Nick Snow
Washington Editor
A seemingly routine US House Natural Resources Committee hearing on states sharing federal revenue from future energy production off their coasts took an unexpected turn on July 27 when the committee's ranking minority member made his opening statement.
"What we're doing here today is trying to find a way to take more revenue from the federal government, not reducing, but increasing, the budget deficit," said Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.). "Back in 2006, a bill was rammed through Congress which gave a disproportionate share of federal offshore royalties—$150 billion—to four Gulf Coast states."
Coincidentally, that was how much money House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) was looking for during federal debt ceiling negotiations, "but it's gone now," Markey continued.
He said that he and another committee Democrat, Rush D. Holt (NJ), would introduce a bill to repeal the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act provision. "Otherwise, we're going to have cut Medicare, programs for the disabled, defense spending, and other essential programs," he declared. "How can we even begin to discuss giving away more money now? This is just a big mistake, seen in the totality of the current fiscal situation."
From that point on, the hearing, which was supposed to consider expanding the 27.5% share of revenue from future federal offshore energy production beyond Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, and Alabama to other coastal states, became a debate on a concept that seemingly had become established.
Markey and Holt asked Virginia and Louisiana officials, who had come to testify about ways their states would use the money, if establishing their own programs meant they no longer needed the US Coast Guard and other federal services.
‘Solution is simple'
The committee's Republicans, meanwhile, fumed at the maneuver. "I find it ironic that my colleagues across the aisle suddenly have grown concerned about a loss of federal revenue from offshore energy production," said Bill Johnson (Ohio). "The solution is simple: Produce more offshore energy."
Scott Tipton (Colo.) said, "Our Democrat colleagues seem to be opposed to revenue sharing not because that money can be used to pay down federal debt, but because it would encourage more offshore oil and gas development in this country."
US Sen. Mary L. Landrieu (D-La.), who was instrumental in the provision becoming part of GOMESA, later weighed in on the repeal proposal.
"Massachusetts was once a colony and it rightly rejected that status," she said. "Instead of fighting this effort, Rep. Markey should join coastal senators in fighting for the dignity and respect coastal states deserve, and to make sure these and other states get treated fairly as this production is increased."
More Oil & Gas Journal Current Issue Articles
More Oil & Gas Journal Archives Issue Articles
View Oil and Gas Articles on PennEnergy.com