    [Senate Hearing 117-206]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                        S. Hrg. 117-206

                    A LEGISLATIVE HEARING TO EXAMINE S. 2372,
                      THE RECOVERING AMERICA'S WILDLIFE ACT

    =======================================================================

                                     HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   ----------

                                DECEMBER 8, 2021

                                   ----------

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov

                                 __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    47-028 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2022

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                      THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman

    BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
    BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont                 Virginia,
    SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island         Ranking Member
    JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
    TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois            CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
    DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan            RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama
    MARK KELLY, Arizona                  JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    ALEX PADILLA, California             ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
                                         DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
                                         JONI ERNST, Iowa
                                         LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina

                 Mary Frances Repko, Democratic Staff Director
                   Adam Tomlinson, Republican Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                DECEMBER 8, 2021
                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware..     1
    Capito, Hon. Shelley Moore, U.S. Senator from the State of West
      Virginia.......................................................     3

                                   WITNESSES

    Heinrich, Hon. Martin, U.S. Senator from the State of New Mexico.     5
        Prepared statement...........................................    20
    Blunt, Hon. Roy, U.S. Senator from the State of Missouri.........    23
        Prepared statement...........................................    25
    Ashe, Dan, President and CEO, Association of Zoos and Aquariums..    27
        Prepared statement...........................................    29
    O'Mara, Collin, President and CEO, National Wildlife Federation..    34
        Prepared statement...........................................    37
    Pauley, Sara Parker, President, Association of Fish and Wildlife
      Agencies.......................................................    50
        Prepared statement...........................................    52
        Responses to additional questions from Senator Carper........    57
        Response to an additional question from Senator Inhofe.......    66
    Wood, Jonathan, Vice President of Law and Policy, Property and
      Environment Research Center....................................    69
        Prepared statement...........................................    71

                              ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

    Letter to Senator Charles Schumer et al. from the American Bird
      Conservancy et al., June 30, 2021..............................     7
    Letter to Members of the U.S. Senate from the Alliance for
      America's Fish and Wildlife, October 26, 2021..................     9
    Written Testimony of Gloria Tom, Director of the Navajo Nation's
      Department of Fish and Wildlife................................   166
    Statement of the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians
      et al., December 7, 2021.......................................   172
    Letter to Senator Carper et al. from:
        The Animal Welfare Institute, December 8, 2021...............   187
        The Connecticut Audubon Society et al., January 5, 2021......   188
        The Archery Trade Association et al., December 6, 2021.......   191
    Letter to Senators Carper and Capito from:
        The Center for Biological Diversity, December 7, 2021........   193
        The Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, December 6, 2021...   195
        The Humane Society Legislative Fund and The Humane Society of
          the United States, January 5, 2022.........................   197
        The Pew Charitable Trusts, December 10, 2021.................   202
        ConservAmerica, December 22, 2021............................   203
        The Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission and the Washington
          Department of Fish and Wildlife, December 7, 2021..........   205
        The Wildlife Society and the American Fisheries Society,
          December 7, 2021...........................................   208
    Testimony of the American Sportfishing Association, December 8,
      2021...........................................................   286
    Statement of the Allegheny Highlands Alliance et al..............   288
    Resolution 19-52 from the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians,
      adopted October 2019...........................................   318
    Resolution ABQ-19-036 from the National Congress of American
      Indians, adopted October 2019..................................   320

                        A LEGISLATIVE HEARING TO EXAMINE
                 S. 2372, THE RECOVERING AMERICA'S WILDLIFE ACT

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2021

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee, met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m. in
    room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R. Carper
    (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
        Present: Senators Carper, Capito, Cardin, Whitehouse,
    Merkley, Kelly, Padilla, Lummis, Boozman, and Ernst.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

        Senator Carper. The hearing will come to order, please. I
    invite our guests to take a seat.
        Senator Capito and I are delighted to be with all of you.
        Martin, good morning.
        Roy, good morning.
        Today, we are privileged to examine an important piece of
    bipartisan legislation, conservation legislation, the
    Recovering America's Wildlife Act.
        We are fortunate today to have an esteemed panel of
    witnesses before us: Dan Ashe, Collin O'Mara, Sara Parker
    Pauley, and Jonathan Wood.
        We thank all of you for joining us here today.
        We will also hear from two of our colleagues, Senator
    Martin Heinrich and Roy Blunt.
        Martin, welcome.
        Roy, welcome.
        They are prime sponsors of this bill, and we are pleased to
    welcome each of you.
        This morning, we thank you for joining us and for your
    passionate leadership on this important issue.
        Our Committee has enjoyed an enviable bipartisan track
    record of enacting wildlife conservation legislation over the
    past several years, such as the WILD Act and the ACE Act. We
    hope that this hearing will jump start a discussion to build on
    that bipartisan record of success.
        A recent report by the United Nations shows that nearly 1
    million species may be pushed to the brink of extinction in the
    years ahead, 1 million. That alarming number should serve as a
    dire warning for all of us to do our part to protect our planet
    and all of God's creations that inhabit it with us.
        Biodiversity loss threatens our economy; it threatens our
    ecosystems; it threatens our health. That is why the Recovering
    America's Wildlife Act is needed, and why I am grateful, why we
    are grateful, for our colleagues and our friends who have put
    so much effort into developing this piece of legislation. We
    are looking forward, in fact, I think we are eager to work with
    you on improving this legislation.
        The Recovering America's Wildlife Act aims to provide much
    needed resources for wildlife conservation and recovery. With
    that need in mind, this legislation would also provide billions
    of dollars to States and to Tribes for those purposes.
        As a recovering Governor, I understand that States play a
    leading role in wildlife conservation across our country. In
    recent decades, my home State, the First State, Delaware--what
    was yesterday, the 7th? Yes, it was the 7th. I think it was 234
    years ago yesterday that Delaware became the first State to
    ratify the Constitution, so it is a big week for us in
    Delaware.
        In recent decades, our home State, the First State, has
    made great strides in recovering species like the horseshoe
    crab, the DelMarVa fox squirrel, the red knot, and the piping
    plover. Few people understand this better than one of our
    witnesses today, Collin O'Mara, who is our former Secretary of
    the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control.
        A warm welcome, Collin.
        That success in Delaware was made possible by working side
    by side with the Fish and Wildlife Service and other partners.
    The concern that some have raised with the Recovering America's
    Wildlife Act, as drafted, is that it may not sufficiently
    support this important teamwork, but we will get into that
    later.
        In a recent visit to Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuge in
    the southern part of our State, I learned that the northeast
    region of the Fish and Wildlife Service is spearheading an
    effort amongst, I think 10 States, including Delaware, to
    prevent the saltmarsh sparrow from reaching the brink of
    extinction.
        In addition to playing this important coordinating role for
    proactive wildlife conservation, the Fish and Wildlife Service
    leads efforts for recovering our Nation's threatened and
    endangered species. That is the kind of critical work done by
    Federal agencies that needs our support, and I hope to find a
    way forward for this legislation to do just that.
        Let's keep in mind that private landowners also play a
    central role in species conservation and species recovery. We
    need to ensure that the Recovering America's Wildlife Act
    properly recognizes and supports their contributions, as well.
        Our Committee has spent a considerable amount of time over
    the last several years hearing from numerous experts from all
    across the country about wildlife management and the challenges
    that it faces. One common theme emerged from all those hearings
    and conversations, and here it is: All of the entities involved
    in wildlife conservation need increased financial resources to
    be successful.
        So while we should absolutely address the funding needs of
    our States and Tribes, we cannot afford to ignore the
    legitimate needs of our Federal agencies and other partners.
        Last, as our Committee contemplates all of these funding
    needs, we should also contemplate funding sources. The
    Recovering America's Wildlife Act proposes nearly $14 billion
    in investment, and as drafted, the legislation identifies a
    funding source that may not be reliable or fully pay for the
    bill's spending.
        As our colleagues have oftentimes heard me say, things that
    are worth having are worth paying for. This wildlife funding
    legislation is definitely worth having and worth paying for.
        Again, we look forward to hearing from our colleagues and
    our witnesses today, and we look forward to working together
    toward our common goal of recovering America's wildlife.
        With that, I am privileged to turn to our Ranking Member,
    Senator Capito, for any comments that she would like to make.
        Senator Capito.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO,
              U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

        Senator Capito. Thank you, Senator Carper, for calling
    today's hearing.
        I want to thank Senators Heinrich and Blunt for attending,
    along with our witnesses, and I look forward to hearing from
    each of you.
        I appreciate that the Association of Zoos and Aquariums is
    represented today. Just recently, I toured the Oglebay Good Zoo
    in Wheeling, West Virginia, which is accredited by the AZA. The
    Good Zoo houses 20 species; I didn't realize this until I
    actually saw it with my own eyes, the Good Zoo houses 20
    species that are deemed rare or endangered, and its staff is
    doing valuable work on research to inform conservation of these
    animals.
        Speaking of zoos, here in Washington, the Administration
    and--did you get that? OK.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Capito. The Administration and Congress should
    pursue bipartisan policies to preserve our Nation's public
    lands, wildlife, and ecosystems. Our environment, our natural
    resources, and access for sportsmen are legacies we have been
    entrusted with safeguarding for future generations of
    Americans. So today's hearing is focused on the legislation
    that has been introduced by Senators Heinrich and Blunt, the
    Recovering America's Wildlife Act, and I thank them for their
    advocacy.
        The bill has broad support from both sides of the aisle, as
    well as support from the stakeholder community, including
    hunters and anglers, conservation organizations, and industry.
    I am eager to learn more about the legislation through today's
    hearing. As I understand it, the goal of Recovering America's
    Wildlife Act is to provide funding to States to cover
    conservation efforts that will recover species as well as
    prevent listing additional species under the Endangered Species
    Act.
        As part of this discussion today, I want to emphasize for
    me the importance of State driven conservation. Conservation is
    most effective when led by State and local entities in
    cooperation with voluntary efforts by private landowners. These
    are the people that know their habitats, their communities, and
    their local economies the best. Recovering America's Wildlife
    Act provides each State with the flexibility to tailor their
    conservation strategies to meet its specific needs.
        West Virginia is home to 1,233 species of greatest
    conservation need. I don't know if I am included in one of
    those, but I might be.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Capito. With State driven efforts, the unique needs
    of each of these species can be addressed through conservation
    efforts that will help recover declining populations. As I do
    when I evaluate legislation under consideration by this
    Committee, my focus will continue to be providing States with
    the flexibility to address their unique needs and
    circumstances.
        As introduced, the Recovering America's Wildlife Act relies
    on revenue collected from environmental related violations and
    enforcement actions to help address its cost. As I understand
    it, the bill will result in $14 billion in direct, mandatory
    spending over a 10 year period. I think this is an issue, and
    Senator Carper mentioned this, that we need to consider against
    the background of the growth of our debt and deficit during
    this pandemic, and in light of the $4 trillion package that has
    been recently introduced and is under consideration.
        We also need to consider how effective any new conservation
    efforts will be if the Administration continues to pursue its
    rollback of sensible ESA regulations, which may serve to
    actually undermine investments in conservation.
        In particular, I am deeply concerned with Fish and
    Wildlife's revisiting of changes made to the implementation of
    ESA under the previous Administration. These rollbacks will set
    us back in achieving our conservation goals by increasing costs
    and burdens of doing the right thing: Specifically, the
    decision to rescind the 2020 regulation defining the term
    habitat for purposes of designating critical habitat under ESA.
    Leaving habitat undefined creates uncertainty for private
    landowners on whom species recovery absolutely depends. In any
    discussion of conservation, I think it is important to address
    common sense reforms for ESA.
        Cooperation with States and landowners is key for species
    recovery. Under the ESA, we should ensure that we balance the
    interests of Americans and their livelihoods with protecting
    species facing population declines.
        I look forward to the discussion today on proactive
    wildlife and habitat conservation solutions. I thank you again
    for holding this hearing, and I thank my fellow Senators for
    being with us today.
        Senator Carper. Thank you, Senator Capito.
        As we turn to our witnesses, we are fortunate to have the
    prime sponsors of the legislation before us: Senator Martin
    Heinrich from New Mexico, and Senator Roy Blunt, Senator from
    the State of Missouri.
        We are delighted that you could be with us today. Thank
    you.
        I think, Martin, we would like to hear from you first, so
    feel free to lead us off. Thank you.

                  STATEMENT OF HON. MARTIN HEINRICH,
               U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

        Senator Heinrich. Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Capito,
    and distinguished members of this Committee, thank you for
    allowing me to share a few words about the Recovering America's
    Wildlife Act, or RAWA.
        I have been very proud to team up with my Republican
    colleague from Missouri, Senator Roy Blunt, on this bipartisan
    legislation, and I am grateful for the support of the 16
    Republican and 16 Democratic co-sponsors, including many
    members of this Committee, as well as the support from the
    Administration on this issue, including their testimony in
    support of the House version of this legislation.
        RAWA would establish a robust and reliable Federal funding
    stream for collaborative, proactive, voluntary, on the ground
    conservation work. Consistent funding support has long been the
    missing piece in scaling up the type of recovery projects that
    have proven effective in recovering wildlife and plant species
    to healthy levels.
        We are just coming off of elk season in New Mexico, and I
    am happy to say that my freezer is full. But elk were extinct
    in New Mexico just a century ago. It is thanks to previous
    generations of conservationists, sportsmen, and sportswomen,
    that I have the privilege of interacting with this amazing and
    beautiful animal.
        I am indebted to people like Aldo Leopold, Elliot Barker,
    and Federal, State, and tribal leaders whose actions led to the
    restoration of elk, mule deer, and pronghorn populations in my
    home State and species like wild turkey and waterfowl and white
    tailed deer all across our Nation.
        The abundance of many species that we hunt and fish today
    is the direct result of collaborative work inspired by those
    previous generations of Americans and financed by bedrock
    conservation laws like Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson.
    Yet despite the incredible successes of these programs,
    particularly with game species and sportfish, and the successes
    of the Endangered Species Act in preventing hundreds of species
    from going extinct, it has been clear for decades that too many
    species are still declining or even headed toward extinction.
        Without enough resources, our State and tribal wildlife
    agencies have been forced to pick and choose which species are
    worthy of their attention. As a result, more than 12,000
    species are currently identified as species of greatest
    conservation need.
        We have a once in a generation opportunity to change this
    paradigm and save thousands of species with a solution that
    matches the magnitude of the challenge. The Recovering
    America's Wildlife Act offers us a path forward. RAWA will fuel
    locally driven, science based projects that will restore
    healthy fish and wildlife habitat and robust wildlife
    populations.
        These projects will create substantial economic benefits,
    including good paying jobs in rural communities. They will
    preserve outdoor recreation activities like hunting and fishing
    and wildlife viewing that support literally millions of
    additional jobs across our country, and they will save the
    Federal Government and the private sector tens of billions of
    dollars by saving species before they need emergency room
    measures just to survive.
        Before I finish, I want to emphasize just how bipartisan
    this issue is. This Committee has proven that we can still pass
    bipartisan conservation provisions within the Infrastructure
    Investment and Jobs Act, the American Conservation Enhancement
    Act, and the Water Resources Development Act.
        Last year, many of us here helped to pass the historic
    Great American Outdoors Act into law, which is already helping
    us tackle the longstanding infrastructure backlog in our
    national parks and on our public lands. As one of the most
    important wildlife bills in decades, the Recovering America's
    Wildlife Act will allow us to make similar historic progress on
    species recovery and wildlife habitat.
        I am proud of the coalition of sportsmen and sportswomen,
    conservationists, scientists, States, Tribes, and wildlife
    advocates who are calling on Congress to pass RAWA. I have
    letters of support that I would like to submit for the record
    representing all 50 States, numerous Tribes, and nearly 2,000
    organizations across the country, such as the National Wildlife
    Federation, Ducks Unlimited, the Boone and Crockett Club, the
    Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, NRDC, the Audubon
    Society, and The Nature Conservancy.
        Senator Carper. Without objection.
        [The referenced information follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Heinrich. I will close by saying that I want my
    grandchildren to experience the same wonder I had as a child
    catching leopard frogs, watching fireflies light up the dark.
    And I hope that we can pass onto them the full complement of
    our natural heritage, from bison to bumblebees, as well as
    traditions like hunting, fishing, and wildlife viewing. That is
    what this is all about.
        Thank you, Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Heinrich follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Carper. Thank you very, very much for your
    testimony. Thanks for your passion for this and your
    leadership, not just on this issue, but on so many others we
    have worked on in recent years. Thank you.
        Senator, you mentioned what you want for your
    grandchildren. My wife and I just want one grandchildren.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Carper. We will worry about the rest later.
        Senator Blunt, you are recognized.

                     STATEMENT OF HON. ROY BLUNT,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI

        Senator Blunt. Thank you, Chairman Carper, and thank you
    and Ranking Member Capito for not only holding the hearing, but
    for inviting the two of us to attend as you look at this piece
    of legislation.
        I also want to thank my colleague, Senator Heinrich, who
    really has worked so hard to advance this and to be sure that
    we had a significant group of bipartisan co-sponsors, 32
    bipartisan co-sponsors. Senator Heinrich has really worked hard
    to put this together. We have worked hard to find a pay for we
    believe works. We have also worked to be sure that we had broad
    based support from all 50 States, including the conservation
    agencies in those States.
        This legislation, as Martin has said, would be the most
    significant investment in wildlife conservation in a
    generation. It would fund proactive, voluntary conservation
    efforts to address really what is the Nation's wildlife crisis.
    I also think it is a perfect partner to what we did in the last
    Congress, as we look toward the future of restoring America's
    great parks system.
        Enactment of this legislation into law would boost our
    economy, create more outdoor recreation opportunities, provide
    regulatory certainty to landowners across the country who
    otherwise are facing costly and burdensome impacts of potential
    threatened and endangered species listings, and conserve our
    national heritage for future generations.
        A significant part of the goal here is to work with these
    State agencies so the Federal Government never has to be
    involved in an endangered species situation, as they work hard
    to do what they can to be sure that they never get into that
    situation.
        I am also pleased to introduce one of the panel's witnesses
    today, Ms. Sara Parker Pauley, who is testifying on behalf of
    the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. This is a group
    she served as the organization's President up until just
    September of this year. She currently serves as the ninth
    director of the Missouri Department of Conservation, a position
    she has held since November 2016.
        Before that, she served as the Director of the Missouri
    Department of Natural Resources from 2010 to 2016. She began
    her professional career as a Policy Analyst in the Missouri
    Department of Conservation in 1993. A native of Columbia,
    Missouri, Sara received both her law degree and her bachelor's
    degree in journalism from the University of Missouri and did
    post-graduate studies in Australia as a Rotary Fellow.
        Just last month, she and I did four joint events in
    Missouri highlighting the recovery potential of this Recovering
    America's Wildlife Act. This act establishes a new program, the
    Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Program within the U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service to promote voluntary conservation
    efforts to restore and protect at risk, threatened, or
    endangered species.
        This program would provide approximately $1.3 billion
    annually to States, territories, and Tribes for activities
    related to proactive and collaborative habitat restoration
    efforts to increase wildlife populations or to prevent species
    from becoming listed on the Endangered Species Act.
        This bill would help fund critical conservation efforts in
    our State and our grasslands. It would help promote species
    like the bobwhite quail, which were pretty numerous when I was
    growing up in Missouri, but have almost disappeared from our
    landscape; meadow larks; and greater prairie chickens. The
    restoration efforts that Sara and others have been parts of,
    including everything from restoring animals who, at one time,
    were very present in our State, to the support of species like
    wood ducks and other migratory animals that come through our
    State, animals and birds.
        This legislation would boost Missouri's outdoor recreation
    economy. Currently, that economy supports 93,000 jobs in our
    State and contributes about $7.5 billion to the local economy
    and depends on healthy fish and wildlife populations. The bill
    would ensure more wildlife viewing opportunities, which
    directly contribute to millions of jobs and billions of
    consumer revenue.
        In Missouri, based on the legislative proposal, we estimate
    that we would receive about $22 million annually, including the
    State matching funds. That compares to about $1 million that
    the State receives right now.
        I haven't seen the entire list on this bill, but normally,
    on any distribution of money in the country, Missouri is right
    around 25. We are right in the middle, so every State should
    look at that $22 million annual number, and you are going to be
    somewhere on either side of that. Obviously, $22 million would
    make a lot more impact than the $1 million currently received
    from the Federal Government for these funds.
        I certainly look forward to working with the Chairman, the
    Ranking Member, and my significant co-sponsor here who has done
    so much work on this. This bill, as drafted, as Martin has
    already suggested, has broad bipartisan support in the Senate.
    It has a diverse group of stakeholders around the country,
    including the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the
    Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, the National Wildlife
    Federation, and 1,500 or more organizations representing State
    fish and wildlife agencies, industry associations, and
    businesses.
        Thank you again for holding this hearing, for looking at
    this bill. We appreciate the opportunity, all of the co-
    sponsors do, to continue to work with this Committee as you
    think about what would really be an exciting addition to what
    we do for our wildlife in the country.
        Thank you, Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Blunt follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Carper. Thank you both very, very much. Thanks for
    joining us. We look forward to seeing you at about 11:30 on the
    floor when we start voting, and thanks again for your
    leadership.
        With that, I am going to call our second panel of
    witnesses, if they would take their seats. We will introduce
    you, and we will get started.
        Senator Capito and I have welcomed each of you
    individually, but we welcome you now collectively, and we are
    delighted that you are able to join us on this important day
    for this important hearing.
        I will just briefly introduce folks, one is Sara Parker
    Pauley has already gotten an introduction from Senator Blunt,
    but we are joined today by Dan Ashe, President and CEO of the
    Association of Zoos and Aquariums.
        Dan, very nice to see you. You bring a world of experience
    to this hearing today.
        Collin O'Mara, President and CEO of the National Wildlife
    Federation, former Secretary of the Department of Natural
    Resources and Environmental Control and longtime friend of many
    of us in Delaware.
        Sara Parker Pauley, who has already been introduced by
    Senator Blunt, President of the Association of Fish and
    Wildlife Agencies, and last but not least, Jonathan Wood, Vice
    President of Law and Policy for the Property and Environment
    Research Center.
        Dan, I am going to ask you if you will start us off with
    your testimony. Please proceed with your testimony when you are
    ready.

     STATEMENT OF DAN ASHE, PRESIDENT AND CEO, ASSOCIATION OF ZOOS
                             AND AQUARIUMS

        Mr. Ashe. Good morning, Chairman Carper and Committee
    members. It is good to be here again. On behalf of the
    Association of Zoos and Aquariums and the Defenders of Wildlife
    and the National Wildlife Refuge Association, I just want to
    start by saying thank you for everything you do to protect
    wildlife and wild places, I think especially the respect and
    dignity that you bring to these discussions, so thank you very
    much.
        Yesterday, I enjoyed reading Bob Dole's posthumous opinion
    piece in the Washington Post, and if anybody hasn't seen it, I
    recommend it. In it, he recalls in 1951, newly elected to the
    Kansas House of Representatives, being asked by a reporter,
    what is on his agenda. And he said, ``Well, I am going to sit
    back and watch for a few days, and then I am going to stand up
    for what I think is right.''
        When I became U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director, a
    former Director and a good friend, Lynn Greenwalt, gave me some
    similar advice. He said, ``Dan, find time to ponder. Lots of
    people are going to ask you to make decisions, and they are
    going to tell you that those decisions are urgent, and
    sometimes they will be. But most of the time,'' he said, ``it
    is going to be important for you to find a time and some quiet
    and ponder.''
        We are struggling against the planet's sixth mass
    extinction. It is driven by human existence, our economy, our
    ecology. It didn't begin yesterday; it won't be solved
    tomorrow, even if you pass the Recovering America's Wildlife
    Act today. How you act and the decisions you make are going to
    set the stage and the tone. It is worth some time to sit back
    and ponder.
        Wildlife conservation is a shared endeavor. It is not
    individual; it is not State or tribal or Federal. It requires
    commitment and funding at all of those levels.
        My testimony, my written testimony includes two
    illustrative and real life examples: Bald eagle and California
    condor. Here is another, more recent one. In November 2018, I
    got a letter from Eric Sutton, the Executive Director of the
    Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. They were
    encountering an unfolding disease, 95 percent fatal, destroying
    Florida's coral reef tract and were asking for AZA members to
    use their facilities to help get ahead of it and rescue and
    hold healthy coral in refugia until the cause and a solution
    could be identified. And today, 20 of our members are holding
    thousands of Florida coral colonies, conservation giants like
    Sea World and Disney, but tiny titans like Colorado's Butterfly
    Pavilion.
        In the process, we discovered that what is now called stony
    coral tissue loss disease isn't limited to Florida. It is
    pandemic across the Caribbean. It can't be solved by the State
    of Florida or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or Sea Worlds or
    Butterfly Pavilions. That is all necessary, but it is going to
    require much larger cooperation, including Federal agencies
    like NOAA and international and intergovernmental efforts.
        The same has been true with waterfowl; the same is true
    with monarch butterflies and little brown bats. If our goal is
    to recover America's wildlife, we need to deploy all of our
    tools and fund all of our tools, and certainly don't leave some
    of your best tools with the least and most constrained access
    to funding. You can do both: You can provide needed funding for
    tribal and State agencies, and for the Federal agencies that we
    know are going to be key ingredients in success.
        Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I am happy
    to answer any questions that you might have and help in any way
    as you hopefully look to find some time and some quiet and sit
    back and ponder and do what you think is right.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Ashe follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Carper. Dan, thank you for that timely and wise
    testimony.
        I spend a fair amount of my time every day on the train,
    going back down the Northeast Corridor, and I use that time to
    ponder. Some people sleep on trains. I never do, but I do
    ponder a lot, and there is plenty for us to ponder with respect
    to this.
        On a lighter note, Bob Dole--many of us had the opportunity
    to serve. He served in World War II with my dad and my uncles
    and all, and was a real hero, as you well know. He later
    married Elizabeth. I remember the day that he sat in a Senate
    hearing not unlike this one, in order to introduce his wife,
    who had been nominated to be Secretary in the Administration of
    George Herbert Walker Bush. He had such a wonderful sense of
    humor. He said, as we were just sitting here, he said,
    alongside of his wife that he was introducing to his
    colleagues, he began with these words: ``I regret that I have
    but one wife--one wife--to give for my country.''
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Carper. He gave a lot, and we miss him and love
    him, and are thinking of Elizabeth today, a former colleague in
    the Senate, as we gather here.
        I am going to now turn to Collin, if I could.
        Collin, welcome. We are delighted that you have joined us.
    Please proceed.

        STATEMENT OF COLLIN O'MARA, PRESIDENT AND CEO, NATIONAL
                          WILDLIFE FEDERATION

        Mr. O'Mara. Senator Carper, Ranking Member Capito, members
    of the Committee, on behalf of the National Wildlife
    Federation, our 52 State and territorial affiliates and our
    nearly 7 million members, thank you for the honor of testifying
    before you today.
        First, let me congratulate the Committee on the remarkable
    bipartisan infrastructure package and just thank each of you
    for the historic investments in clean water, habitat
    restoration, resilience, connectivity, environmental justice,
    clean energy.
        Senator Carper, thank you for making sure that investments
    in endangered species are part of the Build Back Better Act.
        Today, we have the opportunity to build upon this
    Committee's incredible bipartisan legacy by passing the most
    significant wildlife legislation in half a century, the
    bipartisan Recovering America's Wildlife Act.
        America's wildlife are in crisis. More than one-third of
    all wildlife, fish, and plant species face heightened risk of
    extinction due to immense and interwoven threats: Increasingly
    fragmented and degraded habitat, invasive species, wildlife
    disease, landscapes ravaged by climate fueled extreme weather,
    wildfires, droughts, flooding, and hurricanes.
        The bipartisan Recovering America's Wildlife Act is a
    solution that matches the magnitude of the wildlife crisis.
    Simply put, the Recovering America's Wildlife Act will help
    recover the full diversity of wildlife by saving species before
    they decline to the point where they need emergency room
    measures, and by accelerating the recovery of species already
    endangered. This will prevent extinctions.
        It empowers States, territories, and Tribes to recover the
    more than 12,000 species of greatest conservation need and to
    partner with the Fish and Wildlife Service to recover the 1,600
    species already listed as threatened and endangered. They will
    accomplish this by implementing the proactive and
    congressionally mandated strategies and the congressionally
    mandated wildlife action plans. This will transform the way we
    recover species by shifting a model that today is largely
    constrained to regulation and litigation to one that unleashes
    unprecedented collaboration and innovation.
        The Recovering America's Wildlife Act does all of this
    without raising taxes or imposing new regulations. It leverages
    existing, undesignated environmental and natural resource fines
    and penalties and matches them with contributions from States,
    conservation partners, and other stakeholders. It supports well
    paying local jobs in the outdoor economy while reducing
    regulatory uncertainty for businesses and reducing costs for
    taxpayers.
        The legislation builds upon robust existing accountability
    safeguards to ensure these funds are well spent. This bill also
    provides a historic, and frankly, long overdue investment in
    the essential conservation work led by tribal nations. As
    Elveda Martinez, the President of the Native American Fish and
    Wildlife Society, said, ``For Tribes, the Recovering America's
    Wildlife Act is not just about an increase for fish and
    wildlife funding. It is base funding. It will be a game changer
    in the way Tribes operate, manage, participate, and assert
    self-governance in fish and wildlife stewardship.''
        This legislation has broad support across the full spectrum
    of conservation community, fish and wildlife agencies, industry
    associations, tribal nations. Nearly 2,000 organizations and
    entities have joined forces to support this critical
    legislation. Why? Because we all understand what happens if we
    don't act. Iconic and unsung species alike will continue to
    vanish from the landscape, and costs to business and taxpayers
    will continue to escalate.
        Let me be clear: We are in the midst of a sixth mass
    extinction that is affecting all sizes and types of species.
    The growing number of scientific reports and field observations
    are a clarion call for action. Fortunately, history shows us
    that by investing in collaboration and science based
    restoration efforts, we can reverse this. We have accomplished
    amazing things for game species like deer and waterfowl and
    sportfish, and we have recovered through Pittman-Robertson and
    Dingell-Johnson. We have also recovered iconic endangered
    species like the bald eagle and the American alligator through
    the Endangered Species Act.
        Our Nation does a remarkable job saving species when we put
    our mind to it and when we invest. I see it in my home State of
    Delaware, where we worked with Senator Carper to recover
    DelMarVa fox squirrels, red knots, and piping plovers. But the
    reality is that we have failed to invest at scale in the vast
    majority of species.
        Senator Heinrich's and Senator Blunt's bill is the game
    changer that we need to ensure the full diversity of wildlife
    survives and thrives. The Recovering America's Wildlife Act is
    bold and bipartisan; it is collaborative and proactive. It will
    have an immediate impact from hundreds of backyards all across
    America.
        Let me just close with this: Inaction is the ally of
    extinction. Twenty years ago this very Committee came so close
    to dedicating resources to proactive, collaborative, and
    voluntary efforts to recover wildlife as part of the
    Conservation and Reinvestment Act, CARA. Twenty years later,
    406 additional species have been listed under the Endangered
    Species Act; 430 more are either proposed for listing,
    candidates for listing, petitioned for listing; and thousands
    more have become species of greatest conservation need. The
    crisis is accelerating.
        The good news is that it is not too late to save America's
    wildlife, but there is no time to waste. By passing the
    Recovering America's Wildlife Act and investing in this ounce
    of prevention, we can ensure that our children and
    grandchildren enjoy the full diversity of wildlife because the
    simple truth is that when we save wildlife, we save ourselves.
        Please support this legislation. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. O'Mara follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Carper. Collin, thanks so much, and thank you for
    your service in Delaware as our Secretary of the Department of
    Natural Resources and for your great leadership today and for
    your testimony today. We are proud of you in the First State.
        Sara Parker Pauley, please proceed. Welcome.

    STATEMENT OF SARA PARKER PAULEY, PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF FISH
                         AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES

        Ms. Pauley. Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Capito, and
    members of the Committee, thank you so much for the opportunity
    to address you in support of Senate Bill 2372, the Recovering
    America's Wildlife Act.
        For the record, my name is Sara Parker Pauley, Director of
    the Missouri Department of Conservation and past President of
    the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.
        I first want to thank my Senator, Roy Blunt, for co-
    sponsoring this legislation with Senator Martin Heinrich. Their
    dedication to this country's fish and wildlife is inspirational
    and sincerely appreciated.
        Mr. Chair, I sit before you today as an advocate for what
    we in Missouri hold dear. In fact, Missourians are so dedicated
    to conservation that in 1976, they were willing to tax
    themselves to guarantee they had healthy and abundant fish and
    wildlife and wild places to hike and fish and hunt and cherish.
    This dedicated funding has been a key to our conservation
    success in Missouri as it has allowed for long term
    conservation planning and implementation.
        Take, for example, our prairie restoration work in
    northwest Missouri. Over 99 percent of the original tallgrass
    prairie is gone in our State, and many of the species that
    depend on diverse native grasslands are also imperiled.
    However, the Missouri Department of Conservation, landowners,
    and partners like Iowa DNR are voluntarily and collaboratively
    working to restore remnant prairies and reconstruct prairies,
    an ecosystem that is critical to a plethora of species,
    including pollinators, which in turn, are so critical to
    sustaining agriculture in the region.
        However, these projects do not happen in 1 or 2 years. To
    restore a prairie ecosystem takes decades of active habitat
    management and the staff and financial resources to make it
    happen. Simply put, conservation success does not happen
    overnight. It requires long term planning and dedicated funding
    which this act will provide to State agencies, agencies with a
    proven track record of restoring species, like wild turkey,
    deer, elk, and waterfowl.
        Though other States and Tribes may not have the funding
    model of Missouri, they each have their own success stories to
    tell, like West Virginia and their work on the cerulean
    warbler, a small and beautiful neo-tropical migrant songbird
    that attracts birdwatchers from across the country. By working
    to implement appropriate timber harvest strategies, they are
    creating and restoring habitat for this iconic bird species and
    providing economic benefits associated with the State's timber
    industry.
        But in Missouri, West Virginia, and elsewhere, the overall
    to do list of restoring our wildlife far exceeds the available
    funding. Through the development of State fish and wildlife
    action plans, we know that there are over 12,000 species of
    greatest conservation need, which means they are species with
    low, declining, or rare populations, or they are facing threats
    and in need of conservation attention. These State plans serve
    as a blueprint for conserving our Nation's fish and wildlife
    and preventing endangered species from being listed.
        Unfortunately, current funding levels only support an
    estimated 5 percent of the actions outlined in the plans, and
    the challenges are greater today than ever before. That means
    95 percent of the work is simply not getting done because the
    funding does not exist. The Recovering America's Wildlife Act
    is the 21st century funding model we need now that will direct
    critical funding to State fish and wildlife agencies to
    proactively implement their science driven wildlife action
    plans.
        It is important to note these State plans must be approved
    by the Fish and Wildlife Service as a condition of receiving
    funding through the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program,
    and this act would use the same accountability standards
    currently used for that program, which is arguably the most
    accountable Federal conservation grant program in existence,
    with five levels of accountability. This act actually adds a
    sixth level of accountability, requiring each State agency to
    provide a work plan and budget for implementing its wildlife
    action plan to the Service, to this Committee, and the House
    Committee on Natural Resources every 3 years.
        In 1937, President Franklin Roosevelt signed into law the
    Pittman-Robertson Act, which has been the monumental funding
    model for restoration and management of fish and wildlife
    spending the last eight decades. Prior to the creation of the
    Pittman-Robertson Act, many game species were near the point of
    extinction, but because of State led efforts and dedicated
    funding through the Pittman-Robertson Act, State fish and
    wildlife agencies were able to restore many of those game
    species.
        Henry David Thoreau noted that the meeting of two
    eternities, the past and the future, is precisely the present
    moment. I wonder, in the future, will our grandchildren be
    heralding our vision and leadership in this present moment,
    like we talk about those who championed the cause in 1937? I
    certainly hope and believe that will be the case with the
    passage of Recovering America's Wildlife Act.
        Thank you for your time today.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Pauley follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Carper. Thank you for your time today, and thank
    you for that testimony. That was great.
        Batting cleanup, last but not least, Jonathan Wood, you are
    recognized.

     STATEMENT OF JONATHAN WOOD, VICE PRESIDENT OF LAW AND POLICY,
                PROPERTY AND ENVIRONMENT RESEARCH CENTER

        Mr. Wood. Thank you, Chairman Carper, Ranking Member
    Capito, for inviting me to join the Committee this morning as
    you consider the Recovering America's Wildlife Act.
        As just introduced, my name is Jonathan Wood. I am the Vice
    President of Law and Policy for the Property and Environment
    Research Center, a conservation research institute based in
    Bozeman, Montana. For four decades, PERC's research has
    demonstrated the importance of property rights, incentives, and
    federalism to recovering wildlife. These values are critical to
    understanding RAWA and its context in broader conservation
    policy.
        As the Biden administration's America the Beautiful Report
    recently observed, effective conservation depends on respecting
    private property rights and rewarding landowners for their
    voluntary conservation efforts. Frankly, private lands play an
    outsized role in the conservation of wildlife, including
    endangered and threatened species. Therefore, the key to
    recovering species is often to make them an asset for private
    landowners, rather than a liability.
        Unfortunately, as Ranking Member Capito observed, we
    frequently get these incentives wrong. The Endangered Species
    Act can penalize landowners who accommodate listed species or
    conserve their habitats. These policies create perverse
    incentives that can undermine the goals of the statute and have
    resulted in only 3 percent of listed species recovering over
    the last half-century.
        Partnering with landowners to solve real world challenges
    holds much greater promise. This year, PERC and the Greater
    Yellowstone Coalition partnered with rangers outside of
    Yellowstone National Park on Montana's first elk occupancy
    agreement. Under this agreement, PERC and GYC paid for a fence
    to separate elk and cattle, thereby reducing disease risk and
    competition for forage. In exchange, the ranchers will manage
    nearly 500 acres as winter elk habitat. Such win-win
    arrangements are how we will achieve our conservation goals for
    the long term.
        Pursuing conservation through State programs, rather than a
    top down Federal approach, can also increase innovation and
    accountability while reducing conflict. Given the varying needs
    of wildlife, landowners, and communities, federalism's emphasis
    on local knowledge and flexibility is particularly valuable
    here. Moreover, State agencies often enjoy better reputations
    and more trust among landowners than does the Fish and Wildlife
    Service.
        Unfortunately, although landowners highly value
    conservation, the intense regulatory conflicts that my friend
    Collin O'Mara mentioned that have arisen between the Service
    and landowners under the ESA make the agency a less desirable
    conservation partner for many. This highlights the need to
    align ESA policies to support the goals of State conservation
    initiatives and to encourage voluntary conservation.
        PERC's 2018 report, The Road to Recovery, explains that one
    of the ESA's primary intended incentives for voluntary
    conservation and for State leadership was a distinction between
    how endangered species and threatened species are supposed to
    be regulated. Under the statute, Federal regulation should
    relax as species recover and tighten as species decline, which
    aligns the incentives of landowners with the interests of
    listed species. Likewise, States are encouraged to develop
    conservation programs in exchange for the power to effectively
    veto Federal regulations governing the take of threatened
    species.
        Unfortunately, these incentives have been thwarted for most
    of the ESA's history due to a Fish and Wildlife Service
    regulation known as the Blanket 4(d) rule. This regulation
    eliminates this distinction between endangered and threatened
    species regulation, and it also increases conflict over the
    delisting process. Under this statute, management
    responsibility should shift to States in stages as species move
    from endangered to threatened to delisted.
        However, under the blanket rule, the stakes for delisting
    are much higher. You go from full Federal control to full State
    control overnight, and this can encourage a sort of endless
    litigation like that we have seen for the recovered Greater
    Yellowstone Ecosystem grizzly.
        In 2019, the agency repealed this Blanket 4(d) rule,
    explaining that following the statute's approach could better
    incentivize recovery efforts, but it has recently indicated its
    intent to reverse that decision.
        If Congress were to invest significant funds in State
    leadership on conservation initiatives, it should consider how
    to align ESA policies to ensure the success of those
    initiatives. For instance, it should consider whether RAWA's
    wildlife conservation strategies entitle States to cooperative
    agreements under the Endangered Species Act. It should also
    consider the role of Federal regulations for threatened
    species, encouraging conservation, rewarding State efforts, and
    providing a road to recovery and delisting.
        Finally, thinking creatively about how to fund conservation
    to reflect the full range of interests that value wildlife can
    make programs more sustainable. Too often, conservation is
    dependent on a single source, such as sportsmen. But hunters
    and anglers are not the only people who value wildlife or who
    impact wildlife. A 2019 PERC report, How We Pay to Play, shows
    that recreation based fee programs can increase funding while
    promoting accountability.
        RAWA identifies several funding sources States can use for
    the matching requirements. A nudge to consider other creative
    ways to broaden the funding base may also be helpful.
        Thanks again for the opportunity to testify, and I look
    forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Wood follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Carper. Thank you for your testimony. Again, to
    each of you who have spoken, you have given us a lot to ponder,
    Mr. Ashe, a lot to ponder.
        Senator Merkley has another pressing engagement, and he is
    not going to be able to stay with us for long, but I am happy
    to yield my time to him at this point.
        Senator Merkley.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that
    greatly.
        I wanted to turn to you, Mr. Ashe. You pointed out that a
    lot of the challenges we have with endangered species across
    State lines, and for that matter, across national lines, and
    the amount of money, I believe, that we send to Fish and
    Wildlife for species protection is about $120 million a year.
    Obviously, this would create a lot more funding.
        But this says, and I have been listening to the testimony
    of everyone talking about kind of the 12,000 endangered
    species, the huge number of threatened species that haven't
    been listed as endangered because we don't have the money to
    cover them.
        Why does this bill have only $1 out of every $7 dedicated
    to endangered species or threatened species, when everyone is
    talking about this is the big challenge, the biodiversity, the
    enormous number of affected species? Why are we dedicating only
    $1 out of every $7 in this bill, and should we dedicate more?
        Mr. Ashe. Thank you, Senator Merkley. Obviously, based on
    my testimony, I think the answer to that is yes. I think that
    we have heard a lot of reference to kind of reduce reliance on
    regulation. Well, the most direct path to reducing regulation
    of endangered species is to get them recovered and get them off
    of the endangered species list.
        When I was Director, we recovered and delisted more species
    than all previous Administrations combined. That was four
    decades of work. What we did was we targeted our recovery
    money, our available recovery money, and said, OK, we have
    species that we can get them that last mile. We can get them
    off the endangered species list. I think the record is clear.
    If we invest in recovery, we will get species off of the
    endangered species list.
        I do think this bill requires a better balance between
    those responsibilities. That is in all of our interests,
    including wildlife.
        Senator Merkley. Mr. O'Mara, in your written testimony, you
    go through a number of States and say, hey, a lot of States
    take their Federal grants and do a significant share above $1
    out of every $7, above 15 percent, to threatened species, and
    that you anticipate that that will be the case here.
        Again, I am going to ask a question. If we are really aimed
    at biodiversity, if we are really aimed at threatened species,
    there are really two additional things we could do. I just want
    your response. One is spend more than $1 out of every $7, on
    what is the mission of this bill according to everyone's
    testimony.
        The second is to recognize, as Mr. Ashe has pointed out,
    that so many of these issues transcend the States, and we give
    so little funding, $120 million a year, to Fish and Wildlife to
    take on threatened issues, endangered species.
        Why don't we simultaneously say we are going to step up
    support for the Federal efforts when we are doing this bill?
    Those two thoughts.
        Mr. O'Mara. Every single dollar in this bill goes toward
    the 12,000 species of greatest conservation need, so that is
    the universe you have to plan, not other species that are
    common, so you have to be in there. The 15 percent is for the
    1,600 species that are already listed, so about 13 percent of
    the total number.
        Actually, I anticipate it is going to be a lot higher. I
    mean, the 15 percent, I think, is a floor, not a ceiling. There
    is also another 10 percent of the money for innovation grants
    that is really intended to be focused on interstate
    collaboration.
        So, for example, your Saline Lakes Great Basin Bill, or the
    monarch work you have been doing that transcends boundaries.
    That money is intended for that collaboration, and I think a
    lot of that is going to be spent on either candidate species
    that are close to being listed, or species that are already
    listed that folks want to recover. We would be in favor of
    additional funding for recovery.
        I am also worried that 20 years ago, this same point was
    one of the things that toppled the CARA efforts. So, if there
    is a political will to add money to the bill to do more on the
    Federal side, we would be absolutely supportive. I mean, there
    is no one that fights harder for funding and appropriations for
    the Fish and Wildlife Service than the National Wildlife
    Federation. It has just been a sticking point for political
    reasons. I want to make sure we don't lose the ability to save
    the 12,000 species because we are fighting over one point in
    the bigger context.
        Senator Merkley. So, the way the bill is constructed, you
    are comfortable, like, in my home State, every time I go to the
    coast, I see a herd of 70 elk hanging out. Our elk are very
    much recovered. Every time I go to rural Oregon, I see large
    flocks of turkeys where I used to see, where if I saw one or
    two on a remote road, I was astounded. Twenty years later, it
    is like, oh, there is a field with 70, 80 turkeys in it.
        You are confident that this will not be a case that some
    States will say, hey, we can finally stock more lakes with more
    rainbow trout, and we can double our already large elk herds?
        Mr. O'Mara. I am, because the species of greatest
    conservation need are really species that either are rare,
    declining, or have habitat threats. At this point, the turkeys
    and elk in Oregon are doing fine. They wouldn't qualify.
        The Fish and Wildlife Service actually gets to review the
    plans and raise concerns. There has been this concern that the
    States will just spend it on game species. The States are
    hungry to be able to work on the full diversity of wildlife,
    but the funding tools have been so focused on hunting and
    fishing species that we have been unable to do that.
        So I have confidence in the States to manage the money
    well. I also have confidence in the Fish and Wildlife Service
    to oversee that the dollars are spent well.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Carper. Thank you, Senator Merkley.
        Let me just mention, after Senator Capito, Senator Boozman,
    we will turn to you, and Senator Cardin; Senator Ernst was
    here; she has left; and then Senator Whitehouse.
        Please go ahead.
        Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Pauley, let me ask a question. This is a very general
    question. In your opinion, what is the underlying problems that
    Recovering America's Wildlife Act is intending to fix, besides
    more money?
        Ms. Pauley. Well, I think it has already been beautifully
    stated by both of the sponsors, and certainly by some of our
    other witnesses here today. We have, I think, pretty clearly
    identified the problem. We have 12,000 species of greatest
    conservation need that States have identified through their
    State Wildlife Action Plans that was mandated by Congress.
        So for 20 years, as you have heard, we have had this
    mandate to inventory and develop these plans of these species
    that we know are in trouble or on their way. The whole focus of
    the Recovering America's Wildlife Act, the whole intention was
    to keep them out of the emergency room, to keep them off of the
    list. That has been the focus; that has been the intention.
        The States have done their part, really, without the
    funding. We have, over the last 20 years, revised these plans
    where they are very science driven, very specific plans with
    clear objectives on how to keep these species of greatest
    conservation need off the endangered species list.
        But the issue is funding. The issue is funding. We have
    been given this mandate; we have done our part to develop these
    plans. The funding hasn't come with it.
        And we have other great examples. Let us talk about
    waterfowl in this country. Since 1970, we have seen an increase
    in waterfowl populations by 56 percent because they had the
    authority; we have had the funding through NACA, through the
    Federal duck stamp, through farm bill programs, et cetera. So
    the authority was there, the funding was there, the partnership
    is there, and we have seen the success. At the same time,
    grassland species, bird species, declining by 53 percent
    because the funding wasn't there.
        So I would say we are looking at this window in time. I am
    all for pondering, but I think we have pondered this issue,
    personally, long enough. We have the plans. The States are
    ready to go, and with every day, we have seen what has happened
    over 20 years; 406 species now added to that list.
        Senator Capito. Well, thank you. Obviously, resource
    constraints are difficult around the horn, and Fish and
    Wildlife has constraints, too, as well.
        I think I know the answer to this question, but there has
    been an effort to make changes to this bill that would redirect
    a portion of the funding to the Fish and Wildlife Service. What
    kind of impacts do you think that would have on what you have
    just explained is the main objective of the bill?
        Ms. Pauley. The calculations of that $1.3 billion, $1.4
    billion with the tribal moneys is really based upon what will
    it take for States to implement their State Wildlife Action
    Plans. That is where the $1.3 billion was devised, is what will
    it take for States to implement their plans.
        I have great respect for the Fish and Wildlife Service. I
    have great respect for the role that the Endangered Species Act
    plays. But the purpose of this legislation has always been to
    find the funding for States to implement their State Wildlife
    Action Plans.
        Senator Capito. All right, and as I said in my opening
    statement, I support that goal absolutely.
        Mr. Wood, you talked about the Blanket 4(d) rule and what
    kind of impacts that would have. Can you elaborate on how
    rescinding that rule and returning to a more tailored approach,
    how can that benefit our private landowners in that quest of
    keeping species off of the list?
        Mr. Wood. Thank you for the question.
        At least in two ways. The first is that it provides a
    direct incentive to landowners to care about whether species
    are recovering or declining. Under the blanket rule, from the
    perspective of landowners, the exact burdens fall on you,
    regardless of whether a species is barely threatened or on the
    verge of extinction. The way the statute is intended to work is
    regulations are reduced as species recover and tightened should
    species decline. That aligns the incentives better.
        The other, as I mentioned in my testimony, is that it
    empowers States to take a greater lead on threatened species to
    deal with the situation that some of the other panelists
    mentioned, where recovering species might take a long time. The
    risk is that if a species gets listed while a State is working
    on it, what does that do to upend a State strategy that
    otherwise could have worked.
        Senator Capito. Mr. O'Mara, if you were to diagnose where
    this legislation falls short, you already identified one of the
    issues, which would be redirecting money more to Fish and
    Wildlife, could cause political problems with this concept. Do
    you have any other comments on that, on where you think this
    legislation could run into political winds?
        Mr. O'Mara. Obviously, there is concern about the fiscal
    impacts of anything right now. I think we don't do a good job
    scoring the costs of inaction. Every time we list a species, it
    is about $20 million to the government, every single time, and
    then it is about $80 million to $100 million of private sector
    impacts. None of that scores under CBL. Yet, that is a cost
    that is real. It doesn't build into the baseline; it doesn't
    work over time.
        So I think, I just worry about having kind of the space to
    kind of make the argument that saying this ounce of prevention
    is worth that pound of cure, because the alternative--imagine
    if the monarch butterfly ends up listed. The impact on farms
    all across the country is massive. Whereas if we had more
    collaborative tools, and Dan was doing a lot of this leadership
    work when he was Director, but it has always been under-
    resourced.
        I am convinced we can save most species through proactive,
    collaborative work and save hundreds of billions of dollars of
    private sector costs.
        Senator Capito. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Carper. You are welcome.
        Next is Senator Boozman.
        It is your turn. He will be recognized immediately after
    you.
        Senator Boozman. I don't want to do anything to cross
    Senator Cardin.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Carper. None of us do.
        Senator Boozman. Well, first of all, I want to thank
    Senators Blunt and Heinrich for working so, so very hard on
    this bill to try and solve a difficult problem that has plagued
    us for years and for all of you all being here.
        Ms. Pauley, in my home State of Arkansas, I found that
    farmers and ranchers are some of the best stewards of our land.
    That is why partnerships between the Federal Government and the
    agricultural community are imperative to address species
    management and recovery.
        Personally, I believe the Federal Government should be
    incentivizing private landowners and making voluntary
    conservation efforts, those who are working in that regard. It
    appears that under the current structure of ESA, private
    landowners are not getting due credit for the time, the money,
    and labor they spend on voluntary conservation efforts.
        One of the reasons that I am really pleased to be a co-
    sponsor of the Recovering America's Wildlife Act is because it
    would provide on the ground actors such as conservation
    organizations, State authorities, and tribal governments with
    the resources they need to pursue collaborative conservation
    efforts in their regions.
        Can you talk a little bit, share your opinion on how will
    these additional resources help ease the tension felt by
    landowners when dealing with the Endangered Species Act that we
    currently have?
        Ms. Pauley. Senator, I so appreciate that question, because
    much like Arkansas, Missouri is a State of 93 percent private
    landownership. That private lands piece, we cannot accomplish
    conservation on the ground in Missouri without the help, the
    assistance, the support of our private landowners. Private
    land, really, capacity and assistance is so important to us
    that we created an entire branch in our agency to add more
    boots on the ground, additional cost share, cooperative
    positions with other organizations to make sure that we have
    the ability to reach those landowners that either want to do
    proactively conservation or are in need, perhaps, of reasons of
    ESA.
        We have an example in Missouri. We have this little aquatic
    species called the Niangua darter, and it needs really good
    water quality. So we came alongside of these landowners that
    farmed in these watersheds that had the Niangua darter and
    helped them through cost share and technical assistance with
    string bank protection programs and other soil health programs
    to ensure that we were meeting shared goals together.
        I think that is where RAWA is so critical, because States
    have those local--those relationships with the landowners. They
    are our neighbors, and those State driven, local driven
    relationships are absolutely critical. The collaborative nature
    of RAWA, the voluntary nature of RAWA, is so critical. Moving
    forward, conservation for the future has to be collaborative,
    and that is what we would do with these RAWA dollars.
        Senator Boozman. Very good.
        As a Nation, we have experienced the decline of 6 million
    hunting licenses purchasers in the last decade, Ms. Pauley.
    According to a recent study by the Association of Fish and
    Wildlife Agencies, an estimated 58.8 percent or $3.3 billion of
    conservation funds to State wildlife agencies come from hunting
    and fishing related activities, either directly through the
    sale of licenses, tags, and stamps, or indirectly, through the
    Federal excise taxes on hunting, recreational shooting, and
    angling equipment. It is clear that hunters are a significant
    force behind our Nation's conservation efforts.
        In your opinion, what is driving the decline in license
    purchases, and what are the potential ramifications of the lost
    revenue to the wildlife conservation efforts?
        Ms. Pauley. Senator, we could probably spend the rest of
    the time talking about potential reasons behind the decline in
    hunting. I am going to say it is everything from a society that
    has moved away more from rural areas and is more urbanized;
    they have more time commitments, so it is an issue of priority
    setting; just the loss of that passing down of one generation
    from another. Many of us grew up hunting because we had
    grandparents or parents who do the same. So, much of that, I
    think, is just related to societal changes, et cetera.
        But you bring up an important point. Much of the
    conservation efforts over the last eight decades are because of
    hunters and anglers. You mentioned the percentage, very high
    percentage, coming either from license fees or from the excise
    taxes. So, hunters and anglers have done their part. They have
    paved the way. It is because of them that we have the
    conservation success stories, but the formula going forward has
    to be different. It has to be something picked up by all of us.
        Senator Boozman. Right, I agree, and that is the point. We
    are going to have to backfill that. Again, I think we have got
    a great opportunity to do that. That is what this bill is all
    about, is providing an opportunity.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Senator Carper. Thank you.
        Senator Cardin.
        Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me thank
    all of our witnesses for your commitment to our environment.
        There was an article in this morning's paper about the
    manatee in Florida, 15 percent loss by starvation this year.
    That is a climate change issue. We recognized that with sea
    grasses and their diet. But it is a reality of a species that
    is certainly at risk. We could mention so many different areas
    where additional resources are needed.
        So, I want to get this bill to the finish line. But let me
    ask you a couple questions on this. This is a significant
    increase in funds, and the capacity to use those funds
    appropriately is something that we all have to be concerned
    about. I appreciate the accountability issues that you have
    already mentioned that are spelled out in this legislation, and
    I know your intent. I trust what you are saying, that this bill
    could be very well implemented in that way with the supervision
    of the Fish and Wildlife.
        But I have also seen what has happened in the previous
    Administration, where we thought we gave pretty direct guidance
    through our legislation, only to see the way it was implemented
    on the environmental side, totally inconsistent with the
    bipartisan efforts here in the U.S. Congress. That is not an
    attack on one party; it was on one Administration I am
    referring to at this point.
        So, when I take a look at this bill, and I see a great deal
    of discretion here, I am a little bit concerned as to whether I
    need to be more direct in the legislation itself to make sure
    we don't run into an Administration that looks at this as a way
    of providing resources for reasons not related to the purpose
    of this bill. How do you alleviate that concern?
        Mr. Ashe, you have been involved in this.
        Mr. Ashe. Thank you, Senator. Good morning. Barbara sends
    her best.
        Senator Cardin. You are already warming up to me.
        Mr. Ashe. She would kill me if I didn't say that.
        Yes, accountability is an important issue. I would say
    again, for me, and realize my bias and perspective as a former
    Federal agency career employee and political appointee, I think
    when you are talking about moving money off budget, which this
    bill does, it severely restricts accountability. The annual
    appropriations process is the way that the U.S. Congress
    constrains and manages accountability in a very direct and real
    way.
        I think here, the big decision for you is, when you move
    something off budget, you are saying it is more important than
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service funding; it is more important
    than National Park Service funding; it is more important than
    border control funding; it is more important than anything else
    that has to compete in the annual appropriations process and
    demonstrate effectiveness.
        So, I think for you, as you think about accountability,
    that is really the threshold question that you have to reach.
    You are considering putting that much money off budget.
        Senator Cardin. I accept that. But what I am really asking,
    and maybe Mr. Wood, you can help me on this, is there more
    specifics that we should be directing in the legislation itself
    to protect against efforts made to politicize these funds not
    for its intended purpose?
        Mr. Wood. I think there are efforts you could do. The Blue
    Ribbon Panel on which RAWA is based focuses on proactive,
    voluntary State programs designed to protect the 12,000 species
    that the other panelists have mentioned. I think that is
    clearly the idea behind the bill, but some of that language
    could be incorporated to make that even more clear.
        Senator Cardin. I was going to say, this would be an
    ongoing process. If you have some specific suggestions, any one
    of the four of you, I would appreciate it.
        I want to get one other point in during my 5 minutes, and
    that is, it is a significant increase, but it is also then
    going to be a higher burden on the match on the non-Federal
    funds. Are we confident there is enough interest out there to
    meet the match at the higher levels?
        Mr. O'Mara. Yes, and I will defer to Sara, but I ran the
    Delaware agency, so we talked to the Maryland agency. I mean,
    like, the match resources, we do not believe are going to be a
    problem. There was a survey that Sara can speak to, of all 50
    State agencies.
        Ms. Pauley. I would love to speak to that. The Association
    of Fish and Wildlife Agencies did do a survey of States. The
    States are very confident that they can meet these match
    requirements. We have a match report that we can provide to
    this Committee that has a host of very innovative ideas. We are
    RAWA ready, and I would hope that you would look through the
    six levels of accountability we are providing to these
    Committee members, too.
        Senator Cardin. OK. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to get that
    on the record, because once this bill is enacted, a year or 2
    later, when we get a request from our States to reduce the
    match, let us be clear that there is at least a commitment here
    that they are able to make the match that is in the bill.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Carper. Thank you, Senator Cardin.
        Next, Senator Whitehouse will be recognized, followed by
    Senator Padilla.
        Welcome. Good to see you.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you to
    all the witnesses for being here.
        I was an early co-sponsor of this bill, and I am happy to
    support it. But I do want to take this opportunity in front of
    Senator Padilla, from a coastal State, myself from a coastal
    State, Senator Cardin from a coastal State, our Chairman from a
    coastal State, to point out what I see as a persistent bias in
    conservation and wildlife measures toward inland and upland
    projects versus coastal projects, toward freshwater projects
    versus saltwater projects.
        Those of you who are involved in the conservation community
    know that the conservation community was busy calling me when
    we were trying to reauthorize Land and Water Conservation Fund,
    strengthen Land and Water Conservation Fund, make permanent
    Land and Water Conservation Fund. I always said, I am for this,
    but the money disproportionately goes to upland and inland
    uses. There is a huge discrepancy between what inland States
    get and what coastal States get if you adjust for population.
    Then when you go to the coastal States and you adjust for
    whether it is an inland and upland use as opposed to a coastal
    use, the bias gets even worse.
        The conservation community always says to me, yes, but you
    will be with us on this one, and we will remember; we will
    stand by you; we understand that oceans and coasts are being
    short changed. We will be there for you.
        Well, it is getting to be time for that day to come,
    because the dangers to our coasts are very, very real. The
    environmental upheaval that is happening along our coasts is
    very, very real. Ask a fisherman. We have refuges in Rhode
    Island, and they are all coastal, and they are all subject to
    sea level rise. Six to 10 feet anticipated right now for Rhode
    Island, 6 to 10 feet. Think about that.
        And you put a storm behind that, and you have added that
    much sea level rise, and it is piling up on the shore. It is
    not just 6 to 10 feet any longer; it is not just bathtub
    levels. Now it is blasting these refuges right off our coast.
        And I just want to send the alarm signal that this has to
    change. I don't know how I can make that any clearer, and as we
    work toward getting this bill done, which I support, I think it
    is going to be really important for those of us from coastal
    States to get reassurance that this isn't just going to go to
    more inland, upland, and freshwater resources. I am preparing a
    bill to change the name of the Land and Water Conservation Fund
    to the Upland and Freshwater Conservation Fund. Let us at least
    call it what it really is, and then we can address the problem
    of how we protect oceans and coasts in parallel.
        I don't know if that is going to get very far. I doubt it
    will, but it will for sure make the point that we have got to
    fix this. On behalf of coastal States everywhere, the days of
    the conservation community saying, don't worry, your day will
    come, someday, in the dim and distant future, someday, we will
    show up and help you.
        This has to be that day. I have been here quite a while
    now, and I have been fobbed off and fobbed off and fobbed off
    over and over again, and I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but enough.
    There is a point where even a patient man's patience is
    exhausted.
        Mr. O'Mara. Senator.
        Senator Whitehouse. Go ahead, and feel free to respond, and
    also, you know, there has been a lot of talk about the
    Endangered Species Act. You might want to talk a little bit
    about how applying this effectively will actually head off
    species being listed and would actually be quite a good thing
    with respect to the Endangered Species Act.
        Mr. O'Mara. On the point around funding, this bill
    actually, with your team's help, addresses two of the long
    standing inequities with some of the other funding programs, in
    that it is land and water based in terms of the landmass, but
    then also having the variability of listed species, which,
    obviously, are more coastal in their nature, right; it is
    places that have riparian corridors or issues. So like Rhode
    Island, Rhode Island actually does better under this bill than
    Land and Water projects, LWCF, for example.
        Senator Whitehouse. That is one of the reasons I am co-
    sponsoring it.
        Mr. O'Mara. I appreciate that. My commitment to you is
    like, I have taken a beating for supporting the RISE Act. That
    has to get done this Congress, because if we don't figure out
    the allocation issues for the revenues coming from the new,
    from offshore wind and everything else, we will never get ahead
    of it.
        So I am shoulder to shoulder with you on that. I would like
    to see that get done very quickly.
        On the last point, we know that if we can save species
    before it needs--it is just like emergency medicine, if we can
    do that preventative medicine before you are in the emergency
    room, it is cents on the dollars compared to trying to do it
    after you are already in triage mode. A lot of the best
    examples are actually stuff your group has done, folks over the
    years trying to save species before they are at that point, and
    I think that is the whole premise of this whole model, that an
    ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
        Senator Whitehouse. Well, thank you, Chairman. I hope I
    have made my point.
        Senator Carper. You have. You haven't disappointed. Thank
    you.
        We have been joined by Senator Lummis, and Senator Lummis,
    after you, Senator Kelly.
        Senator Kelly has a special guest today. It is bring your
    brother to work day. I hope he will introduce his brother, who
    is almost as distinguished as you, Mark. Then we will turn to
    Senator Padilla.
        Senator Lummis, you are recognized.
        Senator Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad we are
    having this hearing on RAWA because it gives us an opportunity
    to discuss one of the most important pieces of legislation in
    our Committee's jurisdiction, the Endangered Species Act. From
    grizzlies, wolves, sage grouse, and more, this act impacts
    virtually every person who lives, works, or recreates in
    Wyoming.
        With only a 2 to 3 percent recovery rate for species listed
    under the act, the ESA's implementation is in need of a major
    overhaul. There are several pieces of legislation pending
    before our Committee, including one I introduced this week that
    would bring much needed transparency and accountability to the
    act. I hope it is something that we would consider going
    forward.
        My first question is for Mr. Wood. In your testimony, you
    observed, and did a great job of expressing it, the importance
    of the constitutional principle of federalism. It is something
    that I talk about almost every single time we have a hearing in
    this Committee, in some form or fashion.
        Federalism is the unique separation between the Federal
    Government and the States with regard to powers and
    responsibilities. You have talked about it, I think, in very
    appropriate terms.
        Mr. Wood, can you speak to how Congress intended the
    Endangered Species Act to reinforce federalism when it comes to
    wildlife management?
        Mr. Wood. Absolutely. If you go back to the original
    debates, it is really quite clear. Many of the most
    controversial parts of the Endangered Species Act were really
    looked at as a last line of defense to prevent extinctions.
    They weren't supposed to apply to every single listed species,
    and it was precisely to create the right incentives for States
    and private landowners to take the leadership.
        The things we have talked about doing under RAWA to
    conserve species before they are listed also work for species
    that are listed. If you get the incentives right, if landowners
    are encouraged to conserve and restore habitat and recover
    species, that is what you will get. The problem is,
    unfortunately, too often, under ESA regulations, we penalize
    those landowners. Their land is worth less because they
    accommodate a rare species or they conserve habitat.
        Senator Lummis. Well, I am so proud of Wyoming's Game and
    Fish and its efforts in sage grouse.
        You all know, Dan Ashe, when you were Director of U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service, what a great job Wyoming did on sage
    grouse. So we have a longstanding commitment to recover
    species, and in fact, even have a wildlife trust fund that we
    use to leverage opportunities to conserve species.
        Mr. Chairman, a few weeks ago, I and several Senate
    colleagues wrote a letter to you and Subcommittee Chair
    Duckworth asking for a hearing on a bill that would delist the
    Yellowstone grizzly. Since writing that letter, the Interagency
    Grizzly Bear Study Team, made up of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, and others have revised
    the population numbers from about 750 grizzly bears to 1,070.
    So this is more evidence that the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem
    grizzly has recovered and has been recovered for a long time.
        Mr. Wood, and Ms. Parker, how important is prompt delisting
    under the ESA to maintain good relationships with States and
    landowners?
        Mr. Wood. I will be quick to reserve some of the time. It
    is absolutely critical. If you are a landowner, if you are a
    State, you have probably worked years or decades to get to that
    point. Delisting is the reward for you, and if we deny that to
    landowners, we discourage efforts to recover other species down
    the road.
        Ms. Pauley. Thank you, you said it beautifully, that that
    transparency and just the dependability of what the act is
    intended to do, so people can have that assurance going
    forward.
        But Senator, you mentioned the example, and I just have to
    use this little bit of time to mention that, again, the value
    of the States and their boots on the ground is oftentimes, when
    a species is potentially listed, States can go back in and do
    additional inventory and monitoring, and in Missouri and many
    other States, determine that there actually are healthier
    populations, more abundant populations than originally thought,
    and actually keep species off of the list.
        So again, the value of those additional boots on the ground
    and the great role that the States play.
        Senator Lummis. I remember going out and helping inventory
    Wyoming toad at some of our high plains fishing areas. So you
    are right, boots on the ground make a difference.
        I want to thank you all for your testimony, and Mr.
    Chairman, I yield back.
        Senator Carper. Thank you. Thanks for those questions, and
    thanks for joining us today.
        I am not sure if I have the right Kelly over here, but
    sitting next to Senator Padilla is, I think it is Senator Mark
    Kelly, but I would be delighted if you would introduce your
    special guest.
        Senator Kelly. Mr. Chairman, you never know.
        Senator Carper. We have all had experiences, I suspect, in
    school, the years gone by where we were in a classroom in
    school and somebody had an identical twin.
        Senator Kelly. We did that on a space flight once. I went
    into space instead of him. It all worked out fine.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to begin by
    discussing the potential benefits that the Recovering America's
    Wildlife Act provides the tribal communities.
        Mr. O'Mara, good seeing you again, and this question is for
    you. I want to start by asking for unanimous consent on a
    couple of letters. Mr. Chairman, asking for unanimous consent
    to enter into the record a statement from Ms. Gloria Tom, she
    is the Director of the Navajo Nation's Department of Fish and
    Wildlife, highlighting the benefits that this bill would
    provide to the Navajo Nation.
        Senator Carper. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The referenced information follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Kelly. And I would also like to ask for unanimous
    consent on another letter signed by more than 100 tribal
    nations urging Congress to support the passage of this bill.
        Senator Carper. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The referenced information follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Kelly. Thank you.
        Mr. O'Mara, Arizona is home to 22 Tribes who all play a
    role in wildlife management on their tribal lands. Yet many of
    the Federal programs, which fund wildlife conservation efforts,
    are only allocated to States, not to Tribes, even when species
    needing conservation assistance are exclusively located on
    tribal land.
        Mr. O'Mara, could you provide a brief overview of what
    current Federal resources are available to Tribes to help fund
    conservation efforts, and if enacted, how could RAWA help
    support tribal conservation efforts in ways that the existing
    Federal programs cannot?
        Mr. O'Mara. Right now, thank you, Senator Kelly, Tribes are
    responsible for the management of almost 140 million acres
    across the country, and many are lands that have faced
    disproportionate climate impacts: Drought and extreme fire
    conditions. Yet the entire allocation through the
    appropriations process is about a $6 million competitive grant
    program that they all have to compete for every single year.
        So, there is no base funding. They have been systematically
    excluded from Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson and the
    other major wildlife funding for years. It is one of the great
    injustices, frankly. This bill would have $97.5 million
    available every year through a non-competitive grant program
    that the Tribes want to work out directly with BIA, and it is a
    game changer.
        Frankly, the cultural knowledge, the knowledge that they
    will bring to conservation, what we can learn from that, I
    think, is going to be transformative. But I can't say it better
    than Gloria Tom's testimony or the testimony from the Native
    American Fish and Wildlife Society. So I would just encourage
    your colleagues to read the testimony from Gloria, because she
    is amazing.
        Senator Kelly. OK, I will take a look at that. I want to,
    kind of on a similar note here, talk a little bit about the
    metrics that are used in RAWA to determine how this funding is
    going to be allocated even outside of the Tribes.
        Every State has different geography, different climate,
    different conservation needs. It is important that the Federal
    formula that is used takes these differences into account.
        In Arizona, we have the third highest species diversity of
    any State in the country. Yet because of the many different
    ecosystems within Arizona, and because we have a large share of
    Federal, State, and tribal land, it is often difficult for our
    State to benefit from Federal wildlife conservation programs,
    which focus on specific types of ecosystems, species, and land
    management practices.
        Mr. O'Mara, how does RAWA try to address the geographic
    diversity within and among States when providing funding for
    conservation assistance, and what factors does the bill use to
    determine the share of wildlife funding that each State and
    Tribe will receive?
        Mr. O'Mara. The traditional formula has been kind of
    population and land, which is just insufficient. It doesn't get
    at need. So negotiations in the House actually had this idea of
    having an additional variable of the number of listed species
    that are either threatened, endangered, or candidate species as
    a proxy for States that have particularly distressed ecosystems
    that need help.
        Under that formula, Arizona does better, because it has
    more species that are in trouble than other States than before.
    I think this is where the iterative process in the House has
    been constructive because it is the first time a need variable,
    as opposed to just a size or people variable, which isn't
    necessarily the greatest proxy, has been used.
        And I do think it is going to make a big difference, to
    make sure that money winds up in the right places. When you add
    that to the accountability and some of the other innovation
    grants from multi-State collaboration, all of a sudden a State
    like Arizona that has been disproportionately unsuccessful in
    some of those funding allocations all of a sudden would do
    well.
        Senator Kelly. Then, does that or a similar formula apply
    to the non-competitive grant money that Tribes can receive as
    well?
        Mr. O'Mara. Yes. So, the Tribes have requested that they be
    able to have those consultations with BIA and to figure out
    that system, but yes, need with be a portion of that
    conversation.
        Senator Kelly. Well, thank you, and thank you, everybody,
    for testifying today.
        Senator Carper. For the record, I just note, Senator Kelly,
    that your brother is sitting back over my right shoulder, and
    his lips were moving when you were speaking, and I don't--you
    guys have perfected this to quite an extent.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Carper. We welcome the both of you today to the
    hearing. Thanks for those questions.
        Senator Padilla, Senator Padilla is next.
        Senator Padilla, I am going to ask you to hold the gavel. I
    am going to send it right over to you. I am going to step out
    for a minute. I will be right back, OK? So, you can just,
    anything you want to pass, get done, unanimous consent, be
    careful.
        Senator Padilla [presiding]. Shifting resources to
    California this morning, thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad to be here today. Before
    I jump into my questions, just a quick commentary about how
    thrilled I am we are talking about wildlife conservation. The
    biodiversity crisis, not just in California, but across the
    country and around the world, is absolutely here. Wildlife
    managers and their partners are faced with the intertwined
    emergency of the climate crisis. I am grateful we are able to
    have this conversation about how we can best conserve wildlife.
        Let me start with a California success story. California
    has demonstrated how we can conserve species, with one example
    being the southern sea otter recovery work, which is led in
    part by the Monterey Bay Aquarium, a world renowned
    institution.
        But perhaps the proudest example is the California condor,
    which, as many of you know, was once at significant,
    significant risk. A whole bunch of groups working together,
    starting with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, a number of
    State agencies, the San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance, the
    Peregrine Fund, Oregon Zoo, Los Angeles Zoo, a ton of wildlife
    societies and several other prominent, non-profit partners
    provided critical genetic management, breeding, rearing, and
    releases into the wild to aid the recovery of this iconic
    California condor.
        I lay all that out just to show how simple it is not,
    right? It is a process. It is complex. There are many elements
    to it, and a role for so many to play. But from a population
    low of 22 birds, a handful of years ago, the species is now
    being downlisted with a population of more than 500 California
    condors, more than 300 of which are living in the wild. The
    assistance provided by our Federal agencies helped make this
    recovery success story possible.
        I am supporting this bill today because I believe we need
    to increase funding for wildlife conservation, and because I
    understand that there is a shared responsibility among the many
    partners.
        Question. Mr. Ashe, how are AZA accredited aquariums and
    zoos situated to help advance species recovery programs in
    collaboration with State, Federal, and tribal agencies, as well
    as other partners?
        Mr. Ashe. Thank you, Senator, and the California condor is
    kind of a perfect example. In my oral testimony, I spoke about
    a partnership that we have started with Florida Fish and
    Wildlife Conservation Commission to help save Florida's reef
    track from an emerging disease. In Sara's home State of
    Missouri, the St. Louis Zoo is working with the Missouri
    Department of Conservation on hellbender and American burying
    beetle and other species.
        Unfortunately, I think the extinction crisis means that our
    members are going to be called on more often to jump in. And I
    know in California, I have recently had conversations with
    Chuck Bonham and with Paul Souza, the Regional Director for the
    Fish and Wildlife Service, about how we can bring our members
    together to have specific conversations about how we can
    prepare for these, what are almost certain to be emergency
    situations where species have to be taken into human care.
        So, our members are ready. Certainly, the funding provided
    through this bill will help, because space and infrastructure
    and human capacity are what is going to be important to
    duplicate the successes we have seen like the California
    condor.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you. Just to follow up on that, what
    are some of the ways in which Federal partners, the Federal
    Government, a number of departments and agencies, can support
    the work of aquariums and zoos? Certainly, there is always a
    desire for additional resources and funding, but other
    strategies that you would like for this Committee to consider,
    in both the measure before us, but also just broadly and
    ongoing relationship and partnership.
        Mr. Ashe. Of course, my main point today is a better
    balance and a better reflection of the kind of interdependence
    in conservation, and that the Federal role is absolutely
    essential. The condor success wouldn't have happened if the
    Fish and Wildlife Service didn't have the funding to support
    organizations like the Los Angeles Zoo and the Peregrine Fund.
    So that Federal funding is absolutely essential.
        Looking forward, I think there needs to be some specific
    recognition and infrastructure support for our members, like
    the Monterey Bay Aquarium. They are kind of holding southern
    sea otters. I also quite honestly think there needs to be some
    kind of relaxation of certain regulation, like the southern sea
    otter. Monterey Bay Aquarium is put in the position of having
    to euthanize young sea otters, because they don't have the
    space for them. So they are rescued, but they don't have the
    ability to care for them, because they don't have the space.
    They can't be exported because of restrictions in the Marine
    Mammal Protection Act.
        But we have participating zoos in Europe and Australia and
    other places that could, that would be anxious to hold those
    animals if we could export them. So I think to some extent,
    looking at existing regulations and how we might be able to
    change them, I think, is important.
        Senator Padilla. I look forward to following up with you on
    that.
        Mr. Chairman, I know my time is about up, but I do want to
    ask just one question that our colleague Senator Kelly brought
    up, unique dynamics and concerns as it pertains to tribal
    governments. A big part of mine is more than 100 federally
    recognized Tribes in California alone, and I want to make sure
    that the Federal Government upholds its trust responsibility
    and respects tribal sovereignty and governance.
        In many contexts, it means ensuring that tribal governments
    don't have to go to the States to compete for funding, as
    Senator Kelly laid out, but instead are able to receive or
    access funds directly from the Federal Government. We know that
    in California, a number of examples, tribal nations carry out
    important conservation work, leveraging their historical and
    cultural knowledge.
        I commend the authors of the bill that is before us today
    for understanding that unique and important role that Tribes
    play in natural resource preservation and providing dedicated
    funding for tribal wildlife conservation.
        I did, for the record, want to ask Mr. O'Mara, your written
    testimony includes a quote calling the bill a game changer for
    Tribes. Can you spend a minute just talking about the
    importance of this bill for tribal sovereignty and respect?
        Mr. O'Mara. Thank you, Senator Padilla, and thank you for
    your leadership on this and being one of the earliest co-
    sponsors.
        Tribes, as you said perfectly, their historical knowledge,
    cultural knowledge, the scientific knowledge, is incredible,
    and the fact that that has not been resourced other than a
    small $6 million competitive grant program is one of the
    greatest failings of wildlife recovery in this country. I think
    the $97 million annually is a great start to begin to address
    the historical inequities.
        But when you look at the landscapes and you look at, also,
    where most of the tribal nation lands are, they are lands that
    are facing disproportionate impacts from drought and fire and
    other concerns. So the species, many of which are uniquely on
    tribal lands, to have the ability to actually have resources
    for the first time, for them to engage in conservation on their
    own lands, but also in partnership is transformative. So I
    appreciate your compliment that respecting the sovereignty is
    so important.
        I will say that one of the reasons I think that it makes
    sense, and one of the reasons you had a letter from 100
    different Tribes is that the Tribes actually wrote a big part
    of that section. It wasn't folks assuming, but again, having
    those authentic consultations. I cannot say enough about the
    Native American Fish and Wildlife Society. Their leadership,
    and having conversations across all different jurisdictions,
    with all different sovereign nations, has been spectacular, so
    their leadership is just amazing.
        Senator Padilla. Wonderful. Definitely a solid foundation
    to build on. I look forward to supporting this measure.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Carper [presiding]. Thanks so much for joining us.
    Thanks for those questions, and thank you for taking the gavel
    for a few minutes and giving me a break. Thanks.
        I have about three or four more questions I want to ask. I
    am going to finish up around 1 o'clock, and no, it won't take
    quite that long.
        I want to start off with Dan Ashe and talk a little bit
    about the importance of the Federal Recovery Plan. Considering
    the collaboration that is necessary across not just State or
    local levels, but across all levels of government, would you
    elaborate on the on the ground implications of providing
    sufficient resources only to States and Tribes, and not to
    Federal agencies? Particularly, let me just say, in particular,
    how might lack of funding for recovery planning impact States'
    efforts to recover threatened and endangered wildlife under the
    Recovering America's Wildlife Act?
        Mr. Ashe. Sure. I think reference was made earlier several
    times to waterfowl conservation, and I think that is a prime
    example of where we have achieved tremendous success in
    conservation of waterfowl. It has been led by the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service, and it has been driven by the Migratory Bird
    Treaty Act. So I think that is the type of example.
        When we are talking about monarch butterfly conservation,
    you can't conserve monarch butterflies from Iowa or North
    Dakota or Minnesota; it requires cooperation with Canada and
    Mexico, in particular. Because if we don't protect the
    wintering grounds and reserves in Mexico, all of the
    conservation effort in the United States is meaningless.
        So, it is absolutely essential to have a strong, effective
    capacity within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Senator
    Whitehouse mentioned the coasts and NOAA fisheries, if we are
    going to drive ocean and coastal conservation. So that
    leadership is essential. I would say we are talking a lot about
    proactive, voluntary, incentive based conservation.
        Senator Cardin opened up talking about manatee. The issues
    around conservation of manatee are full of conflict because it
    is going to involve issues of runoff, and what is driving the
    loss of seagrass beds in Florida. So the States have their own
    politics.
        The presence of Federal agencies often, in my experience,
    is a benefit to our State agencies, because the Fish and
    Wildlife Service becomes the heat shield on some of these
    really significant political issues that are difficult for them
    to deal with in wildlife conservation. So that role is
    absolutely essential. Thank you.
        Senator Carper. Thanks very much for that response.
        I am told that the Senate is going to be, if they are not
    already voting they are going to start voting very soon, so I
    thank you for that response. I am going to ask our witnesses
    not to linger too long in your responses but cut right to the
    chase. Thank you.
        All right, Collin, please. With your exception, Collin.
        Mr. O'Mara. I always talk quick, so I will try to be brief.
        Senator Carper. He is the fastest talker, ladies and
    gentlemen, I have ever met. When he first came to Delaware to
    become our Secretary of the Department of Natural Resources and
    Environmental Control, I think he might have been 30 years old,
    and he was a fast talker then. He has slowed down a little bit
    since.
        Let me ask a question. Maybe you are reading my mind; who
    knows. Consultation is a process that Federal agencies
    undertake in order to ensure that Federal actions like
    infrastructure development, for example, will not harm
    threatened and endangered species. We actually have some great
    provisions in the infrastructure bill, as you know, to protect
    them and their habitat.
        If Federal actions may harm an imperiled species, agencies
    use, as you know, the consultation process to minimize and try
    to mitigate that harm.
        The question would be, do you believe that the U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service currently receives sufficient funding to
    undertake these consultative activities, which are critical to
    the survival of imperiled wildlife? And would you elaborate on
    the importance of ensuring that the Fish and Wildlife Service
    receives sufficient resources for these activities, please?
        Mr. O'Mara. In Delaware, when we were dealing with the
    Recovery Act money, or the Sandy Supplemental Resource that you
    provided, the partnership with Wendi Weber and the Fish and
    Wildlife Service was essential. To get those projects done, the
    restoration in Mispillion Harbor, the improvements in so many
    places. So no, there are vastly insufficient resources for
    consultation. I was disappointed.
        I was excited, both in your work and the House's work in
    trying to have more resources in the Build Back Better Act. I
    am grateful for the resources you were able to put in the
    bipartisan infrastructure package. But it does concern me that
    we are not going to have sufficient resources, and that could
    be an impediment to the infrastructure work we want to do.
        I think when it relates to recovery that having resources,
    as long as it doesn't upend the balance of the bill, I also
    worry that the delay is deadly, and so trying to figure out a
    way to do that in a bipartisan way is going to be important.
    But from my experience as Secretary, the benefits of having
    that partnership were incredibly important.
        Senator Carper. OK, thank you for that. Thank you for that
    response.
        Dan, I am going to come back to you for another question,
    and that is, Partners for Fish and Wildlife. The Partners for
    Fish and Wildlife Program, which this Committee successfully
    reauthorized, I think, about 2 years ago in 2019, is one of the
    most popular Federal programs for working with landowners to
    conserve wildlife.
        Over the last 5 years in our State, in Delaware, this
    program has delivered something like 26, 27 habitat restoration
    projects over 600 acres. In some States, that might not sound
    like a lot of land, but in Delaware, that is a lot of land.
        For every dollar the Fish and Wildlife Service invests,
    non-Federal partners contribute approximately $7.50, an
    impressive ratio. These projects have supported species like
    the American eel, the woodland box turtle, wood frog, and many
    migratory songbirds. Despite the success of this program and
    its ability to leverage non-Federal funding, there is
    substantial unmet financial need for it.
        Having worked to administer this program as the Director of
    Fish and Wildlife Service, would you elaborate based on your
    experience on the importance of this program and others like it
    to work with private landowners to conserve wildlife?
        Mr. Ashe. Thank you, Senator. A lot has been said here
    today about incentive based conservation and cooperative
    conservation. I would say the Partners for Fish and Wildlife
    Program in the Fish and Wildlife Service is a model for that. I
    certainly applaud State colleagues for the work that they do,
    but it is not just a province of State and tribal agencies.
        The Fish and Wildlife Service was a pioneer with their
    Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program in working with private
    landowners on incentive and voluntary based conservation and
    working with and through the Natural Resource Conservation
    Service on the Working Lands for Wildlife Program.
        Our Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program has been a
    principal agent there in building a relationship with NRCS that
    then builds a relationship with private landowners.
        So that is not a province of State or Federal or tribal or
    local government. It is a bedrock principle in conservation.
    And I think the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program in the
    Fish and Wildlife Service embodies that and deserves equal
    access to funding to support it.
        Senator Carper. Thank you.
        I don't mean to pick on Collin O'Mara, but I am going to
    ask you maybe one more, Collin. As you may recall, when I was
    privileged to serve as Governor for our State, we had eight
    balanced budgets in a row. The Governors before me had
    significant success in terms of fiscal management. The ones
    that succeeded me, as well. That is something that we take
    great pride in.
        Recovering America's Wildlife Act identifies unobligated
    environmental penalties as its funding source. This appears to
    include some Superfund cleanup recovery dollars and criminal
    fees. Because these dollars currently go to the Treasury, a
    funding source may not effectively pay for this legislation. At
    least, that is a concern that we have heard.
        Your testimony also states that this funding source will
    not draw from funding committed to other important funding
    programs. However, this funding source does seem to allocate
    penalties derived from Superfund disasters for wildlife
    protection. That is a concern, especially because those
    Superfund fees reimburse the government for cleanups that may
    have already occurred where a third party was found liable. In
    addition, there are sufficient unmet funding needs related to
    Superfund cleanups.
        Question. Have proponents of the Recovering America's
    Wildlife Act thought about any funding source that would fully
    pay for the legislation and that might address this policy
    concern that I just touched upon? Would you commit to working
    with us on this aspect?
        Mr. O'Mara. Thank you for the question. The intent is not
    to touch any funds that are directed for any current purpose,
    so if there are improvements to the language, we would like to
    work with you on that. I have been searching, and actually, we
    have been searching for an elusive kind stable pay for that
    both sides of the dais can agree on for 4 years. It has been
    incredibly difficult. If there is an idea that you and your
    team have, I think this is an idea that Senator Blunt, with his
    leadership, saw as something that had a nexus, had a point.
        If you look over the historical amount going into the
    Treasury over the last 10 years, if you kind of define it
    broadly, it well more than covers the 10 year score. But it is
    uneven year to year, and it is unpredictable in some ways. But
    the 10 year average is good.
        What I want to make sure is that this doesn't become the
    reason that the bill doesn't pass, because as I said in my
    testimony, I just think the inaction is the greatest ally of
    extinction right now. So if there is a better mousetrap, we
    would love to discuss it.
        Senator Carper. Thank you.
        Dan, would you just follow up to the question that I just
    asked Secretary O'Mara; do you have any concerns about the
    funding source that is identified in RAWA? Do you have any
    concerns?
        Mr. Ashe. My concern is a little bit--I think I have the
    same concern that you do. As I looked at it, I immediately
    thought about the Deepwater Horizon settlement, and $5.5
    billion in Clean Water Act penalties went to restoration.
        They are not directed to go there by law. They are normally
    deposited into the Treasury, and they were directed through the
    settlement agreement to go to restoration.
        So when I read this, my immediate concern was, is that
    going to short circuit that process and require these funds to
    be deposited to support this bill? And so my recommendation
    would be, talk to somebody at the Department of Justice, maybe
    somebody like John Cruden, the former Associate Attorney
    General for Environment and Natural Resources, who worked on
    that settlement, and get some advice from those people.
        Senator Carper. All right; thank you.
        I don't have a specific question for either Ms. Pauley or
    Mr. Wood, but each of you take maybe a minute apiece, with just
    a quick closing thought that you would like to share with us
    before I go vote.
        Ms. Pauley, 1 minute.
        Ms. Pauley. Thank you so much, Senator. I think I want to
    hit just some of the points in the questions that have come up
    more recently. It seems a little bit that we are pitting the
    States against the Fish and Wildlife Service, and I hope that
    that isn't the case. We do so much amazing work with our
    Federal partners.
        In the Midwest, we have such a healthy relationship where
    we work very collaboratively with the Fish and Wildlife Service
    on shared conservation priorities. So I want to make sure that
    the members of this Committee understand just how important
    that relationship is with the Fish and Wildlife Service.
        Again, I will hit the point that, from the Blue Ribbon
    Panel and their focus, to the development of this legislation,
    the intent of this legislation has been to, at long last,
    provide critically important funding to State fish and wildlife
    agencies to actually, and at long last, implement those State
    wildlife action plans. That, to date, has been the focus of
    this legislation, so I just want to make sure that we are all
    clear that conservation takes all of us. Those Federal partners
    are critically important.
        The last point I would make is just, as a director of a
    fish and wildlife agency, such a key piece of this legislation
    is the long term dedicated funding nature of this so that we
    can actually make decisions of a long term nature. We talked
    about in the beginning, conservation doesn't happen overnight.
    There are no easy decisions. By the time they get to me, just
    like you, there are no easy decisions. It takes the long view
    and that dedicated, sustainable funding source is so critical
    to make these key management decisions to be able to provide
    additional staffing capacity.
        So I would call upon the Committee to keep that under
    consideration. Thank you so much for your time.
        Senator Carper. Thank you for yours, and for your
    leadership over the years.
        Mr. Wood, try to hold it to about a minute, if you could.
        Mr. Wood. Absolutely. I want to echo my thanks for inviting
    me and pick up on that similar point. I think there are really
    important reasons to focus conservation work through States,
    rather than the Federal Government. Because States have that
    flexibility; they have buy in.
        But one point we haven't emphasized so much that I go into
    in my written testimony is landowners are more comfortable
    working with States, because most of their interactions with
    the Fish and Wildlife Service begin with regulation or a
    listing before you get to the how can we collaborate. That can
    alienate landowners.
        So you are more likely to get buy in from landowners and
    actual, on the ground conservation if it starts in that
    dialogue with the States, of how can we solve problems, rather
    than how can we impose regulations to try to control that you
    might do.
        Senator Carper. Thank you very, very much for taking this
    time, for preparing and for joining us and responding to our
    questions.
        I would just mention something that had been shared with
    us. We are folks from all over the country, folks with
    different kinds of opinions on these issues and all. But
    someone has raised the issue, and I will just share what they
    have brought to us. They said while some States have had to
    dramatically tighten their belts and cut spending to address
    this pandemic, we have also found that overall, the impacts of
    COVID-19 on State budgets were not as severe as we had feared
    earlier in the crisis.
        They went on to say, in fact, according to the National
    Association of State Budget Officers' fiscal survey of States
    published in spring of this year, State total balance levels,
    in other words, that is your State rainy day funds, add that to
    their general funds year ending balances, reached $126 billion
    in fiscal year 2021, the year that, I think, for most States,
    ended on June 30th. This is up from about $122 billion before
    the pandemic. They are actually in better shape fiscally after
    than they were going into the pandemic, which was a surprise to
    me.
        By contrast, Federal deficits have increased, as you know,
    as the Federal Government has jumped in and injected badly
    needed COVID relief and stimulus funds into the economy.
        In fact, in 2019, the total Federal deficit for that year
    was $992 billion, $992 billion, in 2019. In fiscal year 2021,
    the Federal deficit, its immediate past year ended on September
    30th, the Federal Government ran a deficit of $2.77 trillion,
    due in large part to try to address the pandemic and really to
    help State and local governments to meet their
    responsibilities. The person who is raising these concerns said
    that the States, in terms of their fiscal positions, are not
    that bad right now.
        The Federal Government is running a deficit in the current
    year of almost $3 trillion, which is just, maybe except for
    wartime, it is just unheard of. And the question is, this is
    shared responsibility. This is a team sport. We need States; we
    need the Federal Government; we need other shareholders,
    stakeholders.
        I just would have us and whatever person shared these
    comments with me, just that we need to keep that in mind. The
    Federal Government has the ability not to print money, but to
    really spend until the cows come home. That is what we are
    doing to try to get COVID behind us in the rearview mirror.
        But someday, there is going to be a time when we are going
    to have to be fiscally responsible, and look at the federalism,
    the sharing of responsibilities with the States and make sure
    that our contributions are appropriate, both at the Federal
    level, State, and local level, and with respect to other
    sources, too.
        I am just going to close with that. It has been a great
    hearing. It has been a great hearing, and I applaud the
    leadership provided for us by Senators Heinrich and Blunt and
    those who joined them in this cause.
        Just a quick closing statement. I said earlier that the
    Committee has a great track record of enacting bipartisan
    conservation legislation. You all have been a part of that. And
    at a time when the future of any species in our planet is
    uncertain, we need to act. We know that.
        Right now, the Recovering America's Wildlife Act is, I
    think, a good piece of legislation. Obviously, you do, too, and
    I think we can make it great. I look forward to working with
    members of this Committee, with our other colleagues, certainly
    with the sponsors of the legislation and with our conservation
    partners to do that, and make it great.
        Before we adjourn, a little bit of housekeeping. I would
    like to ask unanimous consent--I love to ask unanimous consent
    when I am the only one here. It is one of my favorite things. I
    want to ask unanimous consent to submit for the record a
    variety of materials that include letters from stakeholders and
    other materials that relate to today's hearing.
        [The referenced information follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Carper. Senators will be allowed to submit
    questions for the record through the close of business on
    Wednesday, December 22nd. We will compile those questions, send
    them to our witnesses, ask for our witnesses to reply by
    Christmas Day. Not really. We are going to ask you to respond
    by Wednesday, January the 5th.
        With that, we wish you all, you and your families, happy
    holidays, and thank you for all that you are doing to protect
    God's creations on this planet.
        With that, our hearing is adjourned. Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 11:59 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                             [all]