ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

A real estate lawyer at Husch Blackwell LLP, Diehl, R-Town and Country, is known as a skillful deal-maker.

This month, he took the helm in the Missouri House, where Republicans command a historic supermajority. The speaker’s job is often considered the second most powerful post in state government, behind the governor.

But Diehl denies being in the middle of any deal-making for a new stadium.

“No one’s told me that’s what they’re doing,� he said in an interview this week. “The first I heard of it was when I read the newspaper� on Tuesday.

That’s when Commissioner of Administration Doug Nelson, a member of Gov. Jay Nixon’s Cabinet, said Nixon wouldn’t need legislative approval to issue bonds for a new St. Louis Rams stadium.

“This is not an indication of what we’re going to do,� Nelson said. “This is an indication that we believe we have that authority.�

Diehl characterized Nelson’s statement as a “hypothetical� scenario that didn’t merit a response. When pressed, the speaker said he had a “strong preference� that the Legislature vote on any bond extension.

A task force appointed by Nixon recently unveiled a proposal for a 64,000-seat stadium on the Mississippi River. The stadium would cost nearly $1 billion, with as much as $405 million paid by taxpayers.

To cover much of that cost, the task force — Jones Dome attorney Robert Blitz and former Anheuser-Busch President David Peacock — suggested “extending� payments that now go to pay off debt on the Edward Jones Dome. Of that, the state pays about $12 million a year for Dome debt and upkeep.

Here is an edited transcript of the interview with Diehl:

Q. Could the stadium bonds be extended without a legislative vote?

A. I haven’t researched whether it’s possible. No one’s given me a plan that says that’s what they’re going to do.

Q. Would it be appropriate to put the state in that much debt without a vote of the Legislature?

A. I think it would be preferable to have it come through the General Assembly, and I have a strong preference that it come through the General Assembly.

No one’s told me that’s what they’re doing. The first I heard of it was when I read the newspaper (Tuesday). No one’s given me a plan that says that’s what they’re intending to do. My understanding of (Doug) Nelson’s comment was, “We think we can. That doesn’t mean that’s what we’re going to do.�

Q. Are you hoping to have a new stadium?

A. I would like to keep the Rams in St. Louis. But it has to be done in all ways proper.

Q. To keep the Rams, you need a new stadium. So in other words, you favor a new stadium?

A. We’ll see.

Q. Does a new stadium require public financial support?

A. I’ve said before, any participation by St. Louis city or St. Louis County requires a vote by the voters of St. Louis city or St. Louis County.

Q. Including to extend bonds?

A. I believe it does. I’m not being difficult. I don’t have anything to react to. I don’t like responding to hypotheticals.

Q. (Diehl is shown slides from the Peacock presentation.)

A. It’s not a plan. That’s a concept. OK, I can show you pretty buildings all day long. I can show you Aerotropolis. It doesn’t mean it’s a plan.

They showed a picture on the river. I have not seen a plan or a proposal of any action to be taken by the General Assembly, whether by the appropriations process or by legislation, for us to look at or react to.

And this is a highly sensitive negotiation with the NFL, with the Rams, it involves another city, and I’m not going to play out hypotheticals in the newspaper.

Q. Have you talked to the House Republican Caucus about it, asked them to wait to opine on it until there is a detailed plan?

A. No. There are far more pressing issues for us to deal with. It’s never come up in caucus. It’s hypothetical.