Conferees May Be Close to Coal Ash Resolution

Conferees May Be Close to Coal Ash Resolution

By Nathan Hurst and Alan K. Ota, CQ Staff

Highway bill negotiators appear to be nearing a compromise on the contentious question of regulating coal ash, potentially settling one of the big remaining obstacles to a conference agreement.
House Republicans have been demanding language in the surface transportation authorization (HR 4348) that would bar the EPA from regulating fly ash as a hazardous waste. Recycled ash is often used in concrete and paving materials, and some states, including California, require its use to prevent water from seeping into concrete.
The House is set to vote Thursday on a motion instructing conferees to oppose EPA regulation of coal ash, an action that Republicans portrayed as a stand against an Obama administration “war on coal.” But the motion’s sponsor, West Virginia Republican David B. McKinley, acknowledged during floor debate that conferees were “deep in productive negotiations” on the issue and expected to resolve it soon.
The deal under discussion would prevent the EPA from listing coal ash as a “hazardous” material, which could preclude its use in road and bridge construction. Instead, the EPA could establish a national disposal standard for coal ash that states would administer, with support by federal regulators.
“We are confident we are very close to having language that Senate Democrats will agree to,” said an industry supporter, who added that negotiations were ongoing.
Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., also hinted during a Wednesday morning television appearance that conferees were close to settling differences on toll roads. Hoeven suggested conferees would rescind Senate-passed language to stop states from including certain privatized toll roads in their state spending that qualifies them for matching federal funds. The provision was added by Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., as an amendment to the Senate-passed highway bill (S 1813).
“We have worked out a resolution on those issues,” Hoeven said on C-SPAN. “Essentially, the federal government will provide the money to the states, and it won’t count against them.”
Despite a call by leadership to complete a conference agreement this week and a flurry of urgent negotiations, many industry lobbyists and congressional aides believe another short-term extension will be needed. The current authorization (PL 112-102) expires June 30.
Senate Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer said “core” transportation issues would have to be settled before other issues, such as House demands to include language mandating quick approval of the Keystone XL oil pipeline, are taken up.
“We first have to resolve the transportation part,” the California Democrat said. “Once we do that, then we’ll focus on where we are with the others. . . . I feel we can get it done quickly. It just depends on what the House decides to do.”

Some Issues to Require Boehner’s Attention

Adding to the sense of urgency, the House voted 386-34 on Wednesday to adopt a motion by Minnesota Democrat Tim Walz instructing conferees to produce a conference report by Friday. House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer, D-Md., plans to offer another motion Thursday that would instruct conferees to take up the Senate-passed bill in their report.
“This commonsense motion to instruct simply says that we should take up the Senate bill,” Hoyer said in a written statement. “I believe the Senate version would pass the House if Republican leaders bring it up for a vote.”
Some of the most contentious remaining issues — including the Keystone pipeline — are likely to require the attention of House Speaker John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. But Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said such leadership discussions would not occur until Boxer, House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman John L. Mica, R-Fla., and the other conferees resolve the remaining transportation policy issues.

Mixed Signals on Keystone

Meanwhile, Senate Republicans sent mixed signals about the importance of including a Keystone pipeline provision in a final agreement.
John Cornyn of Texas, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, was among those who said including Keystone language is vital, noting that he voted against the Senate-passed bill, which didn’t address the pipeline.
“I think Keystone’s critical,” Cornyn said.
Other GOP senators instead emphasized concerns about meeting budget-related targets and restricting funding for non-highway projects.
“It would be great to get Keystone accomplished,” said Rob Portman of Ohio, who voted against the Senate’s two-year, $109 billion bill. He said the addition of Keystone would sway his vote in support. Without Keystone, Portman said he and other Republicans would expect the finished bill to live within Budget Control Act (PL 112-25) limits.
“Even without Keystone, if the bill comes back within the budget constraints that we set up just last year under the Budget Control Act, I would be inclined to support it,” Portman said. The Senate rejected a Republican effort during floor debate in March to limit spending to Budget Control Act levels.
Jim DeMint of South Carolina, chairman of the Senate Republican Steering Committee, said it would be “important for the highway bill to stay within the revenues of gas taxes.”
DeMint also opposed the Senate bill, which is estimated to need about $12 billion in offsets to pay for spending in excess of projected Highway Trust Fund tax receipts over two years.
“To establish the precedent that we’re going to start paying for it in other ways is just not a good thing to do,” DeMint said. “We just need to pay for it with the trust fund.”
Sen. Charles E. Grassley, a supporter of the Senate-passed bill, said he favors Keystone but doesn’t think differences on the issue should preclude a final bill.
“We’ve got to make sure that people know that our highways are going to continue to be improved,” the Iowa Republican said. “So, we’re going to have to pass a highway bill one way or another. But I hope Keystone is in there.”
Humberto Sanchez and Richard E. Cohen contributed to this story.