House Natural Resources committee debates tribal rights, protest fees and western water funding; amendments fail

Representatives debated amendments addressing tribal rights, protest fees tied to mineral leasing, drought and western water projects and protections for culturally significant lands during a long markup of a reconciliation bill by the House Natural Resources Committee.

The measures—offered chiefly by Representative Teresa Leger Fernandez of New Mexico and Representative Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico—sought to (1) preserve tribal access to judicial review for large federal projects, (2) strike new protest‑filing fees under the Mineral Leasing Act, and (3) add discretionary funding for Bureau of Reclamation water delivery and drought resiliency. Committee members also argued about drilling language affecting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and the Gwich'in subsistence lands, and about restricting foreign‑adversary‑linked miners from operating on public lands.

The debate was pitched as both legal and moral: supporters said the amendments protected treaty and trust responsibilities and preserved the ability of tribes and citizens to seek review in court; opponents said the changes were not germane to a reconciliation bill and, in committee votes, the chair ruled against the amendments.

Leger Fernandez introduced an amendment to preserve judicial review for tribes and cultural resources, arguing that "we should be able to let people go to court, especially when we're dealing with sacred and cultural connections, water, air, and health." Representative Jared Huffman, speaking in support, called the proposal “an incredibly important amendment” and said removing review would amount to an abdication of constitutional checks and balances. Despite their arguments, the chair ruled the amendment defeated; a recorded vote was repeatedly requested and proceedings on several amendments were postponed.

On the Mineral Leasing Act protest fees, Leger Fernandez said the bill would force citizens and tribes to pay a $150 base fee, plus $5 per page over a ten‑page threshold and $10 per additional lease parcel, which she described as effectively "pricing out" tribal nations from participation. She asked colleagues to "remove the protest fees" so tribes would not be priced out of First Amendment and treaty rights. That amendment also failed in committee proceedings, with the chair ruling the "noes have it" and recorded votes requested.

Stansbury offered multiple amendments that intersected with tribal concerns: she proposed blocking mining by companies owned or controlled by foreign adversaries, seeking to prevent firms with records of human‑rights abuses or illegal mines from accessing public lands; she moved to strike provisions opening ANWR to lease sales and to add a saving clause to clarify that the reconciliation title would not abrogate tribal subsistence rights; and she advanced amendments to protect polar‑bear maternal habitat and to restore funding stripped from the Inflation Reduction Act for conservation and resilience. Each of these proposals drew extended discussion about sacred sites and subsistence—Stansbury said some areas are "sacred lands of the Gwich'in and other Alaska indigenous communities"—but the motions were rejected or set aside by the committee majority.

Committee discussion repeatedly distinguished policy questions from procedural limits: supporters emphasized the real‑world impacts—Leger Fernandez described visiting a blessing for the Navajo‑Gallup Water Project and said 250,000 people still "haul their water"—while opponents and the chair cited budgetary rules and the reconciliation process when opposing text changes, saying some language would not be germane to the committee’s reconciliation instructions. Several members asked for savings clauses and explicit committee findings to avoid unintended abrogation of trust obligations; company lobbying and foreign ownership concerns were invoked as reasons to tighten eligibility and judicial review provisions.

In committee votes, chairs and members frequently announced that the chair’s opinion was that the "noes have it," and recorded votes were requested and proceedings postponed for multiple amendments. No amendment protecting judicial review or striking the protest fee was adopted during the markup.

Members on both sides repeatedly said they would continue to press the issues—some asked for bipartisan, written assurances on the record that the reconciliation text would not abrogate treaty or trust rights—but the committee did not adopt the proposed protections during this markup. Lawmakers said they will continue to press these questions as the bill moves through the process and in later negotiations with other committees and the Senate.