• H.R. 755 (Rep. Ciscomani), “Critical Mineral Consistency Act of 2025” • H.R. 1352 (Rep. Subramanyam), To designate the General George C. Marshall House, in the Commonwealth of Virginia, as an affiliated area of the National Park System, and for other purposes. • H.R. 1945 (Rep. Onder), “America’s National Churchill Museum National Historic Landmark Act” • H.R. 2196 (Rep. Hudson), To provide for an extension of the legislative authority of the National Emergency Medical Services Memorial Foundation to establish a commemorative work in the District of Columbia and its environs. • H.R. 3706 (Rep. Babin), “Standards for Understanding Source and Habitat Identification Act” or the “SUSHI Act” • H.R. 3922 (Rep. Neguse), “Cross-Boundary Wildfire Solutions Act” • H.R. 4463 (Rep. Norman), To amend the Catawba Indian Tribe of South Carolina Land Claims Settlement Act of 1993. • H.R. 4671 (Rep. Harder), “Ensuring Casualty Assistance for our Firefighters Act” • H.R. 5419 (Rep. Kean), “Enhancing Administrative Reviews for Broadband Deployment Act” • H.R. 5497 (Rep. Tiffany), “Apostle Islands National Park and Preserve Act” • H.R. 6300 (Rep. Hageman), “Grasslands Grazing Act of 2025” • H.R. 6380 (Rep. Ciscomani), “Chiricahua National Park Act”
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
House Natural Resources U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 2
That's a shame. That's a complete betrayal of our article one responsibility, and it's also a betrayal of what this committee is supposed to be doing as the article one branch of government, in the space of natural resource committee jurisdiction. So to add insult to injury, the majority isn't simply looking the other way at all of these scandals and abuses and crimes. Today, we are once again considering legislation that would erode the transparency that we do have and the accountability that we do have for the agencies that we oversee. So let me start with HR 6,300, the Grassland Grazing Act.
This bill, together with the amendment and the nature of the substitute that we're about to consider, would dramatically expand an existing loophole that limits NEPA reviews for certain grazing activities on a subset of Forest Service lands. And it would do that specifically by extending this NEPA loophole to all Forest Service lands across the nation, including national grasslands and national forests throughout the Eastern United States. To put it simply, this is an egregious overreach. At its most basic level, NEPA simply requires federal land agencies to evaluate the impacts of major decisions, to consider alternatives, and to disclose their decisions to the public before acting. It's about transparency.
When you undercut NEPA for major federal actions, you weaken transparency. You weaken public participation, and certainly, you weaken accountability. You make it harder for Congress and the public to understand what agencies are doing and why. And maybe that's the point these days. That seems to be the agenda.
Despite claims to the contrary, HR 6,300 is not a pro-rancher bill in any meaningful sense. A truly pro-rancher bill would actually deal with the pressing challenges facing ranchers right now. Corporate consolidation, trade deals, tariffs, things in our jurisdiction, like the health of rangeland in the face of the climate crisis, and climate extremes. But agencies, right now, lack the technology and the resources and staffing capacity to do their job. That's impacting ranchers.
And this administration has only worsened that problem, as it's worked to gut the federal workforce. But we don't see our colleagues talking about any of that. Rather than addressing capacity problems, this bill would paper over them by limiting environmental review and public disclosure around federal decisions. It replaces transparent, accountable management with a process that will only invite controversy and instability, and it sends a clear message to communities that care about clean water, public lands, wildlife, and recreation, that their concerns don't matter. So turning to HR 5497, we see a similar aversion to public disclosure and engagement.
And I'll say at the outset, this is a bill I wish I could support. Congressman Tiffany did reach out to discuss the bill. It involves a beautiful part of the country. I can understand why he has drawn to it and many others are. We did engage.
That's how the process should work. The problem is that the impacted tribal communities do not feel like they have been adequately consulted, and I take that concern very seriously. Moving forward with this bill today, over tribal opposition and without tribal consultation, sends a clear message. It says that the majority doesn't care about tribal consultation or listening to tribal concerns, much less about trying to address them before moving ahead. So, mister chairman, I look forward to the rest of the regular order bills on today's agenda.
We shouldn't have so many of these partisan differences. Congress, however, does have a constitutional duty to engage in oversight with the executive branch, regardless of who occupies the White House. And as we see so often in this committee, the agenda just continues to reflect a complete abdication of that responsibility, that is deeply troubling to me and many others. I yield back.
Speaker 1
The gentleman yields back. Pursuant to the markup notice, it is now in order to consider HR 5497, the Apostle Islands National Parking Reserve Act. Without objection, the bill will be considered read and open to amendment at any point. Does any member wish to be recognized for the purpose of debate on the bill? If I may,
Speaker 3
Thank you very much. I am so pleased to have H.R. 5497, the Apostle Islands National Park and Preserve Act, to be designated as Wisconsin's first national park. As you said, mister chairman, the crown jewel of Wisconsin, and that is how we view it. You take a look at a good map of Wisconsin, and there are islands scattered on the very top of the state. It truly is the crowning jewel of our great state of Wisconsin, and there is no place in America like the Apostle Islands.
This area contains a collection of underwater shipwrecks and what the National Park Service calls the largest and finest collection of lighthouses in the country. 10 historic lighthouses of the Apostle Islands range from approximately 110 to 170 years old and offer important glimpses into the maritime history of the Great Lakes region. In the summer months, locals and tourists enjoy hiking, powerboating, sailing, and kayaking. You can see right behind you, Mr. Chairman. Sandy beaches, and you discover the solitude and remoteness of the area's many islands as families picnic on these pristine waters.
In the winter, when Lake Superior freezes over, the Apostle Islands are transformed into dramatic ice caves that are accessible to hikers, as you can see behind me. These stunning and unique ice formations are considered a bucket-list destination and offer world-class recreation opportunities. Many of my colleagues on this committee have national parks in their district and understand how much of an asset they can be to their states. While our neighboring states such as Minnesota, Michigan, and Indiana all enjoy national parks, Wisconsin does not yet have one. And the iconic features of these unique islands deserve this long-overdue recognition.
My legislation is very straightforward. It would simply redesignate the majority of the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore into the Apostle Islands National Park. My bill also maintains the heritage of hunting within the Apostle Islands by designating Sand Island, a popular hunting destination, as the Sand Island National Preserve. Protecting hunting access is paramount to me, and this follows the model of the recently elevated New River Gorge National Park. Importantly, the legislation affirms all treaty rights and tribal sovereignty, stating nothing in this act shall be construed as affecting any rights granted, reserved, or established pursuant to treaty, statute, or executive order pertaining to any tribe, including, but not limited to, rights to hunt, trap, fish, and gather on lands included within the boundary of Apostle Islands National Park and Preserve or any other rights asserted by any tribe.
I would also like to note that tribal members were the first to receive drafts of this bill. And it is from consulting with them and receiving their input that we have included that language I just cited. Further, my legislation directs the National Park Service to enhance interpretive displays within the Apostle Islands to include more information about the area's rich fur trade, logging, fishing industries, as well as honor the Ojibwe tribes, the original inhabitants of the Apostle Islands who have called the area home for centuries. This legislation reflects an effort that has been decades in the making. In 1930, nearly a century ago, Congress first authorized a study to designate the Apostle Islands as a national park.
Roughly 40 years later, President John F. Kennedy described the islands as part of our American heritage, and the area was designated as a national lakeshore, an effort spearheaded by the father of Earth Day, Senator Gaylord Nelson. This legislation first received a hearing in the Federal Land Subcommittee last congress and was submitted for two rounds of technical assistance with the Biden administration, whose feedback was implemented into this congress's version. It subsequently was submitted for a third round of technical assistance from the Trump administration. Now, by elevating the Apostle Islands from a national lakeshore to a national park, we can ensure that thousands more are able to visit this area. This will be a win for the people in my state and the country at large, as more people get to enjoy the crown jewels of Wisconsin.
You can see the beauty of the islands in the pictures behind me. But for those who haven't had the chance to experience this beauty up close, I would like to extend my invitation to you to visit us in Northern Wisconsin, especially right now. Beautiful winter. It is my hope that many more will be able to experience this hidden gem once the Apostle Islands are designated as Wisconsin's first national park. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
The gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the bill? Mister Huffman, you're recognized.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So Democrats, of course, are proud to support the national parks on this committee. We fight all the time to strengthen them, to fund them, to defend them from constant attacks, often from our colleagues across the aisle. National parks are sacred to us because they tell our nation's stories, they preserve our natural and cultural resources for future generations. And so, the prospect of designating a new national park is, you know, immediately intriguing and, on the surface at least, compelling.
But it's not something that should ever be done lightly. It requires us to do it right and to engage in thorough consultation with tribal and local communities. And that's where we break down a bit in this discussion. Since the discussion draft was released, I have consistently heard from the Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa and the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa that they oppose the legislation. Red Cliff has told me that they haven't been meaningfully consulted on the bill, despite the full tribal council requesting a meeting with Congressman Tiffany for more than 18 months.
And I heard my friend say that he sent them a draft. Clearly, that's not what they mean by meaningful consultation. They have articulated what they want, what they mean, the kind of respect they deserve as a sovereign tribal government. And I think you should give it to them. I think it's not too much to ask.
HR 5497, however, is part of a pattern, a larger pattern of this administration and this majority prioritizing their own interests, while showing the ambivalence, if not antipathy, to the trust and treaty relationships and obligations we have to tribal nations. Representative Tiffany and I met a few weeks ago to discuss this bill. I told him, I agree. This place is spectacular. It's beautiful.
There's no dispute about that. And we did hear that his office had proactively engaged and consulted with Redcliffe. That's what we were told. But Redcliffe disputes this, and the tribe has stated that the sponsor of the legislation has failed to provide any meaningful information, expressed concern about the potential detrimental impacts to the people who live there if the legislation were enacted in its current form. So I don't think that any tribal entity is saying that there can never be a national park here or should never be a national park here.
But, the way it is enacted, the way their interests are addressed in legislation like this, is a very legitimate subject for meaningful tribal consultation, and at least to their telling, that has not happened. And I don't quite understand what seems to me like some sort of a stubborn impasse. Just do it. Just give them the consultation they're asking for, and let's see where this lands. This is an interesting, sort of role reversal, this conversation that we're having because my Republican colleagues are arguing for this bill today, after having repeatedly pushed to slash the Park Services budget, dismantle the workforce of the National Park Service, weaken environmental protection, sell off public lands, is sort of what we're accustomed to.
And yet today, the script is flipped a little, and we're hearing that they are, at least in this moment, champions for a new national park. I just wanna remind everyone that Democrats have spent the past year working to try to protect our national parks from Republicans' relentless attacks. We are interested in doing more to support national parks and potentially expanding the national park system and adding to it, but we want to do it right. And we shouldn't have a false choice where you're presented with either a new park, or doing wrong by our obligations to Indian country. We should be able to do both at the same time.
So, I think all of us on this side would love to have new land designations and new protections for our nation's special places. But, let us honor our obligations to tribal and local communities as we do that. And for this reason, I must unfortunately oppose the legislation. And I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen yields back as a further discussion on the bill. Recognize myself, and our national parks and public lands have famously been called America's best idea. It's time to put Wisconsin's crown jewel into the group of the best ideas that we have all around the country. And I think this is a great way to celebrate our nation's 250th anniversary by designating our country's 64th national park. This would also be Wisconsin's first national park, as has been stated, and it will bring well deserved recognition tourism to the state.
I commend Representative Tiffany for his hard work on this. He serves as the chairman of the subcommittee on federal lands, and this is an issue that he's passionate about. It is unfortunate that a bill like this is not being considered under unanimous consent. Our national parks should be nonpartisan, and that's especially true of this legislation which effectuates just a simple name change. Nothing in Representative Tiffany's legislation would change the management of the area or the boundary of the unit.
In fact, representative Tiffany has gone to great pains to ensure that this simple name change will have no unintended consequences. He has requested and received technical assistance on this bill three times to ensure that existing uses, including tribal treaty and reserve rights, as well as hunting and trapping on Sand Island, remain protected. The reality is that if you put politics aside and look at the proposal on its merits, this iconic destination is more than worthy of the special designation of a National Park. Anybody who travels to the Apostle Islands should understand that this is truly a unique place, which deserves to be recognized, and I hope it will be visited by millions of Americans for generations to come. Again, I want to thank Representative Tiffany for his leadership on the issue, which is very important to his constituents.
And as I urge my colleagues to vote yes, I would just ask the question, what's taken so long for such a beautiful place. I yield back. Is there further discussion on the bill? Hearing none. It is now in order to consider amendments to HR 5497.
Did you have a question? Yes. I have an amendment. Okay. We're gonna do the A
Speaker 1
We'll now consider the amendment and the nature of substitute to HR 5497 offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin, mister Tiffany, designated Tiffany 39 AMS. Without objection, the amendment is considered read and open to amendment at any point. Mister Tiffany, you are recognized.
Speaker 3
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to speak in regard to the ANS. It's very simple and straightforward. It requires the official map of the Apostle Islands to be made available on a National Park Service website. In addition to being available at the appropriate National Park offices.
Making this map accessible online will allow better access to information for people to see and better understand the boundaries, features, and opportunities the Apostle Islands have to offer. I urge my colleagues to support the ANS and the underlying bill. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, feel yields back because there's a further discussion on the amendment. If there's no further discussion on the amendment, it's now ordered to consider amendments to the A and S to HR 5497, and we will now consider the amendment designated Huffman number one offered by ranking member Huffman. Without objection, the amendment is considered read. Mister Huffman, you're recognized.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So this amendment would allow the Pawcil Islands National Lakeshore to become a national park and preserve, but the designation would be contingent on the one thing that answers your question, mister chairman, from a moment ago. What has taken so long? Why aren't we already there? Well, the answer is that there still has not been a meaningful, formal government-to-government tribal consultation.
So this amendment, which I think is a very reasonable amendment to get us all on the same page and to allow this to move forward, it would simply require that, before the park becomes a park, that Interior must complete a formal government-to-government tribal consultation. And I appreciate that Mr. Tiffany's taken an interest in this beautiful place. I get it. That's a goal that those of us on the democratic side of the aisle share. But when we develop plans to preserve and protect special places, we must include meaningful community engagement, shareholder outreach, and tribal consultation.
Now these processes can be time-consuming and challenging. It often requires specific sacrifice and compromise. I have done it. I know, many of my colleagues on this side of the dais have done it too. And sometimes it can take years to build relationships and establish a foundation of trust, but a truly collaborative process makes for durable outcomes.
It is the key to creating a solution that works for affected communities, and that's especially important when we're talking about tribes and their ancestral lands, which we are in this case. Nowhere is this more important than in that space, with tribal land designation tribes affected by land designation. So I'd like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the hearing record resolutions from the Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa and the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa opposing the designation of Apostle Islands as a national park. That should be part of the record.
Speaker 2
Tribes in the area have repeatedly raised their concerns about this legislation, and what we hear over again is about this absence of meaningful consultation. For years, they've asked for direct conversations, and they haven't gotten them. So, these tribes have a deep connection to this place. They have been formally involved in conservation and land management efforts at Apostle Islands since at least 2012. Tribal members continue to hunt, trap, fish, pray, hold ceremonies, and gather medicinal plants in this area. A significant portion of Apostle Islands is even within the boundaries of the Red Cliff Reservation.
And since we've heard from affected tribal communities saying that they haven't been properly consulted, the very least we can do is require, as this legislation goes forward, that the park service offer a formal consultation process for a proposal that could significantly change their tribal access to culturally significant and ancestral lands. That is the least we should be willing to do. I urge my colleagues to support this narrowly tailored, sensible amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
The gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Mister Tiffany, you're recognized.
Speaker 3
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I oppose the amendment from the ranking member because the executive order referenced in the amendment does not apply here, because the bill has no impact on the relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes. In fact, the language in the base bill, which we added from consulting with tribal members, explicitly stipulates that it doesn't change anything regarding tribes. Specifically, the bill says that nothing in this act shall be construed as affecting any rights granted, reserved, or established pursuant to a treaty, statute, or executive order pertaining to any tribe. Ranking member Huffman's amendment is about having tribal consultation, yet that is exactly how we've gone about the process of forming this bill.
Back in July 2023, the very first draft of the bill was shared with Redcliff's vice-chair. In March 2024, both the Redcliffe and Bad River tribal chairs were given an updated draft. We took their concerns over preserving treaty rights and MOUs very seriously, which is why we included those protections in this bill. If there were any substantive objections to this bill, then we'd be talking about those as amendments, but all this amendment would do is delay. And I would highlight for you, mister chairman, the Red Cliff, and this is important for all members to know.
When this was established as a national lakeshore in 1970, Senator Gaylord Nelson from Wisconsin, the father of Earth Day, was the author of this to be a national lakeshore, and the Red Cliff tribe opposed it. They've opposed it when democrats have introduced it. Now they're opposing it when a Republican does. So there is no reason for us not to go forward with this, and I urge my colleagues to go forward with the bill, but I urge my colleagues to oppose this unnecessary amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
The gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Mister So, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield to our illustrious ranking member.
Speaker 2
Who's that? I thank the gentleman. Talking about you, sir. I appreciate it. Mister Tiffany, I really wanna get to yes and be able to work with you on this.
But I have to say it just got harder because your response to a very narrowly tailored amendment that would simply say, do a government to government consultation before this, because that shouldn't be threatening to anyone. It's a requirement that, frankly, the federal government ought to always do anyway. What is it about a government-to-government consultation that would somehow stand in the way of this becoming a national park? It might affect some of the details of how the park takes shape, but that seems to me like an imminently reasonable request. And in response, guess the entirety of the consultation that's taken place so far was just laid out.
It consists of sending a couple of drafts to some individuals at the tribes. That is not meaningful consultation. If anything, you're sort of making the point that I think the tribes themselves have made, that they want the respect of a face to face government to government meaningful consultation, not some carbon copy of a document that was dropped off to some individual. Now you may recall that when we adopted the rules of this committee, we had a debate about tribal consultation, and Republican members assured us that they do and would engage in tribal consultation. And, you know, what we're hearing today, quite frankly, causes me to question whether that is a value that we both share.
It certainly seems to be something that is lacking in this particular case, but it's easily fixed. And I don't know what is standing in the way of just sitting down with these folks, trying to work out their concerns. Part of this national park would appear to be within the boundaries of their reservation. So I think they've got a legitimate interest here, in meaningful consultation. And, frankly, the antipathy to the whole concept of having that kind of consultation, if anything, I think, raises red flags about this legislation.
So I yield back. Gentleman yields back, mister. So to.
Speaker 3
Thank you to the gentle lady from Wyoming. Mister chairman, I'd like to enter into the record the timeline of the Apostle Islands legislation in contact with Red Cliff and Bad River. And I would just add in regards to this, while it's not comprehensive, the 13 points, because there's more than that in this document, and I'm happy to share it with any of you. There are 13 different instances where we engaged with the tribe and tribal members in regard to this legislation. We worked hard at this, and they were the very first people that we contacted that we were considering this.
We did our job without.
Speaker 1
General lady yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? I recognize myself. I do oppose this amendment because I do also believe it's unnecessary, and it will just further delay the implementation of the legislation. And I would also like to point out that this amendment calls for something that's totally and entirely unprecedented.
And thanks to the work of the illustrious staff on this committee, they discovered that the secretary has never conducted a formal consultation before an existing park unit is elevated to national park status. So what this amendment would do would be setting a new precedent. That's never been done before, and it would further delay. So I oppose the amendment, and I encourage others to oppose it as well. Is there further discussion on the amendment?
If there's no further discussion on the amendment, the questions on the amendment offered by ranking member Huffman, designated Huffman number one. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. No.
In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it, and the amendment is not agreed to. Request for court vote. A recorded vote has been requested. Further proceedings on this amendment will be postponed. Pursuant to the markup, notice is now in order to consider HR 6300, the Grasslands Grazing Act of 2025.
I ask unanimous consent that the subcommittee on federal lands be discharged from further consideration of the bill, without objection. So ordered, without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open to amendment at any point. Does any member wish to be recognized for the purpose of debate on the bill? Miss Hageman, you're recognized.
Speaker 4
Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Westerman. I urge that the members of the Natural Resources Committee support my bill, HR 6,300, the Grasslands Grazing Act. This legislation would put ranchers with permits to graze on national grasslands in parity with those grazing on other federal lands. Section 402, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act or FLPMA, authorizes grazing permits for ten years on National Forest and Bureau of Land Management lands with renewal eligibility subject to continued compliance.
Grazing on national grasslands is designated by the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act and authorized for ten years, but it is not protected and recognized as an official use similar to FLPMA. Ranchers with permits to graze on national grasslands are not guaranteed permit renewals, and have experienced unnecessary hurdles from the USDA in obtaining these renewals. When the Federal Lands Subcommittee held a legislative hearing on this bill, Tye Checketts, the President of the Association of National Grasslands, spoke to the challenges these ranchers face. He stated that the exclusion of National Grasslands under FLTMA creates two classes of permits, with the grasslands having fewer rights. He testified that the lack of assurances leads to real-world harms, pointing to the loss of AUMs on multiple grasslands across several different states.
The U. S. Forest Service testimony also recognized the disparity of policy for livestock grazing permits and leases between the national forests and national grasslands. HR 6,300 is a permanent fix to this issue, providing much needed certainty and security for ranchers, including the right to ten-year permits, first priority for receipt of new permits, and more. Senator Barrasso is the sponsor of the Senate Companion, joined with senators Lemus and Thun, and I want to thank him for his continued leadership and partnership advocating for Wyoming's ranchers.
I urge my colleagues to support HR 6300, the Grasslands Grazing Act, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentle lady yields back. Is there further discussion on the bill? Mister Huffman, you're recognized.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do wanna start where I think we can all find common ground. Ranching is a vital part of the American West. It is part of our history, our economy. And when it is done right, it is a partner with our conservation goals.
I've met with ranchers from Northern California to the Plains of Dakota, the Dakotas who understand that their livelihood depends on the health of the land, and they are, by and large, good stewards. But let's be clear. Multiple use doesn't mean unlimited use. It doesn't mean unreviewed use. And for years, we have seen a trend within this committee towards what I think we have to call autopilot management.
With the Grazing Improvement Act, Congress created a significant shortcut. The law made it easier and, in many cases, mandatory to renew grazing permits without doing any environmental review at all. No NEPA, no updated science, just a rubber stamp to keep doing things the way they have always been done. And the result is that we have examples of rangelands that are overstressed, streams, riparian areas, and other critical ecosystems being degraded because we are not taking that hard look as the permits come up for renewal. And now, with the Grasslands Grazing Act, we are being asked to export this no-review model to even more landscapes.
Doubling down on a policy that has problems, and skipping oversight is not efficiency, it is negligence. And my colleagues across the aisle almost always insist on a seven-year sunset protocol for all government programs and authorizations. They tell us there's an important reason for that, that it's a marker of good governance. They say it's about accountability. It gives Congress a chance to review a program's efficiency and efficacy before we simply sign off on another cycle of doing things the way they've always been done. I'm a fan of consistency, and I think that if a seven-year sunset is the gold standard for accountability in government, we should apply that same logic to these grazing permits.
If we truly care about good governance, we ought to review these permits based on the land's actual condition. We ought to be willing to take a look and consider how it's going rather than just hand out automatic renewals on a wing and a prayer. We should apply that same logic to this legislation. If the program isn't working for the health of the range, it shouldn't be on autopilot. We have to face the reality of the world we're living in.
We're in the middle of a climate crisis that has rewritten the rules of the West. We are seeing mega-drought conditions that haven't been seen in a millennium. What worked on a permit in 1995 or 2010 might be a recipe for ecological collapse in 2026. Managing our public lands in the face of these extremes requires more science, not less, and more scrutiny, not less. It requires frequent check-ins, not decade-long get out of jail free cards.
We can support the ranching community without taking shortcuts like that. They compromise the future of the land and, in the long term, the future of ranching itself. We can provide stability to the ranching industry through partnership, robust science-based management plans that actually account for the water and the grass that's available, and making sure that agencies like the Forest Service have the staff and technology necessary to support the health and vitality of our forests and grasslands. I'm ready to work on real solutions that protect the sustained yield of our grasslands for the next generation, but I cannot support a bill that treats stewardship of our most precious natural resources as a nuisance instead of a core responsibility, which it is. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen yield back as a further discussion. I recognize myself. I strongly support HR 6300, representative Haggiman's Grasslands Grazing Act, for all the reasons I mentioned in my opening statement and the wonderful case that representative Haggiman laid out for it in her testimony. Again, this is a narrowly tailored, targeted bill that will address a small but significant inconsistency in our federal grazing laws to create more parity and transparency for those who operate on our national grazing lands. I do thank Representative Haggeman for her leadership on the issue, which will provide great benefits not only to Wyoming, but to states across the nation with national grasslands.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time. There's a further discussion on the bill. Hearing none, is now in order to consider amendments to HR 6,300. We'll now consider the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 6,300 offered by the gentlelady from Wyoming, Miss Hageman, designated Hageman A and S. Without objection, the amendment is considered read and open to amendment at any time.
Miss Hageman, you're recognized.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Chairman Westerman. This amendment, in the nature of a substitute, makes two changes to the bill. First, it strikes the reference to the calendar year 2025 in the bill title. And second, it implements a recommendation provided by the Forest Service in the legislative hearing to ensure that the benefits of this bill are realized by all grazers on the national grasslands. By also striking, quote, in the 16 contiguous Western states, end quote, in the existing FLTMA statute, the bill clarifies that the parity is intended for grazing permits everywhere, including in Texas and in the East.
This has the effect of striking five more words from 43 U. S. Code Section 1752 Subsection A then proposed in the introduced version and reflects the original policy intent of the bill. I urge my colleagues to support this ANS to HR 6,300, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Is there further discussion on the amendment? If there's no further discussion on the amendment, it's now ordered to consider amendments to the ANS to HR 6,300. We'll now consider the amendment designated Huffman number one, revised, offered by ranking member Huffman. That objection, the amendment is considered read. Ranking member Huffman, you're not recognized.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a very simple amendment. It requires the Government Accountability Office to conduct a comprehensive study on the real-world implementation of the Grazing Improvement Act. And the reason for that is, if we aren't measuring the health of our grasslands, we aren't really managing them. We're just neglecting them.
So, this bill, it's important to acknowledge, will export a NEPA shortcut to every acre of our national grasslands. That's a big deal. At a minimum, we should have some sense of what that means for the health and sustainability of these ecosystems, because NEPA is the bedrock environmental law of this country. It requires the government to take a hard look at the impacts of its actions. But under the guise of expedited reviews for grazing permits, we have seen a massive surge in permits being renewed automatically without any meaningful environmental oversight or analysis.
And my amendment simply asked the GAO to take a look at that and to find out exactly how many permits are bypassing the updated NEPA analysis. What is that doing to our soil, water, and our ecosystems? We need to know if expedited is just a polite word for cutting corners. Right now, we are essentially flying blind. We have millions of acres of public land, and yet we lack recent reliable data on the health of many of those allotments.
And this isn't just a paperwork issue. We're facing a climate crisis, historic droughts, the institutional chaos of the Trump administration, which has spent the last year hollowing out our land management agencies. We cannot protect these landscapes from the stresses of a changing climate if we don't even have a baseline for the current conditions. Now the revised version of this amendment that I filed this morning also includes an analysis of monitoring standards to understand if we're using the best methods to fully understand overall rangeland health. It also directs GAO to compare methodologies used by BLM and the Forest Service so we can try to measure in the same way across these agencies.
Finally, this amendment addresses the people problem. Can you have the best regulations in the world, but if you don't have staff on the ground to monitor compliance with the necessary tools and technology to perform oversight, those regulations aren't worth very much at all. And we're in the midst of a staffing emergency. The GAO study will analyze how staffing shortages and technology shortfalls are directly impacting the ability of the BLM and the Forest Service to do their job. The goal is not to end public land grazing far from it.
It is to ensure that management is science-based and that agencies are properly equipped to monitor the permitting process so that we can do it right, for a long time, hopefully. If we can't get a full NEPA review on every allotment today, the very least we can do is have the GAO take this look and tell us the truth about what's happening on the ground. I urge my colleagues to support this common-sense good governance amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Is there further discussion on the amendment? Miss Hageman, you're recognized.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am opposed to this amendment for several reasons, and one is that I do believe the ultimate goal is to ban grazing on the federal lands. Several of the organizations that Mister Huffman is associated with, the whole idea of cattle free by '93, and various other organizations have been very clear in their intent and their goal of banning grazing on federal lands. I think this is just one more step in that direction, in a way to undermine what it is that we are trying to do here, which is bring parity across the various agencies for grazing on federal lands. And this proposed study is only loosely connected to the bill's focus.
The bill is focused on grazing on national grasslands, while the tenets of the study are broadly about other aspects of the federal grazing program which are not impacted by the amendments made to this bill. Second, simply piling more studies onto the GAO desk is an all too familiar strategy here in Congress, which accomplishes very little but growing the size of the GAO. Third, the proposed study is either something GAO would struggle to complete or have to expend extensive resources to complete, since a determination of rangeland health requires long-term monitoring and not a one-point-in-time assessment. Fourth, I am concerned about the content of the GAO study proposed in this amendment, as it appears that it is very leading in nature and suggests a predetermined outcome that grazing is bad for federal lands. The criteria proposed for the GAO study suggests a shortchanging of NEPA, which also is not true.
The agencies cannot authorize grazing without following NEPA, but the agencies can use categorical exclusions, which are, in fact, NEPA documents. Ranchers are the original conservationists who have a vested interest in the health of the land. To imply that their operations are harmful to the land is as insulting as it is incorrect. Again, I am concerned that this amendment is not proposed to actually study the implementation of the bill, but subtly advances a different narrative, which implies that grazing and the operation of our federal grazing program is flawed and harmful, which is simply not true. I oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to oppose it as well.
With that, I yield back.
Speaker 1
The gentlelady yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? I recognize myself. I do oppose this amendment, which again would add an unnecessary GAO study to representative Haggiman's legislation. This is a straightforward simple fix to create parity, and it's not a complicated piece of legislation that needs a GAO study to accompany it.
Unfortunately, it appears that the amendment is more of a gotcha type amendment that will be used to boast antigrazing policies. If you look at the amendment, it specifically forces the GAO to study acres that are, quote, failing to meet land health standards due to livestock grazing, end quote. This one-sided directive completely ignores the on-the-ground realities of grazing, which provides enormous benefits to rangeland health, including reducing invasive grasses and hazardous fuels that can start devastating wildfires. For these reasons, the amendment is not supported by the people whom it would principally affect, who are America's ranchers. Indeed, the Public Lands Council, which represents 22,000 federal grazing permits across the country, opposes the amendment.
I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment and support the underlying legislation, which would protect America's ranchers, bolster rural economic economies, and help lower input costs that go into producing beef across the nation. With that, I yield back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? If there's no further discussion on the amendment, the question is on the amendment offered by ranking member Huffman, designated Huffman number one revised. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Aye. All those opposed, no. No. Any opinion of the chair, the noes have it. And the amendment question recorded about it.
A recorded vote has been requested. Further proceedings on this amendment will be postponed. For a brief moment, I thought I'd convince Mister Huffman to vote against the I.
Speaker 1
We will now go into recess until approximately 02:45 PM, when we will begin voting. Committee will come to order. The chair notes the presence of a quorum. The unfinished business is on the request for a recorded vote on amendments to the A to HR 5497. Members will record their votes using the electronic voting system.
The question is on the amendment to the ANS and to HR 5497 offered by ranking member Huffman, designated Huffman number one, on which the noes prevail by voice vote. The clerk will open the vote. It's always like.
Speaker 1
Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change their vote? Hearing none, the clerk will close the vote and report.
Speaker 1
The amendment is not agreed to. The question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to HR 5497 offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mister Tiffany, designated Tiffany 39 a n s. All those in favor signify by saying, aye. Aye. Those opposed, say no.
The opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is adopted. The question now occurs on reporting HR 59 or 5497 as amended to the house with the recommendation that the bill be favorably approved. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. All those opposed, no. No.
Any opinion of the chair? The ayes have it. Request recorded. A recorded vote has been requested. Members will record their vote using the electronic voting system.
The clerk will open the vote. Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change their vote? Hearing none, the clerk will close the vote and report.
Speaker 1
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. Young finished business is on the request for a recorded vote on amendments to the ANS to HR 6300. The question is on the amendment to the ANS to HR 6,300 offered by ranking member Huffman, designated Huffman number one, revised, on which the noes prevail by voice vote. The clerk will open the vote.
Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change their vote? Hearing none, the clerk will close the voting roll.
Speaker 1
The amendment is not agreed to. The question now occurs on the amendment and the nature of a substitute to HR 6,300 offered by the gentlelady from Wyoming, Miss Hagamon, designated Hagamon a and s. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, no.
Aye. The opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The amendment in the nature of a substitute is adopted. The question now occurs on reporting HR 6,300 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. Any opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. A recorded vote has been requested.
Members will record their vote using the electronic voting system. The clerk will open the vote. Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change their vote? Hearing none, the clerk will close the voting roll.
Speaker 1
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, it appears that we have worked out an agreement on 10 bills scheduled for markup today. As we have done before, rather than going through a formal markup process for each of the bills, I will make a single unanimous consent motion to report out the bills favorably with any amendments that have been filed and agreed to.
The committee will come to order. Please take your conversations outside, so we can finish the business. Before we begin, does any member seek time to speak on any of the bills to the unanimous consent motion? Ask unanimous consent that the subcommittee on Indian and Insular Affairs be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 4463 to amend the Catawba Indian Tribe of South Carolina Land Claim Settlement Act of 1993, without objection. So ordered.
Ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife, and Fisheries be discharged from further consideration of HR 3706, Standards for Understanding Source and Habitat Identification Act or the SUSHI Act, without objection. So ordered. Ask unanimous consent that the subcommittee on federal lands be discharged from further consideration of HR 1945, America's National Churchill Museum National Historic Landmark Act, HR 2196, to provide for an extension of the legislative authority of the National Emergency Medical Services Memorial Foundation to establish a commemorative work in the District of Columbia and its environs. HR 3922 Cross Boundary Wildfire Solutions Act, HR 4671 Ensuring Casualty Assistance for Our Firefighters Act. HR 5419 Enhancing Administrative Reviews for Broadband Deployment Act.
And HR 6380, the Chair Chiricahua, excuse me, National Park Act. Without objection, so ordered. I ask unanimous consent that the following measures be approved and favorably reported as described to the House of Representatives, HR 7755 Critical Mineral Consistency Act of 2025, with amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the chair designated Westernman 55 a and s. HR 1352 to designate the general George C. Marshall House in the Commonwealth of Virginia as an affiliated area of the National Park System, and for other purposes.
With an amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado, Mister Naguse, designated Naguse number one. HR 1945, America's National Churchill Museum National Historic Landmark Act. HR 2196 to provide for an extension of the legislative authority of the National Emergency Medical Services Memorial Foundation to establish a commemorative work in the District of Columbia and its environs, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the chair designated Westernman 48 a and s. HR 3706, standards for understanding source and habitat identification act, or the SUSHI act, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the chair designated Westernman 53a and s. HR 3922 crossed boundary wildfire solutions act with an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from Colorado, mister Ngoose, designated Ngoose number 1a and s.
HR 4463 to amend the Catawba Indian Tribe of South Carolina Land Claim Settlement Act of 1993. HR 4671, ensuring casualty assistance for our Firefighters Act. HR 5419 enhancing administrative reviews for Broadband Deployment Act with an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the chair designated Westernman 56a and s, and HR 6380, the chair Chiricahua National Park Act with an amendment offered by the chair designated Westernman 57. Without objections, so ordered. Without objection, the motion is to reconsider or be laid upon the table.
Mister Huffman, you're recognized.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I give notice of my intention to file supplemental, additional dissenting or minority views on the measure just considered. I ask unanimous consent that this notice be extended to all measures considered at this markup under House Rule 11, Clause 2(l). This notice extends to all members.
Speaker 1
Without objection, so ordered. Ask unanimous consent that the staff be allowed to make any technical and conforming changes to the documents the committee just adopted, subject to the approval of the minority. Without objection, so ordered. If there's no further business, the committee stands adjourned.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.