Congress has had enough with the delays to helping to provide for expanded availability of crude oil, and has drawn a line in the sand with President Obama with a measure that takes the power away from “the approver in chief:

House Republicans pushed through a bill Wednesday to bypass the president to speed approval of the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada to Texas. Democrats criticized the legislation as a blatant attempt to allow a foreign company to avoid environmental review.

The bill was approved, 241-175, largely along party lines.

Republicans said the measure was needed to ensure that the long-delayed pipeline, first proposed in 2008, is built.

“This is the most studied pipeline in the history of mankind,” said Rep. Lee Terry, R-Neb., the bill’s sponsor.

“When is enough enough?” added Rep. Jeff Denham, R-Calif. “Five years? Six years? Ten years?”

Read it all here.

Interesting article today from the National Journal on the Keystone pipeline. To summarize, Obama may not be that radical on it, but the environmental radicals are pushing him hard, to force him to squander the opportunity:

To environmentalists throughout the country, denying the Keystone XL oil pipeline would be the most important sign that President Obama is committed to combating global warming.

To people close to Obama, the pipeline is not nearly that important, and they think the debate surrounding it is overblown, if not misplaced. In interviews with National Journal Daily, people who have advised Obama over the years, including former White House aides, downplayed the effect the pipeline would have on climate change or much of anything really, besides politics.

“It’s important we focus on things that make the biggest difference in terms of global climate change and do the most to actually reduce carbon emissions, like economy-wide carbon policy or use of the Clean Air Act,” said Jason Bordoff, who left the White House this January after advising Obama on energy and climate issues in senior policy positions since April 2009. “I don’t know how much building or not building one pipeline is going to affect either how much oil is produced in Canada or in global greenhouse-gas emissions.” Bordoff now heads up Columbia University’s new Center on Global Energy Policy.

A relatively small but loud contingent of environmental groups, led by 350.org and the Sierra Club, has harnessed the 1,700-mile, Alberta-to-Texas pipeline as their rallying cry to fight global warming. The type of oil the pipeline would move—extracted from formations called oil sands—has a heavier carbon footprint than most oil drilled in other parts of the world. This issue is so important to the Sierra Club that the group, one of the oldest and largest environmental organizations in the world, announced earlier this year it was for the first time in its 120-year history lifting its policy against civil disobedience to hold a massive protest against the pipeline in Washington, in partnership with 350.org.

and…

Aldy and Bordoff are now saying publicly what many Democratic energy and climate advisers have said more privately over the past couple of years: The Keystone XL pipeline is not that big of a deal.

“We are essentially jamming our national energy policy debate through a 30-inch pipe. It’s an unfortunately narrow space, and the tone and quality of the discussion reflects the constraint,” said Jason Grumet, president of the Bipartisan Policy Center, who has advised Obama on energy and climate issues and is close with the administration. “In the absence of a more meaningful energy-policy discussion, Keystone has become a symbolic referendum for a much larger set of issues.”

Read it all here.

According to this article, to the environmental lobby, opposing Keystone is little more than a power play to attempt to force the President’s hand.

They don’t care at all for our future energy needs, or our national energy security. It’s all about the politics.

If you hadn’t read about it, this week, Rushmore PAC chair Dan Lederman had written US Fish & Wildlife about their taking away the award of a 6 year old Duck Stamp contest winner because some protested that someone her age could not be that talented.

Today, they reversed their decision:

Madison Grimm is a winner again.

A federal agency on Thursday restored the 6-year-old South Dakota girl as top young artist in this year’s junior duck stamp competition.

Madison is the daughter of Adam and Janet Grimm of rural Burbank, near Vermillion.

She had learned April 19 that she won the annual duck stamp contest, then was told April 26 that she had been disqualified amid questions of how she had done her painting.

Then Thursday came another reversal with news she had won again.

“I think somebody called Daddy and told him,” she said Thursday night.

She said she was excited and a little bit surprised by the back-and-forth way that things worked out.

Adam Grimm said Dan Ashe, director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, had called him with the news.

Ashe’s office later issued a statement from Arlington, Va.

“The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced today that after careful reconsideration, it will reinstate Madison Grimm, 6, of Burbank, S.D., as the winner of the 2013 Federal Junior Duck Stamp Contest,” it said.

Read it all here.

Sometimes, being about conservative values isn’t just about spending less. It’s about protecting the least of us from those that wield power against them simply because they think they can.

Congratulations to 6 year Old Madison Grimm for winning the junior Duck Stamp competition. Again.

A 67 month approval process? From the Argus Leader:

The chief executive of TransCanada Corp. said Friday the long-delayed Keystone XL pipeline that would cross western South Dakota and Nebraska will be in service months later than expected and cost more because of the wait for U.S. government approval.

TransCanada had been sticking to its late 2014 or early 2015 start-up target, but the regulatory process has dragged on. It now is looking at a mid to late-2015 start-up.

CEO Russ Girling noted on a conference call with analysts detailing first quarter results that the controversial pipeline is in its 67th month of the approval process.

And…

The pipeline has become a flash point in the U.S. debate over climate change. Republicans and business and labor groups have urged the Obama administration to approve the pipeline as a source of much-needed jobs and a step toward North American energy independence. Environmental groups have pressured President Obama to reject the pipeline, saying it would carry “dirty oil” that contributes to global warming. They also worry about a spill.

Read it here.

From KELO:

The Environmental Protection Agency again is raising objections to the proposed Keystone XL pipeline that would carry oil from western Canada to the Texas Gulf Coast.

The EPA said that despite more than four years of study, the State Department still has not done sufficient analysis of the project’s environmental impact

In a letter to the State Department on Monday, the EPA urged State to conduct a more thorough analysis of oil spill risks and alternative pipeline routes, as well as greenhouse gas emissions associated with the pipeline.

Read it here.

How long are they going to drag this out? At this rate, I think the answer is “as long as they can.”

From Fox News:

The Keystone XL Pipeline has emerged as a major issue in the Massachusetts special U.S. Senate election, with environmental groups committing nearly one-third of the $1.25 million in outside money already spent on campaigns.

The biggest spender so far is the League of Conservation Voters, which has already spent more than $545,000 to help elect Democratic candidate and Rep. Ed Markey, who has a strong pro-environment platform.

“Our field campaign is resonating with voters across Massachusetts,” said Navin Nayak, a political specialist for the group. “The people of Massachusetts want climate change champion Ed Markey representing them.”

And…

Markey has made environmental issues one of his top priorities and the focus of a television campaign ad that highlighted his role in holding BP responsible for the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Read it here.

Supporters of American energy production should be very nervous as environmental activists attempt to turn America into a third world country with no energy production capacity of its own.

It’s now being said that President Obama has committed an absolute diplomatic blunder with his mucking about with the Keystone pipeline:

The president’s possible approval of the 2,000-mile-long pipeline from the oil sands (previously known as the tar sands, and most correctly bitumen sands) of Alberta, Canada, to the refineries and shipping terminals of the U.S. Gulf Coast is a tale of political calculation gone sadly wrong. His clumsiness is not helped by a favorable environmental statement issued recently.

In January 2012, the president was expected to give his approval and that of the State Department to what is an international agreement, he punted. Concerned about stout opposition in his own administration, and particularly from his Environmental Protection Administration chief Lisa Jackson, Obama demurred and requested more studies.

This did two things: It antagonized the Canadian people, always sensitive to slights from the United States, and humiliated the government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Joe Oliver, Canada’s minister for natural resources, told me on the record just before Obama’s statement that he had had strong indications from the administration that the Keystone XL pipeline would be approved. In the event, he and the Canadian government were outraged and embarrassed.

Read it all here.

From a release issued today by Congresswoman Kristi Noem, who is co-sponsor for a measure to take the approval of the Keystone XL pipeline away from the president, who has let his environmental buddies sandbag the process for 4 and a half years:

“It’s been four and a half years since this project was first proposed and Americans and stakeholders have waited long enough,” said Rep. Noem. “Keystone XL will result in thousands of jobs for hard-working Americans, as well as millions of dollars injected into the economy. The President has shown that he is unwilling to act in a timely matter, so it’s time to find another way.”

H.R. 3, the Northern Route Approval Act, originally introduced by Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE), removes the need for a presidential permit for the northern portion of the Keystone XL pipeline, which is planned to run from the Canadian border to Steele City, Nebraska.

Read it all here.

From the Associated Press – while Tim Johnson plans with his son to transition the race into Brendan’s name, Tim Johnson is spending the rest of the time voting against South Dakota & Energy Indepenence:

The Senate killed Republican-backed attempts to overturn several of President Barack Obama’s environmental and energy policies Thursday as lawmakers worked against a March 31 deadline to keep aid flowing to more than 100,000 transportation construction projects around the country.

The two-year, $109 billion transportation bill before the Senate has wide, bipartisan support, but has become a magnet for lawmakers’ favorite causes and partisan gamesmanship. Among the amendments batted aside were GOP proposals to bypass Obama’s concerns about the Keystone XL oil pipeline, to delay tougher air pollution standards for industrial boilers and to expand offshore oil drilling.

And how did Senator Johnson vote?

South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD),  Nay

From our mailbox, United States Senator John Thune questions the motivations of the National Park Service, and whether the cuts to South Dakota’s Wind Cave are as politically motivated as other cuts have been:

Thune Questions Whether Decision to Close Wind Cave
National Park Campground is Politically Motivated
-NPS Following White House Lead to Make Cuts Visible-

WASHINGTON, D.C.— Senator John Thune (R-S.D.) today sent a letter to National Park Service (NPS) Director Jonathan Jarvis questioning whether the NPS is playing politics in deciding to close Wind Cave National Park’s 64-site Elk Mountain Campground. The NPS decision to close the Elk Mountain Campground came following the implementation of sequestration and appears to substantiate reports that the NPS is intentionally trying to make the cuts more visible to the public. Thune’s letter seeks information from the NPS regarding its analysis that closing the Elk Mountain Campground, which generates revenue for the park, and reducing visitor center hours is more cost-effective than making targeted cuts elsewhere.

“It seems difficult to say with a straight face that completely eliminating a source of revenue for the National Park Service is a smart, targeted cut,” said Thune. “Instead of cuts that reduce wasteful and duplicative spending, the administration’s politically-calculated cuts are targeting facilities like the campground that actually serve as a revenue source for the park. It appears NPS is just another agency following the White House’s lead in trying to find the cuts that can trigger a press release before looking to internal cost-saving measures that are less news worthy.”

Thune’s letter requests a response from NPS regarding the NPS and Wind Cave National Park sequestration strategies by March 20, 2013. The full text of Thune’s letter can be accessed here.

###