Public land sales provision would violate Senate rule, but its backer pledges to try again

A proposal that would mandate the sale of millions of acres of federal land in the West was found to violate Senate rules, a procedural decision that public land advocates are hoping will sink the effort for good.

But the Utah Republican who’s been pushing the measure says he’ll try to rewrite it.

The Senate Parliamentarian found that Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee’s proposal to mandate the sale of between 2 million and 3 million acres of U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management land would violate a rule that limits the scope of budget reconciliation bills, according to a news release from Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee.

If the language were to remain in the bill, the entire package would need 60 votes to advance.

Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley, the top Democrat on the budget committee, said in a statement that his party will make sure the bill follows the rule, which is meant to keep budget bills focused on fiscal issues

“Democrats will not stand idly by while Republicans attempt to circumvent the rules of reconciliation in order to sell off public lands to fund tax breaks for billionaires,” Merkley said.

The provision was one of several that the parliamentarian found in violation of what’s known as the Byrd Rule, named for former Sen. Robert Byrd. It’s meant to ensure budget bills focus on fiscal measures and aren’t used to advance policy priorities.

The Monday night decision from the parliamentarian followed several days of sustained and loud opposition against public land sales from Democrats and conservation groups. Lee’s original proposal would have required the BLM and Forest Service to sell up to .75% of their holdings across 11 Western states, including Idaho and Washington.

The language said the land sold should be used for housing or “to address associated community needs.” But conservation and sporting organizations began blasting the proposal as soon as it was released, arguing that the large-scale sale of public lands would be an attack on the places where Americans camp, hunt, hike and fish.

An analysis from the Wilderness Society found that it would make more than 250 million acres eligible to be sold, including 5.3 million acres in Washington and 21.6 million acres in Idaho.

By this past weekend, it seemed the opposition was having an impact. Idaho Republican Sens. Jim Risch and Mike Crapo announced their opposition to Lee’s proposal, as did Montana Republican Sen. Steve Daines, according to the Lewiston Tribune.

On Monday, Lee said in a post on X that he planned to make changes to the provision, including removing all Forest Service property and limiting the eligible BLM acreage to land that’s within 5 miles of a population center.

He acknowledged that the Byrd Rule limits what can go into the bill, but said he’s “doing everything I can to support President Trump and move this forward.”

In other words, the battle is far from over on this provision of the “big, beautiful bill,” which Republicans are trying to pass by July 4.

And Lee’s opponents haven’t been swayed by his pledge to scale back.

Washington Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell said during a virtual news conference Tuesday that she appreciates that Lee recognized he needed to “backpedal,” but that she doesn’t trust him or the process he’s using to advance the public land sell-off provision.

“We will be here to the very last minute making sure that they do not succeed in putting this into a bill,” Cantwell said.

She added that even if sales were limited to BLM properties close to population centers, it still could mean land along the Columbia River or in the Methow Valley could become eligible for sale.

“We do have a housing crisis, but selling public land will not result in more housing,” Cantwell said.

Kaden McArthur, policy director for Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, also spoke during the media call. He said selling federal land that’s closer to population centers would end up putting more pressure on remote areas.

“Those landscapes as they go away will further crowd backcountry landscapes,” McArthur said.

He also said the lands are valuable for wildlife such as deer and elk.

Brad Smith, conservation director for the Idaho Conservation League, said in an interview that even the adjusted proposal so far leaves open questions like what qualifies as a population center. Overall, though, he said there’s no version of such a measure that makes sense.

“Whether it’s public lands within 5 miles of population centers, it just remains a bad idea,” Smith said. “These are places we would never get back. They’re important to somebody, and Americans cherish their public lands.”

Mitch Friedman, executive director of the Washington-based group Conservation Northwest, said the news that the parliamentarian had ruled out Lee’s original proposal should be met with “relief and vigilance.”

He also said it’s unclear whether Lee can tweak the provision enough to get past this part of the process, which congressional observers refer to as the “Byrd bath.”

“Hopefully, this thing at its core fails the Byrd bath,” Friedman said.