Skip to content
Subscribe

Will Fight over Keystone Lead to More Pork-Barrel Spending?

Will Fight over Keystone Lead to More Pork-Barrel Spending?
Published:

On Monday, the Senate failed to reach cloture on the Keystone XL measure, signaling a long, bitter fight to come. With a 53-39 vote, cloture failed by 7 votes.

The bitter fight was cut short on Thursday, however, when nine Democrats joined with every Republican to approve construction of the $8 billion project in a 62-36 vote. It is widely expected that once the measure is vetoed by President Obama, Senate Republicans would still need 4 votes to override the veto.

Energy Committee Chair Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), promised to work with Democrats on her committee to consider additional amendments that would enable a veto override.

"Additional amendments" is almost always code for more pork-barrel spending (appropriations targeted at specific lawmakers and their district in exchange for a political favor). So, just how much will those votes be worth in pork?

The Republican Pork Moratorium

In 2010, the Republicans promised to not engage in pork-barrel spending, and have more or less been able to keep that promise.Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.) went so far as to say that pork was a gift from the Founding Fathers to ease gridlock.

In practice, Reid was probably correct -- the 113th Congress had the lowest approval rating of any Congress because of their "Do Nothing" gridlock. Critical bills throughout our history (including most of the Civil Rights Acts) were passed with votes bought through pork.

The question now becomes, are the Republicans going to break the no-pork promise to override a presidential veto on Keystone?

The Dirtier The Oil, The Dirtier The Politics

In 2007, President George W. Bush signed into law the Energy Independence and National Security Act of 2007. This bill overwhelmingly passed the House (314-100) and Senate (86-8) in an unusual show of bipartisanship.

Section 526 of this law bans the federal government from purchasing any fuels made with unconventional oils that are "dirtier" with emissions than conventional oil:

No Federal agency shall enter into a contract for procurement of an alternative or synthetic fuel, including a fuel produced from nonconventional petroleum sources, for any mobility-related use, other than for research or testing, unless the contract specifies that the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production and combustion of the fuel supplied under the contract must, on an ongoing basis, be less than or equal to such emissions from the equivalent conventional fuel produced from conventional petroleum sources.

The Canadian tar sands, located in Alberta, produce significantly 'dirtier' oil than conventional oil, which means that the single-biggest purchaser of oil products in the United States (the federal government) is prohibited from even buying it.

This, of course, is assuming that President Obama is wrong about all of the oil going overseas.

Behind the scenes, there has been a significant effort to try to repeal this section of the Act, at least opening the possibility of sale to the United States.

A Colossal Waste of Time

Why has the Republican-led Congress wasted all of this time? The longer oil prices stay suppressed, the less political mileage they are going to get with potential voters by forcing the veto.

The American government has much better things to worry about than a Canadian company's stock price, a few dozen (if that) permanent jobs, and the dirtiest oil produced being sent overseas.

Perhaps they can start focusing on the tens of thousands of jobs being lost in America's domestic oil industry, and stop worrying about Canada's well-being.

Photo Source: AP

Adhere to the IVN etiquette

By posting a comment, you agree to adhere to our etiquette rules: No partisan attacks, no personal attacks, substantiate your sources, no self-promotion.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Republish this article

Republishing guidelines

Republish IVN articles for free. Independent Voter News articles may be republished online or in print under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, on these terms:

  1. Credit the author and IVN. Keep the byline ("By Author Name, Independent Voter News") and the attribution note at the end, which links to the original.
  2. Keep the meaning. You may update time and place references and apply your house style. You may trim for length, as long as the cuts don't change the meaning or misrepresent the author. Keep the headline. Mark any additions as your own (for example "Additional reporting by ...").
  3. Translations are welcome. Translate faithfully, add "Translated from English by [your outlet]", and tell us at editor@ivn.us.
  4. Keep the links, including the link to the original article.
  5. Keep the tracking image. The HTML includes a 1-pixel image that counts readers on your page. It collects no personal information.
  6. Photos and illustrations. Images credited to IVN may be used with this article only. Images credited to others (AP, Getty, Unsplash, Wikimedia and so on) stay under their owners' terms. Secure the rights or switch "Include images" off.
  7. Don't sell it. You can't sell our articles or sell ads specifically against them. Your normal site advertising is fine.
  8. No implied endorsement. Don't suggest that IVN or the author endorses you, your candidates or your causes, or that donations to you support IVN.
  9. Keep labels. Opinion or analysis pieces keep that label.
  10. Point search engines to the original. Where your CMS allows, set the canonical URL to the original IVN article.
  11. No bulk or automated republishing, and don't submit our articles to aggregators (Apple News, Google News, MSN) as your own.
  12. Corrections and removals. Update your copy when we correct it, and remove it promptly if we ask. We'll contact you at the email you give us.
  13. Questions or print republication: editor@ivn.us.

IVN staff: fill in who you're inviting above, then create the invite.

Preparing the article

Will Fight over Keystone Lead to More Pork-Barrel Spending?

Choose a format
  • HTML
  • Email HTML
  • Markdown
  • Formatted (.docx)
  • Plain text
  • WordPress blocks
  • PDF
Choose a platform

Photos credited to others need their owners' permission.

To for

Republishing somewhere else? Questions? editor@ivn.us