Four Senate Democrats introduce S. 4455, which would amend the Byrd Rule so that any reconciliation provision selling, transferring, or disposing of federal land can be struck on a single senator’s point of order.
Colorado Senator Michael Bennet introduced the Public Lands Integrity Act on April 30, joined by three Senate Democrats: Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden of Oregon, and Martin Heinrich of New Mexico. The bill, S. 4455, would amend Section 313 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to designate any provision resulting in the sale, transfer, or disposal of federal lands as “extraneous” under the Byrd Rule. The practical effect: a single senator could strip such a provision from a reconciliation bill on a point of order, forcing supporters to muster 60 votes to keep it in.
The bill is a direct response to last summer’s near miss. During Senate consideration of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Utah Senator Mike Lee, chair of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, advanced a provision to require the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service to sell between 2.2 million and 3.3 million acres of public land across 11 western states. After the Senate parliamentarian ruled the original language violated Byrd Rule constraints, Lee scaled the proposal back to roughly 1.2 million acres of BLM holdings before withdrawing it entirely on June 28, 2025. The underlying tax-and-spending bill passed the Senate on a 51–50 vote July 1, 2025, and President Trump signed it July 4.
Under current rules, any senator could try the same maneuver in a future reconciliation package. The Public Lands Integrity Act would foreclose that route.
What the bill does, narrowly
The Byrd Rule, named for the late Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia and codified at Section 313(b)(1) of the Budget Act, currently defines six categories of “extraneous” matter. Any senator can raise a point of order against a provision falling within those categories; if sustained, the provision is struck. Waiving the rule, or appealing a sustained ruling, requires 60 votes. S. 4455 would add a seventh category: provisions resulting in the sale, disposal, or transfer of federal lands.
Per the bill text, the legislation does three things:
- Designates any reconciliation provision resulting in the sale or disposal of federal lands as extraneous under the Byrd Rule;
- Allows any senator to strike such a provision on a point of order, raising the effective threshold for inclusion to 60 votes;
- Routes future debates over federal land sales through regular legislative order rather than expedited budget procedure.
The bill does not prohibit federal land sales. It does not amend the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the National Forest Management Act, or any underlying authority governing how public lands are conveyed. It addresses one procedural avenue—reconciliation—and closes that door alone.
Angler and conservation groups back the bill
Trout Unlimited, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, the National Wildlife Federation, the Idaho Outfitters & Guides Association, the Outdoor Alliance, and The Nature Conservancy all endorsed the bill in the sponsor’s release. According to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service figures Trout Unlimited cited during last summer’s fight, 72 percent of sportsmen and sportswomen in the West rely on public lands for hunting, and half of all blue-ribbon trout fisheries flow across national forests.
Lindsay Slater, Trout Unlimited’s vice president of government affairs, said in the release that the bill would “help ensure a transparent process with public input, rather than allowing the sale of treasured resources as line-items in an expedited budget process.”
Ryan “Cal” Callaghan, president and CEO of Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, framed the bill as accountability follow-through. “It shows the American people that they were heard last summer, that public lands are valued treasures, and that under no circumstances should they be disposed of in any amount without going through the proper public process.”
The math on passage
S. 4455 was referred to the Senate Budget Committee the day it was introduced. It carries three cosponsors—Merkley, Wyden, and Heinrich—all Democrats. No Republican has signed on.
That math matters. Several House Republicans, including Montana Representative Ryan Zinke and Idaho Representative Mike Simpson, vocally opposed Lee’s provision last summer. Montana Senator Tim Sheehy briefly threatened to vote against the underlying budget bill if the sell-off language remained, then settled for leading the amendment to strip it. Republican opposition from Western states to selling public lands through reconciliation is real. Republican support for a Democratic procedural fix is, so far, not.
Without bipartisan cosponsors, the bill’s path through the Budget Committee and onto the floor is steep. Its practical effect, if it stalls, may be largely declarative—a marker laid down ahead of the next reconciliation cycle, when the same fight is likely to return.
“Public lands make Colorado, Colorado,” Bennet said in announcing the bill. “Congress must never use fast-tracked Senate procedure to sell Americans’ public lands to fund short-term partisan spending. Not now, not ever.”
