American Energy and Conservation Act of 2016

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak in strong support of S. 3110, the American Energy and Conservation Act. I would like to thank my colleague from Louisiana for introducing it, and I would also like to thank all of the Members who are cosponsoring it with us. I certainly thank Leader McConnell for scheduling a vote on it this morning.

I would like to begin by providing a little bit of context for why this legislation is necessary before I move into specifics of what it contains.

For literally centuries in Alaska, we have relied upon balanced and environmentally responsible resource development. Whether it is fish, game, our mineral resources such as copper or gold, timber, our marine mammals, or oil that was used to waterproof ocean-going vessels, resources have been extracted or harvested relatively lightly for thousands of years but more intensively harvested and extracted over the last 100 years. This resource extraction has fed us, it has housed Alaskans, and it has allowed us to sustain a life in oftentimes a very harsh but, without question, an extraordinarily beautiful environment.

In the last few years, resource extraction has become strategically and economically important to the livelihoods of all Americans. We have carefully regulated our resource extraction and protected our environment, and today millions of tourists from all over the world come to Alaska to view nature and look at the amazing landscapes that are hard to find anywhere else in the world.

Some might say that it is a contradiction to have resource extraction on the level that we have in Alaska--providing oil resources, mineral resources--and still have this amazing place that people from around the world want to see. Our State has truly managed to balance accessing our resources while still maintaining the environment and the natural beauty that makes us who we are.

I think many here are aware that Alaska is this amazing place, but what I am about to say should not surprise or amaze people. A majority of the residents living in Alaska's Arctic, a majority of the tribal governments, a majority of Alaska's Native corporations representing Alaska's Natives who live in the Arctic, a majority of residents statewide, a supermajority of our State legislature, our Governor, and every Member of the Alaska congressional delegation whole-heartedly support oil and gas development in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas.

I know that the President, the Secretary of the Interior, and the team that is responsible for developing a leasing program for Alaska's Outer Continental Shelf have all heard this support because, believe me, we have made sure that they have. So I am hoping that the news reports I have just heard--as I walked onto the Senate floor--from a reporter about rumors that the administration intends to put off-limits the Beaufort and Chukchi in this upcoming 5-year OCS lease plan. I hope the news reports are wrong. I hope they are nothing more than a rumor.

I hope the administration will see reason and that it will allow new lease sales to proceed in the Arctic as is clearly the desire of the vast majority of Alaskans.

This is not the only step that this administration should take. When responsible resource production does begin in the Alaska OCS, the 96- year-old Federal policy of sharing resource revenues with the States hosting this development must also apply.

The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 established this policy for Federal onshore revenue sharing at a time when there was very little offshore production occurring in our country. That policy has not forced resource development on States that are not interested, but instead it recognizes that the development requires infrastructure that counties and State governments pay for.

Congress realized in 1920 that we need to share the revenues from resource development to help local and State governments with the impacts of these activities. This policy has nationwide benefits from the east to the west, from the north to the south. Just in the past 10 years, residents of Michigan have received $5.7 million of shared Federal revenues. Missouri residents have received $30.6 million.

Residents of Nevada have received $108.6 million. I have full confidence that these States and counties put those dollars to tremendous productive use and certainly do not have any interest in parting with them.
What we are considering today with the legislation that we will vote on shortly is an effort to expand Federal revenue sharing to offshore areas. It is time to do just that. This is a matter of simple fairness.

At its core, it is a matter of simple fairness. Offshore production should be no different than onshore production. No other State will bear the burden of development like we will. Most will only see the end result of it. They will see the benefits that come from it--the benefits that come with affordable fuel coming out of the pump at their local gas station, for instance. But those who host the development will bear the burden of development, and in Alaska we are willing to bear that burden.

This legislation has been carefully crafted to apply only to States where responsible OCS development is supported. That is important to reinforce. We are not pushing this on those who do not want development. The legislation applies only to States where responsible OCS development will support it. So if a Senator is not interested in this development, we have respected their views and left their State out of this legislation. This is only about revenue sharing. Our bill will not open any new offshore areas to energy development. So those that would suggest that this is a Pandora's box, well that is clearly not the case. We are talking about the revenue sharing that will come to those who support the development offshore. It will not force any State to develop its resources if that State does not want to do it.

Florida is a good example. Florida would see no different treatment after the passage of this bill.
What the American Energy and Conservation Act will do is to make our policies equitable so that the States that bear the burden of development are finally allowed to share in the government's rewards.

This is true for both conventional energy such as oil and gas as well as the renewables that many Members of this Chamber claim to support.

In addition to allowing offshore revenue sharing for Alaska and the Middle Atlantic States, we have also incorporated a number of priorities that this Senator believes the Senate would do well to approve.

Some of these priorities are pretty important to us. We have a small funding stream to increase sportsmen's access to Federal areas for hunting, fishing, and similar activities. We have included additional funding streams for energy research and to reduce the deferred maintenance backlog at the National Park Service.

This is something so many of us have talked about--how to achieve the funding necessary to reduce the backlog at the National Park Service. This will help them.
It also provides a funding stream for TIGER grants at the Department of Transportation.

We fund a tribal resilience program. This is very important to us in my State of Alaska, to ensure that our Native communities have the ability to adapt to a changing climate and to invest in critical infrastructure. If coastal erosion is impacting this, whether it is the water infrastructure in a place like Barrow, whether it is the need for an emergency evacuation route for a community such as Shismaref or Kivalina or relocation, this can help to facilitate this with our Tribal Climate Resilience Program.

We have also dedicated revenues to the PILT program, which has become a chronic funding challenge. If you vote for this bill, what you are voting for is a more rational energy policy for our country. You are also voting for sportsmen's rights, for renewable energy, for the health of our national parks, for better infrastructure, and for our native communities and their ability to be more resilient and adaptable On the other hand, if you vote against this bill, you are not voting to halt or even limit offshore development. What you are doing is voting to continue an unfair practice toward the coastal producing States, and you are also voting against the priorities of thousands of your constituents. Those of us who have assembled this bill have respected those who do not want development off their shores. Now we would ask those Members to respect those of us who do support development for our States. We ask you to support this legislation.

I see my colleague from Alaska. I think it is fair to say that not only is our Congressional delegation very unified on this, but the support from our State and an understanding as to why revenue sharing for Alaska and other coastal States that seek this development is critically important. I appreciate all of the good work he has done on this issue to help it advance.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source