Hageman, Harriet M. [R-WY-At Large]
Republican · WY · 46 bills sponsored
To authorize leases of up to 99 years for land held in trust for federally recognized Indian Tribes.
# HR 5910 Summary **What the Bill Does** HR 5910 would allow federally recognized Indian tribes to lease their land—specifically land held in trust by the federal government on their behalf—for periods of up to 99 years. Currently, tribes have more limited lease options. This change would give tribes greater flexibility in how they use and generate revenue from their land by allowing longer-term agreements with businesses, developers, or other parties. **Who It Affects and Why** This bill primarily affects federally recognized Indian tribes and entities that want to lease tribal lands for extended periods. Longer leases could help tribes secure major development projects, infrastructure investments, or business ventures that require long-term certainty. It also affects potential lessees and investors who would benefit from the ability to enter into century-long agreements. The bill reflects broader policy discussions about tribal sovereignty and self-determination—the principle that tribes should have greater control over their own resources and economic development. **Current Status** The bill has passed the House of Representatives and is awaiting consideration in the Senate.
To provide that the final rule titled "Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation" and issued on January 12, 2001 (66 Fed. Reg. 3244) shall have no force or effect and require the Secretary of Agriculture to construct certain roads on National Forest System lands, and for other purposes.
# Summary of HR 7695 **What the Bill Would Do** This bill would overturn the "Roadless Area Conservation Rule," a regulation issued in 2001 that protects nearly 60 million acres of National Forest land from road construction and logging. If passed, the bill would eliminate this protection and require the Secretary of Agriculture to build roads on designated National Forest lands. The bill's exact scope regarding which roads must be built is unclear from the title alone. **Who It Affects** The bill would primarily affect environmental groups, timber and mining industries, outdoor recreation advocates, and local communities near National Forests. States with significant National Forest acreage—particularly Wyoming, where the bill's sponsor is from—would see changes in how their forest lands are managed and developed. **Current Status** HR 7695 is currently in committee and has not advanced further in the legislative process. The bill represents ongoing debate over how to balance resource extraction, economic development, and environmental conservation on public lands.
Domestic ORE Act
# Domestic ORE Act Summary The Domestic ORE Act (HR 7458) is a bill that would streamline the process for mining operations on federal lands in the United States. The legislation aims to reduce environmental review timelines and regulatory requirements for domestic mineral extraction projects. Key provisions include expediting environmental assessments for mining operations and potentially modifying monitoring and research standards for projects on publicly owned land. The bill reflects an approach prioritizing domestic mineral production, which sponsors argue strengthens U.S. supply chains and reduces dependence on foreign sources. The bill primarily affects mining companies, federal land management agencies, and communities near mining operations. Environmental groups and conservation advocates have concerns about reduced oversight, while mining industry supporters argue the changes would boost domestic production and job creation. As of now, the bill remains in committee and has not been voted on by the full House of Representatives, meaning it is still in the early legislative stage and may face revision or may not advance further.
SAFE Act
# SAFE Act (HR 7539) Summary I appreciate your request, but I need to be transparent: the information provided doesn't include the bill's actual text or detailed provisions. Without access to what the acronym "SAFE" stands for or the bill's specific contents, I can't accurately summarize what it would do, who it affects, or its key provisions—which you've appropriately asked for. **What I can tell you:** This is a bill introduced by Representative Harriet Hageman (R-WY) in the current Congress that is currently in committee, meaning it hasn't advanced to a floor vote yet. **To provide you with an accurate summary,** I would need access to the bill's actual text or a reliable source describing its contents. If you can share the bill's full title or link to it on Congress.gov, I'd be happy to give you the straightforward, factual explanation you're looking for.
EARA
# Expedited Appeals Review Act (EARA) Summary **What the bill does:** The Expedited Appeals Review Act would allow parties appealing Department of Interior decisions to request faster processing of their appeals through the Interior Board of Land Appeals. If expedited review is requested, the board would have to issue a final decision within six months of the request (but not sooner than 18 months after the original appeal was filed). If the Interior Board misses this deadline, the Interior Department's original decision automatically becomes final and can be challenged in court without courts being required to defer to the agency's interpretation. **Who it affects:** This bill impacts anyone who appeals Interior Department decisions related to public lands and natural resources—including ranchers, miners, energy companies, Native American tribes, conservation groups, and land developers. It also applies to pending appeals that were already filed before the bill becomes law. **Current status:** The bill has passed the House of Representatives. It now moves to the Senate for consideration. The bill addresses administrative procedures rather than creating new substantive land policy, making the appeals process more time-bound while potentially giving courts more authority to overturn Interior decisions that miss the deadline.
Grasslands Grazing Act of 2025
# Grasslands Grazing Act of 2025 - Summary **What the Bill Does** The Grasslands Grazing Act of 2025 would modify federal regulations governing livestock grazing on public lands, particularly focusing on grasslands and forests managed by the government. The bill addresses licensing and registration requirements for ranchers and farmers who graze cattle and other livestock on federal property. Specific details about what regulatory changes it would make are not provided in the available bill information. **Who It Affects** This legislation would primarily affect ranchers and farmers who rely on federal grazing lands to raise livestock. It could also impact environmental and conservation groups, as grazing policies affect grassland and forest ecosystems. Federal land management agencies would need to implement any new rules established by the bill. **Current Status** As of now, HR 6300 is in committee review, meaning it has been introduced in the House but has not yet advanced to a floor vote. The bill was sponsored by Representative Harriet Hageman (R-WY). To learn the specific provisions being proposed, you would need to review the full bill text, which would clarify exactly what regulatory changes are intended.
ROUTE Act
# ROUTE Act Summary I don't have access to the detailed text or provisions of HR 6642 (the ROUTE Act) in my current information. To provide you with an accurate summary of what the bill would do, who it affects, and its key provisions, I would need additional details about its contents. **What I can tell you:** The bill is currently in committee, meaning it's in an early stage of the legislative process and hasn't advanced to a full House vote yet. **To get accurate information, I recommend:** - Visiting Congress.gov and searching "HR 6642" for the full bill text and legislative history - Checking the House Natural Resources Committee or relevant committee pages (based on the sponsor's background) - Looking at summaries from nonpartisan sources like Congress.gov or the Congressional Research Service If you can share the bill's summary or key provisions, I'd be happy to explain them in plain language for a general audience.
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to revoke the tax-exempt status of organizations that provide, or provide funding for, abortion.
# HR 7286 Summary **What the Bill Would Do** If passed, this bill would remove tax-exempt status from nonprofit organizations that provide abortion services or financially support abortion access. Tax-exempt status allows organizations to accept tax-deductible donations and avoid paying federal taxes. Revoking this status would make affected organizations subject to federal income taxes and prevent donors from claiming charitable deductions for contributions. **Who It Affects** The bill would primarily impact nonprofit healthcare providers, clinics, and charitable organizations that offer abortion services or fund abortion-related activities. This includes large health systems and smaller clinics that provide comprehensive reproductive healthcare. Donors to these organizations would also be affected, as they would lose tax deduction benefits for their contributions. **Current Status** The bill is currently in committee, meaning it has been introduced but has not yet been debated or voted on by the full House. It was sponsored by Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-Wyoming) in the 119th Congress.
Parental Rights Relief Act
# Parental Rights Relief Act (HR 6860) - Summary **What the Bill Would Do:** The Parental Rights Relief Act is currently in committee and has not yet been formally detailed in public legislative summaries. Based on its title, the bill appears intended to address parental rights issues, though the specific provisions are not yet publicly documented. The bill was introduced by Representative Harriet Hageman (R-WY) in the 119th Congress. **Current Status:** As of now, this bill remains in committee and has not advanced to a floor vote. Limited information is publicly available about its specific contents, provisions, or intended impact. To learn the exact details of what this bill proposes, you would need to consult official congressional sources like Congress.gov, where the full text and any amendments would be available once introduced. **Note:** I cannot provide details about who it affects or key provisions without access to the bill's actual text. I'd recommend checking Congress.gov directly for the most current and accurate information about this legislation.
Sunset To Reform Section 230 Act
# Sunset To Reform Section 230 Act (HR 6746) - Summary **What the Bill Would Do** This bill would modify Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a federal law that currently protects internet platforms (like social media sites and search engines) from being sued for content posted by users. The bill's main approach is to set an expiration date—or "sunset"—on these protections, requiring Congress to vote to renew them periodically. This would force lawmakers to actively reconsider and potentially reform these legal shields rather than letting them continue indefinitely. **Who It Affects and Key Details** The bill would primarily impact major technology companies and social media platforms, as well as potentially smaller websites that host user-generated content. It could also affect users' ability to post content online, depending on how platforms respond to reduced liability protections. The specific details of what changes would be proposed during renewal periods are not provided in the basic bill information available. Internet companies, content creators, and ordinary users could all see changes to how online platforms operate. **Current Status** As of now, the bill remains in committee, meaning it has not yet been debated or voted on by the full House of Representatives. No action has been taken to advance it further in the legislative process.
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to "Buffalo Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment".
# Summary of HJRES 130 **What It Does:** This bill cancels a 2024 rule by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) that stopped federal coal leasing in Wyoming's Buffalo Field Office area. By passing this resolution, Congress reversed the BLM's decision and requires the agency to go back to its 2015 plan, which allows coal to be available for future leasing on federal lands in that region. **Background and Impact:** The BLM had issued the 2024 rule in response to a court ruling requiring the agency to evaluate climate impacts before allowing coal leasing. After conducting that environmental review, the BLM decided to prohibit new coal leasing. This bill reverses that decision, primarily affecting Wyoming's coal industry and federal land management policies. It demonstrates Congress using its oversight power to reject a regulatory decision made by an executive agency. **Current Status:** The bill has been signed into law, meaning it is now official policy.
To prohibit the District of Columbia from requiring tribunals in court or administrative proceedings in the District of Columbia to defer to the Mayor of the District of Columbia's interpretation of statutes and regulations, and for other purposes.
# HR 3766 Summary **What the Bill Would Do** This bill would prevent courts and administrative tribunals (hearing bodies) in Washington, D.C. from automatically accepting the Mayor's interpretation of D.C. laws and regulations as correct. Currently, legal proceedings sometimes follow a practice called "deference," where judges or administrators give special weight to how executive branch officials interpret rules. This bill would eliminate that requirement, meaning judges and administrative bodies would have to independently evaluate whether the Mayor's interpretation is correct rather than presuming it is. **Who It Affects** The bill specifically applies only to D.C. legal proceedings. It would affect the D.C. government, businesses, residents, and organizations involved in lawsuits or administrative hearings in the district. The bill is sponsored by Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-WY), suggesting it reflects broader Republican concerns about executive branch power. **Current Status** As of now, HR 3766 is in committee, meaning it has been introduced but not yet voted on by the full House. No action has been taken beyond the initial referral. The bill has not advanced further in the legislative process.
Fight Illicit Pill Presses Act
# Fight Illicit Pill Presses Act (HR 5880) - Summary **What the Bill Would Do:** This bill aims to combat the illegal manufacturing of counterfeit pills and drugs by targeting the equipment used to produce them. Specifically, it would regulate and restrict access to pill presses and related machinery that are commonly used by criminal organizations to manufacture fake or illicit medications. The legislation would likely establish penalties for illegally possessing or distributing these machines and could require sellers to verify the legitimacy of buyers. **Who It Affects:** The bill would impact pharmaceutical manufacturers, equipment suppliers, law enforcement agencies, and anyone involved in the illegal production of counterfeit drugs. It's particularly relevant given the ongoing fentanyl crisis, as illicit pill presses are often used to produce counterfeit pills containing fentanyl and other dangerous substances. **Current Status:** As of now, HR 5880 is in committee and has not yet been voted on by the full House. The bill was introduced by Representative Harriet Hageman (R-Wyoming) during the 119th Congress. It remains in the early legislative stage with no additional details on provisions currently available in the public record.
Country of Origin Labeling Enforcement Act of 2025
# Country of Origin Labeling Enforcement Act of 2025 - Summary **What the Bill Does:** This bill would require grocery stores, supermarkets, and other retailers to label beef (including ground beef) with its country of origin. Currently, the USDA requires country-of-origin labeling for several foods like chicken, fish, and lamb, but beef is exempt. This bill would add beef to that list. For beef to be labeled as "Product of the USA," the animal must have been born, raised, and slaughtered entirely in the United States. **Who It Affects & Key Provisions:** The bill primarily affects retailers (stores that sell beef to consumers) and beef suppliers. Retailers that violate the labeling requirement could face significant penalties—$5,000 per pound of beef that isn't properly labeled. The bill essentially gives consumers more information about where their beef comes from, allowing them to make purchasing decisions based on origin if they choose to do so. **Current Status:** The bill is currently in committee (HR 5818, 119th Congress), sponsored by Representative Harriet M. Hageman (R-WY). It has not yet been voted on by the full House of Representatives. The bill is still in the early legislative stage and would need to pass committee review and floor votes before becoming law.
Grizzly Bear State Management Act
# Grizzly Bear State Management Act Summary **What the Bill Would Do:** This bill would reinstate a 2017 federal rule that removed grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem from the endangered species list. Once delisted, grizzly bear management would shift from federal control to state management in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. The bill also prevents courts from reviewing or challenging this decision. **Who It Affects:** The bill primarily affects residents and wildlife officials in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, as these states would gain authority over grizzly bear hunting and management policies. It also impacts conservation groups and interests focused on wildlife protection, as well as hunting and ranching communities in these regions. **Key Provision:** The most significant aspect is the immunity from judicial review—meaning environmental groups or other opponents couldn't challenge the rule in court, unlike normal regulatory changes. This essentially makes the delisting decision final without legal recourse. **Current Status:** The bill is currently in committee and has not yet been voted on by the full House of Representatives.
To prohibit the use of Federal funds to pay reparations issued by international bodies or courts for violations of international law.
# HR 5431 Summary **What the Bill Would Do** This bill would prevent the U.S. government from using federal funds to pay reparations (compensation) that are ordered by international courts or organizations for alleged violations of international law. Essentially, it would block the U.S. from complying with financial compensation orders issued by bodies like the International Court of Justice if such orders were made against the United States. **Who It Affects and Key Details** The bill would primarily affect the federal government's ability to make international payments and could impact U.S. foreign relations. It would apply to any reparations issued by international bodies or courts, though it's unclear what specific situation prompted its introduction. The bill has no stated exceptions or limitations detailed in the description provided. **Current Status** HR 5431 is currently in committee, meaning it has not yet been voted on by the full House of Representatives. The bill was introduced by Representative Harriet Hageman (R-WY) in the 119th Congress. At this stage, it remains in the early legislative process and has not advanced further.
FAIR Act
# Summary of the FAIR Act (HR 5315) I don't have access to the specific details of this particular bill (HR 5315, the FAIR Act sponsored by Rep. Harriet Hageman). While I can see it's a House bill from the 119th Congress currently in committee, I cannot provide an accurate summary without access to the bill's actual text and provisions. To get reliable information about what this bill would do, I'd recommend: - **Congress.gov**: Search for "HR 5315" to read the full text and summary - **Rep. Hageman's official website**: Often includes bill descriptions and sponsorship information - **Official House committee websites**: May have analysis of bills under their jurisdiction If you can share the bill's summary or key provisions, I'd be happy to help explain them in plain language.
COAL Act of 2025
# COAL Act of 2025 Summary **What the Bill Would Do** The COAL Act of 2025 would require the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to speed up the process for leasing federal coal deposits to companies for mining. Currently, if an environmental review has already started for a coal lease application, the bill would force the BLM to complete that review, finalize the lease price, and approve the application. It would also require the BLM to grant additional approvals needed for mining to begin on previously awarded coal leases. Additionally, the bill would overturn a 2023 Interior Department policy (Secretarial Order 3338) that paused most new federal coal leases while the government reviewed the federal coal program. **Who It Affects and Key Details** This bill primarily affects coal companies seeking to mine on federal lands, as well as states like Wyoming (where the sponsor is from) that have significant coal resources. Environmental groups and renewable energy advocates would likely oppose it, as it streamlines approval processes and removes environmental safeguards. The bill essentially removes delays and obstacles in the coal leasing process by limiting the scope of environmental reviews and requiring faster approval timelines. **Current Status** The bill is currently in committee as of this summary, meaning it hasn't yet been voted on by the full House of Representatives.
Highway Funding Transferability Improvement Act
# Highway Funding Transferability Improvement Act (HR 4926) - Summary **What the Bill Would Do** This bill would modify how states can use federal highway funding. Currently, states have limited ability to redirect federal money allocated for highway projects to other transportation uses. The bill would increase this flexibility, allowing states to transfer highway funds to different projects or purposes more easily than current law permits. **Who It Affects** The primary beneficiaries would be state transportation departments and local governments, which could better match federal funding to their specific transportation needs. Drivers and communities could potentially benefit if funds are redirected to address local transportation priorities. The changes would apply nationwide. **Current Status** The bill is currently in committee, meaning it has been introduced but not yet voted on by the full House of Representatives. It was sponsored by Representative Hageman (R-WY) and has not yet advanced further in the legislative process.
Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2025
# Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2025 - Summary **What the Bill Would Do:** The Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2025 (HR 4850) is a proposed bill that would modify how the federal government manages endangered and threatened species. While specific provisions aren't detailed in the available information, bills with this title typically focus on revising the Endangered Species Act framework—potentially affecting how species are listed as endangered, how recovery plans are developed, and how federal agencies enforce protections. **Who It Affects:** This bill would impact wildlife agencies (like the Fish and Wildlife Service), private landowners whose property contains endangered species habitat, industries subject to environmental regulations, and conservationists working on species protection. State governments and local communities dependent on natural resources could also be affected depending on the bill's specific provisions. **Current Status:** The bill is currently in committee, meaning it has been introduced but hasn't yet been debated or voted on by the full House of Representatives. The bill was sponsored by Representative Harriet Hageman (R-WY). Until the bill moves out of committee or the specific text is released, the exact changes it proposes remain unclear. *Note: Detailed provisions of this bill were not available in the source materials provided.*
To subject emergency legislation enacted by the District of Columbia Council to expedited congressional disapproval procedures.
# HR 4670 Summary **What the Bill Would Do** HR 4670 would give Congress faster power to reject emergency laws passed by the Washington, D.C. City Council. Currently, when D.C.'s local government declares an emergency and passes legislation quickly under emergency procedures, Congress has limited ability to stop it. This bill would create a streamlined process allowing Congress to vote on disapproving D.C.'s emergency laws more rapidly than typical legislation. **Who It Affects and Key Details** The bill directly affects Washington, D.C. residents and the local D.C. government, as it would increase congressional oversight of D.C.'s emergency decision-making. This reflects the unique relationship between D.C. and Congress—unlike states, Congress retains special authority over D.C.'s budget and laws. The bill was introduced by Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-WY) but contains no other specific details about implementation or timelines in the available information. **Current Status** The bill is currently in committee and has not yet been voted on by the full House of Representatives.
Disapproving the action of the District of Columbia Council in approving the Open Meetings Clarification Temporary Amendment Act of 2025.
# Summary of HJRES 109 **What This Bill Would Do** This resolution would overturn a law passed by the Washington, D.C. city council called the "Open Meetings Clarification Temporary Amendment Act of 2025." Under Congress's special authority over D.C., federal lawmakers can reject local D.C. laws within a set timeframe. If passed, this resolution would block the D.C. council's law from taking effect. The resolution does not explain what specific problems it has with the D.C. law, so the exact details of what the D.C. council approved are not described in this summary. **Who It Affects** This would primarily affect residents and businesses in Washington, D.C., as well as the D.C. city government. The resolution was introduced by Rep. Harriet Hageman, a Wyoming Republican. **Current Status** The resolution is currently in committee, meaning it has not yet been voted on by the full House of Representatives. Without details about the specific provisions of the D.C. law being rejected, the full impact of this resolution cannot be determined from this document alone.
Wyoming Education Trust Modernization Act
# Wyoming Education Trust Modernization Act Summary **What the Bill Would Do** HR 4328 aims to modernize Wyoming's education trust fund system, which is a state fund that generates revenue to support public education. The bill would make changes to how this trust fund operates and potentially adjust how its resources are managed and distributed for educational purposes. It also appears to involve provisions related to land use and conservation issues alongside education funding. **Who It Affects and Key Details** The bill primarily affects Wyoming's public education system and students who benefit from trust fund revenues. It would also impact state land management practices and potentially conservation efforts in Wyoming. The specific provisions aren't detailed in this summary, but the combination of education funding, trust fund management, and land use suggests the bill attempts to balance educational financing with Wyoming's land and natural resource policies. **Current Status** As of now, HR 4328 remains in committee and has not yet been voted on by the full House of Representatives. The bill was introduced by Representative Harriet Hageman, a Republican from Wyoming. Until it advances out of committee, the bill has not progressed toward becoming law.
SPEED Act
# SPEED Act (HR 4059) Summary I don't have access to the specific details of this bill's text or provisions. While I can see it's a House bill sponsored by Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-WY) currently in committee during the 119th Congress, I cannot provide accurate information about what it would actually do without access to the bill's language and summary. To get a reliable summary, I recommend: - **Congress.gov** - Search "HR 4059" for the full text and Congressional Research Service summary - **Rep. Hageman's official website** - Often includes bill descriptions - **House committee website** - Details on its current status and hearing information I'd be happy to summarize the bill if you can share its text or provide the specific provisions you're interested in.