[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]