Latest news with #Maloy
Yahoo
18-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Utah Rep. Maloy proposes way to honor the nation's 250th birthday
WASHINGTON — Visitors could enjoy national parks for free on next year's Constitution Day to celebrate the country's 250th anniversary under a new proposal introduced by Utah Rep. Celeste Maloy this week. The Semiquincentennial Tourism and Access to Recreation Sites, or STARS Act, would direct the secretary of the Interior to designate Constitution Day as an 'entrance-fee free day' at all National Park Service sites next year. If passed, it would open the gates on Sept. 17, 2026, for all visitors to commemorate the 250th birthday of the United States. 'How do you properly celebrate 250 years of freedom? Maybe the best way is to spend time in what Wallace Stegner called 'the best idea we ever had'— our national parks,' Maloy said in a statement. The bill would open access to more than 400 sites across the country, including national parks, battleground sites, monuments and other cultural landmarks. By waiving entrance fees, Maloy said it highlights the role of public lands in U.S. history and 'honors the legacy of freedom, resilience, and patriotism that began in 1776.' Constitution Day is a federal holiday marking the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, marking the day the delegates signed the document at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The holiday is observed every year to celebrate those who have become U.S. citizens. If passed, Maloy's proposal would join other mass efforts next year to mark the 250th anniversary of the United States. President Donald Trump earlier this month launched America250, a campaign promise to celebrate the country's 250th birthday with a yearlong celebration. America250 began at the Iowa State Fairgrounds on July 3 and several states, including Utah, have ongoing events to mark the occasion.
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Utah Rep. Maloy pushes against amendment to reinstate military reimbursements for abortion travel
WASHINGTON — Utah Rep. Celeste Maloy is pushing back against efforts to reinstate Biden-era policies directing the Defense Department to reimburse costs for service members who travel across state lines to obtain an abortion. During an appropriations hearing on Thursday, Maloy rejected an amendment seeking to implement a 2022 policy allowing for reimbursements for abortion-related travel and attach it to legislation funding the Defense Department for the 2026 fiscal year. Maloy argued the proposal runs afoul of the Hyde Amendment, a federal statute passed in 1976 prohibiting federal funds from going toward abortion costs, with few exceptions. 'The Hyde Amendment is a clear federal ban on abortion funding, except in the cases of rape, incest and life of the mother,' Maloy said in her remarks. 'It's been in place every appropriation cycle for 40 years. And I've been here, I've heard a lot of talk about partisanship and how this should not be a partisan bill, but this is a completely partisan amendment, whereas the Hyde Amendment has been a bipartisan consensus for four decades.' The amendment, proposed by a Democrat during the appropriations hearing, was ultimately rejected. The DOD issued a policy shortly after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022 that would allow military members to receive travel reimbursements and approved leave for abortion-related reasons. That policy was largely approved to allow service members in states where abortion was banned locally to travel across state lines if needed. That provision was criticized by Republicans and was rescinded shortly after Donald Trump took office in January and signed an executive order enforcing the Hyde Amendment and restricting taxpayer dollars from being used for any abortion-related reasons. Maloy pushed against reinstating that policy, arguing it forces taxpayers to fund travel and lodging costs for a procedure they may disagree with. 'The federal government must exercise restraint and respect diverse moral values of American people,' Maloy said. 'This amendment is not in the spirit of that neutrality, not in the spirit of the Dobbs decision or the Hyde Amendment.' 'This would allow the DOD to make federal abortion policy that isn't in keeping with what Congress has done through the Hyde Amendment, and that's a path that I don't think we should start to go down,' she added. 'Federal abortion policy should be uniform like it has been for 40 years through bipartisan consensus in the Hyde Amendment. Abortions, including abortion travel or enhanced leave policies designed to facilitate abortions, have no place in this bill.' Republicans overwhelmingly rejected the amendment and the House Appropriations Committee advanced the larger bill, the Fiscal Year 2026 Defense Appropriations Act. The legislation seeks to provide more than $830 billion to the Defense Department and includes policies to increase pay for military personnel, modernize weapons systems, codify some DOGE suggestions to cut 'waste, fraud and abuse' within the department, and more.
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Mike Lee brings back proposal to sell public land in Western states
Sen. Mike Lee, a Utah Republican, participates in a forum hosted by the Sutherland Institute at the University of Utah's Hinckley Institute of Politics on Oct. 14, 2024. (Katie McKellar/Utah News Dispatch) A version of this story originally appeared in the Utah News Dispatch. Utah Sen. Mike Lee is bringing back a proposal that would allow the federal government to sell off several million acres of public land in Utah, Colorado and other Western states. Lee says it will open up 'underused' federal land for housing and help communities manage growth — opponents, including a number of Democrats in Congress and environmental groups, say it's an attempt to pay for tax cuts and warn it will jeopardize access to public lands. Introduced Wednesday evening, Lee's amendment to congressional Republicans' budget bill, nicknamed the 'big, beautiful bill,' renews an effort initially spearheaded by Rep. Celeste Maloy, R-Utah, and Mark Amodei, R-Nevada, that sought to dispose of 11,500 acres of Bureau of Land Management land in southwestern Utah and some 450,000 acres of federal land in Nevada. But Lee's proposal is much broader — rather than earmark specific parcels of land for disposal like Maloy and Amodei's amendment, Lee wants to require the U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Department of Agriculture to sell off a percentage of land managed by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. According to the amendment, both agencies would be required to dispose of between 0.5% to 0.75% of land they manage, which amounts to about 2.2 million to 3.3 million acres. State and local governments would be allowed to nominate parcels of land, and would be granted priority to purchase. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Eleven states would be eligible — Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. Notably, Montana is exempt, and Montana Republican Rep. Ryan Zinke was instrumental in sinking Maloy and Amodei's original proposal, stating that selling public lands is a line he would not cross. Though the scope is much bigger, Lee's reasoning behind the proposal is the same as Maloy and Amodei's — identify parcels of federal land near high-growth areas, and sell them at market value to local governments to use for housing, water infrastructure, roads and other development. The amendment prohibits the sale of land that's already designated, like national parks, national monuments, wilderness areas or national recreation areas. Land that has an existing right, like a mining claim, grazing permit, mineral lease or right of way is also off limits. If it passes, the secretaries of the departments of Interior and Agriculture would have to prioritize nominating land that's next to already developed areas, has access to existing infrastructure or is 'suitable for residential housing.' The amendment also directs the secretaries to nominate land that's isolated and 'inefficient to manage,' and to reduce the checkerboard land pattern, the result of railroad grants in the 1800s that left small plots of private land scattered within swaths of federal land and vice-versa. 'We're opening underused federal land to expand housing, support local development and get Washington, D.C. out of the way for communities that are just trying to grow,' Lee said in a video address. 'We're talking about isolated parcels that are difficult to manage, that are better suited for housing and infrastructure. To our hunters, anglers and sportsmen, you will not lose access to the lands you love. Washington has proven time and again it can't manage this land. This bill puts it in better hands.' But that reasoning didn't fly for a number of environmental groups, including the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, which called Lee's proposal an attempt 'to pay for tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy.' 'Senator Lee's never-ending attacks on public lands continue. His hostility stands in stark contrast with Americans' deep and abiding love of public lands. Senator Lee's plan puts Utah's redrock country in the crosshairs of unchecked development,' said Travis Hammill, Washington, D.C. director for the alliance. 'In Utah and the West, public lands are the envy of the country — but Senator Lee is willing to sacrifice the places where people recreate, where they hunt and fish, and where they make a living.' The Center for Western Priorities, a public lands advocacy group, called Lee's amendment 'a shameless ploy to sell off pristine public lands for trophy homes and gated communities that will do nothing to address the affordable housing shortage in the West'; the National Wildlife Federation dubbed it a 'fire sale' that is 'orders of magnitude worse' than Maloy's proposal; The Wilderness Society said it was 'a betrayal of future generations and folks on both sides of the aisle' and warned that could spark political backlash. Maloy's proposal identified parcels owned by the Bureau of Land Management to sell to Washington and Beaver counties, the Washington County Water Conservancy District and the city of St. George. The land would have been used for water infrastructure (like reservoirs and wells), an airport expansion in St. George, new and widened roads, recreation and housing. The proposal was widely celebrated by the water district and local governments, who said it would help them make adjustments as the region continues to experience rapid growth. But nearby tribes, environmentalists and politicians from both sides of the aisle were skeptical. Utah News Dispatch is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Utah News Dispatch maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor McKenzie Romero for questions: info@ SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Mike Lee brings back proposal to sell public land in Utah, other Western states
Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee, right, participates in a forum hosted by the Sutherland Institute at the University of Utah's Hinckley Institute of Politics in 2024. (Photo: Katie McKellar, Utah News Dispatch) Utah Sen. Mike Lee is bringing back a proposal that would allow the federal government to sell off several million acres of public land in Nevada, Utah and other Western states. Lee says it will open up 'underused' federal land for housing and help communities manage growth — opponents, including a number of Democrats in Congress and environmental groups, say it's an attempt to pay for tax cuts and warn it will jeopardize access to public lands. Introduced Wednesday evening, Lee's amendment to congressional Republicans' budget bill, nicknamed the 'big, beautiful bill,' renews an effort initially spearheaded by Rep. Celeste Maloy, R-Utah, and Mark Amodei, R-Nevada, that sought to dispose of 11,500 acres of Bureau of Land Management land in southwestern Utah and some 450,000 acres of federal land in Nevada. But Lee's proposal is much broader — rather than earmark specific parcels of land for disposal like Maloy and Amodei's amendment, Lee wants to require the U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Department of Agriculture to sell off a percentage of land managed by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. According to the amendment, both agencies would be required to dispose of between 0.5% to 0.75% of land they manage, which amounts to about 2.2 million to 3.3 million acres. State and local governments would be allowed to nominate parcels of land, and would be granted priority to purchase. Eleven states would be eligible — Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. Notably, Montana is exempt, and Montana Republican Rep. Ryan Zinke was instrumental in sinking Maloy and Amodei's original proposal, stating that selling public lands is a line he would not cross. Though the scope is much bigger, Lee's reasoning behind the proposal is the same as Maloy and Amodei's — identify parcels of federal land near high-growth areas, and sell them at market value to local governments to use for housing, water infrastructure, roads and other development. The amendment prohibits the sale of land that's already designated, like national parks, national monuments, wilderness areas or national recreation areas. Land that has an existing right, like a mining claim, grazing permit, mineral lease or right of way is also off limits. If it passes, the secretaries of the departments of interior and agriculture would have to prioritize nominating land that's next to already developed areas, has access to existing infrastructure or is 'suitable for residential housing.' The amendment also directs the secretaries to nominate land that's isolated and 'inefficient to manage,' and to reduce the checkerboard land pattern, the result of railroad grants in the 1800s that left small plots of private land scattered within swaths of federal land and vice-versa. 'We're opening underused federal land to expand housing, support local development and get Washington, D.C. out of the way for communities that are just trying to grow,' Lee said in a video address. 'We're talking about isolated parcels that are difficult to manage, that are better suited for housing and infrastructure. To our hunters, anglers and sportsmen, you will not lose access to the lands you love. Washington has proven time and again it can't manage this land. This bill puts it in better hands.' Nevada Democratic Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto slammed Lee's proposal after it was introduced, saying it was developed without input from Nevadans. Lee's proposal 'ignores provisions for affordable housing and eliminates funding Nevada relies on for our schools and water conservation projects,' Cortez Masto said in a statement. 'Shoving lands sales in a reconciliation bill in order to pay for tax cuts for billionaires is not the way forward, and I'll continue to fight against this misguided proposal.' Lee's proposal also didn't fly for a number of environmental groups, including the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, which called it an attempt 'to pay for tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy.' 'Senator Lee's never-ending attacks on public lands continue. His hostility stands in stark contrast with Americans' deep and abiding love of public lands. Senator Lee's plan puts Utah's redrock country in the crosshairs of unchecked development,' said Travis Hammill, Washington, D.C. director for the alliance. 'In Utah and the West, public lands are the envy of the country — but Senator Lee is willing to sacrifice the places where people recreate, where they hunt and fish, and where they make a living.' The Center for Western Priorities, a public lands advocacy group, called Lee's amendment 'a shameless ploy to sell off pristine public lands for trophy homes and gated communities that will do nothing to address the affordable housing shortage in the West'; the National Wildlife Federation dubbed it a 'fire sale' that is 'orders of magnitude worse' than Maloy's proposal; The Wilderness Society said it was 'a betrayal of future generations and folks on both sides of the aisle' and warned that could spark political backlash. This story was originally published in Utah News Dispatch.
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Utah Sen. Mike Lee brings back proposal to sell public land in Western states
Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, participates in a forum hosted by the Sutherland Institute at the University of Utah's Hinckley Institute of Politics on Oct. 14, 2024. (Katie McKellar / Utah News Dispatch) Utah Sen. Mike Lee is bringing back a proposal that would allow the federal government to sell off several million acres of public land in Utah and other Western states. Lee says it will open up 'underused' federal land for housing and help communities manage growth — opponents, including a number of Democrats in Congress and environmental groups, say it's an attempt to pay for tax cuts and warn it will jeopardize access to public lands. Rep. Cliff Bentz, Oregon's only Republican member of Congress, defended giving away public land during a wide-ranging recent interview with the Oregon Capital Chronicle. 'There are really good reasons many times in the West, where there are literally tens and hundreds of millions of acres of public land, to transfer a small portion of it so that we can actually grow and perhaps address, oh I don't know, housing issues? Since everybody knows that we are desperately short of housing,' he said. 'Why in the world would we try to preserve land for hunting when people are living under a tree someplace?' Introduced Wednesday evening, Lee's amendment to congressional Republicans' budget bill, nicknamed the 'big, beautiful bill,' renews an effort initially spearheaded by Rep. Celeste Maloy, R-Utah, and Mark Amodei, R-Nevada, that sought to dispose of 11,500 acres of Bureau of Land Management land in southwestern Utah and some 450,000 acres of federal land in Nevada. But Lee's proposal is much broader — rather than earmark specific parcels of land for disposal like Maloy and Amodei's amendment, Lee wants to require the U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Department of Agriculture to sell off a percentage of land managed by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. According to the amendment, both agencies would be required to dispose of between 0.5% to 0.75% of land they manage, which amounts to about 2.2 million to 3.3 million acres. State and local governments would be allowed to nominate parcels of land, and would be granted priority to purchase. Eleven states would be eligible — Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. Notably, Montana is exempt, and Montana Republican Rep. Ryan Zinke was instrumental in sinking Maloy and Amodei's original proposal, stating that selling public lands is a line he would not cross. Though the scope is much bigger, Lee's reasoning behind the proposal is the same as Maloy and Amodei's — identify parcels of federal land near high-growth areas, and sell them at market value to local governments to use for housing, water infrastructure, roads and other development. The amendment prohibits the sale of land that's already designated, like national parks, national monuments, wilderness areas or national recreation areas. Land that has an existing right, like a mining claim, grazing permit, mineral lease or right of way is also off limits. If it passes, the secretaries of the departments of interior and agriculture would have to prioritize nominating land that's next to already developed areas, has access to existing infrastructure or is 'suitable for residential housing.' The amendment also directs the secretaries to nominate land that's isolated and 'inefficient to manage,' and to reduce the checkerboard land pattern, the result of railroad grants in the 1800s that left small plots of private land scattered within swaths of federal land and vice-versa. 'We're opening underused federal land to expand housing, support local development and get Washington, D.C. out of the way for communities that are just trying to grow,' Lee said in a video address. 'We're talking about isolated parcels that are difficult to manage, that are better suited for housing and infrastructure. To our hunters, anglers and sportsmen, you will not lose access to the lands you love. Washington has proven time and again it can't manage this land. This bill puts it in better hands.' But that reasoning didn't fly for a number of environmental groups, including the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, which called Lee's proposal an attempt 'to pay for tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy.' 'Senator Lee's never-ending attacks on public lands continue. His hostility stands in stark contrast with Americans' deep and abiding love of public lands. Senator Lee's plan puts Utah's redrock country in the crosshairs of unchecked development,' said Travis Hammill, Washington, D.C. director for the alliance. 'In Utah and the West, public lands are the envy of the country — but Senator Lee is willing to sacrifice the places where people recreate, where they hunt and fish, and where they make a living.' The Center for Western Priorities, a public lands advocacy group, called Lee's amendment 'a shameless ploy to sell off pristine public lands for trophy homes and gated communities that will do nothing to address the affordable housing shortage in the West'; the National Wildlife Federation dubbed it a 'fire sale' that is 'orders of magnitude worse' than Maloy's proposal; The Wilderness Society said it was 'a betrayal of future generations and folks on both sides of the aisle' and warned that could spark political backlash. Maloy's proposal identified parcels owned by the Bureau of Land Management to sell to Washington and Beaver counties, the Washington County Water Conservancy District and the city of St. George. The land would have been used for water infrastructure (like reservoirs and wells), an airport expansion in St. George, new and widened roads, recreation and housing. The proposal was widely celebrated by the water district and local governments, who said it would help them make adjustments as the region continues to experience rapid growth. But nearby tribes, environmentalists and politicians from both sides of the aisle were skeptical. Utah News Dispatch, like the Capital Chronicle, is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Utah News Dispatch maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor McKenzie Romero for questions: info@
