To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to expand the exemption process under section 7 of that Act with respect to national security and significant adverse national or regional economic impacts.
Summary
HB3845 would amend Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to broaden the circumstances under which a federal agency action can seek an exemption from the Act’s consultation requirements. Under current law, the exemption process is available in limited circumstances after consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service. This bill would expressly allow a federal agency, a state governor, or a permit/license applicant to request an exemption when compliance with the Act would either impair national security or cause significant adverse national or regional economic impacts.
The bill also changes the exemption review process by requiring the Secretary of the Interior to consider these national security and economic concerns earlier in the process and to consult the National Security Council and the Director of the National Economic Council when those grounds are asserted. It revises the findings the Secretary and the Endangered Species Committee must make before granting an exemption, adding explicit consideration of whether a required modification or alternative would create national security risks or major economic harm.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would amend 16 U.S.C. 1536, the consultation and exemption provisions of the Endangered Species Act, by expanding who may apply for an exemption and by adding national security and economic-impact criteria to the exemption analysis. It would not repeal the ESA’s core protections, but it would create a broader pathway for federal projects to proceed despite potential conflicts with listed species protections when the project is tied to security interests or substantial economic consequences. The bill would affect federal agencies, project applicants, states involved in agency actions, and the executive branch offices consulted in the exemption process.
Sentiment
No committee transcript or vote record is available, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate to gauge support or opposition. Based on the bill’s bipartisan sponsorship by Representatives Gray and Costa, the measure appears to have been introduced in a pragmatic, cross-party context. The text itself suggests a policy balance between species protection and competing national interests, indicating likely interest from development, infrastructure, and security stakeholders as well as scrutiny from conservation advocates.
Contention
The main point of contention is the expansion of ESA exemptions to include not only national security but also significant adverse national or regional economic impacts. Supporters are likely to argue that the bill provides flexibility for critical projects and avoids costly delays, while opponents may contend that it weakens endangered species protections and could be used too broadly to override conservation decisions. Another likely issue is the added role of economic and security officials in what is traditionally an environmental review process, which may raise concerns about shifting the balance away from wildlife protection.