She's put herself on an island. Now that she's looking to run for Governor, she's trying to find a way to rationalize hooking her train to Mike Lee. Might pay off for her, but I hope Wyoming hunters make her own this decision when the Governor's race comes up next year.
So glad to see 3 out of 4 from Idaho are standing in opposition to this terrible idea. Fulcher voted for it in the House before, so I expect him to change.Crapo joins Risch in opposition!
UPDATE AT 5:10 P.M.: Crapo joining Risch in opposition to sell-off of ...
Proposal to sell federal land is provision in 'Big Beautiful Bill' that U.S. Senate is consideringwww.dnews.com
She was in town this week; after she got lambasted in Laramie two months ago she has only gone to taking questions from the audience that are pre-submitted on queue cards. One of the first cards she pulled regarded the public land sales of this provision. She made some lame explanation on how this is blown out of proportion and that she agrees with public land sales as they are necessary and this bill provides for that. She pulled another 10 cards that night on the same issue and refused to answer the public's concern as she had "Already addressed this issue." Some of the staunchest republicans (also avid elk hunters and public land users) in the county were present that night and they took notice.
That is a big IF. Lots of room for deflection and for him to act as if he is painted into a corner.
Sometimes I see Randy doing this kind of work and it motivates me to support his platforms.
People should also be taking stock in the ones that are being quiet. A lot of people have a fairly large platform could be helping and they aren’t
Yep. When I got em on the phone today, his aide was very clear and direct, he opposes this public land sale.
Agreed .
Ya, some of those “influencers” are really something. I recently helped with a banquet for an organization that a local “influencer” directly benefits financially from (significantly I might add). Couldn’t get him to respond to 2 online submissions on his website, or 2 Instagram DM’s just looking for a shoutout to promote the event. I’m looking forward to running into him in person.
|
I do enjoy the memes and bs and what not but really I’m only here to know what going on
Time for her to go down the road.
<
Congress is currently in the budget reconciliation process, which allows for expedited consideration of certain tax, spending, and debt limit legislation. The House recently passed its version of the bill, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), which now awaits Senate consideration. Those Senate committees that received reconciliation instructions pursuant to H.Con.Res.14 have begun releasing legislative text for reconciliation consideration, but I want to note that such materials are not the final bill. These committee proposals must still be reviewed by the Senate parliamentarian for compliance with the Byrd rule and then pass the entire Senate to officially become part of the reconciliation bill. Such bill will then come back to the House for consideration in relation to what we passed earlier.
On June 11, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee released legislative text to be considered as part of Senate Republicans’ budget reconciliation bill. As you have noted, Subtitle C of the bill instructs the Director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Chief of the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to identify not less than 0.50 percent and not more than 0.75 percent of the lands managed by these agencies for disposal pursuant to the specific conditions set forth in the statutory instructions. This would amount to between two and three million acres of the roughly 640 million acres owned by the federal government, with such lands to be made available solely for the purpose of housing and community development.
There is an extensive amount of downright flagrantly incorrect information being circulated as to the intent of this proposal, what lands would qualify for disposal should this become law, and how the process would proceed. Most notably, the Wilderness Society has produced a map for the purpose of ginning up opposition, despite the fact that such map has nothing to do with Subtitle C in any way whatsoever. It is thus necessary to clarify the situation, starting with the readily confirmable observation that there are no specific parcels or areas designated under the bill, and the details of the bill itself show that this is a commonsense proposal to identify and dispose of those BLM and USFS lands that are hindering local communities from meeting their housing and infrastructure needs, an issue with which Wyoming is all too familiar.
First, the bill does not propose selling off all federal lands. As I mentioned, it would only make available two to three million acres within the jurisdiction of the BLM and USFS in eleven states, including Wyoming. All such lands that are subject to valid existing rights (including grazing permits, ski areas, etc.), and those that are not located in the eleven eligible states are not subject to the bill. Those “Federally Protected Lands” (for example, National Parks, National Monuments, the National Wilderness Preservation System, the National Wildlife Refuge System, and more as defined in the bill) are not eligible for sale. All the lands sold pursuant to this proposal must be used “for the development of housing or to address associated community needs,” limiting not only the number of buyers, but likely making state and local governments the primary advocates and purchasers.
Second, this legislation does not directly offer any parcels for sale but instead provides for a robust public identification and nomination process to evaluate those unused lands that are close to existing infrastructure (such as surrounding Kemmerer, Wyoming), that are ideal for addressing the affordable housing crisis.
Both the BLM and USFS must consult with the governor, local governments, and Indian tribes regarding the suitability of the particular parcel of land for disposal before the proposed sale. Both agencies must also give priority to those lands that are nominated by state and local governments, are adjacent to existing developed areas, have access to existing infrastructure, are suitable for residential housing, reduce checkerboard land patterns, or which are isolated and inefficient to manage. All sales are to be held at fair market value, must provide state and local governments the first right of refusal, limit individual persons in how many acres they can acquire, and share revenue of the sales with the local government to assist with housing development.
This legislative proposal is now pending in the Senate and is thus not something I am currently being asked to vote on as your representative. This proposal was not included in the OBBBA that I voted for and which passed the House. However, I want to reiterate that much of the maps and information circulating about the bill are incorrect and that the proposal as drafted is a much more targeted approach to answer the needs of our local communities, who are hampered from further development due to the oversized footprint of the federal government in our states.
I encourage you to read the bill itself to understand what it does, and as importantly, what it does not do, when considering the benefits of this legislation. Thank you for reaching out to us.
Sincerely,
Rep. Harriet Hageman
Member of Congress
the response i got from hageman
