Share This Page

Senators acknowledge they lack votes needed to authorize Keystone XL construction

| Thursday, May 1, 2014, 6:42 p.m.

WASHINGTON — Senate supporters of the long-delayed Keystone XL pipeline conceded on Thursday that they lack the 60 votes necessary to pass legislation authorizing immediate construction of the project, but said they remain hopeful of prevailing.

“At this point, we're still working to get 60,” said Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., as he and Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., introduced a bipartisan bill to end the delays and build the proposed oil pipeline from Canada to the United States.

Landrieu, who chairs the Senate Energy Committee, faces a tough re-election challenge this fall, and has said she will use all her power to make sure the project is built.

In their statement, Landrieu and Hoeven said the legislation has the support of 11 Democrats and all 45 of the Senate's Republicans, a total of 56 of the 60 that will be needed. “A vote on the bill is expected in the coming days,” they added.

The obvious targets for additional support include six Democrats who voted in favor of a nonbinding proposal 13 months ago that expressed general support for the project: Sens. Michael Bennet of Colorado, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Chris Coons of Delaware, Tom Carper of Delaware, Tim Johnson of South Dakota and Bill Nelson of Florida.

Among the group, Johnson and Coons indicated they do not support the legislation to require construction.

In an interview, Johnson said he wants to know President Obama's position. Ian Koski, a spokesman for Coons, said the lawmaker “believes the law makes clear that it's up to the administration to make permitting decisions like this one,” and not up to Congress.

Casey noted he has twice before voted in favor of the project, and said it was “probably a good guess” to assume he will do so again.

Carper said he is undecided, and intends to meet with Landrieu, Hoeven and others in the coming days.

Nelson and Bennet could not be reached for immediate comment.

The proposed pipeline would carry oil from Canada to the United States, where it eventually would reach Gulf Coast refineries. Supporters say it would add thousands of jobs and help the United States get closer to a goal of energy independence. Opponents include environmentalists who say the project wouldn't add much permanent employment once it was finished, and say it would reinforce the nation's use of an energy source that worsens global warming.

The legislation is the latest response in Congress to the Obama administration's recent announcement that it was delaying a decision on the pipeline indefinitely, citing a Nebraska court case related to the project.

The House voted previously to approve construction of the pipeline.

The White House has not taken a formal position on the legislation, although Democratic officials in the Senate as well as Republican lawmakers say they expect Obama would veto it if it reaches his desk.

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.