Texas Republican to float bill to approve Keystone XL


UPDATE: Rep. Ted Poe, R-Humble, has introduced his bill with Rep. Dan Boren, a conservative Democrat from Oklahoma, as a lead cosponsor.

“It is the moral obligation and legal authority of Congress to say yes,” Poe said in a statement. “Congress cannot sit idly by and watch Americans suffer as a result of this reckless decision motivated by politics. It’s time to create jobs, bring energy to the United States and make Middle Eastern politics irrelevant to our national security.”

A Texas Republican lawmaker will introduce legislation Tuesday that would immediately approve the Keystone XL oil pipeline, overcoming the Obama administration’s denial of a permit last week.

Rep. Ted Poe, R-Humble, will dub his bill the Keystone for a Secure Tomorrow Act of 2012, or K-FAST. TransCanada Corp.’s pipeline would carry tar-sands crude from Alberta, Canada, to refineries in Houston and Port Arthur, the latter of which is in Poe’s district.

His proposal would add to others that Republicans have considered since the Obama administration denied a permit. The State Department said a congressionally imposed decision deadline — which Republicans included in a deal to extend the payroll tax cut last month — wouldn’t provide enough time to assess alternative routes avoiding a Nebraska drinking-water aquifer.

Irate with the move and calling it an election-year political tactic, Republicans vowed not to let Keystone XL go away, while environmentalist opponents praised the president for standing up to the oil industry.

A separate proposal from Rep. Lee Terry, R-Neb., would put Keystone XL permitting authority in the hands of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, an independent agency, and require it to approve the pipeline within 30 days. The body also would have 30 days to approve Nebraska’s alternate route after the state picks it.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee will debate Terry’s proposal on Wednesday, when Assistant Secretary of State Kerri-Ann Jones, who served as the point person on Keystone XL, will testify to explain the decision against a permit.

Additionally a proposal from Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., would let Congress approve the Keystone XL pipeline.

The GOP proposals would struggle to make it through both chambers of Congress by themselves. But Republicans haven’t ruled out trying to use Keystone XL legislation as leverage in any bill that extends the payroll tax break through the end of year. The Hill newspaper also reported that Terry said the GOP could try tying Keystone provisions to a bill that funds infrastructure projects.

President Obama has said TransCanada is welcome to reapply. The company says it plans to do that, and hopes its application can be approved in time for it to stay on track for a late 2014 start-up date.

Other cosponsors:

Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Dallas
Rep. Charles Boustany, R-La.
Rep. Pete Olson, R-Sugar Land
Rep. John Culberson, R-Houston
Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Corpus Christi
Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La.
Rep. Kenny Marchant, R-Coppell

This post was last updated at 12:35 p.m.

Categories: Keystone XL
Puneet Kollipara

50 Responses

  1. Nuffsaid500 says:

    Colonial Status?

    ‘Alberta-Black’ is the most expensive ‘oil’ on Planet Earth. It does not appear to be economically competitive, except under a few extreme conditions, such as a repeat of the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo, or the ‘Evil-Empire’ expansions circa 1915 and 1939.

    If Canada concludes, that shipping oil to China improves NATO Energy Security; that is between them and NATO. If Canada wishes to, use most of their natural gas and western water, and construct MOx fueled nuclear reactors to process strip-mined natural asphalt into fuel for China … well that is their affair. If their 1st Nations (Indian Tribes) wish to license pipelines across their homeland areas, what concern is that of ours?

    Generally speaking, a colony sells raw materials and purchases finished goods. The status of Canada as a nation-state, commonwealth or a colony is not my concern. We shall leave that discussion to the Canadians. If memory serves, under Citizenship Act 1977, Canadians replaced their designation as ‘British subjects’ with ‘Commonwealth citizens’. Canada has fared ok as a colony before. Perhaps they will choose to do so again.

    These matters represent scant justification for Texas to exert eminent domain government powers to seize pipeline right-of-ways from Texans, in order to secure the Chinese colonial chains of our neighbors to the north. China is an adversary of the United States of America. They are not presently an ally or an enemy, though they do seem to envy the status of ‘super power’.

    Secure the Chains?

  2. Nuffsaid500 says:

    Plausible, but not proven.

    I have taken a quick glance at the China connection, since it appears to be the 5,000 pound elephant in the room. First, it is clear that China is not a member of NATO. So any oil, tar, refined products or natural gas bound for China would not comprise ‘NATO Energy Security’.

    China appears to have purchased a significant stake in the Alberta Tar-Sands ‘play’.

    It is lawful to import oil, natural gas, electricity and the like from Canada into the USA, without collecting an import tax. It is lawful to export goods to China, without collecting certain USA taxes. It is lawful to have ImBond warehouses and storage tanks.

    None of this would provide any material benefit to Texas or Texans. None of this would justify, to me, using eminent domain to take any Texan’s farm, ranch or homestead, for a pipeline. None of this would improve NATO Energy Security. None of this would justify construction of a ‘TAX FREE’ pipeline across Texas, to unfairly compete with the taxable pipelines that operate in the Lone Star State.

    The Canada-China angle is plausible, but not entirely proven.

  3. Puneet Kollipara says:

    friend of mine:

    The State Department handles permits for pipelines that cross international borders — in this case, Keystone XL fell under its jurisdiction. Authority originally lay with the president on border-crossing pipelines, but a 2004 executive order delegated the authority for issuing the presidential permit to the State Department.

  4. Save Our Environment says:

    Let me correct this headline:

    “Texas Republican to float bill to pollute and ruin the environment across the US.”

    There. Now it’s correct.

  5. friend of mine says:

    I’ve probably missed an earlier article, but how is it that the President denied the permit? I thought pipelines were approved or denied by order of the FERC depending upon how well the project passed muster: demand, environmental issues, etc.

  6. Nuffsaid500 says:

    Is there a DIRECT indication from an objective source, that the Keystone Oil and the pipeline are intended to be TAX EXEMPT fuel sources for CHINA?

    I have looked at the implied evidence (generalized Valero statements) referenced in the ‘Dirty Oil’ documents.

    The Keystone XL Pipeline project can certainly ‘slowly twist in the wind’, while Texans wait for a definitive, on-the-record, binding statement of purpose.

  7. Robert F. says:

    Nuffsaid500 “The last time I checked, the Rocky Mountains were between Alberta and East Texas.”

    You should check again.

  8. Nuffsaid500 says:

    Congressman Poe,

    I was somewhat surprised by your recent vote (Aye) on the Defense Authorization Act of 2012, which appears to institute martial law and quash habeas corpus. Your little speech on Ewe-Tube (qB11k53hQk), in FAVOR of the Keystone pipeline appears to quote some discredited figures from a Ray Perryman ‘blue-sky’ analysis. This is another disappointment.

    Judge Poe, in both these episodes, you appear to be dealing with sheeple rather than with vigilant Texas citizens. Your years on the bench should have better prepared you for this critical crossroad in our nation’s history. My previous impressions of your judgement and patriotism were much more favorable, than the preliminary assessments suggested by these two recent postitions you have taken.

    Not good, not good at all.

  9. Mark from Louisiana says:

    montrose, the gal that wrote that story on the fox news website is more liberal than obama, I’ve seen her make a fool out of herself on many news shows. What she says is totally meaningless. Like getting an opinion from a catfish.

    Just goes to show, Fox News, Fair & Balanced

  10. Peeper says:

    Typical left move is to talk a good game regarding the poor. But when it comes time to help them with lower fuel costs, the left abandons them. Put oil on ships in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Now that makes a lot of sense to the Redford crowd!

  11. Bill in Houston says:

    Nutjob protestors would prefer to freeze in the dark? Idiots. I hope the fairy dust or unicorn flatulence keeps them warm.

  12. Ogre 1 says:

    Mark from Louisiana,

    They’re out there man, you just have to DIG for them. I don’t have time right now to dig out what I’ve read over the past..what four, five months???

    Just search for “Keystone XL Facts”, be picky about your sources (I.e., I don’t trust Fox, but I don’t trust Huffington Post either).

    If something sounds to good to be true. Don’t trust it.
    If something sounds too bad to be true. Don’t trust it.

    There is a LOT of mis-information out there. BUT THINK FOR YOURSELF!

  13. Let's Get Real says:


    The alternate proposal is actual to take the oil to Kittimat. They cannot get that proposal through local opposition. I don’t believe they have a eminant domain card they can pull in Canada. Also, you won’t find their politicians on TV singing the praises of a corporation’s business venture.

  14. Nuffsaid500 says:

    Rocky Mountain High

    The last time I checked, the Rocky Mountains were between Alberta and East Texas.

    Canada has Railroad right-of-ways that run though mountain passes.

    I am NOT going to engineer the darned pipeline. Texans just want to know if Texas will benefit from the project. If it is a good deal, it is a good deal for everyone.

    So, we will concentrate on a simple question; is it a good deal for Texas.

    Is it a good deal for Texas?

  15. Ogre 1 said it clearly and FACTually, without all of the name calling and hyperbole.
    He even pointed out that FOXNEWS said it was a bad deal. Do you really want to risk screwing up our own backyard so you we can make a few bucks while our neighbor sells the end product to our adversaries? If you asked me, I would say that makes a lot of the supporters sound like profiteering traitors to this country.

  16. Mark from Louisiana says:

    Ogre 1 please put a link to your sources, for some reason none of what you said can be found on google.

  17. Robert F. says:

    I wonder how hard it would be to get heavy crude tar sands oil to flow up and over a 12,000 foot peak in sub freezing temperatures?
    Seems when you look at the geography the western route isn’t nearly as attractive as some make it seem. There’s that little impediment called the Rocky Mountains.

    I think Ogre has pretty much laid out whats in it and not in it for Americans. They get all the oil and profit and we get the headaches.

  18. chiefdecoy says:

    Yeah,,,,Obama is focused like a “lazer” on creating jobs.
    (jobs for Brazilians, that is)……

    Forced American drilling firms out of the U.S., and has YET to develop a real energy policy,,,,

    Says no to the Keystone pipeline, that would create thousands of jobs for Americans,,,,,

    Now the Obama Admin is awarding a $1 billion contract to a Brazilian aircraft manufacturer—Embraer–instead of American Hawker Beechcraft Corp., which has two years and $100 million invested in a light attack aircraft’s development.
    All the more remarkable is the Brazilian company, Embraer, is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Justice Department for possible violations of the Corrupt Practices Act.
    (Right up his alley),,,,,

    And the best the media can come up with to discredit Republican candidates, is that they have a touch of the “horn dog” syndrome?
    Oh yeah, and Romney hasn’t released his tax returns, and is a Mormon.
    Why is Romney’s returns so important, when the Sec. of Tres., appointed by Obama, is a documented tax cheat?

    This is almost comical. I would be belly laughing at the idiocy, except that it is entirely possible that this complete idiot will be re-elected…..

  19. Nuffsaid500 says:


    The answer is no, until some of the blanks are filled in.

    I have little interest in Nebraska aquifers or Alberta air quality. Like most Texans, commercial pipelines are viewed favorably.

    O&G upstream and downstream employs a lot of Texans and pays lots of taxes for schools, counties, cities and the Lone Star State.

    Something is ‘not quite right’ about this Keystone XL Pipeline project.

    Ad hominem attacks, on the pipeline friendlies, is NOT very smart. Not very smart at all. Misrepresentations regarding ‘american’ jobs have got us on alert. So the real supporters of the Keystone XL Pipeline project would be well advised to try CANDOR.

    Til then, the answer is NO!

  20. Greg says:

    The Senate has not passed a budget in 1000 days, what makes anyone think the government will be able to do anything about this pipeline in a decent amount of time.

  21. Nuffsaid500 says:

    Fairly short run from Northern Alberta across British Columbia to a terminal in BC or Alaska at the Valdez Marine Terminal.

    It is roughly twice as far to East Texas.

  22. Peter says:

    Congressman Poe:

    I urge you to continue this fight for a bill that benefits all Americans.

    Will you introduce a bill that gives congress the same healthcare coverage that Congress is forcing on the citizens?

    Additionally, will you block any bills that penalize success and hard work?

  23. Mark from Texas says:

    NuffSaid500: Do you know that the Alaskan pipeline only goes across Alaska, right? So you would have the Canadians build a pipeline all the way up to Alaska to tie into Valdez where the oil is put on tankers and shipped down south? Are you really that misinformed??

    Without this pipeline, the Canadians will build one to their west coast and at that time, they will sell the oil to China. So yes, we lose out on a stable oil supply, we lose out on jobs. But you know what? You greenie weenies and your “mistake” named Pres. Obama really don’t care about that. In addition to construction jobs building the pipeline, it would give the U.S. another boost in the manufacturing side of things as the refineries will upgrade that oil to a useable product.

    Jan, 2013…the End of an ERROR! Anyone but Obama gets sworn in! It really could be almost anyone and it would be an upgrade!

  24. Ogre 1 says:

    LOL.. JF, let me hold my breath till that happens.

  25. J F says:

    Congressperson Poe:

    I urge you to drop this foolishness and introduce a bill that will actually help all Americans.

    Will you introduce a bill that gives all Americans the same healthcare coverage you have?

  26. TXSFRED says:

    I watched my company basically give away three world class High Performance Chem plants by building them, under agreement, in other countries and having them nationalized – and another plant that we had to carry along economically as their European rules and European work hours MADE the company hire FIVE shifts to run what is a FOUR Shift plant in the States.

    Then one day, the big dogs came down to announce their new and WONDERFUL big move into China. The Head Duck blathered on for two whiles about how great it would be. I had sat way in the back up against two walls in a corner so no big dog could sit near me. One of them dragged a chair and sat in front of me. At the end of the Stud Duck’s’ talk, that Vice President whirled around and said “Fred, what did you think of that?” I said “Do you really want to know, sir?” “Yes,” he said. ” So I said,” Sir remember you asked- twice- Each time you built a plant overseas, we were asked what we thought of it. We told you, each time, it was bad corporate thinking. You did it ANYWAY. Now we have had three plants nationalized out from under us ( I, sir, would supply the US Air Force the coordinates on those three and ask for destruction of them ) and three other plant who really resist instruction until they almost blow themselves up. What I would do , if I owned this company was FIRE ALL OF YOU who beat the drum about going into Chine TOMORROW as going to China will guarantee it WILL all, fully, or in part , happen again. Now, once again you have been told, by an American who does care for this Company as well as its employees, you included, IF YOU WANT TO CONTROL YOUR SITES, BUILD THEM IN AMERICA.”

    I would drill here, refine here, and run the tree-hugging politicians off the road into the ditch on the way to doing it.

  27. Ogre 1 says:

    I’m going to address this one issue at a time:

    1. Cheap secure oil – Every ounce of that oil is destined to be refined in Freeport, Tx to Diesel fuel which will then be shipped to China. It’s already sold, that’s why they’re in such a hurry. Keystone REJECTED FLAT OUT a “suggestion” that they sell SOME of that oil to the U.S. So the whole argument that it would provide affordable fuel to the U.S. is bumpkis.

    2. Jobs – the pipeline would result in about 6000 temporary jobs (and that is the HIGH number I’ve seen from “unbiased” (whatever that means) sources. 50-60 permanent jobs, the majority of which would be CANADIAN engineers.

    3. Obama dragged his feet. Keystone submitted the initial application in 2008, it’s now 2012. It took FIVE years before the Alaskan Pipeline was APPROVED and another two before it saw its first drop of oil. Most people do not realize that decades long planning is the NORM for the oil industry. So in fact, if the Obama administration had taken another year, like they wanted, the decision would have been on par w/ the Alaskan Pipeline. And Keystone XL is a much larger project.

    4. Tax Revenues: Keystone is shipping FROM a Free Trade Zone, so there’s no import tariffs. They will be refining IN a Free Trade Zone, so there’s not taxes. They will be shipping FROM a Free Trade Zone. So there are no export tariffs. So the U.S. and State government coffers benefit exactly ZERO.

    ALONG THOSE LINE, it really doesn’t matter that much since China has “Most Favored Nation” status (Yes, those of you who keep up know that this is not the phrase used these days, but most people will understand what this is so I’m using an out of date terminology). That means that even if this wasn’t being moved through a FTZ, that there likely would not be any tariffs to speak of anyway.

    And here’s the FUN part, the part that makes me giggle uproariously at the chaos of it all.

    Since Keystone isn’t paying tariffs on this oil nor on the diesel that it is producing it can sell the diesel to the Chinese at a deep discount. The Chinese can then turn around, increase the price by 10-20% and SELL IT BACK TO THE U.S. at market or near market rates for a MASSIVE profit (and still not pay tariffs on it!!!!!!!!!) I LOVE THAT, it’s essentially legalized smuggling! And the same way they smuggle cigarettes manufactured in Canada, into the U.S. and then back into Canada. It’s totally awesome!!!!

    Where am I?

    4. Canada – why don’t they build it there? Well Canada is concerned about environmental issues since Keystone has a pretty poor record. BUT, what Canada has said is that there is plenty of capacity and the pipe isn’t needed. It’s that simple.

    NOW, couple that with #3 above. It’s more profitable to ship this oil to the U.S. through the FTZ’s than it is to work it up in Canada where they’ll have to pay taxes on it. And we’re STUPID enough to allow it.

    And remember, it’s not killed, it’s just delayed. Probably about the year it would have taken if the morons in the House hadn’t overreached their authority and ticked off the Pres. Honestly, the whole “YOU MUST DO THIS NOW!!!!” thing was childish. But of course Boehner is an investor in Keystone…but of course, we shouldn’t say that above a whisper.

    Even (GASP!) Fox News agrees that it was a bad deal: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/18/six-reasons-keystone-xl-was-bad-deal-all-along/

    If I were president (and Gods’ help EVERYONE if that ever happens), I’d allow it. I’d want them to build Keystone XL. BUT, it would be on the condition that they route around environmentally sensitive areas and also that 50% of the oil is sold to the U.S. at 10% below market (which for this oil is about $62.00 a barrel right now). I’d also insist that China not be allowed to Re-export, but that’s a bit complicated and am not sure how I’d swing that.

    SO, any questions? Bad deal for America, Great deal for China & Keystone, even Fox thinks so, Keystone LIED, Boehner’s a crybaby.

    What did I miss?

  28. johnny says:

    The only winners will be the Republican Congress who has a lot of money invested in the Keystone project,Yes insider trading is a way of getting things passed in the congress.That’s why the Republicans want this passed so badly.Check it out for yourself and learn the truth.

  29. Robert F. says:

    Mark from Louisiana “A couple of years ago obama gave the Brazilian oil company a few billion dollars”

    Way to be misinformed. Let me guess… Fox news viewer?

    The guarantee for the loan was made by the Export Import Bank in 2009 and the actual loan was coming from a private US bank, J.P. Morgan. Everyone at Ex/Im bank at that time that voted in favor of the guarantee was appointed by the previous president, not Obama.

    Here’s the socialists at Forbes explanation.


  30. Nuffsaid500 says:

    Don’t Mess With Texas!

    The Alaska Pipeline was running far below capacity, the last time that I checked. I wonder why Canada did not choose to go west and tie into that pipeline. West would be far more efficient, if the intended market is China.

    I am NOT decided, whether or not the Keystone XL Pipeline is good for Texas. Some of the early public relations efforts and press releases about ‘American’ jobs were obviously and deliberately misleading.

    The Eyes of Texas Are Upon You, All the Livelong Day …

  31. Mark from Louisiana says:

    I see a lot of posters complaining about the oil may go to China. A couple of years ago obama gave the Brazilian oil company a few billion dollars in loans and told them America wanted to be their best customer.
    Brazil announced yesterday that their oil will go to……China

  32. Partisan Hacks Lie! says:

    You people claiming only Texas wants the Keystone XL pipeline are full of crap. a simple google search proves that congressional delegations from every state want the pipeline.

    North Dakota – “The president made the wrong decision, any way you measure it,” said Sen. John Hoeven.

    Soth Dakota – And that is what many who disagree with President Obama are saying, they include, Congresswoman Kristi Noem, Senator John Thune and Governor Dennis Daugaard.

    Nebraska – Sen. Mike Johanns, who opposed the earlier proposed route through the Sandhills but supports the pipeline, criticized the president. “The president’s decision today is extremely disappointing.

    And I am out of time for this so you people can continue your lies and misinformation in the name of being right.

  33. donkey says:

    Trail said: Instead of protestors, I’d show a picture of a high-speed Iranian gun boat.

    Don’t forget to throw in a picture of Imanutjob grinning over their UF6 centrifuges.

  34. TheSouthWillRiseAgain says:

    The keystone is not only good for Texas; it’s good for America

  35. Let's Get Real says:

    Ogre you are right. Once they get that oil to an international waterway, It will be headed to China. Wonder why Canada doesn’t take the pipeline to it’s own coast?… Environmental concerns.

    Besides, the current situation, is beneficial to America. Plenty of Canadian crude enters the US with delivery limited to US refineries. The Canadians don’t like this arrangement because 1) that market is limited & 2) they believe the American refiners are not paying a market price for their crude. They want the oil to get to a coast so that they can receive a higher price and ramp up their production. How does any of this help Americans? It only helps you if you own Canadian reserves. So as an investor you love the idea, but as a consumer you hate the idea.

  36. Nuffsaid500 says:

    Pig In a Poke?

    Will the Alberta-Black ‘oil’ and/or the refined products be sold:

    1) on the domestic, international, open or mixed marketplace?

    2) Spot Market, Long Term Contract or Mixed?

    Full and Open Disclosure?

  37. Mark from Louisiana says:

    I wish this site would post a graphic showing how many pipelines already cross the aquifer in Nebraska.

    • Dan X. McGraw says:

      Mark, I’ll see what I can find. The original Keystone pipeline does not, but you probably already know that.

  38. Nuffsaid500 says:

    Waltz Across Texas

    It would be informative and reassuring to see answers to pertinent questions in sworn testimony before: congress, USDOE, TXRRC and the Texas State Legislature. It is prudent to ‘look before we leap’.

    Is the Keystone XL Pipeline a good deal for Texas?

  39. Trail_Tramp says:

    Instead of protestors, I’d show a picture of a high-speed Iranian gun boat.

  40. Peter says:

    Yep, nothing like complete ignorance by those who rail against petroleum while slurping it down day in and day out. Some people have obviously never looked at a map of the Ogallala aquifer and the existing pipelines criss-crossing it. How many spills have occurred laying waste to the Ogallala aquifer by those existing pipelines?

    If you don’t care about the facts and only enjoy the hype of a protest and the hypocrisy of your stand, just say, “I hate oil, but I won’t live without it, so it makes me feel better to say I don’t want it.”

  41. ClearAndPresentThinking says:

    This bill is a “floater”.

  42. Let's Get Real says:

    This seems a classic case of states rights vs federal overreach. The reason this pipeline isn’t approved is because the states that it will pass through don’t want it, except Texas, of course. So Texas wants federal overreach when it serves Texas’ interests and screws everyone else?

  43. Nuffsaid500 says:

    Jobs, Affordable Fuel and school Taxes?

    The proposed Keystone XL Pipeline shares a number of common traits with the infamous CINTRA toll road. Both international construction proposals transected Texas based on dark international agreements. NATO energy security has been advanced as a justification for the Keystone XL Pipeline, whereas NAFTA free trade was the stated objective for the Spanish toll road.

    Texans should be advised of the Keystone pipeline details, PRIOR to granting Eminent Domain POWER to Keystone XL, to condemn farms, ranch and homesteads. Is the Keystone XL Pipeline project good for Texas? Bottom line: Will it provide Texans with jobs, affordable fuel and school taxes?

    Is the Keystone Pipeline and/or the ‘Alberta-Black (oil) intended to be, EXEMPT from state taxation and state control, under some form of sovereignty, NATO ‘energy-security’, Ex-Im Rules or the like?

    Is the Keystone XL pipeline to be a ‘common carrier’ or a dedicated service provider?

    Is the Keystone XL Pipeline good for Texas?

  44. donkey says:

    The ONLY winners of Keystone XL is Keystone XL and China.
    So if you’re going to be wrong Shrek, you might as well be hyperbolically wrong.

  45. Ogre 1 says:

    I sincerely wish the papers would stop focusing on the environmental aspects of this pipeline (every picture is of an enviro protest) and start putting out information on just HOW BAD this deal is for the United States. The ONLY winners of Keystone XL is Keystone XL and China.

  46. SaltWaterCroc says:

    Yep, nothing like serving those who pay you – like the oil and gas folks. Nebraska doesn’t want it, the folks who depend on the Ogallala aquifer don’t want it, and the EPA hasn’t finished it’s study. Sure, it could make the midwest look like the Gulf after BP, but Boehner needs to make a profit from his oil sands holdings. Ram it through.

  47. A guy says:

    Why do you only show the protestors in these articles? A good portion, if not the majority of Americans support this pipeline, but from looking at your photographs, you’d think there was unanimous opposition.