Cortez Masto grills Burgum on public land sales proposal for Senate's funding bill
At a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing, Cortez Masto wanted to know more about Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee's reported plan to revive attempts to sell off public lands. Lee is the chairman of the committee.
Burgum confirmed it was under consideration, but had no other information.
A similar plan that Nevada Republican Rep. Mark Amodei attached to the 'one big, beautiful bill' in a late-night U.S. House committee vote eventually failed because it wasn't supported by Montana Rep. Ryan Zinke, who served as Interior secretary during Trump's first term. Now the battle has moved to the U.S. Senate.
Despite follow-up questions from Cortez Masto, Burgum couldn't provide details or identify anyone in Nevada who the administration is working with to ensure land sales actually meet the needs of the local communities. Burgum said he was 'not actively engaged' in negotiations, according to a news release from Cortez Masto's office.
'I'm asking you because we have not seen anything,' Cortez Masto said. 'The chairman has (the proposal), it is behind closed doors. I would assume you would be talking … because you're going to be taking the lead as the lead agency. So if you don't know, I'm really concerned and we should all be concerned across the West.'
Last week, speculation grew around what Lee would propose in the Senate. Public lands in Nevada and Utah appear to be likely targets.
Cortez Masto pressed Burgum on how these public lands might figure into helping to solve Nevada's affordable housing crisis, but Democrats have widely described the land sale as an attempt to fund renewal of President Donald Trump's 2017 tax breaks that are about to expire.
She also criticized Burgum over his statements regarding the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act (SNPLMA). Burgum talked about the importance of a comprehensive process like SNPLMA as a model for federal land sales earlier in the hearing, Cortez Masto's office said.
BLM auction brings $16 million for 8 parcels across Las Vegas valley
'You talk about the benefits (of this model), but in action you're not doing it,' she said. 'In fact, on the House side — and I'm assuming they worked with the administration — their reconciliation package included federal land sales … that weren't even near areas where you could actually do affordable housing.'
She said Amodei's amendment would have sold land in the middle of the desert.
'There's no infrastructure. I don't know any builder who is going to build housing in the middle of the desert, it makes no sense,' Cortez Masto said.
SNPLMA has provided funds for parks, recreation and water infrastructure in Nevada, but the federal government has been criticized as too slow to free up lands needed to build more housing.
A compromise struck by the Bureau of Land Management under Joe Biden allowed the sale of land for $100 an acre, which would have paved the way for affordable housing construction. But that price also drastically reduced the amount of money flowing to parks through BLM land auctions.
Later Wednesday, U.S. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said he would cancel the July 4 recess week to complete work on the 'one big, beautiful bill.' It's unclear if Republicans have the support to pass the reconciliation spending package.
And even if it passes with public land sales included, the changes would be subject to approval in the House, where Zinke has said he will be a firm 'no.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Melts Down Over 'Jeffrey Epstein Hoax' — And The Internet Explodes
President Donald Trump'smeltdown on Wednesday over what he called the 'Jeffrey Epstein hoax' had quite an impact on social media. The president took to his Truth Social platform and posted a lengthy diatribe in which he referred to speculation about the convicted sex offender's clients as 'bullshit' that his own 'PAST supporters have bought into ... hook, line, and sinker.' He also said Epstein truthers were 'weaklings' who are doing the Democrats' work and insisted, 'I don't want their support anymore!' Trump's post came a day after he claimed the so-called Epstein files were fabricated by former FBI Director James Comey and former Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden. The financier had associated with various politicians, including both Trump and Bill Clinton, and was facing sex trafficking charges before his 2019 death in a New York jail cell. But Trump's DOJ and FBI heads recently stated that no 'Epstein client list' exists, generating even more speculation from the public. Not surprisingly, many people on social media had strong reactions to Trump's post. This might be the craziest Trump post I've ever read. He calls the Epstein files a scam, a hoax, and any of his supporters believe any part of the Epstein files, he doesn't want their support anymore. He labels them weaklings doing the Democrats' work. 🥴 — Hoodlum 🇺🇸 (@NotHoodlum) July 16, 2025 Needless to say, Trump calling it the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax is beyond insulting to the young victims of Epstein's horrible I suppose Epstein Denial is a choice. Trump's choice. — Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) July 16, 2025 He's the weakling. He's protecting pedophiles. I'm glad he doesn't want my support because he's not getting it anymore. — Larry (@LarryECornell) July 16, 2025 From 'We'll release the files on Day One' to 'These files are nonsense' in record time. One of the most shameless 180s in modern presidential history - bragging about transparency, then hoping no one notices/cares about the flip. — Darren Labrum 🇺🇸 (@DLabrum) July 16, 2025 This just goes to show. Supporting Trump is a one way street. You are either 100% with him, or you are against him and he will turn on you in a flash. — Hal_For_NY__ (@HalforNY__) July 16, 2025 It was always weird that Epstein, who Trump hung out with, died while Trump was in office and it somehow was a conspiracy against Democrats. Now it's finally blowing up in the GOP's face and dividing Trump's coalition, as Trump admits in the below post. — Alex גדעון בן װעלװל (@JewishWonk) July 16, 2025 Trump doubled down on the hoax claim during a media event later on Wednesday with Bahraini Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa. 'I know it's a hoax … I call it the Epstein hoax' — Trump is still crashing out over Epstein — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 16, 2025 And people were still skeptical about Trump's claim. You ever notice how every time Epstein gets mentioned, Trump short-circuits?He doesn't say 'it's a tragedy'He doesn't say 'we need answers'He doesn't even say 'it's complicated'He calls it a hoax.A hoax that involved over 100 witnesses, sealed documents, private flights,… — Lucien Wolfe (@LucienWolfe111) July 16, 2025 Trump's clearly not realizing the magnitude of this he campaigned on this and now is telling us to forget about it this will cost him dearly everything from here on out will be clouded by Epstein and his legacy will be that of a president who covered for rich pedophiles — Dr sherri (@Reform_West) July 16, 2025 Trump called his MAGA influencers to the White House, gave them carefully prepped 'Epstein binders,' and told them to push the narrative, on camera no less! They flooded social media parroting his talking points, bragged about inside info, and smeared anyone who questioned it.… — Steve Reichel (@SteveReichel) July 16, 2025 Here we have some MAGA influencers holding up binders of a "democratic hoax" provided by the trump administration. — Keith Edwards (@keithedwards) July 16, 2025 They're are files. Maxwell was convicted because of them. If he's saying it's a hoax, he's all over them... — °jP (@jim_pennington) July 16, 2025 Related... Trump Goes Off On His Own MAGA Base: 'I Don't Want Their Support Anymore!' Joe Rogan Blasts The Trump Administration As Epstein Fallout Grows Right-Wing Media Is Now Falling In Line With Trump On Epstein Trump Says Comey, Biden And Obama 'Made Up' The Epstein Files
The Hill
16 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump's challenge to Democrats on school choice: Put up or shut up
On Independence Day, President Trump signed into law the biggest expansion of universal private school choice in American history. In its reporting, the New York Times inexplicably characterized a last-minute amendment limiting Education Savings Accounts only to states that opt-in as a ' win for Democrats and teachers' unions,' because blue states would presumably choose not to participate. Although American Federation of Teachers president and recently resigned DNC member Randi Weingarten may view the denial of school choice to blue state parents as a 'win,' I doubt working class voters would agree. In fact, that 'win' represents a political landmine for Democrats. I am skeptical about the wisdom of Trump's Education Savings Accounts plan, but I must admit that I am only typing this sentence because of a scholarship I received to attend a private school many years ago. When I was 16, my alcoholic father committed suicide. I vividly remember going to school the first day after my dad's funeral feeling overwhelmed, numb and embarrassed. And I remember how my teachers made me feel safe and seen in a way that altered the trajectory of my life. My younger brother wasn't so lucky. He went to a different school when our dad died and joined a gang after dropping out. I have seen firsthand the impact of education dancing on the razor's edge of a child's life. That's why I do what I do. So I respect leaders like Democrats for Education Reform chief Jorge Elorza, who are driving the voucher debate. But I have a healthy skepticism about the public policy implications of scaling a wild-west national Education Savings Account plan with few regulatory guardrails to ensure educational quality — not to mention separation of church and state red flags or my belief in the promise of public education. Policy concerns aside, voters now face a stark color-coded national split-screen. In red states, you get free money for the school of your choice. In blue states, you get what you get and you don't get upset. Listening to teachers union leaders like Weingarten and her allies, you'd think charter schools were created in an underground right-wing laboratory as part of a secret plot to ' privatize ' public education. In fact charter schools were originally proposed in 1988 by her own American Federation of Teachers predecessor Al Shanker. I worked in the White House for President Bill Clinton, who proudly ran on charter schools when only one existed in America. President Barack Obama later scaled high-quality charters as part of his bold Race to the Top agenda. Charters are public schools, which means they are free and secular, cannot have admission requirements, and have strict regulatory controls on educational quality. That doesn't sound like a Republican plot to destroy public education to me. I am a longtime public school parent. My daughters have attended our great neighborhood Los Angeles Unified School District school, as well as multiple high-quality public charters. But we literally had to win a lottery to get into their charter schools. That's because California caps charter growth, since many charters are not unionized, as a Democratic Party favor to teachers unions. Amongst progressive issues outside education that Weingarten and I agree upon is that Trump is a threat to democracy. That's exactly why the time is now for a Democratic moonshot to translate 'high-quality public schools' from a soundbite into a civil right. In debating this abundance moonshot, the onus is on Democrats like me who are skeptical about Education Savings Accounts to articulate a compelling alternative that can win back working class voters. Weingarten, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have rightly championed universal preschool, free community college and student loan relief. But the entire K-12 experience of a child is conveniently missing from that agenda. In addition to scaling high-quality public school choice, our moonshot must span preschool to post-secondary, pivot from 'equity' to 'quality,' and put parents — not party interests — at the center. This begins with eliminating school attendance boundaries that trap children in failing schools; expanding high-quality career and technical education; universal tutoring for the COVID generation; endorsement of science of reading; and finishing the job of Brown v. Board of Education by codifying high-quality public schools as a civil right for all children in America. The good news for my party is that Democrats have a strong bench of national leaders with a record of challenging party orthodoxy. That was a feature — not a bug — of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama's success as the only two-term Democratic presidents since Franklin Roosevelt. The bad news is that while Democrats have dithered for a decade under Biden, Harris and Weingarten, Republicans have been formulating a bold vision for American education with obvious appeal for the same working class voters Democrats need to win back. The ball is decidedly now in our court. Democratic leaders must volley with a viable vision that speaks to the urgent needs of working-class parents — not just to do the right thing for kids, but also to win back power. For the sake of American democracy, Democrats must not concede education Independence Day to Trump.
The Hill
16 minutes ago
- The Hill
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg expected to testify in $8 billion Facebook privacy lawsuit
WILMINGTON, Del. (AP) — A $8 billion class action investors' lawsuit against Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and company leaders — current and former — begins Wednesday, with claims stemming from the 2018 privacy scandal involving the Cambridge Analytica political consulting firm. Investors allege in their lawsuit that Meta did not fully disclose the risks that Facebook users' personal information would be misused by Cambridge Analytica, a firm that supported Donald Trump's successful Republican presidential campaign in 2016. Shareholders say Facebook officials repeatedly and continually violated a 2012 consent order with the Federal Trade Commission under which Facebook agreed to stop collecting and sharing personal data on platform users and friends without their consent. Facebook later sold user data to commercial partners in direct violation of the consent order and removed disclosures from privacy settings that were required under consent order, the lawsuit alleges. The fallout led to Facebook agreeing to pay a $5.1 billion penalty to settle FTC charges. The social media giant also faced significant fines in Europe and reached a $725 million privacy settlement with users. Now shareholders want Zuckerberg and others to reimburse Meta for the FTC fine and other legal costs, which the plaintiffs estimate total more than $8 billion. The first trial witness, privacy expert Neil Richards, testified Monday morning for the shareholders. 'Facebook's privacy disclosures were misleading,' said Richards, a professor at Washington University Law School. On cross-examination by a lawyer for the board of directors, he said he could not say whether the company had violated a 2012 consent order with the FTC. However, when asked about a PricewaterhouseCoopers report published in 2015 that found Facebook's privacy controls to be sufficient, Richards called such reviews 'of limited value' because they are based on information provided by the firm itself. The eight-day case will feature testimony from Zuckerberg and former Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg. Others expected to appear on the stand include board member Marc Andreessen and former board member Peter Thiel. It takes place in Delaware Chancery Court, where Facebook parent Meta Platforms Inc. is incorporated. A judge is expected to rule in the months after the trial wraps up. Meta took the case all the way to the Supreme Court to try to get it dismissed. Justices heard arguments in November and decided that it was wrong to take up the case in the first place. The high court dismissed the company's appeal, leaving in place an appellate ruling allowing the case to go forward.
