mr. speaker , i thank the chairman for the time . 
there are two points i would like to make here . 
first of all , with regard to the amendment , let us understand what is in there . 
if there is concern for giving large amounts of money to oil companies , what they propose we do is that the federal government gets in the business of , quote , designing and constructing refineries and then put that into use at times in their national emergencies or sell gas to states , which this bill actually allows states and governments to have some of this gasoline now , but for the government to own and operate refineries and invest all the money in there . 
in the alternative , if we can provide incentives for private industries to build , whether it is something small or large refineries , that makes a lot more sense . 
and if we are concerned at all about the budget , let us do the more efficient thing , rather than have the government run these things , have them sit mothballed until times of emergency , and then suddenly act like there is a switch one can throw and start them up . 
the second thing i want to point out is that i wish we could have included some important movement forward to make some changes on new source review . 
what happens now with a coal-fired power plant , for example , if they want to go in and do some routine maintenance , and while they are in there maybe improve the efficiency of the plant , the epa comes by and says , no , you are going to do something different here . 
even though you are going to improve efficiencies , we want you to do everything now . 
the energy company comes back and says we can not afford those larger investments ; we were going to make some smaller ones , so , therefore , we will do nothing . 
what they have done , instead of using the abundant supply of coal , we have 300 years ' worth of coal in this nation , they will move to natural gas instead in order to meet some of those standards . 
natural gas means we have more demand , the costs go up , it affects homeowners in the price of heating their homes , and it affects our chemical industry . 
the unions for jobs and the environment have sent a letter , and i will submit this letter as well for the record , which states the efficiency and competitiveness of our facilities and the safety of our workers hang in the balance . 
this is a jobs and safety issue for millions of american workers . 
and they go on to say that delaying the new source review issue is costly to jobs . 
so i want to make sure that we address this the next time when we get on to more of these energy issues . 
the letter referred to is as follows : unions for jobs and the environment , washington , dc , october 5 , 2005 . 
dear congressmen barton and dingell : on behalf of the members of unions for jobs and the environment and the united association of journeymen and apprentices of the plumbing and pipe fitting industry , we write to express our support for section 106 of h.r. 3893 , the gasoline for america 's security act of 2005 ( the act ) to provide much needed clarification of the new source review ( nsr ) program . 
we oppose any effort to amend this provision , and therefore , we urge you and your colleagues to vote against any amendment or rule that would complicate implementation of these important nsr reforms . 
our unions have had a long-time commitment to clear , effective and reasonable nsr policy . 
like the act does in section 106 ( a ) , we have encouraged the environmental protection agency ( epa ) to clarify the program as soon as possible . 
the efficiency and competitiveness of our facilities and the safety of our workers hang in the balance . 
this is a jobs and safety issue for millions of american workers . 
nsr , correctly interpreted as we hope epa 's new rules will do , forces new sources or those undergoing major modifications , to install new technology . 
we support nsr in that context . 
however , when nsr is applied in an unclear or inflexible manner to existing facilities , very different results occur . 
in those cases , facilities are discouraged from undertaking appropriate actions for fear of huge penalties , long delays , or both . 
by applying nsr in that way , our members will not have the opportunity to work on projects that we know are extremely important to energy efficiency . 
further , by reducing the useful economic life of boilers or by inaccurately setting baselines , the existing nsr confusion undermines the competitiveness of american job sites . 
the result is that some of the almost 20 million manufacturing jobs at stake in heavy industry are placed at risk . 
finalizing new nsr rules is also important to maintain worker safety . 
as the boilermakers testified earlier this year , `` the threat of litigation too often acts as a deterrent to capital investments that create work and maintain safe facilities for our members . 
boilers operate under high temperatures and pressures -- with superheater tubes exposed to flue gases at temperatures as high as 2 , 000 degrees and pressure around 3 , 000 lbs./square inch -- and must be maintained in order to be safe for workers. '' section 106 ( a ) and ( b ) ensure the orderly and timely implementation of nsr clarification . 
therefore , we ask you and your colleagues not to accept any amendment that would complicate the implementation of the final nsr rules . 
thank you for your consideration of our view on this important matter . 
sincerely , president , unions for jobs 