Sometimes, a decision on how to vote on legislation comes easily. For example, it wasn’t hard to vote to cut the death tax, or to complete the mission in Iraq, or to improve enforcement along the border, or to crack down on child Internet predators.
But some votes are not so easy. This week, such a vote occurred in the House.
Yesterday, the House voted 232-187 to pass the Deep Ocean Energy Resources (DOER) Act of 2006. This bill completely modifies the existing moratorium on offshore drilling for energy off all of the nation’s coasts. I voted no.
First, a little background. I am firmly opposed to drilling off the shores of California. If people in Louisiana want to drill off their coast (and they do) that’s fine. But California is different. A pristine, unobstructed ocean is as essential to our economic prosperity as it is to our spirit which is uniquely and quintessentially Californian. We face energy issues and we need more sources of energy in the U.S. But California can provide more renewable energy, hydroelectric and solar energy than other states, while keeping California prosperous and beautiful. Part of the reason that businesses put up with the high costs here is because of the economic and emotional benefit of the Pacific Ocean.
Just a few weeks ago, the House passed (with my vote) legislation to extend the moratorium on drilling for up to 200 miles offshore for one more year. This moratorium has existed for 25 years. But it takes an annual vote of Congress to extend it. Because of the run-up in energy prices, this year’s vote was very close. The only reason the moratorium was extended this year was because of the near solidarity of Democrats and Republicans from California and Florida in opposition to offshore drilling.
But the states of Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi and Alabama all want to drill off their coasts. And other states, like Virginia, may want to as well. For them, drilling could be an economic boom. And their coastlines are not the subject of lore as our shoreline and Route 1 are.
So, the DOER Act lifts the current outright ban on all drilling and replaces it with a state based system. It is a very complicated bill. But suffice it to say that DOER would ban drilling 50 miles off the coast, but allow any state legislature to elect to drill there if they want. It would then allow drilling more than 50 miles out, but give any state the right to extend the ban out to 100 miles by a vote of the state legislature every 5 years. Drilling farther out than 100 miles would be allowed and the state could not stop it. DOER also allows states to keep a portion of the royalties from any energy extractions thereby providing a financial incentive for states to allow the drilling.
There were several reasons to vote for the bill. It would create a permanent ban up to 50 miles out unless a state’s legislature and governor were to lift it. That would not likely happen in California. We could even pass a voter initiative to make that ban permanent if we wanted to. Under current law, the ban is not permanent. At any time, Congress could vote to lift the ban completely. Members of Congress in Texas and Illinois have no reason to oppose offshore drilling in California if they think it will lower the price of gas for them. And the bill will allow lots of drilling where oil and gas are available and the local populace wants that drilling. That will help reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy.
Ultimately, I chose to vote no because I would prefer to see a permanent ban out to 125 miles (which would pretty much cover the entire continental shelf off California) and put that area under state control. A bipartisan group of members of Congress from Florida proposed an amendment to this effect, but it failed by a vote of 65-353. Such a proposal would still allow the Texans to drill. It would just have given Californians, Floridians, Hawaiians and others more certainty in the protection of their valuable coastal regions.
The bill is now pending in the Senate. I have complained to you in recent e-mails when the Senate has obstructed good House legislation. In this case, the Senate is closer to my position. Hopefully, a compromise can be reached which firmly protects the coasts of those states who wish to protect them. In any case, DOER may come back to the House with some modifications for another vote later in the year.
If you believe we should drill everywhere, including off of main beach in Laguna and Pebble Beach, or if you think we should not add to the drilling rigs off Galveston or anywhere else because of potential impacts on the environment, there are reasons to support this bill and reasons to oppose it. That is why it was a difficult vote.
I am going to continue to work for an off shore drilling policy that will protect the California coast from the visual, environmental and economic impacts of drilling, and simultaneously permit maximum extraction of energy resources from places where those effects are minimized and they are supported locally.
This may have been a tough vote, but it wasn’t as tough as the task which faced the signers of the Declaration of Independence. Pause at some point during the fireworks and burger grilling to remember the monumental significance of what occurred 230 years ago.
July 1st, 2006 at 12:00 am
If the reason for opposition is that “a pristine, unobstructed ocean is as essential to our economic prosperity” [whatever that means] then why would a 50 miles restriction not be more than enough?? You cannot see out fifty miles even in a rather tall building.
Sounds more like fear of the environmental lobby, which is the best fundded lobby in our entire nation. This might be a good reason if you were in a swing district, but representatives in SAFE Republican seats should show some leadership!