Newest US Senate Land Sale Amendment

[Aperventure]

Been on calls all morning.

Most of what I am hearing is that Mike Lee cooked this up mostly by himself. He is a very difficult guy according to everyone who has to work with him. Most are surmising that he hopes to put the Montana delegation in a box by exempting Montana.

Some are saying Lee's actions will not survive some of the parliamentary rules in the Senate. And that some of his stuff might not survive the "Byrd Rule" due it being so far outside the norm of what is usually included in a budget bill.

If anyone is from Utah, I hope they are hammering Lee on this. This is all of his making. Nobody in either party on the Senate Energy and Natural Resource Committee asked for any of this.

I was out enjoying public lands camping with family since Thursday but will get on my senator Lee (uh, shiver) tomorrow about this and his recent terrible comments on the murder of a Minnesota state senator.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

I saw where Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation came out in opposition.

Which is kind of odd because according to the “pro-wildlife” orgs in Colorado that dictate wildlife policy and commission appointments through our esteemed Governor’s office, CSF is a right wing extremist group. I’ll be looking for them on the next Southern Poverty Law Center publication. Eye roll.

Keep them phones ringin’ folks.

 

[Big Fin]

Here's my current assessment, after the first day of meetings, all meetings on the House side and with lobbyists who focus on public land issues:

1. Lee has the votes to keep Daines from passing a floor amendment on the Senate that would drop the land sale provision. There will be no Committee votes. The markup made by each Committee Chair is what will be in the Senate version that gets a full floor vote. They aim to have that done in the next week (optimistic).

2. Our issues of public lands are so far down the list here in Congress that finding people who actually care about public lands, on both sides, is like finding a 400" bull elk in a general unit - a few exist, but you have to work your ass off to locate them. And even when you find one, getting them to vote on public lands as a priority issue is the challenge.

3. The Lee provision has a better than 50% chance of getting included in the final Senate bill that goes back to the House.

4. When the Big Beautiful Bill goes back to the House, the Lee provision can be stripped out by the House, if enough votes can be found. I think there are three reliable R votes in the House. To strip it, it would take four R votes and every single Democrat that is currently alive (3 Dems have died). A few of us are searching for a couple more R votes.

The Public Lands Caucus in the House has some who have publicly stated their support for public lands. Here is the list. If any of them are your Rep, please contact them and have as many of your local hunting friends contact them. Link - https://www.hunttalk.com/threads/public-land-caucus-to-the-rescue.329101/

5. When this leaves the Senate, it will be a quick turnaround in the House. The President wants his BBB by July 4th. Seems leadership is both chambers are intent on meeting that, regardless of the carnage along the way. No time to waste.

More meetings today, on the Senate side. I hope when I'm done with those meetings I can change/improve my probability stated in #3 above.

I'll report back this evening.

 

[Wild Bill]

Thanks for the update and the hard work, Randy.

 

[baz77]

Thanks for all your doing Randy.

 

[longbow51]

I was compelled to email my elected officials when this was in the house. After seeing the recent headlines, and watching Randy's passionate call to action, I sent personalized emails to everyone senator on committee.

Realizing it's likely a canned response, Daines is the only one to write back with anything substantive.

It seems like he takes a pretty firm position. Can this be interpreted to mean that he will oppose this provision, or am I missing the political weaselness?

I got the same letter; the key phrase is "Montana lands", which are not up for sale. So, he's telling the truth, he doesn't want Montana lands sold, but didn't answer the substantive question about Lee's amendment. Maybe Randy knows more about his position.

 

[Big Sky Guy]

Here's my current assessment, after the first day of meetings, all meetings on the House side and with lobbyists who focus on public land issues:

1. Lee has the votes to keep Daines from passing a floor amendment on the Senate that would drop the land sale provision. There will be no Committee votes. The markup made by each Committee Chair is what will be in the Senate version that gets a full floor vote. They aim to have that done in the next week (optimistic).

2. Our issues of public lands are so far down the list here in Congress that finding people who actually care about public lands, on both sides, is like finding a 400" bull elk in a general unit - a few exist, but you have to work your ass off to locate them. And even when you find one, getting them to vote on public lands as a priority issue is the challenge.

3. The Lee provision has a better than 50% chance of getting included in the final Senate bill that goes back to the House.

4. When the Big Beautiful Bill goes back to the House, the Lee provision can be stripped out by the House, if enough votes can be found. I think there are three reliable R votes in the House. To strip it, it would take four R votes and every single Democrat that is currently alive (3 Dems have died). A few of us are searching for a couple more R votes.

The Public Lands Caucus in the House has some who have publicly stated their support for public lands. Here is the list. If any of them are your Rep, please contact them and have as many of your local hunting friends contact them. Link - https://www.hunttalk.com/threads/public-land-caucus-to-the-rescue.329101/

5. When this leaves the Senate, it will be a quick turnaround in the House. The President wants his BBB by July 4th. Seems leadership is both chambers are intent on meeting that, regardless of the carnage along the way. No time to waste.

More meetings today, on the Senate side. I hope when I'm done with those meetings I can change/improve my probability stated in #3 above.

I'll report back this evening.

Do you have a gauge for public support of Lee’s provision? I would guess it’s at/near/above 50% and well above that threshold if you count the folks that don’t care one way or another and I presume this is likely why finding politicians to vote on public lands as a priority issue is so difficult - their constituents won’t see them as voting for public lands they will be seen as voting against the BBB and DJT/MAGA?

Thanks for all you’re doing and all the more reason to be squeaky wheels to hopefully give politicians pause that majority of contents oppose this!

 

[Big Fin]

This map is the reality of what we have to work with. There are four states, of the eleven states where Lee wants to sell public lands, from which there is possible opposition from Republican senators. Those would be AK, ID, UT, or WY.

AK - Sullivan thinks it’s a great idea to sell public lands. Murkowski is focused on the Medicare/Medicaid cuts due to many in her state dependent upon those programs. She’s not going to prioritize public lands over her interest in protecting those programs.

ID - Radio silence from Crapo and Risch.

UT - (laugh out loud)

WY - Lee has offered them anything they want, and so far they’ve got all they want.

MT - Daines and Sheehy are opposed, even though MT is exempt from any land sales.

If you look at the Senate map, where else do you find any R votes to kill Lee’s proposal? None of the Midwest or Southeast states are going to advocate for public lands and suffer the wrath of the more senior anti-public land Senators.

A tough hill to climb in the Senate when Wyoming Senators have cut a deal, Idaho Senators place little interest in public lands, and Alaska Senators are begrudged by the fact that the US government has yet to give Alaska the totality of State Trust Lands promised at statehood in 1959. The Dakota Senators are in Lee’s side.

So this is our reality. Mike Lee has waited for this moment his entire Senate career.

Can we flip any ID/WY senators? Can we find four Rs in the House to kill it there? I think we have three.

If any of you vote in those states mentioned above, get on the phone.

 

[Treeshark]

MT - Daines and Sheehy are opposed, even though MT is exempt from any land sales.

How secure do you think their opposition votes are? These are the two that are the most worrisome at to me.

 

[Southern Elk]

@Big Fin There are 7 republicans on the public land caucus in the house. Are they all not willing to help strip this provision? If not, who’s on the fence? Should we be reaching out to them?

 

[KayakMacGyver]

A true Politician's response from Risch. Says alot, without saying much at all.

 

[Big Fin]

How secure do you think their opposition votes are? These are the two that are the most worrisome at to me.

They are 100% in opposition to Lee’s provision. I don’t see them wavering if an Amendment is proposed in the Senate to strip Lee’s land sale provisions. I believe if Daines can find the votes, he will submit such Amendment on the Senate floor when the Senate budget bill comes forth.

 

[Big Fin]

@Big Fin There are 7 republicans on the public land caucus in the house. Are they all not willing to help strip this provision? If not, who’s on the fence? Should we be reaching out to them?

They are all getting hammered to not kill the BBB. I know three of them are willing to fight for removing that provision if it gets to the House. The unknown is whether or not the others are willing to do so.

For all of them, the cards are being stacked to try make it hard for anyone to make public lands the hill they will die on. Our issue has very little priority compared to other issues that could derail this bill.

If any of those seven House members are your Representative, please contact them and get as many of your hunting friends to contact them.

 

[SAJ-99]

Can we flip any ID/WY senators? Can we find four Rs in the House to kill it there? I think we have three.

People should send messages to those Reps even if they aren't their own.
Those in the East should try to get a higher SALT. Deficit hawks should grow a pair and be deficit hawks. There are multiple ways to throw a wrench into this POS.

 

[eshunt]

This map is the reality of what we have to work with. There are four states, of the eleven states where Lee wants to sell public lands, from which there is possible opposition from Republican senators. Those would be AK, ID, UT, or WY.

AK - Sullivan thinks it’s a great idea to sell public lands. Murkowski is focused on the Medicare/Medicaid cuts due to many in her state dependent upon those programs. She’s not going to prioritize public lands over her interest in protecting those programs.

ID - Radio silence from Crapo and Risch.

UT - (laugh out loud)

WY - Lee has offered them anything they want, and so far they’ve got all they want.

MT - Daines and Sheehy are opposed, even though MT is exempt from any land sales.

If you look at the Senate map, where else do you find any R votes to kill Lee’s proposal? None of the Midwest or Southeast states are going to advocate for public lands and suffer the wrath of the more senior anti-public land Senators.

A tough hill to climb in the Senate when Wyoming Senators have cut a deal, Idaho Senators place little interest in public lands, and Alaska Senators are begrudged by the fact that the US government has yet to give Alaska the totality of State Trust Lands promised at statehood in 1959. The Dakota Senators are in Lee’s side.

So this is our reality. Mike Lee has waited for this moment his entire Senate career.

Can we flip any ID/WY senators? Can we find four Rs in the House to kill it there? I think we have three.

If any of you vote in those states mentioned above, get on the phone.

View attachment 375167

Randy - Thank you for all your hard work on this issue!

My understanding is that its not just a red vs blue thing entirely though.

I know that here in NV one of my senators, Cortez-Masto was all for the house bill that Amodei had intially put in the House version. She wants more land around Vegas in Clark County for development. Do you have an idea where she stands on this version in the Senate bill? I have written/emailed and have not even received a canned response from her office regarding this version. It was before Lee had actually put it in writing what he wanted, so maybe that is why I didn't get a response. I will send more emails today and follow up with a phone call as well. And if it goes back to the House, Amodei is definitely going to keep it in there. There is no amount of pressure we can put on him to not pass it even though I will once again write him about my opposition to it.

And as far as Nevada is concerned, I have been reading some information that the lands they want sold off have more to do with water rights than housing. As someone who has worked in the municipal water industry, I totally get the "whisky is for drinking, water is for fighting over" mentality.

 

[seeth07]

is there any talk about amending language or adding verbiage to make the provision more acceptable if its likely to not be removed? I.e., talk about any sort of compromise?

 

[longbow51]

To echo, thanks Randy for your work on this. I'll call Downey's office.

 

[Nameless Range]

Thanks Randy, I'll keep calling and writing.

 

[Forkyfinder]

https://www.reddit.com/r/NFA/comments/1ld6fr8/goa_is_reporting_thatt_the_senate_committee

Pro 2A reddit thread isnt even happy about public land sales - despite the deregulation of suppressors and short barreled rifles/shotgunz

 

[SAJ-99]

She wants more land around Vegas in Clark County for development

For those in favor, ask for definitive constraints be placed in the bill. It is vaguely written as is.