Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act -- Veto

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues not to override the President's veto of this special-interest piece of legislation.

I wish to thank my colleague from California for her leadership on this issue and for her constant involvement in making sure that national environmental and safety standards are adhered to. She has been a great advocate throughout this process and I very much appreciate her voice as we close the debate about the Keystone Pipeline legislation.

This bill to approve the Keystone Pipeline undermines a well-established process for determining what is in the national interests. If we overrode the President's veto, we would be subverting safety and environmental standards that are important to the American people.

I am glad the President vetoed this legislation, and I urge my colleagues not to override the decision. I think the President's veto message said it best:

Through this 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.

..... And because this act of Congress conflicts with established executive branch procedures and cuts short thorough consideration of issues that could bear on our national interest--including our security, safety, and environment--it has earned my veto.

So the President sums it up pretty much, I think. Why circumvent the process? The people who have been advocates for the pipeline have been circumventing the process all the way through. They circumvented the process by not going through the utility commission in their State, the public utility commission, and instead wrote legislation around that. That legislation has been challenged in court. The rest of it has been an enormous process here in Washington, DC. While the company was negotiating with the State Department, it was also supporting efforts to circumvent that process at the State Department and just get a rubberstamp on their permit, saying ``project approved.'' I think this project, as does every other project in the United States of America, should follow the rules.

While we spent the better part of January considering this legislation, there were other events that transpired. We heard a lot about the routing and that it was a settled matter. Since January, it is worth noting that Nebraska landowners have taken new steps to defend their rights as private property owners. On January 9, 2015, the Nebraska Supreme Court upheld a special carveout of TransCanada to site the Keystone XL Pipeline. They did this even though four judges who addressed the question said this carveout was unconstitutional.

After the setback, several landowners whose property would be seized along the proposed route filed a new suit and hopefully stopped the seizure of their land. Last month--just this past February--two Nebraska district courts have issued temporary injunctions enjoining TransCanada's effort to acquire rights of way to support the Keystone Pipeline by eminent domain. So at this moment here in the Senate, with the vote imminent, the pipeline's route through Nebraska is still in doubt because the new lawsuit challenges the Governor's ability to approve it.

It is also worth noting that South Dakota will hold a new hearing on the proposed route of the pipeline through their State in May. At this time we simply don't know whether South Dakota will make the same decision it did when it first approved the route 3 years ago. The situation in Nebraska and South Dakota makes it clear that even if this bill were to become law, the Keystone Pipeline will not get built any time soon.

I know my colleagues would like to rush the process, and they will talk about all of the various steps in the process where this project got delayed. But who said building a pipeline through the United States of America by a foreign interest should get ``expedited approval'' stamped on it from the very beginning? That is what they have done. They have circumvented what is the process in the State, which should have been through the utilities commission, and they have tried to circumvent the process here in the Senate.

So I hope we will not override the President's veto, but give the President of the United States the ability to still consider these national interests of the environment and security.

We had a pretty robust debate here on the Senate floor, and many of the issues that would have been important my colleagues voted to say we shouldn't consider--environmental issues. So I get that on the other side of the aisle, there are people who want to give a pass-go, a speedy permit to this process. I urge my colleagues to not override the President, but allow him to do the homework that is needed on security, on the environment, and on making sure that due process is followed.

I ask my colleagues to not override the President's veto.

With that, I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source