Legislative hearing on the following bills

The Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recess of the subcommittee at any time. Under Committee Rule 4f, any oral opening statements at hearings are limited to the chairman and ranking minority member. I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Kennedy, be allowed to participate in today's hearing. Without objection, so ordered. I now recognize myself for an opening statement. Thank you all for being here today to discuss these important pieces of legislation. Under the leadership of President Trump and House Republicans, the United States is delivering historic energy dominance wins for the American people. Last week alone, the Department of the Interior held a landmark oil and gas lease sale in Alaska's National Petroleum Reserve as directed by H.R. 1, the Working Families Tax Cuts Act. The lease generated over $163 million, the most revenue ever raised from a single sale. This is on top of the recent successful offshore lease sales held for the Gulf of America, which were also directed by Congress in the Working Families Tax Cuts Act. The bills we have before us today will build on this momentum by unlocking new areas for development, cutting needless red tape, and maximizing the responsible use of public lands leased for energy production. First, we have three bills geared towards supporting and expanding oil and gas operations on federal lands. H.R. 7831, introduced by Representative Kennedy, would reauthorize existing fees for oil and gas application permits to drill, or APDs. Originally created in 2005 under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and then reauthorized again under the National Defense Authorization Act of 2015, these APD fees are used to ensure Bureau of Land Management field offices have the staff needed to permit projects quickly and efficiently. By reauthorizing APD fees through 2037, this bill, along with the effective oversight by the BLM, will give operators certainty that their projects will continue to move smoothly through permitting processes. H.R. 1555, introduced by Representative Bice, will alleviate the BLM from having to permit oil and gas wells on state and private land where the federal government owns less than half of the subsurface estate. This is a common sense bill that will remove the duplicative permitting requirements between state and federal regulators, allowing BLM to focus on projects with a majority federal stake. My bill, H.R. 7882, would capitalize on innovations in horizontal drilling to allow for energy production in new areas without any surface disturbance. Specifically, it would amend the Mineral Leasing Act, authorizing BLM to lease federal minerals underneath Carlsbad, New Mexico, when it is requested by the leadership of the city of Carlsbad. I would like to thank the city of Carlsbad for supporting this legislation. Unlocking these resources will provide Carlsbad and the state of New Mexico with a key source of revenue going forward, create jobs, and enhance our domestic energy security. Next, H.R. 5639, introduced by Representative Kennedy, would codify a process for co-locating renewable energy sources on existing energy leases where leaseholders consent. Oil, gas, and geothermal rigs on federal lands have relatively small surface footprints, which present a unique opportunity for renewable energy production to occur in tandem with these projects, supporting an all-of-the-above energy strategy. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about how this bill will provide the developers with regulatory certainty and ensure that co-location efforts won't conflict with any existing operations. Lastly, H.R. 7872, introduced by Representative Hageman, would extend coal lease payment schedules to incentivize increased domestic production by freeing up capital and giving operators the flexibility to produce more energy here in the United States. Current BLM regulations force coal operators to pay significant upfront bidding costs within the first four years of winning a lease sale. This schedule is fundamentally inconsistent with coal mine development timelines, where permitting alone can take up to five years. As a result, operators are often deterred from participating in coal leasing as they are unable to direct revenues from production towards these steep upfront costs. By allowing operators to pay bonus bids over a longer 10 year period, this bill will encourage greater participation in lease sales, increase federal revenues, and enable development of additional domestic energy resources. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on these important bills and will now yield to the ranking member for her opening statement.

Thank you, Chair Stauber. We sit here today considering a handful of bills dealing with energy production on federal lands, mostly oil, gas, and coal. It's no doubt part of President Trump and congressional Republicans' so-called energy dominance agenda. To Republicans, energy dominance has been all about drill, baby, drill. But what has that gotten us? The United States is the number one producer of oil and gas in the world. I will say that again. We produce more oil and gas in this country than any other country in history. And we have been the number one oil and gas producer for years, even setting production records under the Biden administration. And yet Americans are getting crushed under skyrocketing energy prices and a volatile fossil fuel market. Instead of lowering costs and making energy more secure here at home, President Trump decided to upend the economy with an illegal war with Iran, and Republicans in Congress are trying to rig the system even further for billionaire polluters. And let's be clear, the energy supply disruptions following these illegal acts of war were entirely predictable. But President Trump clearly had no plan and does not seem to care about the pain that this is inflicting on American families. When oil prices topped $100 a barrel for the first time since 2022, the president's response to struggling Americans was to say, and I quote, "Short term oil prices, which will drop rapidly when the destruction of the Iran nuclear threat is over, is a very small price to pay for USA and world safety and peace. Only fools would think differently." 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 bit." 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 of 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 in 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 am 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, will put public lands, our communities, taxpayers, and the climate at more risk. I yield back.

Thank you, Representative Ansari. I will now yield to the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Westerman, for his opening statement.

Thank you, Chairman Stauber, for holding this important legislative hearing. I'd also like to thank our witness for being or 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 percent from the year before, which according to the U.S. 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 percent, 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 in 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. H.R. 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 is broad support among regulators and industry stakeholders for reauthorizing these fees. H.R. 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 percent of their total product from federal reserves. H.R. 7882 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. H.R. 7872, sponsored by Representative Harriet Hageman of Wyoming, allows companies to prorate lease payments over a longer period rather than currently mandated. This flexibility will free up capital for 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. H.R. 5639, the Co-Location Energy Act, addresses DOI authority for co-location 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.

Thank you, Chair Westerman. The 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.

Thank you, Chairman Stauber, 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, H.R. 5639, the Co-Location Energy Act, and H.R. 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 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 U.S. is in an energy crisis. The rising need for AI superiority has 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 percent of our current electric output by 2030. What worsens this is the reality of our current energy infrastructure. Around 67 percent of our energy-generating plants will be offline in less than 20 years, and only 16 percent 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 Co-Location 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 our energy system is reliable, resilient, and ready to meet future demand. The License to Drill Act ensures our permitting system is staffed, efficient, and capable of delivering timely, responsible energy development, while the Co-Location 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 a 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 and 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, Mr. Chair, and I yield back.

Thank you very much. When Ranking Member Huffman comes in, we're going to allow him for an opening statement, and Representative Hageman, 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 five 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 five minutes, the light will turn red, and I will ask you to please complete your statement at that time. I will allow all witnesses to testify before member questioning. Our witness for this panel is Mitchell Leverette, who is the Eastern States Director for the Bureau of Land Management. Mr. Leverette, you are now recognized for five minutes.

Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ansari, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the Bureau of Land Management regarding the bills before you today. My name is Mitchell Leverette, and I am the Eastern States State Director for the Bureau of Land Management, an agency where I've had the pleasure to work for for over 39 years, starting as a staff geologist. The public lands and minerals stewarded by the BLM include approximately 245 million acres of public lands and 700 million 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. H.R. 7831 would extend for 10 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 H.R. 7831 as it advances oil and gas exploration and production to meet the energy needs of our nation. H.R. 1555 would eliminate the requirement that oil and gas operators submit a federal drilling permit to BLM in instances where there is non-federal surface estate and where the subsurface mineral estate is less than 50 percent federal. The department supports H.R. 1555 as it furthers the administration's priorities to reduce costly regulation, strengthen oil and gas development, and provide permit flexibility. H.R. 7872 incentivizes co-production by deferring a portion of the startup costs of coal operations on federal lands, and the department supports this bill. H.R. 7872 would amend the Mineral Leasing Act to allow bonus bids for coal 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. H.R. 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, H.R. 5639 would authorize the secretary to issue permits for constructing or 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-ways, 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.

Thank you, Mr. Leverette, for your testimony. The chair will now recognize members for five minutes of questions, and I will now recognize myself for five minutes. Mr. Leverette, 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?

Thank you, Chairman, for that question. Yeah, wells currently in the area often access the the area under Carlsbad two to four miles away from the city boundaries. The well pads are two to four 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 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 if this can come to fruition.

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?

Well, the APDs have been authorized for a number of years, and the reauthorization of these fees are 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 APDs.

Mr. Leverette, 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 APDs?

Well, we are processing APDs on a much faster period than what we historically have 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 being able to process multiple APDs associated with rights-of-ways as one project instead of having multiple projects. So that has that is one example of how these APD fees help us become more efficient.

So you're processing APDs with the new staff within 100 days. What were you doing prior to the new staff and the efficiencies? What was the average time or about?

I don't know the exact average time, but it was much more than 100 days.

Much more than 100 days. Okay. Mr. Leverette, how would Representative Hageman's bonus bid legislation encourage greater participation in coal leases, lease sales mandated under the Working Families Tax Cuts?

Thank you for that question. By by deferring bonus payments from five years to 10 years, applicants will not have to pay startup costs so quickly, and it also would potentially encourage more people to bid on coal sales because of the upfront costs that that may not be necessary in five years but could be spread out over over 10 years. So the initial investment and the capital costs would be spread out over a larger period of time, longer period of time, so I think that would be encouraging for people who are interested in bidding.

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 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 for five minutes of questioning.

Thank you very much. Mr. Leverette, 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?

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 robust review. So that's what is happening to those projects. They're being elevated. Several projects have been approved, but they are going through a elevated process where they're looking at more.

Do you know how many have been actually processed over the last year?

I do not know the exact number, but I can get that information and provide it for the record.

That 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 BLM has processed over the last year?

I can get that. I'm not sure the answer to that question, but I could provide that answer to the for the record.

That would be appreciated because as far as I can tell, I believe the answer is none to that one too. 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. Mr. Leverette, can you confirm whether the July 15th memo requiring Secretary Bergum's sign-off on 69 individual mundane permitting actions for wind and solar is still in place?

As far as I'm aware, that memo still is in place.

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 Stephen Miller's wife needs to advocate for them. But my point is that we should all agree that permitting should not work this way. Mr. Leverette, 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 am 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.

The chair now recognizes Representative Begich from Alaska.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Leverette, Alaska has the largest federal land footprint of any state, over 60 percent 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?

Thank you for that question. What H.R. 1555 would do, it it would remove burdensome regulations and it would only require a permit from the state instead of the federal federal government. It would also it would also free up staff that to to process APDs in other other areas where we're not having to process APDs where we do not own the surface and 50 percent 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 other areas. So.

Thank you. Your testimony shows BLM processed over 6,000 APDs using the permit processing improvement fund in fiscal year 2025, a 55 percent increase year-over-year with industry footing the bill, not taxpayers. In Alaska, permitting backlogs have been a chronic obstacle to getting projects into 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?

Thank you for your question. We do know that those funds are very important to us, the BLM, being 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 million that we brought in and we paid out $40 million 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 APDs that we are currently being able to process these days.

Thank you, just one more question. Under the current system, operators finance substantial bonus bid payments as upfront sunk costs years before a 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 10 years reduces that financial deterrent and whether the department's in the department's 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?

Well yes, I agree that being able to extend the bonus bid payment for a longer period of time will attract or would potentially attract additional interest in in the bidding process. And it 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.

Thank you, Mr. Leverette, and 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 I yield back.

Thank you very much. We want to be as flexible on this committee as we can be because we have members coming and going. I want to recognize Representative Hageman to speak on her bill, Representative Hageman.

Thank you, Chairman Stauber, for allowing me to go a bit out of order here today. It's been a busy day. I also want to thank you for holding this legislative hearing on my bill H.R. 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 percent of the nation's coal. In 2024, we produced 191 million tons and shipped 171 million 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 coal is back in favor after decades of Washington D.C. 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 coal's central role in powering our nation. These reforms are significant, but more is needed to fully recognize their full benefit and respond to concerning market developments. In February, the Wyoming Energy Authority released a report on the impact of the decades-long and wrongheaded war on coal waged out of D.C. After 14 years of no new leasing, demand for coal by our domestic and international markets could outpace supply 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 tracts pre-sale estimated FMV. While the congressionally passed Mineral Leasing Act authorizes a bonus bid, agency regulations dictate its current payment terms. According to current regulations, the winning bid must pay 20 percent of the bid at the time of the sale, followed by annual installments of 20 percent over the next four years. This structure has not kept pace with coal mine development timelines. Permitting alone can take up to five 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 deterrent 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 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 percent in just one week to meet growing power demands. Without Wyoming coal, Americans will go without heat and power in the most dire of 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 provide 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 million was generated for school construction and another $100 million in 2017. But as Washington, D.C. 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 10-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. H.R. 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.

Thank you very much. Chair now recognizes Representative Hurd for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Mr. Leverette. I have a question about H.R. 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?

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 measurement and we will still have the responsibility to go on site to access to do inspections. And the royalties that would be due to the government for the portion of the federal estate would still come to the federal government. So.

Okay. 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 that accountability is maintained?

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.

That would be helpful. Yeah, just to know what it is the agency is seeing as important here with respect to those technical issues. I have another question on, this 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?

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.

Got it. So the current mismatch discourages participation in federal coal leasing and limits the ability of operators to move projects forward right now. Is that correct?

The extended period would definitely enhance production, I think, and interest going forward. Yes.

Okay, great. Well, I appreciate this bill by my colleague from Wyoming. I think this is really important and appreciate your testimony, Mr. Leverette, on this as well. And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.

Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes Representative Hageman for five minutes.

Thank you. And I appreciate your questioning and your responses to this. It is an important bill for the, from the standpoint of better matching revenue with the expenses that are incurred in these big projects. And Mr. Leverette, 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 of last year, how is that assisted with being able to implement the federal coal program to its fullest extent?

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 90 days of passage of the bill, if there were leases that were ready to go, we would get those across the finish line in 90 days. And another provision was the reduction of the royalty rate from 12 and a half percent for surface coal and 8 percent for subsurface. Those royalty rates have were reduced to 7 percent across the board. And finally, this bill asked the BLM to open up 4 million acres of area to coal leasing that was not open. The BLM has opened up 13.1 million acres based on this request under the bill. And the expedited permitting, we've had six projects to come through through that process. So that bill has caused a lot of activity within the BLM.

That's wonderful to hear and it sounds like it's working and doing exactly as we intended it to do. 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?

I would agree that the increased time to pay the bonus bid would enhance production and interest.

Okay. Does updating the federal program to better accommodate current timelines and challenges faced by the industry align with the administration's policies?

Yes.

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 of 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 H.R. 7872 help producers in the East as well?

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 that you just mentioned.

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're going to meet the power demand in the future. So thank you for the work that you're doing and with that I yield back.

Thank you very much. Chair now recognizes Representative Gosar for five minutes.

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 14 years of work here in Congress, my bill, the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act and Resolution Copper, were finally approved last week in a monumental victory for Arizona. I believe we're on our 31st year, Mr. Leverette. President Trump and the 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. Mr. Leverette, 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 or our forefathers or the people who came before us actually believed that these lands had to produce in multiple jurisdictions, right?

Yes.

So with that said, I want to compliment, I want to thank my colleague Mr. Kennedy of Utah for introducing the Co-Location Energy Act. As you know, the Working Families Tax Cut Act included my bill, the Public Lands Renewable Energy Development Act or PLREDA, to establish a revenue sharing model with renewables energy projects to with on public lands to states and local jurisdictions. Specifically, the states receive 25 percent of the revenue and the states and the counties receive the other 25 percent. I must commend the BLM for its quick work. Now if I could just get you to do it over in the FAA, boy we'll have something that really works there. My question to you is, would co-locating renewable energy projects with oil and gas on public lands according to H.R. 5639 maximize the benefit to state and counties under the PLREDA revenue sharing act?

Thank you for your question. As I stated in my statement, opening statement, the BLM, we have the authority to co-locate various energy developments in the same area right now under the Title 5 of FLPMA. And as you're aware, the BLM is a multiple use agency and so if industry comes with a proposal to co-locate and we would analyze it and that proposal, we would coordinate with the lessee and if that proposal goes forward, any development authorized under the co-location would be subject to revenue sharing laws that are enacted at the time. So yes.

So under PLREDA, we went and identified on public lands ideal spots for solar and wind, did 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 made it easier for businesses to actually do if you wanted to do solar or wind. That's right, right? True?

I think that is correct.

It is actually true. It actually is true. And so being the guy who developed this, that's my whole point. My whole point was to try to make it easier for businesses to streamline this process, the permitting process. And you've done a remarkable job, but I always want to say that we got to strive for the perfect. We want to make sure that there's good probability that we're going to leave the land the way we found it and we're going to gain from it. And I think that's all we all really want. So thank you very much for your today and yield back to the rest of our time.

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 his 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 their hearing record. I'd also like to remind our witnesses of the timing lights, which will turn red at the end of 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. All right. Looks like we are all set. Our first witness of this panel is Dr. Adam Met. He is the founder and executive director of Planet Reimagined, and he is stationed in New York, New York. Dr. Met, you are now recognized for five minutes.

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 H.R. 5639, the Co-Location Energy Act. This bill increases domestic energy production. It speeds up permitting in a real way and it creates new revenue on existing leases. It limits additional land disturbance and it brings traditional and alternative energy into the same projects. Co-location 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 co-locate solar on existing oil and gas sites. If fully implemented across the West, these sites could 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 101.5 million homes. This is across 2.3 million buildable acres. The way this bill works is just as important as the idea itself. It directs the Department of 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 co-location happens on these active leases. It also includes reviewing the possibility for categorical exclusions for certain co-location 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 co-location 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. Co-location 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 co-location. 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 siting 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 co-location 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 want to 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 Co-Location Energy Act in the Senate. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to your questions.

I thank you very much for your testimony. I will now recognize the gentlewoman from Wyoming, Ms. Hageman, for 30 seconds to introduce our next witness.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my honor to introduce Mr. Kyle Wendtland, the deputy director of the Wyoming Energy Authority. Mr. Wendtland 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 alumni of the University of Wyoming, he has a Master of Science and Bachelor of Science in range management. Mr. Wendtland 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.

Mr. Wendtland, you are now recognized for your five minutes.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ansari, and members of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, and thank you, Representative Hageman, go Cowboys. My name is Kyle Wendtland, 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's surface mines are unique in size and scale and produce 40 percent 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 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 50-50 between the federal and state governments, less a 2 percent transaction fee paid by the state. And it is worth noting that the 2 percent fee has been a point of contention since the 1980s between the states and the federal government. Wyoming has allocated its share of the 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 10-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 timeframes and upfront development costs with no guarantee of successful acquisition, 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 timeframes. H.R. 7872 modernizes the structure of the bonus bid to today's coal market and changes the five-year payment term to a 10-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 10-year term will also benefit companies that require capital to acquire a new lease, a new coal lease, 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 to this system. H.R. 7872 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. Mr. Chairman, I would again like to thank the committee for the opportunity to submit this testimony and for Representative Hageman for bringing this legislation forward and to appear before you and the committee today. I stand ready to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. Our next witness is Dr. 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 Cowdrey, Colorado. Dr. Vasquez, you are now recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Chairman Stauber and 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 Cowdrey is, so no surprise you stumble over that word. The county forms the headwaters of the North Platte River, is approximately 65 percent 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 the land 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 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 rules 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 H.R. 1, which requires quarterly oil and gas lease sales. This gives developers their pick of over 200 million acres of public lands regardless of any conflicts with other uses for the land. H.R. 1 effectively ties the hands of BLM staff, preventing them from exercising their authority and responsibility to manage our public lands for multiple use in a sincere way. In addition, by eliminating modest lease nomination fees, H.R. 1 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 million acres under lease that have not been drilled. H.R. 1 also reduced the federal royalty rate to what it was in 1920, when today's dollar was worth five cents. 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 million in revenue, and this is just from leases sold since H.R. 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 billion to clean up a backlog of orphan wells. Against this backdrop, I offer the following comments specifically on H.R. 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, H.R. 1555 would remove BLM's mechanism to protect private surface above minerals. For generations, split-estate landowners throughout the West have fought for stronger protections. The mineral estate is dominant over surface estates, and the federal government has a responsibility to ensure protection for those private surface owners. Third, H.R. 1555 would eliminate BLM's practical ability to require reclamation bonds, which are ensured at the APD process. Fourth, H.R. 1555 is not necessary because there's scant evidence of widespread 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.

Thank you. Our last witness is Mr. Daniel Naatz. He is the Executive Vice President and Chief Policy Officer for the Independent Petroleum Association of America, and he is stationed right here in Washington, D.C. Mr. Naatz, you are now recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ansari, and the members of the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources. My name is Dan Naatz. 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 percent of America's oil production and 90 percent of its natural gas output. IPAA's average company employs 20 people. Currently, of the 640 million acres of land that are federally owned in the United States, roughly four percent 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 H.R. 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, the full cavalcade of Washington's regulatory agencies can become involved in 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. H.R. 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 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 that state. IPAA also has a long history of support for the concepts found in H.R. 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 indexed to inflation. The program was reauthorized with these changes as part of the National Defense Authorization 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 in previous reauthorizations as the concept is sound. Industry pays our 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 FY 2026. IPAA urges Congress to pass H.R. 7831 expeditiously so this important program can continue. Finally, IPAA also supports H.R. 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 has advocated 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 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 the change. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. but want to stress, Mr. Chairman, that all of the regulations will still be in place of governing how these resources are extracted.

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 the adequate staffing in place to meet this demand and permit projects efficiently and predictably?

Mr. 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 want to stress again these dollars are indexed for inflation, so it continues to go up for industry to pay for 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.

Thank you. Mr. Wendtland, would you say that reforms in Representative Hageman's bill have the potential to increase overall federal and state revenues from coal leasing?

Mr. Chairman, thank you for that question and the short answer to that is yes. It lengthens that period of payment when the to a point where the companies are generating revenue to hopefully pay for that bonus bid as an additive bid, as an additive cost, rather than an upfront sunk cost. It does make sense and it would encourage leasing.

Perfect. Back to Mr. Naatz. 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?

Yes, Mr. Chairman. Again, one of the things that's been talked about and why we are so, IPAA 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, once you at any level 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's, it's 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.

And do you believe Representative Bice's bill is a good way to address these duplicative processes?

We sure do. Yes. Again, I think it's, it makes sense. Again, the federal treasury will remain whole as the 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.

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 H.R. 7882. 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 five minutes.

Thank you. Dr. 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?

Representative Ansari, 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 billion 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.

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. Dr. 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?

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 use. And I will tell you having been on the BLM Resource Advisory Council for Northwest Colorado for seven 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 that happen.

One of the bills on today's agenda, H.R. 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 percent 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?

Yes. So if you are a private surface owner and there's less than 50 percent federal mineral to be drilled, you still have concerns about environment and other resources on your land. Having to go through an onsite NEPA analysis and ESA analysis and NHPA analysis is protective of the landowner. In Colorado I've been involved in rulemaking and 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.

And Dr. Vasquez, how many acres of federal lands do we expect this bill to impact?

It's anticipated approximately 4 million acres, but there are some games that can be played. You know that 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.

So given that, doesn't that create a huge loophole that oil and gas could target so they don't have to be on the hook?

I believe it does and I'm concerned about that. Thank you.

Thank you. I yield back.

Thank you very much. The chair now recognizes Representative Hageman for five minutes.

Thank you. And Mr. Wendtland, I'm going to focus my questions with you today. The theme of our critically important pro-coal 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?

Mr. Chairman, Representative Hageman, the impact's been significant. We haven't leased coal for over a decade now and we've been mining existing reserves. And when those when that moratorium was originally put in place and then the Buffalo RMP as 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 lease. So there were a lot less acres and tons available when those were put in place. And I think what the coal study points out in its 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.

So would reforming the bonus bid payment structure as proposed in H.R. 7872, would that help reduce one of those barriers that currently increases the risk of experiencing a coal shortage?

Mr. Chairman, Representative, yes it would because it closes that disconnect between development and when you can mine and when you can generate revenue.

Prior to the holding of a lease sale, the BLM will formulate a fair market value, I testified about that in my in my opening statement, or FMV for the defined federal coal tract. The winning bonus bid in a coal lease sale must meet or exceed this FMV estimate. Mr. Wendtland, is BLM's current FMV determination a transparent process or an obscure process?

Mr. Chairman, Representative, it is not transparent. You have to go back to when the 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 what exactly goes into that calculation and into the model. It is not transparent.

Okay. And do you think that the FMV determination needs revised in order to support the reforms in H.R. 7872 and to assist the new leasing facilitated by the one big beautiful bill?

Mr. 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 to of value of a ton of coal is priced at at the point of sale with an appropriate discount rate.

So is this something that you've worked with BLM to get done?

Mr. Chairman, Representative, we have had discussions and have briefed them on the coal study.

All right. And do you think that this is something that you need our assistance with moving forward with the BLM?

Mr. Chairman, I do believe and Representative, I do believe we do need the help from this committee to keep moving that forward.

And you will help us to to make sure that we do that in the correct way.

Mr. Chairman, absolutely.

Okay. Mr. Wendtland, 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 to no coal generation. This winter during the winter storm Fern, we saw coal-fired electricity generation in the lower 48 states increase by 31 percent 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, just four years. Shouldn't that finding be of great concern to all of us in light of how much the grid relies on and needs Wyoming coal?

Mr. Chairman, Representative, that is correct. It is a concern. And I think 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.

Okay. We can't keep the lights on or the houses 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 UC request for three separate documents. First of all, I ask unanimous consent for the introduction of a letter dated March 24, 2026, from the National Mining Association in support of H.R. 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 April 27, 2022, Coal Money Gone, Hundreds of Millions of Dollars No Longer Available for School Construction. With that I yield back.

Without objection for all three. Thank you. And I'm going to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record this letter from the American Petroleum Institute in support of H.R. 7831, the License to Drill Act. Without objection, so ordered. I will now recognize Representative Grijalva for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Vasquez, as we all know, oil and 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 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, H.R. 1555 would strip away many of these basic safeguards for development on millions of acres. The bill's 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 or 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?

Thank you for that question. And as I said before, with H.R. 1 and the new rules 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 going to happen.

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 families in 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 protect their lands and resources?

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.

If 1555 become 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?

No, they would have no voice.

And does that requirement that 50 percent or less of the drilling space be federal offer meaningful protection?

Not in my opinion because of the opportunity to unitize among other things.

Yeah. So these policies will only compound problems Arizonans face because of 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. Dr. Vasquez, our thirst for fossil fuels created this water crisis. How will 1555 combined with current federal policies make it harder to protect our increasingly precious water resources?

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 million gallons to frack. 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 going to impact Arizona. So protecting our freshwater resources is so critical for all of us. So thank you for the question.

Thank you. Thank you, and I yield back.

Thank you very much. The chair now recognizes Dr. Kennedy for five minutes.

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 insight and perspectives. And Dr. Met and Mr. Naatz particularly, thank you for being willing to testify regarding my bills, the License to Drill Act and the Co-Location Energy Act. So I'm grateful that you're here. And Dr. Met, if we can start with you, I had a few questions that I'd like to clarify regarding what we're doing with the Co-Location Energy Act. I think it's an important bill and I know you recognize that and I really appreciate your willingness to be here to testify regarding that. So the BLM has suggested that the Co-Location Energy Act is unnecessary. And I think both of us would disagree with that. I'd like your perspective on how the Co-Location Energy Act would actually augment or aid the current BLM administrative process.

Absolutely, thank you for the question. So yes, Mr. Leverette 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 is 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 have 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.

Thank you. And 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 with 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 Co-Location Energy Act. In your testimony, Dr. Met, as well, you've mentioned that the Co-Location 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 final say over whether co-location should actually occur on the lease?

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 of 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.

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, Dr. Met, as well, the Co-Location Energy Act would direct the Secretary of the Interior to review whether certain co-location activities can be considered as categorical exclusions under NEPA. How are co-location activities similar to other activities on federal lands with existing categorical exclusions?

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.

Excellent point, thank you. Mr. Naatz, I think with the remaining time, my final question for you would be in regard to the talking with the organizations that pay the drilling permit fees 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. Mr. Naatz, could you speak a bit more on how reauthorizing the Permit Processing Improvement Fund through the License to Drill Act helps address delays and uncertainty on the operational process?

Congressman, again, we thank you for sponsoring this legislation. It's something that my organization has supported for over 20 years and again, Chairman Stauber had API in and put 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 million for APD improvement. And one thing I want to stress again is how important these funds are. You would know in Utah, the split, 50-50 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.

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.

Thank you very much. The chair now recognizes Representative Lee for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, great to see all of you. I'm going to follow up on the Co-Location Energy Act. 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 co-sponsoring the bill. So I want to thank you and Representative Levin for leading this legislation and I also want to 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. Dr. Met, you have been at the forefront of this co-location effort to unlock what your organization has called the latent potential of 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 Interior must be personally approved by him, which has effectively brought 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. Dr. Met, I'm asking, the Co-Location 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?

Thank you for the question. I absolutely agree. In order for the Co-Location Energy Act to be effective, the Department of Interior must ensure the permitting processes are fair and consistent across all types of energy. And the Co-Location 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, Dr. Met, 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, something 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 Co-Location 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.

So do you agree that codifying equal treatment into the law should be part of that process? That's the question.

I think that's very important, yes.

Thank you. And with that, I yield. Thank you.

Thank you very much. The chair now recognizes Representative Gosar for five minutes.

Yes. Mr. Wendtland, I am one of the Gosars from Wyoming, originally from Wyoming. So just to let you know, it's a weird name, but I'm from there. Resolution Copper is an a prime example of mineral projects acting not just as good stewards of the land, but the whole community. They've invested over $2 billion in restoration of that area and haven't even got one penny back out of it. Okay, there's other problems with it that they've had 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 to diminish?

Mr. Chairman, Representative, what we have to lose is our base load affordable energy. As I noted in my testimony, you know, coal plants are the battery to this system. And right now, more power is more power. 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 and we don't move it forward in a timely manner, because of the constraints that are coming, we jeopardize that supply for those plants.

That's a, you know, now I applaud my colleague Ms. Hageman for introducing H.R. 7872 because it shows Americans just how valuable our public lands truly are. The other thing I wanted to bring up is that now we're also finding out there's more to coal. The intermediate areas now are showing that you can find rare earths and critical minerals. Is that true?

Mr. Chairman, Representative, that is true. There is a one project related to what they're calling coal ore out of the Brook Mine in north northern Wyoming. And we also as the Wyoming Energy Authority just helped fund in a one-to-one grant a project with Peabody looking at those same things as critical minerals out of the coal resource.

So how much do the coal bonus bids contribute to educational improvements in a single year in Wyoming?

Mr. 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.

Now, in your opinion, would improving the payment schedules for coal producers incentivize domestic production?

Mr. Chairman, Representative, yes, it will.

And would this resulting increased production further increase coal bonus bids for local communities and improve educational outcomes for the children?

Mr. 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.

Dr. Met, if the public had a 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 Dr. Kennedy's bill?

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 are looking for additional revenue sources for 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.

So Dr. Vasquez, are you familiar with SNPLMA?

Excuse me?

Are you familiar with the thing called SNPLMA, Southern Nevada Public Lands?

Sorry.

Well, it came from Harry Reid and in one of the when the deal he did a very narrow pilot study. And the BLM actually encompassed around Las Vegas so they could not grow. So they had to find a way to to get rid of these public lands. And SNPLMA was was born out of it. Now we've used this over and over again to try to mimic it in my in my state. We've tried to do this with the one of the counties there that we've tried they they wanted a solar energy production plant and they they got it. They got them 6,000 acres and they've 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 is geared to financially be rewarded for this. There's a reason I'm asking this question, okay. Do you think they would be included more vigorously in like the anglers, the sportsmen, you know, do you think they would be by financially being incentivized, do you think they would be more apt to be included in the discovery? Or use of public lands, multiple use doctrine.

So I apologize. Are you asking me if they would be financially incentivized to allow for other uses on public lands?

Yeah. So 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 percent of it and gives it back to Social Security. So they would be very apt to be looking at the land make to be much more stewardly because they have a financial at risk in it. And they can develop that. Would that benefit, do you think, the discovery of...

So I apologize if I'm a little confused, but if the question is if members of the public who are mostly focused on protecting the natural resources on public land, if they were financially incentivized that they would relax that concern?

No, no, no. I'm misunderstanding you, I'm sure. Yeah, so you'd be more inclusive in you said that the the one bill, the one beautiful bill, bypasses a lot of this consultation with people. Yes. Well, this would include the public is now included now because they're part of this. Ten percent would 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'd be utilizing that multiple use doctrine like Dr. Kennedy's bill where if you already have disturbed land, you're going to be utilizing that that different energy source as another method of payment. Would that not be the case?

So funding into Social Security influencing the opinions of the public?

It would be wise.

I'm sorry, I'm still not understanding how that's supposed to work.

That's all right. I apologize. That's all right. I threw a new a curveball at you, so but I think it will benefit them wisely because I think everybody's included in that process. Okay. I'll yield back. Sorry.

Thank you very much. I want to thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony and the members for their questions. The members of the subcommittee may have some additional questions for the 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 5:00 p.m. on Monday, March 30. The hearing record will be held open for 10 business days for these responses. If there's no further business...

Could I just have a unanimous consent request? I apologize.

Go ahead. Yes.

Thank you. I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from 16 environmental organizations opposing H.R. 1555, the Wilderness Society's views on H.R. 5639, H.R. 1555, and H.R. 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 Aurora Reservoir area from drilling, now the feds are coming from the Aurora Sentinel.

Without objection.

Thank you.

If there's no further business, without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned.