WASHINGTON, Sept. 17, 2008
House Approves Limited Offshore Drilling
Republicans Say Measure To Restrictive On Where Oil Can Be Pumped, Call It A "Sham"
-
In this March 28, 2006 file photo, the Discoverer Deep Seas drillship sits on station off the coast of Louisiana as Chevron drills for oil in the Gulf of Mexico. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File)
-
News Tools By The Barrel A look at the products derived from a barrel of crude oil after it is refined.
-
Interactive Eye On Energy Explore the production and consumption of energy in the U.S. Find out more about energy costs, and the use of fossil fuels, nuclear power and renewable energy sources.
Democratic leaders called it a step toward energy independence, but Republicans labeled it a "sham" because most of the estimated 18 billion barrels of oil believed to lie below off-limits coastal waters are within 50 miles of land and will remain out of bounds.
The measure passed in a largely party-line vote of 236-189. It now goes to the Senate, where energy will be the topic later in the week. Thirteen Democrats bucked their leadership and voted against the measure.
Even before the House vote, the White House said President Bush was prepared to veto the measure should it reach his desk. An administration statement said the bill would "stifle development" of offshore energy resources by essentially making permanent drilling bans within the 50-mile coastal buffer, while imposing new taxes on the largest oil companies.
But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the bill "represents a new direction in energy policy" and a "bold step forward that will end our dependence on foreign oil" by using billions of dollars collected in taxes on large oil companies to promote alternative fuels and energy efficiency.
Republicans called the drilling measure a ruse to provide political cover to Democrats feeling pressure to support more drilling at a time of high gas prices.
"How much new drilling do we get out of this bill? It's zero. Just zero," declared House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio. "It's a hoax on the American people. This is intended for one reason ... so the Democrats can say we voted on energy."
The measure would allow drilling in waters 50 miles from shore almost everywhere from New England to Washington state as long as a state agrees to go along with energy development off its coast. Beyond 100 miles, no state approval would be required. The drilling ban would remain in the eastern Gulf of Mexico.
Each year for the past 26 years, Congress has passed drilling bans on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts because of environmental concerns and pressure from some coastal states worried that drilling might hurt the tourist business.
Unlike bills offered by House Republicans and others being considered in the Senate, the House-passed legislation would not share royalties from energy production with the adjacent states. Boehner said without royalty sharing, states probably would not opt for drilling off their beaches.
Quote
House Republican leader
Republicans also cited Interior Department estimates that 88 percent of the 18 billion barrels of oil believed to be in waters now under drilling bans would remain off-limits because they are within the 50-mile protective coastal buffer.It's a hoax on the American people. This is intended for one reason... so the Democrats can say we voted on energy.
Rep. John Boehner,House Republican leader
The House voted to roll back nearly $18 billion in tax breaks over 10 years for the five largest oil companies and require energy companies to pay billions of dollars in royalties they avoided because of an Interior Department contracting error.
The bill also would require the president to make available oil from the government's Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Pelosi said such a move is needed to drive down gasoline prices, even though oil prices have dropped dramatically in recent weeks and many energy experts believe gasoline prices will fall as well after refineries recover from Hurricane Ike.
Democrats added a provision at the last minute that makes it a federal crime for oil companies with federal leases to provide gifts to government employees, a response to a recent sex and drug scandal involving the federal office that oversees the offshore oil royalty program and energy company employees.
The Democratic bill also would:
Expanded offshore drilling has become a mantra of GOP energy policy that has been felt on the presidential and congressional campaign trails despite wide agreement that lifting the drilling ban would have little if any impact on gasoline prices or produce any oil for years.
Republican presidential candidate John McCain pledged at the recently concluded GOP convention to push for new offshore oil and gas drilling amid delegate chants of "Drill, baby drill" and his Democratic rival, Barack Obama, said he supported more drilling as part of a broader energy package.
But Democrats derided what they called Republicans' "drill only" response to the country's energy problems.
"America needs an oil change," said Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass. "They keep saying on the Republican side, `Drill, baby, drill!' What we're saying is `Change, baby, change!' and they can't change.
© MMVIII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
More From U.S.
Add a Comment See all 89 Comments
- Vote Obama
Tax the Rich and Corrupt Corporations, close the loopholes. The Republican in me (greed) can''t wait to get my share. Hurry up OB I to quit working my two jobs and start getting all that money. Screw the Republican Trickle-Down economics it has been a total failure. - Reply to this comment
- Nothing more than nonsensical partisan politics and the failure of the democrats to work as a team for the betterment of the American people. Pelosi, Reid and all their little yes men followers need to be fired!
- Reply to this comment
- What I don;t understand is the Democrats opposing drilling. The government and states make money from it by selling leases. The cost is borne by the oil companies. The only thing that may be lost is the environmentalist money that goes primarily to the Democrats. But the environmentalists already files 8000 lawsuits against oil companies about current leases. So the environmentalists will have to file several thousand more. But maybe the root problem is the Dems may lose their environmental contributions. And they can;t have that.
- Reply to this comment
- Check out the Pelosi Energy Plan-what no one is really talking about.
the Institute for Energy Research (IER) posted a devastating exposi of the Pelosi plan. As announced last week, the plan would:
*
Permanently ban access to about 97 percent of the undersea oil lying within 50 miles of the California coast.
*
Continue the ban on energy production in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico.
*
Impose a brand-new ban on oil and gas leases in Alaska%u2019s coastal waters out to 50 miles.
*
Not allow states that approve new leases beyond 50 miles to share royalties with the federal government, thus stripping any financial incentive for states to stand up to environmental pressure groups, who will continue to agitate against any new oil and gas operations offshore.
http://planetgore.nationalr
eview.com/post/?q=ZTZkYzNiZTE3ZDFjOTI1Yj
RhZjQxNDMxMzVlNDcyYmM= - Reply to this comment
- Here, I''''ll make it easy for you:
http://automobiles.honda.com/civic-gx/
The technology is here right NOW! We need to leave the oil in the ground and think forward! Let''''s be leaders in this world!!
Posted by azure11 at 08:02 PM : Sep 17, 2008
-------------
If I had a dollar for every off-the-mark comment that I''ve read the past several months....
Just off the top of my head -
1. Dems won''t let us drill for natural gas.
2. How much does that there car cost ya?
3. Where ya gonna get the infrastructure?
4. How much will the infrastructure cost?
5. Who''s gonna pay for it?
This Democratic Congress can barely brush it''s teeth. You really think they can transition us from oil to natural gas for less than a few trillion$?
And that assumes that they want to do it at all. Dems are playing risky games with our future. - Reply to this comment
- This sounds like a compromise to me.
Posted by karela33 at 07:40 PM : Sep 17, 2008
-------------
Please. Ms. Pelosi got backed into a corner. So she throws this slop up.
Pelosi don''t get it, she don''t got it, and we sure don''t need what she got. - Reply to this comment
- This sounds like a compromise to me. No one is saying that there isn''t oil in the area allowed. There is. It also puts a fifty mile cushion between the tourist and recreation areas off state coasts and the oil rigs that could destroy them and the important income they bring to states. Also, it''s high time we made some kind of move toward renewable and this is a beginning. The republicans want nothing but oil and forty five new nuclear plants at a cost of over $350 billion and no way to safely get rid of the waste. The sun and the wind are free and they last forever. They will also get appreciably cheaper as we develop them. Remember how big and clunky and expensive computers were thirty years ago? The only way to develop this technology in a cost effiecient way is to move toward it. When the market is there, innovation and technology will perfect it. Why wait until the air and water are too filthy to support life and the planet is too hot to enjoy it? We''ll have to do it at some point. Time to act like grown ups and get on with it.
- Reply to this comment
- This bill is just a hoax. So according to the Dems, you can drill in a 1 mile strip, except on Ramadan, only between 3-5 weekdays, with no disruption of seabirds, and not in view of any of the Kennedy''s homes. Any oil found by mistake (since the oil is closer to shore) will be hugely taxed to provide incentives for environmental groups staffed by the children of Dems in Congress who need to continue their self-exploration. States have no say, and cannot participate in revenues like AK since they hate Palin. Oh, and there can be no debate or amendments to vote on. I think Pelosi regrets the fact that gosh, representatives from other than San Fran may want a voice in Congress. Well, mommy pelosi knows best.
- Reply to this comment
- Sunshine2- by the way, the fringe tax policy advocates are probably Obama supporters. As a candidate in the primaries, Obama said only wage earners making below 75k will get a tax break. Now during the election campaign as a suppossed moderate it is 250k. Which is it? . I don;t believe his current plan because he is appealing to the moderates and his history is anything but ,being the most liberal Senator. So I have to believe he is the tax and spend Democrat that he will revert to when elected. MoveOn, Daily Kos and George Soros are not bank rolling him because he is a moderate, he is as far left as you can go and his social programs will damage the economy. It is very simple, I don;t trust him.http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_15/b4079017876246_page_2.htm
- Reply to this comment
- Sunshine2-some post said there was no real socialists in this country. I responded. What is your problem. This post has been all over the place. Tax policy,credit crisis and energy policy go hand and hand.
- Reply to this comment
- "what Obama supporters want:from the Tax Foundation: in California, where voters have the power to bypass the constitutionally prescribed lawmaking process and legislate via the ballot box, want the state to impose a wealth tax. The proposers want a 17.5 percent tax on every dollar a couple earns above $250,000 and 35 percent above $500,000; for singles, the income thresholds would be $150,000 and $350,000, respectively. and so on , and so on ........
------------------------------------------------------
Posted by jschmidt27 at 05:35 PM : Sep 17, 2008"
And What in the H3!! does this have to do wiht the Oil adn Energy Bill ?? Wake up and read what the story is about, adn comment on that ... Not on Some Ficticious Connection between Obama and some "Fringe Tax Policy in California". This is just some ones way of trying to Slamm Obama, for something he is not imposing and has no issue in State Tax Policy.
Write on the Article at hand... or keep your hands off the keyboard. - Reply to this comment
- usatoday: never ran this story
Msnbc, abcnews, cnn: ran it for a couple of hours
foxnews: ran it all day
Be prepared to bow (and worse) to OPEC if you vote Dem. - Reply to this comment
- If nothing else, it repeals the $18 BILLION dollars in tax breaks they have coming.
And it let''''s the states decide if they want the drilling or not - NOT the big oil companies, or their republicon politician buddies in Washington.
Posted by hungry1968-1 at 04:45 PM : Sep 17, 2008
-------------------
YES! And if it weren''t for these points and a couple others like the tax break for incorporating use of ''clean'' energy sources, this bill would have no merit and the Democrats should be soundly ''booed'' for having ''caved in'' and passed it!
What really needs to be done---and won''t be---is we need to move to the use of free energy sources for our energy needs and forget about gas and oil! - Reply to this comment
- what Obama supporters want:from the Tax Foundation: in California, where voters have the power to bypass the constitutionally prescribed lawmaking process and legislate via the ballot box, want the state to impose a wealth tax. The proposers want a 17.5 percent tax on every dollar a couple earns above $250,000 and 35 percent above $500,000; for singles, the income thresholds would be $150,000 and $350,000, respectively. That would raise the marginal rate paid by someone making $1 million from 35 percent to 61 percent, and increase the taxes paid by 74 percent. %u201CMarginal rates this high would undoubtedly curtail capital formation, productive investment, and economic activity,%u201D the foundation observed. Next door in Nevada, the marginal rate is 28 percent, but if the rich try to flee there, the new law would seize 55 percent of their as-sets exceeding $20 million and hit them with the tax of 36.8 percent on assets, including unrealized appreciation, above $5 million. The latter tax also would be imposed on people who try to beat the wealth tax by dying; the rich who choose to live, however, would pay a one-time tax of 55 percent on their assets above $20 million. We did the math: People worth upward of $50 million would be better off dying, which, we suppose, is the whole point of this exercise. The money raised would be used to eliminate the state%u2019s budget deficit and for purchasing controlling shares in large corporations,%u201D the foundation said.
- Reply to this comment
- While I don''t favor drilling at all off the coasts, its obvious this is a much more common sense approach rather than giving the oil companies a green light to rape and pillage our shores.
Thanks to this one upping by the Dem''s we get to listen to the whiner Rethuglicans echo their true master''s complaints as the oil companies pull their strings. - Reply to this comment
- Good for Rothschild. She is absolutely right. He is not the moderate that now says he will raise taxes for those making only 250k and above. He is the far left liberal who in April in the interview with Maria Bartiromo said only under 75k would only get tax relief. Of course he was trying to win the primary and appealing to his base. I don;t believe his current plan because he is appealing to the moderates and his history is anything but ,being the most liberal Senator. So I have to believe he is the tax and spend Democrat that he will revert to when elected. MoveOn, Daily Kos and George Soros are not bank rolling him because he is a moderate, he is as far left as you can go and his social programs will damage the economy. It is very simple, I don;t trust him. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_15/b4079017876246_page_2.htmliberal of Senators. His move to center is a fake.
- Reply to this comment
- Rothschild is also a member of the Democratic National Committee''''s Platform Committee. She said she would be stepping down from her position on the committee but will not switch political parties.
Posted by OneAmerican6
Ah yes, a female Joe Lieberman. She''ll come crawling back in January and hopefully Obama will kick sand in her face. - Reply to this comment
- The New York Post is the best paper in town, the others are garbage....so what, who owns them 6 months ago, Murdock was supporting Hillary
Posted by JoeCoolSwat1
You''re kidding right? Murdoch (note spelling) is Bush answer to Goebbels, the Nazi Propaganda Minister. The only reason he''d support Hillary is to help throw her in the East River. The Post is to papers what Fox is the TV news - rubbish. - Reply to this comment
- we should all drill Sarah Palin
Posted by HugoChavez9
Oil contractors probably have. - Reply to this comment
- Posted by Seafang
Thanks for the update. I should have said current technology is "theoretically" capable of 30% efficiency. - Reply to this comment
Mike Huckabee on GOP "rock stars," 2012, health care reform and more.
