Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure, and Financial Services, for a period to be subsequently determ…
This bill creates a National Resilience and Recovery Fund in the U.S. Treasury to finance specified FEMA mitigation and recovery programs, and funds that trust largely through a mix of petroleum-related excise taxes and new taxes on oil production. It clarifies that tar sands, oil shale, and other bituminous-derived oils are treated as crude oil for excise-tax purposes and gives the Treasury regulatory authority to classify other fuel feedstocks/products as taxable if they pose spill hazards.
Source of funding: liberals favor taxing fossil-fuel profits and production to pay for resilience; conservatives view those taxes as punitive and economically harmful.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive tax-and-spending statute that is detailed in the core statutory mechanics (tax rates/formulas, new tax chapters, fund creation and designated recipients) and well integrated into the Internal Revenue Code and referenced federal programs.
This bill creates a National Resilience and Recovery Fund in the U.S. Treasury to finance specified FEMA mitigation and recovery programs, and funds that trust largely through a mix of petroleum-related excise taxes and new taxes on oil production.
It clarifies that tar sands, oil shale, and other bituminous-derived oils are treated as crude oil for excise-tax purposes and gives the Treasury regulatory authority to classify other fuel feedstocks/products as taxable if they pose spill hazards.
The bill adds (1) a 10-cent-per-barrel financing rate to an existing petroleum excise tax, (2) a new quarterly “windfall profits” excise tax on large producers/importers calculated as 50% of the per-barrel Brent-price excess over the 2015–2019 average (adjusted for inflation), and (3) a 13% severance-style tax on removal price for crude oil and natural gas from the outer Continental Shelf in the Gulf of Mexico (with a credit for federal royalties).
Although funding disaster resilience is a broadly defensible objective, the bill’s principal revenue strategy relies on novel and substantial taxes targeted at oil and gas (a windfall profits tax formula, a new Gulf OCS severance tax, and excise additions). These features raise strong partisan and industry opposition, create regional winners/losers, and increase complexity—factors that historically reduce chances of enactment unless incorporated into a larger, negotiated package with concessions or major amendments.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive tax-and-spending statute that is detailed in the core statutory mechanics (tax rates/formulas, new tax chapters, fund creation and designated recipients) and well integrated into the Internal Revenue Code and referenced federal programs. It is less developed on explicit problem articulation, fiscal transparency, and program-level accountability.
Source of funding: liberals favor taxing fossil-fuel profits and production to pay for resilience; conservatives view those taxes as punitive and economically harmful.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Source of funding: liberals favor taxing fossil-fuel profits and production to pay for resilience; conservatives view those taxes as punitive and economically harmful.
A mainstream liberal would generally view the bill positively as it raises new, targeted revenue from the fossil-fuel sector to finance disaster mitigation and resilience programs administered by FEMA.
They would likely welcome the windfall profits tax and the Gulf severance tax as a way to capture unearned industry gains and direct them to public safety and climate adaptation.
They may press for strong safeguards to ensure funds reach frontline and low-income communities and for measures to reduce the risk that costs are passed on to consumers.
A pragmatic centrist would see the bill as a reasonable attempt to fund resilience programs that have bipartisan appeal, but would be cautious about economic consequences and implementation details.
They would appreciate the ‘user pays’ logic of taxing profitable oil production but worry about inflationary or energy-supply impacts and about complexity in tax administration.
They would likely seek revenue and macroeconomic estimates, guardrails against unintended consumer costs, and clearer appropriation and oversight language.
A mainstream conservative would likely oppose the bill’s expanded taxes on oil and gas producers as harmful to the industry, a form of government overreach, and a potential driver of higher energy prices.
They would argue that punitive or unpredictable taxes (windfall tax tied to global Brent prices) deter investment, risk jobs, and reduce domestic energy security.
While sympathetic to the goal of funding resilience, they would prefer user fees, voluntary industry programs, state-level solutions, or funding from general revenues rather than targeted levies on energy production.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Although funding disaster resilience is a broadly defensible objective, the bill’s principal revenue strategy relies on novel and substantial taxes targeted at oil and gas (a windfall profits tax formula, a new Gulf OCS severance tax, and excise additions). These features raise strong partisan and industry opposition, create regional winners/losers, and increase complexity—factors that historically reduce chances of enactment unless incorporated into a larger, negotiated package with concessions or major amendments.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Source of funding: liberals favor taxing fossil-fuel profits and production to pay for resilience; conservatives view those taxes as puniti…
Although funding disaster resilience is a broadly defensible objective, the bill’s principal revenue strategy relies on novel and substanti…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive tax-and-spending statute that is detailed in the core statutory mechanics (tax rates/formulas, new tax chapters, fund creation and designated recipie…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.