CONGRESS FOR VOTERS

Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA)

To provide that the final rule of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration titled "Rescinding the Definition of 'Harm' Under the Endangered Species Act" shall have no force or effect.

H.R. 9901 · House bill Environmental Protection

A Republican bill with 18 Democratic cosponsors · See all 18 cosponsors

Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.

In committee

Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.

The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.

Its path through Congress

  1. Introduced
  2. In Committee

What this bill would do

This bill is about making sure our elected and appointed officials are kept in check by dealing with a specific government rule. It targets a final rule issued by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The rule is titled ``Rescinding the Definition of `Harm' Under the Endangered Species Act'' and was published on July 14, 2026. The legislation states simply that this specific rule will have no force or effect. By doing this, the bill completely blocks the agencies' rule from taking any legal power. As your analyst, I look out for you to see how these actions affect our everyday lives and the wildlife protections we rely on.

Yes· 3 of 4

  • Scored +5

    Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?

    The bill prevents the removal of the 'harm' definition, thereby maintaining stronger protections for endangered species under the ESA.

  • Scored +3

    Does this give the federal government more power?

    The bill reinforces federal authority by preventing the weakening of the Endangered Species Act's regulatory scope.

  • Scored +2

    Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests?

    Maintaining the 'harm' definition provides more robust tools for managing endangered species on public lands.

The opposite· 3 of 5

  • Scored -3

    Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change?

    By nullifying the rescission of 'harm', the bill maintains broader protections for endangered species which may impact development and emissions goals.

  • Scored -2

    Would business owners be better off under this?

    Maintaining the definition of 'harm' may increase regulatory compliance costs and constraints for certain industries.

  • Scored -2

    Would farmers be better off under this?

    Increased regulatory definitions of harm can impact land use and agricultural operations near endangered habitats.