mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman for yielding me this time , but i do need to correct the record . 
i was not the mayor . 
i should have been , perhaps , but i thank my colleague . 
mr. speaker , the issue is about refining capacity and the ability for us to convert crude oil into gasoline and other products . 
the record is pretty clear on both sides that we have not built a new refinery since 1976 . 
in 1981 , we had 324 refineries in production . 
today , we have 148 . 
we refine about 17 million barrels of gasoline a day , and we use about 21 million . 
we are importing gasoline ; and , obviously , one of the choke points in the supply system is the ability to convert crude oil into gasoline . 
what this bill does , and i am speaking against the substitute and in favor of the underlying bill , is that it removes a regulatory burden that many folks who want to build a refinery have to submit themselves to . 
it takes about 3 years to build a refinery , exclusive of the permitting process . 
major investments are needed in order to construct a refinery , and businesses simply are not willing to put those dollars at risk subject to a regulatory approval permitting scene that is disjointed at best . 
under the bill , we allow the governor to designate a particular site subject to these provisions . 
we put the doe in charge of shepherding the permitting process , not making the decisions on behalf of the state and the federal regulators , but simply encouraging them to get it done on a timely basis . 
most businesses can deal with an answer , but a maybe or a give me more information or a delay is what is killing us . 
so i am standing in favor of the original bill , the manager 's amendment and speaking against the stupak substitute . 
