Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5254) to set schedules for the consideration of permits for refineries.

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 Not one of those statutes is repealed or modified.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 yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank my friend, the gentleman from Florida, for yielding me time.

(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, when I was home in Sacramento last week, one constant topic of conversation was gas prices and energy policy. I heard several different perspectives on the issues.

Many working families told me they are having to adjust their monthly budgets to offset the cost of $3 a gallon gas. Other individuals expressed concern about global warming and how our dependence on fossil fuels is driving dangerous climate change.

Still others told me they are worried that our economy and our national security are frighteningly dependent on unstable oil producing countries like Iran, Venezuela and Nigeria.

From speaking with my colleagues, it is clear that Americans are echoing these concerns across the country. So I would hope that we could all agree that our constituents, from Sacramento to Miami, want Congress to do something substantive about gas prices and energy policy.

Unfortunately, today's debate represents another missed opportunity for strategic long-term national energy policy. Today we could be addressing the pressing issues raised by my constituents and yours. But we are not.

This resolution would provide for debate for H.R. 5254. This bill purports to address the problem we saw in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita, the vulnerability of America's energy infrastructure to supply disruptions.

Because of last year's hurricanes, many refineries in the gulf are running at reduced capacity, or were knocked offline entirely. This tightened supplies and played a role in the rapid rise in gas prices. So there is an issue here for Congress to address. But there is some disagreement on exactly what the problem is.

During debate on this bill, you will hear conflicting explanations for why no new refineries have been built in the United States since 1976. The majority might cite the environmental permitting process saying it has impeded the ability of companies to build new refineries.

They will argue that if Congress just pushed the permitting process harder, if we can do some more streamlining, then new refineries will start sprouting up across the country.

However, the reality is a different matter. The central provisions of this bill are designed to streamline the environmental permitting process for new refineries. Yet, there is no evidence these changes would actually lead to the construction of one new refinery.

That is because there has not been one convincing example of a situation where the permitting process prevented, held up or stalled the construction of a refinery.

You don't have to take my word for it. You can refer to the testimony of the energy company executives. During Senate testimony last year, even they could not cite such an occasion. The fact is, new refineries have not been constructed because it has not been in the interest of industry to do so. And that is fine. It is their right to not to construct refineries. But Congress should not respond to profit motivated decisions by altering permitting processes that are functioning just fine.

Furthermore, the refinery permitting process was altered just last year in section 103 of the energy bill so why are we doing it again? Let's see if that process works before revising it again.

This flawed bill reflects the manner in which it was brought to the floor. The Energy and Commerce Committee has not held hearings on H.R. 5254. It hasn't been marked up either. If this is truly an important piece of legislation, shouldn't it come to the floor in regular order?

If the House wanted to truly address the issue of refinery capacity, we should be taking up H.R. 5365, offered by Congressmen Dingell and Boucher. Their legislation would enhance America's refinery capacity by creating a Strategic Refinery Reserve to complement the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Unfortunately the majority on the Rules Committee did not allow a vote on this legislation.

This is a commonsense proposal because in emergencies like Katrina, even when the President releases crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, we may not have the refinery capacity to process it.

The Dingell/Boucher bill would direct the Energy Department to establish a Strategic Refinery Reserve that can produce 5 percent of daily demand for gasoline.

This reserve would ensure that additional refinery capacity is available during emergencies, strengthening our national security while helping to mitigate upward price pressures. And in non emergencies, it would provide refined products to the Federal fleet, easing demand on the rest of the market.

This is a forward-thinking and logical proposal. I was disappointed that the Rules Committee voted against making it in order as a substitute, because if we had passed a Dingell/Boucher bill, at least I could tell my constituents Congress did something substantive to deal with America's energy challenges.

When I return to my district next week and in the coming weeks and months, I would like to be able to tell my constituents that Congress understands what you are dealing with in terms of gas prices and energy.

We know we can't fix everything overnight. But we have got a real plan for the future.

I want to be able to tell them that we are going to reduce demand by promoting energy conservation and fuel efficient forms of transportation. And we are going to work to develop renewable sources of fuel and other innovative technologies.

Taken together, these will help America move towards energy independence. And we are going to stop providing subsidies to companies that are making record profits, and instead, we are going to help working Americans deal with high gas prices.

I really wish I could say all of those things. But that is not going to be possible if the House continues to consider unnecessary and misguided legislation like this bill.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule because this bill did not go through regular order, because it comes to the floor under a closed rule which does not allow for its improvement, and because it does not allow the commonsense Dingell/Boucher substitute.

I urge my colleagues to vote against the underlying bill. Such a vote will reject this misguided approach to energy policy. A ``no'' vote on this legislation would send a message that Congress is ready to consider truly substantive legislation that addresses the energy crisis this Nation faces. Please join me in sending that important message.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so I can amend this rule, closed rule, and allow the House to consider the Boucher-Dingell Strategic Refinery Reserve substitute.

This substitute was offered in the Rules Committee when this rule was reported last month, but was blocked on a straight party-line vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to print the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, whatever position Members have on this legislation, they should vote against the previous question so we can consider a much better approach to our Nation's refinery shortage.

The Boucher-Dingell substitute, which is identical to the text of H.R. 5365, will establish a strategic refinery reserve. This reserve would complement the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It would provide a much needed safety net for this Nation during times when existing refineries are temporarily or even permanently unavailable.

It would also be used to supply fuel to the Federal Government and the military during those times when oil production is not compromised.

Vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can consider this important and responsible substitute. I want to make it very clear that a ``no'' vote will not stop us from considering H.R. 5254, but a ``yes'' vote will block consideration of the Boucher-Dingell substitute.

Again, I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 842 and ask for its immediate consideration.

The rule provides 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The rule also provides one motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, over the last several years, we have seen gasoline prices increase steadily in the United States. The rising cost of gasoline can be attributed to several factors, including increased demand in the United States and in other countries such as China and elsewhere, decreases in oil production in politically unstable countries, including Venezuela and Nigeria, and a lack of refinery capacity in the United States.

In the last 24 years, our refinery capacity has dropped from 18.62 million barrels a day to less than 17 million barrels a day. This at the same time that our gross domestic product has increased in current dollars from 3.1 trillion to 12.4 trillion. Because of the sustained growth of our economy and the fact that we have not built a new refinery in almost 30 years, we are now forced to import over 4 million barrels a day in refined products, and that is when our refineries are running at full capacity.

Any changes in our refinery capacity can cause supply constraints and price spikes, especially in the gulf coast, where we have approximately half of our refinery capacity. And that is exactly what happened when the Hurricanes Katrina and Rita hit the gulf coast, causing gasoline prices to rise almost 50 cent a gallon. 2 months after the storms hit we still had lost almost about 18 percent of our refining capacity, leading to sharp price increases.

In order to prevent the steep increases in gasoline prices that we saw after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and to try to moderate the continuing price increase, we must make certain that we build new refineries to meet our current demand and to prevent a loss of capacity due to another hurricane, or a terrorist attack for that matter. Without an increase in our refinery capacity, we will be at the mercy of countries such as Venezuela for the importation of refined oil products. Now, these countries are not reliable sources of refined products due to their politically unstable and/or unfriendly governments.

One of the biggest challenges to the building of new refineries was pointed out by Daniel Yergin of the Cambridge Energy Research Associates during a hearing in the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Mr. Yergin stated that, and I quote, ``the building of new refineries has been hampered by costs, citing and permitting.''

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5254 would help alleviate some of the problems associated with the building of new refineries. The legislation directs the President to appoint a Federal coordinator to manage the multi- agency refinery permitting process. Working with the governor of any State where a refinery is proposed, the coordinator will begin by identifying and then convening all relevant agencies to coordinate the schedules for action so that no process called for in statute or regulation is short-changed, and public input opportunities are preserved, but also to allow the project to proceed as fast as otherwise possible. The goal of this legislation is to eliminate needless delay from agencies that are either dragging their feet or simply acting in sequence when parallel action would be more efficient.

Bringing new refineries online will ease our reliance on foreign sources of refined products and will also allow us to have enough refinery capacity to meet the needs of our growing economy while providing a back up if any of our refineries are shut down for an extended period of time.

Mr. Speaker, the House has already taken steps to help lower the cost of gasoline. Last month we passed legislation to combat price gouging as well as legislation to open up ANWR to environmentally friendly energy development. However, more must be done. The underlying legislation is just another step in our continued efforts to provide relief from the high cost of gasoline.

H.R. 5254 was introduced by Representative Bass. A majority of the House has already voted in favor of this legislation. However, the bill did not pass because it was brought up under suspension of the rules and it did not obtain a two-thirds majority. Now we have another chance to pass this bill which is important to our energy needs and our growing economy.

I would like to thank Chairman Barton and Representative Bass for their leadership on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying legislation.

And at this time, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass), the author of this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall).

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all of our distinguished colleagues that have spoken on this rule today. It brings to the floor an important piece of legislation, a bill that this House considered and voted with the solid majority under suspension of the rules just some weeks ago, but it did not obtain the two-thirds vote necessary to pass under suspension of the rules. That is why we have brought it forth again under the regular order with a rule.

It will help. It will contribute to helping our country with the energy crisis that we face, when we recognize the fact that the economy has grown, as it has so tremendously in the last 30 years and yet not one single refinery has been constructed. Evidently, there is a problem. This seeks to do something about it.

So that is why we are bringing again this legislation for consideration of the House under this rule. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, in order to consider that legislation, we have brought this rule forward, and I would ask all of my colleagues to support it as well as the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, of course, providing for consideration of H.R. 5254, the Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act.

First, let me explain the bill. It will create a new system for coordinating the myriad permits and authorizations required under Federal law in order to get refineries built and operating.

Mr. Speaker, a Federal coordinator will call a meeting of all officials involved in issuing permits under Federal law. For those permits that require State officials to implement Federal law, the governor of the State where the refinery would be located selects the participants. Under the leadership of the coordinator, the officials will hammer out a coordinated schedule for acting up or down on permit applications. The schedule will be published in Federal Register. Once the regulatory work begins, if an agency slips behind schedule, the applicant may go to court to get the schedule restored.

The bill also calls on the President to suggest that we use closed military bases as possible candidates for siting refineries, subject to local approval.

H.R. 5254 explicitly preserves the letter and intent of all laws for environmental protection and public participation, and, for the first time, it gives priority to EPA in scheduling permit processing. But it also instills discipline and interagency teamwork into the system so that needless bureaucratic delay can be eliminated.

Why do we need this bill? Witness after witness at our Energy and Commerce Committee hearings have testified to the shortage of refinery capacity in the United States. It is shocking to most Americans that we are importing more gasoline every day and that our domestic capacity to make gasoline is at its upper limits. This causes upward pressure on prices, which we all experience at each fill-up.

One reason that refinery capacity is so tight is the regulatory costs and uncertainty of permitting. We want to take that excuse off the table. But what we really want to do is open the U.S. market to new entrants who will refine traditional fuels and alternatives such as coal-to-liquid and biofuels, both of which are set out in H.R. 5254.

The process for H.R. 5254 started last year on September 7, 2005, just days after Katrina struck the gulf coast. We held hearings that led to H.R. 3893, the Gasoline For America's Security Act. Sections 101, 102 and 103 of H.R. 3893 on refinery streamlining formed the foundation of H.R. 5254.

After a vigorous floor debate, H.R. 3893 passed the House, but it has not been taken up by the Senate. So on May 2 of this year, our colleague from New Hampshire, Mr. Bass, introduced this new version of refinery streamlining that provides for State input

and, more explicitly, preserves underlying Federal environmental laws.

A bipartisan majority of the House voted for H.R. 5254 when it was brought up under suspension of the rules. During that debate, some Members suggested that the bill does not defer adequately to the role of States in permitting decisions. After the debate was over and the bill had garnered 237 votes, but shy of the two-thirds needed under suspension, we reached out to our friends on the other side of the aisle to explore common language. In fact, we offered an amendment designed to address the State role issue, even more than we had already in the underlying bill.

The chairman of the full committee asked that this bill be pulled from the schedule several weeks ago so that bipartisan discussions could be given a chance. Our colleagues in the minority really had three options. Their first option was to accept the new language as fully answering their concern, which I believe it did; option two was to suggest modifications or alternatives to achieve the same purpose; option three was to take their ball and go home. The alternative to ``take their ball and go home'' meant to decide that negotiations would not produce an agreement.

They chose option three, which surprised us. We thought a deal was possible, and we made suggestions to address their concerns.

We are here today with the same bill that received 237 votes last month because the bill already deferred to governors on the designation of State officials to participate in the development of the coordinated plan, and because 237 of us confirmed our support for H.R. 5254 earlier this month, without any further changes, I think that no amendments to the bill are necessary.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to point out again, as Mr. Bass did, that nothing in this bill forces communities designated by the President to submit to Secretary Rumsfeld a reuse plan that includes a refinery, even if they do not want to build one.

The opposite is true. Actually, this is going to go to districts that want them, and we have districts who do want them. I hold in my hand a letter from the Texarkana Chamber of Commerce, Texarkana, Texas, signed by the president of that chamber, the county judge, the Bowie County judge, the mayor, both mayors on the Arkansas side and Texas side.

Mr. Speaker, it is going to go to places who really want them, and the bill requires that the Secretary of Defense give substantial deference to the local redevelopment authority's recommendation, even if that recommendation rejects the refinery.

And the President has no power to direct. He has power only to suggest. And you can see that by looking at section 5, line 16. That simply says: ``The President shall designate no less than three closed military installations, or portions thereof, as potentially suitable for the construction of a refinery.''

So these places are going to be sought after. Maine has nothing to fear. If they do not want it, they can cancel it by simply saying they do not want it. We would be very happy to have it over in Texarkana, Texas and serve four States there that come together.

I urge, of course, the support of this bill.