Northern Route Approval Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. TONKO. I thank the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, we are once again debating a bill that, thankfully, will go no further than this House.

Even if you support the pipeline, this bill is the wrong approach to build it. This bill elevates the financial needs of tar sands developers and the pipeline's builder above the needs and concerns of the citizens who live along the pipeline's path.

I regret that my amendment on pipeline safety was not made in order. We now have ample evidence from the disastrous spills in Kalamazoo, Michigan, and Mayflower, Arkansas, that concern about pipeline safety is well justified.

Cleaning up a spill is an expensive and difficult task. Three years after the spill in Kalamazoo, the oil is still not cleaned up. Families evacuated from their homes in Mayflower are still living in temporary housing. The spill is not just messy; it is dangerous. The fumes, liquids, and the solids are a toxic brew. The resources damaged by these spills will take years--probably decades--to restore.

Congress recognized the unique nature of diluted bitumen and asked the National Academy of Sciences to examine questions related to its safe transport and to assess the adequacy of current pipeline safety regulations. This information would be valuable, especially in light of these recent spills; but we are not waiting for it. And if the proponents have their way, we will have no opportunity to act on any recommendations that NAS may provide.

This bill promotes reckless development of a pipeline that provides little public benefits to our citizens while increasing the risk to their communities, their property, and to our natural resources. We should not bypass our laws and the administration's process for evaluating this project.

With that, I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 3.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source