White House says it will veto bill to approve Keystone XL oil pipeline

[webfact]

White House says it will veto bill to approve oil pipeline
DINA CAPPIELLO, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House on Tuesday threatened to veto the first piece of legislation introduced in the Republican-controlled Senate, a bill approving the much-delayed Canada-US Keystone XL oil pipeline, in what was expected to be the first of many confrontations over energy and environmental policy.

Hours after supporters of the bipartisan bill, which is sponsored by all 54 Senate Republicans and six Democrats, announced its introduction, the White House said for the first time that President Barack Obama would veto it.

"If this bill passes this Congress, the president wouldn't sign" it, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Tuesday, saying legislation shouldn't undermine the review process underway at the State Department or circumvent a pending lawsuit in the state of Nebraska over its route.

It's "premature to evaluate the project before something as basic as the route of the pipeline has been determined," he said.

The project would move tar sands oil from Canada 1,179 miles (1,900 kilometers) south to Gulf of Mexico Coast refineries. Supporters say it would create jobs and ease American dependence on Middle East oil. A government environmental impact statement also predicted that a pipeline would result in less damage to the climate than moving the same oil by rail.

Critics argue that the drilling itself is environmentally harmful, and said much of the Canadian crude would be exported with little or no impact on America's drive to reduce oil imports, which have already been greatly reduced because of record U.S. oil production.

Jason MacDonald, the spokesman for Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, said the country's position on the pipeline remains the same.

"We believe the project should be approved. It will create jobs for American and Canadian workers, it has the support of the Canadian and American people, and the State Department itself has indicated it can be developed in an environmentally sustainable manner. Right now this is not a debate between Canada and the US, it's a debate between the president and the American people, who are overwhelmingly supportive of the project, and we're not going to comment on the American political process."

The bill's two main sponsors, Sen. Joe Manchin, a Democrat, and Sen. John Hoeven, a Republican, said Tuesday morning they had enough votes to overcome parliamentary delaying tactics on the bill but not a presidential veto. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, in one of his first acts, moved to put it directly on the Senate calendar. The House is expected to vote and pass a bill approving the $5.4 billion project, which was first proposed in 2008, on Friday.

"The Congress on a bipartisan basis is saying we are approving this project," said Hoeven, the chief Republican sponsor. He said if the president chooses to veto the bill, he would work to attach it to a broader energy package or must-pass spending bills.

Manchin, whose office reached out to the White House earlier in the day, told reporters the veto threat was a surprise that "slapped down" a bipartisan effort before it even got started.

"It's just wrong. It's just not the way you do business," said Manchin. "If this is the start of things, it is a sad beginning."

The head of the American Petroleum Institute, Jack Gerrard, said Tuesday after his annual speech on the state of U.S. energy that the president had failed to make a simple decision that would put people to work, but he predicted the pipeline would eventually be approved.

"It doesn't bode well for relationships between the White House and Capitol Hill," Gerrard said of the veto threat.

The bill is identical to one that failed to pass the Senate by a single vote in November, when Democrats were in control and Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana pushed for a vote to save her Senate seat. She lost to Republican Rep. Bill Cassidy, who sponsored the successful House bill approving the pipeline.

But now the odds of passage are much improved with the Republican takeover of the Senate. The bill will also test Republicans' commitment to more open debate. Hoeven and Manchin said they welcomed additions to the bill, which they hoped would increase support.

In a letter to Democrats from their leadership obtained by the AP, Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York and Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan said the Keystone bill was "the first opportunity to demonstrate that we will be united, energetic, and effective in offering amendments that create a clear contrast with the Republican majority."

Among the ideas suggested in the letter were measures to prohibit exporting the oil abroad, to ensure American iron, steel and other goods were used in the pipeline's construction and to match every job created by the pipeline with an investment in clean energy.
____

Associated Press writers Deb Riechmann and Henry C. Jackson contributed reporting from Washington. AP writer James Nord contributed reporting from Minneapolis, Minnesota.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-01-07

[ColdSingha]

whats the point in having a senate if the president only allows policies he personally agrees with?

executive orders, vetoes.. might as well be a dictatorship

[maxman71]

"If this bill passes this Congress, the president wouldn't sign"...This is an interesting statement. Merely not signing a bill passed by Congress does not constitute a veto. If the POTUS doesn't sign the bill within 10 days and also does not veto it, it becomes law.

Maybe this doofus WH spokesman misspoke. Or, it could be Obama's attempt to look good to all the tree huggers and still let the bill pass.

Who knows what game is being played.

[bkkcanuck8]

Maybe he will use a stamp instead

[hawker9000]

Ah, the long-anticipated veto pen. 'Guess we have a new "Party of No ".

[Just1Voice]

Someone should have "vetoed" Obama a long time ago.

[Publicus]

"If this bill passes this Congress, the president wouldn't sign"...This is an interesting statement. Merely not signing a bill passed by Congress does not constitute a veto. If the POTUS doesn't sign the bill within 10 days and also does not veto it, it becomes law.

Maybe this doofus WH spokesman misspoke. Or, it could be Obama's attempt to look good to all the tree huggers and still let the bill pass.

Who knows what game is being played.

Someone certainly does not know so lean in and hear this.

The White House is talking about when the president makes a return veto.

That means he does not sign the legislation into law.

The return veto is when the president sends the unsigned and thus rejected legislation back to Bongress with a message saying why he declines to sign it into law. Congress can accept this or it can choose to override the veto.

If Congress can't get a two-thirds vote of each the House and the Senate they are screwed because their legislation then fails. Congress knows it doesn't have the two-thirds vote for this issue in either chamber. They thus have to eat the legislation until the next Congress, which means after a new Congress is elected.

The Republican leadership of the House and Senate choosing this issue to be the first is deliberately confrontational, provocative, hostile. It puts the Congress and Obama in each other's face on the first issue of the new year and the new congress. This is not an improvement over the past six years and it does not address energy issues and the environment in any realistic or viable ways.

NB: The poster is writing about the pocket veto, not the return veto the White House spokesperson is referring to. The White House has an Office of Legislative Counsel, TVF does not.

[rickirs]

If Canadians are so adamant about having this pipeline for their own national interests, why are they not planning a pipeline to their east coast for refining and shipping? I don't add west coast because Canadians already blocked that route. What is so important about trying to get it run through the USA?

Perhaps it's because of the potential environmental damage the pipeline could create as transported oil sands are extremely toxic, more so than just crude oil. Better to have the US risk its environment and agricultural industries than Canada.

[Ulysses G.]

Ah, the long-anticipated veto pen. 'Guess we have a new "Party of No ".

We actually have the same president party of no, but Harry Reid can't block bills from the House from being voted on anymore.

[iReason]

"It's "premature to evaluate the project before something as basic as the route of the pipeline has been determined"

"We believe the project should be approved. It will create jobs for American and Canadian workers"

The ol' creating jobs for the sheeple pitch...

[chuckd]

I particularly like this little snippet from the OP.

""If this bill passes this Congress, the president wouldn't sign" it, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Tuesday, saying legislation shouldn't undermine the review process underway at the State Department or circumvent a pending lawsuit in the state of Nebraska over its route."

Is he saying our crack State Department team of analysts are unable to complete a review process in six years or is there another excuse for them to blame State for their recalcitrance in approving the pipeline?

Could it be one of Warren Buffett's companies, Berkshire Hathaway, owning control of one of the railroads that have been bringing the oil from the Canadian and ND Bakken oil fields down to the refineries? The railroad is Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company

By a real coincidence, Bill Gates is a major competitor to Buffett's railroad enterprise by investing heavily in Buffett's main railroad competition, Canadian National Railway Company.

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-bill-gates-and-warren-buffett-are-railroad-rivals-2014-9

Nah...that couldn't possibly be a reason for withholding approval of the pipeline, now could it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps another source of information might come from one Tom Steyer, the green energy philanthropist that was formerly owner of a Wall Street investment firm, Farallon Capital Management.

"...included in Farallon’s investment portfolio was Kinder Morgan, a company that owned a pipeline connecting the Alberta tar sands to the Pacific coast. The pipeline is considered a rival to Keystone XL."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/sep/19/american-crossroads/would-billionaire-environmentalist-tom-steyer-prof/

Steyer did leave Farallon in 2012 to pursue his green agenda and instructed Farallon to divest itself from all tar sand holdings. As a result his investment in Kinder Morgan ceased to exist, but not until the end of 2013...just in time for the mid-term elections.

Technically I suppose he has no financial interest in the movement of tar sands oil but it is interesting to note he donated over $73 Million to the liberal and Democratic party causes during the 2014 campaigns.

https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/toporgs.php

Nah...that couldn't possibly be a reason for withholding approval of the pipeline, now could it...but I repeat myself.

I'm sure the White House knew nothing about Buffett's investments nor did they have any knowledge of Mr. Steyer's $73 Million donations in support of the White House agenda.

Maybe the White House should stop blaming the delay on the State Department and pin their hopes on the pending Nebraska legal action.

Edit in to delete one tiny word.

Edited January 7, 2015 by chuckd

[metisdead]

A post containing a nonsensical term for a political party has been removed.

[kingalfred]

When there is a party of geriatric,backwoods men, climate change deniers in control of the senate committees, including the likely chair of Environment who says its "gods will" if Climate changes continually, then its going to be 2 years of junk bills vetoed by the President and the voters will see the crazy Republicans for what they are and throw them out in 2016.

[thailiketoo]

When there is a party of geriatric,backwoods men, climate change deniers in control of the senate committees, including the likely chair of Environment who says its "gods will" if Climate changes continually, then its going to be 2 years of junk bills vetoed by the President and the voters will see the crazy Republicans for what they are and throw them out in 2016.

Elaine L. Chao is a distinguished fellow at the Heritage Foundation think tank, has received 34 honorary degrees, and is a sought-after speaker at conservative events. She arrived in America at age 8 unable to speak English.

Read about her and another 25 top women in the Republican Party. http://www.newsmax.com/top25women/

[wwest5829]

whats the point in having a senate if the president only allows policies he personally agrees with?

executive orders, vetoes.. might as well be a dictatorship.


Evidently you do not comprehend the checks and balances in the American system.

[kingalfred]

whats the point in having a senate if the president only allows policies he personally agrees with?

executive orders, vetoes.. might as well be a dictatorship.


Evidently you do not comprehend the checks and balances in the American system.

Really? so what do you call it when the congress blocks Presidents measures? I'm sure find that acceptable if you disagree with him.

Edited January 7, 2015 by Scott

[Jingthing]

I support Obama on this.

Edited January 7, 2015 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

Someone should have "vetoed" Obama a long time ago.

There are many excellent sources to peruse about how the U.S. government system actually works, such as who has veto power and who doesn't. Obama was elected by the people twice and thus retains his presidential powers ...

click me if you dare

until he doesn't.

Edited January 7, 2015 by Jingthing

[Ulysses G.]

I support Obama on this.

Now, thats a shocker!

[thailiketoo]

Evidently you do not comprehend the checks and balances in the American system.

Really? so what do you call it when the congress blocks Presidents measures? I'm sure find that acceptable if you disagree with him.

When did it become the President's job to propose laws?

Edited January 7, 2015 by thailiketoo

[Jingthing]

I support Obama on this.

Now, thats a shocker!

Yeah, well it turns out he isn't the best president ever, nor is he the worst.

[thailiketoo]

I support Obama on this.

Now, thats a shocker!

Yeah, well it turns out he isn't the best president ever, nor is he the worst.

By the Republican majority in the House the people seem to have said he is the worst one since when? 1920's.

Edited January 7, 2015 by thailiketoo

[Publicus]

Evidently you do not comprehend the checks and balances in the American system.

Really? so what do you call it when the congress blocks Presidents measures? I'm sure find that acceptable if you disagree with him.

When did it become the Presidents job to propose laws?

The president proposes and the congress disposes.

It's as old as the constitution.

The president can't introduce any bills in either chamber of Congress so he gets senior members of his party to introduce his proposals in the respective chamber. In the present instance, with Ds in the minority of each chamber, the D party proposed bills will go nowhere, which means the congress disposes.

Republicans in each chamber will introduce their own legislation and move it all through the legislative process. When their bills get to the White House they will be tossed into the trash buckets there.

With the government divided, each the legislative and the president will propose and dispose of the other. It's the balance of powers thingy. The precept is that reasonable people in Washington can work out reasonable differences between 'em. Trouble is, reasonable Republicans went out when the tea party came in.

Gingrich was a bomb thrower but he is an intelligent guy who same as his Bubba in the White House was also from the South....two peas in a pod there. Boehner however isn't even of average intelligence and lacks the skills to become even a poor speaker and leader. Two years from now Boehner will leave and head to K Street where there are buildings full of lobbyists to begin making his millions.

Sen Mitch McConnell in charge of the Senate means the coal industry back home is his first priority so everybody needs to get out your black lung cleaners and forget about any tans in the coming summers.

Edited January 7, 2015 by Publicus

[Ulysses G.]

I support Obama on this.

Now, thats a shocker!

Yeah, well it turns out he isn't the best president ever, nor is he the worst.

By the Republican majority in the House the people seem to have said he is the worst one since when? 1920's.

According to the polls, the worst since WW II

.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/poll-obama-worst-president-since-wwii-108507.html

[Publicus]

Two post election polls show Prez Obama has accomplished something no other president since polling began has done, which is to rebound in his approval ratings after they had begun to slip.

CNN-ORC found his approval had risen to 48% on the strength of renewed support by young voters, women, Independent voters.

AP-AfG found O's approval at the same levels as the post bin Laden infinite justice.

In short, this means the right sector has been unable to sustain its relentless charging against Barack Obama. The attacks have gone up in smoke.

The next two years will see more of the post election same as occurred in November and December when Prez Obama routed the Republicans on immigration, Cuba, signed a climate change treaty with China, named a new Attorney General and more.

Republicans and the fringe right have too much blind momentum going against Prez Obama to recognize the shift of the public mood back toward the political center since the November election, which means the political right are going off the charts and away from the revived center. One suspects several vetoes will be their wake up call.

Edited January 7, 2015 by Publicus

[theguyfromanotherforum]

I just want my Canadian dollar to go up cuz right now it's in the toilet. So yeah....approve it we take care environmental later

[Scott]

Off-topic post removed.

[CMNightRider]

It appears Obama, would rather side with the radical environmentalist on this issue instead of hard working American families. I suspect, Obama may have a more sinister reason for being against the pipeline. Well, for whatever reason he is against the pipeline, thanks Obama..........for nothing.

[maxman71]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

"If this bill passes this Congress, the president wouldn't sign"...This is an interesting statement. Merely not signing a bill passed by Congress does not constitute a veto. If the POTUS doesn't sign the bill within 10 days and also does not veto it, it becomes law.

Maybe this doofus WH spokesman misspoke. Or, it could be Obama's attempt to look good to all the tree huggers and still let the bill pass.

Who knows what game is being played.

Someone certainly does not know so lean in and hear this.

The White House is talking about when the president makes a return veto.

That means he does not sign the legislation into law.

The return veto is when the president sends the unsigned and thus rejected legislation back to Bongress with a message saying why he declines to sign it into law. Congress can accept this or it can choose to override the veto.

If Congress can't get a two-thirds vote of each the House and the Senate they are screwed because their legislation then fails. Congress knows it doesn't have the two-thirds vote for this issue in either chamber. They thus have to eat the legislation until the next Congress, which means after a new Congress is elected.

The Republican leadership of the House and Senate choosing this issue to be the first is deliberately confrontational, provocative, hostile. It puts the Congress and Obama in each other's face on the first issue of the new year and the new congress. This is not an improvement over the past six years and it does not address energy issues and the environment in any realistic or viable ways.

NB: The poster is writing about the pocket veto, not the return veto the White House spokesperson is referring to. The White House has an Office of Legislative Counsel, TVF does not.

There's another angle in play here. The "pipeline" from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico essentially exists today. It's just that it is a mish-mash of pipelines and rail to get there. And guess who owns most of the rail lines in play for this setup ??? Berkshire Hathaway aka Warren Buffet aka a Big Obama Supporter. The XL Pipeline proposal is a much more efficient way to get the oil to the Gulf than the present setup and rail stands to lose out big time if the XL is built. I stand by my assertion that Obama may not employ the return veto, but we'll see.

[kingalfred]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

"If this bill passes this Congress, the president wouldn't sign"...This is an interesting statement. Merely not signing a bill passed by Congress does not constitute a veto. If the POTUS doesn't sign the bill within 10 days and also does not veto it, it becomes law.

Maybe this doofus WH spokesman misspoke. Or, it could be Obama's attempt to look good to all the tree huggers and still let the bill pass.

Who knows what game is being played.

Someone certainly does not know so lean in and hear this.

The White House is talking about when the president makes a return veto.

That means he does not sign the legislation into law.

The return veto is when the president sends the unsigned and thus rejected legislation back to Bongress with a message saying why he declines to sign it into law. Congress can accept this or it can choose to override the veto.

If Congress can't get a two-thirds vote of each the House and the Senate they are screwed because their legislation then fails. Congress knows it doesn't have the two-thirds vote for this issue in either chamber. They thus have to eat the legislation until the next Congress, which means after a new Congress is elected.

The Republican leadership of the House and Senate choosing this issue to be the first is deliberately confrontational, provocative, hostile. It puts the Congress and Obama in each other's face on the first issue of the new year and the new congress. This is not an improvement over the past six years and it does not address energy issues and the environment in any realistic or viable ways.

NB: The poster is writing about the pocket veto, not the return veto the White House spokesperson is referring to. The White House has an Office of Legislative Counsel, TVF does not.

There's another angle in play here. The "pipeline" from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico essentially exists today. It's just that it is a mish-mash of pipelines and rail to get there. And guess who owns most of the rail lines in play for this setup ??? Berkshire Hathaway aka Warren Buffet aka a Big Obama Supporter. The XL Pipeline proposal is a much more efficient way to get the oil to the Gulf than the present setup and rail stands to lose out big time if the XL is built. I stand by my assertion that Obama may not employ the return veto, but we'll see.

conspiracists. What did you have to say when Cheney's (the VP) company was profiting from US deaths in Iraq Edited January 7, 2015 by kingalfred