The new Congress was barely under way when the White House threatened to veto a bipartisan bill authorizing the Keystone XL oil pipeline if Congress passes it soon, as intended.
This was a demoralizing message to send when a new year offers a fresh start for productive discussions between Congress and the White House, and when the Keystone XL project has been years in the making and studied from every angle. The only hold-up at this point is the federal government.
If you make a list of pros and cons in favor of the pipeline, the pros column quickly fills up. The pipeline would support a significant number of jobs, increase investment in the U.S. economy, and help reduce reliance on Middle Eastern oil. The pipeline would transport crude oil mined in Canada to refineries along the U.S. Gulf Coast. According to the State Department’s own analysis, the project would create construction jobs, and it would support more jobs through goods and services purchased by contractors.
The House of Representatives voted Friday to approve the pipeline, marking the tenth time the House has voted in favor of the project since 2011, according to National Journal.
I hope the Senate will follow and that eventually the President will agree. The President’s chief argument against the pipeline is that encouraging the drilling of oil will promote climate change. But the Canadian oil will be produced whether or not the pipeline is constructed. By all accounts, the development will happen, and Canada will transport the oil somewhere, regardless of whether the United States is involved. For those of us who support the pipeline, the project should be in the United States, where it will benefit our economy. At the same time, U.S. policies should continue to support the development of other kinds of energy, including the renewable fuels produced so impressively in Iowa.
An all-of-the-above strategy is necessary to meet the energy needs of U.S. consumers and businesses.