Hearing on 17 Public Lands, Water, Wildlife, Tribal and Energy Bills

The committee will come to order. The chair notes the presence of a quorum. Pursuant to committee rules, members of the committee may submit written opening statements for the record, ask that members may revise and extend the 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 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. So today we're here for our what appears to be our last mark-up before the uh the election. And I just wanna note that we've had a successful committee, this congress. This committee has been um among the most productive of actually the most productive me uh committee on all of congress. We've passed more bills out of the house, and we've had more bills go to the president's desk for signature than any other committee. And uh if you look at this congress with the house of representatives, it's been uh with with nearly nine hundred bills passed out of the house, it's uh believe the second most uh bills ever passed by a uh a house in the history of congress. So there's been a lot of activity happening and this committee has certainly stepped up to the challenge that I think uh Daniel Webster left us in the house chamber about developing the resources of our lands and doing something um significant in our uh day and generation. And I will say that we couldn't have passed all those bills without uh bipartisan support on the many u c packages that we produce in the house, it ended up being suspension bills on the floor. And uh thinking about Webster's challenge to us, I would say that the work we've done in this committee champions uh the ideals that he promoted in the one hundred and nineteenth congress we've worked tirelessly to develop America's resource to unleash our nation's potential, to strengthen our communities, and conserve our natural heritage for generations to come. Starting with H R one, we unleashed American energy dominance by responsibly developing our natural resources, ensuring access to reliable American energy, creating jobs and driving economic growth. Our provisions mandated energy lease sales on federal lands and waters, with sales already complete in New Mexico, Alaska and the Gulf of America, generating record returns for the American taxpayer and vastly exceeding CBO's ridiculously low projections. We also reduced wasteful and inefficient government subsidies and invested one billion dollars in Western water infrastructure projects. This Congress or committee also used the Congressional Review Act to reverse resource management plans that locked up millions of acres of public lands in Alaska, Montana, North Dakota, and Wyoming. These resolutions reopened lands to responsible energy development, strengthening American energy security, supporting rural communities, and putting these resources back to work for the American people. Then we led the charge to pass the most sweeping reform of federal permitting law in more than fifty years with the bipartisan Speed Act. By setting timelines for permitting and litigation, re reining in bureaucratic red tape, and curbing frivolous lawsuits, these reforms will drive investment and let America build again. We also delivered bipartisan solutions to address the catastrophic wildfire crisis facing American communities, passing the Fix-our-Force Act after the devastating twenty twenty-five LA fires. Its science-based, common-sense approach increases active forest management, supports community resiliency, and empowers land managers to use the best available science and technology to improve forest health. And we took our work outside the Beltway. We traveled across the country to hear directly from Americans and see firsthand how federal policies affect their communities. At a field hearing in Oklahoma City, tribal representatives and committee members discussed ways to improve federal policies. better serve tribal communities and promote travel sovereignty. In Grand Teton National Park, we saw firsthand the importance of investing in our national parks and public lands and heard innovative approaches to addressing infrastructure challenges. In my home state of Arkansas in Hot Springs National Park, we heard from local, state, and federal officials, as well as actor and producer Kevin Costner, a notable advocate for America's best idea. These experiences informed the committee's work on the bipartisan Great American Outdoors Act, which invest billions of dollars in our nation's public lands and Bureau of Indian Education schools, ensuring they are modernized and maintained for generations. The Natural Resources Committee remains the most productive committee in the House of Representatives. As I mentioned earlier, to date, this Congress, we have passed one hundred thirty-eight bills out of committee, one hundred and fifty-nine in the House. At more than one hundred hearings and mark-ups, we've heard and built upon the voices of more than three hundred and eighty witnesses, who shared their But our work is not yet done, and today's mark-up continues the effort. While our agenda covers a wide variety of topics, every bill before us reflects our commitment to responsible stewardship, conservation, and empowering the people who know their resources best. The work of the committee throughout the one hundred and nineteenth Congress reflects the charge that Daniel Webster described two centuries ago, to develop the resources of our land, build up our great interest,

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, so when I hear my friend uh from Arkansas celebrate this as the most productive committee uh in this Congress, uh it is basically celebrating the prettiest horse at the glue factory. Uh, this has been a deeply unproductive Congress and a committee that has completely shirked its responsibility under the Constitution and under the matters that fall within our jurisdiction everywhere I go. Whether it's the press or constituents or anyone I run into, I get the same question these days. What are you going to do to hold this administration accountable if Democrats are in the majority next Congress? Today is our last committee mark-up. before the November elections and our colleagues have had two years with President Trump in the White House and with a majority in both houses of Congress. They have used that time, as the Chairman just reviewed, to hand out favors to big oil, to giant AI companies, well-connected lobbyists, but they have turned a blind eye to the rampant corruption spreading across this administration. The founders designed Congress to check the executive branch, but the Republican majority has effectively neutered congressional authority, bowing to this president's every whim. Now I've served under presidents of both parties. I've never seen an administration this openly lawless and corrupt. Officials using taxpayer dollars for personal gain, starting wars on a whim to settle personal scores. A system rigged for billionaires and lo- loyalists. leaving the American people struggling to afford health care, gas and groceries. And through all of this, this committee has stayed silent. They've ignored it. They've gaslighted about it or just tried to change the subject. Take Freedom two fifty, an organization set up to run the celebrations of our nation's two hundred and fiftieth anniversary plagued by influence peddling, personal enrichment and the harvesting of Americans' personal data. Committee of Democrats spent months investigating it and ultimately released a fifty five page interim report, laying out what we found. This majority has done nothing. They won't even have a conversation with us about it. And then there are the president's many vanity projects, the botched reflecting pool, which even the contractor now admits that President Trump and Secretary Burgum just lied to us about. A president running around DC, putting his name on everything because he's scared That without these gaudy tributes to himself, history will remember him for what he truly is, a disgrace. The American people are facing skyrocketing costs and losing their health care. But he's done nothing to help them. He's too busy playing golf and building monuments to honor himself. And this majority does nothing. Or they sometimes run cover for Trump's corruption. Look at Vulcan elements. Three months after seventeen Eighty-nine capital, where Donald Trump Junior is a partner, invested in the company, Volkan received a federal loan worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Committee Democrats sought answers. We moved to subpoena Trump Junior to testify under oath about his financial stake in the company. And this federal deal, committee Republicans blocked the subpoena and shut down the hearing to stop any oversight. They wouldn't even have a conversation about it. There are countless examples. We could literally have weeks of hearings if we went through all of the examples. Committee Democrats have worked to fill the void left by a Republican majority that just won't do any oversight or investigation. And we've done that work without tools that are available only to the majority. So when people ask, what will we do under a Democratic Congress, my answer is simple. We'll use those tools. We'll act like a Congress. Two hundred and fifty years ago, Americans declared independence from a king who answered to no one. When the founders wrote the Constitution, they built a Congress with the power to ask questions, demand answers, hold the executive accountable. That power comes with a duty, and this duty matters most in moments like this, when corruption, conflict of interest, and blatant misuse of taxpayer dollars threaten the foundation of this great democracy. That duty belongs to all of us on this committee, and both parties whoever holds the gavel. And we'll see in a little less than fifty days what the American people tell us that they want in the next Congress. But I promise you this, if Democrats are in charge, we will follow the evidence. We will put witnesses under oath. We will give the people who sent us here the answers they deserve. That's the job that the Constitution gives to Congress. That's what loving this country and upholding your oath of office looks like. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Pursuant to the mark-up notice, it is now in order to consider HR fifteen fifty-five, the Bureau of Land Management, Mineral Spacing Act, ask unanimous consent that the subcommittee on energy and mineral resources be discharged from further consideration of the bill, without objection. So ordered. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open to amendment. At any point, does any member wish to be recognized for purpose of debate on the bill? Mister Hoefmann, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chair. I strongly oppose HR fifteen fifty five. Since the first days of this administration, Republicans have been chipping away at each and every safeguard meant to perfect protect communities landowners and the environment from the harms of fossil fuel development they've made it easier and easier to drill on our public lands with less and less accountability and the big ugly bill, they enacted mandatory oil and gas leasing making it almost impossible for communities and land managers to say no when big oil comes knocking. And we've already seen what this can mean on the ground. Unmitigated oil and gas drilling is taking precedence over critical habitat for pronghorn antelope, mule deer, and elk. It's threatening beloved recreation areas and important uh uses on our public lands. These are not hypothetical conflicts. They're real communities, real landowners and real resources that oil and gas development is putting at risk. Republicans have argued that we don't need to do environmental analyses to decide where it's appropriate to drill before doing an oil and gas lease sale, because we have comprehensive landscape level resource management plans. But last year they blew up that backstop too, through the Congressional Review Act, leaving large parts of the public of our public lands operating under leasing plans made decades ago. And that brings us to the last layer of federal review, the application for a permit to drill, or APD. H R fifteen fifty-five would strip away that federal permitting process for oil and gas development on roughly four million acres of split estate federal lands where the surface is privately owned but the minerals underneath belong to the American people. This bill has long been a priority for the oil and gas industry. It would eliminate the federal drilling permit when an operator is drilling from non-federal surface land and less than fifty percent of the subsurface mineral estate being accessed is federally owned that can be a big deal it can cover massive areas with massive potential impacts to our public lands this is a big big deal. Horizontal drilling means a well can be on one property and travel thousands of feet sometimes miles underground to reach oil and gas beneath another property so imagine if you're a private landowner whose property sits above all of that. You may not have chosen to have oil and gas development underneath your property, but this bill uh would make it so that you could lose the federal permitting process that at least lets you know what's being proposed. Right? You could raise concerns and you could have those concerns considered and addressed. The APD process is not just a box checking exercise. It is where the agency reviews the proposed drilling and its impacts and where the agency applies federal safeguards to the development. Under this process, operators must make a good faith effort to provide surface owners with information and protective guardrails. For split estate landowners, that process can be one of the most important points of leverage they have, maybe the only point of leverage they have. Landowners must contend with the impacts of development on or beneath their property, including impacts to water sources, grazing and ranching operations, polluted water created by drilling, and the very stability of the land itself. The federal process provides a mechanism to identify and address those concerns. H R fifteen fifty five would also create a very real notification problem. What happens to the private landowner whose property is above those federal minerals, but whose property is nowhere near the well pad, who tells them, who gives them the opportunity to make sure their concerns are addressed. This bill would leave surface landowners in the dark about what's happening beneath their lands, take away their ability to hold oil and gas developers accountable for the harm that they cause on the property. I do appreciate the majority's taken out some of the most most harmful parts of this bill, explicitly waiving YPA uh NEPA and the Endangered Species Act and the National Historic Preservation Act. But the bill is still a reckless give-away to the oil industry, even as they reap massive profits due to high oil, gasoline and diesel prices brought on by the Trump administration's war of choice with Iran. I oppose this bill and yield back.

Gentlemen, yield back. Is there any further discussion? I recognize myself. H R fifteen fifty-five, the Bureau of Land Management, Mineral Spacing Act, sponsored by Representative Bice from Oklahoma, is a common sense reform that removes a duplicative step in the oil and gas permitting process. Doesn't remove all the oil and gas permitting process, it removes a duplicative step. Because currently if an operator drilling on a private surface, touches any oil and gas from a federal mineral estate, they must submit an application for a permit to drill, or an APD, to the state and federal government, and obtain a drilling permit before any drilling begins. This duplicative requirement delays production and restricts landowner rights by making approvals contingent on the federal government's review, even when the state has already approved the project. And let me be clear, the states have very stringent permitting processes to get these approvals. So, the current law requires the private landowner not only to get the permit from the state but also to have to go through the federal permitting process as well. H. R. fifteen fifty five still allows for royalty accountability and verification while maintaining a standard that allows access to property for inspection. further this important legislation continues to provide avenues to consider tribal voices and does nothing to disrupt the ongoing oil and gas permitting process on tribal lands i thank representative baas for her work on this legislation which will streamline the permitting process and bolster american energy independence i urge my colleagues to support hr fifteen fifty five and i yield back is there further discussion

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

Without objection. So ordered. Is there further discussion on the bill? Hearing none, it's now in order to consider amendments to H R fifteen fifty five. We will now consider the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H R fifteen fifty five, offered by myself, designated Westerman O one A and S. Without objection, the amendment is considered read and open to amendment at any point. I now recognize myself. The A and S to H R fifteen fifty five reflects key changes to address fee fee fee fed scenarios. Specifically, the ans further defines when an operator can avoid duplicative reviews by clarifying that both well bores originating on non-federal land that simply traverse federal land as well as those originating on non-federal land that enter and produce from a federal mineral estate may avoid additional federal permitting processes these changes will empower landowners and incentivize operators to develop minerals in areas that would otherwise have been stranded by the additional constraints in the federal apd permitting process I urge my colleagues to support the ANS. Is there further discussion on the ANS? If there's no further discussion on the amendment, it is now in order to consider amendments to the ANS to HR fifteen fifty five. We'll now consider the amendment designated Huffman number one, offered by Ranking Member Huffman. Without objection, the amendment is considered read. Ranking Member Huffman, you're now recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment addresses two core issues in the bill. First, It makes clear that the Department of Interior retains the authority and responsibility to require financial assurances for oil and gas resources, even when this bill eliminates the requirement for a federal drilling permit. And second, it would ensure that the Department of Interior continues to have a role in protecting private surface owners who live and work above federal oil and gas uh reserves. We've seen what can happen. We know that horizontal drilling and fracking can pollute water and make wells run dry. It can de-stabilize the land, create sink holes, and cause earthquakes. Importantly, this amendment would strengthen the financial protections for both the federal subsurface lands and the private surface owners, unless the surface owner and the well operator reach a different agreement. Bonds are the financial assurance operators provide to ensure that wells are properly plugged and sites are reclaimed. They are an essential tool for protecting taxpayers and ensuring that the oil companies rather than the public are responsible for the cost of cleanup. For decades, federal oil and gas bonding requirements failed to keep pace with the actual cost of plugging and reclaiming wells. In twenty nineteen, the Government Accountability Office found that eighty-four percent of the bonds it reviewed were likely insufficient to reclaim the wells that were covered. The GAO also found that these inadequate bonds left taxpayers on the hook, exposed and at risk. In twenty twenty four, the Department of Interior finally updated these outdated requirements, increasing the minimum individual federal lease bond from ten thousand to a hundred and fifty thousand that was the first comprehensive update to federal oil and gas bonding in more than sixty years but the Trump administration is trying to roll those requirements back this amendment would strengthen bonding requirements establishing a two hundred thousand dollar minimum bond for the federal oil and gas interests implicated by this bill. Ensuring that eliminating the federal drilling permit does not also limit the financial assurance protecting our publicly owned resources. It would also strengthen protections for private surface owners. Under current regulations, when a well operator cannot reach an agreement with a private service owner, the operator must provide a service owner protection bond um a a service owner protection bond to BLM with a minimum of a thousand dollars to cover potential damages. This amend amendment would increase that amount to a minimum of ten thousand dollars. It's a modest but important protection for landowners whose property sits above those federal subsurface resources. And it recognizes that when publicly owned resources are developed beneath someone's private property, the landowner should not be left high and dry without meaningful protections in place if something goes wrong. In recent years, several western states have adopted stronger protections for surface owners in split estate situations, such as enhanced notice requirements, mandatory surface use agreements, and increased surface damage bonds. Why should landowners sitting on top of federal oil be subject to worse terms than landowners over state owned resources? This is a common sense amendment to add meaningful protections for our public lands and those who neighbor them, and I urge support for it. I yield back.

Do you want me to yield back? for further discussion on the amendment. I recognize myself, I do oppose the amendment and I wanna address some of the issues that were just just brought up. The first one is uh that this amendment would require federal bonding on non-federal land. Uh the amendment's two hundred thousand dollar bond requirement is a bond in search of a purpose. The obligations it would secure are either inapplicable uh for federal surface reclamation they're already covered by state programs the the well plugging programs are handled through a separate federal statute uh on the statutes regarding royalties BLM bonds secure the lease's obligations for primarily surface reclamation restoring the well pad excess pads and other disturbed areas well plugging at the end of life in compliance with lease terms a BLM bond for surface reclamation serves no purpose when there is no federal surface to reclaim. Well, plugging on non-federal surface is already covered by state programs. Every producing state requires operators to post bonds or other financial assurances for plugging. Royalty compliance is enforced separately through the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act, which the bill explicitly preserves. Um, the Huffman amendment actually expands BLM authority beyond what exists today. Under current law, BLM's APD review for these wells focuses on the subsurface federal mineral interest, not surface management on private land. The amendment's a directive to update BLM regulations to ensure surface landowners have their concerns considered, would create a new federal regulatory hook over non-federal surface that BLM does not currently exercise through the APD process. Private landowners are already protected through state laws. state surface use agreements, state bonding requirements, and direct negotiation with operators. Inserting BLM into that relationship is an inappropriate expansion of federal authority, not a preservation of existing protections, and it is highly duplicative. Uh, these duplicative requirements would again require bonding at both the federal and state levels. It would add an unnecessary layer of compliance for operators, who already face an uphill battle to production. The amendment also gives the Bureau of Land Management a green light to impose Endangered Species Act and National Historic Preservation Act requirements on private land. But guess what? It's already illegal to take an endangered or threatened species on private and federal land. Operators are abiding by applicable laws, including the ESA, when carrying out projects. If we're going to increase domestic production to secure American energy security, we must cut out duplicative processes. This that is what this bill is all about. But this amendment would add more red tape, precisely the opposite of what the country needs. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and I yield back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? There's no further discussion on the amendment. The question on the amendment offered by ranking member Huffman designated number Huffman number one. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed no.

No.

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

Hmm? Record a vote.

A recorded vote has been requested. Further proceedings on this amendment will be postponed. Pursuant to the mark-up notice, it is now in order to consider HR fifty seven forty five, the marine fisheries habitat protection act, ask unanimous consent that the subcommittee on energy and mineral resources be discharged from further consideration of the bill, without objection. So ordered. Without objection, the bill will be considered read as considered as read and open to amendment at any point. Does any member wish to be recognized for purpose of debate on the bill? Mister Rizal, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. And thank you for the committee for considering the marine fisheries habitat protection today. I also wanna thank the committee and staff and industry stakeholders who have worked closely with my office throughout the development of this legislation. Their feedback and willingness to work through the details uh with us have been extremely valuable in getting this bill into a strong position to move forward. The goal of the legislation is straightforward. When an offshore oil well gas structure has reached the end of its useful life, we should have a clear responsible pathway to turn that structure into valuable marine habitat when it makes sense to do so. It strengthens the process to ensure that those who enter the reefing process or acting in good faith and are prepared to follow through. It also establishes clear timelines throughout the process, provides accountability when those timelines are not met, and maintains the necessary safeguards for navigation, human safety, and marine environment. Importantly, this bill does not eliminate the exi- existing decommissioning framework. It creates an additional responsible pathway for reefing in place while pers preserving existing mechanisms for decommissioning and other reefing options. For Gulf Coast communities, artificial reefs can provide important habitat for fish and other marine life, and support the commercial and recreational fishing opportunities that are so important to our coastal communities. The legislation is about making sure we can take advantage of those opportunities without sacrificing safety accountability and environmental responsibility. I appreciate everyone who has helped us get this legislation to this point, and I look forward to continue the work with the committee and the stakeholders as to move it forward. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion? Mister Hoffman, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I can appreciate that this bill has improved from its previous version, uh, but there are unfortunately still some glaring issues, so I must oppose it. This bill would create a nationwide rigs to ref reef program, which I'm not fundamentally opposed to, when offshore rigs create good habitat, there should absolutely be a path forward for partial decommissioning so that the habitat can continue to exist. I'm all for finding positive uses of these structures that are already in the water in appropriate circumstances. Unfortunately, in its current form, the bill is yet another thinly veiled giveaway to Big Oil, which has received so many favors that I have lost count. from this administration and Republicans in Congress, even as the industry reaps massive profits due to high oil, gasoline and diesel prices brought brought on by Mister Trump's war of choice in Iran. Full decommissioning, removing structures and returning the sea floor to its pre-drilling state is part of the deal when companies decide to drill in federal waters. It only makes sense that we would require these companies to clean up after themselves. And yet, in the Gulf of Mexico there are twenty seven hundred wells, five hundred platforms and eighteen thousand miles of pipeline left in the ocean that are either overdue for decommissioning or have simply been allowed to languish on the sea floor. In California, there are twenty-three offshore oil and gas platforms remaining in federal waters all of them decades old. Eight of these platforms are in the early stages of decommissioning, and several are in fights over who is supposed to pay for the cleanup. For platforms that are still producing, production is declining rapidly. They're maintaining a marginal level of oil output simply because they don't wanna pay to remove the rigs. Now recognizing that decommissioning is costly, California passed a law in twenty ten allowing companies in appropriate circumstances to partially decommission this infrastructure to create artificial reef habitat cost savings would then be shared between the oil company and the state but liability would remain with the oil companies. In twenty twenty three, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, federal bureau, published a recorded decision for a programmatic environmental impact statement that requires full decommissioning of these California platforms as the best way to meet its legal obligations under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. BSEE could also allow for partial decommissioning, but only if in accordance with the California plan. So this bill, now before us, would upend all of that. Essentially making reefing the default uh at the end of life for these offshore infrastructure um projects. And not just for rigs, uh but it applies to all pipelines too. That's unprecedented. That's an unstudied expansion. We don't know if leaving pipelines in place would be good for fish, turtles, octopus, we just don't know if it's good for anyone other than oil companies. This bill would make it So that offshore oil and gas companies are no longer required to clean up after themselves. It's as simple as that. It prohibits the Interior Department from enacting or enforcing decommissioning orders for years in many cases, allowing these structures to just sit idle, polluting and risking environmental disaster. We know that the longer decommissioning is delayed, the more likely the infrastructure will be to to be orphaned, uh shifting costs onto taxpayers and increasing environmental risk. There are still risks once a rig or pipeline has been abandoned in the ocean, even if we call it artificial reefing. The corroding infrastructure can release toxic pollution into the water. Improperly plugged wells can spring leaks and cause hard to contain oil spills. Pieces of rigs or pipelines can shift or break over time, especially with climate change fueled super storms creating dangers for people out on the water. Under this bill, the states would assume all liability for dealing With all of those risks and paying clean-up costs, forcing this plan into California is not what our state wants or needs. The same is true for the Gulf of Mexico. The true solution is improving decommissioning standards that require clean-up to be completed quickly and thoroughly based on unbiased, science-based assessments for reefing opportunities. We offered to work across the aisle to find a middle ground here, but the majority declined to take us up. on that offer, which is unfortunate. I oppose the bill in its current form and yield back.

Mister Chairman.

Mister Zill.

I'd like to enter a letter of support for this uh bill. I'd like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from the National Ocean Industries Association supporting HR fifty seven forty five, the Marine Fisheries Habitat Protection Act. This letter highlights the value that offshore energy infrastructure brings to marine ecosystems into the local and recreational communities.

Without objection.

Thank you. And Mr. Hoffman, I'd like to invite you fishing down there sometimes, and you forget all about your objections.

I will take you up on that, Mister Ezell. A further discussion on the bill. I recognize myself. I wanna thank Representative Ez Ezell uh for working so diligently on this bipartisan legislation. Also thanks to Representative Vesey and Carter for their efforts uh to make this a a great bill. Uh, and for decades, thousands of oil and gas platforms in the Gulf have supported diverse marine life. Rather than haul back to shore and scrap this life-giving infrastructure, local governments, sportsmen, and energy producers have worked together to safely turn energy infrastructure into permanent artificial reefs that support robust marine ecosystems. The Marine Fisheries Habitat Protection Act builds on existing programs across the Gulf and further capitalizes on the benefits offshore energy provides to marine habitats. Since two thousand, sixty percent of oil rigs in the Gulf of America have been removed, disrupting habitats and harming the fishing economy. Having fished in the Gulf, I've seen firsthand the benefits of these programs. To date, over six hundred platforms, previously installed, on the US outer continental shelf have been reefed in the Gulf, creating opportunities for fishermen and women to enjoy world-class recreation. HR fifty-seven forty-five, introduced by Representative Wiesel, is a pragmatic piece of legislation that builds upon the rigs to reefs initiative, turning decommissioned offshore oil and gas infrastructure into managed artificial reefs. The National Fishing Enhancement Act created national standards for artificial reef development through the National Artificial Reef and Reef Permitting System. The act defines and encourages responsible artificial reef development at a national policy level requiring the National Artificial Reef Plan to support standards for sitting, construction and management. This provides a policy basis for artificial reefs, but does not prescribe a constant comprehensive pathway for offshore decommissioning and artificial reef development. H. R. fifty-seven forty-five builds upon this framework by addressing crucial components of the reefing program. The bill broadens and revises the National Fishing Enhancement Act to expressly cover offshore platforms and associated infrastructure for reefing in place. The bill gives the Department of the Interior clear timelines to identify an active structure suitable for reefing and brings greater certainty to reef planning areas. It's no secret that oil and gas platforms in the Gulf attract and sustain marine life, creating thriving ecosystems near the coastal communities. Just ask any fisherman from the region. Again, I thank Representative Wiesel for his work on the legislation and his commitment to create significant marine ecosystem benefits not only in Mississippi, but around the country. I urge my colleagues to support HR fifty seven forty five and I yield back. Is there further discussion on the bill? Hearing none, it is now in order to consider amendments to HR fifty seven forty five. It's over. This is offered by yourself and you recognize yourself. We will now consider the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H R fifty seven forty five offered by the chair designated EZL O seventy four ANS. Without objection, the amendment is considered read and open to amendment at any point. I recognize myself um to discuss the ANS. The ANS for H R fifty seven forty five improves the underlying legislation by tightening timelines process and adding provisions that encourage good faith efforts by applicants and prevent bad actors from taking advantage of the reefing process. This common sense legislation supports our coastal communities and strengthens recreational fishing opportunities by providing a clear pathway for responsible reefing in place I urge my colleagues to support the ANS and the underlying legislation, and I yield back. We will now consider uh, excuse me, is there further discussion on the ANS? Seeing none, we will now uh consider amendments to the ans to hr fifty seven forty five. We will uh consider the amendment designated men number two, offered by the gentleman from California, Mister Min. Without objection, the amendment is considered read. Mister Min, you're now recognized.

Uh, thank you, Chair Westerman and Ranking Member Huffman for giving me the opportunity to speak on hr fifty seven forty five, the Marine Fisheries Habitat Protection Act, and my amendment. uh i just wanted to note the uh just how large these decommissioning costs are that we are talking about uh capping wells uh dismantling the pipes and rigs associated with those offshore wells transporting these materials to shore and disposing of them and then monitoring the drilling sites over time to ensure that there's no additional spills uh this is a cost of billions and billions of dollars and look i'm not opposed to rigs to reef uh in general rigs to reef can be something that's appropriate we we actually i think started rigs to reef in my home state of california and i worked on a number of bills when i was in the california state senate on this topic uh but we should note that rigs to reef is not appropriate for all rigs uh depending on where the rig is sited uh how deep the water is many rigs are not appropriate for rigs to reef conversion and so again sometimes these rigs can be manmade rigs uh reefs uh that's not a bad thing for fishermen uh for people who uh wanna see more uh marine fauna and flora out there uh but again this is not appropriate as a one size fits all solution but that is precisely uh what this bill does uh and it gives as uh ranking member noted a huge bailout to big oil because it takes these billions of dollars of cost off of their balance sheets it puts them on a taxpayers who are then responsible uh for monitoring for future spills uh monitoring and maintenance uh allowing operators to escape these cost as as the huge cost of um dismantling these structures in the first place and i know we have a very vibrant fishing and surfing community in the region i represent uh and they're these are eyesores and when they're not serving as functional reefs uh why are we requiring the states like california uh convert these to reefs uh and and honor this process this should be done on a case-by-case basis it should be decided by states and i i don't know why my republican colleagues are so adamant about states rights uh unless it's with respect to issues like that that benefit big oil uh and so my amendment hr to hr fifty seven forty five would insure that congress can continue to conduct rigorous oversight with a non-biased review of rig to reef structures the amendment is simple it would simply require the department of interior disclose any reported hazards to navigational safety human safety or marine so species associated with the rigs to reef program uh offshore oil contracts entered into a clear contract with the government with the public when they got these leases to uh be able to drill in public waters with an express condition that they would care for these shared resources and guarantee the full cleanup of these uh and now they're trying to break these promises and we are aiding and abetting that process let's be clear what this is it's a huge bailout to big oil uh and i would urge you to consider supporting this amendment that would narrow this to where it's appropriate with that i yield back

Chairman Yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Mister Hoffman, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, I wanna thank my colleague from California for this uh very thoughtful amendment, and I think a good step toward improving my new fishin' buddy from Mississippi's bill here. Um, a national rigs to reef program is a significant change in how we handle out of use oil and gas infrastructure in our oceans and for a change this big, we really do need to make sure that the annual gives us all the information we need to understand if that program is actually working as intended. Under its current um form, this bill would only require the annual report to tell us where the end of life infrastructure is what's being considered for reefing and what has been reefed. Those reports tell us very little about how the program is actually working, and this amendment would change that. It requires a summary of each assessment for each rig or pipeline, letting us know whether invasive species are present and how abundant they are, compared to native species. This will help us better understand if reefed rigs and pipelines are actually successful in supporting our fisheries or unintentionally propping up harmful invasive species. The amendment would also require disclosure of any reported hazards to navigational safety human safety or the marine environment associated with the

Gentlemen yields back.

Okay.

Is there further discussion on the amendment? I recognize myself and I will also say that I'm I'm in agreement that these issues need to be addressed. Uh, the issue of invasive species should be addressed, the issue of navigational safety, human safety, uh, or effects to the marine environment, those should all be addressed. Um, but I am opposed to the amendment because those things are already addressed. Uh, the it's unnecessary because the Department of Interior is already required to assess the inactive and surrounding habitat before determining if reefing is appropriate. Uh, when it comes to uh navigational safety, human safety, or the marine environment, these hazards are already reviewed during the reef planning process. In fact, the bill expressly allows for removal orders when structures pose a substantial and imminent threat to navigational safety human safety or the marine environment so I think we can all agree these things are important. Um, I contend that they're already addressed through the through the process, so I urge my colleagues to the to oppose the amendment and I yield back, there's further discussion on the amendment. There's no further discussion. The question is on the amendment offered by Mister Min, designated Min number two. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye. Aye.

Those opposed no.

Recorded vote.

And opinion of the chair, the no's have it, a recorded vote has been Suing to the mark-up notice is now in order to consider H. R. ninety-six twenty-one, the Northwest Endangered Salmon Predation Prevention Act of twenty twenty-six, and 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 Huffman, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. This bill would create a broad program in the Pacific Northwest to allow, excuse me, to allow the uh state of Washington and treaty tribes to lethally take sea lions and harbor seals that feed on threatened and endangered salmon and other fish species. Uh, this is an issue that we've taken up before. In twenty eighteen, for the Columbia River. And at that time, the Oregon and Washington delegations in the House and the Senate, along with broader committees of jurisdiction, engaged in extensive negotiations with the states and tribes to craft a compromise that upholds treaty rights, gives endangered salmon a fighting chance, and ensures sustainable sea lion populations under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. I ultimately voted for that legislation, so I do wanna be clear, I'm not categorically opposed. to culling, it is one tool in the toolbox of science-based wildlife management. If we're gonna expand that program and create a similar one for all of coastal Washington, we need to engage in a similar dialogue, we need to be careful, and we need to get it right. While I appreciate the clarifications in the majority's ANS on humane take standards, the permit process, and who can conduct lethal take, these updates do not address some of the primary questions coming from most on our side of the aisle. The original twenty eighteen language focused on sea lions traveling hundreds of miles upstream far beyond their historic range, who would almost exclusively feed on salmon at choke points. This bill before us today would authorize take in marine waters and coastal areas where thousands of seals and sea lions live and have a more diverse diet. It is not targeted. The evidence that removals will help salmon in these areas is less clear-cut. and is largely based on studies conducted far upstream in the Columbia River, at these predation traps that we have tried to address. We've also raised concerns about the lack of resources to ensure this program could even be carried out in a responsible and effective way. We don't have the pinnipat or pinnipat or salmon scientists to conduct necessary analyses. On top of the fact that we are working with outdated marine mammal stock assessments, some of which are over a decade old. So if we're going to ask NOAA to estimate allowable take levels and provide permits for take to improve salmon returns, as this legislation purports to do, we need current science to inform both pinniped take levels and the expected outcomes for salmon. It is quite plain that without that scientific certainty, the permit's legality uh will be in question. Again, I think we could find broad agreement on a path forward, given the chance to negotiate, that hasn't happened. At the hearing in July we asked for meaningful bipartisan bicameral conversations and answers from NOAA, including timely responses to our questions for the record. We still haven't received any of that. It seems the majority is more interested in rushing this bill to the floor rather than doing the hard work of getting it right. We still have outstanding significant concerns on coastal areas and the lack of PBR, on commitments. So, considering these unanswered questions and the rushed process, I will be voting no today, and I wanna urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield the balance of my time.