Follow The MoneyToday Tom Reed supported legislation which advances the approval process of the Keystone Pipeline. The Keystone XL Pipeline Act (H.R. 3) passed the House of Representatives this afternoon with a bipartisan vote of 266-153. The bill requires the Executive Branch to approve the pipeline.

Yes, 28 Democrats voted for it and no Republican voted against it ( In Reed’s view, it doesn’t take many Democratic votes to make a bill he favors bipartisan.

“Passage of this bill is a win for all Americans,” Reed, Co-Chair of the House Manufacturing Caucus, said. “The Keystone XL Pipeline not only creates countless infrastructure construction jobs, but it will also lower energy costs and put us another step closer to reducing our dependence on Middle East crude.” In addition to creating jobs, lowering energy costs and increasing energy security, construction of the pipeline will contribute to the rebirth of domestic manufacturing.

Countless jobs, Tom, really? It is hard to see how this bill is a win for the many Americans who oppose it; perhaps they don’t count.

“It’s not fair that these jobs are held hostage to politics,” Reed said. “I urge the Administration to show that it cares about economic development by building this pipeline.”

The pipeline would be built by a private company, not the administration. This bill, H.R. 3, has nothing to do with politics? Who believes that?

© William Hungerford – January 2015


About whungerford

* Contributor at where we discuss the politics, economics, and events of the New New York 23rd Congressional District (Allegany, Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Chemung, (Eastern) Ontario, Schuyler, Seneca, Steuben,Tioga, Tompkins, and Yates Counties) Please visit and comment on whatever strikes your fancy.
This entry was posted in Congress, Environmental, Hydrofracking/Gas& Oil Industry, Political, Reed's Views and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Anne says:

    Maybe he’s hoping his vote will prevent him getting kneecapped by the industry from whom he’s taken so much money and who he has otherwise failed so miserably? Dr. Krugman is considerably less than enthusiastic:


  2. whungerford says:

    Everyone ought to understand that public and private spending are equally effective at creating jobs as Dr. Krugman explains. However Tom Reed does not. He remarked at a Town Hall meeting in West Elmira that he has his own “common sense” view of economics. He said he has reviewed the works of economists like Paul Krugman and can see that they are wrong. Reed’s economic ideas are based on GOP orthodoxy rather than science.

    When Tom writes that Keystone will create countless jobs, I wonder if he is being overly exuberant, careless, deliberately misleading or what? Does he intend his press releases to be factual?


  3. Anne says:

    Ha, ha, William–more rhetorical questions! I assume Reed disagrees with Krugman because Krugman is a liberal. However, since Dr. Krugman holds both a Nobel prize in Economics and the department Chair in that field at Princeton, I think Reed would do well to listen to him. I think his tired and clichéd “common sense” phrase is often just Tomspeak for “fear intellectualism and real thought.”

    Liked by 1 person

  4. whungerford says:

    If Tom intends his press releases to be factual, then giving false information might make him look foolish. But if he intends them to promote his views and interests without regard for facts, then they might be clever and effective. Even the careless English usage may be calculated.


  5. josephurban says:

    You have to give the GOP some credit. It has taken over 6 years but they have finally passed a bill creating anywhere from 35-50 permanent jobs. At this rate of 6 to 8 new jobs per year there will be full employment a week before the sun turns the Earth into a smoldering waste land in about 1.1 billion years. I am guessing that some members of Congress will still be committee chairs at that time.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Deb Meeker says:

    One really has to ask what Tom Reed gets out of his use of blatant misinformation (lies)?
    Whether the topic is Social Security, gun regulation, jobs bills, or environmental issues, Reed is always willingly on the losing side of the discussion.
    Take the Keystone XL pipeline. Every competent, non corporately involved voice has explained in detail why the project is not only not advantageous to the US, but potentially dangerous to main aquifers, air and populations along it’s projected plan. As has been said by people who know – the KXL gives the Kochs the profit, the Chinese the refined oil, and the US all the unsecured risk.

    The only reasonable answer left for Tom Reed’s foolish and weak decisions, in my opinion is, he loves being whipped. He has accommodated the GOP’s every whim, yet is still not chosen for leadership; he is the face of impotence and greed for the more savvy members of his party, as they stand back and give him the unsavory assignments he loves to lap up.


  7. whungerford says:

    Yet Tom was reelected twice; one must give him credit for political savvy.


  8. Deb Meeker says:

    I have to give you that William, if I look at this list with a very cynical eye.

    But there are others in Congress with these critical skills who don’t use them as a baseball bat across the brow of the average American. These others are the ones who might have listened to Theodore Roosevelt when he said “The most practical kind of politics is the politics of decency.”

    Liked by 1 person

  9. BOB McGILL says:

    bet you didn’t know about this pipeline 🙂

    DEC Extends Public Comment Period On Proposed Constitution Pipeline Until FEB. 27th
    The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) today extended the public comment period on the draft permit for the proposed, federally regulated Constitution Pipeline and an upgrade to the Iroquois Wright Compressor station in Schoharie County by an additional 28 days. Public comments on the propose project will now be accepted until close of business on Friday, February 27.

    The Constitution Pipeline is a proposed interstate natural gas pipeline that would traverse though Broome, Chenango, Delaware and Schoharie counties. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) was responsible for conducting an environmental review of the project and has the authority to approve the pipeline route. FERC issued a final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) in October, which can be viewed at:

    DEC maintains the authority to review applications for specific permits and approvals, including an Air Title V permit for the proposed compressor station upgrade, as well as a Water Quality Certification, a Protection of Waters permit, a Water Withdrawal permit and a Freshwater Wetlands permit for state-protected wetlands and adjacent areas.

    Written comments should be submitted to:

    Stephen M. Tomasik
    DEC – Division of Environmental Permits
    625 Broadway, 4th Floor
    Albany, NY 12233-1750


  10. josephurban says:

    Bob. Thanks for copying and pasting the notice from the DEC, It is proper form to supply a link when you copy and paste in the future. Otherwise folks assume the writing is original. I am not sure what a natural gas pipeline in NY has to do with the tar sands oil pipeline in the western USA. The NY pipeline has already had the impact statements on file while the tar sands pipeline is still being vetted and there is no final environmental impact statement on file. Was there a point to be made?


  11. BOB McGILL says:

    Did you watch the news last night ? They were talking about new emission standards for methane. They showed oil and gas equiptment leaking clouds of black and grey smoke. Problem is methane is invisible.

    and don’t lecture me about proper form when you are totally unethical. You are against the Keystone pipeline and they are putting a pipeline in your backyard to send gas from fracking to the New York City harbor to ship to Europe.

    if you read it carefully it says, ” FERC issued a final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) in October,”
    ” DEC maintains the authority to review applications for specific permits and approvals,”
    nowhere does it claim that the DEC has the power to stop it.


  12. josephurban says:

    Hi Bob. We missed you ! I wasn’t “lecturing ” you about proper form. Just pointing out that you should list your source when you lift material verbatim. Or use quotation marks. I am also opposed to fracking until more study is done as to the environmental repercussions. So, there is no inconsistency in opposing the tar sands pipeline until the environmental study is completed on that as well. Just because both are called “pipelines” does not make them identical in concept or in impact.
    I do welcome your thoughts on the “job creating” aspects of the XL situation, however. You may enjoy responding to this blurb.


  13. BOB McGILL says:‎CachedSimilar
    The Keystone Pipeline already exists. What doesn’t exist fully yet is … The 1700
    new miles of pipeline would offer two sections of expansion. First, a southern leg.

    ” What is the Pipeline exactly?
    The Keystone Pipeline already exists. What doesn’t exist fully yet is its proposed expansion, the Keystone XL Pipeline. The existing Keystone runs from oil sand fields in Alberta, Canada into the U.S., ending in Cushing, Oklahoma.

    The 1,700 new miles of pipeline would offer two sections of expansion. First, a southern leg would connect Cushing, Oklahoma, where there is a current bottleneck of oil, with the Gulf Coast of Texas, where oil refineries abound. That leg went into operation in January 2014. Second, the pipeline would include a new section from Alberta to Kansas. It would pass through Bakken Shale region of eastern Montana and western North Dakota. Here, it will pass through a region where oil extraction is currently booming and take on some of this crude for transport.

    The southern leg of the Keystone XL ties into the existing Keystone pipeline that already runs to Canada, bringing up to 700,000 barrels of oil a day to refineries in Texas. At peak capacity, the pipeline will deliver 830,000 barrels of oil per day. While the pipeline is initially carried U.S. light crude, it is expected to carry more heavy Canadian oil harvested from tar sands over the next year. ”


  14. BOB McGILL says:

    if the link doesn’t work just copy and paste it in your search box 🙂


  15. BOB McGILL says:

    BUT YOU WROTE IT 🙂 isn’t the old liberal yours ? Did you really think that I would accept anything you wrote as fact or meaningful ? 😛


  16. BOB McGILL says:

    Buy This Methane Emissions Play
    By Keith Kohl | Friday, January 16th, 2015

    ” On Wednesday, the Obama administration released a new wave of regulations on methane emissions from the oil and gas sector.
    Of all the many reactions to this new set of laws (which I’ll explain in a moment), my favorite comes from Thomas Pyle of the American Energy Alliance…
    “Energy producers are already reducing methane emissions because methane is a valuable commodity. It would be like issuing regulations forcing ice cream makers to spill less ice cream.”

    And hey, he definitely has a point. Drillers, pipeline operators, and other fossil fuel companies that experience methane leaks prioritize the capture of the stuff. If they didn’t, they would lose quite a bit of money.
    But — and this is according to environmentalists and the EPA — the oil and gas industry is too slow at policing its release of methane, so the government should step in.
    All climate change arguments aside, if you want something to get done faster, you usually don’t involve government bureaucracy.

    But what do I know. “


  17. whungerford says:

    There is more to that article than you copied, Bob. Here is a link:


  18. josephurban says:

    Thanks for posting a link to the entire article. It certainly puts a different spin on the entire situation. It is always good to see articles in full context. Selectively using parts of articles is like selectively forgetting the first clause of the 2nd Amendment. Convenient, but not accurate.


  19. josephurban says:

    Looks like Tom Reed is known all across the nation as a hypocrite when it comes to making laws. Here is an article from LA Times in which his SS position is mentioned.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.