[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 74 (Tuesday, April 30, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H2728-H2735]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TRUST THE SCIENCE ACT
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1173, I call
up the bill (H.R. 764) to require the Secretary of the Interior to
reissue regulations removing the gray wolf from the
[[Page H2729]]
list of endangered and threatened wildlife under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1173, the bill
is considered read.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 764
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Trust the Science Act''.
SEC. 2. REMOVING THE GRAY WOLF FROM THE LIST OF ENDANGERED
AND THREATENED WILDLIFE.
Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this
section, the Secretary of the Interior shall reissue the
final rule entitled ``Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants; Removing the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) From the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife'' and published on
November 3, 2020 (85 Fed. Reg. 69778).
SEC. 3. NO JUDICIAL REVIEW.
Reissuance of the final rule under section 2 shall not be
subject to judicial review.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour,
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member
of the Committee on Natural Resources, or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Huffman) each will control 30 minutes.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).
General Leave
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and insert extraneous material on H.R. 764.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Arkansas?
There was no objection.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 764, sponsored by the
gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Boebert). This bill instructs the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service to reissue its 2020 final rule delisting the
gray wolf from the endangered species list in the lower 48 States.
Defining success under the Endangered Species Act is crucial not only
for species but also for landowners. Understanding recovery goals and
accurately measuring progress informs management actions needed to
improve a species' health and habitat. When a species is recovered and
is a candidate to be delisted, the achievement should be celebrated.
Mr. Speaker, by every definition, the gray wolf is a recovered
species and should be celebrated as an ESA success story.
Gray wolf populations are healthy and thriving in every region where
they are currently found. The Great Lakes region has the largest
concentration of gray wolves in the lower 48 States, with approximately
4,200 wolves that inhabit the States of Michigan, Minnesota, and
Wisconsin. The recovery plan and criteria for delisting the gray wolf
in the Great Lakes is clear. The region must have a stable or
increasing population of wolves in Minnesota and at least 200 wolves
outside of the Minnesota population.
According to former wildlife biologist at the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources, Nathan Roberts: ``These goals have been met since at
least 1994.'' He went on to say: ``It is remarkable to note that given
the natural lifespan of wolves, every wolf on the landscape in the
Great Lakes region was born long after recovery goals were met.''
{time} 1400
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Backing up this record of success, in February, the Service announced
it had denied two petitions related to the gray wolf, one calling for
wolves to be relisted in the Northern Rocky Mountains ecosystem and
another calling for wolves to be relisted in the entire Western United
States. In denying these petitions, the Service stated wolves are ``not
at risk of extinction in the Western United States now or in the
foreseeable future.''
The Service also stated that wolf populations in the Western United
States had a healthy abundance, retained genetic diversity, had the
ability to respond to high mortality events, and maintained adaptive
capacity.
This announcement, coupled with the fact that most wolves in the
Western United States are in States where they have already been
delisted, shows that States are responsibly managing their wolf
populations.
Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time the House of Representatives
debated wolf management. In 2011, Congress directed the Service to
reinstate a 2009 rule that delisted wolves in Idaho and Montana and
prohibited judicial review.
In fact, delisting the gray wolf in the lower 48 States has
bipartisan support. In 2013, the Obama administration proposed
delisting the gray wolf in the lower 48 States. The Biden
administration is currently appealing the Federal court orders that are
preventing the 2020 delisting rule from taking effect. This is a rare
occurrence where the Biden administration is actually defending an
action taken by the Trump administration.
In 2018, the House of Representatives passed language similar to the
bill before us today with the support of nine Democrats, some of whom
are still in Congress. Yet, we are here again, pursuing a delisting
that should have been accomplished long ago.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to celebrate the recovery of the
gray wolf and support its delisting and the legislation that is before
us today. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Beyer), one of the most passionate and knowledgeable
champions for wolf preservation in the Congress.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R.
764.
Rather than celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Endangered Species
Act and the many species our Nation's most successful conservation
legislation has saved, House Republicans have relentlessly targeted the
ESA and the wildlife it has protected.
As co-chair of the Endangered Species Act Caucus, I am deeply
concerned about how House Republicans have proposed to weaken this
popular bipartisan framework that preserves our Nation's rich
biodiversity.
Today's scheme, a bill comically and ironically named Trust the
Science Act, ignores what scientists are actually recommending to
preserve the iconic gray wolf species and allow them to reach adequate
recovery.
The protections of ESA have allowed gray wolf populations across the
country to stabilize and regain strength, but if delisted nationally,
gray wolves will once again be hunted and trapped to extinction.
Some of the things that my friend across the aisle has mentioned,
where they have been delisted in States, 90 percent of the wolves have
been killed already. We have seen proof of this in Idaho, Montana, and
Wyoming. Trophy hunting of these beautiful wolves has recently been
reintroduced in Wisconsin with States such as Michigan and Minnesota
ready to follow suit.
Just last week, The Washington Post reported that photos of muzzled,
injured wolves have gone viral worldwide, inundating the Wisconsin game
and fish department with complaints.
If we actually wanted to trust the science, we would see the gray
wolf has made progress in their recovery but also that wolves in the
Northern Rocky Mountains are being killed in dramatic numbers, even the
celebrated Yellowstone National Park's gray wolves.
Why? To protect livestock? Wolves kill 9 out of every 100,000 cows in
America. Wolves overwhelmingly feed on deer and elk, not farm animals,
and prefer habitats with high forest coverage. Dogs kill twice as many
cattle as wolves and 13 times more sheep. In Colorado, where wolves
were recently reintroduced, they have killed one cat so far. Yet, we
don't say that all good dogs should go to the gravel pit when dogs kill
twice as many cows as wolves.
Premature listing not only hinders wolf research, but in this
environment, it puts a nationwide target on gray wolf packs.
I love my dog. I have seen the emotional complexity of canine
consciousness, which they inherited from their
[[Page H2730]]
ancestors. If you love your dog, thank a wolf.
Wolf families are more like human families than almost any other
species. They mate for the life of their partner. They keep their
children in the pack until they are old enough to look for a mate.
Please read Farley Mowat's ``Never Cry Wolf'' to see just how
intelligent and charismatic these animals are.
We are in the midst of a biodiversity crisis. Rather than weakening
regulations that safeguard important carnivores that strengthen our
ecosystems, we should be supporting all current scientific efforts by
fully funding the agencies that carry out ESA extinction prevention
work.
I know appropriations deadlines are quickly approaching. If my
colleagues don't like species being delisted, I have a letter they can
join.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reflect on the success of the
Endangered Species Act so far--a 99 percent success rate, one of the
most effective pieces of legislation in our history--and why allocating
adequate resources is essential to promoting species recovery and
monitoring. Instead of mocking science, we should embrace it.
Here is a scientific fact for the fearful among us: Not a single
human being in the lower 48 States has been killed by a wolf in the
last 100 years.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 746.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his eloquence and
thoughtfulness, which stands in such contrast to the Kristi Noem school
of animal welfare that we see reflected in the legislation before us.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I want to point out that although the accusations have been made that
hunting would adversely affect the populations of wolves, that is
contrary to proven data that we have from all species that are hunted.
In particular, in each State where wolves have been delisted, there
is a State management plan in place that has been proven to be
effective in managing wolf populations. Each State recovery plan calls
for wolf populations to remain well above recovery goals, and science
from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proves that wolf populations
remain healthy post-delisting.
While States may vary on population and size management, they all
plan for and set policies to have a sustainable and secure population.
To be clear, a reduction in population size is not the same as
eliminating a population. Each State recovery plan calls for wolf
populations to remain well above recovery goals.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms.
Boebert), the sponsor of the legislation.
Ms. BOEBERT. Mr. Speaker, I, too, stand here today celebrating the
success story of the Endangered Species Act, seeing that the gray wolf
has been fully recovered.
I also stand today, Mr. Speaker, in defense of our farmers and
ranchers, just like the Farrell family in Grand County, Colorado, who
has lost up to five of their cattle in a 10-day span from wolves
attacking their ranch in Grand County.
In my home State of Colorado, out-of-touch Denver and Boulder
leftists voted to reintroduce gray wolves. Since 10 wolves were
reintroduced in December, there have been eight confirmed wolf
livestock depredations and six separate incidents involving wolf
attacks in Colorado just this month. My Trust the Science Act delists
the gray wolf from the Federal Endangered Species List and returns the
issue of wolf management to States and Tribal wildlife agencies. Again,
this is a success story that we should be celebrating here today.
Specifically, my bill requires the Secretary of the Interior to
reissue the 2020 Department of the Interior final rule that delisted
gray wolves in the lower 48 United States and ensures that the
reassurance of the file rule will not be subject to judicial review.
Gray wolves were first listed under the Endangered Species
Preservation Act in 1967. That was 57 years ago.
In 2009, the Obama administration upheld the decision to delist gray
wolves when their Interior Secretary, Ken Salazar, a Democrat from
Colorado, announced the decision at a press conference that the Fish
and Wildlife Service decision to delist gray wolves was ``a supportable
one. . . . Scientists have concluded that recovery has occurred.''
In 2011, Congress directed USFWS to reinstate a rule to delist the
gray wolf in the Northern Rockies ecosystem.
In 2013, the Obama administration proposed delisting gray wolves in
the lower 48 states.
In November 2020, scientists and nonpartisan career employees at the
Department of the Interior once again found gray wolves were fully
recovered and once again issued a rule that returned management of gray
wolf populations to State and Tribal wildlife agencies.
Unfortunately, frivolous litigation was filed by the Defenders of
Wildlife, WildEarth Guardians, and other extremist groups, and an
activist California judge subsequently pandered to these groups by
vacating the 2020 rule and ultimately relisting the gray wolf by
judicial fiat.
In April 2022, the Biden administration appealed the ruling of this
California activist judge and supported the 2020 rule that delisted
gray wolves in the lower 48 United States.
In February of this year, the Biden administration announced a ``not
warranted'' finding for two frivolous petitions that tried to list gray
wolves under the ESA in the Northern Rocky Mountains and the Western
United States.
In the 115th Congress, the House of Representatives passed
legislation similar to my bill in a vote of 196-180, with 9 Democrats
voting in favor of passage.
State and Tribal wildlife agencies have a proven record of
successfully managing gray wolves. In fact, Montana's successful State
management resulted in gray wolves being 500 percent above Fish and
Wildlife Service recovery goals. Idaho's successful State management
resulted in gray wolves being 700 percent above recovery goals. Now,
there are an estimated up to 6,000 wolves in the lower 48. Furthermore,
there are an estimated 7,000 to 11,000 gray wolves in Alaska, and there
are an estimated 30,000 gray wolves in Canada. Again, this is an
endangered list success story.
Let's do as my bill says: Trust the bipartisan science and pass this
bill so we can finally delist the fully recovered gray wolf and focus
scarce taxpayer funding on endangered species that actually need help
being recovered.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Throughout this Congress, my Republican colleagues have tried at
every turn to weaken our bedrock environmental laws. The Endangered
Species Act has, of course, been one of their favorites to attack.
Once again, Republican leadership has taken an opportunity to vilify
an endangered species today, here on this floor, to sacrifice it to
their precious industry groups. Guns, oil, and polluters has come to be
what this GOP stands for, at least in this Congress.
Last summer, they rushed to the House floor with bills to increase
the extinction risk of the lesser prairie-chicken and northern long-
eared bat. Today, it is the iconic gray wolf.
Do my Republican friends truly have nothing better to do with their
time, with the time of this body? We should be working on issues that
make a difference to everyday life in America, but this Congress has
been mostly about Republicans fighting with each other in a circular
firing squad. The only time they seem to take a break from that is when
they want to do something to enrich the wealthiest Americans, harm the
environment, or, now, to kill wolves.
This bill is falsely named. It is called the Trust the Science Act.
It would legislatively delist the gray wolf in the Endangered Species
Act in the lower 48. That is not something that is done based on
science. It is something this bill would do by political fiat.
The gray wolf is one of America's most iconic species. While it is
making a comeback, the science and the facts on the ground tell us that
it still needs help.
This bill would make it so that not a single gray wolf in the United
States, in the entire country, would be protected by the Endangered
Species Act.
[[Page H2731]]
{time} 1415
Yes, it is true that the Yellowstone National Park wolf
reintroduction is one of the great success stories of the ESA.
We saw that as apex predators, wolves help to rebalance and
revitalize vibrant ecosystems and flourishing wildlife populations in
one of the crown jewels of our National Park System.
The ESA has kept the wolf from going extinct. We have gone from
several hundred wild wolves in America, and these were inhabiting the
northern parts of Michigan and Minnesota, to approximately 7,500 wolves
today with populations in at least 11 States.
That is the ESA in action. It is a great success story, but that
doesn't mean that we can just unfurl a banner and declare, ``mission
accomplished.'' We certainly cannot do that when the folks who took
wolves to the brink of extinction are ready to rev up the wolf-killing
machine once again and put us right back on that path to extinction.
Wolf numbers have grown in the Western United States, but the ESA
rightly requires more than just population counts for delisting.
Otherwise, we can quickly devolve right back to where we started.
There are still a lot of factors that go into species recovery;
habitat destruction, disease, the regulatory and recovery efforts by
States that would have to take over management of the species if it is
delisted, and a lot more.
The ESA requires that the Fish and Wildlife Service use the best
available science to assess all of this, not just population numbers,
before they make any delisting decisions. Importantly, the Fish and
Wildlife Service must consult with Tribes.
Right now, the service is following these processes and developing a
recovery plan, but if this bill was signed into law, all of that would
be skipped. They would have to ignore any scientific evidence of
remaining threats to the wolf. This is the danger of legislatively
delisting a species.
While I believe my colleagues are capable of going on to Google and
pulling up some population numbers on gray wolves, it is pretty brazen
to suggest that they, as Members of Congress, are more qualified than
the scientists and experts with years of training to determine if a
species is actually recovered.
The ultimate goal of the ESA is to recover species and then set them
up for success post-recovery. We need durable, not temporary outcomes.
Passing this bill would simply call wolves recovered, but that does
not make it so. The bill ignores science, and it sends a species back
down the path to extinction by reinstating a Trump-era delisting rule
that the courts have overturned because it violated the Endangered
Species Act, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act.
This bill ignores the careful analysis of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service over the past year. It ignores the fact that although wolf
populations are doing well in some places, they haven't met recovery
goals in others.
It does nothing to require Federal consultation with Tribes, and on
top of that, there is nothing in the bill to push States to improve
their conservation measures for wolves.
When wolves were delisted in 2011 and 2021, some States raced to
approve the killing of significant portions of their wolf populations,
even using harvest quotas.
States in the Northern Rockies actually incentivized hunting. They
paid hunters to kill wolves. This does not demonstrate a commitment to
conserving the species once it is delisted.
All of these State policies would simply further villainize wolves
and reward the type of killing that caused the population to crash in
the first place. So no, a simple head count is not a scientifically
sound basis for declaring open season on the gray wolf.
My Republican colleagues know that what they are trying to do will
never stand up to scrutiny in the courts.
It would never stand up to consideration of the best available
scientific and commercial data, and that is why this bill prohibits
judicial review. That really gives the game away. If you really trust
the science then you shouldn't be afraid of a little scrutiny.
Based on the talking points that we have heard throughout this
legislative process, this is all just so people can shoot more wolves.
Why would Congress invest millions of taxpayer dollars in recovering
this iconic species just to turn around and let States start killing
them all over again?
We will hear a lot in debate today about how these apex predators,
which are vital to our ecosystems, are scary, cold killers. That is
ancient ignorance, not science.
If we are lucky, we may even hear some of the wild conspiracy
theories that we have heard in previous debates about larger, faster,
more aggressive Canadian gray wolves. We have heard practically
everything except the claim that these Canadian wolves have laser eyes.
Congress shouldn't be overriding conservation decisions made by
scientists. Fortunately, when we saw this type of extreme and baseless
language a few years ago, a dozen Republicans trusted the science and
voted against it.
I urge my colleagues and fellow conservationists to actually trust
the science and to vote ``no'' on this trust the ignorance act.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the only rule or the only science that this bill would
maybe not hold up to is the political science that is being pushed back
and forth in this Chamber today.
If you look at real wildlife management, we know that maintaining
healthy populations of wolves also affects other species.
I would say if you could talk to an elk or a deer, you might ask them
if a wolf is a violent killer or talk to somebody's cattle because they
do kill. They are apex predators.
We need them in the ecosystem, but we have to manage those numbers.
Just because a species hasn't been recovered in its native range
doesn't mean that that species should be on the endangered species
list. If that were so, we would have black bear and elk on the
endangered species list.
The real science data shows that delisting the wolf and letting
States manage the wolf population, and we are not talking about wiping
out the wolf population, we are talking about maintaining it at healthy
levels, that is what would be best for the wolf and for all others
concerned.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms.
Hageman).
Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Speaker, delisting the gray wolf does not mean we no
longer monitor or manage the population. In fact, the exact opposite is
true.
This bill allows State agencies who know their land and wildlife best
and who already have management plans in place to manage wolves in a
way that protects life and property and allows all species in the
ecosystem to thrive.
Minnesota has the largest population of wolves in the lower 48. There
are over 6,000 wolves in Minnesota, and they refer to the northern part
of the State as the dead zone because wolves have largely wiped out all
other wildlife: the deer, the muskrats, the beavers, et cetera.
It is our States, not the Federal Government, who supply the vast
majority of time, money, and expertise to manage wildlife, and their
record of success demonstrates clearly that species management is more
effective when carried out by State and local agencies.
It is State management agencies, not the Federal Government, that
recovered and delisted the gray wolf in 2020, only to have radical
enviro-activists sue to keep them listed.
For years, populations throughout the West have been well above the
recovery thresholds prescribed in the Endangered Species Act.
Yet, officials in the Department of the Interior, beholden to radical
environmental NGOs, continually shift the recovery goalpost to keep
species like the gray wolf and Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem grizzly
bear listed as endangered, preserving their budget and control over
Western lands.
Instead of wasting taxpayer dollars on a recovered species, the Fish
and Wildlife Service should focus its time and efforts on species that
are actually at risk of becoming extinct.
The science demonstrates how successful State management plans for
the gray wolf have been, and the Fish and Wildlife Service's own
research has
[[Page H2732]]
stated that: `` . . . wolves are likely to retain a healthy level of
abundance. . . .'' And they also said: `` . . . do not meet the
definition of an endangered species or threatened species.''
Mr. Speaker, I believe it is our State management officials, those
who are on the ground and in the community, who are best equipped to
manage our wildlife and can serve our environment, not unelected
officials working from concrete buildings in Washington, D.C.
Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho are classic examples of this fact. All
three have maintained a recovered wolf population for well over 20
years.
Contrary to what my colleagues on the other side would say, that the
plans that have been passed by the States would never pass judicial
muster, the facts are the opposite.
In fact, it was the Circuit Court of Appeals right here in D.C. that
ordered the Fish and Wildlife Service to delist the gray wolf in the
State of Wyoming.
I thank Ms. Boebert for introducing this commonsense bill and
encourage my colleagues to vote for its passage.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, when you call a bill the Trust the Science Act, you
probably shouldn't rely so heavily on narratives that seem like a mix
of Little Red Riding Hood and YouTube conspiracies about the
chupacabra.
You should actually listen to wildlife managers and scientists, and
you should also be thoughtful about lessons that we have learned in the
past when Federal delisting led to State management that adopted many
of those stubborn anti-predator myths.
We know what happens in many of these States when Federal delisting
occurs. In 2021, Idaho passed legislation allowing for 90 percent of
their gray wolf population to be culled by nearly any means, including
killing pups.
In Wisconsin, one hunting season alone wiped out over 30 percent of
that State's gray wolf population. In Montana, they allowed increased
bag limits and hunting of wolves just outside of national parks, a
quota of 40 percent of the State's wolves.
These States in the Northern Rockies pay hunters up to $2,500 per
gray wolf, and they have authorized expanding killing methods including
traps, snares, night-vision equipment, bait, and motorized vehicles and
dogs to track and kill wolves.
States have legalized the hunting of wolves under the guise of
predator control, and with this designation, malice toward wolves is
actually precluded from animal cruelty laws.
This has led to some disgusting acts of torture and abuse. Just last
month, we saw that a man in Wyoming hunted down a wolf, struck the
animal with a snow machine, muzzled the maimed wolf with duct tape, and
brought it in to show his buddies in a bar while it was suffering.
This is the kind of tender mercy that apparently my colleagues across
the aisle suggest for thoughtful management of the gray wolf.
The punishment of this individual, by the way, a $250 fine; not for
the gruesome abuse of an animal but for wrongful possession of live
wildlife. If he had simply killed it, there probably would have been no
punishment at all.
Wolves in Wyoming can be hunted year-round without a license. The
identity of the hunter who kills the wolf is protected by State law.
Hunting down the wolf and purposefully hitting it with a vehicle,
that is also considered just hunting in Wyoming.
House Republicans love to point to State management as the solution
to our biodiversity crisis. I think we all can agree that we should
celebrate when species are successfully recovered and management is
returned to States.
However, this bill would turn over management to States that have
proven an unwillingness, a stubborn unwillingness to conserve the
species further, and that would put wolves at risk in the lower 48
States.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, running down any kind of animal and
running over it with a vehicle is not considered hunting in any
jurisdiction that I know of.
That is illegal, it should not be tolerated, and it shouldn't be used
as an example of why wolves shouldn't be managed using traditional
hunting methods and letting States manage those populations.
I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).
Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, I want to just rebut my colleague from
California. He put up a picture, a devastating picture, alleging that
Republicans would do that to an animal. I utterly reject that type of
behavior on the House floor, and he knows better.
I thank my colleague from Colorado for bringing H.R. 764, the Trust
the Science Act, to the House floor for consideration.
This legislation would have an enormously positive impact on my State
of Minnesota where the gray wolf population has more than recovered.
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources estimates Minnesota's
gray wolf population to be roughly around 2,700, which greatly exceeds
the Endangered Species Act recovery goal for the State.
{time} 1430
However, many experts, hunters, and farmers with boots on the ground
estimate the real number to be anywhere from 5,000 to 6,000.
The majority of Minnesota's gray wolf population resides in the
district I represent in northern Minnesota, placing the burden directly
on the people I represent.
In the meetings I have held throughout my district, I am constantly
hearing from my constituents who are fed up with the dramatic rise in
the wolf population. Whether it is the hunters who have been reporting
low deer numbers, farmers and ranchers who have lost hundreds of
thousands of dollars' worth of livestock, or grief-stricken families
whose pets have been killed by a gray wolf, the overall consensus is
that something needs to change.
Administration after administration have attempted to delist this
species, only to have well-funded activist groups come out of the
woodwork to challenge these efforts with litigation.
Most recently, an activist judge in California, living hundreds of
miles away from gray wolf country, ordered the Biden administration to
relist the gray wolf.
The Trust the Science Act would delist the gray wolf in the lower 48
States and ensure this action is not subject to judicial review,
eliminating the constant back-and-forth that we have seen play out in
the courts over the years.
Contrary to what some may argue, this bill does not throw out
protections for the gray wolf. It simply turns management of the
species over to wildlife managers in each of the individual States.
States then will be able to enact fit-for-purpose protections for the
specific needs of the species in each respective State.
As the title of this bill appropriately conveys, we need to trust the
best available science, which considers the gray wolf to be an
Endangered Species Act success story.
We cannot continue to allow activist judges and radical
environmentalists to weaponize the Endangered Species Act at the
expense of other species and the communities we represent.
Mr. Speaker, Minnesotans treasure wildlife. While we celebrate the
recovery of the gray wolf, we also believe it should be our right to
responsibly manage our State's population.
It is time to remove the gray wolf from the endangered species list
once and for all.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Trust the Science
Act so we can get Federal bureaucracy out of the way and finally allow
State agencies to create wolf management plans that meet the unique
circumstances and conditions in each State. The people we represent
think that we should also do that.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Colorado brought up
Tribes in her opening remarks, and I am glad, because we should be
talking about and thinking about Tribes on this subject.
Tribes are not interested in scaring people into killing wolves. For
many Tribes, wolves are sacred. They are an integral part of the land-
based identity that shapes their communities, beliefs, and customs.
Like bears, wolves are considered closely related to humans by many
North American Tribes, and the origin stories of some Northwest Coastal
Tribes tell of their first ancestors being transformed from wolves into
men.
[[Page H2733]]
In Shoshone mythology, the wolf plays the role of the noble creator
god, while in Anishinaabe mythology, a wolf character is the brother
and true best friend of the culture hero. Among the Pueblo Tribes,
wolves are considered one of the six directional guardians associated
with the east and the color white and associated with protection,
ascribing to them both healing and hunting powers.
Wolves are also one of the most common clan animals in Native
American cultures. Tribes with wolf clans include the Creek, Cherokee,
Chickasaw, Chippewa, Algonquian Tribes like the Shawnee and Osage, the
Pueblo Tribes of New Mexico, and Northwest Coastal Tribes.
It is essential that the United States Government uphold its trust
responsibilities to engage in meaningful, good-faith consultation with
all affected Indian Tribes.
Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, Tribes were not consulted as the
treaty and trust responsibilities required when the Trump
administration delisted the gray wolf. That is unacceptable. Ignoring
Tribal voices erodes Tribal sovereignty.
After the wolf was delisted, Tribes sued the State of Wisconsin for
violating Tribal treaty rights by authorizing the hunting of hundreds
of wolves in 2021. No wonder this bill attempts to bar judicial review.
Tribes should be allowed to lead in identifying conservation measures
for the wolf populations that are culturally sensitive. If this
legislation is enacted, Tribes will have been left out of the process
yet again and will face further violations of their treaty rights by
State actions.
During the hearing on this bill, the Fish and Wildlife Service
reaffirmed its commitment to consulting with Tribes during the species
status review. I was glad to hear this commitment. I believe the United
States Government's relationship with Tribes, and the conservation of
wolves, will both be better for it.
This bill, which reinstates the Trump rule, which Tribes opposed and
were not consulted on, would further erode our government's trust
responsibilities to Tribes while putting the gray wolf at risk. We
should reject this political attempt to sidestep science and Federal
trust responsibilities and instead let the Fish and Wildlife Service do
its job, go through the species status review in meaningful
consultation with Tribes, and follow the best available science.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Bentz), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife
and Fisheries.
Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I don't think I have encountered such an
amazing display of ignorance regarding the nature of a wolf until this
afternoon. A wolf is not a pet dog. It is not some schnauzer, golden
retriever, or dachshund. It is, truth of the matter, a natural-born
killer. That is what it does for a living. That is how it stays alive.
It kills things. It eats them. It does not kill them in a kind and
humane fashion. It is a wolf. We would be led to believe otherwise by
what we have been hearing from the other side of the aisle.
It is obvious to me, from those who have suggested, ranchers are
apparently not to be concerned about. Having not grown up on a ranch,
as did I, they don't have a clue about what it is like to have to get
up in the middle of the night to try to go out and protect your
livelihood from nocturnal killers like wolves. They don't get it. They
don't want to get it. They don't want to understand it because they
don't have to.
The people I represent do have to deal with wolves back in Oregon. It
is some of the most awkward situations. Highway 395 cuts my district
basically in half. My district, by the way, Congressional District Two
in Oregon, is bigger than the State of Washington. It is bisected by
this highway. On one side the wolves are listed, and on the other side
they are not. In some places, this highway runs right through the
middle of a single-ownership ranch. Hence, you can imagine when the
wolf kills an animal on one side where it is protected and runs to the
other where it is not or vice versa. That is hardly a situation that
benefits folks trying to make a living.
To suggest that there is a balance in Yellowstone, you haven't read
the most recent report about Yellowstone apparently. You should. There
is some argument that the wolf brought some sort of natural balance
back to Yellowstone. Not true. Read the report.
Mr. Speaker, I have a question: How many wolves is enough? We have
about 250, something like that, wolves in Oregon, 25 packs. That has
been determined to be adequate for the survival of the wolf. That is
enough under the ESA. We have 2,500 to 3,500 in Minnesota. That is a
few more than I think is necessary, don't you, Mr. Speaker?
We have 60,000 wolves in Canada, and the number is growing because it
is almost impossible to slow the growth down. We have 5,000 to 6,000
wolves in Alaska.
Mr. Speaker, how many wolves is enough? That is really the question
we should be asking, because the Endangered Species Act doesn't require
an abundance of these natural-born killers. It requires enough that we
still have them around. No one is disputing that.
To suggest that 90 percent of the wolves were killed in Idaho, not
true. There are over 1,000 wolves still in Idaho to this day. The exact
count is difficult.
Wolves are smart. They are intelligent creatures. They learn, and it
becomes more and more difficult to control them. The reason they need
to be delisted is so that we have some means of controlling an apex
predator. An apex predator is one of these things that once you have
them, they are very hard to control. Being listed makes it almost
impossible.
It is odd when we have language in the report from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service that states unequivocally--I will read you page 15 of
the report dated February 1 of 2024: ``Specifically now and into the
foreseeable future, wolves are likely to retain a healthy level of
abundance. Given the assumptions in our model, our analysis of our
model projections indicates that there is no risk of quasi-extinction
in the next 100 years under any of our future scenarios.''
This is U.S. Fish and Wildlife talking: ``More specifically,
according to the population protections for the forecasting model,
which incorporates Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming's minimum management
commitments since delisting, we project there would be at least 739
wolves throughout Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming for
the next 100 years.''
Mr. Speaker, of course we need the delisting. It is the way that we
are going to be able to protect, if at all, and control the number of
wolves that now inhabit the United States.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, my friends across the aisle have a pretty
selective interest in numbers. They seem to want to take a single
aggregate number for the wolf population in the United States and
legislatively delist that population in a way that contravenes science,
contravenes the way the Endangered Species Act is supposed to work, but
they ignore a lot of other numbers.
Let's talk about some numbers. First of all, when we try to scare
people about wolves, we should probably acknowledge that you are far
more likely to die falling out of bed than from a gray wolf attack. My
colleague, Mr. Beyer, explained that not once in the last 100 years has
someone died from a wolf attack in the United States.
Wolves rarely attack people, and in the majority of documented cases,
which are very few, humans ended up provoking the wolf or feeding it to
cause that encounter. Further, wolves are a minimal threat to
livestock, despite the hue and cry that we hear about this. Wolves are
responsible for the loss of fewer than two-hundredths of a single
percent of livestock every year.
Dogs and coyotes are responsible for far greater numbers of livestock
losses, and even those losses fall well behind losses due to illness or
weather. While there is inherent risk in raising livestock in wolf
habitat, the losses are small. Importantly, ranchers are compensated
for any financial loss due to wolf predation.
[[Page H2734]]
We need to base listing, delisting, and all other wildlife management
decisions on science, not conspiracy theories, not unfounded fears, not
myths, not political whims.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany).
Mr. TIFFANY. Mr. Speaker, what a success we are celebrating here
today: The Endangered Species Act and how it worked with the wolf. It
worked. It has recovered. We should be celebrating that here today.
Don't take our word for it. Take these 26 scientists' names right
behind me. We have heard repeatedly today about how we should be
trusting science. Scientists are not saying that. I will put these
scientists, these wildlife biologists, up against any scientist here in
America who is in the upper Great Lakes States. They sent a letter to
the Fish and Wildlife Service 10 years ago saying: Delist the wolf. It
is recovered. You are going to endanger the Endangered Species Act if
you don't delist a recovered species.
The fine State of Wisconsin, which I represent the Seventh
Congressional District, was impugned, in particular, the hunters of the
State of Wisconsin. We have had three successful wolf hunts: 2011,
2012, 2013, and once again in 2021. Each time, the numbers rebounded
right back to where they were before or grew even more. That is a sign
of having a successful hunt, that you are managing the population in an
appropriate manner.
One of the most eminent predator biologists appeared before our
committee last year and spoke about that, how up to 30 percent--29
percent being the exact number--but up to about 30 percent of take can
happen of a particular species and it still will recover. That is peer-
reviewed science, and that is why you see these 26 eminent wildlife
biologists saying that the wolf should be delisted.
I want to talk a little bit about dead animals and killing cattle. It
is not the cattle that they kill that causes the harm to a rancher or a
farmer. It is the reduction in production.
{time} 1445
It is the reduction in the amount of milk that a dairy cow produces
when they are stirred up by wolves tracking them. It is the reduced
rate of gain for a beef farmer. That is what puts farmers out of
business in wolf country. It is not the actual killing of the animal.
The gentleman can cite these arcane statistics like this. That does
not get at the heart of the harm that it does to farmers.
It is time to let the States manage the wolf population because there
are other species, as was said in our hearing, that perhaps we should
be dedicating time to. If you have a recovered species, and additional
time and effort by the Fish and Wildlife Service is being put into a
species that has already recovered like the wolf, we are not able to
deal with other species.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. D'Esposito). The time of the gentleman
has expired.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. TIFFANY. It requires additional resources for species that may be
headed in that direction.
As these 26 wildlife biologists said in their letter that they sent
10 years ago, the ultimate danger in not delisting the wolf, a
recovered species, is that you are going to endanger the Endangered
Species Act and diminish its value.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us today would take a significant
step backward in protecting gray wolves from extinction by
legislatively delisting the species across its entire range without any
scientific analysis.
As I said before, every one of us in this room probably has an
opinion on whether wolves should be delisted, but in many ways, that
shouldn't matter. Congress has no business listing and delisting
species. We aren't the scientific experts tasked with assessing
population numbers, recovery goals, and continued threats to those
species.
Unfortunately, if Congress delists the species, States that have so
far demonstrated a stubborn unwillingness to conserve the species will
be left responsible for leading recovery and management efforts.
The gray wolf was nearly eliminated from the landscape because these
types of anti-predator laws decimated the population, leading to the
listing of the species under the Endangered Species Act in the 1970s.
For this reason, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to
recommit this bill back to committee.
If the House rules permitted, I would have offered the motion with an
important amendment to this bill to provide a necessary backstop if
Congress legislatively delists the gray wolf. At the very least, the
infrastructure needs to be in place to stop excessive killings or any
other threats to wolves if they start decimating the population and
sending it back toward extinction.
My language would create that backstop. It is simple. If the
population declines too much, then emergency list the species,
providing 240 days of protection, while the Service conducts a status
review.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in voting
for the motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 764. As we have
heard today, this is a bill based on fear, ignorance, and conspiracy
theories that condone the inhumane killing of wolves.
Our Republican colleagues have made it clear that they intend to
convince the Nation that wolves are just cold killers. Maybe that is
good politics in some places to vilify wolves, to stoke the inhumane
killing of wolves--running them over with snowmobiles and trucks,
trapping, torturing, and finally shooting them, maybe after you put
duct tape around their mouth and brought them in as a trophy to show
your buddies at a bar.
All of that might work in some places, but most Americans understand
the value of wolves. They understand that these creatures are
foundational to ecosystem functions. They keep prey in check. Most
Americans admire the intricate social structures of the wolf pack. They
want to live in balance with nature, including predators.
This bill ignores the science, turns a blind eye to Tribal treaty
rights, and removes judicial oversight of the delisting process to
reinstate a faulty Trump-era rule. The gray wolf was listed as
endangered because the predator control methods of the past had
nearly eliminated the wolf from the landscape. Reinstating the Trump-
era delisting rule will bring those anti-predator laws and policies
right back into action and put us right back on the path to extinction.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this sham
legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, the facts are clear. The gray wolf is a recovered
species. The administration is ignoring the facts. They are derelict in
their duties, and it is time for Congress to act.
As we have heard from Members today, the impacts of an unmanaged wolf
population are growing and will continue to grow as long as the
administration doesn't take action. That is why Congress must take
action.
I want to emphasize that passing this bill does not declare open
season on wolves, as some would have you believe. Rather, it puts the
management of wolves where it should be, with State game and fish
departments. They are the ones who are best able to manage the wildlife
in their State.
My colleagues across the aisle talk a big game about supporting State
fish and wildlife agencies, but as we see here today, when the rubber
meets the road, really talk is all that it is.
Today, by passing this bill, Congress would celebrate an ESA success
story and confirm what three successive Presidential administrations of
both political parties have tried to do. It is time for every Member of
this Chamber to reject the political science, examine the facts, trust
the facts, and delist the gray wolf.
[[Page H2735]]
Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Boebert for her leadership on this
legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1173, the
previous question is ordered on the bill.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Huffman of California moves to recommit the bill H.R.
764 to the Committee on Natural Resources.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Huffman is as follows:
Mr. Huffman moves to recommit the bill H.R. 764 to the
Committee on Natural Resources with instructions to report
the same back to the House forthwith, with the following
amendment:
Add at the end the following:
SEC. 4. EXCESSIVE WOLF LOSSES.
If, at any time, the Secretary of the Interior finds the
unsustainable harvest of gray wolves or another factor has
reduced the gray wolf population below recovery thresholds,
the Secretary shall, not later than 7 days after the date on
which the Secretary makes such finding, with respect to the
gray wolf--
(1) issue an emergency regulation under section 4(b)(7) of
the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(7)) to
temporarily restore Federal protections; and
(2) initiate a species status review.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX, the
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question are postponed.
____________________