Skip to comments.Gingrich urges passage of Landrieu's oil royalty bill
Posted on 12/04/2006 3:31:08 PM PST by Ellesu
WASHINGTON Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich today urged the House of Representatives to pass the Domenici-Landrieu Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, S. 3711, which would open additional territory in the Gulf of Mexico to oil and gas drilling and share revenues with energy-producing Gulf states.
The bill is scheduled for a vote in the House Tuesday during the final lame-duck session of the 109th Congress.
Congress must act to provide the infrastructure necessary to prevent a Katrina-scale disaster from ever reoccurring along the Gulf Coast while providing for our growing energy needs, Gingrich wrote in his column headlined An important first step, in todays Washington Times.
The Domenici-Landrieu bill would open 8.3 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico to new oil and gas production and share 37.5 percent of the revenues with Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Texas. The money would be dedicated to coastal restoration, hurricane protection and flood control projects. Another 12.5 percent of the revenues would go to the state side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, benefiting all 50 states. The Senate passed the bill with a bipartisan 71-to-25 vote in August.
Speaker Gingrich effectively lays out the case for the Domenici-Landrieu bill, said Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-New Orleans. The bill reduces our reliance on foreign energy sources and helps Louisiana restore the wetlands fast disappearing into the Gulf of Mexico, build stronger levees and construct comprehensive flood control.
Gingrich said the bill would correct an inequity between inland energy producing states, which receive 50 percent of the revenues from production within their borders, and coastal states that receive none of the proceeds from energy generated off their shores.
The Domenici-Landrieu bill also gives the coastal states a fairer deal on offshore drilling, Gingrich wrote.
Gingrich said it is important to make progress on additional energy production now rather than waiting for momentum on a bill passed by the House earlier this year, which would lift the long-standing moratorium on drilling along the East and West Coasts.
Instead of holding out for an impossible bill, the House Republicans would be wise to see the Senate bill as an important first step toward energy self sufficiency through expanded offshore oil and gas production, disaster prevention and ecological restoration.
I wish someone could post a link showing the amount of money the state of Louisiana has received over the last 80 years or so to build levees, and how much of that money was ACTUALLY used to build levees.
While we're at it, let's ban the import of petroleum from Venezuela while Chavez is at the helm and/or their government maintains an anti-U.S. stance.
Ugh Oh!... you're meddling.. asking a direct logical cogent in your face question..
Democrats and RINOs............ HATE THAT...
Does this mean that sometimes there are actually compromises in Congress in order to make something happen? Wonder if anybody told Tancredo?
IMHO Saudi Wahabism had and is far more hostile than anything pineapple face could even imagine
"Does this mean that sometimes there are actually compromises in Congress in order to make something happen? Wonder if anybody told Tancredo?"
You don't mean to tell me there is more than one issue?
Never....... everything is bought and paid for..
There are few in that institution with any values..
Especially family values..
Ol' Newt sure is getting his name in the news a lot lately -- not that there's anything wrong with that.
I like it as well, Gingrich, Bolton, Sessions; anyone, at this time, with what "may" appear with some visible 'cojones'. (And I still haven't counted Allen out)If one of these guys came out and said, I am going to save this "quickly becoming cesspool" from becoming a "quickly becoming cesspool", I would darn sure listen to him.
Chavez is supporting all sorts of subversive activities throughout Central America - including support of Cuba. He's doing so with money from us while attacking our President and threatening to cut off oil from HIS country. I say we eliminate the imports, which would likely destabilize his government. Something wrong with that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.