[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.

                          ____________________