More

Keystone XL Pipeline: GOP Bill Would Force Government Decision

Congress Republicans Keystone Xl

MATTHEW DALY   11/30/11 05:02 PM ET   AP

WASHINGTON — Angered by President Barack Obama's delay of a proposed oil pipeline from Canada, Senate Republicans are moving to force him to act.

A bill introduced Wednesday by 37 GOP senators, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, would require the administration to approve the Keystone XL pipeline within 60 days, unless the president declares the project is not in the national interest.

The State Department decided on Nov. 10 to delay the project until 2013, after the presidential election, to allow the project's developer to figure out a way around Nebraska's Sandhills, an ecologically sensitive region that supplies water to eight nearby states.

McConnell, R-Ky., called the $7 billion pipeline the ultimate "shovel-ready" project and said it could create as many as 20,000 jobs.

He and other Republicans called Obama's decision to delay the project transparently political and said Obama had put his reelection above job creation.

"This is politics, pure and simple," said Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska.

The GOP bill has little chance of approval in the Democratic-controlled Senate. But the measure illustrates Republicans' frustration over the pipeline delay and their belief that Obama is vulnerable on the jobs issue.

House Republicans are expected to highlight the jobs issue again on Friday, during a hearing before the Energy and Commerce Committee on the pipeline project. Several labor union leaders are among those scheduled to testify.

The pipeline project has divided labor groups eager for the jobs it would create from environmentalists and other traditional Democratic allies who oppose the pipeline as an ecological disaster waiting to happen.

The 1,700-mile pipeline proposed by Calgary-based TransCanada would carry as much as 700,000 barrels of oil a day from tar sands in Alberta, Canada, to refineries in Texas, passing through Montana, South Dakota, Kansas, Nebraska and Oklahoma.

Supporters say it could significantly reduce U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern oil while providing thousands of jobs. Opponents say the pipeline would bring "dirty oil" that requires huge amounts of energy to extract. They also worry about possible spills, noting that a current pipeline operated by TransCanada has had several spills in the past year.

The Senate bill's chief sponsor, Richard Lugar of Indiana, said Keystone XL presented a dramatic opportunity to boost U.S. national security and North American energy production by providing oil from the nation's closest ally and largest trading partner, Canada.

"President Obama has the opportunity to help create 20,000 jobs now. Incredibly he has delayed a decision... apparently in fear of offending a part of his political base," Lugar said.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest called that criticism off-base.

"I recognize that there are people in Washington, D.C., who want to apply a political label to every single thing that the president or other members of this administration do, but at the end of the day this is a decision that falls cleanly in line with the priorities that the president laid out" in a recent interview, Earnest said.

Obama told a Nebraska TV station that he needed to balance job creation and energy security with public health and the safety of communities along the pipeline route.

The bill's supporters include Sen. Mike Johanns, R-Neb., who had opposed an earlier plan that would have routed the pipeline through the Nebraska Sandhills, a region of porous hills that includes a high concentration of wetlands and a key aquifer.

The State Department cited the Sandhills as a key reason to delay the project. The State Department has authority over the project because it crosses a U.S. border. After the delay was announced, TransCanada agreed to divert the pipeline around the Sandhills, although an exact route has not been determined.

Last week, Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman signed two laws aimed at oil pipelines, including one that requires state officials to conduct an environmental review of Keystone XL.

Johanns said the Senate bill would allow construction of the pipeline to begin in all states except Nebraska, where construction would be put off until an acceptable route is found and all required reviews are completed.

"The issues in Nebraska have been resolved," Johanns said, adding that the White House should not hide behind concern over the Sandhills as a reason to delay the project further.

Nebraska's other senator, Democrat Ben Nelson, called the GOP bill "well intentioned" but unnecessary. He said state officials have worked out a "good compromise" with TransCanada and the State Department that should be allowed to continue.

"If something goes awry, I can look at legislation at that time," he told reporters Wednesday.

Lugar, the senior Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he hopes to have a public hearing on the bill by the end of the year.

A spokeswoman for Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., the panel's chairman, said Kerry was in contact with Lugar and "evaluating how best to move forward."

___

Matthew Daly can be followed at http://twitter.com/MatthewDalyWDC

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

WASHINGTON — Angered by President Barack Obama's delay of a proposed oil pipeline from Canada, Senate Republicans are moving to force him to act. A bill introduced Wednesday by 37 GOP senators,...
WASHINGTON — Angered by President Barack Obama's delay of a proposed oil pipeline from Canada, Senate Republicans are moving to force him to act. A bill introduced Wednesday by 37 GOP senators,...
Filed by James Gerken  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 95
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
04:13 PM on 01/18/2012
Hey, It is 16 below zero here in North Dakota. Our utility company threatens to shut off natural gas and the county is repossessing homes because property tax has tripled in last 3 years. Hess Oil Company continues flaring natural gas at well head and polluting the prairie. Stop this flaring of Natural Gas before those of us who are still able to breath freeze to death.
03:46 PM on 12/15/2011
How about 1 issue, 1 bill? Why are there always so many riders in these bills? I'm sure if we got rid of the lobbyists and corporate funding of bills, alot of these issues would just go away...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alvdh1
02:50 PM on 12/02/2011
Let's all gather around in front of the tv cameras and fulfill Al Franken's fantasy and continue being those lying, liars. Down with the GOPBPTP.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
john649
03:53 AM on 12/02/2011
I wanna FRACK right under each of these blithering idiots homes, wait for the earthquake, the poisoned water and then see how how they like it.
03:36 PM on 12/01/2011
Maybe Lisa Murkowski should lobby for the pipeline to go through her home state of Alaska. Part of the reason Keystone is pushing to put this through the US is because they have faced so much opposition in Canada. British Columbians have repeatedly said they don't want any "dirty oil" pipeline and most recently BC Aboriginal groups (which collectively own 100% of the coastal land the proposed "Northern Gateway" pipeline would have to pass through) has said they will block any and all efforts to push it through their lands "by whatever means necessary" Even if the Harper government is somehow able to get this native ban overturned in court and force a writ of adverse possession against these native groups (pretty doubtful) that would take years, if not decades. And even then his administration (assuming he lives to 120 and is in power the whole time) would likely face a full out native blockade of all construction (the production of this oil has already destroyed vast tracts of native land as well as an entire river system in Alberta so there is a decided "trust" deficit between Keystone and native groups). Since this oil is slated for China anyway, perhaps the easiest solution is to ship via Alaska. That way both Murkowski and Palin could see it from their own backyard and know that "crony capitalism" and big government handouts for petroleum companies are still alive and thriving in their own home state.
photo
Lucile S
Lib and a truth lover.
02:31 PM on 12/01/2011
It's not above job creation that Obama had put his reelection -- Keystone XL doesn't create jobs it destroys them -- but above public health. GOP senators are right: this is only politics.
But GOP bill is also politics: it's a shabby strategy against Obama. They want big oil to become his opponent during the election campaign -- and if he says yes that will be green activists. In all cases some people will be against him and that's what GOP senators want to.

Do not putt off Keystone just DELETE IT.
03:42 PM on 12/01/2011
I AGREE AND IT'S ALL ABOUT MONEY TO THESE PEOPLE ARE THEY EVEN THINKING THE JOBS THAT THEY'RE SUPPOSEDLY CREATING IS NOTHING MORE THAN AN EXCUSE FOR DESTRUCTION AND DEATH THAT IS IMMINENT DUE TO THE RISKS INVOLVED IT THIS PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION,LIFE IS THE MAIN ISSUE HERE NOT JOBS WITHOUT LIFE THERE ARE NO JOB ARE THEY FOR REAL?
09:35 AM on 12/02/2011
no its all about energy independence.
photo
bad spelling grammar
Help save Big Cats from extinction!
01:43 PM on 12/01/2011
Reason #120034 to hate the GOP, the list just keeps on growing.
satyrday
If my micro-bio is way too long, will it be trunca
12:43 PM on 12/01/2011
Okay, why is Obama going to sign a bill that contradicts his decision?

And when are the Republicans going to stop fooling around, and get to a legitimate jobs bill that can actually pass?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ctaylor1968
10:12 AM on 12/01/2011
There are many jobs that are shovel ready here in the USA. Lets fix the roads and bridges for a start. If the GOP are sooo concerned about jobs, why arent they fighting for that?
dumocraps
My Screenname gets right to the point
10:33 AM on 12/01/2011
This project is financed privately, not another failed taxpayer funded porkulus bill.
photo
smallpawsdk
Obama 2012
11:50 AM on 12/01/2011
Those pipe line jobs are temporary. And the people who's land that the lines go thru don't want it and I agree with them.
09:36 AM on 12/02/2011
those jobs are temporary, and we need energy independence. the jobs for the pipeline will help america. and help keep the price of oil down.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ctaylor1968
10:57 AM on 12/02/2011
What if it hurts America, what if it leaks and contaminates everything around it, is it still worth it to you?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alvdh1
02:57 PM on 12/02/2011
Buying oil from another country doesn't spell energy independence. Please explain how buying oil from Canada in nothing more than the transfer of wealth from the U.S. to Canada just like purchasing oil from OPEC or Mexico.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
stekathy
09:21 AM on 12/01/2011
A bill introduced Wednesday by 37 GOP senators would require the administration to approve the Keystone XL pipeline within 60 days, unless the president declares the project is not in the national interest. The following some of the supporters of the bill: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, Richard Lugar of Indiana, Sen. Mike Johanns, R-Neb. What I don't understand is why are the Republicans so fired up in a hurry to pass a bill that could lead to disastrous consequences for the water supply for the states that the pipeline would go through!
The State Department decided on Nov. 10 to delay the project until 2013 to allow the project's developer to figure out a way around Nebraska's Sandhills, an ecologically sensitive region that supplies water to eight nearby states. Republicans call that a political ploy by the Obama administration. President Obama's concern was for the region in which the pipeline would run. Obama told a Nebraska TV station that he needed to balance job creation and energy security with public health and the safety of communities along the pipeline route. This is acting in the best interest of the region not his political future!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ctaylor1968
10:07 AM on 12/01/2011
Glad someone gets it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
barkingcat
Woof?
11:23 AM on 12/01/2011
Exactly.
09:40 AM on 12/02/2011
just get honest. obama does not want us independent and free of oil from others. he wants us to be a socialist country and buy oil from others. he plans to completely dismantel capitialism and this is just another way to do it. we arel years away from other sources of energy get the oil now and create many jobs. and work on other sources. but move us forward now.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
stekathy
12:54 PM on 12/02/2011
You are way, way off on this matter! The real point I wish to make is that getting oil from Canada doesn’t make the United States independent of foreign oil! I know you are frustrated with the economy and want it to get better fast and in a hurry, so you vent your anger and blame President Obama. President Obama only wanted to reroute the pipeline away from the water supplies of the states involved and TransCanada has said that it will comply with the state officials in the effort to allow the program to continue. The Republicans want to pass the bill as is without considerations for possible problems and then say Obama is doing this as a political ploy. I'm in favor of rerouting the pipeline to avoid a possible disaster to the water supplies in the states the pipeline will go through, aren't you? Why take the risk or chance of something going wrong and then say, Ooops!
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
tacevad
American SS Card Carrying Socialist
09:02 AM on 12/01/2011
let's put a leaky pipe across the middle of the country possibly ruining the aquifer forever and we'll get oil....oopps that oil will be sold on the open market just like every other drop of oil on earth that is available. SNAP
A few questions remain, Do our already overused refineries need upgrades to handle the tar sands oil? Why not build new refineries in North Dakota or Montana and ship the gasoline via rail or other existing safer routes? Perhaps we would be better served if the Government spent 10% of what is pushed towards BIG OIL on renewable energy the future is green and anyone who says otherwise is either fooling themselves or profiting from the status quo...at least until the oil runs out.
09:42 AM on 12/02/2011
read and stay informed, they will move the pipeline away from aquifers according to the governors in those states they are cool with it. check the facts then make burkely type comments.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
tacevad
American SS Card Carrying Socialist
10:14 AM on 12/02/2011
that is not the only aquifer now is it? A leaky pipe it will be and in the end we the taxpayer will be stuck with cleaning up private enterprise's mess yet again.
07:38 AM on 12/01/2011
What Obama and the administration have done is put life above greed. Truly a crime in the eyes of the GOP.
photo
Lucile S
Lib and a truth lover.
02:39 PM on 12/01/2011
You're absolutely right but it's a little bit black and white vision.
09:44 AM on 12/02/2011
no, obama puts himself and re-election above everything. and socialism ahead of capitalism. stop drinking the cool-ade and jumping off the bridge.
arb24529
Micro Bio? sounds like an abbreviated tweet
05:40 AM on 12/01/2011
The truly stupid part of this isnt even mentioned.
Most of this oil will after refining have to be shipped either by truck, rail or barge right back up north .
There are old heavy industrial sites all around the great lakes region, and refined product is needed up there daily.
Why not build a refinery in that area, Using land which is already contaminated from other heavy industry, be it old shipyards, metalworks or chemical plants, This would eliminate the need for a 1000 mile long pipeling and the potential for leakage, it would shorten the trip from refinery to final user, and provide jobs in some of the old rust belt cities.
Greenies can cry foul, but you know it will be refined somewhere anyway, why go through multi thousand mile travels to do it?
photo
girldog
I support Elizabeth Warren
07:18 AM on 12/01/2011
The tarsands oil is headed to the Gulf of Mexico to be sold on the world market. It is not intended, for the most part, for the US market.
09:39 AM on 12/01/2011
You've asked some very good questions. And the (possibly over-simplified) answer? There has been so many restrictions put on building new refineries here in the States that it's almost impossible to get one approved. Which is why we send our oil overseas, they refine it, then ship it back. How ridiculous is that? The EPA and environmentalists need to work WITH the industry a little more if we're ever going to make progress in ANY direction. I'm all for alternative energy. But at this point in time it's just not able to meet our needs. That's a fact.
03:13 AM on 12/01/2011
And when the keystone has an oil leak, contaminating ANY WATER system or aquifer, all those involved with the pipeline, be it President Obama, any politician who votes for it, and those who build it, those who own the pipeline, SHOULD BE tied to a chair and forced to drink glasses of water until they die.
11:44 PM on 11/30/2011
i guess they missed the other story about colorado creek may be contaminated by tar sands leak. to track that stuff all way across the country can't be good.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ctaylor1968
10:10 AM on 12/01/2011
Yeah, they just look the other way.
photo
drbob601
Soylent Green is People
04:34 PM on 12/01/2011
Presumably the leak is coming from Suncor's refinery in Commerce City, CO (a northern suburb of Denver). The refinery was recently upgraded to enable it to handle more heavy tar sands crude from Canada.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2011/2011-11-30-091.html
07:54 PM on 12/01/2011
do you honestly think that nothing will happen when they do this pipeline? no way in the world do i trust it!!