Providing for Consideration of H.R. 4503, Energy Policy Act of 2004, and H.R. 4517, United States Refinery Revitalization Act of 2004
Floor Speech
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to House Resolution 671, which is the rule for the consideration of H.R. 4503, the Energy Policy Act of 2004, which is masquerading today as the energy conference report of 2003; and H.R. 4517, the U.S. Refinery Revitalization Act.
Mr. Speaker, this summer Americans all across the country are flooding into movie theaters to see the much-anticipated sequels to such blockbuster films as "Shrek," "Spider Man," and "Harry Potter."
So far the early reviews and box office returns for these sequels suggest Hollywood has actually managed to improve on the original versions by adding exciting new characters and interesting new plot lines.
Sadly, that is not so here in the House of Representatives. This summer, the Republican leadership is forcing us to vote on the same tired old reruns of bad bills that we have already seen and voted on once before. The consideration of H.R. 4503 actually marks the sixth time this year that this House has passed a bill for the second time.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the RECORD a listing of the bills that the House has voted on at least twice this year.
(1) Bankruptcy. The House passed its bankruptcy reform bill on March 19, 2003 (H.R. 975, vote No. 74) and passed it again on January 28, 2004 when it substituted the text of the already-passed H.R. 975 into a non-controversial Senate family farmer bankruptcy bill (S. 1920, vote No. 10).
(2) Medical Malpractice. The House passed medical malpractice reform legislation on March 13, 2003 (H.R. 5, vote No. 64) and then passed it again on May 12, 2004, as part of the GOP's so-called "health security agenda" (H.R. 4280, vote No. 166).
(3) Association Health Plans. The House passed legislation creating Association Health Plans (AHPs) on June 19, 2003 and then passed the same bill again in May 13, 2004, as part of the GOP's so-called "health security agenda" (H.R. 4281, vote No. 174).
(4) Teacher Training. The House passed the "Ready to Teach" Act on July 9, 2003 (H.R. 2211, vote No. 340) and then passed it again under a new bill number on June 2, 2004 under suspension of the rules (H.R. 4409, voice voted, then inserted by H. Res. 656 into H.R. 444).
(5) Graduate School Grants. The House passed a bill to reauthorize programs that award grants to U.S. graduate students under suspension of the rules on October 21, 2003 (H.R. 3076, voice voted) and then passed it again under a new bill number on June 2, 2004 under suspension of the rules (H.R. 4409, voice voted, then inserted by H. Res. 656 into H.R. 444).
Mr. Speaker, there are no exciting new characters, no interesting new plot lines, just the same old story: special interests meet Congress; Congress rolls over; special interests destroy environment and Congress weakens the Nation's energy policy. End of story.
In fact, all that can be said of H.R. 4503 is that with each passing day, we discover something new about the original energy conference report that further confirms how bad that bill was and still is. Since the House passed the energy conference report in November last year, new details about the 1,100-page bill have come to light.
For example, the bill lifts tariffs on Chinese-made ceiling fans, a provision which is widely acknowledged to benefit Home Depot of Atlanta, Georgia. It includes a $500,000 grant for the Georgia carpet industry to research the burning of industrial carpet waste in the manufacture of cement, and it contains a tax-exempt "green bond" program that will finance the construction of a mall in Shreveport, Louisiana, which will house a Hooter's restaurant.
This bill is so laden with special interest money that no less than Grover Norquist and the Americans for Tax Reform and the National Taxpayers Union have said that the energy conference report is "chockful of subsidies, pork barrel projects, and unnecessary spending that have little, if anything, to do with our Nation's energy needs."
An in-depth analysis of the energy conference report conducted by the well-respected Energy Information Administration of the Department of Energy concluded the following: that the energy conference report's energy provisions will not reduce the overall amount of energy consumption in the United States over the next 15 years and furthermore, its transportation fuel provisions will cause the average gas prices in the year 2015 to be 3 to 8 cents higher than they would be under current law.
Mr. Speaker, I imagine that is a surprise ending that not even the Republicans who single-handedly wrote the energy conference report would enjoy. Imagine, after handing out $23 billion in tax breaks and subsidies to the oil and gas industry, we are actually going to pay more for gas at the pump.
I can tell Members my constituents in Massachusetts will be demanding their money back after seeing that surprise ending. In Massachusetts, the average cost of gasoline this month will be $2.10 per gallon. This is 58 cents higher than a year ago at the same time. At that rate, motorists in the Worcester, Massachusetts, area will pay $29 million more for gasoline this summer driving season than they did last summer. That is $200 more for the average family between Memorial Day and Labor Day.
Meanwhile, the Republican leadership's response to this very real national crisis is to bring us a repeat of the same failed energy bill which has been stalled in negotiations with the other body for nearly 7 months, a so-called energy security act that will not secure our future energy supply by enhancing our independence or reducing our demand, a bill that does not include a renewable energy portfolio standard, but does include a $2 billion bail-out and liability protection for producers of MTBE.
Mr. Speaker, since the Republican leadership of this House seems bent on bringing the same bills to the floor, I am compelled to respectfully repeat the same suggestion that I have offered them before: instead of shamelessly using the legislative calendar here to send a message to the other body, perhaps the House leadership could walk across the Capitol and simply confer with their fellow Republican leaders. It is not that far, and I will remind them that the House is under Republican control and so is the other body. They should go over and talk to each other and try to work these things out.
If that is too much trouble, maybe at a minimum the House leadership could make in order thoughtful, responsible amendments offered by their own Members, such as the climate change amendment offer by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) in the Committee on Rules last evening, an amendment that would have established a voluntary, and I repeat voluntary, greenhouse gas registry and database. This would be something different, something worth watching for.
Mr. Speaker, the truly amazing thing about the House leadership is that when they are not bringing bills to the floor that we have already voted on, they are bringing bills to the floor that have never had a hearing.
This rule also provides for the consideration of H.R. 4517, the U.S. Refinery Revitalization Act. This bill was filed on June 4 and referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. On June 7, the bill was promptly offered to the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality. Exactly one week later, it was before the Rules Committee, and today it is on the floor. No committee hearings or markup.
To his credit, the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce conceded this point in the Committee on Rules last evening, going so far as to say that the ranking member's request for a hearing on the bill was reasonable.
I do not doubt that the lack of domestic refinery capacity has been discussed before in the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, and I will not dispute the statistics regarding the number of refineries currently operating in the United States that are cited in the findings of this bill. However, it seems to me that there is considerable and legitimate debate over the causes for this shrinking capacity. In fact, some fuel economists argue that there are fewer refineries today because they are run more efficiently than in the past.
Now, in light of this, I think it is reasonable to allow the committees of jurisdiction to examine these issues before we rush bills to the floor that make sweeping changes to the permitting process for these facilities.
H.R. 4517 gives extraordinarily broad powers to the Secretary of Energy to grant approval for building new refineries and reactivating idle refineries. It allows the DOE to force other State and Federal agencies to make decisions within 6 months and allows the DOE to override the objections of a Governor of a State or the EPA on such projects. The bill also allows the DOE to ignore the provisions of the Clean Air Act that limit the emissions of the toxic air pollutants that refineries produce.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4517 is intended to streamline and expedite the permitting process for refineries, but the rule under which the bill is being considered is intended to deliberately circumvent and subvert the legislative process. That is not only unacceptable; it is appalling, and it should concern every single Member of this body regardless of his or her party affiliation.
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to vote "no" on this rule and to put an end to this charade of bringing bills to the floor that we have either voted on before, or alternately have never been before a committee.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) that this process is lousy. H.R. 4503, the bill the gentleman was referring to, Members on the Democratic side were not even allowed to participate in the conference where this bill was negotiated. The process here is awful, and it really is indefensible.
I also remind the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) that this rule is not only for the consideration of H.R. 4503, it is also for the consideration of H.R. 4517, the U.S. Refinery and Revitalization Act. There were no hearings at all in the committee of jurisdiction on that bill. There was no markup by the Members of the committee of jurisdiction on that bill.
I think we need to say something in defense of the Members, both Democrat and Republican, who are on that committee of jurisdiction that they should have an opportunity to be present at hearings and ask questions and to be able to make suggestions to make that bill better. So this process is indefensible. It is indefensible not only by the fact that people are getting locked out and bills are being rushed to the floor without hearings and without markups, but also this is bad policy. I think almost everybody knows it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 ½ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this House is becoming a place where the rules are constantly being broken and a place where the process is constantly being ignored. No hearings, no markups, no amendments made in order. How cynical on an issue so important.
We need an energy policy in this country, Mr. Speaker. But this is not it. What we are being presented with today really is a giveaway to big campaign contributors. This bill does nothing to lower gas prices. This bill does nothing to have us become less dependent on foreign oil. It does nothing to support, in a meaningful way, renewable energy sources.
This bill is having a tough time for all the right reasons, because it is a bad bill. And rather than trying to fix it and rather than trying to negotiate with the other body, here we are again going through the same old routine.
Mr. Speaker, it is not just people like me who have problems with this bill. Let me read just a section from a letter signed by the president of Taxpayers for Common Sense Action, the president of the Council for Citizens against Government Waste, the President of the National Taxpayers Union, the president of the Americans for Tax Reform, and the president of the American Conservative Union. They recently sent all of us a letter. Let me just quote from one paragraph.
They say: "There is too much waste to describe in one letter," contained in this bill. "Suffice it to say, the energy bill touches everyone and everything, from giving billions to ethanol producers to 'green' bonds for shopping malls, from billions to the nuclear and coal industries to billions in loan guarantees for an Alaska natural gas pipeline. There are also millions for various pet projects at colleges across this country. The oil and gas industry alone reaps more than a quarter of the bill's funding."
Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on, and I will insert this letter in the RECORD.
Mr. Speaker, we could do so much better, and I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject this rule, to force the committees of jurisdiction to do their job, to go back and meet again and to come up with an energy bill that we all can be proud of.
December 1, 2003.
Pop the Ballooning Energy Bill
DEAR SENATOR:
On behalf of our members, the undersigned groups urge you to oppose H.R. 6, the so-called "Energy Policy Act of 2003." We are concerned that at every opportunity the energy bill has been larded up with more and more waste and inappropriate taxpayer-funded subsidies. Between initial passage on the floor of the House of Representatives and the bill's emergence from the sequestered conference committee, the bill's price tag ballooned from $46 billion to over $72 billion in authorized spending. That is a 50% increase in authorized spending in just a few months. Our organizations will strongly consider including votes on this bill in our end-of-the-year scorecards.
H.R. 6 is chock full of subsidies, pork barrel projects, and unnecessary spending that have little, if anything, to do with our nation's energy needs. Even supporters of the legislation have admitted that it is not real comprehensive energy policy, but merely a goodie bag of various projects and policies. The Wall Street Journal called this bill "one of the great logrolling exercises in recent Congressional history" and that to get the bill through, leadership has "greased more wheels than a Nascar pit crew." The Washington Post also editorialized against the bill, calling on lawmakers to "make sure the bill doesn't become law." We echo that sentiment.
There is too much waste to describe in one letter. Suffice it to say, the energy bill touches everyone and everything, from giving billions to ethanol producers to "green" bonds for shopping malls, from billions to the nuclear and coal industries to billion in loan guarantees for an Alaska natural gas pipeline. There are also millions for various pet projects at colleges across the country. The oil and gas industry alone reaps more than a quarter of the bill's funding.
Again, we urge you to oppose H.R. 6 and we will strongly consider including votes on this wasteful legislation in our organizations' end-of-year scorecards. We would be happy to discuss these issues with you further. Please contact Aileen Roder at Taxpayers for Common Sense Action at (202) 546-8500 130 or aileen@taxpayer.net with questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Jill Lancelot,
President, Taxpayers for Common Sense Action.
Tom Schatz,
President, Council for Citizens against Government Waste.
John Berthoud,
President, National Taxpayers Union.
Grover G. Norquist,
President, Americans for Tax Reform.
Richard Lessner, Ph.D,
Executive Director, American Conservative Union.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source