[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":72,"_74":72},"mediaId",6275921,"mediaKeyId","2768257-2e8e3f03dd0c391f3c1307401dd55ffe","parentId",2768257,"title","House subcommittee debates broad changes to Endangered Species Act in HR 1897","audioSeconds",8521,"startMs",1815000,"endMs",10336000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2768257-2e8e3f03dd0c391f3c1307401dd55ffe&start=1815&end=10336","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2768257-2e8e3f03dd0c391f3c1307401dd55ffe/thumbnail_1815000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6275921/House-subcommittee-debates-broad-changes-to-Endangered-Species-Act-in-HR-1897","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6275921-5e1f1535aefa4a3e37aceda657388506/orig.mp4?Expires=1771047222&Signature=jTyW7efW0KWkg64Xy40DoZkdGFAJJfV4g92SyuaVyQE2np0OJkEj8QPAVF3L5kEMYvKbrINWtGf-Q2eyXzyrxiHtQ0s7FuF5s11n3FILovdSpkf90rj4PCKlTmNq9NAfH6MWmua1mclf-JH4AalLyVJho5QhYEgY3~gTVE60UHf6Pw~mXaYr9bBR-Sqar9dl6lWnWzYyTv2CTLAjnN2BKEIXKCEEQfYH2aneLwodPB7r0CfS8KRq9JriBsq2OkTHiaNCII8RE4bERUqme5yJy66MyQyyuorKxjCTrssxpcp-~zeBgJ0kHI3I9lxQlBCqDzk0tGAW6Obs6KGOZw9dNQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources","date","2025-03-26T02:11:35.213Z","article","The House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries spent its hearing on March 27, 2025, examining HR 1897, the ESA Amendments Act of 2025, a bill Chairman Bruce Westerman said would reauthorize and change the Endangered Species Act to prioritize species recovery and provide regulatory certainty.

\"The Endangered Species Act is broken,\" said Chairman Bruce Westerman in his opening remarks, arguing HR 1897 \"builds greater incentives into the ESA by pairing species recovery goals with regulatory relief.\" Westerman described provisions that would define previously ambiguous terms, require incremental and objective recovery goals and limit judicial review during a five‑year post‑delisting monitoring period.

Why it matters: The subcommittee heard competing accounts of what the ESA should do next. Supporters told the panel the bill would encourage private‑land conservation and reduce litigation delays that they say frustrate delisting. Opponents warned HR 1897 narrows legal protections and could accelerate removals without sufficient scientific capacity at federal agencies to track outcomes.

Committee debate and testimony: Ranking Member Jared Huffman said, \"the Endangered Species Act is not broken, it's just inconvenient for certain industry polluters,\" and argued that recent budget cuts and personnel departures are the real threats to recovery work. Several witnesses and members pressed the committee to account for staffing losses at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service before changing statutory standards.

Witnesses who testified in favor of the bill or its goals included Mauricio Guardado, general manager of the United Water Conservation District in California, who cited the district's disputes with NMFS over a critical habitat designation for Southern California steelhead and asked for clearer statutory definitions to reduce what he called \"regulatory malfeasance.\" Guardado told the committee his district had spent \"over $10,000,000 on studies and legal fees\" and faced mitigation costs he described in the hundreds of millions for projects around a local dam, and he urged clearer definitions of \"habitat\" and \"environmental baseline.\"

Dr. Nathan Roberts, a professor of conservation and wildlife management, testified the gray wolf is recovered in multiple regions and argued state wildlife agencies are \"best equipped to make these decisions\" and that delisting should return management to states when recovery goals are met. Roberts supported use of a post‑delisting monitoring period and described it as appropriate to observe population trajectories.

Opponents cautioned about weakening statutory protections. Dr. Peter Kariva, who testified about the importance of science and field monitoring, said \"the best available science changes from year to year\" and warned that cuts to field staff and resources hamper data collection. Several members, including Representative Marie Glan (Ranking Member Hoyle in the hearing), linked agency personnel losses to reduced capacity for timely, defensible listing and delisting decisions.

Key provisions discussed: Committee debate focused on several elements of HR 1897 as described by its sponsor and discussed by witnesses: definitions for habitat and environmental baseline, incentives that tie regulatory relief to recovery benchmarks, limits on judicial review for a five‑year monitoring period after delisting, and streamlined permitting and retrospective review of habitat conservation or incidental take agreements.

Implementation risks and process concerns: Multiple witnesses and members emphasized two implementation constraints the committee must consider: first, litigation over delisting rules that has repeatedly vacated prior delisting decisions; second, recent and ongoing staff reductions in federal wildlife agencies. Ranking Member Huffman cited agency losses, saying the Fish and Wildlife Service \"has lost approximately 50% of its information and planning\" capacity and that \"over 400 Fish and Wildlife Service employees have been fired nationwide,\" testimony echoed by other members and witnesses describing impediments to field data collection and agency permitting.

Where the bill stands: HR 1897 was presented and discussed in subcommittee with sponsors and witnesses; the hearing record was left open for additional questions. Committee members entered supporting and opposing letters into the record, and no markup or floor vote occurred during the hearing.

What to watch next: If the subcommittee advances HR 1897, members will need to reconcile competing priorities — statutory clarity and incentives for partners on one side, and scientific capacity, monitoring and judicial oversight on the other. Several witnesses urged the committee to pair any statutory changes with funding and staffing commitments to the agencies that must implement the law.

Ending note: Committee members on both sides repeatedly framed the discussion around the same objective—species recovery—but disagreed sharply on the methods and the role of federal oversight. The committee left the hearing record open for written questions and additional materials.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Legislative Hearing | Water, Wildlife and Fisheries Subcommittee","oneSentenceSummary","The House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries heard testimony on HR 1897, the ESA Amendments Act of 2025, which its sponsor said would pair recovery goals with regulatory relief and streamline permitting while opponents warned it would weaken protections and come amid staffing losses at federal wildlife agencies.","taxTitle","Natural Resources: House Committee, Standing Committees - House & Senate, Congressional Hearings Compilation, Legislative, Federal","taxId",1983,"location","","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":72,"_74":72},6275900,"Members and witnesses warn agency staffing cuts threaten wildlife and fisheries work",1251,2134000,3385000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2768257-2e8e3f03dd0c391f3c1307401dd55ffe&start=2134&end=3385","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2768257-2e8e3f03dd0c391f3c1307401dd55ffe/thumbnail_2134000.jpg","/articles/6275900/Members-and-witnesses-warn-agency-staffing-cuts-threaten-wildlife-and-fisheries-work","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6275900-59e39b06b9aab97a09776f12de0047c7/orig.mp4?Expires=1771047222&Signature=ZvQbkD099dhvSEKK42YN-FbXt-01i~XuIyQKRCT8v5Svd~lIkVnJCzrvmxXb1qgVfBc8-BUzHqRLv9xWGu939X1ncPmp~5Q3ZmU6bk9CuWASKcwVXmDJnl9LHlx2mKGiecj~6Chx3C-xL30qHWJSJGbDI3casoTqO-jbAiyBvbX-99~WzK-Fp2E6J2hhLX~WD3zJhia0ddNFmk7Yepxv6seshNVbI14ZAhlrgWm48ACQwgKKFH0A26jfnOgF5jBp~A2IdXkNCyUmcJD-sFmk4Mzv8ShgvqFN-IvOUq2yrTOXc19os6Z8dTBr7oFgCm6IqnwXhkyMTs4FvblXQpUlkg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Several members and witnesses used the hearing to press the committee and witnesses about recent staffing changes at federal conservation and fisheries agencies and the consequences for implementing conservation laws and managing resources.

What members said: Ranking Member Diana DeGette Hoyle and Representative Jared Huffman repeatedly described large numbers of federal employees placed on leave or removed from posts, and they told the committee the administration had not provided adequate information about those personnel actions. Huffman said the Fish and Wildlife Service \"has lost approximately 50% of its information and planning\" capacity and that \"over 400 Fish and Wildlife Service employees have been fired nationwide.\" Representative Darren Soto and others cited cuts at NOAA and National Park Service employees, with a witness at one point referencing a \"10% cut in personnel\" at NOAA.

Witness accounts on data and field capacity: Dr. Peter Kariva told the subcommittee that field biologists are the \"fire alarm for our planet\" and described direct operational impacts: reductions in credit‑card limits for field purchases and difficulties buying field equipment can hinder routine sampling. Kariva said, \"the best available science changes from year to year\" and cautioned that cutting field capacity reduces the ability to update genetic and ecological knowledge that underpins listing and delisting decisions.

Local water district impacts: Mauricio Guardado, general manager of the United Water Conservation District, described protracted Section 7 consultations and a costly process with NMFS around a Santa Felicia Dam project. Guardado said the district had been forced to release billions of gallons of water and spend millions on studies and legal fees while receiving no demonstrable conservation benefit in his view; he argued clearer statutory definitions and improved transparency would reduce arbitrary or costly agency decisions.

Implications for ESA implementation: Several members and witnesses told the subcommittee that statutory changes to the ESA would not be effective without addressing the agencies' staffing and resourcing problems. Members asked witnesses how delisting or changing review windows would work in practice if agencies lack staff to collect baseline data, run consultations or prepare defensible rules.

What the committee requested: The chair closed the hearing with a reminder that members may submit follow‑up questions and that the hearing record would remain open; members used the opportunity to ask for data on staffing, program impacts and costs cited during testimony.

Ending note: The hearing highlighted a crosscutting implementation risk: whether statutory changes or program expansions can be implemented credibly without restoring agency field capacity, data systems and analytic resources.","During the subcommittee hearing, members and witnesses raised repeated concerns that recent personnel reductions at NOAA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NMFS have weakened agencies' ability to collect field data and carry out ESA consultations and fisheries work.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":72,"_74":72},6275906,"Republican bill would rename Gulf of Mexico 'Gulf of America'; critics call it symbolic and distracting",3965,3456000,7421000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2768257-2e8e3f03dd0c391f3c1307401dd55ffe&start=3456&end=7421","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2768257-2e8e3f03dd0c391f3c1307401dd55ffe/thumbnail_3456000.jpg","/articles/6275906/Republican-bill-would-rename-Gulf-of-Mexico-Gulf-of-America-critics-call-it-symbolic-and-distracting","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6275906-f682b596386cbf0ac802518ba207f37e/orig.mp4?Expires=1771047222&Signature=K9l6elanyp~nhV6RVZwinqPLtpacmZjSCjgw5k5cxBJD5osELGhk4XlTDqx3HqIsbQE59XqkzJJRcEV5OXYpj3AANKLanMc1cbzrXn8ai0C3X7SJuqPvRrbArs4MgdzxYsdGV3evD54y8RTxnp4KvXwdUPqzN6GgVUSRgE0HAm30Ol2OylthEUJid5ifLmRys5zhBFuyoSvb83m4Ysas8bX-xeS5tm9zfXdeKsIHCx0duk2Isx7zbYwL9Fzj8BYPDyTeBXSf7NVMK3u4Pc1Owk9PTcZktaePyUhM08OhOMjUZT3hzw4BuKZQDIqhdH74LkADWxI~AZBrfZvUcLDJqQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Kat Cammack Green introduced HR 276, the Gulf of America Act of 2025, to rename the body of water commonly called the Gulf of Mexico the \"Gulf of America\" in U.S. statutes, maps and regulations. The bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the chair of the U.S. Board on Geographic Names, to implement the change in federal documents.

Sponsor arguments: Representative Green framed the change as honoring American contributions to the region. In her remarks she said the Gulf \"is an integral asset to our nation\" and argued the area supports military, energy and fisheries activities. Eric Melito, president of the National Ocean Industries Association, testified in support and called the Gulf \"the backbone of US energy production,\" describing production levels and jobs tied to offshore oil and gas.

Criticism and context: Democrats and some members across the aisle characterized the bill as symbolic. Ranking Member Jared Huffman called it an \"unserious bill\" and questioned the committee's priorities, noting more pressing issues such as agency staffing, government service disruptions and national security questions. Representative Norma Torres and others entered a PBS news story and other materials into the record tracing some of the name‑change ideas to earlier commentary and satire.

Scope and limits: Sponsors acknowledged the change would affect U.S. domestic documents; members pointed out that international bodies, foreign governments and global charts (for example the International Hydrographic Organization) would continue using established names and that the bill does not alter international usage.

What happened at the hearing: The subcommittee received witness testimony, including industry support for the economic value of Gulf offshore production. Multiple members used their time to critique the bill's priorities; the record remains open and no markup or vote occurred during the hearing.

Ending note: Supporters framed the measure as recognition of U.S. economic and military ties to the region; opponents described it as symbolic legislation at a time they said the committee should focus on agency capacity, conservation or national security matters.","Representative Kat Cammack Green's HR 276 would rename the Gulf of Mexico the 'Gulf of America' in U.S. documents; sponsors and industry witnesses framed the change as honoring an American economic resource, while Democratic members called the measure a symbolic distraction from pressing governance issues.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":72,"_74":72},6275911,"Dingell pushes mass marking program to improve Great Lakes fishery data",118,3292000,3410000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2768257-2e8e3f03dd0c391f3c1307401dd55ffe&start=3292&end=3410","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2768257-2e8e3f03dd0c391f3c1307401dd55ffe/thumbnail_3292000.jpg","/articles/6275911/Dingell-pushes-mass-marking-program-to-improve-Great-Lakes-fishery-data","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6275911-be6646e105295419f103e60885d9aeca/orig.mp4?Expires=1771047222&Signature=geCnojhRQ0PVsBAXwlo7s--y5rnx94dC8qR8WBKLRuEnS~tqvVLNaJafZJ8ycq1elulUMy8lfzAQtA89gBQm10FOGZKpjM3BUUUjUKQzx-WTnWrzgihpdU~Gc20foq-pg~n3hyVvwdmyyHKBGwjuaplP-1MQrEh5uzFx93sFOlXsqbeKR9CrwSVlWZMJ~rmagEM9Rs6JR2y1NTNvoqNlx5ct4o3tSKnFeXe5qac75GwxPUQp9cSnSDPIJSVQ2PB82DOeyFdxYTYJwvogWUAP1hkrI8XaBncj3SM-UbQl~HKdHhyJfr~bxNYPtrR5k8IrOxF38Dl6YBXQMr904n1dTA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Debbie Dingell used her five‑minute sponsor time at the subcommittee hearing to press for HR 1917, the Great Lakes Mass Marking Program Act of 2025, saying the bill would expand tagging of hatchery fish so managers can better distinguish hatchery‑produced fish from wild stocks.

\"Mass marking is the practice of tagging large numbers of hatchery raised fish so we can easily distinguish them from the wild fish population,\" Dingell told the panel. The bill would require mass marking across the Great Lakes and ensure the data are shared among federal, state and tribal fishery agencies.

Why it matters: The Great Lakes fishery supports commercial and recreational sectors. Dingell told the committee the Great Lakes fishing economy is valued at about $7,000,000,000 and that current tagging covers roughly 9 to 11 million of the 21 million fish stocked annually; the legislation would mark all hatchery produced fish to improve survival, movement and contribution estimates.

Technical details discussed: Dingell described the planned marking method as removing (clipping) the adipose fin combined with a coated‑wire tag (CWT) — \"a CWT is 1.1 millimeter long stainless steel wire marked with serial numbers\" — which allows recapture data to provide estimates of survival, growth and natural reproduction rates.

Supporting evidence and precedent: Dingell pointed to mass‑marking programs on the Pacific Coast for salmon and steelhead that have contributed to data‑driven management decisions and said broader marking in the Great Lakes would enable similar science‑based improvements.

Where it fits in the hearing: Members across party lines expressed interest in improving data for fisheries management. The subcommittee received the testimony and left the record open for follow‑up materials; no subcommittee vote occurred during the hearing.

Ending note: Advocates argue HR 1917 would give managers better tools to balance hatchery production with wild stock conservation and support a regionally important fishery economy.","Representative Debbie Dingell urged passage of HR 1917 to expand mass marking of hatchery fish in the Great Lakes, saying broader tagging would improve survival and reproduction data used for fisheries management; witnesses and members highlighted the program's economic value for the region's $7 billion fishing economy.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":72,"_74":72},6275916,"House hearing spotlights push to delist gray wolf in HR 845",1715,2977000,4692000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2768257-2e8e3f03dd0c391f3c1307401dd55ffe&start=2977&end=4692","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2768257-2e8e3f03dd0c391f3c1307401dd55ffe/thumbnail_2977000.jpg","/articles/6275916/House-hearing-spotlights-push-to-delist-gray-wolf-in-HR-845","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6275916-3af37d03a416ad92365f88dccb6e0bf1/orig.mp4?Expires=1771047222&Signature=ZE80XDTJso~JPWZuTJuxj6NYwgw~y9-2hbw5BlyXJnW2P0OUeoYESryPlj2L3pYsTcYPlaLVSWGdZwU1o~yi316fdA5hGjoUHyyku3cTRQmNzk9uuOSjt-s1JofpOCglg3NWUgSpbqA5CtG2MiTUCO7dxqVdzu13QEfFNFvTnB3XBaLYths0-0ukAleOFHJeYhq3DhfgjhTExlzCoLm-KMvNba20PYKQesmdHiI4p4bKGA0DRdYddjFlbQabV9qxlmU50AV6u1h5svQWD2Pi4cZS8EcwRKRCuhNnpuIbCgaIP5Tb54JHRQ5uEdRHOVR~gqq41CpAimAPNmxeO~Z8bw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Lauren Boebert introduced HR 845, the Pet and Livestock Protection Act of 2025, at the March 27 subcommittee hearing and said the bill would \"delist the gray wolf from the federal endangered species list\" and return management authority to state and tribal agencies.

Why it matters: The gray wolf has been central to contentious federal‑state debates over the Endangered Species Act for decades. Boebert and other sponsors argued delisting is warranted because wolf populations have recovered in many regions; opponents said delisting without robust, up‑to‑date science and sustained monitoring risks conservation setbacks and fails to account for regional variation.

Sponsor testimony and claims: Representative Boebert told the committee Colorado producers suffered about $580,000 in losses \"in just one year\" from wolves released under a state reintroduction program and cited state depredation reports and specific incidents, saying \"we should listen to our farmers and ranchers. Trust the science and finally delist the gray wolf.\" Boebert and other supporters entered letters from the American Farm Bureau and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association into the hearing record.

Scientific testimony and opposing views: Dr. Nathan Roberts testified that \"the gray wolf in the United States is clearly recovered and stable\" in multiple regions and that state wildlife agencies are \"best equipped to make these decisions.\" He and other witnesses said litigation has repeatedly vacated delisting rules despite population benchmarks being exceeded in some regions.

Conservation and data concerns: Dr. Peter Kariva cautioned that \"the best available science changes from year to year\" and emphasized genetic diversity and long‑term monitoring. Several members and witnesses noted widely varying population estimates; witnesses used a commonly cited estimate of \"about 6,000 to 8,000 gray wolves\" in the Lower 48 but emphasized that methods and regional counts differ.

Local impacts and human‑wildlife conflict: Members representing Western and Midwestern districts recounted livestock losses, attacks on working dogs and greater public safety concerns described by constituents. Several witnesses and members called for management approaches that balance conservation objectives with local livelihoods and emphasized tools ranging from nonlethal deterrence to regulated harvest where state plans justify it.

Policy and legal context: Supporters argued delisting restores the statute's intended temporary federal oversight while opponents said the ESA functions as a backstop to prevent extinction and that delisting via statute would remove judicial checks for a five‑year monitoring period proposed in HR 1897's companion discussions.

What happened at the hearing: The subcommittee heard sponsor remarks, witness testimony and member questioning; no subcommittee vote was taken on HR 845. Members entered supporting and opposing materials into the record for later review.

Ending note: The debate over HR 845 illustrates a larger policy fault line the committee is addressing: whether federal law or state regulation should steer management once a species is judged recovered, and how to ensure scientific rigor and monitoring capacity under either regime.","At a subcommittee hearing, sponsors of HR 845 urged delisting the gray wolf and returning management to states and tribes; witnesses and Democrats warned about ecological uncertainties, litigation risks and impacts on rural communities and stressed the need for updated science and monitoring capacity.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

House subcommittee debates broad changes to Endangered Species Act in HR 1897

Members and witnesses warn agency staffing cuts threaten wildlife and fisheries work

Republican bill would rename Gulf of Mexico 'Gulf of America'; critics call it symbolic and distracting

Dingell pushes mass marking program to improve Great Lakes fishery data

House hearing spotlights push to delist gray wolf in HR 845