2 versions

CosmeticWhat changed in REPORTED TO SENATEcompared with INTRODUCED IN SENATE (Jul 21, 2026)

Technical corrections only. The v2 version of S. 5039 reflects the bill being reported by the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, adding a calendar number and reporting information. No substantive changes were made to the legislative text itself.

S. 5039119th CongressIntroduced Jul 21, 2026

License to Drill Act

Reported To SenateEnergySubstantive

View bill text

Sponsor: Sen. Lee, Mike [R-UT]
Committees: Energy and Natural Resources Committee (primary)
Last action: Sep 17, 2026

This analysis was written for v1 (INTRODUCED IN SENATE, Jul 21, 2026). REPORTED TO SENATE changed too little to need its own, so it reuses that one rather than a rewrite. The differences between the two are summarized above. View v1

Bottom line

The bill extends the collection of fees for federal oil and gas drilling permits for an additional 11 years, dedicating these funds to improve the Bureau of Land Management's permit processing efficiency.

What it actually does

This bill amends the Mineral Leasing Act to extend the period during which the Secretary of the Interior is required to collect a fee for each new application for a permit to drill (APD) from fiscal year 2026 to fiscal year 2037. It also mandates that all fees collected from fiscal years 2027 through 2037 be transferred to the BLM Permit Processing Improvement Fund, ensuring continued dedicated funding for improving the efficiency of permit processing.

Proponents argue

Supporters argue that extending the fee collection ensures the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has the necessary resources to efficiently process drilling permits, reducing backlogs and improving service for the oil and gas industry. This dedicated funding mechanism helps streamline operations, benefiting both the industry through faster approvals and the public through more effective resource management.

Opponents contend

Opponents may contend that extending these fees places an unnecessary financial burden on oil and gas companies, potentially discouraging domestic energy production and investment. They might argue that the costs should be absorbed by general appropriations or that the fees represent an additional tax on an essential industry.

This bill is exceptionally short and clear, making it very accessible for any reader to understand its provisions and implications quickly.

Section 2

Extension of BLM Oil and Gas Permit Processing Fee

prominently featuredstraightforward

This provision extends the requirement for the Secretary of the Interior to collect a fee for each new application for a permit to drill (APD) from its current expiration in fiscal year 2026 to fiscal year 2037. Additionally, it specifies that all fees collected under this subsection for fiscal years 2027 through 2037 must be transferred to the BLM Permit Processing Improvement Fund, ensuring that these funds continue to be used for their intended purpose of enhancing permit processing efficiency.

GroupImpactMechanismScale

GroupOil and Gas CompaniesImpactContinued financial burdenMechanismPayment of fees for drilling permit applicationsScaleDirectly impacts all companies seeking new drilling permits on federal lands

GroupBureau of Land Management (BLM)ImpactEnsured funding for operationsMechanismReceives dedicated funds for permit processing improvementsScaleSignificant for the agency's ability to manage permit backlogs and efficiency

GroupTaxpayersImpactIndirect benefit from efficiencyMechanismReduced reliance on general appropriations for permit processing, potentially more efficient federal land useScaleBroad, but indirect

Supporters argue

Supporters argue that extending this fee is crucial for maintaining and improving the efficiency of the BLM's permit processing system. By providing a dedicated funding stream, the agency can reduce permit backlogs, leading to faster approvals for energy projects and more predictable operations for the industry. This self-sustaining mechanism ensures that those who directly benefit from the permits contribute to the system's upkeep.

Critics contend

Critics may argue that extending these fees imposes an additional cost on an already regulated industry, potentially hindering domestic energy production and increasing operational expenses for companies. They might suggest that such administrative costs should be covered by general federal appropriations rather than specific industry fees, viewing it as an unnecessary barrier to energy development.

Tradeoffs

This provision navigates the tension between ensuring federal agencies have adequate resources to perform their functions efficiently and avoiding undue financial burdens on industries operating on federal lands. It aims to strike a balance where the beneficiaries of the service contribute to its improvement, potentially at the cost of increased operating expenses for those entities.

About this analysis. AI-Generated from the official bill text and available committee reports. Gaps in available data are noted explicitly. Verify important details with the official Congress.gov record.