WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HR 9167

Public Lands Integrity Act

119th Congress Introduced by Juan Ciscomani and 4 co-sponsors

The bill would treat provisions permitting federal land sales or transfers as extraneous under the Byrd Rule, potentially blocking them from budget reconciliation.

Introduced in House
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HR 9167

Overview

HR 9167, introduced in the 119th Congress, seeks to amend section 313 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to designate provisions that result in the sale, disposal, or transfer of Federal lands as extraneous matter under the Byrd Rule. The bill is currently referred to the House Committee on Rules and, in addition, to the Committee on the Budget, for a period to be determined by the Speaker. The bill has four named co-sponsors: Joe Neguse, Juan Ciscomani, Dina Titus, and Gabe Vasquez.

Purpose and intent

  • The central aim is to change how proposed provisions involving the sale, disposal, or transfer of federal lands are treated under the Byrd Rule.
  • By designating such provisions as extraneous, the bill intends to subject them to a higher procedural hurdle or potential exclusion during budget reconciliation processes, limiting their inclusion in the bill unless they meet Byrd Rule criteria.

Key provisions and changes

  • Amend Section 313 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974:
    • Reclassify provisions that would authorize or trigger sale, disposal, or transfer of Federal lands as extraneous matter under the Byrd Rule.
  • Byrd Rule implications (as context):
    • The Byrd Rule restricts extraneous in-reconciliation provisions; extraneous items may be removed or blocked if they are not germane to fiscal policy or if they create a definite, non-budgetary policy impact within budget reconciliation.
    • By labeling land-sale/disposal provisions as extraneous, the bill would potentially prevent or delay consideration of such provisions in budget reconciliation bills, absent compliance with Byrd Rule requirements.

Affected parties and scope

  • Federal government and land management agencies (e.g., Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service) could be affected since the rule change targets provisions affecting federal lands.
  • Lawmakers and the budgetary process participants involved in reconciliation bills, particularly those proposing land sales or transfers within a budget package.
  • Stakeholders with interests in federal land stewardship, local communities, environmental groups, industry stakeholders, and regions affected by land disposition policies.

Procedural and timeline aspects

  • Current action: Referred to the Committee on Rules and the Committee on the Budget for consideration of provisions within their jurisdictions.
  • Status: Introduced in the House on June 4, 2026.
  • Next steps (typical for this stage):
    • Hearings and markups in the Rules Committee and Budget Committee to determine the bill’s language, potential amendments, and cross-jurisdictional impacts.
    • Floor action could follow if reported favorably by committees.
  • Potential considerations:
    • Implications for the Byrd Rule’s application in reconciliation bills.
    • Legislative debate over federal land management policy and the strategic use of reconciliation vehicles for land disposition provisions.

Potential impact and considerations

  • If enacted, provisions involving federal land sales or transfers would face heightened constraints within budget reconciliation, potentially limiting the inclusion of such provisions unless they meet Byrd Rule criteria or are otherwise germane to budgetary effects.
  • May influence debates on federal land policy, conservation, economic development, and state/local land-use interests by creating a procedural barrier to land-disposition provisions in reconciliation packages.
  • The practical impact will depend on how the Byrd Rule is interpreted and how the committee report clarifies the scope of “extraneous” categorization and any exceptions.

Observations

  • The bill aligns with ongoing concerns about tying land disposition to budgetary measures and seeks to ensure separation of land management actions from budget reconciliation processes.
  • Sponsorship by four legislators from potentially diverse policy backgrounds suggests an intent to scrutinize land-disposition provisions across party or regional lines.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.