Now that the H.R. 1 bill has passed, we want to take a moment to break down what was originally in it, how it’s changed, and what concerning provisions remain in the bill.
The Senate passed the bill with a narrow 51-50 vote, with Vice President Vance casting the tie-breaking vote. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) crossed the aisle and opposed the bill. In the House, the bill passed with a four-vote margin. We are grateful to all our local representatives who strongly opposed the bill.
What was originally in the bill?
The Senate version of the bill initially included a highly contentious public lands provision. Rep. Lee had inserted language that would have mandated the sale of both Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands. This sparked widespread opposition from a large number of environmental organizations and several members of Congress.
Bipartisan Support for Public Lands
The provision was later revised to drop the Forest Service sell-off but retained the BLM language. The key turning point came when Rep. Zinke (R-M) issued a letter stating:
“We cannot accept the sale of federal lands that Sen. Lee seeks. If a provision to sell public lands is in the bill that reaches the House floor, we will be forced to vote no.”
The letter was signed by Reps. Mike Simpson (R-ID), Dan Newhouse (R-WA), Cliff Bentz (R-OR), and David Valadao (R-CA), all of whom represent Western states with large federal public land holdings. Given the House’s slim margin, their opposition would have been enough to sink the bill in the lower chamber.
Shortly after, Rep. Lee released a statement saying the public lands provision had been removed from the bill. This was seen as a huge victory by many public lands advocates, and underscores the importance of public input—demonstrating that a collective voice can, and does, influence the decisions of elected officials, even when our odds seem unsurmountable.
Harmful provisions that remain
Despite that win, several provisions remain in the final bill that threaten public lands, public health, and the environment.
Sec. 50301 Timber sales and long-term contracting for the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management.
Mandates Timber Sale Increases (2026-2034):
- The Forest Service must increase timber production by at least 250 million board feet each year over the previous year. This means more commercial timber sales and clearcuts in our national forests.
- The BLM must sell at least 20 million board feet more timber than the previous fiscal year.
- All sales must comply with existing forest plants or resource management plans.
Long Term Timber Sale Contracts (2025-2034):
- The Forest Service shall enter into at least 40 long-term timber sale contracts with private entities. Contracts must last at least 20 years with possible extensions or renewals.
- The BLM is required to sign at least five long-term contracts. Contracts must also be at least 20 years, with renewal or extension options.
These long-term contracts reflect the recent executive order and USDA memo calling for increasing timber production across national forests while drastically reducing public input and accountability over the life of the contract.
Traditionally, timber contracts were limited to 10 years with certain exceptions. The Consolidation Appropriations Act of 2018 extended stewardship contracts to 20 years in certain cases but with strict oversight. This new provision circumvents those safeguards and sets a troubling precedent for unchecked, long-term exploitation.
Sec. 60026. Project Sponsor Opt-In Fees for Environmental Reviews.
This section creates a “Pay to Pollute” loophole that allows project sponsors—typically the entities responsible for financing, managing, or formally advancing a project—to bypass environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA):
- Project Sponsors can pay a fee to expedite environmental reviews, such as Environmental Assessments (EAs) and Environmental Impact Statements (EISs)
- EAs must be completed within 180 days of fee payment. An EIS must be completed within one year of notice of intent to prepare it.
This loophole rubberstamps harmful projects—including those associated with fossil fuel and extractive industries, regardless of their environmental impacts. It sidelines public participation in decisions that affect air, water, wildlife, or frontline communities. This undermines decades of environmental protections and pubic participation in government decisions.
Giveaways to the Fossil Fuel Industry
The bill gives away massive handouts to the fossil fuel industry, offering up public lands to oil drilling and fracking for bargain basement rates and reducing the amount of money that oil companies must pay as royalties.
The legislation requires quarterly lease sales in Western states, where the federal government sells drilling rights to the highest bidder. It also resurrects noncompetitive leasing, which allows industry to lease lands for $1.50/acre when parcels don’t receive any bids at auction and have virtually no oil and gas potential.
The legislation will reduce the revenue paid to the American people from fossil fuel extraction by 25%. This brings the rate paid for oil extraction from federal lands down to a rate established more than 100 years ago, robbing taxpayers and states of billions of dollars of revenue.
A Common Thread: Less Transparency, No Accountability
The current administration and its allies aim to bypass federal regulation and reduce public input in the process. These provisions in practice mean less transparency, no accountability, and no community oversight. These projects can now move forward without public hearings or detailed environmental reviews. Agencies will no longer be required to fully evaluate environmental impacts before approving permits, and communities living near projects will be directly affected.
Our public process is not something that should be cut off. The ability to participate in decisions that affect our public lands is not just a privilege—it is a democratic right.
Our public lands are not for sale. No amount of money is worth the long-term degradation of these extractive policies. The administration has made it abundantly clear they value profit over community oversight and federal regulations, and many in Congress apparently want to enact this agenda.
We can expect more rollbacks of environmental protections in the near future. You can stay informed about these issues by subscribing to our Action Center and eNews list.