Congressional Record, Volume 169 Issue 86 (Monday, May 22, 2023)

[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 86 (Monday, May 22, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H2491-H2497]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

2023 SPECIES WEEK

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 9, 2023, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.

General Leave

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous materials on the topic of my Special Order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, you probably didn't know this, but 50
years ago, President Nixon signed the Endangered Species Act into law,
which was designed to do two very important things: Prevent species
from going extinct and promoting their recovery.
Mr. Speaker, since then, hundreds of plants and animals have joined
the endangered or threatened species list, spurring conservation and
recovery efforts at all levels of government. While well-intentioned,
this law, unfortunately, has been abused and twisted so much that it
doesn't even begin to achieve its goals. In short, it is a failure.
Although there have been some successes in the past 50 years, only 72
of the 1,389 listed species have been recovered and removed from the
list. That is a 5 percent success rate. Only in the Federal Government
would anyone consider 5 percent a passing grade.
The Congressional Western Caucus has long advocated for improvements
to modernize the ESA and make it more effective for our species and
more transparent for the American people.
We have advocated on behalf of the rural communities that we
represent

[[Page H2492]]

who are severely impacted by ESA listing decisions and who, in many
cases, are working in collaboration with private landowners, community
groups, tribes, local governments to promote successful species
recovery and land conservation. We have advocated to administration
after administration to follow the science and fulfill the
congressional intent of the law which is to promote recovery of these
species and remove them from the endangered species list.
That is why I am really proud, Mr. Speaker, to host this Special
Order tonight where you will hear from my Western Caucus colleagues
about successful, locally-led recovery efforts that are taking place
across this country, about the need for conservation, not just
preservation, of our species, the different impacts that ESA listing
decisions have on local communities and economies, and some of the
legislative reforms that are needed to finally bring the ESA into the
21st century.
As we have seen over the past 50 years, ESA has become a weapon used
by extreme environmentalists and by serial litigators to slow or halt
critical economic development and land management projects in rural
communities throughout the United States.
From preventing the restoration of our forests to creating
excessively burdensome roadblocks to domestic energy development, the
ESA used in this way actually can do more harm than good.
These combative environmental groups use the ESA to drive a political
wedge to achieve their true ambition, the end of ranching, the end of
resource development, and the end of timber harvest on public lands. It
is not just a western or a public lands issue.
There are approximately 1.3 billion acres of private land in the
United States and 926 of the currently listed species are on those
private lands, which means cooperation with these communities and these
landowners is essential. It is crucial for recovery.
Unfortunately, ESA regulations often negatively affect the very
people we need as conservation partners through land use restrictions,
through reduced property values, and costly permitting requirements. In
effect, the law literally makes enemies out of the people most critical
to the species recovery.
We must empower our local, our State, and our Tribal partners to
collaborate on comprehensive recovery and conservation efforts, and we
understand more stringent regulations will not lead to more successful
species recovery.
In rural America, we value the responsible management of species, but
we have to do so in a way that does not destroy our economies, that
does not decimate our lands, or leave our communities vulnerable to
natural disasters.
We need flexible tools, not tools that are one-size-fits-all
regulations that come out of the Federal Government, to be successful
in our shared goal of recovery of our Nation's endangered species and
threatened species.
Tonight, as we always do, we are here to raise the voices of rural
communities across this country, and tonight we are focused on those
voices that are telling us how they have been impacted by the ESA and
make their message heard.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Baird).

{time} 2030

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the great State of
Washington for giving me this opportunity and giving the people back
home this opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise on behalf of the communities and the
residents of west central Indiana to share our experience with the
Endangered Species Act.
As an animal scientist and a farmer, I am a lifelong conservationist.
I value the well-intended effort of the ESA to protect and conserve our
Nation's most iconic species that really define our landscapes and have
shaped our heritage.
Unfortunately, I believe the ESA has failed to achieve the underlying
mission, and many of my constituents have been forced to experience the
consequences firsthand.
Lakes Freeman and Shafer near Monticello, Indiana, have been a proper
and appropriate tourist destination--home to many small businesses and
attractions, and a vibrant local economy. A series of droughts and a
tangle of bureaucratic red tape involving ESA devastated our once-
thriving community.
Following a listing more than a decade ago of mussels on the
endangered species list found in the Tippecanoe River, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service subsequently ordered a new higher volume of water
to flow out of the Oakdale Dam that forms Lake Freeman, in an effort to
preserve these now protected mussels.
This executive action by unelected bureaucrats became a death knell
to the community and surrounding area. Businesses like the Tall Timbers
Marina or The Madam Carroll cruise boat reported catastrophic losses of
revenue. Homeowners along the lake reported ruined seawalls, dried up
wells, and poor resale values.
The ESA not only failed to save the endangered population of mussels
that sparked this misguided intervention--the mussels likely died from
bacterial overload created by reducing a 1500-acre lake to a puddle--
but also claimed the lives of other wildlife in the area that died from
the inhospitable conditions created by this rulemaking.
What happened in my district was an unmitigated disaster with
antiquated Federal policies providing little resources for the
community nearly leveled by its outstanding and outdated regulations.
After 50 years, it is time to modernize the law--to fix the broken
parts, to make it better serve its intended purpose, and to allow for
responsible solutions to disasters like Lake Freeman.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for relating some of
the impacts that he sees in his State. You don't have to be in the
Western United States to be negatively impacted by some of the things
that are in the ESA that need updating. I thank him for relating that.
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and I am glad he is
pointing that out.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Tiffany), one of the vice chairs of the Western Caucus, a
gentleman that represents another Midwestern State. I thank him for
being here tonight.
Mr. TIFFANY. Mr. Speaker I thank the chairman for hosting this
discussion on the ESA tonight, it could not be more timely to deal with
this issue.
Mr. Speaker, 50 years ago the Endangered Species Act was created to
protect endangered species by taking actions to put them on the road to
recovery. Unfortunately, the Endangered Species Act has become a
statutory ``Hotel California'' where radical environmental groups and
judges check animals into the endangered species list, but they may
never leave.
In fact, over the last 50 years, out of the 1,389 listed species,
only 72 have been recovered and removed from the list, as the chairman
so eloquently stated in his opening remarks--a 5 percent recovery rate.
Let me be clear, you endanger the Endangered Species Act when you do
not remove species that have recovered. As everyone in Wisconsin knows,
this is something we have seen far too often as it relates to the gray
wolf.
When Federal protections were established for wolves in the Great
Lakes region, population levels were in the hundreds. Now there are
well over 4,000 in Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.
Most recently, a California activist judge unilaterally put the gray
wolf back on the Endangered Species Act list despite its recovery. The
judge's decision went against the 26 scientists--beside me here--that
have urged for the gray wolf to be removed from the ESA since 2015.
Here they are. There are 26 eminent wildlife biologists that nearly a
decade ago said to a judge here in Washington D.C., you are making a
mistake re-listing the wolf. Let's allow management by the States where
they can be most effectively managed.
The data is clear, we have waited long enough. Congress must pass my
bill that I introduced alongside Congresswoman Lauren Boebert. The
Trust the Science Act would delist gray wolves in the lower 48 United
States and would preclude any future re-listing mischief by activist
judges.
When a species is removed from the ESA list, it is something we
should celebrate. It is a success story. When a

[[Page H2493]]

species has recovered, it enables us to use our limited time and
resources to concentrate our efforts to protect and recover other
species that truly are under threat or at risk of extinction.
Over the last 50 years, the Endangered Species Act has failed to be a
celebration of recovery, and instead, a political weapon. It is past
time we change that and turned the Endangered Species Act into
something all Americans can celebrate--endangered species success
stories.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Tiffany. You are absolutely
right. In the ESA there have been some success stories and we need to
learn to celebrate them. More important, the resources that are being
used in successfully recovering those species could then be turned to
other resources that desperately need the help.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Valadao),
one of the young Members of the House of Representatives and a friend
of mine.

Mr. VALADAO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the Endangered Species Act was a well-intentioned effort
to protect the species we are at risk of losing. Unfortunately, the ESA
has been hijacked by extreme environmentalists who have weaponized the
law, especially in California.
Central Valley families and farmers have seen the negative impacts of
heavy-handed and misguided regulations that put fish ahead of our
families and our farms.
During dry years, the very limited amount of water available is
consistently flushed out to the ocean to protect the delta smelt and
other endangered species.
While this precious resource was going out to the Pacific, thousands
of acres of farmland were fallowed. This has devastating consequences
for the people I represent and the livelihoods that depend on
agriculture.
This is something that is important for us to address and talk a
little bit about, because when the water goes out to the ocean,
obviously we are not taking any of that surface water, and it has an
impact on our below-ground water and our aquifers.
These past few years, we have had a huge number of wells fail. In
agriculture, you drive around the countryside, and I know a lot of
people at home probably see this, where you will see wells pulled out
of the ground, the pipes stacked, and they clean them. Two days ago, I
was driving around the valley, and there was a situation where there
was a pile of sand around this well, and it was obvious the well had
failed.
What is really devastating is I have communities all across the
valley, and in just working with one nonprofit, there were at least
2,000, either homes or communities, where they had actual tanks put in
because the wells had failed and there was going to be no clean water
for these people at home, so they put in tanks and pumps, and they were
trucking water to these people so they could have water in their
faucets.
This was happening all across the valley. When we talk about the
devastating impact it has on our communities, this was something that
was at their faucets. It was really frustrating these past few years
when you talk to folks and we have to say, well, we can build projects,
but we can't build water infrastructure projects. We have had projects
that they have been working on for the last 30 years, a simple
expansion of an existing well or existing reservoir. We have got a
reservoir, like Sites Reservoir, they have been talking about for six
decades and have never been able to break ground on that.
When out talking to folks around the district, farmworkers
specifically in some of these communities that struggle most with these
wells, the conversation they brought up was they can expedite the
permitting process for a project like the high-speed rail and you see
the project being built, but they can't do anything for water
infrastructure.
It is frustrating because a lot of these folks rely on agriculture to
make ends meet. Then they go out and see fields being fallowed, they
see the land pulled out of production, and it is less work for them,
less ability for them to provide for their families. This is something
that should be an easy one, but it is regulations like the ESA that put
us at such a disadvantage.
Back to my script.
To add insult to injury, many of the actions taken to protect these
fish have not been effective. The population of many of our listed
species, including the delta smelt, are now worse off than they were
before.
Then you look at the situation we find ourselves in today. Whole
communities are on the verge of being under water because environmental
regulations have prevented these same reservoirs, that we desperately
need, from being built that would actually help us prevent some of the
flooding that we are dealing with.
Now, we have more than enough water to provide our farms,
communities, and homes with water for years to come and nowhere to
store it.
Indefinite listing of species allows activists to abuse the ESA,
preventing the construction of critical water storage projects and
resulting in millions of acre-feet of water being flushed out to the
Pacific Ocean.
The needs of the Central Valley are consistently put last, thanks to
the abuse of environmental regulations like the ESA. We must work
together to reform the Endangered Species Act to strike a more
reasonable balance between protecting our environment and common sense.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I thank the junior member of the Appropriations
Committee and chairman of the Western Caucus, Mr. Newhouse.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, he had to go there. I thank Mr. Valadao
for his words. Sometimes going off script is dangerous at times, but I
think he made a really good point about right now in California, there
is an abundance of water, so much so that some communities are
flooding.
If we could just store that water, then we would not have to idle all
of that farmland that I hear is being set aside because there is not
enough water to irrigate. Communities wouldn't be struggling. We need
the food that California produces as a country. That is important to
us. These are the things that are not just affecting people in
California but the whole country.
Mr. VALADAO. Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman from Washington
probably knows this, but it is important to highlight the fact that
California is the number one agriculture State in the country.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I think Mr. Valadao's time has expired,
but he makes some really good points, and I appreciate that. Since he
is a young man, I am always amazed at how much he has picked up in a
short amount of time here.
Next, I turn to someone that has really impressed with her knowledge
of natural resource issues, not just in her home State but throughout
the country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Hageman).
Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Speaker, this week the Endangered Species Act turns
50. It is an act that was initially created to ensure the health of
fish, wildlife, and vegetation and to protect species that are either
threatened or endangered as defined by the act.
The fact is that the Endangered Species Act would and could work if
it were implemented as intended--to recover actually threatened or
endangered species. It has instead become a business in and of itself,
with an entire economy built around endless studies, monitoring,
fieldwork, and lawsuits. Bureaucrats spend their entire careers trying
to prevent species from being delisted--as to keep them on the list
ensures job security.
The Endangered Species Act has had profound impacts on my State of
Wyoming by limiting economic development and restricting the
implementation of reasonable and effective land, water, and resource
management and use.
It doesn't have to be that way. Under the ESA, once the recovery
goals for a species have been met, the species should be delisted.
That, however, is not what happens. Instead, and regardless of the
actual status of the species, it can take decades to delist a recovered
species.
The Canadian gray wolves are a classic example. They were introduced
into Yellowstone National Park in 1995 with a recovery goal for the
greater Yellowstone area being 100 wolves. We met that goal in 2002.

[[Page H2494]]

{time} 2045

It then took multiple lawsuits and 15 years to have them actually
delisted, which finally happened in 2017, as ordered by the circuit
court of appeals. The environmental groups fought against delisting,
despite the fact that Wyoming's wolf management plan was approved by
the Fish and Wildlife Service and has since proven successful in
maintaining the wolf population well in excess of recovery goals.
The Greater Yellowstone grizzly bear is another example. The State of
Wyoming has spent over $59 million on recovery and has an excellent
management plan in place to ensure a recovered population will continue
to be protected. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found that the
grizzly population has exceeded recovery goals for the past 20 years.
Yet, again, environmental groups have been able to keep the grizzly
bear listed through petitioning activist judges to intervene. The
proliferation of bears in Wyoming is so great that they now pose a
serious and deadly threat to people, livestock, and other wildlife in
my State.
I am thankful to my colleagues on the Natural Resources Committee for
their support on H.R. 1245, my legislation to delist the Greater
Yellowstone population of grizzly bears, and I look forward to passing
it out of the House soon.
By continuing to spend limited resources on recovered populations of
species, we are deflecting resources from where they should be focused.
We are robbing Peter to pay Paul.
In short, as implemented by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and
as enforced by activist courts, success is not in recovering a
legitimately threatened or endangered species but in ensuring that a
recovered species, no matter how robust in number, range, and health,
is never delisted.
A related problem is the fact that critical habitat designations are
not designed to protect a particular species but to encompass as much
area as possible so that the Federal Government and environmental
groups can control ever-expanding swaths of land and water. The
incentives under the ESA are the exact opposite of what they would
actually be if species recovery rather than control were the actual
goal.
The ESA has largely become a mechanism by which environmental groups
have weaponized the Federal Government and courts to impose
restrictions on the use of private property and limit our ability to
use our energy and water resources while also receiving massive Federal
subsidies through sue and settle actions.
This 50th anniversary of the ESA should be a time to reevaluate and
refocus efforts on what the act was originally intended to do. We
cannot continue to allow activist courts or agency bureaucrats to block
sound species management or infringe on property rights any longer. We
must do better. We can do better, and I challenge this body to pursue
ESA reform to focus on protecting our beautiful fisheries, wildlife,
flora, and fauna.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I couldn't have said it better. Resources
are being used to keep the species on the list indefinitely.
We should be thinking about the good of the species and the success
of the recovery of the species. Instead, we want to keep them on this
list to be used for other reasons. That is what we have to get to the
bottom of.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).
He is a dear friend. He is someone who came into Congress with me and
has risen to the chair of the Natural Resources Committee and is doing
just a great job. He is one of my star members of the Western Caucus.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Newhouse not only for
his leadership here tonight in setting up the Special Order but also
his leadership on the Western Caucus, which is a voice for us on not
just Western issues but rural issues all across the country. I am
honored to be a part of the Western Caucus even though I reside in
Arkansas, which I do say at one time was the Western frontier.
Over its 50-year life, as has been discussed, ESA has gone from being
a law geared toward recovering at-risk species through conservation and
has now become a weapon to control land and activities through a
misguided concept of preservation.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we take a minute here and
look at the difference between conservation and preservation.
Conservation, which the Endangered Species Act was built around, is
the idea of being a good steward of the resources we have, of taking
care of and tending to the habitat of these endangered species. It
really is like being the gardener of the habitat.
Preservation is this idea that you can preserve something in the
natural world, and you really can't do that. The way you preserve
something that is living, Mr. Speaker, is, for instance, take a
cucumber. You boil it in vinegar, and you preserve it as a pickle.
Mr. Speaker, what I want to say tonight is that conservation is for
critters; preservation is for pickles. The Endangered Species Act, as
it was written in 1973, was about conservation and taking care of these
at-risk species.
I went back to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and I want to read
here what the people who came before us set forth in Congress in the
findings of the Endangered Species Act.
The very first finding was that ``various species of fish, wildlife,
and plants in the United States have been rendered extinct as a
consequence of economic growth and development untempered by adequate
concern and conservation.''
They pulled that out in the very first of their findings.
It goes on to say: ``The United States has pledged itself as a
sovereign state in the international community to conserve to the
extent practicable the various species of fish or wildlife and plants
facing extinction.''
Then look at the purpose of the Endangered Species Act, Mr. Speaker,
and I quote directly here: ``The purposes of this chapter are to
provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species
and threatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a program
for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species,
and to take such steps as may be appropriate to achieve the purposes of
the treaties and conventions set forth in subsection (a) of this
section.''

Our men and women who came before us knew that protecting endangered
species was all about conservation.
The Endangered Species Act was actually passed as a call to action
and conservation, but it has devolved into a weapon for stagnation and
leverage for political activism.
The irony is that a misused ESA actually does more harm than good to
the animals and plants that it was put in place to protect.
As chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, I have four guiding
principles that form my priorities, and they are access, conservation,
innovation, and transparency. In my view, the ESA falls short of all
four.
The ESA often denies access to our public lands and negatively
impacts private property rights. The ESA denies access.
The ESA fails at conservation, as has been mentioned many times here,
as only a miniscule--less than 5 percent--of listed species have ever
been delisted. It has already been brought out that the Endangered
Species Act is a modern-day example of the ``Hotel California.'' ``You
can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.''
In addition, the act disincentivizes innovation and private
investment while at the same time lacks transparency.
We have cases of private landowners who are doing conservation and
trying to take the actions necessary to help the habitat for species,
and when those species get listed, it is always: ``Hands off. Don't
touch it. We are going to preserve it.'' That just doesn't work, and it
is not ever going to work. The example is in the dismal recovery rate
the way the ESA is being implemented.
We have made reforming the ESA a major part of the committee's
business. If we wish to truly help threatened and endangered species,
then we must strongly support science-based habitat management, and we
cannot tolerate the weaponization of the ESA for political activism.
So far this Congress, the Natural Resources Committee has held two
legislative hearings on bills that address

[[Page H2495]]

fundamental flaws with how the ESA is being implemented. These bills
include three Congressional Review Act resolutions designed to provide
oversight of Biden administration rulemakings that represent the true
excesses of the ESA. Each of these CRA resolutions has been passed by
the U.S. Senate on a bipartisan base.
In addition, three other bills heard by the committee deal with
species that have long been recovered, the grizzly bear and the gray
wolf, as have been mentioned. These species have been prevented from
being delisted due to persistent litigation by activist groups. Even
with Republican and Democratic administrations saying these species
have been recovered, they are still on the list.
Following these hearings, the committee held a markup on April 27
that resulted in all six bills being reported favorably by the
committee. I ask all of my colleagues to join in supporting these
measures.
This is just the beginning. This Congress and the Natural Resources
Committee will bring forth policies that promote transparency, science-
based decisionmaking, flexibility, and voluntary conservation within
the ESA.
It is my desire to have a hearing and, hopefully, a bipartisan markup
on legislation to allow the restoration of America's wildlife habitat.
Focusing on wildlife habitat restoration is definitely the ounce of
prevention worth many pounds of cure when it comes to species recovery.
I look forward to working in partnership with Chairman Newhouse and
the Western Caucus to ensure that we continue to move the ball forward
on bringing much-needed reform to the ESA. It has not been reauthorized
in 50 years. Maybe we need to rewrite it and put it up for
reauthorization.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman so much for his leadership.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Westerman for his remarks.
How appropriate it is to look at the original language, the intent,
to illustrate how far we have strayed from that mission. I thank
Chairman Westerman for those great words.
Next, Mr. Speaker, I turn to somebody who I visited in his district,
and I think he knows firsthand just to what extent the ESA has been
weaponized to stop some of the things that, as a country, we have to
accomplish.
Mr. Stauber from the great State of Minnesota happens to be one of
the vice chairmen of the Congressional Western Caucus. I would love to
hear what the gentleman has to say about this.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from the State of Minnesota
(Mr. Stauber).
Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chairman's leadership not
only in the Western Caucus but his leadership on very important issues
such as the Endangered Species Act. I appreciate his giving me the
opportunity this evening.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in celebration of the gray wolf being fully
recovered.
Gray wolves have never been extinct in Minnesota. We currently
estimate our population at over 2,700 gray wolves, while the ESA
recovery plan goal for our State is 1,400. In fact, Minnesota has more
wolves than the rest of the lower 48 States combined.
The Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations, along
with our very own Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, have all
agreed: It is a scientific fact that the gray wolf has recovered.
On my chart here, Mr. Speaker, you can see clearly the gray wolf has
recovered. The blue dotted line is the Federal recovery plan, and the
green dotted line is the minimum in Minnesota to reinstitute a wolf
hunt. The wolf population is way up at the top, well above each
threshold, as you can see.

Unfortunately, radical activist groups have weaponized the Endangered
Species Act to keep the gray wolf listed. This misguided effort is a
clear danger to our deer herds, livestock, and beloved family pets
across Minnesota.
We have the scientists, the know-how, and the experience to
responsibly manage the gray wolf, including implementing a hunting and
trapping season.
When wolves are above their ESA targets, which they clearly are,
Federal bureaucrats--unelected Federal bureaucrats in Washington,
D.C.--or judges in California should not be able to take away our
management powers just because of their ideological views or because
they want to give favors to radical activist groups. They should follow
the science.
That is why I helped introduce the Trust the Science Act with my
friend and colleague Representative Boebert to delist the wolf and
exempt its delisting from judicial review.
It is well past time to, once and for all, delist the gray wolf and
reinstitute a hunt in Minnesota as part of our local management. Let's
get the Federal Government out of the way and properly allow our State
managers to manage the gray wolf population.
Our way of life in northern Minnesota depends on it.
It is simply ``sumbumcheous'' to keep the gray wolf on the endangered
species list. It has recovered. Let's trust the science.

{time} 2100

Mr. NEWHOUSE. I couldn't agree more that the gray wolf in my State
has recovered, as well. They are prolific animals. They are flexible.
They are nomadic. We really should declare a victory that they have
recovered and celebrate that success and then use those resources to
focus on other species that need our attention.
I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson), the
chairman of the Committee on Agriculture and someone that knows, from
his perspective, not only a lot about agriculture but a lot about the
Endangered Species Act.
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, the Endangered Species Act
was drafted with the best of intentions, but it has simply failed to
live up to its noble mission.
Since the ESA was passed in 1973, only 3 percent of species protected
by the law have recovered to the point where they can be delisted. This
is an abysmal recovery rate.
Burdensome and outdated regulations like the Endangered Species Act
negatively impact our Nation's farmers, ranchers, and foresters, create
frivolous lawsuits, halt critical infrastructure projects, stifle
economic growth, and do not help the species in question. It fails to
do that.
Just consider the northern long-eared bat. It is declining due to a
disease with no cure, and the ESA will only further restrict our
ability to help the species recover. It is an inflexible and outdated
approach to species conservation.
America's working lands play a vital role in protecting threatened
and endangered species, Mr. Speaker.
Voluntary, locally led conservation programs should be a model for
the Federal Government rather than a top-down sledgehammer of red tape,
or what I prefer to call, green tape.
It is high past time to modernize the Endangered Species Act to
better protect species and to treat property owners, farmers, ranchers,
and States as partners rather than obstacles.
The ESA should be amended to empower local stakeholders, incentivize
voluntary conservation programs, and should emphasize actually
recovering species, not simply leaving them on life support for years
to come.
The simple truth is the programs that we have in the Agriculture
Committee under a conservation title which are locally led, voluntary
conservation programs, have led to the delisting of far more species
that were either listed originally as endangered or threatened.
We know that works, and we know the Endangered Species Act in its
current form does not.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Thompson for elevating the
voices of the people of Pennsylvania on this important issue.
He is right. The conservation programs that we have in this country
have done a lot of good for species across the country.
That is why he is the chairman of the Agriculture Committee because
he understands things like that.
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Well, that and the fact I like to eat.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. That too. We all do once in a while.
I yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Mann), a great agricultural
State, and a beautiful district that I have visited.
Mr. MANN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership, his

[[Page H2496]]

friendship, and for having this Special Order tonight.
We have talked about a lot of different species this evening, and I
rise to discuss the misuse of the Endangered Species Act as it pertains
to the lesser prairie chicken and its negative impact on farmers,
ranchers, agriculture, and oil producers throughout The Big First
District of Kansas.
On April 19, President Biden didn't listen to Congress when it came
to our bipartisan joint resolution of disapproval on his
administration's flawed and burdensome Waters of the U.S. or WOTUS
rule. He vetoed it.
Soon, I hope that President Biden will have another opportunity to
listen to producers when it comes to the lesser prairie chicken.
Last year, the Biden administration proposed the listing of the
northern and southern distinct populations of the lesser prairie
chicken as threatened and endangered, respectively, under the
Endangered Species Act. That ruling became active this March.
Under the Endangered Species Act, the normal activity of agriculture
and energy production can be construed as harm and harassment of the
listed species and thus prohibited.
This rule fails to provide adequate protections for producers, even
going so far as to require third-party approved grazing plans for
ranchers.
To make matters worse, when the lesser prairie chicken rule went into
effect in March, the Fish and Wildlife Service had not approved any
third parties. To date, there are only three across the entire habitat
area.
Grazing plans change, and ranchers are always adapting. It is
unacceptable to force ranchers to agree to a grazing plan under the
threat of a fine.
This is another example of Big Government overreach jeopardizing the
livelihoods of American producers. The truth is, the lesser prairie
chicken population thrives or dwindles based on rainfall, not the
activity of agriculture energy producers.
In response to this misguided listing, which would add to President
Biden's other policies that threaten our Nation's food security and
energy independence, I introduced a joint resolution of disapproval
under the Congressional Review Act to strike it down.
On April 28, the Committee on Natural Resources passed my resolution.
On May 3, the U.S. Senate passed their version of the same resolution.
The designation of the lesser prairie chicken as threatened in places
like Kansas is unacceptable, and this rule should have no force or
effect until Congress is consulted.

I have been working hard on this issue since being elected to
Congress, and I am encouraged to see that it passed the U.S. Senate.
Now it is time for my colleagues in the House to decide whether they
want to stand for Big Government over regulation that will put
producers out of business or stand for producers' rights to their
private property and self-determination.
If my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives are willing to
listen to producers, the resolution will pass and make its way to
President Biden's desk.
If that happens, I hope that President Biden will listen to the
people this time.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Mann and appreciate his
pointing out how important it is to listen to people in the local area
who understand the environment, the climate that they live in, and that
often they are earning their living by farming.
We have heard from several different parts of the country represented
here with the different Members of Congress. So, I am going back to the
great State of California to another one of the Western Caucus vice
chairs, someone that is very outspoken on these issues, and has
tremendous background and knowledge on the Endangered Species Act.
I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa), for being part
of this conversation and also elevating the voices of the people he
represents.
Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, it is really a pleasure to serve with
Chairman Newhouse on the Western Caucus as well as in other capacities
here in the U.S. House.
Indeed, he has really invigorated the effort that the caucus is
making on having these key issues on all manner of things, not just
western but really, for the whole country, having so much to do with
resources and such.
As we contemplate here tonight what the Endangered Species Act's
original intention 50 years ago was when passed by Congress, and
really, for those of us in production, agriculture, energy, minerals,
just about anything that uses the basic building blocks of the economy
and the things that our modern society needs, the Endangered Species
Act has been weaponized against that.
What it has turned into now due to activism in the courts, the
endless lawsuits and the way the courts reinterpret things is nothing
close to what Congress would have passed back in the early 1970s.
Had they passed that, I think they would have been ridden out of town
on a rail because it was so destructive toward the cornerstones of our
economy and what has made America strong and independent in so many
areas.
We agree with the purpose originally. It is to protect and recover
vulnerable species. I think the focus at the time, really, was on the
bald eagle with expansion from there to many other species that we deem
valuable.
The world has well over a million species in it, and they are
discovering more all the time; a lot of it in the insect world and
such.
To think that we are going to just completely move all human beings,
especially Americans, into caves or something like that and say we
can't affect the environment or touch it in any way is really
unrealistic. Mankind has a piece in the world as well. That is even a
biblical truth.
The Endangered Species Act, what it has turned into, is really
harming the ability for people to get what they need.
Also, the focus hasn't really been on recovering species, which I
think was well intended, because we have heard my colleagues talk about
the ratio here of recovery. It is extremely low, especially if you put
a ratio of dollars spent and pain inflicted on agriculture, on mining,
on domestically produced products versus the number of species
recovered. It is way out of whack.
You heard my colleague from Minnesota a minute ago talking about the
recovery of the wolves. They have an incredible number of wolves in the
upper Midwest, but the ESA can be misinterpreted and misused and abused
to say we need to have wolves everywhere: in Oregon, in California, in
Washington.
For that matter, should we introduce them into the Golden Gate Park
and the Santa Monica Pier to make sure they have their share as well?
If you want to see a wolf, you are still going to be able to see a
wolf in the areas where they have been more indigenous for a long time,
and they have successfully recovered.

{time} 2110

This is what we put up with. They introduce them in areas where now
livestock and people making a living in rural areas in Wyoming,
Montana, northeast California, and Oregon have to suffer with the
ideology of just introducing them everywhere and saying this is now
going to make them not on the list anymore.
In my northern California area, for example, we had very important
levee projects needed to be done for flood control around the north
central area of Sacramento Valley, places like Hamilton City, Yuba
City, Marysville, Sacramento, areas like that.
Well, they seemed to shop for a species du jour to stop projects, and
what they settled on was the valley elderberry longhorn beetle, which
not that many years ago U.S. Fish and Wildlife actually recommended for
it to be delisted. In the meantime, however, they won't make a decision
and take it off the list.
Now, mind you, you don't even find the beetle in some of these areas,
but because the habitat for it exists in some of these areas, the law
has been interpreted to be, well, if there is habitat there, if there
is an elderberry bush and a beetle might come along and land in it or
dwell in it, we have to leave that bush there. If you take that bush
out in order to redo a levee, then we have to plant 50 or 70 more
bushes somewhere else.
In one case here, we had to take out a couple hundred acres of
orchard land

[[Page H2497]]

to have this mitigation area because they wanted to fix the dang levee
that was already in existence and keep a town from flooding at the next
rain because they are not maintaining the river in between the levee
banks from all the siltation and such going on there. But that starts
another whole narrative.
The beetle doesn't get delisted, and the levee work doesn't get done
farther south in the Yuba City-Marysville area. This was going on 20,
30 years ago. A lot of great work has been done since then, but it has
been made much more expensive and much more arduous because of the
threat of lawsuit and the ESA.
I will remind you that years ago lives were lost and hundreds of
millions of dollars of damage were done by a levee blowing out in that
southern area of my district in Yuba City-Marysville on the Marysville
side. With all that damage, three lives were lost, and finally the
State of California lost a lawsuit for, I think, $400 million because
they were derelict in doing the work to maintain the levees, all
because of this.
What I am talking about here as well is the ability to keep food on
the table. This chart I have shows that California is responsible for,
in some of these crops, 100 percent, well above 90 percent of the crops
that Americans consume that come primarily from California.
We have the ESA stopping us from keeping farmland safe from floods
but, also, at the same time building the water storage projects that
are important to store water. Now, we were blessed this year with a
tremendous amount of rain and snowpack, and we are really happy about
it, but that doesn't happen every year. That is why we build these
long-term water projects that store water for 5 years of drought, like
Shasta Lake, Lake Oroville, and others. If we don't have those
projects, we don't ride through that time.
They try to stop those projects from being further built, and they
also seek to tear down projects like the Klamath dams, make
hydroelectric green power with no CO2. Much work needs to be
done to keep crops on the table, to keep the electricity and the wires,
keep the minerals coming to produce all the things we need to keep
energy, all of that. The ESA needs to be revisited and actually focused
on truly recovering species but not used as a weapon to stop things
people need, our economies need, rural economies especially. That is
some of the work we do in the Western Caucus.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate, again, Chairman Newhouse's leadership on
this and the opportunity to speak on it here tonight. There is much
more that I could say; you know me.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, Mr. LaMalfa is correct, there are a lot of
things that we should talk about. We have a limited amount of time, but
he is very good at expressing the needs of the people that he
represents and making sure that people understand.
Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I am a farmer in my real life. I hope I
talk plainly enough to get my thoughts across.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, in summation, as you have heard tonight,
the Endangered Species Act, signed into law 50 years ago--and I think
you probably picked this up--was designed to do two things: It was
designed to prevent the species from going extinct and to promote its
recovery. We need to return to that mission. We need to work with
landowners and local governments, Tribes, and always keep the well-
being of the species in mind in that work.
Mr. Speaker, we also need to be transparent for the American people.
There is just too much at stake for us not to be. As members of the
Congressional Western Caucus, we are going to continue to elevate the
voice of the people of rural America on important issues like the
Endangered Species Act and so many others.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

____________________