An influential House Republican said this weekend that lawmakers would "get better policy" by holding off until the start of the 113th Congress to avert automatic budget cuts set to start in January -- if Mitt Romney wins the presidential election and Republicans take control of the Senate.

Jim Jordan, chairman of the powerful Republican Study Committee, agrees Congress needs to avert these across-the-board cuts to federal programs, also known as sequestration. But he argued that lame-duck work on the sequestration should be done only if President Obama is re-elected. Otherwise, major action on the cuts should be postponed until the start of the 113th Congress, if the GOP sees big victories come November.

"If we get to a lame-duck session and we have in January a Republican Congress, a Republican president, let's wait to get better policy," Jordan told said during a broadcast of C-SPAN's "Newsmakers."

The Ohio Republican, a leading thinker in the House GOP, acknowledged that looming across-the-board cuts to federal agencies would adversely affect national security and other programs but said a retroactive approach could be in Republicans' best interest.

Jordan's comments go against warnings from GOP leaders in the House and Senate who have been sounding the alarm that the automatic cuts would be too dramatic for agencies, primarily the Pentagon. They insist that Congress avert the cuts before they take effect Jan. 3.

Since the congressional supercommittee's inability to reach a deal on deficit reduction last year, lawmakers have been scrambling to avert the $487 billion in defense reductions over the next decade. The cuts would be in addition to $450 billion in decadelong reductions to defense programs under the spending caps established by the 2011 debt limit law.

"I honestly believe that the economy of this country will be severely and adversely affected," Jordan said. "We have got to avoid this."

While both parties say sequestration would be a disaster for defense and non-defense programs, they are far apart on how to stop the automatic cuts. Democrats say raising revenue must be part of a solution, while Republicans generally support only reductions in spending. Jordan has adamantly opposed raising taxes.

Congress has a number of tools to prevent sequestration during the lame-duck session, including attaching a provision to delay automatic cuts to must-pass legislation.

Last week, House Appropriations Committee ranking Democrat Norm Dicks of Washington wrote to his colleagues, laying out his concerns about the effects of sequestration, to "help make the case for Congress to act responsibly by agreeing to a more sensible approach to deficit reduction."

In his letter, Dicks argued sequestration would cut nearly $196 million from the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water funds, "dramatically hinder the government's ability to prepare for and fight wildfires," and "greatly harm" the Agriculture Department's ability to inspect slaughterhouses and food processing plants (E&ENews PM, Oct. 9).

'Energy to play big'

During his C-SPAN interview, Jordan said the ongoing debate over promoting the United States' energy resources will benefit Republicans in November, particularly in swing states like his.

"I think the energy issue is going to play big. I really do," Jordan said. "I think it's one of those things that will put Mitt Romney over the top and allow him to win."

Jordan criticized the president's support for green energy development in the form of loan guarantees and his policies dealing with the coal industry, echoing a top Republican talking point in the race.

"People in southeast Ohio, the coal mining area of our state, a typical swing area in our state," said Jordan, "I just think it's going to be difficult for people there to vote for the most anti-coal president in American history."

Several groups have announced coal-focused ads in Ohio. The latest is Americans for Prosperity, which on Friday announced new pro-coal radio spots in the Buckeye State and southwestern Virginia. It is part of a $170,000 effort aimed at turning denizens of the Appalachian coal fields against the president's re-election.

"We have a proud history for all that we've accomplished," the ad says. "But now President Obama wants to do away with all that just to please the special interests in Washington."

Obama's own pro-coal ad has been raising ire among environmentalists, who see it as a cynical attempt to woo coal-field voters. At least two groups, including Forecast the Facts, are calling on the president to stop airing the spot.