Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 23 - 16.
The bill prevents the Secretary of the Interior from finalizing, implementing, administering, or enforcing the February 2023 Final Land Protection Plan & Environmental Assessment for Muleshoe National Wildlife Refuge. It is a targeted prohibition that bars federal implementation of that specific FWS land protection plan.
Liberal emphasizes habitat loss; conservatives emphasize property rights
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is narrowly and clearly drafted to achieve a single substantive change (a categorical prohibition on specified actions regarding a named Land Protection Plan).
The bill prevents the Secretary of the Interior from finalizing, implementing, administering, or enforcing the February 2023 Final Land Protection Plan & Environmental Assessment for Muleshoe National Wildlife Refuge.
It is a targeted prohibition that bars federal implementation of that specific FWS land protection plan.
Very narrow and low-cost but removes agency authority; likely to pass lower chamber more easily than upper, with modest overall chance absent broad consensus.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is narrowly and clearly drafted to achieve a single substantive change (a categorical prohibition on specified actions regarding a named Land Protection Plan). It succeeds in precisely identifying the agency actor and the specific document to which the prohibition applies, but it omits customary supporting details.
Liberal emphasizes habitat loss; conservatives emphasize property rights
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberal emphasizes habitat loss; conservatives emphasize property rights
Likely opposed.
Views the prohibition as an unnecessary barrier to refuge conservation and Fish and Wildlife Service planning.
Sees risk of harm to habitat and a dangerous precedent limiting federal conservation tools.
Mixed/unsure.
Wants more detail on the plan's specific land actions, costs, and local impacts.
Supports protecting property rights and fiscal restraint but concerned about environmental consequences and precedent.
Likely supportive.
Views the prohibition as protecting private property, limiting federal land acquisition, and restraining federal regulatory reach.
Sees it as defending local control and agricultural uses near the refuge.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Very narrow and low-cost but removes agency authority; likely to pass lower chamber more easily than upper, with modest overall chance absent broad consensus.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberal emphasizes habitat loss; conservatives emphasize property rights
Very narrow and low-cost but removes agency authority; likely to pass lower chamber more easily than upper, with modest overall chance abse…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is narrowly and clearly drafted to achieve a single substantive change (a categorical prohibition on specified actions regarding a named Land Protection Plan). It suc…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.