By Eric Pianin
For years, President Obama has flexed his executive powers to try to circumvent a recalcitrant Congress on a broad range of environmental, economic and regulatory issues.
Last January, Obama vowed during his State of the Union address to use the power of his pen to chip away at his agenda, making clear he would sidestep Congress “wherever and whenever” he can. He then announced he would approve an increase in the minimum wage for new federal contract workers, from $7.25 an hour to $10.10—a 40 percent increase.
Now it looks as if lawmakers from
both parties are getting ready to turn the tables as they press for
approval of a controversial pipeline project.
Frustrated
that the administration appears to be slow walking a decision on
whether to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline past the November midterm
election, a bipartisan coalition of senators is rallying around a bill
that would effectively brush aside the president and authorize the
project.
Senate Majority
Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said last Thursday that he was prepared to
bring a measure approving the pipeline to the Senate floor despite the
administration’s continued reluctance to determine the project’s fate.
Reid
is no fan of the pipeline, but he is feeling heat from his own members
to bring the issue up for a vote – possibly this week – provided
Republicans agree to support a separate energy efficiency bill drafted
by Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) and Rob Portman (R-OH).
It is far from clear what form
the Keystone pipeline legislation will finally take – and whether it
will be a freestanding bill or part of the more complex
energy-efficiency legislation. However, the chief sponsors of the
measure, Louisiana Democrat Mary Landrieu and North Dakota Republican
John Hoeven, are aggressively lining up support for the effort.
The
Landrieu-Hoeven bill would bypass Obama and authorize immediate
construction of the proposed 875-mile pipeline between Alberta, Canada
and U.S. refineries along the Gulf Coast. If it manages to clear the
Senate, the Republican controlled House likely would move swiftly to
embrace the bill – setting up a showdown with the White House.
Six
of the 11 Democrats supporting the bill – including Landrieu – are up
for reelection, and several face tough battles in conservative and
oil-producing states. Landrieu has come under fire from her Republican
challengers over her failure to get the Keystone project moving.
“The construction of the Keystone
pipeline is very important,” Landrieu, the new chair of the Senate
Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said late last week. “It is time
to stop studying and start building.”
Jim
Manley, a former spokesperson for Reid, said yesterday, “In light of
the fact that the administration has once again punted on this, it looks
to me that Reid is a little bit more serious now about trying to
arrange a vote.”
Until now,
the pipeline controversy has been in the hands of the White House and
the State Department, which has been responsible for determining whether
the proposed transnational project passed environmental muster. An
executive order granted the State Department the authority to review
cross-border energy projects.
In late January, the State
Department issued a much-anticipated final environmental assessment –
one that boosted the case for industry proponents. The report found that
the proposed pipeline would not alter global greenhouse gas emissions.
However,
the administration subsequently announced on April 18 – Good Friday –
that it was extending the government comment period on the pipeline
project until well after the Nov. 4 election. The administration said it
needs the additional time to handle more than 2.5 million public
comments on the project and to resolve an ongoing lawsuit in Nebraska
seeking to alter the pipeline’s route.
The
announcement angered Republicans and worried Democrats who feared the
decision would work against them in an election that will determine
whether they will retain control of the Senate.
Related: State Dept. Study Boosts Keystone Pipeline Prospects
“It’s obvious the president is trying to kick the can past the elections,” Ryan Bernstein, Hoeven’s chief of staff, told The Fiscal Times
on Monday. “With the announcement on Good Friday that the
administration has decided to indefinitely delay a decision on the
pipeline, we feel that there is no other option at this point than
having Congress step in and make a decision for the president, who has
been unable and unwilling to do so thus far.”
The
Senate vote will almost certainly reignite a debate over whether
Congress has the right to intervene in this manner – and it would be
difficult for Congress to override a veto if it came to that.
However,
a Congressional Research Service report issued in January 2012 – when
Congress was debating another bill to override the president’s authority
over the pipeline project – said Congress does have the legal authority
to approve the pipeline under the commerce clause of the U.S.
Constitution.
“CRS said basically that Congress
has the authority to do it as the president has been doing it absent
any action of the Congress,” said Bernstein. “So basically it’s within
the Congress’s purview and the president has only done it absent any
action by Congress.”
The
nearly six-year long controversy over the pipeline has pitted powerful
forces against one another. The petroleum industry, the AFL-CIO and
other labor groups and many Republican and Democratic lawmakers who
favor the $54 billion TransCanada project insist it would generate tens
of thousands of well-paying jobs while pumping billions of dollars into a
still struggling U.S. economy. American Petroleum Institute
officials say approval of the full pipeline could “support 42,000 jobs”
and “put $2 billion in workers’ pockets during its construction.”
Environmental groups that have
battled the project say the economic benefit has been vastly overblown
and that once the pipeline is built, there would be fewer than 50
permanent jobs connected with the pipeline in the U.S. and Canada.
The
Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club and other
environmental groups have vigorously opposed the pipeline – warning of
the dangers of oil spills, serious damage to wildlife and ground water,
and worsening climate change. One estimate claims 830,000 barrel a day
would add 1.2 billion metric tons of carbon pollution to the atmosphere
over its 50-year estimated lifespan.
Landrieu
and Hoeven must garner at least 60 votes to overcome a filibuster and
pass legislation in the Senate. They have the support of all 45 Senate
Republicans and 11 Democrats – which puts them just four votes shy of
the 60-vote super majority.
The
Wall Street Journal reported last week that supporters were eying
Colorado’s two Democratic senators, Michael Bennet and Mark Udall -- who
is facing a tough reelection challenge from Republican Rep. Corry
Gardner. And they believe they have enlisted backing from Sen. Robert P.
Casey (D-PA).
Others being wooed include
independent Sen. Angus King of Maine and Democratic Sens. Amy Klobuchar
of Minnesota, Thomas Carper of Delaware and Tim Johnson of South Dakota,
according to a Senate aide.
“As
far as I’m concerned the only winners out of the president’s decision
to punt the ball again on Keystone are those Senate Democrats from red
states,” said Manley. “They get a chance to go on the record with their
support while at the same time they get yet another chance to put a
little distance between them and the president.”
No comments:
Post a Comment