U.S. lawmakers push bills to approve Keystone pipeline

WASHINGTON/LEMONT, Illinois Fri Mar 15, 2013 7:02pm EDT

The Keystone Oil Pipeline is pictured under construction in North Dakota in this undated photograph released on January 18, 2012. REUTERS/TransCanada Corporation/Handout

The Keystone Oil Pipeline is pictured under construction in North Dakota in this undated photograph released on January 18, 2012.

Credit: Reuters/TransCanada Corporation/Handout

Related Topics

WASHINGTON/LEMONT, Illinois (Reuters) - U.S. lawmakers in both chambers of Congress said Friday they are moving forward with bills introduced this week to pluck the power of approving the Keystone XL pipeline, which would run from Canada's oil sands to Texas, from the hands of the Obama administration.

Republican Representative Lee Terry from Nebraska introduced a bipartisan bill on Friday to approve TransCanada Corp's 800,000 barrels per day pipeline, which has been held up in the review process for more than four years.

Fred Upton, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce committee, said he expects the House will vote on the bill by the end of May.

The House measure is a companion to a bipartisan bill introduced on Thursday by Senators John Hoeven, a North Dakota Republican, and Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat.

Hoeven said he believes the Senate bill currently has more than 50 votes of the 60 needed for passage in the 100-seat chamber, and said he expected the bill would easily get more supporters.

If lawmakers don't force Obama's hand early, the president is expected to make a decision around August or later, after the State Department finalizes an environmental assessment of the project.

The Keystone decision is one of the first big tests for Obama in his second term on energy and environmental issues.

Proponents say the decision will show whether Obama supports the North American energy boom and the jobs it creates.

Opponents from environmental groups say it will show whether Obama is sincere in his promises to take steps to curb climate change.

The pipeline will carry crude oil from Canada's oil sands, a type of oil production environmental groups argue could accelerate climate change.

About 20 people holding soggy protest signs stood in the rain outside the compound housing the research laboratory near Chicago where Obama gave his first energy speech of his second term on Friday.

The White House has steadfastly declined to comment on the approval process, but on Friday a spokesman sought to downplay the importance of the decision.

"There have been thousands of miles of pipelines that have been built while President Obama has been in office, and I think the point is, is that it hasn't necessarily had a significant impact one way or the other on addressing climate change," spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters.

Earnest said there was "no question" that targeted investments to spur production of green energy or cut oil consumption would be more meaningful in the long term to cutting climate-changing greenhouse gases.

Obama on Friday proposed a $2 billion, 10-year research fund for cars and trucks that run on fuel other than gasoline.

"It's going to require some significant investments like the investments that we're talking about today for us to make progress on this," he said.

(Reporting by Timothy Gardner and Roberta Rampton; Editing by Gerald E. McCormick, Peter Galloway and Leslie Adler)

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (6)
Raelyn wrote:
When our corn tastes like oil, and the air is full of carbon, and a pipeline break causes a disaster and possibly lives, we will have been well beaten up on. We already have enough oil. They just want to get it to the coast to ship it to China, it isn’t for U.S. use.

Mar 15, 2013 9:59pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
anneshelby wrote:
Filibuster it. Veto it. Obstruct it. Hold it hostage. Convert 40 billion in oil subsidies to 40 billion in solar subsidies for homeowners and you can have your pipeline, if it is built with all US labor and a trust fund of 20 billion is set up to pay for spills.

Mar 16, 2013 1:28am EDT  --  Report as abuse
CKU wrote:
Would be great to produce some temporary jobs. :)

Mar 16, 2013 2:33am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.