A response from Hageman.

 Received this today, a bit latter than expected.

Dear Mr. Yeoman,   On July 4th, President Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA). This is the completion of the budget reconciliation process, which allows for expedited consideration of certain tax, spending, and debt limit legislation, and delivers on the agenda the American people voted for in November. When the OBBBA was before the Senate, Senator Mike Lee from Utah submitted a proposal to allow for limited, targeted public land sales to assist with housing and community development. This draft provision was ultimately removed from the bill, did not become law, and was something I was never asked to vote on in the House.   While this proposal was never before the House, I did receive countless messages of concern regarding what it meant. Unfortunately, much of this concern was manufactured via misinformation issued by environmental groups who want to “rewild” the West and who do not have our state or our communities’ best interests in mind.    The federal government owns over 640 million acres of our surface estate, with the vast majority being located in the interior west and Alaska. I believe that much of those lands should remain in the public domain. Yellowstone, Grand Teton, Devils Tower, our national forests, wild and scenic rivers, and our abundance of wildlife and fisheries habitat are just some of the amenities that we enjoy and must protect now and into the long distant future.      There is also a reality, however, that the federal government, through agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and United States Forest Service (USFS), currently own land that they cannot or will not manage, and many of these lands are now contiguous to our cities and towns and hinder our ability for these communities to grow. By way of example, there is no reason for the BLM to own urban lots in downtown Las Vegas and Reno, yet it does. We have communities in Wyoming that are landlocked by the BLM, such as Kemmerer, who are unable to meet the housing demand of young families and workers who seek to make those places home. I am often asked about how we keep our children and grandchildren in Wyoming rather than watching them move away. In short, the only way to do so is if we have jobs and housing, and that is the exact issue that Senator Lee was attempting to address. It was his effort to begin the consideration of a narrow and targeted fix to address the housing and development challenges that plague the West.    Contrary to some of the misinformation circulated about Senator Lee’s bill (e.g., that it would sell off 15 million acres, that Bill Gates would be buying the National Parks, etc.), he specifically proposed the disposal of only 0.25% to 0.50% of BLM lands located within five miles of existing population centers and only for the purpose of housing development. “Federally Protected Lands” (for example, National Parks, National Monuments, the National Wilderness Preservation System, the National Wildlife Refuge System, and more as defined in the text) would not be eligible for sale. Lands with existing rights (i.e. grazing and energy development) and lands utilized for recreation were further excluded from the proposed sales. In order to be sold, lands would need to be nominated by a buyer, who would be limited in acres acquired under any single purchase, which would then trigger a consultation process with the state and local government. If approved, a portion of the revenue generated from the sale would be returned to the community to assist with community development needs.    The fact is that the Senate started a discussion centered around finding a sensible solution to the housing crisis in our communities, an issue that is exacerbated by the large federal footprint in states like Utah, Nevada, Idaho, and Wyoming. Unfortunately, there were several groups that saw this as an opportunity to raise money through fearmongering and misinformation.     I want to reiterate that this proposal was never introduced in the House, and I never voted on it.  Senator Lee withdrew it shortly after he introduced it. I was encouraged to see this issue finally receiving some attention at the national level. While we in the western United States deal with the challenges of a large federal footprint on a daily basis, our counterparts in the East do not.  As your member in the U.S. House of Representatives, I have introduced the No Net Gain in Federal Lands Act, which would restrict further expansion of the federal estate, which I think is an even more crucial policy as we assess how we address this issue.    Thank you again for your willingness to reach out to me directly with your inquiry. Please understand that much of what you have heard about this proposal is likely inaccurate and that Senator Lee was merely attempting to answer the needs of our local communities, who are hampered from further development due to the oversized footprint of the federal government in our states.  Sincerely, Rep. Harriet Hageman Member of Congress

At least Hageman seems to have the courage in her convictions.  Here, however, that provides a reason not to support her in the future for concerned with public land, or the users, of any kind, of public land.