Senator Mike Lee (R., Utah) is going to revise his plan to sell off federal land after the Senate parliamentarian said it could not be included in the GOP’s mammoth tax and spending legislation.

The Senate parliamentarian recently ruled that Lee’s legislation cannot be part of the GOP’s budget reconciliation bill, which allows Senate Republicans to bypass Democratic votes and pass certain tax and spending provisions with a simple majority.

Lee controversially proposed selling off millions of acres of federal land, or less than 1 percent of the federal government’s 640 million acres of land, across eleven states, including portions of Utah and neighboring western states. Montana was not included in Lee’s plan after the state’s Republican senators expressed opposition to it.

The U.S. Forest Service manages 193 million acres of forests and grasslands, and the Bureau of Land Management oversees about 245 million acres.

Lee is now floating a revised version of the public land sales that would remove all forest service land from the bill and ensure the sales do not harm farmers, ranchers, and recreational land users.

“Housing prices are crushing families and keeping young Americans from living where they grew up. We need to change that, Lee posted on X.

He said he would “REMOVE ALL Forest Service land” from the bill and “SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE the amount of BLM land in the bill.” Lee clarified that “Only land WITHIN 5 MILES of population centers is eligible.”

Lee also promised to “Establish FREEDOM ZONES to ensure these lands benefit AMERICAN FAMILIES” and “PROTECT our farmers, ranchers, and recreational users. They come first.”

“Yes, the Byrd Rule limits what can go in the reconciliation bill, but I’m doing everything I can to support President Trump and move this forward,” Lee added.

His initial plan garnered significant backlash from conservative influencers and free-market environmentalists who argued pristine federal lands are an irreplaceable part of the American way of life and worth conserving. Democratic officials and progressive environmentalists also opposed Lee’s plan on the grounds that public lands are worth protecting from exploitation.

The legislation did not include national parks commonly associated with the federal government’s environmental conservation and land ownership.

Lee’s plan would have opened up the lands to private ownership and economic development with input from state and local officials. It would have been primarily intended for housing development, with the funds going back to the federal government.

Proponents of Lee’s plan believe selling off a tiny amount of federal land could be used for energy production or other economic activities. Republicans have long believed the federal government’s vast land ownership has hindered economic development and prevented land from being put to good use.