[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.

                          ____________________