A split is growing among conservative groups over their support of a bill lifting the 40-year-old ban on oil exports, after a “back-room” deal included a measure that would raise taxpayer spending.
The groups Heritage Action and FreedomWorks, in the last 24 hours, have split from a coalition of conservative groups supporting the bill. They did so because of a provision the House Rules Committee included in closed session that doles out millions of dollars to the maritime industry and its unions.
“Why does Congress have to take a perfectly good bill and add a $500 million gift to special interests without a vote?” Josh Withrow, the group’s legislative affairs manager, asked rhetorically Wednesday.
“We have always supported repealing the ban on exporting U.S. oil. However, we are withdrawing our support of the bill due to the closed-door, crony-capitalist process that the House is engaging in,” Withrow added, splitting from a broader coalition’s support of the bill. “Without this provision, the bill would have had our full support.”
After Congress’ nonpartisan research arm, the Congressional Budget Office, said last week that repealing the ban would put millions of dollars of revenue into the Treasury from oil and gas leases, “they gave it away to labor unions, even though the bill would have easily passed without this provision,” Withrow said.
Another influential group, Heritage Action, is also coming against the bill because of the $500 million rider. They expressed their dissatisfaction Tuesday night, and are urging lawmakers not to vote for the bill with the measure attached.
The measure increases funding for a little-known defense program that supports a fleet of 60 privately owned ships, which are used to provide logistical support for the U.S. military. Most of the money would go to shipping giant Maersk and benefit maritime unions with more money for workers, according to Heritage.
But despite the two groups’ dismay, several others are continuing to support the legislation.
Americans for Prosperity, the leader of the coalition, is continuing to issue letters of support to lawmakers to “vote yes” on the bill when it comes up for a vote Friday. “On behalf of more than 2.8 million Americans for Prosperity activists in all 50 states, I write to urge you to support [the] repeal of the outdated crude oil export ban,” the letter reads. “Lifting the ban would modernize the U.S. energy economy, incite economic growth, and create jobs.”
Chrissy Harbin, deputy director of federal affairs for the group, said FreedomWorks and Heritage Action are part of the coalition, but share a “difference in tactics” on the issue.
“We endorse fully lifting the ban,” Harbin told the Washington Examiner. The maritime provision is not changing the group’s stance.
“That particular rider is outside our policy purview,” she said. She said the group does not address defense issues, and the provision fits in that category.
It is more important for Harbin that the House Rules Committee decided not to include a host of renewable fuels and clean energy provisions that the Democrats wanted included to include. That has been the coalition’s primary concern. “We are really pleased to see that Congress has not … [included] handouts to green energy,” she said.
Other conservative groups that are still supporting lifting the ban include: the American Energy Alliance, American Council for Capital Formation, Americans for Competitive Enterprise, R Street, Tea Party Nation, Frontiers of Freedom, National Black Chamber of Commerce and several others.
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry, a Texas Republican, sent out a Dear Colleague letter Wednesday asking House members to support the bill with the maritime provision attached.
“Because of federal law, those ships must use U.S. crews, which entails higher costs. Without the [added funding], many of those ships would not be financially able to support the military needs,” says the letter, obtained by the Examiner.
Thornberry said 90 percent of the cargo used to support U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan was deployed using the vessels. Without the 60-ship fleet, it would cost the U.S. government $52 billion to build and operate its own. The commercial fleet is the most cost-effective way to go, he argued.
“I believe that supporting this program is the most efficient way to move cargo to our forward deployed troops and support its inclusion” in the bill lifting the oil export ban, he said.
