Val T. Hoyle

“I want the House to pass this bill. It swaps land between Yosemite National Park and Stanislaus National Forest. This fix lets cattle continue to graze on forest land where it is allowed, while still protecting important wildlife habitats in the park.”

“Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 8454 would authorize a land exchange between Yosemite National Park and Stanislaus National Forest in California. This is a straightforward exchange that will transfer 160 acres of National Forest System land to the National Park Service, and approximately 170 acres of National Park System land that will be transferred to the Forest Service. The purpose of this legislation is simply to make Federal land management more efficient. This is needed because the Service recently added a parcel known as the Ackerson Meadow to Yosemite National Park. Ackerson Meadow has significant scenic value and provides key habitats for endangered species, such as the great grey owl and the little willow flycatcher. Adding this land to Yosemite was a win-win. However, while much of the Ackerson Meadow meets the criteria for inclusion in the National Park, it is largely surrounded by the Stanislaus National Forest, and there is a conflict with existing uses. This includes one of the longest continuously running cattle drives in California, which is inconsistent with Park Service laws and regulations. H.R. 8454 is the result of negotiation and compromise, and I thank the bill’s sponsor and Chair Westerman for that work. It will result in more efficient land management and noteworthy expansion of Yosemite National Park. This is exactly the kind of work that Congress is expected to do. It stands in clear contrast to the recent proposal to sell off a piece of Yosemite to a private developer. We should be working together to increase conservation and improve the management of our public lands, not trying to cut deals and exclusive access for millionaires. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 8454, and I reserve the balance of my time.”

• Reasons given
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Reasoning 100 of 100

  This statement drew 3 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

  See full analysis →

“I want the House to pass this bill. It names the historic bandstand in St. Croix after Peter G. Thurland, Sr. He was a Navy veteran and musician who helped design and build the bandstand, and he taught music to generations of young people.”

“Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 8121, introduced by my colleague Delegate Plaskett, will honor the legacy of Peter G. Thurland by naming Christiansted Bandstand after him. This bandstand is a historic landmark at the Christiansted National Historic Site in St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. It symbolizes the rich, cultural heritage of St. Croix and has served as a community gathering place since its construction. Peter G. Thurland was a central figure in the St. Croix community. Mr. Thurland was known as a master craftsman, musician, and proud veteran who served in the Navy Band. Not only did he perform there during his military service until his honorable discharge but he personally helped design and construct the bandstand. He continued to advocate for the arts and founded the St. Croix Community Band where he personally trained generations of young musicians. Efforts to recognize Mr. Thurland go back to the 103rd Congress with the legislation first introduced by Delegate Ron de Lugo. It is time to honor Mr. Thurland’s legacy and ensure that his impact on the cultural and civic life of St. Croix is remembered. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.”

“I want the House to pass this bill. Current bird protection laws treat some Alaska Native artists like criminals for using bird parts in their traditional crafts. This bill protects wild birds from poaching, but lets Alaska Natives make and sell their art.”

“Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6021, the Archie Cavanaugh Migratory Bird Treaty Clarification Act. For over a century, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 has played an important role in protecting migratory birds across North America, but due to the rigid way the law is interpreted, a few Alaska Native artisans who use bird parts in their traditional arts and regalia have been criminalized for their craft. This legislation addresses the conflict. H.R. 6021 would direct the Department of the Interior and the State Department to work with Japan to clarify their Migratory Bird Treaty with the United States. It would make clear that authentic Alaska Native handicrafts made or sold with nonedible migratory bird parts are exempt from Federal law. This language ensures that while we will continue to have strong protections against wasteful harvesting and illegal poaching of birds, we are not doing so at the expense of Alaska Native traditions. This bill respects Tribal sovereignty, protects traditional knowledge, and maintains conservation integrity. I thank Representative Begich and Chair Westerman for working constructively across the aisle to come to an agreement we can all support. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes’’ vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.”

“I support this bill. It lets local governments hire lifeguards for federal beaches when the federal government does not have enough staff. We have a shortage because the administration fired workers, froze hiring, and cut agency budgets. This bill helps for now, but we still need to fully fund and staff our federal agencies.”

“Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5063 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to address lifeguard staffing shortages at Federal beaches by entering into agreements with local governments to ensure continuity of staff and proper lifeguard coverage. This measure would apply to beaches managed by the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Bureau of Reclamation. Under these agreements, State and local governments are authorized to hire lifeguards to cover shifts at Federal beaches. Lifeguards perform vital public safety services. While this bill provides a mechanism to prevent empty chairs, relying on local municipalities should not become a permanent Band-Aid for understaffed Federal agencies. We can’t lose sight of why, one of the key reasons why, we lack enough lifeguards in the first place: the DOGE effort dedicated to firing park workers, implementing hiring freezes, and gutting our Federal agencies. Last summer, fewer than half of the 7,700 seasonal National Park Service positions, including lifeguards, were filled. These cuts forced Federal managers to scramble, leaving communities to step in and fund these critical positions--also putting lives in danger. As a reminder, the National Park Service has lost nearly 25 percent of its permanent workforce since the beginning of 2025 due to this administration’s firing of park staff and slashing agency budgets. While local agreements offer emergency relief--and I am very much in support of this bill--a real priority should be rebuilding a fully funded, fully staffed Federal workforce that is focused on efficiency and getting the job done while we are good stewards of taxpayer dollars. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.”

“I support this bill now that we fixed it. It lets the National Park Service extend property leases without a new public bidding process, but only if the tenant follows the rules and it helps the park. We added limits so a lease can only be extended once and cannot last longer than 60 years total. This gives the park flexibility while still protecting taxpayers and fair competition.”

“Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4931 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to extend certain leases within the National Park System unit without opening those leases to another public bidding process. Under the bill, the lease could be extended without rebidding if the lease has been in place for at least 5 years, the tenant is complying with the terms of the existing lease, and the National Park Service determines that the extension is consistent with the purposes of the park unit. The National Park Service manages approximately 160 leases covering more than 340 structures. This leasing authority has helped the service put underutilized historic properties to use through public-private partnerships while directing lease revenues toward historic preservation, infrastructure, and maintenance. As introduced, this legislation raised serious concerns. Current law requires a public competitive bidding process and fair market value, helping ensure that taxpayers receive a fair return on public assets and that businesses have a fair opportunity to compete. It also contains no limits on the length of an extension or the number of times the lease could be renewed, creating the risk of a continuous cycle of extensions that effectively locks out the competition. Those concerns were addressed during the Natural Resources Committee markup, with technical assistance from the National Park Service. The amended bill limits the authority to a single extension and makes it clear the total term of the lease cannot exceed the existing 60-year regulatory limit. That includes the extension. These guardrails are important. We should make sure the Park Service has the flexibility it needs to manage these properties well, while also protecting competition, transparency, and the interests of the American taxpayer. As we have learned from the President’s use of no-bid contracts for the Reflecting Pool and the suspension of leases for Federal golf courses in D.C., we need to ensure robust statutory guardrails. The national park leasing authority is a successful program, but it cannot be a back door that leads to the privatization of our national parks. Mr. Speaker, I thank the sponsor of the bill for working in a bipartisan way to address the concerns that many of us had, and I reserve the balance of my time.”

“I want the House to pass this bill. It sets up teams to quickly find and get rid of invasive plants and animals on wildlife refuges before they spread. These teams work, and the bill lets them work with nearby landowners to stop pests from crossing property lines.”

“Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4219, the National Wildlife Refuge System Invasive Species Strike Team Act would codify and build an innovative program within the National Wildlife Refuge System to target and eradicate invasive species. The National Wildlife Refuge System is the largest network of land and waters in the world dedicated to the conservation of wildlife, but many of these refuges face funding and staffing shortages that make it difficult to keep up with invasive species. The sooner an invasive species is identified and removed, the more successful and affordable that effort is likely to be. That is where the strike team model comes in. Instead of spreading limited resources thin, strike teams allow the Fish and Wildlife Service to bring large teams into an area and quickly target an invasive species before it can reproduce and spread. The Fish and Wildlife Service has already demonstrated that this approach works. At the Johnston Atoll, yellow crazy ants had been swarming seabirds and their nests for more than a decade. These ants release a poisonous chemical that can injure birds and cause serious infections. The Fish and Wildlife Service brought in strike teams to find and eliminate the ants’ nests. After several months of intensive works, the yellow crazy ant was completely eradicated. That success has led the Service to use the strike team model in other regions against other invasive species. We have also heard from stakeholders that these efforts are sometimes limited by what happens just beyond the refuge boundary. Invasive species do not stop at a property line. That is why this bill allows the Service, on a voluntary basis, to work with willing neighboring landowners to address invasive species on adjacent lands. This will allow the Service to take a more coordinated approach and make better use of limited resources. H.R. 4219 will help protect wildlife habitat, support the recovery of endangered species, and preserve opportunities for hunting, fishing, and recreation on our national wildlife refuges. I thank the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case) for his work on this important program, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill. I reserve the balance of my time.”

“I want the House to pass this bill. It directs the government to put ocean maps and boating rules in one place online. Right now, this information is spread across too many sites. Putting it together will help boaters and fishers follow the rules, stay safe, and protect the ocean.”

“Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, S. 759 would improve access to critical information for ocean users, including recreational boaters and fishers. This bill would direct the Secretary of Commerce to establish standards for NOAA for mapping recreational use of our oceans. This information would include fishing restrictions, vessel access, and navigation information. Area restrictions, such as within the national marine sanctuaries and marine national monuments, would be clearly marked on these maps. The United States’ exclusive economic zone covers about 3.4 million square nautical miles and supports 4.5 million recreational fishing vessels. About 11 million registered boats contribute roughly $170 billion annually to the economy. Currently, access to geospatial data for recreational use is across multiple databases. This lack of centralized data can make it difficult for millions of recreational boaters to understand the latest regulations and puts both boaters and coastal environments at risk. S. 759 would improve access, transparency, and usability of critical information. By making regulations easier to understand and follow, this bill will help create safer, more enjoyable experiences on the water. This will strengthen coastal economies and improve environmental protection efforts. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.”

• Reasons given
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Reasoning 100 of 100

  This statement drew 3 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

  See full analysis →

“I want the House to pass this bill. Up to 32 percent of seafood brought into the country is caught illegally. This bill helps scientists develop chemical tests to trace where fish like red snapper and tuna come from, which will help law enforcement catch illegal fishing.”

“Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing, or IUU fishing, threatens domestic fisheries and ecosystems around the world. In the United States, up to 32 percent of seafood imports are derived from IUU fishing. These illegal practices harm our economy, disadvantage fishermen, and threaten the long-term health of our oceans and fish stocks. Mr. Speaker, S. 283 would address one part of that challenge by investing in science to improve the detection of illegally sourced seafood. This bill would direct the National Institute of Standards and Technology and NOAA to develop a chemical analysis to identify the origin of seafood. If successful, this could assist law enforcement in identifying products from illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing. This legislation specifically focuses on red snapper and several species of tuna, offering an opportunity to determine whether the chemical analysis research would apply to reef fish and migratory species. This is a practical, bipartisan piece of legislation that would strengthen our ability to identify seafood linked to IUU fishing and improve enforcement efforts. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting S. 283, and I reserve the balance of my time.”

“I oppose this bill. It does not require meaningful consultation with Native American tribes before mining projects are approved. It also allows foreign companies to mine low-value minerals that could ruin our drinking water and natural habitats.”

“Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. This administration’s corruption playbook is impacting industries across the board and raising costs for working families like the ones I represent. Their next target is the mining industry. Representative Grijalva offered an amendment that would require the Secretary to ensure there is meaningful and robust Tribal consultation for any mining project to be eligible to be covered under FAST-41. This amendment was not accepted. I represent four of Oregon’s nine Tribal nations and one-third of the members of two others. Tribal consultation is critical to my district and to our State. We tried to make this bill better and protect Tribal consultation, but Republicans voted against it. Too often, essential Tribal consultation and community engagement are treated as a box-checking exercise. Consultation is a process, not an event, and it is our trust responsibility to ensure this happens. Tribes deserve a real say in mining projects that could forever alter and destroy the lands they have stewarded since time immemorial. This legislation does not make our supply chains more secure or even ensure that more of the domestic critical minerals that we need will get mined for American workers. This issue affects mine and Representative Huffman’s district in that there is a foreign company that is looking to mine low-value minerals that will destroy drinking water, fish habitat, and recreational opportunities on the Smith River. We do not need to be a cheap date for foreign entities so the President and his family and his donors can get rich off the companies that they are personally invested in. That is not in the best interests of Americans or American workers. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and work on something better for the American people and the resources that we depend on.”

“The Constitution gives Congress the power to set election rules, and a court ordered the administration not to interfere with voting by mail. In Oregon, we vote entirely by mail. I want my colleagues to keep their promises to follow the law, defend our democracy, and protect everyone's right to vote.”

“Mr. Speaker, Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of the Constitution says: The time, place, and manner of elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof, but Congress may at any time by law--by law--make or alter such regulations. There is a court order saying the administration may not interfere with vote by mail. In Oregon, we only vote by mail and have done so since 1995, and yet, here we are. Where are my colleagues who took an oath to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law? Where are my colleagues who took an oath to uphold the separation of powers between Congress and the executive branch and representative democracy? Where are my colleagues who took an oath to uphold the peaceful transfer of power, to allow every eligible citizen to vote? Where are my colleagues? History will not judge this cowardice well. Where the hell are you? Stand up and uphold the Constitution. You took a damn oath.”

“Oregon State University received a major federal science grant. It could bring up to $160 million to Oregon to create high-tech jobs and help the university design advanced computer chips.”

“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share that Oregon State University has received 1 of 12 National Science Foundation’s Regional Innovation Engines. This investment in Oregon’s semiconductor industry will strengthen educational partnerships across the State, meaningfully influence regional economic development, improve pathways to semiconductor careers, and create thousands of new high-paying, high-tech jobs outside the Portland Metro area. Oregon could receive up to $160 million to grow the State’s semiconductor industry that already employs 30,000 Oregonians. Oregon’s FAST coalition brings together State partners across education, government, the technology industry, nonprofits, small businesses, and investors. It will also bring our innovation corridor closer together across 12 counties and foster innovation. Demand for semiconductors is rising, and the NSF FAST Engine will help Oregon State University design the world’s most advanced semiconductor chips and reaffirm our position as leaders in that space. Go Beavers.”

• Vague
  ?

  Speech in the House

  Clarity 43 of 100

  Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

  See full analysis →

“I wanted to cut real waste in the government, but the DOGE effort failed. Elon Musk and his team did not save money. Instead, they fired 300,000 workers, shut down important services, and cost taxpayers $10 billion. If we want to cut real waste, we should look at the Pentagon instead of firing people who keep us safe.”

“Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the 119th session, I was ready to work with anyone to root out waste, fraud, and abuse in the government. We are here to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars, and we should want our government to be efficient. That is not what happened. We started with a bipartisan congressional effort, and then President Trump appointed Elon Musk, who stood there with a chainsaw, brought in a bunch of unqualified DOGE bros, who said that they were going to make $2 trillion in savings from the Federal budget, but made no meaningful impact in spending. They tortured and went after our public employees that cost the taxpayers $10 billion through the deferred resignation program. Mr. Speaker, 300,000 Federal workers were fired or urged to retire, including 100,000 veterans. This wasn’t done in a strategic way. People were fired without understanding what their jobs were. For instance, off the Oregon coast, they fired the people who knew how to operate the tsunami warning system. That isn’t rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse. They shut down promising innovations, like direct file, at the request of big businesses that stood to financially benefit. That hurt low-income and working Americans who now have to pay to file their taxes. They slowed response time to complaints made to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which had previously helped return $21 billion to Americans. They purged USAID by getting rid of 83 percent of USAID projects. Impact Counter estimates that 757,000 people died, mostly children. We lost the benefit of soft power that we had when we invested in this very effective program. They tried to end NIOSH and canceled $3.8 billion in NIH grants. They laid off 1,300 critical Federal workers from NOAA. If you want to talk about government overreach and small government, that is not what happened with DOGE. They gained access to personal data, like our Social Security numbers, our tax returns, and our health records. Waste, fraud, and abuse still exist in the Federal Government. For instance, if we want to root out waste, fraud, and abuse, let’s start with the Pentagon that failed the last eight audits. There is a ton of waste, fraud, and abuse. They have awarded more than $208 billion in contracts to companies that have been cited for repeated or willful violations. Why are we not addressing that? We should want government to be more efficient. We should want to root out waste, fraud, and abuse. I will work with anyone to make that happen. Instead, we gave a chainsaw to a trillionaire who made his money off of Federal grants, Federal research, and Federal projects, and we cut critical investments to make our government work better for the working people. On July Fourth, DOGE shut down. It doesn’t intend to publish a final report because they would have to report a giant failure that cost taxpayers $10 billion. I say, good-bye, good riddance, and let’s not do this again.”

“I am honoring Navy Commander Gabriel Edwards from Oregon. He died in the Arabian Sea during an emergency helicopter landing. I thank him for his service and send my support to his family.”

“Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in honor of Commander Gabriel Edwards, from Oakland, Oregon, who died while serving as the commanding officer of Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron 5 in the Arabian Sea. After 4 days of searching over 14,000 square miles, the Navy declared him lost at sea during an emergency helicopter landing. Gabriel earned his wings as a helicopter pilot in 2008 and received several awards during his service, including the Defense Meritorious Service Medal. He knew he wanted to be a pilot at just 4 years old. This is how his wife, Rebecca, described him: ``Gabe has dedicated his life to serving his country with honor, courage, and commitment. He led with humility, integrity, and compassion, always putting his people before himself. To those who served alongside him, he was a respected leader and mentor.’’ My thoughts are with Rebecca and their two children during this time. I am glad to know the Secretary of the Navy has directed that Edwards be posthumously promoted to the rank of captain. His heroism will never be forgotten, and I know all of us in Oregon and around the country thank him for his honorable service. May his memory be a blessing.”