The “One Big Beautiful Bill,” or rather, as many Democratic lawmakers have called it, the “One Big Betrayal of a Bill” has garnered significant outrage at many of its provisions. Unfortunately, a recent proposal on the BBB, or H.R. 1, to sell some 3 million acres of public land has been consistent with that precedent.
The original bill was introduced on May 16th of this year, but it has gone through significant revisions since then. Under the current version of the republican bill, around 3 million acres of public land would go up for sale across 11 states, including Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Conservationists and congressmen have been engaged in a heated debate about the provision for over a week, and with concerns about the legality of many proposals within the bill in accordance with the Senate ruling, how will the national monuments and protected land that so many citizens cherish fare?
The Draft Provision
The provision was introduced by Utah Republican Senator Mike Lee, who currently chairs the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The legislation targets federally owned land managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service. Republicans have stated that the goal of the provision is to cede federal lands to local control and create more space for industrial and housing developments, helping to ease the U.S. housing crisis in the long run. Sen. Lee has also stated that the bill would have numerous extraneous benefits, including the increase of domestic energy production and the creation of new revenue streams. In response to criticisms about the land being sold, Sen. Lee has also stated that they would only target “isolated parcels” that could be used for housing or infrastructure. Montana Republican Congressman Ryan Zinke led opposition on the House side, and as a result, Montana was removed from the proposal.
The Conservationist View
Though the bill is touted as an economically efficient solution by Republican congressmen and congresswomen, conservationists and environmentalists alike have brought up countless criticisms of the controversial provision. A study by the Wilderness Society has found that, in contrast to the conservative 3 million acres originally confirmed to go up for sale, the proposal could put over 250 million acres currently under the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service at risk. This is thanks to updated bill text that was leaked on June 14th, which also appears to allow the sale of lands with grazing permits, which had been exempted previously, and could seriously detriment local farmers. This new data makes it clear that this bill could lead to the mass privatization of wildlife habitats and outdoor recreation areas alike. Micheal Carrol with the Wilderness Society said, “Shoving the sale of public lands back into the budget reconciliation bill, all to fund tax cuts for the wealthy, is a betrayal of future generations and folks on both sides of the aisle.” Additionally, Colin Deverell, the associate director for the northwest region of the National Parks Conservation Association, said that “These lands would be put up to sale to the highest bidder with zero community input."
The Byrd Rule
The Byrd Rule Point of Order was passed with Section 313 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. It basically requires that reconciliation bills in the Senate remain focused on fiscal issues, subjecting non budgetary provisions to a point of order. It was meant to prevent extraneous provisions that don’t directly affect federal spending from sneaking their way into big bills such as this one. The Byrd Rule only applies in the Senate, and the House does not have any such rule. A Point of Order can be raised against any one or multiple provisions. Now, this specific provision most likely follows the Byrd Rule, due to its clear framing towards raising revenue, but there are many other provisions within the bill that may violate Byrd’s Rule. This includes the Executive reorganization plans, the bonuses for cost cutters, as well as the loss of civil service protections for new federal employees. Due to the variable legality around these other proposals, the “One Big Beautiful Bill” still has a ways to go before it can pass through the Senate. That time might be exactly what opposing congresspeople and conservationists need to reach the general public and prune this provision as well.
Whether public land will be sold, we have yet to see; but conservationists will never stop fighting from sea to shining sea.