There were no real surprises in the Senate vote to force construction of the 1,179-mile northern leg of the Keystone XL pipeline Thursday. Sixty votes were needed and the tally of senators in favor was 62, with 36 opposed. That included all the Republicans who were present and nine Democrats, all of whom had backed the pipeline in previous votes.
The nine: Michael Bennet of Colorado, Tom Carper of Delaware, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Jon Tester of Montana and Mark Warner of Virginia.
Before the bill hits the president's desk, probably next week, the Senate version must be approved by the House or meshed with the already-passed House version. House leaders haven't decided whether to pass the Senate bill without amendment or reconcile the two bills, which would mean changes in both that would require a vote in both houses.
This isn't the first time that Congress has tried to force President Obama to approve the pipeline. He overruled an attempt in 2012. The White House has indicated from the minute that the current bill was proposed last year by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell that Obama would veto it because it overrides presidential authority over approving international pipelines. That process has been governed by executive orders dating back to 1968 and most recently updated in 2004 by President Bush. Presidents have made decisions on pipelines, bridges and tunnels that cross international boundaries since the Grant administration.
The evaluation process is delegated to the State Department. It includes an 11-volume environmental impact statement, review of more than two million public comments and reviews by eight federal agencies and departments. Those agency reviews are due to be delivered to the State Department on Monday. Evaluating them and writing a recommendation for a decision on the pipeline could take several weeks, meaning a decision might not be made until March.
Coral Davenport reports:
Advocates on both sides of the debate are urging Mr. Obama to make a decision soon, and some people familiar with Mr. Obama’s thinking say that after all the years of deliberation and delay, he could weigh in as soon as February.
Senator John Hoeven, a North Dakota Republican who is a chief sponsor of the bill, said, “You’ve got Congress approving it on a bipartisan basis. All six states on the route have approved it. The Nebraska court decision is done. The American people overwhelmingly support it. The president has to consider all that when he makes his decision.”
On that point, environmentalist opponents of the pipeline agreed. “This issue is ready for a decision,” said Michael Brune, execuive director of the Sierra Club, one of the groups that has held hundreds of rallies outside the White House and around the country, urging Mr. Obama to reject the project. “After the agencies have weighed in, this issue has been examined enough and the president has everything he needs to make this decision.”
More on the pipeline below the fold.
Republicans have pushed the $8 billion project as a jobs bill, which would make it the first they have signed onto for the past six years. They tout the 42,000 direct and indirect temporary jobs that the environmental impact statement says would be created. But that number is disputed by foes of the pipeline. What isn't disputed is that only 35 permanent jobs would be created when the pipeline is completed.
Alex Rogers writes:
“Right out of the gate the first act of the new Republican majority was to pass a special interest bill that’s a giveaway to foreign oil and steel companies that do nothing to benefit the American people,” said New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, a member of the Democrats’ leadership team. “Republicans are calling this a jobs bill, but the fact is that the Keystone [pipeline] would create only 35 permanent jobs—a drop in the bucket. A fried chicken franchise creates about as many jobs.”
Opposition to the pipeline has been mounted by a broad coalition of landowners in its path, First Nations people in Canada and American Indians in the United States and environmentalists who object to it because it will carry tar sands petroleum from Canada to Texas refineries whence, they say, it will be exported rather than refined for domestic use, a claim that some pipeline advocates dispute even though the Senate rejected an amendment ensuring that none will be sold abroad.
The chief objection to the pipeline, and one for which protesters have been arrested in the thousands for committing civil disobedience over, would be its contribution to greenhouse gas emissions that spur climate change. Tar sands petroleum, called bitumen, requires processing that has a larger carbon footprint than the processing of conventional oil.
But, while Keystone XL would carry 830,000 barrels a day of petroleum, other pipelines, are already carrying the tar sands product to the Midwest as well as Texas refineries. Others are in the works and have not, as yet, seen much concerted opposition. A small amount of bitumen is also being carried by rail.
There has been much speculation regarding what President Obama will decide. For a time, especially after he touted the building of the southern leg of Keystone XL in March 2012, that he would approve its construction. But, since his climate speech in June 2013, some foes have said that it appears he may be leaning against approval.
If he does approve it, that won't be the end of the controversy. Lawsuits are still possible and more than 97,000 people have signed a CREDO pledge to engage in legal, peaceful civil disobedience to block the pipeline.
Nine Democrats join 53 Republicans in approving Keystone XL. President Obama's veto certain
The nine: Michael Bennet of Colorado, Tom Carper of Delaware, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Jon Tester of Montana and Mark Warner of Virginia.
Before the bill hits the president's desk, probably next week, the Senate version must be approved by the House or meshed with the already-passed House version. House leaders haven't decided whether to pass the Senate bill without amendment or reconcile the two bills, which would mean changes in both that would require a vote in both houses.
This isn't the first time that Congress has tried to force President Obama to approve the pipeline. He overruled an attempt in 2012. The White House has indicated from the minute that the current bill was proposed last year by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell that Obama would veto it because it overrides presidential authority over approving international pipelines. That process has been governed by executive orders dating back to 1968 and most recently updated in 2004 by President Bush. Presidents have made decisions on pipelines, bridges and tunnels that cross international boundaries since the Grant administration.
The evaluation process is delegated to the State Department. It includes an 11-volume environmental impact statement, review of more than two million public comments and reviews by eight federal agencies and departments. Those agency reviews are due to be delivered to the State Department on Monday. Evaluating them and writing a recommendation for a decision on the pipeline could take several weeks, meaning a decision might not be made until March.
Coral Davenport reports:
Advocates on both sides of the debate are urging Mr. Obama to make a decision soon, and some people familiar with Mr. Obama’s thinking say that after all the years of deliberation and delay, he could weigh in as soon as February.
Senator John Hoeven, a North Dakota Republican who is a chief sponsor of the bill, said, “You’ve got Congress approving it on a bipartisan basis. All six states on the route have approved it. The Nebraska court decision is done. The American people overwhelmingly support it. The president has to consider all that when he makes his decision.”
On that point, environmentalist opponents of the pipeline agreed. “This issue is ready for a decision,” said Michael Brune, execuive director of the Sierra Club, one of the groups that has held hundreds of rallies outside the White House and around the country, urging Mr. Obama to reject the project. “After the agencies have weighed in, this issue has been examined enough and the president has everything he needs to make this decision.”
More on the pipeline below the fold.
Republicans have pushed the $8 billion project as a jobs bill, which would make it the first they have signed onto for the past six years. They tout the 42,000 direct and indirect temporary jobs that the environmental impact statement says would be created. But that number is disputed by foes of the pipeline. What isn't disputed is that only 35 permanent jobs would be created when the pipeline is completed.
Alex Rogers writes:
“Right out of the gate the first act of the new Republican majority was to pass a special interest bill that’s a giveaway to foreign oil and steel companies that do nothing to benefit the American people,” said New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, a member of the Democrats’ leadership team. “Republicans are calling this a jobs bill, but the fact is that the Keystone [pipeline] would create only 35 permanent jobs—a drop in the bucket. A fried chicken franchise creates about as many jobs.”
Opposition to the pipeline has been mounted by a broad coalition of landowners in its path, First Nations people in Canada and American Indians in the United States and environmentalists who object to it because it will carry tar sands petroleum from Canada to Texas refineries whence, they say, it will be exported rather than refined for domestic use, a claim that some pipeline advocates dispute even though the Senate rejected an amendment ensuring that none will be sold abroad.
The chief objection to the pipeline, and one for which protesters have been arrested in the thousands for committing civil disobedience over, would be its contribution to greenhouse gas emissions that spur climate change. Tar sands petroleum, called bitumen, requires processing that has a larger carbon footprint than the processing of conventional oil.
But, while Keystone XL would carry 830,000 barrels a day of petroleum, other pipelines, are already carrying the tar sands product to the Midwest as well as Texas refineries. Others are in the works and have not, as yet, seen much concerted opposition. A small amount of bitumen is also being carried by rail.
There has been much speculation regarding what President Obama will decide. For a time, especially after he touted the building of the southern leg of Keystone XL in March 2012, that he would approve its construction. But, since his climate speech in June 2013, some foes have said that it appears he may be leaning against approval.
If he does approve it, that won't be the end of the controversy. Lawsuits are still possible and more than 97,000 people have signed a CREDO pledge to engage in legal, peaceful civil disobedience to block the pipeline.
Nine Democrats join 53 Republicans in approving Keystone XL. President Obama's veto certain
