A showdown in the US Senate over the filibuster illuminated both a political tactic painfully familiar to the oil and gas industry and a reason for the industry not to feel alone. The tactic is delay.
Senate Democrats, frustrated by inaction on several of President Barack Obama's Executive-branch nominations awaiting confirmation, proposed a change that would have required a simple minority to allow nominations of that type to move to a vote. The current requirement for 60 of 100 possible votes to end filibusters keeps the minority party from being stampeded but has been used with increasing frequency in recent years. Democrats call that obstructionism. When Republicans controlled the Senate, they described ready resort to the filibuster by Democrats much the same way and have made their own threats in the past to foreclose the tactic. The latest showdown ended on July 16 with an agreement to allow confirmation of five delayed nominations and consideration of two others with replacement nominees.
Two hurdles
In the case of at least one of the stalled nominations, tactical delay other than a threatened filibuster was at work. The nomination of Gina McCarthy as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency faced two specific hurdles beyond questions about her high-ranking work in a bureau so hyperactive the Republican-controlled House is preparing legislation to curb its power. The bill, if passed by the House, would neither win passage in the Senate nor survive a veto, of course. But the measure is warranted and the gesture, welcome.
One hurdle to McCarthy's nomination was a list of questions about EPA transparency and practices to which a group of senators demanded answers. Led by Republican David Vitter of Louisiana, the group blocked a vote on McCarthy's nomination in the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works until mid-May, when Vitter said EPA had assured them of progress on the transparency problems.
The other hurdle was a hold on McCarthy's nomination imposed in March by Republican Roy Blunt of Missouri. Blunt's concern focused on the St. John's Bayou-New Madrid Floodway project in southeastern Missouri, which would repair a 1,500-ft gap in the Mississippi River levee system and install pumping stations to protect a large area from flooding. Environmental groups oppose the project.
Oil industry workers frustrated by delays in approval of the Keystone XL pipeline border crossing can learn something about patience from supporters of the St. John's-New Madrid project. Congress first approved closure of the levee gap in 1954. Funding came later. When construction finally began in 2006, the National Wildlife Federation and Environmental Defense Fund sued. In 2007 the judge in that case not only called assurances about environmental mitigation by the Army Corps of Engineers inadequate but also required the dismantling of work completed to that point. Now, with new environmental reviews nearly complete, pressure groups continue to oppose the project, saying it would threaten fisheries and wetlands and challenging its effectiveness in flood control.
Last year, Blunt and Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) began calling for action on the St. John's-New Madrid environmental impact statement (EIS). Last February, they met with representatives of the EPA, Corps of Engineers, and US Fish and Wildlife Service to discuss the delay. According to Blunt, the agencies agreed to resolve their disputes and move toward a decision on the draft EIS by mid-March. They missed the deadline. Blunt met with McCarthy late in May, after her nomination, and called the discussion "frank and disappointing."
Obstructionism
Parallels with Keystone XL are clear. The administration doesn't want to upset environmental groups by approving a project they oppose but that the public supports. So it delays.
Congressional Democrats and many news commentators point to the newly relieved nominations logjam and complain about mired governance. But tactical delays of the Keystone XL and Missouri flood-control projects are no less obstructionist than the filibuster and, in combination with the regulatory excesses of a rogue EPA, much costlier.