Congressman Denny Rehberg Friday announced the inclusion of language in legislation designed to prevent a Payroll Tax Increase on January 1, 2012. Rehberg's legislation is a companion bill to S. 1932, introduced by Senator Dick Lugar (R-IN), to give the President 60 days to make a decision on the Keystone XL Pipeline.
In the audio to the left of this column, just after introducing the legislation, Rehberg explained to The Examiner why he introduced the legislation at this time.
Congressman Rehberg commented “This decision should be made in the interest of thousands of Americans who need jobs, not the political convenience of President Obama and his special interest friends. Over three years, this process has run its course. It’s time to make a decision. I hope the President will do the right thing and stand up for the creation of American jobs.”
Rehberg suggested the delay in a decision on the Keystone is a political one. Rehberg’s legislation will require the Secretary of State to issue a permit within 60 days to allow the Keystone XL project to move ahead. The permit must contain strong and specific environmental protections and respect states’ rights. The legislation does not dictate what decision the President could make – he could still choose to block this permit by publicly declaring that the Keystone XL Pipeline is not in the national interest. It only requires that a decision be made in a timely fashion. The application has already taken three years.
Rehberg is also working closely with stakeholders to ensure private property rights are respected. In an August letter to the U.S. Department of State, Rehberg highlighted the importance of working "with landowners in a manner that does not impose condemnations of private property."
On Monday, the US State Department struck back saying the house bill could kill the Keystone XL pipeline. In a statement Monday, the State Department warned that congressional interference with the Keystone XL pipeline could backfire. The statement said that if Congress imposes an arbitrary deadline for a permit decision, it could prevent the administration from meeting environmental laws that govern the approval process. If, in their perspective, the laws are not able to be met they say they would then be unable to make a determination to issue a permit creating a “no” to the pipeline project altogether.
Comments