[Bleeding Heartland Logo]

About
Bleeding Heartland is a community blog about Iowa politics: campaigns and elections, state government, social and environmental issues. Bleeding Heartland also weighs in on presidential policies and campaigns, federal legislation and what the Iowans in Congress are up to. Join our community, post your thoughts as comments or diaries, help keep our leaders honest and hold them accountable.
Author
- desmoinesdem
Highlights
- Iowa politics in 2008
- Iowa politics in 2009 (1)
- Iowa politics in 2009 (2)
- National politics in 2009 (1)
- National politics in 2009 (2)
- Iowa 2012 election coverage
- Who's who in the Iowa House for 2013
- Who's who in the Iowa Senate for 2013
- Iowa wildflowers
2014 Election Coverage
- IA-Sen
- IA-Gov
- IA-01
- IA-02
- IA-03
- IA-04
- Secretary of Agriculture
- Secretary of State
- State Auditor
- Iowa Senate overview
- Iowa House overview
- Senate district 5
- Senate district 7
- Senate district 9
- Senate district 13
- Senate district 15
- Senate district 17
- Senate district 27
- Senate district 39
- Senate district 41
- Senate district 47
- Senate district 49
- House district 8
- House district 25
- House district 28
- House district 33 (2013)
- House district 40
- House district 51
- House district 60
- House district 65
- House district 68
- House district 73
- House district 91
- House district 92
- House district 95
- House district 99
Search




Advanced Search


Paid Advertising


Bleeding Heartland
It's what plants crave.

Bruce Braley is no Tom Harkin

by: desmoinesdem

Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 16:45:00 PM CDT


The breaking news in Iowa politics this afternoon is Senator Tom Harkin "officially" endorsing Representative Bruce Braley for U.S. Senate. Why this is supposed to be newsworthy, I can't explain.

The under-the-radar but more important news is that during a meeting of the House Energy and Commerce Committee this week, Braley joined conservative Democrats and all the Republicans to vote for H.R. 3, a bill mandating approval of the Keystone XL pipeline. An Energy and Commerce Committee press release explaining the purpose of this bill is after the jump.

For now let's leave aside the many environmental arguments against building the Keystone XL pipeline, and the big problems with the State Department's draft environmental impact statement on the project.

Braley is smart enough to know that Keystone XL won't create the thousands of jobs proponents claim. In fact, the pipeline is more likely to increase than decrease gasoline prices in the Midwest. Maybe Braley's longstanding support for Keystone XL is a gesture toward the labor unions that support the project, or maybe it's more convenient to vote for fake jobs than to explain why the jobs propaganda is wrong. Most of the House Democrats on the Energy and Commerce Committee oppose this bill. Braley's companions, aside from the committee Republicans, were John Barrow of Georgia, Gene Green of Texas, and Jim Matheson of Utah. They aren't pro-labor but have extremely poor voting records on the environment, a lot worse than Braley's.

Harkin has always been a strong supporter of organized labor, but he didn't let that cloud his judgment on Keystone XL. He has voted against that project repeatedly, most recently during the Senate's federal budget "vote-o-rama" last month. Iowa will be worse off without Harkin in the Senate.

UPDATE: Corrected the second paragraph to note that Braley voted for this bill when the full Energy and Commerce Committee approved it on April 17, not during the subcommittee meeting the previous day. Corrected the fourth paragraph to note that three other House Democrats supported the bill during the full committee vote. Added more details on the case against this bill after the jump.  

desmoinesdem :: Bruce Braley is no Tom Harkin
House Energy and Commerce Committee press release:

Committee Stands Up for Jobs and Approves Bipartisan Bill to Build Keystone XL Pipeline and Advance North American Energy Independence

April 17, 2013

H.R. 3, Which Will Soon be Considered By the Full House, Will Eliminate Roadblocks to Construction of $7 Billion Jobs and Energy Project

WASHINGTON, DC - The Energy and Commerce Committee today advanced legislation to build the Keystone XL pipeline. H.R. 3, the Northern Route Approval Act, will put an end to years of bureaucratic delays and finally allow construction of the project that would create thousands of American jobs and displace overseas imports with millions of barrels of safe and secure Canadian oil supplies. The committee approved the measure by a bipartisan vote of 30 to 18.

H.R. 3, authored by Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE), will eliminate the need for a Presidential Permit and find that the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) issued by the Secretary of State on August 26, 2011, shall satisfy all NEPA requirements. The legislation addresses all other necessary federal permits and limits legal challenges that could bring further delays. Similar legislation was necessary in the 1970's to achieve construction of the game-changing Alaska pipeline.

"My bill ends the long-drawn out process of delay-by-review and allows us to begin building the Keystone Pipeline. This issue has been studied in-depth. There are more pages of review on the Keystone Pipeline than make up The Bible, War and Peace, Atlas Shrugged, and Obamacare - combined," said Terry. "The scientists at the State Department continue to say that there will be no significant impacts to the environment. There is no reason we should continue the delays. I urge my colleagues to join me in passing H.R. 3 so we can begin building the Keystone Pipeline."

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) added, "The Keystone XL project is a critical component of our North American energy independence plan. The American people have waited patiently for over four-and-a-half years for Keystone's jobs and energy supplies, and this bipartisan bill will finally end the delays of this project once and for all."

"Many people say that this is an exercise in futility because if it passes the House it will never pass the Senate, but I would remind everyone that when the Senate adopted its budget recently, there was an amendment in support of the Keystone pipeline that was approved by a vote of 62-37, with 17 Democrats supporting it," said Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-KY). "I would urge everyone to support this important bill and help America become more energy independent."

Click HERE to view a list of letters and statements in support for the Northern Route Approval Act.

Statement from Energy and Commerce Committee ranking Democrat Henry Waxman during an April 10 subcommittee hearing on this bill.

Today, this Subcommittee is holding a hearing on legislation to make climate change worse by giving preferential treatment to TransCanada's Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. I believe this would be a terrible mistake.

Step outside today. The temperature is going to be around 90. The normal high temperature for April 10th in the District of Columbia is 65, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. This isn't an isolated incident. Last year alone, the United States broke or tied 34,000 high temperature records.

We know climate change is happening now, and the costs are beginning to mount. The Government Accountability Office added climate change to its high risk list, due to the huge financial exposure it poses for the United States. In 2011 and in 2012, our country experienced weather and climate disasters from Hurricane Sandy to droughts to floods to wildfires. These disasters affected our farm lands, communities across the Southwest and West, coastal areas, and other areas all over this country. And if you add up the costs of these disasters, it came to around $188 billion. These disasters aren't over - as climate change worsens, we are going to see even more disasters in the future.

So faced with these threats from climate change, you would expect this Committee, to be holding hearings and trying to work together on legislation. But that's not what we're doing. We won't even hold a hearing on the science of this issue. Look at the record of this Committee. In the last Congress, the House Republicans voted to say that climate change was a hoax. They voted 53 times to block any action on climate change. They voted to defund research. They voted to block action by the EPA to control pollution, to prevent energy efficiency measures from going into effect, and to stop the Administration from encouraging developing countries to do their part to address this serious, global issue.

This is a problem. We've asked the Republicans to hold a hearing with the experts, because they've said over and over again that the science is not clear. But they won't bring in the scientific experts to talk about the matter.

The Republicans say we need North American energy independence. Well that's fine, but as long as we're dependent on oil, and as long as oil prices are set in the world market, we will be vulnerable to oil price spikes, no matter how much oil we produce at home. The real goal is to reduce our dependence on oil altogether. Thanks to President Obama's fuel efficiency standards for vehicles, our oil use is falling. We are shifting to hybrids and electric vehicles. Still, we are going to need oil for the foreseeable future, even though we won't need as much of it.

But why do we need to get our oil from the dirty tar sands of Canada? Just to get the tar sands out of the ground and ready to go through a pipeline takes a huge amount of energy and releases a lot of carbon pollution. This is some of the dirtiest oil in the world, so it makes no sense for us to rush to use more of it. And if we do not agree to import this tar sands oil, Canada won't produce as much of it because they face big difficulties getting it to market.

Some say that if we don't take the tar sands, Canada will send it to China. But they can't get it to the West coast of Canada to take it to China. Instead, they want to take it through the United States in a pipeline, with America bearing all the risks of spills, and then bring it to the Gulf of Mexico, where it will likely be exported anyway.

Pipeline supporters say that because there is demand for oil, the oil will be produced. So whether or not we build Keystone XL, they say, oil companies will expand production in the tar sands. Market economics actually tells us that the most competitive oil will be produced. Tar sands oil is expensive to extract, land-locked, and highly polluting. Producers are already facing lower prices for their product because of transportation constraints. Absent the Keystone XL pipeline, getting tar sands to market will cost more, and tar sands will be less competitive with the alternatives. Those alternatives now include a lot more U.S. shale oil from the Bakken and other areas.

So I think it would be a big mistake to agree to the tar sands pipeline. But this decision is under consideration right now by the State Department. Rather than let them make a deliberate decision, this Committee would like to legislate a special earmark to approve this particular project. No other project is going to get this special treatment. In this Committee, the oil people get special treatment. Those who worry about climate change don't even get a chance to be heard from.

Our job is to do something about serious problems that are going to affect the future of our country, our children, and our grandchildren. This Committee is absent without leave on the issue of climate change.

A report released this week analyzed the "true climate impact" of Keystone XL and found, among other things:

- The 181 million metric tons of (CO2e) from Keystone XL is equivalent to the tailpipe emissions from more than 37.7 million cars. This is more cars than are currently registered on the entire West Coast (California, Washington, and Oregon), plus Florida, Michigan, and New York - combined.

- Between 2015 and 2050, the pipeline alone would result in emissions of 6.34 billion metric tons of CO2e. This amount is greater than the 2011 total annual carbon dioxide emissions of the United States.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Tweet This!

Tom Harkin is no Tom Harkin (0.00 / 0)
Besides the ADA, what significant piece of legislation did Tom ever get passed?  I have always voted for Harkin, and I always thought he was a good dinner speaker, but he was little more than a reliable democratic vote.

As for Bruce....

I think he is a bright guy who doesn't necessarily follow the party line.  But, like him or not, he will be the dems' best chance (other than what should be a safe seat for Dave Loebsack) for victory in 2014. I think it's a safe assumption that the republicans will take the Iowa Senate and gain in the Iowa House with a Branstad re-election landslide.  

The dem cupboard isn't exactly full of up-and-coming leaders. The left had better sack up, quit whining, and back Bruce and the kid running for Secretary of State.


well, that changes everything (0.00 / 0)
Now that you've told me what I "had better" do, I'll stop caring about costly and damaging 50-year investments in the wrong direction.

Invite other Iowa political junkies to join us at Bleeding Heartland.

[ Parent ]
Pipeline (0.00 / 0)
Is the oil going to be produced regardless of whether the U.S. approves the Keystone pipeline?  I agree that we should be doing a ton more to prevent climate change, but I want to see more global treaties on this matter.  We're already getting economically assaulted on the currency matter by the Chinese government, we don't need to have them bend us over a few thousand barrels of oil.

Braley may not be as liberal as Harkin on some issues, but I don't think we will see him on a list of people breaking with his party in the way that Tester, Pryor, Landrieu, etc. have to in order to represent the views of the majority of their constituents. Braley is a go with the majority guy, he's not a Sheldon Whitehouse or Bernie Sanders type.  


[ Parent ]
without this pipeline (4.00 / 1)
a lot of the tar sands oil will probably stay in the ground, because it's not feasible to transport by rail to Texas, and it's not at all clear they'll be able to build a pipeline through Canada to the Pacific.

I agree with you that Braley is likely to be an average Democratic majority vote on most issues if elected to the Senate. Harkin has been above average, and he chairs an important committee.

Invite other Iowa political junkies to join us at Bleeding Heartland.


[ Parent ]
Use the Google. (4.00 / 1)
Tom has had a distinguished career standing up for Iowans, and especially for those who need a hand up.  You are obviously not aware.

Your admonition referencing male genitals is offensive, both for the reference, and for general rudeness.


[ Parent ]
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Iowa Liberal Blogs
- Ames Progressive
- Blog For Iowa
- Essential Estrogen
- Iowa .Gif-t Shop
- Iowa Independent (archive)
- Iowa Policy Points
- Iowans for a Future That Doesn't Suck
- John Deeth
Iowa Conservative Blogs
- Hawkeye GOP
- The Bean Walker
- Caffeinated Thoughts
- The Conservative Reader: Iowa
- The Iowa Republican
Journalists' blogs and research
- 24-Hour Dorman
- Cedar Rapids Gazette government page
- Iowa Fiscal Partnership
- Iowa Policy Project
- Iowa Politics Insider
- Iowa Watchdog.org
- On Brief: Iowa's Appellate Blog
- On the Campaign Trail with Ed Tibbetts
- Newton Independent (Peter Hussmann)
- Politically Speaking
- Price of Politics, etc.
- O.Kay Henderson at Radio Iowa
Iowa Democrats
- Tom Harkin (U.S. Senator)
- Bruce Braley (IA-01)
- Dave Loebsack (IA-02)
- Iowa Democratic Party
- Iowa House Democrats
- Iowa Senate Democrats
Statistics


 
Powered by: SoapBlox