WASHINGTON -- The debate over offshore drilling has exposed a partisan rift among New Jersey's congressional lawmakers, who used to be nearly unanimous in opposing efforts to explore for oil or natural gas along the mid-Atlantic Coast.

However, the pro-drilling momentum in Washington appears to be growing in the face of steadily rising gasoline prices. With President Bush this month lifting an offshore drilling moratorium instituted during his father's administration, an increasing number of lawmakers -- including Democrats -- are joining his call for Congress to enact legislation to permit drilling.

Bush has said offshore drilling wouldn't immediately increase America's oil supply but would send a signal that the country is capable of boosting its supply.

The latest evidence of the drilling divide among the New Jerseyans came on a House bill that would have required oil companies to explore on available areas in Alaska, the West and the western Gulf of Mexico, for which they already own leases, before seeking to drill off the Atlantic, Pacific and eastern Gulf coasts.

The vote was 244-173 Thursday, but the legislation failed because it required a two-thirds majority to pass under House rules. Source This is not a right/left issue. This is an issue of national security. When we send an army to force change in the most oil rich part of the world, clearly the stakes are higher than Republican/Democrat pettiness. Oil is a neccessity, not an option. George Bush himself has admitted that this country is "addicted to oil." And how do you cure an addiction? By giving the junkie more of what he wants? No. Any addict will tell you, the mindset of quitting is not "how do I quit the addiction," but rather "How can I keep my life in order and still indulge in the addiction?"

The oil companies currently hold leases on 68 million acres of unused land. This is land they could be drilling on, but do not. They would rather grab even more land while they have an oil-friendly ally in the White House.

I suggest the following compromise: For every oil rig we let them establish offshore, the oil companies must erect a 100,000-200,000 acre, state-of-the-art windfarm on their idle lands for free, public use. These would be the largest in the world, generating around 2,000 megawatts each. It would be clean, renewable energy, without potential for ecological disaster. And since less than 1% of the land would be used for foundations and access roads, the other 99% could still be used for farming, raising livestock, etc.

If oil-alternatives are so inneffective at producing energy, they have nothing to lose, right?