Senate passes LCWF reauthorization 92-8

[mtwarden]

Overwhelming bipartisan in the Senate support for permanently reauthorizing LWCF; now to the House

I wonder who the 8 were that voted against it? I’ll go way out on a limb and guess at least one no vote from Utah.

 

[jmez]

“This bill perpetuates a terrible standard for federal land policy in the West and particularly for the state of Utah,” Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), who voted against the bill, said Monday.


Cruz (R-TX), Nay
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Johnson (R-WI), Nay
Lankford (R-OK), Nay
Lee (R-UT), Nay
Paul (R-KY), Nay
Sasse (R-NE), Nay
Toomey (R-PA), Nay

 

[Trial153]

Now we need to get it through the house and on the presidents desk.

No surprises for most of those no votes. If Lee or Cruz is on board for anything to do with land, water or conservation then its probably a bad decision.

 

[tdhanses]

Yeah not shocked on the No’s at all but glad to see that is a very large minority. I think it’ll get through the house just hope some of these new radical dems don’t try to add stupid riders to it that will then make it fail.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

My guess and hope is if Left alone, it’ll pass the Senate. The president will sign it in unless something dumb gets attached. Regardless of what some imply, he’s pro public land.

 

[Fitzwho]

I'll be sending a note to Ted.

 

[mtwarden]

I guess no surprises on the nays

In a month or two of less than good news, nice to see some good news!

 

[tdhanses]

My guess and hope is if Left alone, it’ll pass the Senate. The president will sign it in unless something dumb gets attached. Regardless of what some imply, he’s pro public land.

Already passed the Senate, the House still has to vote. If left alone I see no reason Trump wouldn’t sign it.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

I thought I read it passed the house. Waiting on the Senate. Total brain fart on my part. Anyways, That in itsell is scary. Because it’s liable to get some weird stuff attached.

 

[elkduds]

MUCH MORE than permanent LWCF reauthorization: more wilderness, Nat'l Monuments, free homestead land in AK for veterans: https://www.washingtonpost.com/clima...=.f13ee5e147f3

Trump's big oil and coal backers won't find much to like in this bill. Nor will his arch conservative constituents (see Who Voted No above). He is more fond of them than he is of public land.

 

[sodaksooner]

Very disappointed in my Senators (OK) and I am Republican. Always beholding to oil and gas no matter what.

 

[Murdy]

Given the broad support, I suspect even if Trump were not on board, he would not want to risk being embarrassed by a legislative override of a veto.

 

[JWP58]

Say......which party is the majority in the Senate?

 

[mmcdonough]

Great news! I'm a pretty staunch advocate of state's rights but when it comes to public land I'm wary of the State's ability to manage. I read a study that State maintained land does tend to generate more revenue than the bloated federal government. However that's a small sample size compared to what the Feds manage and how would the States handle big time costs like wildfire management? State's have also been prone to selling off large tracts of state owned land to private interest.

Bottom line: This bill is desperately needed to reform the federal land bureaus and it should be universally applauded. Anyone who voted against it is either getting large support from the oil companies that this program is funded off of, or are being influenced by special interest that wish to obtain public lands and block access to the public. Let's hope Trump signs this into law. I expect it will be on his desk soon!

 

[tdhanses]

MUCH MORE than permanent LWCF reauthorization: more wilderness, Nat'l Monuments, free homestead land in AK for veterans: https://www.washingtonpost.com/clima...=.f13ee5e147f3

Trump's big oil and coal backers won't find much to like in this bill. Nor will his arch conservative constituents (see Who Voted No above). He is more fond of them than he is of public land.

Yeah but do you think he cares what they think or do you think they would rather support the “New Green Deal” backers running against him?

I think they’ll still show him support.

 

[Matt Cashell]

Say......which party is the majority in the Senate?

I agree JWP58.

This was a great moment for bipartisanship which is tragically scarce lately.

Vote by party:

R) 45 yeas
D) 45 yeas
I) 2 yeas

R) 8 nays

Really great job of compromise governing on issues directly benefiting hunters.

I am really proud of my Montana senators from both parties on this!

 

[WV Mountaineer]

I don't see a win in this bill for hunters as stated other then always having the act in existence. And, I like the idea of its funding being fluid. Its a safe guard to prevent it from being abused by political power.

 

[tdhanses]

I don't see a win in this bill for hunters as stated other then always having the act in existence. And, I like the idea of its funding being fluid. Its a safe guard to prevent it from being abused by political power.

An indirect win is still a win.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

I think you’d have to work hard at turning my post into anything other then what I said. And, I think you’d have to be blind to assume this as a huge victory.

I made it clear that there are lots of reasons to be happy. But, I can assure you that preservationists and the enemy’s of hunting will be happy with the passing of this as well. It isn’t the saving grace and has many implications.

The American people have a great reserve of resource and recreation. Both can be used wisely. And anytime legislation is put forth that eliminates that, the future users are the ones that will potentially live with the negative consequences of such.

 

[elkstabber]

This is good news overall.