▶ 0:09:18Committee rules. Members of the committee may submit written opening statements for the record. Ask that members may revise and extend the remarks on the bills to be considered at this markup, and have those remarks included in the record. Without objection, so ordered. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess of the committee at any time pursuant to committee rule three I. The chair announces that he may postpone further proceedings today on the question of approving any measure or matter, or adopting an amendment on which a recorded vote is ordered.
▶ 0:09:46I now recognize myself for an opening statement. Good morning again, and thank you for joining us today for our full committee markup this morning. The committee will begin with h.r. 5103, the make the district of columbia safe and beautiful act. This bill would codify key components of an executive order signed by president trump this past march to clean up the streets of our nation's capitol in two ways.
▶ 0:10:10First, it would establish a special commission of federal officers in the district of columbia, virginia and maryland to help tighten law enforcement in the capitol. Second, it would order the secretary of the interior to immediately develop plans to actually clean up washington's popular tourism destinations, as in, pick up the trash. Too many americans find the city's parks, monuments and landmarks strewn with litter, graffiti and otherwise in disrepair, disrepair. Even worse, our public lands in washington, D.C.
▶ 0:10:40Have seen out of control riots like the pro-hamas riots at union station last year, which have resulted in burned american flags and tens of thousands of dollars in damages to iconic monuments. H.r. 5103 would permanently would add permanent statutory authority and accountability to president trump's long overdue beautification order and quite literally, make washington, D.C. safe and beautiful again. Next, the committee will turn to h.r.
▶ 0:11:071897, the endangered species act amendments act of 2025. The story of the essay is one congress has seen too many times over the years. A noble idea passed with strong bipartisan support that over time has weaponized by special interests against its original intent.
▶ 0:11:25The main goal of the essay is to use, and I'm quoting from the original essay, to use all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered and threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to this act are no longer necessary. Over the last five decades, over 1700 species have been listed under the esa. Only about 3% have ever been recovered enough to be delisted by its own terms. The esa is failed.
▶ 0:11:53The esa's primary function today is not to recover species, but to stifle people to block economic development, clogged court dockets and put businesses and local communities at the mercy of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats. While the esa is, as currently written, struggles to recover listed species, it has no such trouble. Proliferate. Proliferating frivolous lawsuits, dubious science and regulatory overreach. H.r.
▶ 0:12:191897 would reform the esa by recommitting the landmark law to its original bipartisan purpose. It would bring recovery science and transparency back to the forefront of endangered species protection law.
▶ 0:12:32First, the bill would finally encourage people on the ground, including landowners, state officials and project managers, to invest in species recovery, and would do so by connecting clear metrics to predictable regulatory benefits, aligning the incentives of endangered species and all their human neighbors. H.r.
▶ 0:12:521897 would also rein in the abuses of agencies that administer the esa by codifying recent court decisions requiring regulators to base their analysis on objective, fact based science rather than speculative worst case scenarios. The bill would finally end the esa litigation gravy train. It establishes reasonable timelines, caps or caps, attorney's fees and annual awards to special interest groups, and shields delisting decisions from judicial review. During the five year monitoring period.
▶ 0:13:22It streamlines the federal permitting process, one of the surest ways this committee can help bring down prices for working families across the country. All told, these reforms will make the esa more effective, transparent and aligned with the esa's original mission. It will better protect endangered species than the status quo.
▶ 0:13:42It will incentivize recovery and delisting rather than litigation, and it will once again put the nation's interest, environmental and economic ahead of special interests. I look forward to discussions today. I yield back, and I recognize ranking member huffman for any opening statement he may have. >> thank you, Mr. chairman, and congratulations, everyone. We made it to the end of the first year of the second trump presidency.
▶ 0:14:08And, you know, I never thought I would look back nostalgically on the first trump presidency. Uh, but I've got to say that chaos 2.0, the sequel, is crazier than anything hollywood could have ever scripted. This year has been marked by some of the most egregious abuses of power in the entire history of our nation.
▶ 0:14:29Uh, it is a good thing that our democracy has three co-equal branches of government so that we can hold those power abuses accountable and put a stop to gross overreaches. Um, that is if things were working. But unfortunately, uh, this republican majority doesn't seem to understand. Article one has no interest in being an independent branch of government, and hasn't done a single thing to rein in our wannabe king.
▶ 0:14:56They sure as heck don't, uh, do anything to lower costs, either for the american people or to make their lives better. But it is year end, and that's a time when we typically take stock and review what has happened. So let's consider what the republican majority has accomplished with total control of washington during this year. Um, you folks started off with a real bang.
▶ 0:15:22On day one, trump unleashed a slew of imperial edicts to cancel clean energy, affordable energy to reverse the actions that democrats put in place to help communities deal with extreme weather and climate impacts. And then he unleashed elon musk to tear through the government, shuttering services, harvesting america's private data and firing thousands of public servants and scientists. You folks cheered it on, didn't even ask any questions about it.
▶ 0:15:51And you spent the first markup in this committee pedaling an oversight plan that did nothing whatsoever to stop them. In fact, it was little more than a press release checking items off of polluters wish lists. And then this summer, you tried to sell off our public lands in the dark of night to pay for your billionaire tax giveaways in the one big ugly bill. You failed because even though you tried to slip it through late that night, um, the american people were watching.
▶ 0:16:21And your constituents, including hunters and anglers, made it loud and clear that they don't want their lands and waters, the places that they treasure to be given away and destroyed or sold off like assets on a balance sheet. To use the words of secretary burgum when he testified here in the committee, uh, you folks I know are still trying. Uh, we'll see where that goes.
▶ 0:16:44After years of claiming that you supported in all of the above energy strategy this year, we learned that your fingers were crossed. You spent this year enabling trump's war on clean energy, opening our coast to offshore drilling, dismantling bedrock environmental laws like nepa and the endangered species act. You turned a blind eye when trump tore down the east wing of the white house so that he could build a gilded ballroom.
▶ 0:17:10I guess for more of these great gatsby parties, when he sicked border agents on wildland firefighters who were actively battling a fire in washington state. You said nothing about any of this in this very room. You refuse to condemn trump and hold him accountable for trying to erase mentions of slavery and indigenous people and climate change from our national parks.
▶ 0:17:32And of course, your shining accomplishment, bringing this committee's work to a total halt for the longest shutdown in american history, because you didn't want to negotiate with democrats to save health care. And so you skipped town. Now you won. Congratulations. In a few days, we're going to go off that health care cliff, and millions of americans are no longer going to be able to afford their health care. Um, the health care coverage that keeps them from dying.
▶ 0:18:02So, um, after all of that, after what I think is the worst and most disgraceful congress anyone has seen in modern history, uh, we need to look ahead to 2026 and ask a simple question. Are you capable of changing course? Uh, we hope that you will have a new year's resolution that you will decide to work with democrats who have been here all along, ready to partner with you in good faith to actually solve problems.
▶ 0:18:31There are a lot of real problems facing our constituents in the country right now. This committee could be working on those things. I hope you will take this opportunity to change course and do it, because it is just the right thing to do. Uh, but if you want to think about it in purely political terms, um, you have one more year to show the american people that you deserve to keep that gavel right over there. Uh, and you should do it in your own political self-interest as well, I yield back.
▶ 0:19:04>> gentleman, yields back pursuant to the markup notice is now, in order to consider h.r. 5103, the make the district of columbia safe and beautiful act, ask unanimous consent that the subcommittee on federal lands be discharged from further consideration of the bill. Without objection. So ordered. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open to amendment at any point. Does any member wish to be recognized for purpose of debate on the bill? I'll recognize myself for five minutes. I support h.r.
▶ 0:19:335103, the make the district of columbia safe and beautiful act. This legislation is essential to restoring law and order and renewing a sense of pride in our nation's capital. This is especially important as we prepare for america's 250th birthday celebration. Washington, D.C. should stand as a symbol of america's best. It should be a place for all americans. Feel safe to celebrate what makes our nation great. Sadly, D.C.
▶ 0:20:00Has become one of the most dangerous cities in the nation. The freedom, strength, and pride that once defined our capital have been overshadowed by violence, destruction and the tragic loss of life. Last year recorded more than 29,000 crimes in D.C. including nearly 3500 violent offenses, more than 2100 robberies and over 5000 carjackings. In 2023, when homicide rates across the country decreased by 15%, D.C.
▶ 0:20:32Homicide rate increased by more than 35%. But we cannot forget that there are real people behind these statistics. Just last month, two national guardsmen, sarah beckstrom and andrew wolf, were brutally attacked near the white house in broad daylight. And another disturbing incident two young fathers, mike gill and aj vasquez, were murdered by the same criminal during an 11 hour carjacking spree.
▶ 0:20:54During a legislative hearing on this bill, this committee heard testimony from alicia cook, a grandmother who tragically lost her grandson due to violent crime in D.C. rising crime also threatens dc's economic vitality.
▶ 0:21:09As unanimous consent to enter into the record, a letter signed last year by the leaders of 70 organizations who are, quote, primarily based in the downtown business district, where there have been horrifying acts of violence, end quote, that, um, these actions threaten their employees and their families. Without objection.
▶ 0:21:31So ordered with an increase in crime has also come a widespread deterioration of public spaces in dc, which are primarily managed by the national park service. Homeless encampments have overtaken parks, some of which have had to shut down to ensure the safety of students at nearby elementary schools. Vandalism has also become prevalent. Just last year, pro-hamas rioters defaced monuments, burned american flags and raised foreign flags on national park service land near union station.
▶ 0:22:01I went to union station the night of these riots and met with police officers who were assaulted for simply trying to do their jobs. President trump's actions to revitalize our capitalist public spaces through his executive order, making the district of columbia safe and beautiful, beautiful, have had an immediate effect.
▶ 0:22:20Within just one week of president trump's action, violent, criminal or violent crime fell 58%, carjackings dropped by 60%, and there were 56% fewer robberies. For the first time in years, dc went nearly two weeks without a single homicide. Since then, nearly 100 homeless encampments on public lands have been cleared.
▶ 0:22:40More than 6700 arrests were made, including dangerous criminals with prior convictions, and 635 firearms have been seized alongside large quantities of narcotics. This legislation before us today is endorsed by both the metropolitan police department union and the us park service police, because they understand that violence and destruction are not acceptable in our nation's capital.
▶ 0:23:04By creating a legal framework for cooperation between federal and local law enforcement, we can make a meaningful step toward ensuring america's capital is safe, strong, and inspiring. H.r. 5103 facilitates improved collaboration and communication between law enforcement entities to keep dc safe, beautiful, and prosperous for years to come. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation. I yield back and ask if there's further discussion on the bill. Mr.
▶ 0:23:35Huffman, you're recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I strongly oppose this deceptively titled, uh, make the district of columbia safe and beautiful act. The title is misleading, so I want to clear up a few things. This is not about safety. It's not about beauty. And it's certainly not about democracy. This is a cynical partizan attack on the fundamental principle of home rule, designed to dismantle and belittle the D.C.
▶ 0:24:01Government and to advance an extreme political agenda that has nothing to do with the real needs of this community or the monuments, parks and memorials of our nation's capital. If house republicans were genuinely concerned about public safety in washington, they would not have stripped language that allows D.C. to spend its own locally raised tax dollars at its approved level, blowing a $1.1 billion hole in its budget. But just this year, that's exactly what this republican congress did.
▶ 0:24:31You can't claim to care about crime and safety while simultaneously undermining the locally elected government's ability to fund police, invest in violence interruption programs, staff schools and repair basic infrastructure. This bill is a trojan horse under the guise of making D.C. beautiful. It creates a federally appointed commission with no representation from the locally elected government, with the goal of overriding local decision making.
▶ 0:24:57And if you want a window into what this administration means by beauty, well, we have a pretty good example here. Take a look at the white house itself. These days they lecture us about beauty and order as donald trump orders the demolition of the east wing so he can build himself a gilded ballroom, historic space sacrificed for personal vanity. That's the beautification standard that we are dealing with here.
▶ 0:25:25And you folks just pretend everything is fine. This is about control, not community. It's about using washington, D.C. and its people as pawns to score cheap political points, regardless of the consequences. It's about advancing and executing a trump executive order aimed at increasing the number of guns and concealed carry permits, along with an anti-immigrant platform.
▶ 0:25:49Part of this broader package of bills seeking to federalize everything from local judicial appointments to mandatory minimum sentences and rolling back police reforms. And I have to say, I find it ironic to hear talk about law and order right now when the very administration pushing this bill demonstrates every day its utter contempt for law and order and the institutions of D.C.
▶ 0:26:15Um, the moment starting the moment it took office, first day in office, president trump issued a blanket pardon for nearly all individuals convicted of offenses related to the violent january 6th account attack on the us capitol. You remember, Mr. chairman, when you were huddled in Mr. mccarthy's office? I think there's a famous story about a civil war sword that you were holding in that moment because we were under attack. Um, but all those folks have been pardoned now.
▶ 0:26:45And, um, this was an attack that brutalized dc and capitol police officers were injured and people died. The city was defiled. You can't claim to champion law and order while pardoning the lawbreakers who attacked the seat of american democracy and those who defend it. And on the issue of crime, statistics show the real story. In 2024, before president trump took office, violent crime in the district dropped by 35%.
▶ 0:27:10It was the lowest it had been in over 30 years. But that did not stop this administration from building a false narrative in order to justify a maga takeover. And while I'm sure we, uh, will hear people questioning these statistics today, mayor bowser pointed out in a recent letter, uh, the crime decreased.
▶ 0:27:32Statistics have been, quote, corroborated by independent data on visits to district hospitals for firearm injuries, which shows a 33% decrease in firearm injuries for the first ten months of 2025 when compared to the prior year. So that's a decline that started back in 2024, well before the trump takeover. And it's continued this year due to the efforts of the district government and their police department. H.r.
▶ 0:28:025103 is a political spectacle. It fails to address the real challenges of our nation's capital, challenges that are made worse by congressional interference with the district's elected officials and legislation. 700,000 americans call the district of columbia home. They pay federal taxes. They serve in our military. And like all americans, they deserve the right to govern themselves. I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion? Mr. chair, you're recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 0:28:30I rise in support of the make the district of columbia safe and beautiful act, which addresses our federal government's mismanagement of the district of columbia and ultimately makes the district a safe, safer place for all americans. At our recent legislative hearing on this bill, we heard from several stakeholders who live, work and enjoy our nation's capital. We heard from the law enforcement community who keeps the district safe, and how they are not being given the proper tools or support to carry out their mission.
▶ 0:28:58We also heard from a longtime resident of the district, whose family was directly impacted by the horrendous violence plaguing the district and the lack of justice her family received through president trump's executive order, making the district of columbia safe and beautiful. Additional tools and flexibility have been provided to federal agencies and our local partners to ensure the district is, in fact, safe and beautiful, and it is already making a difference. H.r.
▶ 0:29:235103 would codify many of the provisions in the president's executive order, ensuring this positive impact continues for years to come. Lifting up and advancing our capital city for the benefit of all americans, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the bill and I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the bill? Hearing none is now in order to consider amendments to h.r.
▶ 0:29:485103, I recognize myself for the purpose of offering an amendment in the nature of a substitute designated westerman 44 ans. Without objection, the amendment is considered, read and open to amendment at any point. Is there further discussion on the amendment? So I'll recognize myself. Um, I do urge my colleagues to support the ans, which makes a simple change to update the bill. Short title.
▶ 0:30:12This legislation has already received technical assistance from the department of the interior, and was marked up by the house oversight and government reform committee. The ans makes a simple, straightforward change to a bill that will restore safety, order and national pride in our nation's capitol. H.r. 5103 is a common sense bill that simply ensures that federal and local law enforcement entities communicate with each other to curb rampant crime and restore defaced monuments and public spaces.
▶ 0:30:39I urge my colleagues to support the ans and underlying bill and yield the balance of my time. Is there further discussion on the amendment? If there's no further discussion on the amendment, is now in order to consider amendments to the ans to h.r. 5103, I recognize ranking member hoffman for the purpose of offering an amendment designated hoffman number one. Without objection, the amendment is considered. Read. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. This amendment. >> Mr. chair, I reserve a point of order against the amendment. >> it's too late, Mr. chairman.
▶ 0:31:09I've begun debate. That point of order is too late. >> it's not too late. The order point of order is recognized. >> well, I will continue. Uh, Mr. chairman, my amendment would simply authorize the $2 billion that president trump himself requested to support the district of columbia and its residents.
▶ 0:31:31Uh, I don't know if anyone remembers this, but back in august, when the president signed the makdisi safe and beautiful again imperial edict, he told the press that he would seek $2 billion from congress for the effort. And to my knowledge, that just never happened. Like so many trump promises, um, must have gotten lost under the chandelier catalog somewhere. So this amendment would follow through on president on the president's stated goals. Hold him to his promise.
▶ 0:31:58Should be a no brainer for my republican colleagues to support this. My amendment takes a holistic approach in order to address real community needs. Would authorize funds to expand health care access, reduce homelessness, increase food security. It would invest in programs that we know reduce crime and recidivism, like youth outreach, drug treatment, and gun violence protection programs.
▶ 0:32:22It would invest in the metropolitan police department to ensure the local police force is properly trained and staffed. And importantly to this committee, it would provide funding to the national park service to address the condition of parks and roads in the district. The way to help D.C. is to invest in its people, not through staged photo ops of federal agents walking the streets. With the cost of living skyrocketing to crisis levels thanks to republican policies. Residents of D.C.
▶ 0:32:50Need policies that will make it possible for them to protect and support their families. If my republican colleagues are serious about helping the district of columbia, they should put their money where their mouth is and vote yes on this amendment. I urge support and yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Oh, votes have been called.
▶ 0:33:17So, uh, we're going to go ahead and recess for votes and we will. The point of order is reserved on this amendment. The the point of order is reserved on this amendment. We're going to recess for votes and come back after votes. The committee is in recess.
▶ 1:23:55The chair notes the presence of a quorum. Mr. chairman, if I might. Uh, thank you, Mr. chairman. So I understand you're prepared to rule the amendment, uh, that I was just presenting, um, as non-germane. And I just want to demonstrate a little magnanimity, um, because I, uh, I do think that I had begun debate before the point of order was raised. But rather than put us through the whole drill, um, I will withdraw the amendment and yield back.
▶ 1:24:27>> amendments withdrawn. The christmas spirit that you're threading here is is appreciated. I now recognize ranking member huffman for the purpose of offering an amendment designated huffman number two. Without objection, the amendment is considered. Read. >> thank you. Enough of that magnanimity stuff. >> there is no point of order against Mr. >> thank you, Mr. chair.
▶ 1:24:49So we obviously disagree on the merits of the underlying legislation, but I do hope we can agree on the shared goal of protecting the american people and safeguarding the health and well-being of our law enforcement officers, which is the focus of this amendment. And in recent months, I've heard directly from park police who've reported a sharp increase in high speed chases following the park service's dramatic change in its pursuit policy in august of this year.
▶ 1:25:17They have a lot of serious concerns, both about risks to the public and the mounting dangers to their own safety in the line of duty. So, Mr. chairman, uh, you know as well as I do, the streets of dc can be challenging to drive through. It was designed by some crazy french architect a long time ago, with narrow streets at strange angles, um, let alone, uh, when you talk about high speeds exceeding 100mph.
▶ 1:25:42And what's most troubling about the current policies, that it risks repeating mistakes that we have already studied and documented and paid for with unnecessary deaths. As early as 1990, the department of justice's national institute of justice warned that high speed pursuits are possibly the most dangerous of all ordinary police activities and a high risk of loss of life, uh, to motorists, bystanders and officers alike.
▶ 1:26:12So despite this well established body of research and experience, the current park police policy allows pursuits for traffic violations as minor as a busted taillight. Representative ansari and I wrote a letter to the park police about this policy just a few weeks ago because it, uh, is wildly unnecessary and flat out dangerous, according to court records, since the policy took effect, four of every five park police chases has ended in a crash. That's.
▶ 1:26:41Let me just say that again. Four out of five park police chases has ended in a crash. And unfortunately, these crashes were not minor collisions. Um, in one case, a vehicle slammed into a parked police vehicle with such force that it rolled over, snapped a live electrical pole, and required seven emergency medical units to respond. Just last week, an innocent woman was hospitalized after she was struck by a vehicle under pursuit by park police.
▶ 1:27:09And we only know this because there was a court case. Without future court cases, we will be in the dark about full damage that is being done by this reckless policy. Mr. chairman, the officers who raised these concerns are not asking congress to second guess the split second decisions that they have to make in the field. They're asking for evidence based policy. They are asking not to have to put their lives at risk over a broken windshield wiper. The public deserves the same.
▶ 1:27:39My amendment takes a modest but necessary step in that direction. It requires the park, police and public and publicly, um, report to publicly report data on high speed crashes. That result, high speed chases that result in crashes, injuries or fatalities, including, critically, the number of officers injured or killed and the nature of those injuries. No one on this committee wants dangerous criminals to evade justice. Nothing in this amendment suggests otherwise.
▶ 1:28:08But effective law enforcement requires good judgment as well as resolve, and it requires learning from evidence rather than ignoring it. This amendment would ensure that congress, the public, and law enforcement leadership have the information necessary to evaluate whether current policies are keeping officers and the community safe, or whether it's making things less safe. Thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 1:28:31I urge my colleagues to stand with the rank and file of the united states park police and dcs, hard working, innocent families and bystanders by supporting this amendment. And I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? I recognize myself, I rise in opposition to the amendment, which adds unnecessary and burdensome reporting requirements on the us park police that would undermine effective law enforcement in washington, D.C. this amendment is not about increasing transparency.
▶ 1:29:00It is instead about second guessing brave law enforcement officers in the field and slowing down proactive efforts to address rampant crime, which is, frankly, been allowed to fester for far too long under soft on crime policies, suggesting that these pursuits are inherently reckless misrepresents reality. U.S.
▶ 1:29:19Park police operate under strict pursuit policies that prioritize public safety and require constant risk assessment by trained professionals, according to the park police union, the public already has access to the pursuit records in question, making this amendment unnecessary. Under previous policy, if the park police pulled over a vehicle and the driver just drove away, they would be prohibited from pursuing them. This does not make sense.
▶ 1:29:44Since august, the park police can now carry out vehicular pursuits, including for vehicles with fake or stolen license plates unlocked. The metropolitan police department vehicles that have fake or stolen license plates are often indicators of more serious criminal conduct, including armed offenses. In august of this year, during the height of efforts to crack down on crime, half of U.S. park police vehicle pursuits involved vehicles with fake or stolen tags. If history is any guide in D.C.
▶ 1:30:14Then the last thing we should be doing to reduce crime is handcuffing law enforcement officers who are simply trying to do their jobs. After the D.C. council passed legislation in 2022 limiting mpd vehicle pursuits, homicide rates in D.C. increased by more than 35% the following year. In contrast, under the trump administration, restoring law and order to our nation's capital has been a clear priority as a result of the change in vehicular pursuit policy, the D.C.
▶ 1:30:43Safe and beautiful task force has conducted 120 pursuits, leading to 99 felony arrests, the seizure of 50 firearms, and the recovery of multiple stolen or vehicles. In discussions with the U.S. park police union, they believe this policy alone, or policy change alone, has saved many lives. These actions have undoubtedly made D.C. streets safer, and we should commend law enforcement for their efforts to protect our nation's capital. While we all support greater transparency.
▶ 1:31:14Unfortunately, this amendment as drafted, falls short of those goals by requiring reports within 30 days of a vehicular pursuit. This amendment prevents thorough investigations and oversight when warranted. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendment and to support h.r. 5103, which will help restore safety and order to our nation's capital. I yield back the balance of my time. Is there any further discussion on the amendment? If there's no further discussion on the amendment, the question is on the amendment offered by ranking member huffman designated huffman number two.
▶ 1:31:45All those in favor signify by saying aye. >> aye. Come on. Darren. >> all those opposed? No. No. The opinion of the chair, the nos have it. And the amendment is not agreed to. A recorded vote has been requested. Further proceedings on this amendment will be postponed. I recognize the gentleman from california, Mr. huffman, for the purpose of offering an amendment designated huffman number ten. Without objection, the amendment is considered. Read. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 1:32:14So while we're on the topic of D.C. beautification by now, we're all familiar with the destruction of the east wing of the white house, an iconic symbol of democracy and the plans for, I guess, what is said to be $350 million ballroom, but probably a lot more expensive than that. So outrageous that one contractor has already walked.
▶ 1:32:38But worse, president trump went to his ultra wealthy donor friends asking them to fund it, and he even threw them a fancy white house dinner where guests were served tomato salad, beef wellington, butterscotch ice cream with pear filled meringue. I mean, life is good here in the golden age. If you happen to be a billionaire who wants something out of the us government.
▶ 1:33:06After significant public pressure to make the donors public, the white house released a long list of companies and friends who want something big from the government. Lockheed martin, of course, has gotten $191 billion in federal government contracts in the last five years. That's not enough. Uh, they are looking to grow that under trump. Uh, many donors like microsoft, nvidia, t-mobile, amazon and meta are fighting potential antitrust action by the administration.
▶ 1:33:35And those investigations, just like pardons and everything else with this white house, are for sale. Crypto companies like coinbase, ripple and tether america would benefit enormously if this administration took away what little protections exist for consumers. Uh, and so they're on the donor list, too. We asked the white house to show us the agreements that each donor signed. They refused to give those up.
▶ 1:34:03But does anyone here really think that these corporations are donating out of the goodness of their hearts, out of patriotism? Does anyone think that this is anything other than an investment strategy on their part? So then on friday, we learned that trump is moving to take over dc's public golf courses. Um, this feels a little bit like captain bligh and mutiny on the bounty.
▶ 1:34:29The bounty attending to his tahitian breadfruit trees and plants while everything melted down around him. But that's what donald trump has decided to do in this moment. The courses are already leased to a private nonprofit group called national links trust. It is dedicated a quote dedicated to positively impacting our community and changing lives through affordable and accessible municipal golf. Imagine that.
▶ 1:34:55Uh, now, when they learned about the takeover, they offered to work closely with the trump administration to accommodate his goals, even though construction on rehabilitation of at least one of the courses is already underway. That wasn't good enough for trump. Uh, and so we just have to wonder what kind of gilded great gatsby golf scheme, he is insisted, insisting on pursuing right now. Uh, he is going to need funding for whatever this latest pet project is.
▶ 1:35:22And we've already seen where he goes when he needs that money and doesn't want to talk to congress. He goes to his piggy bank, his billionaire buddies. And it's bad enough that this administration is undermining efforts to make golf already out of reach for most americans, a little more affordable. Um, and canceling a lease without cause, ruining one of the courses by dumping, uh, likely contaminated east wing demolition waste there.
▶ 1:35:50Uh, but they're focusing on a gilded ballroom and golf courses. Instead of prioritizing health care for the american people and driving down the cost of living. So the bill before us today talks about private sector participation in the program to beautify the district of columbia. Uh, unfortunately, what we haven't seen yet are any guardrails around private sector participation.
▶ 1:36:17And so we are left to conclude that this will likely be another private sector scandal and boondoggle. Like everything else this administration has pursued in the district of columbia. So my amendment would prevent donations from the ballroom or D.C. golf courses from, uh, those with business before the federal government. Uh, if the intent of this bill is to beautify D.C. and engage the private sector, uh, let's make sure everyone benefits.
▶ 1:36:47Let's put some guardrails in place so that this is not all just for trump and his corrupt, corrupt cronies. I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Further discussion. Mr. gosar, you're recognized. >> yes, I am taken back by the gentleman's, uh, trump derangement syndrome. You know, from that standpoint, you know, why don't we wait till the ballroom is done and see what it looks like? Because I think, you know, it's private sector, private sector.
▶ 1:37:16And let's just see what it is. Because somebody had to build the white house. Somebody had to build the supreme court. So somebody got to build the west wing. So, you know, and to to your point, I am against your amendment. But I would love to see you with with what you just said to publish, publish all ngos records, if they take a penny or a dollar from the federal government, if they don't, they don't have to answer to it.
▶ 1:37:47>> would the gentleman yield for a question? Yeah. So we've had this discussion. And, you know, we have a disagreement about whether someone filing a lawsuit under the equal access to justice act should trigger a scorched earth accounting of every dollar they've ever received. We disagree about that. Um, but the gentleman does say that he's interested in transparency. So wouldn't you want to see the same kind of scrutiny for folks that are giving millions and millions of dollars to the president while they have pending investigations? >> well, I think I think he's given you that transparency.
▶ 1:38:16He gave you a list, did he not? I'm sorry he gave you a list, did he not? He's presented a list of those that. >> they won't show us the agreements that those donors have signed. Wouldn't you want to see that? What's in there? Mm. >> maybe. But I. >> I'm giving you a chance with this amendment. >> I would much rather have those if they're taking money from the federal government in. >> our billionaire donors are less of a concern. >> you guys got more billionaires than we do. Here. We do. You do.
▶ 1:38:46>> I thank the gentleman for the the quick detour from reality? >> well, no. >> gentleman yields. Back to further discussion, Mr. soto, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. You know, with the unemployment at its highest rate since 2021 and tepid growth and inflation rising, a lot of americans are deeply concerned about record amounts of corruption by the trump administration.
▶ 1:39:12I want to make sure the ranking members amendment is comprehensive, uh, and that it covers all the pay to play schemes. Uh, uh, ranking member huffman, would this count towards the billionaire ballroom? >> it would. Mr. soto you're concerned about that? >> I am corruption. What about the pardoning of, uh, major millionaire drug dealers and and other nefarious characters? >> if the if they donated. Yeah.
▶ 1:39:42If there is a correlation between pardons that are given out and donations to things like this, we would we would know that. >> what about the $2 billion pay to play cryptocurrency scheme? >> yeah, we would we would have a window into that as well. >> would the qatari plan apply to. >> if they're a donor? Yes. >> what about lavishing local dc golf courses. >> yeah that too. >> well I think this is a step in the right direction and I appreciate you bringing it. >> thank the gentleman. >> gentleman yields back.
▶ 1:40:12Is there further discussion on the amendment? I recognize myself I rise in opposition to this amendment, which is both unnecessary to this legislation and would have a chilling effect on private donations to the national park service.
▶ 1:40:26This hastily drafted amendment states that, quote, no person or entity acting directly or indirectly in quote on behalf of the national park service may solicit private contributions to improve the white house or national park service owned golf courses in D.C.
▶ 1:40:43This would literally prohibit nonprofit organizations like the national links trust, which currently operates the golf course, in question, from continuing to solicit private donations even though they have no say in federal contracts or procurements.
▶ 1:41:00It would also prohibit prohibit congressionally chartered nonprofits like the national park foundation, whose mission is to improve the national park service from donating to improve areas like president's park or the white house, because they have cooperative agreements with park units across the country. There's absolutely nothing in this legislation that has anything to do with pay to play. This bill is about addressing rampant crime and restoring safety, order and beauty in washington, D.C.
▶ 1:41:28And this amendment is simply just a distraction. Now, you may ask if this amendment doesn't address pay to play, what does? And, uh, there's already a comprehensive set of ethics regulations and statutes on the books, including section 201 and 208 of title 18 of us code that prohibit federal officials from taking bribes or having conflicts of interest, making this amendment unnecessary.
▶ 1:41:55These statutes are stringently enforced and carry significant penalties, including jail time. Presidents of both parties have accepted private donations to finance, finance white house renovations in the past, including presidents obama, ford, and kennedy.
▶ 1:42:09I'm not sure what the purpose of this amendment is and why we believe that only taxpayers should foot the bill for renovating the white house, but if there are private donors who are willing to step up and privately contribute to improving and beautifying our nation's capital, I think we should let them. This amendment is deeply misguided.
▶ 1:42:35Although throughout the country, nonprofits and philanthropic partners play a critical role in maintaining and improving our national parks, monuments, memorials and public spaces, that should be no different here in washington, D.C. for these reasons, I oppose the amendment and yield back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Mr. randall, you're recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chair.
▶ 1:42:58Um, I listening to this discussion, I can't help but think about like, how my constituents and so many of the american people see what is happening in washington, D.C. I think the you mentioned the robust ethics rules that exist already.
▶ 1:43:16And I don't believe that the american people feel like they are doing their job to ensure that we are fighting the corruption and the self-dealing that is rampant under this administration. I hear all the time from constituents of all political stripes that they don't trust the, you know, power dealers in washington, D.C.
▶ 1:43:43To have their neighbors best interests at heart. I think the more that we can do to make our constituents, the american citizens, confident that that we are controlling corruption, the better it is for our future and our government. And look, I spent my pre-political career as a development officer for a number of nonprofit organizations.
▶ 1:44:07I believe in the power of philanthropy, especially to meet needs that are not being met by the government, like unaffordable healthcare and the inability to access education. But I, I don't think it's I don't think the american people are like chomping at the bit to get private donors to fund white house renovations and fancy golf courses. I don't think that is in the best interest of the american people.
▶ 1:44:33They us want to solve the problems that they're facing so that their budgets are easier to handle, so that they can afford the things that they need so that they can keep a roof over their head. Not that we can build a fancy ballroom and anything that we can do to fight this corruption, to show people that we are not here on the side of the rich and the well-connected, who continue to twist the rules in their favor, I think is good for the promise of government, not partizanship, but government long into the future. Thank you, I yield back.
▶ 1:45:06>> is there further discussion on the amendment recognized for five minutes? >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Ranking member I'm in support of this amendment for the reasons that my colleagues have stated. But more generally, I have concerns with this bill and what it does to the principles espoused in the declaration of independence that we believe in government by consent of the governed. Dc has home rule. Dc deserves that. We protect that. We respect that we uphold its autonomy and self-government.
▶ 1:45:33And I find it appalling, offensive and undemocratic and unprincipled that we are attacking dc's home rule, that the president and this congress are taking steps to take back democratic rights that belong to the residents of washington, dc. This is a matter of special importance to me, because I believe in upholding the autonomy and self-government of the territories and commonwealths of the united states.
▶ 1:45:59Puerto rico is a self-governing commonwealth with its own constitution, and we we consented to our relationship with the us, and we believe that mutual consent must be the basis of any relationship between the united states and its jurisdictions. And dc has a particular obstacle. Dc is subject to encroachments of its home rule, without being able to vote for elected representatives in the house and senate.
▶ 1:46:29And how do you address that shortcoming from our constitution 250 years ago, which did not envision dc would become the metropolis it is today? Well, you work around that limitation by giving places like dc or the territories and commonwealths more self-government to compensate for their lack of federal participation in voting rights. But what we're doing here is the exact opposite. We are taking away their self-government.
▶ 1:46:56We are taking away their autonomy while not giving them more power and more participation in federal decision making. And that is unfair. So on behalf of thank you. On behalf of washington, dc, on behalf of the territories and commonwealths of the united states, I oppose this bill. I advocate for greater self-government and for greater participation in federal decision making. For those who currently do not have it. Thank you. And I yield back.
▶ 1:47:27>> gentleman yields back. Mr. stauber, you're recognized. >> Mr. speaker, I yield my time to representative gosar. So would the gentleman go back in the constitution and look at the place of central government that not to ever be a state because it would have undue influence over itself. So would you agree with that one? >> I believe that when the constitution was drafted, what the constitution included respect to in respect to washington dc and the territories did not contemplate what washington, D.C.
▶ 1:47:57And the territories would become. Now to. >> the I reclaim my time. That's wrong, because if you go into federalist papers, they thought that the biggest problem was going to be that it would have undue influence over all decisions. So that's why they said they're not going to have this central part of government be a state, because we'd have undue influence. So if you go back to federalist papers, that argument doesn't follow. >> and, well, first of all, I'm not advocating for dc statehood.
▶ 1:48:27I'm advocating for respect to its home rule. >> no, but. >> if the people of dc want more self-government to compensate for their lack of federal rights, I think congress at the very least, should uphold the self-government it currently has, but it should also be respectful to their wishes. Now, when the constitution was drafted, I do not think the framers and washington dc becoming a city of close to a million residents now the constitution granted, was amended to grant federal presidential voting rights to the people of dc, an acknowledgment that dc had changed.
▶ 1:48:56And it has continued to change. But what we're arguing today is for respect to dc self-government and to stand by the principle of government, by consent of the governed. I think the constitution had a purpose in the 17 late 1700s with respect to washington, dc. But I do think that the founders, in the spirit of the founders, would be to respect the people of dc's right to self-government. >> I have. Uh, I yield back.
▶ 1:49:28>> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion? There's no further discussion. The question is on the amendment offered by Mr. huffman designated huffman number ten. All those in favor signify by saying I those opposed. No. No opinion of the chair. The nos have it. A recorded vote has been requested. Further proceedings on this amendment will be postponed. >> good. >> good on you.
▶ 1:49:57>> pursuant to the markup notice is now in order to consider h.r. 1897, the amendments act of 2025, ask unanimous consent that the subcommittee on water, wildlife and fisheries be discharged from further consideration of the bill, without objection, so ordered. Without objection, the bill will be considered, read and open to amendment at any point. Does any member wish to be recognized for the purpose of debate on the bill? Mr. huffman, you're recognized. >> um, thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 1:50:26So at a time when wildlife around the country are facing unprecedented threats from habitat loss, climate change, pollution, this committee really should be focusing on strengthening the laws that protect nature and the communities that depend on it. Thriving nature supports thriving communities, and when ecosystems fail, people pay the price. Unfortunately, Mr. chairman, your esa amendments act does the opposite. The bill is deeply harmful to wildlife.
▶ 1:50:56Nothing in it will lead to faster, better or more scientifically defensible species recovery. In fact, if it's enacted, it will ensure species are listed as endangered or threatened. Uh, in a way that's too late after populations are already in crisis. And once they're listed, the protections will be hollow. If this becomes law, species will carry that label without the tools needed to prevent extinction or to make meaningful progress to recovery.
▶ 1:51:26This bill dismantles incentives for conservation. It will let you essentially slap the word conservation benefit on nearly any activity to avoid environmental review. To avoid interagency consultation, and receive coverage for incidental take without demonstrating actual benefits to imperiled species. That's not conservation. That is a giant loophole.
▶ 1:51:49Republicans often say habitat restoration is the holy grail of wildlife conservation, but this bill shrinks what counts as habitat and ignores the reality that rivers, migration corridors and connected landscapes are essential to wildlife into the people who rely on healthy ecosystems for clean water, for flood protection and local economies. It also eliminates mitigation tools that help projects avoid jeopardy to species. The result is lose.
▶ 1:52:20Lose either projects grind to a halt due to legal and regulatory chaos, or species are pushed closer, closer to extinction because the law no longer provides a path to reduce harm. And all of this comes with shockingly low funding for authorizations.
▶ 1:52:36The esa is already chronically underfunded, and this bill guarantees fewer recovery investments, slower permitting, longer delays in listing and delisting decisions, and a lot more uncertainty for everyone involved.
▶ 1:52:52This bill is really bad for wildlife, but it is also bad for states, tribes, landowners, industries and communities that need a functioning, science based esa to protect and recover species and to plan their projects responsibly. Whether it's energy development, water infrastructure, mining or transmission, stakeholders and end users benefit from clear rules, from adequate staffing and from credible science, not confusion and hollow protections.
▶ 1:53:22It's important to be clear about what this bill replaces. A functioning esa provides predictability because it's grounded in science, in clear standards, and it has adequate resources. It gives agencies the tools to work early with states and tribes and landowners, and project proponents, uh, will work with them to avoid harm before it occurs.
▶ 1:53:47And by stripping away those tools and starving the program of resources, this bill creates more conflict, more litigation, and worse outcomes for wildlife and people. Weakening the law does not make hard decisions go away. It simply makes them messier, riskier, and more expensive. Which is why I call this bill the extinction and endless litigation act of 2025. Uh, now we do talk about a common goal that we should share.
▶ 1:54:15Uh, we should be having serious conversations about what actually drives success, how to incentivize collaborative conservation, and how agencies can better deliver on the esas mandates. But we can't do that by recycling decades old industry wish lists and carving science out of the law. We are running out of time. The biodiversity crisis is not some abstract concern for future generations. It is happening right now.
▶ 1:54:42And yet, once again, we're forced to defend the very laws that have kept species from dying out forever. We can do better than this. This committee can work to strengthen recovery, to improve collaboration, and to deliver more certainty for everyone involved. This bill fails that test, and we should start over. I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion, miss hagerman? You're recognized.
▶ 1:55:11>> thank you, chairman westerman, I am in favor of this legislation and urge all of my colleagues to support it. Chairman westerman, I want to thank you for your leadership on this effort. It has truly been an honor as the chair of water, wildlife and fisheries to collaborate with you on much needed modernization of the endangered species act.
▶ 1:55:28The purpose of the esa is to use federal resources to aid in the conservation and recovery of threatened and endangered species, and to delist those species from federal jurisdiction once that recovery is achieved.
▶ 1:55:43Much like the other environmental statutes of the 20th century that this committee has prioritized for strengthening the esas intent has been fundamentally distorted and undermined through decades of expansion via regulation, environmental lawsuits, and more. Today, it is used more to control land and water than for species recovery.
▶ 1:56:04In wyoming, we live every day with the consequence of this failed law, as we are a prime target for its abuse, despite the fact that our preeminent game and fish department and other state agencies are second to none in terms of effective wildlife, fishery range and water management. Let's just take one example of how radical environmentalists and activist judges have abused the endangered species act, the greater yellowstone ecosystem grizzly bear has been listed as threatened since 1975.
▶ 1:56:34It is currently more than double its recovery population, and has met and exceeded that recovery goal for almost three decades. Think of that. This species has been recovered for almost 30 years, and yet it continues to languish on the esa list, taking up much needed resources that could be better and more effectively used to recover and protect other species and habitat.
▶ 1:56:58But past fish and wildlife service delisting actions based on this recovery success to shift the management back to the states where it belongs has been blocked by the virus and an activist judge out of montana. The result is a bear that is expanding its range by over 3% per year, further endangering the safety of my constituents, their livestock, other wildlife and more. Wyoming is responsible for the successful recovery of the grizzly bear, investing over $50 million in doing so.
▶ 1:57:30Wyoming has every incentive to continue to protect a recovered grizzly population, and has shown the skill and dedication for doing so. I don't think that there's any state in the nation that does not also agree with the with with the ideas and the ideals behind the endangered species act, but would be better at managing these wildlife resources rather than having them on the list. Yet here we are with the esa being weaponized and used for purposes that were never intended.
▶ 1:58:00The reforms in this bill would allow esa recovery success stories like the greater yellowstone ecosystem, grizzly bear and change. What is the currently failed esa, pursuant to which only 3% of listed species have been recovered? This bill is really good for wildlife, aquatic species, habitat communities, local governments, landowners, tribes and states as well as the future of our country. I urge all of my colleagues to support the esa amendments act, and I yield back.
▶ 1:58:32>> gentlelady yields back. Is there further discussion, Mr. chairman? I just want to recognize. >> I want to thank you for your leadership in this introducing this endangered species act amendment act of 2025. I'm proud to be an original co-sponsor. The endangered species act was created to help recover species and protect wildlife. That's a goal that we believe in in mississippi. We care about our land, our water and the outdoors.
▶ 1:58:59But over the years, the esa has drifted away from common sense. Too often, bureaucrats in washington who've never set foot on our land have gotten in the way. Instead of working with landowners, the system has relied on red tape, rigid timelines, and endless lawsuits, and the results haven't been good since 1973. Around 1700 species have been listed, but only about 3% have been fully recovered.
▶ 1:59:26That tells me this system has been working in mississippi. No one knows the land better than the people who live on that land. Work that every day our farmers, foresters, hunters and landowners have been conserving wildlife long before there was a federal statute telling them how to do it. They want to do right by the land, and they also need a system that treats them like partners, not problems. Chairman westman, this is exactly what this does. It puts the focus back where it belongs on recovery, not paperwork.
▶ 1:59:55It cuts out duplicate permitting, provides clear rules and gives landowners certainty when they set up to conserve the species. It also gives states a stronger voice in developing recovery plans because states understand their land, their wildlife and their communities better than washington can ever could. Mississippi's natural resources are part of who we are. This bill respects, that protects wildlife and brings much needed common sense back to the endangered species act.
▶ 2:00:24I thank Mr. with chairman westerman for his leadership and I urge support of this legislation I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Mr. harvey recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I want to speak in opposition um, and to and raise several concerns about the endangered species act amendments act of 2025. This bill is the latest attempt by house republicans to bundle a wish list of giveaways to special interest groups under the guise of reform, rather than strengthening the endangered species act.
▶ 2:00:53Core purpose to prevent extinction and recover species. This legislation undermines it at nearly every stage and puts additional species at risk of disappearing. Despite repeated claims about permitting certainty, this bill would actually increase legal uncertainty, throw the system into chaos, and lead to more litigation and more permitting delays, not fewer. From an arizona perspective, these concerns are particularly pronounced.
▶ 2:01:19Arizona is home to over 70 federally recognized, federally listed threatened and endangered species, many of which rely on the fragile desert, riparian, and borderlands ecosystems that are already under extreme pressure from drought, drought, rising temperatures, and long term water scarcity. The endangered species act has long served as a science based backstop, ensuring that federal actions account for ecological reality before irreversible harm occurs. This bill weakens that backstop.
▶ 2:01:49First, the bill narrows the definition of habitat, including restrictions on protecting unoccupied areas. In arizona, recovery depends on connectivity and movement across landscapes, especially in places like sky islands and along the borderlands, treating habitat as static or discounting areas because the species has not occupied them recently ignores how species actually recover in arid and rapidly warming environments.
▶ 2:02:17Second, the bill cuts back environmental review by expanding exemptions from nepa for incidental take permits. For many arizona communities, nepa is the primary tool that ensures public transparency, tribal input and informed decision making, particularly when projects affect groundwater, rivers and wildlife corridors. Reducing review does not reduce impacts. It simply reduces visibility, which ultimately increases conflict and delays.
▶ 2:02:43Third, the bill weakens section seven consultation by prohibiting mitigation or offsets as part of a reasonable prudent measures. Mitigation is often what allows projects to move forward responsibly while still avoiding jeopardy to species. Removing these tools does not create certainty. It removes flexibility and increases the likelihood that projects will stall or fail.
▶ 2:03:05I'm also concerned that the bill locks in trump era esa rules, including a narrow approach to evaluating the foreseeable future in a state already experiencing climate driven impacts. This makes it harder to address long term threats we know are real, even if their full effects unfold over decades. Finally, while the bill references tribal information, it fails to require meaningful government to government consultation.
▶ 2:03:31Tribal nations in arizona and across the nation have treaty rights, cultural connections to species and generations of ecological knowledge. Excluding that expertise will only deepen conflict and delay outcomes. Taken together, these provisions do not streamline or modernize the esa. They destabilize it, weaken science based decision making, and create a very the very uncertainty this bill claims to solve. Thank you. And I yield back. >> gentlelady yields back.
▶ 2:04:00I recognize my self and I do rise and speak in support of my bill. The esa amendments act of 2025, which reauthorizes and makes much needed reforms to one of the most consequential laws in this committee's jurisdiction. At its best. The esa is an important tool that can help recover iconic species such as the bald eagle, california condor and grizzly bear more often.
▶ 2:04:24At its worst, it serves as a weapon to hinder essential infrastructure projects, water delivery to american farmers, and the health of our forests. With limited to no benefit to the species it is supposed to recover. I've told the story of aesop's fable in this committee room more times than I can count, but I think today is an appropriate time to tell it again.
▶ 2:04:46There was an eagle soaring high when he was pierced by an arrow, and as he was fluttering to the ground, he looked back at the arrow and said, alas, I have been pierced by an arrow feathered with my own plume. And that's exactly what we've done with the endangered species act. And another bird that's been pierced by an arrow feather with his own plume is the northern spotted owl. I wore my my owl tie today in honor of the northern spotted owl.
▶ 2:05:16Uh, which, uh, in zeal, to quote, protect the northern spotted owl. In 1990, uh, we drove an entire industry almost out of the pacific northwest. Now, what did that result in driving, uh, the timber industry out of the pacific northwest? We now import about 30% of our wood products, uh, into our country. We're the largest importer of wood products in the world.
▶ 2:05:42Yet we have the healthiest, uh, most thriving forest in the world. That doesn't really make sense, but let's go back and look at over 30 years of data of what happened to the northern spotted owl, since we decided to save it and listed it as threatened on the endangered species list, the populations have continued to plummet, but there's an interesting bright spot with the northern spotted owl. It's unmanaged forest in the pacific northwest.
▶ 2:06:10Come to find out, uh, the private land, what little of it there is out there has become a bright spot in recovering the northern spotted owl, because they prefer the managed forest. What's happened on the public lands? We have this, uh, this immigrant that moved in called the northern, or the barred owl that likes to go in and find the spotted owl nest and make home there, kick the spotted owls eggs out of it, lay their own eggs, and and take over the habitat.
▶ 2:06:40Uh, that's how the endangered species act has been abused. That's not fixing the problem. That's amplifying the problem. We want an endangered species act that works to recover, uh, species as it was initially intended to do. And that's what this bill does. It takes the esa back to its original intent to recover listed species to the point where they no longer need protection.
▶ 2:07:08It does so by requiring the establishment of objective, incremental recovery goals for listed species and by providing regulatory benefits when those goals are met. This creates an incentive based structure that promotes better outcomes for listed species and regulatory clarity. The bill codifies critical definitions that prevent agency overreach. The legislation defines best available science and how it should be applied.
▶ 2:07:33For too long, the agencies that administer the esa have used worst case scenarios to justify listing decisions or draconian restrictions on certain industries in the name of protecting the listed species. Uh. This was highlighted in the maine lobstermen association versus national marine fisheries service court decision regarding the esa. Biological opinion for the maine lobster fishery. In that case, the D.C.
▶ 2:07:57Circuit found that agencies cannot select pessimistic values that lead to conclusions of higher risk and endangered or threatened species the benefit of the doubt, but must focus on likely outcomes. H.r. 1897 codifies this principle into law. In addition, h.r. 1897 builds upon the work this committee has done to streamline and reform the federal permitting process.
▶ 2:08:22It does so by ensuring that the area subject to the esa consultation is not speculative, that the conclusion or the consultation is based on effects that are reasonably certain to occur, and that any modifications made to the proposed action by the consultation impose the fewest cost to the applicant.
▶ 2:08:38This bill includes the necessary guardrails on how attorney's fees can be issued in litigation, such as a cap on how much a group can receive in a single adjudication, and limiting the number of times a single group can collect attorney's fees in a calendar year. This time is the time for us in this committee to act, reform and modernize the esa for the benefit of the species that need to be recovered and protected in this country.
▶ 2:09:07This esa amendments act accomplishes that. I urge support and I yield back. Is there further discussion on the amendment, miss randall? You're or on the bill, miss randall, you're recognized. >> thank you so much, Mr. chair. I'm, um, glad to hear so much interest in our bald eagles and our spotted owls. Uh, in washington state and across the pacific northwest.
▶ 2:09:31And I'm also glad that the endangered species act did its job to bring back the bald eagle in our beautiful state. Uh, you know, the the the story about being pierced by a feather, I think is a robust and complicated one.
▶ 2:09:51When we think about how connected to the land the first people of our communities are, how connected to the wildlife and connected to the origin stories of the northwest of the olympic peninsula.
▶ 2:10:12And I feel really honored to get to work alongside so many tribal leaders who are keepers of these stories and who, you know, do incredible, incredible environmental stewardship work.
▶ 2:10:25And, you know, the environmental species act has been essential in not only the birds in protecting and bringing back these birds, but in our salmon habitat restoration in the northwest, um, in bringing back runs of salmon that have been severely had previously been severely diminished.
▶ 2:10:49You know, the stories that tribal elders tell about when they could walk across the salmon on the river are so important to to what these lands and waters are and have been since time immemorial, and what they should be for the next seven generations.
▶ 2:11:11And instead of strengthening recovery efforts for important species, for salmon, for our waters, for wildlife, the the amendments in this bill or this underlying bill weaken the very guardrails that prevent extinction like protections for critical habitat. This legislation substitutes political judgment for scientific expertise.
▶ 2:11:41And I know, like science isn't cool right now. We're seeing it defunded hand over fist. But in order for us to maintain the protections that we have worked so hard for and the potential for future restoration of critical species, we have to ensure that we are using science backed decision making process and not political judgment and not vibes.
▶ 2:12:09This bill tips the scales away from science towards short term convenience, often at the expense of long term ecological and economic stability. And the stakes are so clear in our effort to recover wildlife in healthy ecosystems that support fisheries and clean water, which in turn aren't just there for the environment, right? They boost outdoor recreation, they boost local economies.
▶ 2:12:38They allow the people in my district whose livelihoods depend on the health of washington state's $22.5 billion outdoor economy to thrive, the environmental, the esa, the endangered species act is essential to our work to create a robust and thriving economy, which is never going to look like the timber industry of the 80s. The folks in timber know that the timber industry in washington state is never going to look like the timber industry of the 80s, and they don't want it to.
▶ 2:13:07They want to be a part of building a long term and lasting, robust economy that balances the environmental protections with economic gain. And, you know, one of the things that's really damaging the timber industry in washington state, uh, is a defunding of some of the programs that create pathways to career and technical education and the tariffs that are causing prices to skyrocket. So, um.
▶ 2:13:33You know, this is this is not a policy that I can support, not on behalf of my constituents, not on behalf of communities like mine across the country. And I yield back. >> is there further discussion on the bill? >> um, madam chair. >> Mr. stauber. >> uh, thank you, madam chair.
▶ 2:13:57I rise in support of the esa amendments act and want to commend the chairman for his work in developing a sensible package that reforms the well-intentioned yet broken endangered species act. Uh, finally bringing it in line with the law's original intent. As we all know quite well, the endangered species act is a noble law over the past half century. It's helped us save and rebuild endangered and threatened species across the nation.
▶ 2:14:21But as we've also learned over the past 50 years, there are serious flaws in the law that we desperately need to address. Congress never intended species to be listed as threatened or endangered under the esa in perpetuity. The the esa was passed into law to protect and recover vulnerable species. I want to reiterate the operative word there recover.
▶ 2:14:43Over the past five decades, we've completely forgotten about the recovery part, and in the process, we're failing the exact species that the esa was intended to protect. Not only is the esa failing the species, it is intended to protect and recover, it is also failing the american people every day. Rural americans across the united states, including those in my district and northern minnesota, must deal with the broken esa. Take the gray wolf, for example.
▶ 2:15:09The gray wolf has far exceeded its recovery goals. Yet time and time again, when the us fish and wildlife service, under both republican and democrat administrations, seek to de-list the gray wolf, activist groups and activist judges weaponize the esa and block its delisting. That is having a real impact on my constituents in northern minnesota, which is home, which is home.
▶ 2:15:35Over half the gray wolves located, which is home to over half the gray wolves located in the lower 48. Thanks to the broken esa, my constituents are put at risk when wolves roam residential neighborhoods on a near daily basis. The photo behind me is from is from a few weeks ago, right on the school grounds of ely high school in ely, minnesota. In the middle of the school day, children are what, maybe 100ft away from this wolf.
▶ 2:16:04And because of the broken esa, unless one of those wolves attacked one of those children, there's nothing that can be done to protect them. And if that happened, it would be too late. And why aren't my constituents being protected? They're broken. Esa to some of my colleagues, the broken esa is just something they debate about and hypotheticals in this committee. It's not something that they have to deal with on a daily basis. But guess what? It isn't a hypothetical issue for my constituents.
▶ 2:16:31The broken esa is a real issue that is harming my constituents and putting their lives at risk. It's beyond time we reform the esa, and the esa amendments act does just that. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting of the bill and I yield back. >> is there further discussion on the bill hearing? None. It is now in order to consider amendments to h.r.
▶ 2:16:541897, and I first recognize myself for the purpose of offering an amendment in the nature of a substitute designated westermann 036 ans. Without objection, the amendment is considered, read and open to amendments at any point I speak in support of the ans, which makes technical edits to the bill and clarifies certain key terms in the endangered species act.
▶ 2:17:21Specifically, the ans provides additional clarity to key terms such as best available science, significant portion of a species range, and reasonably reasonably certain to occur. The language included in the ans will provide greater direction to federal agencies, thereby promoting certainty for regulated parties and better conservation outcomes for listed species.
▶ 2:17:44In addition, the ans provides guidance on the application of critical habitat designations, outlining a straightforward procedure for conducting an exclusion analysis and for deciding when a designation is not prudent. This codifies language from the 2019 trump administration administration rulemakings, which has been replicated in recently proposed rulemakings.
▶ 2:18:09Finally, the ans also codifies the recent federal court decision in kansas natural resources coalition versus us fish and wildlife service, which held that when developing regulations for threatened species, the us fish and wildlife service and the national marine fisheries service must consider the conservation and economic effects of those regulations. I urge my colleagues to support the ans and I yield back.
▶ 2:18:33Is there any further discussion on the amendment? If there's, uh, the chair now recognizes miss stansberry. >> thank you, madam chair and ranking member. We are here today in another attack on the endangered species act.
▶ 2:18:53I'm here today to stand against these attacks, against the ans and against the amendments that I know my colleagues across the aisle are prepared to make today. And we are just two days from congress recessing for the holidays. And here we are attacking yet another one of our most bedrock environmental laws. Last week it was the clean water act. Earlier this week it was nepa in the national environmental policy act, and today it's the endangered species act.
▶ 2:19:23And for 52 years, the esa has served as a bedrock environmental law, essential not only to protecting endangered species, but the ecosystems that they call home. This law has helped to save 291 species from permanent extinction. From the face of the planet, it is a crucial tool to protecting wildlife habitat and planet earth.
▶ 2:19:51It has led to an inspired protections for wildlife, for plants and like nepa, like the clean water act, like the clean air act that our friends across the aisle are trying to gut with each of the bills that they seem to be moving week after week. It was enacted with bipartisan support in 1973. In fact, it passed with a unanimous senate vote and overwhelming bipartisan support in this house, in this chamber.
▶ 2:20:19And yes, like other bedrock environmental laws, was signed into law by richard nixon himself. The esa recognized that without protection, human activities, development on our public lands, entire species could be wiped from the face of the planet. Its passage was as much a scientific imperative as it was a moral imperative about our fundamental human relationship with nature and our moral responsibility to the planet.
▶ 2:20:51Among the major species that have been saved are the bald eagle, our nation's most significant symbol of freedom and liberty, which almost went extinct in the 1960s. The peregrine falcon, which nearly went extinct between the 1940s and 70s. The humpback whale, the green sea turtle, which almost went extinct in the 1990s and has now made a remarkable recovery.
▶ 2:21:16And finally, one of my favorites and an important species in new mexico, which is the whooping crane, which as a small child in the 1980s with my mom, we used to go see the last remaining whooping cranes that would come in winter in new mexico. These species and their recoveries represent the promise, the hope and the opportunity of the esa. Yet we know this law has been under attack for decades. Why?
▶ 2:21:47Because large corporations want unfettered access to our natural resources. They want to be able to log to mine, to drill for oil and gas without the difficulty of having to save species that might be impacted by it. This is about corporate greed. This is about more giveaways to the large corporations, which we know are trying to access our resources and to seek deregulation.
▶ 2:22:12We also know that this is part of donald trump's project 2025, which was laid out in black and white, right in front of us as we headed into this administration.
▶ 2:22:26And so not only am I opposed to the ans to the underlying bill, I am opposed categorically to the undermining of the environmental laws that were passed by this body and which for the last several generations have ensured that the american people have access to clean drinking water. The american people have access to clean air to breathe.
▶ 2:22:48The american people can still marvel at the wonder of nature, and that the american people have a say in the laws and the public process that ensures that the environment is protected and the lands that they hold sacred and dear are protected for generations to come.
▶ 2:23:09And so, madam chair, I appreciate the debate this morning, but I must oppose this bill, and I must oppose the ways in which it undermines the protections for these species. I, I oppose the way in which it rescinds fundamental critical science that undermines how this bill ultimately protects those species.
▶ 2:23:32And I oppose the entire slate of legislation that this gop is trying to shove through this congress days before christmas, to undermine the environmental health of this country. And with that, I yield back. >> so further discussion on the amendment. If there's no further discussion on the amendment, it is now in order to consider amendments to ans to h.r.
▶ 2:23:561897 and I recognize myself for the purpose of offering an amendment designated hegemon 108. Without objection, the amendment is considered. Read. My amendment would change the name of the endangered species act to the endangered species recovery act. This amendment is drafted in line with legislation I. Co-introduced with senator cynthia lummis, also from wyoming, by adding the term recovery to the law's title. We will better.
▶ 2:24:25We will better reflect the underlying policy of the act by more explicitly focusing on recovery as being the goal of the federal conservation process is. This committee considers esa modernization. We must address both the policy shortcomings as well as the shortcomings in messaging and public perception. With this underlying bill is trying to correct is the long standing failure on the back end of our species management efforts.
▶ 2:24:52This failure is evident in the fact that since its adoption over 50 years ago, the us fish and wildlife service has delisted less than 4% of all species that have ever been listed under the act. That is not because we've not had substantial success in actually preserving and conserving species, thereby reversing their downward population trends. The gray wolf and grizzly bears are classic examples of this.
▶ 2:25:16We have successfully recovered both species to well beyond their recovery goals, and neither species is at risk. In short, the action of delisting is what should represent the successful recovery for a particular species, which should then mark the end of federal involvement. There are numerous actors, however, who have realized that they can use threatened and endangered species for land and water control, while also making serious bank while doing it.
▶ 2:25:46Whether such species are actually threatened or endangered is largely irrelevant to them. By first listing and then maintaining species on the list and refusing to identify them as recovered, regardless of whether in fact they are, they can continue to control large areas of land, restrict water use and block development, including the construction of much needed infrastructure such as power plants, pipelines, roads and bridges. The current framing of the esa helps shield the efforts of those bad actors.
▶ 2:26:16Maintaining a species as endangered allows them to message about the dire straits of our environment, climate catastrophes, the destruction of entire ecosystems and the like, not only regardless of whether such hysteria is warranted, but knowing full well that it isn't.
▶ 2:26:32These environmental ngos manipulate such imagery to block esa delisting, development and development, and human advancement, usually in direct contrast to what the science says. Our science based recovery efforts and successes are irrelevant to such groups as, again, control in making money are ultimately their goal. I will repeat, the original mission of the esa was to recover species.
▶ 2:27:01It was not to block the construction of power plants, prevent the maintenance of our reservoirs and canal system, or to create the housing crisis that has been created by, in large part, democrat policies.
▶ 2:27:13The failure to reflect recovery in the in the title of the law is a disservice and is a disconnect from the underlying statutory text that we must resolve, updating the law's title to the endangered species recovery act would not only correct this long standing issue, but also aligns with the reforms proposed in the underlying text. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment and I yield back. Is there any further discussion on the amendment? Yes. Mr. huffman.
▶ 2:27:44>> uh, thank you, madam chair. So we are facing crisis after crisis right now. The american people are struggling, and house republicans have spent an unbelievable amount of time and energy this year on performative renaming efforts. Uh, we have seen it across the board. Attempts to rename the gulf of mexico. We have a new name now that they've thrown on the department of defense.
▶ 2:28:07Uh, donald trump put his name on the front of a building to try to curry favor in his fever dream of getting a nobel peace prize. Uh, we've seen proposals to put his head on mount rushmore. Uh, so much political theater. And now we have an amendment to rename the endangered species act.
▶ 2:28:27I can think of so many better ways to use this committee's time, and to use taxpayer resources than wasting countless hours and resources, updating maps and documents for pointless pet projects. This amendment is a waste of time and a waste of ink, and it is emblematic of the problems with house republicans approach to the endangered species act. Um, look, uh, we want to see recovery, there's no doubt about it.
▶ 2:28:57Uh, but slapping a label on a bill does not get you any closer to recovery. Just like slapping labels as this bill does. Conservation recovery. Um, unless it's backed up by substance, it is just window dressing. It's just gaslighting. This is a bill that will undermine conservation and recovery. And you folks are thinking you can rename the endangered species act and claim a win. So ask yourself this question.
▶ 2:29:25Uh, if this esa amendments act becomes law, will the esa have improved recovery outcomes for imperiled species? Uh, will it deserve to have recovery in its actual name? If a species is sliding towards extinction, declining for decades, and finally gets to the top of the new priority list in this bill, what happens once it's listed? Uh, not much.
▶ 2:29:53If it's a threatened species, it doesn't get any automatic protections anymore. If this becomes law, if it needs habitat to expand into, uh, that won't happen because this law won't allow it. If a project impacts the species population, there will be fewer measures to avoid harm or mitigate impacts if any are required at all. If the species is on private land, good luck because there will be very little, uh, little that anyone can do to improve recovery on those lands under this bill.
▶ 2:30:23And it's probably, uh, facing unlimited take, uh, consequences. But don't worry, we may end up with a patchwork of state rules replacing the consistent national standards that we have right now. Uh, so this bill says it's incentivizing recovery. I just don't see how, uh, by gutting the services recovery budgets, by making sure anything that special interests want can be labeled as a quote unquote, conservation benefit.
▶ 2:30:51Um, I try to keep reinforcing this, but the species, uh, gets the esa label under this proposed legislation, and then nothing meaningful comes with it. That is window dressing. That is protection on paper. That is not a real path to the thing you say you care about, that you want to put in the name of this law recovery. The outcome is what matters, and the outcome is entirely at odds.
▶ 2:31:18If this becomes law with the original purpose of the endangered species act. So let's let's stop the gaslighting. Let's stop wasting our time and wasting resources trying to fool people with performative renaming exercises. Let's actually roll up our sleeves and work on solutions to achieve the purpose of the endangered species act. I yield back. >> is there further discussion on the amendment, Mr. stauber? >> yeah. Representative hagerman, I appreciate you bringing this amendment up.
▶ 2:31:47Um, as, uh, the esteemed our former esteemed colleague from the great state of alaska, representative young said they were never meant to be put on there permanently. And only 3% of the species that have come off. And I think it's important to recognize the value that you and that you have brought to the not only in wyoming, uh, but across this nation.
▶ 2:32:13And, uh, your, uh, your judgment, your experience far exceeds most people on this committee, and I yield back. >> thank you, Mr. stauber. And the chair now recognizes miss stansbury. >> thank you, madam chair.
▶ 2:32:28Um, I actually just wanted to ask you, madam chair, a question, and I'll yield to you after I ask the question about, um, you you said in your introduction of this amendment that part of your purpose in introducing this bill is to address the housing crisis. And so I'm very intrigued by this idea, because we've seen this argument used also as a justification for selling off public lands.
▶ 2:32:52And the bill that was passed in july, um, that ultimately got, um, taken out of the bill on a bipartisan basis. So can you help us just understand the logic chain here about how essay affects the housing crisis and give us some specific examples? >> oh, yeah. Absolutely. Thank you so much for that question. Yeah.
▶ 2:33:15Um, when you look at what has happened in the pacific northwest, I believe that chairman westerman gave a very good description of the situation. That used to be one of our premier areas where we had logging, and in large part because, number one, the endangered species act, the spotted owl and other uh designated species, as well as the failed forest management, we have now largely lost those resources for purposes of producing the materials that we need for producing housing.
▶ 2:33:44So we are now importing a substantially more of our housing materials than we used to. And there is a direct relationship between supply and demand. That's called economics. So when we're importing lumber and timber from canada rather than growing it domestically, it obviously is increasing in price.
▶ 2:34:06So I don't think that there's any question for anybody who understands economics that when you stop the development and the use of the resources, such as the forests that we have in the northwest are part of the of, of the united states, but in wyoming as well, you can go and you can look at, for example, the roadless rule that denied access management and use to 3.2 million acres of national forest service lands in the state of wyoming, out of the 9 million acres that we have, that obviously meant that we are, again, producing less
▶ 2:34:37Domestic timber, which is increasing the cost of housing. So the fact is. >> that take retake my time. I appreciate that explanation. It helps me get some context for where the logic chain is here, but I want to kind of reground us in reality and talk about what is actually driving the housing crisis, the housing crisis in most urban areas in the united states has to do with the cost of housing and a shortage of supply due to local and state zoning laws.
▶ 2:35:05It has absolutely nothing to do with the raw materials. It has to do with the ability for local entities to actually build affordable housing units. And because of the mortgage markets and the cost of housing, that is actually what is driving the affordable housing crisis in the united states, it has nothing to do with the raw materials. Secondly, I want to make a point.
▶ 2:35:29Um, and I do appreciate the assertion that anybody who understands economics can appreciate the argument, as I'm sure you're well aware, because you do have expertise in natural resources and have worked in this area. The vast majority of timber companies selling commercial timber now in the united states are multinational corporations. They're not small mom and pop, uh, lumber mills. Many of those went out of business long ago, and it had nothing to do with endangered species.
▶ 2:35:56It had to do with large conglomerate multinational companies buying them out, uh, getting contracts and outcompeting them on public lands and being able to sell a commodity at a lower price than local entities could sell it at. That is the economics that is driving large multinational timber companies and the importation of cheaper lumber from overseas. It is not the endangered species act.
▶ 2:36:25I appreciate where you're coming from, but that's just the facts. So, um, I, I think it's important that we're honest when we do legislating. And I've seen over and over and over again, and I've worked in natural resources for 25 years that during this congress, during this administration, that folks are using the crisis around affordability, the crisis around housing, the crisis around healthcare, the crisis of groceries to justify things like tariffs that are
▶ 2:36:57Illegal, unconstitutional, justifying opening your public lands and resources to unregulated strip mining, unregulated timber production, unregulated oil and gas drilling, and then trying to convince the american people that we're doing this to help you with the everyday costs that are affecting you. And with all due respect, it's just complete. So I. >> think that that is entirely out of line. And entirely out of line, madam chair.
▶ 2:37:26And I am as the chairwoman, I am not going to allow you to conduct yourself that way in this committee. That is entirely out of line and unprofessional. >> you strike the words. >> yes, move to strike the words. >> I'm not going to strike my words, but I will leave the committee now so they'll remain on the record. That's good.
▶ 2:37:57>> no, I'd like to. I request that she strike her words. >> okay, I already said no. >> absolutely shocking. And I would request an apology from your side of the aisle for that behavior. >> um. >> uh, um, madam chair? Yes. I've asked to strike the words as well. Um, I do think we need to, um, um, recess for a moment to get this squared away.
▶ 2:38:26I think it's extremely offensive what she said to you. >> I agree. We're going to reset this. We're going to we're going to briefly recess.
▶ 2:39:40>> we will come to order. >> the committee will come to order. The chair is prepared to rule based on president precedent. The chair finds the words are unparliamentary and the point of order is sustained. >> madam chair. >> is there further discussion on the. >> is there any further? Yes. Mr. stauber. >> may I speak out of order for 30s? Yes, I want to, uh, Mr. huffman and I have we have our battles. Okay.
▶ 2:40:09Um, I agree, I was sitting behind you as he was talking, and, Mr. huffman, I appreciate you saying that was totally out of line and a bridge too far. We can have our disagreements. But I appreciate what you did, and I yield back. >> thank you. Uh, the gentleman yields back. Is there any further discussion on the amendment, Mr. gosar? >> yes.
▶ 2:40:34I would love to give the gentlelady, the chair, an opportunity to rebut the gentlelady. I wish you'd stay behind me. I think the record needs to. >> well, I think the reason that she isn't here is she knows that she could. That what she was saying was inaccurate. But for one thing, one of the allegations that she made is that we don't have mom and pop, uh, timber companies anymore, that it's all multinational companies that do the logging in this country. Well, why does she think that that has happened?
▶ 2:41:01It's because the mom and pops were put out of business. That's very we see that have seen that year after year after year in wyoming. We used to have numerous timber companies in the state of wyoming, and we now are down to about 2 or 3. I have tried to find a way that we could actually increase the number of timber companies in our wyoming.
▶ 2:41:20In wyoming, it's a minimum investment of about $25 million to argue that the only reason that there is a housing crisis or an affordability crisis when it comes to housing is because of zoning, uh, is an absolute absurd statement. Uh, I agree, some of the zoning regulations, you can look at new york city, you can look at the the different policies that they have put in place have definitely exacerbated the housing crisis and housing affordability. But that's not the entire story.
▶ 2:41:47Our timber industry used to be quite robust, not only from the northwestern part of the united states, but places like wyoming and colorado and idaho. And because of the endangered species act, because of nepa, because of how these various environmental regulations have been weaponized over time, that has what has destroyed our industries and why we are importing the amount of timber that we are. I don't know that I need to go forward and rebut much more of what, uh, miss stansbury said.
▶ 2:42:17I think that her closing statement is indicative of the fact that she also recognizes the falsity of her allegations and was incapable of defending them while sitting here, so had to resort to, uh, vulgarities and swear words. But, uh, with that, I will yield back and I to the, uh, Mr. gosar. >> thank you. Well, I want to take my opportunity. I found a very condescending the actions of the gentlewoman.
▶ 2:42:42And that's not appropriate for this, uh, this committee, uh, I think that, uh, you if you pose yourself as an expert across the board on economics, you better have the titles to go with it. So, um, the other thing is affordability, but has anybody looked at the price of cement yet? Has anybody looked at, uh, wood and timber? It's out of this world. I'll tell you the biggest reason why we're losing, uh, affordability for housing is the lack of houses. Because you have big firms buying them up.
▶ 2:43:11That would be the big thing, I would say. So, uh, I just found it very interesting that I'll bring up an example. Flagstaff, arizona, one of most resistant communities around. Well, they almost lost flagstaff to a fire. Guess where the only lumber is coming out of now? Flagstaff, arizona. So, you know, there's it's not a good wood for windows and stuff like that, but they're trying to find a way to utilize it. And our technology is going to make a big difference.
▶ 2:43:40So with that, I yield back to the gentlelady. >> Mr. gosar. The chair recognizes Mr. uh, from alaska. >> thank you, madam chair. Uh, just to speak in favor of the amendment. Um, look, I think what we name our legislation matters. Uh, we've seen that the affordable care act is actually unaffordable.
▶ 2:44:02We saw the inflation reduction act, admittedly, after it was passed, was called the greatest climate bill that this congress has passed. And I think it's important for us to make sure that the things that we the names that we that we give to the legislation that we enact reflect the intent of the legislation accurately. And I think changing the name from the endangered species act to endangered species recovery act is appropriate in that respect.
▶ 2:44:32Um, with a brief comment on, uh, the timber industry since that has come up, uh, in this debate, uh, alaska also, I used to have a very thriving timber industry and, uh, unfortunately, we only have a couple of, uh, operators left. They're not multinational companies. They are mom and pop operators. And we were working very hard to make sure that they have an opportunity to survive.
▶ 2:44:57But in fact, it is the regulations, um, that have been put in place through executive order and by this body in the past that have put them out of business, not international competition, uh, and not multinationals. And with that, I yield back. >> thank you. Does anyone else is there further discussion on the amendment, Mr. bentz? >> thank you, madam chair. Uh, I just want to focus for a moment on the word recovery, because it does raise, of course, the exact issue of what we're trying to do with the act. And the issue is if we have a.
▶ 2:45:31Before I go, before I go that direction, however, I just want to say there's been much said about not needing to do what this amendment and the entire bill does. And let me just say, of course, this bill is the endangered species act is not perfect. And to hear these assertions otherwise is difficult to listen to because it is not perfect. We need the act, but we need to improve it. So it actually works, and so that it does not do what it's doing in many places.
▶ 2:45:59And that is costing fortunes and lives and communities and neighborhoods and, and getting us nowhere. And I think that chairman, when he called out what's happened with the with the spotted owl, which is squarely in my great state of oregon, um, going from 1200 pairs when it was listed to 200 pairs, now at a cost of literally billions and billions of dollars. So is that recovery? No, it's not what it is.
▶ 2:46:29It guarantees that we will destroy communities because we have and we guarantees that we we will cost our housing industry billions. We've given up, in fact, uh, raising timber on federal forests any longer and deferred, uh, lost the race to, to malaysia and other places that raise timber. It's extraordinarily sad. So the real question is what is the goal of the act?
▶ 2:46:54And that's exactly what you're trying to raise, uh, before us, uh, despite considerable, uh, digressions, uh, in reaching this point. And so is this country going to admit that no matter how many billions it spends, it may not be able to recover certain of these species? That's what you're really trying to say here, really trying to say, hey, there are limits. And this word recovery says that we should be trying to do is recover these species when we can.
▶ 2:47:22And there may be situations where we can't. The original act actually actually saw that it has the so-called god squad. It's never been used. Now what does that mean? That we don't want to admit that maybe we have caused, uh, extinction? We certainly have other other, other other things caused it also. But your real question is, do we want to try to recover? Excuse me? Do something more than just try to recover.
▶ 2:47:49Uh, I'm going to support the amendment because I think there we are in an age of limitations. I think we this conversation, we need to have it. But there needs to be a, I think a recognition by the folks on the other side of the aisle. Come on. This law is not perfect. It's not the 11th commandment. Moses did not. Now, you know, if you guys would have it your way, I guess he should have added it to what he carried down mount sinai, I guess, because apparently to you it is perfect. But it is not.
▶ 2:48:14And so thank goodness for the the efforts that the chairman and uh, now, chairwoman, are making in this regard. I yield back. >> thank you. Is there further discussion on the amendment if there is no further discussion, the question is on the amendment offered by myself designated as hegemon 108. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed? No, no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to.
▶ 2:48:45>> yes. All right. >> I recognize the gentleman from arizona, Mr. gosar, for the purpose of offering an amendment designated gosar zero 70. Without objection. The amendment is considered read. >> thank you, madam chair.
▶ 2:49:06Since its enactment, the intent of the endangered species act of 1973 was quickly, quickly shifted from conservation to never ending roadblocks against a multiple use doctrine. It has been weaponized by radical eco terrorists to overregulate local communities and private landowners through judicial activism. H.r. 1897, the amendment act, puts an end to these abuses and restores common sense recovery efforts with transparent goals for all stakeholders to see and gain.
▶ 2:49:37This means less red tape, financial burdens, and less financial burdens on industry, and a greater focus on the science based evidence. Local ranchers and foresters know their communities unique ecosystems better than white collar bureaucrats back here in D.C. it's about time folks here in D.C. start listening.
▶ 2:49:57I think the chairman for my amendment bolsters the congressional oversight of the gsa, enhances federalism consultation, mandates, and examines the economic impact of esa designations on local communities. First, it requires the secretary of interior to notify congress of any designation of critical habitat or an experimental recovery area that exceeds 50,000 acres.
▶ 2:50:23This notification must include an inventory of the resources within the designated area, and an evaluation of the designations. Economic impact on individuals, local communities, and the nation as a whole, if any. Uses of the of this resources on the selected land like timber harvesting, grazing or mining would no longer be possible. Under the designation, the secretary must evaluate the economic effects of such termination. Of such termination of these uses.
▶ 2:50:51My amendment further requires a statement of consultation among federal, regional, state and local governments and anticipated impacts of of these on stakeholders. Once again, no one knows communities better than the communities themselves and their leaders. Similarly, my amendment requires that congress, congressional notifications and federalism compliance for the release of. Ten nonessential experimental populations into an area greater than 50,000 acres.
▶ 2:51:19The experimental recovery area for the mexican wolf, for example, is more than 98,000 or million acres across arizona and new mexico. I can name countless ranchers and county officials who would truly value collaborating with fish and wildlife service for the mexican wolf reform under the esa.
▶ 2:51:39Finally, my amendment requires the secretary to make expenditures related to species recovery publicly available on data.gov. This. Mr. chairman, madam chairman, we need to empower the people with receipts and to watch the for fraud, waste and abuse and it will melt away. I thank you and I urge all my colleagues to vote for my amendment and I yield back. >> thank you. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Yes, Mr. huffman.
▶ 2:52:10>> thank you, madam chair. Um, so this amendment does not advance species recovery or transparency for critical habitat designations and experimental population actions? Uh, it is another proposal. Unfortunately not this. Just not backed up by facts. The service already needs to show their work for critical habitat and experimental populations.
▶ 2:52:32They already have significant flexibility to assess economic and other impacts when they take these actions, and the esa requires designation of critical habitat for listed species on the basis of the best scientific data available. Right. Uh, the statute, the statute and implementation regulations, however, also provide significant discretion and flexibility in how the designations are made.
▶ 2:53:01It is a tailored and pragmatic approach, balancing conservation goals with economic and security and practical considerations. That's how it works in practice. Unlike the listing of a species, uh, which is based solely on biological status, the designation of critical habitat explicitly allows the services to consider non-biological factors that includes economic impacts and national security concerns and other relevant impacts.
▶ 2:53:29So if the benefit of excluding certain areas outweighs the benefits of including them, and exclusion would not result in extinction. Because remember, we're talking about the endangered species act, then the service can exclude those areas from the final designation. In some situations, it may be deemed not prudent to designate critical habitat at all, such as when a species primarily exists outside of us jurisdiction or when designation would increase.
▶ 2:53:59Threats like poaching or habitat destruction. So there's all of this flexibility built in. Um, also, the esa restricts the scope of critical habitat, uh, when it's designated, the area cannot encompass the entire geographic area that the species could potentially occupy, except in rare cases.
▶ 2:54:21And for areas unoccupied by species to be designated, they have to contain physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of species. For areas unoccupied by a listed species to be designated, they have to be essential to its conservation and already be habitat, not just potential habitat. Um, so there's all of these levels of flexibility, discretion and safeguards. This amendment is not necessary.
▶ 2:54:47It ties up an already threadbare esa staff with unnecessary additional analyzes and paperwork for no additional conservation or societal benefit. And for those reasons, I oppose it and yield back. >> is there further discussion on the amendment? If there's no further discussion, the question is on the amendment offered by Mr. gosar designated gosar zero seven. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
▶ 2:55:17>> aye. >> those opposed? No, no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it in the amendment is agreed to. >> I will take. >> a recorded vote has been requested. Further proceedings on this amendment will be postponed. I now recognize the gentleman from minnesota, Mr. stauber, for the purpose of offering an amendment designated stauber number one. Without objection, the amendment is considered. Read. >> I thank you, madam chairwoman.
▶ 2:55:43I rise to offer my amendment, which increases coordination between the fish and wildlife service or other federal species managers and state, local and tribal governments. As we've talked about many times in this committee, often the best decisions, especially when it comes to species management, are made by those on the ground closest to the closest to the issue, rather than in an office here in washington, D.C. my amendment is very simple.
▶ 2:56:07It provides further assurance that state, local, and tribal governments have a seat at the table, something I've heard almost every member on this committee discuss the importance of this amendment specifically does two things.
▶ 2:56:23Ensures that local actions are taken into account when considering the environmental baseline used to make decisions under the esa, and ensures the fish and wildlife service or other federal species managers are coordinating with state, local and tribal governments when analyzing the impacts and benefits of making a determination as to whether a species should be listed as threatened or endangered under the esa.
▶ 2:56:48And I'll also note this amendment brings these sections of the bill in line with other parts of the bill where coordination with state, local, and tribal entities is obligated, such as in section 305. Again, this is a simple amendment that is meant to increase coordination among all stakeholders involved in species management and protection. It's something I believe we can all agree will lead to better species management decisions. I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment and I yield back. >> is there.
▶ 2:57:18>> further discussion on the amendment? Yes. Mr. hoffman. >> thank you, madam chair. This amendment addresses provisions in the bill that inappropriately insert economic considerations into what is supposed to be a purely scientific determination, and that is whether a species gets listed under the esa. These provisions would require economic factors to be weighed in.
▶ 2:57:41Listing decisions for threatened species in section 301, and it would mandate the publication of economic analysis with every final rulemaking under the law, including all listing decisions in sections 304 and 405. Um, this is a huge departure from the way the essay was written, the way it has always worked. The esa itself is clear that listing or delisting should be made without reference to possible economic or other impacts.
▶ 2:58:10The understanding is grounded in the plain text of the law. It's been backed up by judicial interpretation of the esa, well understood by the public for decades now. There is a place for economic considerations under the esa. We just talked about it. Uh, one example. And that is when you're designating critical habitat. But congress drew a very bright line. A bipartisan congress drew a very bright line for listing decisions. Um, and that was for a very good reason.
▶ 2:58:40So we should always support efforts to hear from voices, uh, of affected communities. But the decision to list or delist has to be based on just one thing the best available science on the condition of the species and its risk of extinction. Otherwise, what are we doing here? Why do we even have an endangered species act?
▶ 2:59:00I appreciate that the gentleman's amendment seeks to, um, seeks improvements to these existing provisions in the bill, but it would only further entrench, um, a bad policy in the bill. The bill's inappropriate sidelining of the best available science. The underlying provisions shouldn't be there in the first place. And for that reason, I oppose the amendment and yield back. >> is there any further discussion on the amendment? If there's no further discussion?
▶ 2:59:29The question is on the amendment offered by Mr. stauber, designated stauber number one. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? No, no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. I now recognize ranking member hoffman for the purpose of offering an amendment designated hoffman number one. Without objection, the amendment is considered read. >> thank you, madam chair.
▶ 2:59:57Um, when there was an announcement a few years ago about a republican working group on the endangered species act, I took chairman westerman up on the offer to join that group and hoped that it would start a new, fresh conversation about how the esa has delivered conservation and recovery outcomes and what is needed to do better so that we could reauthorize the esa and make it work even better going forward. I was interested in that.
▶ 3:00:28Unfortunately, uh, the work of that, uh, process devolved into the same old stuff, the same old industry driven proposals that we have seen in one form or another. Certainly as long as I've been in congress, probably since the dawn of time, there's never anything new. This bill before us today is not going to make the esa more effective. It is not going to result in better recovery outcomes. It's not going to provide certainty for project leads and stakeholders.
▶ 3:00:57Um, it is time that we chart a different course because this is just the same old stuff. Congress hasn't reauthorized the esa in decades, and there's so much more science, information and tools that we now have available to us. We know a lot more about how climate change, drought and land use are shifting species and reducing their habitat. In many cases, new technologies are available to detect species and to reduce uncertainty in management decisions.
▶ 3:01:28Industries have also modernized their methods to reduce unnecessary impacts on wildlife. So why are we considering a bill that takes us backward with all of these old industry wish list items? We need a bold, bipartisan vision, forward looking vision that is centered on stopping extinction. And we agree on this part. I do believe recovering species.
▶ 3:01:51We need to hear from tribes, from esa practitioners, wildlife biologists, sportsmen, state wildlife managers, tech companies, anyone else working to recover, recover threatened and endangered species. And we need an unbiased analysis of what factors help drive species recovery. We need an assessment of what truly incentivizes conservation actions to drive recovery.
▶ 3:02:15And we need to talk about investments, both how we can save money and how we can leverage additional necessary funding. For all of this critical work. We need permitting offices to work efficiently, interagency consultations to run smoothly. We need to make sure that tribes and states are fully equipped to manage and recovery recover these species.
▶ 3:02:36Uh, we should consider how better use of our vast public lands and water resources to deliver conservation outcomes that benefit wildlife and neighboring communities can help with the esa. American people overwhelmingly support this law that gets lost sometimes in this politicized debate. More than 4 in 5 americans support the esa, cutting across party lines and cutting across every congressional district.
▶ 3:03:04No one wants to see a species go extinct. But this bill before us undermines the effective effectiveness of this iconic and very popular law. It increases the risk of extinction for many species. So, uh, my amendment this would rape this amendment would replace the bill's text with language authorizing a blue ribbon commission to undertake the difficult work of exploring these and other questions to get it right.
▶ 3:03:31This panel would be bipartisan. It would have participants from across political, scientific and stakeholder perspectives. It does the work that so desperately needs to be done because, again, uh, many of us, uh, on both parties, I think, want to see innovative conservation and recovery solutions. We want to encourage conversations about reauthorizing the esa, reauthorizing it.
▶ 3:03:56Uh, and as long as it actually remains science forward and inclusive of all perspectives, we should be able to do that. Let's take the time to do this in a thoughtful way and get it right. Because if we rush forward with a bill like this that bypasses all of that hard work and just takes a shortcut to an industry wish list, um, we're not helping endangered species, and we're missing an opportunity. So I encourage a yes vote on this amendment and yield back.
▶ 3:04:26>> is there further discussion on the amendment? I will recognize myself. While I appreciate Mr. huffman's agreement that the esa is broken and in need of reform, I oppose this amendment. It guts the underlying bill and replaces it with an unnecessary and toothless congressional commission.
▶ 3:04:44The bill we are considering has received copious and thoughtful input from diverse groups, including state wildlife agencies, landowners, hunting and fishing organizations, commercial fishing operators and local water agencies, just to name a few. This committee has worked for decades to reform the esa, and we will continue to do so. As always, I welcome Mr. huffman and my other democratic colleagues to join me in that effort by supporting the esa amendments act.
▶ 3:05:12I urge opposition to the amendment and I yield back. Uh, if there is no further discussion on the amendment, the question is on the amendment offered by ranking member. Huffman designated huffman number one. All those in favor signify by saying I those opposed. No, no. In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it in. The amendment is not agreed to.
▶ 3:05:36A recorded vote has been requested and further proceedings on this amendment will be postponed. I now recognize the gentlewoman from washington, miss randall, for the purpose of offering an amendment designated randall number four. Without objection, the amendment is considered. Read. >> thank you, madam chair. I want to first, um, uh, think Mr.
▶ 3:06:04Strawberry for his remarks about how bipartisan our interest in supporting tribal sovereignty and tribal engagement has been on this committee. That is something that, um, I feel really grateful for in our ability to work together, um, in support of, uh, tribal leaders, tribal self-determination and our treaty and trust responsibility.
▶ 3:06:28I do, however, I voted no on that amendment because I don't think the language went far enough to repair the underlying, uh, challenges in the policy. And this amendment seeks to require meaningful tribal consultation, government to government relationships around, particularly salmon and steelhead species, which are very important, as I have said before, to the people who have,
▶ 3:07:01Um, stewarded my district since time immemorial, and also to the sports fishers and those of us who like to eat salmon at dinner. Um, you know, our district is home to 12 federally recognized tribes, each with distinct cultures, history and needs. And these tribal nations are diverse, and they all share, as I have said, a deep, deep connection to the salmon.
▶ 3:07:25And in washington state, access to salmon, sustainable populations of fish, co-management of lands and waters are consistent with our treaty rights, as have been proven and upheld in federal courts. And, you know, earlier this month, we our committee met to discuss the impact that pinnipeds have on those salmon populations, again, with bipartisan, um, interest.
▶ 3:07:51Well, we can't oversimplify the problems that salmon are facing by placing the blame on a single factor and simultaneously weakening federal protections for esa listed species of salmon.
▶ 3:08:12Discussions about delisting these species should be rooted in the best available science and data, not political strategy and meaningful tribal consultation as pertaining to delisting of any species is essential.
▶ 3:08:32I don't believe that we should even contemplate, um, moving forward without meaningful consultation, not coordination, not checking a box, but face to face, meaningful tribal consultation in a government to government relationship. This amendment doesn't create new obligations. It simply reinforces the long standing requirements for tribes to be consulted when it comes to salmon or steelhead.
▶ 3:09:01Um, and so I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I think it is in line with our broad interest in upholding tribal sovereignty and in upholding our treaty and trust responsibilities. And I'm also eager to support, um, my colleague from arizona, uh, policy to create broader safeguards for tribal consultations.
▶ 3:09:23But this this amendment about salmon and steelhead, about, you know, the origins of the peoples and the olympic peninsula and about the future of our ability to live and to practice, um, these traditional harvesting methods and to build an economy that is reflective of the great diversity of our community is so important. So I hope that I can count on all of your support and I yield back. >> is there further.
▶ 3:09:53>> discussion on the amendment? Yes, Mr. huffman. >> thank you, madam chair. I strongly support this amendment, and I think that the gentlelady from washington makes a very important point. Um, you know, right now, meaningful tribal consultation is not happening.
▶ 3:10:07Uh, if you want a one of many examples, uh, the trump administration just arbitrarily and abruptly walked away from an agreement to recover columbia river basin salmon that had been carefully worked out with tribes and other stakeholders over a period of many, many years. And tribes read about that in the paper. Uh, that's the level of, uh, respect that they're getting for their treaty rights and for their sovereignty right now in too many cases.
▶ 3:10:35So under chair westerman's bill and under the administration's current policies, meaningful consultation is essentially treated as optional. And that's not good enough. It is ironic, though, as the gentlelady from washington said, that just two weeks ago, the committee held a hearing where we heard directly from three tribal members about the importance of collaboration and the critical need for partnerships to address declining salmon populations.
▶ 3:11:01But now we're presented with a bill that increases the chances that projects on or near these these very salmon runs are going to cause the extinction of salmon and steelhead. And it offers no actionable science based approaches for the recovery of these species that are culturally and economically so critical to tribal communities. If our republican colleagues care about upholding reserved tribal treaty rights, as they sometimes say they do, uh, they will support this commonsense amendment.
▶ 3:11:31These tribes should be at the table whenever the services are determining what constitutes jeopardy for the salmon that they have treaty rights to, and that they've depended on since time immemorial. Uh, I urge support for this amendment and yield back. >> is there further. >> discussion on the amendment? Uh, Mr. bentz? >> uh, thank you, madam chair.
▶ 3:11:56An interesting amendment, and I've had occasion to address the consultation space many, many, many times back in my law practice. And the the challenge always is exactly what one means by consultation and also what one means by meaningful. And so without appropriate definitions, uh, I could never support never support this amendment, even though I certainly understand the desire by any group to enjoy meaningful consultation.
▶ 3:12:23And I can list the counties, for example, that are that are constantly wanting more power in that consultation space. But to throw this word in without appropriate definitions would be inappropriate and legally, uh, definitely legally challenging because no one knows what meaningful truly means. And so, uh, it's one of those, uh, wishes that people always want. Um, I will not be supporting it. I understand the desire, but it won't be supported. >> thank you, Mr. bentz.
▶ 3:12:51Any further discussion on the amendment? I now recognize myself. I oppose the amendment in part for what you're saying, Mr. bentz, this amendment would add a tribal consultation requirement to a section of the bill. Does not that does not in any way undermine existing tribal consultation requirements.
▶ 3:13:10While I firmly believe that federal agencies should conduct proper and adequate tribal consultation, the amendment adds undefined terms that add significant legal uncertainty to a bill designed to promote species recovery and regulatory efficiency. One other point that I would like to make, I have brought with me today, uh, the recovery or the management plan, the grizzly bear management plan prepared by the state of wyoming. Uh, this is it.
▶ 3:13:37Uh, you can see it's quite lengthy and, uh, double sided, quite lengthy, very extensive document. These are the documents that are created when a species is being considered for, uh, for delisting. The states actually prepare the documents working with the fish and wildlife service. And you'll find if you ever were to open up one of these documents and look at it, that there is specific reference to tribal consultation in these kinds of management plans.
▶ 3:14:04So not only is it already required, but in the management plans that are put together for species recovery and management, that is also included. So for that reason, I also oppose the amendment. And then I also would like, uh for unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support for h.r. 1897 from the associated builders and contractors be entered into the record.
▶ 3:14:34I also ask that a letter of support signed by the maine lobstermen's association, the hawaii longline association, the massachusetts lobstermen's association, the new england fisherman stewardship association, maine lobstering union, downeast lobstermen's association, new hampshire commercial fishermen's association, atlantic offshore lobstermen's association, and pacific coast federation of fishermen's associations be submitted into the record without objection, so ordered.
▶ 3:15:04If there's, uh, if there is no further discussion, the. >> pardon me. >> is there further discussion? >> is there further discussion on the amendment? If there is no further discussion, the question is on the amendment offered by miss randall designated randall number four. All those in favor signify by saying I those opposed. No. No. In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it, and the amendment is not agreed to.
▶ 3:15:28A recorded vote has been requested. Further proceedings on this amendment will be postponed. I now recognize the gentleman from california, Mr. gray, for the purpose of offering an amendment designated gray 019. Without objection, the amendment is considered. Read. >> thank you, madam chair.
▶ 3:15:55California's central valley produces over 59 billion in agricultural output each year. This accounts approximately for one in every four bites of food consumed by americans daily. In the five counties I represent, crops have an estimated value of nearly 22 billion annually.
▶ 3:16:19The federal government has, frankly failed its responsibility to ensure water supply in our region in order to feed the nation. In fact, the last president to make a significant investment in california water was jfk.
▶ 3:16:36That is why I introduced the end the california water crisis legislative package, which would expand california's water storage capacity to develop and maintain water infrastructure projects. When I speak to farmers and water users in my district, they all wonder the same thing. How long will overregulation on environmental quality continue until we acknowledge the serious harm this is having on our regional economy?
▶ 3:17:05Every season, our region endures uncertainty and water deliveries due to overregulation in a patchwork of state and federal laws that don't work well together. It's not balanced water management. Ensuring reliable water deliveries would allow farmers to plan with greater certainty and avoid production losses. That's why earlier this year, I introduced h.r.
▶ 3:17:293845, the valley water protection act, to address state and federal overreach on farmers access to water. My amendment, which models that bill, would amend the esa to protect impacted farmers from national security threats or regional economic harm related to esa listing enforcement activity.
▶ 3:17:52Specifically, this amendment would allow access to the exemption process where a reasonable and prudent alternative to a proposed agency action may impair national security or regional economic impacts, ensuring species protections and reliable water are not mutually exclusive in our region. People always want to use partizan talking points between the environment and water usage, but it just simply isn't the case.
▶ 3:18:21Collaborations between local agencies, state and federal government and environmental organizations deliver real results on habitat, on flow, on accountability. Policy should be made looking at the whole and complete picture. It is a national security risk if we can't feed americans. I want to thank the chairman for his commitment to work on esa reform, and I hope my colleagues can support my amendment. Thank you, Mr. chair.
▶ 3:18:52I yield back. >> gentleman yields back for further discussion on the amendment. Mr. huffman, you're recognized. >> uh, I thank the chair and I do appreciate my colleague's engagement on water issues and the very real challenges that face communities that depend on reliable water supplies. Um, these challenges are serious. They deserve thoughtful, durable solutions.
▶ 3:19:15Um, the point is well taken that we need to invest more, uh, in western water infrastructure, california in particular. But, um, I will I will, uh, politely push back a little that we haven't done anything since jfk because I think that the $8.7 billion that democrats and president biden put into the infrastructure investment and jobs act for western water infrastructure, uh, plus another 2 billion for tribal water rights, which benefits water supply reliability.
▶ 3:19:43And california and other western states was a very big deal. Uh, the biggest single federal investment in western water infrastructure we've ever seen in a single piece of legislation. There's always more we can do. Uh, but I don't want to sell short, uh, those pretty significant. And I've talked to water managers about how meaningful that was. Uh, we will keep working on doing more, but that was really impactful and significant.
▶ 3:20:09Um, now to this amendment, it does not simply address water management. That's one of the concerns that I have. It would make sweeping nationwide changes to the provisions in the esa that make sure federal agencies, uh, federal actions, are not pushing imperiled species to extinction. The esa already includes an extraordinary last resort mechanism called the god squad.
▶ 3:20:34It allows a cabinet level committee to authorize a project to move forward, even when it's likely to jeopardize the species continued existence. In other words, if, after going through the consultation process, there's no way to avoid pushing a species closer to extinction, the god squad can say, go ahead and do it anyway. Uh, that authority exists for truly exceptional purposes. Um, which is why it's been used only twice in nearly 50 years. And this amendment would dramatically expand.
▶ 3:21:02When that process can be invoked, it lowers the bar so that extinction permission could be sought whenever mitigation or project modifications may have economic impacts or implicate broader regional concerns. That's not a targeted fix. Um, that turns what has always been a rare and extraordinary tool into a far more routine object.
▶ 3:21:30Um, this is also, um, a fairness problem. Conservation only works when responsibility is shared. But under this amendment's approach, one project could be allowed to cause unlimited harm. While everyone else on the river farmers, tribes, fishermen, downstream communities are forced to reduce their take even further. To compensate, you end up with a system where one actor gets a free pass and everyone else gets to pay the price.
▶ 3:21:57So we should ask ourselves, why would we want to create a system where a single project becomes the one that everyone knows is killing all the fish? Uh, why would a project applicant wish to deal with that political firestorm of pushing a fish population to extinction, and finally expanding the cabinet level authority over extinction decisions, as this amendment intends, would enable politicization of what should always be a science based and very rare, uh, carefully
▶ 3:22:29Constrained judgment if congress normalizes extinction, uh, as a management option, it will be much easier for future administrations to use the authority broadly, aggressively, and way beyond the context of just water projects. So, um, we all want to see solutions that balance project development with environmental responsibility. I think turning extinction into a routine trade off is not the answer. And for that reason, I urge a no vote and yield back.
▶ 3:22:59>> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? I recognize myself, I do support this amendment. It's simple. And we're not reinventing the wheel. Uh, review by the endangered species committee is an important tool that congress included in the original statute, so that projects of national significance can move forward if there are no reasonable and prudent alternatives available to avoid jeopardizing the listed species by using this process, or by using this process has proven nearly impossible.
▶ 3:23:29Those seeking to advance a project are routinely voluntold to change proposed projects, often leading to significant negative impacts on the project's economics and effectiveness. Mr. gray's amendment remedies this problem while also retaining the necessary safeguards to protect esa listed species included in the esa committee process. Again, I support the amendment and I yield back my time. Is there further discussion on the amendment?
▶ 3:23:57There's no further discussion. The question on the amendment offered by Mr. gray designated gray 19. All those in favor signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> those opposed? No. The opinion of the chair. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. I recognize the gentlewoman from arizona, miss grijalva, for the purpose of offering an amendment designated grijalva number two. Without objection, the amendment is considered. Read.
▶ 3:24:28>> thank you, Mr. chairman and ranking member. The endangered species act plays a major role in wildlife management across the country, including on tribal lands and for species that tribes have cultural, subsistence and treaty based ties to. Tribes have been managing, conserving and recovering wildlife for centuries or longer, and they are essential partners with federal government for stewarding our nation's wildlife. Yet despite this reality, the esa does not explicitly reference tribes, and the underlying bill does nothing to address that gap.
▶ 3:24:59This legislation before us today fails once again to provide that authority and flexibility to tribes. Instead, this bill erodes the science and definitions that hold the fish and wildlife service and the national marine fisheries service accountable for making decisions and engaging in the interagency consultation. My amendment makes clear that when the secretary undertakes rulemaking or federal rulemakings or federal actions under this legislation, tribal governments must be meaningfully consulted.
▶ 3:25:27This is especially important at a time when tribes have expressed deep frustration about being sidelined from decisions that directly affect species on their lands and the exercise of their treaty rights. Tribal nations are sovereign governments with generations of expertise in stewardship and conservation, and excluding them from these conversations undermines both trust and effective wildlife management.
▶ 3:25:52Meaningful tribal consultation should be on the floor, should be the floor, not the ceiling, for federal action that affects tribal lands, resources and rights. This amendment is straightforward, reasonable, and consistent with the federal government's trust and treaty responsibilities. It is a small step in writing this wrong by directing the secretaries of interior and commerce to engage in meaningful consultation with affected tribes as they draft and finalize any rules and regulations in response to this legislation.
▶ 3:26:20I urge adoption, adoption of this amendment, and I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Recognized? Ranking member huffman. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I support this amendment. I want to thank the gentlelady from arizona for offering it. Tribes have long called for more authority and more flexibility to manage esa listed species. The bill before us today does not expand their tools for managing imperiled wildlife.
▶ 3:26:47The esa is one of the tools that the federal government uses to deliver on its treaty and trust responsibilities for tribes, but as I have pointed out repeatedly through this markup, this bill erodes the very foundation of protection for these endangered species. And in that sense, it undermines our government to government relationship with many tribes.
▶ 3:27:08The trump administration has backtracked on our governmental commitments to tribes and in so many ways, and I am very confident that they would do the same thing, that they would fail to consult meaningfully when it comes to any regulations that would be promulgated if this bill were to become law. So my colleague is trying to restore some small amount of respect to tribes by requiring meaningful consultation on any regulations that the service drafts.
▶ 3:27:37As a result of this bill. That seems like something all of us should be willing to support if we care about tribal sovereignty, self-determination, and honoring government to government responsibilities. With that, I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Mr. gosar, you're recognized. >> yeah. Part of federalism to the gentlelady from new mexico are from arizona. Is is small towns, small towns haven't had any consultation. So local entities have to have that.
▶ 3:28:05So I think it's really implied in regards to that. If not then I'm still against this, this this bill, unless it has that federal aspect of, of consultation all the way across the board. It's not just just tribes. It has to be. Everybody has to be able to chime in in federalism. Yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment?
▶ 3:28:27I recognize myself, I oppose the amendment as the amendment would add a tribal consultation requirement to a section of the bill. However, the the bill does not in any way undermine existing tribal consultation requirements.
▶ 3:28:43While I firmly believe that federal agencies should conduct proper and adequate tribal consultation, the amendment adds undefined terms that add significant legal uncertainty to a bill designed to promote species recovery and regulatory efficiency. Uh, the amendment is duplicative and unnecessary. I urge opposition to the amendment, and I yield back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? If there's no further discussion, the question is on the amendment offered by miss grijalva designated grijalva number two.
▶ 3:29:12All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed? No. The opinion of the chair, the nos have it. A recorded vote has been requested. Further proceedings on this amendment will be postponed. Recognize the gentlewoman from michigan, miss dingell, for the purpose of offering an amendment designated dingell, number five. Without objection, the amendment is considered. Read. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 3:29:38Today we are witnessing an extinction crisis unprecedented in human history, with 1 million species at risk of disappearing forever in the coming decades. While extinction is irreversible, it's not inevitable. We can take action to stem the decline of our imperiled species, the american national heritage that they represent, and the services that they contribute to. The ecosystems we share. As a co-chair of the endangered species act caucus.
▶ 3:30:07Protecting our nation's wildlife is one of my top priorities, and I'm deeply concerned that provisions included in this bill will cause our nation to backtrack on the progress we've made. That's why I'm offering this amendment to not have the bill take effect until the director of the council on environmental quality submits a certification to the relevant house and senate committees that the fish and wildlife service and the national marine fisheries service have the
▶ 3:30:38Staff and the resources needed to carry out the endangered species act. These agencies perform the necessary work to swiftly recover threatened and endangered species, process permits and conduct quality, timely interagency consultations. Interagency consultations I have major concerns with rolling back esa protections and fast forwarding species listings.
▶ 3:31:01While the current administration is firing some of the best and brightest and just michigan alone, 15 highly experienced no employees were let go, and the us fish and wildlife agency fired 12 employees attached to the great lakes sea lamprey program. These actions delayed this year's control program and cost our great lakes fishing economy hundreds of millions of dollars.
▶ 3:31:27This bill goes even further, authorizing dangerously low appropriations for endangered species activities. Meanwhile, the house cjs appropriations bill cuts 40% of the funding for the national marine fisheries service, the bureau tasked with the esa authorities for marine species, and the house interior and environment appropriations bills cut about 10% from the fish and wildlife service's resource management division,
▶ 3:31:58Which houses esa activities. My amendment ensures that the bill's provisions cannot go into effect. While these agencies are struggling with chronic underfunding and the recent staffing cuts, what I'm worried about is that these proposed changes in the esa amendments will only lead to species extinction, not species recovery. We need to work together to pass lasting investments in species recoveries.
▶ 3:32:27You know, since 1970, we've lost nearly 3 billion, billion, not million birds. And in the last decade, we've not seen over 126 species of birds have not been sighted, just birds species. We need to work together. I've said this before and I'll say it again. I'm ready to work across the aisle to address the biodiversity crisis in a bipartisan manner.
▶ 3:32:55The esa continues to receive strong bipartisan support from the american people. The most recent polling shows that 80 to 90% of americans support the esa and its full funding to protect species from going extinct. I want to remind my colleagues that for over 50 years, esa has protected and brought back many of our beloved species from the brink of extinction. It's had a 99% success rate.
▶ 3:33:25We must maintain these strong protections to continue its success and work in a bipartisan manner to start addressing conservation early. I look I feel particularly strong about this bill and nepa because john dingell wrote it and he wrote it, quite frankly, hunting and fishing and many of the states of the members across the aisle, because he saw these species disappearing. We got to work together.
▶ 3:33:54There are things it's not. I'm the first to say it's not the ten commandments. He didn't bring down the ten commandments and things need to change. But let's work together. Let's protect these species. So that's why I'm leading this amendment to ensure that the fish and wildlife service and the national marine fisheries service have the staff and the resources they need to take early prevention focused actions to protect our nation's wildlife. And then we'll save money, too.
▶ 3:34:23I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and yield back. >> gentlelady yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Mr. huffman, you're recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chair. And for, first of all, anyone who has seen mel brooks history of the world knows that there were 15 commandments and one of the tablets was dropped and shattered. We don't know if the endangered species act was on that lost third tablet, so let's not presume anything.
▶ 3:34:46Uh, in this debate here, the committee um, in all seriousness, I do support the gentlelady's very straightforward amendment, as straightforward as it gets, really, um, because when it comes to improving outcomes for threatened and endangered species, uh, you just can't get there unless you have enough people on the ground. And if and if you don't have enough funding to do the work. And so we need to be honest about what is happening.
▶ 3:35:14The context for this conversation about the esa, uh, you cannot claim to care about fixing the esa while you are simultaneously gutting the very agencies responsible for implementing it.
▶ 3:35:27But that is exactly what is happening with the president's egregious budget request and the house republican appropriation marks under the administration's proposal, funding, the fish and wildlife service is cut roughly 32%, which would devastate an agency that's already understaffed and already under-resourced, an agency that is critical, uh, in this whole space with the esa, they manage federal trust species, uh, they do the work supporting states,
▶ 3:35:57Territories and tribes on wildlife conservation. And somehow, at the same time, there's a proposal floating around to shift marine species over from noaa to this, uh, agency, piling even more responsibility on the fish and wildlife service. Uh, while house republicans allow it to be actively stripped of staff and funding. That is not reform. That is not wildlife conservation. It is chaos. It is setting wildlife up to fail.
▶ 3:36:26Now, we've already seen what this looks like in practice. Planned layoffs and workforce disruptions have hit hundreds of fish and wildlife service employees. And these are the scientists, biologists and staff that work on esa listing and consultation. These cuts don't make the process faster. They increase delays, they increase litigation risk and increased costs. The very things our friends across the aisle say they care about, uh, the situation at noaa fisheries is just as dire, if not worse.
▶ 3:36:58The house cjs bill slashes nearly 40% of funding for the national marine fisheries service, which is almost half the budget for an agency that already struggles to meet statutory obligations because they don't have enough staff and resources. Nearly 30% of nmfs staff were targeted for cuts, severely reducing capacity, particularly in regions like alaska, where fisheries management is critical to local economies. They are running on a skeleton crew.
▶ 3:37:26Funding for species recovery grants, habitat conservation and restoration. The core tools that make the esa work has been hollowed out in the past year. So let's be clear you can't do all of this to decimate and starve these agencies of the resources that they need to carry out their obligation under the esa, and then sit here and say that esa is not working. Who do you think you're kidding? This amendment doesn't rewrite the law. It doesn't add red tape.
▶ 3:37:57It simply says that before the changes in this bill would take effect, the agencies that we're talking about here that have to implement the law will have the staffing and the funding resources they need to do their jobs. That's common sense. I support the amendment and I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? I recognize myself for five minutes.
▶ 3:38:19And although I appreciate the gentlelady's compassion and concern about the esa and also appreciate her christmas spirit and sending over some delicious chocolates from michigan to my office, I'm still going to have to oppose your amendment today.
▶ 3:38:35Uh, the amendment would delay the bill's implementation until the council on environmental quality certifies to five house and senate committees that staffing levels across various agencies are adequate to administer the efficiently. Uh, the the problem I see here is the fact that the esa is broken and no, no level of funding, no level of, uh, added employees can fix a broken system.
▶ 3:39:01I think we should fix the problem and then, uh, look and see if the, uh, the funding and the staffing are at appropriate levels. And I have not heard any complaints from the existing agencies that they are underfunded and understaffed.
▶ 3:39:23Uh, so and I think since it's their duty to, to do their job, they would, uh, let us know that the bill focuses or this bill actually refocuses the gsa on recovery rather than bureaucracy and litigation. And acting the bill is the necessary step to recover listed species, expedite permitting, and conduct an efficient interagency consultations. I encourage my colleagues to oppose the amendment, support the underlying bill, and I yield back.
▶ 3:39:52Is there further discussion on the amendment? There's no further discussion. The question is on the amendment offered by miss dingell, designated dingell number five. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed? No. No. The opinion of the chair of the nose have it. A recorded vote has been requested. Further proceedings on this amendment will be postponed. We will now take a recess until approximately 1:45 p.m. When we will begin voting. The committee is in recess.
▶ 3:44:36>> we are.
▶ 3:47:00To.
▶ 3:56:28>> the committee will come to order. The chair notes the presence of a quorum. Miss hagerman, did you have a request? >> yes, Mr. >> chairman, I just wanted to make a statement related to the unanimous consent. >> you're recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I would like to urge my colleagues to support my bill. H.r. 5910, in this unique package which promotes tribal economic development.
▶ 3:56:53I want to thank representative leger fernandez, who co-leads the bill with me and for her support of this policy over the last few years. In 1955, congress passed the long term leasing act, which authorizes trust land to be leased by the indian owner for up to 25 years. Such leasing is done pursuant to approval by the secretary of the interior, and may be renewed for one additional 25 year period.
▶ 3:57:18However, the authority to lease for a period of up to 99 years is often needed for long term commercial leases and for some financing contracts. Congress has recognized this reality, enacted more than 50 times to allow for lease terms greater than 25 years on case specific for specific cases, h.r.
▶ 3:57:365910 proactively extends this authority to lease lands for up to 99 years to all federally recognized tribes, so tribal economic development plans can proceed on a more expedited path. H.r. 5910 is a vote for tribal economic development and autonomy to allow tribes to use their lands as they see fit for their own benefit. I urge all of my colleagues to support h.r. 5910 and this unique package, and I yield back. >> the gentlelady yields back.
▶ 3:58:07The unfinished business is on the request for a recorded vote on the amendments to the ans to h.r. 5103 members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. The
▶ 3:58:37Question is on the amendment to the ans to h.r. 5103 offered by ranking member. Huffman designated huffman number two, on which the no's prevailed by voice vote. The clerk will open the vote.
▶ 3:59:25Is, you got it. >> it's not working. >> there we go. Okay.
▶ 3:59:57>> have all members voted? Have all members voted?
▶ 4:00:24Does any member wish to change their vote? Does any member wish to change their vote?
▶ 4:00:54Seeing none, the clerk will close the vote and report. >> Mr. chairman, on this vote, the yeas are 17 and the nays are 24. >> the amendment is not agreed to. The question is on the amendment designated huffman number ten, on which the no's prevailed by voice vote. The clerk will open the vote.
▶ 4:02:00Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change their vote? Seeing none, the clerk will close the vote and report. >> Mr. chairman, on this vote, the yeas are 18 and the nays are 24. >> the amendment is not agreed to. The question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to h.r. 5103, offered by myself, designated westerman 44 ans. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed? No. Any opinion of the chair?
▶ 4:02:29The ayes have it, and the amendment of the nature of a substitute is adopted. The question now occurs on reporting h.r. 5103, as amended, to the house, with the recommendation that the bill be favorably approved. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed? No. No. The opinion of the chair. The ayes have it. A recorded vote has been requested. Members will record their vote using the electronic voting system. The clerk. Will open the vote.
▶ 4:03:19Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change their vote? Hearing none, the clerk will close the vote and report. >> Mr. chairman, on this vote, the yeas are 26 and the nays are 16. >> the bill, as amended, is ordered reported to the house with recommendation that it be favorably approved. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.
▶ 4:03:50Mr. huffman, you're recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chair. I give notice of my intention to file supplemental, additional dissenting or minority views on the measure just considered. I ask unanimous consent. This notice be extended to all measures considered at this markup under house rule 11, clause two l. This notice extends to all members. >> without objection, so ordered. The unfinished business is on the request for a recorded vote on amendments to the ans to hr 1897. The question on the amendment to the ans.
▶ 4:04:20Hr 1897 designated gosar 70, on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. The clerk will open the vote. Have all members voted?
▶ 4:04:42Does any member wish to change their vote? Hearing none, the clerk will close the vote and report. >> Mr. chairman, on this vote, the yeas are 23 and the nays are 18. >> the amendment is agreed to.
▶ 4:05:10The question is on the amendment to the ans to hr 1897 offered by ranking member. Huffman designated huffman number one, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. The clerk will open the vote. Have all members voted?
▶ 4:05:40Does any member wish to change their vote? Hearing none, the clerk will close the vote and report. >> Mr. chairman, on this vote, the yeas are 16 and the nays are 25. >> the amendment is not agreed to.
▶ 4:06:00The question is on the amendment to the ans to hr 1897 offered by the gentlewoman from washington, miss randall designated randall number forum, which the no's prevailed by voice vote. The clerk will open the vote.
▶ 4:06:36Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change their vote? Hearing none, the clerk will close the vote and report. >> Mr. chairman, on this vote, the yeas are 17 and the nays are 24. >> the amendment is not agreed to. The question is on the amendment to the ans to hr 1897 offered by the gentlewoman from arizona. Miss grijalva designated grijalva number two, on which the no's prevailed by voice vote. The clerk will open the vote.
▶ 4:07:20Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change their vote? Yes. Hearing none, the clerk will close the vote and report. >> Mr. chairman, on this vote, the yeas are 17 and the nays are 24. >> the amendment is not agreed to. The question is on the amendment to the ans to hr 1897 offered by the gentlewoman from michigan. Miss dingell designated dingell number five, on which the no's prevailed by voice vote. The clerk will open the vote.
▶ 4:08:08Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change their vote? Hearing none, the clerk will close the vote and report. >> Mr. chairman, on this vote, the yeas are 16 and the nays are 25. >> the amendment is not agreed to. The question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended to hr 1897, offered by myself designated westerman 36 ans. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed say no.
▶ 4:08:37In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, is adopted. The question now occurs on reporting hr 1897, as amended to the house, with the recommendation that the bill be favorably approved. All those in favor signify by saying I. All those opposed. No. The opinion of the chair. The ayes have it. A recorded vote has been requested. Members will record their vote using the electronic voting system. The clerk will open the vote.
▶ 4:09:06Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change their vote? Hearing none, the clerk will close the vote and report. >> Mr.
▶ 4:09:34Chairman, on this vote, the yeas are 25 and the nays are 16. >> the bill, as amended, is ordered reported to the house with recommendation that it be favorably approved. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. We now turn to the uc package with the cooperation of ranking member hoffman and the other members of the committee. It appears that we have worked out an agreement on two bills scheduled for markup today.
▶ 4:09:56As we have done before, rather than going through a formal markup process for each of the bills, I will make a single unanimous consent motion to report out the bills favorably with any amendments that have been filed and agreed to before we begin. Does any member seek time to speak on any of the bills in this unanimous consent motion? >> Mr. chair. >> miss leger fernandez. >> thank you, Mr. chair, and gracias to you and ranking member huffman for including my bill. >> gentlelady will suspend.
▶ 4:10:25O please keep the conversations down so we can hear the miss fernandez. >> thank you. And I shall use my big my big room voice. So thank you so much for including the small cemetery conveyance act in today's markup.
▶ 4:10:42And this is a bipartisan bill that recognizes the sacred nature of the places where we bury our ancestors, where we bury those who we love, and that the communities who have engaged in burying the people they love should be able to access those cemeteries without having to go through all the red tape that happens when those cemeteries happen to be in national forest service lands, and this bill
▶ 4:11:14Comes out of new mexico. But it is something that I have witnessed when I have been hiking on the east coast. There are many cemeteries that existed before these lands were taken into, uh, the, the forest service or into, into other public lands. And it is only right that we use this small land conveyance matter to return them to the communities from that to which they belong in new mexico and across the country.
▶ 4:11:42Uh, we are seeing that the national forest has these cemeteries in new mexico. It happens to be centuries old land grant communities, and they have to go and seek permission from the federal government just to maintain the cemeteries, to clean them, to bury them anew, to place flowers on the graves of the grandparents and parents.
▶ 4:12:01And my bill would allow the forest service to transfer small parcels of land that contain these historic cemeteries directly to the communities that know and love them, without requiring purchase or exchange for the land. This is a procedure that already exists. We would just make it easier for cemeteries to be included in that procedure. And as I've noticed, uh, pre-civil war cemeteries when you're hiking on the appalachian trail, I mean, wherever you go in the united states, you're going to find this.
▶ 4:12:31It's a small fix to the forest service, existing authorities, but priceless to the communities that would benefit. I also want to take this time to speak up in favor of the long term leasing amendments act and congresswoman hedgeman, for her leadership on this bill. I'm glad to co-sponsor and co-lead this bill to ensure that all federally recognized tribes can enter into leases up to 99 years in the indian and insular affairs committee.
▶ 4:13:00Over many years, we have held hearings to consider bills that help one tribe at a time. Then we take these bills to the floor that help one tribe at a time. And it's about time that we pass this larger fix so that all tribes can enter into long term leases and pursue economic development, health, and other projects that support their communities. Without an act of congress. And with that, Mr.
▶ 4:13:28Chairman, I yield back in gratitude. >> gentlelady yields back. Does anybody else seek recognition to speak on the uc bill? I recognize myself, uh, again before concluding our business today. We do have two important bills that we've worked on with the minority to advance the unanimous consent. I appreciate the work that has gone into reaching a bipartisan, bipartisan consensus on these pieces of legislation.
▶ 4:13:54Uh, the first off, the bill from the subcommittee on indian and insular affairs, h.r. 5910, offered by representative hagaman, amends the long term leasing act to allow any federally recognized indian tribe to lease land held in trust for its benefit for a term up to 99 years. The long term leasing act, enacted in 1955, generally limits non grazing leases of trust land to 225 year terms for a maximum of 50 years.
▶ 4:14:21In practice, those limits do not always align with modern long term commercial and economic development projects, and as a result, tribes have often been required to seek piecemeal statutory exceptions to secure longer lease terms. H.r. 5910 provides the consistent, forward looking solution by extending this authority to all tribes, eliminating the need for case by case congressional action, and supporting tribal self-determination and economic development.
▶ 4:14:47I thank representative hagaman for her work on this important legislation. Also, as we've heard, we're advancing a bill from the subcommittee on federal lands, h.r. 4284, the small cemetery conveyance act, which amends the small tract act of 1983 to make it easier for the forest service to transfer federal land currently or previously used as cemeteries to state and local governments, indian tribes, and qualified land grant communities.
▶ 4:15:14Many historic cemeteries, particularly out west, are located on or near federal lands. However, these cemeteries often run out of space as communities expand over time. Extending the small tract act to allow cemetery conveyances, will support rural communities, and allow families to be buried with dignity near their loved ones. The bill would also bring about a common sense reduction in the size of the federal estate. I support these bills and yield back. Is there further discussion on the bills?
▶ 4:15:43I ask unanimous consent that the subcommittee on federal lands be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 4284 small cemetery conveyance act? Without objection, so ordered, and I ask unanimous consent that the following measures be approved and favorably reported as described to the house of representatives h.r. 4284, small cemetery conveyance act and h.r.
▶ 4:16:065910, to authorize leases of up to 99 years for land held in trust for federally recognized indian tribes. Without objection, so ordered. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. I ask unanimous consent that the staff be allowed to make any technical and conforming changes to the documents the committee just adopted, subject to approval of the minority. Without objection, so ordered. If there's no further business, the committee stands adjourned.