Referred to the Subcommittee on Forestry and Horticulture.
The bill requires that each fiscal year 10 percent of amounts collected by the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture from revenue generated by covered public lands in the prior fiscal year be deposited into the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Trust Fund (Social Security). Covered public lands include lands under DOI jurisdiction (including Outer Continental Shelf submerged lands) and Forest Service lands.
Liberals worry about conservation and land-management funding impacts.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly establishes a single, concrete fiscal rule (deposit 10% of certain public‑land revenues into the Social Security Trust Fund) and provides minimal limiting language and definitions.
The bill requires that each fiscal year 10 percent of amounts collected by the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture from revenue generated by covered public lands in the prior fiscal year be deposited into the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Trust Fund (Social Security).
Covered public lands include lands under DOI jurisdiction (including Outer Continental Shelf submerged lands) and Forest Service lands.
The bill bars the Interior or Agriculture Secretaries from raising prices to generate that revenue and prohibits reducing amounts made available to States, Indian Tribes, territories, or local governments from covered public lands.
Narrow and administrable but politically charged funding change; lacks offsets, CBO estimate, and may face ideological resistance.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly establishes a single, concrete fiscal rule (deposit 10% of certain public‑land revenues into the Social Security Trust Fund) and provides minimal limiting language and definitions. It omits several implementation, budgetary, and oversight details that would commonly be expected for a substantive change that alters the disposition of federal revenues.
Liberals worry about conservation and land-management funding impacts.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals worry about conservation and land-management funding impacts.
Likely supportive of strengthening Social Security funding in principle, but cautious about diverting public-lands revenue from conservation and land management.
Concerned that agency budgets or conservation programs could indirectly lose funding despite the stated protections for state or tribal shares.
Would seek guarantees that land stewardship and environmental programs are not weakened.
Pragmatic view: appreciates a non-payroll revenue stream to shore up Social Security but worries about budget mechanics and unintended consequences.
Wants clarity on how this interacts with existing revenue-sharing, agency offsetting receipts, and federal budgeting.
Likely to support if scoring shows net benefit without program cuts.
Likely views the bill favorably as a way to strengthen Social Security without higher payroll taxes.
Some conservatives may object to any earmarking of federal receipts, but many will see repurposing public-lands revenue as reasonable.
Concerns could arise about expanded federal accounting or constraints on state/local revenue sharing despite protections.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow and administrable but politically charged funding change; lacks offsets, CBO estimate, and may face ideological resistance.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals worry about conservation and land-management funding impacts.
Narrow and administrable but politically charged funding change; lacks offsets, CBO estimate, and may face ideological resistance.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly establishes a single, concrete fiscal rule (deposit 10% of certain public‑land revenues into the Social Security Trust Fund) and provides minimal limiting lan…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.