Lower Energy Costs Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Chair, my first amendment will strike title V of division B of this bill.

Throughout this debate, I have heard my friends across the aisle argue that the bill before us today is a reasonable attempt to reform our permitting system. Unfortunately, this bill closely resembles a wish list for Big Oil and their lobbyists.

This amendment would strike one of the most egregious portions of the bill that would undo many of the reforms we made last Congress to ensure that the American people see a better return on our public lands and waters. We should all be able to agree that the American people deserve a fair deal when it comes to the use of our cherished public lands.

For far too long, our oil and gas leasing program has offered a sweetheart deal for the fossil fuel industry at the expense of taxpayers. One fossil fuel company even went so far as to outline in a press release the many benefits of extraction on public land compared to private land. Their release highlighted that leases on public lands are cheaper, last longer, and are more expansive.

While these statements may be music to the ears of those who care most about Big Oil interests, they represent a raw and an unfair deal for the American people.

Increasing the royalty rate to a fair level--that is all we are asking, a fair level--will generate billions of dollars in revenue for taxpayers. The Government Accountability Office and Congressional Budget Office both agree and have suggested that it is good policy.

That is why, last Congress, I introduced the Restoring Community Input and Public Protections in Oil and Gas Leasing Act to protect taxpayers by eliminating noncompetitive oil and gas leasing and raising the onshore oil and gas royalty rate, rental fee, and minimum bid amount.

I am proud that the Inflation Reduction Act includes significant provisions of that bill, including eliminating noncompetitive leasing for oil and gas sales, raising annual rental rates, and increasing the minimum bid for public lands. These commonsense reforms were simply long-overdue fixes to create more balanced fiscal terms and bring Federal lands in line with what States and private landowners already charge.

Before the IRA, the fiscal terms for public lands leasing and drilling were, in some cases, over 100 years old. For decades, these outdated rates and fees allowed oil CEOs to lease public lands for pennies on the dollar and unfairly increase their profits at the expense of taxpayers.

Even after the IRA, States like Texas and Oklahoma still charge higher royalty rates on their State lands than are charged on Federal public lands.

According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, these updated fiscal terms included in the IRA will not raise prices at the pump or consumer energy prices, but they will raise billions of dollars in additional revenue that could go toward our funding education, healthcare, and infrastructure improvements that benefit everyone, not just oil and gas companies.

Unfortunately, the bill before us today would also reinstate noncompetitive leasing, an indefensible practice.

The Government Accountability Office also found that 99 percent of noncompetitive leases issued between 2003 and 2009 never produced oil and gas during their 10-year lease terms. The reason why these lands were not put into production is that they are leased in areas where there is virtually no likelihood of development.

At its core, noncompetitive leasing is a wasteful practice that forces the Bureau of Land Management to expend limited public agency time and resources administering leases that hardly ever generate returns for taxpayers. It encourages oil and gas companies to buy up lands they will never use to pad their portfolios and appease shareholders, contributing to the 12.3 million acres of leased public lands that these companies are currently sitting on and not using.

Instead of maintaining these commonsense reforms and protecting the interests of American taxpayers, title V of the bill before us today would undo all of these reforms and provide a gift to oil and gas interests. By rolling back these reforms, the majority is proposing policies that would only pad Big Oil's pocketbooks even further and increase our Federal deficit by $160 million over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office, even as companies like ExxonMobil and Shell are announcing record profits.

By striking this title, we can put these dollars back in the pockets of the American people and protect commonsense reforms that are finally ensuring that Federal taxpayers receive a fair return on any private profit that oil and gas companies extract from our public lands.

I urge my colleagues to stand up for the American people and stand against our increasing national debt by supporting this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Chair, this amendment simply requires Federal agencies to certify that they have the staffing capacity to meet the new environmental timelines established under this bill.

According to the Government Accountability Office, the main reason for project delays at the Federal level is a lack of agency resources and staff capacity. Thankfully, we helped address this challenge by securing $1 billion in the IRA to ensure Federal agencies have the resources and expertise to conduct efficient environmental reviews.

A trained, equipped workforce is essential to processing environmental reviews in a timely fashion in cases where there are delays. Increasing the funding and staff for Federal agencies' permitting offices and agency workforce training is already making the permitting process significantly more effective and efficient in a responsible way.

Unfortunately, instead of building on the progress we made in the Inflation Reduction Act and supporting agencies' capacity to conduct reviews by providing additional resources, H.R. 1 takes the more politically expedient but impractical approach of simply forcing agencies onto stricter timelines for reviews without providing additional resources for Federal agencies to conduct these reviews.

By instituting these strict deadlines and limiting opportunities for community input throughout this bill, I am worried that instead of leading to more efficient project reviews and approvals, H.R. 1 may actually lead to sloppier and rushed reviews. When environmental reviews are not thorough, projects often face a litany of time- consuming lawsuits and litigation.

As some may know, I used to work on clean energy projects before coming to Congress, and my own experience is that detailed environmental reviews and a thoughtful permitting process alongside early engagement with impacted communities can facilitate more efficient completion of projects and better overall outcomes.

This amendment would help support efficient reviews by requiring that the Council on Environmental Quality in consultation with affected Federal agencies certify that all agencies have the funding and staffing capacity to meet the new timelines for environmental review required under the bill.

It is common sense that we should not be instituting arbitrary timelines if agencies don't have the necessary resources to meet them. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to ensure that affected agencies have the resources needed to conduct high-quality reviews, which will lead to better overall project outcomes.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source