Boehner: Vote on highway-energy bill may not come before recess

February 17, 2012

Fuel Fix

Puneet Kollipara

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Wednesday his chamber may not finish considering Republicans’ energy infrastructure bill until after the Presidents’ Day recess, amid growing criticism of various aspects of the legislation.

Speaking to his conference, Boehner acknowledged the concerns about the plan, which would reauthorize surface-transportation programs for five years and expand oil and gas production to raise some of the funds needed for infrastructure projects. Representatives have filed nearly 300 amendments to the bill. The GOP also plans to rethink the part of the bill related to pension reform as it overlaps with a tentative deal on the payroll tax cut.

“Look, I know some of you still have concerns about this plan,” Boehner told his members, according to remarks provided by his office. “That’s why I want you to have a chance to offer amendments, to have a full debate on the floor.”

Republicans originally planned a vote sometime this week on the $260 billion legislation. They are framing the legislation as a major jobs bill that would also boost U.S. energy security by promoting more domestic oil and gas production.

They made that argument as the House took up the energy-related portion of the broader package.

“The bill we are considering today is an action plan that clearly contrasts President Obama’s anti-energy policies with the pro-energy, pro-American jobs policies of Republicans,” Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, said on the House floor.

Meanwhile the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a business lobbying group, came out backing the bill and calling the energy provisions “a true ‘win-win’ scenario for American consumers.”

But concern about the legislation has grown enough to lead to speculation that Boehner doesn’t have the votes to pass the bill, which President Barack Obama has threatened to veto.

The conservative group Club for Growth says the bill wouldn’t cut spending, and urged lawmakers to vote against it. Meanwhile, environmentalists contend the measure threatens funding for mass transit and would curtail environmental reviews they support.

Environmental and taxpayer groups also decry use of energy revenue to cover some of the costs, saying expansion of oil-and-gas production into sensitive areas would hurt the environment while not raising much money for transportation projects.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar joined the chorus of those opposed to the energy funding mechanisms. The energy provisions would require his department to issue leases in new offshore areas, direct Interior to issue commercial leases for oil-shale development and open up a small area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling.

“Many of the areas being put out there essentially do create phantom revenues because we know those places aren’t going to be developed in near term,” Salazar said at a House Natural Resources Committee hearing. “Even if they are developed it would provide less than 10 percent of revenue needs for surface transportation.”

More controversially, the bill contains a provision to approve the Keystone XL pipeline as Republicans try to circumvent the Obama administration’s denial of a permit on Jan. 18. Senate Republicans are trying to amend that chamber’s transportation bill with a similar provision to approve the TransCanada Corp. oil pipeline from Canada to Gulf Coast refineries.

They contend the pipeline would create jobs and bring oil from a friendly neighbor, and say Obama was merely trying to punt a politically challenging decision until after the election.

The administration insists the permit denial stemmed from a Congressionally imposed decision deadline, insisted upon by Republicans, that didn’t provide enough time for a crucial environmental review.

In explaining the veto threat, the White House said yesterday the energy provisions in the bill could threaten the environment and circumvent environmental review processes in the areas it would open to oil and gas production. That complaint comes in addition to other criticisms of the bill’s transportation provisions.

“Further, this bill seeks to circumvent a longstanding process for determining whether cross-border pipelines are in the national interest by mandating the permitting of the Keystone XL pipeline project despite the fact that the pipeline route has yet to be identified and there is no complete assessment of its potential impacts, including impacts on health and safety, the economy, foreign policy, energy security, and the environment,” a White House statement said.

<- Go Back