On the recordJuly 26, 2011
I thank my colleague and my friend from Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule, and I rise in opposition on substantive grounds. The Rules Committee approved for our consideration here on the floor every germane amendment but one, the Markey-Connolly amendment, which would have required a simple certification that the bulk of this oil to be transported by this proposed pipeline be for and designated for domestic consumption. {time} 1250 We hear a lot of rhetoric about the need to expand American production and/or access to secure oil to lessen our dependence on foreign suppliers. That, indeed, is a noble goal. It's one in which I share, but not at any price, and I don't want to be sold a pig in a poke. The fact that the Rules Committee would not put that amendment on this floor, going into content rather than procedure, finding it germane but still not allowing a fair debate and its consideration on this floor, I think gives the lie to the intent behind the extension of this pipeline. This oil is not for domestic consumption; this oil is for foreign export. It has very little to do with domestic oil supply or it might have very little to do with domestic oil supply. A simple requirement that the preponderance of it be for domestic supply I think would have made prudent domestic policy and I think would have allowed a fair and interesting debate here on the floor of the House as to what the real intention of this pipeline is.…





