleum products but few foreign
refiners can produce the clean fuels required in the United
States.
(4) Refiners are subject to significant environmental and
other regulations and face several new Clean Air Act
requirements over the next decade. Today 153 refineries
operate in the United States, down from 324 in 1981. Almost
25 percent of our Nation's refining capacity is controlled by
foreign ownership. Easily restored capacity at idled
refineries amounted to 539,000 barrels a day in 2002, or 3.3
percent of the total operating capacity. No new refineries
have been built in the United States since 1976. Most
refineries are located on century-old sites. New Clean Air
Act requirements will benefit the environment but will also
require substantial capital investment and additional
government permits.
(5) Refiners have met growing demand by increasing the use
of existing equipment and increasing the efficiency and
capacity of existing plants. But refining capacity has begun
to lag behind peak summer demand.
(6) Heavy industry and manufacturing jobs have closed or
relocated due to barriers to investment, burdensome
regulation, and high costs of operation, among other reasons.
(7) More regulatory certainty for refinery owners is needed
to stimulate investment in increased refinery capacity.
(8) Required procedures for Federal, State, and local
regulatory approvals need to be streamlined to ensure that
increased refinery capacity can be developed and operated in
a safe, timely, and cost-effective manner.
SEC. 3. DESIGNATION OF REFINERY REVITALIZATION ZONES.
The Secretary of Energy shall designate as a Refinery
Revitalization Zone any area--
(1) that--
(A) has experienced mass layoffs at manufacturing
facilities, as determined by the Secretary of Labor; or
(B) contains an idle refinery; and
(2) that has an unemployment rate of at least 20 percent
above the national average, as set forth by the Department of
Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, at the time of designation
as a Refinery Revitalization Zone.
SEC. 4. COMPLIANCE WITH ALL ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS
REQUIRED.
The best available control technology, as appropriate,
shall be employed on all refineries located within a Refinery
Revitalization Zone to comply with all applicable Federal,
State, and local environmental regulations. Nothing in this
Act shall be construed to waive or diminish in any manner the
applicability to any refinery facility located within a
Refinery Revitalization Zone existing or future environmental
regulations.
SEC. 5. COORDINATION AND EXPEDITIOUS REVIEW OF PERMITTING
PROCESS.
(a) Department of Energy Lead Agency.--Upon request of an
applicant for a Federal authorization related to the siting
and operation of a refinery facility within a Refinery
Revitalization Zone, the Department of Energy shall be the
lead agency for coordinating all applicable Federal
authorizations and related environmental reviews of the
facility. To the maximum extent practicable under applicable
Federal law, the Secretary of Energy shall coordinate this
Federal authorization and review process with any Indian
Tribes and State and local agencies responsible for
conducting any separate permitting and environmental reviews
of the facility, to ensure timely and efficient review and
approval of any permit decisions.
(b) Authority to Set Deadlines.--As lead agency, the
Department of Energy, in consultation with agencies
responsible for Federal authorizations and, as appropriate,
with Indian Tribes and State or local agencies willing to
coordinate their own separate permitting and environmental
reviews with the Federal authorization and environmental
reviews, shall establish prompt and binding intermediate and
ultimate deadlines for the review of, and Federal
authorization decisions relating to, the refinery facility.
The Secretary of Energy shall ensure that once an application
has been submitted with such data as the Secretary considers
necessary, all permit decisions and related environmental
reviews under all applicable Federal laws shall be completed
within 6 months or, where circumstances require otherwise, as
soon thereafter as is practicable. The Secretary of Energy
also shall provide an expeditious preapplication mechanism
for prospective applicants to confer with the agencies
involved to have each such agency determine and communicate
to the prospective applicant within 60 days after the
prospective applicant submits a request for the information
concerning--
(1) the likelihood of approval for a potential facility;
and
(2) key issues of concern to the agencies and public.
(c) Consolidated Environmental Review and Record of
Decision.--As lead agency, the Department of Energy, in
consultation with the affected agencies, shall prepare a
single environmental review document, which shall be used as
the basis for all decisions on the proposed project under
Federal law. The document may be an environmental assessment
or environmental impact statement under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 if warranted, or such other
form of analysis as may be warranted, in the discretion of
the Secretary. Such document shall include consideration by
the relevant agencies of any applicable criteria or other
matters as required under applicable laws.
(d) Appeals.--In the event any agency has denied a Federal
authorization required for a refinery facility within a
Refinery Revitalization Zone, or has failed to act by the
deadline established by the Secretary pursuant to this
section for deciding whether to issue the authorization, the
applicant or any State in which the facility would be located
may file an appeal with the Secretary. Based on the overall
record and in consultation with the affected agency, the
Secretary may then either issue the necessary authorization
with appropriate conditions, or deny the application. The
Secretary shall issue a decision within 60 days after the
filing of the appeal. In making a decision under this
subsection, the Secretary shall comply with applicable
requirements of Federal law, including any requirements of
the Clean Air Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, the Solid
Waste Disposal Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, the
National Historic Preservation Act, and the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Any judicial appeal of the
Secretary's decision shall be to the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia.
(e) Conforming Regulations and Memoranda of
Understanding.--Not later than 6 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall issue
any regulations necessary to implement this section. Not
later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act,
the Secretary and the heads of all Federal agencies with
authority to issue Federal authorizations shall enter into
Memoranda of Understanding to ensure the timely and
coordinated review and permitting of refinery facilities
within a Refinery Revitalization Zone. The head of each
Federal agency with authority to issue a Federal
authorization shall designate a senior official responsible
for, and dedicate sufficient other staff and resources to
ensure, full implementation of the Department of Energy
regulations and any Memoranda under this subsection.
Interested Indian Tribes and State and local agencies may
enter such Memoranda of Understanding.
SEC. 6. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act--
(1) the term ``Federal authorization'' means any
authorization required under Federal law (including the Clean
Air Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Safe
Drinking Water Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, the Solid Waste
Disposal Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, the National
Historic Preservation Act, and the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969) in order to site, construct, upgrade, or
operate a refinery facility within a Refinery Revitalization
Zone, including such permits, special use authorizations,
certifications, opinions, or other approvals as may be
required, whether issued by a Federal, State or local agency;
(2) the term ``idle refinery'' means any intact refinery
facility that has not been in operation after June 1, 2004;
and
(3) the term ``refinery facility'' means any facility
designed and operated to refine raw crude oil into gasoline,
heating oil, diesel fuel, or jet fuel 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bereuter). Pursuant to House Resolution
671, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Capps) will each control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).
{time} 1030
General Leave
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill.
[[Page H4180]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bereuter). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, the demand for gasoline and other refined fuels in the
United States currently exceeds our domestic capacity to produce them.
Domestic gasoline consumption is expected to rise by an increase of
over 4 million barrels per day by the year 2025. Refineries are already
operating at nearly 100 percent of their designed capacity. This excess
demand is being met, unfortunately, by an ever-increasing thirst for
imports. We are currently importing about 7 percent of our refined
product needs.
H.R. 4517 seeks to reverse the trend of relying on refined imports to
make up the shortfall. The bill would authorize the Secretary of Energy
to designate as a refinery revitalization zone any area that has
experienced mass layoffs at manufacturing facilities or contains an
idle refinery and has an unemployment rate of at least 20 percent above
the national average.
Upon the request of an applicant that seeks Federal authorization
related to siting and operation of a refinery within a refinery
revitalization zone, the Department of Energy will be the lead agency
for coordinating all applicable Federal authorizations and related
environmental renewals of the facility. The Secretary of Energy and the
heads of all Federal agencies of relevant jurisdiction are required to
enter into a memorandum of understanding for the purpose of ensuring
timely and coordinated review of the application throughout the
process.
The bill would require that the best available control technology, or
BACT, would be used on all refineries so that there would be full
compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local environmental
regulations. I want to repeat that. The best available control
technology would be used at all refineries so that there would be
compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local environmental
regulations. We are not changing any existing environmental law, nor do
we waive any existing environmental law.
The bill would simply encourage the opening of previously closed
refineries and the construction of new refineries in order to increase
the domestic supply of gasoline which should, in turn, help bring down
the price. I would point out that since the mid-1970s, we have not
built a new refinery in the United States, and we have closed over 50
percent of the existing refineries in the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R.
4517, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman).
(Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4517.
This country has a real energy problem that we should be addressing.
The Nations' dependence on oil is increasing. Our energy markets have
been ravaged by corporate greed and left vulnerable to blackouts, and
the country still has no plan to fight global warming.
Unfortunately, the House Republican's Energy Week is simply a
publicity stunt. They aim to highlight bills that do not address our
energy problems and that will not be enacted this Congress.
Over the past 2 days, the Republican leadership has brought two types
of bills to the floor. First, we are repassing bills that will not make
it into law, such as the President's energy policy; and, second, we
have taken up legislation that the Republican leadership dreamed up in
secret without hearings or markups or expert testimony or consultation
with other Members of Congress.
Yesterday, we debated the Gasoline Price Reduction Act, which has
nothing to do with reducing gasoline prices; and today we consider H.R.
4517, the so-called Refinery Revitalization Act. So it is no surprise
to find this bill is a marketing gimmick and not a serious piece of
legislation. The bill is poorly drafted and unworkable, and we had no
committee hearings on it and no committee markup.
While some specifics are vague, the bill's fundamental purpose is
clear. It aims to weaken public health and environmental regulations
that apply to oil refineries. The idea seems to be if refiners are
allowed to pollute more, they might save money and they might invest
any such savings in refining capacity. Of course, there is nothing in
the bill to stop oil companies from simply pocketing any savings for
higher profits. There is also no evidence that pollution control
requirements have had any negative effect on refinery capacity. Given
recent record profits, the oil industry already has plenty of cash to
invest in refinery capacity if it wants to do so.
Many States may disagree with this approach, so H.R. 4517 allows the
Department of Energy to simply override the State decisions. And when a
large polluting facility such as a refinery is built or increases its
emissions, the facility generally must obtain permits governing its
releases of air and water pollution. A State usually grants a permit
after hearing from the public and after working with a company to
select appropriate pollution controls. But under this bill, the
Department of Energy, not the State or even EPA, would set a time limit
for granting a permit. This is a bizarre approach, as DOE has no
experience issuing permits.
Under this bill, even if a State wanted more information from a
refiner, DOE could overrule the State and grant the permit. If a
refiner refused to install pollution controls requested by a State, DOE
could overrule the State and grant the permit.
As a result, this bill is opposed by the National Conference of State
Legislatures, the Environmental Council of the States, the State and
Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators, and the Association
of Local Pollution Control Officials. I will introduce letters of
opposition from these organizations into the Record.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
National Conference of
State Legislatures,
Washington, DC, June 14, 2004.
Re: H.R. 4517, the United States Refinery Revitalization Act
of 2004.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House, Capitol Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Joe Barton,
Chairman, House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rayburn House
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
House Democratic Leader, Capitol Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. John Dingell,
Ranking Member, House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rayburn
House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Representatives: The National Conference of State
Legislatures opposes H.R. 4517, legislation the House of
Representatives will consider this week that would establish
an expedited Department of Energy-led permitting process for
facilities located in Refinery Revitalization Zones (RRZ).
This legislation comes to the House floor without the benefit
of public hearings and scrutiny of the current state of
domestic refinery permitting. States have authority over the
permitting of domestic refineries and a state-federal
partnership already is in place regarding permitting and
operation of these refineries. H.R. 4517 circumvents and
preempts both this authority and the existing state-federal
partnership. NCSL urges you to oppose H.R. 4517 and recommit
it to committee so that it can undergo the kind of
legislative review and discussion needed to determine whether
this legislation is warranted.
H.R. 4517 appears to give the Secretary of the Department
of Energy authority to override the decision of a state
agency or official that results in the denial of a permit. It
also transfers appeals of the Secretary's new permitting
authority to federal court. This revamping of existing
permitting and related activities preempts state authority
and, to the extent NCSL can determine without the benefit of
public hearings and reviews, is unnecessary.
Thank you for consideration of our concerns. Please have
you staff contact Michael Bird (202-624-8686;
[email protected]) or Gerri Madrid Davis (202-624-8670;
[email protected]) for additional information.
Sincerely,
Representative Jack Barraclough,
Idaho House of Representatives,
Chair, NCSL, Environment and
Natural Resources Committee.
[[Page H4181]]
____
The Environmental Council of
the States,
Washington, DC, June 14, 2004.
Hon. Joe Barton,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of
Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Hon. John D. Dingell,
Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of
Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Barton and Representative Dingell: The
Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) is concerned about
H.R. 4517, the United States Refinery Revitalization Act of
2004. This legislation could seriously impede state
environmental permitting authority. ECOS also urges that a
proposed change of this magnitude be considered in committee
prior to being taken up on the House floor.
Specifically the legislation appears to weaken state
authority by transferring much of the environmental
permitting responsibilities to the Department of Energy, an
agency with expertise on energy production, not environmental
regulations.
The states are also concerned about the impact this
legislation will have on State Implementation Plans (SIPs).
ECOS' analysis of the legislation indicates that H.R. 4517
could acutely impact the ability of states to complete their
SIPs. If refineries in revitalization zones are not held to
the same standards as other industries in the same area,
which is conceivable under this proposal, states will be
forced to have others make up the difference in terms of
pollution impact. This will result in making it more
difficult for states to complete their SIPs.
It is important to note that States are co-regulators and
partners with the federal government in protecting the
environment, providing for more than two thirds of the
funding. States implement most of the nation's major
environmental laws and operate their own innovative programs.
The biggest load is carried by the States, which are
responsible for 90% of the enforcement. States also collect
94% of environmental data, manage 75% of the delegated
programs including all of the air permitting programs, and
issue most of the permits overall.
It is critical that states ability to issue permits and
provide vital environmental protection services are not
hindered. ECOS urges the U.S. House of Representatives to not
adopt H.R. 4517, which would dramatically alter environmental
protection in this country.
Please contact me at 202-624-3667 should you have any
questions. Thank you for considering our position.
Sincerely,
R. Steven Brown,
Executive Director.
____
Washington, DC, June 14, 2004.
Hon. Joe Barton,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of
Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Hon. John D. Dingell,
Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of
Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Barton and Representative Dingell: On behalf
of the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program
Administrators (STAPPA) and the Association of Local Air
Pollution Control Officials (ALAPCO), the national
associations of state and local air pollution control
officials in 53 states and territories and more than 165
major metropolitan areas across the country, we write to you
today to express our associations' opposition to H.R. 4517,
the United States Refinery Revitalization Act of 2004. Our
concerns with this bill are two-fold: First, we do not
believe such legislation is warranted. Second, the bill
preempts state and local environmental agencies' permitting
authority and weakens control technology requirements, likely
jeopardizing public health and air quality.
Premised on the notion that ``refiners are subject to
significant environmental and other regulations and face
several new Clean Air Act requirements over the next decade''
and that ``more regulatory certainty for refinery owners is
needed to stimulate investment in increased refinery
capacity,'' H.R. 4517 contends that ``required procedures for
Federal, State, and local regulatory approvals need to be
streamlined to ensure that increased refinery capacity can be
developed and operated in a safe, timely, and cost-effective
manner.'' Lacking from these assertions and conclusion,
however, is any evidence that environmental requirements,
particularly those related to air pollution, have prevented
or impeded the construction of new, or the major
modification of existing, refineries. In fact, what
experience shows is that when regulated sources comply
with federal, state and local permitting requirements in a
timely manner, state and local agencies are able to act
expeditiously to approve permits.
In addition to being unnecessary, H.R. 4517 inappropriately
supercedes state and local air agencies' authority to permit
sources of air pollution by transferring authority for
permitting refineries located in areas designated as
``Refinery Revitalization Zones'' to the U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE). As the ``lead agency,'' DOE would assume
responsibility for ``coordinating all applicable Federal
authorizations and related environmental reviews of the
facility.'' As such, DOE would be authorized to ``prepare a
single environmental review document, which shall be used as
the basis for all decisions on the proposed project under
Federal law'' and ``ensure that once an application has been
submitted with such data as the Secretary considers
necessary, all permit decisions and related environmental
reviews under all applicable Federal laws shall be completed
within 6 months.'' Further, ``in the event any agency has
denied a Federal authorization required for a refinery
facility within a Refinery Revitalization Zone, or has failed
to act by the deadline established by the Secretary,'' the
DOE Secretary may grant the permit even if the state or local
permitting authority has determined that the application
fails to comply with environmental protection requirements or
if the applicant has not submitted, or did not submit in a
timely fashion, adequate information upon which to base a
decision that is appropriately protective of public health
and air quality.
H.R. 4517 also weakens emission control technology
requirements for refineries in ``Refinery Revitalization
Zones.'' Although the Clean Air Act requires new and
modifying refineries in nonattainment areas to install
technology reflecting the Lowest Achievable Emission Rate and
achieve emission offsets, and those in attainment areas to
install the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) and
protect Air Quality Related Values, the bill would require
BACT only ``as appropriate'' at all refineries located in a
Refinery Revitalization Zone.
In conclusion, our associations believe H.R. 4517 is
unwarranted; moreover, we are concerned that this bill will
obstruct state and local efforts to achieve and maintain
clean, healthful air. Accordingly, STAPPA and ALAPCO oppose
H.R. 4517.
Sincerely,
James A. Joy, III,
President of STAPPA.
Dennis J. McLerran,
President of ALAPCO.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the Bayou State and the Pelican
State, and the former honorable and distinguished chairman of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this
time. I want to congratulate the gentleman on the great job he is doing
in heading the Committee on Energy and Commerce and on bringing this
bill to the floor.
I rise in strong support of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, 178 Members of this body yesterday voted against a
comprehensive energy bill that would provide conservation, fuels, and
incredible new incentives to produce energy for our country. Mr.
Speaker, 186 Members of this House yesterday voted against a bill to do
nothing more than incentivize clean, green, renewable energy plants for
America. It is amazing.
I want to put that in perspective for those Members who voted
yesterday against these energy initiatives and who are probably going
to vote against this bill today.
Twenty-five years ago, the last refinery that we built in America was
built in my district, the Marathon Refinery. Twenty-five years ago, we
stopped building refineries in America. Refineries are what make
gasoline. Refineries are what make diesel fuel. They make jet fuel.
They make home heating fuel to keep homes warm in the winter. They make
the fuel to drive the cars and the trucks across the roads of America
and to heat and warm the homes of our country and to provide, in many
cases, electricity for those homes. They provide the jet fuel for the
airlines to fly the airways of our country.
Now, in 25 years we have not stopped building airplanes, we have not
stopped building roads, we have not stopped building houses, we have
not stopped building factories that need this energy. In fact, we built
751 million new vehicles in America, just built in this country, not
counting imports. And what do we do to build plants to supply them with
the energy they need? Zero. We have shut down half of the refineries
that were built previous to 25 years ago, and we have stopped building
refineries.
So guess what is happening to America? We are not only importing now
twice as much oil as we used to import at the Arab oil embargo when 30
percent of our oil came from foreign sources, now 60 percent comes from
foreign sources; but more and more, we are importing refined products
like gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, and home heating oil. So more and more
we are becoming dependent, not just on oil, but now we are becoming
more and more dependent on unreliable sources for gasoline, diesel
fuel, heating oil, and jet fuel.
[[Page H4182]]
So more and more, we have to think about sending our sons and
daughters in uniform to go defend some refinery in some other country
that we cannot really depend upon anymore. More and more, we are saying
the lives of our young folks are less valuable to us than building a
new refinery in America. Now, there is something illogical about that;
there is something crazy about that. We need to change that logic.
This bill says, let us think about building a few new refineries in
this country.
When the gasoline prices started skyrocketing in America, do we know
what the response of those who are voting against these energy bills
was? Let us open up a Strategic Oil Program. Let us get some oil out of
the ground that we are saving for the time we get embargoed again.
Where would you refine that oil? The refineries in America are
operating at near 100 percent. If you took some oil out of the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve, you would have to ship it overseas to get
it refined into gasoline for us.
That is how ridiculous the energy policy of this country has been and
remains to this date. We need to change that policy.
We need to finally pass a comprehensive energy bill that we have now
sent to the other body twice this Congress, and we need to literally
put it on the President's desk for signature, and we need to pass this
bill.
This bill does not change any environmental laws. It simply
encourages, through coordination of effort, through all the processes
of getting a new refinery permitted and built in America. To do what?
To make some diesel fuel, to make some gasoline, to make some heating
oil, to make some jet fuel, so airline prices are not as high, so
heating oil prices are not so terrible that people freeze to death in
the winter in this country, so gasoline can be affordable again, so
diesel fuel can be affordable again, so we can fill the tanks of the
751 million new cars we built without building a new refinery, so we do
not have a crisis in California, so we do not have blackouts,
brownouts, and disasters for the American consumer.
Look, we cannot do much for the American consumer before the election
date rolls around in November. Time is short. You can do this. You can
help them build a refinery to bring down prices. We ought to do this
today.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mrs. CAPPS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4517, the
Refinery Revitalization Act. This bill would give the Department of
Energy unprecedented authority over all environmental permitting of
refineries, with serious environmental consequences, creating yet
another governmental bureaucracy. This bill has not been examined by
any committee with jurisdiction over these laws and would create
serious conflicts between the Department of Energy and State and
Federal agencies charged with protecting our environment. I urge my
colleagues to oppose this bill.
The premise of this bill is that environmental regulation is
hindering refinery expansion. There is no basis for this conclusion.
Refining capacity has actually increased in recent years, and
environmental requirements have not prevented that increase.
While there has been a decrease in the number of refineries, not the
capacity, but the number, this is due to increasing market
concentration resulting from refinery mergers. Thus, Big Oil, and not
environmental laws, are to blame for fewer, but bigger, refineries.
Even if environmental permitting requirements were not the problem,
this bill would make the situation worse, not better, by wreaking havoc
with the well-established system partnership in place today. Under this
bill, the Department of Energy would be given lead authority over
environmental permits and would be given the ability to overrule permit
denials by other State and Federal agencies. DOE lacks the experience
or the ability in interpreting or implementing our environmental laws,
because DOE's mission is not focused on environmental protection.
I am surprised at my colleagues' support for this bill, which would
actually remove power from the States, from local control, and transfer
it to a centralized bureaucracy in Washington, D.C. This runs counter
to the themes of anti-big government that the majority professes to
champion.
While this bill is no doubt supported by the refineries, it is not
supported by anyone with a stake in environmental protection. All of
the major environmental organizations oppose this bill, and the list of
State organizations that have opposed the bill includes the
Environmental Commissioners of the States, the National Conference of
State Legislatures, the State and Local Air Directors, and many other
groups.
This bill is also opposed by the League of United Latin American
Citizens, LULAC, and the National Hispanic Environmental Council,
because of the environmental justice issues that it raises.
Mr. Speaker, I will enter into the Record letters from both of these
organizations.
{time} 1045
In addition to giving the Department of Energy the ability to
override Federal and State permitting agencies, this bill also creates
a special consultation process for industry. Before any other parties
would even know that a permit is being planned, H.R. 4517 would require
that DOE provide any permit applicant with a chance to meet with the
permitting agencies, an inside track if you will, and obtain an
informal reading regarding the agency's plan for granting the permit.
So much for competitive processes. This would give the inside track
to the permit applicant over the public, which has overriding
environmental and public health concerns.
Finally, DOE would also be given the ability to shape the record and
the timing and procedure for the granting of permits. That power in
itself is highly significant since a major part of permit evaluation is
whether the permittee has supplied sufficient information and, in many
cases, the environmental statutes and regulations specified, precise
permit content. Under this bill, the Department of Energy would be
allowed to determine that ``such data as the Secretary consider
necessary had been submitted,'' centralized power, and move to permit
issuance in 6 months or less. That would allow DOE to move a permit
forward even where a permit applicant had clearly failed to meet the
fundamental requirements for basic information.
The bill has not had any benefit of review by anyone except its
sponsors. No hearings have been held, no agencies, not even DOE or EPA
have testified to its effect. In essence, it makes a mockery of the
legislative process that we are all committed to in this body.
Before we move to place an overlapping and inconsistent permitting
scheme on top of already complex Federal laws that govern environmental
permitting by State and Federal agencies, we should at least undertake
a basic analysis of the bill's impact and validity. If the Congress is
serious about examining refineries, we should do the work that would
let us understand the effect and meaning of such a bill.
That has not been done, and in urging my colleagues to oppose this
bill, I remind us all that the passage of this bill is going to ensure
that disadvantaged communities are going to rise up in strong
opposition to being dumped on, yet another time, by the government. And
it also will open up serious discussion of what big government is
really about.
League of United
Latin American Citizens,
Washington, DC, June 14, 2004.
Chairman Joe Barton,
Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Barton: On behalf of the League of United
Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the oldest Latino civil
rights organization in the United States, I am writing to
express deep concern with the introduction of HR 4517
directing the Secretary of Energy to designate ``Refinery
Revitalization Zones'' in areas of the country with high
levels of unemployment. Although we strongly support
revitalizing areas of the country with high unemployment and
the stabilization of oil workers is a LULAC priority,
unfortunately LULAC feels that HR 4517, as it stands today,
fails to reach this threshold in a number of ways. LULAC
believes that HR 4517 is structured so as to continue a race
to the bottom in labor and environmental standards and will
encourage members to reject this legislation.
[[Page H4183]]
LULAC is concerned about the stability of oil prices and
its impact on oil workers, many of whom are Hispanic. LULAC
supports state and federal efforts to stabilize the price of
oil and prevent the displacement of Hispanic oil field
workers and federal tax incentives to domestic oil producers
to reduce dependency on foreign oil. Therefore, LULAC is in
support of a federal energy policy that encourages the
development of alternative fossil fuels and other
environmentally friendly energy sources. However, the devil
is in the details. We support efforts that contain the rules
necessary to ensure balanced and equitable sustainable
development, stable economies and a healthy environment but
do not feel H.R. 4517 meets those standards.
LULAC believes that the efforts to create Refinery
Revitalization Zones in areas with unemployment rates more
than 20% unfairly targets area that are heavily minority
populated and already disproportionately impacted by
refineries and other industries. The environmental and public
health impacts of refineries that are required to meet all
existing environmental laws, including those state
regulations that may be more stringent than federal, are
still disproportionately felt by underprivileged communities.
This legislation would exacerbate these problems.
Lastly, the legislation places the power to designate a
revitalization zone with the Secretary of Energy with little,
if any review from other agencies. If we are to grow jobs, it
is critical that this be done in a substantive and
sustainable manner--over the long-term--and not with a short-
term vision that merely places a band-aid on real development
needs.
Sincerely,
Hector Flores,
LULAC National President.
____
National Hispanic
Environmental Council,
Alexandria, VA, June 15, 2004.
Hon. Joe Barton,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of
Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Barton: On behalf of the National Hispanic
Environmental Council (NHEC) we are writing to convey our
deep concern over H.R. 4517, the ``Refinery Revitalization
Act of 2004''. This bill would, among other things, direct
the Secretary of Energy to designate ``refinery
revitalization zones'' in areas of the country with an
unemployment rate of at least 20%.
H.R. 4517 has a number of serious flaws, and the potential
for a substantial, negative impact on people of color. NHEC
opposes H.R. 4517 for the following reasons.
First and foremost, we believe H.R. 4517 raises serious
environmental justice concerns. As you know, many highly
industrialized areas are already located in or near minority
and low income communities. It is well documented that people
of color suffer disproportionately from the many health
impacts resulting from close proximity to industrial sites,
especially facilities such as refineries. Refineries produce
many tons of toxic chemicals and other harmful pollutants,
and are a major source of environmental justice issues and
litigation, as evidenced by the oil refinery area known
infamously in Louisiana as ``Cancer Alley''. Environmental
injustice is a major cause of health problems--including
higher rates of cancer, tumors, and lung disease--for Latino
and other minority communities. We believe H.R. 4517 will
greatly exacerbate the present and future environmental
justice problems confronting Latinos and others.
Indeed, the ``areas'' H.R. 4517 proposes to target--urban,
industrial/manufacturing sites with high unemployment rates--
is also an accurate description of many minority communities.
In short, we are the ones who will be most impacted. Should
H.R. 4517 pass, it will be Latinos and other minorities who
will have to live disproportionately with its adverse health,
safety, and environmental consequences.
This is the classic definition of environmental injustice,
and we strongly oppose any congressional efforts that might
create new environmental justice burdens on our community.
Indeed, we believe H.R. 4517 violates Executive Order 12898,
``Environmental Justice for All Americans'', the pre-eminent
federal environmental justice requirement, which mandates
that all federal agencies address and mitigate environmental
justice concerns, not create new ones.
As drafted, H.R. 4517 not only targets minority communities
but strips them of their ability to protect themselves. For
example, it puts the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) in
charge of final decision-making, regardless of the concerns
of other agencies. DOE is responsible for preparing the
environmental review/impact statement that will be used as
the basis for all future decisions, and it has the final say
over all regulations governing siting of power plants,
including the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act,
Superfund, and the National Historic Preservation Act.
Specifically, it allows the Secretary of Energy to override
all federal agencies permitting decisions, to overrule EPA
and its vital regulatory functions, and to pre-empt and
override state laws and regulations where those laws are
stronger than federal environmental laws.
Indeed, given DOE's checkered past in adequately protecting
the health and safety of Americans, including minorities, we
have grave doubts as to the wisdom and effectiveness of
putting DOE in sole charge of the environmental decision-
making and implementation functions of this bill.
Please know that NHEC supports responsible revisions to our
nation's energy policy, and balanced sustainable, well-
crafted economic development and environmental jobs programs.
Certainly these are much needed in Latino and other minority
communities. However, we do not believe that H.R. 4517 meets
this criteria.
NHEC is the only national Hispanic environmental
organization in the country. Founded in 1996, and with over
5,000 members nationwide, we seek to educate, unite, and
engage Latinos on environmental and sustainable development
issues; provide a national voice for Latinos before federal,
state, and non-profit environmental decision-makers; and
encourage Hispanics to actively work to preserve and protect
our environment and natural resources. We operate under the
credo: ``because it's our environment too''.
We would be happy to address these concerns in more detail,
and would welcome a dialogue with your office. We can be
reached at 703-683-3956.
Sincerely,
Roger Rivera,
President, NHEC.
Manuel Hernandez,
Chairman, NHEC.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to myself. I
want to respond to one of the things that the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Capps) just said.
This bill simply says if an area has unemployment of at least 20
percent higher than the national average, we have set up an expedited
procedure to hopefully refurbish an existing refinery or perhaps build
a new one. That creates jobs. Creating jobs is not dumping on anybody.
It is creating jobs.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Norwood), a member of the committee and the subcommittee.
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
4517, the Refinery Revitalization Act of 2004. I would like to thank
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) for his leadership on this very
important issue.
Mr. Speaker, I find this whole discussion absolutely amazing. We go
home and all of us hear from our constituents that gasoline prices are
too high. Why does Congress not do anything about it? Whether Democrat
or Republican, the answer is, boy, I am working on it.
Well, I have never heard so many pitiful Democratic excuses to not
vote for a bill that would simply increase gasoline and diesel fuel in
this country and bring down the price. Now, if you do not want to bring
down the price, just vote no on this bill because that is the design of
it. And the American people are not interested in all the nitpicking,
little excuses that you are coming up with.
Mr. Speaker, the citizens of the Ninth District of Georgia, and I am
certain along with other citizens across the country, want to know what
we in Congress are doing to help lower the gas prices. That is a
legitimate question to ask your Member of Congress. I wish there was a
quick fix. The facts are clear that there is not one. Tapping into our
national oil resources, such as the one in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge, which we certainly should do, will not guarantee a lower gas
price unless, unless we improve our refinery capabilities as well. What
we must do is work to improve the situation in the future by opening up
refineries for more production.
I remind you, we have not opened one in 25 years in this country.
Little wonder there is such a high demand for gasoline. That is exactly
what this act wishes to do.
H.R. 4517 would streamline the regulatory approval process, my
goodness, streamline the regulatory approval process, for the restart
of the idle refineries, which there are many, or the construction of
new refineries, which there have been none in 25 years in areas of this
country that desperately need more than just lower gas prices.
The same people who are complaining about jobs will not vote for a
bill that will improve our job situation in these areas that have an
unemployment rate 20 percent higher than the national average, and they
have either experienced massive layoffs in the manufacturing industry
or have a closed refinery plant in that area. While we do our best to
combat high gas prices in the present, we must be prepared for demand
in the future.
[[Page H4184]]
U.S. gasoline consumption is projected to rise to 13.3 million
barrels per day by 2025. I want you to compare that to the 8.9 million
barrels per day today. Where is it coming from? Are we going to be
dependent on the Middle East for refineries?
Vote for this bill and let us do something about lowering the price
of gasoline and diesel fuel in this country.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, this bill is part of a continuing pattern
where the Republican majority shuts out the Democratic Party. But more
importantly, they shut out, yes, the American public. No hearings on
this bill. No discussion on this bill. No involvement of the American
public in discussing a bill which could have profound impact on the
environment and the health of Americans all across our country. It is a
continuing pattern of disrespect for the American public that they are
not able to have hearings on issues that are so central to their
families' environmental and health care well-being.
They bring it out here to the floor and what do they say to the
Democratic Party and, yes, to the American people? There are no
amendments that can be made to this bill. We have conceived it in
secret and we are going to pass it without amendment or without
discussion, and that is the height of political arrogance because it
leaves out the American people from the discussion. It assumes that a
small number of oil company executives working with members of the
Republican Party can decide what is best for our country, when
obviously it is pretty evident from all of the higher gas prices and
the mess that we have got in the country that that is not the best way
to go, that the American people should be involved.
What do they say? They say we need this bill, quote/unquote, to
revitalize the refining industry. Well, today the biggest oil refiners
in the United States are Exxon-Mobil, Conoco-Phillips, BP, Valero and
Royal Dutch Shell. Together they comprise 50 percent of domestic
refinery capacity in the United States. Ten years ago they only
controlled about a third of domestic refinery capacity.
So how are they doing with this incredible increase that they have
had over the last few years? Well, Valero Energy Corporation reported
record earnings in its April 2004 quarterly report. Here is what they
said. ``With respect to refined product fundamentals, gasoline margins
remain at record levels. As we look at the balance of 2004, it is
obvious that this is going to be another year of record earnings for
us,'' the Valero Refining Company.
That is great news if you are a Valero Energy shareholder. What about
all the American gasoline consumers? Why has it not been great for
them? What about other refiners? Perhaps they are hurting as well. Let
us find out.
Let us look at Exxon-Mobil's May 2004 quarterly report. Here is what
they have to say about themselves. U.S. downstream earnings were $393
million, up $218 million mainly due to higher refining margins.
Great news for Exxon-Mobil shareholders. Their investment does not
seem like it needs to be revitalized much if they have had more than a
doubling of their revenues.
Well, how about Conoco-Phillips, how are they doing? Guess what?
There is good news again. Here is what Conoco-Phillips had to report in
their April 2004 quarterly report. Refining and marketing income from
continuing operations was up $464 million, up from $202 million in the
previous quarter and $389 million in the first quarter of 2003.
Improvements over the fourth quarter of 2003 were primarily driven by
higher refining margins. These improvements were partially offset by
lower U.S. retail and wholesale marketing margins. The improved results
from the first quarter of 2003 were attributable to higher U.S.
refining margins and volumes, partially offset by lower U.S. retail and
wholesale marketing margins.
Now, I could go through BP, which once again makes the same point.
How about Royal Dutch Shell? Again, they are making the same point.
Shell, Shell says that they are watching increased margins.
Not so great news for the consumer but great news for each one of
those oil companies.
So your question, I guess, is why do they not take all these profits
and expand their refining capacity? Why do they not just, rather than
blaming it on the environment and the health care laws of the United
States, just take all these huge profits that they get from tipping the
American consumer upside down and shaking money out of their pockets
and improve them?
I will tell you why they do not do that. They do not do that because
they do not want to call upon the Justice Department. They do not want
to call upon the Federal Trade Commission to look at the incredible
consolidation that has occurred in the refining industry over the last
10 years. They do not want to look at what happens when fewer and fewer
companies control the refining industry and you wind up with a
conscious or unconscious parallelism of interest, which essentially
means they all have a stake in raising prices because there are so few
of them and there are no other competitors out there who can act on
behalf of consumers by lowering prices.
But for crying out loud, do not blame the health care laws that
protect the American public. Do not blame the environmental laws. Blame
these companies with record profits which do not want to expand the
refining industry themselves.
Please, please, do not exclude the American public from the debate on
this bill, have no questions asked, and then blame the laws that have
been passed to protect their health and environment for what the
refiners are doing in hurting the American consumer.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to myself. I
want to briefly respond to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Markey).
First on his point that there have been no hearings on the bill and
it is out of regular order, he is exactly right, and the gentlewoman
from California (Mrs. Capps) is right and the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Dingell) is going to be right when he says that. I apologize for
that. That is an exception to the rule.
We try to do everything in the Committee on Energy and Commerce by
regular orders. This is one of those rare exceptions, and I will
stipulate that they are totally right to complain about the process. So
in the spirit of comity, I want to get that on the record.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Hall), the subcommittee chairman.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I do thank the chairman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I even thank my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Markey), for his remarks that this is a continued assault on the
price of a gallon of gasoline. That is exactly what it is. It is a
continuation of the assault of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and those that believe that if we
lower the price of gasoline we are raising the opportunity for
youngsters to decide what branch of the service they will go into,
instead to choose what field of education do I want to enter.
This is a battle against war. A Congressman's major duty is to
prevent a war, and you prevent a war by removing the causes of war. So
this is for the youngsters. This is for this generation that we are
talking about and generations to follow. This is not a bill that costs
a lot of money. As a matter of fact, we are not throwing money at it.
We are not pouring money into it. We are streamlining the system. I do
not really know why anybody complains about that.
It is tied to high unemployment areas, to distressed areas or where
there is a closed refinery. We have got to have refineries. We have
almost frightened all the refineries offshore up to this time or they
have shut down.
{time} 1100
As a matter of fact, let me see what the facts are on shutting down
those refineries. I think in 1981 we had 324 refineries shut down here.
This has been cut back to 153. If my math's correct, that is 171 of
them that have gone off-line, that have either gone offshore or are not
productive here; and this bill simply urges people to restart those
refineries to where we can grind out what
[[Page H4185]]
we need to have to fight the rising cost of gasoline. It is just that
simple. We are not pouring money into it. We are streamlining the
system.
The Secretary can identify the area, similar to their depressed area
legislation. It was on the books when Kennedy was elected. President
Kennedy, one of the first steps he took was to take the lid off the
depressed area legislation. There was a 500,000 lid on it. He took it
off to really avail ourselves of it, but that was pouring money into
it; and even that helped in that day and time.
Today we are not pouring money into it. We are streamlining it. We
are making it a little easier to start those back up and start them
back up where they are now, where people are existing now, where people
do not have any objection to them because they think it is better than
high unemployment.
Back in 1962 when I went into the Texas Senate, John Connally was
elected Governor. He was ahead of other Governors in that he tried to
have an EPA for the State of Texas, early for EPA. He appointed a fine
young man from Houston, Texas, who had a business on the canal. The
canal was badly polluted at that time. He came before us to be
confirmed, and there were five of us who had to accept or reject him.
He was rejected because he answered one of the questions wrong.
Senator Schwartz, a friend of mine, wanted to know, how do you feel
about pollution, and the guy said, well, I do not want to give you a
short answer, but I will quote a President who answered how do you feel
about sin. He said, I am against it. One of our senators thought that
was an affront to him, and he said, no, I mean, how do you really feel
about pollution? His answer was one of the great answers I have ever
heard. He said it tastes better than poverty.
That is what I am saying today. Put opportunity into the hands of
these people where these plants have been. Open them up and give us an
opportunity to save this generation from having to cross an ocean and
fight for some energy when we have plenty right here at home.
Mrs. CAPPS. May I inquire of the Speaker, please, the time remaining
on each side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). Both Members have 15 minutes
remaining.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the U.S. Refinery
Revitalization Act, as it is called; but I did want to say it is a
pleasure to have our friend, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin),
back on the floor today. I did want to respond to one of his comments.
He said that he could not believe that the energy bill that we passed
before and passed again yesterday had so much opposition. I might
remind him that every single New England Senator, five Republicans and
seven Democrats, every single New England Senator voted against that
bill. In the United States House, 20 of 22 Members of the House from
New England voted against that bill. The bill is flawed. That is why it
has not gone anywhere yet in the Senate.
Also, my friend from Georgia talked about pitiful Democratic excuses.
He was tired of pitiful Democratic excuses that he has heard on this
legislation that we are considering today. Well, if a person has
asthma, and there is an asthma epidemic in this country, if a person
has asthma, clean air is not a pitiful excuse. It is a real thing that
affects a person's life and how they get along in the world. The fact
is, the truth about this legislation is that it could allow more. It
could allow polluting facilities to emit more pollution than the
health-based standards of the Clean Air Act can do today.
Refineries are significant emitters of volatile organic compounds
which form tropospheric ozones. The facilities pose a threat to human
health and are regulated today under the Clean Air Act.
H.R. 4517 undermines Clean Air Act standards at these facilities.
Here is what this bill says: ``The best available control technology,
as appropriate, shall be employed on all refineries located within a
refinery revitalization zone.''
But in places where the air already contains unhealthy levels of
pollution, the Clean Air Act holds new and modified refineries to an
even higher standard described as the ``lowest achievable emissions
rate.'' The act also demands offsets for new sources of pollution so
that the air does not get dirtier. A weaker standard and no offsets
would lead to more pollution than the health-based standards permit. In
short, this bill lays out a path to more pollution.
Furthermore, the bill requires refineries to use best available
control technology only as appropriate. What does that mean? Well, no
hearings, no conversation. We do not know. Does this legislation
authorize the Secretary of Energy to label best available control
technology inappropriate in certain circumstances? If so, this
legislation would permit the Secretary to authorize even less pollution
control than he so desired.
Finally, H.R. 4517 would make it harder for EPA to assess the health
impacts of new refineries. The legislation would place the Secretary of
Energy in charge of the permitting process, the official record and the
only environmental review document. Even if EPA's experts conclude that
a proposed refinery project fails to comply with the substantive
standards set forth in the Clean Air Act, the Secretary of Energy may
issue the necessary authorization anyway. Under the law, EPA's 3
decades of expertise would be supplanted by an agency with no
experience enforcing the Clean Air Act.
My friend from Texas a few moments ago told a story and said
pollution tastes better than poverty. Well, it all depends. This
legislation does not give the power to decide whether a refinery is
built in an area of high unemployment to the unemployed. It gives it to
the Secretary of Energy.
If a person has asthma, pollution is a very big deal to them. We can
find a better balance.
I urge my colleagues to reject this act.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Barton), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, for yielding me the time, and I thank him for the great
leadership he has provided for many years in this Congress.
Mr. Speaker, NPR News a couple of weeks ago had a report about why
gas prices are now over $2 a gallon in some States and very high
everywhere. The reporter explained that while demand has gone way up,
as everyone has known it would for many years, capacity has gone way
down. He said due to environmental restrictions, no new refineries have
been built in this country for more than 20 years and the number of
refineries in California has decreased from 37 to 13.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) mentioned that 170 refineries
have closed since 1981. A previous speaker said some refineries are
making record profits. Well, if we decrease the number of refineries
even more, they will make even higher profits.
Also, radical environmentalists have successfully fought and stopped
oil production in the frozen tundra of Alaska and most other places
where it can be safely and environmentally and economically done in the
U.S.
Environmental extremists almost always come from wealthy or at least
very upper-income families, but they are really hurting the poor and
lower-income and working people of this country and even our national
security by shutting down so much oil production and refining here and
making us overly dependent on foreign oil that is being sold at rip-off
prices. Some environmental groups want gas prices to go to $3 or $4 a
gallon so people will drive less, but that would be another nail in the
coffin of small towns and rural areas where people often have to drive
long distances to get to work.
We need to support this and other pro-consumer energy legislation so
we can bring gas prices down or at least hold them stable. I urge
support for this legislation.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce, my colleague.
[[Page H4186]]
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from
California for the fine way in which she is handling this legislation
and for her gracious recognition of me.
I want to say a word of kindness about my friend, the chairman of the
committee, and the chairman of the subcommittee. They are fine people,
and I am very fond of them and respect them.
I do not respect the output, however, of the committee on this
matter. Where are the hearings? Where is the record? Where are the
facts to support this? Where is there anything other than supposition?
Where are the statistics? Where is the testimony of the Department of
Energy? Where are the comments of the Environmental Protection
Administration? Where are the requests of the industry that this matter
be considered or that this legislation should be brought up or that it
is good legislation in the public interest?
None of this is available. This is not the way in which the House
should legislate on an important matter. This is the way that perhaps a
high school class in emulating the way the Congress should function
would be conducted. Even at that time, I think it would be a
significant embarrassment.
Now, there are some facts here available. First of all, domestic
refining capacity has been increasing; although the number of refining
establishments has declined. This is a very interesting thing, but
there is no information in the hearing record. Indeed, there is no
hearing record on this matter. The bill which we have before us today
has not been subject to even the most basic congressional review. There
have been, as I have said, no hearings on the matter either in the
committee or the subcommittee, and we certainly have no idea of what
this bill will do, whether it will do anything or whether it will do
nothing.
In point of fact, there are substantive changes in the legislation of
the Clean Air Act. There are substantive changes of other statutes
which are under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
It is fair to note something else should be observed about this
legislation. The bill will change the form. Instead of having the
matter considered by EPA, where traditionally it has been done and
where the procedures have been fair and have been based on the
expertise of the agency, all of the sudden it is going to be moved to
the Department of Energy. This leaves, in my mind, an inference that
those who are so anxious to have this movement take place are
deliberately seeking to stack the form, to change the form from one
which has been honest and fair and which has served the public interest
to perhaps a more slippery and dishonest form in which the matter can
be considered in a way which best suits a preconceived intention.
So we have, first of all, no record; but we have a very curious
change in procedure and form which raises questions as to the
integrity, not just of the process here, but the process which will be
taking place as the matter goes forward.
Now, one of the interesting things is H.R. 4517 turns the Secretary
of Energy into an environmental czar. It does this. It usurps the
authority of State officials who are charged with protecting public
health. The Secretary of Energy controls the procedures for obtaining
State and Federal environmental permits, controls the timelines for
reviewing and granting permit applications, controls the creation of
environmental review documents that are the basis of the decisions
which will be made. The Department of Energy is given the authority to
override a State Governor's decision to deny permits for public health
reasons.
My good friends, the State writers over here, are diligently stomping
on the rights of the States to protect their citizens and to make
judgments which might be best in conformity with the wishes and
attitude of the people in the area and the elected officials of the
State. It deliberately tramples upon a longstanding and successful way
whereby the Federal Government has delegated responsibilities to these
matters to the States and that the States were to carry forward these
activities of permitting under the rules and traditions which we have
long understood and which the people of the States not only understand
but which they know is closest to the people.
The proposal then would move the principal responsibility to a new
form on the basis of no record, and it should be noted that the
National Conference of State Legislatures, the Environmental Council of
States, and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials,
among others, oppose this legislation.
One nice and comforting thing about it is that the red faces on the
other side of the aisle about a bad piece of legislation will probably
be of short duration because the Senate will never consider a piece of
legislation as outrageous as this.
Mr. Speaker, I will include for the Record at this point some letters
I have on this subject.
The Environmental Council
of the States,
Washington, DC, June 14, 2004.
Hon. Joe Barton,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of
Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Hon. John D. Dingell,
Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of
Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Barton and Representative Dingell: The
Environmental Council of the States* (ECOS) is concerned
about H.R. 4517, the United States Refinery Revitalization
Act of 2004. This legislation could seriously impede state
environmental permitting authority. ECOS also urges that a
proposed change of this magnitude be considered in committee
prior to being taken up on the House floor.
Specifically the legislation appears to weaken state
authority by transferring much of the environmental
permitting responsibilities to the Department of Energy, an
agency with expertise on energy production, not environmental
regulations.
The states are also concerned about the impact this
legislation will have on State Implementation Plans (SIPs),
ECOS' analysis of the legislation indicates that H.R. 4517
could acutely impact the ability of states to complete their
SIPs. If refineries in revitalization zones are not held to
the same standards as other industries in the same area,
which is conceivable under this proposal, states will be
forced to have others make up the difference in terms of
pollution impact. This will result in making it more
difficult for states to complete their SIPs.
It is important to note that States are co-regulators and
partners with the federal government in protecting the
environment, providing for more than two thirds of the
funding. States implement most of the nation's major
environmental laws and operate their own innovative programs.
The biggest load is carried by the States, which are
responsible for 90% of the enforcement. States also collect
94% of environmental data, manage 75% of the delegated
programs including all of the air permitting programs, and
issue most of the permits overall.
It is critical that states ability to issue permits and
provide vital environmental protection services are not
hindered. ECOS urges the U.S. House of Representatives to not
adopt H.R. 4517, which would dramatically alter environmental
protection in this country.
Please contact me at 202-624-3667 should you have any
questions. Thank you for considering our position.
Sincerely,
R. Steven Brown,
Executive Director.
____
National Conference of
State Legislatures,
Washington, DC, June 14, 2004.
Re H.R. 4517, the United States Refinery Revitalization Act
of 2004.
Hon. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House, Capitol Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Joe Barton,
Chairman, House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rayburn House
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
House Democratic Leader, Capitol Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. John Dingell,
Ranking Member, House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rayburn
House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Representatives: The National Conference of State
Legislatures opposes H.R. 4517, legislation the House of
Representatives will consider this week that would establish
an expedited Department of Energy-led permitting process for
facilities located in Refinery Revitalization Zones (RRZ).
This legislation comes to the House floor without the benefit
of public hearings and scrutiny of the current state of
domestic refinery permitting. States have authority over the
permitting of domestic refineries and a state-federal
partnership already is in place regarding permitting and
operation of these refineries. H.R. 4517 circumvents and
preempts both this authority and the existing state-
[[Page H4187]]
federal partnership. NCSL urges you to oppose H.R. 4517 and
recommit it to committee so that it can undergo the kind of
legislative review and discussion needed to determine whether
this legislation is warranted.
H.R. 4517 appears to give the Secretary of the Department
of Energy authority to override the decision of a state
agency or official that results in the denial of a permit. It
also transfers appeals of the Secretary's new permitting
authority to federal court. This revamping of existing
permitting and related activities preempts state authority
and, to the extent NCSL can determine without the benefit of
public hearings and reviews, is unnecessary.
Thank you for consideration of our concerns. Please have
our staff contact Michael Bird (202-624-8686;
[email protected]) or Gerri Madrid Davis (202-624-8670;
[email protected]) for additional information.
Sincerely,
Representative Jack Barraclough,
Idaho House of Representatives,
Chair, NCSL, Environment and
Natural Resources Committee.
____
State and Territorial Air Pollution Program
Administrators, Association of Local Air Pollution
Control Officials,
Washington, DC, June 14, 2004.
Hon. Joe Barton,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of
Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Hon. John D. Dingell,
Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of
Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Barton and Representative Dingell: On behalf
of the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program
Administrators (STAPPA) and the Association of Local Air
Pollution Control Officials (ALAPCO), the national
associations of state and local air pollution control
officials in 53 states and territories and more than 165
major metropolitan areas across the country, we write to you
today to express our associations' opposition to H.R. 4517,
the United States Refinery Revitalization Act of 2004. Our
concerns with this bill are two-fold: First, we do not
believe such legislation is warranted. Second, the bill
preempts state and local environmental agencies' permitting
authority and weakens control technology requirements, likely
jeopardizing public health and air quality.
Premised on the notion that ``refiners are subject to
significant environmental and other regulations and face
several new Clean Air Act requirements over the next decade''
and that ``more regulatory certainty for refinery owners is
needed to stimulate investment in increased refinery
capacity,'' H.R. 4517 contends that ``required procedures for
Federal, State, and local regulatory approvals need to be
streamlined to ensure that increased refinery capacity can be
developed and operated in a safe, timely, and cost-effective
manner.'' Lacking from these assertions and conclusion,
however, is any evidence that environmental requirements,
particularly those related to air pollution, have prevented
or impeded the construction of new, or the major modification
of existing, refineries. In fact, what experience shows is
that when regulated sources comply with federal, state and
local permitting requirements in a timely manner, state and
local agencies are able to act expeditiously to approve
permits.
In addition to being unnecessary, H.R. 4517 inappropriately
supercedes state and local air agencies' authority to permit
sources of air pollution by transferring authority for
permitting refineries located in areas designated as
``Refinery Revitalization Zones'' to the U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE). As the ``lead agency,'' DOE would assume
responsibility for ``coordinating all applicable Federal
authorizations and related environmental reviews of the
facility.'' As such, DOE would be authorized to ``prepare a
single environmental review document, which shall be used as
the basis for all decisions on the proposed project under
Federal law'' and ``ensure that once an application has been
submitted with such data as the Secretary considers
necessary, all permit decisions and related environmental
reviews under all applicable Federal laws shall be completed
within 6 months.'' Further, ``in the event any agency has
denied a Federal authorization required for a refinery
facility within a Refinery Revitalization Zone, or has failed
to act by the deadline established by the Secretary,'' the
DOE Secretary may grant the permit even if the state or local
permitting authority has determined that the application
fails to comply with environmental protection requirements or
if the applicant has not submitted, or did not submit in a
timely fashion, adequate information upon which to base a
decision that is appropriately protective of public health
and air quality.
H.R. 4517 also weakens emission control technology
requirements for refineries in ``Refinery Revitalization
Zones.'' Although the Clean Air Act requires new and
modifying refineries in nonattainment areas to install
technology reflecting the Lowest Achievable Emission Rate and
achieve emission offsets, and those in attainment areas to
install the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) and
protect Air Quality Related Values, the bill would require
BACT only ``as appropriate'' at all refineries located in a
Refinery Revitalization Zone.
In conclusion, our associations believe H.R. 4517 is
unwarranted; moreover, we are concerned that this bill will
obstruct state and local efforts to achieve and maintain
clean, healthful air. Accordingly, STAPPA and ALAPCO oppose
H.R. 4517.
Sincerely,
James A. Joy III,
President of STAPPA.
Dennis J. McLerran,
President of ALAPCO.
____
June 14, 2004.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the undersigned
organizations, we are writing to urge your opposition to the
``United States Refinery and Revitalization Act of 2004''
(H.R. 4517) recently introduced by Congressman Joe Barton.
The premise of H.R. 4517 is that public health regulations
are to blame for the country's shortage of refinery capacity.
This premise is absolutely false. As of 2000, EPA had
received only one application for a permit to build a new
refinery in the preceding 25 years. Valero's Senior Vice
President recently acknowledged that it was ``the poor
margins that had the biggest impact [on new refinery
construction], not the environmental rules.'' Yet, H.R. 4517
would allow oil companies to skirt public health laws when
they build new refineries and expand old ones, increasing air
and water pollution and harming public health. Indeed, the
bill would take ultimate authority for environmental
permitting in so-called ``Refinery Revitalization Zones''
away from the EPA and the states and hand it to the
Department of Energy, an agency whose primary mission and
expertise is the promotion of energy production.
Attachled is an analysis of the bill detailing the harmful
effects that, if enacted, this measure would pose to the
health and well-being of our communities. We strongly urge
you to vote against the bill.
Sincerely,
John Walke, Clean Air Program Director, Natural Resources
Defense Council.
Emily Figdor, Clean Air Advocate, U.S. Public Interest
Research Group (PIRG).
Paul Billings, Vice President for National Policy and
Advocacy, American Lung Association.
Eric Schaeffer, Director, Environmental Integrity Project.
Jill Stephens, Program Analyst, National Parks Conservation
Association.
Mark Wenzler, Director of Energy Programs, National
Environmental Trust.
Michele Boyd, Legislative Representative, Critical Mass
Energy and Environment, Public Citizen.
Nat Mund, Washington Representative, Sierra Club.
Elizabeth Thompson, Legislative Director, Environmental
Defense.
Matthew Niemerski, Government Relations Associate,
Defenders of Wildlife.
Dave Alberswerth, The Wilderness Society.
Kathy Andria, President, American Bottom Conservancy.
David Monk, Executive Director, Oregon Toxics Alliance.
Jacky Grimshaw, Vice President for Policy, Transportation &
Community Development, Center for Neighborhood Technology.
Cynthia Sarthou, Executive Director, Gulf Restoration
Network.
DeeVon Quirolo, Executive Director, Reef Relief.
Tom Z. Collina, Executive Director, 20/20 Vision.
Sarah Peisch, Environmental Action Center.
Joan Marie Silke, President, The Good Neighbor Committee of
South Cook County.
____
Congressman Barton's H.R. 4517: Weakening Public Health and
Environmental Protections on Behalf of Oil Companies
Congressman Joe Barton of Texas has introduced a bill that
would make it easier for oil companies to skirt public health
laws when they build new refineries and expand old ones.
Entitled the ``United States Refinery Revitalization Act of
2004'' (H.R. 4517), the bill would take ultimate authority
for environmental permitting in so-called ``Refinery
Revitalization Zones'' away from the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the states hand it to the Department of
Energy (DOE), which has neither expertise nor interest in
controlling the harmful pollution that refineries emit.
The Bill Falsely Blames Public Health Protections for the
Country's Refining Shortage. The preamble to the Barton bill
states that ``[m]ore regulatory certainty'' and
``streamlined'' regulatory approvals are needed to
``stimulate investment in increased refinery capacity.'' The
bill assumes that public health regulations are to blame for
the country's shortage of refining capacity; however, that
assumption is false. As of 2000, EPA had received only one
application for a permit to build a new refinery in the
preceding twenty-five years. Refiners acknowledge that market
forces unrelated to environmental regulations explain
industry's failure to propose new refineries. For example,
Valero's senior vice president has stated that it was ``the
poor margins that had the biggest impact, not the
environmental rules.'' Indeed, DOE's Energy Information
Administration has determined that environmental requirements
have accounted for only a very small share of the refining
industry's decline in profitability over the years. More
specifically, EPA has found that one of the Barton bill's
primary targets--the Clean
[[Page H4188]]
Air Act preconstruction requirement known as ``new source
review''--has ``not significantly impeded investment in new
power plants or refineries.''
The Bill Neutralizes the Agencies With Interest and
Expertise in Protecting Public Health. EPA and its partners
in state governments are the agencies devoted to protecting
communities from the harm that can result from the
construction and expansion of large pollution sources such as
refineries. They employ the experts who can tell whether
increased pollution from a new or expanded refinery would
negatively impact public health. DOE, in contrast, has no
responsibility for--or expertise in--protecting the public
from the pollution that refineries emit. The agency's
overarching missions are expanding domestic energy production
and leaning up nuclear waste. The Barton bill nevertheless
declares that with respect to a new or modified refinery,
``the Department of Energy shall be the lead agency for
coordinating all applicable Federal authorizations and
related environmental reviews of the facility.'' This
provision has no precedent in environmental permitting and
violates cooperative federalism, a principle that is
fundamental to state and federal environmental laws in the
U.S.
What is more, the Barton bill declares that even if EPA and
state experts conclude that a proposed refinery project would
fail to comply with the public health safeguards contained in
the nation's environmental laws, the Secretary of Energy may
``issue the necessary authorization'' anyway. This provision
turns the environmental review process into a sham: If an oil
company does not like the decision reached by government
experts on the basis of science and their experience
implementing our public health and environmental laws, then
the company can appeal directly to the head of an agency
whose devotion to maximizing energy production is not
tempered by any experience implementing public health status
or any expertise in the effects or refinery pollution. If the
Secretary of Energy reverses the government experts and
issues a permit, then an affected citizen's only recourse
under the terms of the bill is to a federal appeals court
that lacks the ability to undertake the fact-finding that has
been crucial and, until now, available in National
Environmental Policy Act cases.
The Bill Eliminates Important Public Health Protections.
National environmental laws, such as the Clean Air Act and
the Clean Water Act, require industry to implement the best
available pollution control technology at any new refinery
and at any existing refinery that undergoes a change that
otherwise would increase harmful emissions. By contrast, the
Barton bill declares that best available control technology
shall be employed only ``as appropriate.'' This term is
undefined, leaving to the ultimate discretion of DOE all
determinations of appropriateness, and allowing those
determinations to be dictated by non-public health
considerations.
With respect to new and modified refineries, the Clean Air
and Water Acts impose several requirements above and beyond
the installation of best available control technology. For
example, the new source review provisions of the Clean Air
Act require a company to demonstrate that any increased air
pollution resulting from refinery construction or
modification will not have an adverse impact on air quality,
national parks, or public health. The Clean Water Act
requires all facilities to not only be held to technology-
based limits, but also to reduce their water discharges
further in order to ensure that ambient water quality
standards are achieved. In contrast with these statutes, the
Barton bill suggests that the installation of best available
control technology will, on its own, suffice ``to comply with
all applicable Federal, State, and local environmental
regulations.'' In areas where the air already contains
unhealthy levels of pollution, so as not to exacerbate air
quality and public health, the Clean Air Act holds new and
modified refineries to an even more protective standard than
best available control technology, namely, lowest achievable
emissions rate. Those provisions further require refineries
to offset any emissions increases with decreases of the same
or greater magnitude elsewhere in the area. The Barton bill
weakens these safeguards, allowing air quality to worsen in
already polluted areas, by suggesting that installation of
best available control technology, on its own, will satisfy
all environmental regulations.
The Bill Deprives Government Experts and Concerned Citizens
of the Tools They Need to Protect Our Communities. In order
to judge accurately the impact that a new or expanded
industrial facility will have on neighboring communities,
environmental agencies and concerned citizens must carefully
review essential information concerning the proposed project.
In the past, companies have filed incomplete permit
applications, withheld critical information until after
deadlines for public comment have passed, and demanded a
final permit notwithstanding the lack of real public
participation and the inadequate opportunity for careful
review by government experts. Ignoring this history, the
Barton bill declares that the Secretary of Energy shall
ensure that ``all permit decisions and related environmental
reviews under all applicable Federal laws shall be completed
within 6 months'' of the date on which the applicant submits
''such data as the Secretary''--as opposed to the government
experts who must evaluate the data--``considers necessary.''
What is more, the bill required EPA and the states to tell a
refiner ``the likelihood of approval for a potential
facility'' before the refiner has filed any application at
all. The obligation to engage in premature guesswork at the
refiners' behest is without precedent in environmental law
and threatens to prejudice the outcomes of the ultimate
permit application reviews.
If Expanded Refineries Escape Careful Review, Already
Disadvantaged Communities Will Suffer the Most. In thirty-six
states and 125 U.S. cities, more than sixty-seven million
people breathe air polluted by refineries. That pollution
causes cancer and childhood development problems, in addition
to inducing asthma attacks, headaches, and nausea. Many
existing refineries are located next to low-income
communities with large minority populations. The Barton bill
targets these disadvantaged communities by directing the
loosening of public health protections at ``any area * * *
that has an unemployment rate of at least 20 percent above
the national average.'' The American public--and especially
disadvantaged families living next to existing refineries--
need stronger, more effective public health protections. The
Barton bill would instead weaken existing protections,
without addressing any of the true causes of the country's
refining shortage.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
{time} 1115
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to come to the floor today to
support H.R. 4517, the Refinery Revitalization Act of 2004, which will
provide incentives to increase the Nation's refinery capacity.
I have several major refineries in my district. I also have several
refineries that have gone out of business in recent years, largely in
small rural communities where their loss has created significant
unemployment problems. Those areas could benefit enormously from this
particular piece of legislation.
As all speakers on both sides of this issue have agreed, the number
of refineries in this country has been reduced significantly in recent
decades. Indeed, since 1981 the number of refineries has been reduced
by 52 percent. In that time, total refining capacity has declined by
9.8 percent. Recent increases in the refinery are due simply to some
efficiencies as opposed to the adding of additional capacity.
Mr. Speaker, while our production is declining, demand for refined
products is projected to increase substantially between now and 2025.
We will meet the demand for additional refined products either by
producing that product here in the United States or importing it from
abroad. This bill is needed to restore manufacturing jobs and capacity
in this country. Counties where oil refineries have closed in the last
20 years have an average unemployment rate of 6.8 percent,
significantly higher than the national average. I am amazed that those
who complain about the exporting of American jobs oppose this bill, for
without it, its passage, we will surely export thousands of refining
jobs in the coming years.
Mr. Speaker, by passing this bill, we can decrease our reliance on
foreign sources of energy, create new good jobs here at home, and
improve our energy independence.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another
distinguished Member, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan), a
member of the subcommittee and the full committee.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, as we continue to discuss the state of
America's energy industry, we need to take a hard look at our ability
to add value to oil through refinement. Our refining situation in the
energy industry is dismal. We have not built a new refinery in 25
years. Experts will tell you that U.S. refineries are unlikely to spend
capital on expansion because they have already earmarked $20 billion to
comply with burdensome government regulations. There just is not enough
money left over to expand.
We are maxed out. Our refineries are operating at 95 percent. Even if
we recover more oil, even if we spur domestic production and reduce our
dependency on foreign oil, we cannot refine it. We actually, if we do
refine some extra oil, we have to send it to a foreign country to add
value to it, and we have to buy it back like a Third World country.
[[Page H4189]]
Due to our shortage in refining capacity, simple disruption can lead
to wild price swings. For example, as refineries switch from winter to
summer gasoline blends, prices in California increased by 40 cents a
gallon. In 2000, gas prices in Chicago shot up by 50 cents a gallon due
to refining problems.
We are neglecting the state of our refining ability, but today we can
do something about it. The Refinery Revitalization Act will streamline
the regulatory and approval process for the restarting of refineries
and construction of new refineries. It is just unbelievable we have not
modernized our refineries.
Mr. Speaker, could you imagine if we did not build a microchip
processing plant or an auto assembly line for the next 25 years? Where
would those industries be? By passing this legislation, we will update
our ability to add value to our oil, reduce the cost of gasoline, and
stabilize our energy economy.
This is a smart solution for a Nation suffering from sky-high prices
at the gasoline stations.
I am looking forward to going home so I can tell my constituents that
I did what I could to ease the high cost of gasoline. I hope that my
colleagues will join me.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), vice chairman of
the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality.
(Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, 28 years ago we built the last refinery in
the United States, 28 years ago. We import 7 percent of our refined
product in this country. We import gasoline. We hear all the problems
of the crises of imported crude oil. What many people do not
understand, or they believe, is that we import refined product, the
gasoline that goes into people's tanks. Seven percent is imported from
foreign countries. We must and we can do better.
These countries that are importing refined product, they get the
value-added benefit of refining the crude oil. They get the jobs of
refining that product. They get the jobs of building those refineries.
They also get the tax benefits from the national government and the
local level. We can and we must do better. That is why I applaud my
colleague for bringing this bill to the floor.
In Illinois over the past year we have lost 220,000 barrels per day
of refined capacity with the closure of three refineries. With the
number of boutique fuels in Illinois, this has led to large price
spikes when problems occur in other refineries. The most recent
refinery closure resulted in the loss of 300 jobs. The number of
refineries in the United States has gone from 324 in 1981 to 153 today.
In Illinois alone, we have decreased from 11 refineries to four.
This bill protects existing environmental regulations on clean air,
and what better place than to address the siting issues than to put
them on old, abandoned refinery sites. So people who know and have
lived and now have these abandoned refineries, it is brilliant to say
let us get these sites that are abandoned back into use.
Mr. Speaker, this is a critical issue at a time of not just high
demand for crude oil but demand for product. It is unconscionable that
we import refined product. In fact, the Governor of Illinois recognized
that when he ordered the reopening of a closed refinery outside of my
district to help ease the supply of refined product. This specifically
will help Lawrenceville with a closed facility and Wood River,
Illinois. We have to get these refineries back into refining product,
and then we need to address our crude oil shortages. I applaud the
gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton) and look forward to the vote on
this bill.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Refinery
Revitalization Act, which is nothing less than a direct assault on the
ability of qualified State and Federal officials to protect human
health, protect the environment, and to protect the economy. In the
name of increased refinery capacity, this bill puts the interest of the
oil industry above all other interests.
It would allow the Secretary of Energy to be the final decisionmaker
under Federal law for the Clean Water Act. The Department of Energy
would make those decisions without having any of the expertise
implementing those laws which are outside of its jurisdiction. The
Secretary of Energy could overrule decisions of the EPA and the Corps
of Engineers, as well as State decisions, that a refinery might harm
public health or harm the environment.
This bill would give the Secretary of Energy the final say in
protecting human health and environment. If a State agency denies
approval for a refinery facility under Federal law, the applicant can
appeal to the Secretary of Energy who can issue the approval over the
objection of Federal or State interests. That is a clear shot right at
our Nation's environmental laws.
It specifically lists the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, which
is a predecessor to the Clean Water Act. It specifically lists the
Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Superfund Act, the
Solid Waste Disposal Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, National
Historic Preservation Act, National Environmental Policy Act as laws
that the Secretary of Energy can simply overrule.
This makes the Department of Energy the environmental czar in
America. States would see their capacity to protect public health and
public safety through the clean water permitting program significantly
diminished. States would in fact be denied the opportunity to implement
their own programs to achieve water quality improvements through the
total maximum daily load program. States would be denied opportunity to
protect water quality under section 401 of the Clean Water Act which
ensures that federally permitted actions are consistent with State
water quality goals.
I do not understand how it makes any sense to have a Federal entity
permit a program to have negative effect on State water quality; yet
this bill specifically allows it. Permitting decisions of EPA and the
Corps of Engineers, including protection of wetlands or protections of
obstructions to navigation, all those could be overturned.
While the authors of the bill may be targeting environmental laws,
they have gone way beyond any reasonableness. There ought to be some
way of bringing the Department of Energy into a coordination or
discussion with the EPA, but not to make the Department of Energy the
final arbiter to overturn our existing Federal laws. For 100 years, the
Corps of Engineers has been charged with regulating activities that
could have adverse effect on the Nation's waterways for commerce.
Private parties without that protection could locate wharves, docks,
and other structures in the water to obstruct free flow of navigation.
That century of regulatory authority could be thrown out by the
Secretary of Energy if a refinery says we have been denied a permit by
the Corps of Engineers, and the Secretary of Energy comes in and
overrules them.
Refineries often are located near navigable waterways to facilitate
barge traffic and so on. If a refiner wanted to extend the docking area
into the navigation channel and the corps said no, the Secretary of
Energy could say the Corps of Engineers does not count.
Mr. Speaker, this is unsound policy. This mega-authority for the
Secretary of Energy to overrule air quality safety, water quality
safety, and navigation safety is unprecedented, unnecessary, unwise,
unsound; and we ought to defeat this bill.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In closing, I would observe to the chairman of the Committee on
Energy and Commerce that on our side we have needed to roll into this 1
hour of discussion all of the customary hearings and studies which
should have been undertaken. I know the gentleman has made apologies
for it, but it is clear to me in listening to the debate that this bill
before us is based on such a faulty premise, an unproven, untested
premise, that public health and environmental protection laws are to
blame for the shutdown of refineries. There is no evidence to support
it, and there is no documentation that passage of this bill would
increase the number of refineries reopened or produced.
[[Page H4190]]
We are being asked to support this legislation with no knowledge base
on which to make our actions. As I have said earlier, to me this is a
mockery of the system we are about, particularly for the committee
which is such an important, prestigious committee within the House of
Representatives and which I am so honored to be a part of.
{time} 1130
The solution that I understand is being offered is to let the
Secretary of Energy, a czar is what my colleagues have called him, we
will have to build him a special throne because he is going to be able
to override the Environmental Protection Agency, one whole agency that
will just be emasculated, never mind State houses emasculated, to have
a say in the environmental and public health regulations that their
State has authority over. That will all be set aside in favor of this
hope that by giving the power to the energy czar, we will see oil
refineries opened. We do not know for sure but we hope so. The
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) eloquently noted for us that
oil companies are awash in profits and could if they wished today build
new refineries.
In sum, this is a bad bill. We can consider the topic but we
certainly should not support this legislation. I urge my colleagues to
oppose it. If this bill goes into law and is signed into law, we will
begin a strong conversation with the American people about
environmental justice issues and about the engorgement of big
government here in Washington, D.C.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to start out my closing with just reading a few
of the facts that have been sadly not reported during this debate. The
number of refineries in the United States of America has been reduced
from 324 in 1981 to 153 today. That is over half the refineries have
been closed in the United States since 1981. That is fact number one.
Fact number two, refining capacity in millions of barrels per day
luckily has not gone down quite that much but it has gone down about 10
percent, from 18.5 million barrels a day in 1981 to a little over 16
million barrels per day today. So number of refineries down, capacity
to refine down.
However, the demand for refined products has gone up. In 2001 it was
a little under 20 million barrels a day. It is expected to grow to over
26 million barrels a day in 2025. Number of refineries down, capacity
down, demand up. That is a fact. It may be an unpleasant fact but it is
a fact.
So what are we to do about it? I guess we could just stick our head
in the sand and say no big deal. Maybe we ought to do something to
increase refinery capacity. I will grant, and I have already granted
several times in this debate, this particular bill has not been the
subject of hearings and the normal regular order, subcommittee markup,
full committee markup. I have apologized for that. I will apologize for
it again.
Having said that, is it a bad concept to say let's go into areas
where they have an existing refinery, perhaps it is opened, perhaps it
is closed and they have high unemployment. The bill says 20 percent.
Maybe that is not the right number. Maybe it ought to be 10 percent.
Maybe it ought to be 30 percent above the national average. But at
least we say we have an existing refinery or a closed refinery, it has
a high unemployment average, high above the national average, let's set
an expedited procedure. Let's say that an applicant can ask the
Secretary of Energy to designate that as a refinery revitalization area
and then try to get some decisions about reopening or improving that
refinery. We do not waive one environmental law. We do not waive any
State control. We simply say you have got to make a decision on the
existing laws.
I have some pending permits in my congressional district, not on
refineries, on cement plants. One permit has been pending for 3 years,
the other for 2 years. It costs millions of dollars to make those
permit applications. This bill says don't waive the law, just say that
you have to make a decision within a certain time frame. Maybe the time
frame is wrong. Again, hearings would say if we need a little bit more
time. But the concept is not wrong. The concept. In terms if you decide
to reopen a refinery, what do we say, what kind of technology? Best
available control technology. Best available. Not worst. Not none. Best
available. Existing refineries that are still operating are going to
spend $20 billion in the next few years just to comply in those
refineries with existing law. $20 billion. We say if somebody wants to
open a new refinery, expand one, reopen a closed one, they have to use
the best available control technology.
Let us now talk about outsourcing of jobs. There has been a lot of
debate about jobs going overseas. This keeps jobs in the United States.
Most of these jobs would be high-paying jobs. Most of them would be
union jobs. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Again, maybe those
that oppose this bill have an alternative. It is fair to say since we
did not hold a hearing that they may have one. But is their alternative
never build a refinery in the United States of America again? In the
Carter years under the Fuel Use Act, they said never use natural gas
again. We repealed that fortunately when Reagan came into office. But
maybe that is the position of my friends on the minority side, they
never want a refinery to ever be built again in the United States of
America.
If that is their position, put the bill up on the floor and we will
have a debate on it. But if they think that it is okay to build some
new refineries and to reopen some old ones to meet this demand that is
going to go to 26 million barrels a day, this is a way to do it.
It may not be the perfect way, I will grant you that. But it is a
way. If you think the United States of America should be a
manufacturing society, should maintain these jobs, vote for this bill.
We will hold all the hearings in the world. We are going to have plenty
of opportunity with the Senate, the other body. So I would hope that we
can vote for this bill and at least send a signal to people that live
in high unemployment areas, there is some hope and some opportunity
that they may get one of these high-paying jobs.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise before you today in favor
of H.R. 4517, the U.S. Refinery Revitalization Act of 2004.
Existing U.S. refineries are already operating at or near full
capacity because this country hasn't added new refineries in almost
three decades. As Director of Energy at USDA during the 1970s Arab oil
embargo, I find that not only hard to believe, but unacceptable.
EPA implemented tougher Clean Air Act regulations, including a
program that requires refiners to take expensive steps to cut factory
emissions when they expand capacity or build new plants. Many refiners
couldn't meet the requirements and have gone out of business.
Now, we only have the capacity to meet about 90 percent of our
gasoline needs. This is especially significant in Michigan where we
have just one refinery left--the Marathon Ashland plant in Detroit. In
addition to federal law, the state of Michigan also needs to consider
changes in state law and regulation that will encourage the building of
more refineries in Michigan.
U.S. laws requiring dozens of different regional gasoline
formulations have created unusual fuel requirements that are not easily
met by foreign refiners. Each formulation requires different pipelines
and trucks for different parts of the country that increase the cost. A
shortage of clean tankers available to ship gasoline from overseas is
yet another bottleneck. This adds to the cost at the pump, and leads to
regional price shocks when refineries experience interruptions in their
production.
Under this bill, many areas in Michigan would be eligible as a
Refinery Revitalization Zone, including Wayne County, where Michigan's
last remaining refinery is located.
I stand in favor of H.R. 4517 because this will help the Midwest
region lower its 6 percent gasoline supply deficit and reduce some of
the highest pump prices in the nation.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). All time having been yielded,
pursuant to House Resolution 671, the bill is considered read for
amendment, 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.
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.
[[Page H4191]]
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________