Rep. Neguse Slams Natural Resource Republicans’ Late-Night Move to Add Public Land Sales to Reconciliation Bill: “I don't think that's the way to do business in the House.”
Washington, D.C. — In case you missed it, during Tuesday’s House Natural Resources Committee 13 hour markup on the budget reconciliation bill, Republicans moved to add a late-night, last-minute amendment to the legislation that would order the sale of thousands of acres of public lands in Nevada and Utah. Revenue from the auctioning off of these shared spaces, coupled with proposed cuts to critical programs like Medicaid and Social Security, lay the groundwork for the implementation of President Donald Trump’s radical agenda, which includes a $7 trillion tax giveaway to billionaires and big corporations.
Congressman Joe Neguse, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Federal Lands, immediately reacted to this disastrous proposal.
Watch Rep. Neguse’s remarks HERE.
Highlights from Rep. Neguse’s exchange with Committee Republicans below:
NEGUSE: A couple of quick questions. One, I would just say, more broadly, for the better part of the last 11 hours, I suppose, we've been making the case here on this side of the aisle—13 hours, I stand corrected—that the Republican reconciliation bill, plans to sell off our public lands. Lo and behold, at 11:00pm ET, we finally get an amendment. Does precisely what we said this bill would do. But the question I have, a very simple one. And I think I know the answer from Mrs. Malloy, but I'm not so sure about Mr. Amodei. Ms. Malloy, do you represent the areas in this bill in Utah, Washington County and Saint George that you would like to have those lands conveyed?
REP. MALOY (UT-02): I do.
NEGUSE: Okay. Thank you. And this isn't meant to be a gotcha. I'm actually trying–you all proposed this amendment, so we’re considering it. Mr. Amodei, do you represent Clark County?
REP. AMODEI (NV-02): I do not represent Clark County, but I have been asked by the Clark County Commission to introduce the bill on their behalf as a member of the majority in the House of Representatives.
NEGUSE: So, you, just to be clear, for all of your Republican colleagues, because I've sat on this dais year after year and been lectured by my colleagues on other side of the aisle about how important it is to engage your colleagues who represent areas that may be at issue in a particular bill. You don't represent Clark County. There are multiple other Nevada representatives who do.
Mr. Horsford represents this area. Mrs. Lee represents this area. Mrs. Titus represents this area. And I don't think that we should proceed in considering the amendment until we've had an opportunity to hear from them about whether or not they believe that these lands ought to be conveyed. I think that's a fair request. I think you'd feel the same way.
If any number of the counties that you represent, in western Nevada were at issue in this bill. Is that an unreasonable request?
AMODEI: Well, I don't know how it works in Colorado, sir, but I can tell you, in Nevada, we all talk frequently, and this is not going to come as a surprise to any of them. Please feel free to consult them as you see fit—-
NEGUSE: They support this? They support this amendment?
AMODEI: They are aware of the—
NEGUSE: They're aware of it?
AMODEI: Don't put words in my mouth.
NEGUSE: I'm asking you. I'm not putting words. I'm asking you. I'm saying, are they supportive of this amendment? You haven't asked your colleagues in Nevada whether or not they support the conveyance of land in their district, not yours.
AMODEI: The answer to your question is no.
NEGUSE: Yeah, well, I think it is deeply irresponsible to put forth an amendment, and I don't take issue, by the way, I might have disagreements on the merits with Ms. Malloy with respect to the amendment, but I understand her desire on behalf of her constituents to move forward with this amendment. But I would think, at a minimum, Mr. Amodei, that you would do your colleagues in Nevada the courtesy of at least striking that language regarding Clark County, engage with your three other colleagues before this gets to the floor and then have a conversation with them. But to basically say to them that they have no say as to what happens with respect to land conveyances in their congressional districts, I think is a slippery slope.
And I just I would hope that my colleagues and Mr. Chairman in particular, I would hope that you would consider that as you weigh this amendment. I really in good faith, I would hope that you would consider at least striking that provision so that you can give those other members of Congress an opportunity to weigh in here, at least be heard, as opposed to an a 11:00 pm ET last-minute amendment that they're just finding out about right now as we're texting them.
I don't think that's the way to do business in the House.
###