[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.

                          ____________________