[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10231-10245]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  REFINERY PERMIT PROCESS SCHEDULE ACT

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 842, I 
call up the bill (H.R. 5254) to set schedules for the consideration of 
permits for refineries, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is 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;
       (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,

[[Page 10232]]

     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 (Mr. Simpson). Pursuant to House Resolution 
842, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Boucher) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.


                             General Leave

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 5254.
  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 6 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, today's bill is part of an overall set of actions by 
this body to deal with long-term energy security issues in our country. 
The message that we hear from home is, America needs American energy. 
One part of that need is for more domestic refining capacity. Witness 
after witness at a number of our hearings in the Energy and Commerce 
Committee have told us so.
  Every emergency on energy has found us with less and less refinery 
capacity to refine fuel, and now there is

[[Page 10233]]

absolutely none to spare here in the United States. Without more 
refinery capacity domestically, prices are squeezed ever upward. We are 
relying more and more on imported refined products as well as imported 
crude oil.
  Why isn't there more domestic capacity? Why haven't there been any 
new refineries in this country built in the last 30 years? One reason 
is surely regulatory uncertainty caused by the bureaucratic delays in 
the current permitting process. H.R. 5254 addresses that problem head 
on, while preserving every single existing statute providing for 
environmental protection and opportunity for public participation. 
Every one.
  Let me read that again. H.R. 5254 addresses that problem head on, 
while preserving every single existing statute providing for 
environmental protection and opportunity for public participation. 
Every one. Not one of those statutes is repealed or modified.
  What H.R. 5254 does do is set up a Federal coordinator who convenes 
all officials, State, local and Federal, responsible for the permits 
for a proposed refinery. Working as one team, the agencies will 
integrate their action schedules and the process should move forward 
expeditiously.
  What role would a State play in this process? The bill provides that 
the Governor of the State where the refinery would be sited designates 
the State officials to participate in the scheduling coordination. If 
the Governor of a State decides not to appoint any State officials, 
nothing in this act can compel the State officials to participate in 
the effort. The Federal coordinator will simply have to take that lack 
of State participation into account in scheduling the remaining actions 
of Federal permitting officials.
  But if there is no State participation in that State, the process 
will not go forward. Unless the State official is designated by his 
Governor or her Governor, they cannot participate in the agreement. 
Unless the Governor signs on, the State agencies cannot be subject to a 
court order to stay on schedule. That is how the Governor of any State 
where a proposed refinery would be located reserves the option of 
participating or not participating in the process.
  I would encourage any conference committee on this bill to further 
clarify that the Governor has the option in the beginning to opt into 
the process, instead of in the middle of it or at the end of it not to 
participate.

                              {time}  1715

  That is something that we reserve for a conference with the Senate. 
For Federal energy officials, however, the process is not optional once 
the request is made for the Federal coordinator to help.
  Here, Mr. Speaker, I do acknowledge the work of the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Boucher), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) on 
this issue.
  The gentleman from Virginia spoke on this issue when the bill was 
brought up under suspension last month. Following that debate, with the 
cooperation of the House majority leadership, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Hall, 
Mr. Boucher and I did try to get together to explore common ground on 
this and other refinery issues.
  Mr. Speaker, we did not reach resolution in time to incorporate some 
of our negotiations in the new language in this bill, but I still look 
forward, as we go to conference with the Senate continuing that 
dialogue in this context and perhaps bringing others into the dialogue 
as well.
  Mr. Speaker, a separate provision in the bill before us today calls 
on the President to designate three or more closed military 
installations as potentially suitable for the construction of a 
refinery. Why is this provision in the bill? Because we know of 
communities with closed bases that are interested in siting a refinery.
  We also know that the President of the United States is interested in 
this provision, he has spoken to me about it personally. They feel that 
the designation by the President would boost their chances of getting 
the attention of potential commercial developers. We also recognize 
that not every community with a closed base may want a refinery.
  Nothing in this bill increases the likelihood that a community that 
does not want a refinery on a closed base will get one. Why? There are 
at least two reasons. The bill only encourages the local redevelopment 
authorities to consider the feasibility and practicality of siting the 
refinery. There is no requirement that they accept it.
  Despite what you may hear in the debate, that decision is left up to 
the community. The Secretary of Defense is required to give substantial 
deference to the recommendation of the redevelopment authority to site 
or not site a refinery on a closed military base, explicitly preserving 
existing law.
  Mr. Speaker, this debate is about our Nation's energy security. I 
want to commend the leadership of this body for bringing the bill in a 
timely fashion to the floor and expediting the bill. Mr. Speaker, there 
are those who believe we have already run out of resources and ideas.
  They say that we are all together in this, that we will just have to 
learn how to make do with less. Today they urge us to do nothing. I do 
not accept that. We have a refinery need in this country for 21 million 
barrels per day. We have a refinery capacity for approximately 17 
million barrels a day. Subtract 17 from 21, you get 4 million barrels.
  Mr. Speaker, we can certainly find the political will to come 
together to make it possible to reform the permitting process so that 
it might be possible to add to some existing refineries, and, yes for 
heavens sake, maybe even build one or two new ones.
  That is what this bill is all about. It has passed the House floor 
once under suspension of the rules, but it did not get the two-thirds 
vote. I am hopeful today that we will get a majority vote and send this 
to the other body so we can work with them when they report a similar 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill that is before the 
House and urge its rejection. The refinery bill today makes its second 
appearance on the House floor in recent weeks. It was essentially the 
same bill that was rejected by the House in May.
  Since the bill's last appearance on the floor, a serious effort has 
been made by the bipartisan leadership of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee to find common ground between our position and the Republican 
position. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), who 
chairs the full Energy and Commerce Committee for his good faith effort 
to produce a bipartisan bill.
  I also want to thank the chairman of the Energy and Air Quality 
Subcommittee, Mr. Hall, and the ranking Democrat on the full committee, 
Mr. Dingell, for the time that they invested in seeking a bipartisan 
compromise.
  Unfortunately, the differences between the Republican position and 
our position were simply too great, and the consensus bill could not be 
produced.
  While I commend the effort made by Mr. Barton and Mr. Hall to work 
with us in trying to produce a balanced measure that we all today could 
support, I must express disappointment that the Republican House 
leadership chose to disallow all amendments on the refinery bill that 
we are debating on the floor today.
  The bill should have been structured in such a way as to provide an 
opportunity to consider our Democratic substitute, which would make a 
genuine difference in relieving the Nation's shortage of refinery 
capacity.
  While I will argue the merits of our more meaningful approach during 
today's debate, we are now relegated to offering our alternative in 
what is known as a motion to recommit, a procedure at the end of the 
formal debate that does not offer a full opportunity for the House to 
consider, in normal order, our proposal.
  There is broad agreement that we have a shortage of refinery capacity 
in the United States today. The gentleman from Texas acknowledged that 
in his comments as well. There are

[[Page 10234]]

simply not enough refineries in the Nation to produce the gasoline, the 
diesel fuel and the other refined products that we consume in the 
United States on a daily basis.
  In fact, of the 20 million barrels we consume each day, more than 2 
million barrels of refined product are imported each day. During times 
of emergency, such as a hurricane that might disable some of our 
refining capacity, we have no margin for error since we are not even 
meeting our own daily demand with U.S.-based refineries, we are in a 
highly vulnerable position whenever part of our already limited 
refinery capacity is disrupted.
  When that happens, we have to import even more refined product. And 
we have to do it on very short notice. Arranging to buy the refined 
product overseas, scheduling delivery of that product to the United 
States, and then waiting on those shipments to arrive are all time 
consuming and all occur at a time when because of the hurricane, 
refinery fire or earthquake or other emergency, we simply do not have 
enough refined product to meet current demand.
  The inevitable result is a huge spike in gasoline prices. That is 
exactly what happened in the weeks after Hurricane Katrina. And until 
we add more refinery capacity, that is what will happen every time in 
the future we have a disaster that takes down some of our limited 
refining capacity.
  On this much, Republicans and Democrats agree. To promote our energy 
security and to protect Americans from future gasoline price spikes, we 
need to build more refineries in the United States. The disagreement 
that we have is over the best means to ensure that they are built.
  The Republican bill now before the House is simply not the answer. It 
weakens State environmental protection processes and procedures while 
doing virtually nothing to assure that new refineries are, in fact, 
built. 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 in the Energy Policy 
Act of 2005. Instead of repealing it, we should be giving it a chance 
to work. Let us see if those provisions are satisfactory. And if they 
are, perhaps that could resolve the need.
  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 processes short circuited under a mandated Federal 
schedule for permit issuance.
  And the bill proceeds from a deeply flawed assumption that the reason 
that we have a refinery shortage is burdensome State permitting 
processes. The real reason we do not have enough refineries is the 
economic interests of the refiners, not environmental constraints.
  Between September of 2004 and September of 2005, the Nation's 
refiners enjoyed a 255 percent profit increase. When you are doing that 
well, why change anything? Why make added investments in new refineries 
when the status quo graces you with a 255 percent profit increase?
  By interfering with State environmental permitting, the Republican 
bill is truly a solution in search of a problem, and it ignores the 
real problem. The oil companies themselves have told us that 
environmental regulations are simply not the problem.
  Here is what the oil company CEOs have said about regulations 
governing their refining siting process. Last November, the CEO of 
Shell testified to the Congress, ``We are not aware of any 
environmental regulations that have prevented us from expanding 
refinery capacity or siting a new refinery.''
  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. Mr. Speaker, there is a right 
answer. Decades ago, our Nation created the Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
to resolve, with regard to crude oil, the very same problem that we are 
now having with regard to the refining of gasoline.
  The Strategic Petroleum Reserve has proven to be an excellent shock 
absorber, guarding our Nation against price spikes occasioned by 
disruptions in crude oil deliveries. It works exactly as it was 
designed to function.
  Our Democratic proposal is to extend this proven and successful model 
to solve the problem we now face with a shortage of refinery capacity. 
We propose the creation of a Strategic Refinery Reserve patterned on 
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. In normal times the refineries that 
comprise the reserve would produce gasoline and other products for the 
government fleet, including the U.S. Department of Defense.
  This step would enhance our national security. Refineries would not 
operate at full capacity during these normal times. During times of 
emergency, the refineries would sell gasoline into the commercial 
market, protecting the American public from gasoline price spikes 
should some of the U.S. refining capacity be shut down.
  This sensible alternative, which the rule earlier adopted precludes 
us from offering as a substitute, would be an effective means of 
solving the problem which simply must be addressed.
  I urge, Mr. Speaker, that the Republican bill be rejected and that 
the House adopt our Democratic motion which will be offered at the end 
of debate today, and that motion will contain the very sensible and, I 
think, effective Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
5254. This bill recognizes the need for increased supplies of refined 
petroleum products, and takes the necessary steps to increase our 
refining capacity.
  No new refinery has been constructed in the United States since 1976. 
Yet the demand for gasoline exceeds domestic production by an average 
of 4 million barrels per day. This was made worse in the aftermath of 
the most recent hurricanes.
  This growing gap must be met by importing refined petroleum products 
from foreign sources. Refining capacity is not being increased due to, 
in part, a permitting process that is overly cumbersome and capital 
intensive.
  This bill makes the necessary commitments to expand and diversify the 
refining industry in this country. By reforming and expediting a 
permitting process that is excessively slow and nearly impossible to 
navigate, we will enable refiners to meet the energy needs of America's 
citizens.
  These facilities must still meet the strictest environmental 
standards under current law. It does not allow any agency or facility 
to short-circuit environmental compliance.
  Mr. Speaker, for these reasons I support this bill and urge its 
passage.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, for a second time this year 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 Act, the GAS Act, which was only approved by the 
House by two votes after the Republican leadership twisted arms and 
held the vote open for 45 minutes.
  The GAS Act was a bad bill then and this is a bad bill now. While 
proponents

[[Page 10235]]

contend that the 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 three memos, from Chevron, from Mobil, from Texaco, all 
specifically advocating that these companies, these refineries, limit 
their refinery capacity to drive up the price for gasoline for America. 
From September 2004 to September 2005 the refineries' profits increased 
by 255 percent. During the first quarter of 2006 Valero Energy Company, 
the largest refiner in the United States, recorded profits 60 percent 
higher than last year. Obviously, complying with Federal regulation 
does not present these companies with a significant financial hardship 
or hardship to put forth refining.
  By pushing refinery legislation through the House without any 
hearings, debate or amendments, we are doing the American people a 
great disservice. I encourage my Republican colleagues to address real 
legislation that can help the consumer at the pump rather than 
legislation that provides additional handouts and free rides for their 
friends in the oil industry.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 5254.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), a distinguished member of 
the full Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, you know the bill on the floor today 
really should be an easy vote for every single Member of this House. 
And I think it is important to note that there are those that are a 
part of the body who keep complaining about high gas prices, but then 
they are going to turn around and vote against legislation like this 
repeatedly. As we have brought solutions and action items to the floor, 
they have chosen to cast a ``no'' vote.
  The facts are pretty clear on this. We had 324 refineries in 1981. 
Today we have 148. We have not built a new refinery in the country 
since 1976. We have talked about refinery utilization already in this 
discussion today. It is running confidently over 90 percent and 
recently as high as 98 percent. That means one more hurricane in a 
region packed with refineries is a big problem. This is something that 
we need to recognize; certainly this leadership and this committee 
does, and we hope other Members do, too. All of these statistics end up 
meaning higher gas prices for our constituents when they go to the 
pump.
  What will it take for Members across the aisle to do more than just 
complain? They didn't like the GAS Act last year because of 
environmental concerns. Now the bill we have on the floor today does 
not touch those existing environmental rules. All that is spelled out 
in section 6 of this bill. There are those protections. They are there 
still. We are not getting cooperation on this issue, and at some point 
we have to conclude that Members who vote ``no'' over and over 
repeatedly on energy legislation are simply telling their constituents 
to get over it and live with higher gas prices.
  We have had multiple hearings on the gas prices. We have had multiple 
hearings on this issue. Our constituents are ready for some action. We 
have heard from experts in the field that this bill will help. I urge 
Members to vote in favor of the bill.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman from Virginia and I thank him for 
his leadership on this issue.
  Let me begin by saying that I have been in Congress for 30 years now 
and served on the Energy Committee for 30 years, and this is absolutely 
the worst energy bill I have seen since the refinery bill the House 
defeated just over 1 month ago. In fact, it is the same exact bill 
risen from the grave like some horror movie monstrosity to haunt this 
House and our country once again.
  This bill also comes to us, just 10 months ago, as I said, when 
President Bush signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 into law. That bill 
contained a refinery siting provision. Those provisions were praised at 
the time by the Republican leadership and the President who claimed 
that it promotes greater refinery capacity, so more gasoline will be on 
the market, and it increases gasoline supply by putting an end to the 
proliferation of boutique fuels. That is 10 months ago, on the greatest 
energy bill that America had seen in a decade.
  But now less than a year after the House passed and the President 
signed the Republican energy bill into law, as people are screaming at 
the pumps, as they are being tipped upside down and money is being 
shaken out of their pockets, as the American people realize that the 
Republican Party has allowed OPEC and the oil industry to take 
advantage of every single consumer across the country, this House is 
now poised to repeal the refinery siting law.
  The Speaker, the Republican Speaker praised last summer and replaced 
it with a brand-new refinery siting scheme. The House Republicans have 
come up with just another new way of helping the oil and gas industry. 
Apparently, they do not like the bill they enacted last year; they want 
a new one. The problem is that the new snake oil that is being peddled 
in this bill is no more effective than the old snake oil it replaces or 
the snake oil the Republicans were peddling on the House floor 2 years 
ago or 3 years ago or 4 years ago.
  This bill will not reduce gas prices at the pump, it will not curb 
spiraling gasoline or home heating oil gas prices. All it does is throw 
more regulatory subsidies, taxpayer subsidies, at wealthy energy 
producers who do not need any more government handouts.
  Here is what the Bass refinery bill would do: Direct the President to 
designate no fewer than three closed military bases to be turned over 
to the oil companies for use as an oil refinery.
  Mr. Speaker, this is one terrible bill. I urge the Members to vote 
``no.''
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Herger), a distinguished member of the Ways and 
Means Committee, a great catcher and left-handed pull hitter on the 
congressional baseball team.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, gas prices are at a record high in my 
northern California congressional district. Part of the reason is that 
America's refining capacity is stretched to the limit. Yet effort to 
expand our refining capacity faces up to 10 years of bureaucratic red 
tape. At that pace, it is no wonder America has not built a new 
refinery in 30 years.
  This legislation cuts through some of that red tape by simply 
requiring that the Federal agencies work together and stay on schedule 
when refinery projects are being considered. I do not think it is too 
much to ask that Federal bureaucracies work more efficiently. Families 
and businesses throughout this country have to meet deadlines. Mr. 
Speaker, the government should have to as well.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) 
has 15\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) 
has 20 minutes remaining.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering), the distinguished son from the 
Magnolia State, the distinguished vice chairman of the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and I commend him 
for his leadership on trying to address the energy supply and demand 
and refining capacity of our Nation so that we can begin to see lower 
gas prices, better energy supply and a better market for our people 
here in the States.
  It applies to both economic strength and national security. And I 
wish that we could do more. To be honest, all of the hullabaloo is much 
to-do about nothing. This bill does not change the clean air or clean 
water requirements.

[[Page 10236]]

EPA has given it priority status. It simply gives an ability for us to 
coordinate among all government agencies the permitting process which 
is too cumbersome and too long. This is the only way we can help 
expedite in a reasonable way and a responsible way to have the refining 
capacity necessary for our Nation.
  It reminds me of my friends on the other side that when they see a 
house burning, they will lay down in the street to keep the fire truck 
from coming to make a difference and to put the fire out. That is what 
we are trying to do, whether it is on OCS, on offshore production, on 
additional refining capacity, or additional nuclear capabilities in our 
country, anything that will increase our own independence and energy 
supply.
  On this side, we stand up in a responsible way, a rational way for 
it; and on the other side, they will do everything to obstruct and 
block and stop the progress that we need for greater energy production, 
greater energy refining and greater energy independence.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, we certainly all know that 
American consumers are facing an energy crisis. The high cost of energy 
to heat and power our homes and to run our automobiles is sapping 
family budgets across the Nation, and hurting the bottom line of 
businesses across the Nation as well. We need to do more to make our 
Nation energy independent and to reduce energy costs for our consumers. 
We need to focus on alternatives to oil and other fossil fuels as well 
by turning to alternatives like ethanol or biodiesel or nuclear power, 
solar, wind power.
  Just as it is wise to diversify your economic portfolio, we must 
diversify our energy options, and we need to do more to incentivize the 
production and distribution and use of alternative sources of energy. 
And I am confident that we will, we can.
  But while we work toward alternatives, we must also deal with the 
reality of the current situation. We have too few refineries, and those 
we do have are in areas that are vulnerable to natural disasters such 
as the entire world recognized last year with Hurricane Katrina.
  We have not built a new refinery in America since the 1970s. In that 
time, of course, demand for gasoline has absolutely skyrocketed. The 
lack of new refineries limits the supply of gas at a time of high 
demand and it drives up costs for our consumers.
  Too many on the other side of this debate look solely at conservation 
or alternatives, and they ignore the law of supply and demand. The 
brutal reality is that the greatest victims of this approach are the 
lowest income Americans who are dependent on older, less fuel-efficient 
vehicles. But they need help.
  As well, energy security equals national security and that 
fundamental caveat needs to be the impetus for this debate today. I 
urge my colleagues to support this legislation that will serve as a 
bridge to a more energy-independent America.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking Democrat on the full Energy and 
Commerce Committee.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and colleague, the 
distinguished gentleman from Virginia, for this time.
  I begin by observing that this bill and the arguments made on its 
behalf are as phony as a $3 bill. My colleagues have seen this sorry 
piece of legislation before and they voted it down. Since we considered 
this legislation the first time, there have been no hearings. The 
arguments made against it at that time are as good today as they were 
then. And the committee has made no effort to go out and get the facts 
or to learn what is going on so they could make an honest and factual 
presentation to this body.
  The harsh fact of the matter is the refinery shortage in this country 
is an economic one. The oil companies do not make money in refineries. 
The harsh fact of the matter is, as was told me in my office by the 
head of one of the major oil companies, they do not need any help and 
they do not want any help to build refineries because they have made an 
economic judgment that it is better not to build because they make 
their money elsewhere, and that is a far better way of spending oil 
companies' money.

                              {time}  1745

  Now, if we look at the remarks of Daniel Yergin, a respected oil 
analyst, he tells us the industry has added the equivalent of 10 new 
good-sized oil refineries over the last dozen years. In addition to 
these expansions, recent announcements by the industry anticipate an 
additional 1.1 million barrels of new refining capacity will be added 
in coming years. Most importantly, this has been done under current 
law.
  A survey we conducted recently of State and local permitting agencies 
provides further evidence that the environmental permitting process is 
not preventing new refineries from being built or existing refineries 
from being expanded. Only one new major refinery has requested an air 
permit in the past 30 years. It got the permit, but it never got the 
investors. Explain that, proponents of the bill.
  The air permit has been granted not once but twice. According to our 
survey, permitting agencies responsible for permitting half the 
refineries in the country have issued all, all, but two major expansion 
permits in less than a year after receipt of a complete application.
  This is an ill-advised bill, brought to the House under a parody of 
the House rules, with no opportunity to amend and little time for an 
intelligent debate. The rule is effectively closed and permits no 
amendments by Members on this side of the aisle.
  My colleagues on the Republican side have said that the Democrats 
have not conducted themselves in good faith. Such remarks were made by 
the chairman of the subcommittee. I would note, and I wish he were here 
so that he could hear me say this, that those statements are not true.
  We consulted through staff and Members alike with the Republicans to 
come forward with a fair piece of legislation and a compromise bill 
which would, in fact, work. We offered suggestions on behalf of our 
side of the aisle through the distinguished gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Boucher), offering a meaningful substitute, including a refinery 
bill which would have passed and which would have worked. It was a bill 
which would have set up not just provisions relating to refinery 
permits, but also relating to Federal movement towards the construction 
of these refineries. If you want refineries, that is the way to get 
them because industry will never construct new refineries because they 
do not want them.
  Now, one more curious thought. My Republican colleagues have said 
that we will have an energy bill every week, and they are coming close 
to it, but they are having some small difficulties because here they 
have to bring the same bill up twice, once under suspension and lose, 
and once now under a gag rule.
  I would note for the benefit of my Republican colleagues that we 
passed last year, with bipartisan support and my assistance to my 
friend, the chairman of the committee, in drafting a piece of 
legislation which included refinery legislation in it, the energy bill 
of the last year, a good piece of legislation. I supported it. I worked 
with the chairman to get it done. I would note in a curious, indeed a 
most curious, action, that bill is substantially repealed by this very 
strange piece of legislation.
  It cannot be explained to me, I think, in a few words as to why it is 
that that bill, touted as the solution to our Nation's energy problems, 
has been now repealed at least insofar as the refinery permitting 
provisions, and why we have to now rush ignorantly forward with a bag 
upon our heads to pass a new piece of legislation which is going to 
accomplish precisely nothing, except perhaps help my Republican 
colleagues in a time of terror and fear.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman

[[Page 10237]]

from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy), another distinguished member of the 
full committee, from the State that built our first refinery back in 
the 1870s and the State that still today has substantial refinery 
capacity.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman.
  Many times on this floor I have heard debate talk about how America 
has lost some of its manufacturing capacity to other nations, 
particularly at times with talk about defense issues such as strategic 
metals. Many people lament that if we have lost that capacity at times 
of problems or national security, national defense issues, where will 
we get it from? We have to depend upon other countries to import that.
  Well, we indeed are in the same situation now with our petroleum 
products that are refined. We import 2 million barrels a day from other 
countries, from Western Europe, from Saudi Arabia, from Venezuela, from 
some countries that are more volatile politically than others. The same 
thing occurs when we are importing other crude oil from other 
countries, and we recognize the importance of not having to depend upon 
other countries that one day may be a political friend, and the next 
day may do such things as say we are cutting off the oil unless you let 
us have nuclear weapons.
  Here we are in that same situation when it comes to oil refineries. 
It takes about eight to 10 years to go through the permitting process 
for an oil refinery, a preposterous amount of time, but it is important 
that all permits and all environmental needs are met. This bill does 
not gut any of those.
  As a matter of fact, what it does is it appoints someone to 
coordinate and make sure that that process continues on and there are 
no delays. Once a permitting takes place, it takes an additional 2 to 3 
years to construct the plant. So, if we were to pass this today and the 
Senate were to pass it and the President were to sign this, it would be 
perhaps another 10 years, a decade, before products started to flow out 
of there.
  We simply cannot delay this anymore. It increases the demand, it 
reduces the supply, and I believe if the law of supply and demand is 
telling us anything right now, America is demanding that lawmakers 
increase the supply.
  We know that studies have been done telling us that price gouging is 
not the issue. It is a matter of having adequate supplies of petroleum 
and petroleum products. So, while we are working on conservation, while 
we are working on getting hybrid fuel cell vehicles, we need to pass 
this bill so we can get more of the supply here and reduce the cost.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Virginia said earlier, this bill 
is a solution in search of a problem. I really want to focus on section 
5 of the bill, and I would urge all my colleagues to read this bill, 
together with the BRAC statutes and regulations in order to understand 
what we are doing here.
  But as written, section 5 of the bill requires the President to 
designate at least three closed military bases as sites for oil 
refineries, and then it requires the local redevelopment authorities, 
or LRAs, to develop a reuse plan for an oil refinery. The BRAC statute 
and the BRAC regulations give the final decision to the Secretary of 
Defense, not to the local community. Under current law, the LRA is 
charged with developing a reuse plan for a closed base.
  Successful LRAs develop their plans in consultation with a myriad of 
stakeholders in the local community, as well as representatives from 
State and Federal agencies and private industry. Over a period of time, 
often 18 to 24 months, the LRA painstakingly designs a plan that takes 
into account the specific needs of the local community and has local 
support.
  The reuse plan is then submitted to the Secretary of Defense who has 
the authority to approve the plan or reject it and require the LRA to 
start over.
  Now, I have no problem with an LRA or any local community deciding 
that an oil refinery represents the best use of their closed facility. 
If it makes sense for such a community, then they should do it. There 
is nothing, nothing, in current law or in the regulations put forth by 
the Office of Economic Adjustment at DOD that is an obstacle to 
building a refinery. There is no problem.
  We do not need section 5, but if you look at section 5, Designation 
of Closed Military Bases, the presidential designate, it is mandatory, 
no less than three closed military installations as potentially 
suitable for construction of a refinery. Part B, the redevelopment 
authority shall consider the feasibility and practicality of siting a 
refinery on the installation.
  The next section contemplates that they will do that in the context 
of the redevelopment plan for the installation, and then it provides 
the rest of it shall be carried out under the BRAC law.
  So here we have a situation where the President of the United States 
is going to designate, is going to order such a plan, and in that case, 
the Secretary of Defense is almost certain to carry it out. The LRA has 
no power to stop them.
  And do not think that this language applies only to the 2005 BRAC 
round. It applies to all bases closed pursuant to a BRAC round back to 
1988 that still have an open or partially open reuse plan.
  Now, supporters of this are circulating a Dear Colleague which says 
that the redevelopment authority for each closed base will consider the 
President's suggestions but is not required to accept them. Frankly, 
that is just wrong. The bill says that it requires the Secretary of 
Defense to consult, and they define and the regs define consultation as 
explaining and discussing an issue, considering objections, 
modifications and alternatives, but without a requirement to reach 
agreement.
  The supporters also say, and consistent with the language of the 
bill, that it requires the Secretary of Defense to give, and I quote, 
significant deference to the wishes of the LRA, and I want you to hold 
this concept in your head for a moment. Secretary Rumsfeld, giving 
significant deference to anybody, any agency, especially a local 
redevelopment authority? That is simply not going to happen.
  The fact is that there is no requirement that an LRA accept a reuse 
plan in this bill. Of course not. The underlying BRAC statute makes it 
clear that the reuse plan is not binding on DOD. LRAs do not accept 
reuse plans. They propose them. The Secretary of Defense accepts reuse 
plans or rejects them. That is his role.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, communities that have suffered major base closings 
like Brunswick in my district are reeling from the economic impact. 
Jobs will be lost, the fabric of a community torn apart. These 
communities need to plan for their future, but they do not need 
interference from this Congress or from the President of the United 
States. Please oppose this bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Barton) has 14 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Boucher) has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to engage 
in a colloquy with the gentleman from Maine.
  It is the clear intent of this opinion legislation to not require any 
local community that does not wish a refinery, whether it be in the 
private sector or on a closed military base, to opt out of the process. 
I am checking with the majority parliamentarian staff, but I am willing 
to take an amendment on the floor right now that changes that language 
so that if the military base or local authority wants nothing to do 
with it, that is it, if the gentleman from Maine is willing to vote for 
the bill.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Maine.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, well, I would need to see the amendment.

[[Page 10238]]


  Mr. BARTON of Texas. You write it. This is not a bogus offer. We are 
not trying to do the nefarious intent that you claim we are, and if we 
can work out the parliamentary language so that it does not violate 
some rule of the House, I will take an amendment right now that you 
offer, if you will vote for the bill.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, my amendment was 
to delete section 5 of the bill.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I do not want to delete it, but I am willing to 
clarify it if you are willing to vote for the bill.
  Mr. ALLEN. That was my amendment. It was rejected by the Rules 
Committee. We should at least have had a vote on that amendment on the 
floor and we do not.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Hall), the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Air 
Quality Subcommittee.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I, of course, rise today in support of H.R. 
5254. While there is a lot of talk about refinery plants and all that, 
and while some plants have expanded, there haven't been any new ones 
built in the past 30 years. All the time Mr. Markey's been up here, 
there hasn't been one started, so far as I know, or built. Maybe 
enlarged or worked on, but they remain dangerously clustered in the 
gulf region. This bill would coordinate the permitting process for new 
refineries so that needless delays would be eliminated while preserving 
environmental protections.
  One provision in the bill calls on the President to designate three 
or more closed military installations as potentially suitable for the 
construction of a refinery. Now, why is this provision in the bill? 
Because there are communities with closed bases, such as the former 
Lone Star Army Ammunition Base in my district in Texarkana, Texas, that 
would like to have a refinery, because it makes good economic sense.
  The gentleman from Maine does not want one. He is not having one 
thrust upon him. Refineries bring jobs and a solid base to the local 
community. The designation by the President would boost a willing 
community's chances of getting the attention of a potential commercial 
developer.
  Opponents of this legislation claim that the legislation will 
increase the likelihood that a community that does not want a refinery 
on a closed base would get one. That is ridiculous, and that is exactly 
wrong. Why? Because the bill only requires that three local 
redevelopment authorities consider the feasibility and practicability 
of siting a refinery. There is no requirement that they accept it. And 
also because the Secretary of Defense is required to give a substantial 
deference to the recommendation of the development authority to site or 
not to site.
  Helping a willing local community to site a refinery on its closed 
military installation is good. It is good for the area. And, once 
again, a city in my area, like Texarkana, on the far eastern side of 
the State of Texas, close to four States, would have the support of 
four States, probably eight Senators, and is not subject to the 
vicissitudes of nature, but yet on an inside, navigable stream, with 
good workers there and in other areas.
  This is good for the community because it brings jobs and a healthy 
tax base. It is good for the country because it adds needed domestic 
refining capacity. It also lowers dramatically the cost of gasoline, 
and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5254.
  Mr. Speaker, I enclose for the Record a letter soliciting this from 
the Texarkana people.

                                Texarkana Chamber of Commerce,

                                                     June 6, 2006.
     Re H.R. 5254--Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act.

     Hon. Ralph Hall,
     Rayburn Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Hall: Let it be clear to all who are 
     concerned: this community was impacted by BRAC 2005 and we 
     would be glad to have the opportunity to attract a refinery 
     to our closed defense facility. Lone Star Army Ammunition 
     Plant (LSAAP) could be one of the facilities eligible for a 
     possible refinery as a result of the BRAC 2005 action. This 
     facility is within fifteen miles of our community and we are 
     excited that we could have the opportunity to provide our 
     citizens with the jobs associated with a refinery.
       These energy-related jobs could also spur new technologies 
     which could highlight our region for years to come. The 
     resultant jobs and capital investment could help to offset 
     the loss of LSAAP and smooth the transition to privately 
     owned, tax paying entities on the property. Our local 
     university is working to develop a Master's level engineering 
     program and the technical jobs offered by a refinery would be 
     an integral piece of that program.
       It looks like our community is going to have over 15,000 
     acres of land available for economic development. We can 
     think of no better place to start that development than with 
     a refinery.
       As always, we appreciate your dedication to our region.
           With best regards,
     Linda Crawford,
       President.
     James Bramlett,
       Mayor--Texarkana, TX.
     Roy John McNatt,
       Miller County Judge.
     Horace Shipp,
       Mayor--Texarkana, AR.
     James M. Carlow,
       Bowie County Judge.

  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I wish to yield 4 minutes to 
another distinguished member of the full committee on Energy and 
Commerce from the great Granite State of New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee for recognizing me and, Mr. Speaker, I rise in 
support of this piece of legislation.
  We have heard all the good reasons why the bill should pass. We need 
new refinery capacity. We need more regional diversity in refinery 
capacity. We are too reliant on oil as a feedstock for fuel in this 
country, and we need to develop alternative energy resources.
  Now, I know that there is work under way right as we speak to try to 
figure out a way that we can accommodate the interests of my friend 
from Maine, Congressman Allen, and his concerns over the Brunswick 
Naval Air Station, which is a BRAC'd naval air station in his district. 
I assure you that this section 5 was never created with the intent of 
forcing any kind of refinery capacity on any community in an area that 
didn't want it. If they do not want it in Maine or somewhere else in 
the country, they are not going to have it. There is no question about 
that, and the language is very clear in that respect.
  The fact is the Association of Defense Communities does not oppose 
this bill and recognizes the protection of local authority that is 
maintained by this piece of legislation. So if we can dispense with 
that argument and pick up more support than we have already got. When 
the bill got 237 votes, which is, at last count, a majority of votes in 
this Congress, the last time it came up, it didn't get two-thirds, but 
it got a majority. We will work to increase that margin if we can do so 
in such a fashion that we can protect the ability of closed bases to 
subsequently build refineries or biorefineries. We need biorefinery 
capacity in the Northeast and this represents a potential great 
opportunity.
  Now, we heard from other Members that refinery capacity is tight for 
economic reasons and not because of environmental permits. Let me make 
a couple of points there. First of all, I have here a list of the major 
permits and authorizations that were required for Arizona Clean Fuels, 
and I would point out that there were 37 of them required, 37 of them.
  This bill would not short-circuit one single one of those 
requirements. Not one. But what it would do is it would allow them to 
occur at the same time, instead of in succession, and it would make the 
permitting process more seamless and occur, hopefully, more quickly.
  It interests me that my friends are really supporting Big Oil, when 
they say that Big Oil doesn't want it so we shouldn't make it more 
possible. Well, Big Oil are not the only entities that

[[Page 10239]]

necessarily build refineries, and I would suggest that the industry 
that wants to keep oil prices high might not want to make it easy to 
build more refinery capacity. But I suggest don't give them the excuse.
  This bill does not circumvent any environmental, Corps of Engineers, 
local authority, or anything, but what it does do is, it takes away the 
excuse that it takes too long to build a refinery. And we need more 
refinery capacity in this country.
  Another argument was made by my distinguished colleague from Michigan 
that all we needed to do was to increase the size of the refinery 
capacity that we have today. Apparently, my friend has forgotten that 
last fall one of the major reasons why energy prices climbed by 50 
cents a gallon in my part of the world was because a hurricane went 
through the Gulf of Mexico and Louisiana. We need diversity of refinery 
capacity in this country, and I mean by that geographic diversity.
  What this bill will do is not promote bigger, fewer refineries, but 
more refineries in more places around the country, and the potential to 
have a biorefinery built in the Northeast, which is critical to my 
district.
  My friends, this is about energy. There is no question about that. 
But it is also about energy diversity. We need more oil supplies, but 
we also need more alternatives, and we are willing to do what we can 
without bending good environmental policy to increase that capacity. I 
urge support of this legislation.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, this legislation continues the Republican 
leadership's approach of treating the big oil companies with special 
attention while ignoring the needs of the American people. For years, 
the Republican leadership has worked to give Big Oil everything they 
could ever want: subsidies, environmental exemptions, loopholes, and 
paybacks. The results have been spectacular for the oil companies, but 
not for the American people.
  ExxonMobil recently announced first quarter profits of over $8 
billion and rewarded their CEO with a retirement package totaling 
nearly $400 million. Chevron reported its profits are up 49 percent 
from last year. But energy is costing the American family twice as much 
as it did just 5 years ago.
  The Republican leadership wants 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.
  According to the Environmental Council of the States, there is simply 
no factual record that supports the need for this legislation. The 
State and Territorial Air Pollution Program administrators wrote to all 
Members of the House to point out that this legislation will have the 
opposite effect of what is intended. They say it would almost surely 
delay the permitting process.
  The Republican leadership wants to claim that this legislation solves 
the Nation's gasoline problems. If anything, it will make it worse. Mr. 
Speaker, we need to reject this legislation. It is based on a faulty 
premise. It is only for the purpose of saying that we have done 
something without actually doing anything that would provide real 
relief to millions of American families.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the bill.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a 
distinguished member from the Grand Canyon State (Mr. Shadegg), who has 
the distinction of representing the last State in the Union to at least 
permit a new refinery. It hasn't yet been built, but they at least 
issued the permits for it.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Refinery 
Permit Process Scheduling Act. If anything, I wish this bill went much 
further.
  One year ago, I went to New York and visited the New York Mercantile 
Exchange. The traders on the floor that I spoke to said the exact 
opposite of what we just heard on the floor of this House. What they 
said was that this Nation is in desperate need of additional refining 
capacity. They grabbed me by the lapel on the floor of the trading 
mercantile and said, Do what you can to get additional refining 
capacity built. That is not a windfall for the oil companies, that is a 
windfall for consumers.
  As the chairman of the committee mentioned, opponents of this bill 
cite the experience of Arizona Clean Fuels in Yuma as an example for 
why they say we don't need to improve the refining process or the 
regulatory process governing the construction of a refinery. Yet that 
example proves them wrong. It took Arizona Clean Fuels 5 years and 4 
months, from December 1999 to April 2005, to obtain their permit.
  It simply is not logical nor is it reasonable to say to investors in 
a market, if you want to build a new refinery, you have to spend almost 
6 years seeking the permit to build that refinery.
  Our opponents on this bill say, Well, we don't need any additional 
improvements to the process and we don't need to lower the 
environmental standards. Yet it has been made clear over and over here 
on the floor in the debate that we are not lowering environmental 
standards. Indeed, the legislation calls for the EPA to be the primary 
scheduling agency.
  There has been no new refinery built in the United States for 30 
years, since 1976. Opponents of the bill say, Well, that is all right, 
we have made up that by increased capacity at existing facilities. 
Well, let's see what we have done. We have dropped from 324 refineries 
in 1981 to only 148 refineries today. Relying on ever larger existing 
facilities, without constructing new ones, does not benefit the 
consuming public, as Hurricanes Katrina and Rita have taught us.
  This is good legislation. It needs to be enacted. And the experience 
in my State proves this kind of regulatory improvement is absolutely 
essential.
  I urge the passage of the legislation.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, the Republican bill is not an effective way to address 
the shortage in refining capacity. It tramples on State environmental 
laws without effectively solving the problem.
  The CEOs of the refinery companies have testified that the permitting 
process for refinery siting is not burdensome and has not prevented the 
construction of needed new refineries. The Republican bill, therefore, 
weakens State environmental laws needlessly because it would do 
virtually nothing to ensure that new refineries are, in fact, built.
  By contrast, our Democratic alternative will be effective, it will 
address our national refinery shortage, and it will do so by relying on 
the proven and successful means by which we addressed several decades 
ago disruptions in crude oil supplies. We simply would extend the 
proven concept of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve by constructing a 
strategic refinery reserve in order to address the problem of refining 
capacity, very similar today to the problem we addressed decades ago 
with regard to crude oil supply disruptions.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge rejection of the Republican bill, 
and I urge that when we submit our motion to recommit that that be 
approved by the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to admit up front that the procedure for bringing 
this bill to the floor has not been what I would have preferred it to 
be, and I am going to side with my friends on the minority side about 
their complaints about the procedure. It has not gone through the 
regular order, and in the perfect world, it should have. Unfortunately, 
we do not live in a perfect world.
  We had to take some action on the majority side to show the American 
people that we were serious about

[[Page 10240]]

doing anything possible to help alleviate some of these high energy 
prices, and it is certainly my opinion and I think it is a fact that 
one part of that process has got to be to make it possible to expand 
existing refineries and build new refineries in this country.
  It is a fact, plain and simple, that we are using over 20 million 
barrels a day of petroleum products and we only have the refining 
capacity for 16 to 17 million barrels. That is a fact.
  It is also a fact that in the hearings we have had on our energy 
price problem in this country in the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
that I chair, it has been shown that one of the leading causes of the 
higher prices has been the refining capacity shortage.
  Now, historically the refining industry in this country has been a 
loss leader. If you go back 10 or 15 years ago when we had the 
integrated oil companies going from the production of the crude through 
the distribution of the crude, when it came to refineries, they lost 
money. So for a lot of reasons they shut down the refining capacity, 
and we developed a shortage in refining capacity.
  Today the margin, it is the called the crack margin, and it has 
nothing to do with crack cocaine or cracks in concrete, it has to do 
with the ability to go in and crack the molecules in the crude oil and 
get the different levels of petroleum products out of that crude. That 
crack margin is higher than it ever has been by an order of magnitude. 
In some cases, the margin is probably approaching $30 to $35 a barrel 
of the $70 or $72 price. So there is more than adequate profit, but 
because of the regulatory impediments, it is almost impossible to go 
through the permitting process in a timely fashion under existing 
regulations and get a decision.
  Now it is a true statement when my friends on the minority side say 
there has been no refinery not built in this country in the last 30 
years, because they did not get a permit. That is a true statement, but 
it is only half true. The rest of the story is nobody in their right 
mind would try to get a permit to build a new refinery because it takes 
so long. So they are kind of beaten before they even start.
  In the case in Arizona where an industrial group did go through the 
process, to this day in spite of them saying they have the permits, 
they have all but one. They still do not have the permit from the 
United States Bureau of Reclamation giving them title to the land. In 
this case, the land is actually owned by the Federal Government, and 
they still have not cleared the title to that land. Now they are going 
to, but they have not.
  So the bill before us today is not a perfect bill. But at least it 
says, let us appoint a Federal coordinator, let us work with the State 
and local government. Let us set up a procedure where we coordinate all 
of these permits. We do not override any State or Federal or local air 
quality or water quality regulation, we just say let's coordinate it. 
And oh, yes, let's let the President pick three sites out in the 
country on closed military bases, of which we have dozens, and maybe we 
can get the local redevelopment authority to work with State and 
Federal officials to put a refinery there.
  There is really no reason to oppose this bill. It is not going to do 
any harm, and it might just do some good. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this 
bill.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5254, the 
Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act. Protecting our environment and 
promoting energy independence are two of the most important jobs I have 
as a Member of Congress, but before we can begin to consider building 
more refineries, we must first change our consumption habits. American 
consumption of oil has been increasing at an unsustainable rate. In 
1995, we consumed 17.7 million barrels of oil per day, but today we 
consume 20.5 million barrels per day.
  The bottom line is we are not resolving our energy needs because we 
are not conserving. We'll just continue to consume more and waste more, 
consume more and waste more, and act like it doesn't matter. We are on 
a demand course that is simply unsustainable.
  We need to address rising energy prices by encouraging conservation 
and this bill fails to do anything to impact that. This bill will not 
affect gasoline prices or reduce our dependence on foreign oil. To feel 
relief from the price at the pump, we must focus on decreasing our 
consumption of oil and looking to alternative energy sources.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5254, the 
Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act of 2006.
  Though the Majority disingenuously argues that environmental 
regulations are responsible for high gas prices, the facts don't 
support their claim. Refining costs have increased because oil 
companies have deliberately decreased capacity to boost profits. In the 
late 1980s and early '90s, oil companies shut down 30 refineries in an 
attempt to raise profit margins. The scheme worked: refinery revenues 
increased by 255 percent last year.
  In response to market pressure, refining capacity has increased in 
recent years. Between 1996 and 2003, capacity increased by 1.4 million 
barrels per day. As a result, the American Petroleum Institute believes 
that H.R. 5254 is completely unnecessary. The free market that the 
Republicans claim to love is working, but this legislation is about 
politics, not about solving the priorities of America's working 
families.
  This legislation would: Allow the President to place new refineries 
on closed military bases. The military base in my district would 
probably be an appealing target for this President: it's the site of a 
planned National Wildlife Refuge. Like many communities around the 
country, the City of Alameda has undergone an extensive planning 
process to convert the base to civilian use, but if the President said 
the word, the City's work could be suspended while the federal 
government decided whether or not it wanted to build a refinery on the 
premises. Undermine environmental review processes and make state and 
local environmental officials answer to a new refinery czar appointed 
by President Bush.
  The one good thing you can say about this bill is that it's not 
another gift to oil companies--they readily admit that environmental 
regulations have not prevented them from building new refineries. This 
legislation is just another ill-conceived talking point for Republicans 
desperate to appear responsive to rising energy prices. I won't play 
that game and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no''.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Refinery 
Permit Process Schedule Act (H.R. 5254).
  About a month ago the House debated this legislation under Suspension 
of the Rules, which makes it impossible for Members to offer 
amendments. H.R. 5254 did not receive the needed two-thirds majority 
necessary to pass under the Suspension calendar since many Members had 
serious objections to the proposed legislation. But we are here again 
today, considering this legislation without an open debate. Two 
Democratic amendments were ruled out of order by the Rules Committee. 
Representative Dingell and Representative Boucher offered a substitute, 
which would have created a new Strategic Refinery Reserve to give our 
country the ability to produce refined oil products during extreme 
energy situations. Representative Allen offered an amendment that would 
have struck the section of the bill requiring three closed military 
bases be considered as locations for refineries. So again today, we are 
considering this bill without the opportunity for real debate.
  H.R. 5254 is based on a false premise--that requirements for 
environmental permits are to blame for the lack of refinery capacity. 
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 in sustainable energy sources to meet our 
growing energy needs, we remain stuck in our old ways. Since the most 
recent spike in gas prices in early May, Congress has not considered 
one energy conservation piece of legislation. Instead we have 
considered a bill to open the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 
to drilling, and we will try again today to build more refineries. I 
hear many of my colleagues express their commitments to sustainable 
energy sources, yet we continue to focus our legislative efforts on 
oil. We simply can not rely on oil to meet our future energy needs.
  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 am disappointed 
that Representative Allen's amendment was ruled out of order by the 
Rules Committee that would have struck this provision from the bill.

[[Page 10241]]

  In late April, I 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.
  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.
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 5242. This 
bill is another example of the Republican's misguided priorities.
  This legislation targets our states, communities, and environmental 
laws as the culprits for high gas prices. But we know the truth. The 
dirty little secret is that oil companies which made more than $110 
billion in profits in 2005 and $16 billion in profits in the first 
three months of 2006 do not want to build new refineries. They do not 
want to spend the money! We learned from leaked corporate memos that 
the major companies--Chevron, Texaco and Mobil would go so far as to 
buy and shut down the competition in order to keep capacity tight.
  The Yuma refinery is just one example. Twice since the 1990s this 
proposed refinery received the necessary permits to be constructed and 
operated. But the Yuma refinery has not been constructed because it 
cannot find the financing. Bob Slaughter from the National 
Petrochemical and Refiners Association testified before the House 
Energy and Commerce Committee on May 11, 2006 that the proponents of 
this project have an ``air permit, but they're having trouble getting 
financing and actually getting that built.''
  Just last week the Yuma Sun reported that the Arizona Department of 
Environmental Quality issued a draft renewal of the current air quality 
permit already held by ACF--a full 6 months before the existing permit 
is scheduled to expire. Proponents of this bill argue that states have 
been delaying permits. Arizona Clean Fuels disagreed and stated ``ADEQ 
has been very cooperative in working with us to make sure the project 
does proceed.'' And the Environmental Council of States has written 
that they are not aware of any credible report that our states are 
denying or lagging behind on permitting of new refineries and the 
expansion of existing refineries.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time that this body considers legislation based on 
facts and truths. The fact is that states are not delaying permitting 
and environmental laws are not to blame. I urge my colleagues to 
protect the authority of their states and the rights of all 
communities--vote against this flawed legislation.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, show-me State motorists, like all 
consumers, closely follow gasoline prices, and with good reason. They 
have experienced dramatic increases and wide fluctuations in gas prices 
over the past several years, spending millions of dollars more on 
gasoline than they had anticipated.
  Rural Americans, who rely heavily on transportation in going about 
their daily lives, are being hit particularly hard by the high cost of 
gasoline. This is especially true for farmers, many of whom are already 
operating at a loss this year.
  It is imperative that Congress work to address our nation's energy 
needs through a comprehensive and proactive strategy that makes it 
easier to promote alternative energy sources, to stop price gouging, to 
increase production by expanding refining capacity, and to rollback 
billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies to oil companies that are 
making record profits.
  The refinery permitting bill before the House today contains scant 
assistance for the rural Missourians I am privileged to represent. It 
would not lower their energy costs nor assure our nation's energy 
security. Rather, it would change the permitting process for refineries 
and would require the President to designate closed military bases for 
consideration as locations for new refineries.
  Designating closed military bases for refineries seems to make little 
if any sense at all. I can't believe that we have used up all the 
possible locations available for placing refineries and must now resort 
to giving federal land grants to the oil companies to encourage them to 
build new capacity. Closed bases are not abandoned land. In nearly 
every case, the communities that surround these former installations 
have reuse plans for these bases to benefit the local community. If 
they want to place a refinery on a closed base, let them make that 
determination.
  Unfortunately, changing permitting rules and offering federal land to 
oil companies will not entice them to build new oil refineries. While 
more refineries would certainly help produce more gasoline, oil 
companies have had the opportunity and financial capability for years 
to increase their refining capacity. Permitting rules are not stopping 
them, nor is there a lack of available locations for new refineries. 
Rather, the inability to build profitable refineries has led oil 
company executives away from constructing or resurrecting them.
  The energy problems we are facing today must be addressed with 
meaningful, comprehensive legislation. House Democrats have been active 
in this regard, pressing for increases in the use of alternative fuel 
produced from the corn and soybeans grown in Missouri's fields.
  Democrats have also been pushing for passage of anti-price gouging 
legislation since the energy markets were impacted by Hurricane 
Katrina.
  I have supported alternate legislation that would strengthen the 
hands of the Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department, 
targeting price gouging across the energy spectrum. It would also help 
Americans who are struggling to deal with high gas prices and bracing 
for record home heating and air conditioning bills, while creating a 
Strategic Refinery Reserve to provide additional gas supplies during 
energy spikes like the one we are currently facing. Unfortunately, this 
more wisely drafted alternative has not even been allowed as an 
amendment to this bill.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of increasing 
government efficiency in considering new refinery applications in the 
Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act.
  Gas prices have risen as supplies have been stretched thin and U.S. 
refineries have struggled to refine all of the oil we need. This bill 
streamlines the cumbersome government processes that delay and 
discourage new development and production, paving the way for 
construction of new oil or biofuel refineries.
  Domestic energy security depends on reliable supply through 
exploration of oil and gas reserves on the outer continental shelf, 
bolstering our refining capacity, and investigating alternative sources 
of energy.
  This bill is an important piece of ensuring American energy security 
and I am proud to support it.
  Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to 
the Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act--H.R. 5254. This bill wrongly 
attempts to streamline environmental regulations in an effort to spur 
construction of new refining facilities, while doing nothing to move 
the country toward energy independence.
  The Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act--H.R. 5254--mandates 
additional Federal oversight and requires State and local governments 
to comply with a new Federal schedule for approving permits to site, 
construct or expand a refinery. This bill fails to address legitimate 
concerns over the slow pace of expansion and increasing geographic 
concentration of America's oil refining facilities.
  Supporters of H.R. 5254 blame state and local environmental 
regulations for obstructing the construction of new refining 
facilities. But private oil refining companies are choosing not to 
construct new facilities based on their own economic projections rather 
than local environmental hurdles. The Wall Street Journal recently 
reported that Exxon is not building new refineries because it expects 
growth in U.S. demand for gasoline will be too insufficient to justify 
the capital investment. The chief executive officer for Shell Oil 
testified before Congress in 2005 that he knows of no environmental 
regulations that have prevented his company from expanding refinery 
capacity or siting a new refinery. Clearly, undermining State and local 
laws will do nothing to change the market-forces that are the true 
basis of companies' decisions regarding refinery construction.
  In addition, H.R. 5254 does nothing to promote home-grown biofuels, a 
critical element of America's energy independence strategy. In the last 
30 years, 97 new bio-refineries have been built in the U.S. and more 
are needed. But this bill will not expand America's biofuel industry 
for the same reason it fails to expand oil refining capacity--State and 
local regulations are not the barrier to growth. Biofuel industry 
experts have testified that State and local regulations have not 
prevented the siting or permitting of new bio-refineries.

[[Page 10242]]

  It is time for leadership, vision and commitment from Washington to 
make the smart investments that will protect our Nation's economic 
security and our planet's future. In Congress, we should start by 
rescinding the billion of dollars in subsidies for oil and gas 
companies to expand drilling. We must invest in research and extend 
incentives for alternative energy sources such as wind, biomass and 
biofuels that keep energy costs down, create jobs and make us more 
competitive in the global economy. A clean energy future that addresses 
oil dependence and environmental concerns such as climate change is 
achievable.
  But we should not expect our energy situation to change until the 
Bush administration and the Republican leaders in Congress get serious 
about tackling our oil dependence.
  H.R. 5254 is a thinly veiled second attempt by the Republican 
majority to pass the controversial Gasoline for America's Security 
Act--H.R. 3893--which the House narrowly passed in 2005 and the Senate 
ignored. As with that bill, H.R. 5254 has had no hearings, no markups, 
no opportunity for Congress to make necessary inquiries. Real solutions 
to America's energy challenges will result from a transparent 
legislative process, bipartisan cooperation and visionary ideas. The 
Republican majority has once again offered energy legislation that 
falls far short of a real solution.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5254, the 
Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act. This bill would endanger the 
environment and the health of communities across America in order to 
provide another giveaway to the oil and gas industry which is reaping 
record profits.
  The oil industry is responsible for limiting refinery capacity. 
During the 1990s, the American Petroleum Institute encouraged the oil 
industry to limit refining capacity in order to boost profits. The 
industry followed instructions, closing 176 refineries since 1980 and 
failing to fully utilize available capacity. According to the 
Washington Post, between September 2004 and 2005, refineries marked up 
their prices 255 percent while gasoline retailers only marked up their 
prices by 5 percent. The five largest oil companies, many of which own 
refineries, reported record profits of $110 billion in 2005. ExxonMobil 
reported the largest annual profit of an American company in history.
  Environmental regulations are not standing in the way of new 
refineries being opened. The CEOs of Shell and ConocoPhillips have 
testified that no Federal or State regulations had prevented them from 
siting new refineries. Only one energy company, Arizona Clean Fuels, 
has filed a permit to open a new refinery in over 20 years. When 
Arizona Clear Fuels was granted that permit, the company never actually 
opened the refinery. Its inability to find investors, not environmental 
regulations, prevented the company from opening a refinery.
  After Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, refinery outages caused a supply 
shock that was in part responsible for a rise in gasoline prices. The 
Democrats, under the leadership of Representatives Dingell, Stupak and 
Boucher, proposed the creation of a strategic refinery reserve which 
would ensure that the U.S. had an adequate supply of refined product in 
case of national emergency. Republicans have repeatedly rejected 
Democrats' efforts to create that reserve, which would put the 
interests of consumers before the profits of the oil industry. 
Republicans have also rejected an attempt by Ranking Member Dingell and 
Energy and Commerce Democrats to make this legislation bipartisan.
  This bill is another giveaway to the oil and gas industry that could 
impose refineries on communities throughout the country. It requires 
President Bush to designate three closed military bases as sites for 
new refineries, waiving local and State regulations and giving 
communities little input in the process. It allows Secretary Rumsfeld 
to sell or transfer the land to an oil company at no cost. Congress 
should know by now that billions of dollars in giveaway to the oil and 
gas industry has only led to record profits and record energy prices.
  This bill again demonstrates the misplaced priorities of this 
Republican Congress. While my constituents are paying $2.96 for a 
gallon of regular gas in Chicago, we are considering legislation that 
would do nothing to bring down gasoline prices. Nothing in this 
legislation forces oil companies to utilize all of their available 
refining capacity, nor does it protect our supply in the case of a 
national emergency. This bill will lead to higher profits in the 
boardroom and more pain at the pump.
  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address H.R. 5254. While I 
join my colleagues in recognizing the need for resolving our Nation's 
problematic energy situation, I fear this bill may seek a solution by 
way of shortcuts that will only exacerbate the problem or develop new 
ones.
  I believe most importantly that this bill problematically interferes 
with past base closure and realignment (BRAC) rounds. If nothing else, 
the bill will take away the legal right of communities to determine how 
local bases will be redeveloped. This is inconsistent with the 
principles this Congress has stood for when it comes to the base 
closure process and it is inconsistent with enabling local entities to 
seek what is best for their local communities instead of having those 
in Washington choose it for them.
  Some communities face the possibility of having the power to 
determine how best to utilize lands on closed bases stripped away from 
them and given to the Secretary of Defense. This would jeopardize plans 
these communities have already developed, including projects for which 
they have already invested time and money. Expectations of entire local 
governments and public constituencies could be jeopardized. This is not 
good government.
  The BRAC process has followed a simple and important principle 
associated with base closure: that the transformation of military 
installations to civilian use, once properly closed and environmentally 
cleaned up by the Federal Government, is best left in the hands of the 
community, not the Federal Government. H.R. 5254 would deprive some 
communities of this critical option and undercut this principle.
  A closed military base on Guam has been converted into the Antonio B. 
Won Pat International Airport (GIAA). It is a crucial trade and 
transportation hub in the Western Pacific Region today. Interfering 
with the process that enables successes like the conversion to a 
commercial airport on Guam, a process that is often a difficult one for 
communities faced with job losses and lost economic expenditures from 
base personnel, is bad policy.
  This bill nonetheless would give the Department of Defense the 
ability to flaunt BRAC law and the BRAC process by allowing the 
Secretary of Defense to designate three previously closed bases for the 
construction of oil refineries, themselves assets our Nation does need 
to grow, that could then be transferred to oil companies, potentially 
at no cost, irrespective of local redevelopment plans, irrespective of 
environmental cleanup needed at the base and irrespective of community 
desires and previous planning. I do not support the construction of 
refineries at the expense of local communities. I am confident that 
current law sufficiently incentivizes refinery construction and that 
the oil industry, with record profits, can appropriately seek land and 
locations to construct these resources without having to rely upon land 
on closed military installations.
  I might add that on Guam, H.R. 5254 is redundant. Shell Guam, with a 
large presence on Guam, has repeatedly offered the Department of 
Defense the ability to lease both significant storage facilities and 
refining capacity available on the island. The Department of Defense 
has never acted on this opportunity nor responded to the invitation.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, I note that there is currently nothing that 
prevents the building of refineries on closed bases if a community 
chooses to do so. It is my understanding some communities with a closed 
base may even desire to host a refinery. But it should be their choice, 
not the sole decision of the federal government imposed on the local 
community. Those American communities already stricken by the economic 
pains of base closure should not and cannot now find that their 
reliance on BRAC law that enables community choices on how to redevelop 
land on closed bases will have been faulty. I do not believe that our 
country's energy situation can be solved at the expense of these 
communities and therefore am deeply concerned about H.R. 5254.
  I join my colleagues in their concern with our country's over-
reliance on oil, about our lack of refining capacity and about the need 
to develop policy to overcome these challenges. Unfortunately, H.R. 
5254 goes too far and in the wrong direction in an attempt to address 
these challenges.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). All time for debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 842, the bill is considered read and the 
previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


               Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Boucher

  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?

[[Page 10243]]


  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I am in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Boucher moves to recommit the bill H.R. 5254 to the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce with instructions to report 
     the same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:

       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. STRATEGIC REFINERY RESERVE.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish and 
     operate a Strategic Refinery Reserve in the United States. 
     The Secretary may design and construct new refineries, or 
     acquire closed refineries and reopen them, to carry out this 
     section.
       (b) Operation.--The Secretary shall operate refineries in 
     the Strategic Refinery Reserve for the following purposes:
       (1) During any period described in subsection (c), to 
     provide petroleum products to the general public.
       (2) To provide petroleum products to the Federal 
     Government, including the Department of Defense, as well as 
     State governments and political subdivisions thereof who 
     choose to purchase refined petroleum products from the 
     Strategic Refinery Reserve.
       (c) Emergency Periods.--The Secretary shall make petroleum 
     products from the Strategic Refinery Reserve available under 
     subsection (b)(1) only--
       (1) during a severe energy supply interruption, within the 
     meaning of such term under part B of title I of the Energy 
     Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6231 et seq.); or
       (2) if the President determines that there is a regional 
     petroleum product supply shortage of significant scope and 
     duration and that action taken under subsection (b)(1) would 
     assist directly and significantly in reducing the adverse 
     impact of such shortage.
       (d) Locations.--In determining the location of a refinery 
     for the Strategic Refinery Reserve, the Secretary shall take 
     into account the following factors:
       (1) Impact on the local community (determined after 
     requesting and receiving comments from State, county or 
     parish, and municipal governments, and the public).
       (2) Regional vulnerability to a natural disaster.
       (3) Regional vulnerability to terrorist attacks.
       (4) Proximity to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
       (5) Accessibility to energy infrastructure.
       (6) The need to minimize adverse public health and 
     environmental impacts.
       (7) The energy needs of the Federal Government, including 
     the Department of Defense.
       (e) Increased Capacity.--The Secretary shall ensure that 
     refineries in the Strategic Refinery Reserve are designed to 
     enable a rapid increase in production capacity during periods 
     described in subsection (c).
       (f) Implementation Plan.--Not later than 6 months after the 
     date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall 
     transmit to the Congress a plan for the establishment and 
     operation of the Strategic Refinery Reserve under this 
     section. Such plan shall provide for establishing, within 2 
     years after the date of enactment of this section, and 
     maintaining a capacity for the Reserve equal to 5 percent of 
     the total United States daily demand for gasoline, home 
     heating oil, and other refined petroleum products. If the 
     Secretary finds that achieving such capacity within 2 years 
     is not feasible, the Secretary shall explain in the plan the 
     reasons therefor, and shall include provisions for achieving 
     such capacity as soon as practicable. Such plan shall also 
     provide for adequate delivery systems capable of providing 
     Strategic Refinery Reserve product to the entities described 
     in subsection (b)(2).
       (g) Compliance With Federal Environmental Requirements.--
     Nothing in this section shall affect any requirement to 
     comply with Federal or State environmental or other law.
       (h) Definitions.--The definitions contained in section 3 of 
     the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6202) shall 
     apply to this section.

     SEC. 2. REFINERY CLOSING REPORTS.

       (a) Closing Reports.--The owner or operator of a refinery 
     in the United States shall notify the Secretary of Energy at 
     least 6 months in advance of permanently closing the 
     refinery, and shall include in such notice an explanation of 
     the reasons for the proposed closing.
       (b) Reports to Congress.--The Secretary of Energy, in 
     consultation with the Federal Trade Commission, shall 
     promptly report to the Congress any report received under 
     subsection (a), along with an analysis of the effects the 
     proposed closing would have on petroleum product prices, 
     competition in the refining industry, the national economy, 
     regional economies and regional supplies of refined petroleum 
     products, and United States energy security.

  Mr. BOUCHER (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the motion be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit is the only means by 
which the Democratic alternative to the Republican bill could be 
brought to the House floor, and that is under the very restrictive 
procedure that the Republicans have adopted which eliminates any 
possibility for amendments, including a Democratic substitute.
  I regret that that restrictive process does not enable the House to 
consider our Democratic alternative in regular order.
  The motion that I am offering would create a strategic refinery 
reserve. That would be an effective means of resolving our national 
problem with regard to limited refinery capacity. We would model the 
refinery reserve upon the very successful strategic petroleum reserve 
which has been an excellent shock absorber protecting Americans from 
gasoline price spikes when there are disruptions in the delivery of 
crude oil.
  Under our amendment, the Secretary of Energy will be directed to 
establish refineries with capacity equal to 5 percent of the total 
United States demand for gasoline, home heating oil and other refined 
petroleum products. The location of the refineries will be at the 
discretion of the Secretary with a preference that they be sited well 
away from the hurricane zone where we are concentrated today in our 
existing refinery capacity.
  During normal times, the reserve will not operate at full capacity. 
The refineries during these normal times would sell refined product to 
the Federal fleet, including the Department of Defense, a step which 
would also enhance our national security.
  Keeping the refinery reserve operational will ensure no lag time in 
placing it online if it is needed in times of emergency, and in those 
times when some portion of the Nation's refinery capacity is shut down, 
the refinery reserve would protect Americans from gasoline price spikes 
by selling their product into the commercial market.
  This approach is sensible. It is based on a working and highly 
successful model, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It would be 
effective. It stands in stark contrast to the Republican proposal which 
would weaken environmental laws while failing to address our critical 
refinery shortage.
  This motion also strikes section 5 which would direct the President 
to select three closed military bases upon which refineries would be 
situated, a provision which I find objectionable, which I think the 
vast majority of Members of this House also find objectionable. We 
would strike it in this motion.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) to 
address those concerns.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Boucher-
Dingell motion to recommit. Passage of this motion would do a great 
deal to improve refinery capacity and enhance the Nation's capability 
to respond to natural disasters.
  The motion would also strike section 5, that section of the 
underlying bill that requires the President to designate at least three 
closed military bases as sites for oil refineries.
  Passage of this motion would guarantee that communities which have 
had a base closed through the BRAC process will not be forced by 
Presidential fiat to accept an oil refinery. If you have a closed 
military base in your community or you believe in local control 
concerning decisions of siting oil refineries, support the Boucher-
Dingell motion. If this motion fails and you care about the fate of a 
closed military base in your community, I urge Members to vote ``no'' 
on the underlying bill.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this motion to recommit, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
motion.

[[Page 10244]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I certainly have sympathy for the 
underlying concept of the motion to recommit. The concept is that the 
United States Government should build, and perhaps even operate a 
certain number of refineries for a strategic refinery reserve. 
Conceptually, the idea is worth considering and we did consider it in 
the discussions and negotiations that we had with Mr. Boucher and Mr. 
Dingell. We never reached resolution, and there are a number of reasons 
why we couldn't reach resolution, and those are the reasons for which I 
oppose this motion to recommit.
  First of all, we never really defined and the motion to recommit does 
not define what a strategic reserve is. That is one of the problems.
  Another problem with the motion to recommit is it actually has the 
government operating the refinery. I do not believe that we really want 
the Federal Government or the U.S. military, which is part of the 
Federal Government, to be in the business of operating a refinery. If 
they do not operate it, except in certain times, times of war, times of 
national emergency, what do you with it the rest of the time? The bill 
is silent about that.
  And of course, conceptually, we have a problem on the majority side 
of the aisle with government intervention of any kind. I will grant you 
as chairman of the committee, I could see a set of rules which we were 
never able to get to in our negotiations where you could set up certain 
parameters and certain backstops and things where maybe we could 
overcome that, but we simply were not able to pursue that, and the 
underlying motion to recommit does not pursue that.
  This is an idea that has some merit. It is quite possible that if the 
Senate, the other body does something on refinery reform, that we might 
yet make a bipartisan agreement with some of our friends on the 
minority side. But for purposes of the motion to recommit at this point 
in time I strongly oppose this and would urge all Members who are 
prepared to vote for the refinery bill, the base bill, to vote ``no'' 
on the motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 
5-minutes votes on passage of H.R. 5254, if ordered; suspending the 
rules and passing H.R. 5449; and suspending the rules and passing S. 
2803.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 195, 
noes 223, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 231]

                               AYES--195

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--223

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Bishop (NY)
     Bono
     DeLay
     Filner
     Ford
     Gibbons
     Gohmert
     Lantos
     Manzullo
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Reyes
     Slaughter


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Two minutes remain in this 
vote.

                              {time}  1852

  Mr. GILCHREST changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. SHERMAN and Mr. HOLT changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 231, motion to recommit on 
H.R. 5254, I was

[[Page 10245]]

in my Congressional District on official business. Had I been present, 
I would have voted ``yea.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 238, 
noes 179, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 232]

                               AYES--238

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Gene
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--179

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Bishop (NY)
     Bono
     DeLay
     Filner
     Ford
     Gibbons
     Gohmert
     Harris
     Lantos
     Manzullo
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Reyes
     Rush
     Slaughter

                              {time}  1859

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Ms. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 232, on final passage of 
H.R. 5254, I am not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``yea.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 232, final passage of H.R. 
5254, I was in my Congressional District on official business. Had I 
been present, I would have vote ``no.''

                          ____________________