[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 51 (Wednesday, May 3, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H1999-H2007]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
REFINERY PERMIT PROCESS SCHEDULE ACT
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
pass the bill (H.R. 5254) to set schedules for the consideration of
permits for refineries.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 5254
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Refinery Permit Process
Schedule Act''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act--
(1) the term ``Administrator'' means the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency;
(2) the term ``applicant'' means a person who is seeking a
Federal refinery authorization;
(3) the term ``biomass'' has the meaning given that term in
section 932(a)(1) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005;
[[Page H2000]]
(4) the term ``Federal refinery authorization''--
(A) means any authorization required under Federal law,
whether administered by a Federal or State administrative
agency or official, with respect to siting, construction,
expansion, or operation of a refinery; and
(B) includes any permits, licenses, special use
authorizations, certifications, opinions, or other approvals
required under Federal law with respect to siting,
construction, expansion, or operation of a refinery;
(5) the term ``refinery'' means--
(A) a facility designed and operated to receive, load,
unload, store, transport, process, and refine crude oil by
any chemical or physical process, including distillation,
fluid catalytic cracking, hydrocracking, coking, alkylation,
etherification, polymerization, catalytic reforming,
isomerization, hydrotreating, blending, and any combination
thereof, in order to produce gasoline or distillate;
(B) a facility designed and operated to receive, load,
unload, store, transport, process, and refine coal by any
chemical or physical process, including liquefaction, in
order to produce gasoline or diesel as its primary output; or
(C) a facility designed and operated to receive, load,
unload, store, transport, process (including biochemical,
photochemical, and biotechnology processes), and refine
biomass in order to produce biofuel; and
(6) the term ``State'' means a State, the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any other
territory or possession of the United States.
SEC. 3. STATE ASSISTANCE.
(a) State Assistance.--At the request of a governor of a
State, the Administrator is authorized to provide financial
assistance to that State to facilitate the hiring of
additional personnel to assist the State with expertise in
fields relevant to consideration of Federal refinery
authorizations.
(b) Other Assistance.--At the request of a governor of a
State, a Federal agency responsible for a Federal refinery
authorization shall provide technical, legal, or other
nonfinancial assistance to that State to facilitate its
consideration of Federal refinery authorizations.
SEC. 4. REFINERY PROCESS COORDINATION AND PROCEDURES.
(a) Appointment of Federal Coordinator.--
(1) In general.--The President shall appoint a Federal
coordinator to perform the responsibilities assigned to the
Federal coordinator under this Act.
(2) Other agencies.--Each Federal and State agency or
official required to provide a Federal refinery authorization
shall cooperate with the Federal coordinator.
(b) Federal Refinery Authorizations.--
(1) Meeting participants.--Not later than 30 days after
receiving a notification from an applicant that the applicant
is seeking a Federal refinery authorization pursuant to
Federal law, the Federal coordinator appointed under
subsection (a) shall convene a meeting of representatives
from all Federal and State agencies responsible for a Federal
refinery authorization with respect to the refinery. The
governor of a State shall identify each agency of that State
that is responsible for a Federal refinery authorization with
respect to that refinery.
(2) Memorandum of agreement.--(A) Not later than 90 days
after receipt of a notification described in paragraph (1),
the Federal coordinator and the other participants at a
meeting convened under paragraph (1) shall establish a
memorandum of agreement setting forth the most expeditious
coordinated schedule possible for completion of all Federal
refinery authorizations with respect to the refinery,
consistent with the full substantive and procedural review
required by Federal law. If a Federal or State agency
responsible for a Federal refinery authorization with respect
to the refinery is not represented at such meeting, the
Federal coordinator shall ensure that the schedule
accommodates those Federal refinery authorizations,
consistent with Federal law. In the event of conflict among
Federal refinery authorization scheduling requirements, the
requirements of the Environmental Protection Agency shall be
given priority.
(B) Not later than 15 days after completing the memorandum
of agreement, the Federal coordinator shall publish the
memorandum of agreement in the Federal Register.
(C) The Federal coordinator shall ensure that all parties
to the memorandum of agreement are working in good faith to
carry out the memorandum of agreement, and shall facilitate
the maintenance of the schedule established therein.
(c) Consolidated Record.--The Federal coordinator shall,
with the cooperation of Federal and State administrative
agencies and officials, maintain a complete consolidated
record of all decisions made or actions taken by the Federal
coordinator or by a Federal administrative agency or officer
(or State administrative agency or officer acting under
delegated Federal authority) with respect to any Federal
refinery authorization. Such record shall be the record for
judicial review under subsection (d) of decisions made or
actions taken by Federal and State administrative agencies
and officials, except that, if the Court determines that the
record does not contain sufficient information, the Court may
remand the proceeding to the Federal coordinator for further
development of the consolidated record.
(d) Remedies.--
(1) In general.--The United States District Court for the
district in which the proposed refinery is located shall have
exclusive jurisdiction over any civil action for the review
of the failure of an agency or official to act on a Federal
refinery authorization in accordance with the schedule
established pursuant to the memorandum of agreement.
(2) Standing.--If an applicant or a party to a memorandum
of agreement alleges that a failure to act described in
paragraph (1) has occurred and that such failure to act would
jeopardize timely completion of the entire schedule as
established in the memorandum of agreement, such applicant or
other party may bring a cause of action under this
subsection.
(3) Court action.--If an action is brought under paragraph
(2), the Court shall review whether the parties to the
memorandum of agreement have been acting in good faith,
whether the applicant has been cooperating fully with the
agencies that are responsible for issuing a Federal refinery
authorization, and any other relevant materials in the
consolidated record. Taking into consideration those factors,
if the Court finds that a failure to act described in
paragraph (1) has occurred, and that such failure to act
would jeopardize timely completion of the entire schedule as
established in the memorandum of agreement, the Court shall
establish a new schedule that is the most expeditious
coordinated schedule possible for completion of preceedings,
consistent with the full substantive and procedural review
required by Federal law. The court may issue orders to
enforce any schedule it establishes under this paragraph.
(4) Federal coordinator's action.--When any civil action is
brought under this subsection, the Federal coordinator shall
immediately file with the Court the consolidated record
compiled by the Federal coordinator pursuant to subsection
(c).
(5) Expedited review.--The Court shall set any civil action
brought under this subsection for expedited consideration.
SEC. 5. DESIGNATION OF CLOSED MILITARY BASES.
(a) Designation Requirement.--Not later than 90 days after
the date of enactment of this Act, the President shall
designate no less than 3 closed military installations, or
portions thereof, as potentially suitable for the
construction of a refinery. At least 1 such site shall be
designated as potentially suitable for construction of a
refinery to refine biomass in order to produce biofuel.
(b) Redevelopment Authority.--The redevelopment authority
for each installation designated under subsection (a), in
preparing or revising the redevelopment plan for the
installation, shall consider the feasibility and
practicability of siting a refinery on the installation.
(c) Management and Disposal of Real Property.--The
Secretary of Defense, in managing and disposing of real
property at an installation designated under subsection (a)
pursuant to the base closure law applicable to the
installation, shall give substantial deference to the
recommendations of the redevelopment authority, as contained
in the redevelopment plan for the installation, regarding the
siting of a refinery on the installation. The management and
disposal of real property at a closed military installation
or portion thereof found to be suitable for the siting of a
refinery under subsection (a) shall be carried out in the
manner provided by the base closure law applicable to the
installation.
(d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
(1) the term ``base closure law'' means the Defense Base
Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of
Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) and title II of the
Defense Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and
Realignment Act (Public Law 100-526; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note);
and
(2) the term ``closed military installation'' means a
military installation closed or approved for closure pursuant
to a base closure law.
SEC. 6. SAVINGS CLAUSE.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect the
application of any environmental or other law, or to prevent
any party from bringing a cause of action under any
environmental or other law, including citizen suits.
SEC. 7. REFINERY REVITALIZATION REPEAL.
Subtitle H of title III of the Energy Policy Act of 2005
and the items relating thereto in the table of contents of
such Act are repealed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Barton) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
General Leave
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks on the legislation and insert extraneous material on the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
[[Page H2001]]
Mr. Speaker, we now take up a second bill today to help improve our
energy outlook, H.R. 5254, the Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act.
Getting new refinery projects sited and permitted is a challenge to
energy developers, especially to new market entrants who could offer
alternatives to today's overworked refineries.
The plain fact is that our country is losing its ability to refine
oil into motor fuel. We are not only importing oil in ever-greater
quantities, now we are importing gasoline by the shipload, too. The
threat that we face today is not only to the price but also to the
supply.
If you tried to buy gasoline at one of the stations that have run out
of gas lately, you will remember the gasoline lines of 1970s. High
prices are a hardship, but dry pumps are a disaster. As I pointed out
earlier today, at the 7-Eleven station at Glebe Road and Second Street
in Arlington, Virginia, when I went by this morning to get some
gasoline, there was no gasoline to be had.
My Taurus that I am driving here in Washington is now literally on
``E'' and I hope I have enough to get to a station that has some
gasoline later this evening when Congress recesses for the day.
The last American refinery to be built from scratch in this country
was over 30 years ago, and I believe it was in Louisiana. We have shut
down more refineries in the last 30 years than we have refineries in
operation today in the United States. Most of those are clustered in
the gulf coast region, which, as we know because of Hurricanes Katrina
and Rita, are in harm's way if hurricanes continue to batter that part
of the country.
Hurricane Katrina has taught us some very bitter lessons. One was do
not put too many of your refinery eggs in one basket.
This bill does nothing to dictate new refinery locations. Only
developers and local State governments can do that. But it will make
certain that the Federal Government does its part to eliminate some of
the needless, in my opinion, bureaucratic delay if somebody wants to
build a new refinery or expand an existing refinery. And, in my
opinion, we need to do that.
We consume about 21 million barrels of refined product in the United
States every day. Our refinery capacity located domestically is less
than 17 million barrels per day. That is a shortage of 4 million
barrels a day in refining capacity for domestic demand for refined
products from oil.
Are we trying to take a backseat to environmental protection? Nothing
of the sort. Under this bill, while the EPA will be given priority to
coordinate and consolidate the permitting process, we are not backing
down on one permit that is required at the State or Federal level. The
EPA and the Department of Energy under this bill would work together to
consolidate and streamline the permitting process so that you can get a
decision in a timely fashion.
The bill before us would put all agencies responsible for considering
permitting applications for an oil refinery, a coal-to-liquid refinery,
or a biofuel refinery, that they would have to sit down at the same
table and hammer out a coordinated action schedule. They would put
permitting schedules on parallel tracks and instill focus and teamwork
in process.
The schedule will appear in the Federal Register for all stakeholders
to see; and if an agency drags its feet and throws everyone else off
schedule, you can go to court and a court can order to get that
particular agency back on track. They cannot tell the agency how to
rule, but it can require that they meet the schedule that has been
agreed to by all of the other State and Federal agencies that have
permitting authority under the current laws.
Public participation will go on exactly as it has in the past. All of
the open records requirements will go on exactly as it has in the past.
So we are not short-sheeting any environmental protection law under
this pending legislation. All we are doing is saying, since we have a
situation in the United States of America where we use 21 million
barrels of refined products every day and we only have refining
capacity for 17, it is about time that we do something to make it
possible to build and expand existing refineries in the United States.
It takes a million dollars per thousand barrels of capacity. So we
need 4 million barrels of new refinery capacity. That is somewhere
between $40 billion and $60 billion. Nobody in their right mind is
going to put up that kind of money to expand refinery capacity when it
takes as long as 10 years just to get the permit to build or expand
existing refinery.
The bill before us will make it possible to get a decision on the
permits. The President has asked that we do it within 1 year. The bill
before us does not set a 1-year timetable exactly, but we would hope
that the consolidation process and the parallel-track process would
shorten the permitting window. If we can get it down to a year or 18
months, I think the day would come very soon where we would see
companies announcing new refinery projects, which would be good for the
public in the form of lower prices.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New
Hampshire (Mr. Bass) manage the rest of the floor time on the majority
side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
(Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill and urge
its rejection by the House.
Democrats are more than willing to work with the majority Republicans
to write legislation which addresses constricted refinery capacity in a
proper manner. But on the measure we are debating this morning, we were
not consulted. In fact, no hearings have been held on the bill. No
markup sessions have been conducted. There has been no consideration
whatsoever of this measure by the House Committee on Energy and
Commerce, which is the committee of jurisdiction. The bill was not even
introduced until late last night or early this morning.
If the majority party is willing to work with us, we would make every
effort to construct a thoughtful bill that addresses the refinery
shortage in a constructive way and bring that bipartisan measure to the
floor of the House within a matter of days or at most a matter of
weeks. I hope the majority Republicans will consider and accept our
offer.
But the bill before us is not constructive. According to testimony
the Congress received last year, the bill would weaken environmental
protections but do virtually nothing to encourage the construction of
new gasoline refineries.
The bill before us repeals the law requiring the States and the
Federal Government to work together to set deadlines and streamline the
process for issuing permits for new refinery construction. That new
requirement became law just last August. Rather than repeal it now, let
us give it a chance to work.
The bill before us adds a new layer of Federal bureaucracy by
creating a Federal coordinator to oversee State permitting actions, and
States would be mandated to meet a Federal schedule for issuing
refinery construction permits.
States that have legitimate environmental concerns would find their
normal review process short-circuited under a mandated Federal schedule
for permit issuance. And the bill proceeds from a deeply flawed
assumption that the reason we have a refinery shortage is burdensome
State permitting processes. The real reason we have a refinery shortage
is that the companies that own refineries are profiting enormously from
the present market structure, including the refinery bottleneck. In
essence, they are making more money by refining less gasoline.
The real reason we do not have enough refineries is economic
interest, not environmental constraints.
Here is what the oil company CEOs had to say about the regulations
regarding the regulations citing new refineries.
Last November, the CEO of Shell testified to the Senate, ``We are not
aware of any environmental regulations that have prevented us from
expanding refinery capacity or siting a new refinery.''
[[Page H2002]]
Conoco's CEO testified, ``At this time, we are not aware of any
projects that have been directly prevented as a result of any specific
Federal or State regulation.''
The record before the Congress is clear. It is devoid of any evidence
that environmental permitting has delayed or prevented the construction
of new refineries. In fact, the record clearly shows that environmental
permitting is simply not a problem. And yet this bill weakens
environmental permitting. It is the wrong answer for the problem that
we face.
Let us reject this measure and begin working in a bipartisan fashion
this afternoon in order to write a law that will make a genuine
difference. If the Republicans are willing, Democrats pledge our best
efforts to work with you to achieve that goal.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the pending legislation, and
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do likewise. As
others have stated, it is clear that refinery capacity has not been
able to keep up with demand. Although current refiners have been able
to ramp up their production sometimes in excess of 100 percent, which
is an interesting mathematical challenge, the fact of the matter is
that our population has grown, our economy has grown, and the resulting
demand for more energy across the board has created a situation where,
when we have a disaster similar to the one we had last summer with
Hurricane Katrina where refiners were clustered in one specific area of
the country, they were running at full capacity, they were shut down
for a period of time, we had a short-term crisis which we were able to
get over, but it was not easy.
Historically, utilization has been much lower than it has for the
last 20 or so years; and the reason for that is we have not built a new
refinery.
I agree that this bill is not going to circumvent any of the
procedural hurdles that need to be crossed in order to build a new
refinery. But what it does do is something that is, in my opinion at
least, is innovative and imaginative in that it establishes a
coordinator that will help make sure that the process, although not
shortened because you are circumventing any regulation, makes this
process work coterminously rather than successively.
Nobody will lose the ability to have their voice heard. There will be
no part of the process circumvented. But an investor, a developer, a
refiner, will have the certainty of knowing that there is a master plan
in place, that there is a Federal coordinator and that there is a
process that can be more predictable.
{time} 1215
And I don't see how you can be against a process that uses the
current system and all of its hurdles that need to be crossed but
simply makes it run more efficiently. That is all this bill is trying
do.
Now, there is a provision that allows the President to simply suggest
that three base closures be identified for possible location. There is
no requirement that it be done. And it also contains a provision that
allows for the same expedited process to apply to biorefineries as
well. And as one who comes from New Hampshire, we need to develop
biorefinery capacity in this country. We are moving away from MTBEs as
an oxygenate for gasoline, and I have as a high-priority project the
development of an ethanol refinery from cellosic fiber, in other words,
wood products somewhere in the northeast. And this process, although
not circumventing, as I said before, any particular rule or regulation,
will make the process go quicker.
And I understand my colleague's concern about not having enough
hearings and so forth. But this bill simply speeds up the process. And
if you want the process to last as long as possible and not have any
new refinery capacity in this country, vote ``no'' on this bill. I
understand that. But I believe in the process, but I believe that it
should be quick and expedient but fair.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the House
Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Solis).
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong opposition to this
bill. The bill will not increase refinery capacity. It will not bring
down the price of gasoline, and it will not ensure any ability of the
United States to refine its own gasoline.
The bill is based on a false premise. There is no evidence that
refineries are being denied needed permits either for construction or
expansion. In written testimony before the Senate, Chevron CEO stated,
and I quote, ``we are not aware of any projects that have been directly
prevented as a result of any specific Federal or State regulation.''
The truth is that refiners do not want to expand existing or
construct new refineries. The dirty secret is they are not going to
make any money off of that.
The five largest oil companies reported a record $110 billion in
profits in 2005, and three of the largest petroleum companies made more
than $16 billion in the first quarter of 2006.
Existing law already provides for new permitting assistance; 1 year
ago, in fact, this body passed the Energy Policy Act. Title 3,
subsection H, of the Energy Policy Act allowed States to seek
additional assistance from the Federal Government for permitting when
it was needed.
Yet the legislation before us today repeals this provision and
replaces it with less effective language. Last year Democrats brought a
plan to this floor that would have set our Nation on the right course.
It would have created a Strategic Refinery Reserve, giving the U.S.
Government the ability to refine its own oil for use by military and
first responders. The Strategic Refinery Reserve would have made that
difference.
But rather than solve the problem, we are here with a plan that will
not increase refinery capacity, will not bring down the price of gas
and will not ensure any ability of the United States to refine its own
gasoline.
I urge my colleagues to reject and give us the opportunity to take
this action that will really make a difference for our constituents.
And I would also like to make reference to letters that we will be
submitting later from the State Air Quality Program administrators and
various environmental organizations.
Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter dated May 3,
2006, from the National School Transportation Association, expressing
their support for the pending bill.
National Association for Pupil
Transportation,
Albany, NY.
National School Transportation
Association,
Alexandria, VA, May 3, 2006.
Hon. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker and Minority Leader Pelosi: On behalf of
school transportation interests around the country (both
public and private), I am writing to urge quick action on
H.R. 5254, to increase the availability of reasonably priced
fuel by streamlining the permitting process for new or
expanded refineries and H.R. 5253, to ensure that the Federal
government has the authority necessary to investigate price
gouging by fuel suppliers. Our industry is struggling with
staggeringly high fuel costs that are threatening our ability
to provide low-cost, safe transportation for 25 million
school children each day. Enactment of these two measures can
help drive down the cost of fuel in the long-run and we
support their approval by the House.
The nation's school bus fleet is the largest mass
transportation fleet in the country, 2.5 times the size of
all other forms of mass transportation including transit,
intercity buses, commercial airlines and rail, combined. This
system is also the safest way to transport children to and
from school every day. The National Academy of Sciences has
reported that there are approximately 800 fatalities per year
among children who do not ride school buses, while the school
bus related annual fatality rate is less than 20. Keeping our
school buses running is vital to the safety of our children.
In the wake of instability in crude oil supplies, Hurricane
Katrina and other factors, rising fuel costs have devastated
the industry and now threaten to force the involuntary
reduction of school bus transportation nationwide. In
addition, today's diesel fuel prices are significantly higher
than they were one year ago and are more than twice what they
were four years ago. This is proving to be a burden to public
and private operators alike.
Public school systems and their school transportation
providers are not able to pass
[[Page H2003]]
on the costs to the students they drive to and from school
every day. Instead, many school districts have responded to
this crisis by eliminating field trips and worse, reducing
transportation to and from school, forcing students to find
less safe and reliable ways to access their education or even
temporarily closing schools. For example, in Ohio school
districts have eliminated school bus service to 80,000 school
children a day and, just last week a local school system in
Tennessee closed for two days due to the inability to provide
school transportation due to the high cost of fuel for their
buses.
We understand that there are no easy solutions to this
problem, but are writing to ask for your help nonetheless. We
ask that Congress act quickly to help increase supplies of
fuel by ensuring that adequate refining capacity is available
as quickly as possible and that any allegations of price
gouging are fully investigated. We understand that the House
is preparing to act on H.R. 5254 and H.R. 5253 later today.
We welcome and support these initiatives and ask for broad,
bipartisan action to enact these important measures as a way
to help bring down prices for fuel as quickly as possible so
that school children will continue to be able to have access
to the safest possible mode of transportation. We also pledge
to work with you to find and advance other solutions that
might provide more immediate relief, such as H.R. 4158,
legislation introduced earlier this year to provide grants to
cover the cost of energy for financially strapped school
districts.
Sincerely,
Leonard Bernstein,
President, National Association of Pupil Transportation.
John D. Corr, Jr.,
President, National School Transportation Association.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from New York (Mr.
Boehlert).
Mr. BOEHLERT. I rise in support of this bill, and I want to thank
Chairman Barton and the committee and particularly Mr. Bass for his
leadership and for facilitating staff discussions and providing very
helpful suggestions as we fashion this bill.
I think this bill will not do any harm, and it could do some good.
While regulations have not prevented oil refinery expansion and while
regulations are not the reason that new refineries have not been built,
it can't hurt to help streamline the process, as long as streamlining
is not a euphemism for weakening environmental protections. And in this
bill, I think we have hit the right balance.
This bill is a far cry from the bill the House debated last fall.
Some of the commentary I have heard from opponents of the bill on the
floor address the old bill. In this bill, the Department of Energy,
which isn't even involved in refinery permitting, would have been able
to impose a schedule on other agencies and States, and that schedule
was designed to speed the process at all costs.
In today's bill, the new bill, the Federal Government will bring
together all the permitting authorities to agree on a permitting
schedule acceptable to all of them, and that schedule must allow for
the full, substantive and procedural review required by law.
In last fall's bill, any legal proceedings were to be biased in favor
of the refineries, even going so far as paying their legal costs. In
today's bill, while we still create a new cause of action, a court, the
Federal district court must consider the behavior of all parties,
including whether the refiner has been cooperating fully with
regulators, and then the court can do nothing more than impose a new
schedule. And this bill explicitly preserves every provision of current
environmental law, including the right to bring citizen suits.
So I think we have struck the right balance, and I urge adoption of
this measure.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I insert in the Record a letter dated May
3, 2006, from the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program
Administrators, joined in that letter by the Association of Local Air
Pollution Control Officials.
State and Territorial Air Pollution Program
Administrators, Association of Local Air Pollution
Control Officials,
Washington, DC, May 3, 2006.
Dear Representatives: On behalf of the State and
Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators (STAPPA) and
the Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials
(ALAPCO), we write to you today to express the associations'
concerns regarding the Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act.
First, we question the premise of this bill--namely, that
environmental permitting requirements obstruct efforts to
construct or expand refining capacity and contribute to
escalating gasoline prices. We are aware of no evidence that
such requirements, particularly those related to air
pollution, have prevented or impeded 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.
Second, it is unclear how this bill would expedite the
issuance of permits. Rather, it appears that it could have
the opposite effect. Subtitle H of Title III of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005, approved by Congress last year to
streamline the permitting of refineries, already provides
states the ability to request special procedures to
coordinate federal and state agency permitting actions for
refineries. Repealing those provisions and replacing them
with ones that insert a ``Federal Coordinator'' into the
process and impose additional procedural requirements on
states and localities--including a requirement to enter into
judicially enforceable schedules--would almost surely delay
the permitting process.
Third, we are concerned that this bill is moving directly
to the floor of the House of Representatives, circumventing
consideration by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce
and open public debate during which state and local
permitting authorities and other stakeholders could present
their views.
STAPPA and ALAPCO understand the desire to take swift
action of some kind to address fuel prices. Moreover, we
recognize that this particular bill is an improvement over
other refinery permitting legislation introduced in the past
few years. Notwithstanding this, however, we firmly believe
environmental permitting requirements have been wrongly
targeted and, further, that the Refinery Permit Process
Schedule Act could result in unintended, problematic
consequences. Therefore, our associations oppose the bill.
Sincerely,
Eddie Terrill,
STAPPA President.
John A. Paul,
ALAPCO President.
Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent
request to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
(Mr. STUPAK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this legislation.
As a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I am concerned that
the Republicans are attempting to move legislation that would
significantly alter Federal law regarding the refinery permitting
process without a committee hearing, without a markup, without even
allowing the bill to be amended on the floor.
This bill is a rerun of the Gasoline for America's Security (GAS)
Act, which was only approved by the House by a vote of 212 to 210 after
the Republican Leadership held the vote open for 45 minutes, twisted
arms. That GAS Refinery bill was a bad bill then, and now this bill
before us is even worse.
By pushing refinery legislation through the House without any
hearings, debate, or amendments, we are doing the American public a
disservice.
While the proponents of this legislation contend that oil companies
are unable to improve their refinery capacity because of excessive
regulation, the truth is, oil companies have intentionally reduced
domestic refining capacity to drive up gas prices.
I have here internal memos from Mobil, Chevron, and Texaco,
specifically advocating that these companies limit their refining
capacity to drive up prices.
From September 2004 to September 2005, refineries profits increased
by 255 percent.
During the first quarter of 2006, Valero Energy Corporation, the
largest refiner in the United States, reported profits 60 percent
higher than last year.
Obviously, complying with Federal regulations does not present these
companies with a significant financial hardship.
I encourage my Republican colleagues to address real legislation that
can help the American consumer at the pump, rather than legislation
that provides additional hand-outs and free-rides for their friends in
the oil industry.
Vote ``no'' on H.R. 5254.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Maine (Mr. Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. It
is being rushed to the floor under expedited consideration with limited
debate, no opportunity for amendments, no hearings, no markup. In fact,
as of yesterday, the bill hadn't even been introduced. This is yet
another example of the ``ready, fire, aim'' approach that passes for
legislating in the Republican-controlled House.
Unfortunately, some communities in this country that are suffering
the most right now are caught in the crossfire. They are the
communities that are coping with a military base closed
[[Page H2004]]
through the BRAC process. This bill resurrects the bad idea that
communities with closed military bases become dumping grounds for
refineries.
There is nothing, absolutely nothing in existing statutes or
regulations that prohibits a local redevelopment authority from
developing a closed base into a refinery complex. In fact, for some
communities, a refinery may make sense. But that decision should be
made by the local community, not by the President or the Secretary of
Defense.
Proponents of this bill say they aren't forcing an LRA to build a
refinery, only to consider one. But under current law, the Secretary of
Defense has the final say about a reuse plan, and this bill requires an
LRA to put a refinery into the reuse plan. Moreover, the Secretary has
the power to transfer the land at little or no cost, if he chooses to
do so.
So if Donald Rumsfeld wants to give away a closed military base in
your community to ExxonMobil to build a refinery, there is nothing your
community can do to stop it. Nothing. In fact, your community could
have been forced to spend its own resources to draw up a plan to build
a refinery, even if the community didn't want one.
The BRAC process has already punished these communities enough,
including the town of Brunswick in my district. Congress should not add
insult to injury by punishing them again.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this ill advised Republican
refinery bill.
Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
I just want to correct the record if I could. It is my understanding
that the bill only allows the President to identify a possible closed
military base for a refinery location. It is only drawing attention,
and it does nothing more than that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend from California (Mr.
Herger).
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5254 to
streamline the permitting process of oil refineries.
My constituents in rural northern California are paying some of the
highest gas prices in the Nation.
Red tape is stifling the construction of new and expansion of
existing refineries and technology to make refineries cleaner and more
efficient. In fact, America has not built a new refinery since the
1970s.
I am reminded today of what President Reagan said in 1981,
``Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.'' We need
to streamline government regulation and start expanding our oil
refinery capacity.
Families and businesses throughout this country have to meet
deadlines. The government should have to as well.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership has a problem. For
6 years, they have worked to give the big oil companies everything they
could ever want, subsidies, environmental exemptions, loopholes and
paybacks, and the results have been spectacular for the oil companies.
ExxonMobil just announced first-quarter profits of over $8 billion.
They now make more in a single quarter than they used to make in an
entire year. They rewarded their CEO with a retirement package totaling
nearly $400 million.
Well, it is a different story for the American people. Gasoline
prices have doubled. Home heating prices have soared. Natural gas
prices have risen to unprecedented levels. And we are more dependent
than ever on imported oil.
The Republican leadership has a problem. They want desperately to
blame State and local governments, to blame environmental requirements
for the cost of gasoline. That is the myth they want to create. But the
facts are completely different.
Permits have been readily granted whenever refiners have applied for
them. For instance, in Yuma, Arizona, permits have been issued not once
but twice for the construction of a new refinery, but the oil industry
refuses to actually invest and rebuild it. And recently, this project
may have been dealt a death blow when the Mexican Government announced
it would not supply the proposed refinery with crude oil.
To the extent there ever was a problem with permitting refineries,
Energy Secretary Bodman has stated that the problem was solved in last
year's energy bill.
Well, the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators
delivered a letter to the House that said this legislation would have
the opposite effect that is intended. It would almost surely delay the
permitting process.
Mr. Speaker, we need to reject this legislation. It is based on a
faulty premise, repeals a law that is said to be successful and
replaces it with an approach that will delay the permitting process.
And presumably, it does all this so that we can claim we have done
something about gasoline prices.
Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds simply to say that
it is interesting that my friend from California now is on the same
side as ExxonMobil, which opposes this bill because they claim there is
no need for new refinery capacity, and I would only point out that he
makes a great argument for the passage of the bill, because what this
bill does is take the argument that government red tape and bureaucracy
is holding up the process completely off the table. And if that doesn't
lead to more production, more construction after passage of this bill,
I will be the first one to step forward and blast the industry for not
creating more capacity.
So I appreciate the apparent support that my friend from California
has for making sure that this process, permitting process, is sped up.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend from Illinois (Mr.
Shimkus).
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, just a brief part of good news. I just
heard from Champion Laboratories that makes fuel filters that they are
closing their Mexico plant and adding 100 jobs back in my district and
developing a line. So the economy is moving forward. And that is good
news. And sometimes we don't hear that.
A lot of focus of this debate is on crude oil and gas. And the fact
that we import refined product, the fact that we import gasoline and
not just crude oil, should make us all concerned, and that is really
the premise of this debate.
{time} 1230
Two years ago, Chairman Alan Greenspan stated at the Economic Club in
New York that we do not have any refineries, not just in the United
States but we do not have any expanded refinery capacity in the world,
especially as we are making fuel products. And I have the quote right
here, but for time I will save that.
But I want to focus on another provision of this bill. If you do not
like Big Oil, support this bill. If you do not like Big Oil, if you
want a competitive to crude oil gasoline, support this bill. Why?
Because the incentives to increase the refinery capacity will also
apply to biofuels.
Twenty-nine new ethanol facilities are in Illinois. I drive an E85
flexible fuel vehicle, 10 to 15 cents less a gallon; and 2 years ago I
did not have a single retail location in my district when I had a
flexible fuel vehicle, Ford Taurus. Now I have over 20 locations. That
is good; and if we want to incentivize new competitors to Big Oil, we
need new biorefineries. That is in this bill. So all my ag friends need
to look at this bill.
Secondly, and I have some here in this Chamber, my friends from the
coal basin, another great way to defeat Big Oil is to get the rebirth
of big coal. And Btu conversion, taking our coal fields, can you
imagine this: a coal mine in Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio,
Illinois; and on top of that coal mine, you put a refinery. Look at all
the issues that we address. No longer dependent on foreign crude oil,
no longer having refineries on the coast where they are subject to
damage and destruction through hurricanes, diversified fuel refineries
across this country. That is in this bill.
So for all my friends who want to beat up on Big Oil, this is your
opportunity to do this. To incentivize renewable fuels, to incentivize
coal to liquid, this is your opportunity. We will get a chance to count
the votes later on.
I thank Mr. Bass for yielding me the time.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
[[Page H2005]]
Mr. Speaker, I applaud the sentiments of my friend from Illinois with
whom I have partnered on many coal-related issues over the years, and I
certainly agree with him that we need to start rebuilding refineries
that will turn coal into a liquid fuel. But, Mr. Speaker, we do not
need this bill to do it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Mrs. Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding to me.
I rise in strong opposition to this ill-conceived legislation,
nothing more than a shameless attempt to blame public health and
environmental protections for the shortage of refinery capacity and
high gas prices.
First of all, public health and environmental laws are not impeding
construction or expansion of refineries. My colleague, Mr. Boucher,
already quoted the CEO for Shell saying on record that he is ``not
aware of any environmental regulations preventing us from expanding
refinery capacity or siting a new refinery.''
Also, this bill will do nothing to lower gas prices in the short term
or the long term. What it will do, however, is lead to increased
pollution at the expense of public health; and that is why both State
and local officials, air pollution control officials, oppose this bill.
I have here the letter, which I know is being submitted to the
Record. State and Territorial Air Pollution Program administrators and
the Association of Local Air Pollution Control officials sent this
letter in strong opposition to this bill. Specifically, they say the
bill's new Federal coordinator position is certain to lead to more, not
less, delay in permitting.
Mr. Speaker, the problem of high gas prices is serious. It affects
businesses and families on a daily basis. I know that well.
Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. CAPPS. I yield to the gentleman from New Hampshire.
Mr. BASS. The date of the letter?
Mrs. CAPPS. The date of the letter, May 3, 2006.
Mr. BASS. Thank you.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I know that because gas prices in my
district are usually among the highest in the Nation; and right now
they are way over $3 a gallon. But this bill does not do anything about
that. It is, in fact, trying to distract the American people from a
failed Republican energy strategy, a strategy that says if laws that
protect public health or environment get in the way, then we should
just waive them. This is a strategy that dooms America to never-ending
energy crises that consistently enrich energy companies at the expense
of hardworking American families and businesses and their health.
Over the past several years, we have had repeated chances to craft
commonsense, effective energy legislation setting America on a more
stable future. But this Republican Congress has failed to do that. This
failure has resulted in this bill. We should vote this harmful
legislation down.
Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill because it
addresses one key problem, that the United States has not built a new
refinery in America since the 1976 bicentennial, 30 years ago. Over 50
million Americans have moved to our country since then but no new
refineries. We can expand gas supplies and lower prices at the pump
while strengthening our environmental law through this legislation, and
who doubts that we cannot make new refineries be cleaner than old
refineries?
This bill stands for the principle that we should simply coordinate
our laws, written in different decades by different Congresses, to
yield environmental protection and more gasoline at the pumps.
The population of the United States is expanding. So should our
ability to provide gasoline to Americans. We should do so, though, not
at the expense of the environment; and this bill does not modify those
statutes. It simply says the various Federal bureaucracies should all
be coordinated in one place. It makes common sense and helps us reduce
pressure at the pump.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, a recent General Accounting Office
investigation in 2004, which I am holding in my hand, concluded that
gasoline refineries have intentionally limited their capacity to keep
gasoline prices high and their profits up.
You did not write this. I did not write this. This is the General
Accounting Office. For the consumers, these higher energy costs are a
disaster for their pocketbooks and further stagnates our economy.
Now there is a difference here between what your side approaching the
problem will do and what our side will do. Question, who is going in
the right direction? We have heard that a lot lately.
Former Energy Secretary Bill Richardson said that we are a 21st-
century superpower with a third-world transmission grid. Remember that
debate a few years ago on utilities and electricity and who got blamed
for it? And then we finally discovered that the industry itself was
fooling the market and manipulating the market, and those characters
are on trial right now. A 21st-century superpower with a third-world
refinery infrastructure, and that is what we have come to.
This refinery legislation, which I will vote against, which is before
us right now is an effort to solidify our dependence on fossil fuel. On
one side of our mouth, we are saying we are addicted to oil. On the
other side of our mouth, we are saying let us build more refineries,
make it easier for more refineries to be built so that we can produce
gasoline.
You want to streamline the permitting because you want to produce
more gasoline from fossil fuel. I must remind you that in a report
presented by the Rocky Mountain Institute in 2004, it was very
specific: America's energy future is a choice, not our fate. Oil
dependence is a problem we need not have, and it is cheaper not to.
When the United States last paid attention to the oil efficiency
problem was between 1977 and 1985. Oil use fell 17 percent; gross
product went up 27 percent. During those 8 years, oil imports fell 50
percent and imports from the Persian Gulf fell by 87 percent. That
exercise of market muscle broke OPEC's pricing power for a decade.
Look, the other side, in all due respect, you have made your bed. You
have got to lie in it now. And you are trying to get out of it, but you
are doing it in the wrong way. This bill does nothing to increase
refinery capacity in the first place, and it certainly does not help in
lowering gas prices.
We have done a disservice to the American people, and we only confuse
the issue. We are either addicted to oil or we are not. And if we are,
let us go in a different direction. Please join us.
Call it what you will: price-gouging, profiteering, or simple old
fashioned greed.
Oil companies have the greatest corporate profits in history, yet
they were able to stiff taxpayers over $7 billion in royalties that
they owe us for drilling on public lands. But the jig is finally up.
Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, whether you believe
collusion is the cause of the high gas prices or not.
No matter how you define it, what we have witnessed in the past
several months is the looting of the American public.
And don't take my word for it--a recent report by the Foundation for
Taxpayer and Consumer Rights found that corporate markups are primarily
responsible for price spikes, not crude oil costs or the national
switchover to ethanol, as the industry has claimed.
In this crisis, we hear echoes of Enron--hotshot oilmen departing
their companies with golden parachutes, while average Americans live on
the edge, some so desperate they are intentionally breaking down on
highways to receive a free tank of gas.
President Bush and the leadership in Congress don't have dismal
approval ratings merely because they don't have skilled public
relations flaks.
They have dismal approval ratings because the vast majority of
Americans recognize that something has gone very wrong in this country.
Despite the recent political posturing, the Administration has
dedicated its time in office to protecting the oil industry from any
restrictions or oversight at all--and that is what has led us to where
we are today.
We need to get serious about this issue. We cannot just clamor for
change when gas prices
[[Page H2006]]
are high, and return to a passive stupor if prices settle down again.
Remember, this is not only about our pocketbooks.
Americans have come to believe that we have fought one war too many
in the Persian Gulf--at least partially to ensure a continuous supply
of foreign oil.
Now is the time for leadership to get us started down the path of
real energy independence.
Let us live up to our responsibility today--let's reign in the
bloated oil companies and protect the public from economic catastrophe.
Let us invest in far-sighted renewable energy and conservation
programs, so that we will never again sacrifice our precious blood and
treasure to slake this terrible thirst for Middle Eastern oil.
Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
This is a very odd debate. One of the previous speakers said that
this bill would do nothing to lower gasoline prices. If you increase
refinery production, you are going to have more supply, and obviously
more supply is going to lead to lower prices.
Another speaker said that this bill would somehow create more
environmental pollution. It does absolutely nothing to change any
existing environmental rule or regulation. It just increases the time.
So if you want less supply, higher prices and the only reason you are
against that is because you think that an additional refinery would
create more pollution, then you should vote ``no'' on the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is not an effective way to address the
gasoline refinery shortage. It tramples on State environmental laws
without solving the fundamental problem.
The CEOs of the refining companies have testified to the Congress
that the permitting process is not burdensome. It has not prevented the
construction of needed new refineries, and yet this bill addresses the
permitting process.
For our part, Democrats are more than willing to work with our
Republican colleagues and to do so on a bipartisan basis, to write a
law that will make a difference, a law that will get the needed new
refineries built. We could produce and bring to the floor a bipartisan
bill within a matter of days or, at most, within a matter of weeks.
So what I would say to the Members of the House is reject this
measure and then, beginning this afternoon, let us sit down in a
bipartisan exercise to draft a bill that addresses the fundamental need
for new refineries. We pledge to you our best efforts to achieve that
goal, and we hope that you will accept this offer.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the measure.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this
bill.
I will match my environmental record in this Congress with anybody
else's and certainly my record in supporting the development of
alternative energy resources. And, quite frankly, this bill does just
that because the expedited permitting process, which does not in any
way change the requirements for the process at all but simply makes it
more organized and more manageable, also applies to coal to liquid and
biorefineries. And this is critical for my part of the country. We
cannot afford to wait 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 years to increase our supplies
not only of traditional motor fuels but also these alternatives. We
need to remove the uncertainty that a successive permitting process
creates and the chilling effect that has on the ability of investors
where large amounts of money are involved to stick with the process
year after year after year.
There is nothing in this bill that will reduce in any fashion the
ability of the Environmental Protection Agency, the States, or any
other entity to go through the appropriate process in order to permit a
new refinery. But what it does do is for the first time in 30 years is
make it incrementally more possible that we will get more capacity.
So when your constituents call you and say that they are unhappy with
the high cost of fuel, remember that part of that high cost is
associated with the fact that we have a very, very tight inventory of
fuel in this country. As the chairman of the committee said a few
minutes ago, we are consuming considerably more gasoline in this
country than we are producing domestically, so some of it is imported.
Our refineries are clustered in one region of the country.
If you want to answer your constituents by saying that you voted
against a bill that would not have any environmental impact but would
simply make it possible for us to address this issue in a more timely,
quicker fashion, that is your choice.
{time} 1245
But we are doing what we can quickly and expeditiously and
incrementally to address the issue of refinery capacity in this
country. I hope the House will adopt this bill, and I urge its passage.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the Refinery Permit Process
Schedule Act sends the right message--more refinery capacity in this
country is a good thing.
Unfortunately this legislation did not follow the Committee process,
since the House leadership is struggling to appear like they are doing
something about gas prices, which they know are beyond their control.
As a result, this legislation probably could be improved with
hearings, amendment, and more careful consideration.
However, I will support the legislation because it does not alter or
repeal any environmental rule, regulation, or law. The bill would just
ensure that permits do not sit on any federal bureaucrat's desk for too
long.
That is a worthy goal, and I believe that if Chairman Barton could do
this bill his preferred way, then he would have brought this
legislation to the Committee for a hearing. But the American people are
very angry with energy prices right now, and during these politically-
charged times the House often operates differently than it should.
Many Americans and Members of the House are upset that we have not
built a new refinery in this country in 25 years. That is true but that
is also irrelevant, because it is much cheaper and more efficient to
expand existing refineries than to build brand new refineries.
Since 1994, U.S. refiners added 2.1 million barrels of capacity,
which is the equivalent of adding a larger than average refinery each
year.
Over the next several years, capacity will increase another 1.2
million barrels per day. For example, here are some refinery expansions
that have already been announced:
Chevron--80,000 barrels per day at its Pascagoula, MS, refinery.
CITGO in Lake Charles, LA--105,000 barrels per day.
Coffeyville Resources in Kansas--15,000 barrels per day.
Flint Hills Resources in Minnesota--50,000 barrels per day.
Holly Corp. in Artesia, NM--10,000 barrels per day.
Marathon Petroleum--180,000 barrels per day in Garyville, LA, and
26,000 barrels per day in Detroit, MI.
ConocoPhillips will spend $3 billion over four years on refinery
expansion, which means tens of thousands of extra barrels per day.
Motiva Enterprises is considering doubling the capacity of its large
refinery in Port Arthur, TX.
Sunoco recently announced plans to commit $1.8 billion over the next
3 years, leading to thousands more barrels per day.
Tesoro Petroleum Company will devote $670 million in the next year
alone to refining facility expansions.
And the Nation's largest refiner, Valero plans to spend $5 billion to
add over 400,000 barrels per day of new capacity nationwide.
So the debate about a lack of new refineries is a red herring. We
should really focus on expansion projects, since that is where the
action is.
If this legislation fails to gain the required \2/3\ support by the
full House, I hope we could revisit this legislation in Committee.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask that this exchange of letters
be included in the Record during today's debate on H.R. 5254.
May 3, 2006.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner: Thank you for your letter
concerning H.R. 5254, a bill to set schedules for the
consideration of permits for refineries.
I appreciate your willingness not to seek a referral on
H.R. 5254. I agree that your decision to forgo action on the
bill will not prejudice the Committee on the Judiciary with
respect to its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or future
legislation. Further, I recognize your right to request
conferees on those provisions within the Committee on the
Judiciary's jurisdiction should they be the subject of a
House-Senate conference on this or similar legislation.
[[Page H2007]]
I will include our exchange of letters in the Congressional
Record during consideration of the bill on the House floor.
Sincerely,
Joe Barton,
Chairman.
____
May 3, 2006.
Hon. Joe Barton,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Barton: In recognition of the desire to
expedite consideration of H.R. 5254, a bill to set schedules
for the consideration of permits for refineries, the
Committee on the Judiciary hereby waives consideration of the
bill. There are a number of provisions contained in H.R. 5254
that implicate the rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on
the Judiciary. Specifically, section four of the bill
contains a provision that implicates the Committee on the
Judiciary's jurisdiction under rule X(1)(l)(1) (``the
judiciary and judicial proceedings, civil and criminal).
The Committee takes this action with the understanding that
by forgoing consideration of H.R. 5254, the Committee on the
Judiciary does not waive any jurisdiction over subject matter
contained in this or similar legislation. The Committee also
reserves the right to seek appointment to any House-Senate
conference on this legislation and requests your support if
such a request is made. Finally, I would appreciate your
including this letter in the Congressional Record during
consideration of H.R. 5254 on the House floor. Thank you for
your attention to these matters.
Sincerely,
F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5254.
This bill is a complete sham, and will do absolutely nothing to
mitigate the high gas prices that our constituents are being forced to
pay at the pump.
The fact is we did not get to $3 a gallon for gas because of our
environmental and public health laws, and we shouldn't be gutting them
In response.
The bottom line is that energy companies are not interested in
expanding their refinery capacity because they want gas supply to
remain tight so they can keep making record profits.
In a hearing last November in the other body, both the CEO's for
Shell and ConocoPhillips indicated that they were not aware of any
environmental regulation that was preventing them from building new
refineries.
While in January representatives from Exxon indicated that they had
no plans to build new refineries.
So what is the point of this bill if nobody wants it or needs it?
The real problem with high gas prices today boils down to two things:
1. The administration's deliberate decision to promote an energy
policy developed by and for their cronies in the oil and gas industry
at the expense of the American people.
2. The geo-political problems in the Middle East that have been
exacerbated by the actions of this administration over the last six
years.
Those are the issues we should be dealing with today.
Instead of gutting our Nation's environmental and public health laws
and providing another giveaway to the energy industry we need to
implement a strategy of energy independence.
We need to make immediate investments to expand energy efficiency and
the use of renewable fuels, and we need to adopt a foreign policy that
does not hold our constituents hostage to the latest political crisis
in the Middle East.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this wrongheaded bill.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, we all know why this bill was
rushed to the floor today, and why it is being considered under a
shortcut process that limits debate and prevents any consideration of
even a single amendment.
It's because the Republican leadership thinks they need to make a
show of doing something about the price of gasoline.
But just because they are feeling some political heat does not mean
that we should pass this bill, which I think does not deserve to be
approved.
The bill would require State and local governments to comply with a
new Federal schedule for approving permits to site, construct, or
expand a refinery. To do that, it would repeal part of the brand-new
Energy Policy Act of 2005 that gave the States the ability to request
authority to trigger a process that would coordinate Federal and State
actions on a refinery.
In other words, it is a new Federal mandate--and it probably would
not do anything to speed up construction of any refineries, for several
reasons.
First, more Federal bureaucracy and red tape means more delays,
because heavy-handed Federal requirements--including judicially-
enforceable deadlines--will bring exactly the resistance and litigation
that the provisions in the Energy Policy Act were intended to
forestall.
And, second, it's economics that controls decisions about refinery
capacity.
That's why, as the Wall Street Journal recently reported, Exxon
thinks building a new refinery would be bad for its long-term business
even as it expands the capacity of is existing refineries.
Just last November, in fact, Shell's CEO testified in a Senate
hearing that ``[w]e are not aware of any environmental regulations that
have prevented us from expanding refinery capacity or siting a new
refinery'' and Conoco' s CEO echoed that, saying ``we are not aware of
any projects that have been directly prevented as a result of any
specific Federal or State regulation.''
But, when the Republican leadership gets scared, who cares about the
facts or wants to bother with thinking things through?
So here we are, rushing to take up a bill that was just introduced,
on which there have been no hearings and no opportunity for anyone who
will be affected--including the State and local governments--to have a
chance to comment.
That's a bad way to do business, and this is a bad bill. I cannot
support it.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Refinery
Permit Process Schedule Act (H.R. 5254). This bill is based on a false
premise--that requirements for environmental permits are to blame for
the lack of refinery capacity. As many of my colleagues have expressed,
oil companies have openly stated that environmental standards are not
stopping them from building new refineries. In fact, the truth is that
oil companies simply do not want to build more refineries. The solution
that H.R. 5254 prescribes does not match the problem that our nation
faces with energy. Instead of investing our efforts in sustainable
energy sources to meet our growing energy needs, we remain stuck in our
old ways.
I would like to take the opportunity to discuss one point of this
bill that I find particularly disturbing. Section 5 directs the
President to designate three closed military bases for new oil refining
facilities. This section will ultimately force communities that have
already suffered from the closure of a military base to welcome
unwillingly an oil refinery in their backyards if the President and the
Secretary of the Army deem it worthy of a refinery.
I recently joined with New Jersey Governor Jon S. Corzine,
Representative Frank Pallone and other New Jersey state legislators for
the signing of the Fort Monmouth Economic Revitalization Act, which
creates a ten-member authority charged with overseeing the transition
and revitalization of Fort Monmouth once it closes in or before 2011.
Creating such an authority is an important step for communities to
protect their interests as communities are revitalized following a base
closure. What frightens me even more about this provision is that the
Secretary of Defense can override any decision made by a local
authority. The federal government can supersede a local decision. This
is not just about Fort Monmouth in my district in Central New Jersey.
This is about communities who are already dealing with the closure of a
military base. This is about allowing the federal government to
overrule what state and local authorities believe is best for their
communities.
We owe it to our constituents to debate meaningful energy legislation
that reaches the root of our growing energy problems, not something
that tries to fix a problem that does not exist.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on this legislation because it does
not address our growing energy needs and is unfair to local
communities.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Boozman). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) that the House suspend
the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 5254.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those present have voted in the affirmative.
Mr. BOUCHER. 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 and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this question will
be postponed.
____________________