How Every Senator Voted on the Keystone XL Pipeline

SeaBreeze

SeaBreeze

Endlessly Groovin'
Location
USA
Here's how they voted. http://www.politicususa.com/2015/01/29/senator-voted-keystone-xl-pipeline-bill.html


ALABAMA Sessions (R), Yes; Shelby (R),Yes.

ALASKA Murkowski (R), Yes; Sullivan (R), Yes.

​
ARIZONA Flake (R), Yes; McCain (R), Yes.

ARKANSAS Boozman (R), Yes; Cotton (R), Yes.

CALIFORNIA Boxer (D), No; Feinstein (D), No.

COLORADO Bennet (D), Yes; Gardner (R), Yes.

CONNECTICUT Blumenthal (D), No; Murphy (D), No.

DELAWARE Carper (D), Yes; Coons (D), No.

FLORIDA Nelson (D), No; Rubio (R), Not Voting.

GEORGIA Isakson (R), Yes; Perdue (R), Yes.

HAWAII Hirono (D), No; Schatz (D), No.

IDAHO Crapo (R), Yes; Risch (R), Yes.

ILLINOIS Durbin (D), No; Kirk (R), Yes.

INDIANA Coats (R), Yes; Donnelly (D), Yes.

IOWA Ernst (R), Yes; Grassley (R), Yes.

KANSAS Moran (R), Yes; Roberts (R), Yes.

KENTUCKY McConnell (R), Yes; Paul (R), Yes.

LOUISIANACassidy (R), Yes; Vitter (R), Yes.

MAINE Collins (R), Yes; King (I), No.

MARYLAND Cardin (D), No; Mikulski (D), No.

MASSACHUSETTS Markey (D), No; Warren (D), No.

MICHIGAN Peters (D), No; Stabenow (D), No

.MINNESOTA Franken (D), No; Klobuchar (D), No.

MISSISSIPPI Cochran (R), Yes; Wicker (R), Yes.

MISSOURI Blunt (R), Yes; McCaskill (D), Yes.

MONTANA Daines (R), Yes; Tester (D), Yes.

NEBRASKA Fischer (R), Yes; Sasse (R), Yes.

NEVADA Heller (R), Yes; Reid (D), Not Voting.

NEW HAMPSHIRE Ayotte (R), Yes; Shaheen (D), No.

NEW JERSEY Booker (D), No; Menendez (D), No.

NEW MEXICO Heinrich (D), No; Udall (D), No.

NEW YORK Gillibrand (D), No; Schumer (D), No.

NORTH CAROLINA Burr (R), Yes; Tillis (R), Yes.

NORTH DAKOTA Heitkamp (D), Yes; Hoeven (R), Yes.

OHIO Brown (D), No; Portman (R), Yes.

OKLAHOMA Inhofe (R), Yes; Lankford (R), Yes.

OREGON Merkley (D), No; Wyden (D), No.

PENNSYLVANIA Casey (D), Yes; Toomey (R), Yes.

RHODE ISLAND Reed (D), No; Whitehouse (D), No.

SOUTH CAROLINA Graham (R), Yes; Scott (R), Yes.

SOUTH DAKOTA Rounds (R), Yes; Thune (R), Yes.

TENNESSEE Alexander (R), Yes; Corker (R), Yes.

TEXAS Cornyn (R), Yes; Cruz (R), Yes.

UTAH Hatch (R), Yes; Lee (R), Yes.

VERMONT Leahy (D), No; Sanders (I), No.

VIRGINIA Kaine (D), No; Warner (D), Yes.

WASHINGTON Cantwell (D), No; Murray (D), No.

WEST VIRGINIA Capito (R), Yes; Manchin (D), Yes.

WISCONSIN Baldwin (D), No; Johnson (R), Yes.

WYOMING Barrasso (R), Yes; Enzi (R), Yes.
 

It really doesn't matter... It will be vetoed.. 9 dems plus 53 Reps makes 62... 5 short of 2/3 Majority needed to over-ride a presidential veto.


http://www.politicususa.com/2015/01/29/senate-passes-keystone-xl-votes-override-obamas-veto.html

After nearly a month of debate and amendments, the Senate passed the bill authorizing the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. The vote was 62-36 in favor of the bill. Republicans remain five votes short of the number required to override President Obama’s veto.
 
I guess this means it will be built. Unless, I think someone mentioned, that Obama can veto it.

I read this thing, and saw some photos of train crashes and fires that transport oil. I imagine there are plenty of the same for trucks that transport it. I guess that would be a good reason for it to go through as there would be less of that happening. Although, I don't really know. I do NOT believe places (people's property, towns etc.) should be forced to have something like that running through but it seems like money (once again) rules.

I remember living up near Portland and there was this beautiful, old home on Farmington Road, near Aloha. They were widening the road, and it would cut off almost all of their beautiful, front yard. I asked them about it and they said they didn't have a choice, except to move because it was for the good of the people. Something like that. I thought it stunk, and I still think things like that stink. I mean if it saved lives or something, yes, that would be the only reason I would say yes to it.
 
Notice how many Republicans voted no? Democrats voting yes 9. Talk about party line voting. I have stated before when it comes to party voters, it's Republicans that vote as a block, Democrats vote all over the board.
 
AZ Jim said:
Notice how many Republicans voted no? Democrats voting yes 9. Talk about party line voting. I have stated before when it comes to party voters, it's Republicans that vote as a block, Democrats vote all over the board.
Click to expand...

And also... there are some pretty significant law suits that were filed lately by landowners challeging the right of a foreign company claiming eminant domain on AMERICAN land owned by AMERICANS.. to move foreign oil, that will not even be used in the US.. That in of itself will tie it up for years.


http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/01/20/3613050/two-new-keystone-xl-lawsuits/

The lawsuits, filed last week, represent Nebraska property owners’ second attempt to challenge the constitutionality of a law that gave the Keystone XL pipeline a legal route through the state and, by extension, their property. The landowners claim that TransCanada — the Canadian company that wants to build Keystone XL — made direct threats to use eminent domain and seize their land if they did not consent to having the pipeline run though it.
Click to expand...
“We stand with landowners to protect property rights and a constitutional pipeline routing process,” said Jane Kleeb, director of Bold Nebraska, a group that has been at the center of the state’s Keystone XL opposition movement. “While we fight to ensure TransCanada and the state of Nebraska do not run roughshod over farmers and ranchers, we also call upon President Obama to reject Keystone XL now.”
Click to expand...
 
darroll said:
We don't want no stinkin jobs, man
Click to expand...

LOL Darroll:) I know what you are saying too, I mean, it would supply jobs. Sometimes I forget about that. I guess bottom-line, if I can figure out what is really the best thing for America's people, then that's what I will vote for and stand for;)
 
nwlady, you pointed out one of the safety reasons for having the pipeline from Canada to where ever it will end up. How many hundreds of tanker trucks will this pipeline remove from our highways if it gets built. Also, some of the areas this pipeline will be placed is just paralell to an existing pipeline. Not sure about some areas as it may be all by itself. Much of the US is covered by many pipelines for gas, oil, chemicals, water, and few problems because of them.
 
You mean that a pipeline is safer then the trains and trucks right? I would hate like hell for anyone to lose their job, I mean the true working men/women in this country, but safety is a huge issue as well. The one video I saw was horrible, I mean I think it wiped out a town. I'll see if I can find it again.

PS You really have to list the pros and cons of this stuff, and our reps in WA need to be doing that as well. What is really best for the people, does anyone up there truly care. I wonder.

Ok, here's just one:
 
I always thought the pipeline was good for the economy, and safer than transporting it by rail. I admit I don't know all the current details regarding the project, but I understood it would create jobs, although maybe not permanent, and it would cause little if any harm to the environment.

Edit: http://mikerussoexpose.com/?p=1170
 
SeaBreeze said:
I always thought the pipeline was good for the economy, and safer than transporting it by rail. I admit I don't know all the current details regarding the project, but I understood it would create jobs, although maybe not permanent, and it would cause little if any harm to the environment.
Click to expand...

Is it OK with you for a foreign corporation to seize land owned by Americans without their consent in order to build it?
 
Seabreeze,

I hope whoever is trying to find other alternatives to oil/gas will keep up their work. There's so much wrong with even using oil:( I know money is at the center, like "money rules". I can still hope.
 
SeaBreeze said:
I always thought the pipeline was good for the economy, and safer than transporting it by rail. I admit I don't know all the current details regarding the project, but I understood it would create jobs, although maybe not permanent, and it would cause little if any harm to the environment.

Edit: http://mikerussoexpose.com/?p=1170
Click to expand...

I believe you are right on Seabreeze, it's really like the lesser of two evils anymore. Like I mentioned about weighing the pros and cons. I think a lot of folks are right, it's just getting to some "happy medium" if one exists out there.
 
I think this discussion has been going on for years now, maybe over 10 years, and still always something or someone messing up the details for this or that situation. At one time Canada was going to sell it's oil to China if we did not allow it to be in the US. Not sure where that argument is these days. I believe we have use pipelines for many many years with no big problems from somewhere in Alaska, across Canada, into the US to where ever. Those folks have some concerns with property rights but I feel pipelines have really shown their safety and value already.

I grew up in Ohio and lived a block or so from the tracks. One evening some cars came off the tracks and a couple oil tankers caught fire. Of course we were ordered out of the house and the fire burned well into the morning hours. Nobody hurt, no houses lost, but they sure are scary things to see.
 
SeaBreeze said:
No.
Click to expand...

Hi Seabreeze,

I've read some on eminent domain and there have been some times in our history when it's been a very, good thing. I am undecided on this pipeline, I don't know enough about it in the long run. The safety issue alone could be well worth the building of it. The best thing that could happen would be the discovery of "hot air" taking the place of anything else toxic. We have so much of that to share with the world;)

PS oh, I also read that the foreign country can't just do it themselves, it takes the State (US) and other people in the US to ok it, but yes, the owner of the property may have no say. Maybe I'm wrong, because lots of times I misread things.
 
QuickSilver said:
And also... there are some pretty significant law suits that were filed lately by landowners challeging the right of a foreign company claiming eminant domain on AMERICAN land owned by AMERICANS.. to move foreign oil, that will not even be used in the US.. That in of itself will tie it up for years.


http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/01/20/3613050/two-new-keystone-xl-lawsuits/
Click to expand...


That oil might be occurring in foreign soil but your own illustrious Koch brothers are leasing about 2 million acres of that land and taking it out of the ground so while the pipeline might be built by a Canadian company, it's for the benefit of at least a few Americans too. Plus don't they also own the refinery at the Gulf of Mexico end? So it's not like this story is all about Canada and our 'avarice' is it?

Also taking oil out of the ground are Exxon Mobil and Chevron and Connoco Phillips, three more American companies.

I wonder how our First Nations people who live in the vicinity of those tar sands feel when they think about them Americans coming to their neighbourhood and causing environmental pollution?

Besides, you mention that the oil won't even be used in the US. Well we don't even get the benefit of having an in house source of oil as in cheaper gas. My mom used to drive across the border quite regularly for years, because even though we produce the stuff that becomes gas in our country, your prices were still cheaper than ours.
 
BobF said:
I think this discussion has been going on for years now, maybe over 10 years, and still always something or someone messing up the details for this or that situation. At one time Canada was going to sell it's oil to China if we did not allow it to be in the US. Not sure where that argument is these days. I believe we have use pipelines for many many years with no big problems from somewhere in Alaska, across Canada, into the US to where ever. Those folks have some concerns with property rights but I feel pipelines have really shown their safety and value already.

I grew up in Ohio and lived a block or so from the tracks. One evening some cars came off the tracks and a couple oil tankers caught fire. Of course we were ordered out of the house and the fire burned well into the morning hours. Nobody hurt, no houses lost, but they sure are scary things to see.
Click to expand...


I think you might be thinking of an agreement that Canada's government was trying to sign with China to allow them access to those tar sands. The problem that the people of Canada had with what was being proposed was that it contained a clause that would have prevented us from restraining any polluting activities of the Chinese company. If we had tried to halt what they were doing, they would have been within their rights (according to the Conservatives contract) to sue us. Can you imagine? It's like not being able to stop that visitor that comes to your house from spitting on the furniture or all over your carpet! We would have had no rights in 'our own home'. I think also at the time, there was such a howl of protest across the country that the agreement was discarded. But I'm sure good ole Stevie boy will be looking for some other underhanded way of resurrecting that rotten deal under a new name and behind more tightly closed doors!

You mentioned that rail car fire that you saw...well you can imagine then how the folks of Lac Magantic felt when the oil cars crashed into their town and exploded and killed dozens? I think 47 people were killed.
 
Debby said:
That oil might be occurring in foreign soil but your own illustrious Koch brothers are leasing about 2 million acres of that land and taking it out of the ground so while the pipeline might be built by a Canadian company, it's for the benefit of at least a few Americans too. Plus don't they also own the refinery at the Gulf of Mexico end? So it's not like this story is all about Canada and our 'avarice' is it?

I wonder how our First Nations people who live in the vicinity of those tar sands feel when they think about them American Koch brothers coming to their neighbourhood and causing environmental pollution?
Click to expand...

Of course the Koch brothers are dirty fricken elbow deep in this mess... and they stand to make a fortune at the expense of our environment.. Why do you think Republicans are fighting so hard for this? They owe the Kochs BIG TIME... this is just one of the debts...

So if it's true that the Koch Brothers are planning to spend over $1 BILLION dollars in 2016 to get Republicans elected can you just imagine what the price of the payback will be? I can't... but you can bet it will be huge.. and you can bet the the average American will get shafted.
 
That's interesting Debby, I was wondering about Montana, and even surprised it had a Republican Rep. I guess I assumed it was a democratic majority up there. It makes sense though, with all that land (still plenty of new territory you might say) that someone with dough (like the Kochs) might buy up bunches of it.

Oh, and I think you nailed a super point with your post;) If Canada is building something, Americans gave it to them, why blame them, geesh. I see that a lot though, people don't want to take responsibility, pass the buck, or blame someone else.
 
This Canadian oil has been moving to our refineries in Texas for the past several years. Our refineries are equipped to process this "heavy" oil, whereas the Canadian refineries, and those in most of the world, can only handle the "light" crude. Presently, this oil is moved mostly by rail tanker, and given the sorry state of some of our rail lines, and bridges, there is a fair amount of risk for derailments, and fires which could soil the environment with a substantial amount of pollution. Underground pipelines are a far safer way to move this stuff, and we currently have over 180,000 miles of similar pipelines moving hazardous/flammable liquids/gasses, with little or no problems.

Some are "concerned" about "eminent domain" issues, but this pipeline will be built in rural agricultural areas, and the farmers will be well compensated for any losses they may suffer during its construction. After it is built, they can go right back to farming over the top of it, as it will be buried several feet deep.

There is no perfect solution to the processing and use of fossil fuels, but we are locked into them for the foreseeable future, so it only makes sense to move this oil in the safest manner. This Oil WILL be processed...the arguments against this pipeline are based more on political bias, than sound common sense.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top