Sen. Ted Cruz is causing headaches for his GOP colleagues again, this time over oil exports.
The Texas Republican filed an amendment to legislation authorizing the Keystone XL pipeline that would end the 39-year-old ban on exports, and he will attempt to force a vote on the issue. He told reporters that he’s doing it because it’s “good policy.”
It’s not that other Republicans disagree. It’s that the timing might not be right. But with Cruz’s push, Republicans might not have the luxury of time.
The amendment could put some in the position of voting against ending crude oil exports because the issue isn’t ripe enough in the public domain, potentially boxing them into that position if voters warm to the idea leading into 2016. And if Republicans support ending the restrictions before their constituents are sold on the idea, they risk being blamed if gasoline prices increase, which analysts contend is almost inevitable.
“I would have to do to a lot more to prepare myself,” said Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., on whether he would support Cruz’s amendment.
Some Republicans such as Sen. John Hoeven of North Dakota and Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma are trying to chart a middle ground by saying they favor ending export restrictions, but aren’t sure they would vote for Cruz’s amendment.
“Inhofe supports ending the ban on exporting U.S. oil, but he has not made a decision if [the Keystone XL bill] is the best legislative vehicle to successfully address this policy,” said Inhofe spokeswoman Donelle Harder.
The fear for would-be supporters of loosening export restrictions is that voters believe doing so would raise gasoline prices, which are below $2 per gallon nationally the first time since the late-2000s. While that might not be true — some studies, including early estimates by the federal U.S. Energy Information Administration and the Congressional Budget Office, argue exports might lower pump prices — the public certainly seems to think so.
Public opinion is why many Republicans are silent on whether they support ending the restrictions, and why many told the Washington Examiner that they want more time to study the effects of allowing exports.
“We don’t have the analytical data that we do on [liquefied natural gas exports]. This is good, though. We’re having debate,” said Sen. Rob Portman, an Ohio Republican facing re-election in 2016.
In a refrain echoed by several Senate GOP offices, an aide for Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind., told the Examiner that the senator is “still reviewing the amendment.” Some oil-patch senators are also undecided on whether they would vote for the Cruz amendment. For example, an aide to Sen. John Cornyn, the Republican whip, told the Examiner that the Texas Republican would “look at the proposal.”
Whether the amendment gets a vote is uncertain, given that aides expect more than 100 to be filed. Amendments will require 60 votes to be attached to the Keystone XL bill.
“It is good, pro-growth policy, which is why he has taken the opportunity to file the measure as an amendment to the Keystone bill, just like many other senators have offered amendments with their own priorities. We look forward to seeing how the legislative process plays out,” Cruz spokeswoman Catherine Frazier told the Examiner.
The oil industry is pushing for an end to the ban, saying that U.S. refiners aren’t equipped to process the light sweet crude coming from shale energy regions. Some independent refiners, however, say they can handle it. They want to maintain the restrictions, not least because they have experienced a windfall during the shale boom since there are no limits on exporting refined products such as gasoline.
But even oil industry officials are wary of the Cruz amendment. Officials have said they must do a better job educating the public on the effects of ending the export ban.
“I’m not sure people are ready because I don’t think they fully appreciate the issues and understand the issue completely. And that’s what we’re trying to get out and do: Educate on that,” ConocoPhillips CEO Ryan Lance told the Houston Chronicle Wednesday.
Kyle Isakower, vice president of regulatory and economic policy with the American Petroleum Institute told the Examiner, “We appreciate the senator’s good intentions. However, our preference is for a clean KXL bill.”
The congressional conversation on ending the crude oil export restrictions is barely a year old. The public has hardly touched the issue and, after living through decades of scarcity and reliance on unfriendly nations for oil, is relishing the low gas prices that is caused partly by an U.S. energy boom.
Sixty-nine percent of Americans “somewhat” or “strongly” oppose sending more oil and natural gas abroad, according to a poll of 1,101 likely voters in the 2016 elections released Thursday by left-leaning think tank Center for American Progress. On top of that, 71 percent of respondents — including 69 percent of Republicans — thought ending the oil export ban “would only increase gas prices here at home while making oil companies richer.”
Some Republicans are more than eager to take a vote. An aide for Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., said he would back the bill, and supporters of ending the export ban contend low gas prices have given them a window to discuss the topic.
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Lisa Murkowski, perhaps the upper chamber’s biggest advocate of ending the restrictions, said she was happy to have the debate on crude oil exports. Still, the she acknowledged doing so might prove prickly.
“I think it might complicate our debate on Keystone and the passage of Keystone,” the Alaska Republican told reporters. “I really don’t want to dissuade members from amendments … the real question is do we actually go for a vote?”
