Date: 2013-05-22
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the respective authors of this legislation because I know that their intent is a purposeful intent. I have made public statements that I believe that moving forward with the right approach. ensuring that the necessary protections are in place. the necessary environmental protections are in place and the permitting is in place. will create an enormous number of jobs. In fact. I opposed the rule because Ive offered amendments that would provide opportunities for minority contractors. womenowned contractors. opportunities for the recruitment of a new generation of workers in the energy industry. which I thought would be a contributing factor to this legislation. I offer a very simple amendment that has nothing to do with stopping any aspect of the construction. I would hope. however. that the regular order would proceed with the State Departments permitting process and the Presidents approval. but my amendment does not speak to that. My amendment is an amendment that seeks to simply be fair. Mr. Chairman. My amendment is simple and straightforward. It extends the time period for filing a claim arising under the act from 60 days to 1 year after the date of the decision or action giving rise to the claim. This amendment is especially needed because H.R. 3. the underlying bill. vests exclusive jurisdiction over any and all claims arising under the act in a single court. the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. which is thousands of miles from many of those who may be impacted. Think about that. The Keystone pipeline is proposed to run from Alberta. Canada. through the great States of North Dakota. South Dakota. Nebraska. Kansas. Oklahoma. and my State of Texas. all the way to the gulf. Maybe there is some collateral impact as well. but the only court in the country authorized to hear the claims of the residents of any of these States who seek justice for a legally cognizable claim or injury is located more than 1.000 miles away from their homes. Mr. Chairman. they cannot go to a district court. They cannot go to the southern district. This will impose an undue hardship and a financial burden on ordinary Americans seeking justice. Instead. the bill requires them to find and retain a highpriced D.C. lawyer whom they dont know and may have never met to represent their interests in a court far. far away. Another reason for extending the time period in which to file a claimremember. this is after the passage and construction of this particular entityfrom 60 days to 1 year is that. by lodging jurisdiction in the D.C. Court of Appeals. the burden of proof and persuasion is shifted from the governmental and corporate actors involved to the homeowners. small businesses. and individuals bringing legal rights. Grandma and Grandpa and all of those individuals will have to travel 1.000 miles. This is because the burden that must be shouldered by a plaintiff is very steep. To challenge factual evidentiary determinations made in an Environmental Impact Statement. for example. a plaintiff must demonstrate that theyre not supported by substantial evidence in the record considered as a whole. To meet the standard. plaintiffs will have to retain experts. locate and prepare witnesses. and gather and review documentary materials. I hope in a bipartisan way we can get to where all of us would like to be. ensuring that we have a constructive project for all Americans. With that. I reserve the balance of my time.