[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 182 (Friday, November 16, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H9543-H9550]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 0915
MANAGE OUR WOLVES ACT
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1142, I call
up the bill (H.R. 6784) to provide for removal of the gray wolf in the
contiguous 48 States from the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife published 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 (Mr. Fitzpatrick). Pursuant to House
Resolution 1142, the bill is considered read.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 6784
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 ``Manage our Wolves Act''.
SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF FEDERAL PROTECTIONS FOR GRAY WOLVES IN
WYOMING AND WESTERN GREAT LAKES.
(a) Gray Wolves in Wyoming.--The final rule published on
September 10, 2012 (77 Fed. Reg. 55530), that was reinstated
on March 3, 2017, by the decision of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia (No. 14-5300) and
further republished on May 1, 2017 (82 Fed. Reg. 20284), that
reinstates the removal of Federal protections for the gray
wolf in Wyoming under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and this subsection, shall not be
subject to judicial review.
(b) Gray Wolves in Western Great Lakes.--Before the end of
the 60-day period beginning on the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall reissue the final
rule published on December 28, 2011 (76 Fed. Reg. 81666),
without regard to any other provision of statute or
regulation that applies to issuance of such rule. Such
reissuance (including this subsection) shall not be subject
to judicial review.
SEC. 3. REMOVAL OF FEDERAL PROTECTIONS FOR GRAY WOLVES RANGE-
WIDE.
(a) In General.--Not later than the end of fiscal year
2019, and except as provided in subsection (b), the Secretary
of the Interior shall issue a rule to remove the gray wolf
(Canis lupus) in each of the 48 contiguous States of the
United States and the District of Columbia from the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in section 17.11 of title
50, Code of Federal Regulations, without regard to any other
provision of statute or regulation that applies to issuance
of such rule.
(b) Limitation on Judicial Review.--Such issuance
(including this section)--
(1) shall not be subject to judicial review; and
(2) shall not affect the inclusion of the subspecies
classified as the Mexican gray wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) of
the species gray wolf (Canis lupus) in such list.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debated for 1 hour equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Natural Resources.
The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Beyer) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas.
general leave
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to
include any extraneous material.
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, this bipartisan bill would accomplish what multiple
administrations have been attempting to do for over a decade by
delisting a species the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has deemed
recovered under the Endangered Species Act. It also empowers the States
to take a larger role in managing the species population.
The gray wolf has been protected in its original habitat in the
western Great Lakes region under the Endangered Species Act since 1974.
Beginning in 1994, the Federal Government began introducing species to
the Western U.S. by relocating wolves from Canada and releasing them in
Western States.
The reintroduced wolf population in the West expanded more quickly
than many had anticipated, and as a result, Western States began to
work with the Fish and Wildlife Service to better manage the species.
This successful State and Federal cooperation led to the Fish and
Wildlife Service's first attempt to delist the species under the
Endangered Species Act in 2009. Litigation activists struck back,
challenging the agency's delisting decision and halting further agency
action at that time.
In 2014, the Fish and Wildlife Service, after noting an even greater
increase in species population, attempted to once again delist the gray
wolf. Just as before, litigants immediately challenged the agency's
decision. That same year, gray wolves in Wyoming and the western Great
Lakes region were relisted by court order, citing inadequate State
management plans. This 2014 order was appealed, and in March of last
year, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the relisting decision
for the gray wolf, but in Wyoming only.
This underscores the extent to which the Fish and Wildlife Service
has been hamstrung in implementing the objectives of the Endangered
Species Act. Rather than spending its limited resources protecting
vulnerable species, litigation activists have forced the agency to
continuously defend every action.
In this case, despite scientific evidence collected under multiple
administrations from both sides of the aisle showing that the gray wolf
populations have recovered and thrived, the agency remains bogged down
in costly, never-ending litigation. We should be celebrating this ESA
victory instead of moving on to the next challenge.
This bill would prevent the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from
wasting further resources in responding to environmental lawfare by
affirming its previous rules to delist the gray wolf and shielding
these rules from further review.
Finally, the bill seeks to empower the States to manage their
individual gray wolf populations by directing the Secretary of the
Interior to issue a rule to delist the gray wolf in each of the 48
contiguous States and the District of Columbia. To ensure that States
are provided certainty when developing State management plans, this
bill would also exempt the delisting system from judicial review.
Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the commonsense bill that we have
here, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the bill today.
In a world full of lions and tigers entertaining the masses, have you
ever seen a wolf in the circus? If you love your dog, thank a wolf.
There is a line of poetry that says: ``A wolf eats sheep but now and
then; Ten thousands are devour'd by men.''
Wolves are historic and vital keystone predators that have been
hunted to near extinction in the contiguous United States. After being
formerly designated as endangered and protected under the Endangered
Species Act, wolf populations began to rise. However, they still
inhabit just a fraction of their historic range, and continued
protection under the Endangered Species Act is necessary. Instead, H.R.
6784 strips the protections that have allowed the species to begin to
recover.
Prior to widespread human settlement, hundreds of thousands of gray
wolves roamed North America. They could be found from the Pacific Coast
to the Atlantic Coast. Today, sadly, the farthest east they can be
found is in Michigan.
Some of my colleagues might know that I would love to see the gray
wolves in Virginia some day, but for now, it is important that we
continue to protect the fewer than 6,000 that we have left in the lower
48.
[[Page H9544]]
How did we get to only 6,000? As the human population grew in the
19th and 20th centuries, gray wolves were poisoned, trapped, shot,
gassed--every possible way to kill them--and their population decline
was exacerbated by habitat destruction. Removing Federal protection
opens the doors to further baiting, hunting, and trapping of wolves.
The war on wolves is based, in part, on a myth that wolves are
dangerous to humans and livestock. The reality, of course, is that
humans are far more dangerous to wolves than wolves are either to
humans or wolves are to livestock. Wolves cause less than 1 percent of
all livestock losses in the United States, which is a mino threat
compared to health issues, weather, and even other predators. In fact,
domestic dogs cause more cattle losses than wolves do. But no one is
talking about trapping or poisoning dogs.
Ironically, researchers at Washington State University have found
that killing wolves leads to an increase in livestock losses caused by
wolves. Wolves generally avoid people. There are only two known deaths
from wolves in the entire contiguous United States in the 21st century.
Far more Americans are killed by bees, dogs, or deer-car collisions
than by wolves.
It has also been proven that State agencies cannot successfully
manage these species. We have to look at what happened when they were
delisted in Idaho and Montana in 2011. In just those two States,
hostile State management practices have caused more than 3,200 wolves
to be killed through hunting and trapping. That is half the known
wolves in the lower 48.
Furthermore, we know that targeting wolves is not only cruel and
detrimental to the species itself, but it is also detrimental to the
other species and to the ecosystems in which it belongs.
Many of us have seen the video, the documentary on what has happened
to Yellowstone since the reintroduction of wolves. Before, when wolves
were eliminated, the explosion of other populations caused defoliation,
erosion, and an unbalanced ecosystem in the park.
When wolves were reintroduced in 1995, everything changed. They were
the keystone predator, the linchpin, that held together this delicate
balance. When the deer and elk populations were managed, vegetation
regenerated, which brought back species such as birds, beavers, mice,
and bears. Riverbanks stabilized as plant life thrived and erosion
decreased, and the whole landscape was transformed.
Delisting decisions are best kept in the hands of scientists, and we
can't allow any delisting decisions to happen because of politics,
particularly not to a species so historic, majestic, integral, and
charismatic to the ecosystem in which it belongs.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), the sponsor of the bill, who actually lives in
an area where the wolves live.
Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Arkansas
for his support in coming down and managing our time.
Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that is bipartisan in a time where I
don't think we see a lot of bipartisanship. I think the reason you see
Democrats and Republicans coming together and, actually, the House and
the Senate coming together on this bill is because, if you live in the
northern part of the United States in the Great Lakes and West, you
understand that the wolves are a huge problem. That is why you have
seen Democratic Senators from this region, Democratic Congressmen from
this region, and Republicans standing together to say: Hey, listen, we
have to manage these wolves.
If you live in the suburbs of Washington, D.C., it is not a problem.
If you live in Madison, Wisconsin, it is not really a problem. You can
make the argument that the pretty little puppy of the wolf, it is so
pretty and beautiful and we have to protect it. Well, we did protect
it. We put it on the endangered species list.
Like a lot of government programs, this one worked. We have protected
them and allowed them to recover. We have three times as many gray
wolves as was projected to be necessary to take them off the endangered
species list.
We are coming to a hunting season in Wisconsin right now, so a lot of
Wisconsinites put on their blaze orange and get their guns, and they go
out to the woods and hunt deer.
Mr. Speaker, I have never seen a picture of Barack Obama in blaze
orange and with his rifle going out to hunt deer. He is not a great
outdoorsman, I don't think, but Barack Obama's administration was the
one that first took the gray wolf off the endangered species list. And
Donald Trump, too, agrees. Donald Trump and Barack Obama agreeing on an
issue? They do on gray wolves.
You can say: I love the gray wolf. Protect it.
Does anybody like Bambi? Does anyone like Little Bear? Does anyone
like your little pet--dogs? cats? cattle?
In our communities, here is a picture of one of our gray wolves. It
is hard to tell on this picture, but that is a bear, and the bear is
dead, by the way, because the wolf killed it.
Here is a picture from one of my farmers that shows one of his cattle
that was attacked by a gray wolf. So what we are saying here is why
can't we come together, acknowledge the success of a program, that the
gray wolf has recovered, and then acknowledge that we should allow our
States then to manage the gray wolf?
Some States might say: I want to allow the population to continue to
grow. Other States might say: We want to manage it. So if you live in
California, you might say: In California, we have a small population.
We are going to let that little population thrive and grow. But if you
live in Wisconsin, especially northern Wisconsin, you might say: It is
necessary for us to actually manage this population because it is good
for the environment; it is good for the wolves; it is good for the
cattle. It is actually really good for our deer population.
So I think this just makes common sense.
And, by the way, some have come out and said--as I talked about on
the floor, I am kind of a PETA guy. I want to protect animals. Well,
protecting animals is allowing our States to successfully manage the
wolf population, because if you do, you not only protect the wolf, but
you protect the deer; you protect the cattle, the dogs, and the bear.
Everyone gets protected when you have a balance to the ecosystem.
We are out of balance right now, and, frankly, I believe that our
States are far more in tune in understanding the ecosystem of their
State than bureaucrats in Washington. So I would far rather empower
Wisconsin; and my good friend, Collin Peterson from Minnesota, let
Minnesota manage those populations because they understand the
ecosystem better.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to join Barack Obama
and join Donald Trump and join a few Members of Congress from
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Washington--and Senators as well--to allow us
to successfully manage the gray wolf population which allows for a
healthier ecosystem.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Huffman), my colleague.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill for a number of
reasons, but I would specifically like to address how the bill
undermines science.
Congress enacted the ESA to conserve and protect endangered and
threatened species and their habitats in the U.S. and abroad. Congress
also recognized that scientists, not Members of Congress--even me, ones
like me with political science degrees--scientists have the necessary
expertise to make decisions about species' protection. So the ESA
requires that the Fish and Wildlife Service make the decisions
regarding species listing and delisting. The law entrusts the Service's
scientists to determine what is best for imperiled species, such as the
gray wolf, using the best available science.
The ESA is credited as being one of the most science-based laws on
the books, but this bill completely eliminates scientists from the
decisionmaking process. It mandates that all gray wolves be removed
from the ESA in the lower 48. In doing so, it short-circuits the law's
science-based process
[[Page H9545]]
that determines when species have recovered and when protections are
appropriately removed.
{time} 0930
Despite years of Republican efforts to ignore the science behind the
ESA, we know it has been a huge success. Ninety-nine percent of listed
species have continued to survive, and 90 percent are on schedule to
meet their recovery goals. So we should be working to make the gray
wolf another one of those ESA success stories, not eliminating the
protections that have helped put it on a path to recovery.
When the gray wolf was listed in the early 1970s, there were only a
few hundred left in the wild. Since then, scientists have shown that
the reintroduction of gray wolves in the Northern Rockies has been a
huge ecological and economic success. I was able to see gray wolves in
Yellowstone with Mr. Beyer and Mr. DeFazio earlier this year and to see
the ecosystem that has rebounded since their reintroduction.
We are on the right track, but science shows that ESA protection is
still needed. Currently, these wolves occupy only 5 percent of their
historic range and only 36 percent of their suitable habitat. So while
it is encouraging that the wolves are recovering and even coming into
California for the first time in 90 years, a handful of these animals
hardly shows that it is time for them to be delisted.
Instead of enacting a new law to eliminate protections, we ought to
be working with landowners, local and State agencies, and others to
prevent conflicts so that we and wolves can both thrive.
I would like to point out that if American citizens believe an agency
does not follow the letter of the law, under the ESA, they have the
right to hold the government accountable in court. It is part of the
system of checks and balances that must be protected.
Politically driven, species-specific legislation like this sets a
dangerous precedent for delisting. It opens the door to future partisan
attacks on vulnerable species. Legislative delisting measures like this
one undermine the scientific process fundamental to the success of the
Endangered Species Act. Scientists, not Congress, should make these
decisions.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would just say that the Endangered
Species Act delisting a species is based on science, and the science
has proven that this species is recovered. Twice under the previous
administration, Fish and Wildlife tried to delist the species based on
the science.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Peterson), who is also a cosponsor of the bill and from wolf country.
Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill. I have to say, in my 28
years in this body, I have never seen so much nonsense, misinformation,
and propaganda put out on a bill as is being put out on this one. We
followed the Endangered Species Act. We did what was said. The
scientists said that we have recovered, and they delisted the wolves.
These were scientists who did it; it wasn't any politician.
The politics on this, you had a group out there, these extreme
environmentalists and others who have captured our party, that went to
a judge in Washington, D.C., who has no idea what is going on at all,
and convinced that judge that the wolves had not recovered because they
had not been reestablished all the way to Des Moines, Iowa.
Do you want some wolves in Des Moines, Iowa? I don't think so. There
were never any wolves in Des Moines, Iowa, in the first place.
So we followed the law. The Fish and Wildlife Service is on our side.
They delisted these wolves. The DNR in Minnesota was managing the
wolves and doing a good job before the court intervened politically.
I don't agree with the DNR. I have very seldom got along with the DNR
in Minnesota. This is one time where they were doing the right thing.
They did a good job, and the court stopped them.
It was politics; it wasn't science. So this nonsense that somehow or
another that we are politically doing this is not true.
We have more wolves in my district than any other district in the
United States. We have twice as many wolves as was required to get the
wolves delisted. But that wasn't good enough.
So I say to all you folks who think this is such a great idea: We
have a lot of extra wolves. We will send them to your district. We will
let them eat some of your fancy little dogs and see how long that will
go before your constituents demand that you do something about it.
My neighbor has had four of his cattle killed in the last 2 years.
They killed his German shepherd dog and ripped it apart.
Are you telling me that this is not a problem?
When we had the population under control, we didn't have these kinds
of problems. So this idea that somehow or another you are on the
righteous side of science and all that stuff is complete nonsense. I
will have the gentleman come up to my district, and he can see what is
going on.
So we followed the law. We have the Federal agencies that are
responsible for this that are on our side. It wasn't us who screwed
this up; it was that court in D.C., and that judge has no clue about
what is going on.
Mr. Speaker, I tell Members to support this bill.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I have a few wolves in my district, not
enough. I don't know that I will take Mr. Peterson's wolves, but we are
breeding our own.
OR-7 made an incredible journey from way up in northeastern Oregon
all the way down to the California border. He went down to California
looking for a mate. He finally found one, and those were his first
progeny.
Guess what? We are not having catastrophic predation on cattle in
southern Oregon. We could accommodate more wolves.
Now, there are reasons why cattle die. My colleague from Oregon might
show up, and he has a picture--it is kind of ugly--of a calf that was
killed by wolves. It was sad that that calf didn't get to grow up and
go to the slaughterhouse.
Here are the real facts. Seventy-four percent of loss is due to
health issues; that is, good husbandry. Eight percent almost, 7.8, is
due to weather; 2.7 is due to coyotes, cougars, bear, and dogs--
predators. Oh, here we are. Look, that is the problem. Wait a minute.
We have new numbers, 0.2 percent--0.2 percent--is due to wolf
predation.
Now, I doubt that my colleagues on the other side have gone to
Yellowstone to see the phenomenal recovery of the ecosystems in
Yellowstone. We will hear that, oh, it is bad for hunters, elk. Well,
actually, the elk population is doing very well, but they don't browse
all the way down into the streams anymore. So now fish have come back,
and other species have come back, because the elk are worried about the
wolves, so they stick to the forested areas where they should be. So
having apex predators is incredibly important to a balanced
environment.
To say that we have to go out and slaughter those--Fish and Wildlife
or Animal Damage Control, whatever the heck we call those jerks these
days. The Federal Government has been subsidizing for years the
indiscriminate slaughter of predator species, ostensibly to help out
the ranchers.
Now, when I was a county commissioner, we were kind of broke, and we
went through a list of everything we were doing. I said, what are we
doing, giving this money there? They said that is our match to the
Federal Government to come and kill coyotes. I said, why? What is that
about? They said, oh, sheep predation, horrible, horrible.
We were broke. We cut out that. We said, no, we don't want these
people here anymore. We are not going to subsidize it.
Guess what happened? Nothing. We did not have horrible sheep
predation in my county.
So a lot of this is based on some kind of gut-level, historic fear or
hatred of predators that has been passed down from generation to
generation.
We can have a healthy wolf population, and you can still do good
husbandry with cattle.
So they want to delist the wolf in all the lower 48. We have maybe 8,
12, 10--
[[Page H9546]]
we don't even know--in my district, which is historic habitat. In other
parts of the State that have been previously occupied, there are no
wolves. A couple of our wolves have wandered down to California, the
first ones there since we were on this campaign to eliminate them all.
The other thing is science. When you kill the apex predators, then
the coyotes depredate on the cattle. Then you have overpopulation of
elk, and they browse riparian. A balanced environment is good for
everybody.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Young of Iowa). The time of the
gentleman has expired.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Oregon an
additional 30 seconds.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, these people want to unbalance it and
delist the entire lower 48. They want to defy good science. And, oh, by
the way, what they are doing is so indefensible, but, well, we can't go
to court because, actually, we are not following the law.
So this bill does a number of things that are really short-term bad.
By the way, it is going nowhere in the Senate. We are hearing
messaging today that we could be doing a farm bill, and we could be
doing affordable college education. There are a lot of things we could
do--a budget for the United States Government. But, no, we are here on
a talking point for a few idiots.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the gentleman from Oregon
is so passionate about wolves, and this bill would be fantastic for him
and his State.
It would allow their State natural resources folks to manage their
wolves. They could release some in Portland. They could let those wolf
populations get as large as they want to get. But the scientists at
U.S. Fish and Wildlife have said that the species is recovered, and we
are talking about letting other States have the opportunity to manage
those wolf populations in their States.
I wish we were doing a farm bill. I wish the Senate would do a farm
bill, because we have already done one out of here.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington
(Mrs. McMorris Rodgers).
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Speaker, in my home in eastern Washington,
we have been living the real impact of large wolf populations for many
years now.
We see the impact on safety. We see the economic impact it is having
on our ranchers. Each year, we are losing hundreds of livestock to
wolves and costing our economy millions of dollars.
The gray wolf is recovered, and it is time for it to be removed from
the Endangered Species Act. The Endangered Species Act has listed many
species.
This is not about a hatred or a fear of predators. This is about
actually recognizing that the Endangered Species Act has done its job,
and it is time for the wolf to be delisted.
In the fall of 2013, the Obama administration announced that the gray
wolf was recovered. President Obama's Fish and Wildlife Director Dan
Ashe has stated: The gray wolf ``is no longer endangered or threatened
with extinction. . . . As we propose to remove ESA protections, States
like Washington and Oregon are managing expanding populations under
protective State laws.''
Unfortunately, the gray wolf was not delisted. In eastern Washington,
and specifically in northeastern Washington, predation on calves has
become common. I regularly hear from people who are seeing wolves
around their property and from people who cannot defend themselves
without it being a felony.
Eastern Washington knows better how to manage our land and wildlife
than someone sitting here in a cubicle in Washington, D.C. What we are
proposing is that these management practices would be returned to the
State level, that we would allow the people who are closest to the land
and to the practices to be able to take action that would benefit
endangered and native animals while protecting farmers, ranchers, and
our way of life.
I was proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill because it is
important. It is important to our way of life. It is important to the
people in eastern Washington. It is important to our economy.
I thank Congressman Duffy from Wisconsin for his work and leadership
on this issue that impacts many communities across the country.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).
Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to H.R.
6784, the Manage our Wolves Act.
Despite the claims made by our colleagues across the aisle, gray
wolves play a critical role in keeping ecosystems healthy and balanced,
including across Michigan and the Great Lakes region.
At one time, gray wolves roamed in the hundreds of thousands. Today,
there are fewer than 6,000 gray wolves in existence. Just this week,
the National Park Service announced that a gray wolf died after being
relocated from Minnesota to Michigan's Isle Royale National Park.
The threat to gray wolves is still real, and they must be protected.
The bill before us would remove all protections for gray wolves under
the Endangered Species Act, including reissuing a 2011 rule by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service that delisted the gray wolf in the western
Great Lakes.
H.R. 6784 also seriously undermines scientific integrity, which is
one of the foundations of the Endangered Species Act. It would remove
scientists from the decision-making process to delist gray wolves.
Scientists, not Congress, should be making listing or delisting
decisions.
{time} 0945
As a keystone species, these iconic animals are vital to the
structure of the ecological communities in which we live. Two decades
ago, the lush landscape of Yellowstone National Park was not as we see
it today. Instead, it was riddled with defoliation, erosion, and an
unbalanced ecosystem.
Due to the absence of predators, deer and elk populations were out of
control. Despite efforts to manage them, they overgrazed the park's
vegetation. That all changed when gray wolves were reintroduced into
the park in 1995.
As a top predator in the food chain, wolves hold together that
delicate balance of the ecosystem. Once wolves were brought back to the
park, the natural balance of the ecosystem was restored. The
regenerated forests stabilized the riverbanks, leading to less erosion
and more suitable wildlife habitat. And not to mention, wolves reduce
the coyote population by as much as 50 percent. The whole landscape was
dramatically transformed with the reintroduction of just a few gray
wolves, and their presence can similarly be felt across the Great Lakes
region.
Finally, gray wolves not only benefit the ecosystem, but they provide
significant economic benefits as well. Just 10 years after
reintroduction, wolf-related tourism generated more than $35 million
for communities in Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana.
Mr. Speaker, we have seen what the absence of gray wolves can do to
the ecosystem. We have seen how wildlife and plant populations suffer,
from our national parks to the Great Lakes, without a proper predator-
prey balance.
Yes, good progress has been made to revive the gray wolf population,
but there is more work to do. H.R. 6784 would halt and potentially
reverse the progress that has been made. I urge my colleagues to vote
``no.''
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).
Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I will emphasize something I think that
has been said before. You always try to think of something new.
You can't help but notice that the number of people who do not want
the gray wolf delisted live in areas that don't have gray wolves. The
State of Wisconsin is maybe typical in this. They introduced gray
wolves to northern Wisconsin. When there was controversy about it, they
said, Well, that is okay. These are northern areas where very few
people live. Of course, even then I had a problem with it because
people did live up there.
I don't think the people near where this judge lived would want the
gray wolves wandering around the Virginia and Maryland suburbs. They
would not want the concern, walking around at night with the wolves,
even though
[[Page H9547]]
they don't normally attack humans. They would not want the concern of
the wolves out there if they have dogs or other pets around. If they
had cattle, they wouldn't want that concern.
Wisconsin being very typical, I think the gray wolves that began in
the northern part of the State are now all the way down to areas like
Columbia County or Sheboygan County in the southern part of the State.
And they will, unless somebody does something about it, continue to
grow, continue to go further south, and the herds will continue to
grow.
I would ask people who are going to vote against this: Think how you
would feel if you have a significant number of gray wolves wandering
around your subdivision--or even one gray wolf wandering around your
subdivision--and then have more respect for the Congressmen who are
living with these gray wolves.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about letting scientists make the
decision, not letting others make the decision. But right now, courts
are making the decision on the delisting of this wolf.
We have heard testimony that, even though it is a bipartisan bill,
even though it was people in the previous administration that first
suggested delisting the wolf, we have heard testimony that if you
support delisting the wolf, you must be an idiot.
I don't think supporting this legislation means you are an idiot or
you are trying to message something. I think it means that we want to
see science implemented. I think it means that we want to let the
scientists do their jobs.
Mention has been made about Yellowstone National Park. I was actually
in Yellowstone National Park this last summer and talked to scientists
out there about the big fire in the 1980s.
What many of us know about fire is that it is a natural occurring
phenomena, and it mimicked a huge clear-cut in Yellowstone National
Park. After the fire and all this vegetation started growing back, we
saw a huge increase in elk and deer herds, and the wolf population
increased right along with that.
As a matter of fact, the scientists at the park told me that the
greatest numbers of elk that they have had happened within about 10
years after the big fire out there. The greatest population of wolves
that they had happened after that. Now that the forest is growing back,
that ecosystem, that forest will burn again--it burns about every 100
years--but the science is being applied here.
We just want to let States make the decisions on how to manage these
wolves that the scientists have said are recovered and need to be
delisted.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and I ask unanimous
consent that the balance of my time be managed by the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Arkansas?
There was no objection.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Minnesota.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, this bill sets several incredibly damaging
precedents, fundamentally weakening the protections of our Nation's
threatened and endangered species.
The Endangered Species Act is one of the most effective and important
conservation laws ever passed by Congress. The success is due, in large
part, to a careful scrutiny of scientific evidence and the critical
analysis of all factors when making decisions on the status of a
species.
The Manage Our Wolves Act would remove protections under the ESA for
one of the Nation's iconic wildlife species, without an opportunity for
public participation in the rulemaking process for delisting. Even more
troubling, this bill would explicitly ban any judicial review of the
delisting of gray wolves in both the Great Lakes and nationwide.
No judicial oversight will be allowed for the removal of the science-
based protections established under the Endangered Species Act. A
species is only listed as endangered or threatened, or delisted upon
its successful recovery, after a rigorous assessment of its extinction.
By eliminating judicial review of ESA delisting actions, this
legislation removes the ability of the public and the scientific
community to participate in the process. Access to a court of law is a
cornerstone of American democracy and a fundamental part of our
government.
The judicial branch is also where the American people can have their
voices heard and they can have a say in our system of checks and
balances. Stopping our independent Federal courts from reviewing the
actions of Federal agencies, or of Congress, violates this access to
justice principle. It is simply undemocratic. It undermines the
necessary oversight of government decisions.
For years, the courts have served as an important forum for
addressing disputes over ESA-related decisions. This legislation's
attempt to remove judicial review from the ESA decision has no
scientific or legal basis. It is simply a politically expedient move.
By prioritizing politics over conservation, this bill would cause
irreparable damage to the integrity of the Endangered Species Act and
sets a dangerous precedent of overriding the careful deliberations of
the court.
Mr. Speaker, we should not support legislatively mandating decisions
about vulnerable species. We should not circumvent the established
process for making ESA determinations.
For this reason, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Minnesota has 1 minute
remaining.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I was recently in Yellowstone in the last
month and a half. And, yes, there was a fire in Yellowstone. I am from
Minnesota. I know all about after fires go in, and the moose munch, as
we call it, around the boundary waters in the Voyageurs National Park
area comes back and you can start seeing moose. They start doing
better. The same thing is true of the elk. I saw elk literally right
out a car window. They are doing better.
But it is also very important to remember what Congressman DeFazio
said about how, when the wolves are interactive and they are part of
the regrowth and the rebirth of our forest system, the wolf, by being a
predator, helps protect the stream banks and the rest from the elk and
other animals from being on the stream banks and pressing them down.
That has a big ripple effect on fish and other wildlife in the
ecosystem, especially in Yellowstone.
So I appreciate the gentleman's remarks about Yellowstone, but it is
just not one thing that is causing the elk to come back healthy. It is
the wolf population, as well.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It is important, I think, to note, so you get a sense of what the
gray wolves have done, that 1987 was when a plan was finalized to
restore them to the Northern Rockies by transplanting the wolves from
Canada into central Idaho, Yellowstone National Park.
In 1995 and 1996, 66 Canadian wolves were transplanted, with a goal
of establishing 10 breeding pairs in each of three recovery zones in
Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming for three consecutive years.
Well, guess what, Mr. Speaker?
Those 66 Canadian wolves have done pretty well. In fact--and I think
this is largely why the scientists with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, with whom I have had many disagreements--but in this, these
folks have come out and said: You know what? The U.S. population of
5,500 wolves have done real well since being transplanted from Canada.
They are not the original U.S. wolves, but from Canada. They are
bigger, more aggressive. But there are 3,800 just in the upper Great
Lakes, 8,000 to 11,000 in Alaska, and now 60,000 in Canada. As their
numbers increase, so do the massive problems.
I appreciated the anecdotal information about seeing more elk and
moose. I would suggest, based on the rapidly escalating number of
attacks, that you are going to see more and more elk and moose want to
come hang around the cars so they don't get eaten by wolves. So you
will have more and more tourists seeing elk and moose, but their
populations are diminishing.
[[Page H9548]]
In fact, it is rather dramatic. Wolves eat 20 pounds of meat a day
and elk comprise 92 percent of the wolf kills during the winter. Other
prey include moose, caribou, deer, beaver, hares, and livestock.
In 1995, there were 19,000 elk in the northern Yellowstone herd. By
2008, there were 5,000. That is down from 19,000. The moose herd in the
area also dropped from more than 1,000 to somewhere around 100 to 300.
I am sure they will get to hanging out with tourists more and more just
to keep from getting eaten.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Gallagher).
Mr. GALLAGHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my colleague
from Wisconsin, Representative Sean Duffy, and his bill, the Manage Our
Wolves Act. This piece of legislation is critically important to my
district and its farmers.
You see, farming is the lifeblood of northeast Wisconsin. Not only do
our agricultural products support thousands of local jobs, they also
feed millions of mouths across the world. This is why so many of my
constituents are concerned by the threat of the gray wolf population to
our farms. Already, the gray wolf's predatory behavior has cost
Wisconsin farmers millions of dollars in damage.
This is why we must pass the Manage Our Wolves Act to delist the gray
wolf from the Endangered Species Act and return control of population
back to the States where it belongs. By doing so, farmers will finally
be able to focus on actual farming, instead of having to spend extra
time and money on keeping their livestock out of danger.
I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this important
piece of legislation. Our farmers are depending on it.
{time} 1000
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), my colleague, the ranking member
of the Committee on Natural Resources.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, given the fact that the Endangered Species
Act is under unrelenting attacks by the Trump administration and House
Republicans, it should come as no surprise that, after being out of
session for more than 6 weeks, the first rules bill to go to the floor
is one that continues those attacks on ESA, eliminates judicial review,
takes the American people out of the public rulemaking process, and
makes it easier to kill wolves.
However, one must ask my Republican colleagues: Seriously? Do we not
have more pressing issues to address?
Children are still being separated from their families.
Wildfires are blazing across California.
There have been 311 mass shootings in our country this year.
We have more Federal troops on the southern border than we have in
Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq, all patiently sitting around and looking
for Poncho Villa's ghost to come around.
The UN released a climate change report finding that we are in a much
more dire state than we thought. In fact, today would have been a great
day to permanently reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund,
which my Republican colleagues have allowed to expire twice on their
watch, a bill with 240 bipartisan cosponsors. Instead, we are talking
about killing wolves, a bill introduced in September with three
cosponsors.
In this Congress, Republicans have introduced more than 100 bills,
amendments, and policy riders to remove or block ESA protections for
individual species or to weaken important provisions of a law that is
not only hugely popular with the American people, but also conserves
our biodiversity.
The bill before us today, H.R. 6784, is a piece of legislation we
have seen time and time again to undermine wolf populations in the
United States, but this would deliver an even more devastating blow to
the continued recovery of gray wolves across the lower 48.
Congress should not be making decisions on which species to list or
delist. What we need to be doing is properly funding the Fish and
Wildlife Service to implement measures to strengthen ESA and protect
species and their habitats from permanent extinction, given the fact
that we are facing an ongoing extinction crisis.
The ESA has a near perfect record of saving imperiled species. Even
in the face of massive population growth, haphazard development, and
pressure on ocean and coastal resources, over 99 percent of the species
receiving protection are still surviving today.
ESA works, and 90 percent of the American voters would agree with me.
However, despite its incredible public support and impressive track
record, the Trump administration and House Republicans continue to
attack this historic environmental law and the species that it
protects. These attacks on one of the most successful and popular
conservation statutes in the history of the world are old, they are
tired, and they are not fooling anyone.
I can say with some confidence that these types of attacks on ESA
will not be legitimized in the next Congress. Science, budget
allocation, and protection and conservation will return as the
prominent criteria for ESA policy--not just the resource extraction,
industry's singular agenda.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I really have appreciated sitting on the
floor and listening to this dialogue because I think that there are
some lessons here about getting things right. My friend from Virginia,
my friend from Oregon have dealt with the ecological benefits of having
apex predators to be able to restore ecological balance.
I heard the notion of, ``Well, how would you feel if you were
reintroducing wolves in metropolitan areas?'' and I just thought for a
moment of listening in the past to people who are overrun with deer in
Virginia suburbs, in Maryland suburbs. It is not just messing up their
yards; it is killing people. We have several hundred people a year who
are killed in collisions with deer. There are problems with chronic
wasting disease that having an apex predator helps provide health
benefits where you have healthier herds.
I have watched the dynamic in Oregon, and it is complex because there
are people who are ranching interests, there are people who are
involved with hunting, and they want to short-circuit it, even in a
State as ecologically and animal friendly as Oregon. It is a struggle.
To take a step back, weakening the endangered species protections,
substituting political judgments, I think, is inappropriate.
I would also note no small amount of irony that, in addition to the
notion that we should be here reauthorizing the Land and Water and
Conservation Fund, if we want to deal with animals in the closing hours
of this session of Congress, why aren't we dealing with a half dozen
bills that Republicans have refused to allow us to vote on that are
overwhelmingly supported by the public and are supported by a majority
of our Members?
It is, I think, doubly ironic that we are concluding where we have
had Republican leadership forcing some of the worst animal welfare
records. We lost two Republican incumbents with 50 years of service in
Republican districts who had the worst animal records in Congress.
I fought really hard to have animal welfare be a bipartisan issue.
Taking issues like this, forcing people to make false choices that are
bad for animals, bad for the environment--frankly, they are bad
politics.
I hope that we go through this charade, it goes nowhere, but deal
with the underlying debate here about what we want in terms of
ecological balance, animal protection, and rule of law. We will be
better off if we do that; the species will be better off if we do that;
and I think the politics will be cleaner and more productive.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in allowing me to
speak on this.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, I know there is a contention that gray wolves, though
they have dramatically exploded from those 66 original wolves being
introduced to thousands and thousands now, are not
[[Page H9549]]
a threat to people; but I would suggest to you that, not only have the
liberals in the U.S. Government seen a need year after year to delist
the gray wolves, but a college student named Kenton Carnegie's family
members would suggest that, when Kenton was killed by gray wolves, the
gray wolves were a threat to mankind; and Candice Berner, a teacher in
Alaska who was killed while jogging, her surviving family members would
suggest gray wolves are a threat to people.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and I ask unanimous
consent that time be managed by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr.
Westerman).
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).
Mr. FITZPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 6784
as this act will block vital protection for gray wolves across the
entire Nation, protections that were implemented under the Endangered
Species Act.
H.R. 6784 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to issue a rule
removing the gray wolf from the Endangered Species Act list, which
would preclude judicial review of agency decisions on wolf delisting
and deny citizens the right to hold the Government accountable for its
actions.
There is no mystery about the negative impact that passing this
legislation would have on the gray wolf, because we have already seen
it. In 2011, Congress used an appropriations rider to delist wolves in
Idaho and in Montana. And since 2011, over 2,500 wolves have been
killed in these two States where the management practices included
shooting wolves lured by bait, chasing wolves with packs of hounds,
using steel-jawed legholds, and using wire snare traps.
Given these concerns, Mr. Speaker, I oppose this legislation.
Endangered Species Act decisions must be made with caution. We should
also be extremely bipartisan in these approaches. And if there is
legitimate dispute over delisting, then delisting is premature and ill-
advised. That is why I oppose this legislation.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, the Endangered Species Act was passed to
increase protections for and provide for the recovery of vanishing
wildlife.
Unfortunately, in recent years we have seen countless attacks on the
ESA and science-based decisions, and this bill is no exception. This
bill would hastily remove Endangered Species Act protections for all
gray wolves in the lower 48 States without a rulemaking process or the
opportunity for judicial review.
Although the population of gray wolves has started to recover, it is
now only 5 percent of the number that existed historically. Scientists
are just beginning to understand the role of gray wolves in the larger
ecosystem, and listing and delisting decisions should be based on
science, not politics.
Mr. Speaker, there are so many more important things we need to be
doing today. Today, instead of undermining the Endangered Species Act,
we should be reauthorizing the Land and Water Conservation Fund,
passing the Violence Against Women Act, and the list goes on.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.
Mr. SIMPSON. The gentleman from Virginia has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Arkansas has 8\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, as we have heard today, our colleagues say that this
bill is needed to mitigate human/livestock conflict, but that claim is
just simply not compelling. Across the country, wolves account for only
two-tenths of 1 percent of all cattle losses. Other predators, such as
mountain lions, coyotes, and even stray dogs account for significantly
more livestock kills.
My friend from Minnesota talked about his neighbor's German Shepherd
being killed by a wolf. We have small dogs and cats killed in our
densely urban area all the time by coyotes and by foxes, and no one is
talking about hunting the coyotes or hunting the foxes. For example,
out of the 3.9 million cattle deaths in 2015, coyotes and dogs combined
killed more than 164,000 livestock, compared to the 10,000 killed by
wolves. That is 16 times as many. Not to mention that 93 percent of all
cattle losses are due to disease or other natural causes.
In the northern Rockies alone, which is where we have been talking
about today mostly, wolf depredations account for less than 1 percent
of all livestock losses: 256 sheep and 41 cattle over an 8-year period
of time.
The numbers don't lie. The claims that wolves are responsible for a
massive slaughter of livestock is simply a myth used to justify lethal
control of these animals.
Instead of the shoot-first-ask-questions-later mentality, there are
lots of great farmers promoting nonlethal methods that have been
scientifically proven to mitigate human/wolf conflicts: livestock
guardian dogs, fencing, and reducing attractants.
There are solutions to this problem that don't involve the
unnecessary killing of one of the most iconic and charismatic animals,
not just in North America, but in human imagination.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, as we consider this bill and we talk about the science
behind it, again, we are basing this legislation on science, on letting
the scientists do their jobs. This bipartisan bill is exactly, exactly
the type of legislation that will save the Endangered Species Act.
The ESA aspires to recover imperiled plant and animal species. The
act was never meant to serve as a long-term management tool.
What my colleagues across the aisle should be celebrating is this ESA
success story. Not just once, but multiple times, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service has determined the gray wolf recovered and attempted
to delist the species.
{time} 1015
We know this wasn't a partisan decision because we saw these attempts
span multiple administrations from both sides of the aisle. Our
experts, our very own scientists, at Fish and Wildlife Service have
expressed to us again and again that the gray wolf is recovered and
ready to be delisted.
Unfortunately, instead of allowing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
to focus its resources on other endangered species, litigation
activists continue to force the agency to defend this scientifically-
driven decision and delay the delisting.
We are nearly a decade past the agency's first attempt to delist the
recovered gray wolf species. To continue to list a species our own
experts have determined is recovered sends the message that the
Endangered Species Act doesn't work.
I appreciate the bipartisan support this bill enjoys, and I hope more
of my colleagues across the aisle will join us in helping strengthen
the Endangered Species Act in the long run by supporting this
legislation.
With that, I urge adoption of this commonsense bill, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this
bipartisan legislation. The Endangered Species Act helps species
recover, and let me tell you, it works. In 1980, there were 25 wolves
in Wisconsin. Recently, that number grew to 232 wolf packs--roughly 900
wolves.
Now that the wolf population is recovered, states must be allowed to
take over management. The rising wolf population means livestock and
hunting dogs fall prey to attacks, and as long as federal protections
remain in place, Wisconsinites cannot protect their property.
Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 6784 because, outside of dire
circumstances, states are the most effective managers of wildlife and
the policies affecting state residents. This legislation restores power
to states, and I hope all my colleagues join me in voting for it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
[[Page H9550]]
Pursuant to House Resolution 1142, 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further
consideration of H.R. 6784 is postponed.
____________________