Lugar Says Obama Administration "Blatantly Misleading' on Keystone Bill

Press Release

"The State Department's characterization of our Keystone XL legislation is blatantly misleading. Political posturing for the President's electoral gains is unacceptable for decisions of national security," U.S. Sen. Dick Lugar said today.

"The President and State Department can try to duck its responsibility to America's workers. The only way the pipeline will not be permitted under our legislation is if the President himself rejects it."

"The State Department has examined the Keystone XL pipeline for more than three years. Decisions of national interest should not be treated like a multi-year doctoral dissertation. We fight wars over oil. American workers and American Businesses are slammed by oil price volatility. Unemployment is unacceptably high. Either the State Department lacks the competence to understand national interest, or they have been rolled over by the White House. In either case, the result is the same: America's workers and security takes a backseat to the President's effort to save his own job," said Lugar, the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

In a letter dated December 6, 2011, President of the AFL-CIO's Building and Construction Trades Department endorsed S. 1932, stating "By requiring the Secretary of State to issue a permit within 60 days unless the President determines that it is not in the national interest, the legislation would allow construction of the Keystone XL project to begin in 5 of the 6 states the pipeline crosses"

The bipartisan Lugar-Hoeven-Vitter North American Energy Security Act, S. 1932, requires the President to make a national interest determination and approve the Keystone XL pipeline permit in 60 days, while preserving his foreign policy prerogative to reject the permit if he determines that it is not in the national interest. The language is included in the payroll tax bill to be considered today by the House of Representatives.

The ostensible reason that the State Department delayed the permit -- to reroute the pipeline around the Nebraska Sand Hills region -- is not subject to the 60 day limit. The permit issued under S.1932 would allow ample time with no set schedule for the pipeline section in Nebraska to be rerouted according to Nebraska's state law. Meanwhile, construction elsewhere can commence.

In an "answered question" released on December 12, 2011, a State Department spokesman argued that 60 days is not enough time to do an additional NEPA review. That is nonsensical argument because S.1932 deems requirements of NEPA review to be fulfilled by the Final Environmental Impact Assessment (EIS) issued by the State Department in August 2011, so there can be no more Federal NEPA review.

Source