Sponsors (4)
The bill centralizes mineral fee receipts into a dedicated Fund to improve predictability and transparency, but that change risks reducing or delaying payments to states, increasing federal discretion over distributions, and creating funding uncertainty for mineral programs unless governance and distribution rules are clearly specified.
State and local governments: receipts could become more predictable because fees are consolidated into a dedicated Fund that pools revenues for distribution.
Taxpayers and state governments: directing fees into a Fund could improve transparency and centralize management of mineral leasing receipts compared with multiple ad hoc transfers.
State and local governments: may receive less or delayed funding because the bill removes prior automatic statutory transfers.
State and local governments and taxpayers: centralizing receipts into a Fund could give federal officials greater discretion over distribution, reducing predictability for recipients.
Federal employees and energy utilities/companies: mineral-related programs (including BLM operations) could face funding uncertainty if the Fund's governance or permitted uses are not clearly defined.
Based on analysis of 4 sections of legislative text.
Changes how fees under 30 U.S.C. §191(d) are allocated by removing a previous transfer scheme and directing receipts into a designated "Fund," and replaces other paragraph provisions.
Introduced March 5, 2026 by Mike Kennedy · Last progress March 5, 2026
Amends the Mineral Leasing Act provision at 30 U.S.C. §191(d) to change how fees collected under that subsection are handled: it replaces several paragraph-level provisions (including two full paragraph replacements whose text is not provided) and removes a prior multi-sentence transfer/allocation mechanism tied to fee receipts, instead directing those receipts to a designated “Fund.” One other short provision establishes a short title; no effective date or specific new allocation formula is shown in the available text.