On February 15, at a hearing of the House Natural Resources Committee, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar noted that the President has requested $45 million for a research and development initiative by the U.S. Geological Survey, the Department of Energy, and the Environmental Protection Agency “aimed at understanding and minimizing potential environmental, health, and safety impacts of sale gas development and production through hydraulic fracturing.”

Secretary Salazar also defended Interior Department rules, soon to be proposed, that would toughen regulation of fracking on public lands by requiring disclosure of chemicals used in fracking fluid. At a speech in Cleveland the day before, the Secretary said that without full disclosure, “the failure of giving the American people confidence that hydraulic fracturing will in fact work will end up being the Achilles heel of the energy promise of America.”

At a February 16 hearing before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Energy Secretary Steven Chu highlighted the $12 million Energy Department portion of the R&D initiative contained in the Administration’s budget request, which he said would be used to “understand and minimize the potential environmental health and safety impacts of natural gas development through hydraulic fracturing.”

During the hearing, Senator Lisa Murkowski (AK-R) questioned the need for the request, saying that hydraulic fracturing had already been the subject of sufficient study. The Secretary responded that the initiative is needed to help facilitate improvements in drilling technology and practice “wherever possible, so that we can actually extract this resource in an environmentally responsible way.”

H.R. 3521, the Expedited Legislative Line-Item Veto and Rescissions Act, introduced by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul D. Ryan (WI-R) and the panel’s top Democrat, Representative Chris Van Hollen (MD-D), passed the House by a bipartisan vote of 254 to 173.

The Obama Administration, which had requested the authority, endorsed the bill in a February 6 Statement of Administration Policy, saying that it would eliminate unnecessary spending and discourage waste.

The final version passed by the House included a manager’s amendment, offered by the two sponsors, that would give the President 10 days after signing an appropriations bill to submit proposed rescissions to Congress. The House and Senate would then have three days to bring the measure to the floor for an up-or-down vote.

Following the bill’s passage, Chairman Ryan issued a statement saying that “Washington spends too much money that we don’t have on programs that can’t be justified. This bipartisan reform will help lawmakers to a better job of prioritizing hardworking taxpayers’ dollars.”

In a floor statement opposing the bill, Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (KY-R) said that the line-item veto would weaken Congress’s constitutionally bestowed power of the purse, “shifting budgetary authority to the Executive Branch and giving the President a power that our Founding Fathers did not see fit to give him.”

Congress, in fact, gave President Bill Clinton line-item veto authority when it passed the Line Item Veto Act of 1966, but the Supreme Court later ruled the Act unconstitutional. Supporters of the new bill maintain that it has been written to meet constitutional standards.

H.R. 3521 now goes to the Senate, where the outcome is uncertain because of likely opposition by Appropriations Committee members.

Despite attempts by backers of the resolution to win Russian and Chinese support, ambassadors for the two nations said that they considered the proposal too one-sided against the Syrian regime and did not try to seek a compromise solution to the conflict. The Chinese ambassador said the resolution as proposed did not guarantee the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria — a concern both China and Russia have stressed after a similar resolution on Libya last year was used as grounds for NATO intervention there in support rebels fighting Libyan dictator Muammar Gadhaffi.

Following the vote UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon released a statement expressing disappointment in the result. He said it “undermines the role of the United Nations and the international community in this period when the Syrian authorities must hear a unified voice calling for an immediate end to its violence against the Syrian people.”

“For months this Council has been held hostage by a couple of members,” said U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice. “These members stand behind empty arguments and individual interests while delaying and seeking to strip bare any text that would pressure Asad to change his actions. This intransigence is even more shameful when you consider that at least one of these members [Russia] continues to deliver weapons to Asad.”

Meanwhile, conditions continue to deteriorate inside Syria. Syrian forces are shelling Homs, the nation’s the third-largest city, with reports that more than 300 civilians have been killed since Friday. On Monday, the United States announced it was closing its Syrian embassy due to concerns over the safety of the diplomatic staff. In addition, France, Spain, Britain, Belgium, Italy, and the Gulf Cooperation Council (Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, and Oman) have recalled their ambassadors.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov travelled to Damascus on Tuesday, where he received a hero’s welcome from supporters of the Assad regime. He pledged to assist in negotiations between the Syrian government and the rebels.

The meeting began with Nabil El Araby, the secretary-general of the League of Arab States (LAS), briefing the council on current situation in Syria and the draft resolution prepared by LAS member-state Morocco and based on an earlier LAS-approved plan.

At that point, representatives of the Security Council had an opportunity to make statements. Secretary Clinton, speaking for the United States, called for passage of the draft resolution and condemned Assad’s government, which she said was responsible for the deaths of over 5,400 civilians:

We all know that change is coming to Syria. Despite its ruthless tactics, the Assad regime’s reign of terror will end and the people of Syria will have the chance to chart their own destiny. The question for us is: How many more innocent civilians will die before this country is able to move forward toward the kind of future it deserves? Unfortunately, it appears as though the longer this continues, the harder it will be to rebuild once President Assad and his regime is transitioned and something new and better takes its place. (Full text of her remarks are here.)

Chances for the resolution’s passage hinge on the disposition of Security Council permanent member Russia, which as close ties to Syria and can wield its veto power to block any council action. Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin suggested leaders of the Syrian government and opposition groups meet in Moscow for mediated negotiations (something that the rebels up to this point have refused).

Unofficially, reports are that Russia worries a new council resolution could open the door for outside military intervention in Syria, much like what happened in Libya after the Security Council passed a resolution condemning Libyan leader Moamar Gaddhafi and authorizing the use of force to prevent a humanitarian crisis. Secretary Clinton addressed such concerns in her remarks:

Now, I know that some members here may be concerned that the Security Council could be headed toward another Libya. That is a false analogy. Syria is a unique situation that requires its own approach, tailored to the specific circumstances occurring there. And that is exactly what the Arab League has proposed – a path for a political transition that would preserve Syria’s unity and institutions.

International Debates covered the beginning of the Syrian uprising in-depth in its September 2011 issue, Syria Crackdown, and we will continue to cover UN Security Council deliberations on the issue and any action the body may take to resolve what is now on the verge of becoming a civil war in the heart of the Middle East.

In a statement released by the White House, the President said:

“This announcement is not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline that prevented the State Department from gathering the information necessary to approve the project and protect the American people. I’m disappointed that Republicans in Congress forced this decision, but it does not change my Administration’s commitment to American-made energy that creates jobs and reduces our dependence on oil.”

The President further stated that the Administration would look for new ways to work with the oil and gas industry to increase the Nation’s energy security “in a way that benefits American workers and businesses without risking the health and safety of the American people and the environment.”

While environmental groups hailed the Administration’s decision, Republicans in Congress vowed to take legislative action to reverse it. The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power has scheduled a hearing on January 25 on a measure that would transfer authority for approving pipelines that cross international boundaries from the State Department (where it now resides) to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The bill, H.R. 3548, introduced by Representative Lee Terry (NE-R), creates a process whereby FERC would approve the pipeline, including a route modification to be worked out with the State of Nebraska.

“The American people want us to stop buying Venezuelan oil,” Representative Terry said. “The Keystone Pipeline is a key component of making that happen.”

The Subcommittee has invited Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to testify at the hearing.

With a number of important issues still unresolved, the combativeness of 2011 may be just a warm-up for what lies ahead, as lawmakers return to an even more partisan election year environment. Congressional Digest will be reporting on these and other topics in the year ahead.

Payroll Tax Extension

Before Congress adjourned for the holidays, House Republicans abandoned their opposition to a two-month extension of the 4.2 percent Social Security payroll tax, which had been set to revert to 6.2 percent December 31. The deal passed by Congress and signed by the President also extends for two months long-term unemployment benefits. This means that negotiators have until the end of February to hammer out a compromise. Although members of both parties say they support a year-long extension, the conflict is over how to pay for it. Senate Democrats have proposed a surtax on incomes over $1 million, while House Republicans want to freeze Federal salaries. If lawmakers don’t reach an agreement, about 160 million workers will see a tax increase and about 3 million people will see their unemployment benefits end.

Debt Limit

The August 2011 debt deal that created the “super committee” that failed to forge a deficit reduction agreement last fall also included a new process for raising the debt ceiling. Under the deal, the President must submit to Congress a certification that government borrowing is within $100 billion of the current debt limit and that the ceiling must be increased. Congress then has 15 days to pass a joint resolution disapproving any increase; otherwise, it happens automatically.

Even though borrowing came within the $100 million range at the end of December, the White House acquiesced to Congress’s request that the President wait until Congress was back in session to submit the debt ceiling increase request. The President will ask for $1.2 trillion, which would raise the federal debt limit to $16.4 trillion. After that the White House would not have to seek further increases before the November election.

Online Piracy

Legislation to crack down on websites that traffic in stolen digital content or counterfeit goods has moved quickly through House and Senate committees, but opponents have formed coalitions to fight against the measure when it reaches the floor. The Senate is currently scheduled to vote on January 24 on a motion to take up S. 968, the Protect IP Act, sponsored by Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (VT-D). For more on this issue, see the November 2011 Congressional Digest on “Internet Piracy.”

Farm Bill

The current farm bill ― the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 ― is set to expire September 30 of this year. House and Senate Agriculture committees will soon resume hearings on aspects of the bill and may use spending cuts proposed by the failed deficit reduction “super committee” as a starting point for drafting legislation. The super committee recommended savings of $23 billion over 10 years in agriculture programs. The commodity section of the bill, which deals with farm subsidies and risk management, is expected to be the most contentious.

Postal Service

The U.S. Postal Service is facing bankruptcy and even with planned budget reductions of $3 billion is expected to lose $14 billion this year. House and Senate committees have approved separate plans to overhaul the Postal Service so that it can avoid bankruptcy, but outstanding issues remain ― including whether to eliminate Saturday mail delivery. The Postal Service has proposed its own plan to close more than half of its mail-processing centers and is also considering closing almost 3,700 post offices, a move that does not require congressional approval. Congress has asked the Postal Service to hold off on implementing its plan until May 15 in hopes that the financial problems can be addressed through legislation instead.

Although Obama had originally threatened to veto the bill if the detainee provisions weren’t removed, he backed off after Congress added compromise language stating that the bill does not alter the president’s existing authorities and allows the president to grant a waiver that would permit a terrorist suspect arrested on U.S. soil to be tried in civilian court. In addition, when he signed the bill, he released a statement that set out his interpretation of the law.

“The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it,” Obama said in the statement. “In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists.”

The statement proceeded to outline, section by section, how the Executive Branch would implement the law. It continued: “I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation.”

In conclusion, Obama pledged to work to repeal the sections of the law he considers objectionable. Of course, as long as the language is not rescinded, future presidents could interpret it differently, perhaps making greater use of military detentions.

Under the original proposal, the pipeline would pass through the Sand Hills of Nebraska, which includes the Ogalla Aquifer, a major fresh water resource for eight states. Critics were concerned that oil spills from the pipeline could contaminate the aquifer, putting citizens’ health at risk.

The State Department stated that “given the concentration of concerns regarding the environmental sensitivities of the current proposed route through the Sand Hills area of Nebraska, the Department has determined it needs to undertake an in-depth assessment of potential alternative routes” in that state. The department’s new review could take up to 18 months.

A few days after the State Department announcement, TransCanada (the Alberta-based energy company proposing the pipeline) offered to adjust its route to avoid the environmentally sensitive region. Nevertheless, the State Department must still conduct its study, which will take into account broader environmental and other issues in order to determine whether the pipeline project is “in the national interest.”

Meanwhile, also in early November, the State Department’s inspector general said that he was looking into conflict-of-interest charges and improper political influence in the preparation of the department’s environmental impact statement on the pipeline. That report concluded that the project would have “limited adverse environmental impact,” as long as it adhered to regulations.

For now, the project ― considered the most high-profile environmental issue of the Obama presidency ― remains on hold, most likely through the 2012 elections.

For five and a half hours over the course of two days sometime next March, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on several aspects of the the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. For two hours, the Court will consider whether the mandate that all U.S. citizens must buy health insurance or pay a penalty is unconstitutional. For the next 90 minutes, the Court will hear arguments about whether the individual mandate is “severable” — that is, if the court strikes that part of the law down, whether the entire law is invalidated. The following hour will be spent on the topic of the Anti-injunction Act and whether it prohibits a challenge to the law before the penalties associated with the individual mandate go into effect in 2014. Finally, the Court will consider the constitutionality of the Act’s requirement that States pay 10 percent of the cost of expanded Medicaid coverage.

The five-and-a-half-hour block of arguments on one law will set a modern-day court record, eclipsing the four hours spent considering challenges to the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform in 2003. During the session, the Court will likely consider weighty issues, such as the power and reach of the Federal government, States rights, individual liberty, and the nature of the health care market.

Over the course of the past year, Federal appeals courts have considered a variety of challenges to the health care act, with some upholding it in its entirety, others dismissing the cases on technical grounds, and one Court — the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals — striking down the individual mandate but upholding the rest of the law. It was a series of cases arising from the 11th Circuit — Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services, National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida — that the Court on Monday agreed to hear.

Supreme Court Debates will be covering these cases extensively, including oral arguments and the final Court decision, which is expected in late June.

The concept of an infrastructure bank has been around for some time. As described in the January 2009 Congressional Digest on “Infrastructure Financing,” a 2006 report by the Commission on Public Infrastructure called for the creation of such an entity to issue bonds and raise funds for projects based on national significance, productivity, and economic benefit.

In 2009, Senators Christopher Dodd (CT-D) and Chuck Hagel (NE-R) (both no longer in Congress) and Representative Keith Ellison (MN-D) introduced legislation to create an infrastructure bank. Earlier this year, Senator John Kerry (MA-D) sponsored a similar bill, along with Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX-R), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and Mark Warner (D-VA).

On the Senate floor yesterday, supporters of the measure said that it would create much needed construction jobs while repairing deteriorating roads and bridges. “It is about increasing the Federal footprint in the infrastructure arena,  Senator Chris Coons (DE-D) said of ban proposal. “This is smart spending. This is investing in the best tradition of Federal, State, local, and private partnerships to make America more competitive for the future.”

Opponents objected to the bill on the basis that it would be financed by a tax surcharge on the wealthy and create a new government bureaucracy.  “It is about increasing the Federal footprint in the infrastructure arena. It is about increasing taxes on those with incomes above $500,000, now creatively called millionaires, including incomes of many business owners who risk their own capital to create jobs,” said Senator Orrin Hatch (UT-R).

The bill’s defeat was not a surprise, as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV-D) continues to bring up pieces of the President’s job package in an effort to exert political pressure on the Republicans. The next stand-alone jobs bill that’s likely come to the Senate floor would provide tax incentives for the hiring of veterans.