To amend title 49, United States Code, to modify bargaining requirements for proposed changes to the personnel management system of the Federal Aviation Administration.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to request the time in opposition.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5449. Unfortunately, my very good friend, Mr. LaTourette, the gentleman from Ohio, and Mr. Costello, the gentleman from Illinois, support this proposal, but this, unfortunately, is a very seriously flawed bill and piece of legislation, and it comes at a time when we are trying to do everything we can to stabilize and provide economic reform for the aviation industry.

Let me talk a little bit about the history of how we got to this situation. Mr. LaTourette has also spoken to the increases that the air traffic controllers have received from 1998 to last year. They did receive some 75 percent, and maybe there was need to adjust the salaries. That translates into about 10 percent per year. But that contract did expire last year, and the air traffic controllers were required and FAA also began negotiations for a new contract.

Unfortunately, that drug out for some time, and by the terms of the existing contracts and agreement, as long as no contract was in place, the terms of the old contract prevailed, with some pretty hefty increases in place.

What has taken place in fact is an impasse occurred. Under existing law, when that impasse was declared by FAA, the matter was sent to Congress. That has all taken place. That is all history. For some 60 days, Congress had an opportunity to overturn that. And it is true that there was legislation with many Republican cosponsors sympathetic with changing some of the procedures. However, that bill was not retroactive, like the LaTourette proposal. This is a reach-back provision, and it also takes Congress completely out of the process, as opposed to the bill that others had cosponsored.

So, this is a bill, again, H.R. 5449, that, if enacted, will change the rules of the game at the bottom of the ninth inning just because one of the teams does not like the outcome of fair negotiations, a legislative process that has already been completed, and, again, we take Congress out of the process.

The Constitution provides in Article I that all bills relating to funding and appropriations come out of the House of Representatives, emanate in the House of Representatives. This legislation, again, reaches back and changes the rules of the game. It allows a panel that is not confirmed by Congress, by the Senate, again, a panel of seven, to make appropriations and also authorization decisions that are left to the Congress.

So, I have great concern about this procedure. I think it sets a horrible precedent.

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

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

Just for the record, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, the average compensation for an air traffic controller today

is $173,000. That is average. The highest paid controller earns $277,937. That is the highest controller. I have 1,397 controllers earning $213,500.

Just for the record, the average median household income in Illinois, the home State of the gentleman who just previously spoke, is $48,953. For Mr. LaTourette, the sponsor of this legislation, the average median household income is $42,240.

Further for the record, an air traffic controller for the military, and we have a whole corps of air traffic control servicemembers serving in the United States and across the world, right now a sergeant in the U.S. Air force with 10 years experience and those in the combat zone as we speak tonight serving in Iraq at Baghdad Airport, earn $35,919. Of course, they get many benefits on top of this, such as housing. I want to be fair.

But that brings some of this debate and the amount of compensation we are talking about hopefully into perspective.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, just a couple of clarifying points, if I may. We heard the gentleman from Illinois talk about sending this contract back to the bargaining table. We heard reference by the previous speaker also of the panel that will get this.

I had the honor and privilege of chairing the House Civil Service Committee for some 4 years. I know a little bit about the Federal Service Impasse Panel. The Federal Service Impasse Panel is not confirmed by the Senate. It has no congressional confirmation. It has seven appointees by the President. Ninety-eight percent of the issues it has handled, and this is what the LaTourette bill would do is send it to this panel, 98 percent of the issues that it has handled are nonwage. That is a fact.

It deals primarily with quasi-governmental and nonappropriated, that is nonappropriated by Congress, mostly agencies that generate their own income through fees.

So this is unprecedented in sending it to this panel. Now, they do not have the staff to deal with this. Maybe it will go on to the Labor Relations Board and then maybe it will be further appealed. But remember, the name of this game is keeping this stirred up and not resolved as long as possible, because we have then the provisions of the Clinton contract, which expired on Monday.

In addition, there are differences between the bill by Mrs. Kelly, and I applaud her for her bill, first her bill did not reach back as the LaTourette bill did, and secondly, her bill kept Congress in the process.

The LaTourette bill takes Congress out of the process, turns this process really over to, again, a board that has really no congressional oversight or participation in even confirming the members in an unprecedented fashion. So that again provides us with some statistics.

Just to also further clarify cash compensation versus total compensation. The highest controller, if we take cash compensation, only is $231,477 for the record. The 1,397 controllers about the statutory cap, they receive, again without benefits, $175,366.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, again for the record, first of all, the gentleman from New York just talked about this unfair process. This is the same process that was put into effect during the Clinton administration in 1996, and in 1998 gave the air traffic controllers a 75 percent increase, the same exact process that we are working under.

The gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) and my good friend, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly),

the average median household incomes by State that I have for New York is $47,349. Now, I do not want anyone to think that we are cutting existing air traffic controllers. Under the contract that went into effect on Monday, their compensation and their benefits, they will rise from 2007 to 2011 from $173,000 to $185,000.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to take just a minute. I have the greatest respect for Mr. LoBiondo. He is one of the hardest workers in Congress. I went up to some of the Federal aviation facilities, testing facilities and others in his district. He is one of the strongest advocates in Congress for good, sound aviation. I am sorry we disagree a bit. I know a lot of Members are under pressure.

I thought about this. And I thought this is one reason why we should not even have these issues before Congress. Ninety-eight percent of the Federal employees, in fact, have a general wage chart and schedule. You can see why countries like Argentina, Germany and others have the tail wagging the dog. I feel bad for Members who are in that predicament.

But our responsibility is to the taxpayer. It is also to a sound aviation system, which I think both Mr. LaTourette, Mr. LoBiondo, Mr. Costello, everyone agrees is important.

The dilemma that we face if we pass LaTourette, and we are working under existing law that did give us 60 days, that did expire on Monday, and we have a new contract. What happens is, given the nature of this impasse panel and its lack of any experience in dealing with these kinds of issues, this could go on and on.

Now, Mr. Knollenberg was on his way. He is an appropriator and oversees appropriations and was to speak against Mr. LaTourette's proposal. But what happens here, Members of Congress, Mr. Speaker, is, quite simply put, H.R. 5449 pulls the rug out from underneath actually our entire national aviation system and the whole funding process when we can least deal with it.

Airport projects, and Members should be aware of this, when you have to put 1.9, and I asked the attorneys from FAA, is this enough, at bay for a number of years, and they said, it will probably be double that figure that will be put at bay. I have right now $1.9 billion, Mr. Costello knows this, left in our entire airport improvement funds at this time.

So we put airport projects at risk with unpredictable costs and salaries, leaving this hanging out. Then we also hurt the core of other FAA employees. This chart shows the total compensation gap between controllers and other FAA employees. It is a gigantic gap, some 42 percent.

So we leave them hanging out. We leave all of our projects for funding around the country, we leave air traffic control modernization, which is the system that gives us the very best technology for safety. So that is of a great concern to me.

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

Mr Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) for the purposes of entering into a colloquy.

Again, I do think that we have some serious consequences. Not only would this unprecedented reach back and change in policy put us in turmoil for financing the entire system, what will happen is-- this is simple math. If you are paying these people over $200,000 per year on average, it allows you less entrants. And Congress is the appropriator. We decide on how many hires.

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

Again, for the record, and I believe these figures to be correct, that under the new contract which was put into place on Monday and which the LaTourette reachback would actually wipe out, the average salary with benefits would increase from $173,000 to $185,000 under this new proposal.

If we leave the contract that was negotiated during the Clinton administration in place, it is my understanding that compensation and benefit would reach $211,000. That is not really the question here. Although it is an increase, it is, again, a question of fairness.

We have gone through the process adopted under the Clinton administration in 1996. They did receive, in fact, a 75 percent increase in 1998. The process worked then. The same processes work now. We had the 60 days to consider it. It was not overturned in Congress. The LaTourette proposal is, in fact, different than the Kelly proposal. The Kelly proposal would have gone forward before the Monday deadline. The LaTourette proposal, it is in his legislation. It reaches back to April 6, the date of the impasse. It would overturn, again, all precedents, all laws. I am for fairness in dealing with labor, fairness in dealing with everyone.

I might point out for the record that the median household income for the State of Texas, the gentlewoman who just spoke, is $41,759.

There is great concern about this proposal because again it leaves our safety, it leaves our airport projects, it leaves the future really of bringing on new hires which is so important and an aging workforce all in limbo. It would be an unprecedented reachback.

This is so serious that this afternoon the administration, the President, I am sure, checked off on this. It says, if a bill such as H.R. 5449 that changes or negates the impasse resolution process or the revised terms and conditions of employment that were presented to the President, the President's senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

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

I do not see Mr. Knollenberg or Mr. Shadegg and try to wrap up for opposition side, and if they come, I will be glad to yield.

First of all, from Oregon, the average median household income is $41,794.

I have the greatest respect for Mr. DeFazio. He was my ranking member on aviation. He does a great job, but I disagree with him on this issue.

First let me talk about the fairness. I have been here in the minority. I have been here in the majority. I have never seen anything fairer than this. How would you like to be me, chairman of aviation. We had a bill with 250 co-sponsors, many Republicans. That bill was not brought out but people co-sponsored it. Everyone was open to co- sponsor. We had a discharge petition. Mr. Costello, I believe he had 195, not even every Democrat signed it, no Republicans. So that procedure ended last week. And then I get the notice that of course the new contract is going into effect on Monday and there is going to be a vote, it was supposed to be today. It will be tomorrow.

I feel like the guy that is trying to carry the ball down the field. I get to the end of the line, the goal line, and now they moved the goal for me out into the parking lot. So I do not think I would complain.

Again, I think this has been a very fair and open process. And I admire the Speaker and Majority Leader and others who have participated, Mr. LaTourette.

We do want, again, the very best system but we want fairness for the taxpayers. I do not think this is all about fairness for the taxpayers. And I have to go back to John Carr, again, a good friend and he represents the air traffic controllers as well. These are his words, March 31, 2006: ``There is absolutely no reason for NATCA to end talks. The current contract is better than our last concession-laden contract proposal at the bargaining table and stays in effect until there is a new contract. We could literally talk forever.''

That is what this is about. If you reverse the contract that went into effect on Monday and we go back to talking forever, that is the plan because again these huge increases that were allowed under the Clinton administration do continue.

We still have increases, but we have a limit on those increases.

Now, many groups have looked at this. The National Taxpayers Union has strong opposition. Here is a letter I would like to submit for the Record. The Citizens Against Government Waste, they oppose it. Americans for Tax Reform, they oppose it. The National Chambers of Commerce, your chambers of commerce have looked at it; they oppose it. The American Conservative Union. If you are on that side of the aisle, the American Association of Airport Executives will be impacted by this. Our airports oppose it.

Vote No on H.R. 5449

As representatives of the aviation industry, we strongly

urge you to oppose legislation, H.R. 5449, that would

intervene in the negotiation process between the Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA) and the air traffic controllers

union.

The law governing this process was passed nine years ago

and was in place when the air traffic controllers union

successfully negotiated its 1998 contract and 2003 extension

of that contract.

Current law requires that if Congress wants to intervene,

it has 60 days from the Administration's submission to do so.

The deadline for Congressional action was June 5.

H.R. 5449, unfairly changes the rules of negotiation nine

months into the process. To apply a new process retroactively

does not comply with the current law. All parties entered

into these negotiations knowing the statutory rules and

impasse processes well in advance.

The continued health of our industry depends on the Federal

Aviation Administration's ability to effectively and safely

manage the national airspace, control costs, achieve

efficiencies and expand capacity.

H.R. 5449 changes the rules of a process that has been in

place for a lengthy period. This would create uncertainty in

terms of cost and efficiencies. The impact would be

significant at a time that the industry is facing enormous

problems.

Please vote ``NO'' on H.R. 5449.

Sincerely,

James C. May,

President and CEO, Air Transport Association.

Charles Barclay,

President, American Association of Airport Executives.

James K. Coyne,

President, National Air Transport Association.

Ronald N. Priddy,

President, National Air Carrier Association.

Stephen A. Alterman,

President, Cargo Airline Association.

Deborah C. McElroy,

President, Regional Airline Association.

Edward P. Faberman,

Executive Director, Air Carrier Association of America.

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

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 move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5449) to amend title 49, United States Code, to modify bargaining requirements for proposed changes to the personnel management system of the Federal Aviation Administration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that half of my time, 10 minutes, be yielded to Mr. Costello, and that he be permitted to yield time.

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

Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank Speaker Hastert for allowing us to have this debate tonight and also Majority Leader Boehner. There are some people on our side of the aisle that are not so happy that we are doing it, but I have to tell you that when you have 80 Republican Members of Congress supporting a piece of legislation, I think it is important to have the debate and have it now.

I also want to thank Congressman LoBiondo of New Jersey and Congresswoman Sue Kelly from New York for being my partners in this endeavor as we move this legislation forward, and I want to thank Mr. Costello for standing up in support of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is pretty simple. There is a contract dispute currently going on between the air traffic controllers in this country and the Federal Aviation Administration, and this bill simply sends them back to the table and asks them to reach a fair and equitable conclusion.

Under current law, the FAA has unilaterally imposed their contract terms on the hard-working air traffic controllers in this country. Congress is not in the business of contract negotiations, nor should it be. The FAA is also at an impasse with four other bargaining units, and the Congress really shouldn't be in the business of constantly reviewing labor contracts.

When this bill passes, the sides will resume negotiating and the existing contract will remain in place, there will be no disruption in service.

If they are unable to bridge the gap, the matter then goes before the Federal Service Impasses Panel. The FSIP, as it is called, will assure that both sides are negotiating fairly, and if no agreement can be reached, FSIP then can impose contract terms on both parties.

Some people might say, oh, man, FSIP, that sounds like a tough place for the FAA or the administration to go to. The FSIP board is made up of seven members, all seven appointees of this president, President George W. Bush.

During the course of this debate tonight, we are going to hear, I think, some facts and figures, and I want to lay some of them to rest now. We may hear that the average salary for air traffic controllers is $173,000. While that may be true if you include all of their benefits, anybody that is lucky enough to have health care or a retirement package knows that about 40 percent of that is made up in those benefits.

The average salary is really about $127,000. I don't know a lot of people in Cleveland, Ohio, that thinks that is too much for people that land the millions of passengers that travel our Nation's airways. You may hear that air traffic controller salaries have increased 75 percent, and we will explore that a little bit later.

Some people are going to criticize the FSIP board saying, oh, man, there is no incentive for the air traffic controllers to go back and negotiate. I will tell you I have talked to both lead negotiators. There is a strong desire to get this done. And, again, at any time after the passage of this bill, if either side thinks that the other side isn't negotiating fairly, they can immediately call up FSIP and go to this seven-member panel, all appointed by President George W. Bush.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. I hope our colleagues can support it with the two-thirds majority necessary.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, just briefly to the gentleman's baseball analogy, that is exactly why they make extra innings and we should have extra innings here.

Secondly, again, this $173,000 figure, people in Cleveland, Ohio, that are sitting on their couch know that $173,000 is a lot of money, but again, if they are lucky enough to have health care and pension, that is 40 percent of that cost. The average is $127,000.

Now, again, people in Cleveland, Ohio, think that that is a lot of money as well, but I am going to tell you, they think that the guy that walked away from Exxon with a $400 million retirement package, that really is a lot of money.

The sum of $127,000 for someone who has dedicated his or her life to safely landing your family at an airport is not too much money.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), the sponsor of the original bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a brief comment before yielding to my friend from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo).

Mr. Mica continues to talk this bill reaching back. I just want to focus on the 60 days that was in the current law. It is inconceivable that anybody that has been here for any period of time thinks that this Congress can act in 60 calendar days on anything.

Mr. Speaker, I have been here 12 years. For that entire 12 years we have been trying to repeal a telephone tax that was put into effect to pay for a war. Now some people say, oh, was it the Iraq war? Maybe the gulf war? Maybe Korea? No, the Spanish-American War.

The Treasury Department just announced this week that they are going to let us repeal the tax that is 100 years old, but we were supposed to act in 60 days.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the President but on this issue, quite frankly, he is wrong. I think that if he talked to his FAA administrator, we might have a different conclusion.

I want to tell you what has my dander up this evening because Mr. Mica is right. This is an unusual procedure. This has happened once before since this legislation went into effect. The last time, 60 days went by, the Congress didn't do anything. Just like we didn't do anything this 60 days. The administrator of the FAA waited 19 months before she imposed the contract. This, the deadline was up Monday, the 5th of June. You get the feeling she was sitting with one of those desk calendar for left-handers that people get for Christmas and she could not flip to the 5th of June fast enough. I assume she reads the newspaper. She knew this debate was going to take place this week and that action of imposing that contract on the very first day that she could, in my mind, is a direct affront to this people's House and the 300 million people that are represented by it and shame on her.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time, and I will close.

Just a couple of observations. One, Mr. Mica, as the chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, does a great job, and a lot of the advances in this country are due to his leadership and Mr. Costello's leadership. So I do not want anybody to leave the floor thinking they are having some kind of tiff, but there are some things that need to be straightened out.

What both sides do agree on is that the air traffic control population is aging. Both sides agree that in 2007 between 4,000 and 7,000 of the 15,000 air traffic controllers are going to retire, and we do not have a farm team. We do not have a pipeline that is really working. For instance, through May of this year, the FAA has only hired one controller. Last year, they hired 762, but since they hired that 762, 400 have retired. It is a program and it is a process that is serious. You just do not show up at work one day and say I am going to be an air traffic controller and I am going to guide your family into Cleveland or Chicago or Washington, D.C.

Secondly, I would say that the reason that the Kelly-Costello bill did not come to the floor is because things are scheduled on the floor. For anybody who is not familiar with our process, things have to be scheduled by the majority leader. The majority leader chose not to schedule the Kelly-Costello bill on the floor. That is why I began my remarks by thanking Speaker Hastert and Mr. Leader Boehner for having the courage to put this on the floor tonight so that Republicans and Democrats could talk about it.

Lastly, there has been some discussion that somehow the Federal Services Impasse Panel is not competent to handle this complicated matter. I would say just from their Web page, the panel resolves impasses between Federal agencies and unions representing Federal employees arising from negotiations over conditions of employment under the Federal service labor management relations statute and the Federal Employees Flexible and Compressed Work Schedules Act.

I do not know what other body is capable of doing it; and I have to tell you, I would have preferred the Kelly-Costello bill. I would have preferred that it be brought up to a vote, but when the administrator of the FAA was flipping through her desk calendar so fast just so she could implement this contract, when she waited 18 months when given the same tools and the same opportunity, the only time that this has ever happened, I think, and I am a pretty calm guy, but I really think that she just took her finger and stuck it in the eye of 268 Members of this House and 75 of them happen to be Republican, 75 of them happen to be members of this President's party. I am insulted.

And I hope tomorrow when this vote occurs, everybody that cosponsored that bill, everybody that signed our letter has the courage to not only be a cosponsor of legislation but has the courage to defy the President of the United States on this vote because, quite frankly, although I admire him, he is wrong on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time.

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.