[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 70 (Tuesday, June 6, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H3376-H3380]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5254, REFINERY PERMIT PROCESS
SCHEDULE ACT
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 842 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 842
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5254) to set
schedules for the consideration of permits for refineries.
The bill shall be considered as read. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage
without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce; and
(2) one motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln
Diaz-Balart) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida, Mr. Speaker for the purpose of
debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), pending which I yield myself
such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution,
all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
(Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. The rule provides 1 hour of
general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The
rule also provides one motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, over the last several years, we have seen gasoline
prices increase steadily in the United States. The rising cost of
gasoline can be attributed to several factors, including increased
demand in the United States and in other countries such as China and
elsewhere, decreases in oil production in politically unstable
countries, including Venezuela and Nigeria, and a lack of refinery
capacity in the United States.
In the last 24 years, our refinery capacity has dropped from 18.62
million barrels a day to less than 17 million barrels a day. This at
the same time that our gross domestic product has increased in current
dollars from 3.1 trillion to 12.4 trillion. Because of the sustained
growth of our economy and the fact that we have not built a new
refinery in almost 30 years, we are now forced to import over 4 million
barrels a day in refined products, and that is when our refineries are
running at full capacity.
Any changes in our refinery capacity can cause supply constraints and
price spikes, especially in the gulf coast, where we have approximately
half of our refinery capacity. And that is exactly what happened when
the Hurricanes Katrina and Rita hit the gulf coast, causing gasoline
prices to rise almost 50 cent a gallon. 2 months after the storms hit
we still had lost almost about 18 percent of our refining capacity,
leading to sharp price increases.
In order to prevent the steep increases in gasoline prices that we
saw after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and to try to moderate the
continuing price increase, we must make certain that we build new
refineries to meet our current demand and to prevent a loss of capacity
due to another hurricane, or a terrorist attack for that matter.
Without an increase in our refinery capacity, we will be at the mercy
of countries such as Venezuela for the importation of refined oil
products. Now, these countries are not reliable sources of refined
products due to their politically unstable and/or unfriendly
governments.
One of the biggest challenges to the building of new refineries was
pointed out by Daniel Yergin of the Cambridge Energy Research
Associates during a hearing in the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mr. Yergin stated that, and I quote, ``the building of new refineries
has been hampered by costs, citing and permitting.''
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5254 would help alleviate some of the problems
associated with the building of new refineries. The legislation directs
the President to appoint a Federal coordinator to manage the multi-
agency refinery permitting process. Working with the governor of any
State where a refinery is proposed, the coordinator will begin by
identifying and then convening all relevant agencies to coordinate the
schedules for action so that no process called for in statute or
regulation is short-changed, and public input opportunities are
preserved, but also to allow the project to proceed as fast as
otherwise possible. The goal of this legislation is to eliminate
needless delay from agencies that are either dragging their feet or
simply acting in sequence when parallel action would be more efficient.
Bringing new refineries online will ease our reliance on foreign
sources of refined products and will also allow us to have enough
refinery capacity to meet the needs of our growing economy while
providing a back up if any of our refineries are shut down for an
extended period of time.
Mr. Speaker, the House has already taken steps to help lower the cost
of gasoline. Last month we passed legislation to combat price gouging
as well as legislation to open up ANWR to environmentally friendly
energy development. However, more must be done. The underlying
legislation is just another step in our continued efforts to provide
relief from the high cost of gasoline.
H.R. 5254 was introduced by Representative Bass. A majority of the
House has already voted in favor of this legislation. However, the bill
did not pass because it was brought up under suspension of the rules
and it did not obtain a two-thirds majority. Now we have another chance
to pass this bill which is important to our energy needs and our
growing economy.
I would like to thank Chairman Barton and Representative Bass for
their leadership on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support both
the rule and the underlying legislation.
And at this time, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank my friend, the gentleman from Florida, for yielding me time.
(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, when I was home in Sacramento last week, one
constant topic of conversation was gas prices and energy policy. I
heard several different perspectives on the issues.
Many working families told me they are having to adjust their monthly
budgets to offset the cost of $3 a gallon gas. Other individuals
expressed concern about global warming and how our dependence on fossil
fuels is driving dangerous climate change.
Still others told me they are worried that our economy and our
national security are frighteningly dependent on unstable oil producing
countries like Iran, Venezuela and Nigeria.
From speaking with my colleagues, it is clear that Americans are
echoing these concerns across the country. So I would hope that we
could all agree that our constituents, from Sacramento to Miami, want
Congress to do something substantive about gas prices and energy
policy.
Unfortunately, today's debate represents another missed opportunity
for strategic long-term national energy policy. Today we could be
addressing the pressing issues raised by my constituents and yours. But
we are not.
[[Page H3377]]
This resolution would provide for debate for H.R. 5254. This bill
purports to address the problem we saw in the wake of Hurricane Katrina
and Hurricane Rita, the vulnerability of America's energy
infrastructure to supply disruptions.
Because of last year's hurricanes, many refineries in the gulf are
running at reduced capacity, or were knocked offline entirely. This
tightened supplies and played a role in the rapid rise in gas prices.
So there is an issue here for Congress to address. But there is some
disagreement on exactly what the problem is.
During debate on this bill, you will hear conflicting explanations
for why no new refineries have been built in the United States since
1976. The majority might cite the environmental permitting process
saying it has impeded the ability of companies to build new refineries.
They will argue that if Congress just pushed the permitting process
harder, if we can do some more streamlining, then new refineries will
start sprouting up across the country.
However, the reality is a different matter. The central provisions of
this bill are designed to streamline the environmental permitting
process for new refineries. Yet, there is no evidence these changes
would actually lead to the construction of one new refinery.
That is because there has not been one convincing example of a
situation where the permitting process prevented, held up or stalled
the construction of a refinery.
You don't have to take my word for it. You can refer to the testimony
of the energy company executives. During Senate testimony last year,
even they could not cite such an occasion. The fact is, new refineries
have not been constructed because it has not been in the interest of
industry to do so. And that is fine. It is their right to not to
construct refineries. But Congress should not respond to profit
motivated decisions by altering permitting processes that are
functioning just fine.
Furthermore, the refinery permitting process was altered just last
year in section 103 of the energy bill so why are we doing it again?
Let's see if that process works before revising it again.
This flawed bill reflects the manner in which it was brought to the
floor. The Energy and Commerce Committee has not held hearings on H.R.
5254. It hasn't been marked up either. If this is truly an important
piece of legislation, shouldn't it come to the floor in regular order?
If the House wanted to truly address the issue of refinery capacity,
we should be taking up H.R. 5365, offered by Congressmen Dingell and
Boucher. Their legislation would enhance America's refinery capacity by
creating a Strategic Refinery Reserve to complement the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve. Unfortunately the majority on the Rules Committee
did not allow a vote on this legislation.
This is a commonsense proposal because in emergencies like Katrina,
even when the President releases crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve, we may not have the refinery capacity to process it.
The Dingell/Boucher bill would direct the Energy Department to
establish a Strategic Refinery Reserve that can produce 5 percent of
daily demand for gasoline.
This reserve would ensure that additional refinery capacity is
available during emergencies, strengthening our national security while
helping to mitigate upward price pressures. And in non emergencies, it
would provide refined products to the Federal fleet, easing demand on
the rest of the market.
This is a forward-thinking and logical proposal. I was disappointed
that the Rules Committee voted against making it in order as a
substitute, because if we had passed a Dingell/Boucher bill, at least I
could tell my constituents Congress did something substantive to deal
with America's energy challenges.
When I return to my district next week and in the coming weeks and
months, I would like to be able to tell my constituents that Congress
understands what you are dealing with in terms of gas prices and
energy.
We know we can't fix everything overnight. But we have got a real
plan for the future.
I want to be able to tell them that we are going to reduce demand by
promoting energy conservation and fuel efficient forms of
transportation. And we are going to work to develop renewable sources
of fuel and other innovative technologies.
Taken together, these will help America move towards energy
independence. And we are going to stop providing subsidies to companies
that are making record profits, and instead, we are going to help
working Americans deal with high gas prices.
I really wish I could say all of those things. But that is not going
to be possible if the House continues to consider unnecessary and
misguided legislation like this bill.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule because this bill did
not go through regular order, because it comes to the floor under a
closed rule which does not allow for its improvement, and because it
does not allow the commonsense Dingell/Boucher substitute.
{time} 1730
I urge my colleagues to vote against the underlying bill. Such a vote
will reject this misguided approach to energy policy. A ``no'' vote on
this legislation would send a message that Congress is ready to
consider truly substantive legislation that addresses the energy crisis
this Nation faces. Please join me in sending that important message.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege
to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Hall).
Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, of course,
providing for consideration of H.R. 5254, the Refinery Permit Process
Schedule Act.
First, let me explain the bill. It will create a new system for
coordinating the myriad permits and authorizations required under
Federal law in order to get refineries built and operating.
Mr. Speaker, a Federal coordinator will call a meeting of all
officials involved in issuing permits under Federal law. For those
permits that require State officials to implement Federal law, the
governor of the State where the refinery would be located selects the
participants. Under the leadership of the coordinator, the officials
will hammer out a coordinated schedule for acting up or down on permit
applications. The schedule will be published in Federal Register. Once
the regulatory work begins, if an agency slips behind schedule, the
applicant may go to court to get the schedule restored.
The bill also calls on the President to suggest that we use closed
military bases as possible candidates for siting refineries, subject to
local approval.
H.R. 5254 explicitly preserves the letter and intent of all laws for
environmental protection and public participation, and, for the first
time, it gives priority to EPA in scheduling permit processing. But it
also instills discipline and interagency teamwork into the system so
that needless bureaucratic delay can be eliminated.
Why do we need this bill? Witness after witness at our Energy and
Commerce Committee hearings have testified to the shortage of refinery
capacity in the United States. It is shocking to most Americans that we
are importing more gasoline every day and that our domestic capacity to
make gasoline is at its upper limits. This causes upward pressure on
prices, which we all experience at each fill-up.
One reason that refinery capacity is so tight is the regulatory costs
and uncertainty of permitting. We want to take that excuse off the
table. But what we really want to do is open the U.S. market to new
entrants who will refine traditional fuels and alternatives such as
coal-to-liquid and biofuels, both of which are set out in H.R. 5254.
The process for H.R. 5254 started last year on September 7, 2005,
just days after Katrina struck the gulf coast. We held hearings that
led to H.R. 3893, the Gasoline For America's Security Act. Sections
101, 102 and 103 of H.R. 3893 on refinery streamlining formed the
foundation of H.R. 5254.
After a vigorous floor debate, H.R. 3893 passed the House, but it has
not been taken up by the Senate. So on May 2 of this year, our
colleague from New Hampshire, Mr. Bass, introduced this new version of
refinery streamlining that provides for State input
[[Page H3378]]
and, more explicitly, preserves underlying Federal environmental laws.
A bipartisan majority of the House voted for H.R. 5254 when it was
brought up under suspension of the rules. During that debate, some
Members suggested that the bill does not defer adequately to the role
of States in permitting decisions. After the debate was over and the
bill had garnered 237 votes, but shy of the two-thirds needed under
suspension, we reached out to our friends on the other side of the
aisle to explore common language. In fact, we offered an amendment
designed to address the State role issue, even more than we had already
in the underlying bill.
The chairman of the full committee asked that this bill be pulled
from the schedule several weeks ago so that bipartisan discussions
could be given a chance. Our colleagues in the minority really had
three options. Their first option was to accept the new language as
fully answering their concern, which I believe it did; option two was
to suggest modifications or alternatives to achieve the same purpose;
option three was to take their ball and go home. The alternative to
``take their ball and go home'' meant to decide that negotiations would
not produce an agreement.
They chose option three, which surprised us. We thought a deal was
possible, and we made suggestions to address their concerns.
We are here today with the same bill that received 237 votes last
month because the bill already deferred to governors on the designation
of State officials to participate in the development of the coordinated
plan, and because 237 of us confirmed our support for H.R. 5254 earlier
this month, without any further changes, I think that no amendments to
the bill are necessary.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Maine (Mr. Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and urge its defeat.
It is sadly typical of the way this Republican House has operated that
the members of the committee of jurisdiction, including the
distinguished ranking member Mr. Dingell, are not allowed to offered
amendments during floor debate. I say that is typical, but it doesn't
make it right. We need reform of the way this House is being run.
Mr. Speaker, I offered a simple amendment in the Rules Committee to
strike section 5 of the bill, the section of the bill that requires the
President to designate three closed military bases as sites for an oil
refinery. For bases that are chosen, section 5 requires local
redevelopment authorities, or LRAs, to halt their re-use planning and
consider an oil refinery even if the local community doesn't want one.
My amendment was denied.
I would have offered the amendment in an Energy and Commerce
Committee markup, but the committee never held a markup. So the bill
will arrive on the floor not once, but twice, without the opportunity
to debate amendments and without a committee markup.
Communities that have suffered under the impact of a closed military
base do not need the President of the United States or the Congress
usurping authority for local land use decision making.
Moreover, section 5 is unnecessary. There is nothing, I repeat,
nothing in the current statutes or Defense Department regulations that
prevents a community from developing a closed base into an oil
refinery. If the local community wants an oil refinery, then it
certainly can develop one on a closed military base.
Here is the main point: The underlying bill, when read together with
the BRAC statutes and regulations, has the effect of forcing an LRA, if
designated by the President, to spend local resources and valuable time
developing a reuse plan for an oil refinery, even if the community the
LRA represents has no interest in a refinery.
Moreover, because under the BRAC law the Secretary of Defense has the
final and sole authority to accept a reuse plan and to determine the
future use of the base, the effect of section 5 of this bill is to
force a community to accept an oil refinery, even if it doesn't want
one.
I have no problem with an oil refinery being built in a closed
military base in a community that wants the refinery built. But that
should be decided by the community, not by the President, not by the
Secretary of Defense and not by the Congress. My amendment protected
local control. It should have been allowed. I urge my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle to reject this rule.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to
the distinguished gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass), the author
of this important legislation.
Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida for recognizing
me, and I want to thank the staff, the chairman of the Commerce
Committee and the chairman of the energy committee, Chairman Boehlert,
for their participation in working out this piece of legislation.
As has been said before, this legislation passed the House a few
weeks ago 237-188. Although it prevailed by a pretty good margin, it
wasn't enough to make the two-thirds margin required for suspension, so
we bring it up today under regular order.
I just want to point out exactly what this bill does. It directs the
President to appoint a coordinator for the process of considering
refinery citing permits.
It requires that coordinator to work with, not against, but with
Federal, State and local entities to issue the needed permits and
approvals and set an agreed upon schedule for each approval.
It also allows this coordinator to establish a memorandum of
agreement with all the relevant parties which will set forth the most
expeditious path toward a coordinated schedule for permitting.
It allows the local Federal district court to enforce this agreed
upon schedule, giving proper opportunity for good faith delays and
setbacks.
It instructs the President, as we heard a minute ago from my friend
from Maine, to designate at least three closed military installations
as potentially suitable areas for the construction of a refinery. And,
by the way, at least one of those must be designated as usable for a
biorefinery, not an oil refinery.
I would point out, as had been debated the last time the bill came
up, we haven't built a new refinery in this country since 1976.
Gasoline demand in the United States has doubled since then; doubled.
Our current capacity for refining gasoline is about 17 million barrels
a day. Our consumption is over 21 million barrels a day, which means
that the deficit is being imported as a finished goods product from
abroad. We are indeed importing an enormous quantity of gasoline every
day, which is adding to the instability of gasoline prices as well as
availability.
Secondly, too much of our refining capacity is in one part of the
country. We learned last year when energy prices climbed 50 cents a
gallon at gas stations that Katrina, going through Louisiana and the
Gulf of Mexico, can have a devastating impact on availability when
refineries are shut down for short periods of time or even longer
periods of time. We need to have a more diverse geographic location for
refinery capacity in our country.
Furthermore, our current refinery capacity is too reliant on crude
oil as a feedstock. Less than 2 percent of our motor fuel is based only
anything other than crude. Our national agriculture and forest industry
resources can sustainably provide feedstock to displace more than one-
third of our transportation fuels. I am hopeful. I would welcome a
biorefinery in my neck of the woods. We need refined ethanol to replace
MTBE as an oxygenate for gasoline.
We have heard the opponents of this legislation say that even big oil
industry, the oil companies, don't think that expediting the permitting
process is necessary. Well, I would rather not take the word of the big
oil companies as to whether or not they think tight refinery supply is
good or bad for business. I don't want to give them any excuse for
saying that they can't build new refinery capacity.
Nothing in this legislation will circumvent any existing regulation
that exists today. All it does is make it quicker and more expeditious
and more efficient, but it doesn't eliminate nor short circuit any
local protections.
[[Page H3379]]
Others say we are better off expanding current refinery capacity.
Well, I addressed that a little bit a minute ago. The danger we face in
having a few very large refineries and not other refinery capacity in
this country is serious. The impact on consumers, on the economy, can
be devastating if we only have a dozen or two. The increased dependence
on foreign oil that we may face under these circumstances is
significant.
My friend from California earlier mentioned that there is no evidence
that the passage of this legislation would lead to the construction of
any new refinery. That is a difficult question to answer, because if
you don't make it easier, how are you going to know that making it
easier doesn't work? The fact is that we know that it can take up to 10
years to get the permitting process done.
I would point out that this bill does no harm whatsoever to the
current process, but it makes it work better. If the industry doesn't
like it, I don't want to be on the side of an industry that wants to
restrict increasing refinery capacity.
I believe that what we envision in this bill protects the
environment, it protects the process, it can potentially lead to more
diverse and better and modern refinery capacity in this country, which
will lead to a stronger economy, lower gas prices in my part of the
world, and yet at the same time protecting our fragile environment.
{time} 1745
So I urge the Congress to not oppose this rule, bring this bill to
the floor, and pass it on to the Senate.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as
he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall).
Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, first I would like to point out again, as Mr.
Bass did, that nothing in this bill forces communities designated by
the President to submit to Secretary Rumsfeld a reuse plan that
includes a refinery, even if they do not want to build one.
The opposite is true. Actually, this is going to go to districts that
want them, and we have districts who do want them. I hold in my hand a
letter from the Texarkana Chamber of Commerce, Texarkana, Texas, signed
by the president of that chamber, the county judge, the Bowie County
judge, the mayor, both mayors on the Arkansas side and Texas side.
Mr. Speaker, it is going to go to places who really want them, and
the bill requires that the Secretary of Defense give substantial
deference to the local redevelopment authority's recommendation, even
if that recommendation rejects the refinery.
And the President has no power to direct. He has power only to
suggest. And you can see that by looking at section 5, line 16. That
simply says: ``The President shall designate no less than three closed
military installations, or portions thereof, as potentially suitable
for the construction of a refinery.''
So these places are going to be sought after. Maine has nothing to
fear. If they do not want it, they can cancel it by simply saying they
do not want it. We would be very happy to have it over in Texarkana,
Texas and serve four States there that come together.
I urge, of course, the support of this bill.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous
question so I can amend this rule, closed rule, and allow the House to
consider the Boucher-Dingell Strategic Refinery Reserve substitute.
This substitute was offered in the Rules Committee when this rule was
reported last month, but was blocked on a straight party-line vote.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to print the text of the
amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the
previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, whatever position Members have on this
legislation, they should vote against the previous question so we can
consider a much better approach to our Nation's refinery shortage.
The Boucher-Dingell substitute, which is identical to the text of
H.R. 5365, will establish a strategic refinery reserve. This reserve
would complement the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It would provide a
much needed safety net for this Nation during times when existing
refineries are temporarily or even permanently unavailable.
It would also be used to supply fuel to the Federal Government and
the military during those times when oil production is not compromised.
Vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can consider this
important and responsible substitute. I want to make it very clear that
a ``no'' vote will not stop us from considering H.R. 5254, but a
``yes'' vote will block consideration of the Boucher-Dingell
substitute.
Again, I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all of our distinguished colleagues that
have spoken on this rule today. It brings to the floor an important
piece of legislation, a bill that this House considered and voted with
the solid majority under suspension of the rules just some weeks ago,
but it did not obtain the two-thirds vote necessary to pass under
suspension of the rules. That is why we have brought it forth again
under the regular order with a rule.
It will help. It will contribute to helping our country with the
energy crisis that we face, when we recognize the fact that the economy
has grown, as it has so tremendously in the last 30 years and yet not
one single refinery has been constructed. Evidently, there is a
problem. This seeks to do something about it.
So that is why we are bringing again this legislation for
consideration of the House under this rule. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker,
in order to consider that legislation, we have brought this rule
forward, and I would ask all of my colleagues to support it as well as
the underlying legislation.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this Rule and to the
underlying bill.
Let me begin by saying that I've been in Congress for 30 years now,
and this is absolutely the worst energy bill I've seen since the bill
the House defeated just over one month ago!
In fact, it is the same exact bill--risen from the grave like some
horror movie monstrosity to haunt this House yet again.
The Rule we are considering for this bill is an absolute insult to
this House and to the Members. It is a complete and total gag Rule. It
makes absolutely no amendments in order. It allows only one hour of
debate on the bill. It waives all points of order against the bill.
The Rules Committee Republicans voted down Democratic motions to
report this bill with an open rule.
The Rules Committee Republicans voted down a Democratic Motion to
make in order an amendment by the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) to
strike provisions from the bill that would require the designation of
no less than 3 closed military bases for use as refineries.
The Rules Committee Republicans voted down a Democratic Motion to
make in order an amendment by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher)
to establish a Strategic Refinery Reserve to help cushion the shock of
extreme supply disruptions with a federal refinery that would have
surge capacity to produce refined products when needed.
Why are the Republicans afraid of having a debate and a vote on these
Democratic amendments?
Are they afraid of giving the Members an opportunity to approve a
measure that might actually do something to reduce gas prices, and
ensure that the rights of local communities are not trampled upon in
order to advance the interests of the oil industry? We should be able
to have that debate and vote on these amendments today.
We shouldn't be forced to put our amendments into a recommittal
motion at the end of the bill in which we will only have 10 minutes of
total debate time.
Once again, the Republican Majority that controls this Congress is
abusing its power and trampling upon the rights of the Minority.
This bill has never been the subject of any legislative hearing in
the Energy and Commerce Committee. It was introduced by the gentleman
from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass), on May 2nd of this year and then brought
immediately to the House floor on the Suspension Calendar one day
later.
[[Page H3380]]
Now, the Suspension Calendar is normally used for non-controversial
bills that have approved on a bipartisan basis. Most of the time, we
use the Suspension Calendar to bring up bills to name post offices,
pass commemorations, or enact Sense of Congress resolutions. It is
entirely inappropriate to use the Suspension process for a bill as
contentious as the Bass bill, because that process bars any amendments
and sharply limits floor debate.
Thankfully, the Bass bill failed when brought up as a Suspension. It
deserves to fail again here on the Floor today.
There still have never been any legislative hearings on this bill.
There still has been no Subcommittee or Committee process.
The Democratic Members of the Energy and Commerce Committee have been
walled out.
This is a bad bill. It deserves to be defeated.
I urge the Members to reject this Rule, to reject this unfair
process, and to reject the Bass Refinery bill.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Matsui is as follows:
Previous Question for H. Res. 842
H.R. 5254--Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act
Text:
In the resolution strike ``and (2)'' and insert the
following:
``(2) the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed
consisting of the text of H.R. 5365 if offered by
Representative Boucher of Virginia or Representative Dingell
of Michigan or a designee, which shall be in order without
intervention of any point of order or demand for division of
the question, shall be considered as read, and shall be
separately debatable for 60 minutes equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3)''.
____
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican
Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United
States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135).
Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question
vote in their own manual: Although it is generally not
possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the
balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________