Sponsors (4)
The bill centralizes mineral leasing receipts into a single Fund to improve predictability and transparency, but it risks reducing and delaying funds for state and local governments and creates greater federal discretion and potential funding uncertainty for mineral programs.
State and local governments may receive more predictable mineral leasing receipts because fees would be consolidated into a dedicated Fund that pools revenues for distribution.
Taxpayers and state governments could see improved transparency and more centralized management of mineral leasing receipts by directing fees into a single Fund instead of multiple ad hoc transfers.
State and local governments could receive less or delayed funding because the bill removes prior automatic statutory transfer mechanisms and reroutes receipts into the Fund.
State and local governments and taxpayers may face reduced predictability because centralizing receipts into the Fund could give federal officials greater discretion over how distributions are made.
Federal mineral programs and related services (including BLM operations and some energy-related activities) could experience funding uncertainty if the Fund's governance or allowable uses are not clearly defined.
Based on analysis of 4 sections of legislative text.
Revises 30 U.S.C. § 191(d) to replace two paragraphs and redirect fee receipts to "the Fund," removing a prior fee-transfer/allocation mechanism.
Changes how fees collected under the Mineral Leasing Act are handled by replacing two paragraphs and revising a third in 30 U.S.C. § 191(d). The amendment deletes a prior transfer/allocation mechanism for fees and directs receipts to "the Fund," altering where and how fee revenue is allocated. The bill is short and focused: it chiefly revises statutory language governing fee receipt allocation and establishes a short title.
Introduced March 5, 2026 by Mike Kennedy · Last progress June 3, 2026