[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 35 (Tuesday, March 12, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1680-S1681]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            REVENUE SHARING

  Mr. BEGICH. Madam President, I rise to take exception with some of my 
colleagues--and I hate to say this--on my side of the aisle. This 
subject is very frustrating. I am talking about a letter I reviewed 
from March 8. It is a letter from the Senate Energy Committee. The 
letter talks about revenue sharing and offshore oil and gas development 
and how that Federal revenue should be shared.
  When I read this letter, it sounds as if there is some evil monster 
lurking in the deep, which is far from the truth. It is very 
frustrating--and I hate to say this--to see some of my fellow Democrats 
trying to make energy policy without talking to folks who are in the 
energy-producing States.
  Let me make this very clear. I am here to talk about revenue sharing. 
The letter is laid out as if it is about revenue sharing. After reading 
the letter, I found out that it is really about opposing offshore oil 
and gas development of any kind. I come from a State that is heavily 
invested in this endeavor, and to say revenue sharing is inherently 
inequitable is somewhat comical. What is inequitable is to drain 
resources from our energy-producing States without compensating them 
for the impacts of this needed development.
  I introduced legislation 6 weeks ago to make sure Alaskans get their 
fair share of the resources developed along our coastlines. Our 
communities are greatly impacted by development. My goal is to share 
Federal energy resources generated off Alaska's coast with the State 
and local governments as well as Alaska's Native people. It is just 
common sense.
  My bill not only encourages increased and responsible development of 
Alaska's energy resource, but it also makes sure our communities 
benefit directly from oil and gas being produced in our State. The idea 
is to help State, local, and tribal governments pay for the public 
sector infrastructure required to develop these resources.
  My bill also requires oil produced in the Federal waters of the 
Chukchi and Beaufort Seas--for those who may not always know where 
Alaska is, it is not near the coast of California, which every map 
seems to show. It is up north near Canada and has an enormous amount of 
resources in the Arctic area, and it is called the Chukchi and Beaufort 
Seas.
  My bill also requires oil produced in the Federal waters of the 
Chukchi and Beaufort Seas to be brought ashore by pipeline. This is 
safer than tanker transport and secures a future throughput for the 
Trans-Alaska Pipeline that feeds this country.
  The bill provides Alaska with 37.5 percent of Federal bonus bids and 
royalty shares from any energy development--fossil or renewable. Let me 
make this clear: Again, when I first read this letter, they seemed to 
be outraged by revenue sharing. As I look at it closer, it is really 
about how they don't like offshore development. As I read it, it says 
they don't like oil and gas.
  Before I got here, this Congress passed revenue sharing for the Gulf 
States, but they excluded Alaska. Even though Alaska is the farthest 
away from the lower 48, and it is one of this country's fuel sources, 
there is no revenue stream at all--period. We have a huge impact with 
the development of our housing, transportation, water, and sewer. We 
need to have the capacity so these communities can support this large 
development.
  My bill provides just what the Gulf States get--37.5 percent of the 
Federal revenues. We are not adding new taxes. We are taking what is 
collected--- or in the future what would be collected. The 37.5 percent 
of Federal revenues would be delivered in the following way: 25 percent 
will go to the local governments; 25 percent will go to the Alaska 
Native village and regional corporations. In some ways they are similar 
to the Indian Country in the lower 48 States but different in how they 
operate. In any event, it will provide services to Alaska Native 
communities. Ten percent will go directly to tribal governments, and 
the remaining 40 percent will go to the State of Alaska to deal with 
the impacts of this.
  This bill also requires 15 percent of the Federal share of royalties 
be directed to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Why is that 
important? It is important because that not only touches coastal 
States, it touches every State. Almost $900 million annually would be 
directed for the purpose of land and water conservation throughout this 
country.
  Finally, a percentage of the 37.5 percent of the Federal share would 
be dedicated directly to deficit reduction.
  Again, as I read the letter, they make it sound very evil. They make 
it sound like it is some monster lurking in the waters. This doesn't 
sound so evil. This is about fairness to our State and any coastal 
State that develops oil and gas off their shores.
  Again, as I read the letter, it is clear that friends and colleagues 
on my side of the aisle don't get what it means when we have this type 
of development and what type of infrastructure we have to provide to 
balance that infrastructure and ensure the people of that State get the 
resources and the development they need--especially when we extract 
from our State. People come and extract from our State and use it 
elsewhere. Our State should be left with some stream of revenue.

  They make a point in the letter, which this bill does address, as far 
as having 37.5 percent of these resources go to the States. The answer 
to that is simply, yes. Yes, it does. Relying on the Federal Government 
to determine what is best for these States doesn't always work out so 
well. We are now finally doing a CR with some modifications, and I am 
glad we are.
  After 4 years of seeing how this place operates, I will put my bet on 
State, local, and tribal governments to deliver the services we need. 
If it means that we take money from the Federal Government and give it 
to these local communities to do the job, I am all for it.
  As a former mayor, I know what we can do when we are given the 
resources

[[Page S1681]]

and how we will spend it efficiently and do what is right for the 
communities we represent.
  I appreciate the moment to talk on this issue. It is frustrating to 
see these letters. The Presiding Officer is from an energy State and 
knows what it is like when people propose their ideas for their 
States--and never talk to us about it--or propose what we should be 
working on. We should have communication.
  It is frustrating to have people from my own side of the aisle say we 
are not sharing our resources with the rest of the country when we do 
share. It is also frustrating that some of those on my side of the 
aisle oppose something which makes so much sense. We need to give more 
control to the local people who are extracting resources from the 
coastline.
  I thank the Presiding Officer for allowing me to speak.
  At this time I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________