Restoring State Mineral Revenues Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Daines, Steve [R-MT]
- Committees
- Energy and Natural Resources Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Dec 2, 2025
Bottom line
The bill aims to increase the share of federal mineral lease revenues retained by states by eliminating a 2% administrative fee currently withheld by the federal government, thereby shifting funds from federal to state budgets.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Mineral Leasing Act to eliminate a 2% administrative fee that the federal government currently deducts from mineral lease revenues before distributing the remaining funds to states. It also makes conforming amendments to related acts to ensure this change is consistently applied across federal law.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill restores full mineral revenues to states, empowering them to better manage natural resources and fund essential local services without federal administrative deductions. They contend that states are the rightful recipients of these revenues and that the fee represents an unnecessary federal retention of state funds.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the 2% fee covers legitimate administrative costs incurred by federal agencies for managing mineral leasing programs, including environmental reviews, permitting, and oversight. Eliminating this fee could shift these costs to federal taxpayers or reduce the capacity of federal agencies to effectively manage public lands and resources.
The bill is exceptionally short and clear, allowing for a quick and straightforward understanding of its direct impact.
Section 2(a)
Elimination of Administrative Fee on Mineral Lease Revenues
This provision directly amends Section 35 of the Mineral Leasing Act to remove the statutory language that allows the federal government to deduct a 2% administrative fee from revenues generated by mineral leases on federal lands. As a result, states where these resources are extracted would receive an additional 2% of the gross revenues, increasing their share of the funds.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that states are the primary stewards of their lands and resources and should receive the full share of revenues generated within their borders. They contend that the 2% fee is an unnecessary federal deduction that reduces funds available for state and local priorities.
Critics contend
Critics contend that the 2% fee helps cover the federal government's essential costs for administering the mineral leasing program, including environmental reviews, permitting, and oversight. Eliminating it would force federal taxpayers to subsidize these costs or reduce the effectiveness of federal land management, potentially impacting environmental protection and regulatory compliance.
Tradeoffs
The provision navigates the tension between increasing state revenue autonomy and ensuring adequate federal funding for the administration and oversight of mineral resource development on federal lands.
Section 2(b)
Conforming Amendments to Related Acts
This section makes necessary technical adjustments to other federal statutes, including the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands, the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, and the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 1982. These amendments ensure that the elimination of the 2% administrative fee is consistently applied across all relevant laws and that any cross-references to the original Mineral Leasing Act remain accurate after the fee subsection is removed and other subsections are redesignated.