Statement of Congressman John D. Dingell, Ranking Member
Committee on Energy and Commerce

H.R. 5254, THE "REFINERY PERMIT
PROCESS SCHEDULE ACT"

I begin by observing that this bill and the arguments made on its behalf are as phony as a $3 bill. My colleagues have seen this sorry piece of legislation before and they voted it down. Since we considered this legislation the first time, there have been no hearings. The arguments made against it at that time are as good today as they were then. And the committee has made no effort to go out and get the facts or to learn what is going on so they could make an honest and factual presentation to this body.

The harsh fact of the matter is the refinery shortage in this country is an economic one. The oil companies do not make money in refineries. The harsh fact of the matter is, as was told me in my office by the head of one of the major oil companies, they do not need any help and they do not want any help to build refineries because they have made an economic judgment that it is better not to build because they make their money elsewhere, and that is a far better way of spending oil companies' money.

Now, if we look at the remarks of Daniel Yergin, a respected oil analyst, he tells us the industry has added the equivalent of 10 new good-sized oil refineries over the last dozen years. In addition to these expansions, recent announcements by the industry anticipate an additional 1.1 million barrels of new refining capacity will be added in coming years. Most importantly, this has been done under current law.
A survey we conducted recently of State and local permitting agencies provides further evidence that the environmental permitting process is not preventing new refineries from being built or existing refineries from being expanded. Only one new major refinery has requested an air permit in the past 30 years. It got the permit, but it never got the investors. Explain that, proponents of the bill.

The air permit has been granted not once but twice. According to our survey, permitting agencies responsible for permitting half the refineries in the country have issued all, all, but two major expansion permits in less than a year after receipt of a complete application.

This is an ill-advised bill, brought to the House under a parody of the House rules, with no opportunity to amend and little time for an intelligent debate. The rule is effectively closed and permits no amendments by Members on this side of the aisle.
My colleagues on the Republican side have said that the Democrats have not conducted themselves in good faith. Such remarks were made by the chairman of the subcommittee. I would note, and I wish he were here so that he could hear me say this, that those statements are not true.

We consulted through staff and Members alike with the Republicans to come forward with a fair piece of legislation and a compromise bill which would, in fact, work. We offered suggestions on behalf of our side of the aisle through the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), offering a meaningful substitute, including a refinery bill which would have passed and which would have worked. It was a bill which would have set up not just provisions relating to refinery permits, but also relating to Federal movement towards the construction of these refineries. If you want refineries, that is the way to get them because industry will never construct new refineries because they do not want them.

Now, one more curious thought. My Republican colleagues have said that we will have an energy bill every week, and they are coming close to it, but they are having some small difficulties because here they have to bring the same bill up twice, once under suspension and lose, and once now under a gag rule.

I would note for the benefit of my Republican colleagues that we passed last year, with bipartisan support and my assistance to my friend, the chairman of the committee, in drafting a piece of legislation which included refinery legislation in it, the energy bill of the last year, a good piece of legislation. I supported it. I worked with the chairman to get it done. I would note in a curious, indeed a most curious, action, that bill is substantially repealed by this very strange piece of legislation.

It cannot be explained to me, I think, in a few words as to why it is that that bill, touted as the solution to our Nation's energy problems, has been now repealed at least insofar as the refinery permitting provisions, and why we have to now rush ignorantly forward with a bag upon our heads to pass a new piece of legislation which is going to accomplish precisely nothing, except perhaps help my Republican colleagues in a time of terror and fear.

- 30 -

(Contact: Jodi Seth, 202-225-3641)