Legislative Hearing on H.R. 276, H.R. 845, H.R. 1897 & H.R. 1917 | Water, Wildlife and Fisheries Subcommittee

Chairman Harriet Hageman (R-WY)SPEAKER_17

on Water, Wildlife, and Fisheries will come to order. Good morning, everyone. I want to welcome members, witnesses, and our guests in the audience in today's hearing. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess of the subcommittee at any time. Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at hearings are limited to the chair and the ranking member. I therefore ask unanimous consent that all other members' opening statements be made part of the hearing record if they are submitted in accordance with Committee Rule 3(o). Without objection, so ordered. I also ask unanimous consent that the congressman from Arizona, Mr. Gosar; the congressman from Minnesota, Mr. Stauber; the congressman from Wisconsin, Mr. Tiffany; the congressman from Idaho, Mr. Fulcher; the congressman from Colorado, Mr. Hurd; the congressman from Michigan, Mr. Bergman and Mr. Huizenga; the congresswoman from Georgia, Ms. Greene; and the congressman from Montana, Mr. Downing, be allowed to participate in today's hearing. Without objection, so ordered. Before we begin, I ask for unanimous consent to recognize Mr. Westerman and Mr. Huffman on the passing of former chairman and ranking member of this committee, Mr. Raúl Grijalva. Without objection, I now recognize Chairman Westerman.

Full Committee Chairman Bruce Westerman (R-AR)SPEAKER_20

Thank you, Madam Chair. And again, before we get started and get involved in the work of today's hearing, I want to take a moment to honor the life of former Chairman and Ranking Member Raúl Grijalva. Raúl was renowned for his passion and his love for the Natural Resources Committee. He spent more than 20 years as a member of Congress and served on this committee his entire tenure, including two terms as chairman. He had a deep respect for the people we serve in the U.S. House of Representatives, as well as for the stewardship of our environment, including our nation's federal lands and waters. I was honored to work closely with Representative Grijalva to deliver bipartisan wins for our country, including the EXPLORE Act and the Compact of Free Association Amendments Act last Congress. I'm grateful to have served with him on this dais for many years and look forward to continuing bipartisan work in his honor. His advocacy for natural resources issues will be deeply missed here on the committee, and our prayers with his loved ones as we mourn the loss of a dedicated public servant. I can tell you something you couldn't see from the audience: Representative Grijalva was always sketching. He was always drawing these beautiful, elaborate pictures with an ink pen. And also, we got more business done sitting up here at the head of the dais. I know the Global War on Terrorism Memorial—one day we talked about that, and he said, That's a good idea. Let's do that. I mentioned the EXPLORE Act. Same thing. And although we had our differences on policy, he was always a gentleman and kindhearted and really cared about people. So we're going to miss former Chairman Grijalva. And Madam Chair, I yield back.

Chairman Harriet Hageman (R-WY)SPEAKER_17

Thank you. I now recognize Ranking Member Huffman.

Full Committee Ranking Member Jared Huffman (D-CA)SPEAKER_02

Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Chair Westerman, for those thoughts. I, too, will miss Raúl's incredible artwork, his ability to continuously create these intriguing doodles and images during our hearings, to multitask, one part of his brain doing this incredible artwork and the other participating in our hearing. He was a complex and fascinating guy, and you're right, with a real wonderful, disarming, gentle sense of humor. That'll be part of what we miss. But I think the big part is what he taught us all about environmental justice, about standing up for folks whose voices are often not heard. He brought so much moral clarity to that. That really was his North Star. And I will think a lot about his incredible leadership working with our late friend Don McEachin on the Environmental Justice for All Act, his steadfast defense of tribal sovereignty and tribal interests, and, of course, the incredible accomplishments during his tenure of leadership: protection for the Grand Canyon, Oak Flat, these were things he cared so much about, and also permanent funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, some historic climate investments in the Inflation Reduction Act, support for ocean programs. These were things that Raúl cared deeply about, fought for, and really made a difference. So, I know we're all going to miss our friend. Many of us will be in Arizona tomorrow to honor him and his legacy. But I hope all of us also think about the moral clarity he brought to this work, and especially to Indigenous people and disadvantaged communities, and challenge ourselves to be worthy of that legacy here in the Natural Resources Committee. Thank you, and I yield back.

Chairman Harriet Hageman (R-WY)SPEAKER_17

Thank you, Mr. Huffman. We are saddened by the passing of Congressman Grijalva, and his family is in our thoughts and prayers. I now ask for members on the dais and those in the room to join us in a moment of silence to honor the memory of Congressman Grijalva. Thank you. We are here today to consider four legislative measures: H.R. 276, the Gulf of America Act of 2025, sponsored by Representative Greene of Georgia; H.R. 845, the Pet and Livestock Protection Act of 2025, sponsored by Representative Boebert of Colorado; H.R. 1897, the ESA Amendments Act of 2025, sponsored by Chairman Westerman of Arkansas; and H.R. 1917, the Great Lakes Mass Marking Program Act of 2025, sponsored by Representative Dingell of Michigan. I now recognize myself for my five-minute opening statement. Last month, this committee examined two far-reaching and consequential consequential laws: the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act, both of which have been fundamentally transformed from their original purpose, scope, and intent through endless endless lawsuits and administrative agency actions, including guidance documents, rulemakings, and internal protocols. As I said during our hearing, this legislative body must do a better job of writing laws. It is Congress's responsibility to be clear, concise, specific, and unambiguous when defining the authorities granted to federal agencies. Today, we are considering four bills, of which two take direct aim at addressing and resolving the concerns that were raised last month regarding the ESA. Our first bill, the Pet and Livestock Protection Act of 2025, exposes the ESA failures, misinterpretations, and misapplications we have lived with for far too long. For decades, the federal government, states, tribes, and private conservation partners have worked to recover the gray wolf populations, and they have been highly successful in doing so. Despite this achievement, however, the Fish and Wildlife Service's recognition that our gray wolf populations have not only recovered but thrived under both Republican and Democrat administrations have been met with controversy. The endless litigation surrounding the delisting of a recovered species like the gray wolf only proves proves the point that the ESA must be reformed. We must find a way to end this doom loop of recovery, delisting, litigation, court intervention, relisting, the wasting of more resources on a recovered species, another attempt at delisting, and then starting it all over again, which brings me to our second bill, ESA Amendments Act of 2025, sponsored by Chairman Westerman. This bill makes critical changes to the ESA to provide regulatory certainty, transparency, and accountability. This is done through the inclusion of definitions and parameters of previously ambiguous terms and requiring the Service to implement incremental and objective recovery goals for listed species that are coupled with tangible regulatory relief as such goals are accomplished. I want to thank Chairman Westerman for once again leading the effort to reform the ESA and start us on a course of sound resource and species management. This legislation is a serious step towards a model of endangered species conservation that empowers local landowners and decision-makers. We are also considering legislation sponsored by Congresswoman Greene, the Gulf of America Act of 2025, which aims to codify part of President Trump's Executive Order 14172, Restoring Names That Honor American Greatness. The bill also ensures consistency in our statutes, maps, and regulations by updating any reference by reflecting uniformity with any reference to the gulf. Lastly, we are considering the Great Lakes Mass Marking Program Act of 2025, sponsored by Congresswoman Dingell. This bill would expand the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's mass marking program for fisheries management in the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes provide incredible economic value for the Midwest and are a treasured natural resource. Unfortunately, the minority chose not to invite a witness to talk about the importance of this legislation. With that, I want to take the time to thank our witnesses for being here today, and I look forward to a robust conversation. I now recognize Ranking Member Hoyle for her opening statement.

Ranking Member Val Hoyle (D-OR)SPEAKER_16

Thank you very much, and thank you to the people who came here to testify today. This is the first Natural Resources Committee hearing that we've had since former Chair Raúl Grijalva passed. He was such a a passionate advocate for environmental justice and for our native sovereign rights. We certainly will miss him, and my thoughts go out to his family, friends, and also to the staff that worked with him so loyally. It's been about two months since Elon Musk and his unqualified, unvetted staff started causing chaos in federal agencies. They've threatened, pushed out, and fired hundreds of federal workers in the wildlife management agencies, the Forest Service, NOAA, and they placed many more on administrative leave. Unfortunately, the administration declined to testify at this hearing today, as they didn't have the staff necessary to prepare. As the authorizing committee, we must understand how they plan to implement the changes contemplated in the bills before us today. The Trump administration hasn't responded to our request for additional information about the firings, canceled grants, hiring freezes, or lease cancellations. You know, we would like to know how the Trump administration plans to carry out the law. And, you know, we've got another hearing on the ESA. The goal of the ESA is clear: to stop extinction and recover species. H.R. 1897, the ESA Amendments Act, doesn't do anything to improve outcomes for species and communities. The Trump administration's actions make the recovery of these species even harder. For for example, DOGE just cut key staff at NOAA who make ESA permitting efficient. We also lost experts who assess coastal impacts and work on recovering iconic species such as orcas or salmon. These specialists safeguard valuable species that keep our fisheries running, our communities fed. We're in a biodiversity crisis and need these core conservation laws to work. When species recover, everyone benefits. We have Dr. Peter Kareiva, who will help us unpack why strong endangered species policies and investments are good for everyone. And I'm grateful for him for taking the time to participate in the hearing. I'd ask unanimous consent to enter a full section-by-section analysis of H.R. 1897 into the record.

Chairman Harriet Hageman (R-WY)SPEAKER_17

So ordered.

Ranking Member Val Hoyle (D-OR)SPEAKER_16

Thank you. H.R. 845 delists the gray wolf across the United States and blocks judicial review of the delisting. Agencies must base listing and delisting and all other decisions under the Endangered Species Act on the best available science and commercial data and on tribal consultation, not on political whims. Finally, well, and one bright spot we have in the hearing today is H.R. 1917, led by Representative Debbie Dingell. It's a common-sense bill that enhances fisheries management through science-based monitoring in the Great Lakes. This program will provide critical data to improve conservation efforts, protect native species, and ensure long-term sustainability of the Great Lakes. And finally, H.R. 276 renames the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America. This does nothing to bring down costs for Americans, to address the broken Social Security system where our seniors cannot get an answer on the phone, the websites are crashing. This does nothing to bring back the healthcare workers that were fired that take care of our veterans. This does nothing to address the massive security breach in which war plans were sent on unsecured devices accidentally to a member of the press. These are pressing issues. Trade wars, many, many international issues are not being addressed, but we're renaming the Gulf of Mexico. I don't think that should be one of our priorities. But with that, I look forward to the discussion, and I yield back.

Chairman Harriet Hageman (R-WY)SPEAKER_17

Thank you. I now recognize Chairman Westerman for his opening statement.

Full Committee Chairman Bruce Westerman (R-AR)SPEAKER_20

Thank you, Chair Hageman, for holding this hearing, and thank you to the witnesses for being here today. Included in today's hearing is the ESA Amendments Act of 2025. This is a bill that would reauthorize and amend the Endangered Species Act for the first time in nearly 40 years. The bill is the product of many years of work with many members of this committee and countless experts and stakeholders. Madam Chair, I've been on record with my thoughts on the Endangered Species Act many times in this committee. It is a well-intentioned law that has been hijacked by litigation and executive overreach to the detriment of the species it's supposed to help recover and the communities its regulations impact. And I realize this is a sensitive topic. I realize that emotions run high when we talk about the Endangered Species Act, and I think there's probably more agreement on both sides of the dais than than we might would admit to. And I was just listening to Representative Hoyle opening statement. She said we have a biodiversity crisis. I don't necessarily disagree with that. She said, when species recover, everyone benefits. I totally agree with that. But the Endangered Species Act is broken. And if we don't—if we just leave it like it is, we're not going to get any better benefits out of it. So putting forward legislation that promotes conservation of habitat and therefore the recovery of listed species has been a major goal of mine as chairman of the Resources Committee. As Gifford Pinchot, the famous 20th-century conservationist, once said, Unless we practice conservation, those who come after us will have to pay the price of misery, degradation, and failure for the progress and prosperity of our day. However, I also believe that we must approach species protection with common sense. Working together, we can find solutions that protect our wildlife and allow our farmers, ranchers, and businesses to thrive. The ESA has not been reauthorized by Congress since 1988. Since then, almost 1,200 of the over 1,700 ESA-listed species have been added to the list. These new listings, along with countless other agency rulemakings, have created new challenges. Congress must examine these actions to determine if the law is being implemented as Congress originally intended. First and foremost, it is time that Congress brings the ESA back to its original intent, which is recovering listed species to the point where they no longer need to be protected, as its current dismal 3% recovery rate is wholly unacceptable. H.R. 1897 prioritizes recovery in several ways. First, it builds greater incentives into the ESA by pairing species recovery goals with regulatory relief. Second, the bill provides regulatory certainty from critical habitat designations to private landowners who are investing in conservation. Third, the bill would prohibit judicial review during the statutory 5-year monitoring period after a species is delisted, preventing frivolous litigation that can often serve as an impediment to recovery efforts. H.R. 1897 would also streamline the ESA permitting process by removing redundant requirements, focusing agency resources where Congress intended, and providing retrospective review of agency permitting actions. H.R. 1897 also contains provisions that address several issues that this subcommittee has examined in the past. These include language to prevent the ESA being exploited to justify destructive regulations like vessel speed restrictions and language to address the verdict in the Maine lobstermen case by preventing in statue the services from having a bias towards listed species during ESA consultations. After more than 50 years, it's time that we make changes to bring the ESA into the 21st century. I'm thankful to everyone that has contributed to the development of this legislation, and I'm looking forward to discussing it in further detail today. Madam Chair, I yield back.

Chairman Harriet Hageman (R-WY)SPEAKER_17

Thank you. I now recognize Ranking Member Huffman for his opening statement.

Full Committee Ranking Member Jared Huffman (D-CA)SPEAKER_02

Thank you, Madam Chair. And with all due respect to Chair Westerman, the Endangered Species Act is not broken. It's just inconvenient for certain industry polluters. Any other bill in America that had a 99% success rate, as this legislation does, at keeping the listed species from going extinct would be held up as a model of success. And to the extent that it has failed in recovering species, which we all want to see, it is because our Republican friends are endlessly at war with the budgets of the wildlife agencies that are tasked with doing that important recovery work, with protecting the species, with doing the science, with doing the habitat restoration. So it is deeply disingenuous to the point of gaslighting to suggest that anything about this legislation before us, which absolutely weakens the Endangered Species Act, that anything about this is about making the law work better or bringing it back to its original intent. The original intent was to save species from extinction. This bill is part of an extinction agenda, which means that we are back in this subcommittee once again experiencing déjà vu because there's nothing new about this. We have seen this extinction agenda for the past few years over and over again. The other déjà vu feeling today is because there is crazy, destructive, incompetent, corrupt things happening in the executive branch of our government right now. And the independent branch of government, the Article I branch that our founders created in order to serve as a check on abuses of presidential power, as a check on corruption and incompetence, is totally missing in action. Because this Republican majority thinks that it works for President Trump as opposed to being an independent branch of government that serves as a check on power. And so we see endless attempts to curry favor, to kiss up. And of course, the quintessence of that is the bill before us today to rename the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, something that was actually floated as a joke by comedian Stephen Colbert back in 2010. But now, apparently, the joke is on us. Look, we should be talking about the mass firings of federal employees, facility closures, chaotic government takeovers by Elon Musk and his DOGE tech bros, things that are leaving agencies unable to deliver essential services, from essential public safety to mitigating wildfire risk, to protecting our irreplaceable natural resources. The majority is holding the third hearing in three months focused on weakening the Endangered Species Act. This does nothing to solve the countless problems our constituents are struggling with. In fact, it does the opposite because the ESA isn't just about wildlife; it helps protect clean air, clean water, and the natural systems that sustain all of us. Now, let's not kid ourselves about this bill. It is the culmination—it is not the culmination of an honest working group or a thoughtful bipartisan discussion. I noticed that not a single one of my suggestions from that working group was included in this bill. This is simply a rehash of pro-extinction talking points from industry polluters and dressed up like it's something new. It makes the ESA weaker. It makes it harder to do all the things that actually protect species from extinction and easier to do all of the things that leave them unprotected. Now, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle say they want to speed up permitting timelines. Well, guess what? The Fish and Wildlife Service has lost approximately 50% of its Information, Planning, and Consultation team. These are the key personnel: the biologists, the recovery teams, the project managers who consult with federal agencies and applicants early in the planning process to help avoid delays while protecting endangered species. This is the office that speeds things up, and it is being gutted. Over 400 Fish and Wildlife Service employees have been fired nationwide. This includes staff at national wildlife refuges. And we hear more cuts are coming. These cuts are causing chaos across the agency, disrupting recovery efforts, delaying critical actions to protect endangered species. If we're serious about the ESA, we should at least be talking about that stuff instead of recycling these tired old bills. Now, back to the Gulf of America. Stephen Colbert proposed this as a joke in 2010, and it's important to remember what was going on at the time, what led to the joke. There was a blown BP oil well that gushed oil for many, many weeks and months, killed 11 people, crushed the coastal economy of the Gulf. And Colbert used the name change as a gimmick to raise awareness of the disaster that dragged on for five months, something our Republican friends seem to have forgotten about as they advance their dirty drilling agenda. It is weirdly appropriate that they are taking what started out as a joke and actually moving it forward as part of their drill, baby, drill agenda. And unfortunately, that means the joke is on us. I yield back.

Chairman Harriet Hageman (R-WY)SPEAKER_17

I will now introduce our first panel. As is typical with legislative hearings, the bill sponsors are recognized for 5 minutes each to discuss their bills. I now recognize Congresswoman Boebert for 5 minutes.

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO)SPEAKER_01

Thank you, Madam Chair. Colorado is at the center of our nation for the wolf battle. That's why Congressman Tom Tiffany and I introduced the Pet and Livestock Protection Act, and our bill delists the gray wolf from the federal endangered species list and returns the issue of wolf management to the states and tribal wildlife agencies. Leftists want to eliminate hunting, lock up our lands, further restrict gun rights, use on our public lands, and pander to the interests of extreme environmentalists who don't understand any sense of our rural way of life. In 2020, voters in Denver and Boulder voted to reintroduce gray wolves west of the Continental Divide. This ballot-box biology has led Colorado to rush through the importation of the Canadian gray wolves and has set them loose in our state despite numerous protests and questions about the legality and dysfunctional and chaotic approach to prioritizing predators over people. CPW began releasing gray wolves in the state without notifying landowners, livestock producers, and other reasonably concerned constituents of the location of the releases. Five of the released wolves came from packs with a known history of chronic livestock depredation. This misguided approach of importing foreign predators has received pushback from tribes, residents, energy operators, and most importantly, our farmers and ranchers. Delisting the gray wolf from the federal endangered species list will remove the current prohibitions and restrictions on land-use activities, whether on public lands or private lands. ESA restrictions prohibit ranchers and pet owners from protecting their livestock and pets, as ranchers who defend their sheep or cattle from wolves face potential prosecution. Madam Chair, I'd like to enter into the record a letter from the American Farm Bureau supporting the Pet and Livestock Protection Act into the record.

Chairman Harriet Hageman (R-WY)SPEAKER_17

Without objection.

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO)SPEAKER_01

Madam Chair, I'd also like to enter into the record a letter from the National Cattlemen's Beef Association and Public Lands Council in support of the Pet and Livestock Protection Act into the record as well.

Chairman Harriet Hageman (R-WY)SPEAKER_17

So ordered.

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO)SPEAKER_01

Thank you, Madam Chair. Unfortunately, wolves don't see, they aren't aware of, they don't obey arbitrary lines. They don't know what state lines are, and they don't know the difference between state, federal, tribal, and private land. It's in their nature to travel great distances in pursuit of their prey, whether it's deer, elk, sheep, cattle, or even our pets. Last week, one of the Canadian wolves imported by CPW traveled from western Colorado up to northern Wyoming, Madam Chair, and killed 5 sheep. Now, these wolves were introduced west of the Continental Divide, but east of the Continental Divide last year, a gray wolf from the Great Lakes region was found over 1,000 miles away in Elbert County, Colorado, in my district. Not even wolves that were brought in by Colorado. Earlier this month, one of the Canadian wolves attacked and killed a working cattle dog in Jackson County, Colorado. Unfortunately, there are several stories just like this, and since 2021, 50 pets and livestock have been gruesomely attacked and killed by gray wolves. Madam Chair, I'd also like to submit CPW's wolf depredation list, which is quite extensive, into the record.

Chairman Harriet Hageman (R-WY)SPEAKER_17

So ordered.

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO)SPEAKER_01

Thank you, Madam Chair. Colorado's agricultural producers have lost $580,000 in just 1 year from wolves already introduced. We should listen to our farmers and ranchers, trust the science, and finally delist the gray wolf. Gray wolves were first listed under the Endangered Species Act in 1967. That's 58 years ago, and they are fully recovered. Take the win. Let's celebrate the Endangered Species Act. Let's take the win. Since then, though, delisting the gray wolf has been supported by Obama, President Trump, and the Biden administrations. In November of 2020, scientists and nonpartisan career employees at the Department of the Interior once again found that the gray wolves were fully recovered and once again issued a rule that returned management of gray wolf populations to the state and tribal wildlife agencies. And unfortunately, frivolous litigation got us back to where we are again. The science is crystal clear on this issue. Gray wolves should no longer be on the endangered species list. Let's stop the back-and-forth. And I look forward today's discussion on our bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield.

Chairman Harriet Hageman (R-WY)SPEAKER_17

Thank you. I now recognize Congresswoman Dingell for 5 minutes.

Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI)SPEAKER_15

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for considering my important legislation today. And I want to thank my friends, Representative Huizenga and Walberg, for their bipartisan support. Yep, we have a bipartisan bill today. The Great Lakes states and tribes, along with Fish and Wildlife Service, annually stock millions of salmon and trout to restore native fish populations, diversify sport fisheries, and control invasive forage fishes within the Great Lakes. However, little is known about how well these fish survive, contribute to the fisheries, and reproduce in the wild. This is where the mass marking bill comes into play. Mass marking is the practice of tagging large numbers of hatchery-raised fish so we can easily distinguish them from the wild fish population. The planned method within the Great Lakes is to clip the adipose fin, the small fin on the dorsal side near the tail, combined with a coded wire tag, or CWT. A CWT is 1.1 mm long stainless steel wire marked with serial numbers denoting a specific group of fish. This tag can be extracted after recapture, which will provide biologists with key population characteristics such as survival, movement, contribution to fisheries, growth, and levels of natural reproduction. This legislation would mark all hatchery-produced fish within the Great Lakes. Currently, we only tag around 9 to 11 million of the 21 million fish stocked in the Great Lakes each year. Marking all hatchery fish will improve data collection, enable better analyses of the health of wild fish stocks. It will provide valuable insights to help develop a science-based collaborative fishery management program. The legislation also ensures that the collected data will be shared with all relevant fishery management agencies. We've seen the effectiveness of these types of programs in the Pacific Northwest for salmon and steelhead management. With the Great Lakes fishing economy valued at $7 billion, it is time we invest in this proven data-driven approach that would significantly enhance the sustainability and effectiveness of hatchery operations and fisheries management. I again want to thank the chair for considering this important legislation today, and I encourage all of my colleagues to support its final passage. With that, I yield back, Madam Chair.

Chairman Harriet Hageman (R-WY)SPEAKER_17

I now recognize Congresswoman Greene for five minutes.

Rep. Marjorie Greene (R-GA)SPEAKER_00

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Good morning. I'd like to thank Chairman Westerman and Chairwoman Hageman for considering my bill at this subcommittee hearing today to codify President Trump's executive order. The Gulf of America Act would rename the body of water formerly known as the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America. The Secretary of Interior, acting through the chairman of the U.S. Board of Geographic Names, would oversee the implementation of the renaming. On his first day back in office, President Trump signed Executive Order 14172, entitled Restoring Names That Honor American Greatness. Section 1 of the executive order lays out the purpose and policy of the directive, stating, It is in the national interest to promote the extraordinary heritage of our nation and ensure future generations of American citizens celebrate the legacy of our American heroes. The renaming of of our national treasures, including breathtaking natural wonders and historic works of art, should honor the contributions of visionary and patriotic Americans in our nation's rich past. Section 4 of the order states that the Gulf of America has long been an integral asset to our nation and has remained an indelible part of America. First of all, our great military and Coast Guard patrol and defend the waters of the Gulf of America. They protect our nation at the gulf from human and drug trafficking coming from Mexico and other countries. It is only fitting that the gulf therefore be named after America. The gulf was a crucial artery for America's early trade and global commerce and remains so today. It is the largest gulf in the world, and the U.S. coastline along the gulf spans over 1,700 miles and contains about 160 million acres. The gulf's natural resources and wildlife are an essential part of America's economy. It is one of the largest oil and gas regions in the world, providing about 14% of our nation's crude oil production and an abundance of natural gas. The resources found in the gulf have driven innovative technologies that have allowed our nation to reach some of the deepest and richest oil reserves in the world. The gulf is also home to many fisheries teeming with snapper, shrimp, grouper, stone crab, and other species, and it is recognized as one of the most productive fisheries in the world, with the second-largest volume of commercial fishing landings by region in the nation, contributing millions of dollars to local American economies. The gulf is also a vital region for the multibillion-dollar American maritime industry, containing some of the largest ports in the world, including in Houston, New Orleans, and Mobile. Millions of Americans visit the gulf each year with their families and take part in all the recreation it has to offer. Given all these contributions from the gulf to our nation and from our nation to the gulf, it is clear that the states which border the gulf—Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida—are not the only ones that benefit from it. Therefore, it is fitting that the gulf be named in honor of America, as it will continue to be a crucial part of our nation for generations to come. The Gulf of America Act has 15 cosponsors. We encourage more members to to sponsor this bill. And I thank the subcommittee for for hearing me out today. And Madam Chairwoman, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Chairman Harriet Hageman (R-WY)SPEAKER_17

I thank the members for their testimony, and I will now introduce our second panel: Mr. Erik Milito, president of the National Ocean Industries Association in Washington, D.C.; Dr. Peter Kareiva, president and CEO of the Aquarium of the Pacific in Long Beach, California; Dr. Nathan Roberts, professor of conservation and wildlife management at College of the Ozarks in Point Lookout, Missouri; and Mr. Mauricio Guardado, general manager of the United Water Conservation District in Oxnard, California. Let me remind the witnesses that under committee rules, they must limit their oral statements to 5 minutes, but their entire statement will appear in the hearing record. To begin your testimony, please press the button on the microphone. And we use timing lights. When you begin, the light will turn green. When you have 1 minute remaining, the light will turn yellow. And at the end of 5 minutes, the light will turn red, and I will ask you to please complete your statement. I will also allow all witnesses to testify before member questioning begins. I now recognize Mr. Milito for 5 minutes.

Mr. Erik MilitoSPEAKER_10

Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Hoyle, Chairman Westerman, and Ranking Member Huffman, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify today. My name is Erik Milito, and I'm president of the National Ocean Industries Association, or NOIA. For the past 50-plus years, NOIA has been the voice and advocate here in Washington for the offshore energy industry, including the men and women in the offshore oil and gas industry in the Gulf of America who work day in and day out to produce the energy that fuels America. It is great to see President Trump and Congresswoman Greene take the steps to recognize the importance of the Gulf of America, shining a light on a strategic national energy asset for our country. The Gulf of America has served as the backbone of U.S. energy production for decades. The U.S. has been producing oil in the federal Gulf of America waters since 1938, and production from the Gulf has been steadily increasing since the very beginning. In fact, the Gulf of America has been producing more than 1 million barrels of oil per day since 1997, and hit its highest level of production on record, just over 2 million barrels, in August of 2019, right before the onset of the pandemic. Today, the Gulf is producing about 1.8 million barrels of oil per day. With several high-tech projects coming online, we expect this number will increase considerably and further fortify America's energy security. In terms of energy affordability, production from the U.S. Gulf of America plays a substantial role in helping to meet domestic and global demand for energy, helping to put downward pressure on prices. I'd like to take a moment to recognize and thank the hardworking women and men of the Gulf of America oil and gas industry. For the past 80 years, the people of the offshore industry have been working 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year to produce the energy that we all rely upon for a high quality of life. We often take it for granted, but the energy we produce in the Gulf of America makes modern life possible, lifting standards of living for all Americans. From the moment we wake up to the moment we go to bed, oil and natural gas are making everything we do possible. From air and car travel, to heating and cooling, to electricity generation, to farming and education and healthcare, oil and gas make it happen. The Gulf of America oil and gas industry supports more than 400,000 high-paying jobs throughout the country. Most are along the Gulf Coast in places like Houma, Morgan City, Lafayette, and Covington, but there are companies and jobs in every state that get good work from the Gulf of America oil and gas industry. And the men and women of the offshore oil and gas industry work every day to protect each other, communities, and the environment. We continue to innovate and work collaboratively to efficiently produce energy, conserve resources, and protect the environment. Quite simply, we do more with less. Take this data point: If you take the 18 largest producing facilities in the Gulf of America, they collectively take up the space of about 9 city blocks. Yet, they produce about 75% of all the oil from the Gulf of America. This is more production than the entire state of North Dakota, which in and of itself is a prolific producing region. The Gulf of America oil and gas industry also stands as a major contributor of revenue to the U.S. government and for important conservation programs. Over the past 25 years alone, our industry has paid more than $150 billion to the federal Treasury, with specific revenues allocated for our national parks, for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, for urban parks and recreation, and for coastal restoration. U.S. offshore oil and gas production provides Americans with the best product when it comes to low-carbon-intensity barrels. Oil produced from the Gulf of America has a carbon intensity per barrel that is 46% lower than the foreign average. Policies that restrict domestic offshore development require imports to make up the shortfall, and that supplemental production comes from higher-emitting operations in other countries, often adversarial to our national security interests. It's critical that federal policy promotes U.S. energy development in our offshore region through consistent leasing, permitting, and reasonable regulation, and through open access to markets. This also includes taking important steps to streamline and provide greater certainty in the regulatory process through legislation like Chairman Westerman ESA Amendments Act of 2025. This legislation seeks to advance the underlying purpose of the ESA, of conserving and restoring endangered and threatened species, while instituting logical change to actually make the law work. Importantly, the legislation seeks to both streamline the ESA permitting process and create incentives for wildlife conservation and recovery of listed species. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

Chairman Harriet Hageman (R-WY)SPEAKER_17

Thank you. I now recognize Dr. Kareiva for 5 minutes.

Dr. Peter KareivaSPEAKER_14

Good morning, Chairman Hageman and members of the subcommittee. My name is Peter Kareiva, and I'm the president of the Aquarium of the Pacific. Our aquarium attracts 1.6 million visitors every year. We are proud members of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums. I want to begin by pointing out that zoos and aquaria in America are visited by over 147 million people every year—147 million for whom it could be a life-changing experience, rich or poor, urban or rural, from all colors and points of view. Those 147 million visits surpass the total annual attendance to all major professional sports in America combined. I suspect that everyone in this room has visited a zoo or aquarium or has children or relatives who have and have heard of the joy they see. That joy knows no bounds. It is something we are all born with. After all, we are all each connected to a vast web of life, from the salmon on your dinner plate to the frogs in your pond, to the coyotes roaming the hills where you live, to your family cat or dog. That connection is visceral and far more real than the connection to our cell phones and the digital world. We and our children need nature for our health and our well-being. And the reality is we also need nature for our economy. There is evidence that cognitive abilities are enhanced, while stress levels, anxiety, and blood pressure decline when we watch animals or go out in nature. I'm here to say we don't need to choose between nature and our economy. We don't need to choose between one or the other. Some of you represent states that attract millions of tourists because of your state's natural beauty and majestic wildlife. Our parks and wildlands are the envy of the world. Tourists come from all around the globe to see them. Meanwhile, wait-lists to get at our domestic campsites and public lands have never been longer. Nature drives revenue. In other cases, nature benefits emerge through a chain of interactions. Streams with clean water provide fish to eat, water to drink, and water to support our farms. But that clean water that sustains us best when it runs through landscapes with healthy predators that prevent overgrazing of stream banks, averting erosion. Clean water is there for us only when we effectively manage the wildlife and the landscapes our waterways run through. Natural bounty sustains, defines, and connects us as a nation. This is why we must steward what may be our greatest asset, our natural resources, whether it is saving icons like the bald eagle or ensuring that our feed our families with salmon. Nature is clearly valuable, and that value can lead to competition for its diverse uses and benefits. A fly fisherman may care more about most about cool, clean stream water. A rancher wants a herd free of disease and healthy rangelands that have not been invaded by inedible weeds from distant continents. A mining operator seeks access to valuable minerals, and the entrepreneur may want to undisturbed ocean waters to sustain new marine aquaculture business. These values and uses of nature sometimes come into conflict. This is where research and science can provide answers. Research can find that by engineering bypasses for salmon around a dam and controlling flow rates, we can have both salmon and water for irrigation. Research can identify areas well-suited to the booming business of ocean aquaculture, as well as other areas to protect fisheries and biodiversity. We have gotten so used to fighting a battle between livelihoods and conservation that we wrongly assume there is no other way. But there is another way. We can invest in science so we can pursue growth and development by design, without bankrupting our economy and without losing the natural assets that set America apart from the rest of the world. Nature is for you, me, all of us. We may all see its value in different ways, but if we all seek to maximize that value, we can all have our way. But can you imagine America without its green, rolling hills, quiet streams, towering forests, and iconic coastlines and without the sound of birds at dawn? Americans need nature for far more than just recreation. We need a healthy natural world, and science and scientists can help us achieve that goal and meet all the conflicting uses of nature. Thank you.

Chairman Harriet Hageman (R-WY)SPEAKER_17

Thank you. I now recognize Dr. Roberts for 5 minutes.

Dr. Nathan RobertsSPEAKER_21

Good morning, Chairman Westerman, Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Hoyle, Ranking Member Huffman. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to discuss wolf management and the Pet and Livestock Protection Act. With 25 years' experience in wildlife management, I have worked with federal and state agencies, academic institutions, and the conservation organization Hunter Nation. Wildlife management aims to maintain the long-term viability and sustainability of wildlife populations and seeks to enhance the positive contributions of these species while also reducing their negative impacts on people and ecosystems. Managing carnivores is complex and challenging due to the various factors, including their intricate ecological impacts, both positive and negative, the potential for conflicts, differing public interest, and a complex legal and regulatory framework. Wildlife managers successfully address these challenges using a wide range of well-established tools and strategies. Regulations and policies are carefully designed to meet specific conservation goals. In some cases, this means temporarily prohibiting the take of a species, while in other situations regulated take may be allowed. In some cases, conflicts may be addressed through non-lethal methods, but in other cases lethal methods may be necessary. Similarly, in some situations the best approach may be reactive and to respond to conflicts after they've occurred, while in other cases it's most efficient to be proactive and reduce the probability of conflicts by managing population size and habitat. There is a time and a place for each of these approaches, but there's not a single approach that is appropriate for all cases. State wildlife agencies are best equipped to make these decisions as they have the local knowledge and experience needed. It is critical for wildlife managers to have a diverse toolbox equipped with a variety of approaches and techniques to employ to achieve conservation objectives. The management of wildlife is a primary responsibility of state fish and wildlife agencies. When a species is listed under the Endangered Species Act, the federal government temporarily assumes management authority while the species recovers and is no longer at immediate risk of extinction. During this temporary period, certain conservation tools that are typically used to achieve management goals may be restricted while the species is at the greatest risk of extinction. The problem comes when the ESA is abused, the intent of the act is distorted, and the species remains listed for decades after recovery goals are met, denying professional state wildlife managers the use of all the conservation tools in their toolbox. The gray wolf is a prime example of these problems. The gray wolf in the United States is clearly recovered and stable, yet it remains listed as an endangered species. The recovery plan established in the Great Lakes region set specific numeric goals as criteria for determining successful recovery that have been surpassed every year since at least 1994, with an estimated 4,000 to 5,000 wolves in this region alone. The Department of Interior has issued numerous rules to delist wolves, only to have these rules vacated through litigation. Despite exceeding the population criteria for restoration by more than tenfold, wolves remain listed, and state agencies still do not have management authority or their toolbox restored. While wolves may not occupy their entire historic range, the overall population in the United States remains secure and in no danger of extinction. State wildlife management agencies have demonstrated their ability to effectively manage wolves as well as other wildlife. In the Rocky Mountains, wolves have been delisted for many years. There may be debate about management strategies, but there is no question that wolves continue to inhabit and thrive in this region. Keeping wolves listed is inappropriate and harmful to overall conservation efforts, weakens the integrity of ESA, and misallocates limited conservation resources. The ongoing cycle of litigation ignoring established scientific recovery benchmarks creates disincentive for landowners and jurisdictions to engage in species recovery, and states are needlessly restricted from effectively managing wolf populations and implementing proactive strategies such as maintaining populations within a desired range to achieve wildlife management goals and maximize positive benefits, minimize negative impacts, while also ensuring the species' long-term viability. The Pet and Livestock Protection Act would formalize what the Department of Interior has repeatedly stated under multiple presidential administrations, that gray wolves are recovered, have exceeded the established delisting criteria, and that states should regain management authority as originally intended under ESA. Gray wolves are recovered in the United States, and state fish and wildlife agencies possess both the capability and the proven track record in species management and recovery to manage gray wolves effectively and sustainably for the benefit of the public they serve. The Endangered Species Act is well-intended but has been exploited and misused in ways that undermine both conservation efforts and public trust. The bills discussed here today promote responsible wildlife management and stewardship, helping to restore balance and ensure effective conservation practices. Thank you again for the opportunity to address this important issue.

Chairman Harriet Hageman (R-WY)SPEAKER_17

I now recognize Mr. Guardado for 5 minutes.

Mr. Mauricio GuardadoSPEAKER_19

Thank you. Good morning, Chair Hageman and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for allowing me to come back to the committee and present on behalf of United Water Conservation District. My name is Mauricio Guardado, and I'm the general manager of United, a California special district dedicated to managing water resources in Ventura County. United serves over 214,000 acres and around 400,000 residents, including six cities and U.S. Naval Base Ventura County. We operate critical infrastructure for stormwater capture, groundwater recharge, and water delivery, all vital to our watershed management efforts. I also serve on the advisory committee for the Family Farm Alliance, which represents farmers, ranchers, and water districts in 16 Western states. The Family Farm Alliance has also submitted written testimony for this hearing. Despite United's nearly 100 years of success in water management, we continue to face increased regulatory overreach and, in my opinion, the blatant abuse of the Endangered Species Act implementation by from the National Marine Fisheries Service, NMFS. These challenges not only threaten our operations, but also impose significant economic burdens on our community, with potential overall obligations nearing half a billion dollars without proving without providing substantial protections for endangered species because, in our case, there is no species present. Consultations between United and NMFS have led to multiple unsubstantiated jeopardy biological opinions under the ESA for the anadromous Southern California steelhead. Despite there being no documented observation of steelhead, NMFS issued a jeopardy opinion for the Santa Felicia Dam. Since 2010, NMFS has mandated United to release over 14.5 billion gallons of water, replacement costs of that water valued at approximately $64 million, much of it released during the drought. United has also spent over $10 million on studies and legal fees in compliance, resulting in no benefits to the species. Despite historical evidence confirming the absence of steelhead, NMFS insists on requiring a costly fish passage system or dam removal. NMFS's arbitrary and capricious actions are simply bad government and must be brought under control through legislative and agency cultural change. The ESA Amendments Act of 2025 addresses definitions of habitat, environmental baseline, incentives for the recovery of listed species, and increased transparency and accountability in ESA decisions, including the disclosure of data used in listing decisions, and rightfully requires limitations on overreach in mitigation requirements, all of which are critical issues for United's operations. United is encouraged to see the addition of the definition of habitat in the bill, as this could provide a clear interpretation for both the regulated community and the regulatory agency staff charged with implementing projects that balance our vital resources in a way that provides a meaningful benefit to the listed species, while allowing for our communities to receive what we need to be sustainable into the future. The additions to the definition of environmental baseline would help to clarify the ESA consultation process, specifically those effects that would fall into the environmental baseline versus those that would fall into the effects of the action. United also supports the proposals to improve the transparency and accountability in recovering listed species. The regulatory agencies, NMFS and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, should provide all information that is the basis of regulatory decisions and/or requirements under the ESA to improve agency and regulatory process transparency. In our experience, NMFS has repeatedly failed to provide adequate justification and underlying data and analysis for their determinations, which calls into question the reasoning and appropriateness of their actions. In closing, United supports the ESA Amendments Act of 2025 and the necessary clarification and regulatory streamlining it provides to improve implementation of the ESA. It's time to restore the original act to its congressional intent, and it's time to allow the best available science, data, and engineering lead the way over processes and costly objectives, rather than the arbitrary nature of opinions and feelings. United is committed to working with your committee and Congress to move this legislation forward, and I greatly appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony to you today.

Chairman Harriet Hageman (R-WY)SPEAKER_17

Thank you. I appreciate the testimony from all of our witnesses and for you being here. I now— I will now recognize members for 5 minutes each for questions, beginning with myself. Dr. Roberts, how has the threat of litigation impacted a federal agency's decision to delist a species?

Dr. Nathan RobertsSPEAKER_21

Thank you for the question, Chair. I believe that the threat of litigation creates fear in agencies and for moving forward with delisting decisions. I think it unnecessarily delays those decisions. Lawyers like to be in court. Biologists don't want to be in court. And so I, I believe that it slows down that process, unfortunately.

Chairman Harriet Hageman (R-WY)SPEAKER_17

Well, how would prohibiting judicial review within the post-delisting 5-year monitoring period help with science-based decisions? Thank

Dr. Nathan RobertsSPEAKER_21

you. I believe that that would help because in that five-year delisting period, that's a required monitoring period for most of these issues, or all of these issues. We're very concerned about the long-term trajectory in populations, not a change one year to the next. So we're interested in how a trajectory is changing, and it takes time to see that. And so that five-year period, I believe, is appropriate, the five-year monitoring period. Removing it from judicial review allows those situations to play out. I think it's important to note that the minimum population goals that are established by Fish and Wildlife Service enable and enabling delisting are set sufficiently high that they can be resilient to some unforeseen circumstances, thus limiting the need to respond through through litigation.

Chairman Harriet Hageman (R-WY)SPEAKER_17

Well, that resiliency has been shown with both the gray wolf population and the grizzly bear population in Wyoming. I think both of those species are an example of how state management actually works to to protect a recovered wolf or a recovered population and shows the resiliency that you're talking about. Isn't that correct?

Dr. Nathan RobertsSPEAKER_21

Yes, I would say so. There may be some debate about the particular methods that are used in those states, but we need to remember the Endangered Species Act is focused on preventing an animal from going extinct. That that is the purview of the Endangered Species Act, and it is clear that wolves and and grizzly bears are not in danger of extinction in the northern Rocky Mountains.

Chairman Harriet Hageman (R-WY)SPEAKER_17

Mr. Guardado, the issues you have raised today are a perfect example of how local agency bureaucrats are able to place mandates on the operations of infrastructure that has billions of dollars in direct and indirect economic impacts, with little or no approval from political appointees or Congress. How does providing clear and consistent definitions for terms such as environmental baseline create more certainty for the communities you serve and limit the discretion of agency bureaucrats?

Mr. Mauricio GuardadoSPEAKER_19

Well, thank you. Well, as a result, related to the environmental baseline, in our particular case, we have a Freeman Diversion. And rather than just separating out the status of the species and using that as the baseline and the existing operations, a compilation of that baseline along with future operations and a future project are tacked on, which make it virtually impossible in its current state to achieve any type of requirements. Right now at the Freeman Diversion, we have a situation where the National Marine Fisheries Service has a preferred legacy project of their own, which is a—there's a price tag of about $250 million, which imagine a concrete platform the size of a football field in the middle of a river, wiping out existing ecosystem, when we have another alternative that's about $20 million that meets all of the design criteria, all of the species criteria, to ensure that it's not only protected, but has a viable recovery state. So these are clear examples where the amendments here in this ESA—it's not to dissolve the ESA. It's to improve it, to provide clarity so that we can actually move projects forward and save the taxpayers a lot of money.

Chairman Harriet Hageman (R-WY)SPEAKER_17

I think one mistake that people make is that when a species is delisted or downlisted, there is continuing management and monitoring. In fact, one of the factors for delisting is that there must be an adequate regulatory mechanism in place to protect that species into the long term. So when the gray wolf in Wyoming, for example, was delisted, the state of Wyoming has taken over the monitoring and the management and been able to protect a recovered population for literally decades at this point. So I appreciate your comments and your testimony and the insight that you bring. I now will call on Ms. Hoyle for her 5 minutes of questioning.

Ranking Member Val Hoyle (D-OR)SPEAKER_16

Thank you very much. This question is for Dr. Kareiva. As we've seen, and certainly we've seen in the Pacific Northwest, the gutting of federal agencies with— without any concern about the importance of the jobs that are being done. This is being done in a very non-strategic way, and we've seen lots of effects. Could you speak to how these firings at the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service would affect the ability of services to identify, interpret, and carry out the basic science necessary to make informed ESA decisions?

Dr. Peter KareivaSPEAKER_14

Sure, I'll be glad to.

SPEAKER_UNKNOWN

Um,

Dr. Peter KareivaSPEAKER_14

So, most of my experience with these field— with these federal agencies is in the field, and what is happening, you have to realize there's field biologists out there every day collecting information on water quality, how inflammable the vegetation is, keeping track of our environment. I know from our collaborators in Southern California that one of the cuts that have been made is with the credit card limits. You're a field biologist and you can't buy equipment like a water quality sample— sampler, and it hampers— even without the firing, it hampers the ability to collect baseline information. It's like a fire alarm in your house. It's the field biologists that are the fire alarm for our planet, and we need them out there every day.

Ranking Member Val Hoyle (D-OR)SPEAKER_16

Thank you. So it's vitally important that we get this information, that field biologists are able to get this information. Can you talk about the— where we get certain sources of information? What is the best available science, and why is mandating the use of certain sources of data Um, a good or a bad idea?

Dr. Peter KareivaSPEAKER_14

You know, best available science. Sometimes when I hear that, I, I think that it's what's my most favorite science. I like to think of it as the weight of evidence. Science is continually evolving. The best available science changes from year to year. It's interesting with my wolf colleague here, the wolf recovery goals were set before we had any genetic information. We couldn't even collect DNA and sequence it like we can now. If you sample wolves from 90 to 150 years ago and look at their genetics and compare them to the wolves today, they've lost half their variability. That doesn't show up in numbers, but losing half the variability in genetics is like losing half of your stock portfolio and just having a much diminished option. So the best available science changes from year to year, and it has to be updated. And it's really peer-reviewed science that is the best available science.

Ranking Member Val Hoyle (D-OR)SPEAKER_16

So with your background and your studies, what do you feel is the best approach?

Dr. Peter KareivaSPEAKER_14

I didn't catch that last phrase.

Ranking Member Val Hoyle (D-OR)SPEAKER_16

What do you feel is the best approach for addressing wolves through the perspective of the Endangered Species Act?

Dr. Peter KareivaSPEAKER_14

I think the best approach for, for handling wolves right now is Updating the science, both the genetics and what's going around. You know, think about it. There were 500,000 to 2 million wolves in the country before. Now we're down to 6,000 to 8,000. The 5-year plan, you know, for delisting in only 5 years. In the last 5 years, we killed 3,500 wolves. Down to 6,000 to 8,000 wolves. In the last 5 years, we killed 3,500 wolves. When the population used to be at a minimum half a million. So that we would update the science and we would also take into account— our recovery should take into account livelihoods of the ranchers in that. And we would have a management plan that accounted for wolves and accounted for ranching. You could do that with the best available science. You could have both.

Ranking Member Val Hoyle (D-OR)SPEAKER_16

Great. Thank you so much. And I yield back.

Chairman Harriet Hageman (R-WY)SPEAKER_17

I believe that there are over 8,000— 6,000 to 8,000 wolves in Minnesota alone. I don't know where that number comes from, but I will now call on Mr. Westerman for his 5 minutes of questioning.

Full Committee Chairman Bruce Westerman (R-AR)SPEAKER_20

Thank you, Madam Chair. And again, thank you to the witnesses. And Madam Chair, before I ask questions, I would like to recognize that we have Ambassador Elsie Kanza, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United Republic of Tanzania, with us today. We made a trip to Tanzania last year and saw how the Endangered Species Act that we work on in this committee affects, affects wildlife management in Africa. And we also have Ms. Regina Boma, the Deputy Chief of Mission for the Republic of Zambia, with us today. Thank you all for being here. Mr. Milito, the uncertainty surrounding the biological opinion for offshore oil and gas programs, as well as other biological opinions, is of great concern to this committee. How would the ESA permitting reforms proposed today, especially the requirement for retrospective review of modifications made to BiOps, provide more certainty?

Mr. Erik MilitoSPEAKER_10

Thank you, Chairman Westerman. And it's a great question. And I think fundamentally what the business community needs is certainty and predictability, along with some flexibility to work with the regulators to make sure they can move forward with the projects. The whole debate is around the fact that it's hard to build anything in America, but your proposed changes serve to address that. And they do it by providing a level of accountability to agency decisions that currently just doesn't exist. While the current BiOp in some respects is workable, and we can go out there and operate and produce the energy America relies upon, it has some provisions that are problematic to the industry and provide little conservation benefit to the species. So retrospective review would enable all the stakeholders to engage with the services in a more informed way, to better fix the BiOp process and make sure that the steps being taken, the retrospective steps and the modifications, are actually going to help restore the species.

Full Committee Chairman Bruce Westerman (R-AR)SPEAKER_20

Thank you, Mr. Milito. Mr. Guardado, your testimony highlights the ongoing disputes with NOAA over the critical habitat designation for Southern California steelhead. What kind of analysis has United Water done to prove that not only does this species not exist in your area, but in fact they probably never existed in your area? And how does providing a clear definition of habitat as it relates to critical habitat alleviate this issue?

Mr. Mauricio GuardadoSPEAKER_19

Well, thank you. Yes, in the amendments clarity is key to have a definition of critical habitat when you're looking at a particular action area. And in that action area, you're evaluating the conditions and the resources to evaluate even if that particular area can support a lifecycle of the species. So in in our neck of the woods, in in Piru Creek, the conditions are very poor. It's very hot, there's no food, and as a result, it's a reason why having historical documentation since the late 1800s from biologists, from the California Fish and Wildlife, and anyone else that has done any stream surveys up to current date, not one ocean-run steelhead has ever been seen, found, caught. And despite all of this, despite the poor conditions for any survival of steelhead, and the fact that they haven't been there to begin with, the National Marine Fisheries Service digs their heels in and is requiring us to put fish passage around, through, above our dam. They've designated critical habitat in an area that's unoccupied, that has been unoccupied for decades based on historical records. As a result, we're looking at hundreds of millions of dollars just in mitigation requirements for that facility alone. And I think even more importantly, we run the risk of public safety. We have two very important public safety projects in our outlet works and our spillway upgrade. NMFS is getting in the way of that. They're obstructing the the process of us completing these projects, and it's not about when, you know, it's not about if an earthquake is going to happen in Southern California, it's when. And our outlet works is is a project that's trying to take care of some deficient standards. And if that dam is compromised, people will perish downstream. So in our region, we don't have an ESA inconvenience issue. We have a regulatory malfeasance issue.

Full Committee Chairman Bruce Westerman (R-AR)SPEAKER_20

Thank you, Dr. Roberts. And first, I want to go back to something my friend Mr. Huffman from California said that I totally agree with. The Endangered Species Act has been extremely successful in preventing extinction. No Nobody denies that. But our predecessors, when they created the Endangered Species Act, they didn't look at it only as a defense. They looked at it as defense and offense. And if you compare it to a football team, we've got a heck of a defense, 99% efficient at stopping extinction. But when you look at the offensive side of it in recovering species, it's dismal. Only 3% of listed species have ever been recovered and been delisted, and only 4% of listed species are even making positive progress. Isn't this a sign that we need to better improve incentives for recovery? That maybe we need to fire the offensive coordinator and put a new offense in, and maybe even get some different players? And how can capturing the full potential of utilizing 4(d) as an off-ramp to state management help improve buy-in from public and aid in species recovery?

Dr. Nathan RobertsSPEAKER_21

Well, I think it's critical to have public and, and state agency buy-in. The, the 4D off-ramp that's proposed in, in your bill provides an incentive to landowners and to state jurisdictions to partner towards those conservation goals, because achieving those conservation goals is linked with regulatory relief. And so I believe that that creates a clear incentive for, for stakeholders to partner towards shared conservation goals.

Full Committee Chairman Bruce Westerman (R-AR)SPEAKER_20

Thank you. And Madam Chair, before I yield, I would ask unanimous consent to insert into the hearing record over 30 letters of support for H.R. 1897. This includes letters from organizations such as Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, American Farm Bureau, National Association of Counties, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Zoological Association of America, United Republic of Tanzania Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, Republic of Zambia Ministry of Tourism, South Africa Chief Director of Biodiversity Management and Permitting.

Chairman Harriet Hageman (R-WY)SPEAKER_17

So ordered. The chair now recognizes Mr. Huffman for five minutes of questioning.

Full Committee Ranking Member Jared Huffman (D-CA)SPEAKER_02

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate Chair Westerman's football metaphor. And to throw it back at him, maybe we can agree we've got a good defense. Maybe the answer to having a better offense is to stop punting on first down because we keep firing the offensive coordinator. But we will continue that conversation, I'm sure, into the future. We've had it so many times here in this committee, and we have just picked through every aspect of why, from our perspective, you need good science, you need good personnel and wildlife managers, you need adequate budgets and staffing for the ESA to work. And we will keep making those points. But certainly, a bill to make the ESA weaker is not the answer and is nothing new. We've just seen it so many times before. What is new—and I'm I'm in my 13th year in Congress, I've never seen anything even remotely like the gentlelady from Georgia's bill to curry favor with Donald Trump by affirming his swaggering ignorance in trying to rename the Gulf of Mexico. This is just remarkable new stuff in this committee, just bootlicking sycophancy of the highest order. And the only point of this bill, and everybody knows it, is just to kiss up to Donald Trump. All of you know that this is not a serious bill. Surely, many of you are embarrassed by this naked tribute to the cult leader. But here we are. We're actually dedicating committee time to this joke of a bill. And of all of the unserious things that have been said about this deeply unserious bill, perhaps the biggest joke of all is the suggestion that it has something to do with national security. The sponsor of the bill mentioned national security. One of the witnesses talked about this as if somehow kissing up to Donald Trump and renaming the Gulf of Mexico will make us safer. I mean, come on. Anyone who wants to be taken seriously about national security should be talking about one thing and one thing only today. Reporting from The Atlantic yesterday revealed that senior Trump administration officials, including the Vice President, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Director of National Intelligence, U.S. National Security Advisor, and White House Chief of Staff, debated and coordinated an airstrike on a foreign adversary in the Middle East using the messaging app Signal. The conversation, which included an exchange of classified information over a nonsecure platform on nonsecure devices, was complete with craven political justification for the strike, middle school-style celebration of an attack that actually killed people, and yes, even emojis. And the reason we know all this is they accidentally included the editor of The Atlantic in the text chain. Unfortunately, unlike the Gulf of America legislation before us, this is not a joke. What it is is a breathtaking breach of national security and public trust that makes Americans less safe and makes our country the laughingstock of the world. Imagine if instead of fat-fingering the Signal handle of a reporter, one of these clowns had looped in a less responsible journalist, or a reporter with Putin's RT, or maybe a defense or an intelligence contact with opposing views of the conflict in Yemen, maybe someone motivated to leak it. Kevin Carroll, a national security lawyer and former CIA officer, said it best in The Washington Post yesterday evening: If these people were junior uniformed personnel, they would be court-martialed. So where's the accountability? Where's the outrage from my friends across the aisle? I heard Speaker Johnson call this a mistake, just sort of shrug it off and say that the administration would learn from it. This is not a mistake. This is a fireable offense. The president put these incompetent people in position to safeguard our country's sensitive defense and security information, and instead they're treating it like they're in some kind of a March Madness chat group with their fraternity brothers. Anyone who wants to be taken seriously on national security should be focused on this today, not trying to break the Endangered Species Act, or kill wolves, or rename bodies of water to appease a petulant president. I yield back.

Chairman Harriet Hageman (R-WY)SPEAKER_17

The chair now recognizes Mr. LaMalfa for five minutes of questioning on the topic at hand.

Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA)SPEAKER_03

The topic at hand—that's not bashing Trump over every little thing, was it? Okay. Mr. Roberts, thanks for being here with us. And I wanted to follow up on a previous question that was asked here: are we taking basically, are we taking too many wolves according to someone's set goals? We count so far approximately 77 in my northeast counties in Northern California, Siskiyou and Modoc. That's the numbers that are being estimated, and they're devastating the deer population, the normal wildlife population, and the livestock populations up there just big time with only 77 wolves. So a previous assertion that we might be taking too many, could you follow up on that?

Dr. Nathan RobertsSPEAKER_21

Yes, um, we are fortunate to have good data to help guide those decisions. I appreciate my, my colleague mentioning the best available science and referencing that peer-reviewed literature is that there is good peer-reviewed literature to suggest that we can sustainably take around 29% of a wolf population. In other words, remove about 29%, in the next year have just as many wolves. So if the goal is to reduce populations, you would actually need to take more than 29%.

Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA)SPEAKER_03

what's a sustainable number of wolves, such as—well, nobody, except for people in the Bay Area, want them in our part of the district. But if you want to see a gray wolf, it seems that you can see plenty of them in the northern Midwest states and Canada, which they're a little more native to. I don't wish them on you all there too. But what is what is truly sustainable as far as how many wolves they can even deal with there? And what what makes a population that you can count on to not have an extinction?

Dr. Nathan RobertsSPEAKER_21

The Fish and Wildlife Service, in consultation with state and tribal agencies and other scientists, establish a minimum population goal. In the case of wolves, that was set regionally. So, for example, in the Great Lakes, that number was 100 to 200 outside of Minnesota. That number is established with the idea in mind that that would ensure that the population is around in the long term and is resilient to unexpected circumstances.

Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA)SPEAKER_03

Because Fish and Wildlife seems to have no actual target number. They just say, hey, we've conserved the wolves, we can pull them off the list. Do you know of a number?

Dr. Nathan RobertsSPEAKER_21

I do not know of a number, a nationwide number. However, the Fish and Wildlife Service, in their rule that they published in 2020 that was subsequently defended by the Biden administration, clearly stated that they determined that the wolf population in the United States, not just in the Great Lakes region, but in the United States, was recovered and no longer in danger of extinction.

Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA)SPEAKER_03

Why do they need to be in more than one region in the United States? Because they're devastating western states right now. This kind of brings an analogy to me like, well, there's plenty of giraffes in Africa, but there's no giraffes in Northern America. So therefore, we must have an endangered giraffe species in Northern America.

Dr. Nathan RobertsSPEAKER_21

Well, I think that you do want to have multiple populations to be resilient if something were to happen to some subpopulation. However, that does not mean that they need to inhabit their entire historic range. Right now, one of the criticisms about wolves is that they occur in about 20% of their historic range in the United States, which is similar to elk. Elk occur in about 20% of their historic range in the United States, and I don't think anybody would argue that elk are endangered.

Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA)SPEAKER_03

Well, let me just recount a little bit what's going on in my district in Northern California. People are desperate. They feel like they have no remedies for anything. The fladry, the jumping around with flags and flashlights, and even flying drones over a wolf where the wolf gets used to the drone, they just lay down underneath it until the drone goes away. They're within 30 yards of houses, just looking at you. They're mocking people, basically. But let me give you a couple anecdotes here. When the wolves are in the cattle, often the cow aborts or won't breed back. We lost three head last year that we didn't report. We knew wolves killed them, either by tracks, telltale signs, or you hear the howling when you get near the conflict. Our lives have changed over the past few years. We're on edge day and night. I've never been afraid to go out on foot at night anywhere on my ranch. I am now. I don't take my dogs if I'm away from the barnyard for fear they will be killed, as in that picture up there. I am up multiple times each night checking for sounds or driving the ranch looking for wolves. My husband has stage 4 cancer. I've met these people. This added stress isn't good for him. We started calling two of the calving grounds at our neighbor's ranch basically death camps because in the last few weeks, every time we go down the county road, there are fresh bloody carcasses. You come back home and some bodies are gone, but new ones take their place. We hear howls day and night on the calving grounds. There are many groups of wolves outside those that are collared. None of us has the resources to fend off this onslaught. Another person: We've made multiple trips to town the last few days. Deer and antelope herds are frantically running from the calving grounds when we go by. We normally don't see them doing this. It's always when we hear the howls or get word that they are close by. Fish and Game, by the way, won't tell them they're nearby even though they have the collars. They have to wait till they're already in their herd. Our neighbor is 91 years old. He spends almost every night, driving around all night, excuse me, around his feedlot trying to keep them from the yearlings for the past couple months. He's exhausted. And I can tell you 10 more stories just right off the top here. This is what's going on. This is very real to these people, and they have no remedy because the wolves are more protected than the president. I yield back.

Chairman Harriet Hageman (R-WY)SPEAKER_17

Thank you, Mr. LaMalfa. The chair now recognizes Ms. Dingell for 5 minutes of questioning.

Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI)SPEAKER_15

Thank you, Madam Chair. The United States is facing an unprecedented biodiversity crisis. We've already seen our nation's beautiful monarch butterfly population plummet, and we've lost nearly 3 billion birds since 1970. More than one-third of our plant and animal species are currently threatened with extinction, putting ecosystems across America at risk. Our bedrock environmental laws are the only thing holding back a wave of extinction events, and the Endangered Species Act, or ESA, for the last 50 years has been 99% effective. This is thanks to the ESA's strong legal protections and associated recovery efforts. My colleagues argue that ESA is not effective and that only 57 species have been recovered. However, the ESA is supposed to be a tool of last resort. Species listed are either on the brink of extinction or risk becoming threatened. One ESA shortfall that we should address is that it's chronically underfunded, contributing to slow listing and slow recovery. This favors early prevention-focused actions in favor of reactionary life-support actions once the species is listed. It then takes time, resources, and energy to bring a species back from the brink of extinction onto the road to recovery. Studies and advocates across the political divide have shown time and time again that we need to invest in species recovery and their habitats to lead to their successful delisting. I continue to hope that we can work together to pass legislation like Recovering America's Wildlife Act, or RAWA, which would make historic investments into species recovery, giving state wildlife agencies the tools they need to truly invest in wildlife conservation and recovery. Today's legislation, the ESA Amendments Act of 2025, would strip ESA protections, making it harder to protect wildlife. This act delays new listings while fast-tracking removals and narrowly redefines key terms to limit the law's reach. A major part of the ESA's success has been the implementation of successful candidate conservation agreements with assurances. If this bill were passed, it would weaken current and future agreements. Specifically, it would remove these agreements from Section 7 consultations, create additional workloads and deadlines for the plan approval, and limit federal oversight once the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approves the plan. I have major concerns with asking our federal agencies to rework many of these agreements while the current administration is firing their best and their brightest. In my state alone, 15 highly experienced NOAA employees were let go, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Agency fired 12 employees attached to the Great Lakes Sea Lamprey Control Program. These actions have delayed this year's control program, which will cost our Great Lakes fishing economy hundreds of millions of dollars. Dr. Kareiva, the ESA Amendments Act also blocks judicial review of delisting decisions for five or more years after a species is removed from the Endangered Species Act. Elon Musk's DOGE operation has fired or put on leave many biologists and program staff who would be responsible for assessing the science and drafting rules to delist species. Without the scientific expertise in the agencies or the judicial check on the validity of the delisting action, will agencies be able to make politically motivated delisting decisions?

Dr. Peter KareivaSPEAKER_14

No, they will not. They'll be, uh, working in the dark and they'll be totally blind.

Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI)SPEAKER_15

How would we hold the administration accountable for ensuring a species is recovered pursuant to the Endangered Species Act?

Dr. Peter KareivaSPEAKER_14

Well, the 5-year limit is, before you can even review it, is a problem. Think about if you had a marketing plan and the goals, and you decided, This is my marketing plan for the next 5 years, and no matter what data come in, no matter what happens, I'm not going to change it. That's what that's like. And so we need year-to-year field biologists out there telling us what's happening, and only then can we hold ourselves accountable and agencies accountable for doing what the Endangered Species Act is intended to do.

Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI)SPEAKER_15

Thank you, Madam Chair. These proposed changes will only lead to species extinction, not species recovery. We need to work together to pass lasting investments in species recoveries. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm ready to work across the aisle to address the biodiversity crisis in a bipartisan manner. But sadly, we only keep hearing partisan attacks on our most successful environmental protection laws. I thank you, and I yield back.

Chairman Harriet Hageman (R-WY)SPEAKER_17

Thank you. The chair now recognizes Ms. Boebert for 5 minutes of questioning.

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO)SPEAKER_01

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would caution my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to refrain from making fun of the Gulf of America, because next up, you know, may end up being the District of America that we're working on. So just keep keep the jokes at bay, and maybe we'll just stick with the Gulf of America for now. And I do want to just take a personal moment and recognize we have former Congresswoman Yvette Herrell from— Hi, Yvette. She was a distinct member on this committee, and she's here in the room with us today. So I just wanted to say hello to you, Yvette. Mr. Kareiva, do you know the current gray wolf population total? Pardon? Do you know the total population of the gray wolf currently?

Dr. Peter KareivaSPEAKER_14

I don't think anybody knows. There's estimates that range—

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO)SPEAKER_01

estimates of about 6,000. It's a, it's a pretty widely adopted estimate that we have about 6,000 gray wolves in the lower 48. Would you agree with that?

Dr. Peter KareivaSPEAKER_14

Yeah, about 6,000 to 8,000 is

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO)SPEAKER_01

Great. Great. You have a number even higher than me, which is well above any regional numbers that we were looking at for the Endangered Species Act. So would you consider 6,000 to 8,000 gray wolves being— the gray wolf being fully recovered?

Dr. Peter KareivaSPEAKER_14

I absolutely would not. 6,000 to 8,000 when there were one, you know, when there were 500,000 before is not enough. And it's really about their ecological function. They're called keystone species because they reduce erosion.

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO)SPEAKER_01

I think 6,000 to 8,000— sorry, sorry, my time is limited here. I think 6,000 to 8,000 is a good number, especially when we're seeing just the amount of depredation cases taking place, the amount of harm to our pets, to our livestock, to our wildlife. And there's been a lot of attacks on Elon Musk and the federal agencies, and folks no longer being employed because of DOGE efforts or whatever that may be, by President Trump's requests. Don't you think this is a great time to get the federal government out of the way and return management back to the states and local tribes?

Dr. Peter KareivaSPEAKER_14

No, I think we need the expertise of these federal biologists.

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO)SPEAKER_01

So the federal government is just the end-all be-all. We, we have the federal government and they're smarter than any state management program, any, any tribal management program.

Dr. Peter KareivaSPEAKER_14

The, the best conservation is with the collaboration between federal and state.

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO)SPEAKER_01

Do these biologists benefit from being in frivolous lawsuits and held up in court rather than being in the lab and creating studies?

Dr. Peter KareivaSPEAKER_14

You know, most biologists want to be out in the field.

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO)SPEAKER_01

Yes, they do. But there are frivolous lawsuits that prevent them from that. And I haven't heard any of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle complaining about that aspect of it, just that there, there may be some reduction in these employees.

Dr. Peter KareivaSPEAKER_14

Is there a question?

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO)SPEAKER_01

Well, you are saying it's not really a question. You're saying that they want to be in the field, but there are these frivolous lawsuits that keep them tied up. And

Dr. Peter KareivaSPEAKER_14

I don't know if they're frivolous or not. So I, as a federal biologist, you—

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO)SPEAKER_01

I'm Thank you. Thank you very much for your time. I'm going to move on to Dr. Roberts here. Do you believe that it's time to delist the gray wolf from the Endangered Species Act?

Dr. Nathan RobertsSPEAKER_21

Yes, ma'am, I do. I think the science is clear on that.

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO)SPEAKER_01

And with this frivolous litigation like the Defenders of Wildlife lawsuit, does that—has it distorted the original intent of the Endangered Species Act?

Dr. Nathan RobertsSPEAKER_21

Yes, I think so. The Endangered Species Act is intended to protect animals at immediate risk of extinction. And those lawsuits that you reference, if you look at those, they're primarily on procedural issues, not the issue of whether the the number of animals that are on the landscape.

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO)SPEAKER_01

Yes. Yeah, when the ESA is abused, I think that the intent of the act is certainly distorted as well. And Dr. Roberts, how does keeping the wolves listed harm, if it does, the conservation efforts?

Dr. Nathan RobertsSPEAKER_21

Well, I think it's— it just is discouraging to states and to individuals to engage in species recovery, to be involved in working with species at peril if there's no end in sight.

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO)SPEAKER_01

And just with our last 30 seconds, Dr. Roberts, how successful— how successful have state and tribal management been at helping restore the gray wolf populations to the full recovery levels?

Dr. Nathan RobertsSPEAKER_21

Well, like my colleague mentions, collaboration between the state and federal government is important, and working with the state government was an important aspect that led to the recovery of the gray wolf.

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO)SPEAKER_01

Thank you very much. Thank you to all of our witnesses. Madam Chair, I yield.

Chairman Harriet Hageman (R-WY)SPEAKER_17

And I call on Ms. Rivas for her 5 minutes of questioning.

Rep. Luz Rivas (D-CA)SPEAKER_18

Thank you for recognizing me. I consider myself a serious legislator who was elected to serve my constituents and represent my community, which I strive to do today and every day in Washington and in California's 29th. I would like to spend my time on H.R. 276, which I believe is an unserious bill. As you know, this bill would rename the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America for essentially all documents, maps, and records within the United States. Mr. Milito, I believe that witnesses brought before the committee are to be experts and serious about their role. Briefly, what is the point of H.R. 276, and do you think this is a serious bill?

Mr. Erik MilitoSPEAKER_10

The point is to change the name from Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America. And I think it does shine some important light on the Gulf of America from an energy production standpoint, because we are a critical energy artery for the country. And we haven't really been looking at that and understanding the full benefits that it provides to all Americans. It provides tremendous revenues and energy production and jobs, and money for land and water

Rep. Luz Rivas (D-CA)SPEAKER_18

cultivation. I want to reclaim my time. I mean, you're answering, but I don't hear the point. For the record, let's be honest with each other and the American people. At the end of the day, this is not changing the name of the Gulf of Mexico because the International Hydrographic Organization and all of the world will still call it the Gulf of Mexico. So I ask my colleagues, what's the point of H.R. 276? I'll tell you, there is no point to this bill. H.R. 276 is a joke. No, really. The origin of the idea has been referred to as a joke. Madam Chair, I'd like to enter a PBS News story from January 20th, 2025, into the record. According to this news story, it recapped the origin of this idea, and the premise is based on literal jokes. More specifically, in 2012, a member of the Mississippi legislature proposed a bill to rename portions of the Gulf as Gulf of America, a move that the bill author later referred to as a joke. 2 years earlier, comedian Stephen Colbert had joked on his show, Excuse me. that following

Chairman Harriet Hageman (R-WY)SPEAKER_17

It's, it's without objection. So ordered.

Rep. Luz Rivas (D-CA)SPEAKER_18

Excuse me.

SPEAKER_UNKNOWN

For the

Chairman Harriet Hageman (R-WY)SPEAKER_17

unanimous consent. Is that right? Is that what you asked for? Was unanimous consent to have that introduced?

Rep. Luz Rivas (D-CA)SPEAKER_18

Yes.

Chairman Harriet Hageman (R-WY)SPEAKER_17

Yes. Okay. So ordered.

Rep. Luz Rivas (D-CA)SPEAKER_18

Thank you. Two years earlier, comedian Stephen Colbert had joked on his show that following the massive Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, it should be renamed Gulf of America because we broke it, we bought it. Even the president of Mexico, Claudia Sheinbaum, joked that the United States be referred to as América Mexicana, its 17th century name. While Republicans bring up bills that are literal jokes, I do not see the humor. As Americans are struggling, as our children's public education is getting dismantled, as our nation's war secrets are being shared via text messages, as cost of living continues to rise, here Republicans are considering a bill that does nothing to address real issues of the American people. Here, Republicans are making a joke out of this body and our jobs to serve. Thank you. And I yield back.

Chairman Harriet Hageman (R-WY)SPEAKER_17

Thank you. The chair now calls on Mr. Crank for his 5 minutes of questioning.

Rep. Jeff Crank (R-CO)SPEAKER_09

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it. Before I get started, I come in here to this committee and I constantly hear at least one of my colleagues on the other side accuse us of an extinction agenda. That is just so offensive. I can't tell you how offensive it is. And then goes on to talk about bootlicking and kissing up. Well, there's a lot of bootlicking and kissing up goes on to environmental groups. I see that every day, every time I come to this committee. And I just wanted to say that. I'm proud to be an original cosponsor of my colleagues, Representative Boebert and Representative Tiffany's bill to delist the gray wolf from the Endangered Species Act. But the truth is, Congress shouldn't have to be legislate- legislating on removing species from the endangered species list. As the testimony today reflects, we should have a transparent federal process that temporarily lists species as endangered or threatened, and then, once recovery goals are met, delists the species and returns management to the states. That's the way the process ought to work. Wolves, the introduction of wolves, and I won't even say the reintroduction because we never had Canadian wolves introduced in or ever in Colorado before, but that has been a disaster for the state of Colorado. Ranchers are losing cattle. They're losing sheep. Our elk populations will diminish over time as more and more wolves are introduced. And this was all done by a ballot measure voted on by the citizens of Denver and Boulder to introduce wolves into places that aren't Boulder and Denver. They introduced it into to communities on the Western Slope. Now, if we're going to talk about historic range, wouldn't we want to put them in downtown Denver and Boulder? I guess we don't want to do that. So this is a sad state under the current madness. Do we want to delist? Do we want to continue to delist until we have, or we won't delist until we have them roaming downtown Denver and Boulder? Probably not. Delisting a species is almost impossible today because of radical environmentalists twisting the ESA process to lock up lands from energy development or agricultural uses. Let's just be honest what's happening. These are lawyers for radical environmental groups that are twisting the ESA, and they're doing it at the expense of the livelihood of ranchers and farmers and agriculture interests all across the United States of America. That's what's happening. So let's just be honest about that. Dr. Roberts, in your testimony, you state that wolves are restored in the Great Lakes and Rocky Mountains. Why are you not concerned that wolves are not restored throughout the entire historic range?

Dr. Nathan RobertsSPEAKER_21

Well, I don't think that is necessary to consider a species restored. The wolves that we have in those regions and other regions is a sufficient enough population to ensure that they're not going to go extinct. And the purview, again, of the Endangered Species Act is to protect a species from extinction. It's clear that wolves in the United States are not at risk of extinction regardless of if they do not inhabit their entire historic range. As you pointed out, where we sit right now in Washington, D.C., there were once elk and black bear. They're not going to be here again. In some areas, we're just not going to have some species ever again Yeah.

Rep. Jeff Crank (R-CO)SPEAKER_09

And I would imagine there'll be some attorney somewhere who will file a lawsuit and continue to use the ESA as a weapon against rural Americans until there are elk roaming the streets of Washington, D.C. That's the insanity of this process that we have right now. We've got to fix this process. Madam Chair, you can correct me on this because it's your home state of Wyoming. I was told that since the introduction of wolves into Yellowstone, that the moose population in Wyoming is down 80%. Now, I don't know if you agree with that or not. Why do we love the animals with teeth that kill animals that eat grass more than the animals that eat grass? I don't understand this. It's insanity, and it's not wildlife management. I'd yield back.

Ranking Member Val Hoyle (D-OR)SPEAKER_16

Thank you. Madam Chair, I'd like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from over 65 organizations opposing H.R. 1897 and H.R. 845.

Chairman Harriet Hageman (R-WY)SPEAKER_17

So ordered. The chair now recognizes Mr. Soto for 5 minutes of questioning.

Rep. Darren Soto (D-FL)SPEAKER_12

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I heard some of our witnesses say that business requires certainty and predictability. We've gotten anything but that in the last 64 days with tariffs on and off, mass firings, deportations, chaos, division, all slowly wrecking our economy. Unemployment is rising, growth is slowing, the stock market is dropping, and even President Trump admitted that we could be headed for a recession. So I'm not sure how many people realize this, but natural resources are absolutely critical for Florida's economy. We have a huge tourism, ecotourism industry, huge fisheries, national parks, all this being utilized to help out. And I know many of your constituents get to enjoy coming to Florida, and we we welcome them. It's America's playground, which is why President Trump's cuts to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, otherwise known as NOAA, is hitting us very hard. A 10% cut in personnel, over 1,000 employees fired, another 1,000 from the national parks, by the way. Our state gets devastated by hurricanes. This is going to affect everything from preparedness for floods, to hurricanes, to other natural disasters, our readiness, our response. And I could tell you, after a hurricane hits, it takes sometimes weeks to months for folks to be able to recover, sometimes years. It affects lives and livelihoods. Central Florida farmers are still recovering from Hurricanes Helene and Milton, along with businesses along the Gulf of Mexico like in St. Pete, where you have a lot of these small mom-and-pop hotels that are still getting sand out of their first floors and and trying to recover and rebuild. Even grants to improve weather forecasts have been cut, which also hurts, again, readiness, response. The more time we have, the better we can protect small businesses across Florida. Also, fisheries are absolutely critical for our state, both recreational and commercial. Everybody is pretty familiar with grouper or red snapper, both favorites of mine and and many others. NOAA helps manage fisheries. NOAA helps navigation information for ships and marine sanctuaries. Huge for fishing, huge for tourism in Florida. And so when you have cuts ordered without guidance on where to cut, nothing's efficient about that. Most of these folks are probationary employees. The only thing they have going for them, why they got selected, is because they've been there for 3 years or less. Some of them could be management, they could be experts, or they could be the new guy on the block. And so you literally, at random by how they came in, cut these folks, and then it makes it even less efficient than it was before. This is the committee of jurisdiction. We should be having hearings on this. I don't see anybody from NOAA here, from the national parks. I, in fact, haven't seen anybody yet invited from those agencies, and this is going to affect our biggest industries in Florida, especially tourism. Dr. Kareiva, thank you for being here. Environmental tourism, huge in Florida. You know how many people go to our beaches. They go out on boats and recreational fishing. They go to see the manatees, get to enjoy the Everglades and and so many other areas like the Kissimmee Chain of Lakes in my district. How are these NOAA cuts affecting tourism both in your area and and across the nation?

Dr. Peter KareivaSPEAKER_14

Well, in in our area, NOAA is very much involved in recovering the kelp ecosystem, which is our productive—the West Coast productive ecosystem. And these cuts will hurt the efforts to restore kelp. And kelp is incredibly economically valuable. It seems like it's just a plant, but per acre of kelp, per acre of kelp generates in fisheries income alone, just in fisheries income alone, between $5,000 and $20,000 per acre each year if you have an intact kelp. And NOAA is the science agency and a support agency that's involved in rebuilding that whole kelp ecosystem, which is everything from otters to abalone and so on.

Rep. Darren Soto (D-FL)SPEAKER_12

And people spend a lot of money to be able to recreational fish or get to see those otters or scuba dive. What have you been seeing lately as a result of this?

Dr. Peter KareivaSPEAKER_14

Well, even that, just think about the fact that we had a lot of talk about the Endangered Species Act. We recovered whales, and now just in California alone, it's a $20 million a year industry to just go out whale watching. That's courtesy of the Endangered Species Act, to be able and go out whale watching. So it's going to be really important to the whole coastal economy to restore this kelp.

Rep. Darren Soto (D-FL)SPEAKER_12

And we welcome all your constituents out to Florida to enjoy, and in a bipartisan fashion. Congressman Webster is on this committee. This is absolutely critical that we protect NOAA and we protect both our fisheries and tourism. It's huge business in our state. And I yield back.

Chairman Harriet Hageman (R-WY)SPEAKER_17

The chair now recognizes Mr. Ezell for 5 minutes of questioning.

Rep. Mike Ezell (R-MS)SPEAKER_06

Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you for all being here today. For far too long, the Endangered Species Act, or ESA, has been overrun by federal agencies who implement radical environmental policies, making the ESA stray away from its basic intent to the recovery of species. The current ESA puts a burden on economic development, restricts public land use, and locks habitat restoration. Reform is much needed, and the weaponization caused by bureaucrats in Washington is unacceptable. We must ensure common-sense conservation. I'm a proud original cosponsor of H.R. 1887 and thank Chairman Westerman for his bold leadership and vision on this crucial legislation. Mr. Milito, you mentioned the importance of certainty in legislation and regulation to attract more investment and bolster America's competitive advantage. A critical ongoing aspect of this in the Gulf of America is the biological opinion for oil and gas operations, which NOAA has a deadline of May 21st to complete. Given the numerous ways that both the Gulf region and the U.S. benefits from energy production, how important is it that NOAA complete this biological opinion?

Mr. Erik MilitoSPEAKER_10

Well, it's vitally important because we have almost 2 million barrels of production every day, and that's huge. Take that off the market, you have a dramatic increase in the price of energy for all Americans. It takes important funding away, it impacts jobs, and we need that biological opinion in place. Otherwise, we're not going to be able to continue to operate. So, we're going to continue to seek the help of Congress and the administration to make sure we don't have that gap. And if I get a chance, I'd like to comment one more time on Gulf of Mexico to Gulf of America. I think there's some additional facts I'd like to put out there. Thank you.

Rep. Mike Ezell (R-MS)SPEAKER_06

The testimony details great statistics about the jobs that are supported by the Gulf of America oil and gas productions industry. To list a few, the average industry wage is 29% higher than the national average. An average deepwater project produces roughly $3 billion in total direct wages, and during the most active years of a given project, employment can be expected to peak at around 14,400 jobs. Can you expand on the way energy production in the Gulf of America supports individuals and families across the region?

Mr. Erik MilitoSPEAKER_10

Absolutely. And it's not just the Gulf Coast. We have people throughout the country who are in jobs and companies, every state in the Union. We have companies that support oil and gas production in the Gulf of America, and some will come out from the interior of the country, and they'll fly out, and they'll go out for 3 weeks, come back, go to their families for 3 weeks. But our supply chain is long and strong, and we are supporting mariners, boat captains, engineers, electricians, welders, cooks, chefs, you name it. We need them in the offshore environment. We need those jobs, and we need to make sure that we're creating a pipeline of energy and and energy permitting and leasing so that we can continue to provide this energy for the American people and provide these good-paying jobs for all Americans.

Rep. Mike Ezell (R-MS)SPEAKER_06

Thank you very much. Madam Chair, I yield back.

Chairman Harriet Hageman (R-WY)SPEAKER_17

Yield to, to the chair for a moment. Absolutely. The remainder of your time.

Rep. Mike Ezell (R-MS)SPEAKER_06

Absolutely.

Chairman Harriet Hageman (R-WY)SPEAKER_17

Mr. Milito, you indicated that you had additional information you would like to share with regard to the Gulf of America.

Mr. Erik MilitoSPEAKER_10

Yes, Chair Hageman, I'm not sure if you're aware, but there's a gentleman by the name of Scott Angelle. He was the secretary of the Department of Natural Resources for the state of Louisiana, and he was also the longest-serving director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management at the Department of the Interior during the prior Trump administration. He very seriously proposed the change of Gulf of Mexico to Gulf of America, and he proposed it because it sits between Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida, and it is home to American companies and American employees producing American energy, and also American fishermen, both commercial and recreational, and our military. He did that in a serious way years ago, so there has been serious efforts in the past to do that, in addition to the comedians doing it as well. Just wanted to point that out. Thank you.

Chairman Harriet Hageman (R-WY)SPEAKER_17

Thank you, and I appreciate that history lesson. That's important that we remember those things. The chair noted— does

Rep. Thomas Tiffany (R-WI)SPEAKER_05

the gentleman yield the balance of his

Chairman Harriet Hageman (R-WY)SPEAKER_17

time? Yes, he, he does. I think he said yes.

Rep. Thomas Tiffany (R-WI)SPEAKER_05

Yeah, I'd like to follow up on that. It is really interesting to hear this high-mindedness in regards to how can we possibly rename something when we had military bases being renamed over the last 4 years, when we have statues being torn down or being proposed to be torn down by the previous administration. To all of a sudden be indignant about renaming the Gulf of Mexico, I find ironic. I yield back to the chair.

Chairman Harriet Hageman (R-WY)SPEAKER_17

Thank you. And the chair now recognizes Mr. Walberg for 5 minutes of questioning.

Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI)SPEAKER_08

I thank the chairman, and I would say I don't find that ironic. I find it normal, your response. Michigan, the Great Lakes State, is home to 84% of North America's freshwater. I have the privilege of representing in my district Lake Michigan and Lake Erie as part of that percentage of 84% of North America's freshwater. It's an economic driver for our state to the tune of $7 billion annually. To protect that fishery and the Great Lakes ecosystem, it is imperative that we have accurate data. That's why I'm proud to have worked with Representatives Dingell and Huizenga on H.R. 1917, the Great Lakes Mass Marking Program Act, which would authorize U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to expand fish tagging efforts in the Great Lakes in partnership with state and tribal fish management agencies. Mr. Roberts, thank you for being here. As you mentioned in your written testimony, state fish and wildlife agencies have the primary responsibility for management of wildlife. I couldn't agree with you more. The Great Lakes Mass Marking Program Act requires the collaboration from the Fish and Wildlife Service with state and regional agencies. How does this collaboration allow for better conservation practices to be implemented?

Dr. Nathan RobertsSPEAKER_21

Well, thank you for the question. I believe that the collaboration between the federal and, and state and tribal agencies is critical. Your bill requires, compels the, uh, those agencies to do just that. That takes advantage of the expertise that's in, in those agencies the federal agencies and the state agencies, and sometimes we have people move from federal to state agencies, and it takes advantage of that, creates a synergy of all the expertise that's out there.

Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI)SPEAKER_08

Well, given your experience, how important is data in the decision-making process on the ground?

Dr. Nathan RobertsSPEAKER_21

Absolutely critical. When we talk about the best available science, that science is only as good as the data that feeds into it. So the more data that is available and high-quality data, the better the science and, and the more sets of eyes that look at that too. And I believe that your bill helps achieve that.

Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI)SPEAKER_08

Yeah It expands that opportunity and confirms just what you've said, and for the Great Lakes, 20% of the world's freshwater population as well is an is an important ingredient. Thank you. I I think it's clear that this legislation would significantly improve the data used in decision-making by state agencies, and I look forward to continuing to work with this committee and my colleagues to pass this important legislation. Mr. Roberts, one final question for you on the Pet and Livestock Protection Act: Some have dismissed the concerns of citizens that live in areas with high wolf populations—we've heard that today—like those in Northern Michigan, saying that they will have to just learn to live with it. What do you say to that mentality?

Dr. Nathan RobertsSPEAKER_21

Well, I, I think that that is dismissive and insulting and inaccurate to the, the people that are in those areas. I believe that proper wildlife management can realize the benefits of wildlife while providing some relief. That'd be similar to telling somebody that's impacted by wildfires, they need to live with wildfire. And similarly, proper forest management can benefit people and forest, and I believe the same is true for wildlife.

Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI)SPEAKER_08

I agree with you. It's proper stewardship and the resources to be used, to be secured, but nonetheless to make sure that those of us that are responsible for it and have the greatest impact on our lives be cared for as well. Thank you. I yield back.

Chairman Harriet Hageman (R-WY)SPEAKER_17

Would the gentleman yield?

Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI)SPEAKER_08

I would yield.

Chairman Harriet Hageman (R-WY)SPEAKER_17

Wonderful. Mr. Guardado, I understand that United recently submitted a petition to the Department of Commerce revising a critical habitat designation. Could you explain a bit more about that?

Mr. Mauricio GuardadoSPEAKER_19

Yes, absolutely. And I've heard my colleagues today talk about the best available science, and certainly frivolous lawsuits really talking our language here in our region. Because as far as best available science, earlier in my testimony I talked about our Santa Felicia Dam and having to go through a Section 7 consultation because of the designation of critical habitat with unoccupied species that not only are unoccupied currently, but historically have never been there to begin with. And while there are the historical data that we've provided to the regulatory agencies, along with snorkel surveys, the National Marine Fisheries Service's best available science is absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. That's the science that goes into establishing critical habitat and putting hundreds of millions of dollars on the burden of taxpayers. And just recently, we did submit a petition to the Department of Commerce for a declassification of critical habitat, and hopefully that gets in the right hands for review.

Chairman Harriet Hageman (R-WY)SPEAKER_17

Doesn't sound very scientific to me, so thank you for that explanation. Mr. Tiffany, I'm calling on you for 5 minutes of questioning.

Rep. Thomas Tiffany (R-WI)SPEAKER_05

Thank you, Madam Chair. So back to the chairman of the full committee, his analogy, his football analogy he shared earlier. I would say not only was the offensive coordinator fired, but the head coach was fired back on November 5th, saying we need new leadership here in the United States of America. And that is exactly what is happening at this point. Mr. Kareiva, has the wolf recovered? Has the gray wolf recovered?

Dr. Peter KareivaSPEAKER_14

No, it's not fully recovered.

Rep. Thomas Tiffany (R-WI)SPEAKER_05

Okay, so here's 26 wildlife biologists here in the Upper Great Lakes states who a decade ago said that the wolf has recovered, and the numbers are actually even higher a decade later. Are they wrong?

Dr. Peter KareivaSPEAKER_14

Um, yes, I think they probably didn't have the advantage of the most recent information on the hunting and the genetics,

Rep. Thomas Tiffany (R-WI)SPEAKER_05

but their opinion has not changed. So are they still wrong?

Dr. Peter KareivaSPEAKER_14

Yes, I would say they are.

Rep. Thomas Tiffany (R-WI)SPEAKER_05

Okay, so, and to restore them to their previous range, much like the example was used of Boulder, Colorado, and Denver, Colorado. Their previous range included Madison, Wisconsin. Should we have wolves on State Street in Madison, Wisconsin?

Dr. Peter KareivaSPEAKER_14

Should we— should have a serious scientific discussion about where— what wolves we should have and where we should have them. And if we were to have that discussion, we would not be saying you

Rep. Thomas Tiffany (R-WI)SPEAKER_05

don't find this discussion serious, I take it?

Dr. Peter KareivaSPEAKER_14

No, no, I do, but I don't think we would have them in the cities.

Rep. Thomas Tiffany (R-WI)SPEAKER_05

So, um, you say in your testimony outdoor nature experiences have been used effectively to treat PTSD in veterans. What do you say to the families who are, in effect, have a form of PTSD as they watch their pets snatched 15 feet from their front door, as they watch their animals killed that they, um, so have proudly husbanded, like in dairy herds and beef herds? What do you say to them who have watched the wreckage?

Dr. Peter KareivaSPEAKER_14

We need to manage well so that does not happen. I agree, that's a serious concern.

Rep. Thomas Tiffany (R-WI)SPEAKER_05

So then they need to be delisted.

Dr. Peter KareivaSPEAKER_14

No, we could manage them.

Rep. Thomas Tiffany (R-WI)SPEAKER_05

Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a document from the Wisconsin Farm Bureau calling for delisting, as well as a young woman, Ashley Calloway, from central Wisconsin, so who had their sheep herd slaughtered by wolves.

Chairman Harriet Hageman (R-WY)SPEAKER_17

So ordered.

Rep. Thomas Tiffany (R-WI)SPEAKER_05

Finally, Mr. Kareiva, if we have fewer wolves, you're saying there's going to be more Lyme disease. Is that accurate?

Dr. Peter KareivaSPEAKER_14

So if, if we have fewer wolves, there will be more people killed when cars hit deer. That's well known. Uh, so

Rep. Thomas Tiffany (R-WI)SPEAKER_05

specifically in regards to Lyme disease, you're saying if we have fewer wolves, we're going to have more?

Dr. Peter KareivaSPEAKER_14

If we had not eliminated our predators in the Northeast, we would not have such a scourge of Lyme disease.

Rep. Thomas Tiffany (R-WI)SPEAKER_05

So, Mr. Roberts, could you follow up on that? Is that true that we're going to see more Lyme disease if there's fewer wolves?

Dr. Nathan RobertsSPEAKER_21

Well, Lyme disease is spread by a tick. It's a blacklegged tick, sometimes called a deer tick. That tick acquires the disease from biting an infected host. CDC has recognized that deer mice are the primary reservoir of that disease, not deer. Where we'll see Lyme disease are where we have the blacklegged tick. So, we see Lyme disease in the Northeast, and we see them in the Great Lakes. So, Wisconsin and Minnesota, both states with plenty of wolves, always fall in the top 10 states for incidence of Lyme disease.

Rep. Thomas Tiffany (R-WI)SPEAKER_05

I'm in one of the hot zones for ticks where I live in far northern Wisconsin, and I can tell you the incidences of tick bites as well as Lyme disease is not going down there, even though the wolf population is skyrocketing. Mr. Roberts, in regards to the last wolf hunting season in Wisconsin, some people said that the take was wrong. Some described it as a slaughter when over 200 wolves were taken. Is that accurate?

Dr. Nathan RobertsSPEAKER_21

No, I don't think that's an accurate representation. The objective of the wolf hunt in Wisconsin was to provide an opportunity to use an abundant resource, and the state's stated goal was to have a harvest that would not decrease the population. And they had monitoring before, they had monitoring after that did not show a decrease in the population. So to that end, they met their goal.

Rep. Thomas Tiffany (R-WI)SPEAKER_05

And you can have up to a 29% take, correct? That's scientifically shown. You can

Dr. Nathan RobertsSPEAKER_21

have up to a 29% take and it'd still be sustainable. So if you want to drive the population down, which Wisconsin at one point wanted a population that was considerably lower than where it's at now, you would have to take higher than 29% to—

Rep. Thomas Tiffany (R-WI)SPEAKER_05

Thank you, Madam Chair, for this. And we have to manage wolves. It's time to manage wolves once again. We need to stop the slaughter that is going on in my district and many districts across the United States. And if we don't, we have now had three threats that have been documented to humans in Wisconsin, we're going to end up with a situation that is going to be regrettable. I yield back to the chair.

Chairman Harriet Hageman (R-WY)SPEAKER_17

We'll take it from the representative of Wyoming, and Wyoming is very effective at managing wolves, so thank you for that. The chair now calls on Mr. Gosar for 5 minutes of questioning.

Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ)SPEAKER_13

I thank the Chairwoman Hageman and the subcommittee for allowing me to participate in this hearing. The first Trump administration finalized a rule removing the gray wolf from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife. But this rule was vacated in 2022, threatening ranchers, including those we heard from in my own Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee earlier this month. Imagine livestock torn apart, slaughtered by predatory gray wolves, their carcasses left to decompose and rot in the fields. Such carnage must end. And we're talking about expanding the grizzly? Wow. That's why I came here and welcomed supporting my colleague from Colorado's legislation, which I co-sponsored to reissue the 2020 final rule. But we got to go further. The final rule excluded the Mexican wolf, which terrorizes my state of Arizona. Unfortunately, the U.S. maintains protections for Mexican wolves while recovery relies on Mexico. One rancher wrote the following testimony for this month's hearing, quote, "While the population of the U.S. continues to grow, the success of recovery rests in the success of Mexico's population. In 2015, I introduced legislation to end the Mexican wolf's endangered status. I cherish this opportunity to discuss how this would better protect Western ranchers from these vicious predators. Mr. Kareiva, how do you say your last name?

Dr. Peter KareivaSPEAKER_14

Kareiva. Kareiva.

Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ)SPEAKER_13

Kareiva, are you familiar with the beefalo problem up on the Grand Canyon? No, I'm not. Well, I heard a comment that, that owned the federal government, really. And I think your comment was when you have collaboration between the federal and state, okay? Well, what happened was the Department of Agriculture decided they were going to breed a regular cow with a with a bison. That's why I call them beefaloes. And I'm bringing this up for a point, okay? They're an invasive species. They don't belong on the Grand Canyon. There was never any on the Grand Canyon. But yet we have got people that will not facilitate taking them out. We gave some to the tribes in the Midwest, but we still have this breeding population that's growing, growing, growing. Why I bring that up is when they eat on the Grand Canyon, they destroy the habitat. They'll take their hooves and they dig up the roots, and then they'll just, and we have these big winds come up and we have these dust storms. Well, there's a little mouse that's on the endangered species. It's called a sleeping mouse, jumping sleeping mouse. It hibernates for about 6 months, I believe, is what it's And they are tearing up this process. They're tearing up their environment. So to me, it seems like we got a problem there. I've offered the the State Game and Fish to actually have hunting season where they can make some money off of them, keep a small, little, tiny herd there, but they refuse to do it. They refuse to do that. So it shows me that they're not the prima educators in preservation like we said, okay? I know you could say that we have all these opportunities and these are exceptions to the rule, but we're getting a little out of our whack when we're having these these species like the Mexican gray wolf. You know, am I right that 90% of the breeding populations are down in Mexico?

Dr. Peter KareivaSPEAKER_14

But yeah,

Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ)SPEAKER_13

Yeah. And and we are expanding, the Mexican gray wolf is expanding in Arizona, and it will soon come to Colorado, and I'm sure Utah. Was Colorado and Utah part of their normal range?

Dr. Peter KareivaSPEAKER_14

I'm not familiar with that species.

Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ)SPEAKER_13

They weren't. So once again, we're expanding our parameters all the way across here. So I find that kind of very different, okay? Where does this end? We've got to have some kind of a conversation piece right here. I'm also from Wyoming, believe it or not, and I still remember the black-footed ferret issue. You guys all remember that, okay? Or you've read about it. They had this little sign in the post office and it basically said that, Hey, have you seen these little critters? And this farmer goes, from, I think, from Lovell, goes over and says, Yeah, I've got a whole colony of them. No, no, no, he didn't. They go out there, they actually condemn his land. That's not right. I think you have to have more of just what federal and state—. I think you got to give this back to the states, and I think you have to work with landowners because it's in their benefit for keeping these. Last but not least, Uh, your last name again? Kareiva. When the wolves were reintroduced into Yellowstone, there were some native populations, right, already there?

Dr. Peter KareivaSPEAKER_14

when they were introduced? Where

Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ)SPEAKER_13

introduced in western Wyoming?

Dr. Peter KareivaSPEAKER_14

Yes.

Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ)SPEAKER_13

Yeah. So, they were put up because these were a non-indigenous species, right? They brought these wolves from from other places—Minnesota, Michigan, that kind of stuff.

Dr. Peter KareivaSPEAKER_14

No, we do not call that an invasion. It's the same species, so it's not an invasive species.

Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ)SPEAKER_13

Well, you brought them in, so you contaminated. And I was— my dad was there, so he actually witnessed, uh, the conversation. So, um, has the elk and moose population— I'm particularly interested in the moose population— suffered because of that?

Dr. Peter KareivaSPEAKER_14

Have the what?

Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ)SPEAKER_13

The elk and moose populations suffered because of that?

Dr. Peter KareivaSPEAKER_14

Suffered because of the wolves?

Chairman Harriet Hageman (R-WY)SPEAKER_17

Yeah.

Dr. Peter KareivaSPEAKER_14

They're also suffering because of wasting disease right now. Well,

Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ)SPEAKER_13

you, you— I'm also—

Chairman Harriet Hageman (R-WY)SPEAKER_17

So, I'm, I'm we're going to have to move on to the next representative, and I'm going to call on Mr. Stauber for 5 minutes of questioning.

Rep. Pete Stauber (R-MN)SPEAKER_11

Thank you, Chairwoman Hageman. I appreciate the opportunity to be waived on to the committee, and I also want to thank you for calling this hearing to discuss legislation that is incredibly important to my constituents in Minnesota. Last spring, this subcommittee traveled to my district to see firsthand the impact that the well-intentioned yet broken Endangered Species Act is having on the communities that I am proud to represent. Furthermore, this subcommittee saw how the weaponization of the ESA has led to failed management of the gray wolf. When the gray wolf was listed as threatened in Minnesota under the Endangered Species Act in 1978, a recovery goal of 1,250 to 1,400 wolves was set. Today, according to data from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, we have over 2,700 wolves in Minnesota. That's about half of the total wolves in the entire lower 48. Half of the wolves in this country are in Minnesota by the official estimates, and their population is twice as high as the goal our wildlife managers set at the species listing. With that said, I've traveled across my district. It's clear that this 2,700 wolf figure is an undercount. It is clear that there are likely hundreds, if not thousands, more than what we're told. If you look at those grassroots groups—Hunters for Hunters out of Minnesota, Hunter Nation—in my mind, they're the experts in talking about this. And the reason I say that is they're out in the woods, they're in the deer stands, and they see the pack of wolves coming right below their deer stand. They see it on their game cameras. I see it almost weekly on my hunting shack cameras in northeastern Minnesota. Species were never meant to be listed under the ESA indefinitely, but that's the reality today. Since the ESA's enactment over five decades ago, only 2 to 3% of the species ever listed have made it off the list. As Don Young said, rest his soul, that they were never meant to be put on there permanently. He was an advocate to delist the gray wolf. The ESA has been weaponized by radical activist groups that don't want to follow the science, the science that proves the gray wolf has recovered and should be delisted and allow the state to manage them. Dr. Roberts, as a wildlife biologist, you've dealt with the ESA for quite some time, and not just relating to management of the gray wolf. Clearly, the ESA is not working. It's helped certain species recover, including the gray wolf, but it has also created a listing purgatory. Species simply can't seem to get off the list. Can you speak a little bit about how the ESA is supposed to work? What is supposed to happen once a listed species recovers?

Dr. Nathan RobertsSPEAKER_21

Once a species is recovered, well, there's a recovery goal that set, some sort of criteria that's established. And once a population reaches that and a species is determined to be recovered, management authority is returned to the state. ESA is intended to provide federal protections and federal oversights temporarily while the species is at the greatest risk of extinction. After that, they return to state management like most of our other species.

Rep. Pete Stauber (R-MN)SPEAKER_11

And, and the key word is temporarily.

Dr. Nathan RobertsSPEAKER_21

Yeah,

Rep. Pete Stauber (R-MN)SPEAKER_11

We have to celebrate that the gray wolf has recovered. So given activists' impressive track record of overturning administrative attempts to delist the gray wolf through the courts, do you think we can successfully delist the gray wolf under the ESA short of passing legislation like the Pet and Livestock Protection Act?

Dr. Nathan RobertsSPEAKER_21

No, I don't. I think that this act is critical. I think that it's a very litigious issue, that lawyers and special interest groups like it because it's litigious. And in order to get some, some permanent action on this, it's going to require an act congress.

Rep. Pete Stauber (R-MN)SPEAKER_11

And, Mr. Kareiva, I appreciate your comments. I don't agree with you, but I do appreciate you coming here and and and giving us your opinion. Mr. Guardado, do you think it's important to streamline the process for approving voluntary conservation agreements under the ESA, like habitat conservation plans?

Mr. Mauricio GuardadoSPEAKER_19

Absolutely. We have, uh, one ongoing right now that's taken over a decade to get through despite numerous iterations, numerous scientific studies, numerous consultations, and still no incidental take permit.

Rep. Pete Stauber (R-MN)SPEAKER_11

Thank you very much. I, I will tell you that, that, uh, we must delist the gray wolf and allow the states to manage. We're seeing the devastation not only in our farming community But deer hunters, they're, they're— our deer hunt— our young deer hunters are declining because, uh, they haven't seen a deer in years. And it's like golf. A good golf shot keeps you bringing back. We must honor that tradition. And I yield back.

Chairman Harriet Hageman (R-WY)SPEAKER_17

Thank you. The chair now recognizes Mr. Bergman for 5 minutes of questioning.

Rep. Jack Bergman (R-MI)SPEAKER_07

Thank you, Chair Hageman, and thank you for the opportunity to address this critical issue for Michigan's 1st District, which is roughly half the state, and that is restoring state authority over gray wolf management. The gray wolf recovery effort stands as one of the Endangered Species Act's greatest success stories. Once on the brink of extinction, wolf populations in the Great Lakes region have rebounded far beyond the ESA's original recovery targets. In Michigan's Upper Peninsula alone, the wolf population now exceeds 760, growing steadily for the past decade and a half. Yet despite this undeniable success, the gray wolf remains on the endangered species list, tying the hands of local and state officials in managing wolf conflicts. Unfortunately, Yoopers, my constituents, are paying dearly for that decision. Livestock losses, attacks on hunting dogs, and increased wolf sightings near homes have become routine. The ESA was never meant to keep species listed indefinitely, but outdated bureaucracy is doing just that. This is the fundamental flaw of a one-size-fits-all piece of federal regulation. What makes sense in one state doesn't necessarily work in another. Some may argue that wolves shouldn't be delisted everywhere just because they're thriving in Michigan. But that's exactly why we need a state-based approach to conservation. If other states need more time to create an effective management plan, fine. But Michigan shouldn't have to suffer for it. Delisting the gray wolf doesn't mean eliminating them. It means allowing responsible, science-based management by those who live here and understand our land, our people, and our needs, not some distant Washington bureaucrats. That's why I'm proud to support the Pet and Livestock Protection Act, which restores state authority and protects Michigan families, farmers, and sportsmen from Washington's failure to recognize and to really understand how truly successful the gray wolf recovery has been. So with that as background, Dr. Roberts, I'd like to ask you a couple of questions. Some today have questioned individual states' ability to effectively manage their wolf populations. What assurances or previous state-level examples do we have that state management is effective? Can you give me one or two?

Dr. Nathan RobertsSPEAKER_21

Yes. First, I want to point out that all the states within wolf range have stated and have have management plans that call for the continued existence of the wolf. So nobody's looking at eradicating wolves anywhere. We have states that have restored management authority in the, in the northern Rocky Mountains. And while there might be debate about some of those, those methods that are used, there's no debate that there's still wolves on the landscape. So I believe that points to a success story, that wolves are not in danger of extinction in those states that have restored management

Rep. Jack Bergman (R-MI)SPEAKER_07

majority. Okay, and how do you respond to the arguments that keeping wolves under federal protection is necessary to fully restore their historic range?

Dr. Nathan RobertsSPEAKER_21

Well, there are many species that are not restored throughout their historic range, and the Endangered Species Act does not call for them to be restored throughout their throughout their historic range. I don't I don't believe that that's necessary. I'll also point out that there is an emergency listing process through ESA that if something unforeseen happened, they're relying on those federal experts that that we've recognized as put on a pedestal here for their expertise. There is still an emergency listing process that can be used.

Rep. Jack Bergman (R-MI)SPEAKER_07

And it's kind of a follow-up on how the the data point of just Michigan's a big state with two peninsulas, and at one time, all of what is now Michigan was home to wolves. How do you think these folks would react to efforts to reintroduce the wolf in areas as far downstate as Detroit and Lansing?

Dr. Nathan RobertsSPEAKER_21

I cannot imagine that the people on that part of the state would be supportive of that.

Rep. Jack Bergman (R-MI)SPEAKER_07

Yeah, and with that, I yield back. Thank you.

Chairman Harriet Hageman (R-WY)SPEAKER_17

The chair now recognizes Mr. Downing for 5 minutes of questioning.

Rep. Troy Downing (R-MT)SPEAKER_04

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for allowing me to waive into this hearing. Very important to my district, very important to my state. Montana has successfully managed wolves since Congress delisted them in 2011, yet radical environmental groups continue to push for relisting through lawsuits. Suits These lawsuits often disregard the science, the scientific data, and instead use procedural loopholes to keep species under federal control indefinitely. First to Dr. Roberts, would you agree that this legal activism undermines the abilities of states like Montana to implement science-based wildlife management despite proven success in balancing predator populations with the needs of local communities?

Dr. Nathan RobertsSPEAKER_21

Yes, I do. If you look at what happened in your state, the Fish and Wildlife Service has repeatedly stated that the best available science supports the idea that wolves are fully recovered, yet activists use loopholes in a 50-year-old law to take advantage of that and promote other agendas.

Rep. Troy Downing (R-MT)SPEAKER_04

So, given Montana's success in managing wolves, doesn't the continued push for relisting by environmental groups suggest that the ESA is being used as a political tool rather than a legitimate conservation mechanism?

Dr. Nathan RobertsSPEAKER_21

I think so. I think unfortunately the intent of the ESA has been distorted and is being used in ways that could not have been imagined 50 years ago when the act was written.

Rep. Troy Downing (R-MT)SPEAKER_04

Thank you. Some environmental groups argue that states cannot be trusted to manage large predator populations. However, Montana, we've maintained stable and sustainable wolf populations while protecting the livelihoods of ranchers and ensuring balanced ecosystems. So again, Dr. Roberts, how do state-led conservation models outperform federal management in maintaining healthy wildlife populations while also respecting the economic realities of rural communities?

Dr. Nathan RobertsSPEAKER_21

Most wildlife species are managed at the state level, and there are several examples of carnivores that have the same potential for, for negative impacts that are managed sustainably. At a state level. Black bears are an example of that. Mountain lions, bobcats, alligators, all those are carnivore species that have thrived under state management.

Rep. Troy Downing (R-MT)SPEAKER_04

Thank you. Mr. Guardado, we've seen environmental groups weaponize the ESA to file endless lawsuits, keeping species like the grizzly bear listed despite meeting and exceeding all recovery benchmarks. This tactic stalls responsible management efforts and wastes resources that could be used for actual conservation. So my question to you is, how will H.R. 1897 curb the abuse of sue-and-settle strategies and ensure that delisting decisions are based on science rather than legal activism?

Mr. Mauricio GuardadoSPEAKER_19

Well, we're currently in our region, uh, potentially on the hook for almost half a billion dollars in mitigation measures, and that is no lack of the amount of science and studies that we've conducted regionally. Uh, we talk about the weaponization of the ESA. It's no— it's more pronounced in our area than anywhere else because, again, the best available science is being ignored. If we were to focus on science and engineering leading the way, and we can actually look and focus on the net benefit, the net conservation benefit, and work from there, we're going to find solutions. There's a lot of smart people out there working very hard on physical modeling, on the science, on protecting and recovering the species. And if we get this right, species will recover. And if we get this right, taxpayers will save money. And, uh, unfortunately, I think the only ones that might suffer as a result of our success would be these activist attorneys, because, uh, you know, those frivolous lawsuits and settlements would cease to exist.

Rep. Troy Downing (R-MT)SPEAKER_04

back to the science and not the legal activism. I appreciate your answer there. I'm going to move on to Mr. Milito. The ESA has been repeatedly misused to block critical industries in Montana, from timber to mining to energy development. And these restrictions are often based on dubious claims about habitat impact rather than actual scientific evidence of harm to species. So my question to you is, how does H.R. 1897 prevent the ESA from being used as a backdoor mechanism to shut down industries that are vital to our economy?

Mr. Erik MilitoSPEAKER_10

Is that for me?

Rep. Troy Downing (R-MT)SPEAKER_04

I'm sorry, that was Mr. Milito.

Mr. Erik MilitoSPEAKER_10

Okay. Yeah. Thank you. I wanted to make sure.

Rep. Troy Downing (R-MT)SPEAKER_04

Yeah.

Mr. Erik MilitoSPEAKER_10

No, the changes are important. They introduce a greater level of accountability and transparency. And there's an interesting article that was written about the way the ESA has evolved, but I think the key quote was that the ESA has turned into a statute that makes an endangered species a liability to avoid rather than an asset to conserve. And so the changes in this legislation create incentives so that the states and the private landowners can work together to find the best way to conserve and restore the species. So it's a good bill.

Rep. Troy Downing (R-MT)SPEAKER_04

Right. Thank you very much. And thank you for your answers. Madam Chair, yield my time.

Chairman Harriet Hageman (R-WY)SPEAKER_17

Thank you. I want to thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony and the members for their questions. The members of the committee may have some additional questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to those in writing. Under Committee Rule 3, members of the committee must submit questions to the subcommittee clerk by 5 PM Eastern on Friday, March 28th. The hearing record will be held open for 10 business days for any responses. If there is no further business, without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned.