Subject: Fwd: FW: Final - Keystone Pipeline Project Points in re Congressional action on Payroll Tax Provision
From: Cheryl Mills <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 13:11:00 -0500

**See below

 ** **

*From:* Mills, Cheryl D
*Sent:* Monday, December 12, 2011 11:10 AM
*To:* Adams, David S
*Cc:* 'Rodriguez, Miguel'
*Subject:* Final - Keystone Pipeline Project Points in re Congressional
action on Payroll Tax Provision****

** **

Dave:****

** **

Below are the final points.  Will you shepherd them to the right folks at
the White House?****

** **

Thanks.****

** **

Cdm****

** **

** **

*Keystone XL Pipeline Points*

In Re House Payroll Tax Provision****

December 12, 2011****

** **

It is the President’s prerogative to lead and manage the foreign policy of
the United States, and in the case of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline
project, our relations with Canada.  This historical prerogative
encompasses the President’s long-established authority to supervise the
permitting process for transboundary pipelines.****

** **

The President has delegated his authority to supervise this permitting
process, by executive order, to the Department of the State.   This process
for determining whether to issue permits for transborder pipelines has been
in place for more than 40 years.

In determining whether a permit is in the national interest, this process
requires consideration of a myriad of factors, including environmental and
safety issues, energy security, economic impact and foreign policy, as well
as consultation with at least 8 federal agencies and inputs from the public
and stakeholders - including Congress.  ****

** **

The State Department has led a rigorous, thorough and transparent process
that must run its course to obtain the necessary information to make an
informed decision on behalf of the national interest.  Should Congress
impose an arbitrary deadline for the permit decision, their actions would
not only compromise the process, it would prohibit the Department from
acting consistent with National Environmental Policy Act requirements by
not allowing sufficient time for the development of this information.  In
the absence of properly completing the process, the Department would be
unable to make a determination to issue a permit for this project.  ****

** **

The State Department is currently in the process of obtaining additional
information regarding alternate routes that avoid the Sand Hills in
Nebraska. Based on preliminary consultations with the State of Nebraska and
the permit Applicant, the Department believes the review process could be
completed in time for a decision to be made in first quarter 2013.  ****

** **