Obama Release

Senator Clinton Supports Coastal Drilling off Washington State when She Campaigns in Louisiana, Will She Still be for It Today?

In Louisiana, the Clinton campaign is attacking Senator Obama for voting against an energy bill that he and other environmental groups feared could be used to open up a broad expansion of coastal drilling for oil and gas across the country, including off the coast of Washington state. The Clinton attack claims that Obama's vote denied Gulf Coast states money to help rebuild after Katrina because it prevented a change in the way oil and gas revenue was shared with these states.

But there's a problem – the revenue-sharing agreements were ultimately passed into law, and Obama voted for them, once there wasn't a fear that the bill could be changed to expand drilling into places like Washington state.

“This is a classic political attack where Senator Clinton says one thing to get votes in Louisiana and another to get votes in Washington state, leaving the American people wondering which Clinton they should trust,” Obama spokesman Bill Burton said. “Senator Obama agreed with Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell that we need to protect Washington's coastline from oil and gas drilling. It's unfortunate that Senator Clinton disagreed.”

Washington state's Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell shared Senator Obama's concern and voted against the bill to expand drilling. As Senator Murray said at the time, “Washington state's coastline must continue to be protected from offshore oil and gas drilling, and that is one of the reasons why I voted against this proposal. S.3711 only protected the coastline off Florida, but did not protect Washington or any other coastal state. Republican leadership prevented other states from gaining same protections as Florida. The House version of this bill lifts a long-standing moratorium that prevents drilling off Washington's coast. I'm very concerned that without a provision protecting Washington, once the Senate version is conferenced with the House version, Washington state will lose its current protection. [Murray Press Release <http://murray.senate.gov/news.cfm?id=260475> , 8/1/06]

People in Washington should ask Senator Clinton today whether she stands by her vote that Senator Murray said would allow drilling for oil and gas off of the coast of Washington state.

Washington's Cantwell and Murray, Maine's Snowe, and Maryland's Mikulski And Sarbanes Voted Against The Gulf Of Mexico Energy Security Act. In 2006, both of Washington's senators, Murray and Cantwell, Maine Senator Olympia Snowe, and Maryland Senators Barbara Mikulski and Paul Sarbanes voted against the Gulf Of Mexico Energy Security Act. [Vote 219, S. 3711 Passed 71-25 (R 53-1; D 18-23; I 0-1) 8/1/06. CQ, 8/1/06;' Vote 218, S. 3711, Cloture Agreed to 72-23 (R 52-1; D 20-21; I 0-1) 7/31/06. CQ, 7/31/06]

Ø Murray Voted Against The Bill Because She Was Concerned That The State's Coastline Would No Longer Be Protected. “Washington state's coastline must continue to be protected from offshore oil and gas drilling, and that is one of the reasons why I voted against this proposal. S.3711 only protected the coastline off Florida, but did not protect Washington or any other coastal state. Republican leadership prevented other states from gaining same protections as Florida. The House version of this bill lifts a long-standing moratorium that prevents drilling off Washington's coast. I'm very concerned that without a provision protecting Washington, once the Senate version is conferenced with the House version, Washington state will lose its current protection. [Murray Press Release <http://murray.senate.gov/news.cfm?id=260475> , 8/1/06]

The Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act Became Law After It Was Included In A Larger Piece Of Legislation, Which Obama Voted For. In 2006, Obama voted for H.R. 6111, the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, which included the Gulf Of Mexico Energy Security Act. CRS reported, “At the end of the 109th Congress, the House leadership attached S. 3711 to a broad tax relief measure, H.R. 6111 (P.L. 109-432), that passed the House on December 8, 2006, and the Senate on December 9. Prior to its passage, Representative Ed Markey and others offered an amendment related to royalty relief for deepwater oil and gas lessees that would have, among other things, denied new oil and gas leases on federal lands to lessees that did not have price thresholds in their current oil and gas leases. That amendment was defeated by a vote of 207-205.” [CRS Report 33493 <http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/07Jun/RL33493.pdf> , May 2007; Vote 279, Bill passed, 12/9/06]

The League of Conservation Voters Urged Senators To Oppose The Bill Because It Would “Pave The Way For An… Even More Harmful House-Passed Bill That Would Lift The Moratorium On Offshore Drilling For All Of Our Coastlines Across The Country.” “If the Senate were to pass S. 3711, it would pave the way for a conference with H.R. 4761, the even more harmful House-passed bill that would lift the moratorium on offshore drilling for all of our coastlines across the country. We urge you to protect our coasts, our environment, and our economy by voting NO on S. 3711, and instead supporting real solutions to our energy problems.” [LCV Press Release <http://www.lcv.org/president-and-congress/letters-to-congress/page.jsp?itemID=30138133> , 7/24/06]

Clinton campaign release below:

OBAMA OPPOSED BILLIONS IN OIL REVENUE-SHARING FOR LOUISIANA
SENATOR OBAMA OPPOSED BILLIONS IN OIL REVENUE-SHARING FOR LOUISIANA

Feb. 7, 2008

The Louisiana for Clinton Campaign issued the following statement today:

The people of Louisiana have understood for many years that the oil and gas exploration in the Gulf of Mexico has been both a boon and bane to this State. On one hand, the oil industry has provided Louisiana with economic security and opportunity and, on the other, it was a contributing cause to the coastal erosion that exacerbated the devastation of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. At the same time, the people of Louisiana believed that they did not receive a fair share of the revenues that flowed from drilling in the Gulf in view of Louisiana's enormous contribution to domestic oil and natural gas energy supplies.

Following the hurricanes of 2005, the status quo in Louisiana was no longer tenable and the need for a fairer revenue sharing agreement that would provide significant funding for coastal restoration/hurricane protection reached a new height. The Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act represented the practical solution that Louisiana needed. It struck a balance between opening new areas to drilling and protecting the environment. And most importantly for Louisiana, the bill gave Louisiana a bigger share of the oil and gas revenues in the Gulf of Mexico, providing billions of dollars for coastal restoration, levee building and other critical recovery projects. That is why this important bill was fully supported by the people of Louisiana and their elected representatives. And though other energy issues loomed at the time, the urgency of acting to provide a secure source of funding for Gulf Coast recovery efforts outweighed any shortcomings of the legislation.

That is why Senator Clinton voted for it.

Senator Obama did not.

With all due respect, Senator Obama's opposition to the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act was politically expedient. Senator Obama said the following in his opposition:

Unfortunately, this bill sends the wrong message. Instead of making tough political decisions about how to reduce our insatiable demand for oil, this bill continues to lull the American people into thinking that we can drill our way out of our energy problems. We can't, and for that reason, I plan to vote against this bill. 152 Cong. Rec. S8492-02, 8503.

This act was not about sending the wrong message or lulling Louisiana into a false sense of security. Louisiana knows the score, and it has known for a very long time. The act was about helping Louisiana restore its coastline and protect itself from future hurricanes while supporting an economic lifeline for the state. By voting against this vital bill, Senator Obama chose to score political points about "energy independence" instead of moving forward with legislation to provide a steady source of funding for recovery efforts in a post-Katrina/Rita Louisiana. Despite Senator Obama's assertion, our nation's dependence on foreign energy was not something to be solved by rejecting needed aid to the state of Louisiana.

Senator Clinton acknowledged that this was a "tough political decision" in light of the many energy challenges that the United States faced, and stated the following in support of the act: "I believe that as part of a balanced energy policy, we need to expand domestic oil and gas production where it has local support and can do so in an environmentally sound way. I think the bill before the Senate meets that test . . . ." 152 Cong. Rec. S8492-02, 8505.

Senator Clinton further noted that "[e]xpanding domestic supplies is only a partial solution to our energy problems," as the country must "take steps to increase energy efficiency and to expand production of renewable energy."

152 Cong. Rec. S8492-02, 8505. In this regard, Senator Clinton filed amendments to the bill, but did not insist on holding the bill hostage to those amendments and vote to filibuster the bill, as Senator Obama did.

Since Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the state has become of symbol of the ills of bureaucratic myopia. Politicians have flocked to New Orleans seeking headlines that show that they care and that they will not leave Louisiana behind.

Louisiana, look at the record.

Often what happens on C-SPAN is more telling than what happens on CNN. Issues do matter. When Senator Obama had the chance to stand with you, he chose not to.