Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that would prohibit the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from using any funds to continue treating the gray wolf under ESA after June 13, 2017--providing these agencies with funding to continue managing the gray wolf for nearly a year--more than half enough time to work with States to develop and implement individual State management plans that would go into effect when Federal management ends.

Mr. Chairman, this is an issue of extreme importance to my home State of Washington where the gray wolf is listed in the western two-thirds of the State but is delisted in the eastern third. This fragmented listing means there are no geographic barriers to prevent wolves from traveling between listed and delisted areas, posing a risk to people's lives, farming, and ranching in the region.

Unfortunately, this issue should already be settled. On June 13, 2013, the Service published a proposed rule to remove the gray wolf from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. It made this determination after evaluating ``the classification status of gray wolves currently listed in the contiguous U.S.'' and found the ``best available scientific and commercial information indicates that the currently listed entity is not a valid species under the Act.''

The statutory purpose of ESA is to recover a species to the point where it no longer is considered endangered or threatened. The gray wolf is currently found in nearly 50 countries around the world, and the Wolf Specialist Group at the International Union for Conservation Nature has placed the species in the category of ``least concern globally'' for risk of extinction.

Mr. Chairman, the gray wolf population has grown substantially across its range and is now considered to be recovered, and, therefore, it no longer merits protection under ESA. However, my amendment does not delist the gray wolf but encourages the Service to move forward with its proposed delisting rule.

It restricts funding for Federal management after June 13, 2017--4 years after the original delisting rule was first published--providing more than enough time for the Service to finalize the rule, as well as to work with individual States to develop and implement their respective State management plans. This approach will support an orderly transition to State-level management and allow State wildlife officials to more effectively manage wolf populations, which has proven successful in States such as Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan.

My amendment is simple. It provides Interior and the Service with an incentive to move forward with the delisting that the agency itself said is necessary and supported by the best available science evidence and data.

I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the gentlewoman's knowledge and work on this issue in her home State of Minnesota.

However, I think it is time that we in this country declare a success, declare a win when it comes to the gray wolf. There are at least 6,000 wolves in the Great Lakes States, the Rocky Mountain States, the Pacific and Northwest States; 14,000 in the whole United States. As I said before, this is no longer an endangered species. It does not fit the criteria for endangered species.

My own State Fish and Wildlife Department 3 years in a row has sent letters to Congress asking and pointing out the reasons why the wolf could be, should be delisted.

You talk about coexisting with other species. If you look at the elk population of Yellowstone, in the 10 years between 1996 and 2006, the population has been decimated by 50 percent. If you look at the Shiras moose population of Utah, it has been decimated by 90 percent because of these healthy populations of wolves. I think there are issues that we are experiencing because of being unable to manage them in ways that States have proven that they are capable of doing.

It does not take away the ability for States to do those kind of things. The Federal Government fully has, until June 30 of 2017, to continue managing the wolf in the way it does now. This just sets a timeline, provides an incentive for the agency to move forward with its own rule and the process that has been in place.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that I know the gentlewoman from Minnesota will like on an issue critical to livestock farmers, not just in my State and district, but across the country.

In 2013, the Environmental Protection Agency approached four dairies in Washington State about high nitrate levels in nearby wells, suspecting semi-permeable manure lagoons may be the cause. The dairies entered into a consent decree with EPA to identify and treat the cause if it was, in fact, stemming from the dairies.

Disturbingly, an environmental group FOIA'd the information the dairies provided to EPA and used it to file a citizen suit under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, or RCRA, against the dairies.

Unfortunately, in early 2014 a Federal judge ruled with the environmental group, asserting that dissolved nitrates constituted a solid waste under the law, and high nitrate levels constituted open dumping.

There are a number of problems with this case. However, the biggest one by far is the very law used to file the lawsuit. To be clear, there are a number of laws and regulations both at the State and the Federal level which apply to nutrient management, such as the Safe Drinking Water Act or the Clean Water Act. The problem is, Congress never intended RCRA to be used to regulate agriculture. In fact, EPA expresses that RCRA does not apply to agricultural waste, including manure and crop residue, returned to the soil as fertilizers or soil conditioners.

I don't know how you can get much clearer than nutrient management was not intended to be governed under this law; and, unfortunately, this ruling has left agriculture producers in a legal gray area trying to figure out exactly how to comply with the law that was not intended to regulate them.

All this decision has done is to create a culture of fear and distrust between farmers and regulatory agencies. If you are a good steward and come forward to proactively address problems, all you are doing is making yourself a target for lawsuits. Also, it creates a fear that a judge could capriciously decide that you are subject to a law despite clear intent that the law does not apply to you. Mr. Chairman, farmers rely on the land and water being clean and want to be good environmental stewards, and this self-defeating culture is not one we want to cultivate.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment does nothing to prevent EPA from enforcing current regulations under RCRA. It does nothing to prevent EPA from issuing or enforcing Clean Water Act or Safe Drinking Water Act rules. All my amendment does is prevent EPA from issuing and expanding new regulations under RCRA that would reflect this poor interpretation of current law.

While I am not aware of a desire by EPA to do this, unfortunately, there have been a number of other recent legal precedents directing EPA to take actions they didn't want to take. This amendment will ensure EPA's current regulations stand until Congress has the ability to weigh in and reassert its intent.

Mr. Chairman, no one is saying livestock producers, like all Americans, do not share in the responsibility of good environmental stewardship. They certainly do. But there already exists appropriate laws and regulations intended to govern these activities, and there are ones that are not intended to. We, as Members of Congress, have a responsibility to make that clarification, which is what my amendment takes steps to do.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the gentlewoman's statement that we must work together to protect critical resources, and that is exactly why I am presenting this amendment for our consideration, so that dairies that want to do a good job know which rules they need to follow. Is it the Clean Water Act, is it the Safe Drinking Water Act or is it the RCRA rules? They need to know, and they can't be brought to court, being sued under rules that they didn't realize that they were supposed to be following.

It is like if you are driving down the freeway going 70 miles an hour, and the State patrolman pulls up and says, I am sorry, sir, today the speed limit is only 45. How are you supposed to know that if it is not posted? That is the kind of simplistic direction certainty that we are trying to give farmers across the country, so that is the reason for the amendment.

Certainly, I agree, EPA is not making plans to use RCRA to promulgate new rules, which is exactly why it shouldn't be a problem for us to be able to put that forward, because they are not. It shouldn't be a problem, so we are not going to be standing in their way.

Dairies are being sued by environmental groups, and judges are making rulings using RCRA rules as a basis for the decisions. And so that is why I think it is important for us to reassert Congress' original intention as well as EPA's clear regulations. We have to reassert that to keep clarity and certainty for our farmers and ranchers so that they can better protect our natural resources.

Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise this morning to offer an amendment that would restore funding for the Wolf Livestock Loss Demonstration Program.

This program assists livestock producers in undertaking proactive, nonlethal activity to reduce the livestock loss from predation by wolves, and addresses livestock losses caused by wolves.

Mr. Chairman, this demonstration program was authorized in 2009 under a Democratic administration, and $1 million in funding was appropriated in the FY 2010 Interior and Environment Appropriations Act.

Since its inception, the Wolf Livestock Demonstration Program has played a critical role in minimizing conflicts with wolves while providing ranchers with much-needed support for non-lethal activities and another tool to minimize their livestock losses from wolves.

Grants provided by this program go to 10 States with significant wolf populations, including my home State of Washington, and support each State's highest priority needs in assisting livestock producers in dealing with predation by wolves. The grants provided by this program are administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and stipulates that the Federal cost share not exceed 50 percent.

Mr. Chairman, this program has been funded every year since 2010. My amendment would continue this funding at the 2010 level, respecting our country's current fiscal situation and tight budgetary guidelines.

The Wolf Livestock Loss Demonstration Program encourages the wider use of nonlethal programs by livestock owners and ranchers who frequently rely on lethal control methods to address livestock-wolf conflict.

As wolf populations continue to grow across the Lower 48, it is vital that we continue this demonstration program in order to benefit livestock producers willing to take proactive measures to protect not only their livestock, but wolves as well.

Mr. Chairman,

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, I would just remind the gentlewoman that the original program, the demonstration program, was authorized in 2009, and then $1 million was appropriated in the 2010 Interior and Environment Appropriations Act. And so it is just being consistent with what we have done as a Congress before I got here.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NEWHOUSE. I yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Reclaiming my time, I believe that that is authorizing legislation and this is appropriating legislation. So that would be the only difference that I could see.

I certainly respect the gentlewoman has much more experience than I have, but I would still offer this amendment. It has been a good program in helping livestock producers as well as also being safer for the wolf population.

Mr. Chairman, I ask for support of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source