The House of Representatives on Thursday passed legislation that would expand oil-and-gas production into new areas and approve the Keystone XL pipeline.
The legislation, which serves as one bill in a package that reauthorizes surface-transportation programs through fiscal 2016, passed on a 237-187 vote, with all but 21 Republicans supporting and 21 Democrats also voting in favor. Republicans plan to use revenues derived from that expansion of oil-and-gas production to fund a small portion of the transportation programs’ costs.
But President Obama has threatened to veto the broader package and it has virtually no chance of making it through the Senate, where top Democrats have decried the Republican effort to pay for transportation projects in part with provisions that expand oil-and-gas development. Especially controversial: A provision to open a small portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil-and-gas drilling.
The vote tonight only applied to the energy-related portions of the $260 billion transportation package. GOP leaders recently decided to split the bill into pieces after lawmakers filed nearly 300 amendments. The package’s parts would then be pasted together after the House approves them.
“This bill has so much trouble that the Republicans have had to jump through hoops just to get it passed by the House,” Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, told Fuel Fix. “I don’t think the prospects of this legislation are very bright.”
Republicans have counted on the legislation as a major jobs bill that would boost the economy not only by funding infrastructure projects but also promoting domestic energy development. The Chamber of Commerce has come out in support of the package of bills.
They have further sought to hammer home that point by including legislation from Rep. Lee Terry, R-Neb., that would strip President Obama and the State Department of their jurisdiction over the border-crossing pipeline and instead mandate the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approve it within 30 days.
“I’m trying to get a pipeline built because it’s necessary for our country — jobs, energy security,” Terry told Fuel Fix.
Republicans, who have fought the Obama administration’s denial of a permit for Keystone XL on Jan. 18, contend the project from Canada to Gulf Coast refineries would create thousands of jobs and bring oil from a friendly neighbor. Opponents call the jobs claim exaggerated and are concerned that some of the oil might not stay in the U.S.
Republicans on the Senate side, led by Sen. John Hoeven of North Dakota, have tried to amend the upper chamber’s surface-transportation legislation with similar but not identical Keystone XL language. So far it’s not clear whether that amendment will even get a vote, but Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has made it clear it’s a vote the GOP would like to have.
Terry said he perceives about a 50-50 chance of getting some Keystone language through the Senate, saying he’d pin his hopes on “pro-labor Democrats and Republicans to amend something.”
But he acknowledged that Republicans’ ultimate obstacle is getting past Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who so far has said he won’t consider supporting any Keystone XL language unless it has a provision that requires what Keystone XL carries to stay in the United States.
Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., ranking member on the House Natural Resources Committee, has pushed legislation that would require the oil and refined fuels to stay in the U.S., with a presidential exemption for certain economic and national-security scenarios.
Terry called such a provision, if needed to secure the pipeline amendment’s inclusion in Senate legislation, a “killer.”
“If it’s the only way, frankly, that is killer language, and [Reid] knows that,” Terry said. “At that point in time, why even build the damned thing?”
The Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, and certain taxpayer groups have criticized the House bill for using oil-and-gas revenues to fund transportation projects, citing Congressional Budget Office estimates in saying that mechanism wouldn’t raise much money all while posing a danger to the environment.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar joined the chorus of those opposed to the energy provisions. Some moderate Republicans have warned against including the ANWR language, saying it could prevent the bill from having any chance of passing the Senate.
“Many of the areas being put out there essentially do create phantom revenues because we know those places aren’t going to be developed in near term,” Salazar said at a House Natural Resources Committee hearing. “Even if they are developed it would provide less than 10 percent of revenue needs for surface transportation.”
Republicans have said the energy provisions were never meant to raise all the needed funding for the bill’s transportation spending. GOP leaders originally planned to include pension reform as another funding mechanism but have since said they would reconsider that after realizing the payroll tax deal included aspects that overlap with it.
Before passage, House Republicans fought off a number of amendments from Democrats that aimed to weaken the drilling provisions or advance their policy goals related to oil and natural gas. Additionally the House turned back Democratic efforts to mitigate the bill’s Keystone XL provision, including an amendment with Markey’s export language.
Why bother? Obama doesn’t want thousands of jobs and oil independence. No matter how many small snail darters and infinitesimal chances of water pollution you can think up, we need as much oil and gas exploration as we can get. Or would you rather send the oil to China? Obama does.
Republicans will pass anything that keeps their oil & gas masters happy. Even though folks whose land will be condemned for the pipeline disagree. Of course, they could just run it along existing rights of way, but that wouldn’t be the Republican way. Oh, and ignore those subsidies for oil companies, and have fun during your 10 day “Presidents Day” holiday. Wish I could get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars, have full medical benefits and a pension, all for working less than 100 days a year.
Count on the GOP to look out for its corporate interests at the expense of our environment. We live in a closed sphere where matter cannot be created nor destroyed; digging up dirty shale and passing it into the atmosphere through our tailpipes cannot be sustainable in the long run and will eventually tip the delicate balance of our environment. Why cannot people see this?
Thus the focus on renewable, clean energy. Developing nuclear power sources in a big way would meet these needs.
“If it’s the only way, frankly, that is killer language, and [Reid] knows that,” Terry said. “At that point in time, why even build the damned thing?”
===
So it really is just going to send it overseas, and not to reduce gas prices here.
MM, there is one giant gaping hole in your logic. If we do not burn it, someone else (CHINA) will. Either way, it still ends up getting passed through a tailpipe. Meanwhile, just keep borrowing money.
There is this little thing called reality. I see more focus on green energy. So far in the past 3 years, we have flushed billions of dollars down the toilet chasing a unicorn. But keep repeating the mantra. You’ve apparently convinced yourself.
@txloanguy…you really do have no clue do you? The end result is the Tar Sands oil from Canada goes thru our country ends up in refineries in Texas specifically to be exported onto the world market.
The reason they want to go thru our country is because the Canadians want nothing to do with the ecological disaster awaiting when , not if, the pipeline breaks. Apparently TransCanada figures Americans are too stupid to put much of a fight up.
Our HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Vote Activity (from .gov website today):
1) APPROVED: Bill for approval of the Keystone Pipeline Project
2) FAILED: An amendment (Rep. E. Markey) to the abovementioned bill that would ensure/require that the piped-in oil would be sold TO (BENEFIT) THE U.S. (w/export of surplus allowed).
3) FAILED: An amendment (Rep. M. Doyle) that a permit for pipeline not be issued unless applicant can certify and provide adequate docs to FERC that at least 75% of the iron and steel be used in domestic portion of the pipeline produced in the U.S.
4) FAILED: An amendment (Rep. B. Rush) regarding restricting use of eminent domain against proposed route landowners.
5) FAILED: An amendment (Rep. A. Eshoo) requiring FERC to review the results of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration study before issuing a permit.
6) FAILED: An amendment (Rep. H. Johnson) requiring a study on the health impacts of increased air pollution in communities surrounding the refineries that transport diluted bitumen through the proposed pipeline before any pipeline approval could be granted.
Obama would rather give more of our tax money to failed and bankrupt “green energy” companies like Solyndra to pay his cronies back for electing him
Joe,
Since we are far and away the greatest consumers of energy per capita, maybe we should lead the way in learning to curb consumption that harms our environment. Since our earth is a closed environment, there will be curbs to growth, think about it. Maybe we should think less about consuming cheap energy to power our Hummers and 4000 sq ft homes, and focus on providing a clean environment for our children and grandchildren. But as long as there are politicians who spread the idea that we can grow our levels of consumption indefinitely, democracy will fail to save our planet from human hands.
There are limits to consumption, and at some point a conflict over resources will ensue. We are and endeavour to be the worlds gluttons, and we have the weapons to make it true.
@MM: Loans to Solyndra had been around since the Bush Administration.
@JadeL: So you’re saying the Obama admin. Is just as inept as the Bush admin.? We ought to fire that guy just like we did Bush.