madam chairman , i rise in strong opposition to both the peterson amendment and the istook amendment . 
if passed , these amendments will trample on a longstanding bipartisan moratorium on offshore oil and gas development that was initiated by former president bush , continued under president clinton , and endorsed in president bush 's fy 2006 budget . 
given this legacy of strong bipartisan support , i am simply amazed that the ocs moratorium is under such assault . 
however , this is exactly what we face today with these amendments . 
mr. peterson 's amendment strikes liquefied natural gas ( lng ) from the moratorium while mr. istook 's amendment calls for the entire moratorium in the eastern gulf of mexico , on both oil and gas , to vanish -- poof -- when the united states meets an arbitrary percentage of crude oil imports , 66.7 percent . 
every year since 1982 , congress has included language in the interior and environment appropriations bill to prevent the department of interior from using funds for leasing , pre-leasing , and related activities in sensitive coastal waters . 
mr. speaker , some might wonder why so many coastal areas stand firmly behind the ocs moratorium . 
i answer with tourism , tourism , and more tourism . 
tourism is not just a major industry for coastal states or a mere staple of their coastal economies . 
it is , along with recreation , the fastest growing sector of the ocean economy according to the president 's own u.s. commission on ocean policy 's final report . 
the money spent by tourists pay the bills and put food on the table for the people living in these communities . 
offshore oil and gas drilling directly threatens this economic engine and the people of these communities know it . 
by removing lng from the moratorium , mr. peterson 's amendment ignores the many concerns being raised about all phases of the lng process -- from exploration all the way to arrival at our ports . 
these concerns must be considered with more than a few minutes of discussion . 
as for mr. istook 's amendment , we had an opportunity one month ago with h.r. 6 to set a strong and visionary national energy policy to reduce our dependence on imported oil , and yet we did not take advantage of that opportunity . 
and so today , his amendment attempts to make coastal communities pay for that lack of vision . 
madam chairman , i can not accept these amendments because they are short-sighted and fail to uphold decades of bipartisan agreement on protecting our coastlines from oil and gas drilling . 
at their core , they fail to honor our communities and our environment . 
in conclusion , madam chairman , the peterson and istook amendments should be defeated and i urge a `` no '' vote on both of them . 
