Keystone XL pipeline: Obama says he 'won't budge'

A Keystone bill swept to easy approval in the House Friday, with 31 Democrats joining the Republican majority, and a parallel bill is scheduled for Senate action next week.

Yuri Gripas/Reuters
US House Speaker John Boehner (R) of Ohio departs after the Republican-led House, with 31 Democrats, passed a bill that would approve construction of the Keystone XL pipeline on Capitol Hill on Friday. Prospects for the Senate approving the measure are uncertain, at least until Republicans take back control in January.

The Obama administration has been calling 2014 a “year of action,” a phrase designed to emphasize how the president is using executive power on various fronts at a time of congressional inactivity.

With the looming prospect of executive action on immigration policy, a very big counter-example is also front and center in the news: President Obama’s long delay in taking a yes-or-no decision on the proposed Keystone XL pipeline.

It’s an oil conduit from Canada that a majority of Americans support, a construction project that many unionized workers would love to build, and an energy opportunity that could end up bypassing the US entirely without White House action.

It’s also something the president could approve without congressional action. Instead, it’s been mired in some six years of review – a delay that critics say is about environmental politics rather than due process. 

So this week an odd juxtaposition is on view: Mr. Obama saying he’ll act on immigration reform because Congress has failed to, while Congress is acting on Keystone to try to end what many lawmakers view as presidential obstructionism.

And now Obama is squaring off formally against fellow Democrats, as well as Republicans.

A Keystone bill swept to easy approval in the House Friday, with 31 Democrats joining the Republican majority, and a parallel bill is scheduled for Senate action next week, with Sen. Mary Landrieu (D) of Louisiana as a lead sponsor. (Until now Senate majority leader Harry Reid has kept the issue off the Senate floor, in a bid to protect Democrats from a divisive vote.)

Senator Landrieu hopes that passage of a measure to move ahead with the pipeline, with her as high-visibility sponsor, will help persuade Louisiana voters to keep her in office in a December runoff election.

It’s not clear if it will pass (the Senate vote will be close). But if it does and Obama vetoes it, he will look like he’s casting a member of his own party adrift at a pivotal moment, as well as blocking a project the public supports.

A veto would make it easier for Rep. Bill Cassidy, the Republican running against Landrieu, to argue that Democrats are thwarting job creation and energy supplies, and that Landrieu’s efforts can’t fix the problem.

A political argument for a presidential veto, however, is that Landrieu would remain an underdog in the runoff, even if Keystone is approved. A veto would allow Obama to keep his options on Keystone open. 

Traveling in Myanmar, Obama told reporters he “won’t budge” on his position that a Keystone review process including the State Department still hasn’t run its course.

Critics of the president’s policy say a State Department review is already in hand, with estimates of relatively small environmental risks. On carbon emissions, a key concern of environmentalists, the State Department concluded that the Canadian tar-sand oil is likely to be produced whether it ends up flowing through the Keystone pipeline or is transported by some other means. 

Environmental groups have been pushing Obama for a firm decision of “no.”

But, although a rejection of Keystone would please the liberal base of his party, it would be an unpopular one. Many political analysts say that explains why the administration has delayed a decision for several years.

A Pew Research Center analysis this year, breaking the electorate into eight groups based on their political attitudes, found support for Keystone among 7 of the 8 groups. In the group called “solid liberals,” 57 percent opposed the pipeline to 30 percent who favored it.

So approving Keystone could eliminate a point of Republican attack against Democrats for the 2016 elections – and even in Louisiana’s 2014 Senate race that's still under way. 

Representative Cassidy happens to be a sponsor of the House measure on Keystone. The runoff is occurring because neither he nor Landrieu got the 50 percent vote total needed to win outright on Nov. 4, under Louisiana law.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.