PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 3, 2025
Armed Forces Endangered Species Exemption Act
This bill establishes exemptions from the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) for defense-related operations.
First, the bill prohibits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) from designating military installations or state-owned National Guard installations as critical habitat under the ESA. It also prohibits FWS and NMFS from designating other lands, waters, or geographical areas as critical habitats if the Department of Defense (DOD) determines that the areas are necessary for military training, weapons testing, or other reasons. While DOD must submit such determinations in writing to the FWS, DOD is not required to consult with the FWS under the ESA about such determinations.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Next, the bill exempts military personnel engaged in national defense-related operations (actions or duties that DOD deems necessary to support its mission) from ESA prohibitions on (1) taking (e.g., harming or killing) of endangered species or threatened species; (2) importing or exporting such species; and (3) damaging, destroying, removing, cutting, or digging up such species. Further, the bill exempts any injury to or mortality of a threatened or endangered species that results from, but is not the purpose of, a national defense-related operation.
The term military personnel means a member of the Armed Forces as well as a civilian employee or contractor of (1) DOD; or (2) any other federal agency, or any provisional authority, to the extent such employment relates to supporting the mission of DOD overseas.
People & committees
Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ-5] · R–AZ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Feb 12, 2025. 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.65 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.65 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.65 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.65 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.