[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]