Small Business Paperwork Amnesty Act of 2006

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 842, I call up the bill (H.R. 5254) to set schedules for the consideration of permits for refineries, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 5254.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, today's bill is part of an overall set of actions by this body to deal with long-term energy security issues in our country. The message that we hear from home is, America needs American energy. One part of that need is for more domestic refining capacity. Witness after witness at a number of our hearings in the Energy and Commerce Committee have told us so.

Every emergency on energy has found us with less and less refinery capacity to refine fuel, and now there is absolutely none to spare here in the United States. Without more refinery capacity domestically, prices are squeezed ever upward. We are relying more and more on imported refined products as well as imported crude oil.

Why isn't there more domestic capacity? Why haven't there been any new refineries in this country built in the last 30 years? One reason is surely regulatory uncertainty caused by the bureaucratic delays in the current permitting process. H.R. 5254 addresses that problem head on, while preserving every single existing statute providing for environmental protection and opportunity for public participation. Every one.

Let me read that again. H.R. 5254 addresses that problem head on, while preserving every single existing statute providing for environmental protection and opportunity for public participation. Every one. Not one of those statutes is repealed or modified.

What H.R. 5254 does do is set up a Federal coordinator who convenes all officials, State, local and Federal, responsible for the permits for a proposed refinery. Working as one team, the agencies will integrate their action schedules and the process should move forward expeditiously.

What role would a State play in this process? The bill provides that the Governor of the State where the refinery would be sited designates the State officials to participate in the scheduling coordination. If the Governor of a State decides not to appoint any State officials, nothing in this act can compel the State officials to participate in the effort. The Federal coordinator will simply have to take that lack of State participation into account in scheduling the remaining actions of Federal permitting officials.

But if there is no State participation in that State, the process will not go forward. Unless the State official is designated by his Governor or her Governor, they cannot participate in the agreement. Unless the Governor signs on, the State agencies cannot be subject to a court order to stay on schedule. That is how the Governor of any State where a proposed refinery would be located reserves the option of participating or not participating in the process.

I would encourage any conference committee on this bill to further clarify that the Governor has the option in the beginning to opt into the process, instead of in the middle of it or at the end of it not to participate.

That is something that we reserve for a conference with the Senate. For Federal energy officials, however, the process is not optional once the request is made for the Federal coordinator to help.

Here, Mr. Speaker, I do acknowledge the work of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) on this issue.

The gentleman from Virginia spoke on this issue when the bill was brought up under suspension last month. Following that debate, with the cooperation of the House majority leadership, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Hall, Mr. Boucher and I did try to get together to explore common ground on this and other refinery issues.

Mr. Speaker, we did not reach resolution in time to incorporate some of our negotiations in the new language in this bill, but I still look forward, as we go to conference with the Senate continuing that dialogue in this context and perhaps bringing others into the dialogue as well.

Mr. Speaker, a separate provision in the bill before us today calls on the President to designate three or more closed military installations as potentially suitable for the construction of a refinery. Why is this provision in the bill? Because we know of communities with closed bases that are interested in siting a refinery.

We also know that the President of the United States is interested in this provision, he has spoken to me about it personally. They feel that the designation by the President would boost their chances of getting the attention of potential commercial developers. We also recognize that not every community with a closed base may want a refinery.

Nothing in this bill increases the likelihood that a community that does not want a refinery on a closed base will get one. Why? There are at least two reasons. The bill only encourages the local redevelopment authorities to consider the feasibility and practicality of siting the refinery. There is no requirement that they accept it.

Despite what you may hear in the debate, that decision is left up to the community. The Secretary of Defense is required to give substantial deference to the recommendation of the

redevelopment authority to site or not site a refinery on a closed military base, explicitly preserving existing law.

Mr. Speaker, this debate is about our Nation's energy security. I want to commend the leadership of this body for bringing the bill in a timely fashion to the floor and expediting the bill. Mr. Speaker, there are those who believe we have already run out of resources and ideas.

They say that we are all together in this, that we will just have to learn how to make do with less. Today they urge us to do nothing. I do not accept that. We have a refinery need in this country for 21 million barrels per day. We have a refinery capacity for approximately 17 million barrels a day. Subtract 17 from 21, you get 4 million barrels.

Mr. Speaker, we can certainly find the political will to come together to make it possible to reform the permitting process so that it might be possible to add to some existing refineries, and, yes for heavens sake, maybe even build one or two new ones.

That is what this bill is all about. It has passed the House floor once under suspension of the rules, but it did not get the two-thirds vote. I am hopeful today that we will get a majority vote and send this to the other body so we can work with them when they report a similar bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), a distinguished member of the full Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, a great catcher and left-handed pull hitter on the congressional baseball team.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering), the distinguished son from the Magnolia State, the distinguished vice chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy), another distinguished member of the full committee, from the State that built our first refinery back in the 1870s and the State that still today has substantial refinery capacity.

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

It is the clear intent of this opinion legislation to not require any local community that does not wish a refinery, whether it be in the private sector or on a closed military base, to opt out of the process. I am checking with the majority parliamentarian staff, but I am willing to take an amendment on the floor right now that changes that language so that if the military base or local authority wants nothing to do with it, that is it, if the gentleman from Maine is willing to vote for the bill.

I yield to the gentleman from Maine.

You write it. This is not a bogus offer. We are not trying to do the nefarious intent that you claim we are, and if we can work out the parliamentary language so that it does not violate some rule of the House, I will take an amendment right now that you offer, if you will vote for the bill.

I do not want to delete it, but I am willing to clarify it if you are willing to vote for the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to yield 4 minutes to another distinguished member of the full committee on Energy and Commerce from the great Granite State of New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member from the Grand Canyon State (Mr. Shadegg), who has the distinction of representing the last State in the Union to at least permit a new refinery. It hasn't yet been built, but they at least issued the permits for it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to admit up front that the procedure for bringing this bill to the floor has not been what I would have preferred it to be, and I am going to side with my friends on the minority side about their complaints about the procedure. It has not gone through the regular order, and in the perfect world, it should have. Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world.

We had to take some action on the majority side to show the American people that we were serious about doing anything possible to help alleviate some of these high energy prices, and it is certainly my opinion and I think it is a fact that one part of that process has got to be to make it possible to expand existing refineries and build new refineries in this country.

It is a fact, plain and simple, that we are using over 20 million barrels a day of petroleum products and we only have the refining capacity for 16 to 17 million barrels. That is a fact.

It is also a fact that in the hearings we have had on our energy price problem in this country in the Committee on Energy and Commerce that I chair, it has been shown that one of the leading causes of the higher prices has been the refining capacity shortage.

Now, historically the refining industry in this country has been a loss leader. If you go back 10 or 15 years ago when we had the integrated oil companies going from the production of the crude through the distribution of the crude, when it came to refineries, they lost money. So for a lot of reasons they shut down the refining capacity, and we developed a shortage in refining capacity.

Today the margin, it is the called the crack margin, and it has nothing to do with crack cocaine or cracks in concrete, it has to do with the ability to go in and crack the molecules in the crude oil and get the different levels of petroleum products out of that crude. That crack margin is higher than it ever has been by an order of magnitude. In some cases, the margin is probably approaching $30 to $35 a barrel of the $70 or $72 price. So there is more than adequate profit, but because of the regulatory impediments, it is almost impossible to go through the permitting process in a timely fashion under existing regulations and get a decision.

Now it is a true statement when my friends on the minority side say there has been no refinery not built in this country in the last 30 years, because they did not get a permit. That is a true statement, but it is only half true. The rest of the story is nobody in their right mind would try to get a permit to build a new refinery because it takes so long. So they are kind of beaten before they even start.

In the case in Arizona where an industrial group did go through the process, to this day in spite of them saying they have the permits, they have all but one. They still do not have the permit from the United States Bureau of Reclamation giving them title to the land. In this case, the land is actually owned by the Federal Government, and they still have not cleared the title to that land. Now they are going to, but they have not.

So the bill before us today is not a perfect bill. But at least it says, let us appoint a Federal coordinator, let us work with the State and local government. Let us set up a procedure where we coordinate all of these permits. We do not override any State or Federal or local air quality or water quality regulation, we just say let's coordinate it. And oh, yes, let's let the President pick three sites out in the country on closed military bases, of which we have dozens, and maybe we can get the local redevelopment authority to work with State and Federal officials to put a refinery there.

There is really no reason to oppose this bill. It is not going to do any harm, and it might just do some good. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly have sympathy for the underlying concept of the motion to recommit. The concept is that the United States Government should build, and perhaps even operate a certain number of refineries for a strategic refinery reserve. Conceptually, the idea is worth considering and we did consider it in

the discussions and negotiations that we had with Mr. Boucher and Mr. Dingell. We never reached resolution, and there are a number of reasons why we couldn't reach resolution, and those are the reasons for which I oppose this motion to recommit.

First of all, we never really defined and the motion to recommit does not define what a strategic reserve is. That is one of the problems.

Another problem with the motion to recommit is it actually has the government operating the refinery. I do not believe that we really want the Federal Government or the U.S. military, which is part of the Federal Government, to be in the business of operating a refinery. If they do not operate it, except in certain times, times of war, times of national emergency, what do you with it the rest of the time? The bill is silent about that.

And of course, conceptually, we have a problem on the majority side of the aisle with government intervention of any kind. I will grant you as chairman of the committee, I could see a set of rules which we were never able to get to in our negotiations where you could set up certain parameters and certain backstops and things where maybe we could overcome that, but we simply were not able to pursue that, and the underlying motion to recommit does not pursue that.

This is an idea that has some merit. It is quite possible that if the Senate, the other body does something on refinery reform, that we might yet make a bipartisan agreement with some of our friends on the minority side. But for purposes of the motion to recommit at this point in time I strongly oppose this and would urge all Members who are prepared to vote for the refinery bill, the base bill, to vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill that is before the House and urge its rejection. The refinery bill today makes its second appearance on the House floor in recent weeks. It was essentially the same bill that was rejected by the House in May.

Since the bill's last appearance on the floor, a serious effort has been made by the bipartisan leadership of the Energy and Commerce Committee to find common ground between our position and the Republican position. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), who chairs the full Energy and Commerce Committee for his good faith effort to produce a bipartisan bill.

I also want to thank the chairman of the Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee, Mr. Hall, and the ranking Democrat on the full committee, Mr. Dingell, for the time that they invested in seeking a bipartisan compromise.

Unfortunately, the differences between the Republican position and our position were simply too great, and the consensus bill could not be produced.

While I commend the effort made by Mr. Barton and Mr. Hall to work with us in trying to produce a balanced measure that we all today could support, I must express disappointment that the Republican House leadership chose to disallow all amendments on the refinery bill that we are debating on the floor today.

The bill should have been structured in such a way as to provide an opportunity to consider our Democratic substitute, which would make a genuine difference in relieving the Nation's shortage of refinery capacity.

While I will argue the merits of our more meaningful approach during today's debate, we are now relegated to offering our alternative in what is known as a motion to recommit, a procedure at the end of the formal debate that does not offer a full opportunity for the House to consider, in normal order, our proposal.

There is broad agreement that we have a shortage of refinery capacity in the United States today. The gentleman from Texas acknowledged that in his comments as well. There are simply not enough refineries in the Nation to produce the gasoline, the diesel fuel and the other refined products that we consume in the United States on a daily basis.

In fact, of the 20 million barrels we consume each day, more than 2 million barrels of refined product are imported each day. During times of emergency, such as a hurricane that might disable some of our refining capacity, we have no margin for error since we are not even meeting our own daily demand with U.S.-based refineries, we are in a highly vulnerable position whenever part of our already limited refinery capacity is disrupted.

When that happens, we have to import even more refined product. And we have to do it on very short notice. Arranging to buy the refined product overseas, scheduling delivery of that product to the United States, and then waiting on those shipments to arrive are all time consuming and all occur at a time when because of the hurricane, refinery fire or earthquake or other emergency, we simply do not have enough refined product to meet current demand.

The inevitable result is a huge spike in gasoline prices. That is exactly what happened in the weeks after Hurricane Katrina. And until we add more refinery capacity, that is what will happen every time in the future we have a disaster that takes down some of our limited refining capacity.

On this much, Republicans and Democrats agree. To promote our energy security and to protect Americans from future gasoline price spikes, we need to build more refineries in the United States. The disagreement that we have is over the best means to ensure that they are built.

The Republican bill now before the House is simply not the answer. It weakens State environmental protection processes and procedures while doing virtually nothing to assure that new refineries are, in fact, built. The bill before us repeals the law requiring the States and the Federal Government to work together to set deadlines and streamline the process for issuing permits for new refinery construction.

That new requirement became law just last August in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Instead of repealing it, we should be giving it a chance to work. Let us see if those provisions are satisfactory. And if they are, perhaps that could resolve the need.

The bill before us adds a new layer of Federal bureaucracy by creating a Federal coordinator to oversee State-permitting actions, and States would be mandated to meet a Federal schedule for issuing refinery construction permits.

States that have legitimate environmental concerns would find their normal review processes short circuited under a mandated Federal schedule for permit issuance.

And the bill proceeds from a deeply flawed assumption that the reason that we have a refinery shortage is burdensome State permitting processes. The real reason we do not have enough refineries is the economic interests of the refiners, not environmental constraints.

Between September of 2004 and September of 2005, the Nation's refiners enjoyed a 255 percent profit increase. When you are doing that well, why change anything? Why make added investments in new refineries when the status quo graces you with a 255 percent profit increase?

By interfering with State environmental permitting, the Republican bill is truly a solution in search of a problem, and it ignores the real problem. The oil companies themselves have told us that environmental regulations are simply not the problem.

Here is what the oil company CEOs have said about regulations governing their refining siting process. Last November, the CEO of Shell testified to the Congress, ``We are not aware of any environmental regulations that have prevented us from expanding refinery capacity or siting a new refinery.''

Conoco's CEO testified, ``At this time, we are not aware of any projects that have been directly prevented as a result of any specific Federal or State regulation.''

The record before the Congress is clear. It is devoid of any evidence that environmental permitting has delayed or prevented the construction of new refineries. In fact, the record clearly shows that environmental permitting is simply not a problem.

And yet, this bill weakens environmental permitting. It is the wrong answer for the problem that we face. Mr. Speaker, there is a right answer. Decades ago, our Nation created the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to resolve, with regard to crude oil, the very same problem that we are now having with regard to the refining of gasoline.

The Strategic Petroleum Reserve has proven to be an excellent shock absorber, guarding our Nation against price spikes occasioned by disruptions in crude oil deliveries. It works exactly as it was designed to function.

Our Democratic proposal is to extend this proven and successful model to solve the problem we now face with a

shortage of refinery capacity. We propose the creation of a Strategic Refinery Reserve patterned on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. In normal times the refineries that comprise the reserve would produce gasoline and other products for the government fleet, including the U.S. Department of Defense.

This step would enhance our national security. Refineries would not operate at full capacity during these normal times. During times of emergency, the refineries would sell gasoline into the commercial market, protecting the American public from gasoline price spikes should some of the U.S. refining capacity be shut down.

This sensible alternative, which the rule earlier adopted precludes us from offering as a substitute, would be an effective means of solving the problem which simply must be addressed.

I urge, Mr. Speaker, that the Republican bill be rejected and that the House adopt our Democratic motion which will be offered at the end of debate today, and that motion will contain the very sensible and, I think, effective Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

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

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking Democrat on the full Energy and Commerce Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

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

Mr. Speaker, the Republican bill is not an effective way to address the shortage in refining capacity. It tramples on State environmental laws without effectively solving the problem.

The CEOs of the refinery companies have testified that the permitting process for refinery siting is not burdensome and has not prevented the construction of needed new refineries. The Republican bill, therefore, weakens State environmental laws needlessly because it would do virtually nothing to ensure that new refineries are, in fact, built.

By contrast, our Democratic alternative will be effective, it will address our national refinery shortage, and it will do so by relying on the proven and successful means by which we addressed several decades ago disruptions in crude oil supplies. We simply would extend the proven concept of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve by constructing a strategic refinery reserve in order to address the problem of refining capacity, very similar today to the problem we addressed decades ago with regard to crude oil supply disruptions.

So, Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge rejection of the Republican bill, and I urge that when we submit our motion to recommit that that be approved by the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I am in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit is the only means by which the Democratic alternative to the Republican bill could be brought to the House floor, and that is under the very restrictive procedure that the Republicans have adopted which eliminates any possibility for amendments, including a Democratic substitute.

I regret that that restrictive process does not enable the House to consider our Democratic alternative in regular order.

The motion that I am offering would create a strategic refinery reserve. That would be an effective means of resolving our national problem with regard to limited refinery capacity. We would model the refinery reserve upon the very successful strategic petroleum reserve which has been an excellent shock absorber protecting Americans from gasoline price spikes when there are disruptions in the delivery of crude oil.

Under our amendment, the Secretary of Energy will be directed to establish refineries with capacity equal to 5 percent of the total United States demand for gasoline, home heating oil and other refined petroleum products. The location of the refineries will be at the discretion of the Secretary with a preference that they be sited well away from the hurricane zone where we are concentrated today in our existing refinery capacity.

During normal times, the reserve will not operate at full capacity. The refineries during these normal times would sell refined product to the Federal fleet, including the Department of Defense, a step which would also enhance our national security.

Keeping the refinery reserve operational will ensure no lag time in placing it online if it is needed in times of emergency, and in those times when some portion of the Nation's refinery capacity is shut down, the refinery reserve would protect Americans from gasoline price spikes by selling their product into the commercial market.

This approach is sensible. It is based on a working and highly successful model, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It would be effective. It stands in stark contrast to the Republican proposal which would weaken environmental laws while failing to address our critical refinery shortage.

This motion also strikes section 5 which would direct the President to select three closed military bases upon which refineries would be situated, a provision which I find objectionable, which I think the vast majority of Members of this House also find objectionable. We would strike it in this motion.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) to address those concerns.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this motion to recommit, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Virginia said earlier, this bill is a solution in search of a problem. I really want to focus on section 5 of the bill, and I would urge all my colleagues to read this bill, together with the BRAC statutes and regulations in order to understand what we are doing here.

But as written, section 5 of the bill requires the President to designate at least three closed military bases as sites for oil refineries, and then it requires the local redevelopment authorities, or LRAs, to develop a reuse plan for an oil refinery. The BRAC statute and the BRAC regulations give the final decision to the Secretary of Defense, not to the local community. Under current law, the LRA is charged with developing a reuse plan for a closed base.

Successful LRAs develop their plans in consultation with a myriad of stakeholders in the local community, as well as representatives from State and Federal agencies and private industry. Over a period of time, often 18 to 24 months, the LRA painstakingly designs a plan that takes into account the specific needs of the local community and has local support.

The reuse plan is then submitted to the Secretary of Defense who has the authority to approve the plan or reject it and require the LRA to start over.

Now, I have no problem with an LRA or any local community deciding that an oil refinery represents the best use of their closed facility. If it makes sense for such a community, then they should do it. There is nothing, nothing, in current law or in the regulations put forth by the Office of Economic Adjustment at DOD that is an obstacle to building a refinery. There is no problem.

We do not need section 5, but if you look at section 5, Designation of Closed Military Bases, the presidential designate, it is mandatory, no less than three closed military installations as potentially suitable for construction of a refinery. Part B, the redevelopment authority shall consider the feasibility and practicality of siting a refinery on the installation.

The next section contemplates that they will do that in the context of the redevelopment plan for the installation, and then it provides the rest of it shall be carried out under the BRAC law.

So here we have a situation where the President of the United States is going to designate, is going to order such a plan, and in that case, the Secretary of Defense is almost certain to carry it out. The LRA has no power to stop them.

And do not think that this language applies only to the 2005 BRAC round. It applies to all bases closed pursuant to a BRAC round back to 1988 that still have an open or partially open reuse plan.

Now, supporters of this are circulating a Dear Colleague which says that the redevelopment authority for each closed base will consider the President's suggestions but is not required to accept them. Frankly, that is

just wrong. The bill says that it requires the Secretary of Defense to consult, and they define and the regs define consultation as explaining and discussing an issue, considering objections, modifications and alternatives, but without a requirement to reach agreement.

The supporters also say, and consistent with the language of the bill, that it requires the Secretary of Defense to give, and I quote, significant deference to the wishes of the LRA, and I want you to hold this concept in your head for a moment. Secretary Rumsfeld, giving significant deference to anybody, any agency, especially a local redevelopment authority? That is simply not going to happen.

The fact is that there is no requirement that an LRA accept a reuse plan in this bill. Of course not. The underlying BRAC statute makes it clear that the reuse plan is not binding on DOD. LRAs do not accept reuse plans. They propose them. The Secretary of Defense accepts reuse plans or rejects them. That is his role.

Now, Mr. Speaker, communities that have suffered major base closings like Brunswick in my district are reeling from the economic impact. Jobs will be lost, the fabric of a community torn apart. These communities need to plan for their future, but they do not need interference from this Congress or from the President of the United States. Please oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, well, I would need to see the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, my amendment was to delete section 5 of the bill.

That was my amendment. It was rejected by the Rules Committee. We should at least have had a vote on that amendment on the floor and we do not.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Boucher- Dingell motion to recommit. Passage of this motion would do a great deal to improve refinery capacity and enhance the Nation's capability to respond to natural disasters.

The motion would also strike section 5, that section of the underlying bill that requires the President to designate at least three closed military bases as sites for oil refineries.

Passage of this motion would guarantee that communities which have had a base closed through the BRAC process will not be forced by Presidential fiat to accept an oil refinery. If you have a closed military base in your community or you believe in local control concerning decisions of siting oil refineries, support the Boucher- Dingell motion. If this motion fails and you care about the fate of a closed military base in your community, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and colleague, the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, for this time.

I begin by observing that this bill and the arguments made on its behalf are as phony as a $3 bill. My colleagues have seen this sorry piece of legislation before and they voted it down. Since we considered this legislation the first time, there have been no hearings. The arguments made against it at that time are as good today as they were then. And the committee has made no effort to go out and get the facts or to learn what is going on so they could make an honest and factual presentation to this body.

The harsh fact of the matter is the refinery shortage in this country is an economic one. The oil companies do not make money in refineries. The harsh fact of the matter is, as was told me in my office by the head of one of the major oil companies, they do not need any help and they do not want any help to build refineries because they have made an economic judgment that it is better not to build because they make their money elsewhere, and that is a far better way of spending oil companies' money.

Now, if we look at the remarks of Daniel Yergin, a respected oil analyst, he tells us the industry has added the equivalent of 10 new good-sized oil refineries over the last dozen years. In addition to these expansions, recent announcements by the industry anticipate an additional 1.1 million barrels of new refining capacity will be added in coming years. Most importantly, this has been done under current law.

A survey we conducted recently of State and local permitting agencies provides further evidence that the environmental permitting process is not preventing new refineries from being built or existing refineries from being expanded. Only one new major refinery has requested an air permit in the past 30 years. It got the permit, but it never got the investors. Explain that, proponents of the bill.

The air permit has been granted not once but twice. According to our survey, permitting agencies responsible for permitting half the refineries in the

country have issued all, all, but two major expansion permits in less than a year after receipt of a complete application.

This is an ill-advised bill, brought to the House under a parody of the House rules, with no opportunity to amend and little time for an intelligent debate. The rule is effectively closed and permits no amendments by Members on this side of the aisle.

My colleagues on the Republican side have said that the Democrats have not conducted themselves in good faith. Such remarks were made by the chairman of the subcommittee. I would note, and I wish he were here so that he could hear me say this, that those statements are not true.

We consulted through staff and Members alike with the Republicans to come forward with a fair piece of legislation and a compromise bill which would, in fact, work. We offered suggestions on behalf of our side of the aisle through the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), offering a meaningful substitute, including a refinery bill which would have passed and which would have worked. It was a bill which would have set up not just provisions relating to refinery permits, but also relating to Federal movement towards the construction of these refineries. If you want refineries, that is the way to get them because industry will never construct new refineries because they do not want them.

Now, one more curious thought. My Republican colleagues have said that we will have an energy bill every week, and they are coming close to it, but they are having some small difficulties because here they have to bring the same bill up twice, once under suspension and lose, and once now under a gag rule.

I would note for the benefit of my Republican colleagues that we passed last year, with bipartisan support and my assistance to my friend, the chairman of the committee, in drafting a piece of legislation which included refinery legislation in it, the energy bill of the last year, a good piece of legislation. I supported it. I worked with the chairman to get it done. I would note in a curious, indeed a most curious, action, that bill is substantially repealed by this very strange piece of legislation.

It cannot be explained to me, I think, in a few words as to why it is that that bill, touted as the solution to our Nation's energy problems, has been now repealed at least insofar as the refinery permitting provisions, and why we have to now rush ignorantly forward with a bag upon our heads to pass a new piece of legislation which is going to accomplish precisely nothing, except perhaps help my Republican colleagues in a time of terror and fear.

Mr. Speaker, I, of course, rise today in support of H.R. 5254. While there is a lot of talk about refinery plants and all that, and while some plants have expanded, there haven't been any new ones built in the past 30 years. All the time Mr. Markey's been up here, there hasn't been one started, so far as I know, or built. Maybe enlarged or worked on, but they remain dangerously clustered in the gulf region. This bill would coordinate the permitting process for new refineries so that needless delays would be eliminated while preserving environmental protections.

One provision in the bill calls on the President to designate three or more closed military installations as potentially suitable for the construction of a refinery. Now, why is this provision in the bill? Because there are communities with closed bases, such as the former Lone Star Army Ammunition Base in my district in Texarkana, Texas, that would like to have a refinery, because it makes good economic sense.

The gentleman from Maine does not want one. He is not having one thrust upon him. Refineries bring jobs and a solid base to the local community. The designation by the President would boost a willing community's chances of getting the attention of a potential commercial developer.

Opponents of this legislation claim that the legislation will increase the likelihood that a community that does not want a refinery on a closed base would get one. That is ridiculous, and that is exactly wrong. Why? Because the bill only requires that three local redevelopment authorities consider the feasibility and practicability of siting a refinery. There is no requirement that they accept it. And also because the Secretary of Defense is required to give a substantial deference to the recommendation of the development authority to site or not to site.

Helping a willing local community to site a refinery on its closed military installation is good. It is good for the area. And, once again, a city in my area, like Texarkana, on the far eastern side of the State of Texas, close to four States, would have the support of four States, probably eight Senators, and is not subject to the vicissitudes of nature, but yet on an inside, navigable stream, with good workers there and in other areas.

This is good for the community because it brings jobs and a healthy tax base. It is good for the country because it adds needed domestic refining capacity. It also lowers dramatically the cost of gasoline, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5254.

Mr. Speaker, I enclose for the Record a letter soliciting this from the Texarkana people.

Texarkana Chamber of Commerce,

June 6, 2006.

Re H.R. 5254--Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act.

Hon. Ralph Hall,

Rayburn Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Hall: Let it be clear to all who are

concerned: this community was impacted by BRAC 2005 and we

would be glad to have the opportunity to attract a refinery

to our closed defense facility. Lone Star Army Ammunition

Plant (LSAAP) could be one of the facilities eligible for a

possible refinery as a result of the BRAC 2005 action. This

facility is within fifteen miles of our community and we are

excited that we could have the opportunity to provide our

citizens with the jobs associated with a refinery.

These energy-related jobs could also spur new technologies

which could highlight our region for years to come. The

resultant jobs and capital investment could help to offset

the loss of LSAAP and smooth the transition to privately

owned, tax paying entities on the property. Our local

university is working to develop a Master's level engineering

program and the technical jobs offered by a refinery would be

an integral piece of that program.

It looks like our community is going to have over 15,000

acres of land available for economic development. We can

think of no better place to start that development than with

a refinery.

As always, we appreciate your dedication to our region.

With best regards,

Linda Crawford,

President.

James Bramlett,

Mayor--Texarkana, TX.

Roy John McNatt,

Miller County Judge.

Horace Shipp,

Mayor--Texarkana, AR.

James M. Carlow,

Bowie County Judge.