New Keystone XL bill backed by 56 senators

Fifty-six U.S. senators - all 45 Republicans in the chamber and 11 Democrats - have introduced legislation that would provide immediate congressional approval of the stalled Keystone XL pipeline (TRP +0.3%) project

It remains unclear whether the bill would even get a vote in the Senate, where 60 votes are needed to clear procedural hurdles against legislation.

From other sites
Comments (16)
  • tev
    , contributor
    Comments (45) | Send Message
    Good luck, but it looks like the white house still has the upper hand.
    1 May 2014, 02:31 PM Reply Like
  • Topcat
    , contributor
    Comments (579) | Send Message
    They can approve all they want, but until the legal issues in court (about the private land that was seized) are resolved it can't proceed. I'd rather Obama wait until after the elections now so he can say NO to this, which would be a huge world wide recognized decision...and perhaps make the USA a leader in combating global climate change. Or, he can find a way to somehow keep some of the oil/gas in the USA, or tax it heavily...why should USA get nothing but a few jobs out of this? (it does NOTHING for USA energy independence, it just benefits a Canadian company and refiners. E.g., PROHIBIT export would help here. Since Canadians themselves are fighting against pipelines to their east or west coasts, a no decision will make it much much more expensive to process the nasty tar sands, so is likely to limit the exploitation.
    1 May 2014, 02:41 PM Reply Like
  • The Rebel
    , contributor
    Comments (2563) | Send Message
    Please tell us how a pipeline is going to change the climate.
    1 May 2014, 03:49 PM Reply Like
  • jwill53
    , contributor
    Comments (461) | Send Message
    exactly, especially in comparison to 3-4 diesel-electric locomotives hooked up for oil-by-rail per haul
    1 May 2014, 03:54 PM Reply Like
  • Joe Lunchbox
    , contributor
    Comments (678) | Send Message
    ARII, GBX, TRN all took a hit today, but they're looking good for the forseeable future!
    1 May 2014, 03:57 PM Reply Like
  • tomdgascop
    , contributor
    Comments (96) | Send Message
    The pipeline will change the climate ,because it’s cleaner than rail and trucking not to mention much safer.
    2 May 2014, 07:40 AM Reply Like
  • dunnhaupt
    , contributor
    Comments (2162) | Send Message
    Looks like the Dems just vote the party line dictated by the White House. And the White House needs the financial backing provided by a certain person who blocks this particular pipeline for personal gain.


    The White House having approved all previous border-crossing pipelines at short notice, the blocking of this one particular line shows that it is done in the interest of one person. This clearly violates NAFTA, so the Canadians have a legal case as well.
    1 May 2014, 02:43 PM Reply Like
  • marpy
    , contributor
    Comments (1703) | Send Message
    This is nothing more than politicking by the democrats that signed this bill as they are all from states that benefit from Keystone and worried about what Obama's punting will to to them come election time. They know you need 60 to really get anywhere in the Senate and so 56 does not matter. Voters need to realize that any vote for a democrat is a vote for Obama and ignore the politicking!!!!!
    1 May 2014, 03:11 PM Reply Like
  • Ruffdog
    , contributor
    Comments (3418) | Send Message
    "Voters need to realize that any vote for a democrat is a vote for Obama and ignore the politicking!!!!!"


    No it does not! It is a vote for America doing backward!
    1 May 2014, 03:21 PM Reply Like
  • marpy
    , contributor
    Comments (1703) | Send Message
    The best way to secure some progress for America while Obama is in the Oval office is to have the democrats loose the senate majority. Obama can then be told that it is time for him to learn to play ball on keystone and many other issues. It is unfortunate but his blinding lefty ideology has meant that he has been incapable of working out the deals that would have allowed real progress in America under his watch!!
    1 May 2014, 03:15 PM Reply Like
  • Blue22
    , contributor
    Comments (449) | Send Message
    ANOTHER TANKER TRAIN BLOWS SKY HIGH! Is that number six or seven non-pipeline disaster in the past couple months? Where oh where are the Greenies? Oh yea, they are in the Arctic trying to stop a Russian tanker full of oil from reaching port! Never thought I would be cheering for the Ruskies as they prepare the slaughter of the Ukrainians!
    1 May 2014, 03:29 PM Reply Like
    , contributor
    Comments (17) | Send Message
    the fifty six sponsorship is a sham.......just a con to feign co-operation.......he is still in his back pocket
    1 May 2014, 05:33 PM Reply Like
  • tennis player
    , contributor
    Comments (14) | Send Message
    It makes no sense to ignore the senate and Congress, we need Canadian crude oi and start the importing oil from unfriendly countries who hate us.l
    1 May 2014, 07:03 PM Reply Like
  • The Geniuos of RD
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
    china has bought some of the oil sands and will likely buy more, maybe the oil will go there instead of US
    1 May 2014, 09:02 PM Reply Like
  • bobby44
    , contributor
    Comments (488) | Send Message
    Time to stop thinking little picture. Venezuelan production is slowing. Fortunately only people they hate can afford their production. (USA) But as the new 'leader for life' starts more yakking there may be a further reduction in flow to the USA.


    Think about it this way. Refine Canadian and Venezuelan crude. Sell that production on the world market to the people of the State Department's choosing. That product could be directed to places like the Ukraine to counter other nation's moves in the area.


    Do not worry about Canada. It is the same anti people preaching the same rhetoric in both counties. If they do export refined product from either coast they may pass the USA in world influence. Then the USA will be third instead of second to Russia.


    The USA influence used to be by trading to the world. Now it is about trading from the world.
    2 May 2014, 12:54 PM Reply Like
  • bauer9753
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
    As a person who remembers the long lines and expensive gasoline prices of the 1970's when fuel was then cheaper, I see the U.S.'s advantage in available fuel sources today as one of America's real blessings. Science and technology can create the jobs that will ultimately provide clean, non-polluting fuels, and America, with good management, will never again be beholden to countries that sell oil/gas to us ONLY if we repay them by giving them much of our latest technology, thereby giving them the advantage of eliminating the years of research and tax dollars that we expended in America. All countries need energy sources today. We should partner with friendly countries in fuel sales and purchases in exchanges of fuel products in the same way that we uphold treaties with friendly nations. America is weaker today through inept forward planning for keeping our nation strong. A vibrant energy policy would be one way that might allow us to regain our standing in the world and help create more jobs at home. I am not opposed to CLEAN fuels, but a country has to have leaders that think about the entire world picture.
    4 May 2014, 11:51 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs