Many lawmakers still undecided about Keystone Pipeline

WASHINGTON - The fate of the Keystone Pipeline has become one of the more unusual dilemmas in years in Congress - one that unites political parties while also splitting them apart, that pits states' rights against those of foreign interests, and that presents such a quandary that even veteran members of that legislative body don't know what to do after years of studying the issue and with only a short time before a vote.

For now, the proposed 1,200-mile pipeline would carry crude oil from northeastern Alberta, Canada, to Steele City, Neb., and would not cross Iowa's borders.

However, successful litigation from opponents in Nebraska have forced federal officials to consider another route that not only could pass through Iowa but also threaten the state's water needs via the Ogallala aquifer in Nebraska.

That possibility, as well as the potential for the pipeline to be built using eminent domain powers not of the federal government but of a Canadian company, TransCanada, has put the issue squarely before Iowa's congressional delegation and injected it into the state's top political races as well.

Jane Kleeb, the Nebraska activist who helped lead the legal fight in her state against the pipeline, said Iowa has much at stake.

'Farmers and ranchers in all states share a fundamental respect for land and water,” Kleeb told The Gazette. 'When Iowa farmers and ranchers learn how a foreign corporation is bullying Nebraska landowners with eminent domain and one-sided land contracts, folks will stand up just as strong as folks in Nebraska.

'If landowners in one state give up their property rights to a foreign corporation, risking water and agriculture livelihoods, it means the ‘welcome' sign just appeared for all sorts of risky projects.”

Iowa's petroleum interests, of course, see it differently. The Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Stores of Iowa Association emphasizes that the pipeline would create 20,000 U.S. jobs and tens of millions of dollars in property tax revenue in states through which it would travel.

A key vote has been scheduled for this evening in the Senate on an energy bill that includes the Keystone Pipeline.

It is only a procedural vote that would allow the chamber to move forward. But senators consider it a test vote that likely will mirror an up-or-down vote on the project itself.

And partisan bickering could still cancel the vote - Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said last week he had reached an agreement with Republicans to hold the vote, but Republican senators have denied that.

'A Keystone vote is on the table if they'll simply stand by the agreement they had a week ago with me,” Reid said Thursday on the Senate floor. 'All that would do is allow the Senate to move forward on a bipartisan energy efficiency bill.

'Republicans have stated and stated and stated that they want a vote on Keystone. Good. Let's take a vote on Keystone.”

Half of Eastern Iowa's congressional delegation was still on the fence as of this past week, with only Democratic Rep. Bruce Braley and Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley having made up their minds.

Grassley supports it, pointing to the pipeline's ability to import oil from a U.S. ally, create jobs and decrease the risk of transportation accidents such as the fiery derailment of an oil train in Lynchburg, Va., on April 30.

'All of those are pretty darn good reasons for doing it,” Grassley said. 'I'm more than in favor of it. I'd stand on my head and whistle ‘Dixie' if that would get the job done.”

Iowa's Democratic senator, Tom Harkin, said Monday's vote is not expected to be successful even though he may support it just to move the process forward. He said he is undecided on the merits of the pipeline itself.

'It really can be environmentally harmful, but on the other hand it does involve jobs,” Harkin said. 'One thing people don't understand is that there already is a pipeline here …

. I'm not about to make a decision until we get to the point when we have to make a decision. There's just a lot of different balances on this one.”

Indeed, three phases of the Keystone project are already in place - the controversial fourth phase essentially would replace an earlier piece of the pipeline and provide a more direct path from Alberta to Nebraska, where it would join an existing pipeline to the Gulf Coast.

This fourth phase would handle more than 700,000 barrels of oil per day and was first proposed in 2008.

Braley, who is running for the Senate seat of the retiring Harkin, has seen the issue crop up in his campaign - Republicans have accused him of flip-flopping on the issue by supporting the pipeline in a House committee vote but then opposing it in a House floor vote.

Braley said in between the two votes, he simply became aware of new information about the pipeline's safety, potential benefits to communities and its effect on landowners.

'Iowans are looking for someone who will keep an open mind and be in a position to respond to changing situations and new information,” he said. 'I became aware of information concerning the pipeline that needed to be resolved, and that's why my vote on the floor was what it was, to oppose the pipeline.”

Democratic Rep. Dave Loebsack is still undecided, saying that a final decision is 'premature” because he still has 'multiple concerns.”

'Those include what the effect on gas prices will be at home, whether the oil from the pipeline will just be shipped to our competitors abroad, if further production of the tar sands will continue, regardless of whether the pipeline is built or not, and what the cumulative effect on our environmental resources will be,” he said.

But in the Iowa General Assembly, the issue has created bipartisan unity. In February, state Sen. Rob Hogg, D-Cedar Rapids, and state Rep. Bobby Kaufmann, R-Wilton, wrote a letter to the state's congressional delegation and to the U.S. State Department to urge opposition to the pipeline because of the eminent domain factor.

'It is not in America's national interests to allow a foreign oil company to condemn American farms and ranches to take foreign oil to the Gulf Coast for sale on the global market,” Hogg wrote to Braley, who represents the state's 1st Congressional District. 'The Keystone pipeline threatens America's land, water and wildlife - Congress should say no, the State Department should say no, and President Obama should say no.”

In February, a Nebraska judge struck down a 2012 law that had allowed the pipeline to pass through the state. A final ruling is up to the Nebraska Supreme Court and could take months.

Because of the uncertainty - and the controversies - the Obama administration last month announced it is indefinitely extending the deadline for reviewing the Keystone project. Moreover, there are some 2.5 million public comments through which federal officials have to plow.