The Committee on Rules will meet Monday, April 20, 2026 at 4:00 PM ET in H-313, The Capitol on the following measures:
H.R. 1897, as amended, would fundamentally weaken the authority and effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This
bill would codify and expand upon the harmful 2019 Trump administration ESA rules 1 that weakened protections for threatened and
endangered species and their critical habitat. It would extend the
timeframe for listing species through a new five-tier priority system while fast-tracking delisting and barring judicial review of
delisting decisions. It would narrowly redefine key terms—including ‘‘foreseeable future,’’ ‘‘habitat,’’ ‘‘best scientific and commercial
data available,’’ and ‘‘environmental baseline’’—to limit the scope of
the ESA and interfere with science-based decision-making by prohibiting ‘‘precautionary assumptions in favor of a species.’’ The bill
would eliminate blanket protections for threatened species, prohibit
mitigation in reasonable and prudent measures, exempt Conservation Benefit Agreements and incidental take permits from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and ESA Section 7 consultation, dramatically expand the ‘‘God Squad’’ exemption process
to allow economic considerations to override project-specific species
protections, cap attorney fees to discourage citizen enforcement,
and restrict agency regulatory authority. Additional amendments
would impose burdensome congressional notification requirements
for critical habitat designations and experimental population releases, thereby disincentivizing the use of conservation tools such
as species reintroduction programs and science-based critical habitat designations. These changes would hinder federal agencies’
ability to protect species from extinction, regardless of how imperiled a species may be or what the best available science indicates.
Human-related impacts, including habitat destruction, invasive
species, disease, pollution, overexploitation, and climate change,
threaten many species of wildlife and plants. One million species
globally are threatened with extinction. In the United States, 34%
of plants and 40% of animals are at risk of extinction, and 41% of
our ecosystems are at risk of range-wide collapse. The loss of biodiversity and ecosystems worldwide could cost the global economy
$2.7 trillion annually by 2030. In light of this extinction crisis, the
ESA is a critical tool for preventing extinction and putting imperiled species on the road to recovery. It is ‘‘the most comprehensive legislation for the preservation of endangered species enacted by
any nation.’’ Over 99% of species listed under the ESA have avoided extinction, and the law has been responsible for the recovery of
iconic species such as the Bald Eagle, Gray Whale, Steller Sea
Lion, Brown Pelican, and American Alligator.
Delays Listings and Fast-Tracks Delisting: This bill would create
a new National Listing Work Plan with a 5-tier priority classification system that could extend the timeframe for listing some species from the mandatory 12-month deadline to up to 10 years. Species classified as Priority 3, 4, or 5 may be retained on the work
plan for up to five additional years beyond regular deadlines—with
Priority 5 species potentially languishing indefinitely if the Secretary determines they would receive ‘‘limited conservation benefit’’
from listing. The bill provides no recourse if the Secretary
misclassifies a species as a lower-priority species, allowing administrative misconduct to delay listing decisions legally. Meanwhile, the
bill would fast-track delisting by requiring a rulemaking to be initiated within 30 days of a five-year review determination and then
barring any judicial review of delisting decisions during the entire
post-delisting monitoring period, which can last five years or more.
These changes would make it harder for species to be listed and
easier for them to be delisted prematurely, with little recourse to
challenge either action. Research demonstrates that species listed
earlier, before populations reach crisis levels, recover faster and at
lower cost. This bill would move in the opposite direction.
Establishes Harmful Definitions: This bill is filled with harmful
definitions that depart from decades of established, working legal
standards. It would redefine ‘‘best scientific and commercial data
available’’ to prohibit ‘‘precautionary assumptions in favor of a species or other assumptions or policy prescriptions that bias the application.’’ This provision would weaponize scientific uncertainty to
prevent protective action. The bill would redefine ‘‘foreseeable future’’ to limit it to periods in which threats can be demonstrated
to be ‘‘likely to occur,’’ undermining the Services’ ability to address
long-term threats like climate change. It would redefine ‘‘habitat’’
to exclude areas outside the current or historic range or visited by
‘‘only vagrant individual members,’’ preventing designation of habitat that could serve as climate refugia or corridors for species
movement. It would codify a narrow ‘‘environmental baseline’’ definition that includes ‘‘existing structures and facilities’’ and their
‘‘past, present, and future effects,’’ treating ongoing harm as the
baseline against which new impacts are measured.
Guts Critical Habitat Protections: The bill would exclude unoccupied habitat from critical habitat designation—regardless of whether species historically occupied these areas or whether such habitat
is essential for species recovery. It would substantially expand the
circumstances under which the Secretary may determine critical
habitat designation is ‘‘not prudent,’’ including when species are
threatened by factors other than habitat destruction or when species ‘‘primarily occur’’ outside U.S. jurisdiction. Most significantly,
the bill would prohibit critical habitat designation on ‘‘any privately owned or controlled land’’ that is subject to a land management plan the Secretary determines will maintain species populations. Private land supports approximately two-thirds of threatened and endangered species,8 so excluding these lands from critical habitat designation puts these species at serious risk. Yet the
bill would exclude such lands if the Secretary declares the relevant
land management plan as ‘‘similar in nature’’ to an Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan—a standard far weaker than the
current critical habitat framework.
Sets Burdensome Congressional Notification Requirements: An
amendment accepted in markup (Sections 406–408) would impose
extensive new bureaucratic requirements on critical habitat designations and experimental population releases covering areas
greater than 50,000 acres. For each such action, the Secretary
would be required to submit detailed notifications to Congress including inventories and evaluations of natural resources uses, economic impact analyses on individuals, local communities, and the
United States, identification of all users and how they would be affected, analyses of conflicts with existing uses, documentation of all
consultations with federal, state, and local entities, and statements
on effects to state and local government interests and regional
economies. These requirements duplicate analyses already conducted under NEPA and existing ESA procedures, adding delay
and administrative burden without improving conservation outcomes. The 50,000-acre threshold appears specifically designed to
disincentivize large-scale recovery efforts such as the Mexican gray
wolf experimental population in Arizona and New Mexico. The
amendment would also require annual cost analyses of all ESA expenditures, including those for experimental populations, to be published on data.gov—further evidence of an intent to build a political
case against successful recovery programs rather than improve species conservation.
Leaves Threatened Species in Uncertainty: This bill would put
threatened species in peril by effectively eliminating the blanket
4(d) rule, which currently guarantees the same comprehensive and
immediate protection afforded to endangered species. The bill
would rewrite Section 4(d) to require species-specific protective regulations that consider ‘‘conservation and economic effects’’ and include ‘‘objective, incremental recovery goals’’ with protections that
‘‘decrease as such recovery goals are met.’’ Without the blanket rule
as a default, an already under-resourced Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) would need to draft special rules for every threatened species—or newly listed threatened species could have zero protections
until a rule is finalized. The bill further pushes threatened species
management onto states through a new process, without requiring
clear, objective, science-based recovery goals at the state level.
States already have the authority to manage ESA-listed species
under Section 6(c), but have not used it. This change would create
a confusing patchwork of inconsistent state regulations.
Weakens Interagency Consultation: The bill would undermine the
Section 7 consultation process in multiple ways. It would explicitly
prohibit mitigation and offsets from reasonable and prudent measures (RPMs), eliminating a critical tool for minimizing the impact
of federal actions on listed species. It would create an automatic
sunset provision requiring agencies to discontinue RPMs and reasonable and prudent alternatives (RPAs) after 10 years if they do
not ‘‘materially increase the likelihood of and reduce the time for
recovery’’—even if those measures are successfully maintaining
species populations. It would narrow the ‘‘effects of the action’’ that
may be considered to only those that are ‘‘caused by the action
itself and are reasonably certain to occur,’’ excluding effects that
are ‘‘remote in time,’’ ‘‘geographically remote,’’ or reached through
a ‘‘lengthy causal chain.’’ It similarly would limit the ‘‘action area’’
to areas ‘‘directly affected’’ that are not ‘‘speculative or remote.’’ Together, these provisions would prevent the Services from considering cumulative, indirect, or downstream effects and would eliminate conservation measures that are working.
Dramatically Expands ‘‘God Squad’’ Exemptions: An amendment
accepted in markup (Section 506) would dramatically expand the
Endangered Species Committee process—commonly known as the
‘‘God Squad’’—to sidestep the ESA and allow projects to cause jeopardy to a species (push a species closer to extinction) based on economic considerations. Currently, the Committee may grant an exemption only if it determines that there are no reasonable and prudent alternatives to the agency action, and it has been used only
twice since the ESA was enacted. The amendment would allow applicants to seek exemptions whenever a reasonable and prudent alternative ‘‘may impair national security’’ or ‘‘result in significant
adverse national or regional economic impacts.’’ This would fundamentally transform the exemption process from a last resort for
truly irreconcilable conflicts into a routine escape valve for any
project facing conservation requirements deemed economically inconvenient.9 The amendment would require consultation with the
National Security Council and National Economic Council, inserting political considerations into what should be science-based wildlife management decisions. Congress deliberately set a high bar for
exemptions because extinction is irreversible—this amendment
would allow economic calculations to override species survival, contrary to the ESA’s fundamental purpose.
Undermines Voluntary Conservation: The bill would codify Conservation Benefit Agreements (CBAs) but exempt them from both
Section 7 consultation and NEPA review and would make CBA information exempt from FOIA disclosure. It would impose strict
timelines that will burden agency resources—30 days for completeness determinations and 120 days for approval or rejection. The bill
would also exempt incidental take permits under this CBA process
from Section 7 consultation and NEPA review, removing essential
environmental review safeguards from decisions that directly affect
imperiled species.
Increases Barriers to Citizen Enforcement: The bill would create
extensive new reporting requirements for ESA-related agency litigation while simultaneously making it harder for citizens to enforce the law. It would cap attorney fees at $125 per hour—well
below market rates—and limit total per-case fees to $200,000. It
would restrict fee recovery to ‘‘eligible parties’’ meeting net worth
thresholds ($2 million for individuals, $7 million for organizations
with 500 or fewer employees) and bar parties that have sought fee
recovery in three or more cases in the preceding 12 months. These
restrictions would make it economically unviable for conservation
organizations to bring meritorious cases enforcing the ESA, while
well-funded industry groups face no such barriers when challenging
protective decisions. The bill further would limit judicial review by
routing all challenges to biological opinions exclusively to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, with a 150-day filing deadline—increasing costs and barriers for parties outside Washington,
D.C. and eliminating traditional venue options.
Strips Agency Authority: The bill would limit the Secretary’s regulatory authority to only Section 11 (enforcement) and Section 8A
(the Convention), adding a rule of construction that this authority
‘‘may not be construed to be an independent source of authority to
promulgate regulations’’ to enforce other provisions of the ESA.
This would threaten existing species-specific regulations, including
ship strike rules protecting North Atlantic right whales, turtle excluder device requirements, and other critical safeguards developed
over decades to address specific threats to imperiled species.
Provides Inadequate Funding: The bill would authorize approximately $288 million per year for FWS and $105 million per year
for the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for fiscal years
2026–2031 (Section 3). These authorization levels are inadequate to
implement the ESA effectively, let alone to carry out the extensive
new requirements the amended bill would impose, including species-specific 4(d) rules for all threatened species, new work plans,
expanded economic analyses, and litigation reporting.
Weakens International Protections: The bill would exempt nonnative species listed under both the ESA and CITES Appendix I or
II from ESA permit requirements and create a weaker ‘‘not detrimental’’ standard for non-native species permits. These changes
would complicate efforts to combat wildlife trafficking and undermine U.S. leadership in international species conservation at a
time when global cooperation is essential to address the extinction
crisis.
Symbolically Renames the ESA: The Hageman amendment (Section 5) would rename the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to the
‘‘Endangered Species Recovery Act.’’ While seemingly innocuous,
this change signals the bill’s intent to reframe the ESA away from
its core purpose of preventing extinction and protecting imperiled
species toward a narrower focus on ‘‘recovery’’—even as other provisions in the bill make actual recovery more complicated to achieve
by delaying listings, weakening protections, and eliminating conservation tools. The renaming is ironic given that the legislation
would gut the very mechanisms that have enabled species recovery
over the past 50 years.
At a time of accelerating biodiversity loss, H.R. 1897, as amended, would roll back the ESA’s core protections, restrict agency authority, and codify harmful Trump policies. The bill’s proponents
claim it will provide regulatory relief and incentivize conservation,
but in practice, it would delay protections for at-risk species, make
recovery more difficult and costly, create new legal uncertainties
for all stakeholders, and undermine the citizen enforcement that
has been essential to the ESA’s success. The Republican attempts
to undermine the ESA 10 would hinder federal agencies’ ability to
protect species from extinction, no matter how close to extinction
a species may be or what the best available science says about its
status, recovery, or management. Members of the House should
strongly oppose this legislation.
H.R. 5587 would exempt certain geothermal exploration and production activities from longstanding federal oversight and permitting requirements. Specifically, the bill allows projects occurring on
non-federal surface estate and involving less than 50 percent federal subsurface estate to proceed without a federal drilling permit
and without review under the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), and National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA). This is an extreme waiver of the federal
government’s responsibilities to steward public resources.
Under current law, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
must conduct environmental review under NEPA before approving
any project involving federal subsurface resources. Even where
projects occur on non-federal surface estate, operators are still required to obtain a geothermal drilling permit when federal subsurface resources are involved. Subsurface activities can have significant surface impacts, including induced seismicity, land subsidence, the creation of sinkholes, and impacts on groundwater used
for drinking and irrigation.
H.R. 5587 would eliminate essential safeguards, including environmental review, consultation under the ESA, engagement with
Tribal governments, and opportunities for public input. In previous
Congresses, BLM testified in opposition to the legislation, noting
that it would strip the Secretary of the Interior’s authority necessary to ensure geothermal development is conducted safely, in
compliance with applicable laws, and consistent with the agency’s
multiple-use and sustained-yield mandate. The bill would undermine the BLM’s core responsibility to ensure that activities affecting federal resources protect the environment, nearby communities,
Tribal interests, other landowners, and the taxpayers.
Split-estate landowners rely on the federal government to protect
their land. The mineral estate is the dominant estate, giving those
with mineral rights priority over surface rights. The federal drilling
permit process is often the only mechanism for considering how a
proposed plan of operations would affect many resources on private
land, including water impacts, ranching, and wildlife impacts. Any
shortcomings in a state’s permitting process would inappropriately
leave federal taxpayers responsible for obligations created by the
state.
Finally, H.R. 5587 continues an alarming pattern of proposals to
waive federal environmental review for energy development—Republicans have attempted similar waivers for oil and gas development for years, which Democrats have strongly opposed. Regardless of the energy source involved, surface landowners deserve a
say in the development of federal minerals beneath their land. This
bill would set a dangerous precedent by eroding bedrock environmental laws and weakening accountability.
H.R. 2289 regrettably proposes to eliminate standard environmental and historic preservation protections that simply do not affect the overwhelming majority of communications infrastructure
projects as suggested by Republicans. For example, H.R. 2289 proposes blanket exemptions to the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). However, many projects to deploy communications infrastructure already qualify for expedited review and approval under
existing categorical exclusions, which Federal agencies apply to
predetermined activities that do not have a significant environmental impact. If a project does not qualify for an existing categorical exclusion, the project can still be approved under an Environmental Assessment and a Finding of No Significant Impact. There
is little evidence to suggest that communications infrastructure
projects regularly trigger the highest level of scrutiny under NEPA,
which require applicants to develop and submit an Environmental
Impact Statement, let alone warrant the proposed blanket NEPA
exemptions.
Perhaps most troubling are H.R. 2289’s provisions to eliminate
local communities’ roles in decision-making over the placement and
construction of utility infrastructure. The bill imposes heavy-handed ‘‘deemed granted’’ provisions on local governments by setting
narrow and arbitrary deadlines to approve requests to install communications infrastructure in areas managed by county or municipal governments. The 60-day ‘‘shot clock’’ to approve or deny an
application implies an unfamiliarity with the realities of local government calendars. At the local level, construction application and
review processes are often designed to comply with ‘‘sunshine’’ laws
to ensure transparency and provide residents with sufficient opportunity to be heard on important community matters. While the Republican Majority seems intent on helping big corporations evade
scrutiny in communities they wish to serve, Democrats understand
that our friends and neighbors who serve our communities as mayors, council members, and local zoning board members represent
the best interests of their constituents, and they disagree with attempts by Republicans to constrain their ability to do so.
Local officials are responsible for ensuring the safety and welfare
of residents. Efforts like this bill by House Republicans to automatically approve certain construction projects will put people in
harm’s way. Communications providers that proceed with construction without the proper approvals from state, county, or municipal
governments should recognize the liability to which they are exposing themselves. These are just some of the reasons why H.R. 2289
is opposed by the National League of Cities, United States Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Counties, and the
National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors.
If Committee Republicans were truly committed to expediting the
deployment of high-speed internet to rural communities, they
should have advocated that the Trump Administration carry out
the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law as intended. Instead, the Trump
Administration, with the support of Congressional Republicans, has
delayed progress by at least a year just to change program rules
that force inferior broadband technologies onto unserved and underserved communities across the country
H.R. 4690, the ‘‘Reliable Federal Infrastructure Act,’’ would enable government waste and increase costs for taxpayers by repealing the phase out of fossil fuel-generated energy consumption in
new and substantially renovated Federal buildings. Specifically,
H.R. 4690 removes key components of Section 305 of the Energy
Conservation and Production Act (ECPA). Additionally, the bill repeals Congressionally directed standards that reduce fossil fuel generated energy consumption for Federal commercial and multifamily high rise residential buildings and Federal low rise residential buildings. Repealing the standards will increase costs and air
pollution, as well as harm innovation and grid reliability. For these
reasons, the Committee Minority strongly opposes H.R. 4690.
H.R. 4690 amends Section 305 of ECPA which establishes energy
conservation requirements for Federal buildings. Section 433 of the
bipartisan Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007
amended Section 305 of ECPA, explicitly directing the Department
of Energy (DOE) to issue regulations not later than one year after
the date of enactment that require certain Federal buildings and
Federal buildings undergoing major renovations be designed to progressively reduce and eventually phase out their fossil-fuel generated energy consumption. Notably, Congress passed EISA in a bipartisan fashion and President George W. Bush signed it into law.
Section 433 specifies the percentage reduction that DOE must
abide by when establishing Federal building energy performance
standards, requiring a 90 percent reduction by 2025 compared to
2003 levels and a complete reduction by 2030. Section 433 also allows Federal agencies to petition DOE to request a downward adjustment for certain federal buildings, allowing for flexibility when
technologically necessary. Amending Section 433 of EISA dismantles DOE’s ability to issue such Congressionally directed regulations.
H.R. 4690 also revokes DOE’s long-overdue 2024 rule establishing such standards for the phase out of fossil fuel use in new
or renovated Federal buildings as required by Section 433. As stipulated by the law, the rule calls for a 90 percent reduction in onsite fossil fuel use between 2025 and 2029 and the elimination of
on-site fossil fuel use by 2030 for certain Federal buildings. Fossil
fuel-generated energy consumption can be reduced through building design measures such as electric equipment for water and
space heating, or insulation, ductwork, and electrical work.
Overall, the net benefits of the rule would amount to $2.83 million in savings per year for buildings constructed between 2025–2054, providing savings for American taxpayers.2 The standards
also slash planet-warming emissions and provide health benefits to
Federal workers and neighboring communities through reduced air
pollution. Additionally, since the Federal government is the single
largest property owner and energy consumer in the United States,
it’s important that the Federal government lead by example in efficient building design to enable the private market to follow suit.
DOE’s 2024 rule will help drive innovation in the energy efficiency
sector and clean energy market. In turn, the Federal government’s
purchasing power can help drive down the cost of efficient and
clean technologies, like electric water heaters, while also growing
American jobs. Electrification and energy efficiency also helps reduce reliance on volatile fossil fuels, thereby strengthening American energy independence and boosting resilience. The Committee
Minority believes it is important to support this standard and the
crucial savings it will provide to American taxpayers.
Section 433 of EISA is imperative to ensure that the Federal government is a good steward of taxpayers’ dollars by upgrading the
Federal building portfolio through efficiency and electrification
measures. H.R. 4690 ensures that the Federal government wastes
taxpayer dollars and resources, locking the Federal government
into the past.
House Rules Committee
H-313 Capitol
04/20/2026 at 04:00PM
Data centers are growing like a second coal industry. Each one may consume a city’s worth of water and electricity - mostly generated by fossil fuels. For example, people in Memphis are breathing polluted air thanks to Elon Musk’s Colossus data center and his Grok AI. In the climate crisis, vulnerable people worldwide will die because of data centers. Through the sheer dominance of their owners, these machines are also becoming a second government of the United States - or replacing the one we thought we knew. DOGE, Pallantir, and OpenAI promise to surveil us, deport us, and send drones to kill unwanted humans. This “techno-state” brings us to the threshold of dystopian sci-fi.