SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, Calif. – Sen. Mike Lee’s (R-UT) provision to mandate the sale of millions of acres of public lands has reportedly been stripped from the Senate budget reconciliation package on procedural grounds by the Senate parliamentarian. Several protests have occurred at Lake Tahoe since the bill was introduced, including one on the beach this weekend. If passed, the sale of U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands in 11 western states, including large portions of Lake Tahoe.
The Wilderness Society was leading the charge on public awareness and calls for action against the bill.
“This is a victory for the American public, who were loud and clear: Public lands belong in public hands, for current and future generations alike. We trust the next politician who wants to sell off public lands will remember that people of all stripes will stand against that idea. Our public lands are not for sale,” said Tracy Stone-Manning, president of The Wilderness Society.
Sen. Lee announced on X that he would remove all Forest Service land from the bill and significantly reduce the amount of BLM land in the bill. He said only land within five miles of population centers would be eligible so that the land could be used for housing. He also promised protection for farmers, ranchers, and recreational users.
The Senate Parliamentarian said the Byrd Rule limits what can go in the president’s budget bill, one he nicknamed “one big, beautiful bill.” The Byrd Rule is a Senate rule that applies to budget reconciliation bills and prevents the inclusion of extraneous matter, meaning provisions that are not directly related to the budget, in these bills. The rule is designed to ensure reconciliation bills focus on fiscal issues and not unrelated policy changes.
From the Senate Budget Committee:
Provisions Subject to a 60-Vote Byrd Rule Point of Order in the Energy and Natural Resources Section:
NEPA compliance. These provisions deem offshore oil and gas projects as automatically compliant with the National Environmental Policy Act, nullifying these projects’ environmental review processes. (Subsection 102(b)(4) and Subsection 102(b)(5))
Offshore oil and gas leasing. This subsection requires leases to be issued to successful bidders within 90 days after the lease sale. (Subsection 102(b)(6))
Ambler Road. This section requires the Secretary of the Interior to permit construction of Ambler Road, a controversial mining road in Alaska. (Section 201)
Mandatory public land sales. This section mandates the unprecedented sale of millions of acres of public land, including from both Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service lands. (Section 301)
Renewable energy fees. This subsection removes the Secretary of the Interior’s discretion to reduce fees for solar and wind projects on Bureau of Land Management land. (Subsection 303(e))
Geothermal leasing and royalties. These sections require the Secretary of the Interior to hold yearly geothermal lease sales and purport to change how geothermal royalties are calculated. (Section 305 and Section 306)
Natural gas exports and imports. This section creates a pay-to-play regime for natural gas exports, allowing natural gas exporters to pay a fee to have their project be deemed “in the public interest,” which is a requirement for approval. (Section 401)
Still Under Review
Offshore oil and gas leasing. This section would require that 90 percent of the revenue from lease sales in the Cook Inlet go to the state of Alaska, starting in 2035, the year after the ten-year budget window. (Section 102(b)(2))
National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. This section would require oil and gas lease sales in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. (Section 105)
Coal leasing. This section would require the Secretary of the Interior to approve new coal lease applications and any additional approvals needed to mine previously issued coal leases within 90 days of receipt. (Section 202)
The Parliamentarian’s advice is based on whether a provision is appropriate for reconciliation and conforms to the limitations of the Byrd Rule; it is not a judgment on the relative merits of a particular policy (see statement here).
