US Congress approves Keystone XL pipeline, defies Obama

February 11, 2015
Demonstrators hold signs against the proposed Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico in front of the White House in Washington, DC, on January 28, 2015

The US Congress gave final approval Wednesday to the controversial Keystone XL pipeline that would transmit Canadian crude to US refineries, defying President Barack Obama's veto threat.

The House of Representatives voted 270 to 152 to pass the measure authorizing builder TransCanada to immediately begin construction on a long-delayed project Republicans say is a job-generator that boosts US , but which critics oppose on environmental grounds.

Previous article:

At long last, US Congress to approve Keystone pipeline

Following years of legislative tussles, Congress was set Wednesday to green-light the Keystone XL pipeline transporting Canadian oil to US refineries, but President Barack Obama is pledging to veto the measure.

The House of Representatives was expected to give Congress's final seal of approval on a bill authorizing construction of the controversial project, for which permits were first sought six years ago.

The pipeline stalled as it ran into a buzz-saw of criticism from environmentalists, as well as approval delays by the Obama administration.

After numerous Republican attempts to force Obama's hand on the project, the Senate passed its version of the bill last month with bipartisan support. The House is widely expected to follow suit.

Ahead of the House vote, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell hailed the bill as a "common sense" measure supported by labor unions and the American public alike.

"Construction of this infrastructure project would pump billions (of dollars) into the economy and support thousands of good jobs," McConnell said.

The legislative move would override the extended review process and ram through authorization, allowing builder TransCanada to get to work on the 1,179-mile (1,900-kilometer) pipeline that Republicans insist is a job generator that will boost US energy security.

But the White House has threatened a veto out of environmental concerns and wish for the review process to play out, a move some Republicans will no doubt use to bolster their argument ahead of the 2016 presidential race that Obama is blocking crucial job-creating initiatives.

"The president has been pretty clear that he does not think circumventing a well-established process for evaluating these projects is the right thing for Congress," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said in January.

The veto would be the third of Obama's presidency, and by far the most significant.

Overcoming a veto would require a two-thirds majority in Congress, an especially heavy lift in the 100-member Senate where Republicans hold 54 seats and would need 13 Democrats to join them.

Nine Senate Democrats backed Keystone last month.

Benefits to US?

The project has already proved divisive this year. Republicans made Keystone their top priority after winning full control of Congress in November's midterm elections, citing a State Department review that concluded the pipeline would generate some 42,000 construction jobs.

Many Democrats have several objections: they say oil sands produce "dirty" crude that takes more energy and water to extract and refine than conventional crude; the project is a nod to a foreign company; and just 35 of the Keystone jobs will be permanent.

"And in the end, the refined oil coming in from Canada will not benefit the American economy" as most of it would be exported, Senate Democrat Dick Durbin told the chamber Wednesday.

Various government departments have been reviewing the project to see if it would be in the "national interest."

In mid-2013, Obama said such an interest would be served "only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution."

The State Department, in its environmental impact assessment released in January 2014, determined that Keystone would not likely alter overall greenhouse gas emissions.

Republicans argue that moving oil by pipeline releases far fewer emissions than transporting it by rail or road.

In recent weeks, taking Obama's lead, Democrats began framing the Keystone debate in terms of it being a benefit to Canadian interests.

In December, Obama explained part of his opposition to the pipeline, saying it would be "very good for Canadian oil companies and it's good for the Canadian oil industry, but it's not going to be a huge benefit to US consumers."

Explore further: US court overturns ruling that blocked Keystone pipeline

Related Stories

Keystone pipeline passes one US legislative hurdle

November 14, 2014

The US House of Representatives on Friday approved construction of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline to bring oil from Canada, but the measure could still find itself blocked in the Senate.

US House sends message on Keystone pipeline

May 23, 2013

US lawmakers agreed to a bill that would speed construction of a Canada-US oil pipeline and circumvent the need for President Barack Obama's approval for the $5 billion project.

FACT CHECK: Both sides in Keystone XL debate bend facts

January 28, 2015

Supporters of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would run from Canada to the Gulf, say the privately funded, $8 billion project is a critically needed piece of infrastructure that will create thousands of jobs and make the ...

Recommended for you

Scientists dispute missing dryland forests

November 21, 2017

Scientists are disputing the possibility that a significant portion of the world's forests have been missed in an earlier accounting of ecological diversity.

11 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 12, 2015
Obama is not king or dictator, yet.

Obama is defying Congress and the will of the people.
barakn
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 13, 2015
"...[T[he only legitimate function of a govt is to protect individual property rights." -ryggesogn2, http://phys.org/n...ris.html

Unless, apparently, you need the govt to take property from their owners and let a corporation run a leaky pipeline over it. You two-faced, deceitful, insincere, double-dealing, Janus-faced, hypocritical, false, fickle, untrustworthy, duplicitous, deceiving, dissembling, dishonest, treacherous, cheating, lying, weaselly fraud.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Feb 13, 2015
"...[T[he only legitimate function of a govt is to protect individual property rights." -ryggesogn2, http://phys.org/n...ris.html

Unless, apparently, you need the govt to take property from their owners and let a corporation run a leaky pipeline over it. You two-faced, deceitful, insincere, double-dealing, Janus-faced, hypocritical, false, fickle, untrustworthy, duplicitous, deceiving, dissembling, dishonest, treacherous, cheating, lying, weaselly fraud.

That's NOT why Obama opposes the pipeline and NOT why the US govt had to be involved.

antigoracle
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 13, 2015
You two-faced, deceitful, insincere, double-dealing, Janus-faced, hypocritical, false, fickle, untrustworthy, duplicitous, deceiving, dissembling, dishonest, treacherous, cheating, lying, weaselly fraud.

Whoa!! Why don't you tell us how you really feel.
barakn
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 13, 2015
"An ABC News/Washington Post poll unveiled [1/19/2015] meanwhile, asked whether Congress should pass legislation approving the project or wait until the Obama administration completes its review. Sixty-one percent favored completing the review before deciding, while 34 percent backed authorizing construction now." http://www.nation...20150120 From the same poll, 57% either oppose it or don't have an opinion.
Will of the people, my ass.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Feb 13, 2015
Who cares about the 'will of the people'? It's not THEIR property.

AND the project has been reviewed TO DEATH by may govt agencies from Canada to the US and to the individual states.

SCIENCE supports building the pipeline.

But as AGWism is a religion, they will use any tactics to subvert heretics.

excellentjim
3.5 / 5 (2) Feb 13, 2015
The State Department COMPLETED the review and reported to the President that it could find no reason to block the pipeline. I wish I could find that piece of news; it was about TWO Years ago. If I remember right, Obama said then he was waiting to hear what the States had to say. It was something like this one: http://www.washin...ory.html
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Feb 13, 2015
'Watermelons', aka communist greens, use courts and regulations to slow or stop projects they don't like.
When a project is APPROVED, following those rules, and they still don't like it, they whine and find some other excuses and ways to stop the will of the people.
The NEW congress, with a greater republican majority, even more so NOW reflects the will of the voters.
barakn
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 14, 2015
"Who cares about the 'will of the people'?" You do, or you wouldn't have said "they whine and find some other excuses and ways to stop the will of the people." This ventriloquist act you've got going on where you've got your hand up your own ass so you can flap your own jaw is entertaining, but it shows you're conflicted. Part of you has fallen for the seductive ease of burning oil for energy, but another part of you knows that there are private property owners out there that are unwilling to have an oil pipeline on their property. Perhaps its because you bear so much malice for environmentalists and you imagine that environmentalism is the only reason anyone wouldn't want an oil pipeline on their property that compels you to ignore your own fast-held belief that the "only legitimate function of a govt is to protect individual property rights." Or does the principle simply not apply when it's not your property in danger?
Losik
Feb 14, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 14, 2015
Obama and 'liberals' have demonstrated they don't respect anyone's property rights.
Claiming the 'liberal' opposition to Keystone is based on property rights is specious.

The federal govt could approve the pipeline without interfering with any property lawsuits that may follow or that are in process.

It would be wonderful of the socialists would stop being socialists and respect property rights, stop plundering wealth, abolish minimum wage laws, abolish the IRS, abolish Obamacare, abolish ....
But that will never happen as they are socialists.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.