Legislative Hearing on Tribal, Water, NOAA, Wildlife, and Conservation Bills

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 their remarks on the bills to be considered at 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 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. Good morning and thank you for joining us for a full committee mark-up. Today we're considering four bills under regular order that support rural and tribal communities across the country by facilitating the completion of an existing Indian water rights settlement. increasing land access, supporting polar bear conservation, and more. The first bill, Mister Downing's Crow Tribe Water Rights Settlement Amendments Act of twenty twenty five will make necessary adjustments to the twenty ten law to better enable the Crow Tribe of Montana to implement its long-standing water rights settlement. The legislation will provide flexibility to deliver a reliable water supply to the Crow Indian Reservation and extend the tribe's exclusive right to develop hydropower without requiring additional federal funding. We'll also consider Mister Amadei's Northern Nevada Economic Development Conservation Act which combines various land management proposals affecting public lands in several northern Nevada counties. With more than eighty percent of Nevada's land federally owned, the relatively low percentage of private land creates significant challenges for rural communities. The transfers of land out of federal ownership in Mister Amadei's bill will increase public access and spark economic development. H R sixty two fifty one, introduced by Mister Begich of Alaska, will amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act to allow for the importation of polar bear trophies that were legally taken in sport hunts prior to the species listing under the Endangered Species Act way back in two thousand eight. This bill will address the pending import permits of the forty-one American hunters with legally hunted polar bear trophies currently stranded in Canada. Finally, we will consider H R ninety four thirty six, introduced by Mister Lawler, i think i'm hearing feedback on the something guess i have to turn it on so maybe it's outside after our regular order bills we will consider five additional bills under unanimous consent these bills will allow the miami tribe of oklahoma to settle their land claims in federal court bolster research and education initiative design to improve the scientific understanding management and sustainability of the nation's water resources and protect native american and alaska native patients from medical debt by expanding the window to notify the Indian Health Service after they have received outside emergency care. These bills have achieved bipartisan support and I appreciate the minority for working with us uh to reach consensus. I look forward to the discussion today and I yield back in recognize Ranking Member Huffman for any opening statement he may have.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, um I don't envy your job right now because uh I know you've got to project a sense of normalcy, a sense of business as usual, um, in a Congress that has simply melted down in dysfunction, canceling, session days, failing to pass must-pass, a long list, an ever-growing list of must-pass legislation, and and sending us home for days, even weeks at a time. While there is a lot of work that we should be doing and a huge part of that work consists of oversight. Back in May, I laid out the priorities committee Democrats and I wanna see happen Um, and what a responsible Congress would be doing, uh, right now, near the top, a public oversight hearing on President Trump spending billions of dollars, taxpayer dollars, to turn our nation's capital into his own personal playground, full of gaudy vanity projects. The destruction of the White House East Wing, the infamous Ballroom, the two hundred and fifty foot vanity arch, botched reflecting pool, the takeover of the East Potomac golf course, the list goes on. If a Democratic president did any of these things, we would hear endless outrage from our Republican colleagues, just like we're hearing strange feedback from the street outside this hearing room. Uh, but because it's Trump, and because our Republican colleagues are afraid of him, if we're being honest, uh, they look away. Mr. Chairman, because uh, this is disappointing. I think you know how important oversight is. I think you know we have a duty to conduct it. There is a flood of evidence right now that this administration has pursued these vanity projects by shaking down billionaire donors with a, with business before the federal government, by issuing secretive no-bid contracts, by um selling access to the president, by uh blasting through budget constraints, leaving taxpayers to foot the bill, and brazenly violating federal law. And while the White House has plowed ahead with all these tributes to President Trump, Uh, it cheapened and politicized and monetized our nation's two hundred and fiftieth birthday celebration. We tried to get Republicans to work with us to prevent this, but they looked away. So, um, as you've seen, we went ahead with our own investigation and released an in-depth report on how the White House hijacked the two hundred and fifty. They set up a shadow corporation, Freedom two fifty LLC. They misled donors, potentially through criminal wire fraud. They sold access to the president, diverted public funds engaged in self-dealing and harvested America's private, American's private personal data for partisan ends and self enrichment. And we were left with something. Instead of the broadly unified national celebration Congress set in motion ten years ago uh we were left with a disappointing flop of a two hundred and fifty. It goes right up there with the fire festival, with the Wonka experience, empty pavilions. C-list entertainment acts. We warned you about this unfolding fiasco in our committee's jurisdiction and you refused to see it. So today, as we consider a hodgepodge of bills before us, uh there's still an elephant in the room demanding oversight from the Republican majority that has become a toothless cheerleading squad for a corrupt president. Turning to the bills before us, um my personal favorite Is a bill to let super wealthy trophy hunters import the remains of about forty slaughtered polar bears. You just have to ask, is this really what we should be doing right now? Trump bulldozed part of the White House. He's illegally building a Great Gatsby ballroom and an arch to himself. And instead of investigating, House Republicans are doing a solid for Don Junior's safari buddies. Trump's cost of living crisis is out of control. Our constituents are working harder ever and falling further behind. They sent us here to do something about those things. They didn't send us here to help pampered elites with a masculinity problem file paperwork to bring dead polar bear trophies through customs. Today's agenda fails the American people, but it shows who you are, who you care about, what you stand for. And so, uh, we will keep asking questions that our House Republican colleagues refuse to ask. We will use every tool at our disposal to deliver for the hardworking Americans who sent us here and we continue to ask you to join us in that serious business. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Pursuant to the mark-up notice, it is now in order to consider H R sixty-two fifty-one to amend the Marine Animal Protection Act of a of nineteen seventy-two to allow portation of polar bear trophies taken in sport hunts in Canada before the day the polar bear was determined to be a threatened under the endangered species act of nineteen seventy three 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 mister downing

Uh, thank you, uh, Chairman Westerman. Um, HR seven twenty six, the Crow Tribe Water Right Settlement Amendments Act provides crucial adjustments to the Crow Tribe of Montana's water settlement to insure

Mister Daniel.

Excuse me?

We're we're on the polar bear bill.

Oh, I'm I'm sorry.

I know you, I know you're excited about the water right settlement, we'll get to it here uh,

Excuse me, Mister Chair.

here shortly. Uh, Mister Crank, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. I appreciate

uh being recognized and uh I appreciate Mister Bagich for bringing this bill forward. Look, th- this bill releases polar bears that were legally hunted in Canada to hunters in the United States and the two thousand eight listing of polar bears under the ESA meant that under MMPA importation of them was illegal. The hunters who hunted these polar bears, they complied with every law, and every regulation that existed at the time of the hunt. Polar bears were harvested from populations that the US Fish and Wildlife Service had already approved as scientifically managed and sustainably harvest harvested. The rule change, uh, while imports permit were still pending. So the permits were still pending when they changed the rules. Uh, HR sixty-two fifty-one does not reopen polar bear imports. It doesn't weaken ESA protections. It applies only to a limited number of hunters who legally harvested bears before the two thousand eight ESA listing and had pending permit applications. It also reinforces that wildlife management should be based on science and sound population management, not on fear. It upholds confidence in the regulatory process by avoiding retroactive changes to legally conducted activities. And regulated hunting supports conservation by providing funding and creating incentives to maintain healthy wildlife populations and habitat. Retroactively changing the rules creates uncertainty for sportsmen who invest significant time, significant money to comply to comply with wildlife laws. These bears weren't poached, they were legally taken, by uh uh as bears that the US Fish and Wildlife Service said were sustainable and manageable. Fairness matters. Individuals who followed the law shouldn't be penalized because the law changed after the fact. And it's just that simple. And I would say this lastly. This bill supports international conservation. As a hunter, if I know I can spend years planning a hunt, investing thousands of dollars, um, complying with every law and every regulation, and still have the government change the rules after the fact, I'm gonna think twice before making that investment. Other hunters will do the same. I'm a hunter myself, have no desire to hunt a polar bear, never will do that, but we ought to stand up for conservation, and hunting plays a very valuable role. in conservation. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

So, I'm gonna yield back, is there further discussion? Mr. Hoffman, you're recognized.

You just have to shake your head, uh, when this is what you prioritize, this is what you care about, help helping some pampered elites display their, uh, the prize that they that they killed on a trophy hunt. Uh, Americans across this country are struggling with high costs of gas, food and health care. The majority chooses to spend this committee's time on giveaway after giveaway for special interests, in this case, the President's wealthy donors and Don Junior's safari club buddies. This bill, HR sixty-two fifty-one, puts a for sale sign on the Marine Mammal Protection Act by selling it out to a few wealthy inter- international trophy hunters. It allows these folks to import decades-old polar bear trophies into the United States, undermining hard-fought protections, for threatened marine mammals and setting a dangerous precedent for future environmental protection rollbacks. The polar bear is protected under both the MMPA and the Endangered Species Act. Prior to its two thousand and eight listing, the Department of Interior permitted imports of polar bear trophies from Canada, provided the hunts were legal. However, listing the polar bear as threatened under the ESA automatically classified it as depleted under the MMPA which legally halted all trophy imports. That's how The system works. When Congress drafted the ESA and the MMPA, it wisely intended for them to work in tandem to save our most imperiled wildlife. An ESA listing automatically triggers depleted status under the MMPA, aligning both laws to shield threatened species and their habitat from harm. At the time of the listing, roughly forty hunters left their polar bear trophies sitting in Canadian freezers. The trophy hunting community was well aware that an ESA listing was imminent. and that it would immediately ban imports. These individuals knew the risks they chose to hunt anyway. Even though these forty polar bears have been dead for years, forcing Congress to retroactively waive a core provision of the MMPA sets a terrible precedent. It chips away the bedrock conservation laws designed to prevent extinction and to recover species. And we say, and we're being told that this is about conservation. Congress should not be in the business of carving out loopholes for special interest. But this uh is not the only wildlife policy this Republican majority seems interested in pursuing. We have yet to see a single ESA or MMP A bill from the majority that actually improves conservation outcomes. We must allow state and federal wildlife managers to do their jobs, based on the best available science, exactly uh as the Endangered Species Act was intended to work. It's time to start treating our wildlife like the national treasure.

Look, at the end of the day, this is a common sense bill. Unfortunately,

Mm. Mm.

MMPA does not require rather uh permit the same flexibility that was available um under the uh African lion in twenty fifteen. Uh, this requires literally an act of Congress to to make uh, to make things whole for uh, for for hunters who follow the law. And uh, look these these hunts were uh sanctioned by the by the Canadian government. They were uh w- within uh traditional Inuit um hunting regions. Uh, they were guided hunts by, uh, indigenous peoples in Canada. And again, these folks, uh, followed the law. Uh, they went about, um, the, going through this process, uh, with the full understanding and belief that they would have the ability, uh, to return these, uh, pelts back to the United States, as had been, uh, the case for many years. Uh, I urge my colleagues, uh, to support this common sense legislation. and uh and i yield back

i mean yields back is there further discussion i recognize myself and i strongly support mister beggich's bill hr sixty two fifty one to allow for the importation of polar bear trophies that were lawfully taken in canada prior to the polar bears listing under the esa in two thousand eight now i had a chance to celebrate our two hundred and fiftieth anniversary in the fourth of july here in d. c. and it was an amazing uh time to be in washington d. c. the festivities the fireworks show the concert on the mall it was all uh i think it was more than than i even hoped that it would be and i've talked to many people who visited here who were very happy and patriotic about the opportunity to celebrate our country's two hundred and fiftieth birthday And we're still in that celebration time. And I think as we look at what we're celebrating, we we have to think about not only the Declaration of Independence, but also the Constitution, which tells us the very purpose of government is to establish justice. And I think it's important, whatever the issue is, that we uh work hard for justice. And this is an issue about justice. These are people who, whether you like cunning or not, whether you don't think that's important to conservation, uh, you should at least look at the facts here and realize that these people followed the law, these polar bears are dead, they're in a freezer in Canada, and it's, I think it's kind of crazy that we're having to even take up this bill in Congress, as the bureaucracy is so warped in our federal government that Congress has to pass a law to allow people to import polar bears that were legally taken. Uh, there was nothing illegal done when these polar bears were taken. And that's our job, to establish justice. So I think that's what we're here doing today. We're establishing justice for people whose, uh, justice and freedom was taken away by the actions of an overzealous federal government. Uh, again, keeping these trophies in Canada does nothing to bring the bears back to life. And there's no conservation benefit otherwise to preventing their importation into the United States. Now, additionally, under the Marine Animal Protection Act, every import permit includes a one thousand dollar fee directed into the polar bear conservation fund. The choice before us is simple, we can keep these polar bear trophies stuck in Canada, where they provide no conservation value, or we can allow them to be imported into the United States, and invest in polar bear conservation. I appreciate Mister Begich's work on this uh long-standing disparity for American sportsmen and women who follow the law and are asking only for fairness and justice. I know this is an issue that your predecessor uh Representative Dunn uh Young worked on as well, and he was very passionate about it. We can support these hunters, we can support polar bear conservation by passing HR sixty-two fifty-one today, i support this common sense bill and i yield back is there further discussion hearing none it is now in order to consider amendments to hr sixty two fifty one we will now consider the amendment in the nature of a substitute to hr sixty two fifty one offered by the gentleman from alaska mister beggich designated beggich one sixty eight ans without objection the amendment is considered read and open to amendment at any point mister beggich you're recognized

Uh, the the ANS is a is a very simple title change uh to the bill. Nothing else has changed since introduction. Um, uh, I I echo the Chairman's comments just now, at the end of the day, uh, this is common sense legislation. It's required under the MNPA uh for Congress to literally act for what uh equates to about forty uh pelts we're not talking about uh you know, hundreds of Pell's, we're not talking about changing the law going forward. We're talking about making sure that we have uh justice for the people who went about following the law. And uh and I and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I yield back.

So you all may yield back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Also, support the amendment and uh urge, and if there's no further discussion on the amendment, it's now in order to consider amendments to the ANS to HR sixty two fifty one. No amendments to the ans have been filed. Are there any further amendments? Seeing none, the question now occurs on the amendment in nature of a substitute to hr sixty two fifty one offered by the gentleman from alaska mister begich designated begich six, one sixty eight ans all those in favor signify by saying aye

aye

those opposed no

no

the opinion of the chair the ayes have it and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is adopted. Question now occurs on reporting H R sixty two fifty one 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.

Uh, Mister Chair, let's finish this, yeah, yeah, this is good.

You're not requesting, okay. The uh, 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. Mister Hoffman, 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, and ask unanimous consent that this notice be extended to all measures considered at the mark-up under House Rule eleven clause two L. The notice extends to all members.

Without objection, so ordered. Pursuant to the mark-up notice, it is now in order to consider HR seven twenty-six, the Crow Tribe Water Rights Settlement Amendments Act of twenty. 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?

Now it's time.

Mister Downing, you're you're recognized.

Well, uh, thank you, uh, Mister Chairman. Uh, H R seven twenty six, the Crow Tribe Water Rights Settlement Amendments Act, uh, provides crucial adjustments to the Crow Tribe of Montana's water settlement to ensure the tribe can provide clean drinking water to its uh communities. In two thousand ten, Congress passed the Crow Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act. This law settled the tribe's water rights and authorized four hundred and sixty million dollars to design and construct a centralized municipal rural and industrial or MR and I water system for the reservation. However, due to the project's complexity, rising costs, and extended estimated construction timelines, The initial MR and I pipeline system authorized by the settlement has proven unfeasible for the tribe. With no current ability to utilize settlement funds for water infrastructure, the Crow Reservation continues to experience a clean water crisis. Over fifty percent of Crow Reservation households have contaminated water, and multiple studies have linked the tribe's higher cancer rates with this lack of clean water access. This crisis simply can't be allowed to continue. This is why I introduced H R seven twenty six. This bill expands the scope of authorized water projects under the Crow Tribes water settlement beyond the initial single mandated pipeline project, to include a flexible array of smaller scale regional water projects. In doing so, this legislation will dramatically reduce the timeline for delivering clean water to the reservation's communities. H R seven twenty six is a straightforward solution that does not alter any existing water rights, and appropriates no new federal spending. It simply provides necessary flexibility for the tribe to meet the needs of its citizens. I'd like to thank uh Chairman Westerman and committee staff for their support on this initiative, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this important legislation for the Crow tribe. With that, Mister Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Do you want me to yield back? Is there further discussion? Mister Hoffman, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Uh, federal government does have a legal obligation to ensure tribal communities have access to safe, clean and reliable water and the infrastructure needed to deliver it. As the committee with primary jurisdiction over tribal water rights settlements, it's our responsibility to ensure tribal nations have secure access to water for current and future generations. I remain committed to advancing these settlements on a bipartisan basis. My concerns today are not primarily with this particular bill, but with the lack of progress on a path forward for the many other pending tribal water rights settlement bills that are crucially important. Last Congress, the committee held a hearing on twelve tribal water rights settlement bills. Since that hearing, committee Democrats and the bill sponsors have repeatedly requested that the committee advance these and other pending settlement bills beyond the hearing stage. Mark them up. Pass them into law. Several of these bills have passed the Senate multiple times with unanimous consent, but have stalled here in the House. At the end of last Congress, together with our colleagues on the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, we asked committee Republicans what they need to move a bipartisan tribal water package by the end of the year. We received no substantive response. And this Congress, we've continued to ask for the majority to work with us, let's find a way to advance these settlements, we still have no clear path forward. We've been more than willing to work with the majority to resolve their procedural concerns related to spending, yet these bills continue to sit before the committee. And today, the majority has cherry-picked one of them. They've chosen to simply consider this one largely technical Republican settlement bill, while the remaining tribal water rights settlement bills are stalled. Tribal water rights settlements have long advanced through bipartisan cooperation, and committee Democrats have consistently made clear we're ready to work in good faith on all the settlement leg legislation before the committee. But to date we have seen requests to include settlement bills rejected, mark-up after mark-up, despite repeated requests. And today the majority wants to move a single Republican-sponsored settlement bill after rejecting yet another request of ours. to include a non-controversial democratic sponsored settlement bill on today's agenda, a bill that's already passed the Senate the Senate by unanimous consent. I hope my colleagues will follow through with their statements on working with us. We're ready to work with them to ensure that all these pending settlement bills receive a fair opportunity to advance to the House floor. But until we have a clear and credible path forward, I have to register my deep concern about the lack of progress with the majority's broader approach and commitment to advancing tribal water rights settlements. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion? I recognize myself. I strongly support Mister Downing's bill, the Crow Tribe Water Rights Settlement Amendments Act of twenty twenty five. This legislation recognizes the challenge facing many previously enacted project-based Indian water rights settlements, delivering the original scope of a federal reclamation project within the cost estimated nearly twenty years ago. This bill accomplishes two key goals. First, it converts the existing project-based settlement managed by the Bureau of Reclamation into a fund-based settlement administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. This bill also extends the Crow Trib's exclusive authority to develop hydropower at Reclamation's existing yellow tail after Bay Dam. This bill is a simple, no-cost amendment to an existing settlement that delivers on the federal government's commitment to the Crow Trib. I'm pleased that we can move this bill one step closer to becoming law. Also recognize that there are several pending bills related to new and existing water rights settlements that have not been able to move due to cost implications. I certainly understand the importance of these bills, and I would like to work to find a path to advance idiom water rights settlements legislation in a way that allows them to be considered in the house. And while these those bills still require additional work to address the cost, I applaud Congressman Downing and Senator Daines for coming together to address the CBO score on this legislation and generate a product that we can move through the committee and move off the House floor. This bill upholds our commitment to Indian country and I'm glad we're considering it today. I support HR seven twenty six and I yield back. Is there further discussion on the bill? Hearing none, it is now in order to consider amendments to HR seven twenty six. We will now consider the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR seven twenty six, offered by the gentleman from Montana, Mister Downing, designated Downing seventy-three A and S. Without objection, the amendment is considered read and open to amendment at any point. Mister Downing, you're recognized for the A and S.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Uh, my amendment in the nature of a substitute for HR seven twenty six will ensure that this legislation delivers necessary reforms for the Crow tribe, without requiring any new federal spending. Specifically, this ANS removes a provision that would have transferred settlement funds held in existing joint signature bank accounts into new accounts in the US Treasury. In order to ensure that the bill does not score as increasing federal spending by the Congressional Budget Office, this ANS authorizes funds to continue to be deposited into the tribe's existing joint signature MR and I account. You know, I appreciate uh, Chairman Westerman and committee staff for their assistance in crafting this amendment and I encourage all of my colleagues uh, in supporting this. And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield.

So you want me to yield this 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 HR seven twenty-six. Are there any further amendments? Seeing none, the question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR seven twenty-six offered by the gentlemen from montana mister downing designated downing seventy three a n s all those in favor signify by saying aye

aye

those opposed no

yeah

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 seven twenty six 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 The bill is 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. Pursuant to the mark-up notices, now in order to consider H R ninety-four thirty-six to amend the con, consolidated Appropriations Act twenty twenty-three to extend the time period for which certain regulations concerning the North Atlantic Rock Well are effective. 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? Mister Golden, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. The US lobster fishery is the most valuable single species fishery in the Northeast. In Maine alone, it contributes more than three point two billion to the state's economy, it supports roughly eighteen thousand jobs, and generates hundreds of millions in tax revenue. Lobster fishing is the backbone of many communities in my district. In some towns, close to forty percent of residents can hold a commercial lobster license. Many of these towns could not survive without this fishery. It forms a tax base that pays for their schools, rural infrastructure, public safety, and more. Any threat to this industry is really a threat to the men and women who work on the water, uh, but not only to them, but to the entire community, uh, that they are so, so vital to. This is why we need more time to make sure that any new measures we ask, will strike a very careful balance between protecting marine life and protecting the livelihoods of fishermen themselves. When Congress enacted this moratorium in twenty twenty three, we funded new efforts to gather information to help support a data-driven process to establish regulations that made sense for both fishermen and whales. Unfortunately, some of this work, including the work of the Atlantic large whale take reduction team has been slowed by issues within the federal government. including layoffs and government shutdowns. These circumstances have been beyond the control of Maine fishermen. Meanwhile, those charged with gathering gathering the necessary data say that more time is needed. Maine's Department of Marine Resources, using congressionally appropriated funds, has monitored right whales and studied a potential overlap of the whales in fixed fishing gear. They wrote, "We are still gathering various types of data, and we anticipate that several of these data streams will not be able to be incorporated into decision support tools due to the compressed time line for rule making. An extension of the pause would ensure that there's time to incorporate this information, and that future rule making is based on the best available science. Simply put, my friends, Congress paid for this research, why then would we it not provide the time necessary to make the best use of it? Mister Chairman, let me uh lay out a few simple facts. First, without the moratorium, Cong- that Congress enacted in twenty twenty three. Lobstering communities face the threat of fishery closures that would have devastated local economies in a centuries-old way of life. Congress enacted the pause out of recognition of that and out of a recognition that we have to get this right. Second, it's undeniable that more time is needed to complete the thoughtful science-driven process that we need. Despite years of scrutiny, only a single entanglement of a North Atlantic right whale has ever been attributed to Maine waters. So there's no need for a false sense of urgency to rush a process that would be greatly benefited by having more time. Meanwhile, right whale births have exceeded deaths for four consecutive years, resulting in positive population growth. We take that as evidence that the regulations already in place and the measures that Maine Lobstermen uh have already implemented are working. Maine lobster fishery is really not asking for too much here. We're not asking for new funding, a new process, or any kind of new policy mandate. Simply, more time to complete the process that this Congress started back in December of twenty twenty two. This legislation, HR ninety four thirty six, will provide the additional years necessary to get the science right, so that we can protect both. Uh, before I complete my remarks, I wanna have added into the record for the this mark up um support for this bill from seven different entities we have the Maine Lobstermen's Association the Maine Lobstering Union we have the New England Fishermen's Stewardship Association the Maine Lobster Advisory Council the Maine Department of Marine Resources the New Hampshire Commercial Fishermen's Association and the Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association all who have said uh in some very helpful uh thoughtful remarks in support of this legislation. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Without objection, so ordered.

You're welcome.

Gentlemen yield to back. Is there further discussion? Mister Stauber, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, another good bipartisan piece of legislation out of this committee. I rise in strong support of HR ninety four thirty six, the Northeast Lobstermen's Protection Act, introduced by my two good friends, Representative Lawler and Representative Golden of Maine. Each and every day, owner's regulations negatively impact our constituents along with the local economies and local communities represent. And too often here in Washington, these onerous regulations are put in place without a full understanding of the impact they will have on the ground. These regulations often set unreasonable standards or are set to go into effect on unreasonable timelines. The regulations on the North Atlantic right wheel, which are currently mandated to be implemented by the end of twenty twenty eight, are an example of this unreasonable timeline that will have a negative impact on local and regional economies across. New England and will have an outsized impact on Maine lobstermen. This bipartisan legislation before us today does not weaken protections for the North Atlantic right whale. The legislation simply delays implementation of these new reguli regulations so we can get it right. This legislation will allow adequate time to seek input from affected industries and communities, ensuring we have fit for purpose regulations that will protect the North Atlantic right whale, while not devastating the local economy and our fisheries across New England. I wanna commend my good friend, Representative Golden, for standing up for his constituents and for bringing forth this legislation. And if uh he wants, I would like to uh uh yield the rest of my time to the gentleman from Maine.

Thank you very much, uh, Mister Stauber. Uh, and it's great to be serving on this committee with you, uh, as we did for so many years on the Small Business Committee. Uh. At this time, I don't have more to add, uh, unless there's, uh, anything that comes up in debate. So I'll I'll let you yield back your time. Thank you.

Thank you. Yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion? Gentleman, gentlelady, uh, Mr. Hall is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act represent two of the nation's most successful in enduring conservation laws establishing science-based safeguards that protect vulnerable wildlife from exploitation and extinction. This bill undermines both monumental pieces of legislation by unnecessarily extending a broad exemption that allows continued deadly entanglements of the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale. The with the only only a few hundred of these whales remaining, we cannot afford to weaken the very laws designed to prevent their extinction. This year there have been two recorded deaths due to entanglement. Congress should be strengthening protections and preventions, not carving out exemptions, and placing one of the world's most endangered marine mammals at even Congress should be reinforcing, not eroding the laws that have served as a backbone of American conservation. My father, Congressman, understood that protecting endangered wildlife requires strong laws and political will to enforce them. That is why he championed legislation like the Rescue Whales Act, which invested in innovative technologies and collaborative solutions to reduce vessel strikes and fishing gear entanglements while supporting the long-term recovery of the whale populations. H R nine four three six ignores that approach. Safer fishing gear and other effective alternatives already exist and have demonstrated that we can both protect marine wildlife while supporting sustainable fisheries rather than encouraging innovation and conservation this bill delays progress by shielding harmful practices from the safeguards established under um MMP MMP A and ESA this legislation also sends the wrong message to coastal communities fishermen businesses and industries across the east coast. that have worked in good faith to comply with conservation measures and do their part to recover the North Atlantic right whale. Creating another legislative waiver, CHPS, erodes the integrity of our nation's bedrock, wildlife laws, and sets dangerous precedent for future exemptions whenever compliance becomes inconvenient. We have a responsibility to protect endangered species before they disappear forever, not after it is too late. I urge my colleagues to reject HR nine four three six and recommit to science-based protections that have defined American conservation for generations. Thank you. I yield back.

Lady yields back.

Thank you for the further discussion.

Mr. Baggett, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chair, I speak in strong support of H R ninety four thirty six, uh extending the moratorium on North Atlantic right well regulata regulation implementation. Uh look, science must drive the process of rulemaking and we do not have a sufficient science drive that rulemaking process right now. Additional time is necessary. And we hear from folks in the industry that say, hey, time is necessary to to get the science right. At the end of the day, I think it's really important that we that we send a message uh to the fisheries, to uh main lobstermen, and saying we're not, we're going to make sure that it's not your jobs that are critically endangered. We wanna make sure that you have the ability to provide for your families, provide for your communities, And uh making sure that uh we pass science-based laws in uh the House and Senate um is one of the ways that we do that. And uh predictability within industry is important. When people are making long-term investments uh in their small businesses, it's important that they recognize uh what that environment is going to be like, over the horizon of the useful life of those investments. So I support this legislation and I encourage my colleagues to do the same, and I yield back.

And then you'll expect further discussion. Mister Hoffman, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chair. This bill would prematurely extend a waiver from the ESA and the MMPA, actively risking the extinction of the critically endangered Northern Atlantic right whale. Put simply, without collective action, this whale is at risk of becoming the first of the fourteen baleen whale species on Earth to vanish. The Northern Atlantic right whale is in urgent need of intervention. The population is just three hundred and eighty whales, only seventy breeding females. The population is so small scientists actually have named and given ID numbers to each individual animal. We're halfway through twenty twenty six, and although we were told that there've been some calves born, maybe we should just relax and take it easy on protecting these animals, uh the truth is we've already lost two calves, three and four years old, to entanglement. And scientists expect a five-year-old uh to die soon from injuries from another entanglement. These losses far exceed our annual limits to keep this whale from going extinct. In the midst of this emergency for the North Atlantic Great Whale, we're marking up a bill that delays federal protections against entanglements by seven more years. Let's look at how we got here. In twenty twenty-two, a federal judge ruled that NOAA's Atlantic Large whale take reduction plan violated the ESA and the MMPA, and ordered immediate updates to avoid entanglements. Shortly after, the Maine lobster industry requested more time to test ropeless gear and gather data. Congress granted a delay through twenty twenty eight before new take regulations would take effect giving the industry time to test out technology and methods that reduce harm to whales. At the same time, Congress established a new program to fund technology, innovation and uh also required annual reports from NOAA on the progress being made. Now here we are, two and a half years before the regulatory deadline, and this bill would further extend this exemption for the American lobster and Jonah crab fisheries by an additional seven years, bringing the total exemption from the ESA and MMA MMPA to an outrageous thirteen years. It is deeply concerning that we have not had a single hearing on this bill or an oversight hearing to ask how things are going with this technology, with these efforts in monitoring everything else that we've said we would do during this freeze on regulation. The majority failed to hold a hearing to examine why NOAA shirked its duty by failing to deliver a single report to Congress as mandated by the original law. Committee has uh not weighed policy options that would support a robust fishery and whale recovery. I want the Maine lobster month to thrive. But, I've also heard from credible sources that this ropeless gear works just fine, and that the real resistance to it is the culture and tradition and pecking order among uh some of these fishing communities and how they stake their claims. If that's the reason we're putting the North Atlantic right well at risk of extinction, we should be honest about that, and we should have that conversation and not hide behind these pretexts. This delay would also undermine massive investments. Since twenty twenty-two Congress has estimated uh in uh devoted an estimated two hundred and eighty million dollars to right-wheel recovery, and we are seeing some results. Advanced monitoring technologies have improved mapping right-wheel patterns. Vessels are using trackers to avoid conflicts. Most importantly for this debate, ropeless gear has a near-perfect retrieval success rate and a critical safety feature, the man overboard system. It's now an open source technology for ropeless gear developers. But instead of taking an honest look at these issues and at the progress that we've made and the additional policy levers necessary to support a thriving fishery and to recover this whale population this bill legislates blindly, throws away the momentum that we have created and kicks the can down the road. It is a bad bill. I re- I request that my colleagues join me in voting no, and I yield back.

The gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion? I recognize myself and I strongly support Mr. Lawler and Mr. Golden's bipartisan bill to extend the moratorium on regulations that would devastate Maine's iconic lobster fishery and bring severe economic hardship to the families that depend on this industry. For nearly thirty years, the Atlantic Large Whaletake Reduction team has overseen the Maine lobster and Jonah crab fisheries. They have implemented and updated a take reduction plan to minimize the fishery's impacts on right whales. And for decades, the Maine lobster fishery has laid conservation efforts to reduce right whale entanglements in their gear. The industry has removed more than thirty thousand miles of rope from the Gulf of Maine, replaced all of its floating rope with sinking rope, and endured significant closures in highly productive fishing grounds, all to prevent interactions with endangered right whales. In its twenty twenty proposed rule, the National Marine Fishery Service stated that between two thousand nine and two thousand eighteen the American lobster fishery accounted for just one entanglement every five years Despite these conservation measures, the usual usual suspects litigated every permit for the American lobster fishery, seeking ever more draconian restrictions for the American fishery while ignoring the Canadian fishery's impacts. As a result, the American lobster fishery has been subject to regulatory whiplash in four different biological opinions, between twenty ten and twenty twenty one. In twenty twenty one, the National Marine Fisheries Service issued its most recent biological opinion for the American lobster fishery, and these serial litigant groups remained dissatisfied. At the same time, the Maine Lobstermen's Association, joined by Janet Mills, the Democratic Governor of Maine, sued NOAA for failing to rely on the best available science and ignoring long-standing conservation efforts, Most recently, the main congressional delegation came together to enact a regulatory pause for the American lobster and Jonah crab fisheries in the fiscal year twenty twenty-three, consolidated Appropriations Act. The legislation provided ESA and MNPA coverage for the American lobster and Jonah fi- crab fisheries under the twenty twenty-one biological opinion through twenty twenty eight, providing time and resources to develop innovative gear and conservation measures to further minimize the fisheries impact to right wheels without disastrous economic consequences to one of America's most iconic fisheries. The Water, Wildlife and Fisheries Subcommittee has conducted extensive oversight of this issue. In twenty twenty three, the subcommittee held a legislative hearing on a bill sponsored by the late Representative Grijalva to repeal these crucial provisions of the Consolidate Appropriations Act. During that hearing, the subcommittee heard from fishermen, unions and scientists about poor data quality underpinning NOAA's regulatory approach and the harm a repeal would cause to the industry. More recently, the subcommittee held a July twenty twenty-five legislative hearing on draft legislation, proposing a broad suite of reforms to the Marine Mammal Protection Act, including provisions identical to H. R. ninety-four thirty-six, which was discussed at length during the hearing. More than ninety million dollars has been invested in developing the innovative gear and robust data to understand, well, distributional the effects of new technologies, and the appropriate future management activities. It will likely be impossible to gather the data to inform future management, convene a new take reduction team, and implement a rational management framework by the current deadline of twenty twenty eight. This legislation extends the pause to twenty thirty five, will allow the scientific community, the regulated industry, and fishery managers the time necessary to chart the fisheries' future, while protecting the families and depend who depend on a vibrant lobster fishery from frivolous litigation by organizations whose only go goal is to shut down their way of life. I would be remiss if I did not applaud Congressman Jared Golden for his tireless defense of his hard-working uh or of his hard-working constituents, and his leadership on this important issue. He has been a champion for the American fishing industry in restoring uh sanity, to our broken permitting process. Again, I support H R ninety-four thirty-six, urge my colleagues to do the same, and I yield back. Is there further discussion on the bill? Hearing none, it is now in order to consider amendments to H R ninety-four thirty-six. We will now consider the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H R ninety-four thirty-six offered by the gentleman from Maine, Mister Golden, designated Golden forty-one A and S. Without objection, the amendment is considered read and open to amendment.

Uh, thank you very much, uh, Mister Chair. A pretty straightforward amendment with a simple, uh, short title change. Um, you know, I, I wanted to, uh, take a quick minute here and, and just reiterate to my colleagues. We gave money to the state of Maine back as part of the delay that we implemented in late twenty twenty two. Um, this is what has been accomplished with it. Back in twenty twenty two, NOAA had almost no oversight going on in the Gulf of Maine. They did very few uh flights. They said that they had a hard time really even finding the whales ever in the Gulf of Maine. Um, that's the federal government saying we have no visibility in the Gulf of Maine. So what has the Maine Department of Marine Resources done? It's deployed in the last three years a vast network of acoustic monitors in the Gulf of Maine to listen for right whale calls. It's also uh regularly watched for right whales on dedicated voyages and flights. So Maine is now doing the federal government's job for them, for it. They're also using gliders that travel underneath the water and can detect rail, whale calls right down to particular individual rail, whales if their call has been put into a existing database of known right whale calls. We're, we're getting down to the level of being able to find and say, this whale right here, we've he's doing well, she is doing well and healthy. This is the type of information that everyone wants and knows can make a massive, massive difference on protecting the right whale without doing any unnecessary harm to any fishers. So, so much progress has been made here. And yet the take reduction team's work is gonna have to start this fall without any of that data that's been collected and and that critical information. It just defies common sense to move forward on that time-line. Again, some of the delays in this work, not the fault of fishermen, uh really the fault of Congress and the federal government. They shouldn't bear the brunt uh of those delays. We can take a little bit more time, get more data, deploy more of these new technologies, and as I've said all along, this is about getting it right the next time we go through a TRT rather than, uh, doing the job half-blind and and doing the job poorly. Thank you, Mister Chair.

Mr. Huffman yields back his further discussion on the A and S. I recognize myself, I support the A and S to H R ninety four thirty six, this amendment renames the legislation the Northeast Lobsterman Protection Act of twenty twenty six an apt short title for a common sense bill. I urge my colleagues to support the A and S and I yield back their further discussion on the A and S. Miss, Mister Huffman, you're recognized.

Mr. Chair, I just ask unanimous consent at this time to enter three letters into the record. Uh, the first is from conservation science and whale watch organizations across Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida opposing this legislation. Uh, the second is from four members of the Atlantic large whale tick reduction team opposing this legislation and the third is from hundreds of signers uh across the United States opposing the legislation.

Without objection. So ordered. There's no further discussion on the amendment. It's now in order to consider amendments to the ANS to N HR ninety-four thirty-six. We'll now consider the amendment designated Magaziner one offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island, Mister Magaziner. Without objection, the amendment is considered read. Mister Magaziner, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Um, being from Rhode Island, uh, along with Mister Golden, uh, I'm one of the few members of this committee from the region that is impacted by this bill. We have a big commercial fishing industry in my district, including the lobster industry, uh, and we also have North Atlantic right whales migrating across our coast. North Atlantic right whale deaths are a real problem. There are only three hundred and eighty North Atlantic right whales left on earth and the population is declining. And, by far the leading causes of whale deaths are boat strikes and fishing gear entanglement. Particularly, the traps and pots used to catch lobsters and Jonah crabs. I believe that blocking all rulemaking for nearly a decade is the wrong approach, and will lead to more whale deaths and drive the species closer to extinction. But look, if we are going to pass this legislation today, let's ask ourselves what else can we do to prevent these whale deaths? So my amendment will do a couple of things. all of which I think should be uncontroversial. It will provide funding to assist fishermen throughout the region to deploy ropeless gear, if they choose to do so. That will reduce entanglements while ensuring that fishermen remain on the water making a living. This will build on work that has already been done and funding that has already been committed in the past. In twenty twenty three, I was uh very proud uh to help Rhode Island receive almost three and a half million dollars to aid lobster and other fish fixed gear fishermen to get ropeless gear on their boats, uh which was used to great effect. My amendment also makes additional changes. It funds the National Marine Mamble Entanglement Response Networks, which do the dangerous and essential work of freeing whales who get tangled up. It funds research and monitoring of right whales to ensure that our efforts to recover the species are working. And it once again requires NOAA to send a report to Congress on the state of the right whale and the transition to robeless gear. This report was first required in twenty twenty three, but NOAA has never sent it to Congress, and that is unacceptable. This amendment will help save the North Atlantic right whale species while also protecting jobs in the fishing industry. Again, I don't think anything about it is in any way partisan and controversial. If we're gonna pass this bill, then we might as well at least also do something, uh, to help protect this species. Uh, so to be clear again, I I don't support the underlying bill. I don't believe it's the right approach.

Thank you very much. Uh, is there further discussion on the amendment? Uh, Mr. Hoffman.

Mr. Hoffman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, this amendment would help move both our US fisheries and the North Atlantic right whale toward a thriving future, so I support it. Our goal must be a robust American lobster and Jonah crab fishery that can coexist safely with right whales in their New England habitat. Over the past four years, there's no doubt we have made progress. Thanks to ropeless gear, over one million pounds of North American seafood has been s- sustainably and safely brought to market. Unlike the underlying bill, this amendment offers resources to build on this momentum. It would support continued technology research and deployment, and would make the United States a global leader in sustainable fishing gear. Being the first nation to reach economies of scale for this technology is within our grasp. We should want to do that. Uh, but we won't get there if we stymie progress with this short-sighted and defeatist legislation. While these fisheries have taken some steps to reduce their risk to whales, entanglements in fishing gear continue to far exceed sustainable levels every year. When the twenty twenty-one biological opinion was finalized, we had three hundred and fifty whales, and the population was in free fall. Today, due to the collaborative efforts of scientists, engineers and fishermen who uh want to do their part and backed by strong federal funding, the population may have stabilized, at around three hundred and eighty individuals, at least in the short term, but better is not good enough. Each preventable entanglement is still one too many, for a whale population teetering on the edge of extinction, and we must continue to develop real-world solutions that minimize that risk while keeping fishermen on the water. This amendment would also authorize funding for two additional areas, monitoring of North Atlantic bright whale and funding for marine mammal entanglement response. stranding and entanglement response teams have the resources they need to free whales that are caught in lethal fishing rope and conduct ne necropsies to help inform our management efforts and prevent future deaths. Lastly, uh, this amendment improves accountability. It would require NOAA to officially report on this topic to Congress no later than ninety days after enactment of this bill, and to date, as has been noted, NOAA just hasn't done that. They've not drafted a single report required by

Do you want me to yield back? Is there further discussion on the amendment? I recognize myself, I do oppose the amendment because the amendment would effectively end the bill's prospects of advancing through the house. It includes nearly two hundred and fifty million dollars in new funding authorizations without any offsets. Further, the one funding authorization that this amendment decreases is critical research funding aimed at developing gear necessary for the future of American lobster fisheries I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, And I yield back through further discussion on the amendment. There's no further discussion. The questions on the amendment offered by Mister Magaziner, designated Magaziner number one. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, no. The opinion of the chair, the no's have it.

Chairman uh, request a recorded vote.

A recorded vote has been requested. Further proceedings on this amendment will be postponed. Pursuant to the mark-up notices, now in order to consider H R twenty three seventeen, the Northern Nevada Economic Development and Conservation Act of twenty twenty five, 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. Amadei, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just just by way of a of a brief statement, This legislation, uh, in one form or another has been before this committee since the hundred and seventeenth Congress. The biggest footprint in the, in the, uh, in H R twenty three seventeen is located within Pershing County, which is a county along the route of the, uh, Transcontinental Railroad. Uh, approximately three hundred and fifty thousand acres was checkerboard land granted pursuant to the Transcontinental Railroad Act. Uh the county has come to us and requested that as part of the public lands bill process, that we consolidate that ground. This bill contains that consolidation language, which is important for consideration purposes because the federal estate doesn't grow under the consolidation, and neither does the private estate. It is basically, instead of taking an unusable checkerboard land pattern, says basically, here's the federal pieces and here's the private pieces. In addition to that in Pershing County, there are forty five hundred acres that are created for economic development, and there's a conservation element for over a hundred thousand acres, all generated from the from the supervisors in Pershing County, asked for those land changes to that. The next biggest footprint is Douglas County, which borders the southeast portion of South Lake Tahoe and goes down into the valley, uh, into the Carson Valley next to that. This footprint contains about seven thousand acres to be conveyed to the Washington which is the indigenous tribe in in the Lake Tahoe Basin. And then it also creates uh about seven thousand acres that's transferred to the county, the vast majority of which is for municipal flood plain improvements and drainage improvements. So you have that portion. Of the remaining parts of the bill, of the of the remaining nine counties affected, covers all of the rest of the bill, which are all small parts that are were requested by the county for various purposes, cemetery, parks, uh, some economic developments, some around housing areas, much smaller footprints than those first two. And you say, well that's nice, why are you doing that? And the reason we're doing that is because Nevada is a state that's about eighty-three percent federally owned, largest percentage of any state in the nation. It's not because somebody woke up one day and said, hey it'd be cool to have this federal ground, literally every community in the state, at that ownership percentage, is surrounded by federal land. So if you want land for a cemetery, or you want land for a park, or you wanna convey, to a tribe, where the county commission has negotiated and agreed, you have to come to this committee and to congress, to do that. So, I wanna allay any fears, we took up a Nevada lands bill during reconciliation, this is not that bill. This is a bill that is strictly in northern Nevada, has been in process, actually was passed out of the house in the hundred and fifteenth session for the vast majority of it. But, uh, uh, I don't wanna say housekeeping or anything like that because everybody's antennas will go up. But, having said that, if you wanna give your communities in your district the ability to grow responsibly, you have to come to the Congress to get some land freed up for various purposes to do that. So I would represent to you that uh this is a holistic package, package that balances conservation and economic development that allows uh Nevada communities to enjoy uh the ability to plan for their own futures and as a final thing I'd like to say that it enjoys bipartisan support. The governor, the National Mining Association, the Farm Bureau, the Nevada Wildlife Coalition, uh Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, Conservation Lands Foundation, Friends of Nevada Wilderness, and all counties and tribes affected thereby. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

I yield back. Mr. Hoffman, you're breaking up.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am glad to hear from my friend from Nevada that this is not that bill, uh, because we all remember the midnight special when we were here, and in the dark of night, without any process, uh, a last minute attempt was made to sell off millions of acres of public land, an attempt that that backfired due to uh widespread nationwide opposition, including uh from some uh Republicans in this body. Um, so I'm glad it's not that bill that we're considering here today, but forgive us if after that experience um, we wanna make sure there's a robust process. We wanna make sure we're careful. We wanna make sure there's scrutiny and deliberation when we're talking about legislation that involves vast areas of our public land. such as this bill. Uh, this is an impressive and comprehensive bill that reflects years of engagement negotiation compromise. I want to acknowledge Mr. Amaday's hard work and dedication uh in this regard. Uh, he's been at this a long time, and I appreciate uh the desire to get this done before he retires at the end of this Congress. We'd love to be able to make that happen, but we have to do it right. The last time this bill was before this committee was in November of twenty twenty four. right before the end of the last Congress. And at that time the committee was asked to support an amendment that stripped out all of the conservation pieces in the bill. That meant no more wilderness, no more permanent protection for the Ruby Mountains. This amendment was controversial. It split up a lot of local support that Representative Amadei had worked hard to develop. Committee Democrats expressed concerns at that time over losing those conservation pieces. And so it's encouraging to see that some of them have stayed in the bill this time around. Advancing wilderness designation for almost a hundred and fifty thousand acres of public land in northern Nevada is progress. And while we're encouraged that our Republican colleagues are ready to support new conservation in the context of this bill we still have a lot of questions and concerns about process, and some of the specifics. Now first, we're surprised the bill uh came to us this month. There's been no hearing on it during this Congress. We only recently learned about the possibility of a mark-up. This is a one hundred page, extremely technical that will impact the future of hundreds of thousands of acres of public land in Nevada. It's not something that we should be rushing through without measured consideration. A lot has changed since the committee last considered this bill, including that midnight special attempt to uh give away millions of acres of public land. Like many Nevada public lands bills that have come before it, uh this bill uh is a package of trade-offs. It strikes a balance between economic development and conservation. That is an ethos that we can all support and understand. Nevada is not the only public land state in the union. My home state of California has a lot of public land. And my colleagues on the democratic side certainly understand the dynamic of balancing various needs to ensure long-term stewardship coexists with thriving communities. That is a bipartisan goal and an important one. So, it's it's very important that we get this balance right. Our public lands are national treasures that should or sold off to the highest bidder without safeguards. Americans of all stripes oppose giving away public lands. This committee learned that lesson very clearly, um, at the time of that midnight special during the recrea- the reconciliation mark-up. Uh, in that instance we were asked to support selling off public lands to help pay for President Trump's tax cuts for billionaires, a boondoggle. The response was loud and clear, Americans wanna keep public lands in public hands. Now we're being asked to support some of those very same land sales again. The context is different. And while I understand that there's a significant amount of local support for HR twenty three seventeen, this committee has a responsibility to the American public lands and every person who treasures them. The idea of public land sales, especially at the scale envisioned in this bill, is unpopular and potentially problematic, and none of this is happening in a vacuum. The Trump administration is doing everything right now in its power to undermine federal land management agencies, to roll back decades of conservation progress. Earlier this week, Trump illegally eliminated Bears Ears and Grand Staircase Escalante National Monuments in Utah over the objections of tribal communities. It's hard uh, it's a hard time to green light the sale of thousands of acres in Northern Nevada. Title five of this bill even authorizes the sale of encumbered land, also known as surface estate, directly to mining companies. This is something committee Democrats flagged as a concern last time around. So again, I wanna reiterate that we appreciate the hard work and effort that's gone into this bill. Unfortunately, the spirit of outreach and coordination seems to have stopped when it came to working with committee Democrats. A large, complicated bill like this can't be rushed. before the August recess. Better collaboration would have helped to craft a bill that we could have all supported. I yield back.

You don't mean yields back. Is there further discussion on the bill? Mister Bench, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chair, and um thank you uh Congressman Amaday for bringing this bill. I'm a I'm very familiar with this this space, cuz I I grew up on a ranch that ran back into Nevada out of Oregon and uh the nature of the property that's involved is extraordinarily familiar to me. One of the things that's missing from not only the nineteenth century law that created the chuckboard uh structure for financing railroads it and also missing from here here at the eastern end of the United States is an understanding of the sheer size of states in the west, be it Alaska, be it Nevada, be it Oregon. But there are fifty six million acres in Nevada. of public land, fifty six million acres. The amount that is being uh managed by this bill is a incredibly small fraction of that number. Now people would come in and say, as uh as we've heard, that every acre of public land is valuable and there is truth to that. I will tell you if you've driven from Winnemucca down to Reno as I have many many times right through the middle of the the space that's taken up a big chunk of this bill, uh you will see that there is a reason that each acre is worth, when I was growing up, six Uh, today I was looking at some of the numbers, it's about a hundred and fifty dollars. Um, an acre. Now that's unheard of in this part of the United States, uh because there's water on this end of the United States. And there isn't water in this particular space, uh that we are discussing today. What, what, the, Congressman Amadei's bill does is try to repair a structure for financing the railroads that was designed, believe it or not, to drive up the value of federal land so it could then be sold for money. Uh, that that was the idea. The idea also was to prevent railroads from blocking up federal land. So, they cleverly divided the townships into alternating square miles of of ownership. Uh, one square mile to the railroad and another square mile remaining public. The concept being that the rail was to sell that property to private individuals, and that would drive up the value of the federal land retained. And they then would sell, we would then sell that federal land retained to help get our money back from what we use to finance railroads. What ended up happening in places like the county uh that uh Congressman Amadei's bill addresses um was to freeze the use of that land and those little communities in place. That's why those towns are so incredibly small. Lovelock, for example, uh which I've driven through many, many times, is a little bitty town. It's surrounded by this checkerboard pattern that prevents any kind of economic development. Um, I support federal land remaining federal, but I don't support uh causing the popership of people in in our state, which is exactly what this structure is doing. The idea here on this bill is to fix that. And it's again, it has to be viewed in sense of the scale that's involved. Fifty nine million acres of federal land in just Nevada. And this bill would address some extraordinarily small part of that in a very clever way. I do wanna call out one thing on page sixty-one of the bill line eleven. And this is a situation uh this they're trying to say to the secretary that if there's going to be a buyer of a of a of a square mile of federal land that uh is not suitable and and I would say for the record that a buyer that's not suitable would be someone that's not the neighbor that has been using that land for years. A suitable buyer would be the person that's been using that property for years and years and years as part of their operation, that is a suitable buyer. And I wanna make a record extraordinarily clear, that if there's a cash sale, the the folks that have been using that property, lived adjacent to that property, had for years struggled to try to make this combination of federal and and private ownership work get the first choice and be suitable. Uh, with that I I yield a yield back, but, Mister Chair, I just wanna make it clear. Uh, we cannot leave these little communities in these great big vast areas, uh, subject to this crazy jabberwocky approach that was designed years ago to finance the railroads in areas where they actually did have water, as we sure don't have it out on the West End of the United States. Yield back.

Yields back? Is there further discussion?

Mister Chair.

Mister Stauber, your recognition.

Believe it or not, Mister Bentz said exactly what I was gonna say and I yield back.

Gentleman yields back as a further discussion. I recognize myself and I wanna begin by recognizing that H R twenty-three seventeen, the Northern Nevada Economic Development Conservation Act, is a top priority of Representative Amadeus and something that he's been working on for well over a decade. As he already mentioned, over eighty percent of Nevada is federally owned, more than any other state in the nation. Uh, and as Representative Bentz pointed out, the federal government owns a staggering fifty-six point three million acres of Nevada in an area larger than the entire entire state of Kansas. This enormous federal estate presents significant challenges for rural Nevada communities by limiting economic development opportunities, and local control. Because federal lands are not taxable, Nevada's state and local governments are deprived of an important source of revenue to support education law enforcement, emergency response, and many other critically important public services. Representative Amadei's bill, which is similar to legislation that passed this committee last Congress by voice vote offers solutions to these problems that have been developed directly by the counties towns and tribes affected by the legislation the bill permits the eventual advance of over three hundred ninety thousand acres to help bring economic opportunities to Northern Nevada create new job opportunities and allow more opportunities for local communities to to meet their long-term development, recreation and conservation needs. While I will be voting to advance this bill out of committee today, I do remain concerned with the inclusion of restrictive land designations, including a significant amount of new wilderness. Representative Amadei and I have talked about uh this, but he has worked very closely with his uh local officials back home. Uh, I do look forward to working with Representative Amadei to address these concerns. Again, I want to recognize Representative Amadei for his long-standing work on behalf of the communities in Northern Nevada. He has been a strong advocate for his constituents and has worked hard to advance locally supported proposals. I look forward to continuing to work with Representative Amadei to further refine this bill. I yield back the balance of my time. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, it is now to order consider amendments to HR twenty-one.

thank you mr. chairman and and first of all i want to thank you for putting on the record my notable decade worth of uh effort which failed to bear bear fruit on this matter and i'm glad to have part of the record permanently on my performance and and i will say it was an accurate statement uh with that uh i'm offering the uh amendment in the nature of a substitute to update the legal descriptions in washoe county er in in douglas county because of the the tribal transfer language in the bill during the amount of time when i was being so effective on this some of those of of that estate has been transferred through other processes uh, in the BIA to tribal members. So the amendment in the nature of a substitute changes the legal description to reflect accurately the present state of ownership and not try to re-transfer those parcels which have been transferred to individual tribal members in the interim. I yield back.

Gentlemen, yield back. Is there further discussion on the ANS? I support um Representative Amadei's ANS, which does make minor changes to title one of the bill, which is a title that affects Douglas County in Northern uh Nevada. And I yield back to the further discussion on the ANS. We'll now consider the amend or excuse me, if there's no further discussion on the amendment, it's now order to consider amendments to the ANS to twenty-three, H R twenty-three, seventeen.

Mister Chairman, I have an amendment.

So we will now consider the amendment designated by uh Representative Malloy, uh designated Malloy, sixty nine, offered by the gentlewoman from Utah. Without objection the amendment is considered read, and Miss Malloy, you're recognized.

I'm offering this amendment to the ANS at the request of the bill's sponsor, Mister Amadei. It makes minor changes based on technical feedback from the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management as well as small revisions requested by the minority. Specifically, the amendment clarifies which secretary is identified for titles that include US Forest It removes duplicative language, ensures reference maps are properly identified, and at the request of the minority, strikes all reference to the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act, or CERCLA, which Mister Amadei's team has agreed to. The amendment text has been shared with the stakeholders and this bill has received no objections. And finally, since I still have some time remaining, Mister Chairman, I wanna take the opportunity to quickly recognize Mister Amadei, who is retiring after fifteen years of service to the people of Nevada's second district. Uh, he's been a friend and a mentor to me. We served together on this committee and also on the appropriations committee. On both committees we worked together on tough issues that really matter to our constituents. Uh, he's a fierce and relentless advocate when it comes to the needs of Nevadans. Nevada is the only state with a higher percentage of public land than Utah, where I represent. And I'm sympathetic to the complexities of public land management in a state where public land acres have a super majority of the acres. So it's my pleasure to offer this amendment on behalf of my friend and neighbor, Mister Amadei, and with that, I yield back.

And lady yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Mister Hoffman, you're recognized.

Thank you. Um, Mister Chairman, I I just want to continue to express our concern about the the process. It's not midnight this time around. I'm grateful for that. But um, you know, here we are again, uh, with a last minute amendment on a very large technical bill that came to us We only learned about it a few days ago. I understand Representative Malloy's amendment is uh is technical. Uh, it may even include some of the changes that we have asked for. So, that's great. Um, but uh, while I appreciate that effort, it was filed late last night. Seven pages of clean-up language to a nearly one hundred page bill. Uh, this does have some echos to the thirty-three pages we were presented with uh you know around midnight during reconciliation. Uh, and we were told nothing to see here, local support, uh, and there was much more to the story. So, uh, Mister Chairman, this is no way to, uh, run a major piece of legislation and we continue to have concerns about the process. I yield back.

So, and then yields back, is there further discussion? I recognize myself. The amendment offered by Representative Malloy makes a number of technical and clarifying changes. that improve the bill and also say that she was spot on on her comments about representative amaday's work these revisions will improve implementation provide additional administrative flexibility increase transparency and make other minor changes throughout the bill these edits reflect feedback from the minority as well as the affected stakeholders thank representative maloy for offering the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time is there any further discussion on the amendment There's no further discussion. The question is on the amendment offered by Miss Malloy, designated Malloy, sixty nine. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye. Aye.

Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. And the amendment is agreed to. The question now occurs on the amendment in nature of a substitute to H R twenty three seventeen offered by the gentleman from Nevada, Mister Amadei, designated Amadei, twenty nine A and S. 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 in the nature of a substitute is adopted the question now occurs on reporting hr twenty three seventeen 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 in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it but i will record request a recorded vote uh and the proceedings will be postponed until further notice.

We're gonna take a ten minute recess.

We're gonna take a ten minute recess and then we will reconvene for votes. Committee stands in recess. Finish business is on the request for recorded vote on amendments to the ANS to HR ninety four thirty six members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. Questions on the amendment to the ANS to HR ninety four thirty six designated magazine or number one on which the no's prevailed for voice vote the clerk will open the vote. yeah usual delay this is the this is the computer game oh it's on

yeah have all members voted six seven

Have all members voted? 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 fourteen 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 ninety four thirty six offered by the gentleman from Maine, Mister Golding, designated Golding.

Aye.

Those opposed, no.

No.

The opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.

No.

And the member and the amendment and the nature of the substitute is adopted. The question now occurs on reporting H R ninety four thirty six as amended to the house with the recommendation that the bill be favorably approved. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, no.

No.

Request recorded, though.

A recorded vote has been requested. Members will record their vote. clerk will open the vote Have all members vot Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will close the vote and report.

Mister Chairman, on this vote the yeas are twenty-two and the nays are thirteen.

The bill as amended is ordered and reported to the house with the recommendation that it be favorably approved without objection. the question now occurs on reporting hr twenty three seventeen as amended to the house with the recommendation that the bill be favorably approved 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 done the clerk will close the vote and report

Mister Chairman, on this vote the yeas are twenty-three and the nays are twelve.

The bill as amended is ordered reported to the House with the recommendation that it be favorably approved without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. We now turn to the UC package with the cooperation of Ranking Member Huffman and the other members of the committee we have worked out an agreement on five 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 bill 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?

Got it.

Mister Kennedy, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chairman Westman, and thanks to the ranking member, Mister Huffman, for considering the Indian Health Services Emergency Claims Parity Act during today's mark-up.

Mister Kennedy, we suspend.

I will.

Members, please uh Pay respect to Mister Kennedy and keep the the noise down. We're still in the middle of the of the mark-up. I'll give you a little bit of time to exit if you're leaving.

Hey Mister Chair, I have eight kids. I'm used to noisy uh noisy rooms when I'm trying to talk, so it's alright.

Mister Kennedy, you're recognized.

Thanks, sir. Before coming to Congress, I practiced as a physician, one lesson that carried me through every patient interaction was the importance of communication. Good decisions depend on having the right people at the table sharing information early and working together to solve problems before they become larger issues. That perspective also taught me that when families are facing a medical emergency, every moment matters. Their attention should be on caring for a loved one, not on navigating federal paperwork or worrying that they may miss a notification requirement while dealing with the crisis. This bill provides a practical common sense fix by ensuring that families are not unfairly burdened by procedural requirements during some of the most difficult moments of their lives. Utah's third congressional district is home to more federally recognized tribes than any other district in our state and I know how important it is that federal processes work for the people they're intended to serve. This legislation removes an unnecessary burden while preserving the integrity of the underlying process, and I believe it is a sensible improvement to our current law. I appreciate Chairman Westerman and his committee staff for permitting consideration of this legislation. And I respectfully urge my colleagues to support this bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With that, I yield back.

The gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion? Mr. Whitman, you're recognized.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak on the critical piece of legislation, that is, the Advancing Water Research and Collaboration Act of twenty twenty five, which reauthorizes the Water Research, uh, Water Resources Research Act program through twenty twenty nine. You know, we're blessed as a nation with abundant natural resources, and I believe firmly that we have an op- uh an op- an opportunity, but also a responsibility to steward, manage, and use these resources in ways that allow them to flourish. This bipartisan legislation is gonna strengthen the critical partnership between states and federal government, and allowing them to coordinate a plan to organize and conduct research that addresses these critical state and regional water programs. The research institutions that carry out this mission are typically housed at major research universities, ensuring that each state will be well equipped to manage its unique water challenges. In addition, reauthorizing this program, the Advancing Water Research and Collaboration Act, provides for the growing artificial intelligence industry's water challenges in the purpose section to be addressed. This will allow critical technology infrastructure to continue to evolve, based on needs and conserving our precious water resources. Conservatism isn't partisan. Conservation isn't partisan. It's about protecting the livelihoods and way of life for millions of Americans. Those two go hand in hand. We have to continue to improve access and our conservation efforts and make sure these efforts uh are here to stay and we understand the things we can do to continue to enhance these water resources. I wanna take a moment to thank the House Natural Resources, Water, Wildlife and Fisheries Subcommittee for their great work on this piece of legislation and their willingness to bring attention to the intersection of conservation and student research through this program. Thank you again, Mister Chairman, for the time and please know I am thankful for the work that this committee is doing to insure that generations of Americans can live, work, hunt, fish and play in our beautiful public lands.

Do you want me to yield back? Is there further discussion? Seeing none, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries be discharged from further consideration of H R twenty-four O six the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Sexual Harassment and Assault Prevention Improvements Act of twenty twenty five. H R sixty eight ninety three, the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Advancement for Training, Education, Restoration and Science, or the Waters Act. and hr seventy eight eighty nine the advancing water research and collaboration act of twenty twenty five or the awrc act of twenty twenty five without objection so ordered ask unanimous consent that the subcommittee on indian and insular affairs be discharged from further consideration of hr twenty eight twenty seven to provide for the equitable settlements of certain indian land disputes regarding the land in illinois and for other purposes and hr eighty six fifty eight the indian health services emergency claims parity act 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 hr twenty four O six the national oceanic and atmospheric administration sexual harassment and assault prevention improvements act of twenty twenty five hr twenty eight twenty seven to provide for the equitable settlement of certain indian tribe or certain indian land disputes regarding land in illinois and further purposes hr sixty eight ninety three the chesapeake bay watershed advancement for training education restoration and science waters act with an amendment in the nature of substitute offered by ranking member huffman designated huffman o ninety eight ans hr seventy eight eighty nine advancing water research and collaboration act of twenty twenty five or the awrc act of twenty twenty five in hr eighty six fifty eight the indian health service emergency claims parity act without objection so ordered without objection the motions to reconsider are laid upon the table i ask unanimous consent that the staff be allowed to make any technical and conforming changes to the documents the committee just adopted subject to the approval of the minority without objection so ordered if there is no further business the committee stands adjourned