Hoping to keep moderate members of their party from defecting to Republicans, leaders of the House Democrats have surrendered all but the last slices of cake when it comes to off-shore drilling for oil and gas. Republicans are so gleeful they’re practically dancing in the aisle.
Which seems odd since the GOP will probably shoot down the legislation that includes the relaxed moratorium anyway.
Many Republicans still seek more Democratic cave-ins on the bill. They oppose the inclusion of "use or lose it" provisions that seek to put pressure on oil and gas companies to drill on the 68 million acres of federal land they already have released but not developed. They also have their own version of tax credits and subsidies. In the unlikely event the Democratic bill made it through the House, chances are it wouldn’t become law because of the Senate, which is looking at three major energy proposals of its own.
It’s possible, perhaps probable, that no energy proposal will get enough votes to make it into law before the House adjourns on Sept. 26.
Blocking passage of the weakened moratorium might seem like good news to eco-advocates and others who see enhanced off-shore drilling as a perilous sham. It isn’t. Because something even worse is just three weeks away: a complete end to the moratorium. That doesn’t require a vote.
In the new House Dem proposal, according to CQ Politics and CongressDaily (subscription only), any state could opt for drilling on federal land 50 miles or more off shore. On land 100 miles or more from shore, drilling would be allowed almost everywhere. A 2006 agreement that prevents drilling closer than 125 miles off the coast of Florida would remain on the books until 2022.
Since 1982, drilling has been barred in all but a few million acres of federal waters up to 200 miles off-shore, which is the maximum internationally recognized limit of territorial sovereignty. According to Rep. Gene Greene, the Texas Democrat who is one of co-writers of the proposal, about 100 million new acres would be opened up to drilling.
While this goes much farther than before, it’s still not be enough for many Republicans who seek to rid themselves of the moratorium altogether. The law has always been renewed annually as a rider on the appropriations bill. It expires every year on September 30, and Mister Bush has said he will veto any bill which includes a continuing moratorium this year. If it does expire, and Congress doesn’t override the veto, oil and gas drilling could theoretically be allowed as close as three miles off-shore, where state jurisdiction ends. It’s extremely unlikely that enough votes can be found for an override.
Earlier this year, when the Dems first began wavering on off-shore drilling in the face of $4.25-a-gallon gasoline and widespread public support for expanded drilling, the idea of some Representatives was to let four southeastern states have the option of allowing drilling 50 miles or more offshore in the previously prohibited area. That, indeed, was what was presented to the Democratic Caucus on Tuesday. But, according to Darren Goode, reporting at CongressDaily, the Blue Dog Democrats pressed them.
"If you're going to have an energy policy, it has to be a national energy policy; it can't be a selective energy policy," Rep. Charlie Melancon, D-La., said.
Otherwise, "does that put in jeopardy my Blue Dog colleagues? I believe, yes," he said.
These Democrats have warned many of their colleagues would likely side with Republicans on a motion to recommit or in opposition to an upcoming continuing resolution if Democratic leaders did not present what they deem is an acceptable energy package.
Some Republicans still don't like the new Democratic plan because it won’t send any royalties to state treasuries from federal oil leases off their coasts. This means, these critics say, that states won’t "opt in" for the 50-mile deal and little oil will be produced as a result.
But, as in previous years, getting the House and Senate to agree on any energy plan may prove all-but-impossible in the short time available. If the vaunted "new politics" were in force, an energy proposal might be developed based on what is good for national security, for the economy and for the atmosphere. But the question likely will again boil down to whether the amount of pork provided can overcome Senators’ and Representatives’ resistance to various items in the legislation they don’t like.
The bipartisan plan of the "Gang of 20" - previously the Gang of 10 (now made up of 10 moderate to conservative Democrats and 10 Republicans) led by Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad and Agriculture ranking member Saxby Chambliss - is moving forward with the comprehensive proposal it initiated in July. Called the New Energy Reform Act of 2008, or New Era, the legislation seems to be gathering steam. Its draft includes a more modest off-shore drilling plan than the House Dems are now proposing.
Senator Jeff Bingaman, chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources is also working on a comprehensive bill that will include the go-ahead for a limited expansion of off-shore drilling. Both these proposals are replete with legislation and tax credits for everything from consumers and manufacturers of energy-efficient automobiles to subsidies for "clean coal" technologies.
And then comes the latest wrinkle, the Energy Independence and Investment Act of 2008 unveiled Thursday by the Senate Finance Committee. Both Chairman Max Baucus and ranking member Charles Grassley are behind the legislation. It would provide some $40 billion over 10 years to develop renewable energy sources funded primarily by new taxes and closing old loopholes on the largest oil and gas companies.
The proposal has a broad array of environmental and industry groups behind it. It would include extending solar tax credits for eight years, and wind energy and biodiesel credits for three years. Also in the bill is a consumer tax credit of up to $7500 for plug-in electric vehicles, credits for "smart" electric meters and "smart grid" electric systems, for "clean coal" projects and for "sequestration" of carbon dioxide.
Some $26 billion of the cost would be raised by disallowing a manufacturing deduction to the largest integrated oil and gas companies and by imposing a 13 percent tax on the removal price of Gulf of Mexico oil and natural gas.
While $40 billion over 10 years may sound like a lot, it’s barely more than a fourth of Senator Barack Obama’s 10-year $150 billion energy proposal. And even his proposal would only appropriate as much money over a decade as is spent every year on the war in Iraq.