Recovering America's Wildlife Act of 2021

Floor Speech

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in reluctant opposition to H.R. 2773, as drafted. The goal of this bill is commendable. Republicans and Democrats alike want to see America's wildlife thrive. Unfortunately, the legislation as written contains partisan provisions that I simply cannot support.

State and Tribal fish and wildlife agencies have long been recognized as the primary and most well-equipped managers of local species and habitat in the United States. After all, those on the ground are more attuned to what is happening in their backyards than the Federal Government. That is why State and Tribal wildlife agencies, as well as prominent sportsmen's groups support this bill.

While the bill would provide financial resources to States and Tribes to help meet wildlife recovery goals, the spending is mandatory and lacks any offset. This spending is not pocket change. The Congressional Budget Office estimated the Rules Committee Print would lead to more than $12 billion--that is $12 billion--in direct spending in the first decade of the program alone. And I say the first decade, because that is only what is in the so-called scoring window. In reality, this program and its mandatory spending would last forever since there is no sunset in titles I and II of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, this is not the modern-day funding models suggested by the blue ribbon commission. This is an important issue, and we should make the responsible, tough decisions on how to fund it.

This funding model has no offset ever, and it has an average expenditure of $1.4 billion per year. It is the most irresponsible, lazy way to fund the program, especially with the record government spending that is contributing to record inflation. At a time of rampant inflation, it would be wildly irresponsible to drive inflation even higher and saddle future generations with the consequences. The debt created by this bill will only add to our Nation's current $30 trillion debt.

This bill also lacks a sunset provision. Without a sunset, there is no mechanism to ensure oversight or proper review of the program to fix flaws that may arise. Mandating a permanent new program is poor governance, and it ignores precedent. Congress routinely passes legislation like the Farm Bill or the Water Resources Development Act which have proper sunsets. Those sunsets require us to come back and do our jobs by assessing what is working, what is not working, and making tweaks and changes to the law.

The bill does not allow Congress the opportunity to perform the needed oversight. Instead, it requires spending $1.4 billion per year in perpetuity. I, and my fellow Republican committee members, tried to resolve these fiscal issues with amendments at the committee markup. We were told by the Democrat majority that, although they opposed these amendments at the time, they would work with us on finding a funding offset before this bill would be considered on the floor.

We stayed at the negotiating table, as did the bill's sponsor, Mrs. Dingell, whom I have a lot of respect for and commend her for her efforts on this bill. But larger forces decided to ram this bill forward without fixing anything. In fact, the majority made the bill worse than it was when it left our committee.

They decided to airdrop provisions into a new title III that would siphon money away from States and Tribes and give it to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. That is in direct contrast to the spirit of this bill to give money to the State and Tribal agencies so that they could do the management.

We never even had the chance to debate this terrible title in the committee. The whole point of this bill was to empower States and Tribes who are the ones, again, who are closest to our lands and waters, not to increase the Washington, D.C., Federal bureaucracy, which is now what this bill will do.

A number of Republican amendments proposed to the Rules Committee tried to fix these problems and several other issues but they were similarly ignored, depriving us of ways to improve the bill and debate these issues today. As a result of all of this, we have a regrettably flawed bill. The situation we are now in was avoidable. The bill before us represents a lost opportunity to forge significant bipartisan compromise. It didn't have to be this way, and I hope that this is not a partisan sign of the future of conservation.

I will remain at the table and hope that my Democratic colleagues come back and work together with us on a lasting solution. Until then, I am opposed to H.R. 2773, and I reluctantly encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the resolution.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I will point out that even though there is a reporting requirement in the legislation, once you approve mandatory, permanent spending, then Congress loses our leverage. Creating a permanent program doesn't bode well for oversight from Congress. Programs that were mentioned like Pittman-Robinson, think about the land and water conservation fund, all of those had dedicated funding streams. This funding is coming straight out of the Treasury. It is coming out of our kids' and our grandkids' piggy banks.

I know that we all like the idea of dynamic scoring, and I spend a lot of money on hunting and fishing myself, as do a lot of other Members of Congress. But CBO, unfortunately, does not take that into account.

I know we all think that this bill could help not have listings of endangered species. But case studies clearly show that Federal money alone will not keep species off the endangered species list.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the record the CBO score from the Senate version of the language that is in this bill. U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Washington, DC, May 26, 2022. Hon. Thomas Carper, Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 2372, the Recovering America's Wildlife Act of 2022.

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Madeleine Fox. Sincerely, Phillip L. Swagel, Director.

Enclosure. S. 2372, RECOVERING AMERICA'S WILDLIFE ACT OF 2022--AS REPORTED BY THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS ON APRIL 27, 2022 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ By fiscal year, millions of dollars-- ----------------------------------- 2022 2022-2027 2022-2032 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Direct Spending (Outlays)........... 0 7,049 14,082 Revenues............................ 0 0 0 Increase or Decrease (-) in the 0 7,049 14,082 Deficit............................ Spending Subject to Appropriation 0 1 not (Outlays).......................... estimated ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Statutory pay-as-you-go procedures apply? Yes.

Increases on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2033? $5 billion.

Mandate Effects:

Contains intergovernmental mandate? No.

Contains private-sector mandate? No.

The bill would:

Make funds available to the Department of the Interior for grants and other support for wildlife conservation by states, territories, and Indian tribes.

Allow the department to spend interest accrued on certain unspent balances for wildlife conservation.

Estimated budgetary effects would mainly stem from:

Spending without further appropriation on authorized activities.

Spending of interest credited from amounts invested in Treasury securities.

Bill summary: S. 2372 would amend the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act and appropriate funds for the Department of the Interior to support efforts by state, local, and tribal governments to conserve endangered and threatened species. The bill also would allow interest accrued on unspent balances in one account to be available without further appropriation for those activities.

The bill would require the President to provide the Congress each year with a list of threatened or endangered species and to estimate the amount of funding allocated for their conservation. S. 2372 also would direct the Government Accountability Office to study the progress of states, territories, the District of Columbia, and Indian tribes in protecting endangered and threatened species and to report its findings seven years after enactment.

Estimated Federal cost: The estimated budgetary effect of S. 2372 is shown in Table 1. The costs of the legislation fall within budget function 300 (natural resources and environment).

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that S. 2372 will be enacted near the end of fiscal year 2022. On that basis, CBO expects that outlays from funds provided in 2022 would occur in 2023. Using information from the affected agencies and historical spending patterns for similar activities, CBO estimates that enacting S. 2372 would increase direct spending by $14.1 billion over the 2022-2032 period. TABLE 1.--ESTIMATED BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF S. 2372 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By fiscal year, millions of dollars-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2022-2027 2022-2032 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Increases in Direct Spending Title I, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Budget Authority........... 850 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 7,050 13,550 Estimated Outlays.......... 0 645 1,218 1,336 1,359 1,293 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 5,851 12,351 Title II, Bureau of Indian Affairs: Budget Authority........... 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 585 1,073 Estimated Outlays.......... 0 98 78 94 107 99 98 98 98 98 98 476 963 Title III, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Estimated Budget Authority..... 188 191 192 193 3 1 * 0 0 0 0 767 768 Estimated Outlays.............. 0 191 154 185 120 73 38 8 0 0 0 722 768 Total Changes in Direct Spending: Estimated Budget 1,135 1,388 1,489 1,590 1,401 1,399 1,398 1,398 1,398 1,398 1,398 8,402 15,390 Authority............. Estimated Outlays...... 0 933 1,450 1,615 1,586 1,465 1,435 1,405 1,398 1,398 1,398 7,049 14,082 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Components may not sum to totals because of rounding; * = between zero and $500,000. S. 2372 would require annual reports whose cost would total $1 million over the 2022-2027 period, subject to the availability of appropriated funds.

Direct spending: S. 2372 would establish new accounts in the Treasury, specify the amounts to be deposited into those accounts each year, and make the funds in those accounts available to the Secretary of the Interior to spend without further appropriation. In 2021, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) spent $713 million for similar activities.

Title I would make $850 million available in 2022 for USFWS to make grants to state, local, and tribal governments for wildlife conservation. The amounts made available would increase in 2023 and 2024. In 2025 and every year thereafter, title I would make $1.3 billion available for those purposes. CBO estimates that enacting this title would increase direct spending by $12.4 billion over the 2022-2032 period.

Title II would make $97.5 million available in 2022 and every year thereafter for the Bureau of Indian Affairs to help Indian tribes conserve species on tribal land that have the greatest need for conservation. CBO estimates that enacting this title would increase direct spending by $963 million over the 2022-2032 period.

Title III would make $187.5 million available each year from 2022 through 2025 for USFWS to make grants to states and Indian tribes for the conservation of endangered and threatened species and to carry out other authorities under the Endangered Species Act. A portion of those amounts--$75 million each year--would be made available to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to recover threatened or endangered species. CBO estimates that enacting this provision in title III would increase direct spending by $750 million over the 2022-2032 period.

In addition, title III would direct the Department of the Treasury to credit interest on unspent balances made available under that title to USFWS. That interest would be available to spend without further appropriation for recovery efforts under the Endangered Species Act. (Crediting interest to an account in the Treasury is an intragovemmental transfer and thus would have no budgetary effect but allowing the agency to spend the accrued amounts would increase direct spending.) Using the interest rates underlying the May 2022 baseline projections, CBO estimates that under this provision, $18 million would be accrued and spent over the 2022-2032 period.

The bill would permit USFWS to accept and spend donations. CBO estimates that the effect on net direct spending from donations would be negligible over the 2022-2032 period.

The bill would authorize the transfer of some penalties collected under current law to the accounts established under title I and title II, but S. 2372 would not authorize any new penalty collections.

Spending subject to appropriation: S. 2372 would require the President to submit to the Congress lists of threatened or endangered species for which recovery efforts would be funded under the bill and to report annually on the amounts allocated for endangered species recovery, interagency consultation, and conservation activities. Using information about similar activities, CBO estimates that producing the annual reports would cost $1 million over the 2022-2027 period; any spending would be subject to the availability of appropriated funds.

Under the bill, the Government Accountability Office would report in 2029 or 2030 on conservation efforts authorized in the bill. Based on the cost of similar reports, CBO estimates that the cost of that report would be insignificant.

Pay-As-You-Go considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or revenues. The net changes in outlays that are subject to those pay-as-you-go procedures are shown in Table 2. TABLE 2.--CBO'S ESTIMATE OF THE STATUTORY PAY-AS-YOU-GO EFFECTS OF S. 2372, THE RECOVERING AMERICA'S WILDLIFE ACT, AS REPORTED BY THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS ON APRIL 27, 2022 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By fiscal year, millions of dollars-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2022-2027 22022-2032 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Net Increase in the Deficit Pay-As-You-Go Effect.......... 0 933 1,450 1,615 1,586 1,465 1,435 1,405 1,398 1,398 1,398 7,049 14,082 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Increase in long-term deficits: CBO estimates that enacting S. 2372 would increase on-budget deficits by more than $5 billion in all of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2033.

Mandates: None.

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Madeleine Fox, Mandates: Lilia Ledezma.

Estimate reviewed by: Susan Willie, Chief, Natural and Physical Resources Cost Estimates Unit; H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Director of Budget Analysis; Theresa Gullo, Director of Budget Analysis.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, this report does show that it will cost over $12 billion in the first 10 years and $1.4 billion thereafter.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I encourage the majority to put their estimates to the test. Let's make this a bill with a 7-year sunset like the amendment that I proposed. Let's come back, look at it, and see if it really did save money. If it really did save species, maybe we should fund it at more than $1.4 billion a year. Maybe we can find that funding with an offset.

But the simple truth is it is all speculation right now, and we are getting ready to put a permanent mandatory spending program in place with no way to come back and have checks and balances on it without repealing the law. And how many times does that happen when Congress passes a law?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Idaho for making a point that it is really the underlying reason that we should be--or the underlying question we should be talking about is, Why do we need to recover America's wildlife?

It is because we have messed up badly. We have mismanaged our Federal lands. Catastrophic wildfires run rampant. That does nothing to help wildlife habitat, and it is sad that we are actually here looking for funding and ways to fix something that we should have already fixed, something that we shouldn't have broken in the first place.

I think there is a way to recover wildlife, if we would just simply manage the habitat that the wildlife lives in. That is the purpose of this bill, but it is going to take some worldview changes, and the so- called environmental groups that are pushing to stop the management activity are going to have to allow this activity to take place.

It doesn't matter how much funding we put out from the Federal Government; we are going to continue to see wildlife habitat destroyed, and we are going to continue to see the loss of wildlife.

So it is not a problem that simply throwing money at will fix, and it is, again, a problem where we should put a program in place, come back and evaluate it, and decide whether we want to continue the program based on the merits of the successes of it.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of talk about this bill being bipartisan. The original House version of the text did have 42 Republican cosponsors on it, which is a sizable number. That is a bipartisan bill.

There will still be Republicans who vote for this version, but as long as we are in the business of estimating today, I am going to estimate that it won't be the 42 cosponsors of the original text, which, again, was supplanted by the Senate version that didn't send all the money to the State and Tribal governments. It sent the money to U.S. Fish and Wildlife, part of the funding to U.S. Fish and Wildlife.

I have talked to some of the Republican Members who have cosponsored the bill, and their understanding was that the pay-for was going to be worked out. If we would just sponsor the bill, we would get the pay- fors worked out. We were told the bill will go to the floor, and we will work out the pay-fors. Well, here is the bill on the floor and there is still no pay-fors. It is still permanent mandatory spending, $1.4 billion a year.

If this bill passes out of the House, and if for some reason it doesn't make it through the Senate and become law, then I hope to come back and work on a bill that has the same objectives but is fiscally responsible, a bill that has pay-fors, a bill that is not borrowing from our children, and a bill that is not permanent, one that actually gives Congress the authority to have oversight and to come back and analyze the language, to analyze the success of it, and make changes as needed as we go on.

We do this with the farm bill, we do it with other bills. I am not sure why we can't do it with Recovering America's Wildlife Act because it is a very important subject.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WESTERMAN. In closing, I just want to go back through the facts as we know them.

We know that we need to do better habitat management, whether it is forest, rangelands, oceans, rivers, or lakes. We know there are areas where we need to manage better. The intent of this bill is to let those management activities be done by the people who do it best, State and Tribal agencies.

I think there is a huge agreement in the House, both Republicans and Democrats alike, but that is a good thing. The problem we have with the bill, though, is the way that we are going to implement it in the financial times that we are in now, and looking back at history and seeing how we got in the condition that we are in. The spending problem in this country is not discretionary spending. It is not the appropriation bills that we should be debating and approving every year.

It is the mandatory spending. It is the cruise control programs that previous Congresses have put in place that are driving the deficit. Over 70 percent of our debt is due to mandatory spending. And here we are with record debt, record inflation, and we are talking about putting more on the mandatory side of the equation.

There is a path where we could get huge support. We could probably do this, maybe even do it on a unanimous consent bill, and that would be if the majority would accept the amendment that I offered in the Rules Committee.

As the ranking member on the committee, I offered an amendment that would bring a lot of our Members on board, and it simply put a 7-year sunset in, make it an authorization and let the Appropriations Committee do their work.

We are not even going to vote on that. We are not even going to put it on the floor to see where the Members of the body are at. The Rules Committee took that off of the table. So we have no choice. No choice but to recommend that we vote ``no'' on this bill, that we come back to the table, that we look at something that everybody can agree on. Not just on the authorization, but on how we fund the bill. I think we can get there.

I hate to take it out of the House's hands and put it into the Senate's hands when we didn't give it a full effort on how to not only craft the legislation on what needs to be done on the ground, but how to pay for it, how to be fiscally responsible going forward.

So, again, I support the idea. I don't support the way we are paying for it. I have to recommend a ``no'' vote. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WESTERMAN. I also rise in support of this amendment en bloc.

None of the amendments included in this amendment en bloc would add more spending to this bill. Three of the amendments in this en bloc amend title I by adding more flexibility for State fish and wildlife agencies when they make conservation investments funded under this bill.

These amendments do not impose new mandates, but rather, provide States more tools to manage wildlife as they see fit.

Mr. Scott's amendment on helping pollinators and their habitats will enhance ongoing efforts aimed at helping the monarch butterfly. Pollinators are critical to ecosystem conservation around the world. That is why my Republican colleagues and I have continuously supported the Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances for the monarch butterfly, which allows private companies and landowners to contribute to proactive conservation.

The amendment from Congresswoman Cherfilus-McCormick recommends that States prioritize funding toward innovative strategies and partnerships to recover species. I believe that innovation is critical for ensuring widespread species recovery. The current species recovery framework under the Endangered Species Act is not only outdated, but it is broken and needs innovation.

Republicans have offered numerous ideas to use innovation to spur species recovery. One idea from Representative Herrell of New Mexico would help incentivize proactive Candidate Conservation Agreements that allow private companies and landowners to contribute toward at-risk species conservation through their own dollars and efforts. Sounds like a good, commonsense idea.

The outdated Endangered Species Act has become a top-down government approach that rarely works to help species or people. Innovative approaches like Ms. Herrell's are much needed.

I was disappointed to see that the majority discarded amendments like Ms. Herrell's without even giving us the chance to debate its merits on the House floor.

Representative Stauber also had an innovative idea to update the Endangered Species Act that he offered as an amendment. His amendment would have provided the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with the flexibility to utilize so-called 4(d) rules for endangered species. Under a 4(d) rule, the Secretary of the Interior can issue a rule for individual species that tailors protections to that species' conservation and recovery. Unfortunately, again, the majority also ignored that amendment.

The amendment by Congresswoman Schrier is also included in this en bloc by encouraging States to invest in ``conservation infrastructure projects.'' While States already have flexibility to decide how to spend the funding provided in title I of the bill, this amendment would give them the option to invest in natural solutions, such as buffer strips, wetlands--one of my favorite things--planting trees, and other natural solutions to environmental challenges.

Lastly, Congresswoman Jackson Lee's amendment would require the Secretary of the Interior to issue a report within 1 year of this bill's enactment, detailing the percentage of total awards and grants that were awarded or allocated to institutions serving minority communities.

While I support this amendment and its reporting requirement, I have bad news for the sponsor. Because the bill lacks a sunset provision, there is little incentive and recourse for Congress to fix any problems. In other words, if the reports required by this amendment highlight a glaring flaw with the programs being carried out under this bill, there will be no guarantee that Congress will fix the problem. The same is true for the State reports required under the bill.

For that reason, I offered a commonsense amendment that would have included a 7-year sunset to ensure that Congress would have to fix any flaws associated with this new program. Unfortunately, as I stated earlier, my amendment was also blocked by the majority.

This bill and the process to rush this bill to the floor today are unfortunate. It could have been avoided, but at least the amendments included in this en bloc do not spend any more taxpayer money and provide some needed accountability.

Mr. Speaker, I support the en bloc, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, again, I support this group of amendments en bloc and encourage a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise in wholehearted support of these amendments en bloc, which include amendments from our colleagues from Oregon (Mr. Bentz) and from Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany).

These amendments would ensure that the funds provided in title III are subject to the same overhead cap requirements and oversight measures as title I.

The original point of this bill was to empower States and Tribes to carry out species conservation, not set up another Washington, D.C.- based Federal program, which is now what the bill does. Not only does title III change that intent by giving more than $180 million annually in the first 4 years to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, but it was also added at the Rules Committee and was not part of the bill that the Committee on Natural Resources marked up. Because the Committee on Natural Resources never had the chance to debate this title when we marked up the original bill, we did not have the opportunity to add these good-governance amendments to it like we did for titles I and II.

I believe that title III should be removed altogether. Unfortunately, Representative Moore's amendment, which would have removed title III, was not made in order, so we didn't even get the chance to debate it, much less vote on it today.

In the absence of that amendment, the least we can do is ensure funds allocated by title III are being spent responsibly and with some oversight.

I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the amendments, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Bentz).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Speaker, I again encourage adoption of these amendments, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment, which adds more responsibilities to the already duplicative and expensive title III portion of this bill, which was never debated in the Committee on Natural Resources.

For example, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the agency funded by title III at the expense of State and Tribal funding, already administers invasive species control programs, including the Coastal Program and the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, two programs that title III would duplicate.

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, or APHIS, at USDA monitors, responds to, and conducts control and eradication programs to address invasive species that pose a threat to U.S. agriculture.

These and other similar programs are subject to Federal appropriations, which is what title III should be subject to as well-- not permanent mandatory funding. If the majority would like to increase Federal funding for invasive species control, they should do it through the appropriations process instead of airdropping another layer of bureaucracy into this bill.

For these reasons, we should be striking title III from the bill, at least until the committee of jurisdiction has a chance to consider and mark up its provisions. Unfortunately, the majority refused to allow a vote on my colleague from Utah, Mr. Moore's amendment, which would have done just that.

I oppose this amendment to allow the funding for title III to be used for even more duplicative Federal bureaucracy.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Speaker, once again, we all have invasive species that we deal with. It is something we should be focusing on. We just don't need another duplicative Federal program to do that.

Madam Speaker, I encourage a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Speaker, this amendment would actually make the bill worse by authorizing nonprofit organizations to receive funding under title I.

This amendment is in direct contravention to the original intent of this legislation, which is to empower States and Tribes in species conservation.

The current bill directs funds provided under this program to State and Tribal fish and wildlife departments or to regional associations of fish and wildlife departments.

The amendment would allow activist environmental groups, many of whom are serial litigants against the kinds of projects this bill aims to support, to receive funding under title I, decreasing money available for State fish and game departments.

Radical special interest groups have weaponized the Endangered Species Act by continuously suing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This sue-and-settle process overwhelms regulatory agencies, resulting in settlement agreements and consent decrees that require agencies to promulgate major regulations within an arbitrarily imposed timeline.

These agreements are often negotiated behind closed doors with little or no transparency or public input, allowing radical special interest groups to promote their own Federal policy agendas, outside of the normal processes.

To make matters worse, these groups are financially rewarded for suing the government, for suing the American taxpayer. According to the Government Accountability Office, from 2000 to 2010, ESA lawsuits cost taxpayers nearly $24 million in attorneys' fees and associated costs.

Private citizens with a net worth of $2 million and for-profit businesses with a net worth of $7 million cannot receive attorneys' fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. However, there is no such cap for nonprofit organizations, which allows these wealthy groups to rake in taxpayer money.

According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, from 2009 to 2017, there were 109 Endangered Species Act settlements. The majority of these settlements came from just three groups: the Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, and the WildEarth Guardians. The Center for Biological Diversity was individually responsible for 41 of the 109 settlements.

This is not surprising after the Center for Biological Diversity's director said, in 2009, that ``When we stop the same timber sale three or four times running, the timber planners want to tear their hair out. They feel like their careers are being mocked and destroyed--and they are. Psychological warfare is a very underappreciated aspect of environmental campaigning.'' We are paying them to do that.

Today we can see the legacy of this mentality and these lawsuits out West where we have had two of our worst fire years back-to-back, and this year is not looking any better.

I cannot in good conscience support allowing these radical groups to receive funding under this bill, especially since it will pull money away from State fish and wildlife agencies and Tribes, as the bill was intended to fund.

Madam Speaker, I oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to join me in opposition.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Speaker, there are some wonderful groups out there that do great work, but this bill is not about funding private groups or nonprofit groups. This bill is about funding State and Tribal entities. It is what it was originally about. It has changed, it is now funding the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as well. I guess the majority is thinking, why not just throw in some of these environmental groups. Who else will this bill be putting funding out to before it is said and done?

There are groups that abuse the process. They abuse it greatly. They abuse it at the expense of the American taxpayer. They abuse it at the expense of the environment. They claim they are wanting to help the environment and they are destroying the environment.

Madam Speaker, I am opposed to this amendment, and I hope my colleagues will join me in opposing it.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 8, the yeas and nays are ordered.

Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question are postponed.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source