[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.
____________________