Most Recent Posts

On his first day in his new job, freshly-minted Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., designated the Keystone XL pipeline bill as Senate Bill 1 —the first legislation introduced under his leadership.

That signaled more than just McConnell's own support for the bill. The prestige of being S-1 also conveys a sense of the priority and urgency Senate Republicans in general attach to the project, which would permit the pipeline to cross the U.S.-Canada border and carry crude oil from the tar sands of Alberta to the Gulf Coast.

But being number one does not guarantee that a bill will become law. The history of past S-1 designees is rather mixed, neither a ticket to enactment nor a kiss of death.

At a glance, the Keystone XL bill would seem an excellent prospect to be among the winners. The House has approved Keystone before and will do so again Friday. Moreover, the latest Senate iteration has enough co-sponsors to break a filibuster threat.

Yet the travails of the new S-1 began on Day One. Shortly after the swearing-in ceremonies, Senate Democrats blocked a hearing on S-1 and the White House issued a formal veto threat. Rumors of a compromise in the works proved overly optimistic.

If there is a veto, the fate of the latest S-1 will likely rest with a handful of Democrats who did not co-sponsor the bill but might still be open to argument. If enough of them could be persuaded to buck the president, the GOP could seek a two-thirds override vote in the House as well.

It is also possible that, down the road, existing obstacles to the project in a Nebraska court and in the federal regulatory process could be cleared. The White House could also change its view.

But if you had to bet right now, based on the cards on the table, you'd have to say the president's veto looked like a trump.

Looking back at recent iterations of S-1, it's clear the Senate's priorities fare far better when they coincide with the president's. But even that degree of consensus is no guarantee of success.

The Fate of Previous S-1s

The last bill to be S-1, when the Democrats still controlled the Senate, was the Immigration Reform that Works for America's Future Act. Sponsored by 16 Democrats in January 2013, it served as an opening bid in a negotiation with Senate Republicans. Eventually, a bipartisan group reached a compromise and enough votes were found to forestall a filibuster. But that bill died in the House, which did not take it up and did not pass a comprehensive immigration bill of its own in the last Congress.

Two years earlier, in 2011, then Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, put forward the American Competitiveness Act. It was a collection of measures such as broadband access to bolster business-related activities, encourage U.S. exports and eliminate tax incentives for American businesses to relocate jobs in foreign countries. It represented a refocusing on jobs and the economy after two bruising years of battle over Obamacare. Parts of this S-1 made it into other legislation but the original package was consigned to the Finance Committee. In the House, the new Republican majority gave its HR-1 designation to a stopgap spending bill.

In 2009, with President Obama taking the oath of office for this first time and Democrats holding nearly three-fifths of the seats in the Senate and House, Democrats decided their first order of business was to stimulate the economy. With millions being laid off, S-1 and HR-1 were formally called the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. That name would subsequently appear on countless billboards next to road projects, but nearly everyone called it simply "the stimulus." It contained some tax cuts for wage earners and other provisions but was generally regarded as a public works jobs bill. Reactions to it generally divided along party lines, and controversy over its effectiveness continued until it was by the storm over the health care bill that would become Obamacare.

In 2007, his first year as Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid observed his party's return to majority status with the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007. A joint effort with the Democrats running the House, this attack on the "revolving door" between government and lobbying activities was signed into law by President George W. Bush in the summer of that year. The new law extended the time during which senior federal executives are banned from lobbying their former agencies and made similar changes for members of Congress and their staffs.

In 2005, right after George W. Bush had been re-elected, his stated top priority for Congress was a revision of Social Security to provide for some private investment of retirement funds. But the president left the details of such a proposal up to Congress, and Republican leaders were hesitant to tackle the issue until more consensus had been reached. Both the S-1 and HR-1 designations were reserved for a bill that did not emerge. The Senate eventually used S-1 for a commemorative bill honoring former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

In 2003, the new Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., had the strong support of the White House, especially presidential adviser Karl Rove. Frist, a physician, designated as S-1 the Prescription Drug and Medicare Improvement Act, which would establish the pharmaceutical benefits Medicare recipients still receive today under Part D. The bill was supported by House leadership, which also made it HR-1, but fiercely opposed by some House conservatives. The vote on the bill in the House that June had to be held open for hours while GOP leaders found the final vote to pass it 216-215.

In 2001, the first year George W. Bush was president, the S-1 designation went to Better Education for Students and Teachers Act (BEST), a longtime project of Senator Jim Jeffords, R-Vt. The Bush White House had some ideas of its own about education, better captured in the House bill HR-1, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Relations with Jeffords deteriorated and in the summer the Vermonter bolted the GOP to become an independent. That tipped what had been a 50-50 Senate in favor of the Democrats, who took over running the floor and committee process in that chamber for the next 18 months.

Updated at 10:05 a.m. ET

Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa, who presided over the end of a prolonged and brutal civil war that divided the country for decades, has suffered a narrow election defeat at the hands of a former ally and Cabinet minister, Maithripala Sirisena.

Sirisena, who defected from the ruling party in November to challenge an increasingly unpopular Rajapaksa, won 51.2 percent of the vote in national elections in the island-nation.

I value and respect our democratic process and the people’s verdict, and look forward to the peaceful transition of power. -MR

— Mahinda Rajapaksa (@PresRajapaksa) January 9, 2015

In a tweet, Rajapaksa, who won 47.5 percent of the vote, promised a peaceful transition of power.

Rajapaksa's supporters credit him with ending a quarter-century-long conflict between predominately Hindu ethnic Tamils and the country's majority, and largely Buddhist, Sinhalese. The civil war claimed between 60,000 and 100,000 lives from 1983 to 2009.

However, the BBC says that Rajpaksa's critics accuse him of becoming increasingly authoritarian and corrupt.

"Mr Sirisena had already received promises of support from Tamil and Muslim leaders before the election.

"But the result shows he also picked up a significant portion of the majority Sinhalese vote, most of whom solidly supported Mr Rajapaksa in previous elections."

The Associated Press, too, cites Rajapaksa's "unpopularity among this island's ethnic and religious minorities, as well as grumbling among the Sinhalese majority about his growing power," as an explanation for the upset.

According to the AP:

"Sirisena, 63 and a longtime politician, called on his supporters to remain peaceful in the wake of victory, telling them at a gathering at the Election Commission that they shouldn't 'even hurt anybody's feelings.'

"'The honor of this victory is in your peaceful conduct,' he said, thanking Rajapaksa for ensuring the transition had so far gone smoothly."

Bloomberg says the election of Sirisena could be a blow to China, which has leaned heavily on its good relations with Rajapaksa in its plans to expand dominance in the region: "The result, considered improbable just two months ago, risks disrupting President Xi Jinping's moves to increase China's presence in the Indian Ocean. China has invested heavily in Sri Lanka over the past decade and supported Rajapaksa in the face of U.S.-led inquiries into human rights abuses allegedly committed during the end of [the] civil war."

Sri Lanka

Foie gras, the luxe delicacy made from fatty duck or goose livers, is no longer contraband on California menus.

A federal judge on Wednesday lifted a statewide ban on the sale of foie gras, which is made from the engorged liver of ducks or geese that have been force-fed to create the food's signature rich, creamy taste.

Animal rights activists have long denounced foie gras as a product of animal cruelty. In 2004, California voters approved a ban on the production and sale of foie gras in the state, but it didn't take effect until eight years later. Now U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson has ruled that the ban clashes with an existing federal law that regulates the sale and distribution of poultry products.

The three plaintiffs in the case include two foie gras producers and Los Angeles-based Hot's Restaurant Group, which filed suit the day after the ban took effect in 2012.

Indeed, Hot's Kitchen, based in Hermosa Beach, Calif., is among the many restaurants in the state that have been skirting the ban ever since it took effect, illicitly stashing and serving foie gras. Chefs and foodies likened the ban to Prohibition, and "duckeasies" popped up to satisfy demand for foie gras, which usually sells at a premium in high-end restaurants. But by offering it free as a gift from the kitchen, restaurants argued they weren't "selling" foie gras or violating the ban.

Last night, California chefs rejoiced on Twitter. Chef David Bazirgan of San Francisco's Dirty Habit wrote:

CALI FOIE BAN OVERTURNED . GOOD THING I ALWAYS HAVE IT ANYWAY!!! We have lots of FOIE gras for tonight… http://t.co/qQNfQ33gw5

— david bazirgan (@bazsf) January 7, 2015

After Wednesday's announcement, Bazirgan quickly created a four-course foie gras tasting menu that sold out within a few hours. "We were slammed and the chef sold out, but we're doing it again tonight," Jamie Law, public relations manager for Dirty Habit, tells The Salt.

Animal rights groups have vowed to appeal. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals President Ingrid Newkirk says force-feeding ducks and geese is akin to torture and won't be tolerated.

"A line will be drawn in the sand outside any restaurant that goes back to serving this "torture in a tin," and whoever crosses that line identifies themselves with gluttony that cannot control itself even to the point of torturing animals," Newkirk told us in an email.

The state has not said whether it will appeal the decision. A representative from California Attorney General Kamala Harris' office told us, "We are reviewing the ruling."

Meanwhile, restaurants from Los Angeles to San Francisco are offering celebratory treats, from seared foie gras on a stick wrapped in pink cotton candy to foie gras and beef burgers.

Celebrity chef Thomas Keller, who has been a vocal opponent of the ban, said both of his Yountville Calif. , restaurants, The French Laundry and Bouchon, will start serving foie gras again this spring.

"We are thrilled to be offering our guests the opportunity to enjoy this delicacy again," Keller said in a statement.

It is still illegal to produce foie gras in California, but Wednesday's ruling makes it legal to sell it, which means the state's restaurants are free to import it.

Although a handful of celebrity chefs, including Wolfgang Puck, oppose serving foie gras, most welcomed the recent news.

"It's like a right of passage to be able to serve it," says Chef Josiah Citrin of Melisse, a French restaurant in Santa Monica with two Michelin stars. "It'll be on our menu all this week."

foie gras

The Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry crude oil from Canadian oil sands down to the U.S. Gulf Coast, isn't just an infrastructure project. It's also a symbol for the fight over the future of energy.

Energy

Infographic: How Tar Sands Oil Is Produced

Producing oil from Alberta's tar sands emits more pollution than traditional oil drilling, so many environmentalists want that crude left in the ground. And more broadly, they want the world to turn away from climate-changing fossil fuels toward cleaner forms of energy, like wind and solar.

Mike Hudema, who works with Greenpeace Canada as a climate and energy campaigner, is one of those activists. He says he sympathizes with people who need jobs: He has family members who work in Alberta's oil fields. Still, Hudema considers it a victory when big oil companies announce delays in new oil sands projects.

Last September, Norway's Statoil postponed one project for at least three years. Before that, French oil giant Total S.A. shelved a planned project.

"Total cancelled its multi-billion-dollar tar sands project," Hudema says, "And they've stated fairly openly that part of the reason for the cancellation is because of lack of pipeline capacity."

Energy

Canadian Regulators Investigate Mysterious Tar Sands Spills

The Keystone XL pipeline is one project that would boost capacity. And companies do say the ability to transport crude out of Canada is one reason they delay projects. But there are other reasons that are just as important, says Greg Stringham, vice president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.

"It hasn't been one single pipeline that has been the cause of that re-evaluation," he says. "It has been labor; it has been competitiveness; it has been the corporate decisions."

Those corporate decisions include the question of where a global company will choose to invest its money. And today — especially with low oil prices — it's not hard to find more lucrative investments.

Energy

What You Need To Know About The Keystone XL Oil Pipeline

The Keystone XL approval delay is just one setback for an industry Stringham says has a bright future. Canada's oil sands produced more than 2 million barrels of crude per day last year.

New projects are in the works, Stringham says, and output will grow.

"It is to the point where it has gone from just a Canadian industry to a North American industry and we're on the verge of moving it to a global industry," he says.

So, Stringham says, companies aren't waiting for the Keystone XL pipeline. There are other ways to move oil: trains, barges and alternate pipelines. He says as long as the U.S. and the world wants oil, Alberta will find a way to supply it.

Energy

Blocking Keystone Won't Stop Oil Sands Production

For opponents who want to keep that oil in the ground, like Hudema at Greenpeace, that means more battles ahead.

"When we talk about tar sands development we're talking about going against the biggest carbon bullies on the plant," Hudema says. "Every major multinational oil company is involved in this development."

Comparing their resources to his, Hudema says he thinks environmental groups are doing a pretty good job. And every day that Alberta's tar sands oil stays in the ground is another victory.

oil sands

greenpeace

Keystone XL Pipeline

oil