▶ 0:05:45The chair notes the presence of a quorum pursuant to committee rules. Members of the committee may submit written opening statements. For the record, I ask that members may revise and extend their remarks on the bill to be considered. This markup, and have those remarks included in the record without objection, so ordered. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recess of the committee at any time pursuant to committee rule three I. The chair announces that I 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.
▶ 0:06:15I now recognize myself for an opening statement. And good afternoon. Thank you all for joining us. For the full committee markup. We're considering two bills under regular order. The first bill will appropriately elevate the designation of a current national lakeshore to a national park and preserve. The second bill will provide efficiency and clarity in the grazing permit process on federal grasslands.
▶ 0:06:38In addition, we will consider ten additional bills under unanimous consent as we celebrate america's 250th birthday. National parks and public lands remind us of the natural resources and beauty. We as americans have a responsibility to steward. These iconic places represent the best of america and only the most special and unique places throughout the country are awarded national park status, representing the crown jewels of our nation's public lands. H.r.
▶ 0:07:055497 the apostle islands national park and preserve act, introduced by congressman tiffany, will redesignate the apostle islands national lakeshore as a national park and preserve. Importantly, this would make the apostle islands our nation's 64th national park and establish wisconsin's first and only national park.
▶ 0:07:24Often referred to as wisconsin's crown jewel, the apostle islands on lake superior are home to rich historic and cultural resources, forest and pristine habitat, and abundant outdoor recreation opportunities. Representative tiffany's legislation protects the area's existing uses and simply designates the apostle islands to denote its national park status.
▶ 0:07:46While this may be a simple change on the surface because it does not affect the boundary or management of this unit, it carries significant weight and will ensure thousands of additional visitors travel to the apostle islands every year. This in turn helps support local communities and outdoor recreation businesses. Mr. tiffany's bill is an opportunity to recognize a place that contributes to our national heritage and to the beauty of our national landscapes. Our second regular order bill is h.r.
▶ 0:08:146300, the grasslands grazing act, introduced by representative hagerman. This bill will improve transparency and bring parity to grazing permittees across the entire national forest system. Across the country, the us forest service manages 193 million acres of land, including nearly 4 million acres of national grasslands. On these grasslands, grazing permittees generally receive ten year terms with the option to renew.
▶ 0:08:39However, due to technical issues, permittees on grasslands within national forest do not have the same statutory clarity on permit renewal that grazers on other. The other approximately 190 million acres, or 189 million acres of the national forest system, receive grazing on federal lands, is an important multiple use that not only sustains rural economies, but provides affordable food to millions of americans.
▶ 0:09:03Grazing is also a known tool to counteract invasive species and reduce wildfire risk, thereby providing a cost effective mechanism to ensure healthy ecosystems while also producing affordable american food and fiber. Representative bill provides a technical fix that addresses the inconsistent treatment of grazing permits on grasslands, and provides uniformity across federally managed grazing lands.
▶ 0:09:27This common sense change will ultimately improve rangeland health and boost rural economies. Finally, we will consider ten unanimous consent bills on which we have reached bipartisan agreement. These bills cover a wide variety of issues, from designating new historic landmarks and national parks to establishing methods to aid enforcement against illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.
▶ 0:09:49The bills also include legislation to add critical minerals or materials to the critical minerals definition, and streamline broadband deployment in rural and tribal communities. I think sponsoring members for their work on these bills, and appreciate the bipartisan agreement reached on the legislation. I look forward to our discussions today, and I yield back. And I recognize ranking member huffman for any opening statement he may have. >> thank you very much, Mr.
▶ 0:10:16Chairman, before we get into the specifics of the bills on today's agenda, I do want to address a fundamental failure that we continue to see in this committee from the republican majority, and that is a failure to carry out congress's most basic oversight responsibility over this administration. Really, the failure to do any level, any scintilla, any modicum of meaningful oversight of what's going on with this administration.
▶ 0:10:44And there's plenty that really calls out for oversight. My goodness. Uh, we are seeing financial scandals. We are seeing all manner of norms and precedents and laws broken in ways that would have previously been unthinkable. Um, everything's for sale, everything's transactional.
▶ 0:11:03There's so much grift, so much abuse, and yet never, uh, does anyone on this committee on the other side of the aisle ask so much as a question, let alone engage in meaningful oversight of this lawless administration? Uh, that's a shame. Uh, that's a complete betrayal of our article one responsibility. And it's also a betrayal of what this committee is supposed to be doing.
▶ 0:11:27As the article one branch of government in the space of natural resource committee jurisdiction. So, to add insult to injury, the majority isn't simply looking the other way at all of these scandals and abuses and crimes. Today, we are once again considering legislation that would erode the transparency that we do have and the accountability that we do have for the agencies that we oversee. So let me start with h.r.
▶ 0:11:556300, the grassland grazing act. This bill, together with the amendment in the nature of a substitute that we're about to consider, would dramatically expand an existing loophole that limits nepa reviews for certain grazing activities on a subset of forest service lands. And it would do that specifically by extending this nepa loophole to all forest service lands across the nation, including national grasslands and national forests throughout the eastern united states. To put it simply, this is an egregious overreach.
▶ 0:12:24At its most basic level, nepa simply requires federal land agencies to evaluate the impacts of major decisions, to consider alternatives, and disclose their decisions to the public before acting. It's about transparency. When you undercut nepa for major federal actions, you weaken transparency, you weaken public participation, and certainly you weaken accountability.
▶ 0:12:49You make it harder for congress and the public to understand what agencies are doing and why. And maybe that's the point. These days, that seems to be the agenda. Despite claims to the contrary, h.r. 6300 is not a pro rancher bill in any meaningful sense. A truly pro rancher bill would actually deal with the pressing challenges facing ranchers right now.
▶ 0:13:13Corporate consolidation, trade deals, tariffs, uh, things in our jurisdiction like the health of rangeland in the face of the climate crisis and climate extremes. But agencies right now lack the technology and the resources and staffing capacity to do their job. That's impacting ranchers. And this administration has only worsened that problem as it's worked to gut the federal workforce.
▶ 0:13:41But we don't see our colleagues talking about any of that. Rather than addressing capacity problems, this bill would paper over them by limiting environmental review and public disclosure around federal decisions. It replaces transparent, accountable management with a process that will only invite controversy and instability. And it sends a clear message to communities that care about clean water, public lands, wildlife and recreation that their concerns don't matter. So turning to h.r.
▶ 0:14:105497, we see a similar aversion to public disclosure and engagement. And I'll say at the outset, this is a bill I wish I could support. Um, congressman tiffany did reach out to discuss the bill. It involves a beautiful part of the country. Uh, I can understand why, uh, he he is drawn to it, and many others are. We did engage. That's how the process should work. The problem is that the impacted tribal communities do not feel like they have been adequately consulted.
▶ 0:14:39And I take that concern very seriously moving forward with this bill today over tribal opposition and without tribal consultation, sends a clear message. It says that the majority doesn't care about tribal consultation or listening to tribal concerns, much less about trying to address them before moving ahead. Um, so, Mr. chairman, I look forward to, uh, the rest of the regular order bills on today's agenda. Um, we shouldn't have so many of these partizan differences.
▶ 0:15:08Congress, however, does have a constitutional duty to engage in oversight with the executive branch, regardless of who occupies the white house. And as we see so often in this committee, the agenda just continues to reflect a complete, um, abdication of that responsibility that is deeply troubling to me and many others. I yield back. >> the gentleman yields back pursuant to the markup notice is now, in order to consider h.r. 5497, the apostle islands national park and preserve act.
▶ 0:15:39Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open to amendment at any point. Does any member wish to be recognized for the purpose of debate on the bill, if I may, Mr. tiffany, you're recognized. >> thank you very much. I am so pleased to have h.r. 5497, the apostle islands national park and preserve act, to be designated as wisconsin's first national park. As you said, Mr. chairman, the crown jewel of wisconsin. And that is how we view it.
▶ 0:16:07You take a look at a good map of wisconsin, and there are the islands scattered on the very top of the state. It truly is the crowning jewel of our great state of wisconsin. And there is no place in america like the apostle islands. This area contains a collection of underwater shipwrecks and what the national park service calls the largest and finest collection of lighthouses in the country.
▶ 0:16:31Ten historic lighthouses of the apostle islands range from approximately 110 to 170 years old, and offer important glimpses into the maritime history of the great lakes region. In the summer months, locals and tourists enjoy hiking powerboating, sailing, kayaking. You can see right behind you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 0:16:50Sandy beaches and you discover the solitude and remoteness of the area's many islands as families picnic on these pristine, uh, on those pristine waters in the winter when lake superior freezes over, the apostle islands are transformed into dramatic ice caves that are accessible to hikers. As you can see behind me, these stunning and unique ice formations are considered a bucket list destination and offer world class recreation opportunities.
▶ 0:17:19Many of my colleagues on this committee have national parks in their district, and understand how much of an asset they can be to their states. While our neighboring states such as minnesota, michigan, indiana all enjoy national parks, wisconsin does not yet have one, and the iconic features of these unique islands don't deserve this long overdue recognition. My legislation is very straightforward.
▶ 0:17:43It would simply redesignate the majority of the apostle islands national lakeshore into the apostle islands national park. My bill also maintains the heritage of hunting within the apostle islands by designating sand island a popular hunting destination as the sand island national preserve. Protecting hunting access is paramount to me, and this follows the model of the recently elevated new river gorge national park.
▶ 0:18:10Importantly, the legislation affirms all treaty rights and tribal sovereignty, stating nothing in this act shall be construed as effecting any rights granted, reserved or established pursuant to treaty, statute or executive order pertaining to any tribe, including but not limited to rights to hunt, trap, fish and gather on lands included within the boundary of apostle islands national park and preserve, or any other rights asserted by any tribe.
▶ 0:18:35I would also like to note that tribal members were the first to receive any drafts of this bill, and it is from consulting with them and receiving their input that we have included that language. I just cited. Further, my legislation directs the national park service to enhance interpretive displays within the apostle islands to include more information about the area's rich fur trade, logging, fishing industries, as well as also honor the ojibwe tribes, the original inhabitants of the apostle islands, who have called the
▶ 0:19:06Area home for centuries. This legislation reflects an effort that has been decades in the making. In 1930, nearly a century ago, congress first authorized a study to designate the apostle islands as a national park.
▶ 0:19:19Roughly 40 years later, president john f kennedy described the islands as part of our american heritage, and the area was designated as a national lakeshore, an effort spearheaded by the father of earth day, senator gaylord nelson.
▶ 0:19:36This legislation first received a hearing in the federal lands subcommittee last congress, and was submitted for two rounds of technical assistance with the biden administration, whose feedback was implemented into this congress's version. It subsequently was submitted for a third round of technical assistance from the trump administration.
▶ 0:19:58Now, by elevating the apostle islands from a national lakeshore to a national park, we can ensure that thousands more are able to visit this area. This will be a win for the people in my state and the country at large, as more people get to enjoy the crown jewels of wisconsin. You can see the beauty of the islands in the pictures behind me. But for those who haven't had the chance to experience this beauty up close, I would like.
▶ 0:20:26I would like to extend my invitation to you to visit us in northern wisconsin, especially right now. Beautiful winter. It is my hope that many more will be able to experience this hidden gem. Once the apostle islands are designated as wisconsin's first national park, I urge my colleagues to support this bill and I yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the bill? Mr. huffman? You're recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 0:20:55So democrats, of course, are proud to support national parks on this committee. We fight all the time to strengthen them, to fund them, to defend them from constant attacks, often from our colleagues across the aisle. National parks are, uh, sacred to us because they tell our nation's stories. They preserve our natural and cultural resources for future generations.
▶ 0:21:19And so, um, the prospect of designating a new national park is, uh, you know, immediately intriguing. And, uh, on the surface, at least, uh, compelling, but it's not something that should ever be done lightly. It requires us to do it right and to engage in thorough, um, consultation with tribal and local communities. And that's where, um, we break down a bit in this discussion.
▶ 0:21:47Since the discussion draft was released, I have consistently heard from the red cliff band of lake superior chippewa and the bad river band of lake superior chippewa that they oppose the legislation. Red cliff has told me that they haven't been meaningfully consulted on the bill, despite the full tribal council requesting a meeting with congressman tiffany for more than 18 months. And I heard my friend say that he sent them a draft.
▶ 0:22:14Clearly, that's not what they mean by meaningful consultation. They have articulated what they want, what they mean, the kind of respect they deserve as a sovereign tribal government. And I think you should give it to them. I think it's not too much to ask. H.r.
▶ 0:22:295497, uh, however, is part of a pattern, a larger pattern of this administration and this majority prioritizing their own interests, uh, while showing the ambivalence, if not antipathy to the trust and treaty relationships and obligations we have to tribal nations. Uh, representative tiffany and I met a few weeks ago to discuss this bill. I told him, I agree. This place is spectacular. It's beautiful.
▶ 0:22:58Uh, there's not any dispute about that. And we did hear, uh, that his office had proactively engaged and consulted with red cliff. That's what we were told. But red cliff disputes this, and the tribe has stated that the sponsor of the legislation has failed to provide any meaningful information, expressed concern about the potential detrimental impacts to the people who live there. If the legislation were enacted in its current form.
▶ 0:23:25So I, I don't think that, uh, any tribal entity is saying that there can never be a national park here or should never be a national park here, but, uh, the way it is enacted, the way their interests are addressed in legislation like this, uh, is a very legitimate subject for meaningful tribal consultation. And at least to their telling, that has not happened. I don't I don't quite understand what seems to me like, like some sort of a stubborn impasse.
▶ 0:23:54Uh, just do it. Just give them the consultation they're asking, and let's see where this lands. This is an interesting, uh, sort of role reversal, uh, this conversation that we're having because my republican colleagues arguing for this bill today, uh, after having repeatedly pushed to slash the park services budget, uh, dismantle the workforce of the national park service, weaken environmental protection, sell off public lands, uh, is sort
▶ 0:24:26Of what we're accustomed to. And yet today, the script is flipped a little, and we're hearing that they are, at least in this moment, uh, champions for a new national park. Um, I just want to remind everyone that democrats have spent the past year working to try and protect our national parks from republicans relentless attacks. Uh, we are interested in doing more to support national parks and potentially expanding the national park system and adding to it.
▶ 0:24:53But we want to do it right, and we shouldn't have a false choice where you're presented with either a new a new park, uh, or doing wrong by our obligations to indian country, we should be able to do both at the same time. So, uh, I think all of us on this side would love to have new land designations and new protections for our nation's special places, but let us honor our obligations to tribal and local communities as we do that.
▶ 0:25:22And for this reason, I must unfortunately oppose the legislation. And I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the bill? Recognize myself and our national parks and public lands have famously been called america's best idea.
▶ 0:25:38It's time to put wisconsin's crown jewel into the group of best ideas that we have all around the country, and I think this is a great way to celebrate our nation's 250th anniversary by designating our country's 64th national park. Uh, this would also be wisconsin's first national park, as has been stated, and it will be bring well-deserved recognition and tourism to the state.
▶ 0:26:05I commend representative tiffany for his hard work on this. He serves as the chairman of the subcommittee on federal lands, and this is, uh, an issue that he's passionate about. It is unfortunate that a bill like this is not being considered under unanimous consent. Our national parks should be, uh, nonpartisan. And that's especially true of this legislation, which effectuates just a simple name change.
▶ 0:26:36Nothing in representative tiffany's legislation would change the management of the area or the boundary of the unit. In fact, representative tiffany has gone to great pains to ensure that this simple name change will have no unintended consequences. His requested and received technical assistance on this bill three times to ensure that existing uses, including tribal treaty and reserved rights, as well as hunting and trapping on sand island, remain protected.
▶ 0:27:01The reality is that if you put politics aside and look at the proposal on its merits, this iconic destination is more than worthy of the special designation of national park. Anybody who travels to the apostle islands, uh, should understand that this is truly a unique place which deserves to be recognized and I hope will be visited by millions of americans for generations to come.
▶ 0:27:25Again, I want to thank representative tiffany for his leadership on the issue, which is very important to his constituents. And as I, uh, urge my colleagues to vote yes, I would just ask the question, what's taken so long for such a beautiful place? I yield back. Is there further discussion on the bill? Hearing none is now in order to consider amendments to hr 5097. Do you have a question? I have an amendment. Okay. We're going to do the.
▶ 0:27:58We'll now consider the amendment in the nature of a substitute to h.r. 5497 offered by the gentleman from wisconsin, Mr. tiffany. Designated tiffany 39 ans. Without objection, the amendment is considered, read and open to amendment at any point. Mr. tiffany, you're recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I'd like to speak in, uh, in regards to the ans. It's very simple and straightforward. It requires the official map of the apostle islands to be made available on a national park service's website.
▶ 0:28:27In addition to being available at the appropriate national park offices. Making this map accessible online will allow better access to information for people to see and better understand the boundaries, features and opportunities the apostle islands have to offer. I urge my colleagues to support the ans and the underlying bill. I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment?
▶ 0:28:54If there's no further discussion on the amendment, is now ordered to consider amendments to the ans to h.r. 5497, and we will now consider the amendment designated huffman number one, offered by ranking member huffman. Without objection, the amendment is considered. Read. Mr. huffman, you're recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 0:29:12Um, so this amendment would allow the apostle islands national lakeshore to become a national park and preserve, but the designation would be contingent on the one thing that answers your question. Mr. chairman, for a moment ago. What has taken so long? Why aren't we already there? Well, the answer is there still has not been a meaningful formal government to government tribal consultation.
▶ 0:29:37So this amendment, which I think is a very reasonable amendment to to get us all on the same page and to allow this to move forward, um, it would simply require that, uh, before the park becomes a park, that interior must complete a formal government to government tribal consultation. Now, I appreciate that Mr. tiffany is taking an interest in this beautiful place. I get it. That's a it's a goal that those of us on the democratic side of the aisle share.
▶ 0:30:06But when we develop plans to preserve and protect special places, we must include meaningful community engagement, shareholder outreach and tribal consultations. Now, these processes can be time consuming and challenging. It often requires specific, uh, sacrifice and compromise. I have done it. I know many of my colleagues on this side of the dais have done it too, and sometimes it can take years to build relationships and establish a foundation of trust.
▶ 0:30:36But a truly collaborative process makes for durable outcomes. It is the key to creating a solution that works for affected communities. And that's especially important when we're talking about tribes and their ancestral lands, which we are in this case. Nowhere is this more important than in that space, um, with tribal land designation, tribes affected by land designation.
▶ 0:31:01So I'd like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the hearing record resolutions from the red cliff band of lake superior chippewa and the bad river band of lake superior chippewa, opposing the designation of apostle islands as a national park that should be part of the record. >> without objection. >> so ordered tribes in the area have repeatedly raised their concerns about this legislation.
▶ 0:31:25And what we hear over and over again is about this absence of meaningful consultation. For years, they've asked for direct conversations and they haven't gotten it. So these tribes have a deep connection to this place. They have been formerly involved in conservation and land management efforts at apostle islands since at least 2012. Tribal members continue to hunt, trap, fish, pray, hold ceremonies and gather medicinal plants in this area.
▶ 0:31:54A significant portion of apostle islands is even within the boundaries of the red cliff reservation. And since we've heard from affected tribal communities saying that they haven't been properly consulted, the very least we can do is require, as this legislation goes forward, that the park service offer a formal consultation process for a proposal that could significantly change their tribal access to culturally significant and ancestral lands.
▶ 0:32:24That is the least we should be willing to do. I urge my colleagues to support this narrowly tailored, sensible amendment, and I yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Mr. tiffany, you're recognized. >> uh, thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 0:32:41I oppose the amendment, uh, from the ranking member because the executive order referencing the amendment does not apply here because the bill has no impact on the relationship between the federal government and indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal government and indian tribes.
▶ 0:33:00In fact, the language in the base bill, which we added from consulting with tribal members, explicitly stipulates that it doesn't change anything regarding tribes. Specifically, the bill says that nothing in this act shall be construed as affecting any rights granted, reserved, or established pursuant to treaty statute or executive order pertaining to any tribe ranking member.
▶ 0:33:27Huffman's amendment is about having tribal consultation, yet that is exactly how we've gone about the process of forming this bill. Back in july of 2023. The very first draft of the bill was shared with redcliffs vice chair in march of 2024. Both the red cliff and bad river tribal chairs were given an updated draft. We took their concerns over preserving treaty rights and mou very seriously, which is why we included those protections in this bill.
▶ 0:33:56If there were any substantive objections to this bill, then we'd be talking about those amendments. But all this amendment would do is delay. And I would highlight for you, Mr. chairman, the red cliff.
▶ 0:34:13And this is important for all members to know when this was established as a national lakeshore in 1970, senator gaylord nelson from wisconsin, the father of earth day, was the author of this to be a national lakeshore. And the red cliff tribe opposed it. They've opposed it. When democrats have introduced it.
▶ 0:34:42Now they're opposing it when a republican does so. There is no reason for us not to go forward with this. And I urge my colleagues to for us to go forward with the bill. But I urge my colleagues to oppose this unnecessary amendment, and I yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Mr.
▶ 0:35:08Soto, you're recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I yield to our illustrious ranking member. >> who's that? I thank the gentleman. >> I'm talking about you, sir. >> I appreciate it. Um, Mr. tiffany, I, I really want to get to. Yes.
▶ 0:35:28And and be able to work with you on this, but I have to say, it just got harder because, uh, your response to a very narrowly tailored amendment that would simply say do a government to government consultation before this, and that shouldn't be threatening to anyone. It's a it's a requirement that, frankly, the federal government ought to always do anyway.
▶ 0:35:50Uh, what is it about a government to government consultation that was somehow stand in the way of this, um, becoming a national park? It might affect some of the details of how the park takes shape, but, um, that seems to me like an eminently reasonable request. And in response, I guess the entirety of the consultation that's taken place so far, uh, was just laid out.
▶ 0:36:17It consists of sending a couple of drafts to some individuals at the at the tribe. That is not meaningful consultation. If anything, you're sort of, uh, making the point that I think the tribes themselves have made that they want to they want the respect of a face to face government to government, meaningful consultation, not some carbon copy of a document that was dropped off to some individual.
▶ 0:36:45Uh, now, you may recall that when we adopted the rules of this committee, that we had a debate about tribal consultation, and republican members assured us that they do and would, uh, engage in tribal consultation. And, you know, what we're hearing today, quite frankly, causes me to question, uh, whether that is a value that we both share.
▶ 0:37:08Uh, it certainly seems to be something that is lacking in this particular case, but it's easily fixed, and I don't know what is standing in the way of just sitting down with these folks, trying to work out their concerns. Part of this national park would appear to be within the boundaries of their reservation. So I think they've got a legitimate interest here, uh, in meaningful consultation. And frankly, the the antipathy to the whole concept of having that kind of consultation, if anything, I think raises red flags about this legislation.
▶ 0:37:40So I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Mr. soto. >> yield back. Chairman. >> Mr. hagerman, you're recognized. >> yes. I yield my time to Mr. tiffany. >> uh, thank you. Uh, to the gentlelady from wyoming. Uh, Mr.
▶ 0:37:58Chairman, I'd like to enter into the record the timeline of the apostle islands legislation in contact with red cliff and bad and and I would just add in regards to this, uh, comprehensive, the 13 points, because there's more than that in this document, and I'm happy to share it with any of you. There are 13 different instances where we engaged with the tribe and tribal members in regards to this legislation.
▶ 0:38:23We worked hard at this and they were the very first people, the very first people that we contacted that we were considering this, um, we did our job. >> without objection. So ordered. >> we did our job diligently, and I yield back. >> I yield, I yield back. >> gentlelady yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment?
▶ 0:38:48I recognize myself, I do oppose this amendment because I do also believe it's unnecessary, and it will just further delay the implementation of the legislation. And I would also like to point out that this amendment calls for something that's totally and entirely unprecedented.
▶ 0:39:11And thanks to the work of the illustrious staff on this committee, they discovered that the secretary has never conducted a formal consultation before. An existing park unit is elevated to national park status. So what this amendment would do would be setting a new precedent that's never been done before, and it would further delay. So I oppose the amendment, and I encourage others to oppose it as well. Is there further discussion on the amendment?
▶ 0:39:39If there's 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 aye. Aye. Those opposed? No. In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it, and the amendment is not agreed to. >> uh, the question. >> for a recorded vote has been requested.
▶ 0:40:03Further proceedings on this amendment will be postponed pursuant to the markup notice is now in order to consider h.r. 6300, the grasslands grazing act of 2025, I 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? Miss hagerman, you're recognized. >> thank you.
▶ 0:40:31Thank you, chairman westerman, I urge that the members of the natural resources committee to support my bill, h.r. 6300, the grasslands grazing act. This legislation would put ranchers with permits to graze on national grasslands in parity with those grazing on other federal lands. Section 400 to the federal land policy and management act, or flpma, authorizes grazing permits for ten years on national forest and bureau of land management lands, with renewal eligibility subject to continued compliance.
▶ 0:41:01Grazing on national grasslands is designated by the bankhead-jones farm tenant act and authorized for ten years, but it is not protected and recognized as an official use, similar to flip, ranchers with permits to graze on national grasslands are not guaranteed permit renewals and have experienced unnecessary hurdles from the usda in obtaining these renewals.
▶ 0:41:21When the federal lands subcommittee held a legislative hearing on this bill, tai checketts, the president of the association of national grasslands, spoke to the challenges these ranchers face. He stated that the exclusion of national grasslands under flpma creates two classes of permits, with the grasslands having fewer rights. He testified that the lack of assurances leads to real world harms, pointing to the loss of aums on multiple grasslands across several different states.
▶ 0:41:48The us forest service testimony also recognized the disparity of policy for livestock grazing permits and leases between national forests and national grasslands. H.r. 6300 is a permanent fix to this issue, providing much needed certainty and security for ranchers, including the right to tenure permits, first priority for receipt of new permits, and more. Senator. Senator barrasso is the sponsor of the senate.
▶ 0:42:14Companion joined with senators lummis and thune, and I want to thank him for his continued leadership and partnership advocating for wyoming's ranchers. I urge my colleagues to support h.r. 6300, the grasslands grazing act, and I yield back. >> gentlelady yields back. Is there further discussion on the bill? Mr. huffman, you're recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I do want to start where I think we can all find common ground. Ranching is a vital part of the american west.
▶ 0:42:44It is part of our history, our economy. And when it is done right, it is a partner with our conservation goals. I've met with ranchers from northern california to the plains of dakotas. The dakotas, who understand that their livelihood depends on the health of the land and they are, by and large, good stewards. But let's be clear. Multiple use doesn't mean unlimited use. It doesn't mean unreviewed use.
▶ 0:43:12And for years, we have seen a trend within this committee towards what I think we have to call autopilot management. With the grazing improvement act, congress created a significant shortcut. The law made it easier and in many cases, mandatory, to renew grazing permits without doing any environmental review at all. No nepa, no updated science, just a rubber stamp to keep doing things the way they had always been done.
▶ 0:43:36And the result is that we have other examples of rangelands that are overstressed streams, riparian areas, and other critical ecosystems being degraded because we are not taking that hard look as the permits come up for renewal.
▶ 0:43:53And now with the grasslands grazing act, we are being asked to export this no review model to even more landscapes, doubling down on a policy that has problems up and skipping. Oversight is not efficiency, it is negligence. And my colleagues across the aisle almost always insist on a seven year sunset protocol for all government programs and authorizations. They tell us there's an important reason for that, that it's a marker of good governance.
▶ 0:44:23They say it's about accountability, gives congress a chance to review a program's efficiency and efficacy before we simply sign off on another cycle of doing things the way they've always been done. Um, I'm a fan of consistency, and I think that if a seven year sunset is the gold standard for accountability and government, uh, we should apply that same logic to these grazing permits.
▶ 0:44:50If we truly care about good governance, we ought to review these permits based on the lands actual conditions. We ought to be willing to take a look and consider how it's going, rather than just hand out automatic renewals on a wing and a prayer. We should apply that same logic to this legislation. If the program isn't working for the health of the range, it shouldn't be on autopilot. We have have to face the reality of the world we're living in. We're in the middle of a climate crisis that has rewritten the rules of the west.
▶ 0:45:21We are seeing mega drought conditions that haven't been seen in a millennium. What worked on a permit in 1995 or 2010 might be a recipe for ecological collapse in 2026, managing our public lands in the face of these extremes requires more science, not less and more scrutiny, not less. It requires frequent check ins, not decade long get out of jail free cards.
▶ 0:45:47We can support the ranching community without taking shortcuts like that, that compromise the future of the land and in the long term, the future of ranching itself. We can provide stability to the ranching industry through partnership, robust science based management plans that actually account for the water and the grass that's available, and making sure that agencies like the forest service have the staff and technology necessary to support the health and vitality of our forests and grasslands.
▶ 0:46:16I'm ready to work on real solutions that protect the sustained yield of our grasslands for the next generation. But I cannot support a bill that treats stewardship of our most precious natural resources as a nuisance instead of a core responsibility. Uh, which it is, I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion? I recognize myself, I strongly support h.r. 6300 representative grasslands grazing act.
▶ 0:46:44Uh, for all the reasons I mentioned in my opening statement and the wonderful case that representative hagerman laid out for it in her testimony. Again, this is a narrowly tailored, targeted bill that will address a small but significant inconsistency in our federal grazing laws to create more parity and transparency for those who operate on our national grazing lands.
▶ 0:47:06I do think representative hagerman, for her leadership on the issue, which will provide great benefits not only to wyoming but to states across the nation with national grasslands. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time. Is there further discussion on the bill? Hearing none is now ordered to consider amendments to h.r. 6300. We'll now consider the amendment, in the nature of a substitute to h.r.
▶ 0:47:336300, offered by the gentlelady from wyoming, miss hageman designated hageman, and without objection, the amendment is considered, read and open to amendment at any point. Miss hageman, you're recognized. >> thank you, chairman westerman. This amendment, in the nature of a substitute, makes two changes to the bill. First, it strikes the reference to calendar year 2025. In the bill title.
▶ 0:47:54And second, it implements a recommendation provided by the forest service in the legislative hearing to ensure that the benefits of this bill are realized by all grazers on the national grasslands. By also striking quote in the 16 contiguous western states. End quote. In the existing flpma statute, the bill clarifies that the parity is intended for grazing permits everywhere, including in texas and in the east.
▶ 0:48:20This has the effect of striking five more words from 43 us code, section 1752, subsection a, then proposed in the introduced version, and reflects the original policy intent of the bill. I urge my colleagues to support this. As to h.r. 6300 and I yield back. >> is there. >> further discussion on the amendment? If there's no further discussion on the amendment, is now ordered to consider amendments to the ans to h.r.
▶ 0:48:476300 will now consider the amendment designated huffman number one, revised, offered by ranking member huffman. Without objection, the amendment is considered. Read ranking member huffman. You're now recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. This is very simple amendment. It requires the government accountability office to conduct a comprehensive study on the real world implementation of the grazing improvement act. And the reason for that is if we aren't measuring the health of our grasslands, we aren't really managing them.
▶ 0:49:16We're just neglecting them. So this bill, it's important to acknowledge, um, will export a nepa shortcut to every acre of our national grasslands. That's a big deal. At a minimum, we should have some sense of what that means for the health and sustainability of these ecosystems, because nepa is the bedrock environmental law of this country, it requires the government to take a hard look at the impacts of its actions.
▶ 0:49:45But under the guise of expedited reviews for grazing permits, we have seen a massive surge in permits being renewed automatically without any meaningful environmental oversight or analysis, and my amendment simply asks the gao to take a look at that and to find out exactly how many permits are bypassing updated nepa analysis. What is that doing to our soil and water and our ecosystems?
▶ 0:50:10We need to know if expedited is just a polite word for cutting corners. Right now we are essentially flying blind. We have millions of acres of public land, and yet we lack recent reliable data on the health of many of those allotments. And this isn't just a paperwork issue. We're facing a climate crisis, historic droughts, the institutional chaos of the trump administration, which has spent the last year hollowing out our land management agencies.
▶ 0:50:40We cannot protect these landscapes from the stresses of a changing climate if we don't even have a baseline for the current condition. The revised version of this amendment that I filed this morning also includes an analysis of monitoring standards to understand if we're using the best methods to fully understand overall rangeland health.
▶ 0:51:02It also directs gao to compare methodologies used by blm and the forest service, so we can try to measure in the same way across these agencies. Finally, this amendment addresses the people problem. Can you you can have the best regulations in the world, but if you don't have staff on the ground to monitor compliance with the necessary tools and technology to perform oversight, those regulations aren't worth very much at all. And we're in the midst of a staffing emergency.
▶ 0:51:31The gao study will analyze how staffing shortages and technology shortfalls are directly impacting the ability of blm and the forest service to do their job. The goal is not to end public land grazing far from it. It is to ensure that management is science based and that agencies are properly equipped to monitor the permitting process so that we can do it right. Uh, for a long time.
▶ 0:51:55Hopefully, if we can't get a full nepa review on every allotment today, the very least we can do is have the gao take this look and tell us the truth about what's happening on the ground. I urge my colleagues to support this common sense good governance amendment, and I yield back. >> is there. >> further discussion on the amendment? Miss hagerman, you're recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I am opposed to this amendment for several reasons. And one is that I do believe the ultimate goal is to ban grazing on federal lands.
▶ 0:52:25Uh, several of the organizations that Mr. huffman is associated with, that whole idea of cattle free by 93 and various other organizations have been very clear in their intent and their goal of banning grazing on federal lands. I think this is just one more step in that direction, in a way, to undermine what it is that we are trying to do here, which is bring parity across the various agencies for grazing on federal lands.
▶ 0:52:54And this proposed study is only loosely connected to the bill's focus. The bill is focused on grazing on national grasslands, while the tenants of the study are broadly about other aspects of the federal grazing program, which are not impacted by the amendments made to this bill. Second, simply piling more studies onto the geo desk is in all too familiar strategy here in congress, which accomplishes very little but growing the size of the gao.
▶ 0:53:21Third, the proposed study is either something gao would struggle to complete or have to expend extensive resources to complete. Since the determination of rangeland health requires long term monitoring, monitoring a not and not a one point in time assessment. Fourth, I am concerned about the content of the gao study proposed in this amendment, as it appears that it is very leading in nature and suggests a predetermined outcome that grazing is bad for federal lands.
▶ 0:53:47The criteria proposed for the gao study suggests a short changing, a short changing of nepa, which also is not true. The agencies cannot authorize grazing without following nepa and the agency, but the agencies can use categorical exclusions, which are in fact nepa documents.
▶ 0:54:06Ranchers are the original conservationists who have a vested interest in the health of the land to employ, and to imply that their operations are harmful to the land is as insulting as it is incorrect. Again, I am concerned that this amendment is not proposed to actually study the implementation of the bill, but subtly advances a different narrative, which implies that grazing and the operation of our federal grazing program is flawed and harmful, which is simply not true.
▶ 0:54:34I oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to oppose it as well. With that, I yield back. >> gentlelady yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? I recognize myself, I do oppose this amendment, which again, would add unnecessary or add an unnecessary gao study to representative hagerman's legislation. Uh, this is a straightforward, simple fix to create parity. And it's not a complicated piece of legislation that needs a geo. Geo study to accompany it.
▶ 0:55:06Unfortunately, it appears that the amendment is more of a gotcha type amendment that will be used to both anti-grazing policies. If you look at the amendment, it's specifically forces the gao to study acres that are, quote, failing to meet land health standards due to livestock grazing. End quote.
▶ 0:55:25This one sided directive completely ignores the on the ground realities of grazing, which provides enormous benefits to rangeland health, including, uh, to reduce invasive grasses and hazardous fuels that can start devastating wildfires. Uh, for these reasons, the amendment is not supported by the people whom it would principally affect, which are america's ranchers. Indeed, the public lands council, which represents 22,000 federal grazing permittees across the country, oppose the amendment.
▶ 0:55:54Um, I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment and support the underlying legislation which would protect america's ranchers, bolster rural economic economies, and help lower input costs that go into producing beef across the nation. With that, I yield back. Is there further discussion on the amendment?
▶ 0:56:14If there's no further discussion on the amendment, the question is on the amendment offered by ranking member huffman, designated huffman number one, revised all those in favor signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> all those opposed? No. Any opinion of the chair? The nos have it. And the amendment? A recorded vote has been requested. Further proceedings on this amendment will be postponed. For a brief moment, I thought I'd convinced Mr. huffman to vote against it. I was thinking about it.
▶ 0:56:42We will now, um, uh, go into recess until approximately 2:45 p.m. When we will begin voting. >> on the.
▶ 0:59:35Two.
▶ 1:07:12>> committee will come to order. The chair notes the presence of a quorum. The unfinished business is on the request for a recorded vote on amendments to the ans to h.r. 5497. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. The question is on the amendment to the ans to h.r. 5497 offered by ranking member. Huffman designated huffman number one, on which the no's prevailed by voice vote. The clerk will open the vote. Legs.
▶ 1:07:52>> it just takes a while. >> all.
▶ 1:09:39>>? Hearing none, the clerk will close the vote and report. >> Mr. chairman, on this vote, the yeas are 16 and the nays are 21. >> the amendment is not agreed to. The question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to h.r. 5497, offered by the gentleman from wisconsin, Mr. tiffany. Designated tiffany 39 ans.
▶ 1:10:05All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed say no. The opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is adopted. The question now occurs on reporting h.r. 59 or 5497, as amended, to the house, with the recommendation that the bill be favorably approved. All those in favor signify by saying aye. All those opposed? No. >> no. >> the opinion of the chair. The ayes have it.
▶ 1:10:34A recorded vote has been requested. Members will record their vote using the electronic voting system. The clerk will open the vote.
▶ 1:11:07Hearing none, the clerk will close the vote and report. >> Mr. chairman, on this vote, the yeas are 20 and the nays are 17. >> 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. The unfinished business is on the request for a recorded vote on amendments to the ans to h.r. 6300. The question is on the amendment to the ans to h.r.
▶ 1:11:356300 offered by ranking member. Huffman designated hoffman number one, revised, on which the no's prevail by voice vote. The clerk will open the vote. >> good job.
▶ 1:12:17>> she was up there. >>? Hearing none, the clerk will close the vote and report. >> Mr. chairman, on this vote, the yeas are 16 and the nays are 22. >> the amendment is not agreed to. The question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to h.r. 6300, offered by the gentlelady from wyoming, miss hageman designated hageman ans.
▶ 1:12:44All those in favor signify by saying aye. All those opposed? No. The opinion of the chair. The ayes have it. The amendment in the nature of a substitute is adopted. The question now occurs on reporting h.r. 6300, 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. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. A recorded vote has been requested.
▶ 1:13:13Members will record their vote using the electronic voting system. The clerk will open the vote.
▶ 1:13:49Hearing none, the clerk will close the vote and report. >> Mr. chairman, on this vote, the yeas are 25 and the nays are 14. >> the bill, as amended, is ordered reported to the house with the 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 huffman and the other members of the committee.
▶ 1:14:13It appears that we have worked out an agreement on ten bills scheduled for markup today, as 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. The committee will come to order. Please take your conversations outside so we can finish the business.
▶ 1:14:40Before we begin, does any member seek time to speak on any of the bills to this unanimous consent motion? I ask unanimous consent that the subcommittee on indian and insular affairs be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 4463 to amend the catawba indian tribe of south carolina land claim settlement act of 1993. Without objection, so ordered. I ask unanimous consent that the subcommittee on water, wildlife and fisheries be discharged from further consideration of h.r.
▶ 1:15:133706, standards for understanding source and habitat identification act, or the sushi act. Without objection, so ordered ask unanimous consent that the subcommittee on federal lands be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 1945, america's national churchill museum national historic landmark act, h.r. 2196, to provide for an extension of the legislative authority of the national emergency medical services memorial foundation, to establish a commemorative work in the district of columbia and its environs. H.r.
▶ 1:15:463922 cross-boundary wildfire solutions act. H.r. 4671, ensuring casualty assistance for firefighters act. H.r. 5419, enhancing administrative reviews for broadband deployment act, and hr 6380. The chair. Chair. Shirakawa. Excuse me. National park act without objection. So ordered.
▶ 1:16:12I ask unanimous consent that the following measures be approved and favorably reported as described to the house of representatives hr 7755 critical mineral consistency act of 2025, with amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the chair designated westerman. 55 ans hr 1352 to designate the general george c marshall house in the commonwealth of virginia as an affiliated area of the national park system and for other purposes, with an amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado, Mr.
▶ 1:16:39Nagase designated joe neguse number one, hr 1945 america's national churchill museum national historic landmark act, h.r. 2196, to provide for an extension of the legislative authority of the national emergency medical services memorial foundation to establish a commemorative work in the district of columbia and its environs, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the chair, designated westerman. 48 ans h.r.
▶ 1:17:053706 standards for understanding source and habitat identification act, or the act with an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the chair designated westerman 53 ans. H.r. 3922 cross-boundary wildfire solutions act, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from colorado. Mr. nagase designated nagase number one ans. H.r. 4463 to amend the catawba indian tribe of south carolina land claim settlement act of 1993. H.r.
▶ 1:17:354671, insuring casualty assistance for our firefighters act. H.r. 5419, enhancing administrative reviews for broadband deployment act with an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the chair, designated westerman, 56 ans and hr 6380. The chair chair, national park act, with an amendment offered by the chair designated westerman 57, without objection, so ordered.
▶ 1:18:05Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. Mr. 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 that 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.
▶ 1:18:27I ask unanimous consent that the staff be allowed to make any technical and conforming changes to the documents the committee just adopted, subject to the approval of the minority. Without objection, so ordered. If there's no further business, the committee stands adjourned.