S-451-119
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 119-237.
Sponsored by Steve Daines (R-MT)
What it does
This bill would amend the Mineral Leasing Act to remove a provision allowing an administrative fee to be charged on oil, gas, and other mineral lease payments made to the federal government. It makes conforming changes to related laws covering acquired lands, geothermal steam leases, and royalty management to remove cross-references to the eliminated fee provision.
Who benefits
Oil, gas, coal, and geothermal companies holding federal mineral leases, who would no longer pay the administrative fee. States that receive a share of mineral leasing revenues (many federal mineral leases split revenue with the state where extraction occurs) may see somewhat higher net receipts since less is withheld for administrative costs before distribution.
Who is hurt
The federal government, specifically the Bureau of Land Management or Interior Department, which would lose a dedicated funding source used to offset administrative costs of managing mineral leases, potentially requiring the shortfall to be covered by general appropriations. Taxpayers broadly could bear the cost if administrative expenses are shifted to general federal funding rather than fee-based recovery.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the administrative fee reduces the share of mineral leasing revenue ultimately returned to states, since fees are deducted before revenue-sharing calculations, and that eliminating it would restore more money to state governments that host federal mineral production. They contend the fee amounts to a hidden reduction in revenue states are statutorily entitled to receive under long-standing mineral leasing revenue-sharing arrangements.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the administrative fee funds legitimate federal costs of processing and overseeing mineral leases, and eliminating it without a replacement funding source could underfund lease administration or shift those costs to general taxpayers. They contend the change primarily benefits mineral lessees and lease-hosting states at the expense of the broader federal budget, without a clear finding that current fee levels are excessive.
Constitutional context
This bill involves Congress's Article I, Section 8 spending and property power (Art. IV, §3, cl. 2, the Property Clause) over federal lands and mineral resources, and raises no significant constitutional question since it is a straightforward statutory fee adjustment within Congress's plenary authority over federal land management.
Checks and balances
Congress directly amends the fee structure by statute, with the Interior Department retaining implementation authority over lease administration but losing the specific fee-based funding mechanism; no significant shift in power between branches occurs.
Historical precedent
The administrative fee at issue was itself a relatively recent addition to the Mineral Leasing Act, and Congress has periodically adjusted mineral leasing fees and revenue-sharing formulas, though no single directly analogous prior repeal effort is clearly documented.