The Pipeline Transportation Safety Improvement Act of 2011, introduced by longtime pipeline safety advocate Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D–N.J.), directs the U.S. Dept. of Transportation to hire 39 more pipeline safety inspectors. It also increases civil penalties for violators of pipeline safety laws, requires DOT to study the safety risks of the onshore and offshore pipelines that are currently unregulated and directs the agency to study whether current pipeline regulations are adequate for transportation of Canadian tar sands crude, which is known to be more corrosive than conventional crude.

The bill directs DOT to develop new rules for the use of automatic or remote-controlled shut-off valves on pipelines. The gas explosion in San Bruno, Calif., last year is thought to have been made worse because workers had to drive in rush-hour traffic in order to get to the site of the gas leak and manually shut down the broken pipeline.

It also requires DOT to develop standards for leak detection programs, and orders a review of the system of inspecting only those pipelines that cross highly populated or environmentally sensitive areas. According to DOT, there are more than 2.5 million miles of oil and gas pipelines in the U.S.

Carl Weimer of the Pipeline Safety Trust said that one disappointment with the bill in its current form is that language requiring pipeline emergency response plans be made available to the public was withdrawn by Sen. Lautenberg.

Access to emergency response plans is seen as key to ensuring appropriate response by local emergency responders. Following the Enbridge pipeline spill that dumped more than 800,000 gallons of tar sands crude into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan last summer several local safety officials complained that they had no information about the pipelines that cross their areas.

Another shortcoming in the bill is that it does not require that shutoff valves be added to existing pipelines, Weimer said. A separate pipeline safety bill authored by California’s Democratic Sens. Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer does require this.

This week, the Pipeline Safety Trust, along with representatives from the Natural Resources Defense Council, the League of Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society and Environment America, publicly criticized an amendment to the Lautenberg bill offered by Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.).

The Thune amendment, analogous to so-called “due process” language written by the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) and the Association of Oil Pipelines (AOPL), would among other things require USDOT to grant a hearing on the record to any operator subject to an emergency corrective action order (or civil penalty) within five days of issuing such an order (or penalty). This provision, unlike any other we can find in statute, appears designed to so burden an underfunded and understaffed regulatory agency as to ensure that the Secretary will be functionally unable to use the emergency authorities provided him to address pipeline facilities determined to be hazardous to life and property.

It is outrageous that an industry which has had as many fatal, catastrophic failures as the pipeline industry has had in the past year would complain that it was being treated unfairly by federal regulators and would seek statutory changes that would hamstring those regulators.

Sen. Thune’s office did not respond to questions about the amendment Wednesday afternoon, but the measure has reportedly been withdrawn in response to the concerns voiced by the environmental groups.

The Pipeline Transportation Safety Improvement Act of 2011 is expected to move through committee after markup today. A vote from the full Senate is expected by August.

Today’s meeting of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation will be streamed live here.

The message, which was subsequently posted to Thune’s website and Facebook page Tuesday, is signed by the Senator and his wife, Kimberley.

For months now, my wife Kimberley and I have received encouragement from family, friends, colleagues, and supporters from across South Dakota and the country to run for the presidency of the United States. We have appreciated hearing their concerns about where the country is headed and their hopes for a new direction.

During this time, Kimberley and I and our two daughters have given a great deal of thought to how we might best serve South Dakota and our nation. That process has involved lots of prayer.

Along the way, we have been reminded of the importance of being in the arena, of being in the fight. And make no mistake that during this period of fiscal crisis and economic uncertainty there is a fight for the future direction of America. There is a battle to be waged over what kind of country we are going to leave our children and grandchildren and that battle is happening now in Washington, not two years from now. So at this time, I feel that I am best positioned to fight for America’s future here in the trenches of the United States Senate.

I want to thank those who have encouraged us and prayed for us during the past several months. We are forever grateful for all the support.

John and Kimberley

Just a week ago, Thune had said that his decision regarding the 2012 contests would come sooner rather than later. He promised that if he chose to enter the race that he would do so as a contender, and not as some test balloon for 2016.

“It’s fair to say that I don’t have the same national name recognition as some of my more famous Republican colleagues,” Thune told reporter Robert Costa of the National Review, while taking a few pokes at other possible GOP contenders. “I’ve never had a book signing. I’ve been to Iowa plenty of times, but it’s usually on the way to South Dakota. And the closest I’ve come to being on a reality TV show is C-SPAN’s live coverage of the Senate floor.”

Ultimately, however, Thune believes Republicans should support the candidate they feel will have the best chance of ousting President Barack Obama in the general election. And, of course, Thune also believes he’s the best match against the incumbent.

“It really comes down to match-ups,” he said. “Sometimes you have a very talented group of athletes. But at the end of the day, it comes down to who matches up best against your opponent. … When it comes to age and energy, all those sorts of things, I think [Thune versus Obama] could be a great match-up.”

If he does decide to get in the race, Thune says he’ll be in it to win it, and that his campaign won’t be a test flight for 2016. And, despite his lack of name recognition nationally, Thune would have a slight advantage in Iowa, and especially in western Iowa where South Dakota news is fairly accessible. The western half of the state is also considered a Republican stronghold, adding to Thune’s good geographic fortune. Less than 90 miles of highway separate Thune’s home city of Sioux Falls, S.D., from Sioux City, Iowa.

By even the most conservative estimates, there are roughly a dozen Republicans considering a run for the White House in 2012. While nearly all have Political Action Committees in place that have supported GOP candidates in early contest states, only two have taken the extra step of formally creating exploratory committees, which is often considered the final step before an official announcement. Those two are Fred Karger, the party’s first openly gay candidate, and Herman Cain, a Georgia-based radio talk show host and a tea party favorite.

Pawlenty will deliver a “pro-family lecture” followed by a structured Q&A facilitated by Bob Vander Plaats, president and CEO of The Family Leader, at events held at Pella Christian High School in Pella, the University of Iowa in Iowa City and Dordt College in Sioux Center, according to a release sent to the media.

The Minnesota Republican is the first potential presidential candidate to participate in the lecture series, with U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann scheduled to join the series line-up on April 11; former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum on May 2; and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and radio talk show host Herman Cain to join on an unspecified date.

Invitations have also been extended to former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, South Dakota Sen. John Thune, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, and U.S. Rep. Ron Paul.

In addition to being an influential voice in Iowa’s social conservative movement, The Family Leader is also no stranger to controversy. The group acts as an umbrella organization for the Iowa Family Policy Center and the formerly federally funded mentoring program Marriage Matters. Those groups have publicly argued that homosexual activity is “more dangerous for individuals who engage in it than is smoking,” and because Iowa lawmakers won’t pass an amendment ending legalized same-sex marriage, there will be “dramatically higher rates of HIV and syphilis in Iowa.”

And as the LGBT blog Good As You pointed out last month, The Family Leader is providing a seminar to churches around Iowa designed to help teach pastors about the “second-hand effects” of homosexuality, with lessons like “gay sex kills,” “homosexuality is not hardwired,” and “the public health crisis of same-sex activity.”

Chuck Hurley, president of Iowa Family Policy Center, argued last year that any religious leader who supports legalized same-sex marriage is “confused at best and blatantly evil at worst.” Later, while campaigning for the ouster of three Iowa Supreme Court judges who joined in the unanimous decision that legalized same-sex marriage, Hurley said the state needs laws that outlaw homosexual acts.

“Sodomy was called a crime against nature for centuries,” he told Radio Iowa’s O.Kay Henderson last month.

Danny Carroll, another prominent member of The Family Leader, has argued that same-sex marriage would likely lead to “multiple arrangements (polygamy), or marriage will lose all significance.” It’s an argument made by Bob Vander Plaats shortly before the judicial retention election.

“In [the Iowa Supreme Court's] own opinion they discriminated against people who want to be polygamous,” Vander Plaats said at a forum hosted by Simpson College and The Iowa Independent. “They discriminate against people who want to be bisexual – one man, one woman. They discriminate, in their own opinion, against someone who wants to marry their own child.”

Through the formation of state-level Political Action Committees (PACs) politicians have been able to skirt FEC prohibitions on contributions in excess of $5,000 , according to a new report by The National Institute on Money in Politics. And in many cases, individual contributors used one or more state PACs to give far more than the FEC limit.

… Mitt Romney provides an excellent example of how a candidate can receive money from a single source in multiple states. Romney’s federal Free & Strong America PAC raised $8.8 million in 2010; Romney also formed five state affiliates that brought in an additional $2 million.

A significant amount of the money channelled into Romney’s state committees—30 percent of the money reported in New Hampshire, South Carolina, Iowa, and Michigan —came from people in the financial investment industry. One contributor, Edward Conard of Bain Capital LLC, a private equity firm Romney helped found, gave Romney $73,000 on May 20 and 21, 2010, but only $5,000 shows on the federal PAC report. The remaining $68,000 went to the above-mentioned state affiliates. Haley Barbour’s Haley’s Leadership PAC reported raising $526,240 in Georgia from donors around the country, including $100,000 from Jamal Daniel, of Crest Investments. On top of that amount, the FEC also reports Daniel giving the maximum of $5,000. …

Although Romney’s PAC was the only to show a current affiliate in Iowa, the campaign was far from alone in garnering contributions at several levels. Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s Freedom First PAC raised nearly $90,000 in New Hampshire, but only $75 of that came from state residents. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee mostly took in smaller contributions in Oklahoma and Michigan to add about $20,000 to Huck PAC.

The report, which openly admits it doesn’t include all PAC activity, also notes that the 2012 hopefuls were building goodwill in early states with monetary support of local politicians. In Iowa, for instance, the Republican gubernatorial team of Terry Branstad and Kim Reynolds was given $52,000  — $30,000 from Romney, $10,000 from Pawlenty, $5,000 each from former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour and $2,500 from South Dakota Sen. John Thune.

No Republican has officially entered the field of candidates yet, but a number of GOPers are clearly contemplating campaigns. Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann had the highest profile response to the president among possible 2012 candidates. She was tapped to rebut the speech by the Tea Party Express, countering the official Republican Party response from Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.). Though it was not the official response, CNN chose to air Bachmann’s speech, a decision that is less surprising when you factor in that they are co-sponsoring a debate with Tea Party Express later this year. Read my colleague Andy Birkey’s liveblog of Bachmann’s remarks.

Other possible candidates jumped into the fray. Many offered subtle compliments before tearing into the meat of Obama’s messaging. The 2012ers consistently questioned Obama’s willingness to actually reduce the government’s budget and the effectiveness of the president’s call for a freeze on discretionary spending. Of course, giving their need to posture against Obama in advance of the party’s nominating cycle, it is not shocking to see 2012ers positioning themselves at the forefront of criticizing the speech.

PBS Newshour caught up with Indiana Rep. Mike Pence in the halls of Congress last night to get his take. “It appears that the president is committed to more spending and more government and more of the same of what the American people rejected on election day last fall,” Pence said. When pushed by the interviewer about how that reconciles with Obama’s call for a discretionary spending freeze, Pence argued that a freeze at the current level was not enough, and attacked the language calling for new infrastructure investment.

Watch the brief interview with Pence:

Fox News Business brought on Texas congressman and Libertarian favorite Ron Paul, who said that all spending needs to be cut, not just the discretionary spending that Obama seeks to freeze. “I think it’s what the people expect from government,” Paul said. “As long as we have this philosophic acceptance that we are to be the policemen of the world, we’re to have a welfare state from cradle to grave, we’re involved in delivery of medical care for everybody that needs it, free education for everybody, you just can’t please people. You’re always going to have to the pressure to spend, it’s much bigger than the budget.”

South Dakota U.S. Sen. John Thune also didn’t buy Obama’s rhetoric on saving, instead focusing on his frequent use of the term “investment” as a sign that the president intends to continue to increase spending. “I understand the goal, but right now this is going to be — anytime you talk about ‘investment’ it means new spending,” Thune told TPM’s Brian Beutler on Wednesday. “When you talk about new spending at a time when we’ve got this financial picture, I don’t know how he’s going to accomplish all the things that he wants to get done, and then still talk about a five-year freeze on discretionary spending. You can’t do it all.”

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney wrote on his PAC’s website:

President Obama knows where he wants to go, but he has no idea how to get there. Under President Obama’s economic leadership, more Americans have lost their jobs than any time in modern history. The on-the-job economic education of the President has cost American families almost a trillion dollars in failed stimulus schemes and, unfortunately, he’s still failing the course. Rhetoric, however soaring, does not put pay checks in pay envelopes at the end of the week. You can’t build a high speed rail system fast enough to outrun the President’s misguided regulations, higher taxes or lack of focus on jobs. Hopefully he is learning. American families are depending on him.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich argued on Fox News that the 2011 State of the Union was full of showy language and lacked any substance. “Look, the tragedy of this president is that he’s very, very clever, and assumes the rest of us are very, very slow. This country’s in a constant conversation with itself,” Gingrich said. “Within three or four days, the average American is gonna realize, he didn’t offer to cut spending, he didn’t focus on jobs, he didn’t tell us the truth about reforming government.”

Former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain pushed a press release attacking the president’s speech. Unlike the other likely candidates, Cain has formed an official presidential exploratory committee as he contemplates mounting an underdog campaign for the GOP nomination. Cain said:

The true state of our union is fragile, but the true will of the people is strong. The people will demand effective economic growth policies which were noticeably absent from the President’s speech.

The American people are taxed too much and too often. The jobs-killing health care overhaul saddles businesses and taxpayers with even costlier medical bills. Our national debt caused by unbridled spending will be an agonizing weight on the backs of our children and grandchildren. And the federal government is circumventing its Constitutional limits at nearly every turn.

The national poll sampled 515 “usual national Republican primary voters,” and Huckabee gained the most support by a wide margin, with 24 percent. Former governors Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney tied for second with 14 percent each, followed by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich at 11 percent.

Huckabee increasingly appears to have positioned himself as the candidate who can both win over social conservatives and more moderate Republicans, and other polls have shown him as the early favorite to win the 2012 Iowa Caucus (a feat he accomplished in 2008) which could help further propel him to national success. However, he has been quieter than other presidential contenders, noting recently that both of the strongest poll performers at this point of the 2008 cycle did not win their party’s nomination in Iowa, and that he will not decide on making a run until this summer.

After the four top-tier candidates, the poll provided positive news for former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty who placed in fifth with eight percent. While that may be significantly behind the top candidates, it is also well above the other candidates who have previously been less engaged on the national stage. Compared to Palin, Gingrich or Romney, who voters have already likely formed strong opinions on, Pawlenty still has plenty of room to introduce himself to Republicans across the country, and his uptick in support indicates that once he fully enters the stage alongside the other candidates he may be able to enter the top tier.

PPP’s Tom Jensen also sees Pawlenty performing strongly in the poll:

The other winner in this month’s poll is Pawlenty. 8% is certainly the best he’s done in one of our national polls and it’s a sign that he could be starting to gain some traction. His record strong standing is part of why Romney’s polling so poorly this month, as we’ve consistently found that they tap into a similar centrist base. A strong Pawlenty candidacy is good news for Democrats because anything that divides the already diluted Republican moderate vote can only make it more likely the GOP nominates someone too far to the right to be viable in the general election.

Trailing Pawlenty, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) drew seven percent, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels received 4 percent,and Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) only managed one percent. The poll was conducted between Jan. 14-16, and had a +/-4.3 percent margin of error.

However, in the Post/ABC poll, 51 percent disapprove of his handling of the economy, and 60 percent think the country is on the ‘wrong track.’ The increase could be for a few reasons — his handling of the shootings in Tucson, the end of the midterm elections wherein Republicans bashed his policies or having a Republican House to deflect some of the attention.

The Republican field remains very unformed about a year out of the Iowa Caucuses — former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has 21 percent of poll respondents’ support, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has 19 percent and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has 17 percent. In short, there is no frontrunner. In addition, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has 9 percent and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has eight percent. Several other mentioned candidates — Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Sen. John Thune (S.D.), Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour — have less than three percent. No one — except for longshot candidate and businessman Herman Cain — has announced anything yet, and others, namely Chris Christie, have denied interest in running.

Who are some of the senators who are still wavering? Raju collects some of their comments:

Wyoming Sen. John Barrasso, the vice chairman of the Senate Republican Conference who voted for the ban in March, said he’s “going to go at every angle possible to cut spending and limit the debt.”

Asked if that meant he’d vote for the DeMint proposal, Barrasso told POLITICO: “I want to see everything that comes up. I don’t know how many different proposals we’re going to have.”

Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl, the No. 2 GOP senator in leadership, won’t make any earmark requests this year and didn’t last year. But his spokesman said the senator would wait until next week to view all the ideas on the table before taking a position on the moratorium.

South Dakota Sen. John Thune, a prospective 2012 presidential candidate and No. 4 in GOP leadership, has “supported in the past and continues to support an earmark moratorium,” a spokesman said. But it’s unclear if that means he’ll back DeMint’s plan on Tuesday.

Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, who voted for the ban in March, said through a spokeswoman that he had just received the plan and was still reviewing it.

It’s clear from the quotes above and a review of the senators’ past records that their stance on requesting earmarks is only one part of the equation in their decision-making process about whether to speak their mind before Tuesday’s vote. Kyl, for instance, is no friend of earmarks, but he’s also a part of Republican leadership. A number of senators are clearly weighing the cost of openly defying McConnell against the cost of appearing to disavow the desires of the Tea Party.

Thune is whipping votes for Mitch McConnell in order to defeat the Coburn-DeMint earmarks moratorium. There is no way Thune would so blatantly defy the grassroots of the GOP, the tea party movement, and virtually every major conservative group in Washington if he had any interest in being President in 2012.

But in an email to TWI sister site The American Independent, Thune’s spokesman Kyle Downey refuted the Red State piece. “Senator Thune is not and has not been whipping against Senator DeMint’s earmark ban. Senator Thune has supported earmark moratoriums in the past and he continues to support an earmark moratorium,” Downey wrote.

Though Thune may avoid the ire of the Republican base in this instance, it does highlight a unique position for the senator from South Dakota that his potential primary opponents will be able to sidestep. Many of names bandied about as possible GOP nominees are figures such as Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, who have retired from their official political perches. Others, such as Tim Pawlenty, Chris Christie and Mitch Daniels, are governors. Both groups can avoid taking part in the politically messy and widely unpopular process of legislating in the U.S. Congress.

Aside from idle speculation of a DeMint campaign, Thune is the only Republican senator whose name is mentioned as a possible 2012 opponent for Barack Obama. Even on the House side, the only real possibilities are a repeat longshot bid from Ron Paul (Texas) and a run by Mike Pence (Ind.), who appears more likely to run for governor.

Patrick Caldwell is a reporter for The American Independent.