National Resilience and Recovery Fund Act
HB5983, the National Resilience and Recovery Fund Act, would create a new Treasury trust fund to finance federal disaster resilience and recovery programs. The fund would receive revenue from several oil-related excise taxes, including taxes on crude oil and natural gas from the Gulf of Mexico outer continental shelf, an added 10-cent-per-barrel financing rate under the existing environmental tax on crude oil and petroleum, and a windfall profits tax on large crude oil producers and importers. The bill also expands the definition of crude oil for excise tax purposes to include tar sands, oil shale, and other fuel feedstocks or finished fuel products that the Treasury Secretary determines pose a significant spill risk.
The bill directs money in the new fund to FEMA programs that support hazard mitigation, resilient infrastructure, revolving loans for disaster preparedness, and flood mitigation. It also makes several tax-law changes aimed at oil production and imports, including a new 13 percent severance tax on crude oil and natural gas produced from the Gulf of Mexico outer continental shelf, with a credit for federal royalties paid, and a new windfall profits tax tied to Brent crude prices for large covered taxpayers. Most of the tax provisions apply to production or removals after December 31, 2024, while the fund itself is effective January 1, 2025.
In practical terms, the bill would amend the Internal Revenue Code to create new dedicated revenue streams for FEMA resilience programs and to impose additional federal tax burdens on oil producers and importers, especially larger companies and offshore Gulf producers. It would also broaden Treasury’s regulatory authority over what petroleum-related products are treated as crude oil for tax purposes, which could affect how certain unconventional fuels are classified and taxed.
The available context shows no recorded votes and no committee transcript discussion, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment to measure. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to be framed as a disaster-resilience and climate-adaptation financing proposal, but it is also a significant energy-tax bill, which suggests likely support from proponents of resilience spending and likely opposition from oil and gas interests and other critics of higher energy taxes.
The main point of contention is the financing mechanism. Supporters would likely emphasize that the bill dedicates oil-sector tax revenue to disaster mitigation and recovery, while opponents would likely object to the new excise taxes, the windfall profits tax, the Gulf offshore severance tax, and the expanded definition of crude oil. Another potential controversy is the Treasury Secretary’s discretionary authority to classify additional fuel feedstocks or products as taxable crude oil or petroleum products, which could create uncertainty for affected industries.
HB5983 would amend the Internal Revenue Code by creating a new trust fund in the Treasury and adding multiple new oil-related taxes and tax definitions. It would direct revenues to FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program, Safeguarding Tomorrow Revolving Loan Fund Program, and Flood Mitigation Assistance program, while also imposing a new Gulf of Mexico offshore severance tax, a windfall profits tax on large crude oil taxpayers, and an added financing rate under the existing environmental tax on crude oil and petroleum.
There are no recorded votes or committee transcripts in the provided context, so formal legislative sentiment cannot be measured from debate history. On the face of the bill, the policy direction suggests support from lawmakers focused on disaster resilience, flood mitigation, and climate adaptation, alongside likely resistance from oil and gas producers, importers, and other stakeholders affected by higher excise and severance taxes.
The most notable contention is over the bill’s revenue source: it shifts the cost of resilience programs onto the oil sector through new excise, severance, and windfall profits taxes. Industry stakeholders would likely object to the 10-cent-per-barrel financing rate, the 13 percent Gulf offshore tax, and the price-based windfall profits tax, while supporters would likely argue these taxes are appropriate because they fund disaster mitigation and recovery. The bill’s expanded crude-oil definition and Treasury regulatory authority could also be disputed because they may broaden the tax base and create uncertainty for unconventional fuels and related products.