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

Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank Chairman SESSIONS and the Members of the Rules Committee for making in order my amendment that extends the time period for filing a claim arising under the Act from 60 days to 1 year. Mr. Speaker. the Keystone XL Pipeline project raises several issues important to every Member of this House: Energy production and independence. Environmental protection and preservation. Job creation. Separation of powers and checks and balances. Given the importance of these issues. I believe the House would have benefitted from a rule that provided for even more extensive and wideranging debate and that made more amendments in order. For example. an amendment I offered jointly with Congressman RUSH. Jackson Lee Amendment #4. would have struck Section 4 of the bill and restored the right to full judicial review to aggrieved parties. Another amendment I offered. Jackson Lee Amendment #3. would have required the Secretary of Transportation to submit within 90 days of enactment a report to Congress identifying the procedures and policies adopted to ensure that women and minority business enterprises are afforded the opportunity to participate on an equitable basis in the construction and operation of the Keystone equitable basis in the construction and operation of the Keystone Pipeline. Had this amendment been made in order and adopted Congress would have been provided with helpful information needed to conduct appropriate oversight. Another amendment I offered. Jackson Lee Amendment #2 Amendment. would have added a nonseverability clause to the bill. which states that: "if any provision or application of the legislation is held to be invalid. the entire act shall be rendered void." This nonseverability clause simply would have made explicit that the component parts of this bill all fit together. in pari materia. so to speak. such that removing any one part would defeat the intended purpose of the bill. My amendment would make very clear the Congressional intent that this bill is so delicately crafted. that it is "all or nothing." Each of these provisions would be rendered meaningless if any of the remaining parts is invalidated. This has been a long standing principle of statutory construction. going back at least to 1936. when the Supreme Court stated in Carter. v. Carter Coal Co.. 298 U.S. 238. 312 (1936): "[T]he presumption is that the Legislature intends an act to be effective as an entirety that is to say. the rule is against the mutilation of a statute. and if any provision be unconstitutional. the presumption is that the remaining provisions fall with it. This presumption becomes conclusive when Congress makes its intention clear. see Carter v. Carter Coal Co.. 298 U.S. at 312. by including a nonseverability clause in the statute. My amendment would have done just that. For these reasons. I am opposed to the rule and cannot support it. We can do better to create jobs. build the pipeline. and protect the environment. I will consider how to move forward. Mr. Speaker. I have an amendment at the desk. It is Jackson Lee Amendment No. 1. I thank the Members of the Rules Committee for making the amendment in order. 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 courtthe U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. 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 of Mexico. And the only court in the country authorized to hear the claims of any resident of any of these States who seeks justice for a legally cognizable injury is located more than 1.000 miles away from their homes. This will impose undue hardship and financial burdens on ordinary Americans seeking justice. Instead. the bill requires them to find and retain a highpriced D.C. lawyer that they dont know and may have never met to represent their interests in a court in a far away land. Another reason for extending the time period in which to file a claim from 60 days to 1 year is because 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 the legal action. This is because the burden that must be shouldered by a plaintiff is very steep. To challenge factual and evidentiary determinations made in an Environmental Impact Statement. for example. a plaintiff must demonstrate that they are "not supported by substantial evidence in the record considered as a whole." To meet that standard. plaintiffs will have to retain experts. locate and prepare witnesses. and gather and review documentary materials. That takes time. And that is why my amendment is necessary. The material previously referred to by Mr. POLLS is as follows: