i thank our distinguished ranking member for yielding me time . 
mr. speaker , i rise in opposition to the rule . 
i want to point out something that is in the underlying bill which authorizes the president to designate federal lands that might be suitable for the construction of an oil refinery . 
once he has made a designation , the land must be leased for the construction of a refinery . 
the refinery would be permitted under expedited procedures with limited judicial review . 
although the manager 's amendment requires the president to conduct an analysis of the suitability of the site , there is no obligation that he take the analysis into account before designating federal property as suitable for a refinery . 
so there is no requirement that there be an opportunity for citizen input . 
the sponsors of the bill did bar the president from designating lands that are part of the national park system , the national wilderness system and national monuments . 
but they failed to place language in the bill that would protect millions of acres of other equally sensitive lands , including national forests , the national wildlife refuge system , national conservation areas , wilderness study areas , the national wild and scenic river system , the national trail system , and the national landscape conservation system . 
i offered an amendment that was turned back by the committee on rules that would have protected these lands which have been set aside for the american people . 
i can not imagine why a president would want to clear the path for building a new refinery in chincoteague , virginia ; the great bay refuge in new hampshire ; or in arkansas 's cache river refuge . 
my question is , why would congress want to give him the chance ? 
vote against the rule . 
this is a bad bill for the american people . 
