SIGN UP FOR FREE NRO NEWSLETTERS

FEBRUARY 22, 2010, ISSUE   |   VIEW COVER   |   BUY THIS ISSUE   |   SUBSCRIBE TO NR



David Freddoso

divider

Dems Over a Domestic Barrel
If Democrats want to extend the ban on drilling for America’s oil, the onus is on them.

1   |   2   |   Next >

On September 30 — two months from today — the ban on fossil-fuel drilling off America’s Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) and in the oil-shale fields of the West will expire. Democrats, who control both houses of Congress, must pass an appropriations bill extending the bans.

The onus, in other words, is on them. Democrats will likely propose a continuing resolution to extend funding for the government through the end of the calendar year without making major changes. This bill will certainly include a continuation of the drilling ban — Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.), a zealous opponent of offshore drilling since the 1980s, has resisted all attempts to change it.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ADVERTISEMENT

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Democrats are sufficiently committed to maintaining the ban that they could even be willing to force a government shutdown in September, or dare the Republicans to force one. But if Republicans are equally committed to increasing the domestic-energy supply, and President Bush is willing to use his veto pen, they have a golden opportunity.

This is the message of Sen. Jim DeMint (R., S.C.), who is urging the president and his congressional colleagues to take a risk and fight for drilling here at home. “If President Bush wants a domestic legacy, it has to be on this issue,” DeMint told National Review Online Tuesday. “This is the final few seconds of the game as far as his administration goes, and we’re down seven points. We can’t just keep running up the middle. It’s time to throw the Hail Mary.”

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said that it would be premature to discuss the president’s position before Congress comes up with a concrete plan for appropriations bills. “It’s a hypothetical,” he said. “It’s too early to say what they’ll do.” Success will depend on President Bush’s willingness to fight. He left conservatives hanging recently by relenting on his threatened veto of the housing bailout. If he chooses a similar course of compromise with respect to drilling, he will have allowed congressional Democrats to continue their current approach of willful neglect of U.S. energy prices.

DeMint’s idea is just beginning to receive some discussion and attention on Capitol Hill, where his bombthrowing ways have not always endeared him to some important Republican colleagues. DeMint acknowledges that there are risks in forcing a showdown on energy policy, but that the battle would also be fought on the field where Republicans are most likely to win. “It is the only issue that could change the tide of this election, which is going against us right now,” he said.

Indeed, from a political perspective, there is no better issue for Republicans right now than energy. It may be their only good issue all year. With gasoline prices hovering well above $4.00 in some parts of the U.S., a June poll from Zogby International found 74 percent of respondents in favor of drilling for more oil and gas in American waters. The argument is bolstered by the fact that drilling costs the U.S. government nothing — Uncle Sam would actually make billions of dollars from new leases. The environmental hazards of offshore drilling are negligible, accounting for one percent of the oil spilled in American waters, according to the National Academy for the Sciences.

Republican campaigners can legitimately argue this fall that Democrats, under the ideological control of an intransigent environmental lobby, are unwilling to address the issue of high gasoline prices in a meaningful way. Democrats’ current attempt to limit speculators, which is on the Senate floor this week (S 3268), is designed to give only the appearance of action. It assumes incorrectly that current energy-market conditions result in large part from a few speculators’ long positions — not vice-versa.

1   |   2   |   Next >


© National Review Online 2010. All Rights Reserved.

Home | Search | NR / Digital | Donate | Media Kit | Contact Us | Privacy Policy