Paul Tonko: “I thank the gentleman from Colorado. I oppose the rule and the underlying legislation. I submitted two amendments to the…”

“I thank the gentleman from Colorado. I oppose the rule and the underlying legislation. I submitted two amendments to the committee; I regret that neither was made in order. One--rejected by the Republican majority--would have protected private property owners along the pipeline route from being bullied by TransCanada into giving up their land. The other amendment would have required the Secretary of Transportation to provide assurance that current pipeline safety regulations are sufficient to prevent spills of diluted bitumen. I have represented communities that have been impacted by pipeline explosions. I know the price they pay. Much of this pipeline is going to cross private lands, not public lands. Protection of private property rights is something we hear a lot about whenever government makes a decision to protect unique and valuable public resources. But apparently, if a foreign company wants to build a pipeline to transport oil for export, private property rights can be sacrificed. What is the rush? There is existing pipeline capacity to deliver this oil. The tar sands are not going to disappear. Our citizens should receive a fair chance to defend their property in State courts. This legislation deprives them of that opportunity. Ms.…”