Providing for Consideration of H.R. 5254, Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5254, REFINERY PERMIT PROCESS SCHEDULE ACT -- (House of Representatives - June 06, 2006)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. MATSUI. 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. MATSUI. 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. MATSUI. 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov/