Even as their opening statements exhibited philosophical and policy differences, 47 conferees yesterday vowed to finish work quickly on a long-term transportation reauthorization bill and avoid another short-term extension.

At the first public meeting of the conference, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) set an early June deadline for a deal, saying the House and Senate must reach a compromise by then in order to get a bill through both chambers before the June 30 expiration of existing policy.

"Failure is not an option for us," said the Environment and Public Works Committee's chairwoman, who will also lead the conference.

"The country needs us to pass a surface transportation bill so that we can fix our aging infrastructure, put people back to work and boost the economy," she said. "The health of our businesses, workers and communities depend on it."

Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.), vice chairman of the conference and leader of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said both sides wanted a bill, but added that "it must be paid for, it must not raise taxes, it must not include earmarks, and it must not add to federal bureaucracy."

However, that could be a tall order for the conference, based on opening statements, which made up the entirety of the 150-minute meeting. Legislators were split on everything from how to finance the bill to whether to attach language approving the Keystone XL oil pipeline. However, many agreed that they wanted to set aside the differences, where possible, to pass the crucial measure, which would follow nine short-term extensions and provide certainty to transportation officials.

"We can't let our hard heads get in the way of our hard hats," said Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.), the top Democrat on the House Transportation Committee.

Boxer said that after yesterday's meeting, staff would begin working behind the scenes to craft a compromise. Staffers from all conferees already met once last week, although members and aides indicated that little progress has been made on a final bill.

The Senate brings to the table a two-year, $109 billion bill, while the House passed a 90-day extension of existing policy with a number of riders, including language to speed Keystone, bar U.S. EPA from regulating coal ash and streamline environmental reviews. Those provisions are expected to gum up much of the debate, although paying for the bill and finding a supplement for the federal gas tax will also be hotly contested.

Boxer said in her closing statement that she had heard "no lines in the sand" and felt confident that the big issues could be worked through, a sentiment shared by many other conferees. But the content of their statements could reveal more ominous cracks in the surface.

Keystone, coal ash cause divisions

The Keystone language in particular was a hot-button issue during the opening statements. Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) said it was "logical" to include approval of the Canada-to-U.S. oil pipeline because it was the "ultimate" jobs and infrastructure bill. And Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) said the pipeline would be "the best job creator we have that doesn't cost a dime of taxpayer dollars."

But Democrats vowed to exclude the language, saying it was nothing more than a rider that did not belong on the bill. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) called it an "earmark" -- a dirty word at the conference -- and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said it was being unfairly touted by Republicans and should be dropped. The White House has threatened a veto if the pipeline is included, and many senators who have supported Keystone in the past are urging it be left out of the final bill.

Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said that while he opposes the approval, if it is left in the bill, he would urge the conference to include language requiring that any oil carried by the pipeline be sold within the United States.

Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), who led an effort to have the pipeline provision attached to the Senate bill, said he would continue fighting for approval. Speaking outside the conference, Hoeven said there was "a lot of support on both sides of the aisle" and that the "merits [of the project] should carry it."

A provision to prevent EPA from regulating coal ash as a hazardous substance took a back seat to the panel's discussions on Keystone XL, a more politically charged issue.

Defenders of inserting Rep. David McKinley's (R-W.Va.) H.R. 2273 into the transportation package fought back against claims that the measure would be harmful to public health and was not germane to the discussion. Coal ash is often recycled in road construction.

But with McKinley not on the conference committee, it is unclear how much other supporters will fight for the coal ash provision to survive the grueling debate.

Top Senate backer Hoeven wants colleagues to let go of preconceived notions about the issue. "Look at the bill," he said in an interview. "That's what I'm trying to get people to do. If they raise concerns, let's take a look at the facts."

But Rahall said, "I hope that, along with the other supposed contentious issues, are not the reason we hold action on this [transportation] bill." Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) has made similar recent statements.

House-passed language that would speed environmental reviews of construction projects is also likely to cause some trouble as members try to meld it with the corresponding Senate provision, which legislators say represents a delicate bipartisan compromise. Both sides agree it is important to streamline project delivery and reduce red tape, but Democrats say they are concerned that the House language goes too far. Waxman said it would "eviscerate" existing environmental law and added that some provisions could even violate the Clean Air Act.

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) said he was not entirely happy with the Senate language -- a sentiment shared by many environmental groups -- but said it was far preferable to the House language, which he said would allow construction without any public input.

However, Mica told colleagues that it was crucial to include reform language in the bill, saying "let's not just spend more money or throw money at our problems; let's have some serious reforms."

Legislators also touched on language that would force Congress to spend about double what it currently does every year on port and harbor maintenance. The "RAMP Act" drew support for increasing spending on dredging and could see compromise from both chambers.

Both sides also agreed on the importance of including a Gulf Coast oil spill recovery fund known as the "RESTORE Act," although the House-passed language does not go as far as the Senate's. Rep. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), one of the original Senate sponsors, said he will work hard to ensure that the Senate language remains in the bill.

There is no timeline for another conference meeting, which may not come until a final bill is negotiated behind the scenes.

Reporter Manuel Quinones contributed.