The spoils of oil
Without even mentioning the Arctic, Nussle could affect drilling debate


IOWA VIEW

LOREN FORBES
SPECIAL TO THE REGISTER


March 21, 2006



Technically, Iowa Rep. Jim Nussle didn't grant the oil industry and its
lobbyists a huge favor last year. Technically, he didn't stick a
controversial scheme to drill for oil in America's Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge into the budget process he supervises.

No, technically, Nussle, R-Manchester, didn't do that. He just paved the
way for it to happen.

Last year, in a process known as budget reconciliation — a process whose
stated purpose is reducing the deficit — Nussle, chairman of the House
Budget Committee, instructed another congressional committee to find
exactly $2.4 billion in new revenue for the government's coffers.

It just happens that $2.4 billion is the exact amount the Congressional
Budget Office had speculated could be raised by leasing the Arctic Refuge
to Exxon and its ilk.

Nussle knew exactly what his $2.4 billion budget loophole would be used
for — to authorize oil drilling in the wildlife refuge.

Fortunately, the Arctic drilling scheme failed last year. But now,
drilling backers are trying to revive it, and are looking to Nussle for
help. The question is: Will Nussle once again hand the budget process
over to the oil industry, or will he learn from his mistake and turn the
lobbyists away at the door?

Regardless of how you feel about drilling in the Arctic Refuge, the
federal budget is the wrong place to decide the issue. The question of
whether to conserve or drill speaks to enormously important choices about
our nation's stewardship of irreplaceable resources. It's much more than
a line item on a budget spreadsheet.

Arctic drilling backers sought out the budget-reconciliation bill because
is it not subject to filibuster, or sustained debate, in the Senate. This
allows it to pass with fewer votes than other controversial bills.

When Congress evades the normal process to grease the skids for the oil
industry, Americans have a right to be alarmed. Bobbing and weaving to
avoid rules you don't like and votes you can't win may be business as
usual in Washington, but Iowans expect more from their representatives.
Integrity demands respecting the process.

Besides, on its own merits, drilling in the Arctic Refuge is a losing
proposition. The refuge doesn't contain enough oil to make a serious dent
in U.S. imports and would barely lower gas prices.

America sits atop just 3 percent of the world's oil reserves — including
all the oil in Alaska — but consumes one-fourth of the world's daily oil
production. No amount of domestic drilling is going to bridge that gap.

The Bush administration's own Department of Energy estimates that at peak
production, 20 years after drilling would begin, Arctic Refuge oil would
reduce gas prices by a grand total of one penny per gallon. That's the
payoff for permanently scarring one of America's last unspoiled
landscapes.

A much better path — the only real path in the long-term — is promoting
conservation and increasing our use of alternative energy sources such as
ethanol. With the right leadership, Iowa has the potential to become a
national leader in clean energy — energy we produce right here at home.
That's the future, and Iowa's representatives in Washington should be
pursuing it. The Arctic drilling scheme is a distraction. It represents
the past.

Nussle never actually used the words "drill in the Arctic Refuge" in his
budget instructions last year. Instead, he used numbers to say the same
thing.

This year, will Nussle stand up for the basic principles of good
governance, or will he let the oil industry win on a technicality? For
the sake of Iowans and all Americans, let's hope he makes the right
choice.

LOREN FORBES, an Iowa City resident, is a member of the board of
directors of the Iowa Wildlife Federation.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]