Pipeline bill passes House on party-line vote
WASHINGTON — House Republicans pushed through a bill Wednesday to bypass the president to speed approval of the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada to Texas. Democrats criticized the legislation as a blatant attempt to allow a foreign company to avoid environmental review.
The bill was approved, 241-175, largely along party lines.
Republicans said the measure was needed to ensure that the long-delayed pipeline, first proposed in 2008, is built.
“This is the most studied pipeline in the history of mankind,” said Rep. Lee Terry, R-Neb., the bill's sponsor.
“When is enough enough?” added Rep. Jeff Denham, R-Calif. “Five years? Six years? Ten years?”
But Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., called the bill a “reckless attempt to avoid environmental review.” The bill would deem the project approved without a presidential permit, as required under current law, and with no further environmental review. The legislation would limit legal challenges to the project.
The White House says President Obama opposes the bill because it would “circumvent longstanding and proven processes” by removing the requirement for a presidential permit.
The $7 billion pipeline, proposed by Calgary-based TransCanada, would carry oil extracted from tar sands in western Canada to refineries along the Texas Gulf Coast. The 1,700-mile pipeline would travel through Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma on its way to refineries in Houston and Port Arthur, Texas.
Show commenting policy
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 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.