HR-2872-117
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 412.
What it does
The bill would require the President to establish an interagency working group to adopt, review, and update a national strategy for helping fish, wildlife, and plants adapt to climate change and extreme weather. It would require every federal agency to incorporate that strategy into their plans, environmental reviews, and programs. It would also direct the Department of the Interior to create a new National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center and an advisory committee to support the strategy's development and implementation.
Who benefits
Federal agencies that would receive centralized scientific guidance and tools for climate-related planning. Conservation organizations and researchers who would gain a formal, government-backed framework and funding stream for wildlife adaptation science. Outdoor recreation industries (fishing, hunting, wildlife tourism) that depend on healthy fish and wildlife populations. Tribal nations and rural communities whose livelihoods and cultural practices are tied to specific species and ecosystems. Future generations who would inherit ecosystems shaped by today's adaptation decisions.
Who is hurt
Landowners and industries — including agriculture, timber, energy, and real estate development — whose operations could face new constraints if federal agencies integrate the strategy into permitting, environmental reviews, and land-use decisions. Taxpayers who would fund the new Science Center, advisory committee, and interagency working group, though the bill does not specify appropriation amounts. State and local governments that may face pressure to align their own plans with the federal strategy, potentially limiting their independent land and resource management authority.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that fish, wildlife, and plant populations are already being disrupted by shifting temperatures, altered precipitation, and more frequent extreme weather events, and that the federal government has a responsibility to respond with a coordinated, science-based plan. They contend that without a unified national strategy, individual agencies will pursue fragmented, inconsistent approaches that waste resources and fail to protect interconnected ecosystems that cross jurisdictional boundaries. Supporters also argue that healthy ecosystems provide measurable economic value — supporting a multi-billion-dollar outdoor recreation economy, protecting water supplies, and buffering communities against flood and drought — making adaptation spending a cost-effective measure compared to the long-term costs of species loss and ecosystem collapse.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that mandating every federal agency to integrate a single national strategy into its plans and environmental reviews would create a new layer of bureaucratic process that slows permitting, increases compliance costs, and burdens industries that depend on timely federal approvals. They contend that the bill delegates broad, loosely defined authority to an interagency working group and a new Science Center without sufficient congressional oversight or clear statutory limits, raising concerns about unaccountable agency power expanding well beyond what Congress explicitly authorized. Opponents also argue that wildlife and land management decisions are best made at the state and local level, where officials have direct knowledge of regional conditions, and that a top-down federal mandate undermines the traditional state role in managing fish and wildlife resources within their borders.
Constitutional context
The bill rests primarily on the Commerce Clause, which gives Congress authority to regulate activities affecting interstate commerce — including interstate fisheries and migratory species. The Necessary and Proper Clause supports the creation of the interagency working group and Science Center as means of executing that authority. However, the bill faces scrutiny under the major questions doctrine established in West Virginia v. EPA (2022), which requires clear congressional authorization before agencies take actions of vast economic and political significance. Post-Loper Bright (2024), courts will independently review whether agency interpretations of the bill's broad mandates — such as "integrating the strategy" into all agency programs — fall within statutory authority. The Tenth Amendment is also relevant, as the bill could be read to pressure states to conform their wildlife management to federal strategy, implicating anti-commandeering principles. Sackett v. EPA (2023) signals judicial skepticism toward expansive federal jurisdiction over land and water resources.
Checks and balances
The bill shifts authority toward the Executive Branch by creating a new interagency working group led by the President and a new Interior Department science center, both with broad mandates to shape how all federal agencies conduct planning and environmental review. Congress retains indirect control through the appropriations process, since the bill does not self-fund. The advisory committee structure provides a limited check by incorporating outside scientific input, but the working group itself — an executive body — holds final authority over the strategy's content and revisions.
Historical precedent
The 2013 National Fish, Wildlife, and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy (which this bill would codify and institutionalize) is the most direct precedent. More broadly, the National Environmental Policy Act (1970) established the model of requiring federal agencies to integrate environmental considerations into all agency actions, and the Endangered Species Act (1973) created a framework for federal coordination on species protection — both of which this bill builds upon structurally.