Senate Narrowly Rejects Provision to Build Keystone XL

Senate Narrowly Rejects Provision to Build Keystone XL

Senate Narrowly Rejects Provision to Build Keystone XL

A Republican measure would have allowed TransCanada to begin construction on the pipeline immediately. 

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Flipboard
Pocket

By a thin 56-42 margin, the Senate rejected a Republican measure that would have allowed construction on the Keystone XL pipeline to begin immediately. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid agreed on Wednesday to let the amendment come to the floor as part of an effort to break a Republican filibuster on the overall transportation bill, but a sixty-vote requirement was attached.

North Dakota Senator John Hoeven offered the measure, which would have removed the White House from the Keystone approval equation entirely. In 2004, President George W. Bush signed an executive order establishing the current presidential permit process for oil pipelines that cross an international border, which did not previously exist. Hoeven’s amendment would negate that order.

When he announced the amendment would come up for a vote, Reid expressed confidence it could be defeated, and told reporters earlier today that the GOP didn’t have the votes. But victory for pipeline opponents was never assured—forty-five Republicans were assuredly going to vote for Hoeven’s amendment, and many “moderate” Democrats had been wavering in recent days. (There are forty-seven Republican Senators, but Mark Kirk is recovering from a stroke and John Thune’s mother just passed away).

Environmental and progressive groups flooded Senate offices in the past twenty-four hours, with over 800,000 messages against the Hoeven amendment. President Obama also personally called wavering Democrats and urged them not to support the provision.

Unlike the Keystone provision that made it into the payroll tax cut deal late last year, the Hoeven amendment could have actually kicked off immediate construction of the pipeline. The earlier measure simply forced the White House to make a decision within two months—which it did, and denied the permit. But by removing the administration from the permit process, TransCanada could start building in the United States immediately wherever it had the appropriate state permits.

If Hoeven succeeded, Obama would have had to choose between vetoing a major transportation bill that took extensive wrangling to pass—a feat nobody on the Hill would want to repeat—or allowing Keystone to proceed. His urgent phone calls may have worked (eleven Democrats still defected), but Republicans have been hammering for it all day. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner blasted out multiple statements today on the issue, as they are eager to paint Obama’s opposition as both job-killing and detrimental to gas prices. (Both claims are false.) McConnell said that “frankly, it’s hard to even comprehend how out of touch [Obama] is” on Keystone, and Boehner was equally rambunctious during a press conference this afternoon:

I think the White House owes the American people an explanation. The president said this week that he wants to see lower prices at the pump—at least in an election year. But his own policies are making matters worse and driving up the cost of energy. But by “personally lobbying” against the Keystone pipeline, it means the president of the United States is lobbying for sending North American energy to China, and lobbying against American jobs.

You’ll hear these attack lines again and again leading up to the November elections, but this may have been the last opportunity Republicans had this year to actually get a Keystone measure passed.

It was a bad day overall for big energy interests in the Senate; an amendment by Senator David Vitter to open up vast offshore areas to oil drilling was defeated, as was an amendment by Senator Susan Collins to delay EPA regulations on air toxics from incinerators and industrial power plants.

Thank you for reading The Nation!

We hope you enjoyed the story you just read. It’s just one of many examples of incisive, deeply-reported journalism we publish—journalism that shifts the needle on important issues, uncovers malfeasance and corruption, and uplifts voices and perspectives that often go unheard in mainstream media. For nearly 160 years, The Nation has spoken truth to power and shone a light on issues that would otherwise be swept under the rug.

In a critical election year as well as a time of media austerity, independent journalism needs your continued support. The best way to do this is with a recurring donation. This month, we are asking readers like you who value truth and democracy to step up and support The Nation with a monthly contribution. We call these monthly donors Sustainers, a small but mighty group of supporters who ensure our team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers have the resources they need to report on breaking news, investigative feature stories that often take weeks or months to report, and much more.

There’s a lot to talk about in the coming months, from the presidential election and Supreme Court battles to the fight for bodily autonomy. We’ll cover all these issues and more, but this is only made possible with support from sustaining donors. Donate today—any amount you can spare each month is appreciated, even just the price of a cup of coffee.

The Nation does not bow to the interests of a corporate owner or advertisers—we answer only to readers like you who make our work possible. Set up a recurring donation today and ensure we can continue to hold the powerful accountable.

Thank you for your generosity.

Ad Policy
x