United States Refinery Revitalization Act of 2004

Mr. Speaker, we have now gone about 1,000 days since the attack on this country on 9/11, and this bill is supposed to deal with our efforts to protect the homeland. I think that to evaluate how good those efforts are, we need to compare the challenges with the resources that we are applying to meet those challenges. And if we do, I think there will be no doubt that we are mistakenly trying to do this job on the cheap.

Let me give my colleagues some examples of inadequacies in this appropriations bill.

Air cargo. Air cargo is a huge threat to the safety of the flying public. If the public understood what a tiny percentage of cargo that is shipped on passenger planes is actually inspected, they would be shocked. It is a tiny percentage. We ought to do something about that. This bill prevents us from doing that.

The gentleman from Florida discussed correctly the need for more in- line explosive detection devices at airports. We wanted to try to do that in the bill; but, again, we are precluded from doing that by the budget ceiling. The chairman of the committee himself has indicated how important that is. Yet we are not going to be able to make any significant advances on that front under this bill.

If we take a look at the problem that we have with military pilots being able to communicate with commercial pilots, if you have a terrorist incident or a potential terrorist incident and a military aircraft is trying to track a civilian aircraft, it would be kind of nice if those two pilots could talk directly to each other and to the ground. But right now, we do not have the software system in place that will enable that to happen. That is a dumb omission.

We also have some problems with respect to ports.

Now, the new idea in protecting our ports is to establish inspectors at foreign ports so that they can review what goes into those cargo container boxes before they ever leave that port on their way to the United States. But we have a big problem. There are only 20 ports out of the 45 major ports that we need to cover where we have that kind of inspection activity going on; we have none going on in China, and China imports three times as much through cargo shipping as does Hong Kong, for instance.

Worse yet, the inspectors on the job in those foreign ports are assigned temporary duty for about 6 months apiece. They cannot get to know the territory; they cannot get to know the people they work with in those ports during that time. They should be long-term assignments, but we do not have the money in the bill to do that.

The northern border. The PATRIOT Act, with all of its problems, the PATRIOT Act required that we have a specific number of inspectors on the northern border. We are 2,000 short of the number that was supposedly guaranteed by the PATRIOT Act. First responders, those are the policemen, the firemen who deal with the incidents where they occur in the local community, on the ground, we have been told by the Rudman- Hart Commission that there is about $90 billion worth of need that we need to address. We have only met about 15 percent of that need.

We have fewer firefighters in this country today than we had on 9/11. Do you call that progress?

And then, we have the massive problems in the Homeland Security Agency. Of the 500 career slots in that agency, or roughly 500 career slots, 171 of them are vacant. Twenty-five percent of the slots in that agency are filled by political appointees. Is it any wonder that there is considerable chaos?

More than a year after the reorganization, that agency still does not have a phone directory. I was talking to a fellow 2 days ago who was trying to talk to the Homeland Security Agency about getting a contract, to meet a need that they were advertising; he did not even know who to call or how to find out because they do not have a phone directory.

It does not make a lot of sense.

General Zinni has made the point that when it comes to dealing with this terrorist threat that we have a lot of tactical activities going on but not very many strategic. I just think we need to face the fact this bill is not adequate.

And then, as has already been mentioned by several other Members, it has this weird feature which allows the Homeland Security Agency to give a contract that would be valued up to $10 billion to a company for the purpose of tracking who crosses our borders, they want to give that contract to a company that has already jumped our borders and decided they will locate for tax purposes in Bermuda. That means they duck their taxes, and your constituents and mine get the privilege of making up the difference.

Great deal. Great deal. That is why I would urge every Member of this House to vote against the previous question on the rule so we can offer amendments to correct these problems and to vote against the rule if we cannot bring down the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I am inserting in the Record at this point the text of the comments I made in the report accompanying the Homeland Security Appropriation bill made in order by this rule.

Additional Views of David Obey

It has been a thousand days since al Qaeda launched its

first successful attack within U.S. borders. Since that time

many changes have taken place inside our country and in the

way we deal with other nations around the world. Most of

those changes have been justified as steps that were

necessary to insure that nothing like September 11th ever

happens again. But how much progress have we really made? How

far have we come in reducing the likelihood that it will

happen again?

One thousand days has often been viewed as a period of time

for communities and even whole nations to stop and take

stock. What have we done right? What have we done wrong? What

are our largest remaining areas of vulnerability? What are

our prospects of getting hit again?

I think our efforts to prevent future terrorist attacks can

be divided into three stages. The first step was to hit al

Qaeda and hit them hard. Take the battle to them. Destroy

their leadership; their ability to communicate; their ability

to raise and transfer funds; their ability to obtain weapons

and to move members between countries and most importantly,

their capacity to organize attacks against the United States.

The second step was to understand the factors in the Arab

and Muslim worlds that feed this kind of senseless anger and

why that anger has been directed toward the United States.

Why did so many ordinary people in the Muslim world cheer on

September 11th and what does it take to reduce or at least

redirect the anger that is now so focused on us.

Thirdly, what are we doing to upgrade our defenses here at

home? What goals have we set? Do they make sense? How well

have we performed in reaching those goals?

Attack Against Al Qaeda

With respect to the first goal, I think the United States

has for the most part performed well particularly if we look

at the early stages of our effort and if we view al Qaeda as

an organization, rather than an idea or a cause. The

organization's leadership has been significantly diminished.

While a number of its most senior leaders have survived, the

best evidence indicates that they have grave difficulty

communicating with others in the organization or playing any

kind of day-to-day leadership role. Significant numbers of

lesser figures in the organization are still at large and

they are very dangerous. But they face much greater

challenges moving about the world, receiving the training

necessary to successfully execute large scale attacks and

getting the materials and support necessary to launch such

attacks.

The initial phases of our attack against al Qaeda were

highly successful. The planning and execution of the

overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan was a high-water mark

in our efforts against terrorism. The initial cooperation

that we received in the wake of September 11th--from our

traditional allies in Europe and also from nations across the

globe that have at times been less than friendly to U.S.

interests was also impressive.

losing focus in afghanistan

But somehow, we lost our focus. Having destroyed the

Taliban's capability to rule Afghanistan we did not move

aggressively to insure that the government that we support in

its stead could fill the void. We did not invest anything

like the level of resources for Afghanistan that was needed

to make rapid, noticeable changes in the quality of life.

Because of that, in a large portion of the country, we did

not have the leverage to strengthen the hand of central

government, extend the rule of law, and deny terrorists safe

haven. We also did not sufficiently exert our influence to

insure that the Afghan army that we were attempting to build

was representative enough of the various ethnic and tribal

groups across the country to become a credible force for

stability and unification.

But the attack on al Qaeda began to loose steam outside of

Afghanistan as well. Talented intelligence operatives with

highly specialized knowledge of Arab culture, language and

political behavior were diverted from the listening posts and

operations centers across the Arab world where al Qaeda

activity was most likely to surface to undertake a quite

different mission. Financial resources, talented

administrators and trainers who might have helped our allies

in the Arab world improve their own military and intelligence

capabilities against indigenous terrorist organizations were

also diverted. The striking momentum that characterized the

early phases of our efforts against Al Qaeda has greatly

dissipated. The organization has lost much of its backbone,

but many of its pieces are still out there attempting to

reorganize and regenerate the segments that have been lost.

We no longer have the focus to our effort to insure that that

does not happen.

Still, you would have to say that our efforts against al

Qaeda have been a success--at least if al Qaeda is viewed

simply as an organization. The problem is that al Qaeda is as

much as idea as it is an organization and ideas are hard to

kill. Bullets can kill organizations--they sometimes only

strengthen ideas.

As General Anthony Zinni said recently in a lecture before

the Center for Strategic and International Studies, while we

may be winning the war on terrorism on a tactical level, on

the strategic level we don't appear to even have a plan.

Osama bin Laden never intended al Qaeda to be the command

structure for the jihad against the United States. The term

``al Qaeda'' means simply, ``the base.'' Bin Laden wanted to

create a network to support and encourage jihad. He wanted to

attack and overthrow the Arab governments around the world

that he viewed as corrupt and out of sync with his views on

the teachings of the Koran and he wanted to attack the

foreign power that stood behind most of those governments--

the United States. Bin Laden's challenge was to create a

blueprint that could be used for such attacks and to inspire

large numbers of disgruntled members of the Arab and Muslim

world to follow that blueprint. He wanted to create a

movement that represented more than a small army of

terrorists--a movement that could bring down moderate Arab

governments and, with the overwhelming support of Arab

peoples, drive the United States from the Middle East.

American Image in Arab World

While bin Laden has suffered huge organizational setbacks

over the past thousand days, he has been enormously

successful in progress made toward his one strategic

objective. He has captured the attention of the Arab world

and much of the Muslim world. To a remarkable degree he has

even won their sympathies, and in some instances, their

commitment. If we wish to reverse that, we must begin to

think strategically as well as tactically. We must succeed in

our efforts to take the second step, to reshape the image of

the United States in the Arab and Muslim worlds. We must not

only strengthen the determination of our friends in the

region to resist terrorism but also encourage them to address

the underlying problems that feed it. Even for many of the

brightest and most industrious young people in many Arab

countries, hope is in short supply. While the energy

resources of the region have brought great wealth to a few, a

chance has largely been missed for many governments to use

those resources to build opportunity economies.

How we change our image in the Arab world and what policies

we should pursue to accomplish it is an issue that will spark

debate and some division in this country. That debate needs

to begin and it is the responsibility of leaders in both the

executive and legislative branches to begin it.

Upgrading Our Defenses At Home

Given how poorly we have done over the past thousand days

in stemming the anti-American passions in the Middle East, it

is even more important that we do a good job in the third

step required for a successful strategy: upgrading our

defenses here at home.

In evaluating our performance on that front, it is

important that we distinguish motion from movement. I am

afraid that in many respects we have had more activity than

we have had progress.

On September 11th, we had more than 130 agencies and

activities of the federal government engaged in some aspect

of homeland security. Those pieces of the bureaucracy were

spread across most of the Departments of the federal

government. There was no central capacity to oversee or

monitor how well they worked together. Many of these agencies

had only a fraction of the resources necessary to accomplish

the security tasks that experts in the field believed could

prevent future attacks.

So, after a thousand days, what has changed?

Homeland Security On The Cheap

Well, we are certainly spending more money. The government

is spending about $5 billion a year more just on airport

baggage and passenger screening. We have expanded the size of

the customs service and the immigration service. We have

bought new equipment in our ports to screen cargo coming into

the United States from international shipping and we have had

a significant

growth in law enforcement activities. But if you compare

the challenge we face with the resources we are using to

meet those challenges, it is clear we are trying to do

this on the cheap. We are like someone with a good paying

job who must get to work on time every day in order to

keep that job. But instead of building the most reliable

car he can find, he gets a fifteen year old model--one

that will get him there most of the time but will

eventually cost him his good paying job.

Failure in establishing our defenses against terrorism

places lives at risk. It also puts at risk our capacity as a

society to generate wealth. Although the greatest loss would

most certainly be measured in human life, penny pinching on

necessary security is foolhardy from a simple economic

perspective.

This legislation continues funding failures

Many in government, including the President and the

Attorney General, have warned that we are likely to be

attacked by terrorists on our homeland within the next nine

months. Given this information, you would think that we would

be doing everything humanly possible to improve the security

of our homeland. The legislation accompanying this report is

the prime vehicle to provide the resources to do that.

Unfortunately, it represents a stark failure to improve

protection of our citizens in any meaningful way against the

wide-ranging scope of the threat facing us today.

The fact is that we are not doing all we can to protect

Americans from another terrorist attack. The legislation

accompanying this report provides an increase of $2.8 billion

or 9.4 percent over the previous year. Yet excluding Project

Bioshield and user fees, the bill is only $1.1 billion or 5

percent above the previous year. Despite the Department's

huge security responsibilities, this is only slightly above

inflation.

This legislation provides a resource level equal to only

slightly more than inflation for our customs and border

protection and enforcement operations and for port security.

Worse, this legislation cuts funding for programs designed to

improve the response capabilities of our local police,

firefighters and emergency responders by $327 million or

seven percent from 2004.

OMB's homeland security spending analysis

OMB has prepared an analysis of homeland security spending

which is seriously flawed. Programs that were not counted as

homeland security a few years ago have now suddenly been

shifted into the homeland security category in order to

convey the impression of a greater increase in effort than

has actually taken place. Nonetheless, the OMB exercise is

instructive for getting a big picture sense of what we are

doing to address critical security issues. In total, OMB

argues that we have gone from spending $20 billion a year--or

about two tenths of one percent of GDP in fiscal 2000--to $46

billion a year, or less then four-tenths of one percent

today. That means that, even based on OMB accounting, our

increase in homeland security spending has been less than two

tenths of one percent. To provide some perspective on that

number, the share of GDP paid in federal taxes has dropped

from 20.8% to 16.4% during that same period--a decline of

4.4% or twenty two times the size of the increase in

spending to protect against terrorism.

Another perspective on the level of effort we have made

thus far is the oft-used analogy of Pearl Harbor. Pearl

Harbor led us to the creation of the concept of Gross

Domestic Product. The Roosevelt Administration believed that

it might require 50% of our total output to take on the

Germans and the Japanese simultaneously. They asked the

Commerce Department to develop a method of measuring national

output. They not only produced the concept that is now used

around the world to measure economic activity, but they were

also actually able to reach that goal of spending nearly half

of the nation's output on the war effort.

We do not need to put 50% of our output into this war or

even 5%. Whether you think that our war effort in Iraq is

associated with the war on terror or is a separate and

competing activity, expenditures related to that activity

account for more than 1% of GDP--more than twice as much as

we are spending on activities directly related to protecting

the homeland. Given that fact, it is blatantly ridiculous to

pretend that we cannot afford what we need to protect against

terrorist attacks.

Another major attack could erase a trillion or two trillion

dollars from the total valuation of the New York Stock

Exchange. It could substantially slow the pace of economic

growth for a year or more. Again, the most important

consequence of a terrorist attack is the loss of human life,

but penny pinching on homeland security makes no sense. Even

if we consider only the economics of the issue, the Institute

for the Analysis of Global Security found that the cost of

the 9/11 attack was nearly 2 trillion dollars, including the

loss in stock market wealth, lower corporate profits and

higher discount rates for economic volatility.

Now it should be noted that the Administration's FY 2005

budget attempts to make a case that in future years we can

reduce the size of federal deficits from the current record

levels and still afford additional tax cuts. In making that

case their projections for future year spending levels in

various categories of the budget are revealing. Homeland

Security spending is essentially locked into place at current

levels. In fact, what OMB is telling us is that unless the

American people or the Congress force a change in priorities,

what we have now for securing the nation is all that we are

going to get and could decline by as much as $900 million.

But the question we should be asking is: Are we really

doing enough? Are there things that we really ought to be

doing that the resource levels we have allocated to the

problem prevent us from doing?

aviation security gaps remain

One lesson from September 11th that virtually no one could

miss is the need to secure our airlines and our airways. We

have spent considerably more on this objective than on any

area of homeland security. But there are a surprising number

of resource issues still unaddressed with respect to

protecting our airways.

For example, we still do not have an effective system of

explosive detection. Put more directly, it is still much too

easy to get explosive materials onto passenger airlines.

The Transportation Security Administration has identified

equipment that could have provided us with that capability.

It's expensive, (it would have cost close to $3 billion to

install the equipment nationwide) but it would have

dramatically improved our capacity to detect explosive

materials. It also would have significantly reduced the

number of screeners required in airports around the country.

In fact, the savings in TSA personnel costs from the use of

this equipment was estimated to be large enough to offset the

entire cost of the equipment.

The Transportation Security Administration proposed to OMB

that the agency purchase much of the needed equipment when it

was preparing its plans to meet the 2002 explosive detection

requirement set in law. But OMB decided that the expense

could not be accommodated within the tight, arbitrary limits

for homeland security spending which the President and the

Director of OMB had decided to impose. Republicans in

Congress then adopted a budget resolution that did not

provide the Appropriations Committee with the latitude to

move forward with the purchase. As a result we do not have an

effective system of detecting explosive materials and that

failure is due entirely to artificial constraints on

resources and incompetent budgeting. TSA has recently

acknowledged that the more expensive machines would pay for

themselves within 3 to 5 years.

Following September 11th there was broad recognition of the

fact that we needed to restart the sky marshals program and

insure that there were enough marshals on domestic and

international passenger flights so that potential highjackers

would always have to think twice about the likelihood that a

sky marshal might be present on a targeted flight.

Now the exact number of marshals that the President and the

Congress agreed were necessary has remained classified. But

few people realize that we are no longer operating at that

level. No one has come forward with convincing arguments that

the level was too high or that adequate safety can be assured

at a lower level. We have simply once again allowed arbitrary

budget limits, applied to one small portion of the budget, to

drive a decision that may unnecessarily put a great many

Americans at risk. Under the President's budget submission

for Fiscal 2005, we will have 20% fewer sky marshals than the

President and the Congress agreed that we needed just two

years ago. That is in spite of the fact that there has been a

significant increase during that period in the number of

domestic and international flights and in the number of

passenger miles flown.

We have had--and continue to have--serious communications

problems between military pilots who have the ultimate

responsibility to insure that commercial aircraft are not

used to crash into buildings (and the commercial aircraft and

the FAA system that controls them). Quite simply, military

and commercial flight systems cannot easily and quickly talk

to one another and the potential that leaves for

miscalculation and mistakes it horrific.

Despite the fact that this problem could be solved for

relatively little money, the military felt the commercial

system should foot the problem and the FAA and the airlines

felt it should be addressed in the military budget. OMB

decided the cheapest solution was not to decide.

Finally, last fall, I decided for them. The $10 million

that was needed was earmarked in the Defense Appropriation

bill. I suppose that's a good ending to the story, except

that the delay in funding means that the system will not be

operative until 2006. That gives you one more thing to think

about when you board a plane. It also provides more than a

little insight into how decisions about homeland security are

being sorted out within the executive branch.

rail vulnerabilities

These examples of inaction with respect to airway security

are serious, but they do not begin to compare with the nearly

total abdication of our responsibility to assure the safety

of rail transportation. As the recent attacks in Spain have

demonstrated, our enemy is not wedded to attacks on any

single transportation mode. He will watch and wait until he

finds a vulnerability that can be exploited.

Rail is vulnerable in two ways. One is from attacks against

our freight rail system that handles a huge portion of the

materials,

products and chemicals that allow our economy to function.

The second is from attacks (like those in Spain) against the

roughly 13 million Americans who use passenger rail systems

each day.

Luckily, the Department of Transportation and other

agencies in the executive branch began a process of sharing

classified threat information with the nation's rail freight

carriers in the late 1990s. The plans developed as a result

of that process are in place and provide a foundation for

significant security upgrades. But the plans are dependent

upon the federal government meeting certain obligations it

accepted during the planning process. Under those plans

federal security forces are specifically required to monitor

tracks and facilities. Not only have we failed to do that but

we have not even designated the agency or department that

will supply the forces or establish a means of training them.

As disquieting as the lack of progress in securing our

heavy freight and passenger rail systems may be, the security

efforts on behalf of transit systems is even worse.

lack of progress in transit security

The White House has failed to mediate the dispute between

the Departments of Homeland Security and Transportation over

who is actually in charge of transit security. A General

Accounting Agency report recommending a resolution of the

issue has been rejected by both departments. The impasse

continues despite the fact that it is halting any significant

progress in securing the systems and despite the fact that

transit systems have been the most frequent worldwide targets

of terrorist attacks.

Neither Department is willing to spend even a small

fraction of the security related costs most experts feel is

necessary. Department of Transportation security funding for

transit systems totals $37 million in the current year and

the Department of Homeland Security has allocated only $115

million over the past two years. This legislation contains

only $111 million for rail and transit security needs. In

contrast, the transit industry estimates that $6 billion

is needed for security training, radio communications

systems, security cameras and limiting access to sensitive

facilities.

What is the Department of Homeland Security's answer to

these unmet needs?

They testified this spring that more funds are not

necessary until they have had a better opportunity to define

the problem. Now, that is an orderly approach, which we

should applaud as long as the Department can guarantee al

Qaeda's cooperation with their schedule. My concern is that

the Department is likely to get some help they have not asked

for in developing a definition of the transit security

problem.

The Department has clearly become aware of how vulnerable

they are to criticism about their lack of serious attention

to transit issues. Only two weeks ago, in a classic move to

cover their bureaucratic backsides, they issued a directive

to transit systems ordering them to take a series of actions

that the Department's own data collection system indicates

have already been completed by the vast majority of transit

authorities across the country.

cargo container vulnerabilities

Since September 11 the vulnerability that has most troubled

many experts has been maritime cargo and the exposure of our

ports to a nuclear, chemical or biological attack from a

weapon placed in a shipping container. As the president of

the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Tom Donohue, has pointed out,

such an event could cause death and destruction on a scale

far beyond the attacks launched on September 11. It could

virtually shut down our global trading system for an extended

period of time. The economic consequences would be almost

incalculable. Terms like ``economic downturn'' or

``recession'' would not begin to describe the aftermath.

The Bush Administration has spent billions looking for new

technologies with the capacity to knock a nuclear warhead out

of the sky if it were launched in the nose cone of an

intercontinental ballistic missile. It has invested heavily

in the development of other technologies that are intended to

serve that purpose but probably cannot. But they seem

unresponsive to the fact that a rogue or a terrorist

organization can simply place such a weapon in a shipping

container and explode it upon arrival in New York Harbor or

in Los Angeles, San Francisco, New Orleans or Boston. A ship

can bring into this country a far less complicated weapon

than one which could be placed on an ICBM. It can be massive

in size and its does not need to even be thermonuclear in

order to cause massive numbers of casualties, destruction and

economic chaos.

So what have we done to protect ourselves? Protecting our

ports is not unlike protecting our airports. We need to have

multiple security perimeters. The first should be overseas.

That requires a whole new approach to cargo inspection. It

requires that our inspectors leave the United States,

establish cooperative relationships with port security

officials in countries around the world that ship to the

United States. It requires that they establish a system of

certification and best practices with major exporters

around the world.

This is not a Democratic proposal. This is roughly the

proposal that George Bush's own appointed head of the Customs

Service, Bob Bonner, took to the White House in months

immediately following September 11th. It is the proposal that

the Council on Foreign Relations Task Force, headed by former

Senators Rudman and Hart had endorsed. It is the proposal

that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has written editorials to

support.

But the White House waited until last year to request the

first dime for this effort. Whatever presence the United

States has had in foreign ports over the past one thousand

days has been entirely as a result of Congressional increases

to homeland security spending--increases that were opposed by

the White House, increases that the White House threatened at

various stages in the legislative process to veto, and

increases which on one occasion the White House did veto.

Last year, the White House reversed themselves and finally

requested a portion of the funds that were needed for

container security. Their position changed from, ``we can't

afford it'' to ``we needed to wait.'' That is a turnaround

and I suppose we should welcome it. But the $126 million that

the president has proposed for FY2005, and is contained in

this legislation, will not adequately fund the program. It

will not even allow us to fully staff the 45 foreign ports

where DHS had planned to inspect all manifest documents. It

will not permit our current foreign inspection programs to

become permanent. We are currently in only 17 ports. We

currently have no container security presence in China, the

biggest U.S. trading partner in terms of cargo containers.

The number of cargo containers arriving to the U.S. from

China is more than three times those arriving from Hong Kong.

More troubling than the mere question of resources is the

lack of political or bureaucratic clout behind this critical

initiative. If having inspection agents working with foreign

customs officials is to be a truly effective means of

understanding what is in foreign ships before they leave for

U.S. ports, it requires developing long term relationships

between our agents and those who control the foreign ports we

wish to monitor.

This involves a new level of training and expertise for our

customs agents. It involves establishing continuity in the

relationship we have with host governments in terms of what

we expect to get and what incentives we can provide to those

who cooperate. Nothing could be more destructive to this

effort than to rotate in and out of foreign ports agents with

only a few months of experience based on a deliberate system

of staffing through temporary assignment. But that is

precisely what we have done. In the few foreign ports where

we do have a presence, that presence is a U.S. customs

officer detailed there on a six-month temporary duty

assignment. Those agents don't even know what the problems

were between the U.S. and the host government when the

program was initiated. They are certainly not people that

officials of the host government would want to invest much

time in getting to know--they will be gone before there is

any pay off from developing a relationship.

port vulnerabilities

If the overseas effort to identify the contents of cargo

containers is the outer perimeter for protecting our ports,

the ability of the Coast Guard to interdict, board and

inspect U.S. bound shipping at sea is the next perimeter. Yet

the Coast Guard's capacity to perform that function has also

been restrained by lack of resources. The Administration

frequently states that the Coast Guard is now boarding all

vessels that are deemed to be ``high interest.'' That means

80% of all other vessels are not boarded.

Observing, tracking and controlling ships as they approach

and enter into American waters is the next perimeter in

securing our ports. Systems have been developed that are very

similar to the systems by which air traffic control directs

airplanes entering into U.S. airspace and approaching U.S.

airports. These systems, however, are available in only nine

ports, leaving 45 major ports without such a system. Again,

this is penny wise and pound foolish. It is also a bad

decision in terms of long-term cost effectiveness. More

automated systems permit more rapid detection of ships that

are not following control directives; they can be operated by

fewer people and are long-term cost savers.

And, inside our ports, there are numerous critical issues.

One is preventing unauthorized persons from having access to

ships, containers or post storage areas. A second is

protecting hazardous chemicals and materials from attack. The

Coast Guard estimated that the 185 commercial seaports in the

United States would need about $7 billion to assess

vulnerabilities and take necessary action to correct those

vulnerabilities. These port authorities do not, in most

instances, have the revenue raising authority to pay any

significant portion of these costs. This year was the first

time the Administration requested any money whatsoever for

this purpose, and it only requested $46 million. The Congress

has been able to appropriate only $587 million or less than

10% of the money needed to do the job. This legislation

includes an additional $125 million for port security, which

will keep us on the slow-moving path to addressing all of our

port vulnerabilities.

securing our land borders

Another major priority has been securing our land borders--

in particular, the 3000 mile U.S. border with Canada or 5000

miles if we include Alaska. Despite our continuing strong

economic and political ties to Canada, the situation of the

two nations with respect to potential terrorist attacks is

quite different. Canada's smaller role in world affairs and

the image of Canada in the eyes of

the international community make it a much less likely target

of attack than the U.S. At the same time, Canada's vast

geography and relatively small population have led to far

more lenient immigration policies than those in place in the

United States.

As a result there will continue to be significant

differences between the two countries on how external

security concerns are managed. That means that the question

of how to control our border and the movement of people and

cargo across that border is suddenly a matter of much greater

concern.

Recognizing that concern, the Congress included language in

the Patriot Act calling for the tripling of the number of

border agents and inspectors on the Canadian border above the

levels we maintain on September 11th. As of October 2003, we

were still more than 2000 people short of this goal. In

addition, there was a clear need for significant additional

equipment on the Canadian border to insure that those new

people would be efficiently put to work: equipment like air

stations, radiation monitors, and surveillance equipment.

To date we have fewer than 4000 agents and inspectors on

the border. In other words, about one third of the positions

promised in the Patriot Act are still unfilled. The FY 2005

budget promises no increases from current levels. And the

President' out-year budget projection provides a strong

indication that personnel strength at the border will

actually decline rather than increase over the next five

years. With respect to equipment, we have provided the first

air station (again one not requested by the Administration)

and some radiation monitors, but have made no critical

investments in things such as surveillance equipment.

preparing those who respond to terrorist attacks

The events of September 11th made clear that the brave men

and women serving in the police, fire and emergency medical

units in New York, New Jersey, Virginia, District of Columbia

and Maryland needed a significant amount of additional

equipment and training to more effectively respond to the

types of attacks that occurred on that day. It was also

apparent that first responder units across the nation did not

have most of the equipment they would need to deal with a

nuclear, chemical or biological attack.

The needs of local first responders were spelled out in

considerable detail in the Rudman-Hart reports. But the

federal government has already allowed most of the burden to

fall on local governments. Since the capacity of those local

governments to support such investments in the tough economic

times is limited, progress in equipping first responders has

been minimal.

Of the $98 billion in first responder needs identified by

the Rudman-Hart report, the Feds have provided less than

$14.5 billion, or 15%. As a result only 13% of fire

departments can effectively respond to a hazmat incident. An

estimated 57,000 firefighter's lack the personal protective

clothing needed in a chem-bio attack. An estimated \1/3\ of

firefighters per shift are not equipped with self-contained

breathing apparatus and nearly half of the available units

are 10 years old. Only half of all emergency responders on

shift have portable radios. And we still have massive needs

for interoperable communications equipment. On site emergency

personnel working for different agencies need to be able to

talk to each other. We will probably never know how many

victims in the World Trade Centers could have been saved if

they had known that they needed to evacuate the buildings. We

know that was a communication problem of disastrous

proportions.

This legislation cuts funding for programs designed to

improve the response capabilities of our local police,

firefighters and emergency responders by $327 million or

seven percent from 2004. These professionals are put on the

front line risking their lives every day. They are especially

put at risk when terrorists attack our homeland, as we saw

from the number who died at the World Trade Center. These

professionals need to be prepared for the various types of

attacks we may face and they are not fully prepared today.

It is disgraceful that this legislation provides less

funding in this area, not more.

These are only a few examples of where corners have been

cut in establishing the line of defense here at home.

inadequate homeland security leadership

But there is more to the story than simply talking about

resources. In many instances, we have not had the leadership

necessary to organize available resources in effective ways.

Prior to the creation of the Department of Homeland

Security, the White House identified 133 separate agencies

and activities within the federal government that played a

role with respect to homeland security. The creation of a

Department was the Administration's answer as to how to

better manage and coordinate those disparate activities. The

problem, however, is that only 22 of those 133 activities

became part of the new department. A total of 111 agencies

and activities, including the FBI, the CIA, the Defense

Department and many other key components of the overall

effort remained on the outside.

But for whatever reason, the effort to have centralized

control and coordination of all of those activities within

the White House was diminished. When Tom Ridge went to DHS

his replacement within the White House was not given the same

clout to knock heads together and insure that Departments and

agencies are working together toward a common mission. Too

frequently, we have had 112 units of government headed off on

their own with no central coordination, as Attorney General

Ashcroft's press conference and the reaction within the

administration to that press conference last week so clearly

demonstrated.

And even within the new department there have been serious

problems. In its first year of operation, DHS has

disappointed even those with low expectations. Bureaucratic

snarls have been so intense that on its first anniversary the

Department still did not have a working phone directory. My

staff has been asking for one for more than six months and

has yet to receive it. It has also been reported that when

callers phone the Department's hotline number, it just rings

and rings. Members of Congress from the President's own party

have expressed grave concerns about the inability of the

Department to respond to requests for information in any kind

of a reasonable time frame.

One possible cause of the rampant chaos at the department

has been the injection of a huge number of political

appointees. Since the creation of the Department more than

one quarter of all personnel who have been hired for

departmental operations have been political appointees. These

individuals often appear more fixated on positioning

themselves politically than on the nuts and bolts security

problems, which the Department must address. We have seen a

huge number of press releases promoting the Departments

efforts but we have few concrete efforts worthy of such self-

promotion. We, for instance, still do not have regulations

regarding the licensing and registration of hazardous

material truckers nor do we the detailed guidance for

flight and cabin crew training to prepare for potential

threat conditions which was mandated by the Aviation and

Transportation Security Act more than two years ago.

Typically, political appointees remain in their appointed

positions for less than 24 months. At that point, they are

off to some other part of the administration or headed back

into the private sector. That means building true long-term

competency within any Department is heavily dependent on

recruiting a committed professional career staff. But the 114

political appointees now swarming the halls at DHS have--if

anything--impeded that process. Of the 500 career positions

needed to run the department, 171 remain vacant. One of the

most critical positions in any Department is that of Budget

Director. In only 14 months DHS has had three budget

directors.

Ironically, this legislation provides funding that is

sixty-two percent higher than this year for Departmental

Operations. Even though we were told that formation of the

Department of Homeland Security would not cost us a dime, it

now appears that the Administration has realized that this

was not true: $65 million is provided in this legislation for

the Department's headquarters and $70 million is provided for

the ``security-critical'' new personnel system. I do not

question the need for this funding. But I do think that it is

instructive that these are higher priorities for the

Administration and the Committee majority than are protecting

our border, ports, transit, and aviation system.

Instead, this $135 million could have been used to purchase

and install hundreds of additional radiation portal monitors

at our borders and ports. The Committee majority admits that

it is, and I quote this report, ``aware of a need for over

1,000 more'' radiation portal monitors than are funded by the

Committee.

Instead, this $135 million could have been used to inspect

a much greater percentage of air cargo for explosives than we

do today. While the Committee report calls for a doubling of

the screening for explosives of cargo carried on passenger

airplanes, this ``doubling'' still leaves a large percentage

of such cargo at risk.

Instead, this $135 million could have been used to secure

additional critical infrastructure, like chemical facilities,

transit systems and ports. The Committee majority agreed with

the Administration's plan to have only thirty-five percent of

protective actions that it recommends actually implemented

for ``first tier priority critical infrastructure

components''. What this means is that sixty-five percent of

the actions the Department recommends to protect the public

will not be implemented next year.

The Administration and the Committee majority seem to be

very patient when it comes to protecting our citizens on our

homeland. Unlike them, I remain unconvinced that terrorists

will wait a decade for their next attack.

congress should not abdicate its role

About a year and a half ago I spoke to a group of reporters

at the National Press Club about where the country stood at

that time in protecting itself against terrorist attacks. I

feel that the coverage of that event was fair and I think we

exposed some problems that, as a result of that coverage,

have been fixed. But I also think that the press and the

public have a presumption that this is such a complex issue

that we simply have to trust the President and his advisors

in the Executive Branch to do what is right. I think many of

my colleagues in Congress have felt the same way. While I

understand people's tendency to leave this complex calculus

to the ``experts,'' I think this town is currently awash in

new information about the decision making process within this

administration which indicates that is a bad idea!

First of all, that is not the approach to decision making

that the Constitution requires of us. It is our job to

second-guess. When so much is at stake, the Congress, the

press and the public have the clearest possible obligation to

insure that the decision making within the Executive Branch

is measured, deliberate, based on the best available

information, and consistent with the quality of judgment

befitting the seriousness of the risks to which we are

exposed. Had that happened in the wake of 9/11 or even a year

and a half ago there are many points in this statement that I

might have been able to leave out.

One problem in all of this, frankly, is that it was hard

for the press and the public to believe much of what I

reported a year and a half ago. While the facts presented in

that statement were well documented they presented a picture

of executive branch decision-making that was wholly

inconsistent with what the nation or the press corps wanted

to believe. It was hard to accept the idea that in this

moment of great national crisis we did not have systematic

methods of screening information, examining policy choices,

debating the pluses and minuses of each alternative, and

making strategic choices based on an exhaustive effort to

find the best possible alternative. But in recent months we

have learned time and time again that this was not the nature

of decision-making within this administration.

Ron Suskind, using the exhaustive notes and papers of

Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, tells of an extraordinary

decision making process in which information is collected on

the basis of decisions that preceded them. Richard Clarke

describes a process both before and after 9/11 that was quite

similar. So does Bob Woodward.

My own experience with the President himself, demonstrates

that this President has listened as infrequently to those in

the Congress who know something about homeland security as he

did to our allies or the career American military before

rushing into Iraq.

But any one who has been listening these last few months is

pretty well aware of the fact that we were not vigilant and

were not picking up on clear information of elevated threat

levels prior to 9/11. We did not respond in the summer of

2001 to that threat in the same manner that we responded 18

months earlier when similar threat information triggered a

massive response to the millennium threat. We did not have an

orderly or honest process to measure the pluses and minuses

of invading Iraq. People at the highest levels silenced,

dissent and criticism and irreversible actions were taken

based on flawed information.

We based our plans for security and reconstruction of Iraq

on intelligence from a single organization outside of this

government which both the State Department and the CIA said

was unreliable. Unfortunately, that is all spilt milk. Even

if we understand those mistakes, we can't go back and try it

again.

What I am talking about today is not spilt milk. We can

correct these policy mistakes and we can possibly correct

them in a time frame that will prevent the next attack. It

all depends on whether we are ready to get real.

Now, I am not optimistic by nature. Perhaps it is merely my

nature that leads me to believe that the cauldron that is

today boiling in Southwest Asia, North Africa and the Middle

East will likely spill over once more onto the shores of

North America. If we are not ready, I do not want to look

myself in the mirror for the rest of my life and wonder why I

didn't ask tougher questions or insist on more responsible

and responsive policies. I think the overall performance of

our government to date in the area of homeland security

merits a greater sense of skepticism and urgency on the part

of the press and the general public as well.

We lived in a more dangerous world prior to September 11th

than most Americans realized. Our efforts to making the world

safer have met with mixed results and the numbers of persons

who wish us harm and will go to great lengths to inflict harm

have grown steadily during the past thousand days. Clearly

some of our efforts have done little more than fed the flames

of discontent and hatred.

That places even greater pressure on our last lines of

defense, protecting our borders, our transportation systems

and our capacity to respond to terrorist acts in this country

if, God forbid, they are again committed. But as the facts I

have today outlined well document, those efforts remain under

funded and poorly managed. The President proposed that we

have 20% fewer sky marshals than we had a little more than a

year ago. We have hired only two-thirds the people that the

Patriot Act mandated for protecting our Northern Border. We

have invested one-tenth what is needed to protect our ports.

We have only just begun to take the steps needed to protect

our rail and transit systems. Our first responders have only

a fraction of the tools they need. And worse still, the

agencies that have been entrusted with the responsibilities

are still wallowing in bureaucratic chaos.

As we saw last week the Justice Department and the Homeland

Security Department are still in the business of surprising

each other. Simply hoping that these problems will somehow

work out is not unlike the wishful thinking that many engaged

in as they prepared to invade Iraq. Misinformation and bad

planning can lead to excruciatingly painful results. The time

to reexamine our security, our security budgets and our whole

thinking in this area is now. The Congress must act to put a

stop to this mindless, non-information based approach to

policy and national strategy. It is as likely to prove

catastrophic in the defense of our homeland as it has been in

installing democracy in Iraq.

Congress may control nothing more than the purse strings--

but that is enough. The Congress has all the power it needs

to reopen this discussion, insure that assumptions are well

founded, the information is the best available, the

management is sound and the resources are adequate. What it

will take to significantly improve the systems that protect

this nation is small in the relative scheme of things--a few

tenths of a percent of GDP may be no more than we are now

spending on Iraqi reconstruction and one-twentieth of what

we have handed out in tax breaks. Given the stakes, we

cannot afford to do less.

amendment offered in committee to provide $3 billion more

That is why I offered an amendment in Committee to provide

$3 billion to fix some of the most critical security holes.

Our homeland security agencies could do more with this

additional funding--

They could put more radiation and surveillance monitors at

our borders and ports;

They could increase surveillance on our transit systems;

They could increase surveillance by local police of

critical infrastructure facilities;

They could improve the ability of our police and

firefighters to communicate with each other and be suited

properly;

They could inspect additional containers coming into the

United States;

They could put more air marshals on flights;

They could increase our stockpile of antibiotics;

They could increase air patrols of our borders; and

They could fix some holes in our current aviation security

screening system.

This $3 billion, however, would have only been available to

do this if the President agreed. It is disappointing and

shortsighted that the Committee voted along party lines not

even to give him that choice.

The Chairman of the Committee said during markup that he

would probably support my amendment if he had additional

budget allocation. The budget allocations are severely

restricted because the Administration has decided that tax

cuts and the costs of a war should go hand-in-hand. This

squeezes spending on virtually everything else.

We need to stop being penny-wise and pound-foolish. We need

to push the Department of Homeland Security to make needed

security investment now, so that we can be protected

tomorrow. If we do not make those investments until tomorrow,

our protection may come too late.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 672, I call up the bill (H.R. 4513) to provide that in preparing an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement required under section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 with respect to any action authorizing a renewable energy project, no Federal agency is required to identify alternative project locations or actions other than the proposed action and the no action alternative, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4513 expedites the development of renewable energy projects such as wind, tidal, solar, and geothermal by streamlining, but not weakening, the environmental review process.

The bill instructs the responsible agency to review and take public comment only on the most feasible project. Simplifying the process is necessary to incentivize participation in renewable energy projects which are economically marginal to start.

The bottom line is that H.R. 4513 encourages developers to commit capital to renewable energy projects and puts the government in position to put that capital to work sooner.

NEPA requires review of reasonable alternatives, and H.R. 4513 takes the intelligent step of defining ``reasonable'' alternatives for renewable energy projects rather than having it defined through litigation, which those opposed to this bill may ultimately want to do.

Since renewable energy projects are largely place-based, which means that they can only make use of the site where the resources are found, the only reasonable alternatives are, one, the proposed project, and, two, no action.

This bill does nothing to change the requirement that a Federal agency follow the NEPA environmental review process, including mitigation. At the end of the NEPA process, if the agency is not satisfied that the project meets environmental requirements, then the agency official can deny the permit.

Despite what agenda-driven extremist groups might suggest, public comment is not limited. Anyone can make comments on the project. It does require that the comments be focused on the preferred action, which is consistent with the NEPA regulations request that comments be as specific as possible.

H.R. 4513 has no effect on any other environmental law or action. For example, while H.R. 4513 addresses alternatives during NEPA review of hydroelectric projects, it does nothing to affect any of the environmental safeguards otherwise found in the relicensing process.

The bill actually improves an agency's environmental review by focusing on the most viable project rather than having it distracted by misdirected and ineffective alternatives.

Renewable energy projects create jobs. Wind power creates 2.77 jobs for every megawatt produced. Solar panels create 7.24 jobs per megawatt, and geothermal energy projects create 5.6 jobs per megawatt. These projects use large amounts of highly skilled labor and can be an engine for local construction and manufacturing jobs that pay family wages.

At the end of the day, my colleagues either support renewable energy production or they do not. This bill is necessary because of the costly litigation and bureaucratic roadblocks created by the same groups that oppose this bill. This bill provides the framework for power supplies that are affordable, reliable, secure and sustainable while at the same time fully protecting the quality of our environment.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin).

(Mrs. CUBIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, just in response to my colleagues' comments on the bill, I am not exactly sure where the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) is going with his opposition. We have spent so much time on energy legislation over the past several years in the committee in trying to work this out; and one of the things I hear repeatedly from the other side of the aisle is we need to do more on renewables, we need to have more effort put into having alternative energy and renewables and environmentally friendly energy production.

This bill does that. It streamlines the process. It in no way guts NEPA. It does not change a word of any of the environmental requirements under NEPA. It does not prevent the States from commenting or change the States' ability to comment on that, or the ability for our constituents, the citizens of this country, to comment on any of the proposals that are put before us. All of that stays in place. All it does is in reducing the number of alternatives that are required of someone to come forward with is it streamlines the process.

Now, if there is something that is being built next to a school or a national park, and I love hearing that, then the agency with oversight says no. It is that simple. If somebody is that ignorant that they are going to come forward with a project next to a school or in the middle of a national park, they say no. Then they go to a different project. All we are trying to do is speed up the process.

I love listening to the other side of the aisle talk about how we need to do more on alternative energy; and when we went through all the debate on the energy bill, we talked about how we need to do more on bringing alternative energy projects to the forefront. We are trying to do that in this bill, and the other side of the aisle is still opposed to it. I am coming to the conclusion that the other side of the aisle is opposed to doing anything that produces energy. If they do not support this, and they do not support the energy bill, what are they in favor of? What do they think is a good idea to produce more energy for this country?

If they come up with some ideas, I will work with them. We did the energy bill, which was a balanced approach. We did this bill, which is to put more emphasis on nonpolluting energy sources; and they are still opposed to it. At some point they have to come forward and say we are in favor of something because our country is running out of energy. Our country is in a terrible mess on natural gas prices, on gasoline prices, on electricity prices. Everything is going up. We have shortages all over the country in different parts for different reasons; and everything that we propose to try to take care of that, they are opposed to it.

Granted, the environmental groups have a long and storied history on opposing anything, and I can take that. But as Members of Congress, we need to step forward and be leaders and say this is how we are going to take care of our energy problems into the future.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to engage in a colloquy with the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, would the gentlewoman support the bill if we went to a 45-day comment period?

I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. Speaker, it does not change that part. It only changes the 45 days to 20 days. If we went to a 45-day comment period, would the gentlewoman then support the bill?

And are there other things in the bill that change that local comment?

Mr. Speaker, I would be willing to change it to the 45 days if that is the gentlewoman's opposition to the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the former chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. By our standards, this is an extremely short bill. It is 2\1/2\ pages. I have read and reread and looked at this. I do not see in here where they say that we are eliminating the public comment. It says consider public comments that specifically address the preferred action that are filed within 20 days. If it is the time limit part, if that is where they have the major heartburn over this, I will go to current law and 45 days if their opposition to the bill is based upon that. Because there is nothing else in here that eliminates all of the public comment that is currently required and accepted under NEPA. I am not sure where they are getting that. They might have read it in somebody's memo, but it is not in the bill.

Mr. Speaker, where in the bill does it strike the need for environmental impact statements?

The gentleman's statement said, and I appreciate him correcting that, because there is nothing

in this bill that slashes the environmental impact statement requirements. There is nothing in this bill that slashes any of our environmental laws.

Where are we cutting out the public?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. Just in response to my colleague, there is nothing in here that eliminates the public comment period. There is nothing in here that reduces the public comment. As I have said repeatedly, if the big problem is 20 days or 45 days to respond, then I would be happy to go to 45 days for their support on this bill.

In regard to the gentleman's amendment that he offered on the big energy bill, he is perfectly comfortable mandating that a State adopt 15 percent of their energy coming from a renewable resource but he is unwilling to do anything to make that happen. What we are trying to do in this particular piece of legislation is make it easier for people to build renewable energy projects. That right now has proven to be extremely difficult. In flying from the State of New Mexico, which is mostly public lands, into the State of Texas, you cross a line. On one side of the line they have renewable energy projects. On the other side of the line, they do not. It is the same conditions, the same wind, yet it is that much more difficult to build on public lands in the State of New Mexico than it is on private lands in the State of Texas. In my area of the country, in California, in my particular district, we have thousands of windmills. None of those are built on public land. They are built on private land. But you have to build windmills where the wind blows. You cannot just do it where somebody thinks it is a good idea. What we are trying to do is make it easier for people to build where the conditions are. In some cases that happens to be on public lands. That is what we are trying to do.

I do not understand how they can keep talking about being in favor of renewable energy and then scramble around and try to find a reason to be opposed to this bill.

I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.

And I never stop that.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, when one has a project, and I will take windmills, when one has a project and the wind blows on this hill and it is public land and they go to BLM and say we want to build a project of 200 windmills on this piece of land, the BLM looks at that. They go through all their environmental review, and they tell them yes or they tell them no. That is what we are trying to do. We do not want to spend 10 years in court deciding whether or not it meets all of the different alternatives that are put out there. If it does not meet all the environmental restrictions that are in place, if it does not have the environmental impact statement, if it does not meet the Endangered Species Act, all of the environmental restrictions, then BLM says no. It is not that complicated. You guys are just scrambling, looking for a reason to vote ``no.''

You are voting ``no'' on politics, and you know it.

I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that is not what NEPA is all about. But what we are trying to do is make the system less bureaucratic, more efficient, force whoever is applying for the permit in that project to actually go at it in a way that it could become a reality. Right now, as the gentleman knows and I know, these projects are not being built on public lands and a big part of the reason is the bureaucracy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).

(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin).

Mr. Speaker, I have just myself as the closing speaker. Does the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) have additional speakers?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time and will just say I appreciate the gentleman from West Virginia's (Mr. Rahall) statement, and we have had over the last year and a half a chance to work together on a lot of different issues. I will tell my colleagues, on this bill we are trying to streamline the process and move it along. The gentleman's example, the letter that he read from the gentleman from Massachusetts, I think is a valuable example of what is wrong with the current system. If you actually look at the letter that the gentleman just read, he does not say in there that the process has not been held up by the current system. He is saying that they are going along with the current NEPA process and the EIS process and everything else, and I agree with that.

I believe that NEPA is an extremely valuable tool for the Federal Government and for our bureaucrats out there to make sure that anything that is going forward on public lands has the minimal impact on the environment, and that is what we should do. But in the gentleman's example about someone wanting to build a windmill farm in a pristine site, if that is the case, if someone comes forward with a windmill farm in a pristine site that BLM or Park Service or Forest Service or anyone else says they do not want windmill farms there, they say no.

What we are trying to avoid is multiple years of going through the process of studying non-viable options to that specific project, and that is what is considered under current law.

If you want examples of where this is not working, all you have to do is look at the difference between New Mexico and Texas. Where in Texas they are developing alternative energy and they have windmill sites on the public lands, across the border in New Mexico they are not building them. It is not because anybody was told no, it is because the developers look at it and they say, I can build here and start within a year or two. If I try to do it on public lands, it is going to take me 4, 5 or 10 years to go through the process. So they do not even try.

If you are in favor of doing alternative energy projects, then you have to support this bill, because that is what we are doing. We are trying to streamline the process in order to bring those projects on.

The gentleman from Oregon earlier talked about the wind energy tax credit. I am a huge proponent of that. We have windmills in my district. If it was not for the tax credit, they never would have been built. But they were built on private land. None of the public land has windmills on it because of the process that they have to go through. If the gentleman is angry about the wind energy tax credit, that is simple: Just tell the Senate to pass the energy bill. It is in there. We have passed it out of here three times already.

So as we move forward with this legislation, I would encourage my colleagues on the left to take another look at it, because this truly is an intent to bring more alternative energy into the process and to make it a viable industry for all of the people that are out there trying to find different ways, other than fossil fuel, to power our country.

Finally, I would say to my friend from West Virginia, when you are talking about windmills, you have to build them where the wind is. You cannot go to the developer and say we want you to pick an alternative site. That is like going to your coal miners and saying we want you to pick an alternative site. They have to mine where the coal is. You cannot tell them go look in my district in California. We do not have coal. In your district you do. That is why they mine for coal there.

Well, we have wind. That is where the wind is, and that is where you have to build the windmills. That is the same thing on public lands, you have to build them where the wind blows. To try to tell them they have to pick an alternative site, really, you are not accomplishing anything if you truly want to bring alternative energy into the market.

Finally, I would just say as we move forward with this bill, if there are specific issues in here that the gentleman wants to work on, I will work with him on it, and he knows that. If it is 20 days

or 45 days, we can look at the difference between doing that. But we really do need to move forward with this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment would clarify that the environmental review process in H.R. 4513 would not apply to oil and gas leasing activities. This amendment would remove any confusion about what this bill does or does not do.

We have discussed this bill with the minority and they offered this change to the base text. After having gone back and forth, I believe this is a necessary change to the underlying bill to eliminate any confusion that there may be. By making this change, this amendment incorporates all of their proposed changes, short of rewriting the bill. Rewriting this bill would mean doing nothing to promote renewable energy development, which I find unacceptable.

I support this amendment, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I appreciate the gentleman working with me on this particular amendment, but again I would say that in regard to his final comments there is nothing in this bill that eviscerates, guts, dissects or any other thing our Nation's environmental laws. All it does is it makes the system more efficient by reducing the number of alternatives that have to be looked at on a renewable energy project.

If somebody wants to build a garbage burning incinerator in the middle of a national park, we both know that the answer is no before they even apply for a permit. But I guess trying to scare people on this tries to make things work.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4513. It is understandable that there is some confusion among Members about a bill listed on the schedule as the Renewable Energy Siting Improvement Act. After all, H.R. 4513 was recently introduced on June 4 and has not had a single day of hearings or markup in the Committee on Resources. Surely such a noble sounding bill must have a reasonable approach to address real problems.

Sadly, that is not the case with H.R. 4513. If there were a truth-in- labeling requirement under the House rules, this bill should more accurately be called an Act to gut the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

Not only is it unwise to fundamentally rewrite NEPA, one of our most important environmental laws, it is unnecessary. It is unwise because this bill would turn NEPA on its head by allowing Federal agencies to avoid considering alternatives to any renewable energy project. Under H.R. 4513, it is up or down. Take it or leave it. It is my way or the highway. The Federal agency must put blinders on, even if a proposed energy project is next to a school or a park and there are more desirable alternative locations.

It is also unwise because the public is given only 20 days to comment on the up or down option being promoted by the Federal agency. As a practical matter, this means that States, local governments and ordinary citizens will be effectively out of the process of Federal agency decision-making on energy project siting.

It is unnecessary because there is no compelling evidence that complying with NEPA has thwarted responsible development of renewable energy in the United States.

Of course, some renewable energy projects are controversial, including wind farms on the mountaintops in my home State of West Virginia, but they are not going to become less controversial if we shut the door on the local citizens as would the pending measure.

In essence, this bill would make Federal agencies more powerful but less well-informed and less accountable to the States and the public than is currently the case under NEPA. In days gone by, such radical legislation would have been derided as big government by the conservatives in this body, but today I fear that H.R. 4513 is only part of a broader assault on NEPA and the public process.

So, to my colleagues from coastal areas, beware. I say beware. Today, it is wind energy. Tomorrow, it could very well be offshore oil and gas leasing.

Voting for this bill today sets a precedent. Pending before us is a feel good bill that does nothing but damage public support for responsible development of renewable energy. Let us not toss NEPA to the wind. Reject H.R. 4513.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First I join with my colleagues in welcoming the gentleman from Louisiana back to the Congress. We know he has been through quite a battle and our prayers and thoughts were with him. I am glad to see that his full vim and vigor and rhetorical flourishes are back with us as well, the Billy Tauzin of old. It is good to have the gentleman back.

Let me say in response to some of his comments as well as my distinguished chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from California, as my good chairman knows and all Members of the body, I come from a coal-producing region of this country. Southern West Virginia has some of the best coal in the world. That is not just a parochial statement. I say to the gentleman that I certainly support the clean coal technology that is in the energy bill, even though it is peanuts compared to the tax credits and all the other goodies the oil industry gets, which is the main reason for my opposition to that bill. Nevertheless, clean coal technology is good, but we need more than lip service paid to clean coal technology if we want to develop alternative sources of energy in this country.

And in response to the gentleman's question of what am I for, I am for producing that coal. I am for the advanced technologies that would turn coal into gas and liquid fuel. That is what we need, are credits, incentives, other vehicles that will make it attractive for industry to produce that alternative fuel from coal. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal in this world. It makes no sense that we do not put in true incentives for developing that coal. I myself quite honestly would rather see a surface coal mining project than a windmill farm. That can be effectively reclaimed. It produces jobs both in the initial mining and in the reclamation process and in some cases can even clean up our environment better than previous to the mining. It certainly can provide better job-creating opportunities in the long run, such as industrial parks, the flatland is such a premium in the terrain from which I come, and other related industry that comes from such a project.

This current bill by eliminating the public input, by speeding it up so quickly that the public does not have an adequate say in the approval or disapproval process, in my opinion, does not add one iota to improving and increasing our domestic energy supplies. That is my problem with this bill, is that it does run roughshod over that process and I do not see where it is necessary to change that process, because that process, in this gentleman's opinion, has not hampered our energy production in this country. I want to see our domestic sources of energy explored further so we can indeed produce energy that this country needs without reliance upon foreign sources.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, I would respond to the gentleman, the biggest problem I have is eliminating alternatives that are available to a project. It is either, as I understand the bill, the developer's alternative or no alternative to a project. That in my opinion is more devastating than limiting the public input time to 20 days which, the gentleman is correct, is the time limit in the bill. That is the problem that I have.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall), a distinguished member of the Committee on Resources.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), a valued member of our Committee on Resources.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, in response to several comments made on the other side and in further response to what I said earlier, it is not the fact that the majority is trying to eliminate completely the public comment phase of NEPA.

As I noted in my opening comments, they would limit that to 20 days, and I understand through the debate there is going to be an offer to extend that to 45 days; but that is not the main issue that we have tried to make on this side of the aisle.

The main issue is the fact that in the pending legislation, alternatives to renewable energy development would be eliminated. Take one example from my home State of West Virginia. If a developer comes in and wants to develop a wind farm on a beautiful mountain site in Pocahontas County, then the way this bill is constructed, there are only two alternatives. Either the developer's initial proposal accepted or rejected; or a rejection, no project at all.

There would be no process whereby alternative sites would be considered, whether for environmental or whether for economic or whether for social or whatever other reasons may come into play. The developer could not consider an alternative site maybe over another mountain ridge, because this pending bill, by wiping out the Federal agency's alternative to look at alternatives, strikes that completely; and that is the main reason that I am opposing this bill.

We have asked for sites from the majority, for examples of sites that have been delayed because of unnecessary NEPA regulations. The gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin) finally came up with one site. She mentioned a windmill farm in the Cape Cod area, and I would like to respond by reading from the developer himself. This is from Dennis Duffy, the vice president of regulatory affairs for the Cape Wind Associates, as quoted in the Cape Cod Times, when he said, ``The Cape Wind, the developer in this case, fully agrees with the Federal authority that offshore commercial activity should be based on a full and fair review of proposed developments, including consideration of human, economic, social, and environmental factors as well as other potential uses of the seas.''

He went on, ``The ongoing review of the Cape Wind project is proceeding in full compliance with the provisions of both NEPA and the Coastal Zone Management Act and specifically includes the preparation of comprehensive EIS and the consideration of alternative project locations.''

So the example cited by the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin), I submit, is not one that calls for the gutting of NEPA.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this legislation is unnecessary. The proponents have failed to produce projects that have been held up that would call for the enactment of this legislation.

In addition, there have been charges from the other side that politics come into play on this legislation. Well, I am kind of shocked. The last I checked, they are in control of the agenda in this body. Our side is not in control of that agenda. The last time I checked, this is part of an energy message week, originally scheduled for last week but postponed until this week. And I dare say that a few of the bills on the agenda in this body this week, while no doubt will pass, will never see the light of day in the other body because more reasoned and judgmental Members will make decisions thereupon.

So I think that is a false charge and one that should never have been brought up in the first place.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

announcement by the speaker pro tempore

I guess the Speaker was calling into question my describing the other body as the reason?

No. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time on this side. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, although not in opposition to the amendment, I wish to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to the gentleman from California's amendment clarifying the obvious fact that oil and gas and coal are not renewable energy sources.

I do not think though that this is the end of the attempts to expand NEPA exemptions, and I urge those concerned about the integrity of coastal areas to remain vigilant. I would note, however, that even with this amendment, the pending legislation could be construed as providing NEPA exemptions to the construction of new hydropower dams on rivers and it could apply to incinerators using garbage or other waste products.

As I read the text, the exemptions in this bill include hydropower and incinerators which general power. As the gentleman from California is well aware, siting of dams and incinerators are very controversial matters and it is important, I believe, that the public knows what we are doing here on the floor today to their rights.

Mr. Speaker I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

(Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mrs. CAPPS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4517, the Refinery Revitalization Act. This bill would give the Department of Energy unprecedented authority over all environmental permitting of refineries, with serious environmental consequences, creating yet another governmental bureaucracy. This bill has not been examined by any committee with jurisdiction over these laws and would create serious conflicts between the Department of Energy and State and Federal agencies charged with protecting our environment. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

The premise of this bill is that environmental regulation is hindering refinery expansion. There is no basis for this conclusion. Refining capacity has actually increased in recent years, and environmental requirements have not prevented that increase.

While there has been a decrease in the number of refineries, not the capacity, but the number, this is due to increasing market concentration resulting from refinery mergers. Thus, Big Oil, and not environmental laws, are to blame for fewer, but bigger, refineries.

Even if environmental permitting requirements were not the problem, this bill would make the situation worse, not better, by wreaking havoc with the well-established system partnership in place today. Under this bill, the Department of Energy would be given lead authority over environmental permits and would be given the ability to overrule permit denials by other State and Federal agencies. DOE lacks the experience or the ability in interpreting or implementing our environmental laws, because DOE's mission is not focused on environmental protection.

I am surprised at my colleagues' support for this bill, which would actually remove power from the States, from local control, and transfer it to a centralized bureaucracy in Washington, D.C. This runs counter to the themes of anti-big government that the majority professes to champion.

While this bill is no doubt supported by the refineries, it is not supported by anyone with a stake in environmental protection. All of the major environmental organizations oppose this bill, and the list of State organizations that have opposed the bill includes the Environmental Commissioners of the States, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the State and Local Air Directors, and many other groups.

This bill is also opposed by the League of United Latin American Citizens, LULAC, and the National Hispanic Environmental Council, because of the environmental justice issues that it raises.

Mr. Speaker, I will enter into the Record letters from both of these organizations.

In addition to giving the Department of Energy the ability to override Federal and State permitting agencies, this bill also creates a special consultation process for industry. Before any other parties would even know that a permit is being planned, H.R. 4517 would require that DOE provide any permit applicant with a chance to meet with the permitting agencies, an inside track if you will, and obtain an informal reading regarding the agency's plan for granting the permit.

So much for competitive processes. This would give the inside track to the permit applicant over the public, which has overriding environmental and public health concerns.

Finally, DOE would also be given the ability to shape the record and the timing and procedure for the granting of permits. That power in itself is highly significant since a major part of permit evaluation is whether the permittee has supplied sufficient information and, in many cases, the environmental statutes and regulations specified, precise permit content. Under this bill, the Department of Energy would be allowed to determine that ``such data as the Secretary consider necessary had been submitted,'' centralized power, and move to permit issuance in 6 months or less. That would allow DOE to move a permit forward even where a permit applicant had clearly failed to meet the fundamental requirements for basic information.

The bill has not had any benefit of review by anyone except its sponsors. No hearings have been held, no agencies, not even DOE or EPA have testified to its effect. In essence, it makes a mockery of the legislative process that we are all committed to in this body.

Before we move to place an overlapping and inconsistent permitting scheme on top of already complex Federal laws that govern environmental permitting by State and Federal agencies, we should at least undertake a basic analysis of the bill's impact and validity. If the Congress is serious about examining refineries, we should do the work that would let us understand the effect and meaning of such a bill.

That has not been done, and in urging my colleagues to oppose this bill, I remind us all that the passage of this bill is going to ensure that disadvantaged communities are going to rise up in strong opposition to being dumped on, yet another time, by the government. And it also will open up serious discussion of what big government is really about.

League of United

Latin American Citizens,

Washington, DC, June 14, 2004.

Chairman Joe Barton,

Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Barton: On behalf of the League of United

Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the oldest Latino civil

rights organization in the United States, I am writing to

express deep concern with the introduction of HR 4517

directing the Secretary of Energy to designate ``Refinery

Revitalization Zones'' in areas of the country with high

levels of unemployment. Although we strongly support

revitalizing areas of the country with high unemployment and

the stabilization of oil workers is a LULAC priority,

unfortunately LULAC feels that HR 4517, as it stands today,

fails to reach this threshold in a number of ways. LULAC

believes that HR 4517 is structured so as to continue a race

to the bottom in labor and environmental standards and will

encourage members to reject this legislation.

LULAC is concerned about the stability of oil prices and

its impact on oil workers, many of whom are Hispanic. LULAC

supports state and federal efforts to stabilize the price of

oil and prevent the displacement of Hispanic oil field

workers and federal tax incentives to domestic oil producers

to reduce dependency on foreign oil. Therefore, LULAC is in

support of a federal energy policy that encourages the

development of alternative fossil fuels and other

environmentally friendly energy sources. However, the devil

is in the details. We support efforts that contain the rules

necessary to ensure balanced and equitable sustainable

development, stable economies and a healthy environment but

do not feel H.R. 4517 meets those standards.

LULAC believes that the efforts to create Refinery

Revitalization Zones in areas with unemployment rates more

than 20% unfairly targets area that are heavily minority

populated and already disproportionately impacted by

refineries and other industries. The environmental and public

health impacts of refineries that are required to meet all

existing environmental laws, including those state

regulations that may be more stringent than federal, are

still disproportionately felt by underprivileged communities.

This legislation would exacerbate these problems.

Lastly, the legislation places the power to designate a

revitalization zone with the Secretary of Energy with little,

if any review from other agencies. If we are to grow jobs, it

is critical that this be done in a substantive and

sustainable manner--over the long-term--and not with a short-

term vision that merely places a band-aid on real development

needs.

Sincerely,

Hector Flores,

LULAC National President.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

May I inquire of the Speaker, please, the time remaining on each side.

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, my colleague.

(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In closing, I would observe to the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce that on our side we have needed to roll into this 1 hour of discussion all of the customary hearings and studies which should have been undertaken. I know the gentleman has made apologies for it, but it is clear to me in listening to the debate that this bill before us is based on such a faulty premise, an unproven, untested premise, that public health and environmental protection laws are to blame for the shutdown of refineries. There is no evidence to support it, and there is no documentation that passage of this bill would increase the number of refineries reopened or produced.

We are being asked to support this legislation with no knowledge base on which to make our actions. As I have said earlier, to me this is a mockery of the system we are about, particularly for the committee which is such an important, prestigious committee within the House of Representatives and which I am so honored to be a part of.

The solution that I understand is being offered is to let the Secretary of Energy, a czar is what my colleagues have called him, we will have to build him a special throne because he is going to be able to override the Environmental Protection Agency, one whole agency that will just be emasculated, never mind State houses emasculated, to have a say in the environmental and public health regulations that their State has authority over. That will all be set aside in favor of this hope that by giving the power to the energy czar, we will see oil refineries opened. We do not know for sure but we hope so. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) eloquently noted for us that oil companies are awash in profits and could if they wished today build new refineries.

In sum, this is a bad bill. We can consider the topic but we certainly should not support this legislation. I urge my colleagues to oppose it. If this bill goes into law and is signed into law, we will begin a strong conversation with the American people about environmental justice issues and about the engorgement of big government here in Washington, D.C.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 671, I call up the bill (H.R. 4517) to provide incentives to increase refinery capacity in the United States, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the demand for gasoline and other refined fuels in the United States currently exceeds our domestic capacity to produce them. Domestic gasoline consumption is expected to rise by an increase of over 4 million barrels per day by the year 2025. Refineries are already operating at nearly 100 percent of their designed capacity. This excess demand is being met, unfortunately, by an ever-increasing thirst for imports. We are currently importing about 7 percent of our refined product needs.

H.R. 4517 seeks to reverse the trend of relying on refined imports to make up the shortfall. The bill would authorize the Secretary of Energy to designate as a refinery revitalization zone any area that has experienced mass layoffs at manufacturing facilities or contains an idle refinery and has an unemployment rate of at least 20 percent above the national average.

Upon the request of an applicant that seeks Federal authorization related to siting and operation of a refinery within a refinery revitalization zone, the Department of Energy will be the lead agency for coordinating all applicable Federal authorizations and related environmental renewals of the facility. The Secretary of Energy and the heads of all Federal agencies of relevant jurisdiction are required to enter into a memorandum of understanding for the purpose of ensuring timely and coordinated review of the application throughout the process.

The bill would require that the best available control technology, or BACT, would be used on all refineries so that there would be full compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local environmental regulations. I want to repeat that. The best available control technology would be used at all refineries so that there would be compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local environmental regulations. We are not changing any existing environmental law, nor do we waive any existing environmental law.

The bill would simply encourage the opening of previously closed refineries and the construction of new refineries in order to increase the domestic supply of gasoline which should, in turn, help bring down the price. I would point out that since the mid-1970s, we have not built a new refinery in the United States, and we have closed over 50 percent of the existing refineries in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 4517, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the Bayou State and the Pelican State, and the former honorable and distinguished chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to myself. I want to respond to one of the things that the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) just said.

This bill simply says if an area has unemployment of at least 20 percent higher than the national average, we have set up an expedited procedure to hopefully refurbish an existing refinery or perhaps build a new one. That creates jobs. Creating jobs is not dumping on anybody. It is creating jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), a member of the committee and the subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to myself. I want to briefly respond to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

First on his point that there have been no hearings on the bill and it is out of regular order, he is exactly right, and the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) is right and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) is going to be right when he says that. I apologize for that. That is an exception to the rule.

We try to do everything in the Committee on Energy and Commerce by regular orders. This is one of those rare exceptions, and I will stipulate that they are totally right to complain about the process. So in the spirit of comity, I want to get that on the record.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), the subcommittee chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another distinguished Member, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan), a member of the subcommittee and the full committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), vice chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality.

(Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to start out my closing with just reading a few of the facts that have been sadly not reported during this debate. The number of refineries in the United States of America has been reduced from 324 in 1981 to 153 today. That is over half the refineries have been closed in the United States since 1981. That is fact number one.

Fact number two, refining capacity in millions of barrels per day luckily has not gone down quite that much but it has gone down about 10 percent, from 18.5 million barrels a day in 1981 to a little over 16 million barrels per day today. So number of refineries down, capacity to refine down.

However, the demand for refined products has gone up. In 2001 it was a little under 20 million barrels a day. It is expected to grow to over 26 million barrels a day in 2025. Number of refineries down, capacity down, demand up. That is a fact. It may be an unpleasant fact but it is a fact.

So what are we to do about it? I guess we could just stick our head in the sand and say no big deal. Maybe we ought to do something to increase refinery capacity. I will grant, and I have already granted several times in this debate, this particular bill has not been the subject of hearings and the normal regular order, subcommittee markup, full committee markup. I have apologized for that. I will apologize for it again.

Having said that, is it a bad concept to say let's go into areas where they have an existing refinery, perhaps it is opened, perhaps it is closed and they have high unemployment. The bill says 20 percent. Maybe that is not the right number. Maybe it ought to be 10 percent. Maybe it ought to be 30 percent above the national average. But at least we say we have an existing refinery or a closed refinery, it has a high unemployment average, high above the national average, let's set an expedited procedure. Let's say that an applicant can ask the Secretary of Energy to designate that as a refinery revitalization area and then try to get some decisions about reopening or improving that refinery. We do not waive one environmental law. We do not waive any State control. We simply say you have got to make a decision on the existing laws.

I have some pending permits in my congressional district, not on refineries, on cement plants. One permit has been pending for 3 years, the other for 2 years. It costs millions of dollars to make those permit applications. This bill says don't waive the law, just say that you have to make a decision within a certain time frame. Maybe the time frame is wrong. Again, hearings would say if we need a little bit more time. But the concept is not wrong. The concept. In terms if you decide to reopen a refinery, what do we say, what kind of technology? Best available control technology. Best available. Not worst. Not none. Best available. Existing refineries that are still operating are going to spend $20 billion in the next few years just to comply in those refineries with existing law. $20 billion. We say if somebody wants to open a new refinery, expand one, reopen a closed one, they have to use the best available control technology.

Let us now talk about outsourcing of jobs. There has been a lot of debate about jobs going overseas. This keeps jobs in the United States. Most of these jobs would be high-paying jobs. Most of them would be union jobs. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Again, maybe those that oppose this bill have an alternative. It is fair to say since we did not hold a hearing that they may have one. But is their alternative never build a refinery in the United States of America again? In the Carter years under the Fuel Use Act, they said never use natural gas again. We repealed that fortunately when Reagan came into office. But maybe that is the position of my friends on the minority side, they never want a refinery to ever be built again in the United States of America.

If that is their position, put the bill up on the floor and we will have a debate on it. But if they think that it is okay to build some new refineries and to reopen some old ones to meet this demand that is going to go to 26 million barrels a day, this is a way to do it.

It may not be the perfect way, I will grant you that. But it is a way. If you think the United States of America should be a manufacturing society, should maintain these jobs, vote for this bill. We will hold all the hearings in the world. We are going to have plenty of opportunity with the Senate, the other body. So I would hope that we can vote for this bill and at least send a signal to people that live in high unemployment areas, there is some hope and some opportunity that they may get one of these high-paying jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.