Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, in February of 2014, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking called--and it is important to know what it is called--Management of Non-Federal Oil and Gas Rights. In December of last year, the proposed rule was posted and comments were due in February of this year.

Mr. Chairman, States--States, not the Federal Government, States-- largely regulate oil and gas operations except in circumstances where the Federal Government has ownership of the mineral rights. That obviously is not the case in this rule, given its title.

Where there is Federal ownership, it is the Bureau of Land Management that has regulatory authority. And for an agency that has hundreds of personnel and decades of experience, even they have a hard time keeping up with the workload and maintaining adequate expertise in their agency.

But, Mr. Chairman, not only do States have the authority and the expertise to regulate oil and gas industry, they have the most natural and obvious incentive to do it well. The State regulators live in the States where the minerals reside.

Now, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service does not have the personnel or the expertise to regulate oil and gas operations, as demonstrated by GAO recommendations. Concerns outlined by the Fish and Wildlife Service are concerns that are addressed by several other regulatory bodies, including State regulators and, therefore, any attempt by Fish and Wildlife Service to also regulate would be redundant and duplicative. Enough already with redundant and duplicative regulations.

The added regulation will only serve to increase the delays and the costs to U.S. energy producers and, consequently, ultimately to the consumers.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply prevents funding to move this job- killing rule any further, and I encourage my colleagues to support jobs by voting ``yes'' on my amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I would just respond to my colleague's concern by stating that the concerns that he raises, that the Fish and Wildlife Service raises, are legitimate concerns. But they are concerns that are already being addressed by other regulatory bodies, including the States who have both the legal authority and the expertise as well as, as I said earlier, the natural incentive to do it well. It is where they live.

I think it is also important to understand that it is sort of private property law 101, that the minerals are often bifurcated from the surface, and that is the case we are talking about. And in that case, at least in North Dakota, the minerals supersede, actually, the surface rights. So this rule conflicts with not only common sense, but even with basic private property law.

I, again, urge a ``yes'' vote, and assure my colleagues that the concerns raised are being addressed by other regulatory bodies. Duplication is not necessary.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source