Mark up of: • H.R. 755 (Rep. Ciscomani)

The 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 for the record. I ask that members may revise and extend the remarks on the bill to be considered to this mark-up, and have those remarks included in the record without objection. So ordered, without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recess of the committee at any time. Pursuant to Committee Rule three, I, the Chair, announces that I may postpone further proceedings today on the question of approving any measure or matter or adopting an amendment on which a recorded vote is ordered. I now recognize myself for an opening statement. Good afternoon. Thank you all for joining us for the full committee mark-up. We're considering two bills under regular order. The first bill will appropriately elevate the designation of a current National Lakeshore to a National Park and Preserve. The second bill will provide efficiency and clarity in the grazing permit process on federal grasslands. In addition, we will consider ten additional bills under unanimous consent. As we celebrate America's two hundred and fiftyth birthday, national parks and public lands remind us of the natural resources and beauty we as Americans have a responsibility to steward. These iconic places represent the best of America, and only the most special and unique places throughout the country are awarded national park status. representing the crown jewels of our nation's public lands. H R fifty four ninety seven the Apostle Islands National Park and Preserve Act, introduced by Congressman Tiffany, will redesignate the Apostle Islands National Lake Shore as a national park and preserve. Importantly, this would make the Apostle Islands our nation's sixty-fourth national park, and establish Wisconsin's first and only national park. Often referred to as Wisconsin's crown jewel, the Apostle Islands on Lake Superior are home to rich historic cultural resources forest and pristine habitat and abundant outdoor recreation opportunities representative tiffany's legislation protects the area's existing uses and simply redesignates the apostle islands to denote its national park status while this may be a simple change on the surface because it does not affect the boundary or management of this unit it carries significant weight and will ensure thousands of additional visitors travel to the apostle islands every year This in turn helps support local communities and outdoor recreation businesses. Mister Tiffany's bill is an opportunity to recognize a place that contributes to our national heritage and to the beauty of our national landscapes. Our second regular order bill is HR sixty-three hundred, the Grasslands Grazing Act, introduced by Representative Hagerman. This bill will improve transparency and bring parity to grazing permittees across the entire national forest system. Across the country, the U. S. Forest Service manages one hundred and ninety, million acres of land including nearly four million acres of national grasslands on these grasslands grazing permittees generally receive ten year terms with the option to renew however due to technical issues permittees on grasslands within national forest do not have the same statutory clarity on permit renewal that grazers on other the other approximately one hundred and ninety million acres or one hundred eighty nine million acres of the national forest system receive grazing on federal lands is an important multiple use that not only but provides affordable food to millions of Americans. Grazing is also a known tool to counteract invasive species and reduce wildfire risk, thereby providing a cost-effective mechanism to ensure healthy ecosystems while also producing affordable American food and fiber. Representative Hagerman's bill provides a technical fix that addresses the inconsistent treatment of grazing permits on grasslands, and provides uniformity across federally managed grazing lands. This common sense change will ultimately improve rangeland health and boost rural economies. Finally, we will consider ten unanimous consent bills on which we have reached bipartisan agreement. These bills cover a wide variety of issues, from designating new historic landmarks and national parks, to establishing methods to aid enforcement against illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing. The bills also include legislation to add critical minerals, or materials to the critical minerals definition, and streamlined broadband deployment in rural and tribal communities. I thank sponsoring members for their work on these bills and appreciate the bipartisan agreement reached on the legislation. I look forward to our discussions today, and I yield back, and I recognize Ranking Member Huffman for any opening statement he may have.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Before we get into the specifics of the bills on today's agenda, I do want to address a fundamental failure that we continue to see. in this committee uh from the Republican majority, and that is a a failure to carry out Congress's most basic oversight responsibility over this administration, really the failure to do any level, any scintilla, any modicum of meaningful oversight uh of what's going on with this administration. And there's plenty that really calls out for oversight, my goodness. Uh, we are seeing financial scandals, we are seeing all manner of norms and precedents and laws broken in ways that would have previously been unthinkable. Um, everything's for sale. Everything's transactional. There is so much grift, so much abuse. And yet, never, uh, does anyone on this committee on the other side of the aisle ask so much as a question, let alone engage in meaningful oversight of this lawless administration. Uh, that's a shame. Uh, that's a complete betrayal of our Article-one responsibility, and it's also a betrayal of what this committee is supposed to be doing as the Article-one branch uh of government uh in the space of Natural Resource Committee jurisdiction. So to add insult to injury, the majority isn't sing- simply looking the other way at all of these scandals, and abuses, and crimes. Today we are once again considering legislation that would erode the transparency that we do have. and the accountability that we do have uh for the agencies that we oversee. So let me start with HR sixty-three hundred, the Grassland Grazing Act. This bill together with the amendment and the nature of the substitute that we're about to consider would dramatically expand an existing loophole that limits NEPA reviews for certain grazing activities on a subset of forest service lands. And it would do that specifically by extending this NEPA loophole to all forest service lands across the nation including national grasslands and national forests throughout the eastern United States. Uh, to put it simply, this is an egregious overreach. At its most basic level, NEPA simply requires federal land agencies to evaluate the impacts of major decisions, to consider alternatives, and disclose their decisions to the public before acting. It's about transparency. When you undercut NEPA for major federal actions, you weaken transparency, you weaken and certainly you weaken accountability. You make it harder for Congress and the public to understand what agencies are doing and why. And maybe that's the point these days. That seems to be the agenda. Despite claims to the contrary, H R sixty three hundred is not a pro-rancher bill in any meaningful sense. A truly pro-rancher bill would actually deal with the pressing challenges facing ranchers right now, corporate consolidation. Trade deals, tariffs, uh, things in our jurisdiction, uh, like the health of rangeland in the face of the climate crisis and climate extremes. But agencies, uh, right now lack the technology and the resources and staffing capacity to do their job. That's impacting ranchers. And this administration has only worsened that problem as it's worked to gut the federal workforce. But we don't see our colleagues talking about any of that. Rather than uh addressing capacity problems, this bill would paper over them by limiting environmental review and public disclosure around federal decisions. It replaces transparent accountable management with a process that will only invite controversy and instability, and it sends a clear message to communities that care about clean water, public lands, wildlife, and recreation that their concerns don't matter. So turning to HR fifty-four ninety-seven, we see a similar aversion to public disclosure. and engagement. And I'll say at the outset, this is a bill I wish I could support. Um, Congressman Tiffany did reach out to discuss the bill. It, it involves a beautiful part of the country. Uh, I can understand why, uh, he, he is drawn to it and many others are. We did engage. That's how the process should work. Uh, the problem is that the impact to tribal communities do not feel like they have been adequately consulted. And I take that concern very seriously. Moving forward with this bill today over tribal and without tribal consultation sends a clear message, it says that the majority doesn't care about tribal consultation or listening to tribal concerns, much less about trying to address them before moving ahead. Um, so, Mister Chairman, I look forward to, um, the rest of the regular order bills on today's agenda. Um, we shouldn't have so many of these partisan differences. Congress, however, does have a constitutional duty to engage in oversight. with the executive branch regardless of who occupies the White House. And as we see so often in this committee, the agenda just continues to reflect a complete um abdication of that responsibility that is deeply troubling to me and many others. I yield back.

The gentleman yields back pursuant to the mark-up notices now in order to consider HR fifty-four ninety-seven the Apostle Islands National Park and Reserve Act. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open to amendment at any point. Does any member wish to be recognized for the purpose of debate on the bill?

If I may, Mister Chairman.

Mr. Tiffany, you're recognized.

Thank you very much. I am so pleased to have HR fifty four ninety seven, the Apostle Islands National Park and Preserve Act, to be designated as Wisconsin's first national park. As you said, Mister Chairman, the crown jewel of Wisconsin, and that is how we view it. You take a look at a good map of Wisconsin and there are the islands scattered on the very top of the state, it truly is the crowning jewel of our great state of Wisconsin. And there is no place in America like the Apostle Islands. This area contains a collection of underwater shipwrecks and what the National Park Service calls the largest and finest collection of lighthouses in the country. Ten historic lighthouses of the Apostle Islands range from approximately a hundred and ten to a hundred and seventy years old and offer important glimpses into the maritime history of the Great Lakes region. In the summer months, locals and tourists enjoy hiking, power boating, sailing, kayaking, you can see right behind you, Mister Chairman. Sandy beaches and you discover the solitude and remoteness of the area's many islands as families picnic on these pristine uh on those pristine waters. In the winter when Lake Superior freezes over, the Apostle Islands are uh transformed into dramatic ice caves. that are accessible to hikers, as you can see behind me. These stunning and unique ice formations are considered a bucket list destination and offer world class recreation opportunities. Many of my colleagues on this committee have national parks in their district, and under understand how much of an asset they can be to their states. While our neighboring states, such as Minnesota, Michigan, Indiana, all enjoy national parks, Wisconsin does not yet have one. And the iconic features of these unique islands deserve this long overdue recognition. My legislation is very straightforward. It would simply redesignate the majority of the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore into the Apostle Islands National Park. My bill also maintains the heritage of hunting within the Apostle Islands by designating Sand Island, a popular hunting destination, as the Sand Island National Preserve. Protecting hunting access is paramount to me, And this follows the model of the recently elevated new River Gorge National Park. Importantly, the legislation affirms all treaty rights and tribal sovereignty stating, "Nothing in this act shall be construed as affecting any rights granted, reserved or established pursuant to treaty, statute, or executive order pertaining to any tribe, including, but not limited to, rights to hunt, trap, fish, and gather on lands included within the boundary of Apostle Island's national park and preserve, or any other rights asserted by any tribe. I would also like to note that tribal members were the first to receive any drafts of this bill. It is from consulting with them and receiving their input that we have included that language I just cited. Further, my legislation directs the National Park Service to enhance interpretive displays within the Apostle Islands to include more information about the area's rich fur trade, logging, fishing industries, as well as also honor the Ojibwe tribes. the original inhabitants of the Apostle Islands who have called the area home for centuries. This legislation reflects an effort that has been decades in the making. In nineteen thirty, nearly a century ago, Congress first authorized a study to designate the Apostle Islands as a national park. Roughly forty years later, President John F. Kennedy described the islands as " part of our American heritage", and the area was designated as a national lakeshore an effort spearheaded by the father of Earth Day, Senator Gaylord Nelson. This legislation first received a hearing in the Fab- uh Federal Land Subcommittee last Congress, and was submitted for two rounds of technical assistance with the Biden administration, whose feedback was implemented into this Congress's version. It subsequently was submitted for a third round of technical assistance from the Trump administration. Now, by elevating the Apostle Islands from a national lake shore to a national park, we can ensure that thousands more are able to visit this area. This will be a win for the people in my state and the country at large, as more people get to enjoy the crown jewels of Wisconsin. You can see the beauty of the islands in the pictures behind me. But for those who haven't had the chance to experience this beauty up close, I would like, I would like to extend my invitation to you to visit us in northern Wisconsin, especially right now. Beautiful winter. It is my hope that many more will be able to experience this hidden gem once the Apostle Islands are designated as Wisconsin's first national park. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back.

The gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the bill? Mister Huffman, you're recognized.

Thank you, uh, Mister Chairman. So, Democrats, of course, are proud to support national parks on this committee. We fight all the time to strengthen them, to fund them, to defend them from constant attacks, often from our colleagues across the aisle. National parks are uh sacred to us because they tell our nation's stories, they preserve our natural and cultural resources for future generations. And so um the the prospect of designating a new national park is uh you know immediately intriguing. And uh on the surface at least uh compelling, but it's not something that should ever be done lightly. It requires us to do it right and to engage in thorough um consultation with tribal and local communities and that's where um we we break down a bit in this discussion. Since the discussion draft was released, I have consistently heard from the Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior, Chippewa, and the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior, Chippewa, that they oppose the legislation. Redcliffe has told me that they haven't been meaningfully consulted on the bill, despite the full tribal council requesting a meeting with Congressman Tiffany for more than eighteen months. And I heard uh my friend say that he sent them a draft. Clearly, that's not what they mean by meaningful consultation. They have articulated what they want, what they mean, the kind of respect they deserve as a a sovereign tribal government. And I think you should give it to them. I think it's not too much to ask. H R fifty four ninety seven, uh, however, is part of a pattern, a larger pattern of this administration and this majority prioritizing their own interests, uh, while showing the ambivalence, if not antipathy, to the trust and treaty relationships and obligations we have to tribal nations. Uh, Representative Tiffany and I met a few weeks ago to discuss this bill. I told him, " I agree, this place is spectacular, it's beautiful." Uh, there's not any dispute about that. And we did hear uh that his office had proactively engaged and consulted with Redcliffe. That's what we were told, but Redcliffe disputes this. And the tribe has stated that the sponsor of the legislation has failed to provide any meaningful information, expressed concern about the potential detrimental impacts uh to the people who live there, if the legislation were enacted in its current form. So I I don't think that uh any tribal entity is saying that there can never be a national park here, or should never be a national park here, but uh the way it is enacted, the way their interests are addressed in legislation like this, uh is a very legitimate subject for meaningful tribal consultation, and at least to their telling that has not happened. And I don't I don't quite understand what seems to me like like some sort of a stubborn impasse. Uh, just do it. Just give them the consultation they're asking and let's see uh where this lands. This is an interesting uh sort of role reversal, uh this conversation that we're having because my Republican colleagues arguing for this bill today, uh after having repeatedly pushed to slash the Park Service's budget, uh dismantle the workforce of the National Park Service, weaken environmental sell off public lands um i- is sort of what we're accustomed to and yet today the script is flipped a little and we're hearing that they are at least in this moment uh champions for a new national park. Um I just want to remind everyone that Democrats have spent the past year working to try and protect our national parks from Republicans' relentless attacks. Uh we are interested in doing more to support national parks and potentially expanding the national park system and adding to it, but we wanna do it right. And we shouldn't have a false choice where uh you're presented with either a new, a new park, uh or doing wrong by our obligations to Indian country. We should be able to do both at the same time. So uh I I think all of us on this side would love to have new land designations and new protections for our nation's special places, but uh let us honor our obligations to tribal and local communities as we do that, and for this reason I must unfortunately oppose the legislation. And I yield back.

Do you want me to yield this back? Is there further discussion on the bill? Recognize myself and our national parks and public lands have famously been called America's best idea. It's time to put Wisconsin's crown jewel into the group of best ideas that we have all around the country. And I think this is a great way to celebrate our nation's two hundred and fiftieth anniversary by designating our country's sixty-fourth national park. Uh, this would also be Wisconsin's first national park, as has been stated, and it will be bring well-deserved recognition and tourism to the state. I commend Representative Tiffany for his uh hard work on this. He serves as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Federal Lands. and this is uh an issue that he's passionate about. It is unfortunate that a bill like this is not being considered under unanimous consent. Our national parks should be uh non-partisan and that is especially true of this legislation which effectuates just a simple name change. Nothing in Representative Tiffany's legislation would change the management of the area or the boundary of the unit. In fact, Representative Tiffany has gone to great pains to ensure that this simple name change will have no unintended consequences. He has requested and received technical assistance on this bill three times to ensure that existing uses including tribal treaty and reserve rights, as well as hunting and trapping on Sand Island remain protected. The reality is that if you put politics aside and look at the proposal on its merits, this iconic destination is more than worthy of Anybody who travels to the Apostle Islands uh should understand that this is truly a unique place, which deserves to be recognized and I hope will be visited by millions of Americans for generations to come. Again, I want to thank Representative Tiffany for his leadership on the issue, which is very important to his constituents. And as I uh urge my colleagues to vote yes, I would just ask the question what's taken so long for such a beautiful place i yield back is there further discussion on the bill hearing none it is now in order to consider amendments to hr fifty four ninety seven did you have a question

yes should i have an amendment

good

ok we're we'll we're gonna do the ans

mmm

we'll now consider the amendment in the nature of a substitute to hr fifty four ninety seven offered by the gentleman from wisconsin mister tiffany designated tiffany thirty nine ans without objection the amendment is

Uh, thank you, Mister Chairman. I'd like to speak in uh in regards to the ANS. It's very simple and straightforward. It requires the official map of the Apostle Islands to be made available on a National Park Service's web site, in addition to being available at the appropriate National Park offices. Making this map accessible online will allow better access to information for people

Gentlemen, feel yeah, I yield back to their further discussion on the amendment. There's no further discussion on the amendment. It's now in order to consider amendments to the ANS to HR fifty four ninety seven. And we will uh now consider the amendment designated Huffman number one, offered by ranking member Huffman. Without objection,

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, so this amendment would allow the uh, Possel Islands National Lakes Shore to become a national park and preserve. But the designation would be contingent on the one thing that answers your question, Mr. Chairman, from a moment ago. What has taken so long? Why aren't we already there? Well, uh, the answer is that there still has not been a meaningful formal government-to-government tribal consultation. So this amendment, which I think is a very reasonable amendment to to get us all on the same page and to allow this to move forward, um, it would simply require that, uh, before the park becomes a park, that interior must complete a formal government-to-government tribal consultation. Now I appreciate that Mister Tiffany's taken an interest in this beautiful place. I get it. That's a, it's a goal that those of us on the Democratic side of the aisle share. But when we develop plans to preserve and protect special places, we must include meaningful community engagement, shareholder outreach, and tribal consultations. Now, these processes can be time-consuming and challenging. It often requires specific uh, sacrifice and compromise. I have done it. I know. Uh, many of my colleagues on this side of the dais have done it too, and sometimes it can take years to build relationships and establish a foundation. of trust, but a truly collaborative process makes for durable outcomes. It is the key to creating a solution that works for affected communities, and that's especially important when we're talking about tribes and their ancestral lands, which we are in this case. Nowhere is this more important than in that space, um, with tribal land designation tribes affected by land designation. So I'd like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the hearing record resolutions from uh the Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa and the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, opposing the designation of Apostle Islands as a national park. That should be part of the record.

Without objection. So ordered.

Uh tribes in the area have repeatedly raised their concerns about this legislation and what we hear over and over again is about this absence of meaningful consultation. For years they've asked for direct conversations Uh, and they haven't gotten it. So, uh, these tribes have a deep connection to this place. They have been formally involved in conservation and land management efforts at Apostle Islands. Since at least twenty twelve, tribal members continue to hunt, trap, fish, uh, pray, hold ceremonies, and gather medicinal plants in this area. A significant portion of Apostle Islands is even within the boundaries of the Red Cliff Reservation. Now, since we've heard from affected tribal communities saying that they haven't been, consulted. The very least we can do is require, as this legislation goes forward, uh that the Park Service offer a formal consultation process for a proposal that could significantly change their tribal access to culturally significant and ancestral lands that is the least we should be willing to do. I urge my colleagues to support this narrowly tailored, sensible amendment and I yield back.

Gentleman yields back, is there further discussion on the amendment? Mister Tiffany, you're recognized.

Uh, thank you Mister Chairman, I oppose the amendment uh from the ranking member because the executive order referenced in the amendment does not apply here because the bill has no impact on the relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes. In fact, the language in the base bill which we added from consulting with tribal members, explicitly stipulates that it doesn't change anything regarding tribes. Specifically, the bill says that " nothing in this act shall be construed as affecting any rights granted, reserved, or established pursuant to treaty, statute, or executive order pertaining to any tribe." Ranking member Huffman's amendment is about having tribal consultation, yet that is exactly how we've gone about the process of forming this bill. Back in July of twenty twenty three, the very first draft of the bill was shared with Red Cliff's Vice Chair. In March of twenty twenty four, both the Red Cliff and Bad River tribal chairs were given an updated draft. We took their concerns over preserving treaty rights and MOUs very seriously, which is why we included those protections in this bill. If there were any substantive abjeb objections to this bill, then we'd be talking about those as but all this amendment would do is delay. And I would highlight for you, Mister Chairman, the Red Cliff, and this is important for all members to know. When this was established as a national lake shore in nineteen seventy, Senator Gaylord Nelson from Wisconsin, the father of Earth Day, was the author of this. To be a national lake shore. And the Red Cliff tribe opposed it. They've opposed it when Democrats have um introduced it. Now they're opposing it when a Republican does. So There is no reason for us not to go forward with this. And I urge my colleagues to for us to go forward with the bill. But I urge my colleagues to oppose this unnecessary amendment.

And I yield back.

The gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Mister Soto, you're recognized. Thank you, Mister Chairman, I yield to our illustrious ranking member.

Who's that? I thank the gentleman.

Talking about you, sir.

I appreciate it. Um, Mister Tiffany, I I really wanna get to yes, and and be able to work with you on this, but I I have to say it it just got harder because uh your response uh to a very narrowly tailored amendment that would simply say do a government-to-government consultation before this and that shouldn't be threatening to anyone it's a it's a requirement that frankly the federal government ought ought to always do anyway uh what is it about a government-to-government consultation that would somehow stand in the way uh of this um becoming a national park It might affect some of the details of how the park takes shape, but um that seems to me like uh an eminently reasonable request. And in response, uh I guess the entirety of the consultation that's taken place so far uh was just laid out. It consists of sending a couple of drafts to some individuals at the at the tribes. That is not meaningful consultation. If anything, you're sort of uh making the point that I think the tribes themselves have made, that they wanna, they want the respect of a face-to-face, government-to-government meaningful consultation, not some carbon copy of a document that was dropped off to some individual. Uh, now you may recall that when we had adopted the rules of this committee, that we had a debate about tribal consultation and Republican members assured us that they do and would uh, engage in tribal consultation. And, and, you know, what we're hearing today, quite frankly, uh, causes me to question, uh, whether that is a value that we both share. Uh, it certainly seems to be something that is lacking in this particular case, but it's easily fixed. And I don't know what is standing in the way of just sitting down with these folks, trying to work out their concerns. Part of this national park would appear to be within the boundaries of their reservation. So, I think they've got a legitimate interest here uh in meaningful consultation and frankly the the antipathy to the whole concept of having that kind of consultation, if anything I think raises red flags about this legislation, so I yield back.

Yellman yields back. Mister Soto. Yield back, Chairman. Miss Hagerman, you're recognized.

Yes, I yield uh my time to Mister Tiffany.

Thank you, uh, to the gentle lady from Wyoming. Uh, Mister Chairman, I'd like to enter into the record the timeline of the Apostle Islands legislation in contact with Red Cliff and Bad River and, and I would just add in regards to this. While it's not comprehensive, the thirteen points, cuz there's more than that in this document, and I'm happy to share it with any of you. There are thirteen different instances where we engaged with the tribe and tribal members in regards to this legislation. We worked hard at this and they were the very first people, the very first people that we contacted that we were considering this. Um, we did our job

Without a without objection, so ordered.

We did our job diligently and I yield back.

I yield uh I I I yield back. Do you wanna let he yields back? Is there further discussion on the amendment? i recognize myself i do uh oppose this amendment because i do also believe it's unnecessary and it will just further delay the implementation of the legislation and i would also like to point out that this amendment calls for something that's totally and entirely unprecedented and thanks to the work of the illustrious staff on this committee they discovered that the secretary has never conducted a formal consultation before an existing park unit is elevated to national park status. So what this amendment would do would be setting a new precedent. This never been done before and it would further delay. So I I oppose the amendment and I encourage others to oppose it as well. Is there further discussion on the amendment? If there's no further discussion on the amendment, the question is on the amendment offered by ranking member Huffman, doesn't.

aye aye no alright

in the opinion of the chair the no's have it and the amendment is not agreed to

uh request recorded vote

a recorded vote has been requested further proceedings on this amendment will be postponed pursuant to the mark up notice it is now in order to consider hr sixty three hundred the grasslands grazing act of twenty twenty five ask unanimous consent that the subcommittee on federal lands be discharged from further consideration

Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Westerman.

Thank you.

I urge that the members of the Natural Resources Committee to support my bill, HR sixty-three hundred, the Grasslands Grazing Act. This legislation would put ranchers with permits to graze on national grasslands in parity with those grazing on other federal lands. Section four O two, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, or FLPM, authorizes grazing permits for ten years on national forest and bureau of land management lands with renewal eligibility subject to continued compliance. Grazing on national grasslands is designated by the Bankhead Jones Farm Tenant Act and authorized for ten years but it is not protected and recognized as an official use similar to FLPM. Ranchers with permits to graze on national grasslands are not guaranteed permit renewals and have experience. unnecessary hurdles from the USDA in obtaining these renewals. When the federal land subcommittee held a legislative hearing on this bill, Ty Checketts, the president of the Association of National Grasslands, spoke to the challenges these ranchers face. He stated that the exclusion of national grasslands under FLPMMA creates two classes of permits with the grasslands having fewer rights. He testified that the lack of assurances leads to real world harms, pointing to the loss of AUMs on multiple grasslands, across several different states. The US Forest Service testimony also recognized the disparity of policy for livestock grazing permits and leases between national forests and national grasslands. H R sixty-three hundred is a permanent fix to this issue, providing much needed certainty and security for ranchers, including the right to ten year permits, first priority for receipt of new permits, and more. Senator Bar- Senator Barrasso is the sponsor of the Senate companion, joined with Senators Lemes and Thune, and I want to thank him for his continued leadership and partnership advocating for Wyoming's ranchers. I urge my colleagues to support HR sixty-three hundred, the Grasslands Grazing Act, and I yield back.

The young lady yields back as there's further discussion on the bill. Mister Huffman, you're recognized.

Thank you, uh, Mister Chairman. Uh, I do wanna start where I think we can all find common ground, ranching is a vital part of the American West. It is part of our history, our economy. And when it is done right, uh, it is a partner with our conservation goals. I've met with ranchers from Northern California to the plains of Dakota, uh, the Dakotas who, uh, understand that their livelihood depends on the health of the land. And they are, by and large, good stewards. But let's be clear. Uh, multiple use doesn't mean unlimited use. It doesn't mean unreviewed use. And for years we have seen a trend within this committee towards what I think we have to call auto-pilot management. With the Grazing Improvement Act, Congress created a significant shortcut. The law made it easier and in many cases mandatory to renew grazing permits without doing any environmental review at all. No NEPA, no updated science, just a rubber stamp to keep doing things the way they had always been done. And the result is that we have um, examples of range lands that are overstressed, streams, riparian areas, and other critical ecosystems being degraded because we are not taking that hard look, uh, as the permits come up for renewal. And now, uh, with the Grasslands Grazing Act, we are being asked to export this no-review model to even more landscapes. Doubling down on a policy that has problems, um, and skipping oversight is not efficiency, It is negligence. And my colleagues across the aisle almost always insist on a seven year sunset protocol for all government programs and authorizations. They tell us there's an important reason for that, that it's a marker of good governance. They say it's about accountability, gives Congress a chance to review a program's efficiency and efficacy before we simply sign off on another cycle of doing things the way they've always been done. Um I'm a fan of consistency. And I think that if a seven year sunset is the gold standard for accountability in government, uh, we should apply that same logic to these grazing permits. If we truly care about good governance, we ought to review these permits based on the land's actual conditions. We ought to be willing to take a look and consider how it's going, rather than just hand out automatic renewals on a wing and a prayer. We should apply that same logic. to this legislation. If the program isn't working for the health of the range, it shouldn't be on autopilot. We have uh have to face the reality of the world we're living in. We're in the middle of a climate crisis uh that has rewritten the rules of the West. We are seeing mega drought conditions that haven't been seen in a millennium. What worked on a permit in nineteen ninety five or two thousand and ten might be a recipe for ecological collapse in twenty twenty six. Managing our public lands in the face of these extremes requires more science, not less, and more scrutiny, not less. It requires frequent check-ins, not decade-long get-out-of-jail free cards. We can support the ranching community without taking shortcuts like that. They compromise the future of the land and in the long term, the future of ranching itself. We can provide stability to the ranching industry through partnership Robust science-based management plans that actually account for the water and the grass that's available, and making sure that agencies like the Forest Service have the staff and technology necessary to support the health and vitality of our forests and grasslands. I'm ready to work on real solutions that protect the sustained yield of our grasslands for the next generation, but I cannot support a bill that treats stewardship of our most precious natural resources as a nuisance instead of a core responsibility. uh, which it is. I yield back.

Yeah.

I mean yields back. Is there further discussion? I recognize myself, I strongly support H R sixty three hundred, representative Hageman's grasslands grazing act, uh, for all the reasons I mentioned in my opening statement and the wonderful case that representative Hageman laid out for it in her testimony. Again, this is a narrowly tailored targeted bill that will address a small but s significant inconsistency in our federal grazing laws. create more parity and transparency for those who operate on our national grazing lands. I do thank Representative Hagelman for her leadership on the issue, which will provide great benefits not only to Wyoming, but to states across the nation with national grasslands. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and I yield back the balance of my time. There's a further discussion on the bill. Hearing none, it's now in order to consider amendments to H. R. sixty-three hundred. We'll now consider the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR sixty three hundred offered by the gentlelady from Wyoming, Miss Hagerman, designated Hagerman A and S. Without objection, the amendment is considered read and open to amendment at any point. Miss Hagerman, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chairman Westerman. This amendment in the nature of a substitute makes two changes to the bill. First, it strikes the reference to calendar year twenty twenty five in the bill title. And second, it implements a recommendation provided by the forest service in the legislative hearing to ensure that the benefits of this bill are realized by all grazers on the national grasslands. By also striking quote " in the sixteen contiguous western states" end quote in the existing FLPMAS statute, the bill clarifies that the parity is intended for grazing permits everywhere, including in Texas and in the east. This has the effect of striking five more words from forty-three US Code, section seventeen fifty-two, subsection A, then proposed in the introduced version, and reflects the original policy intent of the bill. I urge my colleagues to support this ANS to HR sixty-three hundred, and I yield back.

Is there further discussion on the amendment? If there's no further discussion on the amendment, it is now in order to consider amendments to the ANS to HR sixty-three hundred. We'll now consider the amendment designated Huffman number one revised, offered by ranking member Huffman. Without objection, the amendment is considered read. Ranking member Huffman, you're not recognized.

Thank you, Mister.

Chairman, this is very simple amendment, it requires the Government Accountability Office to conduct a comprehensive study on the real-world implementation of the Grazing Improvement Act. And the reason for that is uh if if we aren't measuring the health of our grasslands, we aren't really managing them, we're just neglecting them. So um this bill, it's important to acknowledge um, will export a NEPA shortcut to every acre of our national grasslands. That's a big deal. At a minimum, we should have some sense of what that means for the health and sustainability of these ecosystems because uh NEPA is the bedrock environmental law of this country. It requires the government to take a hard look at the impacts of its actions. But under the guise of expedited reviews for grazing permits, uh we have seen a massive surge in permits being renewed automatically without any meaningful environmental oversight or analysis and my amendment simply asks the GAO to take a look at that and to find out exactly how many permits are bypassing updated NEPA analysis, what is that doing to our soil and water and our ecosystems, we need to know if expedited is just a polite word for cutting corners. Right now, we are essentially flying blind. Uh, we have millions of acres of public land, and yet we lack recent reliable data on the health of many of those allotments. And this isn't just a paperwork issue. Uh, we're facing a climate crisis, historic droughts, the institutional chaos of the Trump administration, which has spent the last year hollowing out our land management agencies. We cannot protect these landscapes from the stresses of a changing climate if we don't even have a baseline for their current condition. Now, the revised version of this amendment that I filed this morning Also includes an analysis of monitoring standards to understand if we're using the best methods to fully understand overall range land health. It also directs GAO to compare methodologies used by PLM and the Forest Service, so we can try to measure in the same way across these agencies. Finally, this amendment addresses the people problem. Can you uh, you can have the best regulations in the world, but if you don't have staff on the ground, to monitor compliance with the necessary tools and technology to perform oversight, those regulations aren't worth very much at all. And we're in the midst of a staffing emergency. The GAO study will analyze how staffing shortages and technology shortfalls are directly impacting the ability of BLM and the forest service to do their job. The goal is not to end public land grazing far from it. Uh, it is to ensure that management is science-based and that agencies are properly equipped to monitor the permitting process so that we can do it right, uh, for a long time, hopefully. If we can't get a full NEPA review on every allotment today, the very least we can do is have the GAO take this look and tell us the truth about what's happening on the ground. I urge my colleagues to support this common sense good governance amendment and I yield back.

Is there further discussion on the amendment? Miss Hagerman, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. I am opposed to this amendment for several reasons, and one is that I do believe the ultimate goal is to ban grazing on federal lands. Uh, several of the organizations that Mister Huffman is associated with, the whole idea of uh Cattle Free by ninety-three and various other organizations have uh been very clear in their intent and their goal of banning grazing on federal lands. I think this is just one more step in that direction, in a way to undermine what it is that we are trying to do here, which is bring parity. across uh the various agencies for grazing on federal lands. And for this proposed study is only loosely connected to the bill's focus. The bill is focused on grazing on national grasslands, while the tenets of the study are broadly about other aspects of the federal grazing program which are not impacted by the amendments made to this bill. Second, simply piling more studies onto the GAOA desk is an all too familiar strategy here in Congress. which accomplishes very little but growing the size of the GAO. Third, the proposed study is either something GAO would struggle to complete or have to expend extensive resources to complete, since a determination of range land health requires a long-term monitoring monitoring and not and not a one point in time assessment. Fourth, I am concerned about the content of the GAO study proposed in this amendment, as it appears that it is very leading in nature and suggests a breed predetermined outcome, that grazing is bad for federal lands. The criteria proposed for the GAO study suggests a short-changing a short-changing of NEPA, which also is not true. The agencies cannot authorize grazing without following NEPA and the agents, but the agencies can use categorical exclusions, which are in fact NEPA documents. Ranchers are the original conservationists who have a vested interest in the health of the land, to imply and to imply that their operations are harmful to

The gentlelady yields back.

Okay.

Is there further discussion on the amendment? I recognize myself, I do oppose this amendment, which again would add unnecessary or add an unnecessary GAO study to Representative Hagerman's legislation. Uh, this is a straightforward, simple fix to create parity, and it's not a complicated piece of legislation that needs a GAO s a GAO study to accompany it. Unfortunately, it appears that the amendment is more of a a gotcha type amendment that will be used to boast anti-grazing policies. If if you look at the amendment, it specifically forces the GAO to study acres that are " failing to meet land health standards due to livestock grazing". This one-sided directive completely ignores the on the ground realities of grazing, which provides enormous benefits to range land health, including uh to reduce invasive grasses and hazardous fuels that can start devastating wildfires. Uh, for these reasons, the amendment is not supported by the people whom it would principally affect, which are America's ranchers. Indeed, the Public Lands Council, which represents twenty-two thousand federal grazing permittees across the country, opposed the amendment. Um, I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment and support the underlying legislation, which would protect America's ranchers, bolster rural economic economies, and help lower input costs that go into producing beef across the nation. With that, I yield back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? If there's no further discussion on the amendment, the question is on the amendment offered by ranking member Huffman, designated Huffman number one, revised. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, no.

No.

In opinion of the chair, the no's have it. And the amendment

I have a request for a recorded vote.

A recorded vote has been requested. Further proceedings on this amendment will be postponed. For a brief moment, I thought I'd convince Mister Huffman

i was thinking about it

we will now um uh go into recess until approximately two forty five p m when we will begin voting

i'm not sure if it's the same thing as the one i just had for breakfast today.

Yeah.

i'm sure it's the same thing. It was just a lot of food. There are like, most of the food that i just had was like, like, the green onion, the onion, the garlic, the garlic. And i had a little bit of a little bit of a

Yeah, it's the same thing,

salad,

it's the same thing.

and then i had a little bit of a salad and then i had a salad with my friend for dinner. i had like, a salad with my friend and then i had a salad with my friend for dinner. And then i had a salad with my friend for dinner.

oh yeah oh yeah yeah

i know but after i was like no how do you know when it's my fault that's because of my own no no you did like i was scared oh oh god i was like oh no i was like no but i know like yeah it's because of my own oh yeah yeah so i had like a like a wedding like a wedding nice yeah and i was like oh yeah i want to do that so i was like oh yeah i want to do that so i was like oh yeah i want to do that so i was like what do you plan on doing for that so i was like yeah i'm gonna do that for that wedding so i was like oh yeah i'm gonna do that for that wedding so i was like yeah yeah and i was like oh yeah so i was like oh yeah and i was like yeah yeah hmm oh i didn't know about that hmm yeah i'm gonna try it hmm first i'm just gonna try it first oh you got it cause i don't know how to describe it i'm just gonna try it first oh first first i'm gonna try it first first i'm gonna try it first oh ok first i know what it's like to know that's like the first like the most familiar feeling i don't know i don't know i don't know i no no no i mean why does it have to be so different like you can have one that's no no no kind of probably a little bit more active yeah

right

yeah

yeah

it's not very active oh wow oh you don't want it to be like uh oh it's like a i just don't like it yeah i think we need to make sure that everybody is active here and we can have a little bit more active yeah and i think that's what i was really looking forward to well yeah they put in like two hundred dollars for the every one of them is like two hundred dollars well one hundred dollars for the food that comes with it and they have like a little bar where they have like a like a bar with like all the other car lines and and food and and the whole day is like one hundred dollars per person oh i'm so full you know what i did last night i was like oh i was like i'm so full i'm gonna go to work food that comes with it when you got out of town i was like i should take you around to a hotel yeah i got a little i had a little club for work i was like oh where in new york club i know a club oh oh i know a little club i know a little place i know a little town so we moved it out like yeah it was like a new york i was very scared like you know i mean you can probably just hmm probably get married wherever i can go but the the the food that they have is just not as good as the food that i can get i'm like oh i'm gonna go to a wedding and i'll have a drink uh the the day we had uh a family reunion so ok so they were really happy together oh i mean i can't remember what the day was but uh all the family were happy together and then after that we had a little wedding at a restaurant called marjory where it was really fun and then i got mad at them so they gave me a gift of a wedding and then after our wedding they gave me a gift of a wedding and then we went to a wedding but i think that there is wow there are like a lot of people who are going to burn and burn and do that too um so we are not sure that we will be able to do it wow yeah right but i feel like um we can do it we could do it oh we can definitely do it and i was like oh wow i'm gonna get a ticket for like two sets of noodles oh nice and i was like oh yeah yeah yeah and i was like oh yeah yeah yeah and i was like yeah yeah yeah and i was like oh yeah yeah and i was like yeah yeah yeah and i was like oh yeah yeah yeah oh it's really hard that's a hard thing to do yeah and i was like oh yeah yeah and i was like oh yeah yeah yeah and i was like oh yeah oh yeah hey yeah and i was like oh yeah yeah and i was like oh yeah i was like oh yeah yeah yeah yeah and i was like oh yeah yeah and i was like oh yeah and i was like oh yeah yeah yeah and i was like oh yeah yeah and i was like oh yeah that's what i was like oh yeah what is that i don't know what that is oh it's like a oh oh oh wait oh that was yeah and then i got like oh right um like a i didn't know what that was a friend of mine was like oh yeah she's like a uh like a college graduate like a college graduate like a yeah and like one of the workers in the office i didn't know what a college graduate was yeah so i was like oh wow i don't know how to describe it but it was like like a college graduate like a graduate you know what i love about um yeah um you know what i like about it is when you know it's like you you know like you know how it feels like you you know like you know like you know like you know like you know like you know like your your your your your your your your your your your your your your your your your your your your your your your your your your your your your you know your your your your your your your your your your your your your your your your your yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah it do you know like that one party that they they did that and it's hot and you know like yeah it's very hot and it's very hot and you know it's very hot and you know it's very hot and yeah hmmm hmmm and it's very hot and you know it's very hot and you can't get a drink from there hmmm oh so we can get a drink from there i know they do they do do they have like a menu with like nine nine nine menus they have they have a menu with like a lot of menus you know yeah but then you know like yeah last year i was like i thought it would be like a whole year and then you know you're yeah gonna be like oh yeah but then you know and then you're gonna be like you know fine we'll do it if it's a three year or three year thing but then you know it's not gonna be like a whole year it's like half a year and then you're like ten years or twelve years or something like that so i was just like i was like yeah well it's just very different from like you know it's like fine i'll do it if it's a three year and then i'll do it again yeah oh yeah it's like a restaurant where you can just order a meal and then they have like a yeah like a menu and then they just like line up for you like a restaurant or like a bar or something yeah oh it's pretty good um but i thought like a restaurant would be more like a restaurant cuz like i think it's more like a restaurant like a restaurant is like a restaurant but like a restaurant is like is is is like a bar right like a restaurant is like a bar but like a restaurant is like a bar no i'm not a big fan of the old school style well it's really good for you i would have been more of a fan of the old school style cause i don't like the old school i really didn't like the old school style cause i don't like the old school yeah hmm yeah i don't like the old school style cause it's too old school i mean i i don't like the old school style cause it's too old school it's too old school i don't like the old school i think the old school style is more like a little bit more old school like i think the old school style is more like a little bit more like a little bit more old school yeah i don't like the old school

hmmm

so i was just like oh yeah i'm gonna get a job at a restaurant and then i'll get a job at a yeah yeah restaurant and then i'll get a job at a restaurant and then i'll get a job at the bar and then i'll get a job at the bar and then i'll get a job at a bar and then i'll get a job at a bar and then i'd get a job at a bar and then i'd get a job at a bar and then i'd get a job at the bar and then i'd get a job at a bar and then i'd get a job at a bar and then i'd get a job at a restaurant and then i'd get a job at a bar and then i'd go to a bar and then i'd go to a bar and then i'd go to a bar and then i'd go to another bar and then i'd go to another bar but i mean i have to say that i'm i'm not a big fan of that but i did get a couple of oh yeah my part of it and that was like um i think it was like maybe two or three times but i was like that was like the time of the year i was like yeah i'm not a big fan

yeah

of that so i was like yeah and and we were like will we write back and then we'll get a new one and then we'll get a new one and then we'll go to the the we'll get our own one and i thought that i'd care i'd care if it was like two or three but it was like two or three times and then we were like oh oh i didn't think it would be so i was like oh yeah that's not how it felt i've heard that like you know people who don't like spicy food they'll go for the one that they have the best as you know like like the one with the most

yeah oh

level of spicy food like you know like the one with the most um like the one with the most uh like the one with the most um like the one with the most um like the one with the most taste i'm sure it's the one with the most taste i'm sure it's the one with the most taste i'm sure it's the one with the most taste you know and then you can just eat it but you can't have like a whole thing not a whole thing that's not good

hmmm

it's a good place to get some stuff for dinner. It's usually around ten, ten, eleven, yeah, I don't know how long it's been. I think it's usually about two, twelve, six, ten, eleven, twelve, twelve, twelve, yeah, I don't know if you can get it today, but it's usually about ten, twelve, ten, twelve, eleven, twelve, twelve, twelve, twelve, twelve, twelve, twelve, thirteen, thirteen, thirteen, fourteen, fourteen, sixteen, seventeen, eighteen, seventeen, seventeen, eighteen, seventeen, eighteen, eighteen, nineteen, nineteen, seventeen, eighteen, nineteen, nineteen, nineteen, eighteen, nineteen, nineteen, nineteen, nineteen, nineteen, nineteen, eighteen, nineteen, nineteen, nineteen, nineteen, nineteen, nineteen, nineteen, nineteen, nineteen, nineteen, nineteen, nineteen, nineteen, nineteen, nineteen, nineteen, nineteen, nineteen, nineteen, n- n- n- n- n- n- n- n-

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 hr fifty four ninety seven members will record their votes using the electronic voting system the question is on the amendment to the ans to hr fifty four ninety seven offered by ranking member huffman designated huffman number one on which the no's prevailed by voice vote the clerk will open the vote oh my god that's always nice you know the joy of the job it's really it it just takes a while very good mmm mmm yeah yeah

well that's not right do you wanna play a game of tennis or do you wanna play a game of tennis i like tennis more than anything else because it's more fun and i like tennis um um do you wanna play a game of tennis or do you wanna play a games of tennis maybe tennis is a good game of tennis maybe tennis is a good game of tennis oh yeah tennis is a good game of tennis um like you wanna play like you wanna play like tennis or like tennis i don't know no i mean it's good but it's a bit it's not bad i think i mean it's ok but it's not bad but it's not bad and then not bad here is the issue is that here is the issue like you know you don't want to and you want to i think you you don't want to use the you don't want to use the oh oh so you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you use the

yeah have all members voted

three

Does any member wish to change their vote? Hearing none, the clerk will close the vote and report.

Mister Chairman, on this vote the yeas are sixteen and the nays are twenty one.

The amendment is not agreed to. The question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H R fifty four ninety seven, offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mister Tiffany, designated Tiffany, thirty nine, ANS. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.

aye

those opposed say no

no

the opinion of the chair the ayes have it and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is adopted

no

the question now occurs on reporting hr fifty nine or fifty four ninety seven as amended to the house with the recommendation that the bill be favorably approved all those in favor signify by saying aye all those opposed no

no

the opinion of the chair the ayes have it

request reported

a recorded vote has been requested members will record their vote using the electronic voting system the clerk will open the vote

alright i'm just gonna do my job yeah

have all members voted

ok

like all of you

does any member wish to change their vote

um i'm sorry i'm sorry

hearing none the clerk will close the vote and report

mr. chairman on this vote the yeas are twenty and the nays are seventeen

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 hr sixty three hundred the question is on the amendment to the ans to hr sixty three hundred offered by ranking member hoffman designated hoffman number one unrevised in which the no's prevail by voice vote

ok

the clerk will open the vote

by voice so we have to put both of them in the same yeah we put both of them we could try it's just like you can use a regular regular tablet for work but it has to be more mmm

yeah

it's invasive they they're all different

it's a good idea

ah good job good job no more

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 a's are sixteen and the n's are twenty two so

mmm the amendment is not agreed to the question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to hr sixty three hundred offered by the gentlelady from wyoming miss haggerman designated haggerman ans all those in favor signify by saying aye

aye

aye

all 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 hr sixty three hundred 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

the opinion of the chair the ayes have it requested a recorded vote has been requested members will record their vote using the electronic voting system the clerk will open the vote

mmm yeah this is great great idea

yes

yeah yeah thank you oh thank you

have all members voted does any member wish to change their vote hearing on the clerk will close the vote and report

Mr. Chairman on this vote the yeas are twenty five and the nays are fourteen

the bill as amended is ordered reported to the house with the recommendation that it be favorably approved without objection the motion to reconsider we now turn to the u. c. package with the cooperation of ranking member huffman and the other members of the committee appears that we have uh worked out an agreement on ten bills scheduled for mark-up today as we have done before rather than going through a formal mark-up process for each of the bills i will make a single unanimous consent motion to report out the bills favorably thank you with any amendments that have been filed and agreed to The committee will come to order. Please take your conversations outside so we can finish the business. Before we begin, does any member seek time to speak on any of the bills to this unanimous consent motion?

Cut. Thank you.

I ask unanimous consent that the subcommittee on Indian and Insular Affairs be discharged from further consideration of H R forty-four, sixty-three to amend the Catawba Indian Tribe of South Carolina Land Claims Settlement Act of Without objection? So ordered. I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries be discharged from further consideration of H R thirty seven O six, standards for understanding source and habitat identification act, or the SUSHI act. Without objection? So ordered. I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Federal Lands be discharged from further consideration of H R nineteen forty five, America's National Churchill Museum National Historic Landmark Act. H R twenty one ninety six, to provide for an extension of the legislative authority of the National Emergency Medical Services, Memorial Foundation, to establish a commemorative work in the District of Columbia and its environs. H R thirty nine twenty two, Cross-boundary Wildfire Solutions Act H R forty six seventy one, ensuring casualty assistance for our Firefighters Act H R fifty four nineteen, enhancing administrative reviews for Broadband Deployment Act. And H R sixty three eighty, the Chair Chair Coutt chericahua excuse me national park act without objection so ordered ask unanimous consent that the following measures be approved and favorably reported as described to the house of representatives hr seventy seven fifty five critical mineral consistency act of twenty twenty five with amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the chair designated west from m fifty five ans hr thirteen fifty two to designate the general george c marshall and the commonwealth of virginia as an affiliated area of the national park system and for other purposes with an amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado mister naguse designated naguse number one hr nineteen forty five america's national churchill museum national historic landmark act hr twenty one ninety six to provide for an extension of the legislative authority of the national emergency medical services memorial foundation to establish a commemorative work in the district of columbia and its environs with an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the chair designated west from M forty eight A and S H R thirty seven O six standards for understanding source and habitat identification act or the sushi act with an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the chair designated west from M fifty three A and S H R thirty nine twenty two cross boundary wildfire solutions act with an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from colorado mister Nagoose designated Nagoose number one A and S H R forty four sixty three to amend the Catawba Indian Tribe of South Carolina Land Claims Settlement Act of nineteen ninety three. H R forty six seventy one ensuring casualty assistance for our Firefighters Act. H R fifty four nineteen. Enhancing administrative reviews for Broadband Deployment Act with an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the chair designated Westerman. Fifty six A and S. And H R sixty three eighty, the chair. Chericahwa National Park Act with an amendment offered by the chair designated Westerman fifty seven. Without objection, so ordered. Without objection, the motions to reconsider are laid upon the table. Mister Huffman, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chair. I give notice of my intention to file supplemental additional dissenting or minority views on the measure just considered I ask unanimous consent that this notice be extended to all measures considered at this mark-up. Under House Rule eleven clause two L, this notice extends to all members.

Without objection. So ordered. Ask unanimous consent that the staff be allowed to make any technical and conform conform conforming changes to the documents the committee just adopted, subject to the approval of the minority, without objection. So ordered. If there's no further business, the committee stands adjourned.

oh it's very difficult i know that they use that um like the way they use it i remember when we were going to a restaurant and they just all had like a big pot with like a lot of vegetables and we just like just the way they made it they just like put it on top and then just like

oh yeah

add a lot of vegetables and then like you know it was just like a very