Senate vote public lands sale

[ODB]

This is pretty important for people to start getting okay with again - Reagan and earlier, legislative accomplishments were made by building what were called Floating Coalitions. There was no 100%ism. In Congress, someone who "only" agrees with you 85% of the time isn't an enemy - they're one of your closest allies.

Lee's pulling some scummy stuff with the dirty way he's trying to get this land sale through, which speaks more to his character, but he might be extremely important for Utah to keep if they want him as Chairman of the Natural Resources Committee and voting 90% or 95% of the time in ways that help Utah and its people.

This is the way.. good post.

I would rather give a beat down to someone like Lee on one issue than try to convince someone else on half a dozen.

Everyone likes to talk nuance until they have to exercise it.

 

[wjj605]

Emails sent to both of South Dakota’s senators and lone representative. No response two days later.

 

[huntineveryday]

I got a reply from Nebraska's Senator Fischer this morning after multiple messages and calls. Keep up the pressure, Lee will undoubtedly try and get something on there at the last minute. This was the response:

Thank you for contacting me about public lands. I appreciate receiving your comments.

Congress has long recognized the need to protect the nation's natural, historical, and cultural areas while providing opportunities for recreation and utilization of renewable natural resources. As you may know, the federal government oversees about 640 million acres of surface land, which amounts to approximately 28 percent of the total land in the United States. These lands include national forests, fish and wildlife reserves, land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, and our national parks.

On May 7, 2025, the House Natural Resources Committee passed its directives for the Budget Reconciliation process, which includes $18.5 billion in savings. The legislation included U.S. Rep. Mark Amodei's (R-NV-02) amendment to sell certain public lands in Lyon County, Clark County, and Washoe County in Nevada, and in Beaver County, the City of St. George, and Washington County in Utah.

On May 22, 2025, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the House's budget reconciliation package, by a vote of 215-214. The House-passed version of H.R. 1 did not include a provision to sell certain public lands, which had been previously included at the committee level.

On June 11, 2025, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee released its draft bill text for the Budget Reconciliation process. It includes a proposal to sell 0.25-0.5% of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land in Western states within five miles of population centers to be used for housing and community needs. This provision prohibits the sale of lands with special designations and existing land usage rights. Text of the final legislation that will receive a vote in the Senate has not been finalized.

It is important to allow for the responsible management of our natural resources while protecting the long-term health of the land. Should the full Senate consider these proposals on public lands within the budget reconciliation process, please know that I will keep your comments in mind.

Again, thank you for contacting me. If you have additional questions or concerns, please visit my website: www.fischer.senate.gov.
Sincerely,

Deb Fischer

United States Senator

 

[CorbLand]

This is pretty important for people to start getting okay with again - Reagan and earlier, legislative accomplishments were made by building what were called Floating Coalitions. There was no 100%ism. In Congress, someone who "only" agrees with you 85% of the time isn't an enemy - they're one of your closest allies.

Lee's pulling some scummy stuff with the dirty way he's trying to get this land sale through, which speaks more to his character, but he might be extremely important for Utah to keep if they want him as Chairman of the Natural Resources Committee and voting 90% or 95% of the time in ways that help Utah and its people.

I am relatively young but it seems like over the last 15 or so years the “you can’t fence sit” mentality has really taken hold and it’s not a good thing.

It’s been an attempt to put everyone in a box and say “if you’re in this box you have to do these things.”

The only person that could end up representing me that I agree with on everything is myself and I don’t know if that’s 100% possible because I agree and disagree with some of my own beliefs.

 

[RockAndSage]

I am relatively young but it seems like over the last 15 or so years the “you can’t fence sit” mentality has really taken hold and it’s not a good thing.

It’s been an attempt to put everyone in a box and say “if you’re in this box you have to do these things.”

Absolutely, though I'd push it back a bit, to just after 9/11. So maybe 20 years or so. And both sides are definitely responsible for it, though with their own flavors of how. It's kind of an arms race in a way, because it also works. At least until it just irradiates everybody.

This land-sale provision is a good example of floating coalitions - off-roaders, yoga forest hippies, hunters, etc, can all agree on this one issue done in this one way not being okay. But if you irradiate and dehumanize the other side so much that it equates to working with the devil, not only would it make you evil to agree with them on something, everything opposing the devil in any way is inherently good, right? Bad things happen when tribalism goes too far, and it usually starts with dehumanization of the "other".

 

[Andrew12gauge]

I am relatively young but it seems like over the last 15 or so years the “you can’t fence sit” mentality has really taken hold and it’s not a good thing.

It’s been an attempt to put everyone in a box and say “if you’re in this box you have to do these things.”

The only person that could end up representing me that I agree with on everything is myself and I don’t know if that’s 100% possible because I agree and disagree with some of my beliefs.

Counterpoint, I don’t need to agree with a candidate on everything but can we at least get a conservative candidate who doesn’t want to sell public lands and has a shred of human decency to listen to their constituency on the issues. Mike Lee has been told repeatedly for years now that public land sales are a nonstarter for the vast(90%+) majority of his constituents yet he continues to attempt to slip it in there


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Macintosh]

I am relatively young but it seems like over the last 15 or so years the “you can’t fence sit” mentality has really taken hold and it’s not a good thing.

It’s been an attempt to put everyone in a box and say “if you’re in this box you have to do these things.”

The only person that could end up representing me that I agree with on everything is myself and I don’t know if that’s 100% possible because I agree and disagree with some of my beliefs.

BINGO. It's the party platforms, you get to vote for the entire platform, or not at all. It HAS to be not just acceptable, but SOP, to tell you legislator that you support them on that other issue, but not this issue. Identity politics, one-issue voters who turn a blind eye to everything except their pet thing, people who vote party-line on everything regardless of nuance, and the primary system and lack of any viable third-party candidates, plus probably a dozen other issues, all conspire against this. I truly believe with all my heart that this is the #1 fundamental reason why so many people dont vote at all, and I'm not sure sure the parties dont want it to remain that way.

 

[Macintosh]

Counterpoint, I don’t need to agree with a candidate on everything but can we at least get a conservative candidate who doesn’t want to sell public lands and has a shred of human decency to listen to their constituency on the issues. Mike Lee has been told repeatedly for years now that public land sales are a nonstarter for the vast(90%+) majority of his constituents yet he continues to attempt to slip it in there


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I dont know him or his constituents, but if 90% feel strongly on this and he keeps at it, why does he get reelected? He's been a senator since 2011, it seems his constituents think he;s better than any alternative?

 

[CorbLand]

Counterpoint, I don’t need to agree with a candidate on everything but can we at least get a conservative candidate who doesn’t want to sell public lands and has a shred of human decency to listen to their constituency on the issues. Mike Lee has been told repeatedly for years now that public land sales are a nonstarter for the vast(90%+) majority of his constituents yet he continues to attempt to slip it in there


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I dont know if we could get one. Your more than welcome to move here and run though.

I would also push back that 90% is probably high. While its important to many of the people, especially in Northern Utah, the further one goes South and the ranching/farm/resource extraction community arent so pro public lands. There is a fair amount of industry in Utah based around those. A lot of those communities have been severely stifled by the red tape on public lands.

 

[CorbLand]

I dont know him or his constituents, but if 90% feel strongly on this and he keeps at it, why does he get reelected? He's been a senator since 2011, it seems his constituents think he;s better than any alternative?

Utah is not known for a lot of diversity. In many aspects its pretty monoculture and one thing that many Utahans dont like is the Federal Government. The state was founded by a group of people literally running from the Federal Government. That tenant still holds today and many still feel like their way of life and chosen beliefs are being attacked by the Federal Government.

Lee gets voted in because he does a good job at standing up for those that feel they are, and to a certain extent are still being attacked. There also isnt really a great alternative to Lee. Its all just trade offs.

Quite frankly, I would rather have to fight Lee on public lands and have him in there for some other big issues. There is a lot of support nation wide for public lands. Selling them is going to be a hard battle for him to win and his support on other issues is pretty vital. There are many that feel this way.

Edit to add. I am very interested to see the next election cycle for him, if he runs. This is the first time he has tripled down on this issue. Usually he floats it, it gets shutdown and he disappears for a bit.


Disclaimer. This is not an attempt to cause a political fight or really even a discussion. It is an attempt to answer the question regarding why Lee gets elected. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Lvball19]

Thank you for the link! I will go share now for sure!

 

[Tmac]

Regarding Mike Lee, is there any issue people agree with him on? He is scum. Anything would be better than him.

Plenty of issues he supports I do as well, public lands is not one. His conduct here does rise to slimy/scum imo, not sure if that’s his regular MO. There are plenty who would be worse overall, just not generally worse on this issue.

 

[Poser]

 

[cal30_sniper]

Counterpoint, I don’t need to agree with a candidate on everything but can we at least get a conservative candidate who doesn’t want to sell public lands and has a shred of human decency to listen to their constituency on the issues. Mike Lee has been told repeatedly for years now that public land sales are a nonstarter for the vast(90%+) majority of his constituents yet he continues to attempt to slip it in there


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Transfer of Federal Public lands is part of the Republican Party Platform, and has been on the fringes of the party for at least a while. This specific issue was put forth directly during the 2024 Convention, but the underlying idea of transferring public land has been a part of the party lingo for much longer. The Libertarian Party is even harder over on the public land issue. Both parties seem to view this as either a State's Rights or Limited Federal Government issue. See the earlier comment several pages back referencing US Public Land as the "King's Land" as an example of the message behind this line of thinking (nevermind, that "hot-take" seems to have been axed by the mods, justifiably so).

The real question on my mind is how do we go about getting the idea that "the Federal Government shouldn't own land" shelved from the party platform and off the mind of the constituent base that votes along that party line.

 

[Andrew12gauge]

Transfer of Federal Public lands is part of the Republican Party Platform, and has been on the fringes of the party for at least a while. This specific issue was put forth directly during the 2024 Convention, but the underlying idea of transferring public land has been a part of the party lingo for much longer. The Libertarian Party is even harder over on the public land issue. Both parties seem to view this as either a State's Rights or Limited Federal Government issue. See the earlier comment several pages back referencing US Public Land as the "King's Land" as an example of the message behind this line of thinking (nevermind, that "hot-take" seems to have been axed by the mods, justifiably so).

The real question on my mind is how do we go about getting the idea that "the Federal Government shouldn't own land" shelved from the party platform and off the mind of the constituent base that votes along that party line.

I know that it is, why I don’t usually vote republican, and before anyone calls me a liberal know that I’ve never voted for a democrat either


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[realunlucky]

The biggest short coming of the entire system is being able to click R or D on the ballot. Voters never even invest a minute looking into anyone's true position.

The national committee faithfully handing out money to an incumbent makes challenging from inside the party nearly impossible.

Using the fear of electing the other party keeps shit politicians in office and status quo the horizon long term.

It takes courage to break the cycle no matter what the parrots say.

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

 

[RockAndSage]

The real question on my mind is how do we go about getting the idea that "the Federal Government shouldn't own land" shelved from the party platform and off the mind of the constituent base that votes along that party line.

Not sure of the answer in getting the "no fed ownership of lands" mentality out of the party's platform, but something that definitely keeps it in there is radical anti-use ideologies, that the Federal government can be leveraged to implement when the left is in power.

Everything from anti-hunting, to anti-logging, to anti-mining, to anti-offroading, to anti-grazing ideologies, that all point in the same direction of a nearly religious belief that "the only good Earth is that which is untouched by human hands". "Rewilding" is the dogwhistle code word for that, btw. As long as an urban population in coastal cities can vote enough people into DC to get the Federal government to shut down public lands to anything that's not hiking, people will view the only safe thing is to take that power of "ownership" away from the Federal government.

Ironically, it's that fear of loss-of-use that is keeping Lee from privatizing it right now.

 

[KurtR]

Term limits

 

[Yoder]

As if he couldn’t get any more unpopular, Mike Lee just submitted a (non related) bill to withdraw the US from NATO: https://www.newsweek.com/nato-us-withdraw-senator-mike-lee-republican-effort-2090914

I think that's amazing. NATO can suck it.

 

[MtnW]

Just heard back from our second congresswoman. She could not stay on message regarding the sale of federal lands. Sadly her email response was a two page hate filled diatribe against president Trump. Unfortunately that is why I can hardly stomach the current Democratic leadership ,and their one way message ,which is hate our president beyond any and all other successes or failures of our country. As others have mentioned term limits are needed to keep people like Mike Lee and these career politicians in check. I was saddened but also enlightened what my senators real agenda is, and seeing her true colors first hand.