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

I want to thank the ranking member of the full committee for reading a very important letter into the RECORD that the EPA has no intention to manipulate or to utilize capandtrade as part of their responsibilities. This is not a capandtrade initiative or legislation. It has nothing to do with capandtrade. In fact. I think the whole concept of this Energy Tax Prevention Act is muddled and befuddled. I dont understand it. I practiced oil and gas law for almost 15 or 20 years. I come from Houston. and I recognize the difficulties that we have in the industry and understanding the industry. But I also am cognizant that this majority. my good friend on the other side that represents that. they are interested in adhering to the Constitution. And I dont know why they have not studied the Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts versus EPA that clearly indicates. even though this was motor vehicle emissions that they were talking about. but it held that greenhouse gases. widely viewed as contributing to climate change. constitute air pollutants. and therefore that phrase as utilized under the Clean Air Act and the EPA has jurisdiction to regulate under the Clean Air Act. I assume what we are doing is trying to bash a longstanding process rather than coming up with better ideas. I think my amendment brings about a better idea. because energy is a national security issue. And what my amendment poses to do is to ask serious questions about the impact of eliminating the EPA authority. finding a way to work through this question: What would be the longterm impact? Because the legislation that is now written by my friends on the other side of the aisle is telling the United States of America. in conflict with the United States Supreme Court decisionand let me just hold up a visual. the Constitution. which is what this majority says that they are basing their whole legislative agenda on. Well. we have constitutional authority. And they are now telling us that we should not regulate water vapor. carbon dioxide. methane. nitrous oxide. sulfur hexafluoride. hydrofluorocarbons. perfluorocarbons. and any other substance. I dont hear a scream and cry of the industry. I do hear the idea that there are burdens that will come upon the industry that we should address. So the amendment that I have that I am asking for real consideration on the basis of a national security question. How will we provide for resources that will provide for the engine economy of this Nation. the longterm impact of the Environmental Protection Agency having no authority to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases? Also. if there are alternatives to ensure compliance with the Clean Air Act. if you have a better alternative. And best practices with respect to greenhouse gas regulation under the Clean Air Act. which the Supreme Court decision clearly dictates that it has the authority to regulate it. But we need to collaborate and cooperate and understand how we balance the needs of an energy policy. Might I also say that energy recognizes all forms of energy. And energy companies that are in oil and gas are looking at alternatives. They have whole sections that are addressing the question of alternative fuels. Why are we raising a bill that has no sense of direction in what it is trying to do and to eliminate an oversight that is protecting the American public in their quality of life and also doesnt speak to how we work with the industry to actually make sure that we check these emissions but as well provide the opportunity for domestic growth and domestic energy growth? I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.