Legislative hearing on the following bills: H.R. 1555 (Rep. Bice), “Bureau of Land Management Mineral Spacing Act” H.R. 5639 (Rep. Kennedy of UT), “Co-Location Energy Act” H.R. 7831 (Rep. Kennedy of UT), “License to Drill Act” H.R. 7872 (Rep. Hageman), To amend the Mineral Leasing Act to provide for the payment of bonus payments of certain coal leases issued under that Act. H.R. 7882 (Rep. Stauber), To provide for the leasing of certain deposits of minerals located within the City of Carlsbad, New Mexico.
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 2
It's not a small price to pay for Phoenix families whose AC bills are already on the rise in the face of the earliest 100 degree day on record. In interviews about gas prices, he said, if they rise, they rise. But this is far more important than having gasoline prices go up a little. Go up a little bit? Arizona has seen the largest jump in gas prices in decades because of this war, with prices nearing $5 a gallon.
He even dared to brag about what oil prices would do for oil executives, right out in the open. I quote again, the United States is the largest oil producer in the world by far. So when oil prices go up, we make a lot of money. The we he's talking about are the billionaires running these companies, and the money they are making is at the expense of working families. He's just as flippant about fulfilling bribes from the oil industry as he is with the lives of American citizens.
My last quote, when you go to war, some people will die. Let me be clear. The Islamic Republic is a barbaric, corrupt regime that has murdered and terrorized its own people for decades. As the daughter of Iranian immigrants, my parents fled this regime, and my family has suffered from this regime's violence. But this war is not about freedom or democracy for the Iranian people.
The president has just resorted to lifting sanctions on Russian and Iranian oil. It's not going to help. It's just going to help and benefit enemy regimes. Once again, American families are paying more, while Big Oil and our adversaries are getting sweetheart deals. Our colleagues across the aisle may argue that more oil and gas production here at home is the answer to this supply disruption.
But if our record oil and gas production is proof of anything, it's that it will not make us more dominant or more secure. American families have not been insulated from global price shocks. And to be so dismissive of how challenging it can be to afford to even put food on the table, this economy is truly insulting. And while this administration is promoting this drill baby drill fallacy, they have continued to block almost all clean energy projects in the development pipeline. These are wind, solar, and battery storage projects that if this administration had let them move forward, could generate affordable energy for all Americans far more quickly than more drilling, which is inherently tied to the global market.
All of this sets the backdrop for today's hearing. Some of the bills on the agenda are actually less controversial, some bipartisan, and I'm encouraged to see the majority supporting a bill that intends to make it easier to site wind and solar on federal lands. But h r 1555 and h r 7872 are more giveaways that the fossil fuel industry does not need. They won't make us more secure, they won't make life more affordable, and, in fact, we'll put public lands, our communities, taxpayers, and the climate at more risk. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, representative Ansari. I will now yield to the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Westerman, for his opening statement.
Speaker 3
Thank you, Chairman Staubert, for holding this important legislative hearing. I'd also like to thank our witness for taking time to provide their testimony before the committee today. The bills being considered by the subcommittee will help streamline energy permitting, incentivize domestic coal mining, and encourage renewable energy co-location practices. In 2025, national electricity generation was up 2.8% from the year before, which, according to the US Energy Information Administration, was the largest annual increase since they began measuring in 1949. Over the next 15 years, electricity demand is expected to rise anywhere from 35 to 50%, driven by factors including growth in data centers, the onshoring of manufacturing, and the broader electrification of our economy.
The need for urgent action was foreseen by President Trump when he declared a national energy emergency in executive order 14156. We must maximize the amount of energy developed on public land leases to meet our nation's energy needs and power a growing economy. This congress, the committee, has worked tirelessly to cut red tape and let Americans build. Through the permitting reform and the speed act, and the legislation being considered today, we can take the red tape off the hands of producers. We can enable investment.
We can unleash American energy resources and help lower costs for every American. HR 7831 reauthorizes fees required when submitting an application for permit to drill. The fees are deposited into the permit processing improvement fund, which BLM uses to fund application reviews and permitting. There's broad support among regulators and industry stakeholders for authorizing these fees. HR 50, sorry.
1555, the Bureau of Land Management Mineral Spacing Act, will reduce the federal permitting workload by authorizing state permitting for oil and gas operators extracting less than 50% of their total product from federal reserves. HR 78 82 will unlock the vast oil and gas reserves underneath Carlsbad, New Mexico, for oil and gas leasing through BLM. This effort has the support of the city itself, and I'm excited to support legislation that's endorsed so strongly by local communities. This is the kind of cooperation we only see when companies prove themselves to be good neighbors and a real benefit to the communities they support. HR 7872 sponsored by representative Harriet Haggeman of Wyoming allows companies to prorate lease payments over a longer period rather than currently mandated.
This flexibility will free up capital for the commencement of operations, easing initial cash flow issues. Doing so will spur capital investment in new resources and help invigorate the much-needed coal mining industry. HR 5639, the Colocation Energy Act, addresses DOI authority for colocation of renewable energy sources on land with active leases, including a provision requiring the consent of the leaseholder. I look forward to further discussions on the administration's recommendations to improve the bill. In order to build broad support for these bills, we sought and implemented feedback from representatives on both sides of the aisle, experienced regulators, local government, and investors who spend their time working through regulatory barriers day in and day out.
Again, I want to thank our witnesses for being here today to testify, and I commend each of the bill sponsors for their hard work in getting their legislation to this point. And I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Chair Westerman. I will now begin our members' panel to allow the bill sponsors to speak on their legislation. I now recognize Representative Kennedy from Utah for his testimony on his bills.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Chairman Staubern, Ranking Member Ansari, for the opportunity to appear before this committee. It's a privilege to join you today to discuss two pieces of legislation I've introduced, HR 5639, the Colocation Energy Act, and HR 7831, the License to Drill Act. The staff had a lot to say about the License to Drill Act. They were proud of that name that they developed. Each of these bills address a singular question: how do we strengthen domestic energy production to meet the growing demands of an increasingly electrified world?
In 2005, the Bipartisan Energy Policy Act established a permit processing improvement fund to support federal and tribal oil and natural gas activities, and to ensure agencies have the personnel needed to carry out timely permitting. The fund directs resources to Bureau of Land Management offices with the highest volume of applications for permits to drill, many of which are located across the Rocky Mountain West, including the my home state of Utah. In short, this fund provides essential funding for a critical industry. Reauthorizing the permit processing improvement fund through the License to Drill Act will ensure that our permitting system keeps pace with the energy demands of the 21st century. By providing stable dedicated resources to high volume offices, we can reduce delays, increase certainty for producers, and bring responsible domestic energy online more efficiently.
It's not simply about speed. It's about strengthening American energy security, supporting jobs, and ensuring that the United States remains an energy leader. Already, the US is in an energy crisis. The rising need for AI superiorities led to an energy deficit we very well could struggle to meet. According to the Electric Power Research Institute, data centers could use as much as 9% of our current electric output by 2030.
What worsens this is the reality of our current energy infrastructure. Around 67% of our energy generating plants will be offline in less than 20 years, and only 16% of those will be replaced with resources able to provide the same amount of energy. This growing imbalance between surging demand and a constrained, aging supply underscores the need for practical, immediate solutions that make better use of the assets we already have while responsibly expanding our capacity for the future. By supporting the Colocation Energy Act, we can advance an all-of-the-above approach to energy that makes better use of the infrastructure we already have in place. This bill will help strengthen rural communities that depend on limited energy access, while improving efficiency and reducing unnecessary barriers to development.
In doing so, we take a practical step toward unlocking America's full energy potential and ensuring that our energy system is reliable, resilient, and ready to meet future demand. The Licensed Drill Act ensures our permitting system is staffed, efficient, and capable of delivering timely, responsible energy development, while the Colocation Energy Act makes smarter use of the infrastructure and supports communities that depend on it. Together, these bills are about more than just policy. They're about keeping the lights on, powering innovation, and making sure America has the energy it needs to lead in a rapidly changing world. These bills reflect the simple truth.
The future of American energy depends on improving what works and building what is needed next. We must be willing to modernize our permitting processes, fully utilize existing infrastructure, and provide the certainty needed to responsibly develop our domestic resources. Doing so will not only help close the gap between supply and demand, but will also reinforce our economic strength and national security at a time when both are increasingly tied to energy availability. I appreciate the committee's consideration of this legislation. Look forward to working with my colleagues to advance solutions that are practical, durable, and grounded in reality.
The challenges before us are significant, but they are not insurmountable if we act with urgency and clarity of purpose. Thank you, Mister Chair, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. When ranking member Huffman comes in, we're gonna allow him for an opening statement. And representative Haggerman, I will allow her to speak on her bill when she arrives. We will now begin our second panel, which is comprised of one witness. Let me remind the witness that under committee rules, they must limit their oral statements to 5 minutes, but their entire statement will appear in the hearing record.
To begin your testimony, please press the on button on the microphone. We use timing lights. So when you begin, the light will turn green, and at the end of 5 minutes, the light will turn red. And I will ask you to please complete your statement that time. I will allow all witnesses to testify before member questioning.
Our witness for this panel is Mitchell Leverett, who is the Eastern States director for the Bureau of Land Management. Mister Leverett, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
Speaker 5
Chairman Stahlger, ranking member Ansari, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the Beardland management regarding the bills before you today. My name is Mitchell Leverett, and I am the Eastern State director for the Bureau of Land Management, an agency where I've had the pleasure to work for over 39 years starting as a staff geologist. The public lands and minerals stewarded by the BLM include approximately 245,000,000 acres of public lands and 700,000,000 acres of subsurface and mineral estate. These mineral resources are critical to achieving American energy dominance, and their development will power our economy, bolster national defense, and support emerging technologies. The administration is committed to unleashing American energy as part of a broader agenda of strengthening the economy.
The BLM is working to secure a reliable and resilient domestic supply of minerals. Currently, the Department of Interior is working to reverse and remove bureaucratic hurdles that impede domestic oil and gas production. Supported by its bureaus, the department is delivering on the president's promise to put American workers first, cut burdensome regulations, and unlock domestic energy production. The bills on today's agenda further the Trump administration's goals and priorities, particularly the commitment to cutting red tape and unlocking America's abundant energy supply. HR 7831 would extend for ten years the BLM's authorization to collect oil and gas permit processing fees, which are set to expire at the end of fiscal year 26.
APD fees are essential in supporting the growing demand for permitting services and maintaining timely and defensible permit reviews. If the authority for the fees expires, the BLM will need to rely exclusively on appropriated funds to support permit processing. The BLM strongly supports 787831 as it advances oil and gas exploration and production to meet the energy needs of our nation. HR 1555 would eliminate the requirement that oil and gas operators submit a federal drilling permit to BLM in instances where there is nonfederal surface state and where the subsurface mineral state is less than 50% federal. The department supports HR 1555 as it furthers the administration's priorities to reduce costly regulation, strengthen oil and gas development, and provide permit flexibility.
HR 7872 incentivizes coal production by deferring a portion of the startup costs of coal operations on federal lands, and the department supports this bill. HR 7872 would amend the Mineral Leasing Act to allow bonus bids for co-leases to be paid in 10 installments rather than five as required by current regulation. The bill will build on the Trump administration's work to revitalize America's coal and strengthen America's energy security. Coal production will fuel economic growth, protect national security, and ensure local communities benefit from good-paying jobs. HR 7882 would authorize the secretary to lease minerals on federal lands within the city of Carlsbad, New Mexico, subject to written consent by the city.
The BLM supports the bill, which recommended technical modifications to facilitate responsible management of federal mineral resources. Oil production on federally managed lands within the city of Carlsbad would provide important contributions toward furthering America's standing as a global energy leader and strengthening national security. Finally, HR 5639 would authorize the secretary to issue permits for constructing our operating solar or wind energy facilities on areas currently leased for oil, gas, coal, and geothermal energy with consent from the applicable leaseholder on federal lands and waters. Congress has already provided the BLM with robust authorities to consider and issue rights of way, and we currently have the ability to approve new uses that are compatible with existing authorized uses. As such, the department believes this bill is unnecessary.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to your questions.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Mr. Leverett, for your testimony. The chair will now recognize members for five minutes of questions. I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes. Mister Leverett, my bill unlocks the minerals underneath Carlsbad, New Mexico, for federal leasing. Given BLM's role in overseeing safe development, can you speak to how today's horizontal drilling technology enables access to these deposits without surface disturbance?
And then, additionally, how does BLM's regulatory framework ensure that projects like those contemplated in this bill can move forward in a manner which protects the interests of our local communities?
Speaker 5
Thank you, chairman, for that question. Yeah. Wells currently in the area often access the area under Carlsbad two to four miles away from the city boundaries. The well paths are 2 to 4 miles away, allowing for surface infrastructure to remain mostly outside of the city limits. And currently, there is mining and oil and gas development in that area right now.
Before the Carlsbad boundary was expanded, leases were issued in that area, and that leasing has existed in the city of Carlsbad, coexisted for some time. Areas that are sensitive, we are allowed to move 800 meters from sensitive areas to allow for those areas to not be disturbed. And there are areas that have no surface occupancy requirements. So, this has been proven that this can work in the city of Carlsbad. So we look forward to supporting this bill, to see if this can come to fruition.
Speaker 1
Yeah. The BLM supports it, and so does the city. Thank you very much. Now turning to Representative Kennedy's license to drill act. What sorts of permit processing improvements have been made possible by the APD fee reauthorized in this bill?
Speaker 5
Well, the APDs have been authorized for a number of years, and the reauthorization of these fees is critical for us to continue to have permit efficiencies and expedited permitting. And, also, this fee is used to hire additional staff to process APDs as we are increasing our capacity. And it also allows for us to continue to focus on streamlining, which includes processing multiple APDs under one individual permit. So it's important that these fees be extended to be able to process the APDs.
Speaker 1
Mister Leverett, you mentioned efficiencies and additional staff. Can you give us an example of the efficiencies for the application for permits to drill? And then, also, what has the additional staff done? Like, how much time has that cut down for the APDs? Well, we.
Speaker 5
are processing APDs on a much faster period than what we have historically done. We're trying to get down to 100 days after the APD is received for processing. And the efficiencies are, as I stated, we are able to process multiple APDs associated with rights of way as one project instead of having multiple projects. So that is one example of how these APD fees help us become more efficient.
Speaker 1
So you're processing APDs with the new staff within 100 days. What were you doing prior to the new staff of efficiencies? What was the average timer about?
Speaker 1
Much more than 100 days. Okay. Mister Leverett, how would representative Hagman's bonus bid legislation encourage greater participation in co-lease sales mandated under the working families tax cuts?
Speaker 5
Thank you for that question. By deferring bonus payments, from five years to ten years, applicants will not have to pay start-up costs so quickly. And it also would potentially encourage more people to bid on coal sales, because of the upfront cost that may not be necessary in five years, but could be spread out over ten years. So the initial investment is and the capital cost would be spread out over a larger, longer period of time. So I think that would be encouraging for people who are interested in bidding.
Speaker 1
Thank you. I believe giving operators the flexibility to pay bonus bids over a longer period of time, including when they are able to begin production on a particular lease, will free up much-needed capital that can be reinvested into these operations. By providing this flexibility, we'll also see more development of these leases, leading to increased royalty revenues for the federal government and, most importantly, the American people. I will now allow representative ranking member Ansari five minutes of questioning.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much. Mister Leverett, thank you for your many years of service to the federal government and the Bureau of Land Management. A couple of questions for you, and I asked your Nevada state director counterpart similar questions. So, hopefully, they won't come as a surprise. First of all, can you please tell me how many permits for solar projects the Bureau of Land Management has processed over the last year?
Speaker 5
Thank you for that question. Well, in accordance with executive order 14315 and secretarial order 3438, basically, 14315, ending market distortion subsidies for unreliable foreign-controlled energy sources. That executive order has asked for solar and wind projects to be elevated to the department for more robust review. So that's what is happening to those projects. They're being elevated.
Several projects have been approved, but okay. They are going through an elevated process where they're looking at more.
Speaker 5
I do not know the exact number, but I can get that information and provide it. Yeah.
Speaker 2
That would be great. I don't think these questions were a surprise, so a follow-up would be greatly appreciated. Can you tell me how many permits for wind projects the alumni have processed over the last year?
Speaker 5
I can get that. I'm not sure of the answer to that question, but I could provide that answer to the rep for the record.
Speaker 2
That would be appreciated because as far as I can tell, I believe the answer is none to that one. It has been reported that the interior department has had maybe a bit of a change of heart on solar, and that some projects are seeing movement. But I'm not convinced that it's a widespread change of heart, but I am optimistic that the administration is starting to see the value of this clean, reliable, affordable source of energy. But permits for wind energy are still completely stalled, and the process remains almost entirely opaque. Mister Leverett, can you confirm whether the July 15 memo requiring Secretary Bergham to sign off on 69 individual mundane permitting actions for wind and solar is still in place?
Speaker 2
So, unfortunately, it does remain extremely unclear what helps get a project to a yes. Maybe they need to be connected to Donald Trump's ballroom donors or Steven Miller's wife needs to advocate for them. But my point is that we should all agree that permitting should not work this way. Mister Leverett, we are still seeing so much arbitrary red tape for wind and solar, while at the same time the system is being rigged as a complete public lands giveaway for oil and gas, an industry that has not helped make life more affordable for everyday Americans and, in fact, subjects us to the very volatility that we are seeing today. Renewable energy on public lands has enormous potential, and I'm really hoping that this moment helps my colleagues across the aisle recognize that we should not be shutting down the most abundant, readily available, and secure sources of energy that we can get.
Thank you.
Speaker 6
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mister Lebritt, Alaska has the largest federal land footprint of any state. Over 60% federally managed, and Alaska operators face this exact split-estate bottleneck constantly. A minority federal mineral interest triggers a full application for permit to drill process, full NEPA review, and ESA consultation on top of everything the state already requires. That duplicative burden costs investment, jobs, and federal royalty revenue that would otherwise be collected.
Can you walk us through how removing the redundant APD requirement in minority interest situations will shorten development timelines, and confirm that the royalty accountability provisions preserved in H.R. 1555, including the secretary's inspection authority and the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act, are sufficient to protect federal revenue interests?
Speaker 5
Thank you for that question. What, HR 1555 would do, it would remove burdensome regulations, and it would only require a permit from the state instead of the federal government. It would also free up staff to process APDs in other areas, where we're not having to process APDs where we do not own the surface, and 50% of the subsurface is not federal. So we think that would save us time. It would free up resources to do additional work, other reclamation, interim reclamation work, other APDs, measurement work across other areas.
So.
Speaker 6
Thank you. Your testimony shows BLM processed over 6,000 APDs using the permit processing improvement fund in fiscal year 2025, a 55% increase year over year, with industry footing the bill, not taxpayers. In Alaska, permitting backlogs have been a chronic obstacle to getting projects on the ground. This authority expires at the end of fiscal year 2026. What happens to BLM's permitting capacity if this fee authority lapses?
How quickly does the backlog rebuild, and what is the realistic path to replacing that capacity through appropriated funds alone?
Speaker 5
Thank you for your question. We do know that those funds are very important to us, the BLM, to be able to process APDs. As you stated, in fiscal year 25, 4,000 APDs came in, and we processed 6,000. And those fees totaled $49,000,000 that we brought in, and we paid out $40,000,000 to process those APDs. If we did not have the APD fee, we would have to get those funds from appropriated funds, and there's no guarantee that we would get those funds.
And I think if we did not have those funds, we would not be able to process the number of APDs that we are currently able to process these days.
Speaker 6
Thank you. Just one more question. Under the current system, operators finance substantial bonus bid payments as upfront sunk costs years before mine produces revenue. And the permitting timeline for a new federal coal lease can stretch seven to 10 years. For those two facts together, powerfully deter new lease participation, which costs both the federal government and states like Alaska significant long-term revenue.
Can you describe how extending the bonus bid payment schedule to ten years reduces that financial deterrent and whether the departments view this reform is likely to increase total long-term federal and state revenue by attracting more competitive bidders who would otherwise pass on a lease sale?
Speaker 5
Well, yes. I agree that, being able to extend the bonus bid payment for a longer period of time would potentially attract additional interest in the bidding process. And, as I stated, it requires less output upfront for a mining operation to proceed. So we think this is a good bill to move forward, and we support it fully.
Speaker 6
Thank you, Mr. Leverett. I appreciate your years of service to the United States. Thank you for lending your expertise to the committee today, and we look forward to the remainder of your testimony. And with that, he yields back.
Speaker 1
you. Thank you very much. We wanna be as flexible on this committee as we can, because we have members coming and going. I wanna recognize representative Haggerman to speak on her bill. Representative Haggerman.
Speaker 7
Thank you, Chairman Stauber, for allowing me to go a bit out of order here today. It's been a busy day. I also wanna thank you for holding this legislative hearing on my bill, HR 7872, to make common sense reforms to the federal coal bonus bid structure. Wyoming has led in coal production since 1986, now producing about 40% of the nation's coal. In 2024, we produced 191000000 tons and shipped 171000000 tons to 26 different states.
While we produce coal throughout our great state, most of the production is from the Powder River Basin, and it is in the federal coal program. Thanks to this Republican-controlled Congress and in partnership with President Trump, common sense has finally prevailed, and Cole is back in favor after decades of Washington DC politicians and bureaucrats attempting to destroy this critically important industry. Our collective leadership culminated in the monumental reforms included in the one big beautiful bill, as well as several executive orders restoring Cole's central role, empowering our nation. These reforms are significant, but more is needed to fully recognize their benefit and respond to concerning market developments. In February, the Wyoming Energy Authority released a report on the impact of the decades-long and wrong-headed war on coal waged out of DC.
After fourteen years of no new leasing, demand for coal by our domestic and international markets could outpace supply as early as 2019, as early as 2030, just four years away. That brings us to my bill before us today, H.R. 7872, which makes crucial reforms to the Mineral Leasing Act. Federal coal leasing is done via a lease-by-application or LBA. If the BLM moves forward with a lease sale, it will formulate a fair market value or FMV estimate of the coal in the proposed area and offer the tracts for competitive lease sale. The winning bid in a competitive LBA sale is the highest bonus bid that meets or exceeds the coal track's presale estimated FMV.
While the Congressionally Passed Minor Leasing Act authorizes a bonus bid, agency regulations dictate its current payment terms. According to current regulations, the winning bid must pay 20% of the bid at the time of the sale, followed by annual installments of 20% over the next 4 years. This structure has not kept pace with the coal mine development timelines. Permitting alone can take up to 5 years before construction begins, yet companies must expend large sums long before revenue is ever generated. The lack of bonus bid modernization is an additional deterrence to new leasing, something Congress must resolve now to avoid shortages that could begin in 2030.
To do nothing on this important issue is simply not an option. Ignoring this situation poses a real risk of compromising the power availability for our citizens. The risks increase exponentially in times of crisis. For example, in the recent winter storm, Fern coal-fired electricity use increased by 31% in just one week to meet growing power demands. Without Wyoming coal, Americans will go without heat and power in the most dire times.
My bill would amend the Mineral Leasing Act to extend the bonus bid payment restructure over a 10-year period. This would modernize the fee structure to make it more compatible with current mining timelines, cut in half the upfront winning bid cost, and extend repayment into a mine's revenue generating years. But I also want to be clear that this does not change the amount of the bonus bid payment. The companies will pay the same amount into the national treasury. These reforms would mean the production of more coal, which provides huge benefits for every American that uses electricity, meaning every single one of us.
In Wyoming, coal bonus payments fund K-12 school construction. In 2005, 400,000,000 dollars was generated for school construction and another $100,000,000 in 2017. But as Washington DC sought to dry up new leasing, so did the education funding in the state. In fact, recent years have seen no returns at all. New coal leasing not only restores much needed education funds in the state, but stabilizes payments over a ten year period.
With the reforms in H. R. 7872, federal coal will better account for the current operation of the industry, benefiting every American that relies on Wyoming coal for power, and benefiting Wyoming's children. HR 7872 has the support of both the Wyoming Mining Association and the National Mining Association. Thank you again, Chairman Stauber, for holding this hearing on my bill, and I look forward to the discussion, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, chairman. I'll recognize this representative. Heard for 5 minutes.
Speaker 8
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Mr. Leverett. Have a question about HR 1555, the Mineral Spacing Act. Your testimony notes that duplicative federal and state permitting can delay projects and strand resources. Can you explain how this bill would reduce those delays while still making sure that the federal government receives appropriate royalties and maintains oversight?
Speaker 5
Yes. Thank you for your question. Those delays would be reduced because the applicant would only have to get a state permit to be able to drill and not have to go through the process of getting a federal permit and all that goes along with getting a federal permit. But as part of the bill, we would still have the responsibility to do measurements, and we will still have the responsibility to go on-site to access, to do inspections. And the royalty that would be due to the government for the portion of the federal state would still come from the federal government.
So.
Speaker 8
K. You also mentioned the need for technical edits to preserve BLM's ability to access private surface for inspections. Can you briefly describe what changes are needed to ensure that accountability is maintained?
Speaker 5
I am not fully sure what the department is thinking as far as the technical edits for this bill. So I can get that and bring that back to you for the record.
Speaker 8
That'd be helpful. Yeah. Just to know what the agency is seeing is important here with respect to those technical issues. I have another question on this. It has been touched on by my colleague from Wyoming quite well, but she has a bill that I think is really important, H.R. 7872. Your testimony notes that permitting and development timelines for coal projects can extend several years before production actually begins.
Can you describe how those timelines compare to the current bonus bid payment schedule, and whether there is a mismatch between when costs are incurred and revenues are realized?
Speaker 5
Thank you for that question. It can take a mining project, a coal project, a number of years to start production. And as has been stated, the bonus bids are required. The first payment is required at the time of the lease sale, and four subsequent payments are due each year, following that first year. This bill would extend that period out over 10 years.
So it's, there's a greater likelihood that more production can occur, will occur, and more revenue will be coming in to be able to support that bonus payment over a longer period of time.
Speaker 8
Got it. So the current mismatch discourages participation in federal co-leasing and limits the ability of operators to move projects forward right now. Is that correct?
Speaker 5
The extended period would definitely enhance production, I think, and interest going forward. Yes.
Speaker 8
Great. Well, I appreciate this bill by my colleague for a moment. I think this is really important, and appreciate your testimony, Mr. Leverett, on this as well. And with that, mister chair, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. The chair and all recognize this representative for 5 minutes.
Speaker 7
Thank you. And I appreciate your questioning and your responses to this. It is an important bill from the standpoint of better matching revenue with the expenses that are incurred in these big projects. And, mister Levitt, in my opening statement, I referred to the congressional and presidential leadership that has provided the foundation for the coal revitalization in this country, and the related production of much-needed affordable and reliable energy. Could you describe the ways in which our one big beautiful bill that was signed into law in July, how that is assisted with being able to implement the federal coal program to its holistic extent?
Speaker 5
Thank you for your question. Yes. The one big beautiful bill has three major aspects to it that are related to coal. One was an expedited leasing process that within ninety days of passage of the bill, if there were leases that were ready to go, we would get those across the finish line in ninety days. And another provision was through reduction of the royalty rate from 12.5 percent for surface coal and 8% for subsurface.
Those royalty rates were reduced to 7% across the board. And, finally, this bill asked the BLM to open up 4,000,000 acres of area to coleasing that was not open. The BLM has opened up 13,100,000 acres based on this request under the bill. And the expedited permitting, we've had six projects to come through that process. So that bill has caused a lot of activity within the BLM.
Speaker 7
That's wonderful to hear, and it sounds like it's working and doing exactly as we intended it to. And, also, through executive orders such as reinvigorating America's beautiful clean coal industry, President Trump has played a crucial role in revitalizing the American coal industry, including in Wyoming. This executive order directed the Department of the Interior to lift barriers to coal mining on federal lands. But it's, in my opinion, the current bonus bid payment structure actually detours new coal mining on federal lands. Would you agree with that because of the disconnect between the expense, the amount that has to be outlaid before revenue can be generated?
Speaker 5
I would agree that the increased time to pay the bonus bit would enhance, I think, production and interest.
Speaker 7
Okay. Does updating the federal program to better accommodate current timelines and challenges faced by the industry align with the administration's policies?
Speaker 7
While much of the federal coal program exists out West, where I'm from, there is federal coal in the East as well. For example, BLM Eastern States announced a coal lease sale in Alabama last year and has proposed a met coal sale in West Virginia earlier this month. Would the reforms to the bonus bid payment structure as proposed in HR 7872 help producers in the East as well?
Speaker 5
Yes. It would help producers in the East, and I'm the state director for the East. So I'm very well aware of those projects you just mentioned.
Speaker 7
Yes. Well, we appreciate your work in that regard, and we appreciate the efforts of this administration to make sure that we are protecting one of the most important energy industries that we have if we are going to meet the power demand in the future. So thank you for the work that you're doing.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Now I recognize as representative for five minutes.
Speaker 10
Thank you, chairman. Instead of endlessly delaying projects in the political bureaucracy, the federal government has a responsibility to provide certainty to local communities and to the energy and mining companies that serve them. After fourteen years of work here in Congress, my bill, Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act and Resolution Copper, was finally approved last week in a monumental victory for Arizona. I believe we're on our 31st year. That's alright.
Alright. President Trump and Republicans in congress are working diligently to deliver on the promise of American Minerals First and secure lasting reform because mineral security is national security. Mister Leverett, are you familiar with the Taylor Grazing Act? Yes. What words do they use in the Taylor Grazing Act?
Must and shall. Right? Yes. All the way through there. Because our framers are our forefathers, or the people who behave before us, actually believed that these lands had to produce in multiple jurisdictions.
Right? Yes. So with that said, I wanna compliment, I wanna thank my colleague, mister Kennedy, for you offering introducing the Colocation Energy Act. As you know, the working family tax cut act included in my bill of the Public Lands Renewable Energy Development Act or Florida to establish a revenue sharing model with renewable energy projects on public lands to states and local jurisdictions. Specifically, the states receive 25% of the revenue, and the states and the counties reserve the other 25%.
I must commend the BLM for its quick work. Now if I get you to do it over in the FAA, boy, we'll have something that really works there. My question to you is, would colocating renewable energy projects with oil and gas on public lands, according to HR 5639, maximize the benefit to states and counties under the Deployed of Revenue Sharing Act?
Speaker 5
Thank you for your question. As I stated in my statement, opening statement, the BLM, we have the authority to collate various energy developments in the same area right now under the title five of FLTMA. And as you're aware, the BLM is a multiple-use agency. And so if industry comes with a proposal to collocate, we would analyze it and that proposal, we would coordinate with the lessee. And if that proposal goes forward, any development authorized under that co location would be subject to revenue sharing laws that are enacted at the time.
Speaker 10
So, yes. So, under Florida, we went and identified on public lands ideal spots for solar and wind. Do we not? We actually did that. Right?
Yes. Yeah. And so what we were trying to do is we were trying to advance the permitting process so that it would make it easier for businesses to actually do it if you wanted to do solar or wind. That's right. Right?
True?
Speaker 10
It is actually true. It actually is true. And so, being the guy who developed this, that's my whole point. The whole point was to try to make it easier for businesses to streamline the permitting process. And you've done a remarkable job, but I always wanna say that we gotta strive for the perfect.
We wanna make sure that there's possible good probability that we're gonna leave the land the way we found it, and we're gonna gain from it. And I think that's all we really want. So thank you very much for your time today. I have we'll yield back the rest of my time.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. If there are no further questions, we will now move on to our third panel. I thank the witness for his valuable testimony and service. You are now dismissed. While the clerk resets our witness table, I will remind the witnesses that under committee rules, they must limit their oral statements to five minutes, but their entire statement will appear in the hearing record.
I'd also like to remind our witnesses of the timing lights, will turn right at the end of your five minutes, your five-minute statement rather, and to please remember to turn on your microphone. As with the second panel, I will allow all witnesses to testify before members' questioning. Alright. Looks like we are all set. Our first witness of this panel is Doctor Adam Mett.
He's the founder and executive director of Planet Reimagined, and he's stationed in New York. Doctor Mett, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
Speaker 11
Chairman Stauber, ranking member Ansari, and members of the committee and subcommittee. My name is Adam. I'm the executive director of Planet Reimagined, where we focus on solving energy and climate challenges with research-driven bipartisan pragmatic solutions. And thank you for the opportunity to testify on HR 5639, the Colocation Energy Act. This bill increases domestic energy production.
It speeds up permitting in a real way, and creates new revenue on existing leases. It limits additional land disturbance, and it brings traditional and alternative energy into the same projects. Colocation is very simple. We already have millions of acres of federal land that have been leased, reviewed, and developed for oil and gas. Those sites already have roads, grid connections, and an operational footprint.
Instead of starting over somewhere new, this bill allows additional energy resources, such as solar, to be developed on those same sites. Across Texas, New Mexico, California, Utah, and Colorado, there are significant opportunities to colocate solar on existing oil and gas sites. If fully implemented across the West, these sites can generate an additional 406 gigawatts of energy, representing hundreds of millions of dollars in increased revenue across both public and private sectors, and power the equivalent of 101,500,000 homes. This is across 2,300,000 buildable acres. The way this bill works is just as important as the idea itself.
It directs the Department of the Interior to create a clear, transparent permitting framework so stakeholders can evaluate projects case by case. Existing operators, renewable developers, regulators, and communities all have a role in determining how and if colocation happens on these active leases. It also includes reviewing the possibility of categorical exclusions for certain colocation activities on these previously disturbed lands. This bill provides for the development of criteria that, if met, would allow projects to move more quickly through the environmental review process without lowering these standards. In practice, that means less delay on sites that have already been analyzed and developed.
At Planet Reimagined, we have been working on colocation for several years. We have worked with federal, state, and local governments, oil and gas companies, renewable developers, trade associations, environmental organizations, and community leaders. These groups do not usually agree with each other. On this, they do. The most common response we hear is that it makes sense and should already be happening at scale.
Colocation is feasible across the Western United States from the Permian Basin in Texas and New Mexico up through North Dakota and across to Utah and Colorado, where you have strong overlap of federally leased energy land and high solar potential. These are not hypothetical sites. They are already in use for energy production and ready for additional development, as you can see from the map on the screen. In Utah alone, there are 483,000 acres of federal land that could support colocation. If those sites are fully utilized, they could generate as much as 69 gigawatts in additional solar energy.
We have worked closely with Governor Cox and his team to identify sites and engage operators. One oil and gas operator in Utah told us directly that mapping solar potential onto their existing leasehold displayed an opportunity that they had not previously been aware of. We have heard similar feedback in Colorado, working with Governor Polis and others across the state. For example, in Grand Junction, conversations with community members showed strong support for co-location on these existing leases. The logic is straightforward.
If development is already happening, adding additional energy is a lower-impact way to expand supply. From the operator side, the benefits are clear. It creates new revenue streams from existing leases, and it supports a balanced energy portfolio. This model also opens up additional site opportunities for renewable energy developers. Across the board, the consistent message we hear is the need for clarity.
Companies want a clear understanding of how permitting works and what the approval process entails before committing to partnerships. This is exactly what this bill provides, a clear, structured path that turns interest into actual projects. Interest in the colocation model is emerging across the political spectrum, from environmental NGOs to energy developers and other stakeholders. That level of alignment across sectors is not common, and it's happening here because the approach is practical. I wanna thank Congressman Kennedy for his leadership on this issue, along with Congressman Levin.
It's also encouraging to see the same bipartisan, bicameral leadership from Senator Curtis and Senator Hickenlooper advancing the Colocation Energy Act in the Senate. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to your questions.
Speaker 10
I thank you very much for your testimony. I will now recognize the gentlewoman from Wyoming, Miss Hagelin, for thirty seconds to introduce our next witness.
Speaker 7
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my honor to introduce Mr. Kyle Wetland, the deputy director of the Wyoming Energy Authority. Mister Wetland has held numerous environmental and engineering positions, with extensive experience in mining and mineral extraction in the state of Wyoming. He previously served as the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Land Quality Division Administrator, and before that he was an environmental engineer manager for the coal industry. A fellow alumnus of the University of Wyoming, he has a master of science and bachelor of science in range management.
Mister Wetland is a valuable and dedicated servant of Wyoming and its mining industries. I thank you for being here today and look forward to the discussion on crucial issues impacting Wyoming's coal mining industry, and I yield back.
Speaker 12
Good morning, mister chairman, chairman Stauber, ranking member in Sarbanes, and members of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources. And thank you, Representative Hagman. Go Cowboys. My name is Kyle Wentland, and I am the deputy director of the Wyoming Energy Authority. And I appreciate the opportunity to talk with you about the importance of coal leasing and bonus bids to Wyoming and our nation.
Wyoming surface mines are unique in size and scale and produce 40% of the nation's coal used for reliable, dispatchable, and affordable baseload energy in 2025. The Federal Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, established the framework for leasing federal coal reserves. The BLM is charged with administering the coal leasing program, which includes bonus bids. The bonus bid is exactly as its name suggests, a bonus paid to the federal and state governments on top of all other rents, fees, taxes, and royalties. The Federal Mineral Leasing Act requires the bonus bid to exceed the confidential fair market value set by BLM and to be paid in five annual installments, with the first payment due on the day the lease bid is accepted.
Bonus bid revenue is split fifty-fifty between the federal and state governments, a 2% transaction fee paid by the state. And it is worth noting that the 2% fee has been a point of contention since the 1980s between the states and the federal government. Wyoming has allocated its share of bonus bid revenue to fund K through 12 capital construction across the state. The leasing cycle, coupled with the five-year bonus bid payment term, created a boom-bust revenue stream for the state during the 1980s through the early 2000s. The funding needs today are focused on select school replacement and maintenance of existing facilities.
It's a little different now that we're 40 years down the road. Rather than new construction needed for expanding coal communities and immediate funding, a more stable and predictable income over a ten-year payment term would be easier to budget for these purposes when bonus bid revenue is available. The Wyoming DEQ permitting process is timely and effective. In contrast, leasing and permitting new federal reserves for existing coal operations is protracted and expensive on federal lands. The best example is the requirement for a third NEPA review to approve a federal mine plan.
Coal is the only mineral I'm aware of that requires three NEPA reviews for a single ton of mineral. The lengthy permitting time frames and upfront development costs with no guarantee of successful acquisition, time excuse me, acquisition of a federal coal tract have become barriers for mining companies wanting to lease new reserves. The five-year payment term of the bonus bid further discourages new federal coal leases because companies must finance the upfront five-year payments as a sunk cost before revenue is generated from a new lease due to the extended permitting time frames. HR 7872 modernizes the structure of the bonus bid to today's coal market and changes the five-year payment term to a ten-year term. The longer term does not result in diminished returns to the federal and state governments.
However, the longer payment term does reduce some uncertainty and risk by providing mine operators the opportunity to generate income from a new lease during the longer term. The ten year term will also benefit companies that require capital to acquire new lease a new colease by providing more favorable investment and credit terms. In summary, the need for reliable, affordable coal-fired baseload power will continue. The demand from the public, economic and industry expansion, and data centers for energy is not decreasing. In fact, it is outstripping production.
The need for grid stability has never been greater, and baseload coal generation supplies it. Coal plants simply are the batteries of this system. HR seven eight seven two would have a positive effect on new leasing, ensuring the fuel supply needed to meet the nation's current and future energy demand is available. Mister chairman, I would again like to thank the committee for the opportunity to submit this testimony and for representative Hagman for bringing this legislation forward, and to appear before you and the committee today. I stand ready to answer any questions.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Our next witness is Doctor Barbara Vasquez. She is a member of the board at the Western Organization of Resource Councils and the Western Colorado Alliance, and she is stationed in Grand Junction, Colorado. Doctor Vasquez, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
Speaker 9
Thank you, Chairman Staubert, Ranking Member Ansari, and the rest of the committee for allowing us to come and deliver this testimony. I'm Barbara Vasquez, a resident of Jackson County. People born and raised in Colorado don't know where Coudry is, so no surprise you stumble over that word. The county, which forms the headwaters of the North Platte River, is approximately 65% public land, has fewer than one person per square mile, and is host to substantial oil and gas development. After earning a PhD and pursuing two different careers, first in biomedical research with the NIH, second in research and development in the semiconductor industry, I retired to Colorado to serve as a citizen scientist and advocate for the environment and public health.
I've done that work for 21 years in a wide range of volunteer positions. The BLM, I think we can all agree, is supposed to be managing our public lands for multiple use according to FLPMA. In Jackson County, Colorado, and across the West, that means managing lands for uses such as grazing, fish and wildlife, forest and watershed health, outdoor recreation, lands with wilderness characteristics, and extractive industries, including oil and gas. Yet any balance that the BLM had achieved over the towards the multiple use mandate has been decimated over the past year and a half. This administration has elevated fossil fuel production, oil, gas, and coal above other uses of our public lands.
The dramatic changes in BLM management objectives and roles will cause lasting harm to other resources on public lands across the West and have already eliminated the opportunity for local stakeholders and communities to inform the BLM in important rulemaking processes and decisions, and I am one of those members of the public. These changes began with HR 1, which requires quarterly oil and gas lease sales. This gives developers their pick of over 200000000 acres of public lands regardless of any conflicts with other uses for the land. HR one effectively ties the hands of BLM staff, preventing them from exercising their authority and responsibility to manage our public lands for multiple uses in a sincere way. In addition, by eliminating modest lease nomination fees, HR one reopened the door for speculators who are actively pursuing leasing near national parks and other sensitive and treasured habitats across the West.
Any argument for accelerating leasing is negated by the fact that there are already over 10,000,000 acres under lease that have not been drilled. HR one also reduced the federal royalty rate to what it was in 1920, when today's dollar was worth 5¢. This rate is well below the rates used on state lands in many western states. According to a recent analysis by Taxpayers for Common Sense, this change will cost Western states over $630,000,000 in revenue, and this is just from leases sold since HR 1 was passed. Of additional concern, the administration has announced that it plans to reverse the recent increases to federal onshore oil and gas bonding rates.
These rates were just increased for the first time since the 50s and 60s to help ensure that oil and gas companies, not American taxpayers, pay cleanup costs. It's not a coincidence that these increases were adopted shortly after congress authorized almost 5,000,000,000 to clean up a backlog of orphan wells. Against this backdrop, I refer the following comments specifically on HR 1555. First, the legislation circumvents critical site-specific analyses. Under the current law, federal drilling permit applications are the primary point where agency site-specific analyses under NEPA, ESA, and NHPA take place.
This is protective of the surface owner. Second, HR 1555 would remove BLM's mechanism to protect private surface above minerals for generation split estate landowners throughout the West have fought for stronger protections. The split estate owners suffer from the fact that the mineral estate is dominant over surface estates. The federal government has a responsibility to ensure protection for those private surface owners. Third, HR 55 would eliminate BLM's practical ability to require reclamation bonds, are insured at the APD process. Fourth, HR 1555 is not necessary because there's scant evidence of widespread permitting, bottlenecking permit bottlenecking.
We heard in a previous opening statement that over 6,000 permits were approved. This existing inventory of already approved ready-to-drill permits can sustain a very high level of drilling activity well into the future. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to your questions.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Our last witness is Mr. Daniel Knott. He is the executive vice president and chief policy officer for the Independent Petroleum Association of America, and he's stationed right here in Washington, D.C. Mister Knott, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
Speaker 13
Thank you, Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ansari, and the members of the subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources. My name is Dan Knott. I'm the executive vice president and chief policy officer of the Independent Petroleum Association of America. IPAA is a national trade association representing thousands of American independent oil and natural gas producers. Our members who operate in 33 states, as well as offshore, are the primary producers of the nation's oil and natural gas and account for 85% of America's oil production and 90% of its natural gas output.
IPAA's average company employs 20 people. Currently, of the 640,000,000 acres of land that are federally owned in the United States, roughly 4% are leased for oil and natural gas development. Despite this small percentage, oil and natural gas have an enormous monetary impact on the federal treasury and the states. That revenue helps fund critical investments in communities across the United States and support jobs, schools, conservation efforts, and infrastructure projects. Included here are details regarding IPAA's support for three important pieces of legislation that are being considered today.
IPAA strongly supports HR 1555, the Bureau of Land Management Mineral Spacing Act. This important legislation would streamline the permitting process for energy development, remove duplicative regulations, and respect the rights of private mineral holders when dealing with split estates. Currently, BLM triggers National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, analysis for wells on state and private lands if any of the oil and natural gas resources being drilled are federally owned. The BLM has used this federal nexus as a way for the agency to become involved in state and private mineral development decisions. In addition, once the federal interconnection is established, a full cavalcade of Washington's regulatory agencies can become involved in the projects.
At a time when Congress is working to reform our nation's permitting system for infrastructure projects, this outdated policy moves in the opposite direction, creating more overlapping bureaucracy and red tape. HR 1555 removes the BLM permitting requirement in instances when less than half of the subsurface minerals within a drilling spacing unit are owned by the federal government and when the government does not own or lease any surface rights within the impacted area. The legislation makes no changes to the current royalty system and allows the federal government to receive royalties from oil and natural gas production within a particular drilling and spacing unit. Finally, the bill ensures that drilling and exploration activities are subject to all state laws, regulations, and rules governing oil and natural gas production within the state. IPAA also has a long history of support for the concepts found in HR 7831.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 set up a pilot program for BLM oil and natural gas permit processing improvement. The program has been working towards a cost recovery model, which IPAA and many other industry trade groups have supported. Instead of relying on congressional appropriations, the program was funded through a higher APD index to inflation. The program was reauthorized with these changes as part of the National Defense Reauthorization Act of 2015, extending the Permit Processing Improvement Fund, the PPIF, and continuing the fee-based funding model. It's important to note that the PPIF has garnered bipartisan support in both chambers and previous reauthorizations, as the concept is sound.
Industry pays its own way. Because of this unique model, APD processing is not funded by congressional appropriations in these areas. Without congressional action, the authority for the PPIF is set to expire at the end of FY2026. IPAA urges Congress to pass H.R. 7831 expeditiously so this important program can continue. Finally, IPAA also supports HR 7882 that would provide for leasing of oil and natural gas resources within the city limits of Carlsbad, New Mexico.
The municipality supports this measure and is advocating for changing existing federal policy. Currently, the Mineral Leasing Act prohibits the BLM from leasing federal resources underlying incorporated cities, towns, and villages. However, with the advent of modern horizontal drilling technology, wells can be drilled miles down and several miles laterally to access the federal mineral acres under the city of Carlsbad. Approximately 1,600 federal mineral acres under the city of Carlsbad are unleased. As a result, oil and natural gas producers operating around Carlsbad must avoid federal acreage when operating in the area.
This not only causes inefficiencies for the operators, but also a substantial loss of revenue for the federal government and the state of New Mexico. The city of Carlsbad has been extensively consulted about this legislation, and supports the measure. In November 2025, the City of Carlsbad mayor Rick Lopez wrote the BLM New Mexico state director and urged the agency to take action to remove drilling restrictions from minerals underlying the city. However, the removal of the restriction cannot be accomplished via regulatory avenues, and needs a legislative fix to enact a change. Mister chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. The chair will now recognize members for 5 minutes of questions. I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes. Mister Knott, thank you for your testimony today and your support for my legislation. Just moments ago, in your testimony, you discussed the extensive public health and safety standards enforced by the city of Carlsbad when it comes to energy development.
How would HR 78 82 work within these parameters while allowing for responsible extraction to occur beneath the city?
Speaker 13
Mister chairman, again, as the city has outlined and they've made it clear, all the regulations that they currently have in place, as well as the state of New Mexico, would apply. And in addition, these are federal minerals, so the full process of NEPA analysis would have to be done in these areas. And so, again, I really will just go to the City of Carlsbad letter. I think it made it really clear. While the restriction may have been logical when vertical drilling was the exclusive method of oil and natural gas extraction, with the advent of horizontal drilling operations to drill laterally for several miles, such a restriction now is outdated and materially unrealistic.
You can do this. Again, the technology is amazing. But wanna stress, mister chairman, that all of the regulations will still be in place governing how these resources are extracted.
Speaker 1
Thank you. As President Trump and House Republicans work to unleash American energy dominance, we're seeing a growing interest in developing oil and gas resources on federal lands. How important is reauthorizing these APD fees to ensure that BLM has adequate staffing in place to meet this demand and permit projects efficiently and predictably?
Speaker 13
Mister chairman, we again have been strongly supportive of 7831 and appreciate the committee's leadership and the work of the industry on these. The PPIF, again, is a really innovative program that allows the industry and I also wanna stress again, these dollars are indexed for inflation. So it continues to go up for industry to pay the APDs. These are federal employees that use that. And in addition, you had asked the BLM earlier, the dollars also support, they support approval of APDs, but also right of way, environmental analysis, and sundry notices, as well as interagency coordination as they're moving forward.
So the legislation in many ways is working exactly as outlined 20 years ago, and we would urge the committee to continue that process.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Mister Wentland, would you say that reforms in representative Haggiman's bill have the potential to increase overall federal and state revenues from co-leasing?
Speaker 12
Mister chairman, thank you for that question. And the short answer to that is yes. It lengthens that period of payment to a point where the companies are generating revenue to, hopefully, pay for that bonus bid as an additive cost rather than an upfront sub cost. It does make sense, and it would encourage leasing. Perfect.
Speaker 1
Back to Mr. Knott's. In your testimony, you talk about how NEPA reviews on wells that intersect federal mineral states are often duplicative. Can you explain how state environmental reviews measure up against NEPA, and how federal NEPA reviews in this context simply duplicate state permitting processes?
Speaker 13
Yes, Mr. Chairman. Again, one of the things that's been talked about and why we are so, IPtable has always been supportive is the federal state partnership is key. States like Wyoming, states like Colorado, New Mexico have vigorous oil and gas rules and regulations in place. So the idea that once you, at any level imp, hit federal minerals at a very small the federal government's the minority owner in this, but what really happens now is the federal government takes over this whole system. So we are very confident in the states.
They have a vigorous system to protect. Again, I know, Congresswoman Hageman knows in Wyoming and elsewhere. It is a the states are intimately involved in this, and so they will continue to be. You just get rid of that federal nexus when there's no federal surface ownership, and it's a minority ownership of the federal minerals.
Speaker 1
And do you believe representative Bice's bill is a good way to address these duplicative processes?
Speaker 13
We sure do. Yes. Again, I think it makes sense. Again, the federal treasury will remain whole, as BLM talked about. There will be systems in place, but it reduces.
Again, when the federal government is in a minority ownership position on subsurface minerals, we think this is a much better way to go.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record this letter from City of Carlsbad Mayor Richard Lopez in support of HR 782. The letter states Southeast New Mexico leads the nation in onshore oil and natural gas production. We strongly value the partnership between industry and elected officials in ensuring the responsible and safe extraction of our natural resources for the benefit of the American public. This letter shows that local leaders on the ground support this bill, which will bring key jobs and revenues to the state of New Mexico.
Without objection, so ordered. Representative Ansari, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Speaker 2
Thank you. Doctor Vasquez, thank you so much for being here today. Just to get this out of the way, and I know it's not what you're here to testify about specifically, but from your experience, could you please briefly explain why deregulating domestic oil and gas production does not result in lower gas prices for Americans?
Speaker 9
Representative Ansar, thank you for the questions. First of all, oil and gas is a global market, and I think the war in Iran has really underscored that for all of us living in this country. But let me say why we're so tied to the global market, briefly. Yes. We produce more than any other country, roughly 5,000,000,000 barrels last year, but we imported about half that amount.
Most of our refining infrastructure is designed to deal with the sour heavy crude, but we produce light, sweet crude. So most of that is exported. So thank you for the question.
Speaker 2
Thank you. And thank you again for your testimony. I'm particularly interested in your insight into how all of the oil and gas giveaways from last year's reconciliation law are playing out on the ground. You've shared that because of the requirement for BLM to lease every single nominated and eligible parcel, BLM can no longer manage for multiple uses or take the feedback from local stakeholders, even feedback from Republican governors, county commissioners, local businesses, hunters and anglers, tribes, and others. Doctor Vasquez, can you speak more to this issue and the importance of requiring the federal government to listen to the voices of hunters and anglers, business owners, local and state agencies, and landowners about what's happening on their public lands?
Speaker 9
Thank you for the question. As I said earlier, the BLM staff on the ground dealing with permitting and leasing, their hands are tied. They can't discharge their responsibility and authority to manage authentically for multiple uses. And I will tell you, been on the BLM Resource Advisory Council for Northwest Colorado for 7 years watching this process unfold, I'll tell you the BLM appreciated the information and the perspectives brought by the public. It sharpened and improved the decisions that they made, and I watched it happen.
Speaker 2
One of the bills on today's agenda, HR 1555, takes things a step further. When a parcel of land is nominated, even if it is next to a beloved trail and runs under private land owned by a local rancher who has concerns about oil and gas development, it must be leased. Under this bill, if the parcel is less than 50% federal subsurface and non-federal surface land, it doesn't require a federal drilling permit. Can you briefly explain why that is so alarming for landowners, and what some of the risks are?
Speaker 9
Yes. So if you are a private surface owner and there's less than 50% federal mineral to be drilled, you still have concerns about the environment and other resources on your land. Having to go through an on-site NEPA analysis, an ESA analysis, an HPA analysis is protective of the landowner. In Colorado, I've been involved in rulemaking. I will tell you, although we do a good job, we have nothing that reproduces what the federal government does for a reason, because the federal government is taking care of the surface.
Speaker 2
And, doctor Vasquez, how many acres of federal lands do we expect this bill to impact?
Speaker 9
It's anticipated approximately 4,000,000 acres, but there are some games that can be played. You know, the lease parcels can be unitized and pulled together as a single entity to be drilled. And, if I were an oil and gas operator wanting not to go through the federal permitting process, there are games that can be played to pull together various units into that.
Speaker 2
So given that, doesn't that create a huge loophole that oil and gas could target so they don't have to be.
Speaker 9
On the hook? I believe it does, and I'm concerned about that. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, the chair. And I'll recognize this representative Hagamand for 5 minutes.
Speaker 7
Thank you. And, mister Wetland, I'm going to focus my questions on you today. The theme of our critically important pro-co policies as implemented in 2025 and now in 2026 is to reduce barriers to new leasing in order to meet our ever-growing energy demand. Can you summarize for us the findings of the recent Wyoming Energy Authority coal study when analyzing the lack of new Powder River Basin leasing over the last 14 years? What's been the impact?
Speaker 12
Mister chairman, representative Haggiman, the impact has been significant. We haven't leased coal for over a decade now, and we've been mining the existing reserves. And when that moratorium was originally put in place, and then the Buffalo RMP does the initial decision before it was overturned with the CRA. The math was done on total gross leased acres, not recoverable tons within a lease, and that's an important distinction. You have to understand that we can't mine the coal under the railroad, for example, but it must be under a lease.
So there were a lot fewer acres and tons available when those were put in place. And I think what the coal study points out, and it's a key point, is that this constraint in supply is coming much faster now than anybody ever anticipated. So moving leases forward in a very expeditious manner, with some certainty and reducing the risk to operators, is extremely important.
Speaker 7
So would reforming the bonus bid payment structure as proposed at HR 78 72, would that help reduce one of those barriers that currently increases the risk of experiencing a coal shortage?
Speaker 12
Mister chairman representative, yes, it would, because it closes that disconnect between development and when you can mine and when you can generate revenue.
Speaker 7
Prior to the holding of a lease sale, the BLM will formulate a fair market value. I testified about that in my opening statement or FMV for the defined federal coal track. The winning bonus bid in a coal lease sale must meet or exceed this FMV estimate. Mister Wentland, is BLM's current FMV determination a transparent process or an obscure process?
Speaker 12
Mister chairman, the representative is not transparent. You have to go back to when the Powder River Basin was moved to maintenance track leasing. And at that time, BLM chose to use a comparative sale rather than a market-based system. And to this day, we still don't know exactly what goes into that calculation and into the model. It is not transparent.
Speaker 7
Okay. Do you think that the FMV determination needs to be revised in order to support the reforms in HR 777872 and to assist the new leasing facilitated by the one big beautiful bill?
Speaker 12
Mister chairman, representative, the answer to that is yes. It does need the fair market value needs to move away from comparative sale and to an actual market determination on what a value of a ton of coal is priced at the point of sale with an appropriate discount rate.
Speaker 12
Mister chairman, representative, we have had discussions and have briefed them on the coal study.
Speaker 7
Alright. And do you think that this is something that you need our assistance with moving forward with the BLM?
Speaker 12
Mister chairman, I do believe, and representative, I do believe we do need the help from this committee to keep moving that forward.
Speaker 7
Okay. Mister Wentland, the poster behind me is from the Wyoming Energy Authority's report, and it shows a dramatic increase in electric retail rates for those states with little or no coal generation. This winter, during the winter storm, we saw coal-fired electricity generation in the lower 48 states increase by 31% to meet increased emergency demand. The Wyoming Energy Authority found that current federal policy, including the bonus bid payment structure, will create a coal shortage within four years. Shouldn't that finding be a great concern to all of us in light of how much the grid relies on and needs Wyoming coal?
Speaker 12
Mister chairman, representative, that is correct. It is a concern. And I, again, as I pointed out earlier, that constraint in supply is coming quick, and it's coming much quicker because that math was done on total reserves, not recoverable reserves. And your bill does help move the needle on this, and move it forward.
Speaker 7
Okay. We can't keep the lights on or the house warm without Wyoming coal, yet federal policy itself is one of the barriers to production. So we can identify several such barriers, including the so-called Inflation Reduction Act's increased royalty rate, the lack of transparency in the BLM calculation as we just discussed, and the failure to update the coal bonus bid to evolve with the industry. Each of these barriers ultimately increases the cost of electricity and decreases the production of one of our most important sources of energy. We need to address all three of these.
I look forward to working with you to be able to do that. And I have a AUC request for three separate documents. First of all, I ask unanimous consent for the introduction of a letter dated 03/24/2026 from the National Mining Associations in support of HR 7872. Also, I ask unanimous consent for the introduction of the Wyoming coal study that we've been discussing during this testimony today, and an article dated 04/27/2022. Coal money gone, hundreds of millions of dollars no longer available for school construction.
With that, yield back.
Speaker 1
And I'm gonna ask unanimous consent to enter into the record this letter from the American Petroleum Institute in support of HR 7831, the license to drill act. Without objection, so ordered. I will now recognize Representative Grajalva for five minutes.
Speaker 14
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Doctor Vasquez, as we all know, gas development does not come without risk. Risk to all of us because of the climate crisis, risk to nearby communities through air and water pollution, and risk of property damage to the landowners. Whenever we develop federally owned oil and gas resources, it's essential that we do so with the utmost care, ensuring the protections for all of their communities. That's why we require reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, and National Historic Preservation Act, not as red tape, but to ensure that the federal government looks before it leaps, protects against unnecessary harm, and consults with people who have to live with the consequences of these decisions.
It's why we require bonds, so the taxpayers are not left footing the bill to clean up after companies when something goes wrong. Unfortunately, HR 1555 would strip away many of these basic safeguards for development on millions of acres. The bill sponsors downplay this as a minor change, waiving so-called unnecessary permits for development they claim is mostly on private land. Your testimony and your answers to previous questions make it clear that this is not the case, but I would really like to focus on what this bill would mean for families living near oil and gas development today. Under current law, if an oil and gas company is asked to lease federal oil, gas near a town's drinking water source or even under an unincorporated town and the people living there object, could BLM say no to leasing these resources?
Speaker 9
Thank you for that question. And, as I said before, with HR one and the new roles that BLM is operating under, take place, the public has no voice. And the site-specific analysis that's so important to ensure that unintended harms are not inflicted on communities and landscapes, it's not gonna happen.
Speaker 14
Thank you. And the data shows that the people most likely to live closest to oil and gas development are those with the least power to defend their rights, low income families and communities of color. So if locals no longer get a say in where leasing is appropriate, can you walk us through some of the ways the federal permit to drill process can help people living above federal minerals and protect their lands and resources?
Speaker 9
Absolutely. And we have an example going on right now in Colorado around the Aurora Reservoir, where the communities have fought the state regarding development of oil and gas and succeeded. Now with this 1555, considerable development could occur that would impact their neighborhoods. Mhmm.
Speaker 14
If 1555 becomes law, would people living above federal minerals have any chance to influence drilling under their homes if the well in question starts on nearby private land?
Speaker 14
And does that requirement that 50% or less of the drilling space be federal offer meaningful protection?
Speaker 9
Not in my opinion because of the opportunity to utilize, among other things.
Speaker 14
Yeah. So these policies will only compound problems Arizonans face because of the climate crisis. Right now, Arizona, along with most of the West, is facing high March temperatures. I mean, we're breaking records. We were at 102 yesterday for March.
The West's record low snowpack is already melting, setting us up for dangerously low water conditions this year. Doctor Vasquez, our thirst for fossil fuels has created this water crisis. How will 1555 combined with current federal policies make it harder to protect our increasingly precious water resources?
Speaker 9
Thank you so much for that question. My passion for moving into work on environment and community safety all revolves around the nexus between water and energy. The use of water for fracking in my county with three-mile laterals, they're using over 24,000,000 gallons to frac. In Colorado, we have a produced water consortium trying to reduce the amount of freshwater used. My family lives in Arizona.
I raised my family there. I'm very aware of the drought conditions in Colorado, Utah, and above that are gonna impact Arizona. Mhmm. So protecting our freshwater resources is critical for all of us. So thank you for the question.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. The chair in all recognizes Dr. Kennedy for five minutes.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I really appreciate you convening this and allowing my bills to be in your committee, and thanks to the witnesses. I know it's a lot of work to come here to Washington, D.C. We appreciate your willingness to come and share your valuable insights and perspectives. And doctor Matt and mister Knott, particularly, thank you for being willing to testify regarding my bills, the License Drill Act, the Colocation Energy Act.
So I'm grateful that you're here. And, Mett, if we can start with you, I had a few questions that I'd like to clarify regarding what we're doing with the Colocation Energy Act. I think it's an important bill, and I know you recognize that. And I really appreciate your willingness to be there to testify regarding that. So the BLM has suggested that the entire colocation energy act is unnecessary.
And I think both of us would disagree with that. I'd like your perspective on how the Colocation Energy Act would actually augment or aid the current BLM administrative process. Absolutely.
Speaker 11
Thank you for the question. So, yes, Mr. Leverett earlier today mentioned that the bill was unnecessary. However, he is correct in that the BLM does have limited authority to approve overlapping uses of land, but this entire process and the permitting process are extremely opaque and very unclear for these communities. Earlier in this hearing, chairman Stauber continuously mentioned the community in Carlsbad and how important it was for them to be supportive of the work. The same is true with this bill.
We've been working directly with the communities on the ground, the oil and gas operators, the renewable energy developers, the regulators, and the communities across Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and a variety of other states. And they have made it very clear that they want this, but they don't know how to make it happen. And when you get that kind of response from the community, that means that there is a problem in the process. So what this bill does by creating this categorical exclusion is it cuts down the time for permitting by allowing us to use environmental impact data that has already been gathered, reanalyze it, cutting a significant amount of time out of the approval process. The community wants this, so this is why this bill is necessary.
Speaker 4
Bringing up the opacity or the inability for people to see clearly how this is. This bill brings more transparency. So people constantly are asking Congress and us for the legislation to bring more transparency to the government process. So thank you for bringing that out because I think that's an important aspect of what we're trying to do with this Colocation Energy Act. In your testimony, doctor Mett, as well, you've mentioned that the Colocation Energy Act implements a case by case framework that allows input from a range of stakeholders.
How would this bill ensure that existing operators have the final say over whether colocation should actually occur on the
Speaker 11
Please? Absolutely. The entire bill is built around the idea that we are preserving the rights of the existing leaseholders. We are not encouraging anything outside the bounds of what the current leaseholders would like, and the entire proposal of new energy on oil and gas leases will be developed in coordination with and with the consent of current operators.
Speaker 4
Which allows them full opportunity to negate or promote the request that's being made anyway. Thank you very much for pointing that out. Also, the doctor Mett as well, the energy act would direct the secretary of the interior to review whether certain colocation activities can be considered as categorical exclusions under NEPA. How are colocation activities similar to other activities on federal lands with existing categorical exclusions?
Speaker 11
Absolutely. So if you think about the infrastructure that's used for oil and gas processes, there are roads and other facilities. We can take advantage of these on this land and be able to reuse them for other forms of energy. So by looking at a categorical exclusion, we can take all of the data that's been gathered, reanalyze it instead of having to send people out into the field to gather this data again, cutting an extremely long amount of time out of the process, getting more energy on the grid faster.
Speaker 4
Excellent point. Thank you. Mister Nats, I think with the remaining time, my final question for you would be in regard to talking with the organizations that pay the drilling permit fee supporting the permit processing improvement fund. I've been surprised to learn that many are actually glad to contribute, because it provides real benefits to their operations. Mister Knott, could you speak a bit more on how reauthorizing the permit processing improvement fund through the License Drill Act helps address delays and uncertainty in the operational process.
Speaker 13
Congresswoman, again, we thank you for sponsoring this legislation. It's something that my organization has supported for over 20 years. And, again, abroad, chairman Staubert had API input a letter in support. It's really important, again, in processing these APDs. DOI estimates that there's 220 full time equivalent positions that are done by this.
In addition, the fund generates 50 to 55,000,000 for APD improvement. And one thing I want to stress again is how important these funds are. You would know in Utah, the split, 50 split is important to the state. It's important to communities, not only from the generation of the activity, the jobs that are created, but the state uses those funds for schools, for roads, for a whole variety of issues. And the ability of us to expeditiously process those permits is really important, and we appreciate your help on that.
Speaker 4
Thank you very much for that testimony and for all of you for being here, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the time, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, Chair. Now recognize as representative Lee for 5 minutes.
Speaker 15
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Welcome. Great to see all of you. I'm gonna follow up on the Colocation Energy Act. You know, as we know, it will allow solar and wind projects to be co located on existing fossil fuel and geothermal leases, maximizing energy production while minimizing the impacts of new development on federal lands by focusing on already disturbed areas.
Representative Kennedy, who is here and the sponsor, has said that it cuts red tape and strengthens our energy independence through an all of the above energy approach. And I completely agree, and that's why I am cosponsoring the bill. So I wanna thank you and Representative Levin for leading this legislation, and I also wanna thank the chairman for including it in this morning's hearing. This is exactly the type of bipartisan, collaborative approach to energy development that this administration should be taking. Doctor Mett, you have been at the forefront of this colocation effort to unlock, to unlock what your organization has called the latent potential BLM oil and gas leases for clean energy.
But your organization has also warned that the federal policy is setting up new obstacles, making developers and investors uncertain and slowing progress. And the case in point here is that currently the interior secretary, Bergum's continued insistence that every single solar and wind permit at the Department of the Interior must be personally approved by him, which has effectively brought oil, wind and solar development and permitting to a complete halt. I represent Nevada. I think we have approximately close to 100 projects that are literally on standstill as we speak right now. The Miss Doctor Mett, I'm asking the Colocation Energy Act, as exciting as it is on paper, will only work in practice if the Department of Interior removes bureaucratic red tape it has tied around solar and wind.
So I'm asking, would you agree that restoring fair and equal treatment of all energy sources as part of the DOI's permitting process will be vital to this bill's implementation?
Speaker 11
Thank you for the question. I absolutely agree. In order for the Colocation Energy Act to be effective, the Department of the Interior must ensure that permitting processes are fair and consistent across all types of energy. And the Colocation Energy Act will also help with that, because it will make the processes more transparent for people. And when processes are transparent, it ensures more fairness.
I completely agree. And if the Department of Interior does not return to a fair permitting process on its own, doctor Med is legislative language codifying a fair process in law to ensure equal treatment of permits moving forward, no matter what president or which party is in power, that you'd like to see congress come together to support as part of a bipartisan permitting reform package? I would love to see a bipartisan permitting reform package. And in advance of that, one of the kind of most important pieces of the work that's gone into the Colocation Energy Act has been working with people across the aisle and across the different energy sources. I think bringing oil and gas and all different forms of energy to the table is going to be the thing that helps move things forward.
Speaker 15
So, do you agree that codifying equal treatment into law should be part of that process?
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'll recognize this representative for 5 minutes.
Speaker 10
Yes. Mister Rutland, I am one of the from Wyoming, originally from Wyoming. So just to let you know, it's a weird name that I'm in front of. Resolution copper is a prime example of mineral projects acting not just as good stewards of the land, but the whole community. They invest over $2,000,000,000 in the restoration of that area, and they haven't even got 1p back out of it.
Okay? There's other problems with it that they've tried to fight. But my question to you, the Biden-Harris administration attempted to shut down coal mining. What do local communities have to lose if coal leasing is diminished?
Speaker 12
Mister chairman, representative, what we have to lose is our base load of portable energy. As I noted in my testimony, you know, coal plants are the battery to this system, and right now more power is needed. When you go to your wall and turn on your light switch, I don't think a lot of people understand that coal still is a big part of what the electrons are that make that happen. And if we don't move the leasing forward in a timely manner because of the constraints that are coming, we jeopardize that supply for those plants.
Speaker 10
That's, you know, I thought my colleague was hammering me for introducing HR 78 72 because it shows America's just how valuable our public lines truly are. The other thing I wanna bring up is that now we're also finding out there's more tooth decay. The intermediate areas now are showing that you could find earths and critical minerals. Is that true?
Speaker 12
Mister chairman, representative, that is true. There is one project related to what they're calling coal ore out of the Brook Mine in Northern Wyoming. And we also, as the Wyoming Energy Authority, just help fund, in a one-to-one grant, a project with Peabody looking at those same things as critical minerals out of the coal resource.
Speaker 10
So how much do the coal bonanza beds contribute to educational improvements in a single year in Wyoming?
Speaker 12
Mister chairman representative, they're a big part of why Wyoming has the schools they do today, because the bonus bids were earmarked exclusively for K through 12 capital construction.
Speaker 10
Now, in your opinion, when improving the payment schedules for coal producers, incentivize domestic production?
Speaker 10
And would this resulting increase in production further increase coal bonus bids for local communities and improve educational outcomes for the children?
Speaker 12
Mister chairman, representative, yes, it will. And having that longer payment term now that a lot of those school facilities are built out in those expanded coal communities, it would stabilize that income stream and revenue over that longer period, and be more predictable in the budget.
Speaker 10
Doctor Matt, if the public had an interest in this financially, do you think they would actually be included in the process of looking at multiple use doctrines within, like, doctor Kennedy's bill?
Speaker 11
The public is interested in this process, and they are showing their interest by their concerns about the oil and gas communities, especially in places like Colorado and Utah. They're looking for additional revenue sources for these lands, but they don't understand what the process, how the process works in order to put this new renewable energy on their land. So, yes, they are interested.
Speaker 10
Are you familiar with the thing called snifflema? Southern out of the public lands. Sorry. Well, it came from Harry Reid, and one of the we had a deal here. He did a very pilot narrow study.
And the BLM, we actually encompassed around Las Vegas, they could not grow. So they had to find a way to get rid of these public lands. And SNFL was born out of it. Now we use this over and over again, to try to mimic it in my state. We've tried to do this with a, one of the counties there that we've tried to they wanted a solar energy production plant, they got it.
They got it from 6,000 acres, and they put it on there. But it was their choice, but they were actually consulted. My same question to you would be is if the public is geared to financially be rewarded for this. There's a reason I'm asking this question. Okay?
You think they would be included more vigorously in, like, the anglers, the sportsmen? You know, do you think they would be financially incentivized, do you think they would be more apt to be included in the discovery or use of public lands, multiple use doctrine.
Speaker 9
So I apologize. Are you asking me if they would be financially incentivized, Mhmm. To allow for other uses on public lands?
Speaker 10
Yeah. So I guess my point is I have a bill, and it's called the Lasso Act. And the Lasso Act takes public lands and public waters, and it takes 10% of it and gives it back to Social Security. So they would be very apt to me looking at the land mix as being much more sturdy because they have a financial risk in it. Mhmm.
And they can develop that. Would that benefit, do you think, the discovery of a
Speaker 9
So I apologize if I'm a little confused. But if the question is if members of the public who are most focused on protecting the natural resources on public land, if they were financially incentivized, that they would relax that concern? No. No. No.
No. I'm misunderstanding that.
Speaker 10
I'm sure. Yeah. So you'd be more inclusive in you said that the one beautiful bill bypasses a lot of this consultation with
Speaker 10
Well, this would include public is now included because they're part of this. 10% will be coming to their Social Security trust fund. So their management of those lands would be much better because they have a lot to lose, and they have a lot to gain. So they'll be utilizing that multiple use doctrine like Doctor Kennedy's bill, where if you already have disturbed land, you're gonna be utilizing that different energy source as another method of pay. Would that not be the case?
Speaker 9
So funding into Social Security is influencing the opinions of the public?
Speaker 9
I'm sorry. I'm still not understanding. That's alright. How that's supposed to work. Okay. Well, I apologize.
Speaker 10
That's alright. Yeah. Threw a new herbal at you so, but I think it will benefit them wisely because I think everybody's included in that process. Mhmm.
Speaker 1
K. I'll go back. Sorry. Thank you very much. I wanna thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony, and the members for their questions.
The members of the subcommittee may have some additional questions for their witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to these in writing. Under committee rule three, members of the subcommittee must submit questions to the subcommittee clerk by 5PM on Monday, March 30. The hearing record will be held open for ten business days for these responses. If there's no further business.
Speaker 2
Thank you. I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from 16 environmental organizations opposing HR 1555, The Wilderness Society's views on HR 5639, HR 1555, and HR 7831, and three new articles. Will lower fees drive more oil and gas leasing on public lands? From Desert News, Colorado oil and gas leases go unsold at federal auction from the Colorado Sun, and we fought to protect the Aurora Reservoir area from drilling. Now the feds are coming from the Aurora Sentinel.
Speaker 1
If there's no further business, without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.