It is also noteworthy the percentage of the US land that is owned by the government.
Posted on 06/29/2025 8:09:19 AM PDT by RandFan
The Senate has removed a controversial provision from its megabill that would have sold off hundreds of thousands of acres of public lands.
Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), who was leading the push on the measure, announced late Saturday that the measure would be stripped from the bill.
“Because of the strict constraints of the budget reconciliation process, I was unable to secure clear, enforceable safeguards to guarantee that these lands would be sold only to American families – not to China, not to Blackrock and not to any foreign interests,” Lee said in a post on X.
“For that reason, I’ve decided to withdraw the federal land sales provision from the bill,” he added.
Lee had initially proposed selling off between 2.2 million and 3.3 million acres of public lands. After that proposal was rejected by the Senate parliamentarian, he put forward a new measure that would have sold off between 600,000 and 1.2 million acres.
But, the Utah Republican indicated in his post on Saturday that he would work with President Trump to find uses for what he described as “underutilized” lands.
“President Trump promised to put underutilized federal land to work for American families, and I look forward to helping him achieve that in a way that respects the legacy of our public lands and reflects the values of people who use them most,” he wrote.
While the measure had some GOP support, it also received pushback from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Federal ownership of lands within state boundaries is generally unconstitutional. The states should be given back those lands that are within its borders.
The only exception to federal ownership of state lands is a mandatory process to purchase state lands for "needful buildings" (US Const., Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17).
Democrats for the most part would not want any Federal land sold to private interest.
Those on both sides that are in the pockets of Blackrock and/or the CCP would not want any restriction on who the land was sold to, because the want the government to get the maximum benefit from the sale.
On the upside I did see that Trump has cancelled the "No Roads" on US Forest Land in the interest of forest management.
Sometimes you have to vote for something you don't like because the alternative of having nothing is worse. That's true today, and it was true when McCarthy was Speaker. The people and members can b*tch and scream about what the country needs, and they may well be correct, but the math and makeup of Congress imposes limits that can't be ignored in terms of what is possible.
Want a different bill, elect a different Congress.
It is also noteworthy the percentage of the US land that is owned by the government.
The bill would have destroyed the cattle industry which depends on free range grazing on public lands.
“these lands would be sold only to American families – not to China, not to Blackrock and not to any foreign interests”
the fact that they could not get that stipulation into the bill tells you the kind of corruption has taken root in the process.
There need to be provisions such as you can only buy 1 acre and you need to establish residency on that plot of land. That would keep Blackrock, the Chicoms and Bill Gates away. Yes it would limit how much is sold and how quickly it is sold, but it would keep that land out of the hands of the above which is the whole point.
The federal government owns a ridiculous amount of land in the west. It stifles the growth of those states and makes home prices artificially high. In addition to the above, it would generate good revenue for the federal treasury to sell some land. Land sales used to be a nice 10% or so of federal revenues per year.
Typical of DC.
Take an important bill and add lots of extra stuff to buy off certain Congress critters.
If it’s s so important, it will stand on it’s own, later.
New York State has the highest percentage of state owned land in the nation. What is the reason for this? I don’t think anything in New York is desert, barron rock or swamps like in some states
THE FEDS CONTROL THE LAND-—BUT IF THEY OWN IT-—WHERE IS THE PROPERTY TAX PAID TO EACH STATE??? THEY PAY ZERO.
THE NUMBERS SHOWN FOR NEVADA & UTAH ARE UNDER STATED
FEDS-—CONTROL-—THEY DO NOT OWN.
THEY NEVER PAY A DIME IN PROPERTY TAXES
I can imagine the real motive is hidden behind that statement, but that is good enough for me to rid the bill of the provision. Sales should be to American ranchers and farmers.
The feds unconstitutionally took those lands and should in turn GIVE the states those lands within their boundaries.
Period.
Good. Concentrate on better management and stewardship and a plan to return lands to state control (if that is what a state wants.)
Thanks for pointing that out. Kind of surprised the greenies did not go for this part of the bill in their goal of ending beef consumption.
That does make sense. When a state was incorporated it should have received all the lands within its boundaries.
The Federal Government owned the land before the states even existed. Those lands were generally paid for by US taxpayers. If the states want those lands, let them buy them from the Federal government. Most of these states have been happy letting the Federal government pay the $$$$ to maintain, administer and clean up those lands for the better part of their existence. No free land for those states, make them pay for it. If we are going to give it away, give it to the Indians, it was their land first.
some are so interested in having the Federal government divest it’s land holdings out west, Here is an idea…..
Since taxpayer money was used to buy these lands in the first place, it is long due to repay that debt.
Since the original taxpayers who footed the bill for the Louisiana Purchase (1803), the Onis Treaty (1819), the Treaty of Guadeloupe (1848), Gadsden Purchase (1854), Alaska Purchase (1867) are long dead, perhaps repayment can be made to their descendants.
We can devise a lottery of Federal land. Anyone who can prove they are the direct descendant of an American resident or Native American tribe prior to 1867 gets one lottery share for a land division in Alaska. If your ancestors were here prior to 1854 you also get a lottery share for land in the Gadsen Purchase region, prior to 1848 and you also get a lottery share for Treaty of Guadeloupe land, prior to 1819 and you’re in the running for Onis Treaty land. If your direct ancestors were here before 1803 you get a lottery share for Louisiana Purchase land in addition to all the other lotteries.
Each lottery would be for random but similar plots of Federally owned surplus land in a particular lottery location. Once drawn, the land is yours to develop or sell (after a reasonable waiting period). You (the new owner) of course would be responsible for any applicable property taxes or hazardous materials remediation costs (e.g. abandoned mine clean ups).
Sorry but if your direct ancestors came here after 1867, you do not qualify for any of the lotteries but you could purchase land from a lottery winner once their mandatory holding period has expired.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.