Rick Boucher

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. BOUCHER. 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. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I am in its current form.

Mr. BOUCHER. 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. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this motion to recommit, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. 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. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. (Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. 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.

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to partner today with the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) with whom I have the privilege of co-chairing the Congressional Internet Caucus in authoring this resolution, which will express our view that the Internet remain open, available for all to use, global and seamless. It expresses the sense of the Congress that the United States has been a good steward in its management of the root server and the system for Internet domain name assignment. We carry out this mission by entrusting day-to-day decision making and management to a private nongovernmental, not-for-profit corporation known as ICANN. The Internet address list is kept up to date, new domain names are assigned as they are needed in a fair and an equitable and predictable manner. No one has demonstrated any problem with the way this system operates. No one has asserted that a needed domain name has been withheld and not assigned. There are no examples of ICANN, or the U.S. Department of Commerce, which has oversight responsibility, having acted in any way inappropriately. As a result of efficient and even-handed American management, the Internet has become a global pathway of instant communications, which has spurred economic growth, improved the quality of people's lives and strengthened democratic institutions here in this Nation and across the world. Citizens of many nations in the lesser-developed world rightly say that they aspire to better access to computers in their homes or in community centers where computers would be available to all. They rightly ask that Internet service providers bring the Internet and all that it offers to their localities. They rightly urge that basic dialup services be upgraded to broadband where only the most basic form of Internet access is available today. None of these legitimate aspirations are related in any way to the manner in which ICANN assigns domain names and updates the global Internet address system. A change in these critical management functions would do nothing to expand Internet availability deeper into the developing world. Unfortunately, the U.N. Summit on the Information Society, which began in Geneva, as a forum for discussing ways to bring Internet access to developing nations, over time morphed into a forum focusing on Internet governance and specifically focusing on management of the well-functioning domain assignment system and the Internet address management work of ICANN. Fortunately, in Tunisia yesterday, a sensible outcome was achieved. Any change in Internet management was put aside in favor of the creation of an international forum where other kinds of Internet- related concerns can be discussed, perhaps including ways to bring the Internet to more of the world's population, and to address Internet problems that are common to all Internet users, including viruses, spam and security-related matters. This outcome is a victory for Internet functionality. It is a validation of the careful role the United States has played and will continue to play in management of the global address system. It is a reflection of the skill exhibited by our ambassador, David Gross, who led the American team at the summit in negotiating with many who have deep-seated disagreements over aspects of American foreign policy. I want to congratulate Ambassador Gross for what he has achieved. I congratulate ICANN and the U.S. Department of Commerce on a job well done, which enabled the outcome in Tunisia. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) for their leadership on this measure which describes the role that our Nation plays in Internet address management and urges that role be maintained. I urge adoption of the resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the distinguished chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, who is co-chairman of the Congressional Internet Caucus and one of the coauthors of this resolution.

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

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, the outcome in Tunis is a victory for an open, globally, seamless Internet. It is a strong validation of the thoughtful way in which ICANN with oversight from our U.S. Department of Commerce has managed the Internet address system. In Tunis yesterday, a decision was made to create an international forum that could be a discussion focus for issues relating to the Internet that are common to all Internet users, including matters such as spam, viruses and other security-related concerns. It seems to me that the United States now should seize the opportunity of this new international forum, the first meeting of which will take place in Greece during the middle part of 2006, in order to enlist assistance from other countries and achieve a number of very admirable goals. The first of these is to encourage investment that will extend the Internet into places where an Internet presence is not presently found, and in particular into the developing world. Secondly, these problems that are coming to all Internet usage can be addressed in a way where we can enlist global participation in helping to find answers. I look forward to working with Ambassador Gross, others within the administration, and my colleagues in the Congress as we undertake that work. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of my constituents. On November 17, 2005, Jack Curtis Smith, founder of K-VA- T Food Stores, Inc., will mark his 50th year in the grocery business in southwest Virginia, and I would like to take this occasion to recognize his many contributions to my Congressional District. K-VA-T Food Stores, Inc. is an important asset in southwest Virginia, eastern Kentucky, and northeast Tennessee, employing more than 11,000 residents and honoring a strong commitment of service to the region. Jack C. Smith returned to his hometown of Grundy, Virginia, in 1954 after graduating from the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, and serving in the U.S. Navy for 10 years. While standing in a lengthy line at Grundy's only grocery store, Jack Smith decided that his hometown needed a larger, more convenient supermarket with an emphasis on customer service. Earl Smith, Jack's uncle, Ernest Smith, Jack's cousin, and Curtis Smith, Jack's father, shared the vision that Jack could meet this need. These four local businessmen formed a partnership and began work with the Piggly Wiggly Corporation to construct a new, state-of-the-art grocery store, and on November 17, 1955, Jack Smith and his partners opened the Piggly Wiggly supermarket in the town of Grundy. After experiencing great success with his Grundy store, Jack Smith acquired grocery stores in eastern Kentucky, southwest Virginia, and east Tennessee from grocery chains such as White Stores, Food City, Winn Dixie, and Piggly Wiggly. Retaining the Food City name, Smith remodeled and modernized the stores, adding features such as wide aisles, larger selection of products and computerized check-out systems, designed to provide the customers greater accessibility to the products and to facilitate an easier shopping experience. Smith soon created K-VA-T Food Stores, Inc., as the organization under which his supermarkets would operate. K-VA-T is an acronym for Kentucky, Virginia, and Tennessee, the States in which his grocery stores are located. The work begun 50 years ago by Jack C. Smith has borne fruit. Today K-VA-T Food Stores, Inc., operates nearly 100 Food City stores. K-VA-T has grown to become the largest employer in the Tri-Cities region of Tennessee and Virginia and the fifth largest employer in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Despite its development as a large retail grocery chain, the headquarters of K-VA-T as well as its distribution facility remain in southwest Virginia near the location of its first supermarket. Most importantly, K-VA-T has adopted a policy of improving the lives of the residents in the communities it serves. The company is 16 percent employee owned. Jack Smith once stated, ``The ultimate objective of K-VA-T Food Stores is to fulfill its ongoing commitment to planned growth. My wish is that the public, our corporate officers, associates and patrons can find their lives enriched because of this company's existence and its efforts. But first, and foremost, let us remember that the friendship of those we serve is the foundation of our progress.'' For 50 years, Jack Smith has been making investments in the communities his stores serve in cities such as Knoxville, Tennessee, as well as small, rural towns such as Grundy, Virginia. K-VA-T supports local farmers and produce vendors by selling locally grown produce in its stores. Through the Apples for Students program, K-VA-T has provided over $9.2 million in computers and computer equipment to over 700 schools. The company regularly participates in local food drives and provides assistance to chapters of the Second Harvest food bank network. Semi-annually, K-VA-T sponsors Food City Family Race Night, which occurs during the week before the NASCAR races the company sponsors. Food City Family Race Night draws over 40,000 race fans, and the proceeds from the event are contributed to local charities. These are just a few of the many ways K-VA-T supports its communities. The outstanding work of Jack C. Smith and K-VA-T Food Stores has improved the quality of life of thousands of citizens in my Congressional District in southwest Virginia as well as throughout eastern Kentucky and northeast Tennessee. The affects of his dedication to shaping the communities in this region will be lasting. I applaud the efforts of Jack C. Smith, and it is with great pleasure that I congratulate him on 50 years in the grocery business.

Mr. BOUCHER

Mr. BOUCHER. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to instruct at the desk which I offer on behalf of myself, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mack).