Is that a threat? White House veto signals often nuanced

WASHINGTON — When White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest addressed the Keystone XL Pipeline bill on Tuesday, his response seemed unequivocal: "If this bill passes this Congress, the president wouldn't sign it."

"Are we correct in reporting this as a veto threat?" a reporter asked.

"Yes," Earnest replied.

But when the White House issued the formal veto threat the next morning — through what's known as a statement of administration policy — the White House seemed to ever-so-slightly dial back its threat.

"If presented to the president, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto this bill," said the statement from the Office of Management and Budget.

Prep for the polls: See who is running for president and compare where they stand on key issues in our Voter Guide

Presidential scholars and members of Congress have long understood a recommended veto to be a softer form of opposition than a veto threat that comes directly from the president. And so the change Wednesday buoyed supporters of the Keystone pipeline project, which would link oil fields in western Canada to a pipeline in Nebraska. Congressional Republicans have put the bill at the top of their agenda, saying it would create thousands of jobs. Environmentalists oppose it, saying oil from the Canadian tar sands would contribute to global warming.

The "senior adviser" veto threat — first used by President Reagan — often gives the president "wiggle room" to negotiate a compromise, said Samuel Kernell, a professor at the University of California, San Diego.

"If he wants to send a declarative, clear signal to lawmakers that this is a deal-breaker, he'll send the message that he will veto," Kernell said. "What he's doing in these different levels of veto threats, with different rhetoric, the president is saying, 'This is the level of flexibility.'"

Because Obama hasn't issued the veto threat personally, it doesn't carry the same weight, scholars say. And Obama — while making clear that he believes the environmental concerns outweigh the economic benefits — has not personally said that he would veto it.

The statement of administration policy objected to the bill on process grounds, saying it circumvents "longstanding and proven processes for determining whether cross-border pipelines serve the national interest." That language, which stopped short of addressing the project on the merits, is similar to a veto threat issued by the Obama administration to a previous Keystone bill in 2013. That veto threat, too, came from senior advisers -- as do about 80% of Obama's veto threats, according to a USA TODAY analysis.

"The first thing to understand is that a veto threat is like raising the bid in poker — it may be a bluff but it may not be. Just like in high stakes poker, the uncertainty is key," said Charles Cameron, a Princeton University professor and author of Veto Bargaining: Presidents and the Politics of Negative Power. "In the case of the Keystone pipeline, it's not clear to me what concession the Republicans can make in a passed bill that would head off the veto. But having them try to figure that out is part of what the veto threat game is all about."

White House spokesman Frank Benenati referred back to Earnest's comments Tuesday, saying Earnest made "very clear" the president would veto the bill. But on Capitol Hill, supporters of the Keystone project say they noticed the subtle change in language and are encouraged by it.

"It gives me some incentive to continue to try to persuade," said Rep. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., the House sponsor of the Keystone bill. "I think a lot of Democrats know in their heart that they should be for this bill. Hopefully that spills over to the president himself. Maybe we don't get the veto-proof margin or the ability to overturn a veto, but we get enough political pressure and, just as important, political cover."

The Keystone bill passed the House last year, and Republicans have only increased their majority there. In the Senate, the bill has a 60-vote, filibuster-proof margin of support, which includes at least six Democrat senators — including Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va.

"I was very disappointed when I heard the president say he would veto it — or the White House," Manchin said, correcting himself in a floor speech Wednesday about the source of the veto threat. He said he'd welcome amendments that would improve the bill so that "maybe, just maybe, the White House will change its mind."

The Keystone bill was one of two the White House threatened to veto in the first 24 hours of the new Congress. The other would change the definition of full-time employment in the Affordable Care Act, requiring employers to provide health benefits only to 40-hour-a-week workers. The current standard is 30 hours.

The Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday that change would force 1 million people off employer-provided coverage, putting most of them into Medicaid, increasing the deficit by $53 billion over 10 years.

Asked Tuesday if the White House would veto that bill as well, Earnest said, "We would, yes."

Wednesday, the formal veto threat came with the stronger veto threat language: "If the President were presented with H.R. 30, he would veto it," OMB said.

Congressional reporter Susan Davis contributed. Follow @gregorykorte on Twitter.