Pulitzer winning climate news.
facebook twitter subscribe
view counter





Donate to InsideClimate News through our secure page on Network for Good.

Analysis: Bill to Fast-Track Keystone Pipeline Loses Democratic Support. But Why?

House Republicans push through another bill to speed the Keystone project, but with far less bipartisan support.

May 23, 2013
Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV)

WASHINGTON – Republicans in the House of Representatives pushed through a bill on Wednesday that would force federal approval of the Keystone XL pipeline without further review. The vote was 241 to 175.

The legislation is the latest of several attempts by Congress to force the Obama administration's hand. It is unlikely to be taken up in the Senate and the White House has threatened a veto.

If anything, the bill's backers may have lost ground this time, and ended up with a much more partisan divide. Only 19 Democrats voted for the pipeline on Wednesday, compared to 69 in a vote last year.

What happened? The most persuasive theory is that the Republicans over-reached by waiving several environmental laws and choking off potential court challenges to the pipeline project.

That seemed to be the objection of Rep. Nick Rahall of West Virginia, a Democrat who voted against the bill.

"Last Congress I voted for every piece of pro-Keystone pipeline legislation that was brought before this House," he said. "But something happened along the way, between then and now. The right wing hijacked the bill."

"They overplayed their hand, as they always have in the past," said Sherwood Boehlert, a retired New York congressman who once led a faction of moderate, pro-environment Republicans in the House.

Another theory is that grassroots opponents have begun to sway the Democrats about the pipeline's merits and risks. Although that would be extraordinary, it's not entirely implausible.

Anna Aurelio, director of the Washington office of Environment America, a federation of state-based advocacy groups, said that that her group had tried hard to educate new members of Congress about the Keystone. Freshmen Democrats in the House voted overwhelmingly against the pipeline.

The Republicans argued, as they have before, that the Keystone would create tens of thousands of jobs, drive down gasoline prices, and cement in place a secure source of oil, from the bounteous Canadian tar sands. (One Republican who was given only 30 seconds to speak during Wednesday's lively debate on the floor managed to make all those points before sitting down.)

The Democrats countered that only a few thousand jobs would be created by constructing the pipeline and that they'd last only about 20 weeks each summer. They also argued that economists, oil industry officials, and government studies have concluded that the Keystone's crude oil would have no perceptible effect on gas prices except, perhaps, to raise them by ending discounts caused by bottlenecks. In any case, they said, much of the oil carried by the pipeline would be exported in the form of refined products, doing nothing for American consumers or the national interest.

Two of the fine-print arguments raised by the pipeline's opponents also may have struck a nerve. One was that Canadian producers of the diluted bitumen, or dilbit, that the Keystone would carry aren't subjected to the tax on crude oil that helps finance cleanup costs when oil spills occur. Dilbit can be extraordinarily expensive to clean up. In addition, Democrats pointed out that the refineries that would handle the Canadian crude are located in free trade zones and could export the products tax-free.

Besides the substantive arguments, what else might have changed the minds of so many Democrats?

Perhaps it was the persistent and growing protests of the controversial pipeline.

"It's finally occurring to official Washington that Keystone is the Number One priority for the environmental movement, and we are beginning to see just who is willing to fight for the climate," Bill McKibben of 350.org, the environmental group that has been leading the protests, told Reuters.

Or perhaps the Democrats rallied, in this moment, to the flag of their politically wounded leader?

President Obama's personal power is increasingly being questioned, starting with the defeat of gun control legislation, and now with challenges to his administration on Benghazi, tax enforcement, and press freedoms.

"This bill is about seizing power from the President of the United States," said Rep. Bobby Rush, a Chicago Democrat, said Wednesday in the debate leading up to the vote.

Boehlert, a former chairman of the House Science Committee who in retirement continues to work on environmental causes, commented: "The Republicans have made up their minds that the only way to recapture the White House is to tear down Obama and everything he stands for, everything."

So which of these forces was really at work when the final roll was called?

To borrow a phrase from the running debate over energy and the environment, probably "all of the above."

But the most telling explanations of what happened to draw so many Democrats away from their support of the Keystone on this vote came from the fence sitters themselves.

Several said the Republicans had gone overboard on this bill, which not only bypassed presidential approval of the project, but turned the pipeline into a fait accompli by waiving established precedent and basic environmental laws—all on behalf of a foreign company that, the Democrats charged, would also get off scot-free in the event of a spill.

Rep. Dan Lipinski, an Illinois Democrat who voted for the Keystone last year, said that if the most egregious provisions were removed "we can really come together in a strong bipartisan manner to approve the pipeline."

The Democratic dynamic against the bill became most vivid when West Virginia's Rahall, who is in his 19th term and supports the pipeline, came to the floor and denounced the legislative in unusually vehement terms.

Comment space is provided for respectful discourse. Please consult our comment policies for more information. We welcome your participation in civil and constructive discussions.