Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4503) to enhance energy conservation and research and development, to provide for security and diversity in the energy supply for the American people, and for other purposes, and for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4517) to provide incentives to increase refinery capacity in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, the House is again considering a bill that has already passed the body, but it has not been enacted into law. This might be called the ``summer reruns.'' It might also be called low comedy, or ancient history, because this is an unfortunate waste, not only of this body's time but, quite frankly, the taxpayers' money.

We are about to set about passing a bill that was unacceptable to the Senate before, surrounded itself with enormous controversy, and will serve no purpose in terms of addressing energy concerns of this country.

Meanwhile, I note we have neither passed any budget nor any single appropriations measure. If there is ever a bill that does not deserve to pass twice, this is it. It should not even have been passed the first time. Rarely has a bill been so criticized in all quarters. This so-called Energy Policy Act is a conglomeration of costly special interest subsidies and antienvironmental provisions that newspapers from coast to coast have denounced. It includes the denunciation of such conservative newspapers as the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal.

One prominent Republican Senator refers to this bill as one which helps ``hooters and polluters,'' because it provides subsidies for a Louisiana mall that will feature a Hooter's Restaurant, and because it has dozens of other provisions that threaten clean air, safe drinking water, like easing the regulations on such good-hearted American corporations as Halliburton, which uses hydraulic fracturing.

Indeed, the only support for this bill comes from the special interests and industries that met in secret with the Cheney task force to hatch this outrageous piece of legislation.

The conference on this bill was also, as I noted, held in secret and kept from the light of day. As I said when the Congress considered this legislation last year, ``when you lift the lid, it's like lifting the lid on a garbage can, because you get a strong smell of special interest provisions.''

While I support the recycling of trash, this piece of legislation looks worse the second time around. It is more than three times more costly than even the President requested. The Energy Information Administration says it will have no short-term impact on gasoline prices and, in the long run, will actually raise gasoline prices.

If my colleagues on the Republican side were paying attention to all Americans and not just special interests, they would recognize that there have been three important matters to deal with which have occurred on this President's watch: 1, gasoline prices and natural gas prices have reached all-time highs; 2, an electricity blackout that affected better than 50 million Americans; 3, the gouging of electricity consumers on the west coast has been a noteworthy outrage.

Democrats have proposed commonsense steps that we should take to address these problems, and we will discuss these matters and measures during the debate on the motion to recommit.

I usually applaud the recycling of trash, but this trash is well passed recycling. It is too tart. It should be put in the legislative trash heap where it belongs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry before I yield time. I note that the majority members on the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Resources have time available which has not yet been used. I am happy to yield time to our Members, but I would simply note that that time is pending over there. I would like to see what policies the Chair might have with regard to the yielding of those times.

And I would note for the benefit of the Chair that the Committee on Energy and Commerce is the major committee of jurisdiction here.

Mr. Speaker, I will therefore yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time to enable the Committee on Resources and the Committee on Ways and Means on the majority side to yield such time as they may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

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

Mr. Speaker, I can understand the frustrations of my good friends on the Republican side. They brought forward a piece of legislation that is redolent of special interests. Quite frankly, it smells bad. It is tired in that it has been before this body before. It has been rejected by the Senate because it was such a clear mishmash of special interest legislation, and I can understand the frustration because my good friends over there could not shoehorn something through in a closed conference after they had denied the right of the House to really fully amend and address these matters and after they had denied us the right to participate in the debates and the discussions which went on in the conference between the House and Senate.

We will shortly be offering legislation in a form of a motion to recommit which will do the three things that really need to be done to protect our consumers and our economy. First, we are going to address the problem which rose with regards to electricity prices in California and other west coast States spiraling out of control as Enron and other thieves and scoundrels exploited an inadequate and poorly implemented regulatory system. We will be inserting into the Record some of the wonderful comments of Enron executives describing how they had treated the consuming public of the United States.

Second, my own State of Michigan and six others suffered severe practical and economic consequences from a massive blackout caused partly by malfeasance and partly by inadequate emergency planning and communications. That will be addressed here.

Third, this spring and summer consumers throughout the Nation have been hit by high gasoline prices that show no sign of returning to normal levels at any time soon. We will try to deal with this question.

The bill, H.R. 4503, does not address the answers to these questions. While there are some good provisions in the bill, it has a plethora of other problems, not the least of which is a price tag to the consuming public and the taxpaying public of better than $31 billion.

It is a shame that our Republican colleagues have chosen to continue beating a dead horse. They sent a bad bill to the Senate. The Senate in a bipartisan fashion, and I am sure this is immensely frustrating to my Republican colleagues, has rejected that legislation. It has not been brought up. This is quite obviously an attempt, and has been so described by my Republican colleagues, as an effort to embarrass the Senate into moving that legislation.

But I think we need to address something here which we could do. The Senate in its wisdom has chosen to reject this historically bad piece of legislation, and I would urge us to address now the things which we can do: fraud and criminal misbehavior in the electricity markets, blackouts, and high gasoline prices. This would be a responsible step, and it should be for this body to stop playing games and having summer reruns which have as little merit, for example, as ``The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari'' or perhaps ``Night of the Living Dead.''

In any event, I will be offering a motion to recommit with the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), and I will describe that at a time later. It will address these questions.

[From the Energy Daily, May 25, 2004]

Enron Traders Brag of Stealing Money From California

(By Tina Davis)

Newly unearthed transcripts of Enron Corp. traders reveal

employees unapologetically talking about California and its

consumers by driving up power prices and exporting power from

the state during the 2000-2001 energy crisis.

The transcripts were sent to the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission last week by the Snohomish County Public Utility

District No. 1, a public power entity that is seeking refunds

for price manipulation that affected the West.

``This latest evidence provide the impetus for FERC to

finally bring meaningful rate relief to the West Coast

electric consumers who were the primary victims of Enron's

fraudulent schemes,'' said Mike Gianunzio, general counsel of

Snohomish PUD.

Two Democratic Congressmen from Washington, Reps. Jay

Inslee and Rick Larsen, last week called on FERC to strip

Enron of its market-based rate authority retroactively. The

congressmen argued that by revoking the company's market-

based rates on June 25, 2003, FERC failed to establish the

punishment from the moment Enron began gaming the market.

The transcripts largely provide yet more evidence that

Enron was engaged in several sophisticated trading strategies

aimed at driving up prices and congestion, in order to reap

millions from the California and western power markets.

In perhaps the most damning portion of the transcripts, a

person identifying himself as ``David up at Enron'' calls an

employee of El Paso Electric and asks if that company can

shut down a unit.

``. . . There's no much, ah, demand for power at all and

we're running kind of fat. Um, if you took down the steamer,

how long would it take to get it back up?'' David asks.

``Oh, it's not something you want to just be turning on and

off every hour, let's put it that way,'' the El Paso employee

responds.

After ascertaining that the unit could be brought up within

three to four hours, David says, ``Well, why don't you just

go ahead and shut her down, then, if that's OK.''

Later in the conversation, David says that ISO hasn't

``told us anything. We're just kind of assuming that some of

this stuff's going to get cut again and--we're running fat

enough to where he shut down the, ah, steamer when we take--

there'll be a net, ah, decrease of about 80 it will be all

right to, ah, still meet the load.''

That day, Dec. 4, 2000, the ISO declares a Stage 2

emergency, indicating that reserve levels have fallen below 5

percent for the day.

A spokesperson for El Paso confirmed the conversation took

place, but said it occurred at 1 a.m., when the state had an

``overabundance of power in the market.'' Tereza Sousa said

she did not know if the power was restored to the state in

the afternoon, when peak demands hit, but she said El Paso

had an agreement that called for Enron to market its

generation for off-peak hours in the West.

El Paso Electric later reached a settlement agreement with

staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission as well as

California officials over its role in the state's power

crisis. That deal, opposed by Snohomish, included a $15.5

million payment from El Paso and the surrender of its ability

to charge market-based rates for two years.

At one point, the transcripts capture Bob Badeer, head of

Enron's California trading desk in Portland, saying the

``best thing'' for California would be an earthquake. ``. . .

Let that thing float out to the Pacific and [give] `em

candles. . . . They should just bring back horses and

carriages, lamps, kerosene lamps. . . .

Kevin McGowan, at one time the director of coal trading for

Enron, asks Badeer: ``So the rumor's true? They're takin' all

the money back from you guys? All those money [sic] you guys

stole from those poor grandmothers in California?''

Badeer responds: ``Yeah, grandma Millie, man. But she's the

one who couldn't figure out how to vote on the butterfly

ballot.''

``Yeah,'' says McGowan, ``now she wants her money back for

all the power you've charged right up--jammed right up her

for $250 a megawatt-hour.''

Another phone conversation includes talk of exporting power

from the state. Hearing of a Stage 2 emergency called by the

California Independent System Operator, a speaker identified

only as ``Matt'' says, ``They're on the ropes today. I

exported like a 400 [megawatts].

``Wow,'' the other voice, identified as Tom, says.

``I bought it all. I'll see you guys--I'm takin' mine to

the desert,'' Matt states.

``em, right?'' adds Tom.

``I think those gamblers in Las Vegas need the power more

than you,'' says Matt.

Later on Tom tells Matt, ``It's going good for you. Just

keep exporting the'' ``Yeah,'' says Matt. ``That's what we

do. Every day, we just export, export, export.''

In another conversation, Enron's Tim Belden, the former

head West Coast energy trader, is questioned by what seems to

be another Enron employee trying to figure out how to book

the revenues from western trades.

Explaining the sales, Belden tells the other person, that

Richter (believed to be Jeffrey Richter, head of Enron's

Western Power Division) ``makes between one and two [million

dollars] a day, um, which never shows up on any curve shift,

where he just buys it from the day-ahead. He just . . .

California. . . . He steals money from California to the tune

of about a million--''

The other person interrupts, ``Will you re-phrase that?''

Belden: ``OK, he um--he arbitrages that California market

to the tune of a million bucks or two a day.''

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I thank my good friend for yielding to me. Is that rejection or not?

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), who is cosponsor of the motion to recommit.

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

I urge my colleagues to vote for the motion to recommit. It is very simple. It is passive. It is something which the Senate, I believe, would consider; and it is something which will be accepted by the American people and which will help with the energy problems.

First of all, it contains energy antifraud provisions to avoid a recurrence of the widespread unchecked fraud that rocked Western power markets in recent years. The motion requires FERC to refund overcharges, updates various provisions of the Federal Power Act, and gives the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission authority to deter and to punish market manipulation.

It has electric reliability provisions. The motion includes what is perhaps the most widely supported provision in the bill before us today, making the rules that govern the operation of the interstate electric grid mandatory and enforceable. The U.S.-Canada Task Force report called this the most important step that this Nation can take to prevent future blackouts.

It includes legislation which relates to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve; and regardless of how the Members feel about drawing down the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to address prices, an idea which, by the way, I oppose, no one can quarrel with the premise that the Department of Energy should manage additions of crude oil to the reserves in such a way as to minimize

costs and to avoid exerting upward pressure on oil prices when markets are awry.

The administration has been inexplicably reluctant to defer deliveries of crude to SPR during the current market run-up in oil prices, despite the fact that it has been done before. The motion directs the Secretary to pursue this option and to utilize futures and other devices which would enable him to address this.

All of us, I think, here in the House favor certain aspects of H.R. 4503, but the good provisions are being held hostage to other aspects that are controversial, provisions which are clearly special interests and, quite frankly, will not pass the sniff test. It is too late in the session to continue playing chicken with this issue. The time has come to enact carefully drawn provisions in addressing the Nation's most immediate needs. This motion addresses the three most important major energy problems, market manipulation, electric reliability, and high gasoline prices, in ways that Members should be able to agree upon.

We can pursue the goal of a broader energy bill later in a better fashion, hopefully a more bipartisan way, in which the Members of the Congress will have an opportunity to address it with proper amendments on the floor or to attend the meetings of the conferees, which were foreclosed to Members on the minority side in a most curious and, I would note, unparliamentary fashion.

I urge my colleagues to endorse and support and vote for the motion to recommit. It is a good piece of legislation. It converts a bad piece of legislation into something which will work, and it has a chance of being considered and passed in the Senate. I urge my colleagues to vote for the motion to recommit.

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

Madam 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.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to House Resolution 671, which is the rule for the consideration of H.R. 4503, the Energy Policy Act of 2004, which is masquerading today as the energy conference report of 2003; and H.R. 4517, the U.S. Refinery Revitalization Act.

Mr. Speaker, this summer Americans all across the country are flooding into movie theaters to see the much-anticipated sequels to such blockbuster films as ``Shrek,'' ``Spider Man,'' and ``Harry Potter.''

So far the early reviews and box office returns for these sequels suggest Hollywood has actually managed to improve on the original versions by adding exciting new characters and interesting new plot lines.

Sadly, that is not so here in the House of Representatives. This summer, the Republican leadership is forcing us to vote on the same tired old reruns of bad bills that we have already seen and voted on once before. The consideration of H.R. 4503 actually marks the sixth time this year that this House has passed a bill for the second time.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a listing of the bills that the House has voted on at least twice this year.

(1) Bankruptcy. The House passed its bankruptcy reform bill

on March 19, 2003 (H.R. 975, vote No. 74) and passed it again

on January 28, 2004 when it substituted the text of

the already-passed H.R. 975 into a non-controversial Senate

family farmer bankruptcy bill (S. 1920, vote No. 10).

(2) Medical Malpractice. The House passed medical

malpractice reform legislation on March 13, 2003 (H.R. 5,

vote No. 64) and then passed it again on May 12, 2004, as

part of the GOP's so-called ``health security agenda'' (H.R.

4280, vote No. 166).

(3) Association Health Plans. The House passed legislation

creating Association Health Plans (AHPs) on June 19, 2003 and

then passed the same bill again in May 13, 2004, as part of

the GOP's so-called ``health security agenda'' (H.R. 4281,

vote No. 174).

(4) Teacher Training. The House passed the ``Ready to

Teach'' Act on July 9, 2003 (H.R. 2211, vote No. 340) and

then passed it again under a new bill number on June 2, 2004

under suspension of the rules (H.R. 4409, voice voted, then

inserted by H. Res. 656 into H.R. 444).

(5) Graduate School Grants. The House passed a bill to

reauthorize programs that award grants to U.S. graduate

students under suspension of the rules on October 21, 2003

(H.R. 3076, voice voted) and then passed it again under a new

bill number on June 2, 2004 under suspension of the rules

(H.R. 4409, voice voted, then inserted by H. Res. 656 into

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

Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) that this process is lousy. H.R. 4503, the bill the gentleman was referring to, Members on the Democratic side were not even allowed to participate in the conference where this bill was negotiated. The process here is awful, and it really is indefensible.

I also remind the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) that this rule is not only for the consideration of H.R. 4503, it is also for the consideration of H.R. 4517, the U.S. Refinery and Revitalization Act. There were no hearings at all in the committee of jurisdiction on that bill. There was no markup by the Members of the committee of jurisdiction on that bill.

I think we need to say something in defense of the Members, both Democrat and Republican, who are on that committee of jurisdiction that they should have an opportunity to be present at hearings and ask questions and to be able to make suggestions to make that bill better. So this process is indefensible. It is indefensible not only by the fact that people are getting locked out and bills are being rushed to the floor without hearings and without markups, but also this is bad policy. I think almost everybody knows it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

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

Mr. Speaker, this House is becoming a place where the rules are constantly being broken and a place where the process is constantly being ignored. No hearings, no markups, no amendments made in order. How cynical on an issue so important.

We need an energy policy in this country, Mr. Speaker. But this is not it. What we are being presented with today really is a giveaway to big campaign contributors. This bill does nothing to lower gas prices. This bill does nothing to have us become less dependent on foreign oil. It does nothing to support, in a meaningful way, renewable energy sources.

This bill is having a tough time for all the right reasons, because it is a bad bill. And rather than trying to fix it and rather than trying to negotiate with the other body, here we are again going through the same old routine.

Mr. Speaker, it is not just people like me who have problems with this bill. Let me read just a section from a letter signed by the president of Taxpayers for Common Sense Action, the president of the Council for Citizens against Government Waste, the President of the National Taxpayers Union, the president of the Americans for Tax Reform, and the president of the American Conservative Union. They recently sent all of us a letter. Let me just quote from one paragraph.

They say: ``There is too much waste to describe in one letter,'' contained in this bill. ``Suffice it to say, the energy bill touches everyone and everything, from giving billions to ethanol producers to 'green' bonds for shopping malls, from billions to the nuclear and coal industries to billions in loan guarantees for an Alaska natural gas pipeline. There are also millions for various pet projects at colleges across this country. The oil and gas industry alone reaps more than a quarter of the bill's funding.''

Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on, and I will insert this letter in the Record.

Mr. Speaker, we could do so much better, and I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject this rule, to force the committees of jurisdiction to do their job, to go back and meet again and to come up with an energy bill that we all can be proud of.

December 1, 2003.

Pop the Ballooning Energy Bill

Dear Senator: On behalf of our members, the undersigned

groups urge you to oppose H.R. 6, the so-called ``Energy

Policy Act of 2003.'' We are concerned that at every

opportunity the energy bill has been larded up with more and

more waste and inappropriate taxpayer-funded subsidies.

Between initial passage on the floor of the House of

Representatives and the bill's emergence from the sequestered

conference committee, the bill's price tag ballooned from $46

billion to over $72 billion in authorized spending. That is a

50% increase in authorized spending in just a few months. Our

organizations will strongly consider including votes on this

bill in our end-of-the-year scorecards.

H.R. 6 is chock full of subsidies, pork barrel projects,

and unnecessary spending that have little, if anything, to do

with our nation's energy needs. Even supporters of the

legislation have admitted that it is not real comprehensive

energy policy, but merely a goodie bag of various projects

and policies. The Wall Street Journal called this bill ``one

of the great logrolling exercises in recent Congressional

history'' and that to get the bill through, leadership has

``greased more wheels than a Nascar pit crew.'' The

Washington Post also editorialized against the bill, calling

on lawmakers to ``make sure the bill doesn't become law.'' We

echo that sentiment.

There is too much waste to describe in one letter. Suffice

it to say, the energy bill touches everyone and everything,

from giving billions to ethanol producers to ``green'' bonds

for shopping malls, from billions to the nuclear and coal

industries to billion in loan guarantees for an Alaska

natural gas pipeline. There are also millions for various pet

projects at colleges across the country. The oil and gas

industry alone reaps more than a quarter of the bill's

funding.

Again, we urge you to oppose H.R. 6 and we will strongly

consider including votes on this wasteful legislation in our

organizations' end-of-year scorecards. We would be happy to

discuss these issues with you further. Please contact Aileen

Roder at Taxpayers for Common Sense Action at (202) 546-8500

130 or [email protected] with questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Jill Lancelot,

President, Taxpayers for Common Sense Action.

Tom Schatz,

President, Council for Citizens against Government Waste.

John Berthoud,

President, National Taxpayers Union.

Grover G. Norquist,

President, Americans for Tax Reform.

Richard Lessner, Ph.D,

Executive Director, American Conservative Union.

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 671 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 671 is a rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 4503, the Energy Policy Act of 2004; and H.R. 4517, the United States Refinery Revitalization Act of 2004.

The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate on H.R. 4503, with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Resources, and 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule also provides one motion to recommit.

Section 2 of the rule provides for 1 hour of general debate on H.R. 4517 to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The rule also provides one motion to recommit H.R. 4517.

Mr. Speaker, the first bill provided for under the rule, H.R. 4503, reflects the conference report on H.R. 6 that passed the House this November by a vote of 246 to 180. It is a bipartisan, comprehensive energy plan that is focused on providing a secure and diverse energy supply for our Nation.

There is bipartisan agreement on this plan to modernize our power generation systems, improve conservation and promote the development of renewable energy resources. The predominant source of energy varies among the different regions of our country. The bipartisan energy plan is comprehensive and addresses energy produced from oil, natural gas, wind, biomass, solar, coal, nuclear, and hydro.

In my area, the Pacific Northwest, Mr. Speaker, our primary source of power comes from hydroelectric dams. Clean, low-cost hydropower was critical to building the Northwest's economy. Whether it was electricity to irrigate central Washington's farms or to build airplanes in Seattle, it was vital to our economy.

This bipartisan agreement includes reforms to the lengthy and costly dam relicensing process that is critical to maintaining our region's low-cost hydropower. Environmental protections are preserved while providing flexibility to reduce costs and delays. Getting this plan enacted into law will help keep prices lower for Northwest families and for job-creating businesses.

An adequate, affordable energy supply is vital for a growing economy and job creation, and we need to get this plan enacted into law.

Mr. Speaker, today, the United States imports nearly 60 percent of its oil. This energy plan contains provisions to reduce our dependence on oil from the Middle East. The second bill provided for under this rule, H.R. 4517, will also help increase our Nation's energy independence.

The United States Refinery Revitalization Act would responsibly encourage the opening of previously closed refineries in the United States and the construction of new refineries to increase the domestic supply of gasoline which would help lower the price at the pump.

American demand for gasoline and refined fuels currently outpaces the capacity of our Nation to produce these needed products, and consumption of gasoline is expected to rise as our economy grows over the next 2 decades. Our choice as a Nation is to either increase our dependence on foreign sources of fuel or to help ensure refineries are built in America, which will create jobs here rather than at refineries in other countries.

Mr. Speaker, it is time to act and get a bipartisan energy plan enacted into law. It is time to increase America's energy independence. Accordingly, I encourage my colleagues to support both the rule, H. Res. 671, and the two underlying bills, H.R. 4503 and H.R. 4517.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I think probably the right thing to do is just review back to how we got to this point. Let us remind ourselves we have not had an energy policy in this country for several decades, and we need to have an energy policy. This House has passed three energy bills, and the other body has not acted on those three energy bills.

The last energy bill, however, did get to a conference where we worked out the disagreements between both of the bodies, and the ensuing conference report was then passed by this body and then went to the other body and was subject to a filibuster which, of course, is in their rules. In order to break that filibuster, it takes 60 votes. They got 58 votes. The presumption would be if they had a chance to vote up or down on the bill that perhaps they would have enough votes to pass the energy bill.

But I think it is even more instructive to go back and reflect on how we got to this point of the conference report. In the House alone in the last 3 years, we had 80 public hearings on energy policy in this country. We had 11 markups in the various committees on this energy bill. They considered 224 amendments, and we had 5 days of floor debate with 39 amendments in this body.

In the other body, there were 37 hearings, there were eight markups, and they had weeks of debate on the floor. When they finally got to conference, which of course is the final product which will develop the bill which will ultimately be the policy of this country, there were nine public hearings, there were 24 hours of debate. On a bipartisan basis, there were 10 staff meetings working out some of the details, and to say that this was not made public totally misses the point because there were 14 titles and 1,163 pages of text posted on the Web.

It is not surprising then with this background that the conference report dealing with our energy policy would pass on a bipartisan basis: 246 in this body to 180 against.

So I would just remind the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) that there was a great deal of work that went into this. We are simply bringing the bill back again with the idea to pass an energy bill that we need, and we need it very badly. It has been reflected, of course, in the higher prices of gasoline, which, I might add, are starting to reduce because of market pressures; and I am in favor of that.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I think to set the record straight there has been a great deal of work that has gone into the original bill and into this bill. I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule and the underlying bills.

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

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Linder) from the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I tell my friend from Washington that I am outraged as he is and other speakers have been by the revelation of the traders at Enron. No question about that. It is in black and white.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on the revelations that came to light last week regarding the tapes on the Enron traders. As I started to say earlier, that is pretty black and white, and it is bad. There is absolutely no question about that. And FERC is responsible for that. FERC has been working on this for some time. They have been. I think, frankly, they have been moving rather slowly. But now that this new information is out, I think FERC has to move much more quickly on this issue because there is an awful lot at stake for the rate payers in the western part of my State and certainly in my State and, indeed, the whole northwest. So I share concerns with my colleagues on the west coast that FERC needs to act immediately, and I hope that they would.

I might also add that since these revelations came to light last week about the trading, the Department of Justice has now weighed in, as they properly should. So we will get to the bottom about this. I do not think there is any question about that. But there is no way that anybody in this body can condone what we heard that was made public with those tapes.

So with that, getting back to the business at hand, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bills.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.