A few Democratic votes for the road

I’ll give the House Rules Committee credit for learning. Even if yet another bill to get the Keystone XL oil pipeline approved is destined for a presidential veto, they’ve figured out how to make that stroke of a pen a little more difficult for President Obama. This one would include nine Democratic amendments, many that may supply him with new reasons to approve the pipeline, or at least new conditions to place on it. But don’t get your hopes up. There’s a massive, unavoidable legislative hurdle in the path of Keystone’s proponents.

The Democratic amendments to the Northern Route Approval Act are as follows:

1. Approve the pipeline’s northern leg, between Alberta and Nebraska.
2. Require all oil flowing through the pipeline to be used within the U.S. and not exported elsewhere.
3. Require TransCanada (who’s making the pipeline) to submit oil spill response plans to affected states.
4. Require a study on projected clean-up costs in the event of a spill.
5. Add a finding indicating that reliance on oil from Alberta’s oil sands would increase carbon emissions, and require offsets of those emissions before the bill goes into effect.
6. Require a study on health risks from projected increases in air pollution.
7. Require an assessment of the pipeline’s vulnerability to terror attacks.
8. Something about ensuring oversight.
9. Allow one year to file a legal claim under the act, as opposed to 60 days.

I must admit, I’m getting a little tired of the constant calls for studies and assessments and reviews. While it’s important for all benefits and costs to be part of the discussion, at this point I wouldn’t be surprised if the information was already out there and its researchers just weren’t summarizing it. Perhaps there ought to be a study of all Keystone studies to make sure this isn’t happening. (I’m kidding. But, please, someone look into it.)

Of course, a Republican amendment adding language assuring Keystone’s environmental safety would make many of the above amendments moot, which is about as silly as writing a bill that Obama already promised not to sign. Congress may have the constitutional authority “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,” but unless they can muster a two-thirds vote in both chambers, before or after, a presidential veto will be the final word until Obama makes a decision on his own. Hell, a decision from him would probably be more compelling for congressional Democrats than any amendments they were offered.

There’s also the small matter of getting each amendment passed, unlikely given the majority party’s zeal to get Keystone not only passed, but built. That may be good enough for simple House passage, but not to make the bill veto-proof in even one chamber.

Something’s fishy about this mine plan

One of the few good things about Sarah Palin’s Alaska was the brief glimpses it offered into Alaska’s biggest industries, one of which was salmon fishing. (Seriously, though, other than that, the show was crap.) No doubt its cast isn’t happy about the proposed Pebble Mine on Bristol Bay, which would mine an estimated 85.5 billion pounds of gold, copper and molybdenum. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is launching an ad campaign against it while the industry, along with some congressional Republicans, insist it’s perfectly safe, despite what the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has said about it.

In fairness, though, what the EPA has said has been largely based on speculation. The environmental assessment comment period is still on, ending at the end of the month, and Pebble Mine’s developers have yet to submit formal blueprints. But the EPA has already released a draft assessment for a “hypothetical” mine. Industry backers, namely the Pebble Limited Partnership (PLP), fear this could turn into a “pre-emptive veto” that would effectively chill future watershed investment in Alaska and across the U.S.

That may be an exaggeration. But they do have a point about the necessity of this draft, which certainly costs taxpayers some money. In order to have a completely accurate picture of the environmental impact of the mine, the EPA needs to know exactly which space it will occupy, and which environmental protection and safety methods that PLP plans to employ. Mine opponents insist the EPA has enough information; however, without the blueprints, that’s just not the current reality.

But don’t be too surprised if the EPA releases a report that matches up quite well with the draft. Bristol Bay supplies nearly half the sockeye salmon on the planet; its exvessel (dock) value in 2010 totaled $148.7 million. Alaskan seafood accounts for up to half the private sector employment in coastal areas of the state. Since many of those areas are only accessible by air or sea, it’s also essential for subsistence, especially among Alaska Natives. There are reasons for concern, even if, like me, you’re generally OK with mining and would prefer mined-in-America metals.

If mine opponents are going to continue to argue on economic grounds, which is a good idea, the future of the mine may come down to estimates of net gains in terms of local jobs and state revenue. They’ll also need to bring up the health angle, as the mine will no doubt have an effect on the local water and air supply. And if there’s somewhere else in the U.S. where a massive gold and copper mine would be viable, point it out.

This isn’t simple NIMBYism. Opponents have identified ways that the Pebble Mine would be legitimately detrimental to a lucrative local economy. Proponents had better be prepared for a fight that they could very well lose, and lose fairly.

Other ways to fill tech worker shortages

Proponents of a more open immigration policy in the U.S. are delighted that so much of the focus of late has been on its economic benefits, as opposed to cultural considerations. This is most true for the technology industry, which is waiting to see what Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) puts into his forthcoming high-skilled immigration bill. Their preference would be akin to a Senate bill, pushed primarily by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), which would increase the H-1B visa cap and make more green cards available to qualified workers. Nothing wrong with that. But here’s the sticking point:

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) . . . argued that a package of amendments on the H-1B section of the bill from . . . Hatch would loosen protections in the bill for American workers. These protections require employers to attest that they offered technical jobs to American workers first, and requires them to follow new rules when hiring a foreign worker on an H-1B visa. For example, the current bill says a company must attest that a new H-1B hire did not or will not replace a U.S. worker doing the same type of job 90 days before and after their visa application is filed.

Hatch believes that Durbin’s approach would make tech companies more inclined to ship jobs overseas, while his approach would keep them on U.S. soil, even if they go to foreign workers. Expect Durbin’s sentiment to come up again, to a much more fervent extent, in the House. I dare say people on both sides of the immigration debate would agree to keep protections like that.

It might be easy to dismiss Durbin’s worry as an example of this, if not for one thing: Congress’s work on immigration reform, while much welcomed, is overriding concern they may have had for the problem of long-term unemployment (LTU) among Americans. Note that the study cited in the article refers to fear that applicants who have been out of work for six months or more possess “outdated skills” – a reasonable fear, given the rapid evolution of necessary technical skills, to say nothing of equipment.

This should not be construed as a call to hold off on high-skilled immigration reform. It is merely a gentle reminder to the tech industry that they have the power to help bring the skills of LTU workers up to date. By working with colleges and counties, they can train thousands of Americans to do some basic coding and data analysis. If manufacturing jobs aren’t coming back – which isn’t uniformly true – then tech companies can solve LTUs’ problem and theirs by investing in these partnerships.

I would also advise them to do the same with high schools, in order to help more kids see the value of pursuing a technical education. That would help mitigate some of the problem of graduate unemployment. The point is to give them and LTUs a tangible reminder that the tech industry is also open to Americans who are already here, and to reduce a couple of serious economic drags.