PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 21, 1998
Federal Oil Royalty Protection Act of 1998 - Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to establish separate rules to govern the calculation of the value for Federal royalty purposes of crude oil produced by independent and integrated producers from any Federal onshore or Outer Continental Shelf lease. Prescribes requirements and optional features of such rules with respect to: (1) integrated producers; (2) independent producers' gross proceeds; or (3) independent producers' market-based methods. (Sec. 3) Directs the Secretary to establish a single set of rules to govern such calculations if it is determined not to establish separate rules. (Sec. 4) Declares all royalty rate reductions for stripper and heavy oil granted by the Secretary for oil produced from any Federal onshore lease cancelled as of the first day of the first production month following enactment of this Act. Requires a lessee to remit royalties at the rate established under its lease as of the first full production month following enactment of this Act. Retains existing royalty rate reductions for stripper and heavy oil applicable to independent producers' leases until September 1999 or (if earlier) cancellation by the Secretary. Authorizes the Secretary to grant royalty rate reductions under specified circumstances. (Sec. 5) Prohibits the rate charged to any Outer Continental Shelf lessee or lease operator for oil or gas transportation on any pipeline from the lease to an onshore sales or delivery point from exceeding actual oil pipeline transportation costs as determined by the Secretary, plus a reasonable rate of return not to exceed the prime rate. (Sec. 6) Directs the Secretary to: (1) promptly review and determine the extent to which each Mineral Leasing Act holder of a right-of-way or permit, and each pipeline operator, has complied with specified statutory requirements; and (2) revoke such right-of-way or permit for non-compliance with such Act. (Sec. 7) Amends the 1998 Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions Act to repeal the prohibition on the use of appropriations to issue a notice of final rulemaking before October 1, 1998, with respect to crude oil valuation for royalty purposes.
People & committees
Rep. Maloney, Carolyn B. [D-NY-14] · D–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.
Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 21, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.3932 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.3932 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.3932 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.3932 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.