Politics on the Senate Floor
Posted September 24, 2009 at 10:44 am 
Filed in: Yesterday the Senate defeated an amendment by Senator David Vitter (R-LA) that was an attempt to force the Interior Department to implement an end of Bush administration OCS 5-year plan. By no means does this defeat mean a tabling of the OCS leasing issue. Instead, it shows the issue is pertinent and relevant and lays the groundwork for a bipartisan debate this fall on a comprehensive energy bill – where this debate should continue to take place.
In 2008, two significant events occurred that brought about the issuance of the Bush 5-year plan: the President himself lifted the Presidential moratorium on oil and gas leasing in the OCS and the Congressional moratorium ended on October 1, 2008, at the start of a new fiscal year without language being included prohibiting funds from being used to lease in vast portions of the OCS. These were huge energy policy changes that moved our country in the right direction towards energy security.
Meanwhile, the current 5-year plan covers the years 2007-2012. When OCS moratoria were lifted during the height of spiked gas prices at the pump, the Bush administration sought to implement a new 5-year plan that would start in 2010, thus supplanting a portion of the existing plan so that these newly opened areas could be made available for leasing as soon as practicable. The administration no doubt wanted to take advantage of the public and increased bipartisan Congressional momentum behind “drill here, drill now.” And the intentions to move our country towards increased domestic production and increased energy security were solid.
However, an election happened and prices at the pump dropped. So the new Obama administration took a different approach. On January 16 of this year, the last day of the Bush administration, a notice for comments on the proposed plan was placed in the Federal Register. In February, the new administration extended the comment period 180 additional days which just ended this past Monday, September 21. The extension did not go unnoticed on the Hill and Secretary Salazar, while testifying before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee this spring, was blasted by several members for “dragging his heels” on implementing the plan. Senator Salazar defended his actions and said that a thoughtful, comprehensive energy policy needed to be implemented and by seeking additional comments, as well as holding regional meetings across the country to hear directly from people in affected areas, they would be able to best decide the course of action the Interior Department would take. At this point it is unclear what exactly will happen but according to a press release by the Department of Interior, they have received over 450,000 public comments on the plan. http://www.doi.gov/news/09_News_Releases/092209.html
Senator Vitter’s amendment to the Interior Appropriations Bill would have prohibited the use of funds to “delay the Draft Proposed Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program 2010-2015.” Initially blocked from doing so by Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA), the bill manager acting on behalf of Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL), he was able to bring it to a procedural vote on the Senate floor yesterday. The Senate tabled the Vitter amendment in a vote of 56-42. Only two Democrats who support expanded oil and gas leasing – Senators Mark Begich (D-AK) and Ben Nelson (D-NE) – joined the 40 Republicans of the Senate in support of the motion.
According to statements made by Senator Vitter during the debate on the amendment, the reason he offered his amendment was because “unfortunately, Secretary Salazar has said pretty clearly… he is not going to take action in the foreseeable future to actually move forward with that going after domestic production and domestic resources.” It should be noted that implementing a 5-year plan is not a quick process. The typical timeline is as follows:
- MMS announces a solicitation for public comments
- 45-day public comment period
- MMS publishes a Draft Proposed Program
- 60-day comment period
- Proposed Program and Draft EIS published
- 90-day comment period
- Proposed Final Program and Final EIS Published
- 60-day period of Congressional review
- Final Five Year Plan published
When you take into consideration the actual time it takes to create a draft program and EIS, sort through and take into account comments from two comment periods, complete proposed final program and EIS and then take into account Congressional comments, the process is lengthy at best. As we near the end of 2009, the 60-day (120-day extension in this case) comment period on the draft proposed program just ended. There are still five more steps to go before we even get to leasing. Even taking into account added delay with the extension made by Secretary Salazar, for a 2010 leasing period to start, even the Bush administration would have faced a time crunch.
The problem with this amendment and the proposed new 5-year plan is how they were procedurally handled. Even ardent Democratic supporters of expanded oil and gas drilling like Senators Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and Byron Dorgan (D-ND) voted against the Vitter amendment. Why? Well there are several reasons.
First of all, rushing a comment into the Federal Register on the last day of an outgoing administration on something as controversial as opening vast portions of the OCS would be viewed with skepticism by any new administration. The Congressional moratorium had been in place since President Reagan and the Presidential moratorium since President George W.H. Bush. Allowing those to lapse was a huge victory in and of itself. Making the jump from opening areas for the first time in over 20 years to drilling by 2010 was definitely a rush, especially since the group of moderates who have moved to supporting OCS activities just recently made that move. Giving every one a little bit of time to absorb the opening and thoughtfully working out how to actually do something with it would have been a smarter route. Secondly, Senator Vitter’s amendment was never going to pass because he chose to amend a spending bill in a manner that is usually viewed with extreme skepticism as well. All too many times, members use the “no funds” language to make an end run around the rules of the Senate that prohibit legislating on appropriations bills. Members like Mary Landrieu and Byron Dorgan really want there to be increased access in these areas and a “no funds” amendment is not how to achieve that goal. Both of them are on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee where a bipartisan bill containing expanded oil and gas activity on the OCS was passed. Both of them will be key as that measure is considered by the Senate – hopefully sometime this fall.
We applaud Senator Vitter for keeping the issue of increased domestic production on the forefront of the debate over energy policy. In the midst of healthcare and climate change issues dominating the Hill, Senator Vitter was able to bring the entire Senate back to focus on a very pressing energy issue but using the the Department of the Interior’s FY2010 Appropriations Bill was not the route to achieve this goal.
Which brings us to the issue at hand: how do we increase domestic production by allowing for increased access in the newly opened areas of the OCS? We do it by allowing for a bipartisan debate of the real issues involved to occur. We do it by allowing for a thoughtful process to play out in both the Congress and the Interior Department this fall. We do so by putting politics aside and doing what is right for our country’s energy security. We do it sooner rather than later but we do it right.
Previous Post
May 18, 2012
