Pershing County Economic Development and Conservation Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/s/1195
Last Updated: March 23, 2026

Sponsored by

Sen. Rosen, Jacky [D-NV]

ID: R000608

Follow the money

The bill

Pershing County Economic Development and Conservation Act

S. 1195, 119th Congress — read as touching Oil & Gas.

The sponsor

Sen. Rosen, Jacky [D-NV]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$127,000 raised

30 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

63% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Introduction" section, p. 575-577 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining. Hearings held.

December 1, 2025

Introduced

Committee Review

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.

🗳️

Floor Action

Passed Senate

🏛️

House Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, brought to you by the esteemed members of Congress. Let's dissect this farce and expose the underlying disease.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Pershing County Economic Development and Conservation Act (S 1195) claims to promote conservation, improve public land management, and provide for "sensible development" in Pershing County, Nevada. How quaint. In reality, this bill is a thinly veiled attempt to facilitate the transfer of public lands into private hands, with a dash of token environmentalism thrown in for good measure.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill creates a checkerboard land resolution process, allowing the Secretary of the Interior to sell or exchange eligible public lands (defined as those within the designated "Checkerboard Lands Resolution Area") to private entities. The sales and exchanges will be conducted through competitive bidding processes, with adjoining landowners getting first dibs. Oh, and let's not forget the obligatory nod to environmental concerns: the bill also designates new wilderness areas and releases certain lands from wilderness study.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved in this legislative shell game:

* Pershing County government: Will benefit from increased tax revenue and "simplified" land management. * Private landowners: Get to expand their holdings through the sale or exchange of public lands. * Environmental groups: Might get some token conservation victories, but ultimately will be placated by the promise of new wilderness areas. * The Lovelock Paiute Tribe: Will receive a transfer of land to be held in trust, because who doesn't love a good PR opportunity?

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a symptom of the chronic disease plaguing our government: the insatiable hunger for private interests to devour public resources. By facilitating the transfer of public lands into private hands, this legislation will:

* Further fragment and privatize our natural heritage. * Create new opportunities for exploitation and development, under the guise of "sensible development." * Disregard the long-term consequences of such actions, in favor of short-term gains.

In conclusion, S 1195 is a masterclass in legislative doublespeak. It's a bill that promises conservation while delivering privatization, all wrapped in a bow of bureaucratic jargon and token environmentalism. Bravo, Congress. You've managed to create another Frankenstein's monster of a bill, stitched together from the worst parts of our government's addiction to special interests.

Related Topics

Public Lands & Natural ResourcesWildlife & Endangered Species
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Rosen, Jacky [D-NV]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$127,000
17 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$49,800
Committees
$0
Individuals
$77,200

No PAC contributions found

1
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
3 transactions
$8,600
2
PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS
3 transactions
$7,000
3
SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA
2 transactions
$6,600
4
FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA
2 transactions
$6,600
5
CHEROKEE NATION
2 transactions
$5,300
6
SYUCAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION
1 transaction
$3,300
7
MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI INDIANS
1 transaction
$3,300
8
CHICKASAW NATION
3 transactions
$3,100
9
RENO-SPARKS INDIAN COLONY
1 transaction
$2,500
10
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
1 transaction
$1,000
11
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
1 transaction
$1,000
12
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
1 transaction
$1,000
13
TAHOE LAND AND DEVELOPMENT
1 transaction
$500

No committee contributions found

1
SECUNDA, TOM
4 transactions
$50,800
2
MERRIN, SETH
2 transactions
$13,200
3
JONES, J.
1 transaction
$6,600
4
JONES, J. RANDALL
1 transaction
$6,600

Donor Network - Sen. Rosen, Jacky [D-NV]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Loading...

Showing 54 nodes and 30 connections (76 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $127,000

Top Donors - Sen. Rosen, Jacky [D-NV]

Showing top 17 donors by contribution amount

13 Orgs4 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 2 helped, 2 harmed.

  • Oil & Gasconfidence 0.90

    Title I authorizes sale/exchange of eligible land, which includes withdrawal from mineral leasing laws (Sec. 102(g)(1)(C)), potentially limiting future oil and gas development on those lands.

  • Coal Miningconfidence 0.85

    Title I withdrawal from mining laws (Sec. 102(g)(1)(B)) applies to encumbered land, which includes mining claims, millsites, or tunnel sites, thus restricting coal mining activities.

  • +Real Estateconfidence 0.85

    Title I authorizes sale/exchange of eligible land (Sec. 102) and disposition of proceeds for land acquisition (Sec. 104(a)(3)(A)), facilitating real estate development and transactions.

  • Title I authorizes sale/exchange of eligible land for development (Sec. 101(4)), which could enable construction and engineering projects on transferred lands.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Sen. Rosen, Jacky [D-NV])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HELPS

  • from 39 contributions
    • MCCARTHY, BRIAN$1,425
    • SIMONSON, KENNETH$1,000
    • NEMSER, ELIZA$960
    • GREENE, STEVEN$500
    • COLTER, TOM$189
  • from 7 contributions
    • SIMON, HERBERT$2,000
    • SOKOLOV, RICK$1,000
    • SCHULMAN, EDWARD$300
    • SCHNEIDER, JENNIFER$250
    • ALAMEDA, ROBERT$40

Industries this bill HARMS

  • Oil & Gas$6,191
    from 43 contributions
    • ZONES, STACEY I.$3,000
    • ABBASI, JAFFER$1,000
    • GAEL, MIEKE E.$550
    • HALLIBURTON, CAROL$537
    • BRENSKELLE, LISA A.$500
  • from 3 contributions
    • THOMAS, WILLIAM P.$105

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.

Introduction

Moderate62.6%
Pages: 575-577

— 543 — Department of the Interior 68. Karen Budd Falen, “Biden’s ‘30 By 30 Plan’: A Slap at American Private Property Rights,” Cowboy State Daily, April 15, 2021, https://cowboystatedaily.com/2021/04/15/bidens-30-by-30-plan-a-slap-at-american-private- property-rights/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 69. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3396: Rescission of Secretary’s Order 3388, ‘Land and Water Conservation Fund Implementation by the U.S. Department of the Interior,’” February 11, 2021, https://www. doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so-3396-signed-2-11-21-final.pdf (accessed March 17, 2021). 70. Ibid. 71. Associated Press, “Ute Indian Tribe Criticizes Biden’s Camp Hale Monument Designation,” KUER 90.1, October 13, 2022. 72. William Perry Pendley, “Trump Wants to Free Up Federal Lands, His Interior Secretary Fails Him,” National Review Online, September 25, 2017, https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/09/secretary-interior-ryan-zinke- monuments-review-trump-executive-order-antiquities-act-environmentalists/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 73. The Oregon and California Revested Lands Sustained Yield Management Act of 1937, Public Law 75-405, 43 U.S. Code § 2601. 74. Ibid., and American Forest Resource Council v. Hammond, 422 F. Supp. 3d 184, 187 (D.D.C. 2019). 75. American Forest Resource Council v. Hammond, 422 F. Supp. 3d, pp. 187–188. 76. Federal Register, Vol. 55, No. 26 (June 26, 1990), p. 26114–26194. 77. Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 114 (June 13, 2000), pp. 37249–37252. 78. Federal Register, Vol. 82, No. 11 (January 18, 2017), pp. 6145–6150. 79. American Forest Resource Council v. Hammond, 422 F. Supp. 3d 184 (D.D.C. 2019). 80. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Final Consent Decrees/Settlement Agreements,” https://www.doi.gov/ solicitor/transparency/final (accessed March 16, 2023). 81. Michael Doyle, “Interior Order Erases Litigation Website,” E&E News, June 17, 2022, https://www.eenews.net/ articles/interior-order-erases-litigation-website/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 82. Rob Roy Ramey, On the Origin of Specious Species (Lexington Books 2012), pp. 77–97. 83. William Perry Pendley, “Killing Jobs to Save the Sage Grouse: Junk Science, Weird Science, and Plain Nonsense,” Washington Times, May 31, 2012, https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/31/killing- jobs-to-save-the-sage-grouse/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 84. Michael Lee, “Wyoming’s Push to Delist Grizzly Bears from Endangered Species List Faces Opposition from Anti-Hunting Group,” Fox News, January 21, 2022, https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wyoming-delist-grizzly- endangered-species-list-opposition-anti-hunting-group (accessed March 18, 2023). 85. News release, “Trump Administration Returns Management and Protection of Gray Wolves to States and Tribes Following Successful Recovery Efforts,” October 29, 2020, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/trump- administration-returns-management-and-protection-gray-wolves-states-and-tribes (accessed March 18, 2023). 86. 50 Code of Federal Regulations §17, and Sean Paige, “‘Rewilding’ Will Backfire on Colorado,” The Gazette, June 19, 2022, https://gazette.com/opinion/guest-column-rewilding-will-backfire-on-colorado/article_ d0016672-ed79-11ec-b027-abe62ba840a1.html (accessed March 18, 2023). 87. Madeleine C. Bottrill et al., “Is Conservation Triage Just Smart Decision Making?” Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Vol. 23, No. 12 (December 2008), pp. 649–654, https://karkgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/Bottrill-et-al-2008. pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 88. Rob Roy Ramey II, testimony before the Committee on Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, April 8, 2014, https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/rameytestimony4_8.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 89. Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Public Law 95–87. 90. Pennsylvania is the nation’s third-largest coal producer, and its state program was the model for SMCRA. 91. Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 207 (October 26, 2020), pp. 67631–67635. 92. U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, “Approximate Original Contour,” INE–26, June 23, 2020, https://www.osmre.gov/sites/default/files/pdfs/directive1003.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). 93. Tim Gallaudet and Timothy R. Petty, “Federal Action Plan for Improving Forecasts of Water Availability,” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, October 2019, https://www.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/ legacy/document/2019/Oct/Federal%20Action%20Plan%20for%20Improving%20Forecasts%20of%20 Water%20Availability.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). — 544 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 94. 32 U.S. Code, ch. 52. 95. Donald J. Trump, “Presidential Memorandum on Promoting the Reliable Supply and Delivery of Water in the West,” October 19, 2018, https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/presidential- memorandum-promoting-reliable-supply-delivery-water-west/ (accessed March 17, 2023). 96. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations,” https://www.doi.gov/ buybackprogram (accessed March 18, 2023). 97. Great American Outdoors Act, Public Law 116–152.

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills