publican Congress, the full text of the bill was not made available in time for lawmakers to read it and analyze it. Even some Republicans are crying foul. See the statement below from Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) about the way changes were made in the bill after midnight on Wednesday for a vote on Thursday. This is almost as bad as the outrageous trick Tom DeLay pulled last summer, adding a $1.5 billion subsidy for offshore oil drilling into the omnibus Energy Policy Act of 2005 in the middle of the night, after the bill had already passed out of the conference committee. -kw

* * * * * * *

Measure passes by wide margin; bill's chances in Senate are uncertain.

Washington - The House voted Thursday to end a quarter-century offshore drilling ban and allow energy companies to tap natural gas and oil beneath waters from New England to Alaska.

Opponents of the federal ban argued that the nation needed to move closer to energy independence and insisted the gas and oil could be taken without threatening the environment and coastal beaches. They said a state choosing to keep the moratorium could do so.

The measure was approved 232-187.

But the bill's prospects in the Senate were uncertain. Florida's two senators have vowed to filibuster any legislation that would allow drilling within 125 miles of Florida's coast. Other senators from several coastal states also have strongly opposed ending the drilling restrictions.

Many lawmakers fear that energy development could despoil coastal beaches, should there be a spill, and threatens the multibillion-dollar recreation and tourist economies of states where offshore energy development has been barred since the early 1980s.

Florida Bid for Protective Zone Rebuffed

An attempt by a group of Florida lawmakers to allow states to maintain a protective zone of 125 miles was rejected.

"Our beaches and our coastline is what is critical to Floridians," declared Rep. Jim Davis, D-Fla. "We should not be sacrificing our economy, our environment for a little oil and gas."

Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Calif., a leading proponent for lifting the moratorium, argued that drilling still would be prohibited within 50 miles of shore and states could extend the ban up to 100 miles.

He ridiculed the bill's critics as "opposing everything" when it comes to increasing domestic energy production. "You can't say no on everything," Pombo proclaimed.

But Lois Capps, D-Calif., said states would have to overcome numerous hurdles to continue the drilling restrictions, including having state legislatures and the government seek such protection every five years.

Change in Royalty Structure

The bill also would revamp how the federal government shares oil and gas royalties with states, producing a windfall for four gulf states - Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi and Alabama - that currently have oil and gas rigs off their shores.

The eastern and western Gulf of Mexico produces virtually all of the country's offshore oil and gas, with waters off the eastern gulf, both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and much of Alaska under the drilling moratorium.

Under the bill, states' share of royalties would increase to 50 percent over 10 years and eventually could rise as high as 75 percent. States currently get less than 5 percent of royalties from offshore oil and gas leases in the central and western gulf.

The Interior Department estimated that revenue-sharing changes could cost the federal government as much as $69 billion in lost royalties over 15 years and "several hundred billion dollars" over 60 years.

The White House issued a statement saying it favors much of the bill but strongly opposes the changes in royalty revenue sharing, which it said "would have a long-term impact on the federal deficit."

The Interior Department estimates there is about 19 billion barrels of recoverable oil and 86 trillion cubic feet of natural gas beneath waters currently under drilling bans from New England to southern Alaska.

More Oil and Gas Elsewhere, Some Say

But supporters of the drilling moratorium argue there's four times that amount of oil and gas available in offshore waters open to energy companies, mainly in the central and western Gulf of Mexico and off parts of Alaska.

The country uses about 21 million barrels of oil a day.

"We should not be opening all of our coasts to oil drilling when we have not taken the first step to conserve oil," said Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., who wanted to put into the bill a requirement to increase automobile fuel economy but was prevented from doing so.

But Rep. John Peterson, R-Pa., argued that developing more U.S. energy resources - especially more natural gas - is needed to ease supply shortages that have seen natural gas prices soar and America rely increasingly on oil imports.

"This is not about oil companies," insisted Peterson. "This is about America competing. ... We're the only society that has said we're going to lock up our resources."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Boehlert Calls Oil Drilling Bill Process a "Travesty"

By US Representative Sherwood Boehlert

t r u t h o u t | Statement

Thursday 29 June 2006

Washington - House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) delivered the following floor speech today during debate on the rule under which H.R. 4761, the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act, will be considered:

Mr. Chairman:

The way the House is handling off-shore oil drilling today pretty much defines "travesty."

For the first time in more than a generation, we are going to vote on opening the entire coastline of the United States to oil and natural gas drilling. You'd think that would be considered a rather major matter that requires some thoughtful discussion.

But that's not how we're handling it.

Instead, we are going to debate legislation that is being rushed through the House even though we are not up against any deadline.

The base bill we're discussing and the report on it, which includes the cost estimate, were not filed until Monday. Once folks got a look at the text and the cost estimate, opposition pressure mounted, so the bill needed to be rewritten, and that rewriting continued well into the night last evening.

So the rule makes in order a manager's amendment that includes massive changes in the bill that no one was able to see until after midnight.

Is this a process we can be proud of? It seems all one has to do around here is use the word "oil" for the sanctity of the democratic process to simply slip away. The process we're using today gives new meaning to the phrase "oil slick."

Now, some may say, "Oh, come on, people know whether they're for or against off-shore drilling. We don't need a lot of time."

Well, this bill doesn't just allow off-shore drilling. It changes all the rules on approving oil drilling in areas where it's allowed. It changes all the maps for state marine boundaries. Did you know that? Probably not, because the new maps aren't publicly available. It changes all the ways that royalty funds are distributed. It gives royalty breaks to oil companies. It's a complex, sweeping 147-page bill with many unprecedented provisions that most Members know nothing about.

And one might suggest that that's on purpose. When we point out these troubling provisions, the sponsors of the bill don't defend them, they try to deny that they're there. The remedy is to read the bill, but we're not giving anyone time to do that.

Did you know, for example, that under this bill, if the Secretary of the Interior opposes some future law because it limits drilling in any way, the Secretary can cut off all aid to states to try to get them to see the law his way? That's an unusual idea, to say the least. Do people support giving the Secretary authority to threaten Congress? Maybe we should discuss that.

Did you know that the bill subordinates every other use of coastal waters to oil drilling, blocking any effort to use waters in a way that could ever limit drilling in any way? That's what the bill says; it blocks any actions ever that could interfere with drilling.

If this bill ever becomes law, your constituents will be up in arms about just about every provision because the law gives oil interests the ability to trample everyone else's rights.

This is a bad bill that we should not be considering today.