Pipeline proponents amp up pressure for approval at congressional hearing
WASHINGTON — Proponents of the Keystone XL pipeline flexed their muscle on Wednesday at a congressional hearing over legislation to force approval of the long-delayed project.
The hearing didn't discuss whether the legislation, which would eliminate a requirement that the pipeline receive a presidential permit, could overcome a likely White House veto or pass constitutional muster.
Instead, its supporters touted the 1,179-mile line as a job creator that would lower oil prices.
“America is a nation of builders, and the American people want to see Keystone XL built,” Republican Rep. Ed Whitfield of Kentucky, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power, said at the hearing.
Republican Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana noted that America's demand for oil hasn't declined “just because the president hasn't approved the Keystone pipeline.”
The pipeline would transport 830,000 barrels a day of crude oil from Canada's oil sands region and the Bakken region of Montana and Nebraska to the Gulf Coast.
Its opponents said it would contribute to climate change and the jobs it would create would be temporary.
“There's no denying that construction of this pipeline would create jobs,” said Democratic Rep. Lois Capps of California. “But as policymakers, we must also look at the big picture.”
Democratic Rep. John Dingell of Michigan cautioned against eliminating the requirement that the pipeline receive a presidential permit.
“These unnecessary changes to hasten the process are counterproductive in the extreme and I beg the committee not to engage in this silly act,” he said.
The project has become controversial as the White House has repeatedly delayed its approval.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.