What This Bill Does
This bill would change the Senate’s budget rules so that any provision in a reconciliation bill that sells, disposes of, or transfers federal land would be treated as extraneous under the Byrd Rule. In practical terms, that makes it much harder to include federal land conveyances in fast-track budget legislation. The measure is aimed at protecting public lands from being moved through the budget process without facing a broader policy debate.
- Would treat federal land sale, disposal, or transfer provisions as extraneous under the Byrd Rule.
- Applies to reconciliation bills in the Senate budget process.
- Would make it easier to strike land-transfer language from budget legislation.
- Affects federal lands, including public access and land-management decisions.
Who This Bill Affects
For the general public, this bill would mainly affect how Congress can handle federal land sales or transfers inside budget legislation. If you live in or care about public-land states, it could make it harder for federal land to be moved out of public ownership through a fast-track budget bill, preserving existing access and oversight. If you are involved in land development, energy, grazing, or local government land negotiations, it could narrow one legislative route for advancing those changes.
See how this bill affects you — sign in for a personalized analysisWho Supports & Opposes This
- Public lands advocates They argue federal land sales should not be tucked into budget bills with limited debate. Requiring those provisions to survive Byrd Rule scrutiny keeps major land decisions in the open and protects public access and conservation interests.
- Western outdoor recreation users Hunters, anglers, hikers, and recreation businesses often rely on stable public-land access. They may support the bill because it reduces the chance that federal lands are transferred or sold through a fast-moving budget package.
- Tribal and community land-rights advocates Some groups want land decisions handled through a more transparent process that includes consultation and local input. They may see this bill as a check on rushed transfers that could affect cultural sites, access routes, or long-term stewardship.
- State and local officials seeking land transfers They may argue the bill makes it harder to resolve land-management disputes or transfer land to better local control. In their view, reconciliation can be a useful vehicle when Congress is otherwise deadlocked.
- Real estate and resource development interests These stakeholders may prefer more legislative flexibility to move land into private or local ownership for housing, infrastructure, or development projects. They could see the bill as adding another procedural barrier to transactions they consider economically useful.
- Some federal land policy pragmatists They may contend that a blanket Byrd Rule designation is too rigid and could block narrowly tailored land exchanges that are part of broader budget agreements. Their concern is that procedural restrictions can prevent compromise on complex land issues.
Key Implications
-
““designate provisions resulting in the sale, disposal, or transfer of Federal lands as extraneous””
This would give the Senate a procedural basis to remove federal land-transfer language from reconciliation bills. In practice, it narrows one of the fastest routes for changing ownership or control of public lands.
-
““under the Byrd Rule””
The Byrd Rule is the Senate’s filter for keeping non-budget items out of reconciliation. Using it here means land sales or transfers would face a higher procedural hurdle if included in budget legislation.
-
““section 313 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974””
Section 313 is the statutory home of the Byrd Rule. Amending it would change the rules that govern what can and cannot ride along in reconciliation bills.
-
““sale, disposal, or transfer of Federal lands””
This language covers multiple ways federal land could leave or change hands, not just outright sales. That broad phrasing could affect exchanges, conveyances, and other ownership changes depending on how the rule is applied.
Latest Status
June 4, 2026
Referred to the Committee on Rules, and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Take Action
Get more from BillBoard
Free tools to understand, respond to, and track this bill.
Ask AI about this billData sourced from api.congress.gov.