Manage our Wolves Act

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1142 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 1142, providing for further consideration of H.R. 6784, the Manage our Wolves Act. The rule provides for consideration of the legislation under a closed rule.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have cointroduced the underlying legislation considered in this rule today, H.R. 6784, the Manage our Wolves Act, to return management of the gray wolf species to the States. The States are best equipped to provide more effective and accountable management that responds to the needs of the ecosystem, other species, as well as local communities.

On June 13, 2013, under the Obama administration, the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published in the Federal Register a proposed rule that would have removed the gray wolf from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. This determination was made after Fish and Wildlife evaluated the classification status of gray wolves currently listed in the contiguous United States under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and found the ``best available scientific and commercial information indicates that the currently listed entity is not a valid species under the act.''

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the Endangered Species Act is to recover species to the point where they are no longer considered endangered or threatened. The gray wolf is currently found in nearly 50 countries around the world and has been placed in the classification of least concern for risk of extinction by the Species Survival Commission of the International Union for Conservation of Nature.

Some of my colleagues have asked, well, if Fish and Wildlife has proposed to delist the species, why haven't they done so?

That is a completely fair and reasonable question. Unfortunately, it is due to the fringe environmentalist efforts that any action from moving forward under the law has been stalled. So long as the courts are abused to prevent the proper adjudication of the law, we will not see progress made.

It is because of this exploitation of the law that communities like those in central Washington suffer the consequences.

Mr. Speaker, in my home State, the great State of Washington, the gray wolf is not listed in just the eastern third of the State, forcing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to rely on an arbitrary political boundary when delineating and managing a species.

I am sorry to share with you, Mr. Speaker, that as it turns out, surprisingly, wolves don't know boundaries or borders.

The arbitrary nature of this current status of the law is broken, and it is impairing the ability of Fish and Wildlife managers on the ground to properly manage the species, as well as the ecosystem, including the harm it poses on other indigenous species.

Mr. Speaker, this is why Congress, as a coequal branch, must act. This legislation directs the U.S. Department of the Interior to follow through with the proposed rule and delist the gray wolf from the list of endangered species.

We have a responsibility to protect the incredibly diverse species both in Washington State and across this country. These efforts to protect our wildlife species must be based on sound science and an open, transparent process. Unfortunately, that is far from the case when it comes to the process dictating endangered species policies, particularly in this case of the gray wolf.

For years now, Washington's Department of Fish and Wildlife has asked the Federal Government to delist the gray wolf and provide relief from the burdensome, broken process dictating species management. I have received letters from the director of the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, one in 2015 and one earlier this year. In them, the letters read: ``Dear Congressman Newhouse, The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife appreciates your continued assistance to encourage the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to complete the delisting of the gray wolf and remove it from Federal protection under the Endangered Species List.''

It continues: ``In 2008, the first wolf pack was documented in Washington State. Today, we have 22 known packs. During this time, the State's wolf population has increased by an average of more than 30 percent per year. . . . As demonstrated with the current rate of recovery, the Department is well suited to facilitate the recovery and management of wolves across the State. . . . Under the current Federal designation and management, we cannot fully implement our plan in the western two-thirds of the State. To ensure ongoing success in wolf recovery, the Federal listing needs to keep pace with the on-the-ground recovery status and allow the State to fully implement its management plan. Therefore, I support your efforts to advance the delisting of wolves and return management to the State.''

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the two letters I referenced.

Department of Fish and Wildlife,

Olympia, WA, April 27, 2015.

Hon. Dan Newhouse,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Newhouse: The Washington Department of

Fish and Wildlife (Department) would appreciate your

assistance to encourage the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(USFWS) to complete the delisting of the gray wolf (Canis

lupus) and remove it from federal protections under the

Endangered Species Act (ESA). As you may know, gray wolves in

the western two-thirds of Washington State remain federally

classified as ``endangered'' and are under federal

management.

The original delisting proposal was published on June 13,

2013, and then on March 27, 2014, the USFWS closed the second

round of public comments. The Department submitted letters of

support for delisting in December 2013 and March 2014. While

we have been working closely with the USFWS at the state,

regional and headquarter levels to ensure we are meeting our

shared conservation and recovery objectives, we are concerned

with the lack of progress on federal delisting.

Washington has a strong Wolf Conservation and Management

Plan that has received broad support, and we are committed to

maintaining a viable wolf population in Washington. The

Department is well positioned to facilitate the recovery and

management of wolves across the state.

Protection under Washington State Laws--The Department has

state-specific authority (RCW 77.12.020 and 77.15.120) to

designate and protect species at risk of extinction and has

classified wolves as endangered since 1980, an action akin to

federal protection granted under ESA). Wolves will remain

protected until their population reaches the levels

established in the state recovery plan.

The Department is equipped for wolf conservation and

management--In 2013, the Washington State Legislature acted

to provide $1.6 million per biennium for wolf management from

a permanent increase in the cost of personalized license

plates. Since then, the Department has hired two permanent

wolf biologists and has deployed 11 conflict specialists

across the state to address wildlife conflict issues.

Wolves are recovering in Washington State--In 2008, the

first wolf pack was documented in Washington State. Today we

have 16 known packs. During this time our wolf population has

increased by an average of more than 30 percent per year. At

current rates, we expect to meet our recovery objects within

six years. We want to have consistent management of wolves

across the state of Washington. For us, successful wolf

recovery means that we have a sustainable wolf population

distributed throughout the state, the public accepts the

presence of wolves on the landscape, and Washington citizens

are confident in the Department's wolf management.

The Washington wolf management plan establishes strong

expectations that livestock operators will use preventive

strategies to avoid wolf-livestock conflict. But sometimes we

may need to remove wolves that become habituated to livestock

as a food source. Under the current federal designation and

management, we cannot implement our plan in the western two-

thirds of the state. Therefore, I ask you for any help you

can provide to advance the federal proposal to delist wolves.

Thank you for considering this request. The Department is

available to assist you with any information you may need.

Sincerely,

James Unsworth, Ph.D.,

Director.

So, Mr. Speaker, to close, I would just like to say that, as a farmer and a lifelong resident of central Washington State, I consider myself a conservationist and a steward of our rich natural heritage, and that includes our incredible wildlife.

State governments are fully qualified to responsibly manage gray wolf populations and are better able to meet the needs of local communities, ranchers, livestock, wildlife populations, and ecosystems.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, just a couple of points in response to my good friend from the State of Massachusetts. Certainly, there are a lot of important issues in front of us and things that we should and will be addressing. But I have to say, as a representative of central Washington who represents communities that deal with wolf populations on a daily basis, I don't think it is fair or proper, even, for my good friend to minimize or diminish the importance of the issue that we have in front of us today. So with all due respect, the importance of managing wolves in our country deserves just as much attention as many of the other issues that my good friend from Massachusetts referenced.

Also, as relates to the Khanna resolution, just as you said, in just a few short weeks, your party will assume the majority. You will have the opportunity to hold the hearings and the markups and to take the votes of the all-important regular order that you continually talk about. I am looking forward to that. But forcing this type of vote on Members in the remainder of this Congress, in my view, is unnecessary at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), my good friend, the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, nobody is afraid to debate anything here on the House floor. The fact is, though, that the U.S. is no longer providing the very support that the Khanna resolution seeks to cut off, making this action unnecessary.

It is based on a factually faulty premise: We are not involved in hostilities in Yemen, so the War Powers Act should not apply. As a result, even if this resolution passed both Chambers, DOD would not need to alter any of its activities.

Like I said, again, in a few short weeks, the Democrats will assume the majority. They will be able to hold all the hearings and markups and votes that they want on this matter, as it should be. Forcing this type of vote now, in the remainder of this Congress, in my humble opinion, is simply unnecessary.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Gianforte), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), chairman of the Congressional Western Caucus, the organization that stands for finding solutions to the challenges that we face, not only in the Western United States, but all over the country to help steer debate back to the issue on the agenda that we are considering today.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa), a member of the House Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in closing for the consideration of H.R. 6784, the Manage our Wolves Act, wolves were once hunted to near extinction in the lower 48 States. The gray wolf was listed by the Federal Government as an endangered species in 1974. Today, though, gray wolves are thriving both in my State of Washington, as well as throughout the United States, with more than 5,000 wolves now living in the contiguous United States.

According to Washington State's Department of Fish and Wildlife, the State's wolf population has grown over the past 9 straight years to 22 packs that contain at least 120 wolves.

Mr. Speaker, the gray wolf reaching recovered status truly is an Endangered Species Act success story, and we should celebrate.

Mr. Speaker, permanently listing species under the Federal Endangered Species Act is not how the process was ever intended to work. The process should rely on the best available science. It is a sign of progress that the species has recovered from the brink of extinction and no longer merits protection under the Federal Endangered Species Act. That is the key point here. While we seek to delist the gray wolf from the Federal ESA, we are empowering each State to manage their respective populations.

Washington State has a strong wolf conservation and management plan that has received broad support, and the State Department of Fish and Wildlife is committed to maintaining a viable wolf population in the State of Washington. Wolves remain protected in the State recovery plan, but so long as an arbitrary Federal line divides our State and, as you heard, the State of Oregon, listing the wolf on one side and not on the other, our State managers are prevented from effectively managing the population within our States. As I mentioned, wolves do not know borders.

Mr. Speaker, States are equipped to be more responsive and accountable to the needs of local communities than Federal agencies are, and they deserve the flexibility to manage the growing gray wolf populations. We should celebrate the return of the iconic species like the gray wolf. But meanwhile, States must be empowered to manage populations to ensure the healthiest balance between humans, wildlife, and the ecosystem.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support the rule and its underlying legislation, again, H.R. 6784, the Manage our Wolves Act.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, we are here today considering our first rule following a long district work period. During that time, we had a big national debate about the direction of our country. According to exit polling, the top issue for voters was healthcare and, in particular, protecting coverage from preexisting conditions.

But that is not what the bill before us addresses. Nor does it involve immigration, another top issue for voters, or strengthening the economy or combating gun violence. All of these are what our constituents just said was important to them.

But instead of doing anything on any of that, we are here today considering a bill to undermine endangered species protections. Are you kidding me?

And get this: Also, last night in the Rules Committee, the majority placed a provision in the rule that would remove the privileged status of Representative Khanna's War Powers Resolution, H. Con. Res. 138. This resolution states that Congress never authorized the United States' support of Saudi-led forces in Yemen and would direct the President of the United States to end his support.

This measure is a privileged resolution under the terms of the War Powers Resolution, which provides that resolutions concerning the involvement of the U.S. military in armed conflict have a direct path to the floor to be debated and to be voted on.

The rules provide this privileged status because such questions are among the most important that the people's House can debate. Such privileged resolutions or a negotiated substitute have come before the House under Republican and Democratic majorities.

Yet, with this rule before us today, Republicans have taken the unprecedented step of striking this privilege, preventing us from doing our constitutional duty and foreclosing the only available mechanism to compel an up or down vote in Congress regarding our military involvement in the Yemen war.

As of this morning, this bill, introduced by Congressman Khanna, has over 80 bipartisan cosponsors, including Democratic Whip Hoyer and Ranking Members Smith, Lowey, Engel, and myself.

The U.S.-Saudi military campaign in Yemen has triggered the world's worst humanitarian crisis, prompting the late Saudi dissident Jamal Khashoggi to call for an end to the war. Published just weeks before his murder, Khashoggi's Washington Post column was headlined, ``Saudi Arabia's crown prince must restore dignity to his country by ending Yemen's cruel war.''

It is unconscionable for Republican leadership to take this unprecedented action to strip Members of their right to bring such measures to the floor for debate.

Mr. Speaker, what is the majority afraid of? We should be debating this.

Instead, the Republican majority continues to turn a deaf ear to this and many other issues.

We are 11 days away from our government running out of funding. Five appropriations bills have been signed into law so far. They have funded 75 percent of the government, but there is more work that we need to do.

We should be continuing that momentum and getting the job done, keeping the lights on, not wasting time considering a bill to attack an endangered species.

Or how about reauthorizing the National Flood Insurance Program that expires at the end of this month or putting a comprehensive reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act on the House floor that is set to expire December 7, not to mention the need to reauthorize the farm bill that expired back on October 1.

Our country's farmers are depending upon this Congress to put into place a new bill that provides them with certainty, especially in light of the trade war that President Trump has started; yet the majority has, instead, prioritized a bill that completely ignores all the important issues that we face in this country.

The American people have clearly had enough. They demanded a new direction and a new Congress that actually addresses what they care most about, and they demanded an end to this closed process. This rule marks the 102nd closed rule of this Congress. Now, let me repeat that: the 102nd closed rule. Mr. Speaker, that is a staggering number.

Now, I am not suggesting that every rule needs to be an open one or that there is never a time for a closed rule, but there is never a time for more than 100 closed rules. There is no justification for that at all.

Since the election, I heard my friends on the other side of the aisle express a hope that the next Congress is a more accommodating one. That is ironic since the Republicans have voted in lockstep for one closed rule after another, after another, after another.

But to them, I ask: Why wait? A Democratic majority will certainly be better than the current one. But Republicans don't have to wait until January. They could demand a more open process here today by voting against this closed rule.

This is your chance to prove that your newfound calls for openness are above more than politics. Vote against this record-breaking closed rule.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Washington State, my good friend, Mr. Newhouse, seemed to imply that it would be an inconvenience for us to have the House consider a measure on Yemen, and I am a little bit puzzled by that. The reason why Representative Khanna took the step is because, for months, while this terrible carnage has unfolded in Yemen, this House has done nothing.

We just learned that the Saudi Government was directly involved in the killing of a Washington Post journalist and, again, nothing-- nothing at all. The Republicans took the unprecedented step of basically derailing this privileged resolution. It is unprecedented.

Over 100,000 Yemeni children have already perished because of war- triggered

hunger and disease over the past 2 years. Why is the Republican leadership stripping us of the right to debate?

According to the U.N., 14 million people in Yemen--half the population--face an imminent and catastrophic famine not seen in 100 years if this war is not ended.

Why is the Republican leadership stripping our right to debate? I don't understand what they are afraid of. It is not like they have a lot to do. We are going to be talking about gray wolves today, and we are not voting on this until Friday. They have nothing going on. Certainly, we should have time to debate this important humanitarian issue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, when my Republican friends want to dedicate the next 3 days to talking about gray wolves, people are being murdered every single hour in Yemen. The Saudi-led effort even bombed a school bus filled with innocent children. So it seems to me that there could be no more important time for debate in the House on ending U.S. military support for this war.

I just don't know what the Republican majority is afraid of. Privileged resolutions--I want my colleagues to understand this--by Members of this House, have always been allowed to be debated on this House floor, under Republican and Democrat majorities alike until now; until today. I don't know what the Republican majority is afraid of.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me begin by reminding my colleagues what the Republicans are proposing here, it is that the next 3 days be dedicated to the gray wolf. We are not debating healthcare, we are not debating the economy, or jobs, or keeping the government running, but it is to this.

They bring it to us under a rule that is completely closed, so there are no amendments to be made in order, and the rule is even worse because it basically undercuts the privilege resolution introduced by Mr. Khanna so we could debate this horrific war going on in Yemen.

It takes my breath away at the lengths that this majority goes through to basically deny Members of Congress the right to be able to talk about important issues.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Khanna), who is the author of the privileged resolution on Yemen.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Vermont an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, undermining endangered species protections isn't a national emergency. We shouldn't be prioritizing it today.

Not only is this rule a closed one, as you have heard from our side over and over and over again, Republicans took the unprecedented step of removing the privileged status of a resolution that would have given us the chance to debate the United States' support of the war in Yemen. We should be voting on this.

People are dying every minute in Yemen. Our silence and our inaction mean that we are complicit.

I have always believed that if the United States stands for anything, then we need to stand out loud and foursquare for human rights. There was a time when the issue of human rights was a bipartisan concern. But it is clear that this administration doesn't give a damn about human rights. But that doesn't mean that this institution should follow suit. Human rights ought to be the centerpiece of our foreign policy.

There are innocent people being killed every single day. Children were riding to school in buses where the buses have been bombed, where these children have died, have been murdered, and all my Republican friends can say is: Oh, you can take care of that after January when you are in charge. We are just going to spend the next 3 days dedicated to the issue of gray wolves.

Really?

There is so much real work in front of us, including our most basic responsibility of funding this government and reauthorizing programs like the National Flood Insurance Program, the Violence Against Women Act, and the farm bill. I could go on and on and on. Education costs are skyrocketing. Americans are afraid coverage for their preexisting conditions will be ripped away by this administration and its allies in Congress because you have tried to do it dozens and dozens and dozens of times. How about doing something about that?

It was interesting, during the campaign, my Republican colleagues were rushing to every microphone they could find to say that they somehow supported covering preexisting conditions. Let me remind everybody, and especially my Republican colleagues, that that was a Democratic idea that you opposed.

This was the worst election for Republican Presidents since Watergate. Maybe that is why Republicans are trying to rewrite history.

But here is another politically popular idea Republicans should follow: bringing an end to the most closed Congress in history. Let's let some sunlight in. Don't wait until January. Start today by voting against this closed rule and demand action on things that our constituents actually care about.

Just one final note, again, on this unprecedented move of basically denying us the right to debate this war in Yemen: I agree with what Mr. Khanna said. History is going to look back on our inaction not only on the war in Yemen, but on our inaction dealing with the brutality of the Saudi regime.

I would have thought that when we came back that one of the first items up on the agenda would be holding the Saudi Government accountable. Instead, we got nothing. Not only we get nothing, you take the unprecedented step of denying a Member of this House the right that he has under the privileges of this House to debate this issue of war.

This is so wrong. This is damaging to the institution, and it shows a callous disregard for what is happening in Yemen.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, do the right thing and vote against this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1142, I call up the bill (H.R. 6784) to provide for removal of the gray wolf in the contiguous 48 States from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife published under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include any extraneous material.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan bill would accomplish what multiple administrations have been attempting to do for over a decade by delisting a species the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has deemed recovered under the Endangered Species Act. It also empowers the States to take a larger role in managing the species population.

The gray wolf has been protected in its original habitat in the western Great Lakes region under the Endangered Species Act since 1974. Beginning in 1994, the Federal Government began introducing species to the Western U.S. by relocating wolves from Canada and releasing them in Western States.

The reintroduced wolf population in the West expanded more quickly than many had anticipated, and as a result, Western States began to work with the Fish and Wildlife Service to better manage the species. This successful State and Federal cooperation led to the Fish and Wildlife Service's first attempt to delist the species under the Endangered Species Act in 2009. Litigation activists struck back, challenging the agency's delisting decision and halting further agency action at that time.

In 2014, the Fish and Wildlife Service, after noting an even greater increase in species population, attempted to once again delist the gray wolf. Just as before, litigants immediately challenged the agency's decision. That same year, gray wolves in Wyoming and the western Great Lakes region were relisted by court order, citing inadequate State management plans. This 2014 order was appealed, and in March of last year, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the relisting decision for the gray wolf, but in Wyoming only.

This underscores the extent to which the Fish and Wildlife Service has been hamstrung in implementing the objectives of the Endangered Species Act. Rather than spending its limited resources protecting vulnerable species, litigation activists have forced the agency to continuously defend every action.

In this case, despite scientific evidence collected under multiple administrations from both sides of the aisle showing that the gray wolf populations have recovered and thrived, the agency remains bogged down in costly, never-ending litigation. We should be celebrating this ESA victory instead of moving on to the next challenge.

This bill would prevent the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from wasting further resources in responding to environmental lawfare by affirming its previous rules to delist the gray wolf and shielding these rules from further review.

Finally, the bill seeks to empower the States to manage their individual gray wolf populations by directing the Secretary of the Interior to issue a rule to delist the gray wolf in each of the 48 contiguous States and the District of Columbia. To ensure that States are provided certainty when developing State management plans, this bill would also exempt the delisting system from judicial review.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the commonsense bill that we have here, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), the sponsor of the bill, who actually lives in an area where the wolves live.

Mr. Speaker, I would just say that the Endangered Species Act delisting a species is based on science, and the science has proven that this species is recovered. Twice under the previous administration, Fish and Wildlife tried to delist the species based on the science.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), who is also a cosponsor of the bill and from wolf country.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the gentleman from Oregon is so passionate about wolves, and this bill would be fantastic for him and his State.

It would allow their State natural resources folks to manage their wolves. They could release some in Portland. They could let those wolf populations get as large as they want to get. But the scientists at U.S. Fish and Wildlife have said that the species is recovered, and we are talking about letting other States have the opportunity to manage those wolf populations in their States.

I wish we were doing a farm bill. I wish the Senate would do a farm bill, because we have already done one out of here.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about letting scientists make the decision, not letting others make the decision. But right now, courts are making the decision on the delisting of this wolf.

We have heard testimony that, even though it is a bipartisan bill, even though it was people in the previous administration that first suggested delisting the wolf, we have heard testimony that if you support delisting the wolf, you must be an idiot.

I don't think supporting this legislation means you are an idiot or you are trying to message something. I think it means that we want to see science implemented. I think it means that we want to let the scientists do their jobs.

Mention has been made about Yellowstone National Park. I was actually in Yellowstone National Park this last summer and talked to scientists out there about the big fire in the 1980s.

What many of us know about fire is that it is a natural occurring phenomena, and it mimicked a huge clear-cut in Yellowstone National Park. After the fire and all this vegetation started growing back, we saw a huge increase in elk and deer herds, and the wolf population increased right along with that.

As a matter of fact, the scientists at the park told me that the greatest numbers of elk that they have had happened within about 10 years after the big fire out there. The greatest population of wolves that they had happened after that. Now that the forest is growing back, that ecosystem, that forest will burn again--it burns about every 100 years--but the science is being applied here.

We just want to let States make the decisions on how to manage these wolves that the scientists have said are recovered and need to be delisted.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and I ask unanimous consent that the balance of my time be managed by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as we consider this bill and we talk about the science behind it, again, we are basing this legislation on science, on letting the scientists do their jobs. This bipartisan bill is exactly, exactly the type of legislation that will save the Endangered Species Act.

The ESA aspires to recover imperiled plant and animal species. The act was never meant to serve as a long-term management tool.

What my colleagues across the aisle should be celebrating is this ESA success story. Not just once, but multiple times, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has determined the gray wolf recovered and attempted to delist the species.

We know this wasn't a partisan decision because we saw these attempts span multiple administrations from both sides of the aisle. Our experts, our very own scientists, at Fish and Wildlife Service have expressed to us again and again that the gray wolf is recovered and ready to be delisted.

Unfortunately, instead of allowing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to focus its resources on other endangered species, litigation activists continue to force the agency to defend this scientifically- driven decision and delay the delisting.

We are nearly a decade past the agency's first attempt to delist the recovered gray wolf species. To continue to list a species our own experts have determined is recovered sends the message that the Endangered Species Act doesn't work.

I appreciate the bipartisan support this bill enjoys, and I hope more of my colleagues across the aisle will join us in helping strengthen the Endangered Species Act in the long run by supporting this legislation.

With that, I urge adoption of this commonsense bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the bill today.

In a world full of lions and tigers entertaining the masses, have you ever seen a wolf in the circus? If you love your dog, thank a wolf.

There is a line of poetry that says: ``A wolf eats sheep but now and then; Ten thousands are devour'd by men.''

Wolves are historic and vital keystone predators that have been hunted to near extinction in the contiguous United States. After being formerly designated as endangered and protected under the Endangered Species Act, wolf populations began to rise. However, they still inhabit just a fraction of their historic range, and continued protection under the Endangered Species Act is necessary. Instead, H.R. 6784 strips the protections that have allowed the species to begin to recover.

Prior to widespread human settlement, hundreds of thousands of gray wolves roamed North America. They could be found from the Pacific Coast to the Atlantic Coast. Today, sadly, the farthest east they can be found is in Michigan.

Some of my colleagues might know that I would love to see the gray wolves in Virginia some day, but for now, it is important that we continue to protect the fewer than 6,000 that we have left in the lower 48.

How did we get to only 6,000? As the human population grew in the 19th and 20th centuries, gray wolves were poisoned, trapped, shot, gassed--every possible way to kill them--and their population decline was exacerbated by habitat destruction. Removing Federal protection opens the doors to further baiting, hunting, and trapping of wolves.

The war on wolves is based, in part, on a myth that wolves are dangerous to humans and livestock. The reality, of course, is that humans are far more dangerous to wolves than wolves are either to humans or wolves are to livestock. Wolves cause less than 1 percent of all livestock losses in the United States, which is a mino threat compared to health issues, weather, and even other predators. In fact, domestic dogs cause more cattle losses than wolves do. But no one is talking about trapping or poisoning dogs.

Ironically, researchers at Washington State University have found that killing wolves leads to an increase in livestock losses caused by wolves. Wolves generally avoid people. There are only two known deaths from wolves in the entire contiguous United States in the 21st century. Far more Americans are killed by bees, dogs, or deer-car collisions than by wolves.

It has also been proven that State agencies cannot successfully manage these species. We have to look at what happened when they were delisted in Idaho and Montana in 2011. In just those two States, hostile State management practices have caused more than 3,200 wolves to be killed through hunting and trapping. That is half the known wolves in the lower 48.

Furthermore, we know that targeting wolves is not only cruel and detrimental to the species itself, but it is also detrimental to the other species and to the ecosystems in which it belongs.

Many of us have seen the video, the documentary on what has happened to Yellowstone since the reintroduction of wolves. Before, when wolves were eliminated, the explosion of other populations caused defoliation, erosion, and an unbalanced ecosystem in the park.

When wolves were reintroduced in 1995, everything changed. They were the keystone predator, the linchpin, that held together this delicate balance. When the deer and elk populations were managed, vegetation regenerated, which brought back species such as birds, beavers, mice, and bears. Riverbanks stabilized as plant life thrived and erosion decreased, and the whole landscape was transformed.

Delisting decisions are best kept in the hands of scientists, and we can't allow any delisting decisions to happen because of politics, particularly not to a species so historic, majestic, integral, and charismatic to the ecosystem in which it belongs.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman), my colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Oregon an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), my colleague, the ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as we have heard today, our colleagues say that this bill is needed to mitigate human/livestock conflict, but that claim is just simply not compelling. Across the country, wolves account for only two-tenths of 1 percent of all cattle losses. Other predators, such as mountain lions, coyotes, and even stray dogs account for significantly more livestock kills.

My friend from Minnesota talked about his neighbor's German Shepherd being killed by a wolf. We have small dogs and cats killed in our densely urban area all the time by coyotes and by foxes, and no one is talking about hunting the coyotes or hunting the foxes. For example, out of the 3.9 million cattle deaths in 2015, coyotes and dogs combined killed more than 164,000 livestock, compared to the 10,000 killed by wolves. That is 16 times as many. Not to mention that 93 percent of all cattle losses are due to disease or other natural causes.

In the northern Rockies alone, which is where we have been talking about today mostly, wolf depredations account for less than 1 percent of all livestock losses: 256 sheep and 41 cattle over an 8-year period of time.

The numbers don't lie. The claims that wolves are responsible for a massive slaughter of livestock is simply a myth used to justify lethal control of these animals.

Instead of the shoot-first-ask-questions-later mentality, there are lots of great farmers promoting nonlethal methods that have been scientifically proven to mitigate human/wolf conflicts: livestock guardian dogs, fencing, and reducing attractants.

There are solutions to this problem that don't involve the unnecessary killing of one of the most iconic and charismatic animals, not just in North America, but in human imagination.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Arkansas for his support in coming down and managing our time.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that is bipartisan in a time where I don't think we see a lot of bipartisanship. I think the reason you see Democrats and Republicans coming together and, actually, the House and the Senate coming together on this bill is because, if you live in the northern part of the United States in the Great Lakes and West, you understand that the wolves are a huge problem. That is why you have seen Democratic Senators from this region, Democratic Congressmen from this region, and Republicans standing together to say: Hey, listen, we have to manage these wolves.

If you live in the suburbs of Washington, D.C., it is not a problem. If you live in Madison, Wisconsin, it is not really a problem. You can make the argument that the pretty little puppy of the wolf, it is so pretty and beautiful and we have to protect it. Well, we did protect it. We put it on the endangered species list.

Like a lot of government programs, this one worked. We have protected them and allowed them to recover. We have three times as many gray wolves as was projected to be necessary to take them off the endangered species list.

We are coming to a hunting season in Wisconsin right now, so a lot of Wisconsinites put on their blaze orange and get their guns, and they go out to the woods and hunt deer.

Mr. Speaker, I have never seen a picture of Barack Obama in blaze orange and with his rifle going out to hunt deer. He is not a great outdoorsman, I don't think, but Barack Obama's administration was the one that first took the gray wolf off the endangered species list. And Donald Trump, too, agrees. Donald Trump and Barack Obama agreeing on an issue? They do on gray wolves.

You can say: I love the gray wolf. Protect it.

Does anybody like Bambi? Does anyone like Little Bear? Does anyone like your little pet--dogs? cats? cattle?

In our communities, here is a picture of one of our gray wolves. It is hard to tell on this picture, but that is a bear, and the bear is dead, by the way, because the wolf killed it.

Here is a picture from one of my farmers that shows one of his cattle that was attacked by a gray wolf. So what we are saying here is why can't we come together, acknowledge the success of a program, that the gray wolf has recovered, and then acknowledge that we should allow our States then to manage the gray wolf?

Some States might say: I want to allow the population to continue to grow. Other States might say: We want to manage it. So if you live in California, you might say: In California, we have a small population. We are going to let that little population thrive and grow. But if you live in Wisconsin, especially northern Wisconsin, you might say: It is necessary for us to actually manage this population because it is good for the environment; it is good for the wolves; it is good for the cattle. It is actually really good for our deer population.

So I think this just makes common sense.

And, by the way, some have come out and said--as I talked about on the floor, I am kind of a PETA guy. I want to protect animals. Well, protecting animals is allowing our States to successfully manage the wolf population, because if you do, you not only protect the wolf, but you protect the deer; you protect the cattle, the dogs, and the bear. Everyone gets protected when you have a balance to the ecosystem.

We are out of balance right now, and, frankly, I believe that our States are far more in tune in understanding the ecosystem of their State than bureaucrats in Washington. So I would far rather empower Wisconsin; and my good friend, Collin Peterson from Minnesota, let Minnesota manage those populations because they understand the ecosystem better.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to join Barack Obama and join Donald Trump and join a few Members of Congress from Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Washington--and Senators as well--to allow us to successfully manage the gray wolf population which allows for a healthier ecosystem.