mr speaker pursuant to have resolution eight forty two i call of h r fifty two fifty four the refinery permit process schedule  legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation in doing certain strenuous material without objection house will be in order members remove conversation from the floor during take seats 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 the energy has found us with less and less refinery capacity to refine fuel and now there is absolutely none to spare here in the united states without more refinery capacity domestically prices are squeezed ever upward and we're 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 thirty years one reason is surely regulatory uncertainty beers bureaucratic delays in the current permitting process h r fifty two fifty four addresses that problem head on law preserving every single existing statute providing for environmental protection an opportunity for public participation everyone let me read that again h r fifty two fifty four addresses that problem head on while preserving every single existing statute providing for environmental protection  an opportunity for public participation every one not one of those statutes is repealed or modified what h r fifty two fifty four does do is set up a federal coordinator who convenes all official state local and federal responsible for the for the permits for proposed refinery working as wanting 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 sided designates the state officials to participate in the scheduling coordination if the governor of a state decides not to send in a state official not to appoint any state officials not seen in this that can compel the state officials to participate in the effort the federal coordinator will simply have to take that lack of state protest participation into account in scheduling the remaining actions of federal perm but if there is no state participation in that state process will not go forward unless a state official is dead designated by his governor or her governor 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's how the governor of any state were 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 at the in the middle of it or at the end of it to not participate that's 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 the gentleman from virginia spoke on this issue when the bill was brought up under suspension last month following that debate and with the cooperation of the house majority leadership mr dingell mr hall mr boucher not did try to get together to explore common ground on this and other refinery issues we did not reach resolution in time to incorporate some of these some of our negotiations into the new language in this bill but i still look forward as we go to conference with the senate to continue in that dialogue in this context and perhaps bring in 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 close military and still i as potentially suitable for the construction of a refinery why is this provision in the bill because we know of committees with close communities with close bases that are interested in side in the refinery we also know that the president of states is interested in this provision he has spoken to me about it personally they f designation by the president would boost their chances of getting the attention of potential commercial developer and we also recognize that not every community with a closed but ice may want to refinery nothing in this bill increases the likelihood that a community that doesn't does not want to refinery on a closed base will get one while there are at least two reasons the bill only encourages the local redevelopment authorities to consider the feasibility impracticability or siding refinery there is no requirement that they accept 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 decide or not side a refinery going to close military base explicitly preserving existing well 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 already run out of resources and ideas misspeak are you want to say one additional minute they say that we're all together in this they will just have to learn how to make do with less today they are just to do nothing i don't except that we have a refinery need in this country for twenty one million barrels per day we have a refinery capacity for approximately seventeen million barrels a day subtract seventeen from twenty one you get four million barrels we can certainly find the political will to come together to make it possible to reform the permanent process so that it might be possible to add to some existing refineries and yes for heaven's sake maybe even build one or two new ones that's what this bill is all about it's already passed the house f once under suspension of the rules but it didn't get the two thirds vote i'm hopeful today that will get a majority vote and send this to this other body work with them when they report a similar bill with that mr speaker i reserve the balance of my time co the bipartisan leadership of the energy and commerce committee to find common ground between our position and the republican position and 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 a consensus bill could not be produced while i commend the efforts made by mr barton down mr hall to work with us and 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're debating on the floor today the bill should have been structured in such a way as to provide an opportunity to sitter our democratic substitute which would make a genuine difference in relieving the nation's shortage of refinery capacity while i don't argue the merits of our more meaningful approach during today's debate we are now relegated to offering our alternative and what's 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's 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 simply not enough refineries in the nation to produce the gasoline the diesel fuel than the other refined products that we consume in the united states on a daily basis in fact of the twenty million barrels we consume each day more than two million barrels of refined product are imported each day during times of emergency such as a hair or a cane that might disable some of our refining capacity we have no margin for error a sense we're not even meeting our own daily demand with u s based refineries we're 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 by ranging to buy the refined product overseas scheduling delivery of that product for the united states and then waiting on those shipments to arrive our all time consuming and all occur at a time when because of the cherokee and 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's exactly what happened in the weeks after para came katrina and until we had more refinery capacity that's 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're 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 repealed 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 two thousand and five instead of repealing it we should be giving it a chance to work let's 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 a legitimate environmental concerns would find their normal review process is short circuited under a mandated federal schedule for permit issuance and the bill proceeds from a deeply flawed assumption that the reason we have a refinery shortage is burdensome state permitting processes the real reason we don't have enough refineries is the economic interests of the refiners not environmental constraints between september of two thousand and four and september of two thousand and five the nation's refiners enjoyed a two hundred fifty five percent profit increase when you're doing that well why change anything why make added investments in new refineries when the status quo graces you with a two hundred fifty five 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 up told us that environmental regulations are simply not the problem here is what the oil company c e o s have said about regulations governing their refining siting process last november the c e o of shell testified to the congress and i quote we are not aware of any environmental regulations that have prevented us from expanding refinery capacity or citing a new refinery end of quote conoco c e o testified and i quote again 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 and to float 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 shows that environmental permitting is simply not a problem and yet this bill weakens environmental permitting it's the wrong answer for the problem that we face mr speaker there is a right answer decades ago our nation created the street egypt petroleum reserves to resolve with regard to crude oil the very same problem that we're 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 occasion to buy disruptions in crude oil deliveries it works exactly as it was designed to function our democratic proposal is to extend this prove old proven and successful model to solve the problem we now face with a shortage of refinery capacity we proposed the creation of a strategic refinery reserve patterned on this project 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 that 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 bikes should some of the u s refining capacity be shut down this sensible alternative which the rules earlier adopted precludes us from offering as a substitute would be an effective means of solving a 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 standing one minute thank you mr chairman mr speaker i rise today in strong support of h r fifty two fifty four this bill recognizes the need for increased supplies of refined petroleum products and takes the necessary steps to increase that refining capacity no new refinery has been constructed in the united states since nine hundred seventy six yet the demand for gasoline exceeds domestic production by an average of four million barrels per day and this was made worse during the in the aftermath of these recent hurricanes this growing gap must be met by importing refined petroleum products from board sources run refining capacity is not being increased due to me in part a permanent process that is overly cumbersome and capital intensive this bill makes unnecessary commitments to expand and diversify the refining industry in this country by reforming and expediting a permanent process that is excessively slow and nearly impossible to navigate will be will enable refiners to meet the energy needs of america citizens these facilities must still meet the strictest environmental standards under current current law and it does not allow any agency or facility to short circuit environmental compliance for these legislation that would significantly alter federal law regarding the refinery permitting process without a committee hearing without a markup without even a bill without even allowing the bill to be amended on the floor this bill is a rerun of the gasoline for america's security the gas tax which was only approved by the house by two votes after republican leadership twisted arms and held the vote open for forty five minutes the gas act was a bad build in and this is a bad bil one proponents contend that the oil companies are unable to improve their refinery capacity because of excessive regulation the truth is auto companies have intentionally reduced their messick refinery capacity to drive up gas prices here three memos from chevron mobil from texaco all specifically advocating that these companies these refineries limit their refinery capacity to drive up the price of gasoline for america from september of two thousand and four to september of two thousand and five the refineries profits increased by two hundred fifty five percent during the first quarter of two thousand and six valero energy company the largest refinery in the united states reported profits sixty 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 the bait or amendment we're doing them there we're doing the american people a great disservice i encourage my republican colleagues to address real legislation that can help the consumer at the p for every single member of this house and i think it's important to note that there are does that are a part of the body that who keep coming whining about high gas prices but then they're going to turn around and vote against legislation like this repeatedly  we 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 three hundred twenty four refineries in one thousand nine hundred one today we have a hundred and forty eight we've not built a new refinery in the country since one nine hundred seventy six we've talked about refinery utilization already in this discussion today it is running consistently over ninety percent and recently as high as ninety eight 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 in this committee does and we hope other members do to 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 complying and they didn't like the gas act last year because of environmental concerns and now the bill we have on the floor today doesn't touch those existing environmental rules all that is spelled out in section six of this bill there are those protections there still we're not cooperation on this issue and it is some point we have to conclude that members who both know over and over repeated lay on energy legislation are simply telling their constituents just to get over it and live with higher gas prices you know we've had multiple hearings on the dash prices we've had multiple hearings on this issue our constituents are ready for some action we've heard from experts in the field that this bill will help our jim members from west virginia and i thank him for his leadership on this issue let me begin by saying that i've been in congress for thirty years now and served on the energy committee for thirty years and this is absolutely the worst energy bill i've seen since the refinery build the house defeated just over one month ago in fact it's this same exact bill risen from the grave like when when president bush signed the energy policy act of two thousand and five into law that bill contains a refinery citing provision those provisions were press 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 o fuel that's ten months ago on the great percentage a 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 would be kept upside down and money is being shaken out of their pockets as the american people realize that the republican party has allowed all packed in the oil industry to take advantage of every single consumer across the country this house is now poised to repeal the fine reciting law the speaker of the republican speaker praise a summer and replace it with a brand new refinance citing scheme the house republicans have come up with just another new way of helping the oil and gas industry apparently republicans were peddling on the house floor two years ago all three years ago up four years ago this bill will not reduce gas prices at the pump it will not curb spiraling gasoline hold heating oil gas would do the rex the president to designate no fewer than three close military bases to be turned over to the oil companies well used as an oil refinery mr speaker this is one terrible bill i urge the members about mr speaker gas prices are at a record high in my northern california congressional district part of the reason is that america is a refining capacity thirty years this legislation cuts through some of that red tape by simply requiring that the federal agencies work together and stay on schedule warmer finally projects are being considered i don't think it's 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 jennifer jennifer mr speaker could i inquire of the time remaining on both sides gentleman from virginia has fifteen what happened is your main gentleman from texas has twenty minutes  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 whole of the blue is that as much to do about nothing in this bill does not change the clean air clean water requirements e p a is given a priority status is simply gives ability for us to coordinate among all government agencies the permitting process which is too cumbersome and too long this is the only way that we can help 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 they see a house burning but they'll lay down in front of the street and keep the fire truck from coming to make a difference to put it out and that's what we're trying to do whether it's on o c s and offshore production on additional refining capacity or additional nuclear capabilities in our country anything that will increase our own independen and energy supply on this side we stand out in a responsible way a rational way forward and on the other side they will do everything to obstruct and to block and stop the progress that we need for greater energy production greater to run our automobiles our sapien family budgets across the nation hurting the bottom line to businesses across the nation as well and we need to do more to make our energy our nation energy independent and to reduce energy costs for our consumers we need to focus on and we need to do more to incentivize the production and distribution and use of alternative sources of energy and i'm 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  refineries and those that 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 one nine hundred seventy s and in that time of course demand for gasoline has absolutely skyrocketed the lack of new refineries limits the supply of gas at a time applied demand and it drives up costs for our consumers to many on the other side of this debate look solely at conservation or or alternative and they ignore the law of supply and demand the broader 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 cobb 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  michigan is recognized for five minutes behalf are as phony as a three dollar bill my college have seen the story predictions legislation before and they voted it down since we considered this legislation the first time no hearings the arguments made against us at that time were as good 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 is this part of the harsh fact of the matter is the refinery shortage in this country is an economic one they are companies don't 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 don't need any help and they don't want any help to build it's we look at the remarks of daniel yergin and respected oil analyst he tells us the industry has a lead added the equivalent of ten new good sized oil refineries over the last dozen years in addition to these expansions recent announcements by an industry anticipate an additional one point one million barrels  refining capacity will be added in coming years most importantly this has been done under current law a survey we could ducted recently of state and local permitting gauge provides further evidence that the environmental permitting process is not preventing new fire refineries for being built or existing refineries from being expanded only one new major refinery has requested an air permit in the past thirty years it got the permit but it never got the investor explain that proponents of the bill their permit has been granted not once but twice according to our survey permitting agencies responsible for permitting half the refiners in the country have issued all all but two major expansion permits in the less than a year after receipt of a complete application this is an ill advised bill white house under a parity of the house rules with no opportunity to a man and a little time for an intelligent debate the rule is affectively closed and permits no amendments by members on the 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 of the subcommittee i would note that i wish he were here so they can hear me say this that those statements are not true we consulted true staff and members of the like with the republicans to come forward with a fair piece of legislation 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 us a meaningful subsidy 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 related to refinery permits but also relating to federal money towards the code structure and of these refineries if you want refineries that's the way to get them because industry will never construct new refineries because they don't want them now one more curious thought my republican colleagues have said that we will have an energy bill every week and they're coming close to it but they're having some small difficulties because here they have to bring the same bill up twice once under colleagues that we passed last year with bipartisan support my assistance to my friend the chairman of the committee in drafting a piece of legislation which included refinery most curious action that is substantially repealed by this very strange piece of legislation it cannot be explained to baby i think in a few words as to why it is that that bill touted as a solution to our nation's energy problem has now repealed at least in so far as the refinery permitted prevention many times this floor i've heard debates talk about how america has lost some of its manufacturing capacity other nations particularly times we talk about defense issues such as strategic metals and many people lament that if we have lost that capacity at times of problems of national security national defense issues where 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 two million barrels a day from other countries from western europe from saudi arabia from venezuela some some countries that are more volatile politically than others the same thing occurs when we are importing other crude oil from other countries to 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 saying we're cutting off 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 ten years to go through the permitting process for a refinery a preposterous amount of time but it is important that all permits and all environmental needs are met this bil not got 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 the permit ing takes place it takes an additional two to three years to construct the plan so if we were to pass this today the senate were to pass in the present were to sign this it would be perhaps another ten years a decade before products start to flow out of there we simply cannot delay this any more it increases the demand it reduces the supply and i believe in this if the law of supply and demand is telling us anything right now is that america is demanding that lawmakers increase the supply we know that studies have been done and tell 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 what we are working on getting hydrogen fuel cell vehicles we need to pass this bill so we can get more of the supply  bill is a solution in search of a problem i really want to focus on section five 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're doing here but as written section five of the bill requires the president to designate at least three close military bases as sites for oil refineries and then it requires the local redevelopment authorities or l r a's to develop a re plan for a close space successful l r a's develop their plans in consultation with the 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 eighteen to twenty four months the all right painstakingly designs a plan that takes into account the specific needs of the local community and has local support the release plan is then submitted to the secretary of defense who has the authority to approve the plan or reject it and require the l r a to start over now i have no problem with n l r a or any local community deciding that oil refinery represents the best use of their clothes 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 that d o t that is an obstacle to building a refinery there is no problem we don't need section five but if you look at section five designation of close military bases the president shall designate it's mandatory no less than three quotes military and still installations  potentially suitable for construction of a refinery part part b the redevelopment authority shall consider the feasibility and practicality of siting a refinery on the installation and the next section contemplates that they will do that in the context of the redevelopment plan for the for the installation and then to provide the rest of it shall be carried out in conference under the 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 out the already has no power to stop them and don't think that this language applies which says that the redevelopment already free to close space will consider the president's suggestions but it is not required to accept them frankly that's just wrong the bill says that it requires the secretary of defense to consult and they defined and the regs define consultation as explaining and discussing any issue considering objections modifications and alternatives but without a requirement to reach agreement and 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 l r a and i want you to hold this concept in your head for a moment secretary rumsfeld giving significant deference to anybody any agency is specially a local redevelopment authority that is simply not going to happen the fact is that the l r a there is no requirement that an l r race except the reuse plan in this bill but of course not the underlying brac statute makes it clear that the reuse plan is not binding on b o d may i have thirty additional seconds i'm pleased to yield the gentleman thirty seconds now all right do not accept or use plans they propose them the secretary of defense except for use plans or rejects them that's his role now mr speaker communities that have suffered major base closings like brunswick and my district are reeling from the economic impact jobs will be lost the fabric of the community torn apart these communities need to plan for their future but they don't need interference from this congress or from the president of the united states please oppose this bill and with you know back down to texas has fourteen minutes remaining the gentleman from virginia has five minutes remaining from texas you know myself one minute to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from maine  to opt out of the process i'm checking with the majority parliamentarian staff but i'm willing to take an amendment on the floor right now that changes that language so 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 refined right now provision in the bill because there are communities with close bases such as a farmer lone star army and munition 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's not having one thrust upon him refineries bring jobs in the solid base of the local community and designation by the president would boost the willing communities chances again the attention of a potential commercial developer opponents of this legislation claim that the legislation will increase the likelihood that the community does not want a refinery on a closed base would get one that's ridiculous and that's exactly wrong because  required to three local redevelopment authorities consider the feasibility and practicability of setting a refinery there is no requirement to take septa and also because the secretary of defense is required to give a substantial difference to the recommendation of development authority decided not to cite helping a willing local community decide a community refinery own it's closed military installation is good it's good for the area it's good and wants once again the city and my area like t can on the far eastern side of the state of texas close to four states would have the support of four states probably eight senators not subject to the vicissitudes of nature but yet on an need to domestic refinery capacity it also lowers dramatically the cost of gasoline i urge my colleagues to support h r fifty two fifty four and i you know back my time gentleman from virginia mr speaker minutes to another distinguished member of the full committee on energy and commerce from the great granite state of new hampshire mr bascomb four minutes chairman recognized for four minutes and i thank the chairman of the commerce committee for recognizing me and mr speaker i rise in support of this piece of legislation we've heard all the good reasons why the bill should pass we need new refinery capacity we need more regional diversity in refinery capacity and we're too reliant on oil a feedstock for fuel in this country and we need to develop alternative energy resources now i know that there is work underway to write as we speak to try to figure out a way that we can accommodate the interests of my friend from maine mr allen congress an allen and his concerns over the brunswick naval air station which is a brac naval air station in his district i assure you that the section five was never a creek created with the intent of forcing any kind of refinery capacity on any community any area that didn't want it if they don't want it in maine if they don't want it somewhere else in the country they're not going to have it and there's no question about that in the language is very clear in that respect the fact is the association of defen communities does not oppose this bill and recognizes the part section 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 already got when the bill got two hundred thirty seven votes which is last count a majority of votes in this congress the last time it came up didn't get two thirds and it got a majority will work to increase that margin if we can do so in such a fashion so that we can protect the of closed air close bases to subsequently build refineries or bio refineries and we need bio refinery capacity in the northeast and it represents a potential great opportunity now we heard from other members that refinery capacity is tight for economic reasons and not because of been for environmental permits let me make a couple of points here first of all i have here a list of the major permits an authorisations that were required for arizona clean fuels and i would point out that there were thirty seven of them required thirty seven of them this bill would not short circuit one single one of those requirements not one but what it would do would allow them to occur at the same time instead of just that i've been in succession and it would make the prefer the permitting process more seamless and occur hopefully more quickly it interest me that my friends are really supporting big oil when they say that big oil doesn't want water so we shouldn't make it more possible well big oil isn't the aren't the only entities that build necessarily build refineries and i would  would 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 environmental and 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 refined more refinery capacity in this country another argot was made by my distinguished colleague from michigan that all we needed to do is to increase the size of the refinery capacity that we have today apparently my friend us has forgotten that last fall one of the major reasons why energy prices climbed by fifty cents a gallon in my part of the world is because a hurricane went through the gulf of mexico and and louisiana we need diversity of refinery capacity this country and i mean by that geographic diversity and what this bill will do is it's not promote big or fewer refineries but more refineries in more places around the country and the potential to have a bio refinery built in the northeast which is critical to my district my friends this is about an orgy there's no question about that but it's 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 speaker i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from 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 and loopholes and paybacks the results have been spectacular for the oil companies but not for the american people exxon mobil recently announced first quarter profits of over eight billion dollars and rewarded their c e o with  retirement package totally ignored nearly four hundred million dollars chevron reported its profits are up forty nine percent from last year but energy is costing the american family twice as much as it did just five years ago the republican leadership wants desperately to blame state and local governments to blame environmental requirements for the cost of gasoline that's 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 be lazy the permeating process the republican leadership wants to claim that this legislation saud's the nation's gasoline problems if anything it will make it worse mr chairman we need to reject this legislation it is based on a faulty premise it is only for the purpose of saying that we've done something without actually doing anything refinery permit promised 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's not a windfall for the oil companies that's a windfall for consumers because the chairman of the committee mentioned oh poets of this bill cite the experience of arizona claim fuels and  an example for why they say we don't need to improve the refining process where the regulatory process governing the construction of a refinery yet that example proves them wrong it took arizona clean fuels five years and four months from december one thousand ninety nine to april two thousand and five to obtain their permit it simply is not logical nor is it reasonable to i say to investors in a if you want to build a new refinery you've got to spend almost six 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's 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 e p a to be the primary scheduling agency there has been no new refinery built the united states for thirty years since one nine hundred seventy six opponents of the bill said well but that's all right we've made out that without my increased capacity existing facilities well let's say what we've done we've dropped from three hundred twenty four refineries hundred eighty one to only a hundred and forty eight refineries today relying on ever larger existing facilities without constructing new ones does not benefit the consuming public as hurricanes katrina 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 coming from virginia has three minutes remaining gentlemen texas has fo state environmental laws without effectively solving the problem the c e o s of the refinery companies have testified that the permit in process for refinery siting is not burdensome and has not prevented the construction of needed new refineries the republican bill therefore weakened state environmental laws needlessly because it would do virtually nothing to ensure that new refineries are in fact  by contrast our democratic alternative will be factories it will address our national refinery shortage i did will do so by relying on the proven and successful means by which we address several decades ago disruptions in crude oil supplies we simply would extend the proof and 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 had addressed decades ago with regard to crude oil supply disruptions so mr speaker i strongly urge rejection of the republican bill floor is not been what i would have preferred it to be and i'm going to side with my friends on the minority side in their complaints about the procedure it has not gone through the regular order and in a perfect world it should have unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world and we had to take some action on the majority side to to show the american people that we we were serious about doing anything possible to help alleviate some of these high energy prices and it is certainly my opinion and i think it's 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 twenty million barrels a day of petroleum products and we only have the refining capacity for sixteen to seventeen million barrels that is a fact it is also a fact that in the hearings that we have had on our energy price problem in this country in the energy and commerce committee that i chair that it has been shown that one of the leading causes of the higher prices has been the refining capacity shortage historically the refining industry in this country has been a loss leader if you go back ten or fifteen years ago when we had the integrated oil companies going from the production the production of the crude through their distribution in the retighten of the crude when it came to refineries in the refining they lost money so for a lot of reasons they shut the refining capacity and we developed a shortage in refining capacity today the the margin that's called the cracked margin it has nothing to do with crack cocaine it doesn't have to do with 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 and in some cases the margin is probably approaching thirty to thirty five dollars a barrel of the seventy dollars seventy two dollars prize so there is more than adequate profit but because of the regulatory impediments it is almost impossible to go through the permanent 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's been no refinery not built in this country in the last thirty years because they didn't get a permit that's a true statement but it's only half true the rest of the story is nobody in their right mind would try to get a permit to build and they were because it takes so long so that they're there they're counted beaten before they even start in the in the case in arizona where we an industrial group did go through the process to this day in spite of him saying that they have the permits but they have all but won they still don't have the permit from the bureau of lakra the united states bureau of reclamation giving them time to do the land in this case it's the land is actually owned by the federal government and i still haven't cleared the title to that land now they're going to they're going to but they haven't so the bill before us today it's not a perfect bill but it least is saying is let's appoint a federal coordinator let's work with the state and local governments let's set up a procedure where we coordinate all these part myths we don't override any state or federal or local air quality or water quality regulation what you just cited let's coordinated and oh yes let's let three sides out in the country on close 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 up a refinery there there's really no reason to oppose this bill it's not going to do any harm and it might just do some good so i heard yes vote on this bill all time for debate has expired showtimes resolution a forty two the bill is to recommit is the only means by which the democratic alternative to the republican bill could be brought to the house floor and that's under the very restrictive procedure that the republicans have adopted which eliminates any possibility for amendments including a democratic substitute regret that that restricts the process does not enable the house to consider our democratic alternative and regular order the motion that i'm offering would create a strategic refinery reserve and that would be an effective means of resolving our national problem with regard to limited refinery capacity we would modeled 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 five 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 father well fleet including the department of defense a step which would also enhance our national security keeping the refinery reserve operational will and shorten the lag time in placing up on line if it is needed in times of emergency and then those times when some portion of the nation's refinery capacity is shut down the refinery reserves would protect americans from gasoline price politics by selling their product into the commercial market this approach is sensible it is based on a working on a 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 a section five which would direct the president to select three close to military bases upon which refineries would be situated a provision which i find objectionable which i think the vast majority of the members of this house also find objectionable we would strike it in this motion and at this time i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from maine mr allen to address those concerns i thank the gentleman mr speaker i rise in strong support of the boucher dangeau 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 five that section of the underlying bill that requires the president to designate at least three close military bases and sites for oil refineries passage of this motion would guarantee that communities which 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  and that's one of the problems the other problem is another problem with the with the motion to recommit is that it actually has the government operating the refinery now i don't believe that we really want the federal government or the u s military which is part of the federal government to actually be in the business of operating a refinery if they don't operate it except in certain times times of war times of national emergency what do you do with the rest of the time the bill is 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 yeah will grant you as chairman of the committee i could see a set of rules which we were never label to get to in our negotiations where you could set up certain parameters and certain backstops and certain things where maybe we could overcome that but 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  twenty eight zero three again this is a fifteen minute about on the motion