Date: 2011-04-06
Speaker: JACKSON LEE (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

I am going to take a slightly different perspective and ask my colleagues to support this amendment. Again. I am hoping. I know there are a lot of letters that my good friend from Michigan says that he has. and any time you put forward legislation that trade groups send word out to membership and say. this is going to save you a bucket full of money. and you better jump on the bandwagon. and there is no alternative or there is no basis of understanding the underpinnings of what we are doing. then you get that kind of praise. I hope that many people who are with the industry. having practiced the law. and I have seen some of the mountains that all industries have to climb. I think we can find a reasonable way of functioning. I just want to put in the RECORD that the industry. which is part of the drive of my friends on the other side. the oil and gas industry does generate 9.237 million jobs. $1 trillion contributed to the economy. $178 billion paid to the U.S. Treasury or to the government in royalties and bonus payments. and $95.6 billion in taxes. income taxes. $194 billion invested to improve the environmental performance of its products. and $58.4 billion invested in low- and zerocarbon emission technologies from 2000 to 2008. I encourage them to keep going. But the way that you keep going is not to eliminate the oversight body. but you work with it. And my amendment is very clear. I create a pathway for the industry to be engaged on any rulemaking. It shall provide a notice period of no less than 30 days specifically to the affected greenhouse gas producersand this is a sort of pipeline for the industryproposed to be regulated and allow industryspecific comments to be submitted to the administrator separate and apart from the public comment period and to discuss the economic impact of the proposed regulation. provide for an opportunity for the regulated industry to request and receive a 60day extension. And we should take into consideration the effect of the proposed regulation on greenhouse gas emissions. These companies have employees living in our community. And it is noted that Houston. the Houston area to Huntsville has some of the largest pollutants in the air. We should also consider the effect of the proposed regulation has on energy production. the feasibility of the implementation of the regulation on the entities being regulated. the effect of the proposed regulation on the availability of energy to consumers. and the adverse environmental effects of delaying implementation of the proposed regulation. It allows a discussion that may not be at the level that we would like it today. I cant imagine. and I guess my friend on the other side of the aisle will come up and show me all the letters that hes saying that are supporting legislation that completely obliterates the opportunity for any governmental oversight. I disagree. I want to know the question of whether or not we have had the kinds of discussions that warrant a deliberative process and to bring about a concept of listening to industry and industry listening on the question of air pollutants. I hold up the mayors task force on the health effectiveness. It talks about Houston. But Im not going to narrow this to Houston. Wherever there are companies that are refineries. as they so discussed. we are not trying to undermine that work. But does anyone want to live in China with the air pollutants that they have? Let me just say that what we are addressing is a question of balance. My amendment provides input by the industry and by the EPA collaborating on how this will impact going forward. I would like you to support my amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.