Keystone XL Pipeline DebateMatthew GuinnKeystone XL Pipeline Debate The proposed ”Keystone XL Pipeline” consists of a 1,700-mile crude oil pipeline that would bringmore than 800,000 barrels of Canadian oil to the Dakotas, Montana, and Oklahoma. The oil would then be sent to refineries in Texas. Since the pipeline will have to cross international borders with Canada it has to be approved by Congress. The Keystone XL would bring economic relief by generating jobs and revenue. Upon approval, the pipeline would generate 40,000 manufacturing and construction jobs. In the long term, the pipeline would generate thousands of jobs needed to operate and construct the pipeline, as well as jobs to the refineries around the gulf. However, Republicans and Democrats are very split on this decision; thus, government approval for funding completion of the project is currently lacking. But, with the recent midterm election and with Republicans having the majority for the 114th Congress that begins in January, things may change quickly.The Democrats are not in favor for the pipeline mainly for the environmental impact they believethe drilling and construction could have. In January 2012, President Obama rejected the proposal during protests about the pipeline's impact on Nebraska's environmentally sensitive Sand Hills Region. In additio, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) said it would be “out of bounds” given how destructive it would be. Healso stated “Every dollar that we spend today on developing and using more fossil fuels is another dollar spent in digging the graves of our grandchildren”. They also are wanting to seek different energy alternatives besides fossil fuels and possibly looking into spending money towards renewable energy sources. Democrats also state a main reason they opposed the bill was that it went against the president’s authority on a project his administration has been reviewing. Senator King from Maine also noted, “Congress is not—nor should it be—in the business of legislating the approval or disapproval of a construction project.” So, overall it would be fairly easy to say that the Democratic Party is definitelyMatthew Guinnagainst the pipeline. In exception of a few Democratic Senators such as Mary Lindrieu from Louisiana who is in favor since it will help her state. She also urged democrats to vote for the pipeline when they knew they were going to be a vote short.On the other side, you have the Republican Party who is strongly urging for this to be passed. They knew when it first went up for vote that they may not be able to convince enough Democrats to vote for the pipeline. However, they knew after the mid-term election they would have a majority in both houses so they still pushed on. Republicans have countered the Democrats environmentally by saying that there are already thousands of miles of pipelines existing in America, and there’s efforts to minimize its effect. Also, TransCanada Corporation changed the original proposed route of Keystone XL to minimize "disturbance of land, water resources and special areas". It could help the economy, increase revenue, provide jobs, and obviously give the USA more oil. This however isn’t a new topic of discussion, it was brought about in late 2011, and has passed the House many times. Ultimately, it came down to the Republicans needing a majority in the Senate; in reality, they may require 60 votes to stop a filibuster. The most recent vote, in fact, fell one vote short in this regard, with 59 in favor. Clearly, by January, approval seems likely.In my personal opinion I don’t see why the pipeline shouldn’t pass. The only negative side I can really see is the possibility of eminent domain happening to people in America. I know people who’ve had property taken that way, and it’s not a fun thing to deal with. Also, the fact that you’re getting your property taken and there’s nothing you can do about it but accept “just compensation” seem unfair. However, I feel as though the positives greatly outweigh the negatives. It seems to be a very positive project for the economy, and anything that supplies jobs will be a good thing for Americans. Also, it will provide us with a lot more oil. Whether it makes us less dependent or not, any time we don’t have to get oil from the Mideast is good. The key is that we can still explore other avenues for alternative energyMatthew Guinnsources while the pipeline is constructed. What could be instrumental to the passage of this bill might be to write some funding for such ancillary projects into the bill—to placate Democrats; limitations on ‘fracking’ might also help passage. Ultimately, I believe it would be a very positive project. With the Republicans for the pipeline and the Democrats going against the pipeline towards the end of a two year term, it really re-emphasizes the “do-nothing” Congress. At least to me it seems like the Democratic Senators were trying to have one last hoorah by putting down this bill to look better for re-election. It is also a prime example of the recent problems we’ve had in our Federal government and is obviously showing that we have very little bipartisanship. There were a few Democrats who did vote for the pipeline. But I believe until the two parties will put their ego’s to the side and work together, our country won’t reach its full