Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON of Texas

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another distinguished Member, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan), a member of the subcommittee and the full committee.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), vice chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality. (Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the Bayou State and the Pelican State, and the former honorable and distinguished chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to myself. I want to respond to one of the things that the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) just said. This bill simply says if an area has unemployment of at least 20 percent higher than the national average, we have set up an expedited procedure to hopefully refurbish an existing refinery or perhaps build a new one. That creates jobs. Creating jobs is not dumping on anybody. It is creating jobs. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), a member of the committee and the subcommittee.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I want to start out my closing with just reading a few of the facts that have been sadly not reported during this debate. The number of refineries in the United States of America has been reduced from 324 in 1981 to 153 today. That is over half the refineries have been closed in the United States since 1981. That is fact number one. Fact number two, refining capacity in millions of barrels per day luckily has not gone down quite that much but it has gone down about 10 percent, from 18.5 million barrels a day in 1981 to a little over 16 million barrels per day today. So number of refineries down, capacity to refine down. However, the demand for refined products has gone up. In 2001 it was a little under 20 million barrels a day. It is expected to grow to over 26 million barrels a day in 2025. Number of refineries down, capacity down, demand up. That is a fact. It may be an unpleasant fact but it is a fact. So what are we to do about it? I guess we could just stick our head in the sand and say no big deal. Maybe we ought to do something to increase refinery capacity. I will grant, and I have already granted several times in this debate, this particular bill has not been the subject of hearings and the normal regular order, subcommittee markup, full committee markup. I have apologized for that. I will apologize for it again. Having said that, is it a bad concept to say let's go into areas where they have an existing refinery, perhaps it is opened, perhaps it is closed and they have high unemployment. The bill says 20 percent. Maybe that is not the right number. Maybe it ought to be 10 percent. Maybe it ought to be 30 percent above the national average. But at least we say we have an existing refinery or a closed refinery, it has a high unemployment average, high above the national average, let's set an expedited procedure. Let's say that an applicant can ask the Secretary of Energy to designate that as a refinery revitalization area and then try to get some decisions about reopening or improving that refinery. We do not waive one environmental law. We do not waive any State control. We simply say you have got to make a decision on the existing laws. I have some pending permits in my congressional district, not on refineries, on cement plants. One permit has been pending for 3 years, the other for 2 years. It costs millions of dollars to make those permit applications. This bill says don't waive the law, just say that you have to make a decision within a certain time frame. Maybe the time frame is wrong. Again, hearings would say if we need a little bit more time. But the concept is not wrong. The concept. In terms if you decide to reopen a refinery, what do we say, what kind of technology? Best available control technology. Best available. Not worst. Not none. Best available. Existing refineries that are still operating are going to spend $20 billion in the next few years just to comply in those refineries with existing law. $20 billion. We say if somebody wants to open a new refinery, expand one, reopen a closed one, they have to use the best available control technology. Let us now talk about outsourcing of jobs. There has been a lot of debate about jobs going overseas. This keeps jobs in the United States. Most of these jobs would be high-paying jobs. Most of them would be union jobs. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Again, maybe those that oppose this bill have an alternative. It is fair to say since we did not hold a hearing that they may have one. But is their alternative never build a refinery in the United States of America again? In the Carter years under the Fuel Use Act, they said never use natural gas again. We repealed that fortunately when Reagan came into office. But maybe that is the position of my friends on the minority side, they never want a refinery to ever be built again in the United States of America. If that is their position, put the bill up on the floor and we will have a debate on it. But if they think that it is okay to build some new refineries and to reopen some old ones to meet this demand that is going to go to 26 million barrels a day, this is a way to do it. It may not be the perfect way, I will grant you that. But it is a way. If you think the United States of America should be a manufacturing society, should maintain these jobs, vote for this bill. We will hold all the hearings in the world. We are going to have plenty of opportunity with the Senate, the other body. So I would hope that we can vote for this bill and at least send a signal to people that live in high unemployment areas, there is some hope and some opportunity that they may get one of these high-paying jobs.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to myself. I want to briefly respond to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey). First on his point that there have been no hearings on the bill and it is out of regular order, he is exactly right, and the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) is right and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) is going to be right when he says that. I apologize for that. That is an exception to the rule. We try to do everything in the Committee on Energy and Commerce by regular orders. This is one of those rare exceptions, and I will stipulate that they are totally right to complain about the process. So in the spirit of comity, I want to get that on the record. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), the subcommittee chairman.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the demand for gasoline and other refined fuels in the United States currently exceeds our domestic capacity to produce them. Domestic gasoline consumption is expected to rise by an increase of over 4 million barrels per day by the year 2025. Refineries are already operating at nearly 100 percent of their designed capacity. This excess demand is being met, unfortunately, by an ever-increasing thirst for imports. We are currently importing about 7 percent of our refined product needs. H.R. 4517 seeks to reverse the trend of relying on refined imports to make up the shortfall. The bill would authorize the Secretary of Energy to designate as a refinery revitalization zone any area that has experienced mass layoffs at manufacturing facilities or contains an idle refinery and has an unemployment rate of at least 20 percent above the national average. Upon the request of an applicant that seeks Federal authorization related to siting and operation of a refinery within a refinery revitalization zone, the Department of Energy will be the lead agency for coordinating all applicable Federal authorizations and related environmental renewals of the facility. The Secretary of Energy and the heads of all Federal agencies of relevant jurisdiction are required to enter into a memorandum of understanding for the purpose of ensuring timely and coordinated review of the application throughout the process. The bill would require that the best available control technology, or BACT, would be used on all refineries so that there would be full compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local environmental regulations. I want to repeat that. The best available control technology would be used at all refineries so that there would be compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local environmental regulations. We are not changing any existing environmental law, nor do we waive any existing environmental law. The bill would simply encourage the opening of previously closed refineries and the construction of new refineries in order to increase the domestic supply of gasoline which should, in turn, help bring down the price. I would point out that since the mid-1970s, we have not built a new refinery in the United States, and we have closed over 50 percent of the existing refineries in the United States. Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 4517, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 671, I call up the bill (H.R. 4517) to provide incentives to increase refinery capacity in the United States, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Under the rules of the House, is it inappropriate or without our bounds for a Member of this body, the House of Representatives, to state a plain fact about what the other body is or is not doing? Is that out of the bounds for the rules of this body?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule; but before I speak in favor of the rule, I would like to answer my good friend from Florida's question. Conference members of the other body, who are members of the minority party in the other body, not only attended the conference on the comprehensive energy report; several of them signed the conference report for the comprehensive energy bill that was not debated on the other body's floor because of a cloture rule in the other body that required 60 votes to close off debate. I want to rise in support of the pending rule for the two resource bills that, hopefully, will come up later today if the rule passes; and I want to specifically speak about the second bill that would allow for drilling in ANWR. Back in 1995 during the reconciliation process, the House and Senate agreed to put in a provision that would allow drilling in ANWR. That was back in 1995. If President Clinton had not vetoed that bill, the mid-case estimate is that we would be producing from ANWR today between 1 million and 1\1/2\ million barrels of oil per day. It is estimated that there are over 10 billion barrels of oil in ANWR. What that would do for gasoline prices is debatable in terms of the specific amount, but it is not debatable that gasoline prices would be lower and, in all probability, significantly lower. So I would hope that when this bill comes up for a vote on final passage that a bipartisan coalition in the House will once again vote to allow, with adequate environmental protections, drilling in ANWR. That is the largest oil field in the world that we know of that currently no drilling is allowed; and with gasoline prices at $2 a barrel, it is time to allow some drilling.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, under the rules of the House, is it inappropriate to state a bald fact about what the other body is doing or not doing?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Is permitted. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I wish to say as I rise in opposition that I am in total support of the Dean of the House, the gentleman from Michigan, in his efforts to help develop a comprehensive energy plan for our country, but I cannot support this particular motion to recommit. It is true that some elements of the motion to recommit would be helpful. There is an increase in civil fines for wrongdoing, but that is already in the pending bill that is before us. In fact, the bill that is before us would increase the fine to $1 million. The pending bill before us bans round trip trades. The gentleman's motion to recommit does not ban round trip trades. The pending bill before us would encourage the development and siting of new transmission lines. The motion to recommit does not do that. The pending bill before us protects native load in those States that wish to do that. The gentleman's motion to recommit does not protect native load. The pending bill repeals the Public Utility Holding Company Act so we get more capital into our energy markets. That is one area where the gentleman from Michigan and I have a policy difference. He does totally oppose the repeal of PUHCA, and that is just an honest difference of opinion. The pending bill before us would reform PURPA, which allows cogeneration facilities to sell their surplus electricity into the power grid. The motion to recommit does not do that. There is no provision in the motion to recommit for clean coal technology. There is no provision in the motion to recommit for hydrogen fuel cell research. There is no provision in the motion to recommit for investment tax credits for wind power and solar power and other alternative energy resources. There is no provision in the motion to recommit to incentivize the construction of the Alaska natural gas pipeline, where we have 40 trillion cubic feet of natural gas that is not being used at the current time because we cannot get it to the Lower 48 States. In fact, the gentleman's motion to recommit has not one molecule of new energy in the motion to recommit. So while it may be well-intended, I do not think it is a substitute for a comprehensive energy bill, which, I will point out, has passed the House in its current form by a vote of 246 to 180, which was a bipartisan vote. The motion to recommit in a similar form failed before this body 193 to 237, although I must admit that that particular motion to recommit did not have the section on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I have tried to understand the section on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and I will take the gentleman from Michigan at his word that the intent of the SPR language is to provide some protection for price flexibility. But as a layman; i.e. myself, reads it, it is unclear to me that it actually does that. But I will take him at his word, that if he says that is what it does, I will stipulate that is what it does. In summary, while the motion to recommit is well intended, it is not a substitute for a comprehensive energy bill. In a form very similar to what it is today, it has failed before this body 237 to 193, and I hope when we come to the vote, if it comes to a rollcall vote, that once again it will fail, with all due respect to my good friend from Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and urge a no vote on the motion to recommit.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule before us. There are several bills that we are going to bring up today under this rule. The first has been renumbered, but it is the comprehensive energy conference report that this body passed last November by a vote of 246- 180 on a bipartisan basis. If the other body had been willing to bring that up, I feel very comfortable that it would have passed and the President would have signed it and it would be law by now. That particular bill reforms our electricity grid, it provides much needed R&D dollars for clean coal technology, provides some incentives for oil and gas development in this country, and has several provisions for renewable energy, including the President's hydrogen fuel initiative. That is a bill that has already passed this body once and hopefully if we pass it again today, the other body might be willing to bring it up and at least let there be a vote. The second bill is the Refinery Revitalization Act. This is a piece of legislation that is needed because the number of refineries in the United States has fallen by 53 percent in the last 20 years. We are now having to import refined products. Somewhere between 5 and 10 percent of our refined products are being imported and are not being refined in the United States. This bill is in an area that has 20 percent employment higher than the national average, would have an expedited procedure coordinated by the Department of Energy, would not waive any existing environmental restrictions but would set up a coordinated effort. If you wanted to refurbish an old, shutdown refinery or modernize an existing refinery or even build a new refinery in certain brownfield areas, you would have an expedited method of doing so. This would maintain jobs in the United States and hopefully create new jobs in the United States and also make us less dependent on imported refined products which is a growing problem for this country. I would ask for a yes vote on both of these rules and I would also ask for a yes vote on the underlying legislation.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4545, the Gasoline Price Reduction Act of 2004. This bill cosponsored by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) has three distinct provisions. One, it expressly gives the Administrator of the EPA, or the Environmental Protection Agency, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, waiver authority with respect to fuels and fuel additives requirements in State implementation plans in the event of a significant fuel supply disruption. The second section of the bill would give the Administrator of the EPA a preference as to which of three types of fuel could be required when considering approval of State implementation plans, while at the same time capping the total number of fuels or fuel additives at the nationwide number in existence as of June 1, 2004, and I believe that number is 48. The third thing the bill would do would be to require the administrator of the EPA, again in cooperation with the Secretary of Energy, to undertake a study to determine the effect of State plan provisions on air quality, on the number of fuel blends, on fuel availability and on fuel costs. The results of this study are to be reported to the Congress within 18 months after enactment, with recommendations on legislative changes to the list of preferred fuels which, if expanded, shall not exceed 10 fuels. Over time, we have specialized our fuels in nonattainment areas in different regions of the country to the point that every talking head on every news show speaks of the Balkanization of the fuel supply; the dividing of our fuel blends into smaller and smaller groupings. This bill will not provide overnight relief, but it would represent a good start to limiting the proliferation of fuels so numerous that it takes a high-tech society just to keep up with them. I would urge the passage of this important legislation, H.R. 4545, the Gasoline Price Reduction Act of 2004. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the primary author of the bill, the majority whip, a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce on leave, be able to control the balance of the time that I normally would control.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material on the bill.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4545) to amend the Clean Air Act to reduce the proliferation of boutique fuels, and for other purposes.