On Tuesday, news came from the White House that President Obama did in fact veto the Keystone Pipeline bill that had passed in Congress on February 11th. This bill presents one of the first major challenges to Obama's authority that are expected to be made by the Republican Congress. The bill outlined the creation of a pipeline that would span 1,179 miles and carry about 800,000 gallons of heavy petroleum a day from Alberta to refineries on the Gulf Coast. With the veto, Obama sent a 104 letter to the Senate. In it he states that through the bill, "the United States Congress attempts to circumvent longstanding and proven processes for determining whether or not building and operating a cross-border pipeline serves the national interest" (NY Times).
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has released a statement that the Senate would consider overriding the veto no later than March 3, but most people believe that the Senate would not be able to secure enough votes to get the required two-thirds majority. Environmentalists are applauding President Obama and believe that this decision shows that he intends to fully reject the pipeline's construction regardless of what the legal and environmental reviews about the process that he will hear next month. On the other hand, supporters of the pipeline have denounced President Obama's actions and are using it to denounce President Obama as a "partisan obstructionist" (NY Times). Supporters of the bill in the Senate are not giving up and state that they will attempt to attach language approving the pipeline in a spending bill or another form of legislation that they believe President Obama will have trouble rejecting. Overall, the veto may have halted the legislation, but it has done nothing to stop the debate.
I think that these events are interesting, especially since we are currently learning about the powers of the president and how the veto system works. This is the president's third veto during his time in office. It appears as though President Obama is willing to hear more arguments in favor of the pipeline, but only time will tell what the fate of the Keystone Pipeline will be.
What do you think of President Obama's veto? Do you think he will change his mind in the future if the bill is reworded? Would the Senate would be successful in overriding the bill? What other ways can they try and get it passed? What does this tell us about the current state of the relationship between the different branches in the federal government?
Sources:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/02/25/this-is-the-real-significance-of-obamas-keystone-xl-veto/
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/25/us/politics/as-expected-obama-vetoes-keystone-xl-pipeline-bill.html?ref=politics&_r=0
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102420827#.
6 comments:
Catie,
It seemed almost inevitable that Obama would veto this bill. For Obama and his legislation, both have expressed their concern with the proposed bill. As of right now, climate change was truly come to a head in the world. Recently, the President and other powerful leaders traveled to Australia to discuss measures to be taken about the environment. Furthermore, the enivornmentalists argue that this sort of construction will lead to more oil and fossil fuel dependence. Knowing that fuels such as oil are going to become scarce in time, Obama is making the right move towards weaning the US off of it. Germany, for instance, has already attempted to be a "green" nation. As in having solar panels and other green energy sources. Nonetheless there is a short gap for the Republican Senate to override this veto. Unfortunately for Obama, the Senate is a majority of Republicans, who favor the bill. And according to the rules, the Senate will need 2/3 approval, which might happen. Regardless, it the bill is reworded, Obama has made his stance quite clear about the bill, and I think that he will not change it. I'm a bit unsure as to how the Senate can work around this to their favor, but if there's a will there's a way. Such a veto truly demonstrates the rift that is between Congress and the President. However, the Republicans did claim that they would try to be a productive as possible, so they might sway from the bill. But, they might not, and they could override the veto. If anything, time will tell.
Links:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/24/politics/obama-keystone-veto/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/24/obama-quietly-veto-keystone-pipeline-bill/
Catie,
I agree with Lilly. It makes sense why the president would want to veto the Keystone Pipeline bill. To illustrate, if Obama had signed off on the bill, it would symbolize that Obama’s acceptance of American dependence on fossil fuel. This certainly would make the president seem hypocritical, as he helps lead the movement to convince Congress that global warming is real and that it is caused by the irresponsible use of fossil fuels. Moreover, it is also reasonable to assume that Obama vetoed the pipeline because it would win him more favor within his own party (which prioritizes issues like preservation of the environment). Thus, by vetoing the pipeline, Obama may be able to hope for a more unified Democratic Party in Congress, where Democrats will toe the party more often in a Republican controlled legislature. Therefore, due to these political reasons, it seems unlikely president would pass the Keystone Pipeline bill even if it were reworded, and it seems just as unlikely that the Republican controlled Congress will be able to round up the necessary two-thirds majority in both houses.
However, if the bill is rewritten, I think that it is important for the president to consider the possible benefits that would come from building the pipeline, before vetoing it. For example, transporting oil through the pipeline is a lot safer than having trains carry the oil across the country. To illustrate, accidents are 10 to 20 times more likely to happen when oil is transported by rail as opposed to by pipeline. Also, building the pipeline will also create thousands of new jobs for unemployed Americans; the promise of new jobs would certainly help boost the president’s approval rating as well as help rejuvenate the nation’s economy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/02/20/its-a-lot-riskier-to-move-oil-by-train-instead-of-pipeline/
Catie,
When it comes to this controversial bill, it is hard to take one side. I do believe President Obama vetoed the Keystone Pipeline bill because he felt it was not right for the country, but with a divided government now in place, the president might feel like he needs to exert control over legislation in this regard. Also, President Obama has only ever vetoed two other proposed bills before this one, and I do think that that does say something about his intentions when it comes to this piece of legislation. And if President Obama is willing to listen to counterarguments to the reasons for why he vetoed the bill, it does show he has an open mind and thoroughly thought his decision through.
I believe that if the bill is reworded and placed in a different context, then most likely the president will change his mind. There are no guarantees of how the president will respond, but he did not seem like he opposed the bill too greatly because he is willing to listen to supporters of the bill. Also, the Keystone Pipeline bill is not all bad like the environmentalists believe. Yes, it is carrying eight-hundred thousand gallons of petroleum every day over a distance of one thousand-thousand one-hundred and seventy-nine miles, but this bill will create approximately forty-two thousand jobs for at least two years, and also contribute to make the U.S. GDP a little over three billion. Obviously, it does seem as if President Obama wants to reduce our dependency on harmful materials like petroleum. However, there are positives and negatives to this argument, and if more support is shown, the president could change his mind.
If the Senate were to choose to override the bill by March 3rd, then they would have a high change of overriding the president’s veto. With a two-thirds vote in the Senate, the bill could then be passed and the Keystone Pipeline could start being constructed. With the somewhat recent midterm election taking place, and fifty-four seats in the hands of the majority party, the goal to get a few more seats does not seem too daunting. However, there is no guarantee how senators will revote for the bill, especially if new arguments are made.
This bill getting vetoed, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell contemplating to override it, shows a completely divided government. A lot of gridlock will follow suit, especially since the Legislative Branch is ruled by Republicans and the Executive Branch is ruled by Democrats. It is hard to pass legislation when the sides so obviously disagree with one another. This current state usually means proposed legislation will be turned down in either Congress or by the president.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/us/politics/what-does-the-proposed-keystone-xl-pipeline-entail.html?_r=0
While it is good to see Obama using his executive powers in a way that shows he takes a definitive stance on something, I do not believe vetoing the bill is the right thing for the country. In today's world, the bottom line is that everyone is heavily dependent on oil. Oil is the cause of countless domestic and foreign issues and policies, and its use has been criticized by environmentalists and scientists alike. Oil has a massive effect on the economy, society, and politics in all first-world and other countries. One of these political issues in today's world is the situation in the Middle East. As much as anyone claims otherwise, no one can deny the fact that the primary reason the United States and so many other countries are involved in Middle Eastern issues is because the region has oil, and lots of it. People say that we are there to help stop genocide or other social reasons, but there was a genocide in Rwanda in the 1990s, and we did nothing. There was a genocide in Cambodia in the 1970s, and we did nothing. Now what is it about these places that differs from the Middle East? Oil. Coming back to the Keystone Pipeline, if it were implemented, the United States would be making a massive step towards self-sufficiency, and would not need to involve itself in controversial foreign affairs that people so obviously are sick of.
Like Sammy said, while the pipeline does stretch over a thousand miles and carry millions of gallons of oil, there are few better things that could be done to boost the American economy. This pipeline would add thousands of American jobs and boost American GDP significantly. The pipeline provides not only short-term economic growth, but the long-term effects are even more important. First and foremost, Americans would have much greater access to oil. Basic economics tell us that if the supply of a good increases, the price decreases and the quantity purchased increases. With a commodity like oil, no matter what the price, people will still buy a relatively fixed quantity. Lower prices mean more money in consumers' pockets, which could lead to countless economic benefits. In addition, the money saved from the lower oil prices could help combat the potential hazards of the pipeline itself. More money could be put towards the maintenance and effeciency of the pipeline, which would make these environmentalists much more satisfied with the pipeline's existence. Overall, I think that the building of the pipeline is a good idea, and if it takes a rewording of the bill to change president Obama's mind or a simple override, I think in the end it will work out for the best.
I posted earlier about the initial passing of this bill in the Senate, and as a result this issue is very interesting to me from a legislative perspective. The Senate passed the bill with a majority of 62, only 5 votes away from the supermajority needed to override Obama's veto. The House is very likely to get the 2/3 majority as well without much effort, but I do believe a veto is very plausible. On another note, I think this does in fact show Obama as a partisan blocker and a bully pulpit president. His claims of wishing to work with the GOP on major issues have never been given an opportunity to prove their validity...this situation proves their invalidity loud and clear. His claim in the veto was that it is still unclear how wise it is to construct and manage an international pipeline, but we do in fact have many international pipelines with Canada, just on smaller scales. This shows very poorly both on Obama as a man of character and as a teammate, as the pipeline legislation was bipartisanly backed and he still rejected it. His official qualm with the legislation being nullified by my previous statements, what other excuse does he have? Protecting the environment? If he cared about the environment he would enable green energy companies to be able to prosper and weaken ties with middle eastern oil companies, instead of just throwing money into bankrupted green companies, and avoiding the middle east action altogether. In conclusion, King Barry fails us again.
Obama’s decision to veto the bill shouldn’t be taken to heart by Senate and House Republicans alike. Since 2011, when the clash over major partisan issues really escalated to the next level, the Keystone Pipeline has caused controversy with conservatives and environmentalists as they battle to adjust legislation in their favor. While conservatives see the economic benefits of pumping over 800,000 barrels of heavy petroleum into the United States, environmentalists only see the degradation of the natural landscape and its ecological consequences, sparking an everlasting debate. Therefore, when Obama vetoed a strongarm Republican attempt to pass the bill, it shouldn't have come as a surprise to Republicans, who have passed over the ideas and needs of environmentalists in their attempt to pass the bill without national interest. Yet, John Boehner, the House speaker, still called the president’s veto “a national embarrassment” and put all the blame of this charade on Obama, saying he is halting legislation from reaching the American public.
However, the Republicans have failed to convey that there are suitable alternatives for an infrastructure plan that could reap the same economic benefits. Obama and House Democrats have repeatedly asked Republicans to reconsider their pressing legislation and want to set their sights “higher than a single oil pipeline”. Additionally, Republicans have siphoned off evidence of the environmental impact review made by the State Department, which concluded that the oil extracted will produce 17% more carbon pollution above the average, in addition to an abundance of greenhouse gas levels that would only add to the poor ozone conditions. As far as I can see, the Republicans are trying to warp the public into thinking the Keystone Pipeline is without flaws, and Obama only used the veto because he is fighting a one man battle now; Congress has left him on a warpath with Republican leadership that will continue until the end of his term.
Post a Comment