Clinton, speaking in San Fransisco earlier this week, suggested that the State Department, which is currently reviewing the massive pipeline project, would eventually approve it. But her comments were a bit unclear. The questioner asked about the Alberta Clipper pipeline, which has already been approved. But Clinton appeared to talk about the Keystone XL pipeline, which is still pending.

“So as I say, we’ve not yet signed off on it,” she said. “But we are inclined to do so.”

Here are Clinton’s full remarks on the issue:

Question: Another international issue that you signed in on last year was the Alberta Clipper, a pipeline from Alberta that brings tar sands, oil sands directly into Wisconsin to the U.S. Midwest. This is some of the dirtiest fuel in the world. And how can the U.S. be saying climate change is a priority when we’re mainlining some of the dirtiest fuel that exists. (Applause.)

Secretary Clinton: Well, there hasn’t been a final decision made. It is -

Question: Are you willing to reconsider it?

Secretary Clinton: Probably not. (Laughter.) And we – but we haven’t finish all of the analysis. So as I say, we’ve not yet signed off on it. But we are inclined to do so and we are for several reasons – going back to one of your original questions – we’re either going to be dependent on dirty oil from the Gulf or dirty oil from Canada. And until we can get our act together as a country and figure out that clean, renewable energy is in both our economic interests and the interests of our planet – (applause) – I mean, I don’t think it will come as a surprise to anyone how deeply disappointed the President and I are about our inability to get the kind of legislation through the Senate that the United States was seeking.

Clinton’s remarks have caused at least two lawmakers to speak out. Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.), who has already said he doesn’t support the pipeline project that would cut through his state, wrote a letter to Clinton yesterday asking for clarification on her comments. “Your comments inspire further doubts as to the validity of the review process taken on by the department,” he said.

Johnanns, in an interview with The Hill yesterday, suggested that the State Department could have a lawsuit on its hands if it predetermines the outcome of the Keystone XL review. “One would imagine that this decision will be challenged,” he told The Hill. “And if the net result is the ultimate decisionmaker … had already prejudged this then you have a problem where this would be determined to be arbitrary and capricious.”

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) followed suit yesterday with his own letter raising similar questions.

First, the Small Business Jobs Act. It is a deficit-neutral collection of provisions aimed at helping small businesses grow and at convincing them to hire. It includes a $30 billion lending fund to encourage small community banks to grant cheap loans to small businesses. Other items include: $12 billion in tax breaks, such as reducing capital gains taxes for investments in small companies; an increase in Small Business Administration loan limits; and $1.5 billion for cash-strapped states to supplement their local lending programs.

Second, the Senate is considering two competing amendments changing the new “1099″ tax reporting requirement. In the health-care bill signed into law in March, the government included a new provision requiring small businesses to report the purchase of any goods or services worth more than $600 to the Internal Revenue Service. That would save the government some $17 billion in lost tax revenue over 10 years, but would prove a tremendous hassle for little companies.

Democrats and Republicans alike want to scrap the 1099 requirement. The question is how to make up for the lost revenue — given that the small-business bill needs to be deficit-neutral by Congress’ self-set paygo laws.

The Senate is considering two proposals: One by Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), supported by the White House, and one by Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.), supported by Republicans and Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.).

Nelson’s amendment increases the 1099 reporting threshold to $5,000 and exempts companies with less than 25 workers. It makes up the lost tax revenue by taking away a manufacturing tax deduction from oil and gas companies. (Naturally, oil and gas companies don’t like the idea.)

Johanns’ amendment repeals the 1099 requirement. It pays for its lost revenue, also controversially, by scrapping the public health and prevention trust fund created in the health-care law. The $15 billion fund included money for things like cancer screening and smoking cessation programs — initiatives Johanns’ office says can find funding elsewhere.

The bill is considered the Democrats’ last chance to enact any form of stimulus before the November mid-term elections, once the state aid bill becomes law next week. It creates a $30 billion lending fund to encourage small community banks to grant cheap loans to small businesses. It also includes a number of other provisions aimed at helping small businesses thrive and hire: $12 billion in targeted tax cuts and an increase in Small Business Administration loan limits, for instance.

“It is so important to pass this jobs bill for America’s small businesses. That’s where most of our jobs are created. And small businesses have been especially hard-hit by the economy,” Obama said at Gelberg Signs. “And yet, a minority in the Senate is standing in the way of giving our small businesspeople an up or down vote on this bill.  And that’s a shame.  These kinds of delays mean contracts are being put off, debts are adding up, workers are going without a job –- and we can’t afford it.  We need to do what’s right, not what’s political, and we need to do it right now.”

But today, the Senate left without voting on the provision — though Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has paved the way for the Senate to take it up as soon as it returns from the August recess on Sept. 14. Yesterday, he filed for cloture, meaning the Senate will vote on whether to end debate the day it returns. Over the recess, Senate Democrats hope to convince Sens. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) and George LeMieux (R-Fla.) to vote for cloture, which requires 60 yeas in the Senate.

Republicans have not supported the bill because they have argued that Reid has not given ample enough time for them to offer amendments. Reid prevented Republicans from offering amendments because they kept offering controversial and non-germane provisions, such as a permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts. The bill has been held up for four weeks.

To win over Voinovich, LeMieux and possibly others, Senate Democrats have assured Republicans a vote on an amendment by Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.). The amendment, pressed for by small business organizations and supported by some Democrats, takes on the 1099 information reporting requirement expanded by the health care reform bill, signed into law this spring.

The expanded reporting requirement, due to take effect in 2012, requires businesses to document any purchase of more than $600 in goods or services to the IRS — meaning a lot more paperwork. The Johanns amendment strips that requirement for purchases under $5,000. It pays for the estimated $10 billion in lost tax revenue in part by eliminating the $15 billion Prevention Trust Fund, which pays for cancer screenings, smoking secession and other programs.

Democrats refuse to kill the Prevention Trust Fund. So, they have offered a substitute amendment — keeping most of Johanns’ changes to the 1099 reporting requirement, but paying for it by repealing taxes on the five biggest oil companies. An explanation from Senate Finance:

[The Democrats' plan] would repeal Section 199 of the tax code, which currently allows these corporations to deduct six percent of their income from oil and gas production from their tax liability, effective December 31, 2010.  This repeal would only apply to the five largest corporations with more than $1 billion of before-tax income.

The five major integrated oil companies, which include BP, had a combined profit of $25 billion in the first quarter of 2010.  And, in the five years since enactment of the Section 199 deduction, these major integrated oil companies have posted $521 billion in profits.  The profitability of these companies has been so robust that in the first quarter of 2009, when the U.S. GDP shrank by 6.4 percent and corporate profits decreased by 5.25 percent, these companies still earned more than $13 billion in profits.  Furthermore, it is not clear the goal of this deduction, which is to improve America’s energy security by promoting domestic production, has been reached.   When the Section 199 deduction took effect in 2005, domestic oil production averaged about 5.5 million barrels per day.  Now, five years after the deduction took effect, domestic oil production has actually fallen slightly, to 5.48 million barrels per day.

In a statement today, referencing the dismal jobs report, Reid pushed Republican senators to support the bill. “More work lies ahead of us to repair our economy, and we cannot rest until every worker who wants a job can find one,” Reid said. “But Republicans must stop putting special interests before working Americans and work with us to pass bipartisan measures that will energize small businesses and the middle class, the engine of America’s economy. Small businesses are responsible for creating almost two-thirds of the jobs in our country, and I hope that every senator will return to Washington in September ready to pass critical support to boost our nation’s small businesses.”

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) just took to the floor in wonder that his proposal to end the Wall Street bailout won’t be considered. The” natural inclination” of the Senate, Thune said, “is to allow amendments to be considered.”

Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) followed with criticisms that his provision to fund the unemployment insurance extension using unspent stimulus money has likewise been ignored.

No matter. Democratic leaders have already determined that the bill will contain only two unrelated add-ons: a homebuyers tax credit and a provision allowing businesses to turn losses into tax credits.

Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chairman of the Finance Committee, argued that the Republicans have simply been stalling while thousands of Americans lose their unemployment benefits. “We’ve got to get moving here,” Baucus said.

The vote is scheduled to begin shortly.

How will Johanns follow it up? With more ACORN amendments. First up will be one banning the “use of federal money for ACORN in the Interior and environment appropriations bills.” Then, “a stand-alone bill that would block any federal money at all” from ACORN. The majority of Democrats support the amendments, but Johanns is forcing votes instead of allowing unanimous consent. Why?

This involves an organization that has a history of very serious problems.

In other words, in order to embarrass Democrats into supporting the use of taxpayer money for a group that was filmed giving tax-cheating advice to undercover conservative activists posing as prostitutes and pimps.

“I know from personal experience that members of Congress and the public have good reason to question the honesty and trustworthiness of the insurance industry,” Wendell Potter, Cigna’s former vice president for corporate communications, told members of the Senate Commerce Committee. He c0ntinued:

Insurers make promises they have no intention of keeping, they flout regulations designed to protect consumers, and they make it nearly impossible to understand — or even to obtain — information we need.

The deception, of course, is by design. Publicly traded companies don’t exist simply to make profits, they exist to make more profits today than they did yesterday. Why else would anyone invest in them? And in the case of private insurers, what easier way to pad the bottom line than to deny expensive claims by stonewalling confused patients?

Potter expands, somewhat technically, in his written testimony:

The top priority of for-profit companies is to drive up the value of their stock. Stocks fluctuate based on companies’ quarterly reports, which are discussed every three months in conference calls with investors and analysts. On these calls, Wall Street looks investors and analysts look for two key figures: earnings per share and the medical-loss ratio, or medical “benefit” ratio, as the industry now terms it. That is the ratio between what the company actually pays out in claims and what it has left over to cover sales, marketing, underwriting and other administrative expenses and, of course, profits.

To win the favor of powerful analysts, for-profit insurers must prove that they made more money during the previous quarter than a year earlier and that the portion of the premium going to medical costs is falling. Even very profitable companies can see sharp declines in stock prices moments after admitting they’ve failed to trim medical costs.

There are other schemes the companies use to bolster profits, Potter said. They often dump sick customers by locating some minor disqualifying technicality in their coverage application — the omission of a minor illness, for example.

Companies also have techniques for dropping entire policies for small businesses when coverage costs grow higher than expected. “All it takes is one illness or accident among employees at a small business to prompt an insurance company to hike the next year’s premiums so high that the employer has to cut benefits, shop for another carrier, or stop offering coverage altogether,” Potter said.

Wednesday’s hearing coincided with the release of a Commerce Committee report finding that insurers have underpaid their customers by billions of dollars, forcing those costs on patients instead. The timing of the report is hardly insignificant. Democrats in Congress and the White House are pushing hard for a public option to be included in their sweeping health care reform strategy this year. To private insurers, though, the idea of having to compete with a government-backed plan is anathema, and they’re fighting tooth-and-nail to defeat the proposal.

Republicans, almost universally opposed to the public option, have sided with the private insurers. And that didn’t change during yesterday’s hearing even in the face of Potter’s damning insider testimony. Indeed, The Washington Post reported that Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) questioned why anyone should think that folks would have an easier time getting coverage under a government plan than they do from private companies. (Seems he missed the part about the manufactured confusion the for-profit companies employ to avoid paying claims.)

The moral of the story? “As you hold hearings and discuss legislative proposals over the coming weeks,” Potter warned, “I encourage you to look very closely at the role for-profit insurance companies play in making our health care system both the most expensive and one of the most dysfunctional in the world.”