House Natural Resources: •

Committee will come to order. The Chair notes the presence of a quorum. Pursuant to committee rules, members of the committee may submit written opening statements. The record asks that members may revise and extend their 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 recess of the committee at any time pursuant to Committee Rule 3. 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. I now recognize myself for an opening statement.

So today we're here for our— what appears to be our last markup before the election. And I just want to note that we've had a successful committee this Congress. This committee has been among the most productive— actually, the most productive committee in all of Congress. We've passed more bills out of the House, and we've had more bills go to the President's desk for signature than any other committee. And if you look at this Congress with the House of Representatives, it's been with nearly 900 bills passed out of the House, it's I believe the second most bills ever passed by a House in the history of Congress.

So there's been a lot of activity happening, and this committee has Certainly stepped up to the challenge that I think Daniel Webster left us in the House chamber about developing the resources of our lands and doing something significant in our day and generation. And I will say that we couldn't have passed all those bills without bipartisan support on the many UC packages that we produce in the House that end up being suspension bills on the floor. And thinking about Webster's challenge to us, I would say that the work we've done in this committee champions the ideals that he promoted. In the 119th Congress, we've worked tirelessly to develop America's resource, to unleash our nation's potential, to strengthen our communities and conserve our natural heritage for generations to come. Starting with H.R.

1, We unleashed American energy dominance by responsibly developing our natural resources ensuring access to reliable American energy, creating jobs, and driving economic growth. Our provisions mandated energy lease sales on federal lands and waters, with sales already complete in New Mexico, Alaska, and the Gulf of America, generating record returns for the American taxpayer and vastly exceeding CBO's ridiculously low projections. We also reduced wasteful and inefficient government subsidies and invested $1 billion in Western water infrastructure projects. This Congress, the committee also used the Congressional Review Act to reverse resource management plans that locked up millions of acres of public lands in Alaska, Montana, North Dakota, and Wyoming. These resolutions reopened lands to responsible energy development, strengthening American energy security, supporting rural communities, and putting these resources back to work for the American people.

Then we led the charge to pass the most sweeping reform of federal permitting law in more than 50 years. With the bipartisan SPEED Act by setting timelines for permitting and litigation, reining in bureaucratic red tape, and curbing frivolous lawsuits. These reforms will drive investment and let America build again. We also delivered bipartisan solutions to address the catastrophic wildfire crisis facing American communities, passing the Fix Our Forests Act after the devastating 2025 LA fires. Its science-based, common-sense approach increases active forest management supports community resiliency, and empowers land managers to use the best available science and technology to improve forest health.

And we took our work outside the Beltway. We traveled across the country to hear directly from Americans and see firsthand how federal policies affect their communities. At a field hearing in Oklahoma City, tribal representatives and committee members discussed ways to improve federal policies, better serve tribal communities, and promote tribal sovereignty. In Grand Teton National Park, we saw firsthand the importance of investing in our national parks and public lands and heard innovative approaches to addressing infrastructure challenges. In my home state of Arkansas, in Hot Springs National Park, we heard from local, state, and federal officials, as well as actor and producer Kevin Costner, a notable advocate for America's best idea.

These experiences informed the committee's work on the bipartisan Great American Outdoors Act reauthorization, which invests billions of dollars in our nation's public lands and Bureau of Indian Education schools, ensuring they are modernized and maintained for generations. The Natural Resources Committee remains the most productive committee in the House of Representatives. As I mentioned earlier, to date this Congress, we have passed 138 bills out of committee, 159 in the House. At more than 100 hearings and markups, we've heard and built upon the voices of more than 380 witnesses who shared their experience and expertise with us. But our work is not yet done, and today's markup continues the effort.

While our agenda covers a wide variety of topics, every bill before us reflects our commitment to responsible stewardship, conservation, and empowering the people who know their resources best. The work of the committee throughout the 119th Congress reflects the charge that Daniel Webster described two centuries ago: to develop the resources of our land, build up our great interest, and make our efforts something that will serve to be remembered by generations yet to come. That is the standard should strive to meet, and it is work this committee will continue to advance. I look forward to today's agenda, and I yield back and recognize Ranking Member Huffman for an opening statement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

So when I hear my friend from Arkansas celebrate this as the most productive committee in this Congress, it is basically celebrating the prettiest horse at the glue factory. This has been a deeply unproductive Congress and a committee that has completely shirked its responsibility under the Constitution and under the matters that fall within our jurisdiction. Everywhere I go, whether it's the press or constituents or anyone I run into, I get the same question these days: What are you going to do to hold this administration accountable if Democrats are in the majority next Congress? Today is our last committee markup. Before the November elections, and our colleagues have had 2 years with President Trump in the White House and with a majority in both houses of Congress.

They have used that time, as the chairman just reviewed, to hand out favors to Big Oil, to giant AI companies, well-connected lobbyists, but they have turned a blind eye to the rampant corruption spreading across this administration. The founders designed Congress to check the executive branch, but the Republican majority has effectively neutered congressional authority, bowing to this president's every whim. Now, I've served under presidents of both parties. I've never seen an administration this openly lawless and corrupt. Officials using taxpayer dollars for personal gain, starting wars on a whim to settle personal scores, a system rigged for billionaires and loyalists, leaving the American people struggling to afford healthcare, gas, and groceries.

And through all of this, this committee has stayed silent. They've ignored it. They've gaslighted about it or just tried to change the subject. Take Freedom 250, an organization set up to run the celebrations of our nation's 250th anniversary, plagued by influence peddling, personal enrichment, and the harvesting of Americans' personal data. Committee Democrats spent months investigating it and ultimately released a 55-page interim report laying out what we found.

This majority has done nothing. They won't even have a conversation with us about it. And then there are the president's many vanity projects. The botched reflecting pool, which even the contractor now admits that President Trump and Secretary Bergam just lied to us about. A president running around DC putting his name on everything because he's scared that without these gaudy tributes to himself, history will remember him for what he truly is: a disgrace.

The American people are facing skyrocketing costs and losing their healthcare, but he's done nothing to help them. He's too busy playing golf and building monuments to honor himself. And this majority does nothing. Or they sometimes run cover for Trump's corruption. Look at Vulcan Elements.

3 Months after 17 89 Capital, where Donald Trump Jr. is a partner, invested in the company. Vulcan received a federal loan worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Committee Democrats sought answers. We moved to subpoena Trump Jr. to testify under oath about his financial stake in the company and this federal deal. Committee Republicans blocked the subpoena and shut down the hearing to stop any oversight.

They wouldn't even have a conversation about it. There are countless examples. We could literally have weeks of hearings if we went through all of the examples. Committee Democrats have worked to fill the void left by a Republican majority that just won't do any oversight or investigation, and we've done that work without tools that are available only to the majority. So when people ask, what will we do under a Democratic Congress, my answer is simple: we'll use those tools.

Will act like a Congress. 250 Years ago, Americans declared independence from a king who answered to no one. When the founders wrote the Constitution, they built a Congress with the power to ask questions, demand answers, hold the executive accountable. That power comes with a duty, and this duty matters most in moments like this, when corruption, conflict of interest, and blatant misuse of taxpayer dollars threaten the foundation of this great democracy. That duty belongs to all of us on this committee, in both parties, whoever holds the gavel.

And we'll see in a little less than 50 days what the American people tell us that they want in the next Congress. But I promise you this: if Democrats are in charge, we will follow the evidence. We will put witnesses under oath. We will give the people who sent us here the answers they deserve. That's the job that the Constitution gives to Congress.

That's what loving this country and upholding your oath of office looks like. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Pursuant to the markup notice, it is now in order to consider H.R. 1555, The Bureau of Land Management Mineral Spacing Act. I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources 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?

Mr. Hoffman, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I strongly oppose H.R. 1555.

Since the first days of this administration, Republicans have been chipping away at each and every safeguard meant to protect communities, landowners, and the environment from the harms of fossil fuel development. They've made it easier and easier to drill on our public lands with less and less accountability. In the Big Ugly Bill, they enacted mandatory oil and gas leasing, making it almost impossible for communities and land managers to say no when Big Oil comes knocking. And we've already seen what this can mean on the ground. Unmitigated oil and gas drilling is taking precedence over critical habitat for pronghorn antelope, mule deer, and elk.

It's threatening beloved recreation areas and important uses on our public lands. These are not hypothetical conflicts. They're real communities, real landowners, and real resources that oil and gas development is putting at risk. Republicans have argued that we don't need to do environmental analyses to decide where it's appropriate to drill before doing an oil and gas lease sale because we have comprehensive landscape-level resource management plans. But last year, They blew up that backstop too through the Congressional Review Act, leaving large parts of the public— of our public lands operating under leasing plans made decades ago.

And that brings us to the last layer of federal review, the Application for a Permit to Drill, or APD. H.R. 1555 Would strip away that federal permitting process for oil and gas development on roughly 4 million acres of split estate federal on federal lands, where the surface is privately owned but the minerals underneath belong to the American people. This bill has long been a priority for the oil and gas industry. It would eliminate the federal drilling permit requirement when an operator is drilling from non-federal surface land and less than 50% of the subsurface mineral estate being accessed is federally owned.

That can be a big deal. It can cover massive areas with massive potential impacts to our public lands. This is a big, big deal. Horizontal drilling means a well can be on one property and travel thousands of feet, sometimes miles underground, to reach oil and gas beneath another property. So imagine if you're a private landowner whose property sits above all of that.

You may not have chosen to have oil and gas development underneath your property, but this bill, uh, would make it so that you could lose the federal permitting process that at least lets you know what's being proposed. You could raise concerns, and you could have those concerns considered and addressed. The APD process is not just a box-checking exercise. It is where the agency reviews the proposed drilling and its impacts, and where the agency applies federal safeguards to the development. Under this process, operators must make a good faith effort to provide surface owners with information and protective guardrails.

For split estate landowners, that process can be one of the most important points of leverage they have, maybe the only point of leverage they have. Landowners must contend with the impacts of development on or beneath their property, including impacts to water sources, grazing and ranching operations, polluted water created by drilling, and the very stability of the land itself. The federal process provides a mechanism to identify and address those concerns. H.R. 1555 Would also create a very real notification problem.

What happens to the private landowner whose property is above those federal minerals but whose property is nowhere near the well pad? Who tells them? Who gives them the opportunity to make sure their concerns are addressed? This bill would leave surface landowners in the dark about what's happening beneath their lands and take away their ability to hold oil and gas developers accountable for the harm that they cause on the property. I do appreciate the majority's taking out some of the most, most harmful parts of this bill, explicitly waiving NEPA and the Endangered Species Act and the National Historic Preservation Act.

But the bill is still a reckless giveaway to the oil industry, even as they reap massive profits due to high oil, gasoline, and diesel prices brought on by the Trump administration's war of choice with Iran. I oppose this bill and yield back. Gentleman yields back. Is there any further discussion? I recognize myself.

H.R. 1555, Bureau of Land Management Mineral Spacing Act, sponsored by Representative Bass from Oklahoma, is a common sense reform that removes a duplicative step in the oil and gas permitting process. Doesn't remove all the oil and gas permitting process. It removes a duplicative step. Because currently, if an operator drilling on a private surface touches any oil and gas from a federal mineral estate, they must submit an application for a permit to drill, or an APD, to the state and federal government and obtain a drilling permit before any drilling begins.

This duplicative requirement delays production and restricts landowner rights by making approvals contingent on the federal government's review. Even when the state has already approved the project. And let me be clear, the states have very stringent permitting processes to get these approvals. So the current law requires the private landowner not only to get the permit from the state, but also to have to go through the federal permitting process as well. H.R.

1555 Still allows for royalty accountability and verification while maintaining a standard that allows access of property for inspection. Further, this important legislation continues to provide avenues to consider tribal voices and does nothing to disrupt the ongoing oil and gas permitting process on tribal lands. I thank Representative Bass for her work on this legislation, which will streamline the permitting process and bolster American energy independence. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1555, And I yield back.

Is there further discussion? Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous consent request. To the point about private landowners being protected by state laws, I would ask unanimous consent to enter into the record this testimony from Dr. Barbara Vasquez, who testified in opposition to this bill. In her words, state agencies do not have the same obligation to protect these private lands, nor do they have the authority or resources to do so. This is a federal obligation.

Without objection. So ordered. Is there further discussion on the bill? Hearing none, it is now in order to consider amendments to H.R. 1555.

We will now consider the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 1555 Offered by myself, designated Westerman 01ANS. Without objection, the amendment is considered read and open to amendment at any point. I now recognize myself. The ANS to HR 1555 reflects key changes to address fee fee fed scenarios.

Specifically, the ANS further defines when an operator can avoid duplicative reviews by clarifying that both wellbores originating on non-federal land that simply traverse federal land, as well as those originating on non-federal land that enter and produce from a federal mineral estate, may avoid additional federal permitting processes. These changes will empower landowners and incentivize operators to develop minerals in areas that would otherwise have been stranded by the additional constraints in the federal permitting process. I urge my colleagues to support the ANS. Is there further discussion on the ANS? There's no further discussion on the amendment.

It is now in order to consider amendments to the ANS to H.R. 1555. We'll now consider the amendment designated Huffman No. 1 Offered by Ranking Member Huffman. Without objection, the amendment is considered read.

Ranking Member Huffman, you're now recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment addresses two core issues in the bill. First, it makes clear that the Department of Interior retains the authority and responsibility to require financial assurances for oil and gas resources, even when this bill eliminates the requirement for a federal drilling permit. And second, it would ensure that the Department of Interior continues to have a role in protecting private surface owners who live and work above federal oil and gas reserves.

We've seen what can happen. We know that horizontal drilling and fracking can pollute water and make wells run dry. It can destabilize the land, create sinkholes, and cause earthquakes. Importantly, this amendment would strengthen the financial protections for both the federal subsurface lands and the private surface owners unless the surface owner and the well operator reach a different agreement. Bonds are the financial assurance operators provide to ensure that wells are properly plugged and sites are reclaimed.

They are an essential tool for protecting taxpayers and ensuring that the oil companies, rather than the public, are responsible for the cost of cleanup. For decades, federal oil and gas bonding requirements failed to keep pace with the actual cost of plugging and reclaiming wells. In 2019, the Government Accountability Office, GAO found that 84% of the bonds it reviewed were likely insufficient to reclaim the wells that were covered. The GAO also found that these inadequate bonds left taxpayers on the hook, exposed, and at risk. In 2024, the Department of Interior finally updated these outdated requirements, increasing the minimum individual federal lease bond from $10,000 to $150,000.

That was the first comprehensive update to federal oil and gas bonding in more than 60 years. But the Trump administration is trying to roll those requirements back. This amendment would strengthen bonding requirements, establishing a $200,000 minimum bond for the federal oil and gas interests implicated by this bill, ensuring that eliminating the federal drilling permit does not also limit the financial assurance protecting our publicly owned resources. It would also strengthen protections for private private surface owners. Under current regulations, when a well operator cannot reach an agreement with a private surface owner, the operator must provide a service owner protection bond, a service owner protection bond to BLM with a minimum of $1,000 to cover potential damages.

This amendment would increase that amount to a minimum of $10,000. It's a modest but important protection for landowners whose property sits above those federal subsurface resources. And it recognizes that when publicly owned resources are developed beneath someone's private property, the landowner should not be left high and dry without meaningful protections in place if something goes wrong. In recent years, several Western states have adopted stronger protections for surf— surface owners in split estate situations, such as enhanced notice requirements, mandatory surface use agreements, and increased surface damage bonds, Why should landowners sitting on top of federal oil be subject to worse terms than landowners over state-owned resources? This is a common-sense amendment to add meaningful protections for our public lands and those who neighbor them, and I urge support for it.

I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? I recognize myself. I do oppose the amendment. And I want to address some of the issues that were just, just brought up.

The first one is that this amendment would require federal bonding on non-federal land. The amendment's $200,000 bond requirement is a bond in search of a purpose. The obligations it would secure are either inapplicable for Federal Surface Reclamation— they're already covered by state programs— the well plugging programs are handled through a separate federal statute. On statutes regarding royalties. BLM bonds secure the lessee's obligations for primarily surface reclamation, restoring the well pad, excess pads, and other disturbed areas, well plugging at the end of life in compliance with lease terms.

A BLM bond for surface reclamation serves no purpose when there is no federal surface to reclaim. Well plugging on non-federal surface is already covered by state programs. Every producing state requires operators to post bonds or other financial assurances for plugging. Royalty compliance is enforced separately through the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act, which the bill explicitly preserves. Um, the Huffman Amendment actually expands BLM authority beyond what exists today.

Under current law, BLM's APD review for these wells focuses on the subsurface federal mineral interest. Not surface management on private land. The amendment's directive to update BLM regulations to ensure surface landowners have their concerns considered would create a new federal regulatory hook over non-federal surface that BLM does not currently exercise through the APD process. Private landowners are already protected through state laws, state surface use agreements, state bonding requirements, and direct negotiation with operators. Inserting BLM into that relationship is an inappropriate expansion of federal authority, not a preservation of existing protections, and it is highly duplicative.

Uh, these duplicative requirements would again require bonding at both the federal and state levels. It would add an unnecessary layer of compliance for operators who already face an uphill battle to production. The amendment also gives the Bureau of Land Management a green light to impose Endangered Species Act and National Historic Preservation Act requirements on private land. But guess what? It's already illegal to take an endangered or threatened species on private and federal land.

Operators are abiding by applicable laws, including the ESA, when carrying out projects. If we're going to increase domestic production to secure American energy security, we must cut out duplicative processes. This— that is what this bill is all about. But this amendment would add more red tape precisely the opposite of what the country needs. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I yield back.

Is there further discussion on the amendment?

There's no further discussion on the amendment. The question on the amendment offered by Ranking Member Huffman, designated Huffman number 1. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed, no.

In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. Record of vote has been requested. Further proceedings on this amendment will be postponed pursuant to the markup notice. It is now in order to consider H.R. 5745, The Marine Fisheries Habitat Protection Act.

Ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources be discharged from further consideration of the bill. Without objection. So ordered. Without objection, the bill will be considered read as considered as read and open to amendment at any point. Does any member wish to be recognized for purpose of debate on the bill?

Mr. Rizal, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the committee for considering the marine fisheries habitat protection today. I also want to thank the committee and staff and industry stakeholders who have worked closely with my office throughout the development of this legislation. Their feedback and willingness to work through the details, uh, with us have been extremely valuable in getting this bill into a strong position to move forward. The goal of the legislation is straightforward.

When an offshore oil well gas structure has reached the end of its useful life, we should have a clear, responsible pathway to turn that structure into valuable marine habitat when it makes sense to do so. It strengthens the process to ensure that those who enter the reefing process are acting in good faith and are prepared to follow through. It also establishes clear timelines throughout the process, provides accountability when those timelines are not met, and maintains the necessary safeguards for navigation, human safety, and marine environment. Importantly, this bill does not eliminate the existing decommissioning framework. It creates an additional responsible pathway for reefing in place while preserving existing mechanisms for decommissioning and other reefing options.

For Gulf Coast communities, artificial reefs can provide important habitat for fish and other marine life and support the commercial and recreational fishing opportunities that are so important to our coastal communities. The legislation is about making sure we can take advantage of those opportunities without sacrificing safety, accountability, and environmental responsibility. I appreciate everyone who has helped us get this legislation to this point, and I look forward to continuing the work with the committee and stakeholders to move it forward. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion? Mr. Huffman, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can appreciate that this bill has improved from its previous version, but there are unfortunately still some glaring issues, so I must oppose it.

This bill would create a nationwide Rigs to Reef program, which I'm not fundamentally opposed to. When offshore rigs create good habitat, there should absolutely be a path forward for partial decommissioning so that the habitat can continue to exist. I'm all for finding positive uses of these structures that are already in the water in appropriate circumstances. Unfortunately, in its current form, the bill is yet another thinly veiled giveaway to big oil. Which has received so many favors that I have lost count from this administration and Republicans in Congress, even as the industry reaps massive profits due to high oil, gasoline, and diesel prices brought on by Mr. Trump's war of choice in Iran.

Full decommissioning, removing structures and returning the seafloor to its pre-drilling state, is part of the deal when companies decide to drill in federal waters. It only makes sense that we would require these companies to clean up after themselves, and yet in the Gulf of Mexico there are 2,700 wells, 500 platforms, and 18,000 miles of pipeline left in the ocean that are either overdue for decommissioning or have simply been allowed to languish on the seafloor. In California, there are 23 offshore oil and gas platforms remaining in federal waters, all of them decades old, 8 of these platforms are in the early stages of decommissioning, and several are in fights over who is supposed to pay for the cleanup. For platforms that are still producing, production is declining rapidly. They're maintaining a marginal level of oil output simply because they don't want to pay to remove the rigs.

Now, recognizing that decommissioning is costly, California passed a law in 2010 allowing companies in appropriate circumstances to partially decommission this infrastructure to create artificial reef habitat. Cost savings would then be shared between the oil company and the state, but liability would remain with the oil companies. In 2023, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, federal bureau, published a Record of Decision for a programmatic environmental impact statement that requires full decommissioning of these California platforms as the best way to meet its legal obligations under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. Bessie, could also allow for partial decommissioning, but only if in accordance with the California plan. So this bill now before us would upend all of that, essentially making reefing the default at the end of life for these offshore infrastructure projects.

And not just for rigs, but it applies to all pipelines too. That's unprecedented. That's an unstudied expansion. We don't know if leaving pipelines in place would be good for fish, turtles, octopus. We just don't know if it's good for anyone other than oil companies.

This bill would make it so that offshore oil and gas companies are no longer required to clean up after themselves. It's as simple as that. It prohibits the Interior Department from enacting or enforcing decommissioning orders for years in many cases, allowing these structures to just sit idle polluting and risking environmental disaster. We know that the longer decommissioning is delayed, the more likely the infrastructure will be to, to be orphaned, shifting costs onto taxpayers and increasing environmental risks. There are still risks once a rig or pipeline has been abandoned in the ocean.

Even if we call it artificial reefing, the corroding infrastructure can release toxic pollution into the water. Improperly plugged wells can spring leaks and cause hard-to-contain oil spills. Pieces of rigs or pipelines can shift or break over time, especially with climate change-fueled superstorms creating dangers for people out on the water. Under this bill, the states would assume all liability for dealing with all of those risks and paying cleanup costs. Forcing this plan into California is not what our state wants or needs.

The same is true for the Gulf of Mexico. The true solution is improving decommissioning standards that require cleanup to be completed quickly and thoroughly based on unbiased, science-based assessments for reefing opportunities. We offered to work across the aisle to find a middle ground here, but the majority declined to take us up on that offer, which is unfortunate. I oppose the bill in its current form and yield back. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Ozil, I'd like to interrupt. Letter of support for this bill. I'd like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from the National Ocean Industries Association supporting H.R. 5745, The Marine Fisheries Habitat Protection Act. This letter highlights the value that offshore energy infrastructure brings to marine ecosystems and to the local and recreational communities.

Without objection. Thank you. And Mr. Huffman, I'd like to invite you fishing down there sometimes, and you forget all about your objections. I will take you up on that, Mr. Ezel. Further discussion on the bill?

I recognize myself. I want to thank Representative Ezel for working so diligently on this bipartisan legislation. Also, thanks to Representatives Veasey and Carter for their efforts. To make this a great bill. And for decades, thousands of oil and gas platforms in the Gulf have supported diverse marine life.

Rather than haul back to shore and scrap this life-giving infrastructure, local governments, sportsmen, and energy producers have worked together to safely turn energy infrastructure into permanent artificial reefs that support robust marine ecosystems. The Marine Fisheries Habitat Protection Act builds on existing programs across the Gulf and further capitalizes on the benefits offshore energy provides to marine habitats. Since 2000, 60% of oil rigs in the Gulf of America have been removed, disrupting habitats and harming the fishing economy. Having fished in the Gulf, I've seen firsthand the benefits of these programs. To date, over 600 platforms previously installed on the U.S.

Outer Continental Shelf have been reefed in the Gulf, creating opportunities for fishermen and women to enjoy world-class recreation. H.R. 5745, Introduced by Representative Ezel, is a pragmatic piece of legislation that builds upon the Rigs to Reefs initiative, turning decommissioned offshore oil and gas infrastructure into managed artificial reefs. The National Fishing Enhancement Act created national standards for artificial reef development through the National Artificial Reef Plan and Reef Permitting System. The act defines and encourages responsible artificial reef development at a national policy level, requiring the National Artificial Reef Plan to support standards for sitting, construction, and management.

This provides a policy basis for artificial reefs but does not prescribe a constant comprehensive pathway for offshore decommissioning and artificial reef development. H.R. 5745 Builds upon this framework by addressing crucial components of the reefing program. The bill broadens and revises the National Fishing Enhancement Act to expressly cover offshore platforms and associated infrastructure for reefing in place. The bill gives the Department of the Interior clear timelines to identify inactive structures suitable for reefing and brings greater certainty to reef planning areas.

It's no secret that oil and gas platforms in the Gulf attract and sustain marine life, creating thriving ecosystems near the coastal communities. Just ask any fishermen from the region. Again, I thank Representative Eazel for his work on the legislation and his commitment to create significant marine ecosystem benefits not only in Mississippi but around the country. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5745, And I yield back.

Is there further discussion on the bill? Hearing none, it is now in order to consider amendments to H.R. 5745. It's offered by yourself. You recognize yourself.

We will now consider the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 5745 Offered by the chair designated Ezel 074-ANS. Without objection, the amendment is considered read and open to amendment. At any point.

I recognize myself, uh, to discuss the ANS. The ANS for H.R. 5745 Improves the underlying legislation by tightening timelines across the process and adding provisions that encourage good faith efforts by applicants and prevent bad actors from taking advantage of the reefing process. This common sense legislation supports our coastal communities and strengthens recreational fishing opportunities by providing a clear pathway for responsible reefing in place. I urge my colleagues to support the ANS and the underlying legislation, and I yield back.

We will now consider— excuse me. Is there further discussion on the ANS?

Seeing none, we will now consider amendments to the ANS to H.R. 5745. We will consider the amendment designated Min number 2 offered by the gentleman from California, Mr. Min. Without objection, the amendment is considered read. Mr. Min, you're now recognized.

Thank you, Chair Westerman and Ranking Member Huffman, for giving me the opportunity to speak on H.R. 5745, The Marine Fisheries Habitat Protection Act, and my amendment. I just wanted to note that just how large these decommissioning costs are that we're talking about. Capping wells, dismantling the pipes and rigs associated with those offshore wells, transporting these materials to shore and disposing of them, and then monitoring the drilling sites over time to ensure that there's no additional spills. This is a cost of billions and billions of dollars.

And look, I'm not opposed to rigs-to-reef in general. Rigs-to-reef can be something that's appropriate. We actually, I think, started rigs-to-reef in my home state of California and I worked on a number of bills when I was in the California State Senate on this topic. But we should note that rigs-to-reefs is not appropriate for all rigs, depending on where the rig is sited, how deep the water is. Many rigs are not appropriate for rigs-to-reefs conversion.

And so again, sometimes these rigs can be man-made reefs. That's not a bad thing for fishermen, for people who want to see more marine fauna and flora out there. But again, this is not appropriate as a one-size-fits-all solution, but that is precisely what this bill does. And it gives, as the ranking member noted, a huge bailout to Big Oil because it takes these billions of dollars of costs off of their balance sheets, it puts them on the taxpayers who are then responsible for monitoring for future spills, monitoring maintenance, allowing operators to escape these costs, as well as the huge costs of dismantling these structures in the first place. And I know we have a very vibrant fishing and surfing community in the region I represent, and these are eyesores.

And when they're not serving as functional reefs, why are we requiring the states like California convert these to reefs and honor this process? This should be done on a case-by-case basis. It should be decided by states. And I don't know why my Republican colleagues are so adamant about states' rights unless it's with respect to issues like that benefit big oil. And so my amendment, HR— to H.R.

5745, Would ensure that Congress can continue to conduct rigorous oversight with a non-biased review of rig-to-reef structures. The amendment is simple. It would simply require the Department of Interior to disclose any reported hazards to navigational safety, human safety, or marine species associated with the rigs-to-reef program. Offshore oil contracts entered into a clear contract with the government with the public when they got these leases to be able to drill in public waters with an express condition that they would care for these shared resources and guarantee the full cleanup of these. And now they're trying to break these promises, and we are aiding and abetting that process.

Let's be clear what this is. It's a huge bailout to big oil, and I would urge you to consider supporting this amendment that would narrow this to where it's appropriate. With that, I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment?

Mr. Huffman, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank my colleague from California for this very thoughtful amendment, and I think a good step toward improving my new fishing buddy from Mississippi's bill here. A national Rigs-to-Reef program is a significant change in how we handle out-of-use oil and gas infrastructure in our oceans, and for a change this big, we really do need to make sure that the annual reporting Congress receives gives us all the information we need to understand if that program is actually working as intended. Under its current, um, form, this bill would only require the annual report to tell us where the end-of-life infrastructure is, what's being considered for reefing, and what has been reefed.

Those reports tell us very little about how the program is actually working, and this amendment would change that. It requires a summary of each assessment for each rig or pipeline, letting us know whether invasive species are present and how abundant they are compared to native species. This will help us better understand if reef rigs and pipelines are actually successful in supporting our fisheries or unintentionally propping up harmful invasive species. The amendment would also require disclosure of any reported hazards to navigational safety human safety, or the marine environment associated with the inactive structures or approved and reefed rigs and pipelines. That should be very non-controversial.

This common-sense reporting will give program managers a better understanding of the risks and benefits associated with reefing end-of-life oil and gas infrastructure so we can make better informed decisions going forward. Again, this is common sense and I would hope would be supported on a bipartisan basis. I urge adoption and yield back. Gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment?

I recognize myself, and I will also say that I am in agreement that these issues need to be addressed. The issue of invasive species should be addressed. The issue of navigational safety, human safety, or effects to the marine environment, those should all be addressed. But I am opposed to the amendment because those things are already addressed. The— it's unnecessary because the Department of Interior is already required to assess the inactive structure and surrounding habitat before determining if reefing is appropriate.

When it comes to navigational safety, human safety, or the marine environment, these hazards are already reviewed during the reef planning process. In fact, the bill expressly allows for removal orders when structures pose a substantial an imminent threat to navigational safety, human safety, or the marine environment. So I think we can all agree these things are important. I contend that they're already addressed through the, through the process. So I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I yield back.

Is there further discussion on the amendment?

There's no further discussion. The question is on the amendment offered by Mr. Minn, Designated Minn No. 2. All those in favor signify by saying aye. All right.

Those opposed? No. Recorded vote. In opinion of the chair, the noes have it. A recorded vote has been requested.

Further proceedings on this amendment will be postponed.

So to the markup notice is now in order to consider H.R. 9621, The Northwest Endangered Salmon Predation Prevention Act of 2026. 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 as read and open to amendment at any point. Does any member wish to be recognized for purposes of debate on the bill? Mr. Huffman, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This bill would create a broad program in the Pacific Northwest to allow— excuse me, to allow the state of Washington and treaty tribes to lethally take sea lions and harbor seals that feed on threatened and endangered salmon and other fish species.

This is an issue that we've taken up before in 2018 for the Columbia River. And at that time, the Oregon and Washington delegations in the House and the Senate, along with broader committees of jurisdiction, engaged in extensive negotiations with the states and tribes to craft a compromise. That upholds treaty rights, gives endangered salmon a fighting chance, and ensures sustainable sea lion populations under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. I ultimately voted for that legislation. So I do want to be clear, I'm not categorically opposed to culling.

It is one tool in the toolbox of science-based wildlife management. If we're going to expand that program and create a similar one for all of coastal Washington, we need to engage in a similar dialogue. We need to be careful and we need to get it right. Well, I appreciate the clarifications in the majority's ANS on humane take standards, the permit process, and who can conduct lethal take. These updates do not address some of the primary questions coming from most on our side of the aisle.

The original 2018 language focused on sea lions traveling hundreds of miles upstream, far beyond their historic range, who would almost exclusively feed on salmon at choke points. This bill before us today would authorize take in marine waters and coastal areas where thousands of seals and sea lions live and have a more diverse diet. It is not targeted. The evidence that removals will help salmon in these areas is less clear-cut and is largely based on studies conducted far upstream in the Columbia River at these predation traps that we have tried to address. We've also raised concerns about the lack of resources to ensure this program could even be carried out in a responsible and effective way.

We don't have the pinnipeds or salmon scientists to conduct necessary analyses, on top of the fact that we are working with outdated marine mammal stock assessments, some of which are over a decade old. So if we're going to ask NOAA to estimate allowable take levels and provide permits for take to improve salmon returns, as this legislation purports to do, We need current science to inform both Peniped take levels and the expected outcomes for salmon. It is quite plain that without that scientific certainty, the permit's legality will be in question. Again, I think we could find broad agreement on a path forward if given the chance to negotiate. That hasn't happened.

At the hearing in July, we asked for meaningful bipartisan, bicameral conversations and answers from NOAA. Including timely responses to our questions for the record. We still haven't received any of that. It seems the majority is more interested in rushing this bill to the floor rather than doing the hard work of getting it right. We still have outstanding significant concerns on coastal areas and the lack of PBR on commitments.

So considering these unanswered questions and the rush to process, I will be voting no today, and I want to urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield the balance of my time. Gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the bill? I recognize myself, and I strongly support H.R.

9621, The Northwest Endangered Salmon Predation Prevention Act of 2026. This legislation has been introduced on a bipartisan basis by Representatives Michael Baumgartner and Emily Randall. I recognize both of these members for their bipartisan work to address the issue. This committee has conducted robust oversight over the conflict between, between the Marine Mammal Protection Act and recovery of ESA-listed salmon and steelhead species in the Pacific Northwest for more than a decade. Pinniped predation undermines all the work states, tribes, the federal government, water and power users, and stakeholders across the region have done to support salmon recovery.

This predation also undermines tribal treaty reserve fishing rights, which is why the Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission, the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, and their member tribes throughout the region support this bill. In 2018, Congress worked on a bipartisan basis to address salmon and steelhead predation on the Columbia River by providing the treaty tribes of the Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission and the states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho the authority to lethally take sea lions on certain sections of the Columbia River and its tributaries. While this authority has helped address this pressing issue, additional authorities are still needed. Current law limits the geographic scope of lethal management on the Columbia River, resulting in unmitigated predation in key areas. The current permitting process is arduous and the method of take is inflexible.

Costly and precludes best wildlife management practices. Additionally, these authorities are limited to the Columbia River, while pinniped predation is driving declines in salmon and steelhead populations in western Washington and the Puget Sound. I saw this firsthand when I visited the Nisqually Indian Tribe several years back. H.R. 9621 Addresses each of these issues and makes substantial progress toward more effective conservation of salmon populations.

I thank the tribal leaders and state officials across the region who brought their expertise to craft and improve this bill as it moved through the committee process. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 9621, And I yield back the balance of my time. Is there further discussion on the bill? Ms. Dexter, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our ranking member for the discussion. I very much agree that we need science. I'm going to stand by this. We make decisions in this committee that have deep impacts on our ecosystems, and we do not have the data nor the impact in this bill laid out on how we're going to look at the— on the outcomes from what is a broad expansion of current permitting and culling.

So, and I also want to say very clearly, the tribes in my region are very much in support of a change. And I do believe we need to make meaningful impact with a bill that is well thought out and diligent about not just observing treaty rights, but actually empowering our tribes to have some tools at their disposal that doesn't take, as you said, with a permitting process and other things, too long. That all being said, the coastal Washington area, I don't believe that they've been actually brought into this in a meaningful way. I very much appreciate my colleague Representative Randall's engagement with the tribes. I know that it is deeply meaningful.

Intentional and has it been thorough enough is a question that I remain concerned about right now because I am hearing from tribes in my region who have conflicting opinions on this as well. So I will be offering an amendment on data and making sure that we actually see what the impacts are. I appreciate that there will be other amendments. Brought forward today. I think this is a problem that needs to be addressed.

The question is whether this bill is sufficiently prepared to do it effectively. And with that, I yield back. The lady yields back. Is there further discussion? Ms. Hoyle, you're recognized.

Thank you. Like my colleague, the ranking member, Representative Huffman, I support the underlying goals of the legislation. I'm just disappointed the markup came together so quickly and bypassed meaningful input from communities across the Pacific Northwest. And that would be Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. Let me be clear.

There's no doubt we must do more to restore our salmon runs and give communities on the front lines the tools they need to effectively manage harmful sea lion predation along our ports and waterways. This issue is deeply important to me and the people I represent in Oregon. Salmon are central to our fishing economy, the health of the Columbia River ecosystem, and the exercise of tribal sovereignty. But this issue is too important to rush legislation at the 11th hour simply to meet a congressional deadline. We need to make sure it's developed collaboratively and that the outstanding concerns are fully addressed.

The Columbia River does not stop across at state lines. And it's a shared resource managed, managed by the states of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, and the sovereign tribal nations that have depended on and stewarded these waters since time immemorial. That means any legislation that attempts to change how we manage these waters needs to be done collaboratively, standing alongside the tribes and representatives whose waters and communities are directly impacted by sea lion predation. Since our last hearing on the bill, there should have been more direct engagement with the Columbia River Basin Treaty Tribes and the communities in my district and others impacted by this legislation before bringing it to markup. I think I was abundantly clear at the subcommittee meeting that I was very interested and wanted to work on this and had interested parties and tribes and fishermen in my district that this is a serious issue and nothing.

So we have the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Indians and the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde in particular who have serious concerns. I do appreciate the opportunity to address some of these concerns through amendments today. That's not a substitute for the conversations that needed to have happened before we got here. The people who fish these waters, manage these resources, depend on healthy salmon populations deserve a meaningful role in shaping this legislation. If we want this legislation to be successful, and I do, and actually improve sustained salmon recovery, we need to make sure all tribal voices who manage these resources and waters are included in the conversation.

Why weren't all the affected tribes in Oregon at the table from the start? I'm frustrated their voices haven't been adequately included in the process. Especially for such an important issue for all of us in the Pacific Northwest and one we care deeply about. Even with the changes I'm proposing today to clarify the bill and, you know, to address real concerns raised by Oregon tribes and tribes throughout the Northwest, there's still outstanding issues to be resolved. Specifically, the bill still needs to clearly define which Peniped species are covered, determine humane take or use of guns to ensure state and tribal fishery managers have the necessary data and resources to support their work in long-term salmon recovery.

This bill should also be written in a way that clearly respects the distinct management authorities and needs of each tribal nation in the state. Sea lions cross both sides of the river, and I'm frustrated we're making decisions about these waters say without getting full consultation from the communities and tribes who've managed and fished and depended on them for generations. This legislation is not ready in its current form. This could have been avoided with just normal, regular, respectful consultation and communication. Wouldn't have been that hard.

Good management takes good science, trusted partnerships, and meaningful collaboration. We can get there. But it's going to take real collaboration so we can build a proposal that has broad support that can also make it through the Senate, which is what I want, because this is really, really critical and important. I yield back. The lady yields back.

Is there further discussion on the bill?

Hearing none, it is now in order to consider amendment to H.R. 9621. We will now consider the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 9621 Offered by myself, designated Westerman 91 ANS. Without objection, the amendment is considered read and open to amendment at any point.

I now recognize myself. My ANS to H.R. 9621 Incorporates feedback received from the tribes, state fish and wildlife managers, and NOAA to clarify and improve the bill to more effectively control pinniped predation and protect threatened and endangered salmon species. The ANS clarifies the standard for humane removals ensures the individuals allowed to conduct lethal removals are qualified wildlife management experts, incorporates public and stakeholder input in approving permits, and provides more detail on the permitting process. I once again want to recognize Representative Baumgartner and Randall for their work on this critical issue.

I urge my colleagues to support the ANS and the underlying bill, and I yield back. Is there any further discussion on the ANS? If there's no further discussion on the amendment, it is now in order to consider amendments to the ANS to H.R. 9621. We will now consider the amendment designated Dexter No.

1 Offered by the gentlewoman from Morgan, Ms. Dexter. Without objection, the amendment is considered read. Ms. Dexter, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I, I have offered this amendment because My, um, I'm sorry, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this issue. And it's in—. As my colleague from Oregon has said, this is a critical issue of great importance, not just to my district but to the region. My amendment would give this bill the funding it needs to make an impact. It would authorize additional funds for the new program that this bill creates, actually funding a mandate instead of forcing them to do more with the same amount of funding.

It would also provide additional funding for the agency to do scientific research on pinniped and fish interactions and the efficacy of pinniped management on salmon recovery efforts. We still do not have, as the ranking members and my colleague from Oregon have suggested, sufficient information to even know if all pinnipeds named in this bill are actually having the impact that we presume. On the West Coast, we know that salmon are the beating heart of the Columbia River and central to our ecosystems, and this federal government has made a commitment time and again to keep it that way. This amendment does not ask the agency to do more with less. It gives the agency the resources to study whether pinniped management delivers real results for salmon recovery.

Serving on this committee means making hard decisions, but the federal government made commitments to our tribes generations ago, and those commitments do not expire when they become difficult or expensive. It's time for this body to uphold its tribal obligations. And we have tribes that have depended on these salmon runs since time immemorial. We need to meaningfully incorporate their feedback as well as their management into the future for salmon, for our communities, and, and certainly for the ecosystems. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back.

The gentlelady yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment?

I recognize myself. I oppose the amendment. I do appreciate my colleague's concern about the resource needs for states and tribes to effectively manage these Peniped populations. I will point out that there is a $5.5 million amount in funding currently in the fiscal year 2027 Commerce, Justice and Science Appropriations Bill for Peniped removals in the Columbia River under existing law. It's good news that the appropriators have recognized the importance of this issue and prioritized funding it in recent years.

I look forward to working with them to prioritize resources to support the authorities provided in this bill as drafted. This amendment's authorization of appropriations is not offset, which is a violation of the House for protocols, and I cannot support the levels that are proposed. I recognize that there are resource challenges and needs associated with this work, and we remain committed to working with everyone involved in this issue to ensure that NOAA has the necessary resources to— for full implementation. Again, I oppose 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 Ms. Dexter, designated Dexter No. 1. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed, no.

In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it. We need to have a recorded vote. A recorded vote has been requested. Further proceedings on this amendment will be postponed. We will now consider the amendment designated Hoyle No.

2 Revised, offered by the gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. Hoyle. Without objection, The amendment is considered read. Ms. Hall, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My amendment number 2 simply clarifies where the bill applies by establishing the management area from river mile 38 upstream to the McNary Dam, excluding freshwater and estuaries, based off feedback and recommendations from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. River mile 38 is an easy to locate landmark at Rice Island in Astoria, Oregon, just upriver from the end of the Saltwater Wedge. Um, so this amendment will give Peniped managers a clear geographic boundary and make sure that we're not unintentionally expanding the scope of the legislation into areas that will require a different management approach.

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has been very clear about this, which would have been noted if they were brought into this process earlier, which they should have been because they are the Department of Fish and Wildlife and would have to manage the Oregon side of the river. But they were not brought in until the very end. I urge my colleagues to support this straightforward technical amendment. Thank you. And I yield back.

The gentlelady yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment?

I recognize myself and I do support this amendment. The amendment modifies the bill's geographic scope, starting at the mouth of the Columbia River to mile 27, where the freshwater environment begins. This is being done at the request of the states of Oregon and Washington, and I'm happy to work with Ms. Hoyle to get this bill right. I want to thank Representative Hoyle for her leadership and advocacy on this important issue. Again, I support 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 Ms. Hoyle, designated Hoyle No. 3, Revised. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed, no.

In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to.

We're going to suspend for just a moment to get our paperwork in order.

Okay, we got a little bit ahead of ourself and we voted on Amendment Number 3 when that was Amendment Number 2, so we're going to, uh, correct the record. Is there any further discussion on Amendment Number 2, Hoyle Number 2? If not, the question is on the amendment offered by Ms. Hoyle, designated Hoyle Number 2, revised. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye.

Those opposed, no. Oppinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to.

Now we will consider the amendment designated Hoyle No. 3, Revised, offered by the gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. Hoyle. Without objection, the amendment is considered read. Ms. Hoyle, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. First off, I request unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde in Oregon opposing H.R. 6-2-1. Without objection. In their letter, Grand Ronde raises serious concerns about the proposed changes to Section 120 of the MMPA that could extend legal take authority to the Willamette without including the Grand Ronde.

These are real concerns that I share. This legislation should not assume that the covered Indian tribes, which do not include the Grand Ronde, have expanded management over the Willamette or below the Bonneville Dam.

And then my Amendment Number 3 intends to make clear that H.R. 9621 Does not change or override the Willamette Committee framework currently in law and established in the MMPA Section 120 that was carefully negotiated in 2018 for the Siletz and the Grand Ronde tribes. This committee ensures that Siletz and Grand Ronde are recognized as eligible entities to remove penipeds in the Willamette River and other tributaries of the Columbia River within the state of Oregon below the Bonneville Dam. But as written, H.R. 9621 Leaves concerning ambiguity around these existing authorities.

Let me be clear. I fully support the state and Washington tribes enacting their Columbia River Treaty enumerated fishing rights to pursue expanded peniped management in their waters. But their expansion should not give any tribe other than the Siletz or Grand Ronde or the state of Washington authority to manage downstream the Willamette or below the Bonneville Dam. These issues have already been resolved through years of work, and it's disappointing that this legislation could reopen old disputes. As written, H.R.

9621 Creates uncertainty about which states and tribes can potentially manage Oregon waters, which is unacceptable. My amendment amendment simply seeks to make already negotiated eligibility and management authority for the Grand Ronde and Siletz explicit going forward. I urge my colleagues to support these protections for tribal sovereignty in Oregon by voting yes on this amendment. Thank you, and I yield back. The lady yields back.

Is there further discussion on the amendment?

I recognize myself, and I again support this amendment also, and I thank Representative Hoyle and her staff for working with us on this important legislation and working to make it better and doing that in a proactive way. Again, this amendment builds on reforms enacted in 2018 by ensuring that we do not move backward on the authorities and current law that allow tribal partners to engage in appropriate penny-apeb management. The amendment reinforces existing work and the strong relationship between tribes in the region I support the amendment and I yield back. Is there further discussions on the amendment?

There's no further discussion. The question on the amendment offered by Ms. Hoyle, designated Hoyle No. 3, Revised. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye.

All those opposed, no. Opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. We will now consider the amendment designated Hoyle No. 4, Revised, offered by the gentlewoman from Oregon. Ms. Hoyle, without objection, the amendment is considered read.

Ms. Hoyle, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My amendment would direct NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service to study the impacts of sea lion predation on protected salmon and fish populations along the Oregon coast. It also establishes an Oregon Coast Committee modeled after similar committee structure created for the Grand Ronde and Siletz tribes following a lengthy negotiation and collaboration process in 2018.

Importantly, the committee would only move forward if a peer-reviewed study demonstrated the real need for Peniped management along Oregon's coast in consultation with and eligible for federally recognized Indian tribes along the Oregon coast. At some point, I'd love to see this expanded throughout the Pacific Northwest, but this is specifically for the Oregon coast. Fishermen and tribes on Oregon's coast have been telling us for years that this is an issue for our salmon runs and ports. We need to listen to them and do our due diligence and make sure any management action delivers a meaningful long-term benefit for salmon recovery. My amendment neither prevents nor greenlights future action.

It simply creates a responsible pathway forward to expand Peniped management authority if sound science demonstrates that it is needed to protect endangered and threatened salmon. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. Thank you, and I yield back. And the lady yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment?

I recognize myself. Also support this amendment. And again, thank Representative Hoyle for attention to the important issues that H.R. 9621 Seeks to address. It is clear that pinniped predation is not limited to the Columbia River.

Ms. Hoyle's amendment will allow NOAA, tribes, and the state of Oregon to examine how pinniped populations could be managed on Oregon's coast. This issue is worthy of further study. I support 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 Ms. Hoyle, designated Hoyle No. 4, Revised. All those in favor signify by saying aye. All those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to.

Are there any further amendments to HR 9621?

To HR 9621, the fentanyl management bill? Oh no, I apologize. No hearing. None. Uh, pursuant to the markup notice, is now in order to consider HR 181 to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to provide that artificially propagated animals shall be treated the same under the act as naturally propagated animals and for other purposes.

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?

You want to lead off? You want me to go?

Mr. Huffman, you're recognized. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. This bill would— it completely misunderstands the Endangered Species Act is the bottom line about this bill. It would take one conservation tool in the toolbox, which is artificial propagation, and force NOAA and the Fish and Wildlife Service to approve its use as mitigation for impacts of a proposed action. On a threatened or endangered species regardless of what the science says.

It's just— this bill is too cute by half. It is a half-hearted attempt to juice the numbers of threatened and endangered species, but it does nothing to incentivize science-based durable actions that further the purposes of the Endangered Species Act, preventing extinction and recovering these species. The bill elevates artificial propagation over all other conservation and mitigation actions within the ESA, placing enormous burdens on federal agencies, tribes, and project applicants to use artificial propagation instead of habitat restoration and other more cost-effective alternatives that will actually produce results for wildlife. Under this bill, oil and gas developers on the North Slope, for example, could propose bulldozing polar bear dens and just mitigating that habitat destruction by artificially propagating polar bears in a zoo across the country, and the Secretary would have to approve that mitigation. Under this bill, an irrigation project developer in California could dam an endangered species run, and instead of taking steps to ensure salmon have water and can get around the dam, the developer could propose investing in hatchery salmon with no plan to improve wild populations, and the Secretary would have to approve it.

We've heard for years from the Chairman that wildlife need habitat and that we need to incentivize habitat restoration. This bill takes us in the opposite direction. It allows more habitat destruction without proper safeguards, plus it would lead to genetic bottlenecks, disease outbreaks, and a lot of wasted money. This is not a serious attempt at improving outcomes for endangered species, and I urge this committee to reject this bill. I yield back.

Further discussion on the bill?

We're on the, on the underlying bill. I recognize myself. I support H.R. 181, Sponsored by Representative McClintock. This bill highlights the importance of artificial propagation as a recovery tool for federally listed species.

It also addresses the current challenges the regulated community faces due to broad agency discretion over the treatment of artificially propagated species in ESA implementation enforcement. The Endangered Species Act was enacted in part to provide a means whereby ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened species may be conserved. The ESA goes on to define the word conserved to mean, quote, the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species "to the point at which the measures provided in the act are no longer necessary," end quote. With those goals in mind, the federal government has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on artificial propagation, such as fish hatcheries, over multiple decades to recover listed species. In many cases, water or power users who get their supplies from federal infrastructure projects are asked to foot the bill for these hatcheries.

However, regulations issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service have been inconsistent in how they treat artificially propagated members of a species under the ESA. In some cases, artificially propagated species are taken into account. In others, they are not. It seems to me that if we continue to spend millions of dollars annually to try to save these species through artificial propagation, those who foot the bill should also get credit for it.

And this doesn't take away the need to manage habitat and to provide great habitat for all our species. That is the best way to conserve species. But we should also not discount other methods that are all working towards the same goal. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 181, And I yield back.

Is there further discussion on the bill?

Hearing none, it is now in order to consider amendments to H.R. 181.

We'll now consider the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 181 Offered by myself, designated McClintock 72 ANS. Without objection, the amendment is considered read and open to amendment at any point.

I support the ANS to H.R. 181, Which further clarifies the intent of the underlying bill by ensuring that both artificially and naturally propagated populations of a species are considered as part of the ESA Section 7 process. As I said, artificial propagation methods like fish hatcheries are often paid for by beneficiaries of federal infrastructure projects who are therefore subject to ESA Section 7 compliance. These entities should receive credit for their extensive investments in these conservation tools. Urge my colleagues to support the ANS, and I yield back.

Is there further discussion on the ANS? If there's no further discussion on the amendment, it's now in order to consider amendments to the ANS to H.R. 181. We will now consider the amendment designated Grajalva No. 1 Offered by the gentlewoman from Arizona, Ms. Grajalva.

Without objection, the amendment is considered read. Ms. Grajalva, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 181 As written, particularly in its overreliance on artificial propagation.

Artificial propagation. At its core, the Endangered Species Act reflects a simple but powerful principle: we have a responsibility to prevent the extinction and give endangered species a meaningful path towards recovery. That means recovery in the wild, not simply keeping a species alive in captivity. That's why I'm offering an amendment today. My amendment would ensure that the artificial propagation remains what it should be: a targeted conservation tool, not a substitute for protecting and restoring the habitat that wildlife depend on.

It would also ensure that these efforts do not undermine the genetic diversity, health, or long-term fitness of wild populations, because a conservation strategy should never create new, new barriers to recovery. Most importantly, my amendment would ensure that artificial propagation is used only when necessary to prevent the jeopardy of a— to a species, and when the best available science supports its use. There are certainly circumstances where artificial propagation has played an important role in conservation. The black-footed ferret, for example, has been brought back from the brink of extinction through carefully managed captive breeding and reintroduction efforts. But we should not confuse a successful tool with a universal solution.

Captive breeding cannot replace habitat protection. It cannot restore an ecosystem that has been degraded or destroyed. It cannot address the underlying threats that caused a species to decline in the first place. These programs can also be incredibly costly when they are used without sufficient safeguards. They can introduce additional risks to wild populations, including reduced genetic diversity, disease transmission, and population bottlenecks.

If we fail to address the root causes of species decline, we are not solving the problem. We are simply managing its consequences, and that is not a standard we should set for conservation. We should use every tool available to protect endangered species, but we must use the tools responsibly, strategically, and based on sound science. Artificial propagation can and should have a place in species recovery when it is truly necessary, but it cannot become a shortcut around the hard work of protecting habitat and restoring ecosystems and addressing the threats that put species at risk in the first place. My amendment helps ensure that H.R.

181 Remains true to its the purpose of the Endangered Species Act, not simply keeping a species alive, but giving them a real and sustainable path to recovery in the wild. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Thank you, and I yield back. The gentlelady yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment?

Mr. McClintock, you're recognized. I would oppose the amendment and simply say I think the gentlelady is misinformed. This does not affect habitat. It merely assures a healthy and ample population in that habitat. I yield back.

I yield back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Mr. Huffman, you're recognized. Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to yield my time to the gentlelady from Arizona. Thank you for that.

Representative McClintock, the issue that I have fundamentally is that it's not protecting what the reason for the decline in the endangered status of that species. And so this would basically just use artificial propagation as the tool it was designed to and not a substitute. For not addressing the real root causes to the extinction in the first place. And reclaiming my time, I just want to agree with the gentlelady and support this amendment. I, I understand that hatcheries and artificial propagation are tools in the toolbox for science-based wildlife management.

That's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about bypassing science and the wildlife managers who know what they're doing in this field and legislating, codifying, hardwiring this definition of artificial propagation as being the exact same thing as wild populations. That fundamentally distorts the entire purpose of the Endangered Species Act, which is to, to recover species for the long haul and to support the improvement of their habitat. I mean, the concept of the canary in the coal mine, after all, was not about canaries. It was about all of us and this world that we inhabit together with wildlife.

So this, this bill fundamentally gets it wrong and distorts the ESA. This amendment would help get it right, and I support it. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment?

I recognize myself. I oppose the amendment. Section 2 of the bill requires the use of artificial propagation within a suite of options. Options as part of the ESA Section 7 process to address impacts to listed species. I want to be clear that artificial propagation for species conservation and recovery is not a substitute for habitat conservation and restoration, but it is a complement to habitat conservation and restoration.

This amendment is— or this is an amendment in search of a problem, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it. I yield my time to Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to add to the point the chairman's made, the amendment narrows the bill's artificial propagation requirement by creating 3 exceptions where the bill would not apply, and those 3 exceptions simply gut the purpose of the bill, which is to assure that artificially propagated species can be included. In all ESA matters.

I would simply remind my friends that a fish born in a hatchery is no more different than a fish in the wild than a baby born at a hospital is different from a baby born at home. The whole point of this measure is to assure that you have healthy population size with species that have been declared endangered. It has nothing to do with habitat. And with that, I yield back. Gentleman yields back.

Is there further discussion? Ms. Dexter, you're recognized. Yeah, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate the gentleman's intention behind that statement, but I will just share that that actually is factually false, that we know that hatchery-born fish are predisposed to more disease and the genetic diversity is limited That is part of the problem here, is that if we are using the same cells to create these genetic offspring, that there is not diversity, which is how we maintain healthy species. And so we do not have the capacity to play God as scientists, and we should absolutely be protecting habitat and ecosystem diversity that cannot be done in a hatchery or a lab or anywhere else.

And it is absolutely false for us to suggest that those will be as healthy as those that are in the wild, succeeding survival of the fittest, we shall say. Thank you. I yield back. Lady yields back. Further discussion on the amendment?

There's no further discussion. The question is on the amendment offered by Ms. Grajalva, designated Grajalva No. 1. All those in In favor, signify by saying aye. Aye.

Those opposed, no. No. Opinion of the chair, the noes have it.

Is there a recorded vote? Yes, I'd like to ask for a recorded vote, please. A recorded vote has been requested. Further proceedings on this amendment will be postponed. Pursuant to the markup notice, it is now in order to consider H.R.

184, The Action Versus No Action Act. Ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Federal Lands be discharged from further consideration of the 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?

Mr. Huffman, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I oppose this bill, the so-called Action Versus No Action Act. Across the West, across our country, communities are facing catastrophic wildfire seasons driven by prolonged historic heat, and over a century of aggressive fire suppression. Our constituents are demanding real solutions that keep their families safe, that safeguard drinking water, and restore ecological health to our public lands.

Unfortunately, this bill falls short of that mandate. Instead, it would strip away one of our most effective mechanisms for developing good science-based projects. That is the requirement to examine a reasonable range of alternatives. NEPA is an instrument of collaboration. It brings together local communities, tribal leaders, foresters, conservationists, and industry partners to study landscapes, to identify localized risks, and craft tailored solutions to get it right.

H.R. 184 Would obliterate that tool. It would force land managers into a false binary: rubber stamp a single proposal or do nothing at all. The bill relies on the definition of collaboration from the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, a law that already authorizes streamlined review for several types of projects, including expedited authority to combat insects and disease. The concern here is cutting out the public.

Since the definition of collaboration can be interpreted very loosely, this would— there would be nothing stopping industry groups from assembling a superficial collaborative —of like-minded stakeholders simply to check a box and exploit the two-alternative shortcut. This dilutes and undermines genuine, meaningful, multi-stakeholder collaboration. And to make matters worse, the bill arbitrarily loads the no-action alternative with mandatory negative analysis while barring agencies from exploring common-sense middle grounds. Limiting agencies' discretion this way would partly repeal decades of case law and NEPA's hard look doctrine. Let's be candid about what's actually slowing down work in the woods, in our forests.

The Forest Service already clears roughly 90% of its forest management decisions using categorical exclusions. NEPA is not the boogeyman for all of that. The real bottleneck is capacity. While my colleagues across the aisle claim that they want to speed up forest management, the Trump administration has repeatedly pushed to gut, freeze, and dismantle the very agency tasked with that mission. You can't build resilient forests while hollowing out the U.S. Forest Service.

Slashing staff, forcing out veteran career scientists, choking operational budgets starves our public lands of the boots on the ground that we need to plan, execute, and monitor projects. Cutting the capacity of the Forest Service while pushing through unvetted logging proposals is a recipe for ecological and administrative failure. We do not have to accept this false choice between clear-cutting public lands or letting towns burn. Democrats have put forward a comprehensive wildfire package that is rooted in science, equity, and accountability. Our approach focuses resources where lives and structures are actually at risk— the wildland urban interface.

Our bill invests in resilient lands and fire-safe communities without shortcuts or gimmicks that sideline the public from the decision-making process. We know how to manage fire risk through localized, real collaboration, robust agency staffing, and targeted investments in community defense. HR 184 abandons all of that. I urge my colleagues to reject this rigid, short-sighted legislation, and I yield back. Mr.

Chair? Mr. McClintock, you're recognized. Mr. Chairman, the ranking member has had his way on these policies now for the 50 years that these environmental laws have choked our ability to defend our forests, and they have not worked. An untended forest is no different than an untended garden.

It's going to grow and grow until it chokes itself to death. And then it will fall victim to disease, pestilence, drought, and ultimately catastrophic fire. That's how nature gardens. She doesn't care that it takes centuries for a forest to regrow. Nature has all the time in the world.

We mortals do care. So at the turn of the 20th century, we set up land management agencies to do the gardening instead. We sent foresters out every year to mark off surplus timber and then auctioned it off to logging companies who paid us to remove it. A quarter of those revenues went to local communities and the rest went back into the forests. The result was healthy, fire-resilient forests, thriving local economies, and a steady stream of revenues.

Then in the 1970s, we began passing laws that have made active forest management endlessly time-consuming and ultimately cost-prohibitive. It now takes an average of 5 years to complete an environmental review before we can even begin to remove excess timber. Timber harvests off the federal lands have fallen 80%. The number of mills has plummeted, and fire has returned to remove the excess. In the last 10 years, we've lost a quarter of our national forests to catastrophic fire.

One of the hallmarks of this bureaucratic paralysis by analysis is requiring every conceivable alternative to a routine forest thinning project to be painstakingly evaluated. The result is that projects become trapped in an endless cycle of study, objections, restudy, appeals, and litigation while hazardous conditions worsen year after year. Doing nothing is not a neutral decision. It is a management decision, and increasingly it's the most destructive decision possible. Every year we delay treatment, forests become more overgrown and stressed, Every year of delay means hotter fires, larger fires, more destruction, and higher suppression costs borne by taxpayers.

This bill simply says that for certain hazardous fuels reduction and forest management projects, agencies should focus their environmental review on two alternatives: the proposed action and the no-action alternative. This legislation does not eliminate environmental review. It does not waive environmental protections. It does not silence public participation. What it does is establish a more efficient and focused review process so agencies can respond to the wildfire emergency before another community burns to the ground.

It applies only to projects located in high-risk wildfire areas or projects developed through collaborative community-based processes. These include projects proposed through resource advisory committees, collaborative partnerships, or community wildfire protection plans. The opponents of active forest management often argue that streamlining the review process somehow threatens the environment, but the greatest threat to our forests today is not responsible forest management, but rather the lack of responsible forest management and the catastrophic wildfire that results. You know, for years we've been trying to complete the Trestle Project in the Eldorado National Forest, It was a forest thinning project on a tract of land that everybody knew mortally menaced the town of Grizzly Flat. The project had been held up by endless NEPA study and litigation for over a decade.

And when the Caldor Fire reached it in August of 2021, that tract exploded out of control and utterly destroyed the entire town. I stood at the center of Grizzly Flat the day after the fire. But there was no way to know where the center was. Everything had been leveled in all directions. There was simply no point of reference.

There's nothing environmentally responsible about allowing millions of acres of forest to incinerate or to allow entire towns to be destroyed because agencies were trapped in procedural delay. The choice before Congress is clear. We can continue down the current path, studying forests until they burn, or we can restore common sense and give land managers the ability to protect these forests from the inevitable result of morbid overgrowth. It represents a practical step toward restoring active management to our federal forests, reducing wildfire risk, and protecting communities that are increasingly living under constant threat. I urge my colleagues to support this common sense bill and help restore responsible stewardship to America's forests before more communities are lost to catastrophic wildfire.

I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Ms. Foyle, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I fully agree that we need more effective and realistic management of our federal forests, particularly as we face increasingly severe wildfire seasons. We've lost nearly 2 million acres so far this year in Oregon. At the same time, our rural timber communities are still feeling the effects of the timber wars, mill closures, and decades of uncertainty in the timber industry. On that, we agree. But I have significant concerns about this legislation, the approach it takes.

Rather than giving land managers more tools and flexibility, this bill instead limits the options available for managing our federal forests. Oregon has an enormous federal land footprint, and we're well aware that federal forest management has severe challenges, but limiting the tools available on top of gutting the federal staff responsible for doing this work does not somehow make that system more effective. We need to be looking for practical solutions that improve forest health, reduce wildfire risk, and support the rural communities that depend on healthy and productive forests. I want to continue working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to find these solutions. And improve how we manage our public federal public lands, including ensuring that we have the federal staff to actually do the job.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation, and I yield back. Gentlelady yields back. Is there further discussion? I recognize myself, and I strongly support H.R. 184, The Action Versus No Action Act, which is sponsored by Representative McClintock.

And I will say this could be one of the most significant pieces of legislation that we could pass for the health of our forest. And I'll also say that it's hard to find any other example of medicine or science or business where you don't analyze the no-action decision. And as Representative McClintock said, no action is an action. That's a management decision when you choose not to manage the forest. And the fact that we're not required to manage the no-action decision may be one of the most moronic, idiotic, lack-of-logic processes that exist in the federal government.

So, Mr. McClintock, thank you for bringing this legislation. I strongly support it, and I yield back the balance of my time. Is there further discussion? On the bill.

Hearing none, it is now in order to consider amendments to H.R. 184. We'll now consider the amendment in the nature of substitute to H.R. 184 Offered by the gentleman from California, Mr. McClintock, designated McClintock, A&S. Without objection, the amendment is considered read and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. McClintock, you're now recognized.

I'd ask for adoption of the amendment and the bill.

Gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the ANS? No further discussion on the amendment. It is now in order to consider amendments to the ANS to H.R. 184.

No amendments to the ANS have been filed. Are there any amendments? Seeing none, the question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 184 Offered by the gentleman from California, Mr. McClintock, designated McClintock, A&S. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Those opposed, no. In 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.

184 Is amended to the House with the recommendation that the bill be favorably approved. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no.

In the opinion of the chairs, the ayes have it. A recorded vote has been requested. Further proceedings will be postponed. We're going to recess for about 5 minutes to give members an opportunity to get here. The committee stands in recess.

The committee will come to order. The chair notes the presence of a quorum. The unfinished business is on the request for recorded vote on amendments to the ANS to H.R. 1555. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system.

The question is on the amendment to the ANS to H.R. 1555 Offered by Ranking Member Huffman, designated Huffman Number 1, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. The clerk will open the vote.

Have 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 ayes 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. 1555 Offered by the chair-designated Westerman, 1A and S. All those in favor, signify with by saying aye. Aye.

Those opposed, no. No. In 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. 1555 As amended to the House with the recommendation that the bill be favorably approved.

All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.

A recorded vote, please. A recorded vote has been requested. Members will record their vote using the electronic voting system. The clerk will open the vote.

Have 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 ayes are 21 and the nays are 16. 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.

Mr. Huffman, do you have an announcement? 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 the notice be extended to all measures considered at the markup.

Under House Rule 11, Clause 2L, this notice extends to all members. Without objection, so ordered. The unfinished business is on the request for recorded vote on amendments to the ANS to H.R. 5745. The question is on the amendment to the ANS to H.R.

5745 Designated Min. No. 2, On which the noes prevail by voice vote. The clerk will open the vote.

Have 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 18 and the nays are 20. The amendment is not agreed to. The question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R.

5745 Offered by the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Eazel, designated Eazel 74 ANS. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed, 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. 5745 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. Members will record their vote using the electronic voting system. The clerk will open the vote.

Have 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 22 and the nays are 16. 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.

The unfinished business is on the request for a recorded vote on amendments to the ANS to H.R. 9621. The question is on the amendment to the ANS to H.R. 9621 Offered by the gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. Dexter. Designated Dexter number 1, on which the noes prevail by voice vote.

The clerk will open the vote.

Have 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 ayes are 18 and the nays are 20. The amendment is not agreed to. The question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended to H.R. 9621, Offered by myself, designated Westerman 91 A&S. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye. Those opposed, no. In 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 H.R.

9621 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. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the bill is ordered reported. 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.

The unfinished business is on the request for recorded vote on amendments to the ANS to H.R. 181.

The question is on the amendment to the ANS to H.R. 181 Offered by the gentlewoman from Arizona, Ms. Grajalva, designated Grajalva No. 1, On which the no is prevailed by voice vote. The clerk will open the vote.

Have all members voted?

Have 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 ayes are 18 and the nays are 20. The amendment is not agreed to. The question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 181 Offered by the gentleman from California, Mr. McClintock, designated McClintock 72 A&S. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

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. 181 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. The opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. And the bill is ordered— or a recorded vote has been requested. Members will record their vote using the electronic voting system.

The clerk will open the vote.

Have 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 ayes are 21 and the nays are 17. 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.

The question now occurs on reporting H.R. 184 As amended to the House with recommendation that the bill be favorably approved. The clerk will open the vote.

Have 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 21 and the nays are 17. 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 Members of the committee, we have worked out an agreement on 12 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. Before we begin, does any member seek time to speak on any of the bills in this unanimous consent motion?

Mr. Whitman, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, good policy begins with good science, and that's exactly what the Earth Mapping Resources Initiative, better known as Earth MRI, represents. Originally established in 2019, Earth MRI is a partnership between the U.S. Geological Survey and state geological surveys to map America's surface and subsurface geology using modern scientific tools. Has become one of the federal government's most effective tools for identifying the mineral resources that will power our economy, strengthen our national security, and reduce our dependence on foreign adversaries. America cannot build a secure critical mineral supply chain or tap into abundant natural resources if we do not first know what resources we have and where they are located.

That is exactly what Earth MRI enables. This legislation explicitly recognizes modern sensing technology integrates additional federal data— datasets like the USGS 3D Hydrography Program, and expands the program's focus to include emerging resources such as geothermal energy and geologic hydrogen. This information will benefit not only critical mineral mapping, but also groundwater management, infrastructure planning, natural hazard assessments, environmental remediation, and scientific research. If we want to secure our supply chains, improve our domestic manufacturing, and bolster our energy independence, We must first start by understanding our own resources. I appreciate the committee's bipartisan collaboration and passage of this legislation and look forward to supporting it on the House floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Mr. Huffman, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to get in this unanimous consent conga line here, and thank you for working with me to consider my bill, H.R. 7254. Under UC. The Bay Area Ridge Scenic Trail Feasibility Study Act would authorize the National Park Service to study the feasibility of designating the Bay Area Ridge Trail as a National Scenic Trail.

This is a very important step in the ongoing preservation of one of our region's crown jewels. The Bay Area Ridge Trail is a scenic multi-use trail stretching 550 miles along ridgeline and foothills that surround San Francisco Bay. It connects more than 75 parks and open spaces and provides recreational opportunities for hikers, cyclists, tourists, and more across 9 Bay Area counties. A National Scenic Trail designation is a fitting recognition that will help complete the trail and put it on par with iconic trails like the Appalachian and the Pacific Crest. This is good company for us to keep.

There are currently more than 415 miles of the trail already complete, and this is an impressive accomplishment in a major metropolitan region home to nearly 5 million Americans. Barrier Ridge Trail connects our communities to the outdoors. It unlocks vital physical, economic, and mental health benefits for our communities, and these benefits would not be possible without the contributions of community groups and volunteers who maintain the trail. And advocate for its ongoing conservation. One of the primary champions has been the Bay Area Ridge Trail Council, which has worked tirelessly for nearly 3 decades to create a trail that circles the entire San Francisco Bay.

A project like this starts with a vision, but it takes hard work and dedication to make it a reality. I also want to thank my Bay Area colleagues who have all joined as co-sponsors, demonstrating the deep local support for this initiative. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I yield back. Gentleman yields back.

Mr. Hupp or Mr. Whitman, you're recognized. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from Securing America's Future Energy supporting H.R. 9640, The Earth MRI Reauthorization Act of 2026. This letter illustrates how the Earth MRI program strengthens the energy and national security of the United States and our allies by helping to onshore critical mineral production. Without objection.

So ordered. Mr. Stauber, you're recognized. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of these— this UC package, which includes Representative Whitman's Earth MRI Reauthorization Act of 2026.

The Earth MRI program has been wildly successful in better understanding our natural geography, along with this incredible mineral wealth we have throughout this great nation. In the first few years of the program, the USGS has done a great job of getting a high-level view of our nation's geography, and we now have the opportunity to dig even deeper deeper by utilizing advanced technology, including airborne gravity gradiometry. This more in-depth analysis can provide us with better clarity on the immense mineral wealth below our feet, further allowing us to responsible— us to responsibly develop the critical minerals that we need to compete in this 21st century. The reauthorization includes language that I was proud to champion, which directs the USGS to conduct this more in-depth analysis using the latest advanced technology, which will ultimately give us a clearer picture of the Duluth complex in northern Minnesota and other important geological formations around the country. I'd like to thank the chairman, the ranking member, and Representative Whitman for their collaborative work to reauthorize this program as well as include this expanded language.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this U.S.C. Package, and I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Ms. Leger Fernandez, you're recognized. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

And I want to rise in support of the entire UC package because it shows that there is bipartisan support and bipartisan work for what we do. And in this instance, it's regarding tribal Indian water rights settlement. As we know, in New Mexico, we say agua es vida, water is life. And water is also key to tribal sovereignty. We need to not just pass the Tribal Indian Water Rights Settlements, but when we see that there needs to be some technical fixes, let's get that done too.

So I want to thank Chairman Westerman as well as Ranking Member Huffman for including my bill, the ANS to H.R. 4598, In today's UC package. H.R. 4598 Provides a simple technical correction to existing settlements and makes sure that The Navajo Nation, Taos Pueblo, and Nambe Pueblo, San Ildefonso, and Tesuca Pueblos, who are part of the AMA settlement, can recover lost settlement funds. This would help the tribes develop water infrastructure for their people.

It's an important opportunity for us to support the economic vitality, health, and culture of those communities. I'm grateful to the tribal leaders and communities for their partnership and support, and I really want to give a big shout out of thanks to Chairman Westman and Ranking Huffman's staff, because we know the staff has been working hard with us to make sure we get all the technical amendments correct. And I thank your staff for doing that. The Senate passed a companion to H.R. 4598 Last December, so hopefully we can get this passed this year and get it done this Congress.

The committee is also marking up Chairman Hurd's H.R. 7954, The Don Young Doug LaMalfa Indian Buffalo Management Act. I am proud to co-sponsor this legislation to help tribes manage their buffalo and buffalo habitat. Indeed, at our hearing in the Indian and Insular Affairs Subcommittee, our witnesses described how buffalo and bison are not just a big part of the economy, they also hold spiritual significance. In the 117th Congress, Chairman Don Young led the legislation, and in the 118th, I then helped it pass passed through the House.

Sadly, it stalled in the Senate. But today, there are 80 member tribes of the Intertribal Buffalo Council, including 9 member tribes in New Mexico. They have been waiting on passage of this bill far too long. I urge my colleagues to support the unanimous consent package. Let's hear it for the buffalo and the bison.

I yield back. The lady yields back. Representative Hurd, you're recognized for 5 minutes. Thank you, Chairman Westerman. I would like to also speak in support of the unanimous consent package, which includes the bill that I'm co-sponsoring with my colleague from New Mexico, the ranking member of the Indian Insular Affairs Subcommittee, Representative Leger Fernandez, H.R.

7954, The Don Young Douglas Malfa Indian Buffalo Management Act. This bipartisan bill will help tribal governments restore and manage buffalo on tribal lands, supporting an animal with profound cultural, spiritual, and economic importance across Indian Country. For many tribes, buffalo are far more than wildlife. They're deeply connected to culture, spirituality, food, economic opportunity, and tribal identity. This bill puts tribes in the lead by restoring that relationship.

The bill also honors Don Young and Doug LaMalfa, 2 great friends of Indian Country who worked for years to advance this effort. I'm proud to carry their work forward. Importantly, the bill uses existing authorities and does not authorize new spending. I want to thank you, Chairman Westerman, our committee staff, and our tribal partners for helping to move it forward. With that, I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Ms. Stansbury, you're recognized for 5 minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And I also rise today to say thank you for your support for H.R. 4598. And to my fellow Congresswoman from New Mexico for her leadership on advancing tribal and Pueblo water rights, and particularly this bill which makes technical corrections to a number of our water rights, uh, bills that were passed years ago. I hope that, Mr. Chairman, in the coming weeks and months we can advance a bipartisan policy proposal that helps to address the water rights of our tribes across the United States. I know there are a number of bills that are on the docket this week, and I'm hopeful that once we return in November and December, that the committee will consider putting together a bipartisan coalition to get these across the finish line.

For so many of our tribes, they've waited for generations for this body to act to protect their water rights, which are protected under treaties and winters' rights. And I just want to emphasize what these water rights settlements mean for our communities. They mean pipelines in the ground. They mean wells that have been dug. In the case of the Navajo Nation, it means water being delivered to homes that for generations have never had piped water into their homes.

And it means that our tribes are able to help support sustainable economic development, agriculture, which is a part of the culture and way of life of so many of our tribes. And to build on the next chapter for their communities. So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your support, and I look forward to working with you. The gentlelady yields for one moment. Oh, yep.

Yes. I just want to say I wish we could do more on these Indian water rights settlements. I wish— I know there's bipartisan support to, to clear a lot of these out. There is a— with our current rules, and with the way CBO scores things, there's funding concerns, but hopefully we can come up with a way to meet these treaty obligations and work on that in a bipartisan manner. Thank you, Mr.

Chairman, and I hope that the President and administration, since they have found billions of dollars for wars and other tax breaks for folks, can find the resources and heart to actually pass bills that will fund vital needs for tribal communities. Thank you. Is there any further discussion?

Seeing none, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 8195, The Responsible Cormorant Management and Control Act of 2026. Without objection, so ordered. Ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 9640, The Earth MRI Reauthorization Act of 2026.

Without objection, so ordered. Ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Federal Lands be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 7254, To amend the National Trail System Act to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study on the feasibility of designating the Bay Area Ridge National Scenic Trail and for other purposes. H.R. 9269, The Renewing the African American Civil Rights Network Act.

H.R. 9600, The Common Sense 250 Act of 2026. H.R. 10136, The Crossed Experimental Force Act of 2026. And S.675, the Theodore Roosevelt Presidential Library Act.

Without objection. So ordered. Ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Indian and Insular Affairs be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 7952. 864, The Don Young Douglas Malfa Indian Buffalo Management Act, and H.R.

8483, The Barona Group of Captain Grant Band of Mission Indians Land Transfer Act of 2026. Without objection, so ordered. I now ask unanimous consent that the following measures be approved and favorably reported as described to the House of Representatives. H.R. 4598, The Technical Corrections to the Northwestern New Mexico Rural Water Projects Act.

Taos Pueblo Indian Water Rights Settlement Act and Amat Litigation Settlements Act, with the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentlewoman from New Mexico, Ms. Leger Fernandez, designated Leger Fernandez 108 ANS. H.R. 7254, To amend the National Trail System Act to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study on the feasibility of designating the Bay Area Ridge National Scenic Trail and for other purposes. With an amendment offered by the ranking member, Mr. Huffman, designated Huffman Number 1, revised. H.R.

7954, The Don Young Douglas Moffat Indian Buffalo Management Act. H.R. 8195, The Responsible Cormorant Management and Control Act of 2026, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Wahlberg, designated Wahlberg 42 ANS. H.R. 8483, The Barona Group of Captain Grande Band of Mission Indians Land Transfer Act of 2026, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Hurd, designated Hurd 64 ANS.

H.R. 9269, The Renewing the African American Civil Rights Network Act, with an amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Neguse, designated Neguse number 1. H.R. 9600, The Common Sense Act— or Common Sense 250 Act of 2026. H.R.

9640, The Earth MRI Reauthorization Act of 2026, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Whitman, designated Whitman 59 A&S. H.R. 9785, The South Dakota Water Feasibility Studies Act, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the chair, designated Westerman 92 A&S. H.R. 10136, The CrossFit Experimental Force Act of 2026, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the chair, designated Westerman 1 ANS.

H.R. 10306, The Technical Corrections to the Shoshone Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation Water Rights Settlement Act of 2025, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Amadei, designated Amadei 32 ANS. 2 ANS and S.675, the Theodore Roosevelt Presidential Library Act. Without objection. So ordered.

Without objection. The motions to reconsider are laid upon the table. 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.

Is there any further business? Seeing none, the committee stands adjourned.