Newest US Senate Land Sale Amendment

[Gerald Martin]

Mike Lee’s intelligence isn’t linked to the viability of his plan to accomplish what he says it will do. He couldn’t care less that it won’t accomplish that. His intelligence is linked to his gamble that he can count on apathy and ignorance of enough of the American public to swallow his catchphrases, allow him to demonize opponents of his proposal, and hide the consequences of what his bill will do long enough to pay his political debts and have us forget how mad we are by the next election cycle.

I hope his gamble proves that he’s has passed the tipping point of where his personal ideology and cutthroat approach to politics has alienated enough of his colleagues along the way that they respond to the will of their constituents rather than their peers who may be sympathetic to Lee’s agenda.

The ultimate FAFO would be if western Republican Senators ally with Democrats to torpedo the entire BBB if Lee doesn’t pull it.

 

[SAJ-99]

The ultimate FAFO would be if western Republican Senators ally with Democrats to torpedo the entire BBB if Lee doesn’t pull it.

The only R Senate seat being defended in 2026 in state won by Harris is Susan Collins. Tillis (NC) is in a battleground, but that is going to be with a D, so he can still hold to his No on the medicaid cuts. The only risk for a R in not voting for this BBB/POS is you get primary'ed by someone more batshit crazy than you are. I think Lee is safe and he doesn't have to worry until 2028. Also, a 'No' basically kills any near-term career moves for those aspiring to move up. Looks like Hawley found a way to Yes. Shocking

 

[antlerradar]

I have been thinking about it all morning and I think I figured out what a hunting amenity is. I bet they plan to build Dairy Queen’s at strategic locations on our public lands, if so count me in!

Dibs on first rights to the franchise on the Custer.

 

[Big Fin]

I just got confirmation from attorneys that his new definition of "BLM lands" would also include subsurface rights. Thus, we're talking about applying this to over 700 million acres, much of which is mineral/oil/gas subsurface rights his pals have been wanting to get their hands on forever. He did this by making reference to a section of FLPMA, Federal Land Policy Management Act. I'm sure he will blush that one over with some line of BS.

He specifically did not say "surface" and has made it wide enough and vague enough to include a lot more than surface rights. His state of Utah has wanted subsurface assets forever.

And he refuses to restrict who can buy these lands and refuses any deed restrictions that they can only be used for “affordable housing.”

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

 

[shoots-straight]

Do any PACs support both parties? It would be great to be supporting public lands candidates in BOTH primaries IMO, would seemingly make this a non-partisan issue?

We're mainly a state of Montana PAC, but we formed because of this type of continual attacking that came from the Legislature 14 years ago. Some or most of us are on HT.

About — Montana Sportsmen Alliance

www.montanasportsmen.com

https://www.montanasportsmenalliance.com/ is our old page that hasn't been updated but has more info on what we have done.

 

[FairWeather]

Just saw this in the NYT

“Senator Tim Sheehy, Republican of Montana, just announced that he will not vote in favor of opening debate on the bill — a key procedural vote to begin consideration of the legislation — unless party leaders take out a provision paving the way for the sale of public federal lands. That could pose a problem for Senate G.O.P. leaders, who can only lose three Republican votes if all Democrats are present and voting. Senator Thom Tillis, Republican of North Carolina, has also said he will vote against taking up the bill.”

 

[Forkyfinder]

Just saw this in the NYT

“Senator Tim Sheehy, Republican of Montana, just announced that he will not vote in favor of opening debate on the bill — a key procedural vote to begin consideration of the legislation — unless party leaders take out a provision paving the way for the sale of public federal lands. That could pose a problem for Senate G.O.P. leaders, who can only lose three Republican votes if all Democrats are present and voting. Senator Thom Tillis, Republican of North Carolina, has also said he will vote against taking up the bill.”

https://twitter.com/x/status/1939037092874473488

 

[Forkyfinder]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1939037092874473488

https://twitter.com/x/status/1939047707106038251

Also...

 

[idahohuntr]

I like the idea of forcing a vote via amendment on floor to strip public land sales...Im confident it will get stripped and I hope the vote is 99-1. Either way it will force all Senators to go on record so we know who might support Lee in the future.

 

[JLDemo]

Very disheartening when your representatives flat out don't care, I can call and write every day and have zero faith they'll listen.

Very thankful other representation has stood their ground with us.

 

[jwatts]

Very disheartening when you're representatives flat out don't care, I can call and write every day and have zero faith they'll listen.

Very thankful other representation has stood their ground with us.

I feel you there. I get canned responses from one, radio silence from others.

 

[Pucky Freak]

Mike Lee’s intelligence isn’t linked to the viability of his plan to accomplish what he says it will do. He couldn’t care less that it won’t accomplish that. His intelligence is linked to his gamble that he can count on apathy and ignorance of enough of the American public to swallow his catchphrases, allow him to demonize opponents of his proposal, and hide the consequences of what his bill will do long enough to pay his political debts and have us forget how mad we are by the next election cycle.

I hope his gamble proves that he’s has passed the tipping point of where his personal ideology and cutthroat approach to politics has alienated enough of his colleagues along the way that they respond to the will of their constituents rather than their peers who may be sympathetic to Lee’s agenda.

The ultimate FAFO would be if western Republican Senators ally with Democrats to torpedo the entire BBB if Lee doesn’t pull it.

My guess is that Lee is sure that his amendment will be stripped at this point. His current language is probably a reference point for future battles. He’ll say “look: you voted against affordable housing.”

 

[Matthew57]

 

[Big Fin]

Parliamentarian just approved the most recent language that Lee submitted. Him changing it to "Highest value lands" seems to have moved it to a revenue raiser allowed in the bill.

Yet, he told us it was the junk lands he intended to sell.

 

[Big Fin]

This bill is going to be voted on in the next 36 hours. We will see if we have allies, or not.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Parliamentarian just approved the most recent language that Lee submitted. Him changing it to "Highest value lands" seems to have moved it to a revenue raiser allowed in the bill.

Yet, he told us it was the junk lands he intended to sell.

Doing us all a favor as long as the fail safe of the house holds up.

We can all find out exactly who we should be speaking out against next election cycle.

 

[BuckeyeRifleman]

Parliamentarian just approved the most recent language that Lee submitted. Him changing it to "Highest value lands" seems to have moved it to a revenue raiser allowed in the bill.

Yet, he told us it was the junk lands he intended to sell.

“Most valuable” also means the land most important in maintaining current access.

 

[mtmiller]

I just got confirmation from attorneys that his new definition of "BLM lands" would also include subsurface rights. Thus, we're talking about applying this to over 700 million acres, much of which is mineral/oil/gas subsurface rights his pals have been wanting to get their hands on forever. He did this by making reference to a section of FLPMA, Federal Land Policy Management Act. I'm sure he will blush that one over with some line of BS.

He specifically did not say "surface" and has made it wide enough and vague enough to include a lot more than surface rights. His state of Utah has wanted subsurface assets

I have always been curious about the mineral estate on the amendment. What a joke. Step up MT senators.

 

[Big Fin]

The texts I am getting about who is/isn't in favor of many different possible procedures to kill this is mind boggling. I thought I understood the processes, the protocols, and how stuff gets moved along, but today has me wondering if I even passed 9th grade civics.

I hope I'm wrong, but I don't have a good feeling about how Thune is going to let this play out in the Senate. If it has to go a certain way under some of the obscure Senate rules Lee is asking Thune to invoke, the MT/ID Senators are not going to have the votes to strike it.

If you are like me and always hedging your position, you might want to make sure you've been calling your House Reps.

 

[Dougfirtree]

Fingers crossed. One thing that feels certain to me is that this land sell-off is not an integral part of the bill. It can be removed without damaging the main thrust of what the administration is trying to do. That means that it is highly removable. If they don't, it's because they want it in... They know darn well how unpopular this particular element of the bill is.