Providing for Consideration of H.R. 2021, Jobs and Energy Permitting Act of 2011, and Providing for Consideration of H.R. 1249, America Invents Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I raise this point of order not necessarily out of concern for the unmet, unfunded mandates, although there are many in H.R. 2021, the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act of 2011; I raise the point of order because it is one of the very few vehicles we have, given the House rule, by which we can actually talk about what is in this bill, and there are plenty of problems in this bill. I also note that the resolution includes H.R. 1249, which talks about patents, because that also violates the House's CutGo rule.
Let me speak to H.R. 2021, the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act of 2011, which is actually better noted as the ``bad lung, emphysema and cancer act of 2011.''
This bill gives offshore oil companies a pass to pollute by exempting the offshore drilling companies from applying the pollution controls to vessels, which account for up to 98 percent of the air pollution from offshore drilling. I suppose, if you're in the Gulf of Mexico and the wind is blowing towards the shore, you would care about this; but in California, the wind almost always blows onto the shore, and the offshore drilling and the additional pollution that would be allowed because of this is a serious problem for California.
It poses a health risk. Smoke, fumes, dust, ash, black carbon--all of these things--blow onto the shore in southern California where we already have quite enough air pollution without this additional amount.
Local communities do have a right--and should--even though this bill would tend to limit it, to go to the EPA. It cuts the review time in half, thereby denying local communities the full opportunity to express their concerns about the additional pollution.
It eliminates third-party expert decision-making by the Environmental Appeals Board--finally, 20 years of the Environmental Appeals Board, created under the George W. Bush EPA, and it eliminates that.
There are many, many problems here, and I would like to raise them all by including the patents in this.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GARAMENDI. Well, I think he tossed it back to me, Mr. Speaker; so let me go ahead and finish this up.
Mr. Sensenbrenner accurately talked about the way in which this particular resolution and the underlying bill on the patent bill violates the House rule that was written not more than 5 1/2 months ago. Why would we want to violate the rules that we put in place to prevent excessive Federal spending? Doesn't make sense to me. So I agree with Mr. Sensenbrenner: send this thing back. It's a violation of the rule, and I would ask for a ruling on that from the Chair.
The other point that I'd like to make is a similar point with regard to the offshore oil drilling bill which really does present a very serious problem for California. All of the offshore drilling in California--and it's very extensive. It's the second largest year for offshore drilling in the United States--is immediately off the southern California coast where we have very serious air pollution problems, some of the worst in the Nation.
All of those offshore drilling platforms pollute, air pollution of many different kinds causing potential harm to the citizens of southern California. Those onshore winds bring those pollutants onto the shore and cause additional air pollution problems which then require, under this bill, that the local communities take additional action to reduce the pollutants that are generated onshore, creating a very serious economic problem.
In addition, the bill requires that any legal issue raised has to be taken up in the district court here in Washington, D.C. By my calculation, that's nearly 3,000 miles away from where the problem exists, that is, southern California, placing an incredible burden upon them and an unfunded mandate that they have to then come out of their own budgets to come to Washington, D.C., to take up any legal issue that is raised, an unfunded mandate clearly in violation of the Rules of the House.
And, therefore, a point of order is in order, and I would hope that the Speaker would so rule.
There are many, many problems beyond that with regard to air pollution and the like. I will let those go.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source