PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 53 · Passed House · Apr 30, 2024
Trust the Science Act
This bill directs the Department of the Interior to remove protections for the gray wolf under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). Specifically, the bill requires Interior to reissue the final rule titled Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and published on November 3, 2020.
The rule removed the gray wolf in the lower 48 United States, except for the Mexican wolf (C. l. baileyi) subspecies, from the endangered and threatened species list. However, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California vacated the rule on February 10, 2022. As a result, the gray wolf reattained the protection status it had prior to the rule's promulgation.
The bill also prohibits the reissuance of the rule from being subject to judicial review.
People & committees
Rep. Boebert, Lauren [R-CO-3] · R–CO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed by recorded vote: 209 - 205 (Roll no. 169). (text: CR H2729)
House roll call 169 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 209 - 205 (Roll no. 169). (text: CR H2729)
House roll call 169 · Individual votesOn motion to recommit Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 205 - 210 (Roll no. 168).
House roll call 168 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H2751-2752)
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on H.R. 764, the Chair put the question on the motion to recommit and by voice vote announced that the noes had prevailed. Mr. Huffman demanded the yeas and nays and the Chair postponed further proceedings until a time to be announced.
The previous question on the motion to recommit was ordered pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX.
Mr. Huffman moved to recommit to the Committee on Natural Resources. (text: CR H2735)
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.R. 764.
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 615, H.R. 2925, H.R. 3195, H.R. 764, H.R. 3397, H.R. 6285 and H.R. 6090. The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 615, H.R. 2925, H.R. 3195, H.R. 764, H.R. 3397, and H.R. 6090 under a closed rule, and H.R. 6285 under a structured rule. The rule provides for one hour of general debate and one motion to recommit on each bill.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 1173. (consideration: CR H2728-2735)
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 1173 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 615, H.R. 2925, H.R. 3195, H.R. 764, H.R. 3397, H.R. 6285 and H.R. 6090. The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 615, H.R. 2925, H.R. 3195, H.R. 764, H.R. 3397, and H.R. 6090 under a closed rule, and H.R. 6285 under a structured rule. The rule provides for one hour of general debate and one motion to recommit on each bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 167.
Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 118-206.
Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 118-206.
Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 21 - 16.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife, and Fisheries Discharged.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife, and Fisheries.
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.
Source last updated: May 27, 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.764 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.764 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.764 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.764 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.