Floor Statements

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

I rise today in support of H.R. 4377, a bill which would require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to extend for a 3-year period the deadline for commencing construction on the proposed Arrowrock Hydroelectric Project in the State of Idaho.

The project was originally licensed in 1989, but due to extenuating circumstances, construction has not begun on the project as of this time. One reason for the delay was the need for required consultations with regard to the bull trout, a species which was listed as threatened only after the original license had been issued. The project is now moving forward with those required consultations.

The bill before us would simply extend the license to give the licensee more time in order to finalize the project and get construction under way. This measure was approved by the Energy and Commerce Committee by voice vote, along with four other hydroelectric licensing bills which we are also considering this evening.

I urge my colleagues to approve this measure.

Madam Speaker, I have no additional requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise in support of H.R. 4417, legislation which would require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to extend, upon the licensee's request and subject to compliance with commission procedures, the deadline for the commencement of construction of the proposed Tygart Dam Hydroelectric Project in West Virginia. That extension in this bill would be for a period of 1 year.

The project was originally licensed in 1989, but has not begun construction due to a lack of utility contracts in order to make the project financially viable. Those dynamics have now changed and the contractor is actively negotiating for the purchase of electricity to be produced by the facility.

The project enjoys strong local support in the community in West Virginia in which it will be located. The bill was also approved by the Energy and Commerce Committee by voice vote and is noncontroversial, and I urge approval of the legislation.

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

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

I rise in support of this legislation which would authorize the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to extend the commencement of construction deadline for the Swift Creek Hydroelectric Project in Wyoming for three 2-year periods. The license was originally issued in 1997, and the bill before us would provide a routine extension of the commencement of construction deadline.

The legislation is noncontroversial and was approved by voice vote of the

House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and so I urge the House approve the legislation.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of our time.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation which would authorize the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to extend the commencement of the construction deadline for the Reynolds Creek hydroelectric project in Alaska for three 2-year periods. The license was originally issued in the year 2000, and the bill before us would provide a routine extension of the commencement of construction deadline.

The legislation is non-controversial and was approved by voice vote of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. I urge that the House approve this measure.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation which would authorize the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to extend the commencement of construction deadline for three hydroelectric projects in the State of Connecticut. The legislation would enable the Commission to extend until May of 2007 the deadline, with the ability to issue two additional 2-year extensions, for commencing construction on the proposed Hale hydroelectric project. In addition, the bill would require the FERC to extend the commencement of construction deadlines for the Collinsville Upper hydroelectric project and the Collinsville Lower hydroelectric project.

This measure is noncontroversial and was approved by voice vote of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. It is my pleasure to urge its approval by the House.

Madam Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Idaho, I have no additional requests for time, and seeing that he has one, we will yield back the balance of our time. I am sure these will be friendly comments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5013, the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act. This legislation would ensure that gun owners' second amendment rights are not compromised in times of natural disaster. I am pleased to lend my strong support to this measure as it is considered today.

The Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act addresses a problem brought to light in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina and the resulting flood, federal and local law enforcement officials confiscated the firearms of numerous law-abiding individuals. Those actions were entirely unjustified. This injustice must not be repeated elsewhere.

By prohibiting federal, state, or local law enforcement officers from seizing legally-owned firearms which have in no manner been misused during national emergencies, this legislation would prevent a repeat of the abuse of emergency powers that followed Hurricane Katrina.

The government should never confiscate legally-purchased and properly used firearms from law-abiding citizens. Whether natural disasters occur or not does nothing to alter this reality: lawful gun owners have the unalienable right to possess and transport their firearms.

H.R. 5013 would not restrict the ability of law enforcement officials to confiscate stolen firearms or to act when firearms are used in an unlawful manner.

In the aftermath of the hurricane, the absence of an established policing force allowed criminals to loot business and threaten rescue workers and residents of the city. Many individuals looted gun stores and other places of business which sell firearms. As with any stolen property, these stolen firearms should be confiscated, and the individuals who stole them and misused them for crimes should be punished.

Law enforcement officials, however, seized thousands of firearms from law-abiding citizens. During the lawlessness and disorder of the disaster, the law-abiding citizens of the region needed to be able to arm themselves and defend their families and property against criminals. The seizing of these individuals' firearms left them defenseless in the chaos following the hurricane. This legislation protects the second amendment rights of citizens when that right to self-defense is needed most.

The Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act is a common sense measure to prevent the confiscation of firearms from citizens who have committed no crime, and I strongly urge my colleagues to approve it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding this time and commend him for his work on this measure.

Mr. Speaker, it has been my pleasure to work with our Virginia colleague, Mr. Goodlatte, in introducing this bipartisan measure that is before the House today, which will crack down on the growing problem of illegal offshore gambling as well as illegal gambling that crosses State lines by way of connections to the Internet.

These activities take billions of dollars out of our national economy each year, serve as a vehicle for money laundering, undermine families, and threaten the ability of States to enforce their own laws. The time to approve a ban on Internet gambling has now arrived. The basic policy that we are promoting in this bill was adopted in the 1960s when Congress passed the Wire Act. That law makes it illegal to carry out a gambling transaction through use of the telephone network. We are modernizing the Wire Act to account for the arrival of the Internet as a communications medium by making it illegal to use the Internet for gambling transactions as well.

In view of the fact that people connect to the Internet by means other than telephone lines, and that a large amount of Internet traffic does not even touch the public switched telephone network, we think it is necessary to specify that prohibited traffic which crosses either the telephone network or the Internet is illegal under the Wire Act.

Our bill has now been joined with Mr. Leach's measure, which inhibits financial transactions arising from Internet gambling. This bill is needed. It effectively attacks the growing problem of offshore gambling. It attacks the money laundering that often attends these activities. It strengthens the ability of States to prohibit or to allow gambling transactions as they desire within their borders.

It will enable States to enforce their own laws. I want to commend Mr. Goodlatte and Mr. Leach for their careful work on this measure. I am pleased to urge its adoption by the House.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding to me, and I do rise in opposition to this amendment.

The underlying bill contains a carefully negotiated balance which reflects existing laws that allow States to control gambling activities within their borders. The gentlewoman's amendment strikes that carefully negotiated balance. Its adoption would doom the bill. To those who support passage of the bill and a ban on Internet gambling, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Forty-eight of 50 State attorneys general have announced support for a ban on Internet gambling. But if the amendment that is offered by the gentlewoman passes and States lose the authority over gambling within their borders, the bill will fail because State support for it will be withdrawn.

The bill is very clear on what authorities States will retain. States have traditionally been empowered to prohibit or allow gambling within their borders. The bill continues to give States that right while imposing strict safeguards to assure that gambling stays within a State's border and does not extend to other States.

Those safeguards require that the bettor, the business conducting the gambling operation, any services that support the wagerers and other support services must be in the authorizing

State. Horse racing would continue to be governed by existing Federal law, and that is the Intrastate Horse Racing Act that has been on the books now for almost 30 years.

Mr. Goodlatte's bill strikes a careful balance that respects States' rights and existing law. Don't upset that balance. Defeat this amendment and allow the bill that bans Internet gambling to pass.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5646, a measure which will require the Environmental Protection Agency to conduct an analysis of the energy effects of the expanding use of computer servers and the concentration of computer servers in large data centers. Computer server use is rapidly growing at a rate that is estimated to be 50 percent over a mere 5 years. Servers are now used in virtually every business and every government office. And now companies with large information processing needs are aggregating servers into large data centers.

The growing use of servers has an energy consequence, and it is now estimated that server operations consume electricity valued at $3 billion annually. In our ongoing efforts to become a more energy- efficient Nation, it is appropriate that we focus on ways to encourage more energy-efficient computer servers.

The Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy are charged with the administration of the Energy Star program, which identifies and labels energy-efficient technologies in a number of business and household products. Use of more energy-efficient products enables residential and commercial energy consumers to lower their electricity costs and also to lessen the overall national demand for electricity.

H.R. 5646 would facilitate and advance the ongoing efforts of the Environmental Protection Agency, of technology companies, and nongovernmental organizations to determine how best to measure the energy efficiency of data centers with the goal of identifying and labeling as an Energy Star product the most efficient computer server technologies.

This measure provides appropriate guidance to the EPA for use in conducting an analysis of the energy consumption of computer data centers, as well as for the identification of potential cost savings that could be achieved by identifying through the Energy Star program energy-efficient computer server systems for use in data centers.

I want to commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers) and also the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) for their careful and thorough work and for their creativity in bringing this innovative and very timely measure to the floor. It is my privilege, Mr. Speaker, to urge its passage by the House.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers at this time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5061, bi-partisan legislation which I introduced with my colleague from Virginia Mr. Goode.

H.R. 5061 would simply convey two federal fish hatcheries located in the towns of Wytheville and Paint Bank in my Congressional district to the State of Virginia for continued operation by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. The legislation enjoys wide support and no opposition. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services as well as the State of Virginia both endorse the conveyance of these two properties.

The two facilities have been operated by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries since 1983 under a 25 year lease agreement. In the early 1980's the federal government was in the process of divesting some federal hatcheries which were not involved in fish stock mitigation activities. The Wytheville and Paint Bank hatcheries are not used for fish stock mitigation and breed fish for recreational fishing only--both facilities provide brook, brown and rainbow trout for the stocking of streams on federal lands. At that time, Virginia expressed interest in operating the facilities under a 25 year lease agreement, and the State has been operating the facilities since that time. The lease is set to expire in 2008, and all parties are in agreement that a title transfer before that expiration date is appropriate.

The two facilities have an estimated combined economic effect of $40 million annually and produced a combined total of approximately 290,729 pounds of trout during Fiscal Year 2005.

Since beginning operation of the facilities under the lease agreement, the State has made numerous investments in the two hatcheries. The State has invested approximately $159,350 for improvements to the Wytheville facility and approximately $230,000 at the Paint Bank facility.

In addition, during that time the facilities have been thoroughly tested for various contaminants, and there are now no contaminant issues associated with either hatchery. The State would like to continue operation and investment in the facilities for a variety of reasons. For example, in order for extensive capital expenditures or any federal funding to be used for additional improvements, the ownership must be transferred from the federal government. Given the fact that the State of Virginia would like to assume ownership and that the federal government has been making a broad effort to divest of non- mitigation related hatcheries, this conveyance is in the interest of all parties.

H.R. 5051 would simply transfer title of the Wytheville and Paint Bank Fish Hatcheries to the State of Virginia. I appreciate the work of Subcommittee Chairman Gilchrest and Ranking Member Pallone as well as that of Chairman Pombo and Ranking Member Rahall of the House Resources Committee in bringing this measure to the floor for consideration, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill and I urge its approval by the House. In my view, it will bring urgently needed competition to cable television and benefit consumers nationwide with more varied program offerings and the better pricing that competition inevitably brings.

The bill also opens the door for local governments to offer commercial telecommunications services, filling the gap where broadband is either not available or is available but is priced beyond the reach of residential subscribers and the small business community. Section 401 of the measure prohibits states from barring local governments from providing telecommunications, information or cable services. This provision applies to all current and future state measures that may have this effect. Section 401 also prohibits local governments from discriminating in favor of municipal providers over commercial providers of such services. This prohibition does not apply to local governments to the extent that they are providing services to themselves or to other government entities. Finally, nothing in this section exempts a public provider from any law or regulation that applies to private sector providers of a telecommunications service, information service or cable service.

The manager's amendment contains provisions I recommended that will assure fair treatment for electric utilities and telephone companies in pole attachment pricing, and I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), who chairs the full committee, for his assistance with that provision. And the bill will assure that consumers who desire to purchase a freestanding broadband service can do so without having to buy telephone or cable service from the broadband provider. That provision was added in an amendment I offered during the markup of the bill in subcommittee.

I also urge support for the net neutrality amendment that the gentleman from Massachusetts Mr. Markey will be offering. I am pleased to be a co-sponsor of that amendment. It is essential to preserve the Internet as a platform for innovation. Broadband providers plan to create a two-lane Internet, a fast lane for their own content and for others who can pay for fast-lane access, and a slow lane for everyone else. That plan fundamentally changes the character of the Internet and would eliminate the openness and the accessibility that have enabled the Internet to be a platform for innovation unequaled in American history.

I will have more to say about that when the Markey amendment is offered, but I want to take the opportunity during these remarks to say that the net neutrality amendment is fundamental, and I strongly urge its adoption when it is offered.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding this time to me. I rise in support of the bill and I urge its approval by the House.

In my view, it will bring urgently needed competition to cable television and benefit consumers nationwide with more varied program offerings and the better pricing that competition inevitably brings.

The bill also opens the door for local governments to offer commercial telecommunication services, filling the gap where broadband is either not available or is available but is priced beyond the reach of residential subscribers and the small business community.

The manager's amendment contains provisions I recommended that will assure fair treatment for electric utilities and telephone companies in pole attachment pricing, and I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), who chairs the full committee, for his assistance with that provision. And the bill will assure that consumers who desire to purchase a freestanding broadband service can do so without having to buy telephone or cable service from the broadband provider.

I also urge support for the net neutrality amendment that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) will be offering. It is essential to preserve the Internet as a platform for innovation. Broadband providers plan to create a two-lane Internet, a fast lane for their own content and for others who can pay for fast-lane access, and a slow lane for everyone else. That plan fundamentally changes the character of the Internet and would eliminate the openness and the accessibility that have enabled the Internet to be a platform for innovation unequaled by any advent in American history.

I will have more to say about that when the Markey amendment is offered, but I want to take the opportunity during these remarks to say that the net neutrality amendment is fundamental, and I strongly urge its adoption when it is offered.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding this time to me.

The Internet is a platform for innovation unequaled in American history. It has enabled the creation of hundreds of thousands of jobs and has driven the growth and the technology industry, which in turn has driven the growth of the American economy.

But innovation on the Internet is now at risk. The openness and accessibility that have defined the Internet experience are now threatened. Broadband providers are planning a two-lane Internet with a fast lane for their content and for the content of those who pay, and a slow lane for everyone else. Start-ups cannot afford the fast lane fees, and in the slow lane they cannot succeed. Innovation is at risk.

The Markey amendment which I am pleased to cosponsor will keep the Internet open. It will keep the toll booths from being erected. It is essential to the promotion of the American economy. This is the most important debate that we are having on this bill. There are those who will say that we have the time to wait; we should simply see how this works out. Make a determination 5 or 8 or 10 years down the road about how the two-lane Internet is faring. And if innovation is threatened, if problems arise, then we can always come back and make corrections.

My message tonight is that we will have one opportunity to act, and it is tonight. History shows us that once a business model goes into effect and revenues are being derived from that business, jobs depend on that business, stock valuations depend on that business, and it is virtually impossible for Congress under those circumstances to take that business model away. And so tonight is the night.

The Markey amendment is the amendment. It will preserve the openness and accessibility of the Internet. It will keep it a platform for innovation for the 21st century, and I urge its adoption.

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 reserve the balance of my time.

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

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 demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to join my colleague from Michigan, Mr. Dingell, in introducing legislation to expand the nation's refinery capacity by establishing a federal Strategic Refinery Reserve (SRR), which will deliver refined petroleum products to the commercial market during supply emergencies.

The legislation that Congressman Dingell and I are introducing builds upon the success of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve by taking

the commonsense step of establishing a reserve which can produce refined petroleum products. The presence of such a reserve will ensure the availability of emergency refinery capacity--a need which has been clearly illustrated by the events and high gasoline prices of recent months.

Last year's catastrophic hurricanes, which severely damaged oil refineries in the gulf coast illustrated the nation's vulnerability to a disruption in supply of refined petroleum and exposed shortcomings in our current Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) system. If the nation loses significant refinery capacity, crude released from the SPR cannot be converted easily into refined product such as gasoline or home heating oil. Even with no disruptions, our nation's refineries are running at virtually full capacity meaning that any reduction in our ability to refine product results in an almost immediate increase in gasoline prices.

The legislation we are introducing would help address this vulnerability by requiring the Secretary of Energy to establish and operate a Strategic Refinery Reserve (SRR) with capacity equal to 5 percent of the total United States demand for gasoline, home heating oil and other refined petroleum products. The Secretary may design and construct new facilities or acquire and re-open previously closed facilities.

During non-emergency times the SRR would provide refined product to the federal fleet, including the Department of Defense. Operating the refinery reserve on a full-time basis will ensure that federal fleet and military needs are met, will lessen start up times for SRR refineries to full production during emergencies and will lessen the demand for refined product in the consumer market by freeing additional supply.

During times of emergency, the SRR production could be increased and the resulting refined products could be used in the commercial market. Under the legislation, the Secretary is authorized to use SRR production for commercial use based on two criteria: the same severe supply disruption criteria used to trigger a drawdown of the SPR and upon a Presidential determination of a regional supply shortage.

Our legislation is a common sense approach to ensure that additional refinery capacity is available to provide gasoline during times of energy emergency, and I urge its consideration and approval by the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill and urge its rejection by the House.

Democrats are more than willing to work with the majority Republicans to write legislation which addresses constricted refinery capacity in a proper manner. But on the measure we are debating this morning, we were not consulted. In fact, no hearings have been held on the bill. No markup sessions have been conducted. There has been no consideration whatsoever of this measure by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, which is the committee of jurisdiction. The bill was not even introduced until late last night or early this morning.

If the majority party is willing to work with us, we would make every effort to construct a thoughtful bill that addresses the refinery shortage in a constructive way and bring that bipartisan measure to the floor of the House within a matter of days or at most a matter of weeks. I hope the majority Republicans will consider and accept our offer.

But the bill before us is not constructive. According to testimony the Congress received last year, the bill would weaken environmental protections but do virtually nothing to encourage the construction of new gasoline refineries.

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. Rather than repeal it now, let us give it a chance to work.

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 process short-circuited under a mandated Federal schedule for permit issuance. And the bill proceeds from a deeply flawed assumption that the reason we have a refinery shortage is burdensome State permitting processes. The real reason we have a refinery shortage is that the companies that own refineries are profiting enormously from the present market structure, including the refinery bottleneck. In essence, they are making more money by refining less gasoline.

The real reason we do not have enough refineries is economic interest, not environmental constraints.

Here is what the oil company CEOs had to say about the regulations regarding the regulations citing new refineries.

Last November, the CEO of Shell testified to the Senate, ``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.

Let us reject this measure and begin working in a bipartisan fashion this afternoon in order to write a law that will make a genuine difference. If the Republicans are willing, Democrats pledge our best efforts to work with you to achieve that goal.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

Mr. Speaker, I insert in the Record a letter dated May 3, 2006, from the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators, joined in that letter by the Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials.

State and Territorial Air Pollution Program

Administrators, Association of Local Air Pollution

Control Officials,

Washington, DC, May 3, 2006.

Dear Representatives: On behalf of the State and

Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators (STAPPA) and

the Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials

(ALAPCO), we write to you today to express the associations'

concerns regarding the Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act.

First, we question the premise of this bill--namely, that

environmental permitting requirements obstruct efforts to

construct or expand refining capacity and contribute to

escalating gasoline prices. We are aware of no evidence that

such requirements, particularly those related to air

pollution, have prevented or impeded construction of new, or

the major modification of existing, refineries. In fact, what

experience shows is that when regulated sources comply with

federal, state and local permitting requirements in a timely

manner, state and local agencies are able to act

expeditiously to approve permits.

Second, it is unclear how this bill would expedite the

issuance of permits. Rather, it appears that it could have

the opposite effect. Subtitle H of Title III of the Energy

Policy Act of 2005, approved by Congress last year to

streamline the permitting of refineries, already provides

states the ability to request special procedures to

coordinate federal and state agency permitting actions for

refineries. Repealing those provisions and replacing them

with ones that insert a ``Federal Coordinator'' into the

process and impose additional procedural requirements on

states and localities--including a requirement to enter into

judicially enforceable schedules--would almost surely delay

the permitting process.

Third, we are concerned that this bill is moving directly

to the floor of the House of Representatives, circumventing

consideration by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce

and open public debate during which state and local

permitting authorities and other stakeholders could present

their views.

STAPPA and ALAPCO understand the desire to take swift

action of some kind to address fuel prices. Moreover, we

recognize that this particular bill is an improvement over

other refinery permitting legislation introduced in the past

few years. Notwithstanding this, however, we firmly believe

environmental permitting requirements have been wrongly

targeted and, further, that the Refinery Permit Process

Schedule Act could result in unintended, problematic

consequences. Therefore, our associations oppose the bill.

Sincerely,

Eddie Terrill,

STAPPA President.

John A. Paul,

ALAPCO President.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the sentiments of my friend from Illinois with whom I have partnered on many coal-related issues over the years, and I certainly agree with him that we need to start rebuilding refineries that will turn coal into a liquid fuel. But, Mr. Speaker, we do not need this bill to do it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill is not an effective way to address the gasoline refinery shortage. It tramples on State environmental laws without solving the fundamental problem.

The CEOs of the refining companies have testified to the Congress that the permitting process is not burdensome. It has not prevented the construction of needed new refineries, and yet this bill addresses the permitting process.

For our part, Democrats are more than willing to work with our Republican colleagues and to do so on a bipartisan basis, to write a law that will make a difference, a law that will get the needed new refineries built. We could produce and bring to the floor a bipartisan bill within a matter of days or, at most, within a matter of weeks.

So what I would say to the Members of the House is reject this measure and then, beginning this afternoon, let us sit down in a bipartisan exercise to draft a bill that addresses the fundamental need for new refineries. We pledge to you our best efforts to achieve that goal, and we hope that you will accept this offer.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the measure.

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

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

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I rise in support of his amendment.

The visa lottery is an affront both to logic and to the effective functioning of the visa system. Based upon nothing other than pure luck, 50,000 permanent resident visas are annually awarded. Lottery winners are admitted ahead of deserving family members who have played by the rules and endured long waits. It is a flawed system. The time to end it has come. I support the Goodlatte amendment which would end this system. I urge its adoption by the House.