19–006 

112TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 112–531 

PROVIDING LEASING CERTAINTY FOR AMERICAN 

ENERGY ACT OF 2012 

JUNE 15, 2012.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, from the Committee on Natural 

Resources, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 4382] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred the 

bill (H.R. 4382) to ensure Federal oil and natural gas lease sales 

occur, eliminate redundant leasing bureaucracy, and provide leasing certainty, having considered the same, report favorably thereon 

with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do 

pass. 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Providing Leasing Certainty for American Energy 

Act of 2012’’. 

SEC. 2. MINIMUM ACREAGE REQUIREMENT FOR ONSHORE LEASE SALES. 

In conducting lease sales as required by section 17(a) of the Mineral Leasing Act 

(30 U.S.C. 226(a)), each year the Secretary of the Interior shall perform the following: 

(1) The Secretary shall offer for sale no less than 25 percent of the annual 

nominated acreage not previously made available for lease. Acreage offered for 

lease pursuant to this paragraph shall not be subject to protest and shall be 

eligible for categorical exclusions under section 390 of the Energy Policy Act of 

2005 (42 U.S.C. 15492), except that it shall not be subject to the test of extraordinary circumstances. 

(2) In administering this section, the Secretary shall only consider leasing of 

Federal lands that are available for leasing at the time the lease sale occurs. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

SEC. 3. LEASING CERTAINTY. 

Section 17(a) of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 226(a)) is amended by inserting ‘‘(1)’’ before ‘‘All lands’’, and by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(2)(A) The Secretary shall not withdraw any covered energy project issued under 

this Act without finding a violation of the terms of the lease by the lessee. 

‘‘(B) The Secretary shall not infringe upon lease rights under leases issued under 

this Act by indefinitely delaying issuance of project approvals, drilling and seismic 

permits, and rights of way for activities under such a lease. 

‘‘(C) No later than 18 months after an area is designated as open under the current land use plan the Secretary shall make available nominated areas for lease 

under the criteria in section 2. 

‘‘(D) Notwithstanding any other law, the Secretary shall issue all leases sold no 

later than 60 days after the last payment is made. 

‘‘(E) The Secretary shall not cancel or withdraw any lease parcel after a competitive lease sale has occurred and a winning bidder has submitted the last payment 

for the parcel. 

‘‘(F) Not later than 60 days after a lease sale held under this Act, the Secretary 

shall adjudicate any lease protests filed following a lease sale. If after 60 days any 

protest is left unsettled, said protest is automatically denied and appeal rights of 

the protestor begin. 

‘‘(G) No additional lease stipulations may be added after the parcel is sold without 

consultation and agreement of the lessee, unless the Secretary deems such stipulations as emergency actions to conserve the resources of the United States.’’. 

SEC. 4. LEASING CONSISTENCY. 

Federal land managers must follow existing resource management plans and continue to actively lease in areas designated as open when resource management 

plans are being amended or revised, until such time as a new record of decision is 

signed. 

SEC. 5. REDUCE REDUNDANT POLICIES. 

Bureau of Land Management Instruction Memorandum 2010–117 shall have no 

force or effect. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of H.R. 4382, as ordered reported, is to ensure Federal oil and natural gas lease sales occur, eliminate redundant leasing bureaucracy, and provide leasing certainty. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

The Department of the Interior is required by law under the 

Mineral Leasing Act to hold competitive auctions to allow oil and 

natural gas developers the opportunity to acquire federal land for 

energy development. Each year, millions of acres throughout the 

nation are nominated as areas where there is interest in oil and 

natural gas development to give the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) a general idea of where to hold lease sales. While many 

states depend on the energy industry as a chief driver of their 

economies, statistics show the percentage of land leased by BLM 

versus the number of acres nominated have drastically decreased 

over the course of the Obama Administration. In fact, in some 

states BLM has not leased a single acre for energy development, 

despite abundant interest from industry. 

For example, in 2011 in Colorado, interest was expressed in 

219,651 acres for development. However, BLM chose to only lease 

5,527 acres—equating to 3 percent. In California, BLM only leased 

8 percent of the nominated acreage (10,299 of 128,140 acres). Furthermore, in Arizona the Obama Administration has not held single lease sale since coming into office, despite interest in nearly 

50,000 acres for development. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

H.R. 4382 would ensure that a minimum number of acres are 

leased to guarantee that onshore leasing continues to move forward 

in the United States. 

The Department of the Interior is to promote a ‘‘multiple use policy’’ for federal lands. This policy allows federal lands to be enjoyed 

by all citizens and used for a variety of purposes—recreation, hunting, ranching, grazing, and energy development. These land uses 

have historically been compatible on public lands and this legislation does not impact the multiple land use policy under the Federal 

Land Management and Policy Act (FLPMA). It gives the Secretary 

of the Interior the flexibility under FLPMA to continue to manage 

federal lands in a way that accommodates all activities Americans 

have come to enjoy on these lands. 

A variety of other bureaucratic actions have delayed energy development and made leasing uncertain for developers who no 

longer have assurance that they will actually be able to move forward with development on the land they lease. Since coming into 

office, the Obama Administration has withdrawn leases after selling them at public auction despite having received full payment for 

these leases, deferred lease nominations indefinitely, added unexpected and additional lease terms and stipulations following lease 

sales, and taken years to issue leases despite language in the Mineral Leasing Act that specifies that the federal government shall 

issue leases sixty days after accepting payment. In 2009, the Department of the Interior went so far as to completely withdraw 77 

oil and gas leases in Utah after the lease parcels had been sold and 

final payment received. In September 2010, a U.S. District Court 

judge ruled that Interior Secretary Salazar had exceeded his authority by withdrawing these leases. 

In 2012, Secretary Salazar issued BLM Instruction Memorandum 

2010–117. This Master Leasing Plan (MLP) policy required a new 

layer of environmental analysis for certain federal land areas, even 

though the new analysis is redundant with analysis already required in the Resource Management Plans (RMP) for these lands. 

The intent of the MLPs was to re-do RMPs completed since 2005 

by requiring RMP amendments. These amendments routinely take 

several years to complete. The MLP seems intended to simply identify new restrictions on lands available for oil and natural gas development beyond those identified in the previously existing analysis. 

The ‘‘Providing Leasing Certainty for American Energy Act of 

2012’’ would encourage companies to seek out federal land for production by creating certainty that they would receive their leases 

in a timely fashion, lease terms would not be changed after the 

lease has been issued, and leases could not be withdrawn after 

they have been paid for. 

While the Obama Administration has recently attempted to take 

credit for our nation’s increase production in oil and gas, the reality 

is that production on federal lands has, in fact, decreased under the 

Administration—while production on state and private lands has 

increased significantly, North Dakota being a prime example. According to a study recently released by the American Petroleum Institute, ‘‘at no time in the last 25 years has the number of new onshore federal oil and gas leases been lower than the number of new 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

leases issued in 2009 and 2011,’’ with new leases numbering 44 

percent less in 2009 and 2010 when compared to 2007 and 2008. 

The policies of this Administration have made it more difficult, 

time consuming and expensive to bring a lease through to production—and in some cases have even cast doubt on whether the lease, 

once paid for, will even be able to be developed. This legislation 

seeks to provide certainty and efficiency to the BLM leasing process which has fallen into disrepair under the current Administration. By doing so, the bill can foster increased energy development 

on federal lands. 

Because there are no guidelines to ensure regular leasing occurs, 

the number of acres leased has been extremely sporadic through 

the years and has varied greatly as Administrations have changed. 

This gives industry little certainty that new areas will regularly be 

leased and new development can occur. Currently, the federal government leases less than 3 percent of the federal offshore areas and 

less than 6 percent of the federal onshore areas for oil and gas production. Furthermore, the Obama Administration has issued fewer 

new federal leases than any administration in nearly thirty years. 

COMMITTEE ACTION

H.R. 4382 was introduced on April 18, 2012, by Congressman 

Mike Coffman (R–CO). The bill was referred to the Committee on 

Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the Subcommittee 

on Energy and Mineral Resources. On April 26, 2012, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill. On May 16, 2012, the Full 

Natural Resources Committee met to consider the bill. The Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources was discharged by 

unanimous consent. Congressman Coffman offered amendment designated #1 to the bill; the amendment was adopted by voice vote. 

Congressman Rush Holt (D–NJ) offered amendment designated 

.007 to the bill; the amendment was not adopted by a bipartisan 

roll call vote of 14 to 25, as follows: 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 6 here HR531.001
6 

Congressman Ben Luja ́n (D–NM) offered amendment designated 

.004 to the bill; the amendment was not adopted by a roll call vote 

of 18 to 22, as follows: 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
7 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 8 here HR531.002
8 

Congressman Paul Tonko (D–NY) offered amendment designated 

.003 to the bill; the amendment was not adopted by a bipartisan 

roll call vote of 15 to 25, as follows: 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
9 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 10 here HR531.003
10 

Congressman Ed Markey (D–MA) offered amendment designated 

.002 to the bill; the amendment was not adopted by a roll call vote 

of 16 to 25, as follows: 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
11 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 12 here HR531.004
12 

Congressman Ed Markey (D–MA) offered amendment designated 

.005 to the bill; the amendment was not adopted by a bipartisan 

roll call vote of 14 to 27, as follows: 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
13 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 14 here HR531.005
14 

The bill, as amended, was then adopted and ordered favorably 

reported to the House of Representatives by a bipartisan roll call 

vote of 24 to 17, as follows: 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
15 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 16 here HR531.006
16 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title 

The title of the bill is the ‘‘Providing Leasing Certainty for American Energy Act of 2012.’’ 

Section 2. Minimum acreage requirement for onshore lease sales 

Section 2 requires the Secretary of the Interior to annually lease 

at least 25% of nominated acreage not previously made available 

for lease. 

Section 3. Leasing certainty 

This section prohibits the Secretary from withdrawing lease parcels after they have been leased or adding additional lease stipulations after the lease sale. It also sets timelines for the adjudication 

of lease protests and requires the Secretary to issue leases in a 

timely fashion. 

Section 4. Leasing consistency 

Section 4 requires land managers to continue leasing in open 

areas when they are amending current resource management 

plans. 

Section 5. Reduce redundant policies 

This section overturns the Bureau of Land Management’s Instruction Memorandum 2010–117 (Master Leasing Plans). 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee on 

Natural Resources’ oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the body of this report. 

COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII 

1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of 

the House of Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be incurred in carrying out this bill. However, clause 3(d)(2)(B) of that rule provides 

that this requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Under clause 

3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 

section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate for this bill from the 

Director of the Congressional Budget Office: 

H.R. 4382—Providing Leasing Certainty for American Energy Act of 

2012 

CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 4382 would increase offsetting 

receipts from bonus bids by $2 million over the 2013–2022 period; 

therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. We estimate that implementing the bill would not affect discretionary spending. Enacting 

H.R. 4382 would not affect revenues. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
17 

H.R. 4382 would require the Secretary of the Interior to offer for 

sale at least 25 percent of onshore federal lands nominated by 

firms for oil and gas leasing. Based on information provided by the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) about the amount of nominated lands leased, CBO estimates that implementing that provision would not affect the federal budget because, under current 

law, the agency already offers for sale more than 25 percent of the 

acreage nominated. The bill also would prevent the Secretary from 

taking certain actions that would delay or cancel leases, lease 

sales, or project approvals. CBO estimates that this provision also 

would not affect the federal budget because, under current law, the 

Secretary rarely takes such actions and the budgetary effects of 

those actions are typically small. 

H.R. 4382 would prohibit the Secretary from deferring lease sales 

in areas where BLM is revising existing land use plans. Because 

leasing is deferred for up to five years in areas undergoing land use 

planning, CBO expects that certain areas would be leased sooner 

under H.R. 4382 than under current law. Based on information 

provided by BLM, CBO expects that leasing activities are deferred 

on about 150,000 new acres per year. Based on information about 

the amount of acres leased annually relative to the amount of acres 

available for lease, CBO estimates that accelerating leasing of 

those lands would increase offsetting receipts from bonus bids by 

$2 million over the 2013–2022 period. 

H.R. 4382 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Jeff LaFave. The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director 

for Budget Analysis. 

2. Section 308(a) of Congressional Budget Act. As required by 

clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, 

this bill does not contain any new budget authority, spending authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in revenues or 

tax expenditures. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 4382 would increase offsetting receipts from bonus bids by $2 million over the 

2013–2022 period; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. CBO 

estimates that implementing the bill would not affect discretionary 

spending. 

3. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by 

clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or objective 

of this bill, as ordered reported, is to ensure Federal oil and natural gas lease sales occur, eliminate redundant leasing bureaucracy, and provide leasing certainty. 

EARMARK STATEMENT

This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks, limited 

tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined under clause 9(e), 

9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104–4 

This bill contains no unfunded mandates. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
18 

PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW

This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or tribal law. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is printed in italic 

and existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in 

roman): 

MINERAL LEASING ACT 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 17. (a)(1) All lands subject to disposition under this Act 

which are known or believed to contain oil or gas deposits may be 

leased by the Secretary. 

(2)(A) The Secretary shall not withdraw any covered energy 

project issued under this Act without finding a violation of the 

terms of the lease by the lessee. 

(B) The Secretary shall not infringe upon lease rights under leases 

issued under this Act by indefinitely delaying issuance of project approvals, drilling and seismic permits, and rights of way for activities under such a lease. 

(C) No later than 18 months after an area is designated as open 

under the current land use plan the Secretary shall make available 

nominated areas for lease under the criteria in section 2. 

(D) Notwithstanding any other law, the Secretary shall issue all 

leases sold no later than 60 days after the last payment is made. 

(E) The Secretary shall not cancel or withdraw any lease parcel 

after a competitive lease sale has occurred and a winning bidder 

has submitted the last payment for the parcel. 

(F) Not later than 60 days after a lease sale held under this Act, 

the Secretary shall adjudicate any lease protests filed following a 

lease sale. If after 60 days any protest is left unsettled, said protest 

is automatically denied and appeal rights of the protestor begin. 

(G) No additional lease stipulations may be added after the parcel 

is sold without consultation and agreement of the lessee, unless the 

Secretary deems such stipulations as emergency actions to conserve 

the resources of the United States. 

* * * * * * * 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(19) 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

We oppose H.R. 4382 because it would set an arbitrary requirement that the Department of the Interior offer oil companies at 

least 25 percent of whatever onshore areas industry nominates 

every year, regardless of whether or not drilling in these areas 

would be appropriate. Under this legislation, the Interior Department could no longer lease in areas nominated by the industry that 

have the greatest resource potential and where drilling makes the 

most sense. Under H.R. 4382, there is no limit to the acreage that 

can be nominated by the oil industry. This legislation would therefore threaten other important uses of our public lands such as 

hunting, fishing, livestock grazing and recreational shooting by requiring leasing in areas that may threaten these important values. 

This arbitrary requirement that a certain percentage of acres be 

offered for lease also completely disregards the fact that industry 

already has 25 million acres of public land under lease onshore on 

which it is not producing. As we have seen, handcuffing the Department by requiring that we give away more public land to the 

oil industry in no way guarantees that the industry will actually 

begin producing on those leases. 

This misguided legislation would also invalidate the BLM’s new 

leasing reforms, which are designed to increase certainty for the oil 

and gas industry and reduce the number of lease areas that are 

protested. Under the BLM’s leasing reforms, the number of protested parcels has already dropped by 8 percent. Yet, this bill 

would throw out those reforms and instead create a process with 

less public involvement and less certainty for industry. 

H.R. 4382 would also require the BLM to continue ‘‘actively leasing’’ in areas where land use plans are being updated or revised 

to protect wildlife or other resource values, deal with a growing 

population, or incorporate a new recreational activity. Land-use 

planning is a proactive tool to ensure that we protect various land 

uses under the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act of 1976 

(FLPMA). According to the Interior Department ‘‘continuing to 

lease in some open areas in which recreational or ecological values 

are at risk could prevent the BLM from protecting important resource values. It could be counterproductive to efforts to develop 

energy resources on Federal lands if the result is greater near-term 

resource damage that, in turn, would necessitate more onerous restrictions on future energy development activities.’’ Rather than allowing for smart planning ahead of time that includes greater public participation, this legislation would reduce public participation 

and certainty for the oil industry in the leasing process. 

The Majority rejected an amendment from Representative Luja ́n 

(D–NM) that would have allowed the Secretary to offer less than 

25 percent of the areas nominated by the oil and gas industry if 

it was necessary to protect hunting, fishing, grazing or recreational 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
20 

shooting. The Majority also rejected an amendment from Representative Tonko (D–NY) that would have required oil companies 

seeking new leases under this bill to disclose all political contributions over the previous five years, in the wake of the Citizens 

United Supreme Court decision. These oil and gas resources on 

public lands belong to the American people and they have a right 

to know how companies benefiting from accessing those resources 

are influencing elections. The Majority voted down an amendment 

from Ranking Member Markey (D–MA) that would have made 

drilling safer by increasing the fines that can be assessed for oil 

companies who violate regulations for things such as drilling without a blowout preventer; fines which were set 30 years ago and 

which the Department cannot raise through administrative action. 

The Majority also rejected an amendment from Ranking Member 

Markey to ensure that all the oil and natural gas produced from 

the leases issued under this bill could not be exported. Finally, the 

Majority rebuffed an amendment from Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee Ranking Member Holt (D–NJ) that would 

have sought to end the royalty free drilling in the Gulf that is projected to cost American taxpayers nearly $10 billion over the next 

decade. 

We shouldn’t be seeking to shut the public out of the management of our public lands as this bill would do. There is also no reason to threaten hunting, fishing and the other uses of our public 

lands when oil companies already have 25 million acres of public 

lands onshore under lease on which they are not producing. 

EDWARD J. MARKEY. 

RUSH D. HOLT. 

PAUL TONKO. 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO. 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO. 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA. 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS