The vote was 59 (for) to 41 (against). Why didn’t it carry? Why was a 3/5 vote required for passage?
What were they voting on? Were they voting to pay for the pipeline? Or just to allow the pipeline? Why does Congress need to vote at all? If the pipeline were to be built with private funds, it’s just another business (isn’t it?), and Congress doesn’t vote on all businesses. Does Congress need to vote on all interstate businesses?
It crosses multiple states and ties into a line from another country, that why congress was involved. It was more of a symbolic vote anyway since once the Republicans take over the Senate it will be pretty much a done deal.
IMO this always been more about a fight between the administration and the Koch brothers (and others of the 1% club) than some idealistic environmental or job issue.
Here’s a link to the reason for the vote. The reason it came up now is because a Democrat Senator is trying to support the pipeline now so that she can fare better in a runoff election this December.
Given that the answers to the questions in the OP are largely political, let’s move this over to Great Debates.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
It’s really weird, because none of the news stories I could find (even the NYT) explains this, but they must have been voting for cloture, not on the actual bill itself. You need 60 votes for cloture.
I didn’t understand this either; something about filibusters?
I disagree with the decision to move this into Great Debates, as there are straightforward factual questions involved that deserve an answer.
Pipelines create obvious risks of environmental damage via spillage, so they have long been regulated by both state and federal governments. The regulation normally takes place via federal agencies, which consider applications and determine whether to grant permits. Enabling legislation for each pipeline is not required.
In the case of Keystone, however, the permitting process has been ongoing for six years without a final decision. Supporters of the pipeline in Congress therefore introduced legislation to bypass the regulatory process and grant legislative approval. This proposed legislation passed the House last year, and, in a different form, last week.
The Senate considered the legislation on Tuesday. The bill required a three-fifths majority to pass because of the threat of a filibuster, even though nobody actually filibustered this bill. If the bill had come to the floor under ordinary rules, a majority would have sufficed for passage, but opponents would have filibustered and 60 votes would be required to invoke cloture. To save time the Senate thus adopted a unanimous consent agreement to proceed directly to a final vote, with the stipulation that 60 votes would be required for passage.
Yes, obviously. Obama is just undertaking normal review of an application for a pipeline under a normal time table. As soon as they conduct their review, he’ll make a decision.
[Quote=Obama on 3/22/12]
Today, I’m directing my administration to cut through the red tape, break through the bureaucratic hurdles, and make this project a priority, to go ahead and get it done.
[/QUOTE]
Huh, I wonder what he was talking about there. Oh, shit. He was talking about the southern portion of the Keystone XL pipeline. So, just to be clear, one part of this pipeline we needs more than six years of study and the other we need to just go ahead and do without any of that red tape mumbo jumbo.
This entire episode is shameful. The pipeline really isn’t a big deal in any respect. We’ve built, expanded, reversed, converted dozens and dozens of pipelines carrying crude oil and other petroleum products all while this one stupid project sits under indefinite review. Apparently the hurdle for it is that it must single handedly cure all of the country’s job woes. Also, pay no attention to the fact that Obama’s buddy Warren Buffett has been busily buying up railroads transporting this exact same tar sands crude oil to the exact same destination without any care at all from the Democrats that think a pipeline is just the most terrible creation in history.
Why can’t Obama just grow a spine and reject the pipeline? Obviously he will never approve it regardless of the facts, so I don’t understand why he carries on the charade that he just needs to keep studying it.
The vote defeat just delays the inevitable, doesn’t it?
Unless Obama decides to veto it.
It’ll pass next year, for sure, but it’s up in the air as to whether Obama would veto it. Apparently, this pipeline is a big fuckin’ deal to Native American reservations in the Dakotas, who are pretty damn adamant that Keystone not be constructed. This isn’t the nineteenth century anymore, folks, so suffice it to say the NA’s concerns need to be taken seriously.
My guess is that Obama is personally leaning towards rejecting the pipeline, but the administration is keeping it as a sort of bargaining chip for the next Congress; as in, say, approving the pipeline in exchange for adding a few clarifying words to the ACA in the event of a bad SCOTUS ruling.
I do think that Obama can’t really claim to be a legitimate environmentalist if he approves the pipeline, so that’s my two cents.
Yet, amazingly enough, you were able to provide factual answers even though the thread was in Great Debates.
There’s nothing preventing factual answers being provided in Great Debates, even while the political issues are also allowed to be discussed.
Only if their concerns are legitimate.
Who decides what is voted on when, and wasn’t the timing of this issue coming up for a vote just terrible? Obviously, it will pass once the next Congress is sworn in. So, why didn’t Republicans push their fellow Congressmen to wait? And now, how quickly can this come back up for a vote?
I’ve merged this new thread into the existing thread on the issue.
Duh.
The subject has been in the news long enough that you know, or should know, what those concerns are. Do you agree they’re legitimate or don’t you? :dubious:
After Canada rejected the previous route to the Pacific as too fucking dangerous to the environment. That’s when the route was shifted to go through a country with more affordable politicians instead.
That is what the Republicans have made the centerpiece of their entire economic plan, such as it is, other than of course more of the tax cuts that have worked so well for so long.
Wonder why the Pubs claim this single project will magically cure the economy? Could it be Koch money?
Read the failed bill here:
There’s a story once that, when they were meeting in Moscow, Khrushchev told Nixon, “Every statesman has to also be a politician. If people believe there’s an imaginary river, you don’t tell them there’s no river. You build an imaginary bridge to cross the imaginary river.”
Whether the Indians of South Dakota’s concerns about Keystone are “legitimate” or not, they still have them. The president has to take their concerns seriously regardless.
Why? Are they afraid it will spill or leak stuff on their land?