kingston.house.gov

Kingston
Contact: Press Staff


CLARIFICATION: "Republicans Vote Against Off-Shore Drilling"??

Washington, May 19 -

Some blogs are fired up about the vote last night on the Putnam Amendment which essentially stripped language from the Interior Appropriations bill regarding coastal drilling. In full disclosure, Congressman Kingston voted FOR the Putnam Amendment to remove language which had been included during Committee mark-up by Rep. John Peterson of Pennsylvania from the bill. Earlier, on this blog, Congressman Kingston was asked by Kevin1970 why he voted against the Peterson Amendment in Appropriations Committee. Since there seems to be a lot of miscommunication and misunderstanding about the extent of the Peterson Amendment--in fact, some even equate this to a vote against opening up ANWR--we thought we'd chime in. Here are three main points to keep in mind about why this Amendment was not the appropriate fix for our mutual concern: 1. Congress is working on a comprehensive energy strategy that will include drilling off the Outer Continental Shelf. An Appropriations bill is not the appropriate vehicle to debate substantive energy policy. 2. Drilling off the OCS can be done responsibly. The three mile line contained in the Peterson amendment is neither a responsible nor a practical demarcation line. 3. Even the sponsor of the underlying legislation (Peterson) does not want the line set at 3 miles. He has legislation allowing drilling at 20 miles. He admitted on the House Floor that he didn’t want 3 miles, but the rules governing appropriations would not allow him to do anything other than 3 miles. Read the Congressman's response to Kevin1970 after the jump.

The “vote” which you are referring to was during an Appropriations Committee mark-up on an amendment offered by Rep. John Peterson (R-PA) which would have lifted the moratorium on domestic natural gas exploration. This was not a broad vote against whether or not we need to consider deep sea exploration to add to our domestic reserves but rather a vote against the specifics of the amendment. In fact, I do support lifting the federal moratorium on oil and natural gas exploration. However, as the representative of Georgia’s coast I strongly believe that this is an issue which should be handled at the state level where local communities will help determine who explores for what and exactly how far out they search. The amendment in question did not include a mileage restriction which means that where state waters end and federal waters begin – which is typically about three miles off the coast – one could explore. And I’m not alone. I have supported and will continue to support an effort offered by Republican Reps. Richard Pombo of California and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana which will be debated on the floor shortly which preserves the veto power inside 50 or 100 miles of a state, gives states a share in the revenue, and includes other provisions which benefits Georgians. Pat Cleary and the guys over at NAM, along with some of our Mid-Western representatives, have one main concern which I share - getting as much fuel online as quickly as possible to help ease the energy and fuel crisis. Those of us who live and enjoy America’s coasts have to take in to account exactly how this process will work out in the end and ensure that we’re developing a comprehensive solution.