PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by the Yeas and Nays: 21 - 17.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 3, 2025
This bill requires naturally propagated animals (i.e., wild animals) and artificially propagated animals to be treated the same under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA).
Specifically, distinctions between naturally propagated animals and artificially propagated animals may not be made when the federal government makes determinations under the ESA, such as determinations to designate endangered species, threatened species, or critical habitats.
In addition, the bill requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service to authorize the use of artificial propagation of animals of a species when mitigation is required under the ESA.
This bill applies to all endangered or threatened species regardless of when they were listed as endangered or threatened.
People & committees
Rep. McClintock, Tom [R-CA-5] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by the Yeas and Nays: 21 - 17.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 17, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.181 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.181 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.181 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.181 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-01-03 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The supplied introduced version would change how animals bred with human assistance are treated under the Endangered Species Act. It would prohibit distinguishing them from naturally bred animals in decisions under the Act and require permission to use artificial breeding to meet mitigation requirements—requirements to address harm to a species. These changes would apply regardless of when a species was designated endangered or threatened.
The Secretary shall not distinguish between naturally propagated animals and artificially propagated animals in making any determination under this Act.
The Secretary shall authorize the use of artificial propagation of animals of a species for purposes of any mitigation required under this Act with respect to such species.
The amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to a species without regard to whether the species was determined to be an endangered species or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act.
Section 1 would add a mandatory rule to section 4 of the Endangered Species Act: the Secretary could not distinguish between naturally and artificially propagated animals in any determination under the Act. The proposed rule is not limited to decisions about whether to designate a species endangered or threatened.
Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: (j) Treatment of artificially propagated animals The Secretary shall not distinguish between naturally propagated animals and artificially propagated animals in making any determination under this Act.
Section 2 would replace section 14 of the Endangered Species Act and require the Secretary to authorize artificial propagation of a species for any mitigation required under the Act concerning that species. It would require authorization of this method, but does not say that people must use it or that using it automatically satisfies every mitigation requirement. It would also update the Act's table of contents.
Section 14 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (relating to repeals of provisions of law, which have executed) is amended to read as follows: 14. Artificial propagation for mitigation purposes The Secretary shall authorize the use of artificial propagation of animals of a species for purposes of any mitigation required under this Act with respect to such species.
The table of contents in the first section of such Act is amended by striking the item relating to such section and inserting the following: Sec. 14. Artificial propagation for mitigation purposes.
Section 3 would make the amendments apply to species designated endangered or threatened before, on, or after enactment. Species already designated would therefore be covered as well as species designated later.
The amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to a species without regard to whether the species was determined to be an endangered species or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act.
The supplied actions snapshot, updated September 17, 2026, records introduction and referral to the House Committee on Natural Resources on January 3, 2025. It records committee consideration and markup on September 15, 2026, followed by an order to report the bill with a substitute amendment by a 21–17 vote. That entry records committee action, not passage by the House or enactment.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-17T08:07:58Z. 2026-09-15: Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by the Yeas and Nays: 21 - 17. 2026-09-15: Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held 2025-01-03: Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources. 2025-01-03: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-01-03. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; earmark disclosures and accompanying committee materials were not supplied.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow carve-out, special exemption, or preferential treatment was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. Its generally applicable treatment of artificial propagation is the main policy, rather than a narrow exception. This conclusion does not extend to other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 17, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI