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.