    [House Hearing, 118 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                       H.R. 3119, H.R. 6784, H.R. 6854,
                                 AND H.R. 7157

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

                              LEGISLATIVE HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                 SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES

                                     OF THE

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION
                                   __________

                          Wednesday, February 14, 2024
                                   __________

                               Serial No. 118-96
                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources

                      [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
                                       or
              Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    54-896 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2024

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                         BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
                        DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Vice Chairman
                      RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Member

    Doug Lamborn, CO		Grace F. Napolitano, CA
    Robert J. Wittman, VA		Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
    Tom McClintock, CA		    CNMI
    Paul Gosar, AZ			Jared Huffman, CA
    Garret Graves, LA		Ruben Gallego, AZ
    Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS	Joe Neguse, CO
    Doug LaMalfa, CA		Mike Levin, CA
    Daniel Webster, FL		Katie Porter, CA
    Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR	Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
    Russ Fulcher, ID		Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
    Pete Stauber, MN		Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
    John R. Curtis, UT		Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NY
    Tom Tiffany, WI			Kevin Mullin, CA
    Jerry Carl, AL			Val T. Hoyle, OR
    Matt Rosendale, MT		Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
    Lauren Boebert, CO		Seth Magaziner, RI
    Cliff Bentz, OR			Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
    Jen Kiggans, VA			Ed Case, HI
    Jim Moylan, GU			Debbie Dingell, MI
    Wesley P. Hunt, TX		Susie Lee, NV
    Mike Collins, GA
    Anna Paulina Luna, FL
    John Duarte, CA
    Harriet M. Hageman, WY

                        Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
                          Tom Connally, Chief Counsel
                     Lora Snyder, Democratic Staff Director
                       http://naturalresources.house.gov
                                     ------

                 SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES

                           CLIFF BENTZ, OR, Chairman
                          JEN KIGGANS, VA, Vice Chair
                       JARED HUFFMAN, CA, Ranking Member

    Robert J. Wittman, VA                Grace F. Napolitano, CA
    Tom McClintock, CA                   Mike Levin, CA
    Garret Graves, LA                    Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
    Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS         Kevin Mullin, CA
    Doug LaMalfa, CA                     Val T. Hoyle, OR
    Daniel Webster, FL                   Seth Magaziner, RI
    Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR         Debbie Dingell, MI
    Jerry Carl, AL                       Ruben Gallego, AZ
    Lauren Boebert, CO                   Joe Neguse, CO
    Jen Kiggans, VA                      Katie Porter, CA
    Anna Paulina Luna, FL                Ed Case, HI
    John Duarte, CA                      Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
    Harriet M. Hageman, WY
    Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio

                                     ------
                                    CONTENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held on Wednesday, February 14, 2024.....................     1

    Statement of Members:

        Bentz, Hon. Cliff, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Oregon............................................     2
        Huffman, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of California........................................     3

        Panel I:

        Duarte, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of California........................................     5
        Stauber, Hon. Pete, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Minnesota.........................................     6
        Soto, Hon. Darren, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Florida...........................................    11
        Fischbach, Hon. Michelle, a Representative in Congress from
          the State of Minnesota.....................................    12

    Statement of Witnesses:

        Panel II:

        Guertin, Steve, Deputy Director for Program Management and
          Policy, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.....    14
            Prepared statement of....................................    16
        Rohwer, Frank, President and Chief Scientist, Delta Waterfowl
          Foundation, Bismarck, North Dakota.........................    21
            Prepared statement of....................................    22
        McIlvain, Jordan, Vice President, Alan McIlvain Company,
          Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania..................................    27
            Prepared statement of....................................    29
            Questions submitted for the record.......................    32
        von Bismarck, Alexander, Executive Director, Environmental
          Investigation Agency, Washington, DC.......................    34
            Prepared statement of....................................    36
        Higgins, Ray, Executive Vice President, Minnesota Timber
          Producers Association, Duluth, Minnesota...................    41
            Prepared statement of....................................    42

    Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
          Statement for the Record on H.R. 6784 and H.R. 7157........    62

        Submissions for the Record by Representative Huffman

            Wood Resources International, ``Illegal'' Logging and
              Global Wood Markets: The Competitive Impacts on the
              U.S. Wood Products Industry............................    66
            Union of Concerned Scientists, ``The Lacey Act's
              Effectiveness in Reducing Illegal Wood Imports''.......    67
            Forest Policy and Economics, ``The impacts of the Lacey
              Act Amendment of 2008 on U.S. hardwood lumber and
              hardwood plywood imports,'' by Jeffrey P. Prestemon....    68
            Mongabay News, ``Safety of Peru's land defenders in
              question after killing of Indigenous leader in the
              Amazon,'' by Geraldine Santos, Gloria Alvitres.........    69
            Stakeholder Letter to the Committee opposing H.R. 7157...    73
            EIA, ``The Laundering Machine--How Fraud and Corruption
              in Peru's Concession System are Destroying the Future
              of its Forests''.......................................    75
            Rep. Earl Blumenauer, Third District, Oregon, Letter to
              the Committee opposing H.R. 7157.......................    76

        Submissions for the Record by Representative Hoyle

            Hardwood Federation, Letter to the Committee on H.R. 7157    77

        Submissions for the Record by Representative Stauber

            University of California, Irvine School of Law, ``The Six
              Priority Recommendations for Improving Conservation
              under the Federal Endangered Species Act'', September
              2021...................................................     8
            Forest Resources Association, Statement for the Record...     9
            National Association of Home Builders, Letter to the
              Committee..............................................     9
            Associated Builders and Contractors, Letter to the
              Committee..............................................    10
            National Endangered Species Act Reform Coalition,
              Statement for the Record...............................    11

        Submissions for the Record by Representative Fischbach

            Stakeholder letter of support for H.R. 6854..............    13

      LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 3119, TO PROVIDE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A
     MANATEE SEMIPOSTAL STAMP; H.R. 6784, TO AMEND THE ENDANGERED SPECIES
      ACT OF 1973 TO PROVIDE FOR PROTECTIVE REGULATIONS WHEN A SPECIES IS
    LISTED AS AN ENDANGERED SPECIES, ``ESA FLEXIBILITY ACT''; H.R. 6854, TO
     DIRECT THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO ESTABLISH 2 GRANT PROGRAMS TO
       SUSTAIN POPULATIONS OF SPECIES OF MIGRATORY WATERFOWL THROUGH THE
    DEPLOYMENT OF TOOLS AND PRACTICES THAT COMPLEMENT HABITAT CONSERVATION,
    ``HABITAT ENHANCEMENT NOW ACT''; AND H.R. 7157, TO AMEND THE LACEY ACT
    AMENDMENTS OF 1981 TO ENSURE FAIR ENFORCEMENT OF SUCH ACT, ``STRENGTHEN
                        WOOD PRODUCT SUPPLY CHAINS ACT''

                                  ----------

                          Wednesday, February 14, 2024

                         U.S. House of Representatives

                 Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries

                         Committee on Natural Resources

                                 Washington, DC

                                  ----------

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in
    Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Cliff Bentz
    [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Bentz, Graves, LaMalfa, Carl,
    Luna, Duarte, Hageman; Huffman, Peltola, Hoyle, Dingell,
    Porter, and Grijalva.
        Also present: Representatives Fischbach, Stauber; and Soto.

        Mr. Bentz. The Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and
    Fisheries will come to order.
        Good morning, everyone. I want to welcome Members,
    witnesses, and our guests in the audience to today's hearing.
        Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
    recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
        Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at
    hearings are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Member. I
    therefore ask unanimous consent that all other Members' opening
    statements be made part of the hearing record if they are
    submitted in accordance with the Committee Rule 3(o).
        Without objection, so ordered.
        I also ask unanimous consent that the Representatives from
    Minnesota, Mr. Stauber and Mrs. Fischbach, be allowed to
    participate in today's hearing.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        We are here today to consider four legislative measures:
    H.R. 3119, To provide for the issuance of a Manatee Semipostal
    Stamp, sponsored by Representative Soto of Florida; H.R. 6784,
    the ESA Flexibility Act, sponsored by Representative Stauber of
    Minnesota; H.R. 6854, the Habitat Enhancement Now Act,
    sponsored by Representative Fischbach of Minnesota; and H.R.
    7157, the Strengthen Wood Product Supply Chains Act, sponsored
    by Representative Duarte of California.
        I now recognize myself for a 5-minute opening statement.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. CLIFF BENTZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                        FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

        Mr. Bentz. I want to thank the witnesses again for being
    here today and our Members for their interest in the issues we
    will be discussing today.
        The Water, Wildlife and Fisheries Subcommittee will
    consider four legislative proposals that provide the U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service greater resources and regulatory
    flexibility to carry out its mission to conserve at-risk
    species while at the same time providing some degree of
    regulatory certainty to affected parties.
        These bills build on sound science, stakeholder
    collaboration, and a shared desire for economic prosperity and
    species conservation working together. Over the 118th Congress,
    Republicans on this Committee have worked to address the
    regulatory over-reach of the Biden administration, including
    the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service administration of the
    Endangered Species Act. Today, we offer a different approach by
    examining how the Act itself could be improved to give the
    Service more flexibility when promulgating ESA listings.
        H.R. 6784, offered by Congressman Stauber, would accomplish
    this by allowing the Service to propose 4(d) rules for
    endangered species, an authority they already have for
    threatened species. The 4(d) process under the ESA has untapped
    potential to provide regulatory flexibility for affected
    stakeholders, but also to address the specific threats
    impacting the listed species.
        Take the northern long-eared bat. This species is listed as
    endangered due to an incurable fungal disease known as white-
    nose syndrome, which is not caused by human activity. As we
    will hear today during witness testimony, when the bat was
    listed as threatened it was governed by a 4(d) rule that was
    workable for affected stakeholders, particularly industries
    dependent upon forestry, but it also protected vital habitat
    for the bat. However, when the species was uplisted to
    endangered last year, the 4(d) rule was voided, and
    stakeholders were forced to go through an arduous and expensive
    process to create habitat conservation plans for the bat in
    order to conduct exactly the same activities. Mr. Stauber's
    bill would have prevented this unnecessary process by allowing
    the Service to continue to use a 4(d) rule to regulate
    activities in the bat's range.
        H.R. 6854, a bipartisan bill offered by Congresswoman
    Fischbach, would create two new grant programs designed to
    enhance the breeding habitat for waterfowl. These programs
    would recognize the important role private landowners play in
    the future health of waterfowl populations, especially in
    creating and maintaining suitable habitat. I would like to
    complement the work already done to improve waterfowl habitat
    and population by groups such as Delta Waterfowl, who is
    represented in today's panel.
        H.R. 7157, a bipartisan bill offered by Congressman Duarte,
    would amend the Lacey Act to foster greater accountability,
    transparency, and certainty for businesses who are subject to
    that Act's regulations creating and applying timelines on
    agencies' actions. These include when agencies must notify
    importers that their merchandise has been detained, when
    merchandise can be transferred to a facility not under the
    control of the Federal Government for additional testing, and
    when enforcing agencies must decide to either seize or release
    detained merchandise.
        These timelines are not designed to inhibit enforcing
    agencies from doing their work, but instead are designed to
    ensure that merchandise cannot be detained indefinitely without
    a legitimate reason. Doing so will help to foster a cooperative
    relationship between the enforcing agency and the importer.
        Lastly, H.R. 3119, offered by Congressman Soto, highlights
    a species of great interest to many on this Committee: the
    manatee. This bill authorizes the Postal Service to offer a
    manatee semipostal stamp, with all proceeds of sale going
    toward conservation of the manatee and its habitat. This bill
    builds on the success of other stamps designed to benefit at-
    risk species, as well as decades of conservation undertaken by
    the Federal Government, states, and private entities to
    conserve and enhance the health of manatee populations.
        I am looking forward to hearing from the Members that have
    sponsored each of these bills and hearing from our witnesses
    joining us today. Their perspective on real-world impacts and
    benefits of these pieces of legislation is valued as we advance
    policies that provide the necessary regulatory certainty to
    vital industries that ensure that our laws are responsive to
    the needs of today.
        With that, I recognize Ranking Member Huffman for 5
    minutes.

       STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED HUFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are meeting today
    to discuss four bills. Two of them are extremely problematic.
        The first, H.R. 6784, the euphemistically-named ESA
    Flexibility Act, would undermine a core component of the
    Endangered Species Act, that being that species closest to
    extinction are supposed to receive the highest level of
    protection under the law. Currently, endangered species get a
    set level of protection, and threatened species can have a more
    tailored approach.
        What Republicans are hoping to do with this legislation is
    abolish protected status effectively in its entirety, erasing
    the distinction between threatened and endangered species by
    making those protections optional and accelerating the demise
    of numerous species, regardless of their conservation status.
        Folks, we are in a biodiversity crisis. One million species
    globally are threatened with extinction. Bills like this are
    not what we need to address that crisis. They are not what
    threatened and endangered species need to avoid extinction and,
    hopefully, eventually recover. This may be what industry wants,
    but I can guarantee it is the exact opposite of what is
    required for species survival and recovery.
        The Endangered Species Act is based on science. It is our
    most important law for stopping extinction and helping
    endangered species recover. This bill throws the science out
    the window in service of giving polluting industries what they
    want, which is basically less inconvenience, less
    responsibility, less burdens, and, frankly, come what may for a
    species that may be teetering on the brink of extinction.
        In a time when we should be increasing protections for
    wildlife, we should be coming up with new and creative
    approaches to protecting species. And instead, all we seem to
    get from my friends across the aisle are bills that do the
    opposite. It is just bill after bill in this Committee to
    undermine species protection and further what I call an
    extinction agenda.
        This bill would create a patchwork of protections and
    enforcement by allowing states to craft their own protective
    regulations, and it ignores the fact that because of strained
    budgets we often don't even get species listed until it is very
    late in the game and they are very close to extinction. So, you
    may think of this as flexibility, but I think any reasonable
    view of this is that it simply puts those species at a greater
    risk of extinction. It is not a bill that anyone who claims to
    value endangered species recovery should be proud of.
        And it completely undermines the work of the Endangered
    Species Act working group. I have attended these meetings, and
    I have heard the stated commitment to bipartisan good faith
    review of the Endangered Species Act. I have heard some
    positive rhetoric in those conversations, but many of the
    working group members are co-sponsoring this legislation, which
    is at odds with those stated commitments.
        This legislation is a waste of time. It absolutely is
    irreconcilable with both the spirit and the goals of the
    Endangered Species Act. So, I just have to wonder whether my
    friends across the aisle are serious about these statements
    that they care about endangered species, that they want to
    strengthen and improve the Endangered Species Act in the face
    of a biodiversity crisis.
        I can think of lots of legislation that could help wildlife
    and threaten an endangered species. Congresswoman Dingell's
    Recovering America's Wildlife Act, for example, would do a lot
    for wildlife in this country, but the Republican Majority won't
    let it move through Committee, despite bipartisan support for
    this bill. And what we get instead across the aisle is just
    bill after bill that attacks the Endangered Species Act and
    undermines wildlife protection.
        Now, we turn to H.R. 7157, the Strengthen Wood Product
    Supply Chains Act, a valentine to those involved in illegal
    logging and wildlife trafficking.
        Look, we know criminal activity happens with wildlife and
    trafficking and deforestation in the Amazon. Around the world,
    illegal logging is prevalent. It contributes to all sorts of
    environmental problems to the climate crisis and to the
    biodiversity crisis. And we know terrorist groups are involved
    in a lot of this trafficking. So, I just have to wonder why my
    friends across the aisle are proposing legislation that makes
    it easier for bad actors to do these things, and to make it
    harder for American companies who are playing by the rules and
    trying to be careful to compete against the bad actors.
        My colleagues across the aisle talk a big game about crime
    and law and order. I wish they would walk the walk when it
    comes to this kind of illegal trafficking instead of proposing
    legislation like this.
        Finally, we are going to hear two Democratic bills that I
    support. I am out of time. I am pleased that they were included
    in today's agenda, and I look forward to hearing from our
    witnesses.
        I yield back.

        Mr. Bentz. I will now introduce our first panelist.
        As is typical with legislative hearings, the bills'
    sponsors are recognized for 5 minutes each to discuss their
    bills.
        With us today is Congressman John Duarte, who is recognized
    for 5 minutes to discuss H.R. 7157.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN DUARTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                      FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Duarte. H.R. 7157, my Strengthen Wood Product Supply
    Chains Act is simply a bill that asks for some rational process
    by which foreign, exotic woods are regulated as they come into
    the United States.
        Currently, the Lacey Act empowers the U.S. Department of
    Agriculture's APHIS, Animal Plant Health Inspection Services;
    the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol; and the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service, each a regulatory authority on imported
    woods.
        Some of this is purported to be trafficking, illegal
    loggings, terrorist groups, competition, and jobs. These are
    simply mahogany, woods that come in and supply jobs here in the
    United States for furniture makers, musical instrument makers,
    sometimes motor homes, sometimes home building and home
    furnishings that get lost in a regulatory limbo at the port
    that can take months or sometimes have to have shipments
    abandoned because drayage inspection costs mount while the
    purchasers can no longer fulfill their commitment, can no
    longer get the materials they need to create American jobs to
    produce the goods.
        What this bill does, it simply puts a timeline out that
    requires if a shipment of wood hits American ports and is going
    to be subject to a potential enforcement action, that the
    importer be given notice within 5 days that there is a
    potential enforcement action against that shipment. After 10
    days, the importer then has the option to move that wood from a
    common drayage port, where it may be unprotected both from the
    elements as well as from theft or shrinkage, to a site of their
    choosing where they can bond it, secure it, and have it kept in
    a merchantable, marketable, safe state.
        And then, if no action is made, if they don't prosecute for
    an illegal act or a concern of endangered species or invasive
    species, which are all legitimate concerns, the importer has a
    right to sue for performance after 30 days to get their wood
    either through part of a formal prosecution with specific
    charges and remedies, or released to them so they can supply
    their manufacturing processes.
        So, this is only a procedural fix that causes three, yes,
    three, separate regulatory agencies that exotic wood importers
    need to deal with to work on a timeline that matches the
    business needs to enforce or not enforce any laws they want to
    enforce, or to release the product so that it can go into
    commerce before it is damaged or depleted while being held in a
    government port.
        I support this Act. I don't think it is that complicated. I
    don't think it is going to lead to trafficking, or terrorism,
    or illegal logging. If the wood comes in and has any ties to
    any of those problems, if it has an invasive species in it, if
    it is something that could be released into the environment, I
    know the Lacey Act originally had to do with plant materials,
    such as mistletoe, Himalayan blackberry, things that have
    become invasive species in the United States, that needed to be
    controlled at the border. Kiln-dried lumber does not pose those
    types of threats.
        This is simply a protectionist racket, and it seems to be a
    tool for bureaucrats to gum up commerce. And we are trying to
    simply put timelines on this, and make a predictable, rational
    process for either getting problems surfaced and dealt with or
    getting the merchandise to the customer.
        I will yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

        Mr. Bentz. I thank Congressman Duarte for his testimony. I
    now recognize Congressman Pete Stauber for 5 minutes to discuss
    H.R. 6784.

        STATEMENT OF THE HON. PETE STAUBER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

        Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Chairman Bentz, and I want to thank
    you and Ranking Member Huffman, who, by the way, is my Tennis
    Caucus co-Chair, for convening this hearing today to consider
    my legislation, the ESA Flexibility Act.
        Last year marked the 50th anniversary of the Endangered
    Species Act. While it has been a noble effort to protect
    threatened and endangered species from extinction, it is clear
    today that the ESA is broken.
        Management of a species under the ESA was only ever
    supposed to be temporary. The ESA was intended to protect and
    rehabilitate species populations. And once a species is
    recovered, the intention is to have it delisted. But we all
    know that never happens, or almost never happens. Once a
    species is listed under the ESA, it basically stays on the list
    forever. Only between 2 to 3 percent of species ever listed
    under the ESA have made it off the list.
        And Mr. Chair, it was noted today that we should celebrate
    the good management practices under the ESA. The Ranking Member
    is going to have an opportunity to vote on my delisting of the
    gray wolf, because the science has said the gray wolf is
    recovered. So, I am looking forward to him supporting my
    delisting of the gray wolf.
        Today, the ESA has become a one-size-fits-all approach to
    species management. As we know, all species are not created
    equal, all habitats are not created equal, and all external
    threats are not created equal. That is why we need reforms that
    allow the right-sized, proper management of species listed
    under the ESA. My legislation is an important first step in
    doing just that.
        Currently, section 4(d) of the ESA provides the U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service
    the authority to promulgate flexible, species-specific rules
    for threatened species. These species-specific rules allow for
    better right-sized species management while having the smallest
    possible impact to communities near that species. These aren't
    rules that can be enacted at the snap of a finger. These
    section 4(d) rules still require the relevant agencies to
    undergo a formal rulemaking process, a process that follows the
    science and considers stakeholder input. Through this process
    we develop species-specific plans that make sense.
        My legislation builds upon the section 4(d) rules and gives
    the agencies authority to follow the same process for species
    that are listed as endangered under the ESA. This legislation
    simply provides our wildlife managers with a flexibility to
    enact more targeted protections when it makes sense. When the
    science tells us stricter protections are necessary, the
    agencies will continue to have the choice to enact those
    stricter protections.
        Again, I want to reiterate these 4(d) rules cannot be
    enacted on a whim. They must go through the regulatory process
    considering the science and notice and comment. And contrary to
    what my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle may claim,
    this policy isn't only being pushed by Republicans or industry.
    The underlying policy is supported by a broad swath of outside
    groups, including those typically aligned with extremist
    movements.
        I want to draw attention to a set of recommendations
    included in the September 21 report published by the University
    of California Irvine School of Law. Much of this report argues
    that we must take steps to tailor protections for species
    listed under the ESA. According to the report, experts
    consulted in developing the recommendations, and I quote,
    ``agreed that the services should not try to refine formal
    categories or imperilment. Instead, the agencies should
    recognize that there is a gradation of extinction risks within
    the existing threatened and endangered categories, and makes
    ESA decisions after considering where species lies on that
    gradation.''
        We need more tools to properly manage listed species, not
    less. The one-size-fits-all approach is broken, and I ask
    unanimous consent to enter into the hearing record this report
    from the University of California Irvine School of Law.
        And, again, I want to thank Chairman Bentz for holding this
    hearing today, as well as his support as an original co-sponsor
    of my legislation.
        Before I yield back, I would like to ask unanimous consent
    to enter into the record the UC Irvine report along with
    several statements and letters of support for my legislation,
    including from the Forest Resource Association, the National
    Association of Home Builders, the Associated Builders and
    Contractors, and the National Endangered Species Act Reform
    Coalition.

        Mr. Bentz. Without objection.

        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    The full document is available for viewing at:

    https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II13/20240214/116787/HHRG-
    118-II13-20240214-SD013.pdf

                                    ------

                            Statement for the Record
                     The Forest Resources Association (FRA)
                  Statement on the ESA Flexibility Act of 2023

        The ESA Flexibility Act is a commonsense fix to the Endangered
    Species Act (ESA), providing authority to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service (USFWS) to allow forest management practices to continue when
    they are not the reason a species is being listed as endangered under
    the ESA. An example is the listing of the northern long-eared bat and
    the soon-to-be-listed tricolored bat and little brown bat as
    endangered, whose populations are significantly declining, primarily
    due to white-nose syndrome. Well-managed forests maintain and create
    environments required for the survival and recovery of these bats, and
    listing these species as endangered may restrict active forest
    management. The ESA Flexibility Act would provide a tool the USFWS can
    use to allow the agency to avoid unnecessarily harming rural forest-
    based economies when species are listed as endangered under the ESA.

                                                     Tim O'Hara
                                                    FRA Vice President,
                                                     Government Affairs

        The Forest Resources Association (FRA) is the only national
    association to represent all sectors of the wood supply chain, with
    more than 350 member companies from the forest products industry. FRA
    promotes the interests of its members in the economic, efficient, and
    sustainable use of forest resources to produce products used by
    Americans every day. Our members include forest landowners, logging
    businesses, log haulers, consuming mills, associated businesses, and
    state forestry associations. FRA members are represented in 49 states
    and 377 congressional districts, and our membership provides for the
    livelihoods of nearly 926,000 families and contributes more than $325
    billion annually to the U.S. economy.

                                     ______

                     National Association of Home Builders

                                 Washington, DC

                                                  February 13, 2024

    Hon. Cliff Bentz, Chairman
    Hon. Jared Huffman, Ranking Member
    House Natural Resources Committee
    Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries
    1324 Longworth House Office Building
    Washington, DC 20515

        Dear Chairman Bentz and Ranking Member Huffman:

        On behalf of the more than 140,000 members of the National
    Association of Home Builders (NAHB), I am writing to convey our support
    for H.R. 6784, the ESA Flexibility Act, which allows the Secretary of
    the Interior to extend fit-for-purpose Section 4(d) rules to endangered
    species.

        Home builders seeking to build housing in an area occupied by
    threatened or endangered species, or designated as critical habitat,
    face a blunt regulatory tool known as the ``take'' prohibition. This
    broad instrument places sweeping restrictions on actions that may
    affect the species, does not promote proactive species conservation
    efforts for private parties, and fosters an untenable regulatory
    environment.

        As the United States confronts a severe shortage in housing supply,
    NAHB believes that it is fundamental to strike the appropriate balance
    between threatened and endangered species conservation, and housing
    production. Fit-for-purpose 4(d) rules help strike that balance. This
    tool has been successfully applied to threatened species like the
    Northern Long-Eared Bat, the Pacific Coast Salmon, California
    Gnatcatcher, and others. As a result, two objectives are accomplished:
    home builders have a clear and predictable regulatory process, and the
    protected species benefits from industry complying with appropriate
    conservations measures.

        Extending 4(d) rules to endangered species adds another
    conservation tool, which will ensure that endangered species remain
    protected, and provide private property owners with the clarity and
    certainty necessary under the ESA. For these reasons, NAHB encourages
    the Subcommittee to report out the ESA Flexibility Act favorably.

        Thank you for considering our views.

                Sincerely,

                                               Lake A. Coulson,
                                 Senior Vice President & Chief Lobbyist

                                     ______

                      Associated Builders and Contractors

                                 Washington, DC

                                                  February 13, 2024

    Hon. Cliff Bentz, Chairman
    Hon. Jared Huffman, Ranking Member
    House Natural Resources Committee
    Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries
    1324 Longworth House Office Building
    Washington, DC 20515

        Dear Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman and Members of the
    Committee on Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and
    Fisheries:

        On behalf of Associated Builders and Contractors, a national
    construction industry trade association with 68 chapters representing
    more than 23,000 members, I write today to thank you for holding a
    legislative hearing on H.R. 6784, the ESA Flexibility Act.
        ABC supports the ESA Flexibility Act, reintroduced by Reps. Pete
    Stauber, R-Minn., and Dan Newhouse, R-Wash., in the 118th Congress.
    Further, ABC is thankful for the subcommittee's continuation of the
    Western Caucus' examination of how the ESA is implemented by federal
    agencies and its practical impacts on the American people, how
    litigation is driving ESA decision-making and how success is defined
    under the ESA.
        ABC supports the Endangered Species Act's purpose of protecting
    species threatened with extinction and recognizes the need for science-
    based, data-driven actions that conserve those species and the habitats
    on which they depend. ABC knows that much-needed reforms to modernize
    the ESA and make ESA consultations more efficient and effective will be
    required as the Biden administration looks to implement over $1
    trillion in federal spending for critical infrastructure, energy and
    technology projects throughout the country.
        The ESA Flexibility Act gives the U.S. Department of the Interior
    and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service additional leeway when dealing with
    species listed as endangered under the ESA. While these agencies are
    already granted flexibility with species deemed ``threatened,'' this
    bill would allow for fit-for-purpose protections of ``endangered''
    species while reducing undue regulatory burdens on development. The ESA
    Flexibility Act will allow for better management of species listed as
    endangered under the Endangered Species Act, such as the ABC-supported
    delisting of the northern long-eared bat.
        ABC encourages the consideration of the ESA Flexibility Act and
    further efforts to improve and modernize the ESA to better serve our
    nation's communities and endangered species. ABC members stand ready
    for the opportunity to build and maintain America's infrastructure to
    the benefit of the communities that it will serve and appreciates your
    consideration of our concerns.

                Sincerely,

                                            Kristen Swearingen,
                        Vice President, Legislative & Political Affairs

                                     ______

                            Statement for the Record
                National Endangered Species Act Reform Coalition
                                    (NESARC)
                       House Natural Resources Committee
                   Water, Wildlife and Fisheries Subcommittee
                     Legislative Hearing--February 14, 2024

            Species-specific rules issued under section 4(d) of the
            Endangered Species Act currently allow for the targeted and
            customized application of the Act's prohibitions to promote the
            conservation of threatened species. By extending the use of
            4(d) rules to cover endangered species, the Secretaries would
            have increased flexibility to apply the appropriate protections
            to address threats to the status of these species. NESARC
            supports expanding the use of this important tool for more
            precise protection of our nation's fish, wildlife, and plant
            populations.

                                     ______

        Mr. Bentz. I now recognize Congressman Soto for 5 minutes
    to discuss H.R. 3119.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. DARREN SOTO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                       FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

        Mr. Soto. Thank you, Chairman Bentz, for putting our bill
    on the agenda today, the Manatee Semipostal Stamp. I also want
    to thank Ranking Member Huffman for his support, as well. H.R.
    3119 is a bipartisan bill between myself and Representative
    Gonzalez-Colon and Wasserman Schultz.
        The Florida manatee is an iconic species, one that not only
    are we very proud about in Florida, but across the nation. And
    it has been a large mammal that has faced certain threats over
    the years, being endangered and then threatened. We had a tough
    couple of years, Mr. Chairman, with an unusual mortality event
    2 years ago, where we lost a lot of manatee. But I am so proud
    of the work of Democrats and Republicans coming together, both
    on the Federal level and on the state level, to really help
    restore the seagrass and Indian River lagoon and in other areas
    that are absolutely critical to the survival of the manatee.
        Also, the manatee is a large mammal. Its health is not only
    important in itself, but it is also indicative of a healthy
    ecosystem. This is a huge area for recreational fishing, for
    tourism, for many folks who go to our beaches, and so doing
    this work helps both economically and environmentally to save
    this incredible species.
        The good news is, after we filed this bill, the U.S. Postal
    Service actually announced a manatee stamp, saving us the cost
    of having to put together a design. But the funding does not go
    to helping manatees, so the bill is still necessary to fulfill
    the bipartisan intent of the sponsors to help with conservation
    for the manatee habitat.
        So, I appreciate the time today to be able to discuss our
    important bill for Florida.

        Mr. Bentz. I thank Congressman Soto for his testimony. I
    now recognize Congresswoman Michelle Fischbach for 5 minutes to
    discuss H.R. 6854.

     STATEMENT OF THE HON. MICHELLE FISCHBACH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

        Mrs. Fischbach. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank the Chair
    and the Ranking Member for the opportunity to speak here today.
    And thank you to Dr. Rohwer for being here and speaking in
    support of the bill, the Habitat Enhancement Now, or the HEN
    Act.
        Mr. Chair, the duck populations are declining across the
    country. In a recent study, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    surveyed an area over the course of a year and found that
    habitat conditions for waterfowl have declined over a large
    portion of that area. They found that the total duck population
    declined, with mallard populations 18 percent below 2022
    estimates and 23 percent below long-term averages. This is a
    huge concern for people across the country, including in my
    district in Minnesota, where migratory birds are an important
    part of our ecosystem and where waterfowl hunting is a part of
    tradition and a part of our culture.
        True sportsmen and hunters are conservationists who
    understand the importance of maintaining healthy waterfowl
    population levels. We know there is a link between population
    numbers and habitat condition, and conservation groups like
    Delta Waterfowl here have been working to restore this habitat.
    They have been installing hen houses across the country, which
    has been found to be the most cost-effective way to increase
    mallard production. I am grateful for everything that they have
    accomplished, and I want to build on their work by
    incentivizing voluntary stakeholders to play a role in
    revitalizing these populations, and that is why I introduced
    the HEN Act.
        The HEN Act sets up two competitive grant programs for
    state, local, and tribal governments, as well as non-profits
    and individuals. Each authorizes $1.5 million per year for 5
    years, and recognizes the importance of providing landowners
    the resources and incentives to protect migratory birds'
    habitats and wetlands.
        The Hen House Grant Program is for the purpose of placing,
    building, and maintaining hen houses. This program will be
    carried out in the Prairie Pothole Region of the country, which
    includes western Minnesota. The Breeding Habitat Grant Program
    will be targeted in California to develop waterfowl habitats
    like brood ponds and nesting cover in order to enhance
    migratory waterfowl breeding. These programs will be offset by
    moving funds from the department operations with the Department
    of the Interior's Office of the Secretary.
        I would like to thank all of the great partners that I have
    had in introducing this legislation, including Mr. Thompson and
    Mr. LaMalfa. I would also like to thank the numerous
    conservation groups who have come out in support of this
    legislation.
        And, Mr. Chair, I would like to enter into the record a
    letter of support from a number of these conservation groups
    outlining the importance of this bill.
        Mr. Bentz. Without objection.

        [The information follows:]
                                               February 9, 2024

    Re: Cosponsor Request: Habitat Enhancement Now Act (HEN Act)

        Dear Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus Member:

        The undersigned organizations which represent millions of hunters,
    anglers, wildlife professionals, and outdoor enthusiasts are writing to
    express our support for the Habitat Enhancement Now Act (HEN Act) (H.R.
    6854). Introduced by Representatives Michelle Fischbach, Mike Thompson,
    and Doug LaMalfa, this legislation would provide funding for the
    enhancement of duck production through the installation and maintenance
    of hen houses and the retention of nesting and brood habitat.
        Decades of research have proven that hen house nesting structures
    cost-effectively increase mallard nest success by protecting hens and
    their eggs from predators. On the prairies, mallards consistently use
    hen houses at high rates and experience up to 12 times greater nest
    success over mallards that nest in nearby upland grass cover.
        The HEN Act will authorize $1.5 million in competitive grant
    funding each year for 5 years. This relatively small investment would
    result in the construction, installation, and maintenance of nearly
    20,000 hen houses resulting in the production of tens of thousands of
    additional mallards throughout the country.
        Breeding duck populations in California face ever-increasing
    pressure from wetland habitat loss. The HEN Act will authorize an
    additional $1.5 million annually for 5 years to incentivize willing
    landowners to establish nesting cover and create essential brood
    habitat on their property in California.
        In whole this investment will enhance duck production and the fall
    flight for all four flyways.
        For these reasons, we strongly support the Habitat Enhancement Now
    Act (HEN Act) (H.R. 6854). Please contact Sean Murphy in Representative
    Fischbach's office or Eric Hoffman in Representative Thompson's office
    to be added as a co-sponsor.
        Thank you for your leadership and continued service on behalf of
    America's outdoor heritage.

                Sincerely,

            Backcountry Hunters &
            Anglers                       North American Grouse Partnership

            Boone and Crockett Club       Safari Club International

            California Waterfowl
            Association                   Theodore Roosevelt Conservation
                                          Partnership

            Congressional Sportsmen's
            Foundation                    Whitetails Unlimited

            Conservation Force            Wild Sheep Foundation

            Delta Waterfowl               Wildlife Forever

            Houston Safari Club

                                     ______

        Mrs. Fischbach. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And as I said,
    conservation and hunting are key pieces of American and
    Minnesotan history, and I am committed to doing what I can to
    support sportsmen and women. This bill is a common-sense way to
    bolster duck populations for generations of future outdoor
    enthusiasts.
        And I want to thank my colleagues for allowing me to join
    the Committee today. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back.

        Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Congresswoman Fischbach. And I thank
    all the Members for their testimony. I will now introduce our
    second panel.
        Mr. Stephen Guertin, Deputy Director for Program Management
    and Policy with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in
    Washington, DC, welcome back; Dr. Frank Rohwer, President and
    Chief Scientist of Delta Waterfowl Foundation in Bismarck,
    North Dakota; Mr. Jordan McIlvain, Vice President of the Alan
    McIlvain Company in Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania; Mr. Alexander
    von Bismarck, Executive Director of the Environmental
    Investigation Agency in Washington, DC; and Mr. Ray Higgins,
    Executive Vice President of the Minnesota Timber Producers
    Association in Duluth, Minnesota.
        With that, I remind the witnesses that under Committee
    Rules, they must limit their oral statements to 5 minutes, but
    their entire statement will appear in the hearing record.
        To begin your testimony, please press the ``on'' button on
    the microphone.
        We use timing lights. When you begin, the light will turn
    green. When you have 1 minute remaining, the light will turn
    yellow. And at the end of the 5 minutes, the light will turn
    red, and I will ask you to complete your statement.
        I will also allow all witnesses to testify before Member
    questioning.
        I now recognize Mr. Guertin for 5 minutes.

        STATEMENT OF STEVE GUERTIN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR PROGRAM
        MANAGEMENT AND POLICY, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE,
                             WASHINGTON, DC

        Mr. Guertin. Good morning Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member
    Huffman, and members of the Subcommittee. I am Steve Guertin,
    Deputy Director for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and I
    appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today on four
    bills before the Subcommittee.
        H.R. 3119 would require the U.S. Postal Service to issue a
    semipostal stamp to support ongoing manatee conservation
    efforts. The Service has been working closely with the Florida
    Fish and Wildlife Commission, Puerto Rico Department of
    Environment and Natural Resources, and other partners to
    conserve manatee habitat and address threats to manatee
    populations. This legislation would provide supplemental
    funding for those efforts. We support the goals of H.R. 3119,
    with a few modifications to ensure this legislation is in line
    with recommendations from the Government Accountability Office
    on issuing semipostal stamps.
        H.R. 6784 would amend the Endangered Species Act to change
    how species listed under the Act are protected. The Service
    opposes the proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act
    which would undermine our ability to protect the species at
    greatest risk of extinction.
        Congress passed the Endangered Species Act in response to
    extinctions and declines in an alarming number of fish,
    wildlife, and plant species. Under the Act, endangered species
    are afforded the highest level of protections because they are
    in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion
    of their range. In contrast, threatened species are those
    species that are likely to become endangered in the foreseeable
    future.
        Under the ESA, we have additional flexibility to issue a
    4(d) rule to exempt from the ESAs take prohibitions activities
    that are likely to have minimal impact on the species' overall
    survival. That flexibility is appropriate for a species that is
    imperiled, but not at imminent risk of extinction. The
    legislation would dilute protections for endangered species by
    authorizing the Secretary to issue 4(d) rules not only for
    threatened species, but also endangered.
        It would also effectively result in no distinction between
    endangered and threatened species regarding the prohibited
    actions under section 9. Either category of listed species
    could receive full or partial protections.
        Further complicating recovery efforts, the legislation
    would also lead to a patchwork of different regulatory
    protections, which would create confusion for the public and
    undermine our ability to support recovery.
        We oppose this legislation and its proposed changes to the
    treatment of endangered species.
        H.R. 6854 would establish two new grant programs to sustain
    populations of migratory waterfowl. We support the goals of
    this legislation, but would welcome the opportunity to work
    with the Subcommittee on this legislation and discuss similar
    work being done under the North American Wetlands Conservation
    Act, Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, and state and
    tribal wildlife grant programs.
        Last, H.R. 7157 would amend the Lacey Act to significantly
    modify how the Service and other Federal agencies process
    shipments coming into the country. We oppose this legislation,
    and believe it would interfere with our ability to facilitate
    legal and timely movement of commerce, combat the illegal
    wildlife trade, and prevent the introduction and spread of
    injurious species to the country. The deadlines under the
    legislation will be challenging to meet, and could result in
    shipments being unnecessarily detained or seized while
    inspectors obtain the information they need to evaluate the
    shipment.
        Additionally, we are concerned that several of the
    provisions requiring the Service to share information with
    importers would impede or undermine investigations unless we
    don't have the authority to move detained shipments to private
    bonded facilities, and are concerned that movement of these
    shipments would run the risk of introducing and dispersing
    undetected invasive species which can cause great harm to
    ecosystems and the economy.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. We
    appreciate your interest in our conservation work, the
    Endangered Species Act, and Lacey Act implementation, and we
    would be pleased to answer any questions the Committee has.
    Thank you.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Guertin follows:]
    Prepared Statement of Stephen Guertin, Deputy Director for Policy, U.S.
             Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior
               on H.R. 3119, H.R. 6784, H.R. 6854, and H.R. 7157

    Introduction

        Good morning, Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and Members
    of the Subcommittee. I am Stephen Guertin, Deputy Director for Policy
    for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) within the Department
    of the Interior (Department). I appreciate the opportunity to testify
    before you today on four bills related to funding for manatee
    conservation, the Endangered Species Act (ESA), waterfowl conservation,
    and Lacey Act implementation.
        The mission of the Service is working with others to conserve,
    protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for
    the continuing benefit of the American people. The Service's efforts to
    achieve this mission span a wide variety of programs, including those
    established to conserve marine mammals, recover ESA-listed species,
    conserve migratory birds, protect against the spread of injurious
    species, and regulate wildlife trade. A number of these programs are
    relevant to the legislation before the Subcommittee today.
    Manatee Conservation

        The Service oversees the protection of the West Indian manatee
    under both the ESA and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. The Service
    works with federal, state, and private sector partners to protect
    manatees by performing project consultations under Section 7 of the
    ESA, assessing population status and trends, preparing and publishing
    stock assessments, and facilitating the development and implementation
    of conservation plans. The West Indian manatee is a charismatic marine
    mammal comprised of two subspecies, the Antillean manatee and the
    Florida manatee. The West Indian manatee can be found in coastal and
    riverine areas of North America, Central America, and South America and
    some islands in the Caribbean basin. They prefer habitats with plenty
    of submerged aquatic vegetation, a source of freshwater, and protection
    from severe wave action. While the manatee has no natural predators,
    they face threats from collisions with watercraft, entrapments in water
    control structures, entanglement or ingestion of fishing gear or marine
    debris, pollution, and loss of habitat.
    Endangered Species Act

        The Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) share
    primary responsibility for implementation of the ESA. In enacting the
    ESA 50 years ago, Congress set a public policy for helping recover
    endangered and threatened species, with the added benefit of proactive
    conservation to help prevent additional species from needing to be
    listed. Protections provided under the ESA can also help address the
    loss of biodiversity and contribute to preventing species extinctions.
    Almost every species that has been protected by the ESA is still with
    us today, and hundreds are on the path to recovery. The original
    impetus of the ESA was the extinction and decline of an alarming number
    of fish, wildlife, and plant species, and the recognition that these
    species are of ecological, economic, educational, recreational,
    cultural, esthetic, and scientific value to the nation and its people.
    The range of threats to biodiversity and conservation of species have
    only increased since the law's passage. Those species listed as
    endangered are at the highest level of risk and require greatest
    protection. The protections afforded endangered species should not be
    weakened or diminished.
    Waterfowl Conservation

        Migratory bird populations and their habitats are facing increasing
    challenges, including development, drought, extreme temperatures, and
    wildfires. To address this, the Service is working across our programs
    to conserve waterfowl populations and improve waterfowl habitat. Grants
    are being provided to states and Tribes for wildlife restoration, key
    national wildlife refuges are actively managed for waterfowl
    populations, and the Service's Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program
    works with willing private landowners in all 50 states and territories
    to support habitat restoration and enhancement projects that benefit
    waterfowl and other species. Notably, the Service administers the North
    American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA), which has provided more
    than $2.1 billion in grants for over 3,300 projects in the United
    States, Canada, and Mexico since 1991. Last year alone, NAWCA leveraged
    more than $74.1 million in partner funds with a $39.4 million
    investment to conserve, restore or enhance more than 106,600 acres of
    wetlands and associated upland habitats for waterfowl.
    Lacey Act Implementation

        In implementing the Lacey Act, the Service is responsible for
    prohibiting the importation of any fish, wildlife, or plants taken,
    possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law, treaty, or
    regulation of the United States, any Tribal law, or foreign law. We
    collaborate closely with other federal agencies, including NMFS, the
    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), and Customs and
    Border Patrol (CBP). The Service's Fish and Aquatic Conservation (FAC)
    program evaluates and lists injurious wildlife under the Lacey Act. The
    Service also co-chairs the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, which
    coordinates interagency, national initiatives to prevent the
    introduction of invasive and injurious species into our nation's
    ecosystems. The Service's Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) enforces the
    Lacey Act at the border. Every day at ports of entry, OLE inspects
    imports and exports and monitors wildlife trade for suspected Lacey Act
    violations. Ensuring injurious and invasive species do not enter the
    United States is critical to protecting the health of native species,
    ecosystems, and humans. As the lead U.S. law enforcement agency on
    wildlife trafficking, the Service's OLE depends on its ability to
    thoroughly vet imports and exports to ensure compliance with the law.
        The Service appreciates the Subcommittee's interest in our mission.
    We offer the following comments on the four bills under consideration
    today and look forward to discussing our views with the Subcommittee.
    H.R. 3119, To provide for the issuance of a Manatee Semipostal Stamp

        H.R. 3119 would require the issuance of a semipostal stamp with the
    image of a manatee for purposes of conserving the species and its
    habitat in the United States. The legislation would direct funding from
    sales of the stamp to the Service for a period of at least two years to
    implement West Indian manatee conservation projects in Florida and
    Puerto Rico.
        In addition to the work described above, the Service is engaged in
    ongoing monitoring and response to Unusual Mortality Events (UMEs). In
    March 2021, a UME was declared along the Atlantic coast of Florida. The
    UME, which began in December 2020 and is still ongoing, is
    characterized by chronic malnutrition associated with the loss of
    foraging habitat in the Indian River Lagoon. Early data indicate over
    1,515 manatee deaths were recorded in the UME area between December 1,
    2020, and January 5, 2024. There were 205 manatee rescues in the same
    area during that time. The Service implemented a Joint Incident Command
    with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) in
    November 2021 to enhance and supplement existing efforts and
    partnerships and coordinate other response activities intended to
    support the UME investigation. Investigations into the UME are ongoing,
    and efforts are underway to develop projects that will improve water
    clarity, reduce algal blooms, and decrease the chance of future UMEs.
        Given the importance of long-term warm-water availability to the
    Florida manatee, the Service and FWC have been working cooperatively
    with partners and in 2020 finalized a Warm Water Habitat Action Plan.
    This key plan provides the framework for the development of regional
    warm-water networks as some industrial sources transition offline in
    the years to come. Currently, over 60 percent of Florida manatees
    overwinter at industrial warm water sites.
        In Puerto Rico, the Service consistently collaborates with the
    Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources (PRDNER)
    and other partners to manage the Antillean manatee population in Puerto
    Rico. Priorities include working to minimizing threats, in particular
    from watercraft collisions which have recently increased.
        In addition, the Service oversees the John H. Prescott Marine
    Mammal Rescue Assistance Grant Program, which provides funding to
    support the recovery, treatment, rehabilitation, and release of
    stranded marine mammals, as well as scientific research. To date, the
    Service has awarded more than $4 million in funding to conservation
    organizations and state agencies to support manatee conservation
    through the Prescott program. For the last two funding cycles, the
    Prescott Grant priorities for the Florida manatee have been UME-
    focused. The Caribbean Manatee Conservation Center, the only authorized
    manatee rehabilitation facility in Puerto Rico, has also received
    Prescott Grant funding to support their efforts for the Antillean
    manatee population in Puerto Rico. The PRDNER also received funding
    from the most recent funding cycle.
        Over 20 manatee rescue and rehabilitation partners are federally
    authorized by the Service to respond to manatees in distress and/or
    provide care and treatment, including one in Puerto Rico. This program,
    known as the Manatee Rescue and Rehabilitation Partnership, operates on
    a team approach, and in 2023, collaborated to rescue 147 manatees.
    Several new facility partners have been authorized to help with the
    increasing number of rescued manatees.
        The Service supports the goals of H.R. 3119. Funding generated from
    sales of a manatee semipostal stamp could provide additional resources
    for manatee conservation. The Service would welcome the opportunity to
    work with the sponsor to ensure that the legislation is consistent with
    recommendations in the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) 2005
    evaluation of semipostal stamps.\1\ These recommendations include
    annual reporting by the Postal Service and relevant federal agencies;
    involvement of partners to sustain semipostal stamp support; clear
    communication about how proceeds will be used; and efficient delivery
    and implementation of proceeds. The Service defers to the U.S. Postal
    Service on the operational and financial implications of H.R. 3119.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ U.S. Government Accountability Office, Factors Affecting Fund-
    Raising Stamp Sales Suggest Lessons Learned, September 2005, https://
    www.gao.gov/assets/gao-05-953.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 6784, ESA Flexibility Act

        H.R. 6784 would amend Sections 4(d) and 9(a) of the ESA to change
    how species listed as endangered under the ESA are protected. H.R. 6784
    provides that the Secretary can either issue a 4(d) rule to protect an
    endangered species or allow it to be protected by Section 9(a) of the
    ESA. The Service opposes H.R. 6784.
        For a species listed as threatened under the ESA, in some cases it
    is most appropriate to apply the full prohibitions afforded to
    endangered species under section 9 of the ESA (which outlines
    prohibited acts), along with a standard set of exceptions for the
    Service, NMFS, and state agencies to benefit threatened species. In
    other cases, the 4(d) rule may be tailored to provide additional
    exceptions and the Service may incentivize known beneficial actions for
    the species or remove prohibitions on forms of take that are considered
    inconsequential to the conservation of the species.
        However, the ESA consistently affords the highest level of
    protections to species of wildlife and plants that are listed as
    endangered. Under Section 9, it is unlawful to import or export, `take'
    (such as kill, wound, harm, capture, or harass), engage in commerce, or
    violate any regulation promulgated by the Secretary related to an
    endangered species of fish or wildlife.
        The differences between how threatened and endangered species are
    treated under the ESA are rooted in the difference in how close they
    are to being in danger of extinction. Under the ESA, the term
    ``endangered species'' means a ``species which is in danger of
    extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range''
    whereas a ``threatened species'' means ``any species which is likely to
    become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
    all or a significant portion of its range.'' The ESA follows the
    science-based and commonsense approach of providing the most
    comprehensive protection for the species most significantly and
    urgently at risk of extinction.
        H.R. 6784 would authorize the Service to provide less protection to
    endangered species through a 4(d) rule. This is an unnecessary
    weakening of the ESA. It would effectively result in no distinction
    between endangered and threatened species regarding the prohibited
    actions under Section 9, in that either category of listed species
    could receive full or partial protections. Further, the ESA provides
    the flexibility to permit activities that would normally be prohibited
    under section 9 of the ESA. The Service and NMFS have the authority to
    issue permits for activities that may result in take associated with
    scientific purposes, for enhancing propagation or survival of wildlife
    or plants, or for incidental taking of endangered wildlife.
        In addition, while species-specific 4(d) rules have a critical role
    to play in protections for threatened species, they require additional
    staffing and resources not required when applying the full suite of
    Section 9 prohibitions. The Administration recently published a
    proposed rule revising the Service's implementing regulations under
    Section 4(d), which would reinstate the ``blanket'' 4(d) rule option
    while continuing to allow for species-specific 4(d) rules for
    threatened species. The blanket rule option was previously in place
    between the 1970s and September 2019. Where appropriate, blanket 4(d)
    rule protections help prevent further declines in the species' status,
    and can also address situations where there is a heightened risk of
    population loss or an unknown cause of species declines. In addition,
    blanket rules require fewer resources and personnel hours to develop.
    These same considerations would apply to any species-specific 4(d)
    rules promulgated related to endangered species under H.R. 6784.
        H.R. 6784 also provides that any species-specific 4(d) rule issued
    by the Secretary for a threatened or endangered species would not be
    operable in a state that has a Section 6 cooperative agreement unless
    the state adopts the regulation. Absent state adoption of the
    regulation, the statutory Section 9 prohibitions would apply for
    endangered species. Creating a nationwide patchwork of different
    regulatory protections for endangered species would be confusing and
    inefficient for the regulated community and would undermine the
    Secretary's ability to achieve the conservation purposes of the ESA.
        Existing ESA protections are critical to stabilization,
    improvement, and recovery of endangered species. These are the species
    at greatest and most urgent risk of extinction, and once a species is
    extinct, it is gone forever. Maintaining these protections is important
    to retaining the strength and success of the ESA and carrying out its
    foundational purpose of preventing extinction and recovering listed
    species.
    H.R. 6854, Habitat Enhancement Now Act

        H.R. 6854 would establish two grant programs in the Department to
    sustain populations of migratory waterfowl through the protection,
    restoration, and management of habitat. The first grant program would
    award funding to place, build, and maintain hen houses in the prairie
    pothole region to improve nesting success rates. The second grant
    program would award funding to eligible entities in California to
    establish cover, create new brooding ponds, and carry out conservation
    activities on private lands. Each program would receive $1.5 million
    annually from Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 through FY 2028 out of amounts
    otherwise appropriated to the Office of the Secretary of the Interior.
        Waterfowl species are not only important for ecosystem function and
    biodiversity, but they are also drivers of wildlife-related recreation
    and bring significant economic benefits to local communities across the
    country. During the 2022-2023 hunting season, almost one million people
    participated in approximately 20 million waterfowl hunting trips,
    targeting desired species such as mallards, green-winged teals, wood
    ducks, and others. In addition to hunters, the Service estimates that
    96.3 million people participate in bird watching each year. Together,
    these groups were part of $394 billion in economic benefits to local
    communities from equipment, travel, licenses, and fees associated with
    outdoor recreation in 2022. Waterfowl enthusiasts are also important
    partners for conservation. Through sales of the Migratory Bird Hunting
    and Conservation Stamp, or Duck Stamp, the Service has conserved nearly
    six million acres of habitat through the National Wildlife Refuge
    System. In addition, the sales of guns, ammunition, and other outdoor
    equipment has provided more than $14 billion to a variety of
    conservation activities through the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife
    Restoration Act.
        The Service supports the goals of H.R. 6854 to improve habitat for
    migratory waterfowl and increase the resources available for
    conservation. However, the Service believes that the provisions of H.R.
    6854 are largely duplicative of existing efforts through NAWCA, the
    Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, and the State and Tribal
    Wildlife Grant Programs. NAWCA actively supports millions of dollars in
    grants to a large number of projects for the protection, restoration,
    and enhancement of wetlands and uplands habitat for associated
    migratory birds. Similarly, the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program,
    which originated in the prairie pothole region, works closely with a
    wide range of partners to support habitat restoration and enhancement
    with waterfowl in mind. Additionally, the State and Tribal Wildlife
    Grant Programs support a range of wildlife and habitat conservation
    activities, including for waterfowl. These existing conservation
    partnerships have been successful in advancing on the ground projects
    that benefit waterfowl, habitat, hunters, and bird watchers.
        One area of difference is that hen houses are not explicitly
    permitted to receive NAWCA grants, which focus on long-term
    conservation actions that benefit a wide variety of species. The
    Service notes that hen houses require frequent maintenance and are used
    primarily by mallards. The Service believes focusing on more permanent
    projects that support a broad range of waterfowl and associated species
    should be a greater priority for conservation. However, we would
    welcome the opportunity to discuss the eligibility of hen houses under
    existing sources of funding with the sponsor and the Subcommittee.
        Additionally, the Service is concerned that the funding amounts
    authorized for these programs would be insufficient. Many of the NAWCA
    Standard Grants are over $1.5 million for one project. Under H.R. 6854,
    the Service would either be limited in the number of projects that
    could be supported or would need to provide smaller grant amounts to
    reach a larger number of applicants. Finally, ensuring that funding
    under H.R. 6854 is additive, rather than drawing from existing
    programs, would maximize the impact of this legislation. We would
    welcome the opportunity to work with the sponsor and the Subcommittee
    on this legislation.
    H.R. 7157, Strengthen Wood Product Supply Chains Act

        H.R. 7157 would amend the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 (Lacey Act)
    to restructure how the Service, NMFS, and APHIS enforce Title 16 of the
    U.S. Code by imposing new procedures for the inspection and detention
    of fish, wildlife, or plants imported into the United States. Under
    H.R. 7157, the relevant Secretary of jurisdiction, depending on the
    species involved, has up to five days to inspect a shipment and either
    issue a detailed notice of detention to the importer or release the
    shipment. H.R. 7157 would require the Secretary to allow shipments to
    be transported to private bonded facilities within 10 days of being
    detained. It would also require the Secretary to release or seize
    detained imports within 30 days of detention. Additionally, H.R. 7157
    would require the Secretary to provide importers with the results of
    any tests conducted on detained imports, as well as sufficient
    information so as to allow the importer to replicate those tests. Under
    H.R. 7157 if a shipment is seized, the importer can request an
    administrative review and the Secretary would have 30 days to release
    the shipment or affirm the seizure. Finally, H.R. 7157 provides
    importers with the option to seek relief from the courts if the
    Secretary affirms a seizure or fails to meet the deadline to make such
    a determination. The Service opposes H.R. 7157.
        The Service's wildlife inspectors are at the front lines at our
    ports of entry and are responsible for enforcing our wildlife laws,
    including the Lacey Act. They track shipments, review permits, identify
    species, and request testing and analysis as needed. The Service has a
    responsibility to facilitate the legal wildlife trade and ensure the
    efficient and timely movement of commerce. We also have a
    responsibility to prevent the introduction and spread of injurious
    species into the U.S. and to combat the illegal wildlife trade. The
    Service is concerned that many of the provisions in H.R. 7157 would
    impede our ability to accomplish both sides of our mission, to
    facilitate legal commerce and protect our natural resources.
        The definition of detained merchandise in H.R. 7157 conflates
    inspection with detention of shipments. The Service does not need to
    detain shipments in order to inspect them. Detention of shipments is
    used by Service inspectors when additional information is needed to
    process a shipment. Additionally, H.R. 7157 would place strict
    deadlines on the Service that would be challenging to meet. The bill's
    5-day deadline to release or issue a detention notice for a shipment
    and the subsequent 30-day deadline to release or seize a shipment are
    insufficient. There are instances where an importer's application is
    incomplete and needs to be revised or additional information is needed.
    In other instances, the Service may need to obtain information from a
    foreign government, or may be processing molecular sampling, eDNA, and
    other specific analyses that take time. Under the deadlines of H.R.
    7157, this information may not be finalized in time, which could result
    in the unnecessary detention or seizure of shipments. The 30-day
    seizure deadline also conflicts with the current 60-day deadline for
    notification of a seizure that is required under the Civil Asset
    Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (CAFRA). H.R. 7157 also establishes a
    process that conflicts with the existing processes available for
    importers to petition the Secretary to reclaim seized property under
    CAFRA, and it is not clear whether the bill intends to supersede the
    requirements and processes under CAFRA.
        The Service is also concerned that several of the provisions in
    H.R. 7157 would impede or undermine investigations. H.R. 7157 would
    require the Service to notify an importer of the detention of a
    shipment, the reason for the detention, and a description of any tests
    being conducted. In an ongoing investigation, much of this would be
    considered sensitive information, and providing it to a possible
    subject of the investigation would compromise the Service's law
    enforcement efforts. Additionally, H.R. 7157 would require the Service
    to provide the results of any tests conducted on detained shipments as
    well as sufficient information so that the tests could be replicated.
    There is no precedent for requiring federal law enforcement agencies to
    provide lab results to importers outside of legal proceedings and doing
    so could risk providing evidence to bad actors ahead of a criminal
    investigation. Further, H.R. 7157 does not distinguish separate
    processes for civil and criminal matters. As such, under H.R. 7157, an
    entity could potentially file a civil claim for the release of a
    shipment while a criminal investigation is ongoing.
        Finally, the Service lacks the authority to move detained shipments
    to bonded facilities and has concerns about this provision. Only CBP
    can authorize transfers of imports under their facilities to other
    bonded facilities. While the Service understands that the cost
    associated with demurrage and detention at ports can strain importers,
    allowing shipments to be relocated to locations outside of the control
    of the U.S. is contrary to the intent behind the Lacey Act and runs the
    risk of introducing and dispersing undetected invasive or injurious
    organisms into our ecosystems absent proper clearance at ports of
    entry. Additionally, allowing shipments to move to a different
    location, pre-seizure would create an added layer of complexity in
    enforcement.
        The Service would welcome the opportunity to discuss the intent of
    the legislation with the sponsor and the Subcommittee to better
    understand how the Service and our partner agencies can better work
    with importers to ensure the successful and safe movement of goods.
    Conclusion

        The Service appreciates the Subcommittee's interest in funding for
    manatee conservation, the ESA, waterfowl conservation, and Lacey Act
    implementation. We welcome the opportunity to work with the sponsors
    and Subcommittee on the four bills under consideration today.

                                     ______

        Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Guertin. I now recognize Dr.
    Rohwer for 5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF FRANK ROHWER, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF SCIENTIST, DELTA
              WATERFOWL FOUNDATION, BISMARCK, NORTH DAKOTA

        Dr. Rohwer. Thank you, Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member
    Huffman, and members of the Committee for allowing me to be
    here and testify. My name is Frank Rohwer. I am President and
    Chief Scientist for Delta Waterfowl. And I can assure you,
    Delta is 100 percent behind this HEN Act.
        As you know, the HEN Act proposes to provide grant funding
    to create hen houses, to install hen houses throughout the
    Prairie Pothole Region, and also to protect brood water,
    particularly in California.
        I have been a waterfowl biologist for 50 years now, and I
    can assure you that waterfowl populations are driven by what
    happens on the breeding grounds. So, producing ducks is really
    important if you care about duck populations. We know from tons
    of research that populations of ducks are not driven by
    hunting. They are not driven by the two migrations or winter
    mortality. It is all about what happens on the breeding
    grounds, so that is why I am excited about this bill.
        For 40 years, we have known that breeding grounds are
    declining. We are losing wetlands. And with the intensification
    of agriculture, we get greater habitat fragmentation, a changed
    predator community. And it is tough for ducks to survive. The
    vast majority of eggs laid in the Prairie Pothole Region are
    eaten by predators. So, if we want to improve duck populations
    we have to work on the breeding grounds, and we really need to
    focus on improving hatch rates.
        For 40 years, that is the research I have been doing,
    trying to figure out how do we help ducks escape the predators
    that now occur on the prairies. And one of the cool things is
    in the 1990s we discovered these crazy hen houses. They are
    just tube structures. You put them on a post in a wetland. Most
    of these wetlands are privately owned. And they really work,
    and they work for two reasons. First, mallards love them, and
    jump in these things and lay eggs.
        And the second really impressive thing is that the eggs
    actually hatch. I have seen nest success go from below 2
    percent for mallards that nest on the ground in the prairies to
    nesting in hen houses, and that is a phenomenal increase. We
    typically see a tenfold increase in hatch rates when mallards
    nest in hen houses. So, that is super beneficial to mallards.
    It is by far, as Congressman Fischbach mentioned, the most
    cost-effective way to increase mallard numbers.
        So, that is half of it. That is the hen house stuff in the
    prairies. The other half is focused on California. And
    California is a crazy place. Twenty-five percent of North
    American waterfowl, all the waterfowl in North America, winter
    in California, primarily in the Central Valley. If you have
    been there, you look at it and you say that is insane. This is
    an area of really intense agriculture. And you would think,
    naturally, that, OK, those mallards come from Saskatchewan,
    Alberta, Alaska. That is not at all the case. Seventy percent
    of the mallards in California are locally produced.
        But they are having a really tough time. Populations have
    declined in the prairies. Populations have really declined in
    California. And we know that the limiting factor in California
    is brood water. So, this bill that focuses on an incentive
    program for private landowners is really valuable.
        And what is really cool is California waterfowl and the
    California Rice Commission, they have both done a bunch of work
    to show that private landowners are readily willing to adopt
    these programs that improve brood water. If you don't have
    water in June and July, ducklings just can't survive. So, I
    think the HEN Act is really cool because it does two things
    that are really cost-effective ways to help duck populations.
        And I agree completely with Congressman Fischbach that duck
    hunting is a way of life throughout California and Minnesota
    down to Louisiana. So, I am excited about this.
        I thank the sponsors of this bill, and at this point I will
    yield. Thank you.

        [The prepared statement of Dr. Rohwer follows:]
    Prepared Statement of Dr. Frank Rohwer, President and Chief Scientist,
                                Delta Waterfowl
                                  on H.R. 6854

        Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity today to provide testimony
    on H.R. 6854, the HEN Act. My name is Dr. Frank Rohwer and I am the
    President and Chief Scientist at Delta Waterfowl. I am here today to
    express Delta's strong support for the HEN ACT and to thank
    Congresswoman Fischbach, Congressman LaMalfa, and Congressman Thompson
    for their leadership on this critical piece of legislation. As you
    know, the HEN Act would provide funding for the enhancement of duck
    production through the installation and maintenance of hen houses and
    the retention of nesting and brood habitat.
    Delta Waterfowl

        Founded in 1911, Delta Waterfowl is The Duck Hunters Organization,
    a leading conservation group founded at the famed Delta Marsh in
    Manitoba. Its U.S. headquarters is in Bismarck, North Dakota.
    Historically, Delta's work was intensely focused on researching the key
    issues facing ducks, geese and their habitat. Today, we continue to
    conduct high quality scientific research while also working to produce
    ducks through intensive management programs and conservation of
    breeding duck habitat. We also work to ensure the future of waterfowl
    hunting through a variety of hunter recruitment and retention
    activities.
        I have had the opportunity to combine my true loves--duck hunting,
    duck science and duck management--throughout my professional career. As
    a kid, I was exposed to the wonders of the Chesapeake Bay, and the
    large flights of ducks that wintered there. I had the opportunity to
    follow the ducks west to Kansas in pursuit of my undergraduate degree.
    At that same time, I was exposed to the Prairie Pothole Region and the
    great Manitoba marshes. Surrounded by brilliant men and women answering
    some of the most pressing questions facing ducks and their habitat, I
    began to learn about what drives duck populations on the prairies. And
    while I have served in academic settings across the United States, my
    desire to be with the ducks always brought me back to the prairies-for
    a long stint as Delta's Scientific Director and finally in my capacity
    as President and Chief Scientist, a position I have held for the past
    twelve years.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Recipe for Success

        This journey revealed some very simple, fundamental concepts that
    drive duck production on the prairies. Breeding ducks need an abundance
    of small, shallow wetlands--the potholes you have heard about--to
    attract them to the best available landscapes and serve as nurseries
    for their broods. If landscapes have abundant wetlands, and frankly we
    have far fewer today than we had even twenty years ago, the job of
    waterfowl managers is to ensure that duck eggs hatch and ducklings
    fledge. All other factors that influence duck populations including
    hunting harvest, predation during the nonbreeding season, and diseases,
    all pale in comparison to the impact and importance of the very brief
    three to four month breeding season.
        In fact, research by Dr. Hoekman documented that this small
    fraction of the annual cycle of a mallard is where 90% of the events
    occur that ultimately determine the size of the mallard fall flight
    that migrate down the flyways. It is settling on those small prairie
    ponds, hatching nests, raising broods and females surviving the
    breeding season that are the big drivers in duck populations.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Ducks in Need

        The challenge is that we as people have made substantial changes to
    the prairies which have diminished the reproductive potential of ducks.
    We have drained wetlands and we have plowed up the vast tall, mixed,
    and short grass prairies which historically provided the nesting cover
    for females and their eggs. And one more subtle and less described
    change is the extirpation of large predators and thus creating an
    ecological niche for smaller more generalist predators. Of course, this
    fueled agricultural growth in the U.S. and Canada, creating food
    security and substantial economic activity, but it did come at a cost
    to ducks.
        The prairie landscape we are managing today is largely a highly
    fragmented one; with a fraction of the nesting cover and as
    acknowledged earlier, far fewer wetlands. Additionally, the
    characteristics of this landscape make for highly efficient foraging
    for today's predator community. It is this confluence of habitat and
    predator community change that has resulted in far lower nest success
    than witnessed one hundred years ago. Hoekman noted that nest success
    was the single greatest contributor to the annual change in mallard
    populations, so this decline in nest success comes with real
    consequences in duck populations. In fact, areas where I have worked
    throughout my career in southwestern Manitoba, have mallard nest
    success chronically below 10% and we have witnessed nest success under
    1%, far below what is needed to support strong populations of ducks.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Hen Houses

        It was in light of the historic decline in nest success and the
    observations of generations of Delta students working on the breeding
    grounds, that it became abundantly clear that many landscapes needed
    extra tools to ensure duck production occurred. In the early 1990s
    Delta began testing what is today known as the Hen House. Members of
    the Committee have likely seen or heard of the success of the wood duck
    box to aid in the restoration of the wood duck population, and Hen
    Houses are a very similar concept. Originally used in Europe, these
    nest tunnels, placed in prairie marshes offer a female mallard a place
    to safely nest away from predators.
        Delta has published numerous studies on the efficacy of Hen Houses
    back to the early 1990s and my written testimony will provide a number
    of independent peer reviewed research papers which document the usage
    and nest success of Hen Houses across a variety of areas of the
    breeding grounds. Overall, nest success averages over 60% in Hen Houses
    in comparison with the nest success values in the uplands of frequently
    under 5%. This is 12 times increase in nest success--a very significant
    net gain in ducks produced.
        Delta targets Hen Houses to those landscapes where wetland and
    mallard breeding densities are high and where nest success is modeled
    to be low, such as highly fragmented landscapes or the prairie
    parklands of Canada. This strategy allows for us to generate the most
    significant biological return in ducks produced but also do so in the
    most cost-effective manner. At authorized funding levels provided in
    the Hen Act, Delta or other contractors could install over 19,730 Hen
    Houses and produce over 440,000 mallards over the 10-year life span of
    the nest structures.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Pacific Flyway

        Moving west, mallards are facing similar challenges in the Central
    Valley of California. Loss of historic wetlands has been extensive
    there as well. Yet, the extensive rice farming in the region has
    provided both breeding and wintering waterfowl with surrogate wetland
    habitat, a truly symbiotic relationship between the region's rice
    producers and waterfowl.
        The landscapes in the Central Valley though continue to evolve.
    Factors such as drought, which leads to less rice production, and the
    increasing amount of land converted from seasonal crops, like rice and
    other grains, to orchards has reduced the amount of available breeding
    habitat. This change has resulted in decreased reproductive potential
    of local breeding ducks in California like mallards, gadwall, cinnamon
    teal and others. As a result, additional tools are needed to provide
    breeding ducks places to nest and rear their broods.
        The best available science in California shows that breeding ducks
    need more brood habitat--small brood ponds and the seasonal flooding of
    these ponds and the establishment of nesting cover. Work by our
    partners like the California Waterfowl Association and the California
    Rice Commission has shown that there is strong demand from willing
    landowners for incentivized approaches for them to work on their lands
    and within their agricultural operations to provide this much needed
    habitat.
        As a lifelong waterfowl scientist, as a dedicated conservationist,
    and as a duck hunter, I am confident that the tools provided by the HEN
    Act represent a new, incremental way to help enhance duck production in
    a complementary way to the many sources of support for habitat
    conservation, restoration, and creation. It will take this full
    complement of approaches and a wide array of partners to ensure the
    large fall flights of ducks we all desire.
        We greatly appreciate the leadership of Representative Fischbach,
    Representative LaMalfa and Representative Thompson for the introduction
    of the HEN Act and we appreciate the Committees due consideration and
    approval of this needed legislation.
    Scientific References

    Artmann, M.J., I.J. Ball, and T.W. Arnold. 2001. Influence of perennial
    upland cover on occupancy of nesting structures by mallards in
    northeastern North Dakota. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:232-238.

    Beauchamp, W.D., R.R. Koford, T.D. Nudds, et al. 1996. Long-term
    declines in nest success of prairie ducks. Journal of Wildlife
    Management 60:247-257.

    Chouinard, M.D., R.M. Kaminski, P.D. Gerard, and S.J. Dinsmore. 2005.
    Experimental evaluation of duck nesting structures in prairie parkland
    Canada. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33: 1321-1329.

    Coulton, D.W. and R.G. Clark. 2008. An integrated capture-recapture and
    stable-isotope approach to modeling sources of population rescue. The
    Auk 125:923-931.

    Eskowich, K.D., D. McKinnon, G. Brewster, and K. Belcher. 1998.
    Preference and use of nest baskets and nest tunnels by mallards in the
    parkland of Saskatchewan. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26:881-885.

    Hoekman, S.T., L.S. Mills, D.W. Howerter, et al. 2002. Sensitivity
    analysis of the life cycle of midcontinent mallards. Journal of
    Wildlife Management 66:883-900.

    Mammenga, P.W., L.D. Flake, M.E. Grovijahn, et al. 2007. Mallard use of
    elevated nesting structures: 15 years of management in eastern South
    Dakota. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre, and
    South Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station, Brookings, Bulletin 752.

    Stafford, J.D., L.D. Flake, and P.W. Mammenga. 2002. Survival of
    mallard broods and ducklings departing overwater nesting structures in
    eastern South Dakota. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30:327-336.

    Zicus, M.C, D.P. Rave, J.R. Fieberg. 2006. Cost-effectiveness of
    single-versus double-cylinder over-water nest structures. Wildlife
    Society Bulletin 34:647-655.

                                     ______

        Mr. Bentz. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. McIlvain for 5
    minutes.

      STATEMENT OF JORDAN McILVAIN, VICE PRESIDENT, ALAN McILVAIN
                   COMPANY, MARCUS HOOK, PENNSYLVANIA

        Mr. McIlvain. Good morning, and happy Valentine's Day,
    Chairman Westerman, Ranking Member Grijalva, Chairman Bentz,
    Ranking Member Huffman, and distinguished members of the
    Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries. My name is
    Jordan McIlvain, and I am the Vice President of the Alan
    McIlvain Company of Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania, a family-owned-
    and-operated hardwood lumber supplier which represents 87 U.S.
    jobs.
        Founded in 1798, I am now part of the seventh generation of
    McIlvains to supply U.S. customers with both domestic and
    imported hardwoods. Thank you for the opportunity to submit
    testimony today on Representatives Duarte and Costa's bill,
    H.R. 7157, the Strengthen Wood Product Supply Chains Act.
        The wood products industry is a critical economic driver in
    many of the states represented on the Subcommittee today,
    including Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Florida,
    Louisiana, Michigan, Oregon, Virginia, and, of course, my home
    state of Pennsylvania, not to mention many others.
        First, I would like to share my deep personal and
    professional commitment to the Lacey Act. Long before the Act
    was expanded to cover wood products in the 2008 farm bill, we
    put processes in place to ensure we source only legal wood
    products from reputable wood suppliers, whether that is from
    West Virginia or West Africa. We tailor our due diligence to
    the individual species, product, and country to mitigate the
    risk of any illegal material entering our supply chain. As
    someone who fully supports the intent of the Lacey Act, I
    believe I can bring an on-the-ground perspective to the
    discussion of H.R. 7157.
        The bill would make Lacey Act compliance more clear for
    American companies who still allow for the prosecution of bad
    actors. Over and over again my industry colleagues tell me
    that, even after all the staff time and resources they invest
    in supply chain management, they have shipments that are held,
    in some cases almost indefinitely, due to possible Lacey Act
    violations. Once detained, information about why a shipment is
    being held is rarely communicated, much less how long officials
    expect it to be detained or what information could assist in
    resolution.
        As an importer, I want to help Federal agencies catch
    criminals. However, the vast majority of holds are resolved
    after minor paperwork issues are addressed and the shipment is
    released into commerce. In these cases of delays, demurrage can
    seem punitive, starting at $500 and going up to $1,000. In some
    cases, demurrage becomes so prohibitively expensive that the
    importer relinquishes their rights to the product and allows it
    to be destroyed, never knowing what they allegedly did wrong.
        More than that, an essential part of a strong due diligence
    program is knowing your risks so you can mitigate them. We need
    information about concerns or issues that enforcement agencies
    have so that we can ensure that, if there is an issue in our
    supply chain, it is corrected.
        For my part, I have had to deal with the headache of trying
    to get shipments released for paperwork issues. Both instances
    required hours of calling different Federal agencies and e-
    mailing general e-mail addresses that did not belong to a
    specific person, and then waiting for a response, one of which
    ended up costing me $6,000 in demurrage, which was about 20
    percent of the total cost of the container.
        Partially to blame may be the fact that, under the Lacey
    Act, not one but three agencies are responsible for
    administering the Act: the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
    USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, and U.S.
    Customs and Border Protection.
        Representatives Duarte and Costa, whose wood product
    industry in California has experienced many of these effects,
    have thoughtfully drafted H.R. 7157 to address many of these
    issues and provide more clarity and certainty. If Federal
    agencies suspect a shipment is subject to a Lacey Act
    violation, H.R. 7157 would simply require officials to issue a
    notice of detention in a timely manner, allow the importer to
    store the shipment under bond in a CBP-approved warehouse to
    avoid demurrage charges while ensuring that it remains
    available for inspection insofar as Fish and Wildlife Service
    determines that this will not impact enforcement of the Lacey
    Act, and provide clear timelines for resolution of the issue.
        This bill would not repeal or remove the Lacey Act, nor
    would it prevent criminals from being prosecuted. I fully
    support all agencies involved in Lacey Act enforcement having
    the ability to catch criminals. But as a small, family-owned
    business, I need to know what agency to speak with if I have
    questions, what might be wrong with my shipment, and how to
    appeal any decisions I feel may be based on erroneous
    information. That is why I support Representatives Duarte and
    Costa's bill.
        For seven generations, my family has depended on forests
    and communities across America and around the world. I go to
    work every day to ensure that I can pass this off to the eighth
    generation if they so choose, which means I support sustainable
    usage of timber. H.R. 7157 will help me immeasurably.
        I want to thank Representatives Duarte and Costa for
    supporting a small, family-owned business who is just trying to
    do the right thing.
        Thank you for this opportunity to share my views, and I
    look forward to any questions you may have.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. McIlvain follows:]
             Prepared Statement of Jordan McIlvain, Vice President,
                             Alan McIlvain Company
                                  on H.R. 7157

        Chairman Westerman, Ranking Member Grijalva, Chairman Bentz,
    Ranking Member Huffman and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee on
    Water, Wildlife and Fisheries----
        As the Vice President of the Alan McIlvain Company of Marcus Hook,
    Pennsylvania, which represents 87 U.S. jobs, thank you for the
    opportunity to submit testimony today on policies to simultaneously
    enhance forest protections and the wood product importation process,
    namely through Reps. Duarte (R-CA-13) and Costas' (D-CA-21) bipartisan
    H.R. 7157 To Amend the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 to Ensure Fair
    Enforcement.
        I currently serve as the Vice President of Alan McIlvain Company, a
    seventh generation, family-owned and operated hardwood lumber supplier
    in Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania. Founded in 1798, we supply U.S. lumber
    yards, furniture manufacturers, stair builders, architectural millwork
    houses, small woodworking shops, and musical instrument manufacturers
    with everything from rough lumber to custom moldings. Our customers
    also include those entrusted to undertake federal woodworking projects
    at the U.S. Capitol, White House, and federal agencies.
        Businesses like Alan McIlvain Company, and the availability and
    affordability of our lumber, directly impact other important facets of
    the chain, including home building and remodeling, recreational vehicle
    manufacturing, boat building, and instrument making.
        Finished U.S.-manufactured wood products are typically a
    combination of different wood species, sourced domestically and
    globally. A reality our company, and friendly industry competitors
    often face is that some types of necessary species cannot be grown in
    the U.S. For example, Meranti plywood is historically the input of
    choice for recreational vehicles (RVs) due to its workability and
    lighter weight, and it can only be grown in southeast Asia. Such
    imported plywood is later combined with domestic species for a
    finished, U.S.-manufactured RV.
        Our industry is a critical national economic driver, including in
    many of the states represented by the Subcommittee, including Alabama,
    Arkansas, California, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, Oregon and
    Virginia, and my home state of Pennsylvania. We share a common
    commitment to supporting robust U.S. environmental and forest
    management policy and related compliance, which strengthens the health
    of our domestic and international forests and also the overall
    integrity of U.S. wood product supply chains.
        Like others in the industry, the Alan McIlvain Company maintains a
    robust environmental code of ethics and protocol with respect to our
    sourcing. We give preference to suppliers providing information on good
    silviculture and logging practices and operating within the forestry
    laws of the respective country. Labels or certificates warranting
    sustainability are not acceptable to us unless they have the approval
    of the Forestry Department/Ministry of source countries. Further, we
    give preference to purchases from countries demonstrating commitment to
    Objective 2000 and implementation of ``Guidelines for the Management of
    Natural Tropical Forests,'' established by the International Tropical
    Timber Organization. Finally, we value wood as a renewable material and
    are constantly seeking beneficial ways to reduce wood waste and to
    utilize residues.
        Outside of running a small business, I proactively strive to share
    Alan McIlvain Company's ``lessons learned'' and ``best practices'' with
    competitors and partners, to propel our overall industry forward in a
    positive direction. I currently serve as president of the International
    Wood Products Association, where my family has been involved for
    generations. I have also served for two terms on the board of the
    National Hardwood Lumber Association and as the President of the Penn
    York Lumbermen's Club in the past. Also, Alan McIlvain Company is a
    member of the Indiana Hardwood Lumbermen's Association, the Hardwood
    Manufacturers Association, the Appalachian Hardwood Manufacturers, the
    Keystone Kiln Drying Association, and the Appalachian Lumbermen's Club.
        I cannot underscore enough my deep personal and professional
    appreciation for the Lacey Act. Originally enacted in 1900, the Lacey
    Act is designed to combat the illegal trafficking of wildlife, fish,
    and plants. It was amended in 2008 to extend protections to plant and
    plant products, making it unlawful to import illegally harvested woods
    and requiring a declaration upon arrival in the United States.
        Companies like ours welcomed the 2008 expansion of the Lacey Act.
    At that time, due to our shared concern for the environment with our
    customers, our industry had already put into place processes and
    procedures to make certain we buy only legally sourced woods. We have
    tailored our due diligence to the individual species, product, and
    country; and have developed tracking and verification strategies to
    mitigate the risk that illegally sourced material could enter our
    supply chain. We historically have worked with specialized service
    providers, like third-party customs brokers, who are knowledgeable
    about our products and trading partners.
        In an effort to strive for continuous improvement, today, our
    industry routinely participates in the International Wood Products
    Association (IWPA)'s renowned ``Wood Trade Compliance Training.'' This
    training program, commonly referred to as IWPA's ``Lacey Act
    Training,'' was established using grant funding from the U.S. Agency
    for International Development (USAID) and the World Resources Institute
    (WRI), and was created with input from a wide variety of non-industry
    stakeholders from government officials to environmental groups to
    ensure that companies that import and use products covered by the Lacey
    Act are able to gather the information and resources they need to do
    things the right way. The training has been so successful that the U.S.
    Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection
    Service (APHIS), of which has jurisdiction over the Lacey Act's
    Declaration Requirement, provided IWPA with a grant to provide our no-
    cost training to industries that will be covered by the upcoming Phase
    Seven of the ongoing phase-in of new products. Before this year, IWPA's
    training had already helped hundreds of companies. It is our hope that
    we reach thousands of individuals as a result of this grant.
        Some attribute the Lacey Act to be the only tool available to
    combat deforestation abroad. Certainly, my industry is uniquely
    positioned to both comply with the Lacey Act and advocate for the
    health of global forests. However, I would be remiss if I did not
    mention that, according to the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization's
    2021 Global Remote Sensing Survey, more than 90 percent of global
    deforestation is driven by conversion of forest land to non-forestry
    uses, not by logging.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ FAO 2020 Remote Sensing Survey: https://www.fao.org/forest-
    resources-assessment/remote-sensing/fra-2020-remote-sensing-survey
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        While the Lacey Act has proven to be an effective statute in
    combating illegal deforestation, there is room for clarifying and
    improving transparency to ensure the statute works as Congress
    originally intended. Such positive modifications could be made through
    Reps. Duarte (R-CA-13) and Costas' (D-CA-21) bipartisan H.R. 7157,
    which would make Lacey Act compliance more clear and allow our industry
    to receive more information from the federal government on concerning
    shipments so that we can better partner with them to help eliminate
    potential bad actors in the supply chain.
        Presently, there is no formal delineation of duties across the
    three agencies responsible for administering the Lacey Act--the U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), USDA Animal & Plant Health
    Inspection Service (APHIS), and U.S. Customers and Border Protection
    (CPB). As a result of slow communications across the three, many
    shipments (despite our due diligence and robust recordkeeping)
    routinely have shipments held upon arrival at our ports, in some cases
    almost indefinitely, due to ``possible'' Lacey Act violations.
        Once detained or ``held'' at our ports, information about why a
    shipment is being held is rarely communicated, and even more
    frustrating, there is little to no communication about how long
    officials expect it to be detained. Importers are rarely given any
    steps that could be taken to help clear up the issue (typically minor
    paperwork-related issues), if any, and expedite release. Often
    detentions end with the shipment eventually being released into
    commerce, not prosecution. In some instances, the importer relinquishes
    their rights to the product and allows it to be destroyed, never
    knowing what they did wrong.
        All the while, port storage fees, known as demurrage, accrue to the
    tune of $500 to $1,000 per container per day while imports undergo
    holds. I know of one shipment that has been detained for over two years
    and the U.S. importer, who conducted lengthy due diligence and is
    seeking to share additional information about the steps his company
    took to ensure responsible sourcing, has no idea what he can do to
    address any of the federal agents' concerns. This is not an isolated
    case--many members of industry have faced these delays ranging from
    days to weeks to months. This is not limited to a specific port of
    entry, nor is it limited to a specific product or even country of
    origin. Such inconsistency and unknowns regarding our wood imports has
    real implications on supply chains around the world, which are already
    under stressors caused by the global COVID-19 pandemic and unrest.
        I personally have had to work through two shipment holds associated
    with benign paperwork-related issues. Both instances required hours of
    calls from both me and my freight forwarder to try and find out why the
    shipment was on hold and who we needed to contact in order to resolve
    the issue. I could only send emails to different federal agencies and
    the shipping line--only to be left waiting for a response. In both
    instances, there was ultimately no issue found. One shipment was held
    due to a person in one of the government offices assuming a document
    needed to be translated. When we finally got someone else in their
    office on the phone, they realized that was not the case and released
    the container, but the demurrage ended up costing $5,635 (20% of the
    cost of the container). These are dollars that could have otherwise
    been spent on investments in our business and workforce.
        Further, most holds and detentions end not with prosecution, but
    with the shipment eventually being released without issue. In a
    minority of cases, the importer relinquishes their rights to the
    product, allowing it to be destroyed. Yet, what both scenarios have in
    common is that importers are never informed of the federal government's
    concerns.
        An essential part of a strong due diligence program, an underlying
    goal of the Lacey Act is knowing our risks so we can mitigate them.
    U.S. wood importers need information about concerns U.S. federal
    agencies have about our shipments, so that we can address them. If
    there is an issue in our supply chain, it is in our best interest to
    fix it. And, if there is no issue, more information would enable us to
    help the federal government clarify any paperwork questions they may
    have.
        Thanks to the hard work of Reps. Duarte and Costa, whose wood
    product industry in California has experienced many of these
    importation issues. All is not lost. They have thoughtfully drafted
    H.R. 7157, which would provide straightforward timelines and
    transparency improvements to the Lacey Act compliance process, while
    not weakening its enforcement in the slightest.
        If federal agencies suspect a shipment is subject of a Lacey Act
    violation, H.R. 7157 would simply direct officials to issue a Notice of
    Detention in a timely manner, allow the importer to store the shipment
    under bond to avoid demurrage charges while ensuring that it remains
    available for inspection, and provide a clear timeline for resolution
    of the issue.
        The bill would require the Notice of Detention to include the date
    on which the shipment was detained for inspection, the anticipated
    length of the detention, a description of the tests or inquiries the
    officials will conduct, and a description of what information could be
    supplied to accelerate disposition of the detention.
        To be clear, this bill is in no way asking for the repeal or
    removal of the Lacey Act, and we strongly condemn illegal harvest of
    timber. We simply ask that legitimate American businesses are allowed
    to continue supplying businesses and consumers with the best product
    possible in a timely manner, and to understand why their products might
    be held.
        By providing additional clarity and certainty to the covered
    community, H.R. 7157 would streamline entry for compliant shipments and
    allow federal officials to focus limited staff and enforcement
    resources to find and prosecute the bad actors bent on evading the
    requirements of the Lacey Act. Doing so would ensure global forest
    health remains strong and the integrity of the wood product supply
    chain is protected.
        For seven generations, my family has relied on forests to support
    ourselves and the community around us who depend on us for jobs. I go
    to work every day to ensure that I can pass our business along to an
    eighth generation, which means I support the sustainable usage of
    timber. H.R. 7157 would enable me to better do just that. I want to
    once again thank Representatives Duarte and Costa for supporting a
    small family-owned business who is just trying to do the right thing.
        Thank you, again, for this opportunity to share my views. I look
    forward to answering any questions you may have.

                                     ______

        Questions Submitted for the Record to Mr. Jordan McIlvain, Vice
                        President, Alan McIlvain Company

                  Questions Submitted by Representative Bentz

        Question 1. Mr. McIlvain, in the hearing there was ample discussion
    about combatting illegal activity in administering the Lacey Act. You
    talk about the work that the International Wood Products Association
    has done to expand and promote compliance training.

        1a) Based on your experience, how has your industry led efforts to
    encourage compliance with the Lacey Act to be good stewards?

        Answer. The International Wood Products Association (IWPA) serves
    as the trade association for the international wood products industry
    in the U.S. and North America. During the last ten years, our
    association has been proactive in voluntarily developing a robust Wood
    Trade Compliance Training and Due Diligence Tools Course to help ensure
    that companies involved in the importation of wood products can
    successfully create and maintain a Lacey Act compliance program.

        IWPA's Wood Trade Compliance Training was actually established via
    grant funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development
    (USAID) and the World Resources Institute (WRI), and was created with
    input from a wide variety of non-industry stakeholders from government
    officials to environmental groups to ensure that companies that import
    and use products covered by the Lacey Act are able to gather the
    information and resources they need to do things the right way. The
    training has been so successful that the U.S. Department of
    Agriculture's (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
    (APHIS), of which has jurisdiction over the Lacey Act's Declaration
    Requirement, provided IWPA with a grant in late 2023 to provide the
    training to industries that will be covered by the upcoming Phase Seven
    of the ongoing phase-in of new products.

        Because the Lacey Act is not prescriptive, historically many wood
    products suppliers did not know where to even start, so IWPA's
    compliance training has been tremendously helpful to companies like
    mine. As the Lacey Act's declaration requirement is expanded to
    additional products and industries, the U.S. Department of
    Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has identified
    expanding access to IWPA's compliance training as an ideal way to
    educate those industries about Lacey Act compliance.

        Question 2. Mr. McIlvain, the Lacey Act has been in law for more
    than one hundred years and is currently administered by three different
    Federal agencies. Critics of H.R. 7157, or similar reform efforts, will
    say that the Lacey Act is sacrosanct and that any potential reforms to
    it would merely undermine this important legislation.

        2a) Is it fair to say that as the country has grown and trade has
    increased over the last century, reforms are vital to ensure that
    agencies are both coordinating among themselves and communicating with
    the regulated industry?

        Answer. Both as a taxpayer and as the leader of a small business, I
    am always hopeful that the government offices and agencies are open to
    discussion about ways government can work more efficiently, so that it
    can better serve their ``customers'' and the American public better.
    The Lacey Act itself has been amended six times, and many other
    landmark laws protecting natural resources and health have also seen
    amendments. An amendment simply acknowledges that change is required to
    keep pace with progress.

        The current structure of Lacey poses a specific issue, with ongoing
    delays and the inability for U.S. business importing wood products
    covered by the Lacey Act to identify who they should be communicating
    with to resolve any delays. The reforms included in H.R. 7157 would in
    no way undermine enforcement of the Lacey Act. They would simply
    require notification and timely processing of covered shipments and
    provide much-needed clarity to US business.

        Question 3. Mr. von Bismarck stated in his written testimony that
    ``illegal logging is the most profitable natural resource crime.''

        3a) How do illegal logging practices impact small businesses like
    yours? Can you talk more about the interest that companies like yours
    have in preventing illegal practices and serving as good stewards?

        Answer. As I mentioned in my opening statement, I support the Lacey
    Act and its purpose of rooting out trade in illegally sourced plant
    products. Unscrupulous suppliers who market wood products derived from
    illegal logging are able to undercut businesses like mine that source
    our products responsibly. Those who log illegally also have no interest
    in sustainable forest management practices that preserve forests for
    generations to come.

        Our environment cannot withstand the impacts of illegal logging,
    nor do our customers have any interest in related products. Therefore,
    it is in the best interest of companies like mine to stop it. For my
    company, in addition to utilizing IWPA's Wood Trade Compliance
    Training, we use suppliers providing information on good silviculture
    and logging practices and operating within the forestry laws of the
    respective country. Labels or certificates warranting sustainability
    are not acceptable to us unless they have the approval of the Forestry
    Department/Ministry of source countries. Further, we give preference to
    purchases from countries demonstrating commitment to Objective 2000 and
    implementation of ``Guidelines for the Management of Natural Tropical
    Forests,'' established by the International Tropical Timber
    Organization.

        Those who log illegally undercut these and similar efforts by my
    competitors and do a disservice to the industry as a whole. H.R. 7157
    would support businesses like mine that are working diligently to
    source from suppliers around the world who are doing things the right
    way.

        Question 4. One provision of the legislation discussed in our
    hearing was the requirement that, within ten days, importers whose
    shipments are subject to detention would be allowed to transport that
    merchandise to a different location.

        4a) Could you expand on how this process would work, what types of
    facilities shipments could be transferred to, and how this would assist
    small businesses like yours in working through this process?

        Answer. H.R. 7157 would simply require the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service to allow the importer to transfer the merchandise to a bonded
    warehouse for storage if ``the Secretary determines that such
    transportation will not frustrate the intent of [the Lacey Act].''This
    means that if such a transfer would negatively impact an investigation
    of wrongdoing, the Secretary could simply not allow it. I do not want
    to stop criminals from being caught, but I also support law abiding
    businesses being able to comply with government regulation in a way
    that is not financially ruinous.

        Far from allowing criminals to tamper with contraband material,
    transfer of merchandise is a common practice that is currently used for
    merchandise detained under the Uyghur Forced Labor Protection Act which
    ensures importers are able to minimize the cost of demurrage while
    maintaining it in a location and condition that the relevant federal
    agencies are able to control it.

        Bonded warehouses must first be approved by U.S. Customs and Border
    Protection for their ability to control merchandise covered by a bond.
    The material is controlled by the operators of the warehouse with
    strictly controlled access. Only once the merchandise is cleared for
    entry by CBP is it released to the importer. This means that an
    importer would not have access to the material while it is in bond,
    ensuring that if enforcement agencies need additional access they can
    have it, and also ensuring problematic material cannot enter the stream
    of commerce until officially cleared by the government. Bonded
    warehouses are governed by CBP regulations and are a well-established
    part of importing.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-19/chapter-I/part-19

        The only appreciable difference is that the importer has
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    significantly reduced fees by moving to a bonded warehouse.

                  Questions Submitted by Representative Graves

        Question 1. Mr. McIlvain, businesses like yours rely on the Lacey
    Act to ensure sustainable, legally harvested wood products abroad, and
    also rely on healthy forest management practices here in the United
    States. Not only does this lead to economic activity associated with
    your business and your customers, but it also results in the
    environmental benefit of emissions reductions.

        1a) Can you expand on some of those aligned incentives of both
    economic activity and emissions reduction that are associated with
    forestry?

        Answer. Sustainable forest management is critical to maintaining
    the value of the world's forest and keep them from being cut down and
    converted to another use. It is only when we value wood products
    appropriately for their beauty, functionality, and absolutely for their
    ability to store carbon for generations, that many communities decide
    it is in their long-term interest to preserve their forests.
        Carbon capture is an enormous benefit provided by our industry. The
    utilization of wood products, which are 50% carbon by dry weight,
    ensures that carbon is captured and stored. This carbon does not enter
    the atmosphere for the lifetime of the product or structure, or even
    longer if the wood is reclaimed or reused. According to the U.S.
    Department of Agriculture, forest management in the U.S. alone offsets
    15 percent of U.S. fossil fuel emissions.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ https://www.climatehubs.usda.gov/hubs/northern-forests/topic/
    forest-management-carbon-sequestration-mitigation-and-climate

        In addition to long term environmental benefits, sustainable
    management of forests can lead to job creation and direct and indirect
    economic growth both in the U.S. and globally as well. A recent study
    by Agribusiness Consulting found that the U.S. hardwood products
    industry was responsible for more than 1.8 million U.S. jobs.\3\
    Globally, 33 billion people \4\ are employed by the forestry industry,
    making it a key economic driver at home and abroad for continued
    prosperity. More than the economic impact, ensuring continued
    employment in the forestry sector ensures that forests continue to have
    value and are not clear cut and the land used in other ways.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ https://hardwoodfederation.com/resources/Documents/
    EIS%20States/US.pdf
        \4\ https://ilostat.ilo.org/forest-sector-employs-33-million-
    around-the-world-according-to-new-global-estimates/
    #::text=our%20current%20partnerships.-,Forest%20sector%20employs%
    2033%20million%20around%20the,according%20to%20new%20global%20estimates

        As I shared in my opening statement, my hope is that someday I will
    be able to pass the Alan McIlvain Company to my children. If there is
    not an economic incentive for trade in wood products to continue, I
    worry that there will be fewer and fewer working forests for them to
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    source from.

                                     ______

        Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. McIlvain. I now recognize Mr. von
    Bismarck for 5 minutes.

       STATEMENT OF ALEXANDER von BISMARCK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
           ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY, WASHINGTON, DC

        Mr. von Bismarck. Good morning, Chairman Bentz, Ranking
    Member Huffman, and members of the Subcommittee. My name is
    Alexander von Bismarck. I am the Executive Director of the
    Environmental Investigation Agency, and in that capacity have
    investigated international natural resource crimes such as
    illegal logging and trade in endangered species for over 25
    years. I am grateful for the chance to comment on H.R. 7157 and
    H.R. 6784 to some extent.
        In 2006, I was personally undercover with a cocaine
    trafficker in Honduras, who was also the owner of a timber
    trading company that was slated to provide new doors to the
    Capitol building made of illegally-logged mahogany. Evidence
    like this, combined with a study commissioned by the forest
    sector in the United States that showed they were losing $1
    billion in profits a year due to being undercut by cheap,
    stolen wood from overseas led to the amendments to the Lacey
    Act in 2008, making it illegal to import illegally-logged wood
    for the first time, which H.R. 7157 seeks to amend further.
        Successful enforcement of Lacey was estimated in 2015 to
    have reduced illegal wood imports by 40 percent. The impact was
    driven by some key cases that involved our evidence that I was
    involved in, and I would like to give some of the specifics
    because I don't think that they would have been successful if
    the proposed changes that are in this bill would have been in
    place.
        One case involved oak flooring being imported from the
    Russian Far East. I was again personally in the field in the
    town of Suifenhe, on the border of Russia and China, being
    wined and dined by the boss bringing in Russian wood, together
    with the head of police and the local military of Suifenhe in a
    show of the corruption that was behind this trade. The wood was
    being poached in the habitat of the last Siberian tigers, and
    ultimately found its way to U.S. consumers as a product, oak
    flooring, that by all logic should be made in American sawmills
    out of American oak.
        Lumber liquidators ultimately pleaded guilty to the imports
    and agreed to a compliance plan to ensure that all future
    imports would be legally sourced. This was a signal to big box
    stores around the country that I believe leveled the playing
    field in practice for American foresters trying to play by the
    rules.
        Another case involved the single biggest smuggling route of
    illegal wood from the Amazon to the United States. The wood was
    logged in Peru, and every few months a giant boat was loaded to
    the brim with wood that turned out to be almost entirely
    illegally logged. And every few months this boat went to
    Houston, back and forth all year. This was happening in the
    context of community leaders being gunned down in broad
    daylight for opposing illegal logging in Peru.
        The wood was detained in the United States and proven by
    U.S. authorities to be over 90 percent illegal, based on
    testing done and information requested from the importers while
    the shipment was under government control. This was again wood
    that was competing with American wood for products like
    moulding and dowels in that case.
        The ability of enforcement personnel to inspect shipments,
    to test what is in them, and gather more information while in
    control of the shipment is crucial in these cases. In the
    Chinese case, for example, the smugglers misdeclared the
    species of oak to throw off investigators. By allowing wood
    after 10 days to go out of government control, if that is the
    intent of the bill, you would be giving great comfort to
    smugglers who could, for example, substitute wood while it is
    under their control to cover up the crime.
        I understand this comes from reasonable intentions of
    limiting costs to companies during import, but with these
    measures you would lose the benefits of a more level playing
    field that all of us, including the timber companies
    represented here, have worked so hard to achieve.
        Another grave concern with this bill is that it appears to
    apply to all products, such as ivory and rhino horn. If that is
    the intention, Mr. Chairman, I would have to give you a litany
    of other examples of hardened, violent criminal smuggling
    networks that would celebrate the passage of H.R. 7157.
        This connects to our concern regarding H.R. 6784. My
    organization began by investigating ivory and rhino horn trade
    around the world, and this gave us great appreciation for the
    Endangered Species Act in the United States for seeing how the
    rest of the world does not have this legislation, how it is
    struggling to protect its species and its wilderness. Its
    success, the ESA's success at keeping species around, seems to
    us very much dependent on the fact that you are lacking in
    protections rather than leaving them open to be influenced by
    special interests in each case and in each state.
        It is, of course, very important to analyze the actual
    causes of decline, which could be poaching, habitat loss, or
    disease. But once it reaches the state of endangered, you need
    to remove all stresses that you can from that species. If a
    species is threatened by disease, for example, it may be
    particularly critical to protect its habitat. I believe the
    importance of broad guaranteed protection for endangered
    species was understood in the drafting of the Act 50 years ago.
    This was on purpose. This was not an oversight. They are the
    reason it has been successful.
        Finally, the provision potentially allows states to tailor
    their enforcement, raising concern also for the import of trade
    of products such as ivory and rhino horn, which is dependent on
    consistent and coordinated national enforcement.
        For these reasons, we would urge you to oppose H.R. 6784.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. von Bismarck follows:]
       Prepared Statement of Alexander von Bismarck, Executive Director,
                       Environmental Investigation Agency
                           on H.R. 6784 and H.R. 7157

        Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and members of the Natural
    Resources Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries, thank you for
    inviting me to appear before the Subcommittee today for this
    legislative hearing, to focus on important laws that are designed to
    protect flora and fauna, combat illicit trade and transnational crime.
    Introduction

        I have investigated and studied global crime in natural resources
    for over 25 years. As an investigator and the Executive Director of the
    Environmental Investigation Agency, I have conducted international
    field investigations on every continent into criminal networks dealing
    in illegal wood, endangered species and harmful chemicals. Before
    joining EIA, I researched linkages between economics, ecology and human
    health with the Harvard School of Public Health. I have a MSc from the
    London School of Economics in Environment and Development and a BSc
    from Harvard University in Environmental Science and Public Policy. I
    am also proud to have served as a U.S. Marine.
        The Environmental Investigation Agency, Inc. (EIA), a non-profit
    501(c)(3) organization, has worked for nearly 40 years to investigate
    and expose environmental crimes, and seek tangible and effective
    solutions. EIA's analyses of the trade in illegal timber, wildlife, and
    ozone-depleting substances have been globally recognized. Our
    investigations, starting in the late 1980s, played a leading role in
    instigating the international ban on ivory trade, and more recently,
    the timber annex to the U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement and the
    2008 amendments to the U.S. Lacey Act. For more than 15 years, EIA has
    been a leader of the Lacey Act Coalition, representing industry, labor
    and environmental groups. In 2018, EIA pinpointed the origin of the
    biggest unsolved environmental crime in recent history, exposing the
    source of about 10 billion tons in illegal emissions originating in
    China.
        EIA works with local partners around the globe to document the
    environmental, economic and social impacts of environmental crimes. Our
    experience has shown us unequivocally that the most destructive and
    challenging crimes to fight are those that are inextricably linked to
    international trade, whether it's trade in endangered species, illegal
    logging, trade in forest-risk commodities driving illicit
    deforestation, illegal fishing or illegal emissions--and that any
    solution therefore requires action and cooperation from both producer
    and consumer nations involved in that trade. Crimes driven by local
    demand can, when there is political will, be solved locally, while
    international crime, driven by international trade, overwhelms the best
    local efforts to do so alone.
        Today I shall focus my remarks on two of the bills up for
    consideration: H.R. 7157 and H.R. 6784.
    H.R. 7157: ``Strengthen Wood Products Supply Chains Act'': The U.S.
            Lacey Act and the 2008 Plant Amendments

        Times have changed in the more than 100 years since the Lacey Act
    first became law, and Congress has attempted to keep pace with
    increasingly sophisticated international criminal networks who pose
    serious threats to the American economy as well as global biodiversity
    and forests. Amendments to the Lacey Act have generally tried to plug
    gaps and loopholes that would incentivize more illegal trade. H.R. 7157
    appears to go in the opposite direction.
        The 2008 plant amendments provide an excellent example of how the
    Lacey Act has been modernized and strengthened, and how the U.S.
    industry and manufacturing sectors have benefited from it. The Lacey
    Act plant amendments were born out of strong evidence that illegal
    logging and associated trade had harmful impacts not only on the
    world's forests, but also on the American timber industry. A 2004 study
    by Seneca Creek Associates concluded that illegal timber imports were
    costing American businesses over one billion dollars annually.\1\ The
    2008 amendments ensure that trees and other plants need to be legally
    sourced, protecting American producers from having to compete with
    cheap illegal timber imports. The Lacey Act now works to provide
    American timber producers a level playing field. That's why so many
    American businesses have rallied behind this law, and are in fact
    seeking even stronger enforcement, rather than the creation of
    loopholes that would water it down and increase the opportunities for
    illegal goods to enter our market. You can find videos featuring
    domestic industry viewpoints during the 10th anniversary of the 2008
    Lacey Act amendments: https://www.laceycoalition.org/videos
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ http://www.unece.lsu.edu/responsible_trade/documents/2003-2006/
    rt03_036.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        All indications are that the Lacey Act has indeed contributed to
    reducing illegal logging while strengthening our domestic industries. A
    2015 study by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that imports of
    illegal timber had decreased by over 40 percent since the amendment was
    passed, and concluded that stronger enforcement could bring even more
    progress.\2\ Another study by Jeffrey Prestemon for the U.S. Fish &
    Wildlife Service in 2016 looking at timber imports from high risk
    regions found that implementation of the Lacey Act had reduced overall
    U.S. timber imports by 24 percent.\3\ We have found evidence in our
    investigations that timber producers around the world are much more
    aware of the issue and many are changing their practices to be more
    legal, more transparent, more sustainable due to U.S. enforcement of
    the Lacey Act.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/stop-deforestation/lacey-
    acts-effectiveness-reducing-illegal-wood-imports#.Wvt_o0yZORY
        \3\ Daowei Zang, Yin Ling and Jeffrey P. Prestemon: From Deficit to
    Surplus: An Econometric Analysis of US Trade Balance in Forest
    Products, For.Sci 63(2):209-217, copyright Society of American
    Foresters
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        One of the first enforcement actions under the 2008 plant
    amendments initially caused an outcry of government overreach. The U.S.
    case against Gibson Guitars for importing illegal wood in 2009 was
    based partially on my fieldwork. I had gone undercover with the biggest
    timber baron in Madagascar, Roger Thunam, and had been offered illegal
    ebony out of the Masoala National Park. He also told me that his number
    one client was Gibson Guitars in the United States. Gibson ultimately
    acknowledged that it continued to order Malagasy ebony despite knowing
    about the relevant laws that made it illegal to export.
        The wood was subsequently forfeited, Gibson paid respective fines
    and entered into an enforcement agreement that included a compliance
    plan which served as useful guidance for responsible American companies
    who wanted to ensure they are sourcing legal wood going forward.\4\ The
    enforcement action also had a decisive impact on enforcement against
    illegal ebony in other important markets, and helped bring illegal
    chainsaws to a halt in one of the most threatened protected areas in
    Madagascar.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/gibson-guitar-corp-agrees-
    resolve-investigation-lacey-act-violations
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In 2015, Lumber Liquidators pleaded guilty to one felony count of
    importing goods through false statements and four misdemeanor
    violations of the Lacey Act.\5\ The case involved importing solid oak
    flooring from Chinese manufacturers made from illegally harvested
    timber from the Russian Far East. This product can just as well be made
    by American mills out of wood from family owned forests in the U.S. The
    company agreed to pay 13.2 million dollars in forfeitures and fines.
    The plea agreement included a detailed compliance plan to ensure that
    all future imports would be legally sourced. Through its reckless
    business model, the company contributed to destroying valuable forests
    and harming people and wildlife in the Russian Far East, including the
    last remaining wild populations of the Siberian tiger. Enforcement in
    this case was an instrumental move to level the playing field and to
    protect honest American businesses from unfair competition through
    unacceptable practices.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/lumber-liquidators-inc-
    sentenced-illegal-importation-hardwood-and-related-environmental
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In 2012, EIA first exposed systemic timber laundering from Peru in
    a seminal report--The Laundering Machine.\6\ Further to this work, we
    helped to expose a consistent flow of timber shipments coming from the
    heart of the Peruvian Amazon and eventually to the United States aboard
    a vessel called the Yacu Kallpa, in which the wood was frequently found
    to be over 90 percent illegally sourced. As a result of joint
    investigative work between Peruvian authorities, Interpol, and the
    World Customs Organization, and with policy and enforcement actions
    taken in the US, this shipping route was eventually shutdown entirely.
    A US buyer of timber from the Yacu Kallpa, Global Plywood and Lumber
    Trading LLC, pleaded guilty to importing illegal timber from Peru in
    violation of the US Lacey Act. HSI, CBP and DOJ, proved that at least
    92% of the Global Plywood timber in the shipment had been illegally
    logged, and the corporation admitted that it failed to exercise due
    care when it imported illegally-sourced timber from the Peruvian Amazon
    into the United States.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ https://us.eia.org/report/the-laundering-machine/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In recent years, the Lacey Act has increasingly helped US law
    enforcement detect and prosecute financial and other related crimes
    which are inextricably linked to the illegal wood trade. In October
    2023, a Florida couple pleaded guilty to smuggling and violations of
    the Lacey Act by illegally importing plywood from China into the US.\7\
    Using different front companies, the couple sought to evade duties
    which cost the United States roughly 42 million dollars. The couple had
    incorporated seven companies in the United States--naming relatives or
    friends as corporate officers and agents--and these shell companies
    imported and illegally financed hundreds of shipments of plywood
    products into the United States, valued between 25 and 65 million
    dollars. They currently face the potential of large fines, jail time
    and forfeitures. China is the world's largest importer and processor of
    illegal timber, with the United States being its number one
    destination, importing billions of dollars worth of Chinese wood
    products every year--an impossible and extremely unfair competition for
    law-abiding American producers.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/florida-couple-pleads-guilty-
    scheme-evade-42-million-duties-illegally-importing-and-selling
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Over the past decade, the world has lost an area of forest the size
    of Virginia every year.\8\ Forest loss and degradation are among the
    biggest contributors to climate change and biodiversity loss and one of
    the root causes of zoonotic disease spillover events such as those
    related to Ebola and coronaviruses.\9\ Forests contribute to the
    livelihoods and food security of well over a billion people around the
    world,\10\ and their loss is linked to land invasions and violence
    against Indigenous peoples, local communities, and environmental
    defenders \11\ while feeding corruption and organized crime and
    undermining rule of law.\12\ With the implementation of the Lacey Act
    and its evolution over time, the U.S. has set an example for the rest
    of the world that illegal wildlife and timber products are not
    acceptable. It is imperative that the spirit and rationale of this law
    be upheld and its effectiveness not be undermined.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ Roughly 42,000 square miles per year, based on annual
    deforestation estimates published by the UN Food and Agriculture
    Organization for 2010-2020. This does not include vast areas of clear-
    cut logging in boreal and temperate forests or selective logging in
    tropical rainforests.
        \9\ For recent analysis of the climate mitigation potential of
    tropical forests, see: Griscom et al. National mitigation potential
    from natural climate solutions in the tropics. Phil. Trans. Of the
    Royal Society B: Biological Sciences (2020); for recent analysis on the
    role of forest and wildlife protection in preventing pandemics of
    zoonotic origin, see: Dobson et al. Ecology and economics for pandemic
    prevention. Science (July 24, 2020); and Tollefson, Jeff. Why
    deforestation and extinctions make pandemics more likely. Nature
    (August 7, 2020).
        \10\ Independent Evaluation Group of the World Bank Group, 2013.
    Managing Forest Resources for Sustainable Development: An Evaluation of
    World Bank Group Experience.
        \11\ See Human Rights Watch letter to the OECD, January 27, 2021,
    for an overview of the situation in Brazil.
        \12\ See, for example: Emanuele Ottolenghi, The Dispatch, March 19,
    2021. Good Climate Policy Should Fight Corruption and Organized Crime:
    They are key drivers of deforestation and environmental degradation.

        Illegal logging is the most profitable natural resource crime on
    the planet and the third most profitable transnational crime behind
    counterfeiting and drug trafficking.\13\ The Lacey Act needs more
    resources and attention devoted to effective implementation and
    enforcement,\14\ not greater impediments to conducting the necessary
    investigations and compliance oversight. H.R. 7157 would serve to
    increase unfair competition for law-abiding American businesses and
    undermine the work of U.S. law enforcement officers, who are trying to
    stop this transnational crime, by:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ https://www.cbp.gov/trade/programs-administration/natural-
    resources-protection/illegal-logging
        \14\ In January 2023, US lawmakers called on the administration to
    stop illegal wood imports that harm the U.S. forest products industry
    and in a letter to Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack, highlighted the
    importance of cracking down on illegal wood trade, urging more decisive
    action on foreign imports that devalue U.S. timber.

         compelling them to share evidence gathered in the early
                stages of an investigation--potentially with a suspected
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                illegal operator--within 5 days;

         Allowing merchandise that is the subject of investigation
                to be returned to the importer just 10 days after it has
                been detained, and moved from a government to a private
                facility where anything can happen to it;

         Limiting the timeframe to conduct a proper investigation
                to determine the appropriate action to take in regard to a
                shipment of concern.

        In addition, the ``merchandise'' definition makes it clear that
    these new proposed rules and exceptions would extend well beyond wood
    products to all wildlife, fish and plant products, allowing for all
    these forms of illegal items to enter the US market with greater ease.
        The Lacey Act, as amended, makes it a crime to traffic in plants or
    plant products when, in the exercise of due care, the person should
    know that the plant or plant product was taken, possessed, transported
    or sold illegally. ``Due care'' is a long-standing legal principle that
    means the degree of care at which a reasonably prudent person would
    take under the same or similar circumstances. While the Lacey Act does
    not define nor mandate any requirements to constitute due care,
    practical guidance has come from some of the early case history
    detailed above, such as the compliance plan in the Lumber Liquidators
    case.
        As a CBP official put it, ``While ``trafficking plants'' may sound
    harmless, illegal logging is not a victimless crime. The illegal timber
    trade is soaked with blood, financing violent conflict, and providing a
    cover for other crimes, such as drug trafficking, money laundering,
    illegal mining, wildlife trafficking, and forced labor. Ignoring the
    effects of illegal logging and timber trafficking could result in life-
    threatening consequences, causing great misfortune to economies,
    wildlife, and humans.'' \15\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ https://www.cbp.gov/frontline/cbp-stops-illegal-logging
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I believe the question is whether we actually want to deter illegal
    wood coming into the country or not. In an extraordinary show of unity
    of purpose, the US timber sector, conservationists and human rights
    advocates have agreed they do. In my two decades of collecting evidence
    of illegal logging and observing the resulting enforcement action, it
    is clear to me that the above steps would seriously undercut this
    shared goal. The ability of enforcement personnel to detain and test
    are critical to the majority of the successful cases brought. Clearly
    there are costs involved during those steps to both the government and
    the importers in question, but they pale in comparison to the economic
    costs that will be incurred if they are not done, i.e. if the sector
    gives up the current effective deterrent against importing cheap stolen
    wood from overseas.
        We urge you to oppose H.R. 7157 as the changes proposed will allow
    those that knowingly import illegal wood to sleep well at night because
    it would serve to deter and dampen the current level of enforcement. It
    would be a loud signal to start up the operations of cheap stolen wood
    imports from overseas that have been shut down over the last decade due
    to the deterrent of the Lacey Act. Improving enforcement mechanisms for
    all involved is a laudable goal, but it needs to be done with full
    input from those bringing the cases, and I would be surprised if that
    was the case for H.R. 7157.
    H.R. 6784--The ESA Flexibility Act

        We are in the midst of a biodiversity crisis where scientists
    predict we could lose one million species, many in the coming decades,
    with serious consequences for food production, water purification, and
    overall ecosystem functions. Now would be a great time to strengthen
    the Endangered Species Act, one of the best tools we have for securing
    our future through protection of biodiversity. It is not a good time to
    weaken it.
        H.R. 6784 attacks the foundation of the Endangered Species Act by
    throwing the Act's automatic, full-strength protections for species
    newly listed as endangered into uncertainty, allowing the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service or NOAA Fisheries to issue weaker, species-specific
    rules specifying prohibited activities. While Congress gave the
    Services flexibility under section 4(d) to issue such rules for
    threatened species, the Act and its legislative history are
    unambiguously clear that endangered species are to always receive the
    full suite of protections given their more vulnerable status. These
    guaranteed protections are there for a reason.
        By eliminating the mandate that endangered species receive full,
    automatic protections, H.R. 6784 would render the more protective
    ``endangered'' status virtually meaningless, undercutting the very
    cornerstone of the Endangered Species Act and ultimately placing
    hundreds of species at greater risk of extinction.
        H.R. 6784 would also expose the Services' listing program to
    increased political pressure from special interests, which is already a
    persistent problem. As we have seen with many existing 4(d) rules for
    threatened species, industry groups routinely seek exemptions from the
    take prohibition for their particular industries, undermining the
    scientific integrity of the listing process and ultimately resulting in
    species receiving less protection than needed.
        Further, the Fish and Wildlife Service's listing program already
    lacks the necessary funding and resources to complete even the most
    basic duties under the Act, facing a backlog of more than 300 species
    awaiting consideration for protection. If the agency is allowed to
    develop individual rules for endangered species, an administration
    under pressure by special interests could use this discretion to
    further burden an already overwhelmed program, ultimately resulting in
    increased extinction risk for animals and plants across the country.
        For foreign species, whether import or interstate or foreign sales
    are banned would be discretionary for endangered species. As the group
    that contributed to the first ban on ivory trade in the 80's by
    investigating its links to arms smuggling in Africa, we would be
    extremely concerned that endangered species products from elephants,
    rhinos or tigers that, while subject to international commercial trade
    bans, but could be freely traded commercially from state to state in
    our country because of a lack of ESA protections. How can we combat
    wildlife trafficking under such a system?
        Ultimately, eliminating needed, automatic protections for
    endangered species and allowing those protections to be discretionary
    is a recipe for ensuring the Endangered Species Act does not recover
    species. Without immediate and automatic application of Section 9 as
    drafted, the core protections afforded both our domestic species as
    well as foreign species will be left to discretion and budgetary
    constraints. The Act will not meet its goal of recovering species if
    its core protections are eliminated. For these reasons, we urge you to
    oppose H.R. 6784.

                                     ______

        Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. von Bismarck, and I now recognize
    Representative Stauber to introduce Mr. Higgins.
        Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I would like
    to introduce Ray Higgins, Executive Vice President of the
    Minnesota Timber Producers Association and a resident of
    Minnesota's 8th Congressional District.
        The Minnesota Timber Producers Association was founded in
    1937 and represents the interests of loggers, truckers, small
    sawmills, and others involved in the forest products supply
    chain across Minnesota.
        Prior to entering the forestry industry, Ray served as a
    local sports broadcaster in Duluth, Minnesota. In addition to
    his professional life, Ray is very active in the community in
    Duluth. He has been involved in youth hockey and baseball,
    serving as coach for many years. Ray has also played an active
    role in building awareness and raising funds to find a cure for
    ALS throughout northern Minnesota.
        I want to thank Ray for his friendship over the past 30
    years, and for his willingness to travel to Washington to
    testify today. I look forward to your testimony.
        Mr. Chair, I yield back.
        Mr. Bentz. Mr. Higgins, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

     STATEMENT OF RAY HIGGINS, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, MINNESOTA
            TIMBER PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION, DULUTH, MINNESOTA

        Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Chair Bentz, Ranking Member
    Huffman, and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you,
    Congressman Stauber, for that introduction. My name is Ray
    Higgins, Executive Vice President of the Minnesota Timber
    Producers Association. As Congressman Stauber said, we were
    founded in 1937, representing loggers, truckers, small
    sawmills, and other businesses in our state's forest products
    industry. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support
    of H.R. 6784, the ESA Flexibility Act.
        In Minnesota, the forest products industry employs 68,000
    men and women, injecting more than $17 million into our
    economy, both direct and induced. It is the fifth-largest
    manufacturing industry in our state.
        The northern long-eared bat is a species found in 38 states
    and here in the District of Columbia, including Minnesota as
    one of those 38 states. Just over 10 years ago, a fungal
    disease called white-nose syndrome developed that killed bats
    in huge numbers. As a result, in 2015, the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service listed the northern long-eared bat as
    threatened.
        That could have been devastating to the forest products
    industry in our state. Bats roost in trees. Restrictions from
    the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service could have significantly
    impacted those 68,000 Minnesotans who work in our industry.
    However, the Fish and Wildlife Service realized the northern
    long-eared bat decline was not a habitat issue, it was a
    disease issue. White-nose syndrome was going to spread
    throughout bat populations, no matter what. The Service rightly
    utilized the Endangered Species Act's 4(d) rule to mitigate the
    impacts to forest management in our state.
        Now, fast forward 8 years later. Northern long-eared bat
    populations continue to decline, and an endangered listing
    became necessary. But the Fish and Wildlife Service didn't have
    the 4(d) rule to utilize. The state of Minnesota then joined
    with the states of Wisconsin and Michigan to develop a Habitat
    Conservation Plan. It was a roughly 8-year process at great
    expense in terms of time and money to our state government and
    those in Michigan and Wisconsin. In the end, the Habitat
    Conservation Plan was approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service, and it contained nearly identical provisions to the
    4(d) rule. So, when the northern long-eared bat was listed as
    endangered last year, we were able to continue our important
    work in Minnesota's healthy forests.
        The ESA Flexibility Act would streamline this process. It
    would allow the Fish and Wildlife Service to tailor protections
    under endangered listings in the same way it already does for
    threatened listings, saving state governments across the
    country considerable time and resources.
        In Minnesota, we love bats. The reason? We have a lot of
    mosquitoes, and bats eat mosquitoes. In fact, a single bat can
    eat up to 1,200 mosquitoes in 1 hour. So, we need bats in
    Minnesota.
        We also love our forests, and I am proud to say they are
    incredibly well managed. The U.S. Forest Service says we have
    more forest land in Minnesota, more trees, more big trees that
    are greater than 19 inches in diameter then we had 60 years
    ago. We grow three times as much wood as we harvest each year
    in Minnesota. We are a national leader in forest certification,
    meaning our forests will be sustainable and healthy for
    generations to come for all the recreational activities that
    Minnesotans love: hiking, camping, hunting, berry picking, bird
    watching, snowmobiling, and more.
        And this also means our forests will be sustainable and
    healthy for bats for generations to come. As I said, trees are
    great habitat for bats. Strong forest management practices
    create diverse habitat over time and across the landscape for a
    wide variety of wildlife species, including bats.
        Unfortunately, white-nose syndrome is affecting other bat
    species, and difficult listing decisions are being considered
    right now. The ESA Flexibility Act would give the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service another tool in its toolbox, help the Service
    achieve its goals of protecting species, and it would
    streamline the process for state governments across the
    country, and I urge your support.
        I thank Representative Stauber for bringing forward this
    bill, and also Chair Bentz and Ranking Member Huffman, as well
    as members of the Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify,
    and I will be happy to stand for any questions you might have.
    Thank you.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Higgins follows:]
    Prepared Statement of Ray Higgins, Executive Vice President, Minnesota
                          Timber Producers Association
                                  on H.R. 6784

        Chair Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of
    H.R. 6784, the ESA Flexibility Act.
        My name is Ray Higgins, executive vice president of the Minnesota
    Timber Producers Association, a trade organization founded in 1937
    representing loggers, truckers, small sawmills, and other businesses in
    our state's forest products industry.
        Over the past ten years we've seen the importance of allowing the
    US Fish & Wildlife Service the flexibility to incorporate the 4(d)
    rules in its ``endangered'' listings in addition to the ``threatened''
    designation. Had this flexibility been available, states like
    Minnesota, and federal agencies like the US Fish and Wildlife Service
    and the USDA Forest Service could have saved considerable time and
    taxpayer money while dealing with the decline of the northern long-
    eared bat (NLEB).
        The US Fish & Wildlife Service began considering listing the
    northern long-eared bat in 2014, finalizing a ``threatened'' listing in
    2015. However, it also utilized the 4(d) rule under the Endangered
    Species Act to mitigate the impacts of the threatened designation to
    forest management.
        During the summertime, northern long-eared bats--like many bat
    species--roost in trees. In the interest of preserving the bat's
    habitat, the USFWS could have limited our ability to manage forests by
    precluding the harvesting of trees. However, the USFWS recognized that
    the bat's decline wasn't due to habitat issues, but to a fungal disease
    called white-nose syndrome that spreads among bat populations while
    hibernating, mostly in caves and mines during winter months.
        The 4(d) rule in the Endangered Species Act allows the USFWS to
    tailor protections to those needed to prevent further decline of listed
    species and facilitate their recovery. Recognizing that summer habitat
    wasn't at issue, the USFWS rightly utilized the 4(d) rule. Rather than
    halting all tree harvesting across the bat's range, which is much of
    our state--not to mention 37 other states--the USFWS exempted ``take''
    due to forest management practices. The USFWS did limit harvesting
    within 150 feet of known, occupied, maternity roost trees, as well as
    within a quarter-mile of known hibernation sites during the roosting
    months of June and July, provisions that did not materially harm forest
    management activities in Minnesota.
        These steps taken by the USFWS were effective. In Minnesota, I'm
    not aware of a single northern long-eared bat that was ``taken'' during
    timber harvesting activities. Unfortunately, the decline of the species
    was and is due to white-nose syndrome--not habitat--and an endangered
    listing was inevitable.
        Immediately after the threatened listing was finalized by the USFWS
    in 2015, and with the expected endangered listing looming, the
    Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the state agency tasked with
    overseeing forest management in our state, began preparing to apply for
    a Habitat Conservation Plan. The Minnesota DNR knew USFSW didn't have
    the ability to utilize a 4(d) rule with an endangered listing.
    Partnering with Departments of Natural Resources from Wisconsin and
    Michigan, the process of drafting and gaining approval of the HCP--
    which contained provisions nearly identical to those in the 4(d) rule--
    was finally completed eight years later, in 2023, as the endangered
    listing of the northern long-eared bat was going into effect.
        The ESA Flexibility Act would give the US Fish and Wildlife Service
    the same ability to tailor protections under endangered listings as it
    has for threatened listings, saving state governments across the
    country millions of dollars in staff time and other resources. The ESA
    Flexibility Act would also greatly streamline and expedite the
    development of Habitat Conservation Plans, saving resources of our
    federal government. Of course, the USFWS would not be obligated to
    allow 4(d) rule flexibility in every instance, but it would have an
    additional tool in its toolbox to tailor protections, as it did with
    its threatened listing of the northern long-eared bat.
        Unfortunately, other bat species are being negatively affected by
    white-nose syndrome. The tricolored bat is currently under
    consideration for an endangered listing, while populations of the big
    brown bat and little brown bat have also declined. Allowing the USFWS
    to utilize the 4(d) rule will give the agency more flexibility as it
    considers these important listing decisions. This flexibility will be
    paramount as additional bat species, whose range covers the vast
    majority of North America, continue declining due to white-nose
    syndrome.
        In Minnesota, our forests are healthy. According to data from the
    US Forest Service, we have more trees than we had 60 years ago, more
    ``big'' trees (19-inches in diameter and greater), and more
    forestland--meaning more bat habitat. By any measure, Minnesota has
    outstanding habitat for thousands of wildlife species, including the
    northern long-eared bat when it's ready to make a comeback, as well as
    the other bat species under consideration. The protections implemented
    by the US Fish & Wildlife Service, aided by the 4(d) rule and then the
    HCP, have been effective in preserving bat habitat. Forest management
    helps create habitat over time and across the landscape, allowing
    species with diverse habitat needs to flourish. An inflexible
    Endangered Species Act will not only do nothing to stem the decline of
    species suffering from wildlife diseases, it will discourage private
    landowners and non-federal agencies from working with the USFWS to
    determine the range and abundance of listed or candidate species.
        In Minnesota, we harvest roughly one percent of our forestland each
    year, and we grow three times as much wood as we harvest. All this
    while employing roughly 68,000 people in our forest products industry,
    paying approximately $2 billion in wages, while injecting more than $17
    billion dollars into our state's economy. We are actively managing our
    forests. In Minnesota, we like to say, ``Jobs grow on trees, and we
    grow a lot of trees.'' We are proof that effective forest management
    can improve forest health, grow our economy, and protect wildlife
    species that rely on the forest. The ESA Flexibility Act will aid in
    continuing to achieve those goals, and I urge your approval.
        I thank Representative Stauber for bringing forward this bill, and
    also Chair Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and members of the
    subcommittee for the opportunity to share my thoughts on this important
    topic.

                                     ______

        Mr. Bentz. I thank the witnesses for their testimony, and I
    will now recognize Members for 5 minutes each for questions.
        Mr. Carl, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

        Mr. Carl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Higgins, I appreciate you being here with us today. The
    need for modernization of the Endangered Species Act, ESA, is
    critical, and it is clear that this legislation requires reform
    to better serve both species and rural America. The ESA
    Flexibility Act is a step in the right direction.
        Just a point of reference. We have 225 different endangered
    species in the state of Alabama, so we can write a book on this
    issue, if we ever want to talk about that.
        Currently, the ESA has limitations that puts a burden on
    landholders. This legislation would strike a balance between
    protecting the endangered species, which we should, and
    allowing for responsible land use and management.
        As someone deeply involved in the timber industry, you
    understand that there is a fine line between conservation
    efforts and economy activity. The timber industry relies on
    sustainable practices that can be at odds with rigid
    regulations of the current ESA. Congressman Stauber's bill
    would provide the necessary flexibility for timber productions
    to continue their operations while ensuring the protection of
    the endangered species.
        This common-sense approach not only benefits species
    conservation, but also the economy of the rural communities
    like mine in Alabama and like yours in Minnesota. By finding
    this balance, we can promote responsible timber harvesting
    practice that supports both industry and the environment. Mr.
    Higgins, can you talk to me more about how critical it is to
    find a balance between protecting endangered species and
    supporting economy activities like timber production?
        Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Congressman. In Minnesota, our
    members are loggers in rural parts of our state. And the reason
    why everyone lives in Minnesota is for some sort of natural
    resource enjoyment or work, whether it is our beautiful Lake
    Superior, the 10,000-plus other lakes we have, and the
    beautiful forests that we have. So, they recreate in those
    forests, but they also work in those forests.
        And there is a balance. Any time you are talking about
    environmental permitting or, in this case, endangered species,
    there is a balance that needs to be struck in order to allow
    the species to survive, allow the great natural resources that
    we enjoy in our state to continue to thrive, but also for
    people to live and work.
        So, in this case, the ESA Flexibility Act would allow us,
    in the Federal Government, to find a little bit more of that
    balance in order to achieve both of our goals of being able to
    live and work and be prosperous, but also to enjoy all the
    parts of the natural resources that our state has been blessed
    with.
        Mr. Carl. Thank you very much.
        Mr., is it Guertin? I have always butchered your name.
        Mr. Guertin. It is Guertin, sir.
        Mr. Carl. I am close. I am getting closer. That is a good
    thing. Can you answer a question for me?
        These 225 endangered species, is there any way you can tell
    me when there has been any type of research or a count to find
    out if they should come off of this list or not?
        Mr. Guertin. Sure, Congressman. If they are a listed
    species, we have a statutory requirement to every 5 years do a
    relook at them, a 5-year status review. So, we work closely on
    a day-to-day and operational level, though, in and out with
    state and tribal wildlife management agencies, as well, to keep
    a running tab on where they are. But we are required to re-
    evaluate their status every 5 years.
        Mr. Carl. And I appreciate that. Where can I get that, the
    last 5 years on these particular species?
        Mr. Guertin. We would be glad to follow up with your staff
    after this hearing and get you that information.
        Mr. Carl. Please do. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Guertin. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Carl. That has been a big question of mine. Thank you.
        I return my time. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Bentz. Thank you. I recognize Ranking Member Huffman
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to start
    with Mr. von Bismarck.
        I appreciate your testimony. Your job just sounds
    fascinating and really interesting, and you have done some
    fantastic work.
        The Lacey Act, obviously, is instrumental in stopping some
    of the largest flows of illegally-logged timber from the Amazon
    into the United States. Correct?
        Mr. von Bismarck. Correct.
        Mr. Huffman. Correct, yes. I want to ask you about Peru,
    specifically, and how Federal agencies address the illegal
    timber coming into the United States from Peru. I know my
    colleague from California in his opening said it was just
    mahogany. But should we be sanguine about the fact that it was
    just mahogany? What do we know from that investigation?
        Mr. von Bismarck. Well, it was probably the leading signal
    that went to Peru to actually improve the situation there. And
    illegal logging in Peru destabilizes the entire country. It was
    at the center of the violence and political instability last
    year. And this really is the best mechanism of U.S. enforcement
    over the last 10 years of wood coming from Peru into the United
    States has been the leading force pushing in the other
    direction.
        For example, setting up an independent entity for the first
    time in Peru to oversee illegal logging, which very much
    improved the situation, which protected American consumers from
    being unwitting participants in extraordinary violence, such as
    the assassination of Edwin Chota that I mentioned in my
    testimony, and of course also being protected, if you are in
    the wood products industry in any way, from being undercut by
    this wood that is artificially cheap because it is stolen.
        Mr. Huffman. Yes. And by no means am I trying to malign Mr.
    McIlvain, I am sure he is doing a great job following the
    rules, and we all want to see red tape cut and things move as
    quickly and efficiently as possible. But I am concerned about
    the unintended consequences of a sweeping bill like this. And I
    want to just zero in on the allowance of materials to be
    transported and stored at an off-site, non-government-run
    location, or requiring Federal agencies to provide
    justifications and test protocols and results during an
    investigation.
        I mean, these seem like things that would undermine law
    enforcement in cases where we need to identify and crack down
    on illegal trafficking. Am I missing something, Mr. von
    Bismarck?
        Mr. von Bismarck. No, I believe that is the case. I think
    it is very reasonable to look at ways to improve enforcement of
    the Lacey Act, to streamline it, and indeed to strengthen it. I
    think that should very much include all the agencies that are
    working on enforcement, which I can't believe was the case
    here, based on the content of this bill, because my
    understanding of the way these cases unfold is that that
    critical moment of investigators having the actual wood and
    being able to ask questions of the importer, there are all
    kinds of information that is not with the shipment that is not
    in the normal import process. The cases that I described were
    entirely based on that moment. So, to remove that would remove
    the ability to ask those questions effectively and to test
    whether the wood is what it says it is.
        Mr. Huffman. And in terms of things that could speed up the
    process without compromising Lacey Act enforcement, there are
    no additional resources for Lacey Act implementation in this
    legislation. Correct?
        Mr. von Bismarck. Well, there certainly need to be many
    more, and I really appreciated Mr. McIlvain's point of some of
    the resources that are being spent to help companies take the
    appropriate due care to avoid illegal wood----
        Mr. Huffman. But this bill does not provide additional
    funding or resources in order to speed things along in those
    situations.
        Mr. von Bismarck. That is correct.
        Mr. Huffman. Mr. Guertin, I want to now come to the ESA
    Flexibility Act, as it is called. Mr. Higgins talked about an
    HCP in Minnesota, and I guess I am confused because this seems
    like a situation where the ESA flexibility that is already
    built into the law actually worked. And I am delighted that Mr.
    Higgins and his industry and others in Minnesota got their
    Habitat Conservation Plan. That provides a 50-year protection
    against take enforcement, doesn't it, Mr. Guertin?
        Mr. Guertin. Yes, Congressman, 50 years of certainty once
    this HCP has been approved.
        Mr. Huffman. Yes. I mean, if somehow they had not gotten
    that certainty, if somehow there had been litigation or other
    things, or the bureaucracy had prevented them from getting the
    HCP, I could sort of imagine coming the legislative route and
    trying to make changes. But we have a situation here where the
    flexibility in the ESA should be celebrated, not undermined
    with legislation.
        With that, I yield back.
        Mr. Bentz. The Chair recognizes Mr. Duarte for 5 minutes.

        Mr. Duarte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, Mr. McIlvain for being here today, good to see
    you. I ran a multi-generational family business in my past
    life, anyways.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Duarte. So, I appreciate the ins and outs. Wood imports
    under the Lacey Act now, you have three agencies. You have Fish
    and Wildlife concerned with invasive species issues; you have
    an Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, also concerned with
    biological diseases that may come in on the woods. Has there
    ever been a problem with either Fish and Wildlife or Animal
    Plant Health Inspection Service, to your knowledge, of an
    exotic wood import? Or a foreign timber import, it sounds like.
        Mr. McIlvain. As far as there being a problem with the
    associations looking at the material coming in?
        Mr. Duarte. No, I mean actual eggs of an insect, or
    somebody propagating natural tree species and making a----
        Mr. McIlvain. Oh, thus far, no. We have never had anything
    like that in material. Typically, it is kiln-dried material
    that we are bringing in, so any of that would have been killed
    in the kiln drying process.
        Mr. Duarte. That is what I would imagine. So, what we are
    mainly worried about is foreign sourcing issues that Customs
    and Border Patrol would have.
        Mr. McIlvain. Yes.
        Mr. Duarte. And it sounds like, Mr. Bismarck, and I will
    get to you, is all over the world doing these investigations,
    finding out where it is coming from.
        Have you ever been advised of, hey, be aware of Russian oak
    forests because we have some bad actors up there threatening
    the Siberian lion or tiger?
        Mr. McIlvain. Yes, with the Lacey Act and with the
    International Wood Products Association talking to other
    members and seeing reports that come out about bad actors, it
    is excellent information for us to avoid those areas, avoid
    those bad actors. So, we have definitely seen a benefit from
    having those reports come out to make sure that it is another
    tool we have to do the right thing and find the better source.
        Mr. Duarte. So, a legitimate player like yourself is going
    to look at alerts and, hey, don't buy these things from Peru,
    don't buy these things from Russia.
        Mr. McIlvain. Absolutely.
        Mr. Duarte. Take advantage of Mr. von Bismarck's good work.
        Mr. McIlvain. Very good work.
        Mr. Duarte. Are there other players in your industry that
    you compete with that could use more guidance than what has
    been given?
        Mr. McIlvain. Yes. I mean, unfortunately, in any industry,
    in any area, any city there are bad actors. And having the
    tools for those to combat that is very important. All the while
    there is the balance of stopping bad behavior, while at the
    same time allowing good actors and those following the laws and
    the rules to do the right thing.
        Mr. Duarte. So, we are simply asking this Act, and I am not
    thinking of rhino horns or elephant tusks, so if there is
    amendment needed to make sure that we are not talking animal
    products, that the Strengthen Wood Product Supply Chains Act
    means wood products, I would be happy to amend it further down
    in the body of the text, not just the title, if that wasn't
    clear enough.
        Mr. McIlvain. Well, yes, the nature of this bill, the way I
    see it, is making things more efficient, more timely for
    sustainably harvested lumber to come through quickly and
    efficiently without----
        Mr. Duarte. So, what this bill does, it simply says notify
    the importer, your company, within 5 days if there is a problem
    with a shipment, if it is suspected and it is going to be
    investigated. And then 10 days after that, if the investigation
    or the assessment--I am sure at that time accessions can be
    taken, photographs, DNA, whatever you do. If after that, they
    are going to leave it in drayage for another indefinite period.
    How long has it gone for you?
        Mr. McIlvain. Me, personally? About 30 days or so, a month,
    has probably been the longest. I have heard that customers or
    other companies have had it much longer than that.
        Mr. Duarte. How long have you heard?
        Mr. McIlvain. Up to 2 years.
        Mr. Duarte. In drayage?
        Mr. McIlvain. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Duarte. In a port, being charged fees on the container?
        Mr. McIlvain. And demurrage are the fees that really cost
    them.
        Mr. Duarte. Demurrage, yes. That adds up.
        Mr. McIlvain. Yes.
        Mr. Duarte. And then, at some point----
        Mr. McIlvain. That goes from $500 to $1,000 a day per
    container, which adds up if you have multiple containers in a
    shipment and they are all held.
        Mr. Duarte. How much a day?
        Mr. McIlvain. Around $500, and then it scales up to around
    $1,000 per day per container.
        Mr. Duarte. Mr. von Bismarck, please tell me, why isn't
    this workable? You are doing the work in foreign countries. You
    know where the problems are. You know how to warn folks like
    Mr. McIlvain or the Customs agents. This isn't endangered
    species or an invasive species issue, or a threat to
    agriculture or the ecosystem in America. This is simply bad
    actors in foreign countries shipping us stuff that we don't
    want to have here. Why don't these time frames work for these
    purposes?
        Mr. von Bismarck. It appears that there is a significant
    change in terms of the 10-day piece, particularly. It seems,
    from the language, if the distinction is to be out of
    government control, that would be a particular red flag for
    possibilities, if one is a bad actor, to change paperwork, to
    actually substitute the actual shipment with different wood.
    You said it was one type of wood, you know it is another.
        Mr. Duarte. But you can take accessions, you can take
    samples, you can take photos, you can document and hold
    evidence as to what was actually there.
        Mr. von Bismarck. You mean enforcement personnel can?
        Mr. Duarte. Yes.
        Mr. von Bismarck. But my understanding of the timeline is
    if 10 days is tough, I mean, you can take some samples. But if
    you then have to give up all those pallets, you might have the
    Yacu Kallpa coming from Peru as enormous volumes of wood.
        Mr. Duarte. But again, if you are wrong, it is $500, $1,000
    a day.
        Mr. Bentz. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Duarte. Well, thank you both. I appreciate your
    presence here today.
        Mr. Bentz. The Chair recognizes Congressman Grijalva for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Grijalva. No----
        Mr. Bentz. The Chair recognizes Congresswoman Dingell for 5
    minutes.
        Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        We are in the midst of an unprecedented biodiversity
    crisis. Scientists have warned that 1 million species are at
    risk of extinction, more now than in any other period of human
    history. In the United States, 34 percent of plants and 40
    percent of animals are at risk of extinction, and 41 percent of
    our ecosystems are at risk of range-wide collapse.
        However, not all hope is lost. The Endangered Species Act,
    or ESA, is a critical tool for preventing extinction and
    putting imperiled species on the road to recovery. The ESA has
    been our most successful tool to protect America's vulnerable
    wildlife. The ESA continues preventing the extinction of 99
    percent of the species it covers, including America's beloved
    animals like the bald eagle, grizzly bear, and Florida manatee.
        Last November, we celebrated 50 years of the Endangered
    Species Act, and today I fear that some people want to
    undermine these protections. Legislation like H.R. 6784, the
    ESA Flexibility Act, would drastically change the nature of the
    ESA by allowing the Services to treat any endangered species as
    threatened. This would drastically change the core and original
    intent of the ESA.
        It has always been maintained that when a species is
    threatened, they are given some protection with some
    flexibility. However, when a species is on the brink of
    extinction, they are labeled endangered and given the strongest
    protections. I do know this because not only do I co-Chair the
    ESA Congressional Caucus, I was married to the man that wrote
    the bill and talked about it more than you could believe any
    individual could talk about this subject, because he was
    passionate.
        And these proposed changes could result in inconsistent
    regulations in enforcement, with states having the option to
    tailor regulations when they have a cooperative agreement with
    the Services. It allows for even more exemptions.
        Mr. Guertin, I have several questions for you. Based on the
    testimony given today, it seems this bill was introduced to
    allow logging in forests that are crucial habitats for the now-
    endangered northern long-eared bats. Doesn't the Lake State
    Forest Management Bat Habitat Conservation Plan approved by the
    FWS already permit timber harvest exceptions to Michigan,
    Minnesota, and Wisconsin?
        Mr. Guertin. Yes it does, Congresswoman.
        Mrs. Dingell. Thank you. And Mr. Guertin, if this bill were
    to be enacted, would there be any changes to the northern long-
    eared bats listing or changes to the current Habitat
    Conservation Plan?
        Mr. Guertin. We would have to continue to evaluate the
    species itself, Congresswoman, because, as you know, the threat
    here isn't necessarily the logging. It is the white-nose
    syndrome which is wiping out most of these populations. But at
    this point we would have no plans to re-evaluate.
        But to come back to your earlier point, the HCP is there,
    and it is a very powerful tool to give certainty to industry.
        Mrs. Dingell. Thank you. Based on the testimony today, it
    seems this bill is completely unnecessary. Habitat Conservation
    Plans already provide the flexibility when it comes to the
    conservation of our most vulnerable species.
        I do want to hit on one more point regarding section 9 of
    the ESA. Mr. Guertin, the ESA Flexibility Act makes the section
    9 prohibitions in the Endangered Species Act optional for any
    listed species. How might this disincentivize important
    conservation agreements such as the Candidate Conservation
    Agreements with assurances or Habitat Conservation Plans that
    help conserve and recover endangered species?
        Mr. Guertin. Congresswoman, we believe that the Endangered
    Species Act in its original intent does provide the Services a
    lot of flexibility to work with project proponents to allow
    economic development to proceed. These are inherent in section
    10, the HCPs we develop, our section 7 work to clear Federal
    projects with a nexus to endangered species. It also includes a
    4(d) rule for the threatened species.
        Our primary concern with the envisioned legislation is it
    abolishes that bright red line between the needs of an
    endangered species and imminent need of extinction protection,
    and a threatened species, where the imminency is not there.
        Mrs. Dingell. Thank you.
        A critical part of species conservation is taking steps to
    proactively address declines before they occur. This requires
    us to take action to ensure state and local governments have
    the tools they need to address conservation early and
    incentivize these important efforts. That is what the Recovery
    of America's Wildlife Act would do. I am hoping to reintroduce
    it soon.
        For 50 years, the ESA has protected and brought back many
    of our beloved species from the brink of extinction, and has a
    99 percent success rate. I believe we need to continue to
    protect this Act.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
        Mr. Bentz. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Congressman
    Graves for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Guertin, thank you for being here today, and thanks for
    your many years of service to U.S. Fish. Today, we will refer
    to you as a sacrificial lamb, I believe. Thanks for being here.
        I assume you have traveled to other countries before.
        Mr. Guertin. Yes, Congressman.
        Mr. Graves. Could you just give me a ballpark? I mean, 10,
    20?
        Mr. Guertin. Several dozen, sir.
        Mr. Graves. OK. Several dozen other countries. Have you
    ever flown into a country, been told at the airport that you
    have to wait there, you have to pay for your own hotel room at
    the airport while they wait for days and days to actually allow
    you in the country? Has that ever happened to you before?
        Mr. Guertin. No, Congressman.
        Mr. Graves. Yes, that has never happened to me before,
    either.
        I guess I am scratching my head a little bit with this
    Lacey Act objection, so I want to be very clear in regard to
    the objectives of the Lacey Act. I couldn't be more supportive.
    In regard to what Mr. Duarte has done or what he is proposing
    to do in his legislation, he is simply trying to provide
    certainty or due process.
        I mean, you heard Mr. McIlvain describe the incredible
    financial burden that is placed in a scenario where you are
    guilty until proven innocent. That is not what our country
    does. That is not what you have experienced traveling around
    the world. And it is not really a due process that America
    should be proud of. He is trying to clean up that process and
    trying to provide better certainty.
        And I guess I am really having a hard time understanding
    your objection.
        Mr. Guertin. Thank you for that, Congressman. So, the
    United States supports a global economy. There are some $9
    billion a day coming through ports and airfields and other
    entry points in the United States.
        Customs and Border Patrol is the first line there with
    their 70,000 employees. They screen all of these shipments,
    trucks, planes, and you name it coming in.
        APHIS, the Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, is the
    second line of defense. They then take a look at things that
    have been flagged for them, whether it includes live animals--
    --
        Mr. Graves. So, let me interrupt you, because I have a few
    other questions that I want to ask. So, basically, it is that
    the U.S. Government doesn't have an efficient enough process.
    We are charging additional taxes on importers to cover the
    inefficiency is what it sounds like.
        Let me switch to the ESA bill. I understand you have been
    directed to say no to this one, as well. I am looking at the
    text of the bill. This is less than two pages of changes, and I
    want to read the first two paragraphs. In regard to threatened
    species it explicitly says the Secretary shall issue
    regulations as the Secretary deems necessary and advisable to
    provide for the conservation of such species. Under endangered
    species it says the Secretary may issue such regulations as the
    Secretary deems necessary and advisable to provide for the
    conservation of species.
        I guess I am kind of scratching my head trying to
    understand what it is exactly that you are objecting to
    whenever you are the one that gets to determine if and when you
    write regulations.
        Mr. Guertin. Congressman, we believe that the original
    intent of the Endangered Species Act clearly laid out a red
    line between the needs of an endangered species with imminent
    facing of extinction and a threatened species. This legislation
    would eliminate that, and would have much more permissive
    language in it.
        Mr. Graves. No, no, no. That is misleading because this
    explicitly says, and I will say it again, ``shall issue
    regulations as the Secretary deems necessary and advisable to
    provide for the conservation of species.'' One says ``shall''
    for threatened, the other one says ``may'' for endangered. In
    both cases, the full discretion is provided to the Secretary.
        So, it sounds to me like what is going on is that the U.S.
    Fish doesn't want to have to do a tailored conservation plan
    for a species, and instead is going to take a lazier approach
    where you just do a blanket for every species, which I think is
    inappropriate. And I am really having trouble understanding
    objections to this legislation.
        Let's see, Dr. Rohwer, when you improve the health of
    waterfowl populations, I am from Louisiana, so a little bit
    down toward the southern end of the flyway, much of the
    investment under this legislation would actually benefit, I
    think, the northern portions. But would this be something that
    would ultimately benefit Louisiana?
        Dr. Rohwer. Yes, sir. We have done a bunch of marking
    studies of mallards coming out of nesting structures, and they
    are put up all over the Prairie Pothole Region. And, frankly,
    they have benefited hunters from Minnesota and North Dakota
    right down to the Mississippi Delta, south of Venice. So, the
    Atchafalaya Delta has been in recovery.
        So, I think everybody benefits from this thing. The center
    of mallard wintering ranges in Arkansas, but a lot of mallards
    still make it to Louisiana, to freshwater marshes.
        Mr. Graves. Thank you.
        Dr. Rohwer. Yes.
        Mr. Graves. I had another question, I will do it for the
    record, I am out of time.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
        Mr. Bentz. The Chair recognizes Congressman Grijalva for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. von Bismarck, a simple question: Are wildlife
    trafficking and the illegal timber trade connected with other
    geopolitical and national security concerns that we have as a
    nation, like drug trafficking, human rights abuses, political
    corruption?
        Mr. von Bismarck. Very much so, Congressman. I gave one
    example in my testimony, an early investigation that involved a
    cocaine trafficker in Honduras.
        Really, the logging scene throughout Central America and
    South America has significant overlap with drug production. I
    landed in some of the landing strips that were there for
    purpose of moving drugs, and often it is the same actors. When
    we go in to find the beginning of illegal logging, we are often
    in very lawless territory that is entirely controlled by drug
    cartels. So, timber trafficking can be a source of finance of
    convenience and also a cover for moving actual drugs.
        Mr. Grijalva. And Mr. von Bismarck, wildlife trafficking
    and illegal logging facilitate instability in a country. It is
    a question.
        Mr. von Bismarck. Absolutely. I gave the example just last
    year in Peru, where illegal logging was one of the central
    issues that drove the destabilization and the violence in Peru.
    You have examples around the world of also terrorism,
    separatist movements, rebels, southern Philippines over the
    years, Myanmar terror pockets in the continent of Africa, where
    both wildlife trade and timber is a source of funds for those
    activities.
        Mr. Grijalva. You hear repeatedly in this Congress and in
    this Committee of the dire dangers being presented at the
    southern border of this nation with fentanyl, human
    trafficking, organized crime, cartels, and yet there seems to
    be a more dismissive attitude when it comes to the issues that
    we are talking about right now in both those illegal activities
    prohibited by ESA and Lacey Act of illegal logging and wildlife
    trafficking, which are tied implicitly with the other issues
    that seem to rise above this issue over and over again.
        Should there be a distinction made, as we are making
    politically on this issue?
        Mr. von Bismarck. Well, I mean, I can understand. You have
    a piece of wood, and we all like wood, and we use it, and it is
    not a packet of cocaine. But what we have been struggling with
    is that some wood is just as bad on the other end in terms of
    the violence it causes, the destruction it causes, we are
    talking, in this case, of really removing the economic future
    of many peoples that are dependent on the forest, as well.
        So, I think the value of laws like this, like the amended
    Lacey Act, is that it helps you distinguish between the good
    wood and the bad wood, so that we can have a sustainable and
    functioning economy based on wood.
        Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
        Mr. Guertin, good to see you again. Give us an example,
    following up on that response, where the Lacey Act itself, the
    Fish and Wildlife Service, and its partners bring one of these
    international crime rings to justice. And would the amendments
    in this legislation make that work more difficult or not?
        Mr. Guertin. Thank you for your question.
        We have worked with the Justice Department recently on
    Operation Apex. There was a criminal gang using frozen shark
    carcasses, and they hid shark fins in them, which are illegal,
    and cocaine, and other contraband, a pretty large scale.
        And note a lot of this conversation has focused on finished
    wood products, but the borders are presented with a lot of
    unfinished wood product, raw lumber and timber. And we will
    note for the Committee, of interest last year we deployed a new
    mobile tree lab along the border with Mexico and the United
    States, and we were able to analyze these raw shipments coming
    in very quickly in a matter of minutes and make a determination
    on them. So, an area of streamlining there for people to be
    aware of.
        But thank you for the question.
        Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Bentz. The Chair recognizes Congresswoman Hageman for 5
    minutes.

        Ms. Hageman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to each of
    our witnesses for testifying in Congress today.
        I also want to thank Mr. Stauber for introducing the ESA
    Flexibility Act. I am a proud co-sponsor of this legislation,
    as it allows for greater flexibility while also protecting
    development and recreational activities when there is no
    correlation between those activities and the health of a
    particular species.
        Too often, unscientific decisions are made in connection
    with the Endangered Species Act. The obvious case of the long-
    eared bat was mentioned earlier in Mr. Higgins' testimony, but
    the reality is that we could go on and on about examples of
    unscientific decisions being used to hold projects and
    activities hostage by the ESA regulations.
        We have also heard from our witnesses today on how
    providing greater flexibility will benefit project managers,
    taxpayers, recreationalists, the environment, and the species
    themselves. Mr. Higgins, in the past we have heard the U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service assert that 4(d) rules are costly for
    various reasons, and those reasons always seem to be changing.
    Can you speak to how you anticipate increased flexibility will
    save time, money, and resources?
        Mr. Higgins. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman.
        As you know, in Minnesota and, as I stated earlier, the
    states of Wisconsin and Michigan joined the Minnesota
    Department of Natural Resources in pursuing this Habitat
    Conservation Plan. It was an 8-year process.
        The Fish and Wildlife Service had already rightly
    determined, through the process of listing the bat as
    threatened, that habitat was not a problem.
        Ms. Hageman. Right.
        Mr. Higgins. So, when it came time to make an endangered
    listing, they didn't have that tool in their toolbox. Everyone
    agrees that habitat in this case was not a problem. It saves
    the time and money and the 8-year process that the states had
    to go through.
        And I appreciate the reluctance of the Fish and Wildlife
    Service. They are talking about costs and their process, but
    that work had already been done. It had already been
    determined. And if there is more cost to the Feds, they are
    shifting it to the states. So, cost is cost.
        And I also wanted to point out that Mr. von Bismarck, I
    believe he said something to the effect of we need to remove
    all the potential stresses when a species is uplisted from
    threatened to endangered, and he is right. But we all agree
    that habitat is not a stress on the northern long-eared bat.
    There is plenty of habitat in Minnesota.
        So, yes, that is the way I kind of see it.
        Ms. Hageman. Could you also speak as to why you think
    increased flexibility is better for the listed species itself?
        Mr. Higgins. Well, I did not speak to that, but it is
    better for the species itself just because anything that
    streamlines the process, we can get on with the work of
    creating habitat and making sure habitat is strong.
        There was a study done, Congressman Stauber mentioned a
    study from University of California at Irvine earlier. There
    was a similar study done at the University of California
    Berkeley 3 or 4 years ago, and the study found that it was
    related to the fires in the Sierra Nevada mountains, the Sierra
    Nevada forests out in California and the California spotted
    owl, and because there had been less management in those
    forests, there had been a lot of canopy lost. So, the study
    found that there were worse declines in tree canopy in the
    protected areas than in the non-protected areas where logging
    and forest management had been performed.
        So, it just streamlines the process. We can get on with the
    work of making sure habitat is good for these species.
        Ms. Hageman. OK. Director Guertin, in your testimony you
    said, ``Species listed as endangered are at the highest level
    of risk and require the greatest protection.'' Because you seem
    to acknowledge in your testimony that you have concerns about
    eliminating some of the differences between endangered and
    threatened species, I would like to ask you.
        Do you see the irony in your opposition to this flexibility
    on the ground that you believe it destabilizes the differences
    between endangered and threatened species, while at the same
    time you are promulgating a blanket rule that tries to
    eliminate those same regulatory differences?
        Mr. Guertin. Congresswoman, a lot of the questions here
    today center on our belief that we think there is a clear
    distinction between the level of protection needed for an
    endangered species because, by definition, they are on track
    toward extinction in the immediate future. And then we have the
    needs of threatened species, we have more time to work with
    them. There are a lot more inherent flexibilities in the
    Endangered Species Act for them.
        We, at a threatened level, can tailor some of the solutions
    out there, working with partners, give them a lot more
    flexibility. But we can use a lot of the tools of the ESA for
    an endangered species, as well, including section 10, section 7
    to promote responsible economic projects to move forward. And
    we do that every day.
        Ms. Hageman. And the ESA Flexibility Act would provide for
    that flexibility, as well. Isn't that correct?
        Mr. Guertin. We argue the intent of the legislation,
    Congresswoman. It comes back to what we believe, the original
    intent of the legislation has a bright red line there. And we
    are arguing this legislation, in our mind, would do away with
    that line.
        Ms. Hageman. Thank you, and I yield back.
        Mr. Bentz. The Chair recognizes Congressman Stauber for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Higgins, prior to the uplisting of the northern long-
    eared bat, would you say we saw proper management of the
    species in Minnesota?
        Mr. Higgins. Yes.
        Mr. Stauber. Did forestry activity, or any human activity
    for that matter, have a negative impact on the species
    population leading to its uplisting?
        Mr. Higgins. It did not. And, in fact, in all the work we
    have done in the forests during that time, I am not aware of a
    single bat that was taken during harvesting operations in our
    state.
        Mr. Stauber. And I will just remind the panel that a
    Congressional Review Act on the uplisting of the northern long-
    eared bat, it passed the House and it passed the Senate, and
    the Biden administration vetoed it.
        So, would you agree that the 4(d) rules that were applied
    to the species when it was listed as threatened did not have a
    negative impact on the species population ultimately leading to
    the uplisting of the species?
        Mr. Higgins. It did not. In fact, as we have pointed out
    several times, the stress on the bat is not a habitat issue. It
    is a disease issue. So, it did not have an effect.
        Mr. Stauber. And Mr. Higgins, do you agree with the
    sentiment, and do you believe my legislation would help address
    that concern for regulations related to endangered species?
        Mr. Higgins. It would, definitely.
        Mr. Stauber. Thank you.
        Deputy Director Guertin, it is great to see you again. In
    your written testimony, you note the Fish and Wildlife
    Service's opposition to my legislation in part due to the
    increased costs and staff hours associated with promulgating
    4(d) rules. Is this correct?
        Mr. Guertin. Congressman, all of these processes we go
    through require staffing and FTEs for them. Certainly, writing
    a 4(d) rule is a complex undertaking, and it is something we
    build into our budget each year. Last year, the Administration
    requested about a $10 million increase for additional personnel
    to do this additional work.
        Mr. Stauber. But in your testimony, you said the opposition
    to my legislation in part is due to the increased costs.
    Correct?
        Mr. Guertin. That is what the legislation says. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Stauber. So, Mr. Guertin, typically do communities face
    monetary or economic costs when complying with the Endangered
    Species Act?
        Mr. Guertin. We work with communities and with industry to
    develop and implement flexibilities under the Endangered
    Species Act, whether it is section 4, section 10, section 7.
        We also can provide funding to them, for example, writing
    these Habitat Conservation Plans. Our Cooperative Endangered
    Species Conservation Fund provides grants to states and
    counties to write these plans, and also to implement them on
    the ground.
        Mr. Stauber. Why should my constituents bear the cost when
    it is Fish and Wildlife Service putting forward these
    regulations?
        Mr. Guertin. Sir, these regulations are to implement
    national-level law, the Endangered Species Act, which was
    enacted to protect imperiled species out there on the land. We
    do the best we can with all project proponents and with our
    state partners to support these projects and provide a lot of
    technical assistance, in-kind contributions.
        Mr. Stauber. So, just with my last minute and a half, the
    northern long-eared bat, the white-nose syndrome did not come
    from any forest harvesting or the lack of conservation. The
    science tells us that. So, we followed the science, and we
    followed the science. The House voted to follow the science.
    The Senate voted to follow the science. And the Biden
    administration over-ruled that congressional action. Do you
    support that?
        Mr. Guertin. Congressman, I am an employee of the Federal
    Government. My position is that of the Administration, the
    Biden administration.
        Mr. Stauber. So, you support it?
        Mr. Guertin. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Stauber. OK. And that is the biggest reason my
    constituents have a problem with this. You are costing our
    loggers and truckers money. It has nothing to do with their
    harvesting. It has nothing to do with it. And the science tells
    it. So, you are agreeing with the Administration that doesn't
    follow the science. I find that very concerning.
        My ESA Flexibility Act, there is nothing in it that says
    you ``shall''. It says you ``may''. It gives you and your
    agency another tool. Wouldn't you want that additional tool?
        Mr. Guertin. Congressman, we believe we already have a lot
    of flexibility with the Endangered Species Act under section
    10.
        Mr. Stauber. OK. Would this give you more? Would this give
    you an additional? Why would you not want that flexibility?
        Mr. Guertin. Sir, when reading the legislation, I believe
    it would just blow up that red line, the distinction between a
    threatened and an endangered species.
        Mr. Stauber. But there is nothing forcing you to, it is
    ``may,'' you may look at that. I think that gives you
    flexibility. I think you should trust yourself. I think the
    agency should trust the science and trust yourself.
        Mr. Chair, I yield back.
        Mr. Bentz. The Chair recognizes Congresswoman Hoyle for 5
    minutes.
        Ms. Hoyle. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        My colleague, Mr. Duarte, has put forward H.R. 7157, the
    Strengthen Wood Product Supply Chains Act, which claims to
    improve the Lacey Act for importers by instituting very
    ambitious enforcement timelines for Fish and Wildlife services.
    I believe that he has done so in good faith to solve issues he
    sees as a problem.
        However, my concern is that it is too broadly written,
    covering all enforcement activities under the Lacey Act. While
    the title of the bill indicates this is targeted towards
    timber, the bill itself changes enforcement for illegal
    wildlife and injurious species in addition to timber imports.
        Since 83 percent of my district is forest land and 71
    percent is timber land, I would like to focus today on the
    impact on timber. Deputy Director Guertin shared that H.R. 7157
    would make it harder for the Fish and Wildlife Service to do
    its job enforcing the Lacey Act, and this is concerning because
    proper enforcement of the Lacey Act is critical for the flow of
    legal commerce and to protect our country's natural resources.
    Lots of people worked a very long time to set up the rules that
    we have to protect our forests, our old growth, and to be able
    to provide jobs in the timber industry.
        This reduces demand, the Lacey Act, for illegally logged
    materials which are harvested in ways that are incredibly
    harmful to the natural environment. And illegal timber harvests
    promote deforestation and threaten biodiversity in some of the
    world's most special ecosystems.
        Also, allowing illegally logged materials into our country
    would be bad for our domestic timber producers, who are
    following the rules and abiding by our environmental laws. I
    believe this bill would create an unfair playing field for our
    U.S. timber producers, many of whom are in my district. So, my
    question is for Mr. von Bismarck.
        Can you explain how banning illegally-logged timber in the
    United States helps U.S. timber producers compete both in
    domestic and export markets?
        Mr. von Bismarck. Absolutely. Thank you for the question,
    Congresswoman.
        It was really a study by the industry itself that
    identified that, due to the import of illegal timber, they were
    losing $1 billion a year, half of which was due to depressed
    prices in the United States and half due to reduced
    opportunities for export overseas.
        In terms of the impact of the Lacey Act to address that,
    the United States is a huge market. And we have just seen, I
    can speak from personal experience, which I tried to do in the
    testimony, of how the individual enforcement actions send a
    signal around the world. The enforcement against ebony, for
    example, from Madagascar here in the United States caused China
    to shut down its shipments of ebony from Madagascar, and really
    brought a national park and World Heritage Site back from the
    brink, for example.
        Ms. Hoyle. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
        I yield the remainder of my time.
        Mr. Bentz. Thank you.
        Congressman LaMalfa, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to direct this
    on H.R. 6854, the Habitat Enhancement Now Act, to Mr. Rohwer,
    if I said that correctly. Sorry, I wasn't in the room.
        The Deputy Director claims that the funding totals would be
    insufficient to meaningfully assist waterfowl. Dr. Rohwer, can
    you talk about how the population would be increased by 400,000
    with a $3 million program that we have gleaned from the two
    programs in the bill? How effective would that be?
        Dr. Rohwer. I will just speak to the hen house portion of
    the bill. $1.5 million over 5 years produces nearly 20 thousand
    hen houses. And that creates each year around 45,000 extra
    ducks. And over a 10-year life span, we put hen houses out, and
    we pay for the original installation and the maintenance, so
    that basically means 10 years of 45,000 extra ducks, plus or
    minus. So, you are talking about 450,000 extra mallards. I
    think that is terribly cost effective. Absolutely nothing else
    comes close to that.
        I applaud the work that----
        Mr. LaMalfa. For a $1.5 million outlay on the hen program?
        Dr. Rohwer. Right.
        Mr. LaMalfa. OK. Because it is listed here there is $3
    million total, with the two programs in the bill. Can you speak
    on the other half of it?
        Dr. Rohwer. And the other half goes to protection of
    nesting habitat and brood water in California.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Yes.
        Dr. Rohwer. Frankly, the science is not as clear there. But
    we know that brood water is the limitation to duck production
    in California. And most of the ducks, mallards shot in
    California are raised in California. So, I think it would be a
    tremendous help. It would be a great addition to all the other
    funds that we are using to help improve habitat.
        Mr. LaMalfa. All right. We need a lot of help on the
    habitat in the far north there, where the water has been
    basically taken away.
        Dr. Rohwer. Yes.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Let me shift gears to Mr. Stauber's bill, H.R.
    6784, to Mr. Guertin on that one.
        I would like to just understand better the thinking on more
    specifically when we are talking about this white-nose syndrome
    with bats, where there is no effect on that caused by human
    activity, human interaction at all. So, we cannot allow the
    flexibility to be applied either, well enough on threatened or
    as well as to endangered is what the bill is seeking to do when
    it is entirely something happening in nature, Mr. Guertin, not
    human activity.
        I have seen that a lot in our Sierra forests, too, where
    they had an effect on, whether it is a salamander or something
    else that really hasn't been caused by people, yet you still
    have very difficult ESA requirements on how people will move or
    harvest or whatever it is.
        But, specifically, maybe more to this white-nose syndrome,
    why would you oppose the ability to not have to go through such
    a great regulatory rigmarole on a threatened species or
    endangered species for activities that have nothing to do with
    the threatening of that species?
        Mr. Guertin. Thank you for your question, Congressman. Yes,
    we agree that the primary threat to the species is the white-
    nose syndrome, among other factors out there. It is a
    determining factor that caused us to uplist it to an endangered
    status.
        That said, though, we have deployed a lot of flexibility on
    the ground with that endangered finding, including processing
    over 25,000 section 7 consultation requests over the last year,
    90 percent of them, or 23,000, went to green immediately after
    we ran them through our determination key, and those projects
    moved forward. We are working on the remaining 10 percent right
    now.
        We have also deployed a tri-state habitat conservation plan
    up there.
        Mr. LaMalfa. You are talking conservation plans. We are
    talking about activity that might have to do with resource
    utilization, whether it might be important in my area, timber,
    or maybe some level of mining, or just rebuilding
    infrastructure. Those things have very difficult times getting
    permits, as well, not just doing green programs.
        Mr. Guertin. Well, these permits we are approving projects
    are for infrastructure. They are for roads, they are for
    bridges, they are for timber operations, they are for
    supporting very similar projects that were underway before the
    uplisting from a threatened status to an endangered status.
        Mr. LaMalfa. OK. Well, I think you feel like you have
    flexibility there, but the people dealing with it do not. So,
    can we listen to them harder about what flexibility really
    looks like on the ground in doing so? Because they find
    roadblock after roadblock for something that they are having no
    negative effect or cause of.
        Mr. Guertin. Congressman, absolutely. After this hearing,
    we plan to reach out to my fellow panel members here and other
    constituents up there. We clearly need to sit down with them
    and hear about more of their concerns, follow up, share with
    them some of the tools we can bring to bear, and help them----
        Mr. LaMalfa. Will you be willing to change your tools?
        Mr. Bentz. Congressman, your time is out.
        Mr. LaMalfa. I have to yield back. But that is what they
    need. You need to hear them on how the tools need to be changed
    to actually work where there is no negative effect.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Bentz. Thank you. Mr. Guertin, the issue is, you
    mentioned the word, let me find it here, ``imminence''. The
    imminent extinction, I think, is what you are trying to drive
    at. And you were talking about the bright line between the
    threatened status on the one hand and endangered on the other.
        I think a lot of the folks up here have been asking you
    what you do differently when you cross over that bright line.
    And I think what is bothering people is it doesn't sound like
    very much when it comes to the situation with the bat.
        So, I am going to ask you this. The Department has
    determined that there is an imminent threat to the bat, and
    thus the uplisting occurred and a lot of additional work for
    the HCP. So, tell me, how much better off is the bat as a
    result of the HCP, as compared to the previous circumstance?
    Because it was an imminent threat. So, whatever you decided you
    wanted to do had to do something good for the bat. So, tell us.
        Mr. Guertin. Congressman, we understand that uplisting the
    species from threatened to endangered was driven by the
    biology. And we understand and acknowledge our partners in the
    timber industry had all along acted in good faith and done
    everything we had asked them to do under the 4(d) rule----
        Mr. Bentz. I haven't heard, wait, wait, wait. You are
    drifting. You are avoiding my question. My question is how much
    better off is the bat under the HCP?
        Mr. Guertin. Oh, sure. I was going to get to that, sir.
        Mr. Bentz. Please get to it.
        Mr. Guertin. Right now we are continuing to see a very
    sobering trend for the bat introduced----
        Mr. Bentz. OK, stop, stop. I am asking you a very specific
    question. You have an imminent problem, and that is why the
    uplisting occurred. And as a result, we lost the opportunity to
    use the 4(d) and we had to go to the HCP. So, I am asking you,
    is the bat the better for it? That is your goal. That is your
    job. The bat has to be the better for it.
        Mr. Guertin. It is still in a dangerous, perilous
    situation, sir. It hasn't improved that much over the past
    year. Over the next couple of years we have to----
        Mr. Bentz. OK, now we are getting to it. The question that
    we all should be asking ourselves is that which you are doing
    in your agency helping the bat, or are you just going through
    the steps?
        And the reason I am asking you these questions is because
    it seems to me that Mr. Graves and others have been saying,
    look, you have the tools available. You will uplist, and then
    under this bill you would have available, if you wish, the
    4(d). But you don't have to, because on your own words you have
    already made that determination that, because you have
    uplisted, there is a much more challenging situation for the
    bat. Correct?
        Mr. Guertin. Yes, Congressman. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Bentz. Yes. So, what I am asking you is, if you had
    that additional flexibility, and I think you have been asked
    this question two or three times previously, why is it that you
    would not take into account the imminent demise or extinction
    of the bat in determining whether or not to use the 4(d) if you
    had that flexibility?
        You have been asked that before, but I need to hear the
    answer again.
        Mr. Guertin. Mr. Chairman, we believe we have the
    flexibilities when we deploy the section 10 HCP process and
    when we deploy the section 7 consultation process, as well.
        Our concern with the legislation is that it would set the
    precedent of diminishing that red line for other species, and
    it would have too many shells in there. So, to us that is the
    bright red line.
        That said, this hearing has been very illuminating for me,
    personally. I am sure it has been for the Committee members
    about the concerns our witnesses have discussed here with us
    very candidly, and we owe them some follow-up on it.
        Mr. Bentz. So, before I leave this point, because I think
    it is the one of greatest interest to me, and that is what is
    actually happening as a result of this red line you are talking
    about?
        You are imposing upon yourself a higher level of exertion,
    a higher level of expenditure, a higher level of regulation.
    What are you doing to yourself that you are fearsome you would
    lose if we tacked onto it the flexibility afforded by the 4(d)
    rule?
        Are you saying that you don't trust yourself? Is that what
    we are hearing?
        Mr. Guertin. No, we trust the science, though, Mr.
    Chairman. And we believe----
        Mr. Bentz. And the science would change as a result of you
    having the flexibility?
        Mr. Guertin. The current management structure that we have
    on the ground now with these HCPs and the section 7 process is
    providing some benefit to the bat. It is making sure that our
    industry partners aren't in jeopardy as this situation unfolds.
        In the science and applications role, we are doing
    everything we can to determine what is causing the white-nose
    syndrome, if there is any remedy we can deploy from a
    biological or scientific way.
        Mr. Bentz. OK, but you are not answering my question. What
    I asked was, do you not trust yourself? And the answer is, I
    think you do trust yourself, it is just that, from a perceptive
    standpoint or an optics standpoint, it is easier if you have
    that bright line and you are not plagued with the possibility
    of using other solutions.
        But I appreciate all of the panel's participation today,
    and we are now to the point where I read this.
        I thank the witnesses for their testimony and the Members
    for their questions.
        The members of the Committee may have some additional
    questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to
    these in writing. Under Committee Rule 3, members of the
    Committee must submit questions to the Subcommittee Clerk by 5
    p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 20. The hearing record
    will be held open for 10 business days for these responses.
        Without objection, the Subcommittee stands adjourned.

        [Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

                            Statement for the Record
                       National Marine Fisheries Service
                National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
                          U.S. Department of Commerce
                           on H.R. 6784 and H.R. 7157

        The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is
    responsible for the stewardship of the nation's living marine resources
    and their habitat. Backed by sound science and an ecosystem-based
    approach to management, NOAA Fisheries provides vital services for the
    nation, including management and sustainment of our fisheries, ensuring
    safe sources of seafood, and the recovery and conservation of protected
    species and healthy ecosystems. The resilience of our marine ecosystems
    and coastal communities depends on healthy marine species, including
    protected species such as whales, sea turtles, salmon, and corals.

    The Endangered Species Act

        Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), NOAA Fisheries works to
    recover marine and anadromous species in their natural environment
    while preserving robust economic and recreational opportunities. There
    are more than 160 endangered and threatened marine and anadromous
    species under NOAA's jurisdiction. Our work includes: listing species
    under the ESA, monitoring species status, designating critical habitat,
    implementing actions to recover endangered and threatened species,
    consulting with other federal agencies, developing ESA policies,
    guidance, and regulations, and working with partners to conserve and
    recover listed species. NOAA Fisheries shares the responsibility of
    implementing the ESA with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (hereafter
    referred to as the Services).

        Recognizing that the value of our natural heritage is incalculable,
    Congress enacted the ESA nearly unanimously in 1973, in acknowledgement
    of the broad public support for the prevention of species extinction.
    The ESA is the nation's foremost conservation law for protecting
    wildlife and plants in danger of extinction. It plays a critical,
    science-based role in preventing the extinction of imperiled species,
    promoting their recovery, and conserving their habitats. It is
    extraordinarily effective at preventing species from going extinct. It
    has inspired voluntary action to conserve at-risk species and their
    habitat before they reach the point where they would qualify to be
    listed as threatened or endangered. Since it was signed into law, more
    than 99 percent of the species listed have been saved from extinction.

        NOAA Fisheries opposes H.R. 6784 and outlines several concerns with
    this legislation below.

    H.R. 6784--The ESA Flexibility Act

        The ESA protects endangered and threatened species. The Services
    list species as endangered or threatened under the ESA based solely on
    the best scientific and commercial data available. An endangered
    species is a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or
    a significant portion of its range. A threatened species is a species
    that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable
    future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

        Section 9 of the ESA lists seven specific prohibited actions with
    respect to endangered species, which include prohibitions on import,
    export, interstate and foreign commerce, and take of endangered species
    of fish and wildlife. Section 9 also includes prohibitions for
    endangered plants. The Section 9 prohibitions for endangered species do
    not automatically apply to threatened species. Section 4(d) of the ESA
    provides that whenever a species is listed as threatened, the Secretary
    shall issue regulations she deems necessary and advisable to provide
    for the conservation of such species. In addition, the Secretary may
    extend by regulation the Section 9 prohibitions to threatened species
    under 4(d).

        H.R. 6784 would modify the statutory ESA protections for endangered
    species. The prohibitions in section 9(a) automatically apply to
    endangered species at the time of listing. H.R. 6784 provides that the
    Secretary can either issue a 4(d) rule to protect an endangered species
    or allow it to be protected automatically by Section 9(a) of the ESA.
        The ESA recognizes the different status of threatened and
    endangered species and provides greater flexibility in the conservation
    and management of threatened species under Section 4(d) as described
    above. In providing authority for the Services to intervene to protect
    species before they reach endangered status, the ESA allows for more
    flexible regulation and protections to prevent their further decline
    and increase the likelihood of recovery. NOAA Fisheries has utilized
    section 4(d) to provide a flexible, targeted approach to the management
    and conservation of threatened species. Such an approach is appropriate
    for threatened species that are less imperiled than endangered species
    and not yet on the brink of extinction.

        In contrast, endangered species are in danger of extinction now.
    Because of their imperiled status, it is critical that these species
    receive the full suite of ESA Section 9 protections to ensure these
    species do not go extinct and instead can begin to recover. H.R. 6784
    would authorize weakening the protections for endangered species and
    blur the ESA's distinction between threatened and endangered species.
    H.R. 6784 would also place a burden on NOAA Fisheries' limited
    resources. While section 4(d) allows NOAA Fisheries to tailor
    regulations for threatened species, promulgating those rules is
    resource intensive and requires additional staff, resources, and time.
    Those additional resources are not required when the full suite of
    protections in Section 9 that are critical to protecting endangered
    species are applied to those species. The diversion of resources to
    promulgate regulations under 4(d) for endangered species will shift our
    efforts away from the important work of stabilizing and recovering
    endangered species and could have significant negative consequences for
    their conservation. In addition, H.R. 6784 would allow for novel
    disputes to arise regarding whether the discretionary ability to
    prepare species-specific 4(d) rules for endangered species had been
    appropriately exercised. This may also divert the work of limited staff
    resources, even where the agency did not promulgate a species-specific
    rule for an endangered species.

        Finally, the ESA already provides flexibility to allow certain
    activities that affect endangered species that are otherwise prohibited
    under section 9 of the ESA. Under Section 10 of the ESA, the Services
    may issue permits for take that results from scientific research,
    activities that enhance propagation or survival of wildlife or plants,
    or that result in incidental take of the endangered species. In
    addition, the Services may issue incidental take statements under
    Section 7 that provide an exception to the prohibitions on take of
    endangered species.

    The Lacey Act

        First enacted in 1900, and amended in 1981 and 2008 in order to
    strengthen and expand the scope of protections, the Lacey Act has a
    long history as a critical tool for the conservation of the nation's
    fish, wildlife, and plants, and combating international trafficking in
    wild fauna and flora, including marine fishery products. Among other
    provisions of the Lacey Act, 16 USC 3372 includes prohibitions relative
    to the trafficking of illegally-harvested and falsely-labeled fish,
    wildlife, and plants imported into the United States. Unlike other
    natural resource protection statutes, the Lacey Act provides criminal
    as well as civil penalties for violations of the prohibitions on
    trafficking and false labeling as well as detention, search and
    inspection and authority tailored to detecting such illegal trade.
    These provisions make the Lacey Act the most important tool we have for
    addressing fish and wildlife trafficking violations, including those
    involving critically endangered species and transnational organized
    crime.

        Under the authorities granted by the Lacey Act, NOAA Fisheries
    Office of Law Enforcement (NOAA OLE) works with our federal partners to
    combat wildlife trafficking and the illegal international trade in
    marine fishery products. Perhaps most importantly, the authorities
    provided in the Lacey Act allow NOAA OLE to interdict and investigate
    the import of illegally-harvested, improperly documented, and
    fraudulently labeled seafood products that introduce unfair competition
    and threaten the livelihoods of American fisherman, processors, and
    producers, or otherwise engaged in lawful and sustainable fishing
    activities and trade.

        As one of the world's largest importers of seafood, the United
    States plays a critical role in promoting sustainable fisheries
    worldwide, including through robust enforcement of the Lacey Act. NOAA
    OLE leads USG efforts to combat illegal, unreported, and unregulated
    fishing, and ensure illicit, unsustainably harvested seafood products
    do not enter U.S. commerce. The Lacey Act also serves as a powerful
    deterrent to prevent illicit seafood products from entering U.S.
    markets.
        In light of the foregoing, we offer the following comments on H.R.
    7157:

    H.R. 7157--The Strengthen Wood Product Supply Chains Act

    Expansion of import regulations to nearly all species of wild fauna and
            flora

        Despite the title: Strengthen Wood Products Supply Chains Act, the
    provisions of H.R. 7157, as written, would apply more broadly, imposing
    the same requirements on enforcement of the Lacey Act with respect to
    all imports on wildlife products, seafood, and marine fishery products,
    vastly expanding existing requirements for these commonly imported
    commodities.

    Increased burden on USG regulatory agencies

        The proposed provisions of H.R. 7157 impose an additional burden on
    NOAA Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
    (USFWS). OLE is to provide the `importer' with a Notice of Detention,
    comprising of the facts and reasons surrounding the detention, a
    description of all tests to be performed, an explanation of specific
    purpose(s) for the tests, and a description of what information could
    be provided by the importer in order to accelerate disposition of the
    detention. These new requirements would not only impose a significant
    and unnecessary additional administrative burden on the government but
    would also pose significant challenges, as in many cases, some of the
    aforementioned information is not yet known at the time of import,
    including who the true `importer' actually is, as corporations commonly
    use intermediaries, associates, freight forwarders, and customs brokers
    to facilitate these types of imports. The provisions in the proposed
    bill would also present an unreasonable and unnecessary burden on the
    already overextended personnel of the agencies engaged in enforcement
    at the border, including NOAA OLE, USFWS OLE and U.S. Customs and
    Border Protection. For example, NOAA OLE, despite being charged with
    our federal partners to ensure the legality, safety, proper
    identification and accurate labeling of imported seafood, currently
    employs only 72 Special Agents and 84 Enforcement Officers nationally.

        H.R. 7157 imposes the following requirements: (A) that, within 5
    days, a Detention Notice be issued to the `importer' with all the
    detailed information described in the foregoing, or (B) ``release to
    such importer [of] the detained merchandise.'' In situations where the
    Detention Notice cannot be issued, including where required information
    is still unknown, the only option provided to the government is the
    immediate release of the merchandise to the importer. This requirement
    undermines the government's ability to detect and determine the nature
    and extent of a violation. It also imposes an unnecessary, immediate,
    and significant risk of releasing potentially illicit imports of
    fishery products, or worse, potentially mislabeled, contaminated, or
    harmful products, into U.S. commerce. Finally, this requirement
    presents the risk of release of narcotics or other illicit goods which
    may be concealed or co-mingled in imported fish and fish products, as
    illustrated in a recent seizure of cocaine discovered in a fish
    shipment destined for the United States.

        In addition, H.R. 7157 provides that after 10 days, regardless of
    the circumstances of the detention, the USG must allow the importer to
    transport the detained merchandise to ``a location that is not under
    the control of the United States,'' meaning an unsecured, non-customs
    bonded location, including a storage area, yard, or property under the
    control of the importer themselves. This provision of mandating the
    release to an importer of an uncleared, uninspected, and potentially
    illegal or dangerous consignment, considering the import had been
    detained with reasonable suspicion by the government of illegal
    activity or an identified need for further inquiry, presents an
    unnecessary, immediate, and significant national security risk, for all
    the aforementioned reasons.

    Potential Conflict with Existing Seizure and Forfeiture Procedures

        The seizure, appeal and review processes set out in (c)(5)-(7)
    present potential timing and procedural conflicts and redundancies with
    existing procedures relating to seizure and administrative forfeiture
    set out in the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (CAFRA) and
    NOAA's civil procedure regulations at 15 CFR Part 904 implementing the
    agency's obligations under CAFRA. In particular, those rules provide
    that forfeiture proceedings must be initiated within 60 days of a
    seizure by a federal agency, or the seized property must be returned.
    An interested party has 35 days to file a claim to the seized property.
    If a claim is filed, the case is referred promptly to the U.S.
    Department of Justice for institution of judicial proceedings. NOAA's
    rules also authorize bonded release as well as the sale of perishable
    product and subsequent seizure and forfeiture of the proceeds.

        The proposed measures in H.R. 7157, as written and expansively
    applied to nearly all fauna and flora, would significantly impact NOAA
    Fisheries OLE's ability to temporarily detain imports and sample (test)
    imported fishery products from high-risk countries, including the
    People's Republic of China (PRC) for genetic identification, potential
    contaminants, disease or human health risk vectors, or other forensic
    testing as needed to ensure both the legality and safety of imported
    commodities for the American consumer. NOAA stands ready to work with
    the Committee.

    Conclusion

        NOAA is proud to continue to lead the world in conducting ocean
    science, serving the nation's coastal communities and industries, and
    ensuring responsible stewardship of our ocean and coastal resources. We
    value the opportunity to continue working with this Subcommittee on
    these important issues. Thank you and your staff for your work to
    support NOAA's mission.

                                     ______

    Submissions for the Record by Rep. Huffman

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    The full document is available for viewing at:

    https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II13/20240214/116787/HHRG-
    118-II13-20240214-SD003.pdf

                                    ------

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    The full document is available for viewing at:

    https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II13/20240214/116787/HHRG-
    118-II13-20240214-SD004.pdf

                                    ------

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    The full document is available for viewing at:

    https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II13/20240214/116787/HHRG-
    118-II13-20240214-SD005.pdf

                                    ------

    Mongabay Series: Indigenous Peoples and Conservation, Latin America

    Safety of Peru's land defenders in question after killing of Indigenous
    leader in the Amazon

    Mongabay News, December 7, 2023 by Geraldine Santos, Gloria Alvitres

    https://news.mongabay.com/2023/12/safety-of-perus-land-defenders-in-
    question-after-killing-of-indigenous-leader-in-the-amazon

                                     *****

    Quinto Inuma was killed on November 29 while traveling to the Santa
    Rosillo de Yanayacu community in Peru's Amazon following a meeting of
    environmental defenders.

    For years, the Indigenous Kichwa leader had been receiving threats for
    his work trying to stop invasions, land trafficking, drug trafficking
    and illegal logging in his community, forcing him to rely on protection
    measures from the Ministry of Justice.

    After Inuma's death, a group of 128 Indigenous communities released a
    statement appealing for justice and holding the Peruvian state
    reponsible for its inaction and ineffectivtieness in protecting the
    lives of human rights defenders in Indigenous territories. Several
    other Indigenous leaders who receive threats have requested protection
    measures from the state but have not gotten a response.

    According to an official in the Ministry of Justice, providing the
    Kichwa leader with protection measures was very complex because he
    lived in a high-risk area. The only thing that could be done, they
    said, is to provide permanent police protection, which wasn't possible
    for the local police.

                                     *****

    Kichwa leader Quinto Inuma Alvarado, president the Santa Rosillo de
    Yanayacu community, was murdered last Wednesday, November 29, in the
    San Martin region of the Peruvian Amazon. The crime took place around 5
    p.m. when the activist was traveling with several relatives on the
    Yanayacu River. When his boat hit a tree and got stuck, a group of
    masked men ambushed him, shooting him several times.

    Days before, in the city of Pucallpa, in the region of Ucayali, Inuma
    informed other environmental defenders and activists of what was
    happening in his community: invasions, land trafficking, drug
    trafficking and illegal logging. It wasn't the first time that he'd
    spoken out. But no one in attendance knew it would be the last time he
    would.

    ``They murdered him for defending the community from loggers,'' his
    nephew Victor Inuma told Mongabay Latam. ``My uncle had been demanding
    police intervention since the pandemic. No one listened to him . . . We
    ask that this be investigated. We're unprotected without him now.''

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Quinto Inuma carried out patrols in the forest with other
    members of the Santa Rosillo de Yanayacu community.
    Community vice president Meister Inuma Perez and Inuma's niece
    Axceldina Tapullima were also on the boat during the ambush. Inuma
    Perez had to hide in the forest to avoid being killed and Tapullima was
    shot in the leg.

    Seven other Indigenous leaders have requested protection from the
    Ministry of Justice because of similar threats, according to Marisol
    Garcia, the Kichwa leader of the Chazuta community. None of them have
    gotten a response. ``I myself don't have protection. Every time we
    complain, they say they aren't serious cases,'' she said. ``We know
    that those protection measures don't help but we ask for them anyway so
    there's a record when we're murdered.''
    Years of threats

    ``We're really shocked by what happened and it's a big loss for our
    people,'' said Marisol Garcia Apagueno, also president of the
    Federation of Kechua Chazuta Amazonas Indigenous Peoples (FEPIKECHA).
    ``On several occasions, we've spoken out about the problems in Santa
    Rosillo de Yanayacu. We've spoken with many authorities. Years ago, a
    commission even met with the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights, an
    institution that monitors the cases of threatened defenders.''

    A day after the crime, a special team of prosecutors and police visited
    the community to collect information from witnesses and seek out the
    person responsible. The police are currently in charge of protecting
    the Inuma family, according to Angel Gonzalez, director of Human Rights
    Policies and Management of the Ministry of Justice (MINJUSDH). The case
    is being handled by regional prosecutor Miguel Maquera Ticona from an
    office of the attorney general that specializes in human rights and
    interculturality.

    ``The law doesn't mention reparations for family members of murdered
    defenders, but we're going to do everything we can to support them
    throughout the judicial process,'' Gonzalez said. ``We're also going to
    send a detailed report to the public ministry and judicial officials.''

    This wasn't the first attack against Quinto Inuma. In July 2021, a
    plane had to evacuate the Kichwa leader from his community after drug
    traffickers beat him up. The incident took place days after the
    prosecutor's office visited the community to verify the presence of
    illegal coca plantations.

    Quinto Inuma and his family were gone for two months, staying in the
    city of Tarapoto, 12 hours away by river, where the Ministry of Justice
    had arranged for their stay. The Indigenous leader questioned his
    temporary transfer out of the community because the other residents
    there, who were also threatened by drug traffickers, had to stay
    behind. Eventually, he decided to return to Santa Rosillo de Yanayacu.

    ``Imagine what would happen to everyone else if we just left all of
    those who defended the Amazon and withdrew our complaints out of fear.
    The ones left would be at the mercy of the loggers and drug
    traffickers. That's why it isn't as easy for me to just leave,'' Quinto
    Inuma told Mongabay Latam two years ago.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Members of the Santa Rosillo de Yanayacu community constantly
    spoke out about the advance of logging and drug trafficking.
    After Inuma's death, the Coordinator for the Development and Defense of
    the Indigenous Peoples of the San Martin Region (CODEPISAM)--which
    brings together 128 Indigenous Kichwa and Awajun communities from eight
    local federations--released a statement appealing for justice.

    ``We condemn the death of Quinto Inuma Alvarado, our Kichwa brother, a
    defender of his community's territory. We hold the Peruvian state
    responsible for its inaction and ineffectiveness in protecting the
    lives of human rights defenders in Indigenous territories.''

    The statement referred to the inaction of the state in the face of the
    threats and crimes. ``After many months of advocacy, the early warning
    alert was activated within the framework of the Protocol for the
    Protection of Human Rights Defenders of the Ministry of Justice, which
    didn't carry out some of the measures adopted in the resolution, such
    as a visit of the Minister [of Justice and Human Rights] to the
    community and support for titling of the communal territory since
    2020.''

    It also said that Inuma ``went to the Specialized Environmental
    Prosecutor's Office (FEMA) and the Anti-Drug Prosecutor's Office
    begging for prosecutor proceedings that were postponed more than a
    dozen times.''

    The day after Inuma's death, several important officials arrived to the
    community to support the investigation, including Vice Minister of
    Human Rights and Access to Justice Luigino Pilotto; Vice Minister of
    Strategic Development of Natural Resources Mariela Canepa; and Vice
    Minister of Interculturality Jose Rivadeneyra. Also joining the
    delegation were the Vice Minister of Internal Order Miguel Nunez; the
    General Commander of the National Police of Peru Jorge Angulo; head of
    the Dirincri Homicide Investigation Division Victor Revoredo; and
    organized crime prosecutor Jorge Chavez Cotrina.
    Protections, but only on paper

    On several occasions, Inuma spoke with Mongabay Latam hoping to
    publicize the threats he and his family were receiving. At first, he
    asked not to be cited in Mongabay's reporting, but as the threats got
    worse, he decided to go public with his comments. In March 2021, Inuma
    also explained the dangers of his situation to the Inter-American
    Commission on Human Rights.

    That same year, as a protective measure, the Ministry of Justice
    applied its Protocol for Human Rights Defenders. His brother Manuel
    Inuma was also listed in the program but ``didn't receive any
    security,'' according to the Indigenous leader. On more than one
    occasion Inuma told Mongabay Latam that the protective measures weren't
    clear to him and that in San Martin his safety still didn't feel
    guaranteed.

    ``The mechanism was impossible to put into practice,'' said Cristina
    del Rosario Gavancho, an attorney with the Institute of Legal Defense
    (IDL). ``The police always said that they didn't have the budget. They
    declined to go to Santa Rosillo de Yanayacu. In those last months, the
    Ministry of Interior, in charge of providing protection, stopped
    responding to his requests.''

    Days before Inuma's death, Indigenous leaders from Huallaga, another
    community in the Amazon, met with the Ministry of Justice and Human
    Rights and discussed the security situation in San Martin. ``On Monday
    the 27th, representatives of the Kichwa people met with the Human
    Rights Directorate of the Ministry of Justice, which is in charge of
    the Defenders Protocol, and discussed the lack of attention to the
    dangers being faced by leaders in San Martin,'' Gavancho said.

    She said the situation in Santa Rosillo de Yanayacu is serious because
    there isn't a government presence in the area or police station. To
    file a complaint, Quinto Inuma had to travel 12 hours to Tarapoto,
    where there's a police station in charge of security in the area. The
    trip became increasingly more dangerous because drug traffickers and
    loggers allegedly hid in the forest to observe him and plan an attack.

    ``They told us they were doing what they could with the little staff
    and budget they have,'' Gavancho said. ``They also said there wasn't
    support from the Ministry of Interior to carry out the operations and
    patrols or for the police to be present in threatened communities.''

    Gonzalez, an official in the Ministry of Justice, said that ``although
    Inuma did have a directorial resolution providing him with protection
    measures within the framework of the Protocol, in practice the
    situation for the Kichwa leader was very complex because he lived in a
    high-risk area.''

    The official said that in these cases, the only thing that can be done
    is providing permanent police protection, something that wasn't
    possible for the police of Huimbayoc, the district where Santa Rosillo
    de Yanayacu is located.

    On November 30, the Ministry of Culture, the Ministry of the
    Environment, the Ministry of Interior and the Ministry of Justice
    released a statement on social media lamenting the death of Quinto
    Inuma and said they would begin an investigation. The Ministry of
    Culture and Ministry of Interior didn't respond to Mongabay Latam's
    request for comment.

    Inuma isn't the only Indigenous leader who was in danger. ``There are
    other cases of defenders in San Martin that filed early alert request
    months ago and don't have the document or the response from the
    Ministry of Justice,'' Gavanchos said.
    The fight for a land title

    In June 2015, the Santa Rosillo de Yanayacu community was recognized by
    the regional San Martin government as a Kichwa community located in the
    district of Huimbayoc. However, the community said the titling process
    hasn't moved forward. Such a title would in theory give the community a
    buffer against land invaders operating in and nearby the community's
    ancestral lands. A year ago, then-director of Land Titling and Rural
    Cadastre of the Regional Directorate of Agriculture Wiliam Rios Trigoso
    told Mongabay Latam that there were problems carrying out
    georeferencing and territorial demarcation because of the conflicts
    between Indigenous residents and outsiders.

    The former official said there are two groups in the community: the
    Indigenous Kichwa requesting titling for their territory and the
    outsiders demanding legal recognition of individual properties.

    ``The group of outsiders who live within the community disagree with
    the titling of the land as a whole,'' Victor Inuma, the nephew of the
    murdered activist, said. ``We know they were the ones who hired the
    hitmen.''

    Mongabay was not able to independently confirm this allegation.

    Quinto Inuma and leader of the Santa Rosillo de Yanayacu community had
    managed to win financing for a project by the Socio-Environmental Fund
    of Peru that would improve monitoring systems in the forest. ``The Apu
    project was proposing the installation of internet, the use of GPS and
    new tools the Kichwa could use to alert and report loggers as they cut
    down trees. It had already managed to get environmental monitoring
    training. He'd been involved in monitoring women leaders in the
    community and was happy with his progress when he returned home,'' said
    president of the Socio-Environmental Forum of Peru Lilyan Delgadillo.

    Delgadillo said the last communication she had with Inuma was on
    November 27, two days before his death. On his trip back, he was
    accompanied by one of the leaders that participated in the meeting,
    Axceldina Tapullima, who was shot during the ambush. ``The lives of
    women defender in Santa Rosillo de Yanayacu are also in danger,'' she
    said.

    The dangers faced by Indigenous leaders defending their territories is
    on the rise. Global Witness reported that at least 177 environmental
    and land defenders were killed last year around the world, with the
    majority of killings taking place in Latin America, and that Indigenous
    people suffer from constant violence. Fifteen environmental defenders
    were killed in Peru between 2020 and 2023 while fighting for their
    land, according to the National Human Rights Coordinator of Peru.

                                     ______

                                                  February 13, 2024

    Hon. Bruce Westerman, Chairman
    Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member
    Natural Resources Committee
    U.S. House of Representatives
    Washington, DC 20515

    Re: Opposition to H.R. 6784, the ``ESA Flexibility Act,'' and H.R.
            7157, the ``Strengthen Wood Product Supply Chain Act''

        Dear Chairman Westerman, Ranking Member Grijalva:

        On behalf of our organizations and our millions of members and
    supporters, we write to express our strong opposition to H.R. 6784, the
    ESA Flexibility Act, and H.R. 7157, the Strengthen Wood Product Supply
    Chain Act.

        If passed, H.R. 6784 would eviscerate the very foundation of the
    Endangered Species Act and cause unprecedented harm to our nation's
    most imperiled animals and plants. This extreme bill would make the
    Act's automatic, full-strength protections for species newly listed as
    endangered voluntary, allowing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or
    NOAA Fisheries to issue weaker, species-specific rules specifying
    prohibited activities. While Congress gave the Services flexibility
    under section 4(d) to issue such rules for threatened species, the Act
    and its legislative history are unambiguously clear that endangered
    species are to always receive the full suite of protections given their
    more vulnerable status.\1\ By eliminating the mandate that endangered
    species receive full, automatic protections, H.R. 6784 would render the
    more protective ``endangered'' status virtually meaningless,
    undercutting the very cornerstone of the Endangered Species Act and
    ultimately placing hundreds of species at greater risk of extinction.

        \1\ See H.R. Rep. 93-412 (1973).

        For example, under H.R. 6784 the Service could allow the oil and
    gas industry to continue building well pads, access roads, and other
    destructive fossil fuel infrastructure, even if those activities are
    driving species like the dunes sagebrush lizard and Texas kangaroo rat
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    extinct.

        H.R. 6784 would also expose the Services' listing program to
    increased political pressure from special interests, which is already a
    persistent problem. As we have seen with many existing 4(d) rules for
    threatened species, industry groups routinely seek exemptions from the
    take prohibition for their particular industries, undermining the
    scientific integrity of the listing process and ultimately resulting in
    species receiving less protection than needed. Further, the Fish and
    Wildlife Service's listing program already lacks the necessary funding
    and resources to complete even the most basic duties under the Act,
    facing a backlog of more than 300 species awaiting consideration for
    protection. If the agency is allowed to develop individual rules for
    endangered species, a hostile administration could use this discretion
    to further burden this already overwhelmed program, ultimately
    resulting in increased extinction risk for animals and plants across
    the country. For these reasons, we urge you to oppose H.R. 6784.

        We also oppose H.R. 7157, the Strengthen Wood Product Supply Chain
    Act, which would impose unreasonably burdensome requirements on customs
    officials when they detain plant or wildlife products, including wood
    products, that are suspected to have been imported in violation of the
    Lacey Act. Customs officials are often one of the first lines of
    defense in preventing illegal timber and other shipments from entering
    the United States. If passed, the bill would create unrealistic time
    frames for officials to inspect items seized at the border, weakening
    enforcement and allowing potentially harmful products into the country.
    For these reasons, we urge you to oppose this bill.

                Sincerely,

            Center for Biological
            Diversity                     Kentucky Heartwood

            American Bird Conservancy     Klamath Forest Alliance

            Animal Legal Defense Fund     Los Angeles Audubon Society

            Animal Welfare Institute      Northern California Council, Fly
                                          Fishers International

            Cascadia Wildlands            NRDC (Natural Resources Defense
                                          Council)

            Christian Council of
            Delmarva                      Oceanic Preservation Society

            Defenders of Wildlife         Project Coyote

            Earthjustice                  Resource Renewal Institute

            Endangered Habitats League    Save the Manatee Club

            Endangered Species
            Coalition                     Sierra Club

            Environmental Investigation
            Agency                        The #RelistWolves Campaign

            Environmental Protection
            Information Center-EPIC       The Conservation Angler

            Friends of the Earth          The Humane Society of the United
                                          States

            Friends of Wisconsin Wolf
            and Wildlife                  The Urban Wildlands Group

            Great Lakes Wildlife
            Alliance                      Washington Wildlife First

            Heartwood                     Western Watersheds Project

            Humane Society Legislative
            Fund                          WildEarth Guardians

            International Marine Mammal
            Project of Earth Island
            Institute

                                     ______

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    The full document is available for viewing at:

    https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II13/20240214/116787/HHRG-
    118-II13-20240214-SD008.pdf

                                    ------

                         Congress of the United States

                              Washington, DC 20515

                                                  February 13, 2024

    Hon. Bruce Westerman, Chairman
    Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member
    House Natural Resources Committee
    1324 Longworth House Office Building
    Washington, DC 20515

        Dear Chairman Westerman and Ranking Member Grijalva:

        I write today to express my serious concerns with H.R. 7157, the
    ``Strengthen Wood Product Supply Chains Act.'' In the name of making
    things better for the wood products industry, this bill would actually
    do the opposite. It threatens to significantly undermine Lacey Act
    enforcement efforts targeting the illegal trade in timber, wood
    products, and wildlife.

        Leading up to the enactment of the Lacey Act plant amendments in
    2008, I worked closely with fellow legislators on both sides of the
    aisle and a strong coalition of industry, labor, and environmental
    groups to ensure the United States took action to help bring an end to
    the egregious practice of illegal logging, the third largest
    transnational crime. Our goal was to protect some of the world's most
    biodiverse and vulnerable forests and to offer a more level playing
    field to U.S. companies that play by the rules. Illegal logging harms
    lives and livelihoods, both at home where it costs the U.S. forest
    products industry more than $1 billion every year, and around the world
    where it is associated with serious human rights violations including
    the degradation of Indigenous communities. When effectively
    implemented, the Lacey Act amendments protect the environment, reward
    honest businesses, and prevent rampant corruption.

        In the years since its passage, we have seen the law have a
    positive impact. I am encouraged that many industry stakeholders are
    developing due care strategies to ensure illegal timber does not enter
    their supply chains. Yet the steady caseload of illegal wood products
    entering the United States demonstrates the very real need for more
    effective enforcement against those companies that turn a blind eye to
    illegal sourcing and others who knowingly trade in it. Now is the time
    to strengthen the Lacey Act amendments, not undermine them.

        However, H.R. 7157 would hamper the federal agencies tasked with
    combatting the import of illegally sourced wood products. It would
    limit the time allotted to agencies to conduct a proper investigation
    into suspect imports of wood products, allow companies to remove
    suspect timber and wildlife products from government control while an
    active investigation is ongoing, and require federal officials to
    disclose the justification and evidence for a detained shipment within
    an unreasonably short time period. Taken together, these new
    restrictions will impede effective enforcement of the Lacey Act.

        As written, H.R. 7157 opens the door to smugglers and illegal
    loggers, much to the detriment of honest U.S. industry actors, forests,
    wildlife and local peoples. I urge you to reconsider your support for
    this legislation and address your concerns without compromising robust
    enforcement.

                Sincerely,

                                               Earl Blumenauer,
                                                     Member of Congress

                                     ______

    Submissions for the Record by Rep. Hoyle

                              HARDWOOD FEDERATION

                                 Washington, DC

                                                  February 16, 2024

    Hon. Cliff Bentz, Chairman
    Hon. Jared Huffman, Ranking Member
    House Natural Resources Committee
    Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries
    1324 Longworth House Office Building
    Washington, DC 20515

        Dear Chairman Bentz and Ranking Member Huffman:

        On behalf of the Hardwood Federation, the united voice of hardwood
    lumber manufacturers based in Washington, DC, please review the below
    industry perspectives related to H.R. 7157, the Strengthen Wood Product
    Supply Chain Act, the subject of your panel's hearing conducted on
    February 14, 2024. This bill, which would attempt to amend the Lacey
    Act--a statute that garners the full support of our industry, as
    currently written--outlines provisions that would undermine statutory
    protections necessary to prevent the importation of illegally harvested
    wood and wood products into the United States; products that compete
    unfairly with domestic producers and manufacturers.
        By way of background, the Hardwood Federation has been a long-time
    proponent of international efforts to suppress illegal logging and
    trade. The Federation played an active and instrumental role in a
    coalition of forest products industry, environmental and labor groups
    to advocate for passage of the 2008 amendments. Illegally sourced fiber
    is a serious detriment to the U.S. industry's sustainability, the
    global environment, and the international economy. The flow of
    illegally sourced wood into the domestic market has real world impacts,
    including the decimation of fragile eco-systems, and places high
    quality domestic manufacturing jobs at risk. Prior to implementation of
    key Lacey Act protections, the American Forest & Paper Association
    commissioned a study in 2004 that estimated that illegal logging cost
    the U.S. forest products industry approximately $1 billion annually in
    lost export opportunities and depressed U.S. wood prices. In 2016,
    eight years after implementation, a study by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service, found that overall timber imports to the U.S. market declined
    by 24 percent as a result of Lacey Act implementation. In 2015, the
    Union of Concerned Scientists released a study showing that the import
    of illegally sourced wood products declined by 40 percent since
    enactment of the 2008 Amendments, demonstrating the strength of the
    statute as currently written.
    Release and Seizure Requirements

        Unfortunately, H.R. 7157 would codify arbitrary and compressed
    deadlines for the disposition of claims related to the detention of
    potentially illegally sourced wood, thereby facilitating the entry of
    illegal materials into the U.S. that compete unfairly with the domestic
    marketplace. It would constrain inspectors' ability to conduct a
    thorough due diligence assessment, thereby preventing an effective and
    well-informed decision to dispatch or discard product, as required by
    the existing law. For example, a key provision of the bill outlines
    narrow ``release or seizure'' requirements and imposes a 30-day time
    limit on what would be a final disposition to a Notice of Detention,
    which is the bill's proposed trigger for the inspection process. This
    provision would force the release of detained products regardless of
    their respective stage in the testing and inspection process,
    undermining due diligence.
    Transportation of Detained Merchandise

        The provision outlining the ``transportation of detained
    merchandise'' poses more risks to the efficacy of the Lacey Act . This
    section lays the groundwork for an option to transfer goods to a venue
    beyond the jurisdiction of enforcement officers after just 10 days
    following a formal Notice of Detention. Although the bill appears to
    carve out a loophole for USDA to affirm that such action would not
    undermine the intent of the Act, the carve-out could nevertheless
    impede the ability to conduct compliance assessments by storing
    materials in locations not easily available inspecting agencies. This
    provision outlines an arbitrary time frame that would hinder the full
    review and testing required to reach an informed decision about the
    final disposition of the product.
    Strained Federal Resources

        H.R. 7157 raises concerns not only with the substance of the bill
    as currently written, but also by what it does not address.
    Unfortunately, the bill fails to authorize additional resources that
    are necessary to the detention and inspection process. This creates
    more fiscal constraints within enforcement agencies that would further
    hinder stringent due diligence and strict enforcement of the existing
    Lacey Act law.
        Although we appreciate efforts to amend the Lacey Act or any other
    federal initiative in a manner that promotes certainty in the
    regulatory process, H.R. 7157 would establish timelines that would
    undercut the ability to conduct the due diligence necessary to prevent
    the import of illegally sourced wood products into the domestic market.
    Such an outcome would place U.S. producers and manufacturers at a
    severe competitive disadvantage.
        Thank you very much for the opportunity to comment on this
    important issue. We look forward to working on issues that have a major
    impact on the health of the hardwood sector.

                Sincerely,

                                                 Dana Lee Cole,
                                                     Executive Director

                                     [all]