Arctic Drilling and the Congressional Budget Process
Background: The Federal Budget Process - The President's budget is submitted to Congress each year around the first week of February. Congress approves a Budget Resolution adopting broad spending and revenue targets in the spring and a Budget Reconciliation bill later in the year that changes tax laws and mandatory spending programs like Medicare in order to meet the targets adopted in the resolution.
- The current federal budget process was set up in the 1970s to expedite decisions on spending and revenues. While normal Senate rules require 60 votes for enactment of controversial policy changes, budget rules require only a simple majority in the Senate to adopt spending and revenue outlines. Big controversial policy decisions are not supposed to be made in the budget bills.
- The Budget Act limits debate on the annual budget reconciliation bill to not more than 20 hours. Full Senate debate on controversial policy bills typically takes far more time than this. Inserting controversial policy changes into a budget bill shortchanges the normal legislative process by limiting debate.
Arctic Drilling and the Budget - Last spring oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was soundly defeated by a bipartisan majority of the US Senate. That vote reflected the solid majority of the American public that strongly supports protecting the Arctic Refuge. Recent national polling by CBS News/New York Times has shown public opposition to drilling in the refuge remains strong (55% oppose; 39% support).
- Oil industry allies in Congress have begun hinting that they may attempt a back-door scheme to hide their Arctic drilling proposal in the federal budget bill this year. The Wall Street Journal quoted incoming Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Pete Domenici (R-NM) endorsing this back door strategy in a January 15 story.
- Using the arcane federal budget process to authorize the failed and widely discredited proposal to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would be an indefensible abuse of the majority, and a perversion of the democratic process. Drilling in the refuge has nothing to do with the federal budget and has no business being decided in that context. Revenue projections from drilling in the refuge are wildly speculative and should not be included in the nation's budget blueprint.
- Back door schemes don't change the basic facts: drilling in the Arctic will ruin one of our last great wild places, for what the US Geological Survey estimates is less oil than the U.S. uses in six months, and it wouldn't get here for ten years or more.
|
