[House Report 118-206]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
118th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session } { 118-206
======================================================================
TRUST THE SCIENCE ACT
_______
September 20, 2023.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Westerman, from the Committee on Natural Resources, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 764]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 764) to require the Secretary of the Interior to
reissue regulations removing the gray wolf from the list of
endangered and threatened wildlife under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, having considered the same, reports favorably
thereon without amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.
PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION
The purpose of H.R. 764 is to require the Secretary of the
Interior to reissue regulations removing the gray wolf from the
list of endangered and threatened wildlife under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
The bill requires the Department of the Interior to reissue
the final rule titled ``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). The rule removed the gray wolf in
the lower 48 United States, except for the Mexican wolf (C. l.
baileyi) subspecies, from the list of protected species under
the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The bill also prohibits the
rule from being subject to judicial review.
Prior to the enactment of the ESA in 1973, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) had listed some gray wolf
subspecies for protection.\1\ In 1978, after the passage of the
ESA, the USFWS combined these listings into one listing the
gray wolf species as endangered throughout the lower 48 states
(except Minnesota) and a separate listing for the gray wolf in
Minnesota as threatened.\2\ The 1978 rule specified that
``biological subspecies would continue to be maintained and
dealt with as separate entities.''\3\ As such, the USFWS
implemented gray wolf recovery programs in three regions: the
northern Rocky Mountains, the southwestern United States (for
the Mexican wolf), and the eastern United States (including the
Great Lakes States) for the eastern timber wolf.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The USFWS listed the first gray wolf subspecies, the eastern
timber wolf as endangered in 1967 under the Endangered Species
Preservation Act of 1966. In 1973, the USFWS listed the northern Rocky
Mountain wolf (C. lupus irremotus) as endangered.
\2\``U.S. District Court Vacates Gray Wolf Delisting Rule.'' Erin
H. Ward. Congressional Research Service. LSB10697 (congress.gov).
\3\43 FR 9607, March 9, 1978.
\4\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Minnesota, Wisconsin, and
Michigan.\5\ Under the current management framework, wolves in
Minnesota are listed as threatened, whereas wolves in Wisconsin
and Michigan are listed as endangered.\6\ The recovery plan for
the gray wolf in the Great Lakes is quite clear when it comes
to criteria for delisting: a stable or increasing population of
wolves in Minnesota and at least 200 wolves outside of the
Minnesota population.\7\ According to a former wildlife
biologist for 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 life span of wolves, every wolf on the
landscape in the Great Lakes region was born long after
recovery goals were met.''\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\``America's Gray Wolves Get Another Chance at Real Recovery.''
Natural Resources Defense Council. Shelia Hu. April 21, 2022. America's
Gray Wolves Get Another Chance at Real Recovery (nrdc.org).
\6\``U.S. District Court Vacates Gray Wolf Delisting Rule.'' Erin
H. Ward. Congressional Research Service. LSB10697 (congress.gov).
\7\``Recovery Plan For the Eastern Timber Wolf.'' U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Region 3. January 31, 1992. https://www.govinfo.gov/
content/pkg/GOVPUB-I49-PURL-LPS37439/pdf/GOVPUB-I49-PURL-LPS37439.pdf.
\8\``Testimony of Nathan Roberts.'' House Committee on Natural
Resources. March 23, 2023. testimony_roberts.pdf (house.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Between 2003 and 2015, the USFWS published several rules
revising the 1978 rule to incorporate new information and
recognize the biological recovery of gray wolves in the
northern Rocky Mountains and eastern United States (including
the Great Lakes States). These rules were challenged in court
and invalidated or vacated, in part, on the determinations that
the USFWS distinct population segment (DPS) designations were
legally flawed.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2009, the USFWS published final rules designating and
delisting the western Great Lakes DPS and the northern Rocky
Mountain DPS, except it did not delist the gray wolf in Wyoming
after finding the state's management plan inadequate.\10\ The
western Great Lakes DPS was challenged by the Humane Society on
the grounds that the USFWS violated the Administrative
Procedures Act's notice and comment requirements. Ultimately,
the USFWS reached a settlement agreement and withdrew the
rule.\11\ The northern Rocky Mountain DPS rule was challenged
by Defenders of Wildlife and the Montana federal district court
vacated the 2009 Northern Rocky Mountain DPS rule after
concluding that the ESA did not allow the USFWS to list a
partial DPS.\12\ However, an act of Congress in 2011 directed
the USFWS to reinstate the 2009 rule designating and delisting
the northern Rocky Mountain DPS without Wyoming.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\74 Fed. Reg. 15,070 (Apr. 2, 2009); 74 Fed. Reg. 15,123 (Apr.
2, 2009).
\11\Humane Soc'y of the U.S. v. Salazar, No. 1:09-CV-1092 (D.D.C.
July 2, 2009) (settlement order).
\12\Defenders of Wildlife v. Salazar, 812 F. Supp. 2d 1205, 1207
(D. Mont. 2009).
\13\Public Law 112-10, Department of Defense and Full-year
Continuing Appropriations Act of 2011, Section 1713.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2017, after several years of litigation, the USFWS
delisted the gray wolf in Wyoming. Therefore, starting in 2017
there were three distinct regulatory frameworks for gray wolf
population areas: (1) the northern Rockies Mountains (Idaho,
Montana, and Wyoming), where the wolf was not listed; (2) in
Minnesota, were the gray wolf is listed as threatened; and (3)
in all other areas of the lower 48 states, where the gray wolf
is listed as endangered.\14\ In November 2020, the Trump
administration finalized a rule that delisted the gray wolf,
except for the Mexican wolf, and returned management of the
species to each of the lower 48 states.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\``U.S. District Court Vacates Gray Wolf Delisting Rule.'' Erin
H. Ward. Congressional Research Service. LSB10697 (congress.gov).
\15\85 Fed. Reg. 69,778 (Nov. 3, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2020 rule was challenged by Defenders of Wildlife,
WildEarth Guardians, and other environmental groups and in
February 2022, The U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California vacated the rule.\16\ The court found
that the USFWS had failed to show that gray wolf populations
could be sustained outside of the core populations in the
western Great Lakes and northern Rocky Mountains.\17\ This
ruling reinstated ESA protections for the gray wolf in the
lower 48 states. This decision does not impact the Northern
Rockies Ecosystem.\18\ The Biden administration's Department of
Justice appealed the ruling.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\``U.S. District Court Vacates Gray Wolf Delisting Rule.'' Erin
H. Ward. Congressional Research Service. LSB10697 (congress.gov).
\17\U.S. District Court Northern District of California. Defenders
of Wildlife, Et. Al. v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Et Al. February
10, 2022.
\18\``Judge restores gray wolf protections.'' Michael Doyle. E&E
News. February 10 2022. Judge restores gray wolf protections--E&E News
(eenews.net).
\19\``Shocking News as U.S. Department of Justice Appeals
Restoration of Gray Wolf Protections in Most of the Lower 48 States.''
Lauren Lewis. World Animal News. May 2, 2022. https://
worldanimalnews.com/breaking-disheartening-news-as-u-s-department-of-
justice-appeals-
restoration-of-gray-wolf-protections-in-most-of-the-lower-48-states/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delisting the gray wolf in the lower 48 states has
traditionally had bipartisan support. In 2013, the Obama
administration proposed delisting the gray wolf in the lower 48
states, but the rule was never finalized due to backlash from
environmental groups.\20\ In the 115th Congress, the House of
Representatives passed similar legislation to H.R. 764 by a
vote of 196-180 (with 9 Democrats voting in favor of the
legislation).\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\``Obama Administration Strips Wolf Protections Across Most of
the Lower 48 States.'' Center for Biological Diversity. July 7, 2013.
Obama Administration Strips Wolf Protections Across Most of Lower 48
States (biologicaldiversity.org).
\21\H.R. 6784, ``Manage our Wolves Act''. H.R.6784--115th Congress
(2017-2018): Manage our Wolves Act | Congress.gov | Library of
Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ACTION
H.R. 764 was introduced on February 2, 2023, by Rep. Lauren
Boebert (R-CO). The bill was referred to the Committee on
Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the Subcommittee
on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries. On March 23, 2023, the
Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries held a hearing on
the bill. On April 27-28, 2023, the Committee on Natural
Resources met to consider the bill. The Subcommittee on Water,
Wildlife and Fisheries was discharged from further
consideration of H.R. 764 by unanimous consent. Rep. Jared
Huffman (D-CA) offered an amendment designated Huffman #1. The
amendment was not adopted by a roll call vote of 13 yeas to 19
nays, as follows:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI) offered an amendment designated
Dingell #3. The amendment was not adopted by a roll call vote
of 15 yeas to 20 nays, as follows:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Rep. Jared Huffman (D-CA) offered an amendment designated
Huffman #4. The amendment was not adopted by a roll call vote
of 16 yeas to 20 nays, as follows:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI) offered an amendment designated
Dingell #6. The amendment was not adopted by a roll call vote
of 16 yeas to 20 nays, as follows:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI) offered an amendment designated
Dingell #7. The amendment was not adopted by a roll call vote
of 16 yeas to 21 nays, as follows:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ranking Member Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) offered an amendment,
on behalf of Rep. Ed Case (D-HI), designated Case #5. The
amendment was not adopted by a roll call vote of 16 yeas to 21
nays, as follows:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The bill was then ordered favorably reported to the House
of Representatives by a roll call vote of 21 yeas to 16 nays,
as follows:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
HEARINGS
For the purposes of clause 3(c)(6) of House rule XIII, the
following hearing was used to develop or consider this measure:
hearing by the Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries
held on March 23, 2023.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1. Short title
Section 1 establishes the short title of the bill as the
``Trust the Science Act.''
Section 2. Removing the Gray Wolf From the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife
Section 2 requires the Secretary of the Interior, not later
than 60 days after the date of enactment of this section, to
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).
Section 3. No judicial review
Section 3 precludes reissuance of the final rule under
section 2 from judicial review.
COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee on Natural Resources' oversight findings and
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.
COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII AND CONGRESSIONAL
BUDGET ACT
1. Cost of Legislation and the Congressional Budget Act.
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) and (3) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
section 308(a) and 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974,
the Committee has received the following estimate for the bill
from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
H.R. 764 would require the Secretary of the Interior within
60 days of the bill's enactment to reissue a final rule,
``Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the
Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) From the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife,'' which was submitted by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) and published in the Federal Register
on November 3, 2020. The bill also would prohibit judicial
review of that rule. The rule removed from the list all gray
wolves (except the Mexican wolf) in the continental United
States and Mexico, effective January 4, 2021. A court order in
February 2022 reinstated the gray wolves' protections under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA); they are currently listed as
threatened in Minnesota and endangered elsewhere.
USFWS is authorized to collect permitting fees for lawful
activities that involve protected species, including scientific
research, conservation, and unintentional taking of the animals
while performing permitted activities. Under H.R. 764, permits
would no longer be required for activities involving gray
wolves in the continental United States. Permitting fees are
recorded in the budget as offsetting receipts (reductions in
direct spending) and are available to be spent without further
appropriation. Using information from USFWS, CBO estimates that
enacting H.R. 764 would reduce those receipts and the
consequent spending by an insignificant amount over the 2024-
2033 period.
Violators of the ESA are subject to civil and criminal
penalties, which are recorded as revenues and available for
spending without further appropriation. Using information from
USFWS, CBO estimates that any reductions in collections or
associated spending would be insignificant because of the small
number of related cases expected to occur over the 2024-2033
period.
Under current law, plaintiffs who challenge the federal
government under the ESA may be entitled to the repayment of
attorneys' fees. Such payments are made from the federal
government's Judgment Fund, which has a permanent indefinite
appropriation. CBO expects that by prohibiting judicial review,
H.R. 764 could reduce the number of civil actions that
otherwise would be filed and thus the potential for payments
from the fund. Based on the amount of such payments in the
past, CBO estimates that any decrease in direct spending would
be insignificant over the 2024-2033 period.
Finally, using information from USFWS, CBO estimates that
the administrative costs to reissue the final rule under H.R.
764 would be insignificant; any spending would be subject to
the availability of appropriated funds.
H.R. 764 would impose an intergovernmental and private-
sector mandate as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) by eliminating a right of action for entities to seek
judicial review of the administrative rule required by the
bill. Because the rights of action precluded under the bill
generally do not result in monetary damages, CBO estimates that
the cost of the mandates would fall well below the
intergovernmental and private-sector thresholds established in
UMRA ($99 million and $198 million in 2023, respectively,
adjusted annually for inflation).
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Lilia Ledezma
(for federal costs) and Brandon Lever (for mandates). The
estimate was reviewed by Chad Chirico, Director of Budget
Analysis.
Phillip L. Swagel,
Director, Congressional Budget Office.
2. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by
clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or
objective of this bill is to require the Secretary of the
Interior to reissue regulations removing the gray wolf from the
list of endangered and threatened wildlife under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973.
EARMARK STATEMENT
This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined
under clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives.
UNFUNDED MANDATES REFORM ACT STATEMENT
According to the Congressional Budget Office, H.R. 764
would impose an intergovernmental and private-sector mandate as
defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act by eliminating a
right of action for entities to seek judicial review of the
administrative proceedings required by the bill. However, the
Congressional Budget Office estimates that the cost of the
mandates would fall well below the intergovernmental and
private-sector thresholds established in the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act, which are $99 million and $198 million in 2023,
respectively, adjusted annually for inflation.
EXISTING PROGRAMS
Directed Rule Making. This bill directs the Secretary of
the Interior, an executive branch official, to 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).
Duplication of Existing Programs. This bill does not
establish or reauthorize a program of the federal government
known to be duplicative of another program. Such program was
not included in any report from the Government Accountability
Office to Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139
or identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance published pursuant to the Federal Program
Information Act (Public Law 95-220, as amended by Public Law
98-169) as relating to other programs.
APPLICABILITY TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.
PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW
Any preemptive effect of this bill over state, local, or
tribal law is intended to be consistent with the bill's
purposes and text and the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the
U.S. Constitution.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
As reported by the Committee on Natural Resources, H.R. 764
makes no changes in existing law.
DISSENTING VIEWS
H.R. 764 would undermine science-based endangered species
recovery by requiring the Secretary of the Interior to reissue
a Trump-era Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) rule de-listing the
gray wolf in the lower 48 states under the Endangered Species
Act (ESA).\1\ The legislation ignores the established
regulatory process for evaluating the population status and
ensuring adequate conservation measures for the species after
it is delisted, ignores tribal consultation, and prohibits
judicial review of the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\See Erin H. Ward, CRS, R46184, The Gray Wolf Under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA): A Case Study in Listing and Delisting
Challenges (2020), https://www.crs.gov/
Reports/R46184.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gray wolf is a native North American wolf species
comprised of nearly 30 subspecies. Despite their cultural and
environmental significance, wolves are often vilified as
threats to livestock, driving farmers and ranchers to hunt them
close to extinction before they were granted protections under
the ESA. In 1974, FWS listed gray wolves as endangered
throughout the lower 48 states, except for Minnesota, where
they were listed as threatened.\2\ In November 2020, the Trump
administration finalized a decision to de-list the gray wolf in
the lower 48 states, stating that the ``best available
scientific and commercial data available establish[es] that the
gray wolf entities in the lower 48 United States do not meet
the definitions of a threatened species or an endangered
species under the [Endangered Species] Act.''\3\ This rule
ended 45 years of ESA protections for gray wolves, despite
strong disagreement from experts who noted that the wolf's
recovery hinged on continued protection.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Erin H. Ward, CRS, LSB10697, U.S. District Court Vacates Gray
Wolf Delisting Rule (2022), https://www.crs.gov/Reports/LSB10697.
\3\Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Gray
Wolf (Canis lupus) From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife,
85 Fed. Reg. 69,778, 69,778 (Nov. 3, 2020), https://www.govinfo.gov/
content/pkg/FR-2020-11-03/pdf/2020-24171.pdf.
\4\See, e.g., Gray Wolves Regain Federal Endangered Species Act
Protections, Earthjustice (Feb. 10, 2022), https://earthjustice.org/
press/2022/gray-wolves-regain-federal-endangered-
species-act-protections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In February 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California struck down the Trump-era de-listing.
The court's decision reinstated the threatened status for
Minnesota wolves and the endangered status for wolves across 44
states. The Northern Rocky Mountain DPS did not receive
protections from the court ruling because Congress de-listed it
in 2011.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\See id.; Ward, supra note 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 764 should be called ``ignore the science'' rather
than ``trust the science.'' It undermines the scientific basis
for listing and de-listing the gray wolf. It prohibits judicial
review, which is the check on whether an agency has based its
decision on the best available scientific and commercial data.
Furthermore, the bill ignores tribal input and consultation.
This bill would take a significant step backward in protecting
gray wolves from extinction by legislatively de-listing the
species across its range without any scientific analysis of
whether the wolf qualifies for de-listing based on population
numbers, range, and threats to the existence of the species.
Unfortunately, if Congress de-lists the species, states that
allow for inhumane trapping, hunting, and other predator
control measures aimed at wolves will lead recovery and
management efforts.
We already know how those efforts will go. When the Trump
administration de-listed the gray wolf in 2020, Idaho passed
legislation allowing for 90% of their gray wolf population to
be culled by nearly any means, including killing pups,\6\ and
in Wisconsin, one hunting season wiped out over 30% of the
state's gray wolf population.\7\ Montana allowed increased bag
limits and hunting of wolves outside of National Parks.\8\
Idaho authorized bounties up to $2,500 per gray wolf kill, and
states authorized expanded killing methods, including the use
of traps, snares, night-vision equipment, bait, and motor
vehicles and dogs to track and kill.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\See, e.g., Bob D'Angelo, Idaho Governor Signs Bill That Will
Allow Killing of Up To 90% of State's Wolf Population, KIRO7 (May 7,
2021, 4:18 pm PDT), https://www.kiro7.com/news/trending/idaho-governor-
signs-bill-that-will-allow-killing-up-90-states-wolf-population/
NXTIGBZ4HFAIFAETVNWZK5EQFY/; see also Tess Joosse, Wolf Populations
Drop as More States Allow Hunting, Sci. Am. (Sept. 7, 2021), https://
www.scientificamerican.com/article/wolf-populations-drop-as-more-
states-allow-hunting/.
\7\Adrian Treves, Francisco J. Santiago-Avila & Karann Putrevu,
Quantifying the Effects of Delisting Wolves after the First State Began
Lethal Management, PeerJ 9:e11666 (2021), https://doi.org/10.7717/
peerj.11666.
\8\Tom Kuglin, Judge Issues Immediate Temporary Changes to
Montana's Wolf Hunting, Trapping Seasons, Indep. Rec. (Nov. 16, 2022),
https://helenair.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/judge-
issues-immediate-temporary-changes-to-montanas-wolf-hunting-trapping-
seasons/article_4ebc04b2_9efb-5b86-b659-0ce96bbfaa9f.html.
\9\Keith Ridler, Idaho Reaches Deal to Reimburse Hunters who Kill
Wolves, AP (Oct. 11, 2021), https://apnews.com/article/science-
business-lifestyle-wolves-environment-d90402905576067da4726068e8ebd563.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FWS is currently assessing the status of the gray wolf and
whether delisting is warranted through a 12-month status
review. This legislation cuts that thorough, science-based
process short and undermines the successful work of wolf
recovery.
Raul M. Grijalva,
Ranking Member, House Committee on Natural Resources.
[all]