    [Senate Hearing 118-721]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 118-721

                    THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE'S
                       PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2025 BUDGET

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                  JUNE 12, 2024

                                   __________

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

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                                    __________

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    61-834                   WASHINGTON : 2025

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

                   COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
                                 SECOND SESSION

                      THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman
              SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia, Ranking Member

    BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
    BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont             CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
    SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island     MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
    JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 PETE RICKETTS, Nebraska
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan            ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
    MARK KELLY, Arizona                  DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
    ALEX PADILLA, California             LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
    JOHN FETTERMAN, Pennsylvania
                   Courtney Taylor, Democratic Staff Director
                   Adam Tomlinson, Republican Staff Director

                               C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                 JUNE 12, 2024
                               OPENING STATEMENTS

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

                                    WITNESS

    Williams, Hon. Martha, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service..     6
        Prepared statement...........................................     8

                              ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

    Letter from Senator Dan Sullivan of Alaska to Hon. Deb Haaland,
      Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior.....................    43
    Fish and Wildlife Service 2025 Budget Request....................    48

     THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE'S PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2025 BUDGET

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12, 2024

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in
    room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R. Carper
    (chairman of the committee) presiding.
        Present: Carper, Capito, Cardin, Whitehouse, Kelly, Lummis,
    Ricketts, Boozman.

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

        Senator Carper. Good morning, everyone. The hearing will
    come to order.
        Today, as you all know, we are here to discuss President
    Biden's Fiscal Year 2025 budget request for the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service. We always appreciate the presence of Martha
    Williams, the Director of the Service, before our committee.
    Thank you for appearing today, and welcome back.
        We have heard time and time again in our committee that
    wildlife conservation works best for people and for species
    when it is collaborative, when it is inclusive, when it is
    proactive. Director Williams leads the Service with those
    thoughts in mind.
        The President's Fiscal Year 2025 budget request also
    embodies, I believe, we believe, this approach, and we look
    forward to hearing more about it from you today as our witness.
        The President's budget request includes $1.9 billion for
    the Fish and Wildlife Service. That is a 10 percent increase in
    funding over Fiscal Year 2024 enacted levels. One of the things
    we will get into in the course of our hearing is, 10 percent is
    not an insignificant increase, as you know, but I always like
    to ask, compared to what? I would like to look at the increases
    in the last couple of years, or the cuts in the last couple of
    years, that were proposed in this Administration and the
    previous Administration.
        The increase of 10 percent, coupled with the investments
    that we made, in no small part from this committee room, but
    through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and through the
    Inflation Reduction Act, would provide the Service with the
    support it needs to carry out its many important missions.
        Specifically, the President's proposed budget would support
    the Fish and Wildlife Service's work to conserve habitat, to
    combat climate change, to address biodiversity loss, and to
    maintain our national wildlife refuges, which we are all very
    proud of. All of these initiatives protect our planet while
    helping to drive our economy at the same time.
        A reasonable question is, how would the President's budget
    support these efforts? First, the budget request includes some
    $602 million for the National Wildlife Refuge System. That is,
    I believe, a 14 or 15 percent increase from Fiscal Year 2024's
    enacted levels. This funding would support habitat conservation
    as well as law enforcement and visitor services at over some
    500 national wildlife refuges across the Country.
        We have two of them in Delaware. How many does West
    Virginia have?
        Senator Capito. Wildlife?
        Senator Carper. Wildlife refuges.
        Senator Capito. Just one, I think.
        Senator Carper. Okay. Two weeks ago, I was privileged to
    visit one of Delaware's two national wildlife refuges called
    the Bombay Hook National Wildlife Refuge in the central part of
    our State. Imperiled species such as red knot and piping plover
    birds call this refuge home.
        People come literally from all over the world to see these
    species in their natural habitat. They also come to hike, they
    come to bicycle, and they come to hunt in these special places.
    When they do, they support our local economies. I think the
    same is true in refuges in every one of our other 49 States.
        The Administration's budget request also includes funding
    increases for programs focused on stemming biodiversity loss,
    including notable increases for Endangered Species Act
    planning, consultation, and recovery efforts. Why are these
    investments in biodiversity important? Well, for a couple of
    reasons.
        One, our food system relies on biodiversity for pest
    control, for pollination, and for soil fertility. When our
    forests and oceans are healthy and biodiverse, they absorb more
    carbon dioxide, which is a good thing. We also rely on
    biodiverse ecosystems to provide us with clean water to drink.
        For all of these reasons and for more, biodiversity loss
    has significant economic impacts. According to a recent report
    by, I believe it was J.P. Morgan, biodiversity loss costs the
    global economy an estimated $20 trillion per year. When I saw
    that number, I had my staff double check. I said, is that
    trillion, with a ``t''? They said, that is $20 trillion, with a
    ``t.'' That is a ton of money.
        The Fiscal Year 2025 budget request also details how the
    Fish and Wildlife Service is implementing the Inflation
    Reduction Act by incorporating nature-based solutions into
    ecosystem restoration.
        For example, the Service is working with the U.S.
    Department of Agriculture, with Ducks Unlimited, and with the
    Arkansas Game and Fish Commission to enhance more than 5,000
    acres of wetlands in Arkansas, and I see we have been joined by
    our colleague from Arkansas. Specifically, the Service will
    restore the wetlands' natural ability to capture, store, and
    release rainwater and mitigate the effects of severe weather
    events.
        We have seen firsthand in the first State, my State, and
    many other States that nature-based solutions actually do work.
    When Hurricane Sandy damaged the Prime Hook National Wildlife
    Refuge in our State, the Fish and Wildlife Service restored the
    refuge with climate resilience in mind. Not only did this
    restoration effort conserve habitat and benefit endangered
    species, it also addressed longstanding flooding issues in a
    nearby community. We call that, in our State, a win-win
    situation. That is what we are always looking for.
        Furthermore, the budget request of the President builds on
    our Inflation Reduction Act investments by including funding
    increases for programs like Partners for Fish and Wildlife and
    the Coastal Program. These programs are focused on improving
    ecosystems, as well as coastal resiliency through partnerships
    with States, partnerships with tribes, and partnerships with
    landowners.
        The President's budget request complements the Bipartisan
    Infrastructure Law by enabling the Service to continue
    implementing successful programs like the National Fish Passage
    Program. This program funds aquatic ecosystem restoration
    projects while supporting local economies.
        In addition to implementing the agency's own Bipartisan
    Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act funding, the
    Service is faced with an increasingly heavy workload as a
    result of Congress' investments in other agencies.
        The Fish and Wildlife Service's role in the Federal
    permitting process is especially important, given the historic
    passage of these laws. As part of its congressionally mandated
    responsibilities, the Service must consult with other agencies
    to ensure that we are deploying the investments from the
    Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, as well as from the Inflation
    Reduction Act, and issuing permits in a way that does not
    jeopardize species.
        However, neither the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law nor the
    Inflation Reduction Act included funding for the Service's
    responsibilities relating to permitting. In other words,
    Congress increased the number of environmental reviews that the
    Service must complete without providing the resources necessary
    to meet the increased workload.
        Fortunately, the President's 2025 budget would provide the
    Service with adequate resources to improve efficiencies in the
    environmental review process, while also protecting species. I
    would just add, I think we can do both, and I believe we must
    do both.
        As our colleagues on this committee oftentimes hear me say,
    we need to find out what works and do more of that. Having said
    that, we look forward to hearing from Director Williams today
    on what is working, and perhaps what is not working, and how
    the President's 2025 budget will support the Fish and Wildlife
    Service's important work.
        Before we do that, I want to turn to our Ranking Member,
    Senator Capito, for her opening statement. Let's have a great
    hearing today. Thank you.

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

        Senator Capito. Well, thank you, Chairman Carper, for
    holding today's hearing.
        Welcome, again, to Director Williams. It is always great to
    see you and your staff. I appreciate your coming before the
    committee today to discuss the Fish and Wildlife budget for
    2025.
        In previous hearings, we have discussed my frustration that
    the consultation process under the Endangered Species Act has
    delayed critical projects in West Virginia and elsewhere. By
    the way, thank you for coming to West Virginia very early in
    your tenure. We are still very appreciative of that.
        Our State department of highways has faced delays on road
    and bridge projects, and our State DEP (State Departments of
    Environmental Protection) has dealt with delays on active
    mining permits and on projects to remediate abandoned mine
    sites through the AML (Abandoned Mine Land) program.
        If I sound like a broken record, I guess that is because I
    am. Those statements were taken from my opening statement at a
    hearing held around this time last year, and here we are again,
    seemingly in pretty close to the same position.
        My staff has been meeting with your staff regularly, and I
    appreciate that, for 2 years now. Effective communication and
    timeframes on consultations have only marginally improved.
        Currently, the field office has agreements with the West
    Virginia Department of Highways, the West Virginia Department
    of Environmental Protection, the U.S. Forest Service, and the
    Gas and Oil Association of West Virginia to fund staff
    positions. Not all of those positions have been filled. The
    office's work force is being supplemented considerably by
    outside groups, and that was some of the substance of our
    conversation 2 years ago.
        State agencies in West Virginia continue to be bogged down
    by a back and forth with the field office on details which at
    times concern issues beyond the jurisdiction or expertise of
    your agency, in some cases, requiring project details on mines
    that date back to the 1950's.
        In May, the West Virginia Coal Association issued a notice
    of intent to sue the Service for violating the 2020 Biological
    Opinion for the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
    Enforcement's Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Projects.
    That is a mouthful, there.
        The 2020 Biological Opinion establishes a programmatic
    approach to consultation on OSMRE (Office of Surface Mining
    Reclamation and Enforcement) projects and outlines coordination
    and elevation procedures to expedite reviews and effectively
    resolve disputes.
        According to West Virginia's notice of intent to sue, the
    field office has been blatantly disregarding this Biological
    Opinion. Specifically, the field office is not adhering to the
    30-day coordination deadlines set by that 2020 document. Just a
    couple of months ago, the field office issued a permitting
    template, which was intended to expedite this application
    process.
        However, the information required by that template goes
    above and beyond the requirements of the 2020 Biological
    Opinion and is almost to the level of information needed to
    complete a full formal consultation or an environmental impact
    statement.
        Some of these projects covered by the 2020 document are as
    simple as ventilation holes, and yet, the field office seems
    unwilling to complete the consultation until they have studied
    the history of the mine dating back decades and analyzed even
    the types of construction equipment that will be used.
        West Virginia DEP is having to elevate some of these
    consultations as emergent just to keep the mines in the State
    operating.
        While my State is already facing problems with ESA
    consultations, the Service in D.C. here is rolling back
    commonsense reforms that were implemented in 2019 and will make
    ESA implementation even more complicated. Specifically, the
    Service reinstated the blanket 4(d) rule, which effectively
    treats all threatened species as endangered.
        The Service will no longer consider economic impacts when
    making species listing decisions. The Service removed language
    in its Section 7 interagency coordination process that limits
    reviews to ``activities that are reasonably certain to occur,''
    which allows field offices to assess activities that are well
    beyond the scope of a proposed project, and the Service
    rescinded the definition of habitat in determining critical
    habitat designations.
        So, I am a cosponsor of congressional Review Act
    resolutions led my Senators Lummis, Ricketts, and Sullivan to
    overrule these three regulatory actions by the Service.
        I appreciate a lot the dialog that we have had between our
    staff and yours over the past couple of years, but we are at
    another crossroads again and I look forward to learning from
    you what solutions we can use together to address these endless
    paperwork exercises and delays.
        With that, I will yield back.
        Senator Carper. Great. We will have some time here today to
    address, I hope, all the points that you have just raised.
        As you know, we have a bunch of other committees that we
    all serve on. Members will be coming and going. They have
    already begun coming and going, and others, some of them will
    come back and be part of this conversation today.
        I am going to turn now to our witness. Martha Williams, as
    we all know, is currently serving our Nation as the Director of
    Fish and Wildlife Service. How many months now have you been in
    that role? How many months?
        Ms. Williams. Chairman, I have not been counting, but I at
    least realize it has been over 3 years now.
        Senator Carper. Does it seem longer?
        Ms. Williams. No, it has been remarkably amazing. It has
    been more wonderful than I would have expected.
        Senator Carper. Is not that great? I feel that way about
    what I do here. That is good.
        Prior to your leadership role at the Fish and Wildlife
    Service, you served as the Director of the Montana Department
    of Fish and Wildlife and Parks. I understand you are a lifelong
    outdoor enthusiast and enjoy hiking, hunting, and fishing. You
    are pretty well cut out for this job.
        Welcome back to our committee. Please proceed with your
    statement, and we will have some questions when you are
    finished.
        Thanks so much for joining us.

      STATEMENT OF HON. MARTHA WILLIAMS, DIRECTOR, U.S. FISH AND
                            WILDLIFE SERVICE

        Ms. Williams. Good morning, Chairman Carper, Ranking Member
    Capito, and members of the committee. I really appreciate the
    opportunity to testify today on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service's 2025 budget request.
        The President's budget for the Fish and Wildlife Service
    totals $1.9 billion, an increase of $163.4 million above the
    2024 enacted level. The budget promotes strategic investments
    to conserve fish and wildlife species that face many stressors.
    It connects Americans with the outdoors, facilitates economic
    development, and creates good-paying jobs.
        The Fish and Wildlife Service is a field-based organization
    that works collaboratively and creatively to meet our
    responsibilities. Our 9,000 dedicated employees carry out our
    work across eight regional offices and 800 field stations
    across the Country.
        These biologists, refuge managers, hatchery operators, law
    enforcement officers, maintenance professionals, and wildland
    firefighters and more depend on relationships to help implement
    our mission in ways that respect the needs of local communities
    and fit the places where we work. We partner with everyone.
        Although we are a relatively small agency, these many
    partnerships greatly increase our effectiveness and reach. Over
    the course of my career, and now as director, I have seen this
    firsthand. Just last week, I saw two examples of how the Fish
    and Wildlife Service is the glue to impactful partnerships
    built for the places where they are.
        I saw our leadership working to combat aquatic invasive
    species in Lake Tahoe and to address grizzly bear conflict in
    the Blackfoot Valley in Montana. Our collaborative work in the
    Blackfoot, as an example, is a remarkable story of ranchers and
    landowners, tribes, nonprofit organizations, State and Federal
    agencies, and local communities coming together to find
    solutions that keep ranchers on their land, keep their animals
    safe, and simultaneously allow grizzly bears to be on the
    landscape, too.
        I saw innovative solutions, including technology like
    electronic mats to keep livestock in or out, and virtual
    fencing to control livestock movement, and then livestock
    carcass management to prevent grizzlies from being attracted to
    the site. These actions keep ranchers ranching and conserve
    grizzly bears and a way of life, all in an effort to allow for
    thriving and connected landscapes.
        Through funding from USDA and the Fish and Wildlife
    Service, these efforts are being scaled up across Montana and
    on to other States. The work of the Blackfoot Valley stands as
    a national model for successful collaboration. Such efforts
    would not be possible without the years of relationship-
    building and leadership of the Fish and Wildlife Service staff
    on the ground.
        This is where we shine. Our staff bring parties together,
    bring them to the table, to work together to solve problems and
    ensure durable and lasting conservation for species, and
    supporting the communities in which they live. Building and
    sustaining partnerships like these takes people and resources.
        However, over the past 20 years, due to relentless budget
    constraints, the Fish and Wildlife Service has had to
    significantly reduce our work force, stretching our ability to
    do our work safely and proactively to the point of snapping.
        The Fish and Wildlife Service has consistently adapted and
    stretched our resources. For example, we seek reimbursable
    agreements to support our staffing needs because we do not have
    the capacity to staff each refuge as a standalone unit. We now
    administer units of the refuge system under what we call a
    complex structure to achieve management efficiencies.
        When Congress, though, invests in this work, as it did
    under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the Fish and Wildlife
    Service, together with our partners, has demonstrated that we
    can do great things for wildlife, local communities, and the
    economy. It has given us a chance to show just what we can
    achieve together.
        If funded, our budget request would help restore capacity
    in key areas, and, as a result, provide positive impacts to
    people, communities, and habitat. We would maximize the
    budget's investments by leveraging capacity of our partners and
    tailoring implementation of our mission to meet the conditions
    and needs of local situations.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before you
    today. I would be pleased to answer any questions that you may
    have.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Williams follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Carper. Great. Well, thanks for joining us, again,
    today.
        I am going to go back to what I said in my opening
    statement. I think what I said is that the President's budget
    request includes $1.9 billion for the Fish and Wildlife
    Service. That is a 10 percent increase in funding over, I
    think, over what was funded for the current year, 2024.
        I oftentimes say, compared to what, when I am talking with
    folks, including in this room with our witnesses. Ten percent
    compared to what? Through the years before that, the decade
    before that? Give us some ideas, so we will have some sense of
    reference.
        Ms. Williams. Chairman Carper, thank you for that question.
    We have put, I have put a lot of thought into this question for
    numerous reasons. These are, it is compared to the 2024 enacted
    level, but when we look back over the last decade, the capacity
    within the Fish and Wildlife Service has continued to decrease
    by 20 percent.
        So as we think about rebuilding and being able to meet our
    statutory obligations plus being able to do the proactive work
    so that, for example, species do not have to be listed, so that
    we can be more efficient in our Section 7 consultation, we are
    thinking about, how do we build for the future in an efficient
    manner.
        So we are not just looking back to the last 10 years where
    we had larger capacity and saying we want it to be just like
    that. Instead, what we are thinking about is, how do we build
    from what we have now? How do we get through these lean years,
    first, and then how do we build going forward that meets the
    needs of today?
        Senator Carper. I am going to ask you in a separate
    question for the record, I want to make sure that I am
    comparing apples to apples. The 10 percent increase being
    requested, I want to be able to compare that apple to what has
    gone on in recent years. That will be a question for the
    record.
        My next questions deal with Endangered Species Act
    consultation and permitting. The Fiscal Year 2025 budget
    request includes about $147 million to increase environmental
    permitting capacity, which would be an increase of some $28
    million. The Fish and Wildlife Service issues, as you know, a
    variety of permits under its wildlife protection statutes, but
    I want to focus today specifically on Endangered Species Act
    consultation.
        Consultation, as you know, is one of the Fish and Wildlife
    Service's most important responsibilities, but I find that a
    lot of people do not really know what consultation means or why
    it is essential to the Service's mission.
        My question is this: would you spend a minute or two
    explaining for us what consultation means when the Service does
    it, and how it protects species?
        Ms. Williams. Thank you for that question, Chairman Carper.
    I think back on the Endangered Species Act, and many people
    focus on Section 4 under the Endangered Species Act, and that
    is listing or the delisting process. The real heart of the
    Endangered Species Act is Section 7, that when Congress passed
    the Endangered Species Act, they set out Section 7 specifically
    to provide a means to conserve the ecosystems upon which
    endangered and threatened species depend.
        There are two parts to Section 7 under the Endangered
    Species Act: one that directs all Federal agencies to
    participate in conserving these species, so this is not just up
    to National Marine Fisheries Service and the Fish and Wildlife
    Service, it is up to all of government.
        The second part of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
    specifically says that when a Federal agency takes an action
    they must ensure that their activities are not likely to
    jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered
    species.
        So that is what triggers what we call Section 7
    consultation. It is that requirement that Federal agencies need
    to make sure any act they undertake or permit or fund do not
    jeopardize these species. That is what sends in motion the
    consultation process with the Fish and Wildlife Service.
        Senator Carper. Thank you for that response. I am going to
    yield to Senator Capito, and then I am going to come back and
    followup this line of questioning. Thank you.
        Senator Capito?
        Senator Capito. Great, thank you. I want to talk about the
    field office in West Virginia unexpectedly determined that a
    formal consultation was necessary for the Roaring Run Bridge
    project, which is part of the Corridor H project, but there is
    an issue here. I think you are aware of it.
        In order to ensure that Federal funding can still be spent
    on this project this year, this consultation needs to be
    completed by July. The field office and the regional staff,
    including Director Weber, have committed to making this a top
    priority. I have been told that the Department of Highways and
    the field office had a very productive meeting last week.
        Director Williams, I am just asking if you would commit to
    making this a priority, because if we do not get this done by
    July, it is going to be another year off.
        Ms. Williams. Ranking Member Capito, absolutely. I will
    make it a priority, and I understand that our West Virginia
    Field Office just received the Biological Assessment from the
    West Virginia Department of Transportation for Roaring Run, and
    that they indeed are in line to turn it around by the end of
    July.
        I would love to add just a deep appreciation for your
    engagement on this issue and your staff and meeting with Wendi
    Weber and all of us to really find a path forward where the
    Fish and Wildlife Service is not the bottleneck to these
    projects. We want to help them go forward.
        Senator Capito. Thank you.
        So, it has been 2 years since we came. We met with the DEP
    and DOH (Department of Health) and some other people, and then,
    I want to give you a chance to respond to my opening statement
    where I said that the Coal Association is intending to sue
    because the field office is in, they believe, violation of the
    2020 Biological Opinion.
        We are restarting consultation on 880 mining permits with
    seemingly no plan to handle the workload. DEP is experiencing
    months of back-and-forth on the protection enhancement plans
    that ultimately required no substantive changes, and DOH has
    just decided to go to formal consultations, because the back
    and forth is taking too long.
        How do we resolve these challenges? We still need to, I
    think, work on improvement. What are we going to do about all
    these permits that are going to have to be re-looked at, as I
    mentioned in my opening statement, asking for information that
    goes well beyond what has been asked for in the past?
        Ms. Williams. Ranking Member Capito, I wish I had an easy
    one sentence answer to that, but I can speak to how we are
    trying to address this challenge and get beyond it.
        First off, as we recognize, we have had a 23 percent
    reduction in staff regarding consultations. We have had over,
    thank you to the Investment and Infrastructure, we have more
    and more projects coming our way than we have ever had before,
    let alone the OSMRE, these restarting these 880 permits.
        We have had a decrease in staff and increase in
    consultations. We have thought about it in a number of ways. We
    are, first off, we have developed this innovative online system
    to kick out those projects that do not even need further
    discussion or consultation.
        Senator Capito. Is that working now?
        Ms. Williams. That is working now, and is only improving.
    Fifty percent of the permits that are coming through that
    system are based in West Virginia, so it is working now.
        Senator Capito. Is that of the 880 permits?
        Ms. Williams. That is not of the OSMRE permits.
        Senator Capito. That is a separate thing.
        Ms. Williams. I can speak to, first, if I can pull back and
    talk about how we are trying to address Section 7
    consultations, where we have had a decrease in capacity. We are
    requesting more capacity. Thank you for your leadership and
    others in the transfer authorities, so we can be bringing in,
    as we have in the West Virginia Field Office, more staff.
        We have to do it more quickly. We have to be thinking
    forward and be prepared for the permits as they come in. We are
    being more efficient now in weeding out those projects that do
    not need formal consultation. We have had over 11,000 informal
    consultations, 1,000 formal consultations.
        We are just trying to, one step at a time, be more
    efficient and pay attention and move our resources to where we
    have those formal consultations.
        With that said, for the 880 permits from the litigation
    with OSMRE and the Biological Opinion, we are working
    diligently with our sister bureau, OSMRE. Wendi Weber is in
    constant contact with them, and as you mentioned, we had first
    had this template. We are working on a better template. I am
    very interested in following up on where you think we have gone
    too far, and we can address those issues. I hope I am answering
    your question and the big picture.
        Senator Capito. You are answering the question, but as I
    stated in my opening statement, DOH, the Gas and Oil
    Association in West Virginia, DEP, recognizing that there is a
    capacity issue here, has funded into that office positions that
    have not been filled. If the argument is, we do not have the
    people to do this processing, and you are given the money to do
    the processing, but you are not hiring the people.
        Ms. Williams. I can understand that frustration, Senator
    Capito, but it does not all have, you know, had we been able to
    look ahead for the increase in projects coming through the
    Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, had we had the money and the
    capacity, we could have built up ahead of time.
        Senator Capito. Did you get any extra money?
        Ms. Williams. Instead, we are on our back foot, and yes, we
    are in the process of hiring those people, and we are very
    grateful for the opportunity to.
        Senator Capito. Did you get, in any of the FRAN, the IRA,
    or the IIJA, did Fish and Wildlife get any additional moneys in
    any of those?
        Ms. Williams. Not to cover this.
        Senator Capito. No, wait a minute. That is not my question.
    Did Fish and Wildlife get any additional dollars in these three
    bills, as a whole?
        Ms. Williams. Absolutely, we got that money, but we did not
    get that money to put toward the capacity and the consultation
    positions. That is a very good question, because it gets to the
    very heart of the challenge, is that the money that we got,
    which is terrific, was not, we were not always able to put it
    into the permanent staff to get these projects going.
        Senator Capito. Was some of that money for Section 7
    consultation? Am I saying that right? Is it Section 7? It has a
    seven in it.
        Ms. Williams. Senator Capito, I do not believe that any of
    that money was specifically to Section 7, but I would like to
    get back to you on that, because this has been the challenge we
    shared in the past 3 years.
        Senator Capito. Thank you.
        Senator Carper. Thank you, Senator Capito.
        We have been joined by Senator Ricketts, faithful in
    attendance. It is great to see you. How are you today? Welcome.
        Senator Ricketts. I am doing great, thank you, Mr.
    Chairman, and thank you, Ranking Member Capito, for holding
    this hearing today.
        Thank you, Director Williams, for joining us. I want,
    again, to say thank you for the work that Fish and Wildlife has
    done on the Platte River recovery and implementation plan. We
    discussed this yesterday. This innovative and collaborative
    approach to the program has provided great benefits for the
    species along the Platte River while recognizing the value of
    public-private partnerships. Again, as we talked about
    yesterday, I think that was a great program to highlight for
    Fish and Wildlife.
        Also, though, as we discussed yesterday, I have serious
    concerns about the steps your agency has taken to backtrack on
    some of this commonsense regulatory reform that was taken by
    the former Administration. Specifically, I want to address the
    changes made surrounding critical habitat designation.
        The 2019 reforms updated the process to require areas where
    threatened or endangered species are present to be evaluated
    before unoccupied habitat can be considered critical. These
    reforms set a higher bar for agencies to designate unoccupied
    areas as critical habitat by requiring that unoccupied habitat
    contain one or more of the features required for a species'
    recovery.
        Your agency is reversing this commonsense regulation.
    Potentially, your agency's final rule restricts the sharing of
    economic impact data, which does not align with the principles
    of transparency and informed public participation in the
    rulemaking process, and of course, this Administration
    originally said it would be the most transparent in history. It
    has turned out not to be true.
        Critical habitat designation can carry major economic
    consequences for landowners and project developers. Landowners
    are not compensated for the lost value, and critical habitat
    designation causes significant job losses.
        My friends in the west vividly remember the 1990 listing of
    the northern spotted owl, and the nine million acres of
    critical habitat that caused the loss of 32,000 timber jobs.
    These were good paying jobs in small communities, which had to
    be supported by Federal dollars to keep their school systems
    open following this designation.
        As you are aware, I am leading a congressional Review Act
    along with my colleagues, Senator Lummis and Senator Sullivan,
    to overturn this rulemaking. I appreciate my Republican
    colleagues' support in overturning this overreach.
        Director Williams, following the reversal of the reform,
    what scientific criteria will Fish and Wildlife use to
    determine the necessity of designating unoccupied areas of
    critical habitat under this new proposal?
        Ms. Williams. Senator Ricketts, thank you again for meeting
    with me yesterday. Overall, regarding these Endangered Species
    Act regulations, after the last Administration promulgated
    them, they were litigated. As the President asked us at the
    beginning of this Administration to review the regulations, and
    in so doing, it was a policy determination to adhere to the law
    and the science to make these changes, including, as you asked
    about, unoccupied habitat.
        For example, with climate change and other stressors on
    species, there are times where recovery of a species could go
    faster and more appropriately in the habitat that is not
    currently occupied, but is the best habitat for them going
    forward. Especially when we have, as you have, a State with 93
    percent private landowners, where we have landowners who want
    to restore these species. We would always do this in concert
    with the State and the landowners.
        Senator Ricketts. Specifically, getting back to the
    unoccupied areas, what criteria, what scientific criteria, are
    you going to use to determine whether or not this is a critical
    habitat under the new proposed rules?
        Ms. Williams. It will be necessarily specific to the
    specific species.
        Senator Ricketts. Okay, can you give us some examples? What
    are some examples then? Pick a specific species, or just give
    us examples. Give me an example of what this would look like.
        Ms. Williams. I am trying to think of any species that has
    a largely diminished area now that we are, I can think of
    actually most species that are dwindled to such small, think of
    a small endemic species, that are dwindled to such small areas
    that they only occupy now. If you want them to be healthy and
    to the future, that they might, one valley over, or one
    drainage over, be able to thrive and relieve the pressure of
    the area where they are now. I would think it can apply to
    myriad species, but the analysis should be specific to the
    species.
        Senator Ricketts. Okay, so what about, so you ca not come
    up with a specific scientific thing off the top of your head.
    What about economic impacts to communities? Are you going to be
    looking at what may happen to those communities as a result of
    mandatory designation of unoccupied habitat?
        Ms. Williams. Senator, we are always interested and care
    about the community health, but there are different
    interpretations of the law, the Endangered Species Act, and
    whether it allows us to take economic impacts into
    consideration in our Section 4 analysis. I would say we will
    follow the law and the science.
        Senator Ricketts. You are saying, there may be cases where
    you are not going to do the economic impact on communities to
    determine whether or not designating the critical habitat is
    going to impact them?
        Ms. Williams. I am saying we will follow the Endangered
    Species Act law, where there are places where we do that
    economic impact, and there are times where the statute does not
    allow for that.
        Senator Ricketts. Again, this is part of my concerns, is
    that if you are going to do the impact analysis, that is going
    to impact communities. Obviously, we need to know that, so
    those communities can be prepared. Will you share that data
    with those communities in the cases where you are doing the
    economic impact?
        Ms. Williams. Yes, Senator, we are always transparent in
    sharing our data through the public process, and the law
    requires that, as well.
        Senator Ricketts. Great. Well, I have run out of time, but
    thank you, Director Williams, I appreciate you being here
    today.
        Ms. Williams. Thank you.
        Senator Carper. I appreciate you being here today, Senator.
    Thank you.
        Senator Lummis, welcome. How are you today? It is good to
    see you.
        Senator Lummis. Very well, Mr. Chairman, thank you so much.
        Thank you, Director, for coming. Nice to see you.
        Ms. Williams. Nice to see you.
        Senator Lummis. I noted that when you were visiting with
    Senator Ricketts, you said that you will follow the law and the
    science. Let us talk about grizzly de-listing, because you are
    doing neither, so here we go.
        In January 2022, that is two and a half years ago, the
    State of Wyoming filed a petition with Fish and Wildlife
    Service to establish grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone
    ecosystem as a distinct population segment that is neither
    threatened nor endangered, and to remove it from the Endangered
    Species List. By law, your agency is required to make a
    determination within 12 months of receiving the application. We
    are now two and a half years out from when the petition was
    submitted, and your agency has stated you will not have a
    decision until July.
        Further, the science established by the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service decades ago proves that the grizzly has
    recovered, and is way over population criteria. Will you, geez,
    will you commit to establish and delist the Greater Yellowstone
    grizzly bear population?
        Ms. Williams. Senator Lummis, I cannot answer that question
    point blank, as we are under litigation regarding this specific
    question. I, too, want to acknowledge your frustration and the
    challenge that this has taken so long, and that the Fish and
    Wildlife Service has not gotten this finding out in the time
    with which the statute says.
        I also recognize that the sheer numbers, the science shows
    that the numbers of grizzly bears have been a success story.
    When the Fish and Wildlife Service once petitioned, I will back
    up.
        When I started in this job, I met one-on-one with the three
    State directors, Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, to say, how can
    we find a path forward regarding grizzly bears? How can we do
    this together where we get to a spot where we can delist and it
    will stand in court?
        Then, right after that meeting, we received petitions from
    the States of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming making it very
    difficult for us to continue that collaborative conversation.
    We were pushed right into the potential litigation.
        Senator Lummis. Yes, but potential litigation, potential.
        Ms. Williams. Which we were then sued, then, Wyoming did
    sue us on the deadline, which we have a number of cases
    regarding grizzly bears before us right now. We have the
    Wyoming case; we have three petitions from the different
    States; we have an Idaho case.
        Senator Lummis. Are you using our litigation, Wyoming's
    litigation, against you as an excuse for not following the law,
    when we are suing you because you are not following the law?
        Ms. Williams. No, Senator I did not mean to say that in any
    way.
        Senator Lummis. Well, that is what it looks like.
        I am going to go on with gray wolves. Following years of
    delay, your agency committed to issue a new final delisting
    rule for wolves across the lower 48 by December 2024. This,
    after the agency has repeatedly missed the deadlines to issue
    defensible delisting rules that will hold up in court.
        Then, last fall, your agency issued a half million-dollar
    grant to an outside mediator to discuss how wolves and people
    can coexist. This looks like political favoritism thrown at
    some group to study how wolves and people can coexist, after
    two decades of regulatory process, socialization of the issue,
    and repeated discussions. This looks like a delay tactic and a
    waste of taxpayer dollars to me.
        I want to know, can you assure me this process will not
    delay a delisting rule and further, that no part of this ``can
    we coexist'' discussion will be part of the administrative
    record?
        Ms. Williams. Senator Lummis, first of all, wolves are now
    delisted in the northern Rockies. The Fish and Wildlife Service
    was challenged on that, and we received a petition, and in this
    Administration, we issued a decision that wolves remain
    delisted in the northern Rockies.
        Senator Lummis. Now you are doing this proposed National
    Recovery Plan?
        Ms. Williams. Absolutely, yes.
        Senator Lummis. You announced that? Wolves are under the
    jurisdiction of the State of Wyoming, and now you want to
    expand this to the whole Country?
        Ms. Williams. Yes.
        Senator Lummis. Oh my gosh. Will you maintain State
    jurisdiction in Wyoming?
        Ms. Williams. Yes, Senator Lummis. The wolf process has
    nothing to do with, and does not impinge on, the State's
    authorities where wolves are delisted. What we were seeing
    across the Country was various litigation that I wanted to be
    able to say, time out, let us focus on the real work of wolves
    on the landscape, just like in the Blackfoot challenge where I
    was, where we support landowners being on the land and
    supporting them addressing any livestock depredations.
        You are far more aware than I am of the various challenges
    in the States that have wolves, and the social tolerance and
    the culture wars around wolves. What I wanted this process to
    do was to cut through across the litigation and get to a place
    where wolves could have that quiet, where they remain delisted
    in the States where they are delisted, and we have some sort of
    coherent national strategy.
        Senator Lummis. I think it would be better to spend half a
    million dollars studying, getting a mediator to study, how
    people can get along and coexist with each other. Thank you.
        Ms. Williams. Thank you.
        Senator Carper. Thank you, Senator Lummis.
        We are back to Senator Capito. Senator Capito?
        Senator Capito. Thank you, and that was a good one.
        I forgot to mention at the outset, because I thought the
    Chairman would be interested in this. Very sad news this
    morning, but a West Virginia legend, Jerry West, died last
    night.
        Senator Carper. Really?
        Senator Capito. He was a basketball player, very well
    known. We are thinking about his family.
        Senator Carper. I am trying to remember what his number
    was. Do you recall?
        Senator Capito. Forty-four.
        Senator Carper. Forty-four, I was thinking 42.
        Senator Capito. Nope, 44. He is a true mountaineer.
        Senator Carper. What an icon. That is too bad. None of us
    can live forever, but he made every day count.
        Senator Capito. Anyway, he was good.
        I want to go back to the process on timelines. We have all
    been questioning, we are blowing through timelines here. What
    is happening between our field office and some of our State
    agencies, particularly highways, is that we are hitting pauses.
    The field office is pausing formal consultations.
        I am concerned that these pauses, if you pause something
    and then later on restart, you can still be within the
    timeline, but you still had this large pause.
        Who decides when to pause the clock? Who decides when the
    clock restarts, and how does the field office hold itself
    accountable to meeting the timelines for formal consultations?
    What constitutes a pause, and why pause, and who restarts?
        Ms. Williams. Senator Capito, I would like to further look
    into the pauses that have happened in the West Virginia Field
    Office. I do not know.
        I know that there are times where we are all challenged to
    get the information we need, and I know you mentioned that
    there are times where you feel that we are asking for more
    information than we need. I would like to sort through that. I
    can not answer your question on the fly.
        Senator Capito. Okay, we will followup on that. Thank you.
        You mentioned the template that you have put together as a
    tool for consistency, and that you are tweaking that. We would
    like to, and we mentioned that we have received complaints or
    concerns that a lot of the information is information that is
    extra information that is not really relevant to what we are
    doing, what they are trying to achieve here.
        Could we work with you on the template? Could we look at
    the template? I do not think our office has seen it, but I do
    not think we have asked to see it, either. I am making that
    request today.
        Ms. Williams. Yes, Senator Capito. I know we are still
    working with the bureau on that, and we would be happy to work
    with you on this, too.
        Senator Capito. Thank you, thank you.
        Then, it was interesting to hear Senator Lummis talk about
    lawsuits, and obviously, we have those issues in West Virginia
    and probably in every single State. Do you collect data on the
    number of lawsuits affecting projects in West Virginia as
    compared to, say, our sister States of Virginia and Kentucky
    that would see, is it, well, we have had instances, and I have
    had, personally, instances, where a project in coordination
    maybe with the Corps of Engineers or somebody else, well, the
    Ohio Fish and Wildlife, this is passing through quickly, same
    kind of information. It is held up in West Virginia.
        I am looking for more consistency State-to-State. I think
    this is an issue. I would be interested to know, if you see on
    this, how it is affecting lawsuits and the success of lawsuits
    in different States with the consistency in question. Have you
    looked at that?
        Ms. Williams. Senator Capito, that is an excellent
    question. I have not looked at or parsed out litigation and
    litigation success in our various field offices. What I have
    done and am interested in is finding more consistency across
    the Country, and how we implement the Endangered Species Act.
    It is one of the reasons behind our Section 10 regulation,
    where we have more consistency and it is meant to be easier to
    encourage habitat conservation plans and/or voluntary
    conservation agreements.
        I am very interested in following through on this and have
    been, as we are in lean times at the Fish and Wildlife Service,
    and we are having to think through how to get through these two
    difficult budget years, 2024 and 2025, hence our budget
    request. We are looking at having something like strike teams
    or pulling together teams with expertise on these matters to
    make sure we are covering what needs to be covered in places
    where the most work is coming up, but also where we have our
    best and most creative thinkers on these issues.
        Senator Capito. Well, I know, for instance, in some of the
    backlog that existed when we first started our conversation,
    that you sent some of your experts from different States like
    Kentucky or others to try to aid the West Virginia office as
    they were trying to clear through a backlog.
        I mentioned, and this will be my last question, I mentioned
    in my opening statement specifically things that had changed,
    and I think Senator Ricketts alluded to the one. You are no
    longer considering economic impacts when making species listing
    decisions.
        Is that a blanket statement there? Is that a correct
    statement, in your opinion, that you no longer are considering
    economic impacts because of some of the rules that you have put
    forward in making species listing decisions?
        Ms. Williams. Senator, what I mean to say is that the
    Endangered Species Act itself has language in it. I do not have
    it in front of me. It is funny, I normally bring it to hearings
    with me, I have a little packet with the Endangered Species
    Act.
        It is my understanding that the language of the statute
    itself talks about not adding in economic impacts for Section 4
    listing and delisting determinations. I will followup on that
    with the exact language from the statute, but this is not just
    per regulation. It is how we interpret the Endangered Species
    Act itself.
        Senator Capito. Okay, and then you removed language in
    Section 7, interagency coordination process, that limits
    reviews to activities that are reasonably certain to occur. You
    took that out, which I think would allow for a wider berth of
    what you could predict could happen.
        Why did you do that?
        Ms. Williams. Senator Capito, that was really a policy
    decision also driven by our career staff on their expertise on
    Section 7 consultations. It was not to make them less flexible,
    but it was to follow the processes that we have had in place.
    It was bringing the proposed rules back into comport with what
    the Fish and Wildlife Service has done over the years, our
    standard practice.
        Senator Capito. My understanding is that this was in your
    coordination process. It must have been within the body of
    language that was guiding the Section 7 reviews, and you took
    it out because you were not doing that?
        Ms. Williams. Not at all, Senator Capito.
        Senator Capito. I know it is complicated.
        Ms. Williams. No, and I want to say this carefully, but I
    would say in the previous Administration, rules were in
    litigation. We looked at them with, actually, we made everybody
    mad with how we moved forward with the regulations, because we
    looked at them very carefully in concert with our solicitors to
    what we thought adhered to the Endangered Species Act and the
    science.
        Senator Capito. All right, thank you.
        I have to go to the Appropriations Committee, but thank
    you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you again for being here.
        Ms. Williams. Thank you.
        Senator Capito. Thanks again for the constant contact. We
    will be with you. We will be keeping that up, thank you.
        Ms. Williams. Thank you, Senator. I hope to go back to
    Charleston for the U.S.A. Cycling Nationals again.
        Senator Capito. Oh, it was awesome. We did that.
        Ms. Williams. My son raced.
        Senator Capito. Oh, did he? Were you there?
        Ms. Williams. Yes, I was there for the long weekend.
        Senator Capito. You should have told me you were there.
        Ms. Williams. I know.
        Senator Capito. I walked down off the hill, and then I got
    to ride with the car where they did the whole----
        Ms. Williams. Oh, you did?
        Senator Capito. Oh, yes.
        Ms. Williams. It was incredible. Thank you for hosting us.
        Senator Capito. I will get you in the car for next time.
    Yes, you should have let me know. I just live like, an eighth
    of a mile from, actually, they went right by my house. They
    were serving beer by my house, but not me. Thank you.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Carper. Senator Capito, thanks so much for being
    with us. We will look forward to seeing you on the floor.
        We have been joined by Senator Cardin. He has yielded, and
    has said he is happy to wait a few more minutes before jumping
    into this, but when he is ready, I will yield to him.
        Senator Cardin. I will benefit from your questioning and
    Senator Ricketts' questions.
        Senator Carper. I am not sure how much benefit will flow
    from my questioning, but hopefully, it will be of some value.
        We were talking earlier about the, the Ranking Member just
    mentioned that one of the all-time great basketball players in
    West Virginia history, Jerry West, has passed away. What a
    legendary figure. My sister and I were born in West Virginia.
    We go back in the summers to visit our cousins in the State
    with our grandparents. One of my grandfathers was a huge
    Cincinnati Reds fan. The others were Jerry West fans, so we
    note his life and his death today.
        Where I am going with this is, and the first question that
    I asked you today was, would you spend a few minutes explaining
    what consultation is, when the Service does it, and how it
    protects species. I will say that again. I will ask you to
    spend a few minutes explaining what consultation is, when the
    Service does it, and how it protects species.
        Every now and then, I ask witnesses a question, I ask, how
    would you explain this to your grandmother, or maybe my
    grandmother? I want to give you another shot at this. How would
    you explain this, seriously, so that lay people can understand
    it, and maybe even the rest of us and our staffs? Please, what
    is consultation, when does the Service provide it, and how does
    it protect species? You are on.
        Ms. Williams. Chairman Carper, that must mean I did not
    explain that in a way that my grandmother could understand. I
    will try to take another stab at that. I appreciate it.
        Senator Carper. I do not want to put words in your
    grandmother's mouth, but she might have been saying, ``say
    what?''
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. Williams. No, that is a very fair question. I really
    appreciate the opportunity to pull back and think about what
    Section 7 means and how we implement it, especially because it
    is of such interest.
        Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires that when
    a Federal agency undertakes an action, much like under, oh, my
    grandmother would not like NEPA, when a Federal agency
    undertakes an action, Congress and the President, when they
    passed the Endangered Species Act, said, you must make sure
    that that action does not jeopardize or put a species that is
    of special concern, whether listed as endangered or threatened,
    in jeopardy, and that its habitat needs to be in place, too.
        What that has developed into, when a Federal agency takes
    an action or gives money to a company to do a project or
    permits that, that agency has to work with the Fish and
    Wildlife Service or with NMFS to say, does this project impact
    or affect that species and its habitat and if it does to a
    certain threshold where it might jeopardize it, what needs to
    happen to make sure that project takes into account the
    species' needs?
        What it was meant to do was to set up a conversation about
    making sure those projects that might affect a species be put
    together in a way where they no longer impact the species. It
    is meant to be a conversation. There are many, many projects
    that do not require that conversation back and forth, where
    they can go through a system and say, they do not need to have
    any more conversation or consultation with the Fish and
    Wildlife Service. There are those projects that do require that
    information gathering and the conversation to make sure that
    the project does not jeopardize a species.
        Senator Carper. think your grandmother is going to chew on
    that for a while.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Carper. We have been joined by Senator Cardin, and
    I want to give him the opportunity to ask the next question, if
    you would like to. If you would like to, I am happy to
    recognize you for the next questions, to my Delmarva buddy.
        Senator Cardin. I thought Senator Ricketts was going to ask
    questions.
        Senator Carper. He has already asked one set of questions.
        Senator Cardin. He already asked?
        Senator Carper. He will comment after you, if we are not
    joined by others.
        Senator Cardin. First of all, thank you for your support.
    The Fish and Wildlife Service is critically important to us in
    Maryland. I know you have roots in Maryland, so we recognize
    your sensitivity.
        I want to talk first about the neotropical bird issue,
    which we just reauthorized earlier this year. We have seen a 30
    percent reduction in the last 50 years in our bird population.
    I think, sometimes, your agency is somewhat misunderstood as a
    regulatory agency, yes, but a partner in trying to deal with
    the mission of protecting fish and wildlife.
        The neotropical bird issue is one that has been bipartisan
    here. We have reauthorized it, and we have an extra, I think,
    $100,000 in the appropriations, but it is a global issue that
    affects migratory birds that come through the United States.
        Can you just expand a little bit about the role of Fish and
    Wildlife in trying to accomplish a mission, a partnership,
    beyond just a regulatory mission, in an effort to accomplish
    the objectives that we all want to see, a healthier
    biodiversity species?
        Ms. Williams. Senator Cardin, I really appreciate that
    question, because I think it gets to the heart of just how the
    Fish and Wildlife Service can be misunderstood, that while we
    absolutely have a regulatory responsibility under the
    Endangered Species Act, we indeed do far, far more. The work
    that we do proactively, like under the neotropical work that
    you have so helpfully supported and led on, we build
    partnerships around the world to help prevent species being
    imperiled, such that they would ever have to be listed and
    getting to that regulatory component.
        Our 2025 budget request includes an increase of $5.1
    million for the neotropical program because, if you think about
    how we, this is a really good example of how we stretch our
    money so far into other countries, and absolutely everywhere
    with partners, this is completely partner-driven work that you
    have helped to support that allows these incredible species to
    pass through our Country.
        I know, I think I understand that some of your staff were
    able to go on a bird walk. I would say it is one of the best
    ways to start a day for me, going into work, was to go on a
    bird walk on Roosevelt Island early in the morning with others,
    and got to see a Baltimore Oriole right up in the top of a
    tree, where you could see its color, and you could really hear
    it sing.
        I think that neotropical birds speak to people's sense of
    wonder, of how do these species migrate so many thousands of
    miles, and what they represent in our ecosystem, not only
    people's health, but the health of our Country and the habitat
    that we need to support them, and that they move these
    thousands of miles from other countries through and into the
    United States. It is an effort that we all have to address
    together.
        Senator Cardin. I just really want to underscore the number
    of projects in 40-some countries that we have been involved
    with, with the neotropical birds, the migratory birds. It is a
    real testament to U.S. leadership, and partnerships with other
    players, including governments, that have made a huge
    difference. The Baltimore Oriole is flying high. They are on a
    five-game winning streak, so it must be working well.
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. Williams. How about them Os?
        Senator, you are correct. We have had over 747 projects in
    43 countries, and those countries absolutely rely on the U.S.
    Government's leadership. I have seen that firsthand as I have
    traveled to Panama and other countries, to know just how they
    rely on the funding that we have for these neotropical species.
        Senator Cardin. I just want to thank you. I know that you
    are working on the latest of our wildlife refuges in Maryland,
    which we are very proud about. The report is in on that. It is
    very popular in the southern part of our State. I think it is
    about 40,000 acres.
        This is cooperative; the governments and communities are
    all in support of what we are trying to do to preserve more
    land, so thank you for your leadership in that regard.
        Ms. Williams. Thank you for your support, Senator.
        Senator Carper. Senator Cardin, thank you for joining us.
        He mentioned the Birds. He is a huge fan of the Baltimore
    Orioles. As it turns out, I am a huge fan of the Detroit
    Tigers. Every now and then, over the years, we have been
    privileged to go to a game when the Orioles host the Tigers.
        Senator Cardin. We do not have too many tigers in our
    community. We have a lot of Orioles, a lot more Orioles, but
    anyway, maybe we can look at cosponsoring a bill to protect the
    endangered tigers in the world.
        Senator Carper. Just to give you an example of what a good
    friend he is, a couple of years ago, the Tigers and the Orioles
    were battling for a playoff position to see who was going to go
    to the World Series, and I could not go to the game.
        But he was nice enough to call me from the game when the
    Orioles were hosting the Tigers, had just won, and the cheering
    in Baltimore, you could almost hear it without a telephone. He
    held the phone out so I could listen the celebration.
        Where do they play? They used to play in Memorial Stadium.
    Where do they play now?
        Senator Cardin. Oh wow, you are going back a long way. It
    is called Camden Yards. We have to get you there more
    frequently if you do not know Camden Yards, the first of the
    modern stadiums.
        Senator Carper. There you go. I will always remember your
    thoughtfulness.
        Senator Cardin. Have you been following David Rubinstein's
    purchase of the Orioles?
        Senator Carper. A little bit.
        Senator Cardin. Good.
        Senator Carper. With that in mind, I think that leads right
    into Senator Ricketts for his second round of questioning. Go
    ahead, Senator Ricketts.
        Senator Ricketts. Great, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Director Williams, I kind of want to just pick back up,
    because we were talking about the 2019, the Trump
    Administration published a rule that gave Fish and Wildlife the
    ability to use the economic analysis when it was looking at the
    Section 7 listings, correct? That is the one you are referring
    to, there was a lawsuit over. Is that accurate?
        Ms. Williams. There was a lawsuit over the suite of Trump
    Administration ESA regulations. Yes.
        Senator Ricketts. There was, right. Then, that is what,
    when the Biden Administration came in, they finalized the rule
    that basically reversed those. Is that accurate?
        Ms. Williams. When the Biden Administration came in, the
    President asked the Fish and Wildlife Service to review those
    regulations. We rescinded, and then promulgated new ones that
    were not the same as prior to the Trump Administration, were
    not just the same as the Trump Administration's regulations,
    but instead, were a very thoughtful and measured approach
    forward, I would argue.
        Senator Ricketts. Getting back then, to the economic
    analysis. You said that you would follow the law with regard to
    the economic analysis. It is not in the original act, there.
    You said, if you do the economic analysis, you share it. Do you
    have any examples where Fish and Wildlife, when you ever do an
    economic analysis, it had negative impact on species
    conservation?
        Ms. Williams. Senator, I am not sure I understand your
    question. Whether a listing or delisting?
        Senator Ricketts. Are there times when you did the economic
    analysis, did that ever impact your ability to be able to
    protect a species?
        Ms. Williams. I am not following how many, it depends. We
    do economic----
        Senator Ricketts. If it has not harmed you in protecting a
    species, then doing the economic analysis would be beneficial
    to communities, so they are aware, right? We referenced the
    spotted owl costing 32,000 jobs.
        My point is, if you are not going to do the economic
    analysis, but if you do not have any cases where the economic
    analysis harmed you, why would not you do the economic
    analysis?
        Ms. Williams. Senator, we do an economic analysis in all of
    the cases and all of the instance where we think the Endangered
    Species Act allows us to, and where we should. It is just that
    there is, and I do not want to go too far, because I do not
    have my statute in front of me, it is only the one instance
    that was my understanding of Section 4 listing and delisting,
    where we feel that the statute does not allow for that economic
    analysis. We absolutely do an economic analysis in other
    considerations, and we do share that information.
        Senator Ricketts. Getting back to the unoccupied land and
    critical habitat, I believe the Trump Administration rule gave
    Fish and Wildlife the flexibility with regard to the, gave you
    leeway to designate only unoccupied areas as critical habitat
    only if it was necessary. I think, do the new rules say that
    you have to designate that unoccupied land as critical habitat?
    You are not required to do it?
        Ms. Williams. No, Senator, I would argue that the previous
    Administration did not give us flexibility, and our current
    regulation does give us flexibility. It does not require that
    unoccupied habitat be designated as critical habitat.
        Senator Ricketts. Let me switch up gears on you just a
    little bit here, with the remaining time I have. When you are
    thinking about success, and species conservation, would you,
    how do you define success when you are trying to conserve a
    species?
        Ms. Williams. Excellent question, Senator. I think there
    are different ways to think about success. I think the first
    step of success is stemming the loss of the species, of
    preventing extinction to begin with. Then, the next step is
    getting to full recovery of that species.
        Senator Ricketts. Then, full recovery meaning that you
    would delist that species. Would that be accurate?
        Ms. Williams. It is one method, yes.
        Senator Ricketts. Okay, so again, just the logic following
    that if a species, endangered or threatened, you are successful
    in recovering it, then getting it off the list would show that
    you have actually recovered the population, kind of what
    Senator Lummis was talking about with the grizzly bears in the
    Yellowstone ecosystem.
        Ms. Williams. Yes.
        Senator Ricketts. Since the last 51 years since Fish and
    Wildlife has been working on this, there have been, I think,
    about 1,300 species have been listed, but only about 100 have
    delisted. That is about a 7 percent hit rate.
        I would suggest that the Fish and Wildlife use that as one
    of the benchmarks to say, hey, we can actually show that this
    program is successful by getting more species to the point
    where they are being delisted. Quite frankly, 7 percent over 51
    years is not a very impressive record. That means, if I was in
    school and I got a 7 percent on my grade, my parents would have
    been pulling my ear and telling me to pay more attention in the
    classroom.
        I think that one of the things that Fish and Wildlife, and
    I would encourage you to share this with everybody else, should
    be thinking about is, we ought to be thinking about not just
    how we can set aside this land and so forth, but how do we
    actually get to the end goal of, how do we get, be more
    proactive as far as delisting species, because that is really
    the definition of success, is that those species are not
    endangered anymore.
        Ms. Williams. Senator, I agree that is our end goal, but I
    do also feel that the Endangered Species Act has been
    incredibly successful in stemming the extinction of species
    that, when we lose them, we are poorer as a Nation.
        Senator Ricketts. Great. You know, actually, that will be
    one thing we will followup with, because I am out of time, is
    just how many species has Fish and Wildlife assessed that we
    have stopped from going extinct.
        Ms. Williams. Yes, I am happy to followup.
        Senator Ricketts. Great, thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Carper. Thank you very much. I have a couple more
    questions. I do not know if we are going to be joined by other
    members of our committee or not. If we are, then I will yield
    to them as they arrive.
        I want to come back and focus a little bit on capacity
    building, on consultation, and also especially on partnerships.
    In your testimony and as you discussed a few minutes ago with
    Senator Capito, you stated, I think, over the last 20 years,
    the Service's capacity has eroded significantly.
        Meanwhile, costs and workloads have increased, and
    challenges to wildlife conservation have become not less
    complex, but more complex. I believe that we in the legislative
    body in Congress have an obligation to address this problem.
        Here is my question. Would you elaborate on how,
    specifically, this budget request prioritizes capacity building
    within the Service, particularly as it relates to consultation
    and relates to permitting?
        I will just say that again. Would you elaborate for us
    specifically how this budget request from the Administration
    prioritizes capacity building within the Service, particularly
    as it relates to consultation and permitting?
        Ms. Williams. Thank you, Chairman Carper. This budget
    request absolutely prioritizes capacity to provide those
    services that are necessary for Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
    projects to go forward to allow us to meet our mission.
    Specifically, the 2025 budget request includes a $146.6 million
    increase in our planning and consultation under Ecological
    Services, so that is specific to the consultation work.
        Where the budget request also prioritizes capacity that, as
    you mention, for the Fish and Wildlife Service to do its bulk
    of its work that is nonregulatory, it requires people to build
    those relationships and those partnerships. I think about our
    Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program. I think about our
    Coastal Program, as examples, where those are our people on the
    ground who are working day in and day out with our partners,
    with NGO's, and with landowners to piece together funding,
    technical assistance, and listening to what the community wants
    to build, and then working with our partners to build that.
    That is an example of asking our request for the Partners
    Program and for the Coastal Program.
        Our request also asks for money for our refuge system. An
    example is law enforcement officers, so we have a request for
    an increase for law enforcement officers because, as an
    example, there are seven States where we do not even have a
    refuge law enforcement in the State.
        In the State of Delaware, we share a law enforcement
    officer with the State of Maryland. We have nine States where
    we only have one law enforcement officer covering all of our
    refuge systems. That is an example of capacity that we have
    asked to build for the safety of our visitors, for the safety
    of our law enforcement officers.
        I get the question from our law enforcement officers; how
    much is the life worth? Are we willing to request and put the
    money forward to keep our law enforcement officers safe day in
    and day out? Those are examples, but our full budget request
    builds on those capacity needs for us to be able to do our jobs
    and meet our statutory obligations.
        Senator Carper. Okay, just repeat that for me, if you will,
    I want to make sure I heard it right. How many States have no
    law enforcement officers for the refuges?
        Ms. Williams. Seven States do not have a refuge law
    enforcement officer. Nine States, this is my understanding,
    nine States have only one.
        I also, Chairman Carper, I get serious incident reports, so
    I am aware of all of the serious incidents that happen on Fish
    and Wildlife Service-managed lands, whether it is refuge,
    hatcheries, and/or where our law enforcement officers are
    called to assist local law enforcement. It is pretty
    remarkable, the needs out there for our enforcement officers to
    step up and help visitors and communities, and that they are in
    harm's way.
        Senator Carper. Again, just for clarification, the
    Administration's budget request, how would it affect the
    population of law enforcement officers on refuges in the seven
    States or the nine States that you just referenced?
        Ms. Williams. Our Fiscal Year 2025 request is for $63.4
    million specific to law enforcement. It would build the
    capacity, it would increase to 48 Federal wildlife officers.
        Senator Carper. As compared to?
        Ms. Williams. As opposed to right now, we have 205, but it
    would allow us, that increase of 48 Federal wildlife officers,
    would allow us to cover the seven States where we do not have
    law enforcement officers now.
        Senator Carper. It would be in terms of actual law
    enforcement officers, we are talking about a 25 percent
    increase, as I understand it. Okay, thanks.
        Let me move on, if I can. I want to come back. I think we
    are going to be joined by Senator Whitehouse here very shortly.
    Before he arrives I want to turn to, again, partnerships.
    Partnerships, which as you know, are so important, but when the
    Fish and Wildlife Service has more boots on the ground, how
    does that improve the agency's ability to partner with States,
    to partner with Tribes, to partner with local governments, and
    to partner with stakeholders?
        Ms. Williams. Chairman Carper, I was just in Montana last
    week working with the partners around the Blackfoot Challenge
    that are using grizzly bears and conflict as a way to build out
    support for conservation and keeping working lands working.
    They had, through the University of Montana, done a study on
    the necessary capacity to be able to build partnerships, but
    you have to have somebody in place to be able to build those
    relationships. We have traditionally focused just on
    implementing statutes without putting, investing in the people
    to get the work done and to build that support.
        Another example, Chairman Carper, is with the Fish Passage
    Program that had a once in a generation investment from the
    Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. What we have done in the Fish
    and Wildlife Service is used our capacity there to work with
    FEMA, to work with the Army Corps of Engineers, to work with
    Federal Highways, to work with the USDA, to work with the
    Department of Defense so that we sequence and coordinate all of
    our Federal projects.
        Without our Fish and Wildlife Service Capacity in that
    small program, there would not have been anybody to be that
    glue that pulls all the partners together.
        Senator Carper. Thank you for that. We have been joined by
    Senator Whitehouse. Senator Whitehouse, I know you have just
    sat down, but if you are ready, I am ready to recognize you.
        You are recognized. Go right ahead; thanks for joining us.
        Senator Whitehouse. Great. Thank you, Chairman.
        Welcome, Director Williams. Glad to have you here.
        Ms. Williams. Thank you.
        Senator Whitehouse. I am glad you enjoyed your visit to
    Sachuest Point, one of your most beautiful locations.
        Ms. Williams. I did.
        Senator Whitehouse. I wanted to flag just a few things for
    you. One is, I would encourage you to support as much as you
    can the Invasive Species Program. I have visited, for instance,
    Valley Falls Pond in Rhode Island and seen it completely
    overrun by invasive water chestnut. The homeowners nearby have
    a real problem on their hands, and the better we can be at
    helping them, the better off.
        A lot of these are historic and treasured features, and
    when an invasive species comes in and transmutes them, it is
    ordinarily not to anyone's advantage, so if you could help with
    that, I would be grateful. I know you have a lot of different
    places and a lot of different invasive species, but I wanted to
    flag that in particular.
        I also wanted to flag, as we discussed the other day,
    making sure we are paying a lot of attention to the
    Narragansett Tribe. We had a visit from the Secretary, and I
    sat down with her and the Tribe leaders.
        I mentioned that it had been a long time since the
    Secretary of the Interior has visited the Narragansett Tribe. I
    do not know exactly how long. John Brown, who is the Medicine
    Man for the Narragansetts, put his hand up and said, ``I do.''
    He said, the last time, I am not going to get the year exactly
    right, but it is order of magnitude. He said, ``The last time
    was in 1862, and it was for purposes of removal of our Tribe.''
        Secretary Haaland burst into tears at hearing that. I hope
    that the overlooked Narragansett Tribe is going to get a good
    deal more attention and support.
        The last thing I will mention is that I hope that the
    department, all the way to the top, tells the White House how
    important the RISE Bill is. The RISE Bill would take revenue
    from offshore wind development so that local revenue, the 37
    percent from GOMESA (Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act) that
    you get from oil and gas offshore, is matched by offshore wind.
        Because if you do not have a match, then when the
    developers are going into a State legislature or a Governor and
    they say, well, we can do more oil and gas, in which case, you
    get 37 percent of our revenues, or we can do offshore wind, in
    which case, you get the big zero, that puts offshore wind at a
    very serious regulatory and political disadvantage against
    further oil and gas development. We should eliminate that
    disadvantage.
        It is going to be very important, I believe, to offshore
    wind development in the Gulf. The RISE Bill has very solid
    support from Republicans along the Gulf Coast, and also the
    former Democratic Governor of Louisiana was a very, very
    enthusiastic supporter. We would very much like to get that
    done. If we get that done, then the revenues go to the Coastal
    Resilience Fund.
        As you know, I have had a long problem with the Land and
    Water Conservation Fund, that it should properly be called the
    Inland Upland and Freshwater Conservation Fund. When you get to
    the coast, there is essentially nothing there.
        We can have a big old fight with Delaware and Rhode Island
    quarreling with upland States about reallocating Land and Water
    Conservation Fund dollars more fairly to coasts and to
    saltwater. Better than fighting over that existing pie, better
    to add a little sibling that would take care better of coastal
    and saltwater concerns, and putting the Coastal Fund in as a,
    as I said, like a kid brother to the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund, so we are not trying to compete for
    resources, but we are adding to the conservation resource and
    doing so in a way that encourages offshore wind and is fairer
    and et cetera.
        Please take back that I am eager to see that become a
    priority recommendation to Congress from the Administration. I
    think we are there, but you are never entirely sure until it is
    game day. Then, if you find out you are wrong, it is too late.
    Let's try to get an enthusiastic--I do not know if you have a
    response to that already.
        Ms. Williams. Senator Whitehouse, what I do have a response
    to is an agreement about how much the Fish and Wildlife Service
    cares about coastal and marine resources. As an example, when I
    traveled to New Hampshire with the Secretary, I am so sorry it
    was not Rhode Island coastal area, to see the incredible
    projects in marsh restoration and her full support of that.
        I would add, in my travels with the Secretary, she has
    taught me, as she showed in meeting with the Narragansett
    Tribe, just how important our partnerships are with the tribes
    and the deep connection that tribes and indigenous peoples
    across the Country and even into the Pacific remote islands
    have with nature. There is much for us to learn from that, and
    to change our approach.
        I will be happy to carry forward your messages. I know it
    is something that the Secretary cares about deeply and expects
    all of us too, as well. We share that. I would love to see and
    continue to support coastal areas and marine resources that are
    very important, as well, not just Delaware and Rhode Island,
    but across our coastal areas.
        Senator Whitehouse. Well, thank you. I do not mean to
    suggest that the Land and Water Conservation Fund support for
    coastal and saltwater projects is zero, but it is way out of
    balance when you consider how much coastal land there is, how
    much ocean that is the sovereign property of the United States
    compared to upland freshwater. The best way to remedy that
    balance is to make the pie bigger with the RISE fund, rather
    than engage in a fight over where the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund should be dedicated.
        Let it keep doing what it is doing, but let's add in
    something for our coastal and saltwater areas. Thanks very
    much.
        Ms. Williams. Thank you, Senator.
        What I did forget, if I have a moment, I forgot aquatic
    invasive species, and that our 2025 budget does have a $7.7
    million increase there. Just to share how important our efforts
    are to have a really early detection, rapid response. We
    appreciate your support there.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman.
        Senator Carper. Thanks for bringing up the RISE Act. As a
    small State, when Senator Cardin was here, we talked about
    being neighbors, but we are not neighbors with Rhode Island,
    but we are a small State, and we are a coastal State, and we
    share a lot of the same interests, so thank you. Thanks so much
    for embracing them.
        I am not sure that we are going to have other members who
    are going to be joining us today, but I have another question
    or two, and then I am going to give you a chance to sort of
    raise a question, maybe something you wish you had been asked,
    but have not been asked. I will give you, at the end, a chance
    to do that.
        Before we do that, I mentioned in my opening statement that
    biodiversity loss costs the global economy an estimated $20
    trillion per year, $20 trillion, with a ``t'' per year. We have
    heard from our colleagues concerns about the economic impacts
    of protecting species and their habitats. Would you just
    elaborate for us on how protecting species actually does have
    and provides economic benefits?
        Ms. Williams. Thank you for that question, Chairman Carper.
        I think this goes back to the very reason for which
    Congress enacted the Endangered Species Act. It was a
    recognition that biodiversity and conserving these species are
    key to our very survival ourselves, and that they are important
    for medicinal purposes. They are important for innovation
    across the board, for not just for medicine, but also we learn
    from these systems.
        I think science is showing us just how intertwined these
    ecosystem functions are, and the importance of keeping them
    with integrity. I think, also, it may not be an economic
    impact, but wildlife generally provides a sense of wonder and
    awe, and that most people, whatever their beliefs are, if they
    see a bear on the side of the road, or they see a peregrine
    falcon flying overhead, though they may not know it is a
    peregrine falcon, they see a deer or something, they stop and
    do not think about other things, but stop in the moment and get
    solace in seeing those species. There is also tremendous
    cultural significance for many people for these species.
        But I think, too, that the biodiversity needs keep our food
    secure. Pollinators, so many of our plants and food sources
    require pollinators, require the habitat to be healthy. It also
    brings in clean water, clean air, healthy soils. These are all
    things that habitats and the species that depend on them are
    also what support our economic wellbeing, and I think the
    wellbeing, more generally, of our communities.
        It is important to preventing flooding. It is important to
    preventing pollution of the wetlands. We think about the
    importance of wetlands as really pulling out these pollutants,
    but they also prevent flooding and are critically important to
    many of the species that we love and that we sustain ourselves
    with.
        I think about Alaska. I think about our hunters and anglers
    that depend on these species as well. Coming from Montana, I
    filled my freezer with an elk. I only killed it so that I would
    have food for my family, and I did not buy meat.
        I just think that there are so many myriad layers of
    reasons why biodiversity is so essential in this Country, and
    it is something we still have. Once you lose it, you can not
    bring it back.
        Senator Carper. That is probably worth repeating. Say that
    one more time, that last sentence.
        Ms. Williams. Once you lose a species, you can not bring it
    back.
        Senator Carper. Thank you.
        I do not know that we are going to be joined by any of our
    other colleagues. I have at least one more question, and it is
    a short one. Would you take a minute or two and talk more about
    how the Service is embracing nature-based solutions, please?
        Ms. Williams. Chairman Carper, this is something that I am
    incredibly proud of.
        Senator Carper. I thought you might be.
        Ms. Williams. I am proud of the way the Fish and Wildlife
    Service has really embraced nature-based solutions, and they
    have become part of the work we do.
        One of the first projects where I think we really saw the
    benefit of nature-based solutions was indeed, as you mentioned,
    after Hurricane Sandy. We used nature-based solutions for Prime
    Hook in a way that it supports the community. It restored the
    marshland habitat, and it brought back the species that depend
    on that place.
        That is just one example that we have learned from across
    the Country, and we are now working with our other sister
    Federal agencies and building out those nature-based solutions
    because they work, because they are cost-efficient, and because
    they poise us for the future and to try to buffer from climate
    impacts going forward.
        I just thank you and your support for nature-based
    solutions and how we have learned to build them into all of our
    work now.
        Senator Carper. All right. That is a pretty good example, I
    think.
        Ms. Williams. Have you ever been to Prime Hook?
        Senator Carper. Oh yes, once or twice. Even in the last
    couple of weeks, as you know. We are very grateful. I almost
    feel like I am part of their family now, so thank you.
        Ms. Williams. Good.
        Senator Carper. The last question, I have already
    telegraphed this question, but is there a question, just maybe
    one question, that you wish you might have been asked, but have
    not been asked? Go ahead and just briefly State that, and
    answer that question for us before we close.
        Ms. Williams. Thank you, Chairman.
        I have thought a lot about this, and in my serving for the
    past 3 years, as you know, I have traveled around the Country.
    I have really dived into----
        Senator Carper. Let me just say, I am mindful of your
    travels around the Country and visiting States. Keep doing
    that; that is a good thing. Go ahead.
        Ms. Williams. Thank you. I hope to keep doing that, because
    I can see the impacts on the ground. I can visit with our staff
    and see the way in which we do our work.
        What I have observed is that the current budget for the
    Fish and Wildlife Service does not match the work that we do.
    It does not always reward where our work is best.
        So the 2025 President's budget request would help rebuild
    the capacity where we need to be proactive and to do that
    partnership-driven work. It would reward, say, for example, our
    fish passage work, where we are punching so far above our
    weight and bringing together many different organizations to
    really solve water quality, flooding, fish passage, aquatic
    connectivity issues.
        I think of our coastal work, where we absolutely do
    everything with partners and stitch together these efforts in
    support of a community, but also for the ecosystem health and
    its impact to species. I think of our Migratory Birds Program,
    where we have been proactive and innovative in trying to cut
    through challenges of the past and get these eagle rules
    through, to be thinking about, how does the Migratory Bird
    Treaty, how do we implement the treaty?
        I think about our Office of Law Enforcement, people across
    the world who are doing so much with so little to help allow
    for legal trade, but prevent illegal trade of wildlife. I think
    of all of our staff and their earnest faces, as I go across the
    Country, who are trying to solve problems and are trying to be
    creative and innovative with so little.
        That is the question that I would love to be asked, and how
    the Fish the Wildlife Service would make such good use of the
    investment in our work, were Congress to pass the 2025 budget
    request from the President. Thank you.
        Senator Carper. We thank you, as well. Tell us again how
    many national wildlife refuges there are in the Country?
        Ms. Williams. There are 571 now.
        Senator Carper. Five hundred seventy-one, Okay.
        Ms. Williams. That should be a, that is a trivia question,
    but the Secretary, I played trivia with her, and she got that
    right.
        Senator Carper. Okay, that is good. There are a couple in
    Delaware that we are really proud of what is called Prime Hook,
    and there is another one, too. What is it called?
        Ms. Williams. Oh, I think there is a special visitor center
    called the Thomas R. Carper Visitor Center.
        Senator Carper. What an honor, what an honor. We are just
    very proud of that.
        We are proud of both of our wildlife refuges, but as folks
    around the Country are looking for places to go visit that
    maybe they have not been to before, I hope they will consider
    that we have two great visitor centers, but one that is
    particularly close to my heart. Thank you.
        In closing, again, thank you for joining us today. Thank
    you for your service. Thank you for your testimony, and we
    especially appreciate your service to our Country at a time
    when we face great conservation challenges.
        I like to quote Albert Einstein. Albert Einstein used to
    say, in adversity lies opportunity. That is true in this
    instance as well, because those challenges also bring with them
    some opportunities. We are mindful of that.
        Before we adjourn today, some housekeeping. Let me say this
    to our staffs, both majority and minority side, our thanks to
    each of you for helping the members prepare for this important
    hearing.
        This is my favorite part of hearings, when I am the last
    one here, and I get to make a unanimous consent request, and
    there is nobody, none of my colleagues are here to object, but
    it is something that gives me great pleasure. I want to ask
    unanimous consent to submit for the record a variety of
    materials that relate to today's budget hearing. Hearing no
    objection, so ordered.
        [The referenced information follows:]
       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Carper. Senators will be allowed to submit written
    questions for the record through the close of business on
    Wednesday, June 26th of this year. We will compile those
    questions and send them on to you and your team. We will ask
    you to reply to us by Wednesday, July 10th of this year.
        With that, this hearing is adjourned. Thank you very much.
        [Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                               [all]