Advertisements
Home

Find Out How Your Senators Voted on the Keystone XL Pipeline

1 Comment

This is from The Daily Signal.

Here is your chance to see how your Senators voted on the Keystone XL Pipeline if you do not know already.

 

The Senate approved legislation on Thursday authorizing construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline, despite threats from the White House to veto it.

The legislation was passed in a 62-36 vote.

Supporters of the pipeline contend that it would create jobs and boost economic growth, and opponents worry about potential environmental ramifications.

“Constructing Keystone would pump billions into our economy,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.,said on the floor before the vote. “It would support thousands of good American jobs and as the president’s own State Department has indicated, it would do this with minimal environmental impact.”

President Obama reiterated his opposition to the project in his State of the Union address.

“Let’s set our sights higher than a single oil pipeline,” he said.

The proposed 1,179-mile pipeline would stretch from Canada to Nebraska where it would meet with existing pipelines, carrying oil to refineries along the Gulf Coast.

So how did your senators vote?

No Republicans voted to block the legislation, and nine Democrats voted to approve it.

Those voting “nay” include potential presidential contenders Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.

Sens. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Marco Rubio, R-Fla., did not vote.

See the full list of how each senator voted here.

 

U.S. Senate  Roll Call Vote

This article has been corrected to reflect that nine, not eight, Democrats voted to authorize the Keystone pipeline.

Advertisements

STUNNING REVOLT: Senate Dems Block Fracking Regulations

Leave a comment

This is from The Daily Caller.

The cynic in me says these Democrats are worried about being reelected.

 

Democrats turned on one another Wednesday night and voted against an amendment that would have given the federal government the power to regulate hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, occurring on state and private lands.

New York Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand’s amendment to “modify the definition of underground injection” was soundly defeated 63 to 35, with 10 Democrats joining Republicans in opposing the measure.

These Senate Democrats included Michael Bennet of Colorado, Tom Udall of New Mexico, Jon Tester of Montana, Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Mark Warner of Virginia.

 The vote presents a huge problem for Democrats hell-bent on regulating fracking and pushing climate policies in that a sizable group of lawmakers are pro-oil and gas development.
This also poses a problem for President Obama’s agenda to make more federal lands off limits to drilling.

“The failure to pass Sen. Gillibrand’s (D-NY) Amendment to S.1 is a clear message from the U.S. Senate of broad bipartisan support to keep regulation of hydraulic fracturing in the capable hands of the states and out of the grasp of the Obama Administration’s Environmental Protection Agency and their War on Fossil Fuels,” said Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Inhofe, chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

Gillibrand’s bill would have changed a provision in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that gives states the exclusive right to regulate fracking occurring on state and private lands.

Democrats have long wanted to gut this provision, known as the “Halliburton loophole,” to allow federal agencies to regulate the well-stimulation technique. The amendment would have also imposed federal rules on natural gas storage.

Fracking is a well-stimulation technique in which sand, water and small amounts of chemicals are used to crack open rock formations more than one mile underground to unleash previously unrecoverable oil and natural gas. Fracking, combined with horizontal drilling, has caused a U.S. oil and gas boom.

The recent plunge in oil and gasoline prices has been attributed to U.S. fracking, along with weaker global economic growth which has reduced oil demand.

Currently low oil prices are hitting oil companies hard, but low gas prices have been a boon to consumers and businesses.

“Hydraulic fracturing is responsible for leading the American manufacturing resurgence, creating thousands of well-paying jobs, lowering prices of energy for our families, and driving us towards energy independence,” Inhofe said.

Democrats and environmentalists, however, argue that fracking contaminates groundwater supplies and degrades air quality. They also say increased oil and natural gas drilling is exacerbating global warming.

 Gillibrand was attempting to attach her fracking amendment to a bill approving the Keystone XL pipeline.
Democrats who plan on voting against Keystone’s approval anyways have been introducing amendments to curb fossil fuel use and push global warming policies.

“This project has many risks and few advantages, and I will be voting against it, but if this legislation does pass in the Senate, we should at least try to make it a better bill,” Gillibrand said in a statement.

“There is no excuse why we can’t turn the Keystone XL Pipeline Act into an opportunity to protect our clean drinking water, and ensure that polluters have to pay to clean up their own messes.”

Dozens of amendments have been introduced by Democrats to derail the Keystone bill — which would approve a major pipeline that would bring oil sands from Canada to refineries on the Gulf Coast. Republicans have also introduced their own amendments to boost energy production and reign in federal environmental regulations.

The Senate is expected to make its final vote on the Keystone XL bill Thursday afternoon if enough lawmakers vote to end the amendment process.

What Americans Think About Keystone XL Pipeline: Build It

Leave a comment

This is from Town Hall.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest claims he could not confirm a veto from Barack Obama.

There is no doubt Obama will veto anything connected to the Keystone XL Pipeline.

Obama does not care about what the veto will do to the Democrats as he wants to appease the tree huggers.

 

Now that Harry Reid has been removed as President Obama’s personal legislation blocker in the Senate, new Majority Leader Mitch McConnell plans to put long-overdue Keystone pipeline legislation his desk as soon as possible. As a result, the debate over the pipeline has been revived, with many far-left pundits claiming the pipeline doesn’t have enough support and shouldn’t be approved.

According to the latest Pew Research poll on the issue from November 2014, 59 percent of Americans support the construction of the Keystone Pipeline.

Among the goals of the new GOP majority in Congress is passing legislation to approve construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would transport oil from Canada’s oil sands region through the Midwest to refineries in Texas. By nearly two-to-one, the public favors building the pipeline (59% to 31%); yet overall support is down from March 2013 when 66% favored the project.

Further, an overwhelming majority of independents support Keystone and more than half of Democrats do as well, despite a decrease in support among these groups in the past year.

Currently, 83% of Republicans favor building the pipeline, compared with 58% of independents and fewer than half of Democrats (43%).

There will be a Senate hearing about Keystone on Wednesday. If approved, Keystone is expected to create dozens of permanent jobs, thousands of temporary positions and ten-of-thousands of indirect employment opportunities.

During the daily press briefing Monday afternoon, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest would not confirm if President Obama will veto the legislation if it gets through the Senate and reaches his desk.

“I’m not prepared at this time to issue a veto threat,” Earnest said, adding more evaluation of the situation must be conducted.

https://social.newsinc.com/media/json/69017/28168398/singleVideoOG.html?videoId=28168398&type=VideoPlayer/16×9&widgetId=2&trackingGroup=69017

5 Policies That Would Make Gas Cheaper

1 Comment

This is from The Daily Signal.

These policies will never happen while Obama is president and Dingy Harry Reid runs the Senate.

 

Sick of paying too much at the pump?

If you are, there’s good news: There are policies Congress and the Obama administration could implement that likely would lead to lower prices.

If you’re looking to lower gas prices, first look at crude oil prices.

Crude oil contributes the largest component to the price of gasoline. As of June 2014, crude prices made up 67 percent of the price of gas, with refining (14 percent), taxes (12 percent), and retailing and transportation (8 percent) accounting for the rest, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The federal excise tax on gasoline is 18.4 cents per gallon and 24.4 cents per gallon on diesel fuel. States levy their own taxes, ranging from a low of 12.4 cents per gallon in Alaska to more than 52.6 cents per gallon in California.

heritagechart

Because oil is a globally traded commodity, different factors around the world affect supply and demand, which in turn affects the price Americans pay at the gas pump. Growing demand for oil in other parts of the world, especially in rapidly developing regions such as India and China, put upward pressure on prices. Bad weather or geopolitical risks can disrupt supply, increasing prices. For instance, severe weather can shut down a pipeline or refinery, choking supply and driving prices higher.

Additional U.S. oil production can significantly increase global spare capacity.

The most effective response to variations in energy prices is simply to allow markets to work. Government restrictions, regulations and attempts to force technologies into the market impede the free market’s efficacy. To help American fuel consumers, Congress and the administration should:

1. Lift the ban on crude oil exports. Removing government restrictions on crude oil exports would decrease gas prices and grow the American economy by creating more opportunities to produce and sell oil and a more efficient system for refining it. A recent IHS study found that removing the ban would lower gasoline prices by 8 cents per gallon, saving motorists $265 billion over 15 years and adding nearly 1 million jobs by 2018.

2. Lift the drilling bans and approve the Keystone XL pipeline. Congress should lift the ban on exploration in the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and should conduct more lease sales off Alaska’s coasts. Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is another abundant source of oil, with an estimated 10.4 billion barrels of oil beneath a few thousand acres. Furthermore, if President Barack Obama had approved the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline when the State Department first concluded the pipeline was environmentally safe, the U.S. would have begun importing up to 830,000 barrels of oil per day from Canada to the Gulf Coast refineries as early as 2013. While predicting the exact impact of increased imports of Canadian oil on gasoline prices is difficult, increased domestic production would clearly have substantially benefited the U.S. economy. According to Citi Global Perspectives & Solutions, aggressive domestic production would yield significant economic benefits and put downward pressure on prices.

3. Repeal the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). More commonly known as the ethanol mandate, the RFS mandates that refineries blend increasing amounts of ethanol into gasoline each year, reaching 36 billion gallons in 2022. The Congressional Budget Office recently published a reportshowing the RFS will increase gas prices by 13 cents to 26 cents per gallon as soon as 2017. Multiple federal agency and government-backed studies demonstrate the RFS has harmed Americans, driving up fuel and food prices.

4. Prohibit greenhouse gas and Tier 3 regulations. The Department of the Interior has already suspended oil and gas leases because of their alleged impact on climate change, and refineries are a coming target of the Environmental Protection Agency. Its greenhouse gas regulations will block and increase the cost of energy production, and producers will pass those costs on to consumers. Yet the regulations will have no meaningful impact on the climate. The EPA also has finalized Tier 3 gas regulations to lower the amount of sulfur in gasoline, beginning in 2017. More stringent sulfur regulations could add 6 cents to 9 cents per gallon to the cost of manufacturing gasoline, and the EPA has acknowledged the more stringent regulation will produce no measurable improvement in air quality.

5. Repeal the Jones Act. Signed into law almost a century ago, the Jones Act mandates that any goods shipped by water between two points in the United States must be transported on a U.S.-built, U.S.-flagged vessel with a crew that is at least 75 percent American. By preventing foreign competition, the Jones Act significantly increases domestic maritime shipping prices, driving up costs for American businesses and consumers. A February 2014 International Energy Agencyreport estimates that repealing the Jones Act would reduce gasoline prices by 15 cents per gallon. The Jones Act creates an unnecessary and expensive hurdle for shipping crude oil from coast to coast, and Congress should repeal it.

High gas prices hurt consumers not only at the pump but also by raising the cost of all goods and services that depend on transportation. Higher prices mean families buy fewer goods and services, slowing economic growth and job creation. Congress should allow the market to determine prices by implementing free-market reforms to improve the market’s ability to respond.

BOEHNER ‘HELLBENT’ ALRIGHT! HELLBENT ON HANDING THE DEMOCRATS WHAT THEY NEED TO WIN THIS NOVEMBER!

1 Comment

Hat Tip To FireBird @ SHE’S RIGHT.

 

 

 

I just read the article below and my hands are shaking so much I can barely type.

John Boehner has been in the sun too long!  His brain is fried from Beta rays and nicotine.  What in the HELL can he be thinking as he pledges to act on an immigration bill before the November election.

I understand the deal…. there are business owners throughout America WHO NEED CHEAP LABOR.  Why?  Because people who used to take these jobs are now living large on taxpayer-funded government entitlement programs!!!  That’s on the one side, mind you.  On the other side is the Communist in the White House raising entry level job WAGES to the point that the small business owner has two choices – go under or go under!

We officially now have more people getting government assistance/entitlements than we have working and paying taxes.  This should scare the hell out of any thinking person.  But even scarier is that there are people on the government tit who could be filling the jobs that are available, yet they choose to ride in the wagon – and you really can’t blame them.  If you really want insight into what’s happening to our country, read ‘It Pays To Be Poor In America’, by Kevin Jackson.  Written 5 years ago, it’s even more relevant now.

http://theblacksphere.net/2009/01/it-pays-to-be-poor-in-america/

When we have people capable of working, why are we encouraging immigration to fill these jobs????  Our money would be far better spent by reducing the length of time people – and I’m talking about healthy, capable individuals – can ride in the wagon.

Immigrants are not stupid.  They come here, mostly to work and improve the quality of life for themselves and their families.  Mostly…. but how many look around and see the lifestyle provided by the free ride and decide to hop on that train?

I would say to Boehner:  Obamacare (no matter what numbers the White House and the left keep spewing out as ‘great news’) is the gift that keeps on giving.  It has an impact on every single American, and while the left tries to say the Obamacare horror stories are fake (like that glittering jewel of colossal ignorance from Nevada) – they are NOT fake.  USE THIS GIFT by proposing fixes and making them KNOWN TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC!  This should be the primary issue for the 2014 elections.

The other gift that Obama has handed Republicans is his failure to take action on the Keystone XL pipeline (read my most recent post).  Obama is paying back Warren Buffett – end of discussion.  The pipeline is about JOBS, JOBS, and MORE JOBS!  That should be issue #2 in November.

If you think Republicans stayed home in 2012, Mr. Boehner – you ain’t seen nothing like how depressed the Republican turnout will be THIS election if you insist on pushing for immigration reform when 99% of Americans believe REFORM EQUALS AMNESTY!  You can take that to the bank!

What the ‘HELLBENT’ are you thinking!!!!!

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304626304579508091839546088?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304626304579508091839546088.html

Democrats Who Oppose Keystone XL Pipeline Own Shares in Competing Companies

Leave a comment

This is from the Washington Free Beacon.

I can not imagine a DemocRat doing anything this is not on the up and up and never in conflict with morality.

Damn I managed to type that with out peeing my pants with laughter.

Tim Kaine and Alan Lowenthal are following the pattern of corruption that goes back for many years.

 

Democrats who oppose the Keystone XL pipeline have thousands of dollars invested in direct competitors to the company looking to build the pipeline, public records show.

A recent environmental assessment by the State Department was seen as a step toward the pipeline’s approval, but Sen. Tim Kaine (D., Va.) remains opposed to its construction.

“In my view, there is now enough evidence to conclude that construction of this pipeline is not in America’s long-term interest,” Kaine said in a statement on the review.

The freshman Democrat has between $15,000 and $50,000 invested in Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, according to his most recent financial disclosure. Kinder Morgan is looking to build a pipeline that would directly compete with Keystone.

Kinder Morgan is considering expanding its Canadian pipeline infrastructure with an expansion of the Trans Mountain Pipeline, which carries oil sands crude from Alberta to refineries and export terminals on Canada’s west coast.

The expansion would boost Trans Mountain’s capacity to 890,000 barrels per day. Keystone, a project of energy company TransCanada, is expected to carry about 830,000 barrels per day if fully constructed.

Observers have said a rejection of Keystone would be a boon for Kinder Morgan, since the Trans Mountain pipeline presents a viable alternative for exporting crude from Canadian oil sands.

Billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer dropped his stake in Kinder Morgan last year after critics pointed out that his vehement opposition to Keystone could enrich him personally.

Kaine’s office did not respond to attempts to confirm his continued stake in the company.

The availability of alternatives to Keystone—from Kinder Morgan and Enbridge, another TransCanada competitor and Canada’s largest crude oil transporter—is integral to the State Department’s assessment that approving the pipeline will have little impact on carbon emissions, President Barack Obama’s stated standard for approval.

The State Department found that rejecting the Keystone pipeline would not stop crude from Canadian oil sands being extracted, refined, exported (whether by pipeline, rail, or tanker), and burned.

However, Kaine maintains that he is opposed to the deal because of its impact on the environment.

“Building this pipeline would dramatically ramp up capacity for tar sands oil that moves us in the opposite direction of an innovative, make-it-cleaner approach,” he said in his statement.

Kaine also penned a column for the Washington Post last year opposing the project. “The real issue isn’t the pipeline,” he wrote. “It’s the wisdom of using tar sands oil.”
Kaine did not disclose that he had a stake in a company that would still be transporting “tar sands” oil if Keystone were to be rejected.

Another anti-Keystone Democrat, California Rep. Alan Lowenthal, has between$15,000 and $50,000 invested in Enbridge Energy Management, $1,000 to $15,000 in Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, and $15,000 to $50,000 in Kinder Morgan Management, which is a limited partner in and handles everyday management for the company’s Energy Partners subsidiary.

Lowenthal has been less outspoken then Kaine on Keystone, but he voted againstlegislation last year that would have approved the pipeline without sign-off from the administration, which has repeatedly put off a decision on the project.

He was also one of 22 Democrats to sign a December letter to U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman insisting that the Keystone Pipeline would be detrimental to the environment.

Lowenthal’s office did not respond to requests to confirm his continued investments in TransCanada competitors.

Observers said his and Kaine’s investments in TransCanada competitors are troubling given their public positions on Keystone.

“This is not an ‘appearance of conflict of interest,’ it is a bald-faced conflict of interest,” said Ron Arnold, executive vice president of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise.

Arnold, the author of Ecology Wars: Environmentalism as if People Matter, said the two legislators should “divest themselves of the tainted investments and recuse themselves from remarks and votes on the issue.”

Sen. David Vitter (R., La), the ranking Republican on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, previously criticized Steyer for maintaining a stake in Kinder Morgan while pursuing his intense anti-Keystone advocacy.

Steyer denied any financial incentive in opposing the pipeline, but opted to dump his stake, via the hedge fund he founded and led until 2012, in Kinder Morgan.

Members of Congress are not prohibited from taking positions that could benefit them financially, though legislation passed in 2012 prohibits them from trading stock based on knowledge obtained through their official duties.

It begins: Pro-Keystone XL Democrat distances himself from Obama

Leave a comment

This is from the Washington Examiner.

They DemocRats facing reelection are becoming Quislings  selling out to be reelected.

They want Obama’s agenda to go full speed ahead.

 

Photo - Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, criticized President Obama's State of the Union address for not mentioning the Keystone XL pipeline on Tuesday. (AP Photo/Seanna O'Sullivan, file)Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, criticized President Obama’s State of the Union address for not mentioning the Keystone XL pipeline Tuesday.

Begich, who voted for the Keystone XL pipeline and is up for re-election in 2014, said Obama “missed his chance to talk about national energy security in any meaningful way.”

“Alaskans know that to ensure our national energy security, we must be more aggressive on natural resource development,” Begich said. “From building the Keystone pipeline to offshore drilling in Alaska, we should be taking advantage of our domestic energy potential, and I will keep fighting and using every committee post and option available to do just that.”

Obama mentioned energy independence and climate change in his speech Tuesday night, but never mentioned coal or the Keystone XL pipeline. Politico has the energy buzzword breakdown:

• “Energy:” 8 mentions

• “Oil:” 5 mentions

• “Natural gas:” 4 mentions

• “Carbon pollution:” 3 mentions

• “Climate:” 3 mentions

• “Solar:” 2 mentions

• “Environment:” 1 mention

• “All of the above:” 1 mention

• “Energy:” 1 mention

• “Fossil fuels:” 1 mention

• “Coal:” 0 mentions

• “Keystone XL pipeline:” 0 mentions

• “Nuclear:” 0 mentions

• “Renewables and wind:” 0 mentions

• “Biofuels:” 0 mentions

%d bloggers like this: