[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.

                          ____________________