A Republican bill with 3 Republican cosponsors · See all 3 cosponsors
Last activity — Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by the Yeas and Nays: 21 - 16.
Introduced, nothing more yet
Formally proposed, and not yet handed to a committee.
Nearly every bill is sent to a committee within days. Introduction alone is not a sign of support, of momentum, or of any likelihood of passing — any member may introduce any bill.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
What this bill would do
This bill, known as the "Bureau of Land Management Mineral Spacing Act," aims to amend the Mineral Leasing Act. The goal is to streamline the permitting process for oil and gas exploration and production. It specifically addresses activities conducted on non-Federal surface estate where the United States holds less than a 50 percent ownership interest in the subsurface mineral estate. Under this Act, certain activities would not require a Federal drilling permit if a State permit is submitted. Additionally, it clarifies that these specific actions would not be considered major Federal actions under certain environmental laws.
Yes· 3 of 11
- Scored +5
Would business owners be better off under this?
The bill significantly reduces regulatory costs and timelines for energy producers.
- Scored +4
Is this likely to create jobs?
Streamlining oil and gas production may facilitate increased energy sector employment.
- Scored +3
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?
Rural residents in energy-producing areas may benefit from increased economic activity.
The opposite· 3 of 11
- Scored -5
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The bill explicitly exempts activities from the Endangered Species Act and NEPA oversight.
- Scored -5
Does this reduce how much oil, gas and coal is produced?
The bill is intended to facilitate and expand rather than reduce fossil fuel production.
- Scored -5
Would Native Americans be better off under this?
The bill specifically excludes Indian lands from its streamlined benefits, maintaining a regulatory disparity.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Streamlined Oil and Gas Activities: Operators can begin production 30 days after submitting a State permit to the Secretary, provided the United States holds less than 50 percent of the subsurface mineral estate (Section 2, paragraph 1 and 2).
-
Reduction in Federal Requirements: Certain oil and gas activities would not be considered a major Federal action under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Section 2, paragraph 2A).
-
Elimination of Specific Federal Regulatory Hurdles: Activities conducted under these provisions would not be subject to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 or section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Section 2, paragraph 2D).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Exclusion of Indian Lands: The provisions regarding the streamlined permitting process and the removal of certain federal requirements do not apply to Indian lands, which include land within reservation boundaries or land held in trust (Section 2, paragraph 4 and 5).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Is this likely to lower the price at the pump? — Increasing the efficiency of oil and gas production can help lower domestic fuel costs. Does this invest in rural communities? — Increased energy activity can stimulate economies in rural areas where drilling occurs. Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The bill explicitly exempts activities from the Endangered Species Act and NEPA oversight. Does this reduce how much oil, gas and coal is produced? — The bill is intended to facilitate and expand rather than reduce fossil fuel production. Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change? — Streamlining oil and gas production may lead to higher fossil fuel consumption and emissions. Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — Reducing federal oversight may diminish the comprehensive management of public lands. Does this put more money into wind, solar and other renewable power? — Focusing on streamlining oil and gas may divert attention and resources from renewable energy.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would business owners be better off under this? — The bill significantly reduces regulatory costs and timelines for energy producers. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Rural residents in energy-producing areas may benefit from increased economic activity. Would union members be better off under this? — Increased production activity may create jobs in energy-producing regions. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Potential energy cost reductions may benefit middle-class consumers. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Energy cost reductions may provide slight relief to urban consumers. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — The bill specifically excludes Indian lands from its streamlined benefits, maintaining a regulatory disparity.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to create jobs? — Streamlining oil and gas production may facilitate increased energy sector employment. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Reducing regulatory hurdles for energy production can stimulate economic activity in the sector. Is this likely to slow the rise in prices? — Increased domestic energy production can exert slight downward pressure on energy prices. Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — Reducing environmental and historic preservation oversight may decrease protections for the public.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this leave more decisions to the states? — The bill allows state permits to substitute for certain federal drilling permits. Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — Limiting environmental reviews may reduce the opportunity for public comment and due process. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Reducing the need for NEPA documentation may decrease the transparency of environmental impacts. Does this give the federal government more power? — While it reduces many requirements, it still requires submission of permits to the Secretary.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — By excluding Indian lands from these streamlined provisions, it maintains a disparity in regulatory treatment.
- 9/15/2026
- Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources Discharged
- Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by the Yeas and Nays: 21 - 16.
- 3/25/2026
- Subcommittee Hearings Held
- 3/18/2026
- Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.
- 11/19/2025
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 9/11/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 2/25/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
- Introduced in House
Charles FleischmannRepublican · Tennessee
Julie FedorchakRepublican · North Dakota
Craig GoldmanRepublican · Texas