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

By David Freddoso

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.


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 her 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.

As the Democrats spend time on such diversions, they are also pursuing environmental policies (such as carbon taxes and caps) that are designed to increase the price of gasoline beyond its current level, in order to force conservation by consumers, and so to decrease carbon emissions. Their leaders — most recently Rep. James Oberstar (D., Minn.), the powerful chairman of the House Transportation Committee — are also discussing an increase in the gasoline tax, a politically tone-deaf idea considering today’s high fuel prices.

Understandably, then, Republican officeholders and candidates are pushing the issue of energy as hard as possible. The question is whether the president and the GOP’s congressional leadership have the will to push the issue until Democrats make it a showdown over a government shutdown.


The ban on energy exploration in the ocean and on federal lands has been attached as a rider on the Interior appropriations bill every year for more than two decades. This arrangement gives the ban an expiration date and limits its scope. Appropriations bills determine how our tax dollars are used, but they do not have the permanent authority of federal statutes. Thus the so-called “drilling ban” does not ban drilling per se, but rather the use of public funds for issuing exploration leases on certain federal lands and ocean spaces.

On July 14, President Bush lifted the executive-branch prohibition on pre-leasing activities in the OCS. The leases can now be prepared for the day the ban expires. Under current statutes, new oceanic leases would not take effect until 2012, but Congress can easily move that date forward. By contrast, there has never been an executive prohibition on preparations for oil-shale leasing. According to a memorandum released yesterday by the Congressional Research Service, leases for five large tracts of shale-rich federal land in Utah and Colorado are ready to go and could be finalized almost immediately. Overall, the U.S. has 800 billion barrels’ worth of oil recoverable from shale, according to a study commissioned by the Department of Energy in 2002.

If President Bush is willing to veto any appropriations bill that contains the drilling ban, he will give congressional Republicans a serious chance in their legislative fight against the provision. “The sense among Republicans has been that we won’t be able to do anything on drilling because we have to get 60 votes,” DeMint told me. “But if the president helps us, we can lift it with just 34 votes.” Judging by the president’s speech yesterday in Ohio, in which he serially challenged Congress to act on the OCS ban, on oil-shale development, and on opening ANWR — all in order to lower consumer energy prices — it appears for now that he’s in the Congressional minority’s corner.

To be sure, a complete or even a partial government shutdown poses serious risks for Republicans. The parties would obviously blame one another for the situation, and things would get ugly right before the election. Many Republicans remember the disaster that befell the party after the 1998 spending fight with President Bill Clinton that led to a shutdown. But DeMint points out that this fight, unlike that one, would be over a high-profile issue on which Republicans are clearly supported by the American public. Drilling is popular, and the Democratic majority is not — and that is a recipe for success.

“The chances of us winning are much greater than the chances of us losing on this, because the American people are so tuned in on the issue.” DeMint said. “It’s not like the obscure issues of spending levels that predominated in the last government shutdown. And I think many voters will wonder: What good are the Republicans if they won’t even stand up on this?” And that is a perfectly legitimate question.

a June poll from Zogby International found 74 percent of respondents in favor of drilling for more oil and gas in American waters.

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.

Ahh, the Republican platform; Drill Now. Drill Now. And if we don't drill now, it will be the Democrats fault. Nice try.

Where was all of this talk about drilling when Republicans had control of the House and Senate?

JellyBean said:

They bombed it.....Bush proposed drilling 7 years ago. The republicans dropped the ball along with the democrats.

I am not a republican, but I can appreciate the fact that the republicans are willing to now pick the ball back up.

Not only are dems wanting to not drill, but they are actually proposing measures that will increase the price of gas.....how do you feel about that?

JellyBean said:

They bombed it.....Bush proposed drilling 7 years ago. The republicans dropped the ball along with the democrats.

I am not a republican, but I can appreciate the fact that the republicans are willing to now pick the ball back up.

Not only are dems wanting to not drill, but they are actually proposing measures that will increase the price of gas.....how do you feel about that?

Ahh, the Republican platform; Drill Now. Drill Now. And if we don't drill now, it will be the Democrats fault. Nice try.

Where was all of this talk about drilling when Republicans had control of the House and Senate?

If more drilling is the answer, why is there no drilling on the 10,000 existing land leases granted to US oil companies under the Bush Administration?

How long do you think it would be to see one drop of gas from a new drilling site? Any number of alternatives could be implemented in that time making the new gasoline unneeded.

Who's going to pay for the infrastructure? Do you think the oil companies will take that hit to their profits rather than passing it on to the consumer?

When demand is going down and supply is going up as it has been all year, why are fuel prices going up? Since it is not a demand issue as the fans of drilling claim, how would more drilling bring the price down?

It all boils down to this: More drilling will not lower gas prices and all the op-eds in the world won't change that.
[Edited 7/30/08 9:34am]

seekingtruth said:

Seeking. Seeking. Man, for a person that is not a Republican, you sure as heck got their talking points down.

Blame the democrats when prices are high. Give congrats to the Republicans when prices drop...go figure.

There are reasons why Democrats and many Republicans are against drilling anywhere, especially in ANWR is because of the risks;environmental. Plus, there are not guarantees of what they are going to find. As Mars23 already pointed out, 10,000 existing lands leases have been granted and nothing. Also, since 1999, drilling permits have increased 360%, yet gas prices have gone up every year. So this shoots the "drill more" theory into the ground.

Oh, and since I love messing with Republicans, or people who think like Republicans, explain to me why is it that the federal government has made 47.4 million acres of public land and water available to energy developers, but only 13 million are actually producing anything? What about the other 34.4 Million acres? And with the off-shore drilling. We have 44 million leased arces and only 10 million of that is producing anything.

Don't blame the democrats or our liberal ideas for this mess. The Republicans know what they are doing, they are trying to pretend that they care about the folks, which they don't because they could have forced this issue years ago and then we would still be in the mess that we are in now. Since it is election season, you want to pretend that the Republicans are trying to "help" the people by reducing gas prices. Puh-leeze. Republicans are only interested in padding their oil rich friends pockets as well as their own.

seekingtruth said:

And when will this oil start lowering prices? It won't. In the time it takes to bring the oil to market, the price will be higher than it is today.
People want to believe the government can do something and the people who go to work everyday as the government want to give them the smoke and mirror show that people want.
People are happy to blame Democrats, Congress and/or the President as long as the blame doesn't fall where it belongs - on us.
It's sheer ignorance to believe anyone who tells you it will happen during the next Administration's first term. Then people will complain because it's taking so long and still despoiling the environment.

SUPRMAN said:

It's going to take awhile. If you look at the debate they had 7 years ago, they were concerned that the oil would not be available for 5 years.....here we are.

Again, that is on the republicans AND the Democrats. I'm not siding here.
Where I am siding is in the fact that the republicans are at least willing to look at doing something now.

Will it solve the issue forever? No. Supply is supply and it is diminishing.
It does by time to develop other forms, however.

I love McCain's idea on this. He proposed a reward to the 1st company that could produce a large-production battery cell that would deliver long range capabilities....

It's not necessarily a subsidy, because there is no up-front pay out. He's just dangling the carrot in front of private investors and saying, "If you can develop it and get it to market, you will be rewarded...."

seekingtruth said:

It is a subsidy. And once they are getting government money do you think it will stop? Like farm subsidies? The market should be the private industries focus. That's who they should want to build a better car for. The demand and interest is there. They need no other carrot. IF McCain gives them that money. Guess who is going to rebuild every filling station in the country? Taxpayers.
We didn't before but once they get a subsidy they will justify extending it forever. Just like "temporary" sales tax increases, and build tolls to pay off the bonds to build the bridges, etc.
[Edited 7/31/08 20:39pm]

It is a subsidy.

IF McCain gives them that money. Guess who is going to rebuild every filling station in the country?

Technically, it could be called a subsidy, but typically, the investments that the government makes are on things that have not yet shown return. In other words, they make higher risk investments.

i.e. Barack Obama's WHOLE energy plan. It is basically an investment in research. Problem with that is there is more risk involved than if you tell someone that, "hey, we will pay for it. but only if you have already developed."

Big difference between a reimbursement for what's already been done and an upfront, non-fullproof investment.



Pretty strong assumption.

After reading post upon post and article upon article about offshore drilling the one critical thing that NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON has been able to GUARANTEE is this:

New drilling = more oil = lower prices.

C'mon you Republicans, can YOU guarantee lower prices?????

I think not, therefore new drilling =

New drilling wells will take years to get oil out of an to the refineries.

New alternative fuels or hybrids that will make a difference will also take years.

But it only only took 3 days for oil prices to drop $17 after bush's 'we should drill' speech.

So why not do all of it, start an aggressive program to explore and drill more find a way to motivate companies to speed up the development of alternatives to lower the demand for oil based fuels. The fact that they will both take years begs the question: why the hell did it take oil at $140 to get some action. All of this should have been started in 1974. Heck if we would have we might have Jetson's Flying cars!

It would at the very least create a few 1000 well paying jobs.

it's lovely that the oil prices dropped but the price of gas isn't.

New drilling wells will take years to get oil out of an to the refineries.

New alternative fuels or hybrids that will make a difference will also take years.

But it only only took 3 days for oil prices to drop $17 after bush's 'we should drill' speech.

So why not do all of it, start an aggressive program to explore and drill more find a way to motivate companies to speed up the development of alternatives to lower the demand for oil based fuels. The fact that they will both take years begs the question: why the hell did it take oil at $140 to get some action. All of this should have been started in 1974. Heck if we would have we might have Jetson's Flying cars!

It would at the very least create a few 1000 well paying jobs.

JellyBean said:

Drilling won't necessarily drop gas immediately. It could due to the fact that the price is where it is at because of speculated supplies. If it is speculated that additional supply is going to hit the market, then the price goes down....typically. Not definitely.

Republicans and Democrats are both responsible for the lack of action.