ÌìÃÀÊÓƵ

Two gubernatorial candidates got to ask their own questions at a debate Wednesday.

Former Honolulu Mayor Mufi Hannemann asked his rival in the Democratic primary, former Congressman Neil Abercrombie, about his support for offshore drilling:

In light of the in the gulf, do you know regret your strong advocacy for offshore oil drilling, your acceptance of thousands of dollars of and your labeling of those who oppose your position, , as (an) ‘environmental Taliban.’ And if you do not regret that decision, please specify why.

Abercrombie first lamented the question as a “typical campaign move” and a personal attack, then said this in response:

In this particular instance of course, I was joined in the only bipartisan bill — this is what’s being referred to — the only bipartisan bill in Congress to try to achieve energy independence. If you want to have an alternative energy future, you have to have a carbon-based bridge to that future. And if we are going not to be in the hands of the Taliban fighting right now in Afghanistan, if you do not want to be the victim of international oil cartels, then you better have energy independence in the United States.

The President of the United States, who has just recently been referred to, is a strong supporter of offshore drilling particularly for natural gas in conjunction with the oil we can get. The reason we do not have the capacity to deal with what BP did is because we did not have the enforcement that would have taken place had the bill that I sponsored — and the bill that I sponsored with the Republicans and Democrats across the board — already been in affect.

Not only do I not regret it, I wish we had been able to move more quickly. If it had not have been for the opposition in the United States Senate, we would have succeeded.

Abercrombie makes very clear in his response that he has no regrets about his position on offshore drilling. But his rationale includes two statements that beg fact-checks:

1. The bill had support from politicians on both sides of the aisle and offshore drilling has the support of President Barack Obama.

2. Abercrombie’s bill, had it passed, would have improved enforcement capabilities and made it easier to avoid or handle the BP oil spill this summer.

The bipartisan bill Abercrombie refers to is , titled the “National Conservation, Environment and Energy Independence Act.” It was designed to increase the production of domestic energy sources by allowing offshore drilling on the outer continental shelf for the first time in decades. Some of the royalties collected were to be used for environmental conservation and restoration and clean and renewable energy research and development.

It was introduced by GOP Rep. John Peterson of Pennsylvania, described by the Republicans for Environmental Protection as the “” [pdf] on environmental issues. The bill had — 100 Republicans and 41 Democrats, including Abercrombie.

So it’s true that Abercrombie did work on a bipartisan energy bill.

In fact, Abercrombie was so vocal in his advocacy of the measure that it was commonly referred to as the Peterson-Abercrombie bill, even . In 2007, the Sierra Club warned that Peterson’s and Abercrombie’s work on offshore drilling was a [pdf].

After being introduced on the last day of July 2008, Peterson-Abecrombie was referred to a half-dozen committees. While it languished, another measure was introduced. The new bill, , was sponsored by four Democrats and was titled the “Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act.”

The bill, which included more small-C conservative ideas on offshore drilling as well as a number of provisions on unrelated energy issues, was described by its chief sponsor as a “compromise” measure. It garnered far more Democratic support and far less Republican support than Peterson-Abercrombie had.

On Sept. 16, 2008, Abercrombie was among 226 representatives — 216 of which were Democrats — to by Peterson to send the bill back to committee with the instruction that it be amended to mirror Peterson-Abercrombie word-for-word. The next day, Peterson-Abercrombie was referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, where it eventually died when the 110th Congress adjourned. House Minority Leader John Boehner lashed out, saying 24 Democrats, including Abercrombie, from sponsoring Peterson-Abercrombie to voting against it.

Instead, Abercrombie and 235 others — 220 Dems and 15 Republican — HR 6899. This broad measure, not Peterson-Abercrombie, was the bill that the U.S. Senate killed upon its arrival in the upper chamber.

President Barack Obama has expressed support for offshore drilling programs. In August 2008 — just months before he was elected president amid Sarah Palin-led chants of “Drill, baby, drill” — then-Sen. to implement a comprehensive energy policy — including offshore drilling — that would bring down gas prices.

But perhaps most important, Abercrombie has attempted to deflect criticism that BP’s Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico reflects poorly on his support for offshore drilling. Abercrombie does this by saying that had his offshore drilling bill passed, it would have increased enforcement and tightened safety regulations.

On Thursday, Civil Beat provided the Abercrombie campaign with the full texts of both [pdf] and [pdf] and asked for citations of specific pages and lines that bolstered enforcement and helped the government deal with the BP oil spill. The campaign had not responded as of 4:30 p.m. Friday.

A Civil Beat review of HR 6709 — the Peterson-Abercrombie bill — revealed no mention of enforcement, regulation, environmental protections or offshore drilling safety. If we’re taking his words literally, Abercrombie’s assertion that the bill he sponsored would have prevented or lessened the disaster in the Gulf is false.

But HR 6899 — which Abercrombie eventually voted for — had a section titled “Protection of the Environment and Conservation of the Natural Resources of the Outer Continental Shelf,” Civil Beat found.

The Secretary of the Interior, Section 104 said, “shall ensure that any activity under this subtitle is carried out in a manner that provides for the protection of the coastal environment, marine environment, and human environment of State coastal zones and the Outer Continental Shelf.”

The secretary was also instructed to “review all Federal regulations that are otherwise applicable to activities authorized by this subtitle to ensure environmentally sound oil and gas operations on the Outer Continental Shelf.”

It’s true that Abercrombie shifted his support from his own bill to HR 6899. But would that bill’s broad provisions have been enough to give the federal government “the capacity to deal with what BP did,” as Abercrombie claimed during his debate with Hannemann? That remains unclear. Did we miss an important section in either of the bills? Let us know in the comment section below.

Regardless, Abercrombie’s position on offshore drilling has drawn fire from the Hannemann camp and environmentalists, but it seems to have not been enough to swing enviros in Hannemann’s favor. The Sierra Club Hawaii Chapter, the state’s primary environmental organization, .

“Offshore drilling is an important issue and it’s one that we disagree with Rep. Abercrombie,” Robert Harris, director of the Sierra Club Hawaii Chapter, said Friday in explaining the endorsement. “That being said, it’s an important issue on the federal level. We don’t see it as being particularly relevant for a candidate for state governor.

“There isn’t going to be any offshore drilling in Hawaii, so the capacity of a governor to do anything on this is relatively miniscule.”