the point that protection under the statute is no longer necessary peer since the esa was signed into law only some have been delisted because they have been recovered. it's less than 3%. as a doctor, if i admit 100 patients last and only three recovered enough under my treatment to be discharged, i

would deserve to lose my medic license. when it comes to the endangered species act, the status quo is not good enough. we must do more than just list species and leave them on life the like we are doing now. we needed to see them recover. in june 2015 the wyoming governor took on the challenge of identifying opportunities to modernize the endangered species act. the governors association represents governors of 19 states and u.s. territories in the pacific. launched the conservation initiative. three years later, his groundbreaking initiative facilitated a bipartisan dialogue with stakeholders from across the political spectrum. there resulted in three annual reports and adoption of a policy resolution and policy

recommendations. this month released a discussion draft for endangered species act of 2015 based on the western association's principles and policies. earlier this year i received a support signed by the chair and vice chair, the governor of north dakota and hawaii. they commended our efforts to address this polarizing topic and an inclusive thoughtful matter. >> it off as meaningful, bipartisan solutions to be continued. the proposed bill is generally consistent with the western government association recommendation and they offer support for the portions of the bill consistent with existing

governors policy. the draft was shaped by two committee hearings last year. >> we heard from a diverse bipartisan group, including former democrat governor of wyoming and fish and wildlife directors from across the country. each of these witnesses and panelists acknowledge the endangered species act could work better. many believe the foundation established was a good starting point for modernizing the act. the discussion draft elevates the role of states partnering in implementing the act. >> it enforces their opportunity to lead wildlife conservation efforts, including the establishment of recovery themes and developing recovery plan -- plans. stakeholders are incentivized to enter into voluntary conservation activities.

increases transparency and prioritizing species petitions so limited resources flow to the species most in need. >> over the 45 year life of the act, the capacity of state wildlife agencies has grown significantly. according to the wildlife agencies, states spend more than five $.6 billion on conservation and employ approximately 240,000 people who volunteer. of that number, 50,000 our employees, including 11,000 wildlife biologist. 6000 have advanced education degrees. combined, the u.s. fish and wildlife service and the national marine service employed only 11,606 p1 people. the substantial resources of the states are not located in

washington dc. these state agencies are in the field every day working to protect wildlife. >> the draft bill has received broad support from stakeholders. over hundreds of organizations have written to the committee to express support. i look forward to working with the members and the stakeholder community to find a bipartisan pathway and meaningful modernization of the endangered species act. >> it's great to see you, thank you for your leadership in wyoming and among the nation. as a recovering governor, i recognize the critical and challenging role that states play in implementing federal laws.

one of the environmental protection statutes is sexual law. i appreciate governors coming together with stakeholders to solve difficult issues on the ground. i understand there was a bipartisan three-year process for the western government association to discuss the improvements to the endangered species act. i commend you for doing so, we do. i look forward to hearing from you on what we all believe it is important. >> have to be honest, i'm not fully convinced a similar process as possible right now in washington dc. our colleagues in this congress have put legislation forward to undermine the endangered species act. the trumpet -- trump administration has repealed policies that help endangered

species recover. i am told the interior department plans to release regulations this week that can harm our nations endangered species. >> we want to go beyond the legislative recommendations proposed. the text is based on the wga's resolution recommendations, containing problematic eto's. to my knowledge, none of the democratic governors who supported it - processing things skips soliciting, discussing and incorporating the other 31 states. for example, my home state of delaware has a compelling story to tell. the endangered species act has successfully recovered species and hours eight recently. delaware is proud to host species like the red dot burden

-- bird and the piping clover. that when recovered also. people travel from all over the world to view these special birds from beaches. along the atlantic ocean and delaware bay, i joined a couple of birds a couple of months ago. >> we also enjoy a wonderful working relationship with the u.s. fishery and wildlife service. we want to successfully prevent new listings. no law is perfect, i think we all know that. and delaware's experience, changes to the endangered species act are a prerequisite for the law to work. i believe that our state could

do exponentially more to recover species and prevent listings with additional resources. the governors association seems to agree with this assessment. >> i remember the previous endangered species were underfunded. legislation today does not provide a meaningful solution for species conversation -- conservation. >> we want to create new definition for how the fish and wildlife service could consider scientific information. especially with an administration that consistently denies and undermines science. it can -- includes a judicial decision challenging the

opportunity that it may not be supported by the best available science. >> i am having a hard time understanding how this legislation in particular will better serve the american people. perhaps this will help me better understand or i can go back to the drawing board and draw on the expertise of the 31 states whose input has not been sought the legislation before us was crafted. if we do that, it may enable the committee to come together to work and truly conserve the nation's treasure and wildlife for future generations. >> today we're going to hear from two panels. each member of the committee has an option to ask one five- minute round or a three-minute

round from each panel. we will follow the procedure to complete the hearing by noon. we have a couple of roll calls scheduled for later this morning and we want to pass those votes. now we will hear from matt mead, the governor of wyoming. and matt strickler who is the secretary of the national -- natural resources. your testimony will be made part of the official hearing record. i will now introduce wyoming governor matt mead who has been serving as governor since january 2011. he was born and raised in jackson wyoming and graduated law school from the university of wyoming. he has engaged in private practice of law and worked as a prosecutor. governor mead has served in the past as chair and vice chair for the national governors association resource committee. he worked as the cochair of the

state and federal task force. in 2015 to 16 he served as chairman of the western governors association. he led these species conservation act initiatives. it serves as the inspiration of the discussion draft we are examining today. governor mead also has a farm and ranch operation in southeast wyoming and i hope you will tell us about his experience in wyoming in the western government association. it's an honor to welcome you as a witness before the environment public works committee. thank you for traveling to washington to be with us today. and a frontier days is coming to cheyenne and you will be very busy over the next week and a half. am grateful you could take time to be here today. >> i hope you give me your

notes on how to recover from the governors arm. it is an honor for me to be the governor of wyoming. >> i'm still working on those notes. one of my favorite things about being governor was testifying before congress. i hope you enjoy it as well. >> i do. thank you for the privilege an option to be with you this morning and to speak about the endangered species act amendments. to start out, i want to show how i witnessed some of the greatest successes of the endangered species act. biologist removed one of the last 18 black footed ferrets in the world. >> before that they were believed to have been extinct. today due to the collaboration of multiple efforts, that have been reinstated in eight states as well as canada and mexico. >> in 1975 biologist estimated

there were hundred and 60 grizzly bears remaining. listing in 2017 showed more than 700 bears inhabited the size of new jersey, delaware and connecticut combined. and continuing moving into areas where people have not seen them in generations. these success stories are a testament to the esa's ability to prevent extinction. >> of the esa provided part of the incentive and my -- wyoming brought together groups to reserve the bird. the plan served as a model for other western states and federal agencies, a success story. i have also seen some of the greatest failings. it took five lawsuits in 15 years to recover the gray wolf

population in wyoming. grizzly bears are litigations for the second time. canadian links were listed more than 18 years ago and have no more discernible path to recovery. nearly 30% of all listed species have no recovery plan and litigation often's dates the u.s. priorities and workload. the esa has not been substantially passing amendments since 1998. >> this is a time to have this discussion. before this the rebels proposing to do list gray wolves from part of the country and prevent judicial review of listed species. a supported legislation to delist gray wolves in wyoming because it appeared as the only

viable option at the time. i will continue to support the listing until we can address the problem. frankly i have to say that process of congress by popular vote making the decisions an individual species is not the best way to go. we need better legislation, policies and things for wildlife. the chairman discussion draft offers real-life bipartisan to create -- correct the deficiencies in the esa. this was my initiative as western governor. i want to give a little more context on that. that was open to everybody. we extended an open invitation to anyone interested in species conversation to engage in meaningful dialogue. the initiative included work

sessions, webinars and transparency work sessions posted on youtube. this process helped inform the western governors. in 2016 and in 2017 western governors adopted bipartisan policy resolutions, including specific regulations for improving the esa in species conversation mack conservation. >> a number of recommendations were reflected in this discussion draft will. when congress adopted the esa in 1973 they did not require the fish and wildlife service to act on petitions. the amended it after two years for proposed rulemaking. if they failed within the two years they had to withdraw.

in 1982 after complaints that listing decisions were being delayed, congress added -- acted and added a current requirement that congress act on a 90 day finding within 12 months that they receive. congress did not choose a 12 month deadline for any scientific reason, it was simply arbitrary to spur action on listings. the fish and wildlife service receives hundreds of petitions at a time, but they don't have the resources to meet the deadline. the resulting litigation allows courts, not scientists, to prioritize agency workload and frequently impedes local conservation efforts that configures set develop and implement. after 36 years of the status quo , this addresses the source of the conflict in a practical way with the framework of the national listing workplan. this has been praised by environmental and conservation groups. >> the workplan extends the

current statutory deadline. if a court took issue with this, we would expect litigation to rise again. this discussion draft believes that western governors enhance the roles of states in several ways. the constantly states leading recovery teams and implementing recovery plans in a meaningful way and all aspects of the esa implementation. of course this is a start and we believe it is important. we understand people will have concerns. one that i have heard is critics generally distrust the state's ability to manage wildlife. congress did not adopt the esa because it distrusted the states ability to manage wildlife. to the contrary, they recognized the important role states play and wildlife management.

>> for example, the new york representative spoke in favor of the usa, arguing the greater bulk of the enforcement capabilities concern -- concerning an endangered species lie in the hands of the state agencies, not the federal government. bass committee on marine and fisheries stating the states role. states are far better equipped to handle the problems of day- to-day management and enforcement of laws and regulations for endangered species than the federal government. >> there are numerous examples. unfortunately, not much of congress is -- the provision by congress did much. the state can give back incentives that congress originally envisioned. a provision of the draft makes a needed step in returning the

esa to the original vision and garnered unanimous support from congressman past. in conclusion, the discussion draft is not from the secretary of interior or commerce. any time they offer a greater role to states, the secretary retains the final decision and the authority. the draft does not remove science from decision-making. decisions must be based on the best scientific or commercial data. the discussion draft stems from a state led bipartisan effort, conducted over several years. environmental energy interest of all commended the process. i would also note that after we got the process, it's a good to the national governors association. i don't want to overstate this, but they

broadly adopted many of the policies. the nga has also taken a look at this. this represents a reasonable way to elevate the process and the national dialogue. as said by mr. chairman, the wga submitted a letter of support for the provisions that are consistent with the wga policy. now have an opportunity to improve the endangered species act for wildlife and people. we can encourage conservation practice. we can facilitate faster and improve transparency , reduce litigation, and ensure management decisions are congress or the courts. most importantly, we can see the esa reauthorized for the first time in a generation. thank you very much for the opportunity and i appreciate the warm welcome.

>> there are a number of interns from my office who hear from wyoming and they were delighted to hear your testimony. people from wyoming will be calling their parents shortly to tell them what a great job you did. a couple of questions and we will go back and forth. over the last several decades there have been efforts to amend the endangered species act. they weren't successful for a variety of reasons. was the difference between past efforts and with the western governors association is doing? >> i think it is different than past efforts. when i announced this will be my initiative i immediately got pushed back saying it is too tough of an issue.

it's a tough time to get this through congress, i get that. but this is an important enough issue and exciting enough. it's a great opportunity to address wildlife issues. we have an enthusiastic group of governors and citizens ready to move forward. in 1998 senator kemper got moving on this. his efforts were killed. >> in 2005 a california representative got improvements through the house and it died in the senate. this effort began at the state level and involved local input. it has been transparent. we included ranchers and wonderful groups that have helped us out. we have had wga and nga involvement. we have learned a lot with 40 years of knowledge. this is the time that is

different because it has been bipartisan. >> we now see congress taking up individual species to decide whether they remain listed. there is good news out there, mr. chairman. what we have done in wyoming and the west shows. voluntary efforts can go a long ways from preventing a species from being de-listed. i acknowledge it is difficult, but i also acknowledged we got it through western governors and addressed it. this can and should be a bipartisan effort. >> can you explain more why states should be an equal partner with the federal government and implementing the endangered species act? things really have changed. >> mr. chairman i have not seen the chart until it was pulled up this morning. it was very telling and on the

money. wyoming spent approximately $50 million in the recovery of grizzly bears. is one state and one species. there is no question looking at the chart and in my knowledge working as governor, states have a great amount of expertise. >> i think it is really important that states care about endangered species. and is not only a life issue, but an economic driver, particularly in the state of wyoming for tourism. and is very important. we have a trust responsibility with regard to wildlife. we care about our habitats. >> i would also point out there is concern that states are not the one to leave this. i think the expertise and money over the last 40 years has had

states become the leader. >> it seems that rules get derailed by litigation and we see that happen in wyoming. under the discussion draft, a decision by the secretary of interior to delist the species is not that subject to judicial review until the expiration of a five year monitoring period. can we talk about this cooling- off period, why it's important and how we respond to those who claim the judicial review could have an impact on the species. >> that is really an important point. on the one hand if you don't have that opportunity with the cooling-off period, you will lose local support and voluntary effort. people want to engage in this. the oil and gas company is and

ranchers are very excited about having a plan to go forward. >> they also need to know that if they do work there will be a reward. with the amount of lawsuits out there, it hurts the opportunity to have a decent management plan. i will also point out that in the cooling-off period if something was a weather condition or something else, there is an opportunity for the secretary to have an emergency listing. you won't fall off a cliff if something unanticipated happens. >> if you want to build the local support or have voluntary efforts and get away from this notion that is unfortunately out there and you want to turn it into a good news story, you have to show voluntary effort. it's just not a race to the courthouse on everything you try to do.

>> thank you very much, governor. >> thanks again for your efforts in conversation about improving the endangered species act. you said several times in your testimony the word funding. i think it is appropriate that you do. my colleagues believe funding is part of the conversation. >> the western governors association endangered species act recommendations from last year stated this quote, congress should allocate additional funding to additional services to implementing the endangered species act. is that governors will work with congress to identify priorities for funding that will facilitate voluntary species conservation efforts and improve the efficacy of the endangered species act.

that is part of one of the recommendations. i very much appreciate and agree with this recommendation. the draft legislation we are considering does not tackle funding challenges at the state or federal level. let me just ask you a trick question. you believe that congress should address these issues and you spoke to them in your recommendations. how should they address these issues? >> funding was part of our discussion. we were not equipped to say what the funding level looks like. but i would also add that i don't know these numbers. but what funding will recover the species or partner with states? versus funding used for litigation. just in the work that i have had in the seven years, you

sometimes get into discussions with federal state and local folks saying let's do this so we can avoid litigation. it shouldn't be litigation driven, it should be improving for the species. absolutely funding as part of it . >> the reauthorization would be the first time in a generation. but in my view we need to make sure we are spending money in the right areas recovering and helping species, versus gearing up to avoid the money per litigation strategy. >> your testimony mentions legislative proposals to prevent the endangered species act listings for the prairie chickens for 10 years. your testimony also acknowledges the endangered species act and a good threat

listing providing in sentences -- incentives for the state government to work together to conserve the species. the legislative proposal does not include the prohibition, for which i commend him. but the language seems to rely on every term. -- turn. what negative impacts do you think a tenure prohibition could have on collaborative conservation efforts in wyoming or bradley? >> it is a tough issue, but as i tried to articulate in my testimony, congress addressing individual species is not the way to go. you have other things to do.

to think the species rides on a popular vote when science may direct otherwise is not the best way to go. having said that, i think it's important to acknowledge i did support that in regards to gray wolf. those who are reluctant to take on this heavy left with congress should see this as a red flag. >> on congress is having to pick that up it is. it was happening with gray wolf and multiple users. it was 20 years with multiple lawsuits and people doing the right thing. the numbers have reached their goals and you can't get the species delisted. that is why those things happen. is at the best way to do it? no. but it is a red flag born out of frustration. where is the endgame? we have done everything we have asked. that is the frustration

causing it and it is the time for us to engage in macon prevent so we are not leaving it to congress to make a popular vote. >> thank you again for your testimony and thoughtful response. >> thank you mr. chair and mr. governor for being here and being a leader in this area. we need folks stepping up and discussing this. >> we do talk about delegating more authority to the state. a lot of times people have this knee-jerk reaction that because you are delegating more authority to the states, you are somehow weakening the law. i don't believe that's true. >> i think it is a good idea. the draft legislation elevates the role of the states, which is important. but it allows the secretary is

-- secretaries of interior or commerce to overrule the states recommendation. make recommendations that can ultimately be overturned by the federal government amount to a weaker endangered species act? >> i think it makes us stronger. the states aren't asking for veto power. if the states are going in the wrong direction, the secretary can say that is not the way we are going to go. but if i am taking your question right - the role of the state has the expertise. i have heard the people in the

interior say this is one of the greatest conservation efforts ever. with respect it was wet at the local and state level, started by my predecessor. if the state hadn't done that, we wouldn't be where we are. without the state and its collective initiative, the federal fish and wildlife service would not have been able to do that. this increased role should not be viewed of authority, it should be viewed as a collaborative partnership that will be effective. the secretary will retain that opportunity. the working graft -- draft mentioned that many times. we want the states for dissipation. -- participation. >> i will point out a couple of examples i am familiar with.

a ranking member mentioned the clover that we have in iowa as part of the breeding territory up and down the missouri river. i learned so much about the piping clover. >> you mean it is to timing delaware? >> it is. we have a much greater territory than delaware. [ laughter ] i learned so much about it and the missouri river from the flood of 2011. it's just an example where big federal government doesn't work well with the actual landowners are people on the ground. during the flood event we saw a lot of boats moving up and down the river as it flooded. the perception - whether it was correct or not, was the federal government was more concerned about the piping clover than

they were about the land and homeowners whose homes were underwater for four months. >> whether the perception was correct or not was the federal government was not communicating with local landowners. as we move forward, we have other examples that the water has receded and people are trying to get their lives back to normal. now we see the fish habitat and breeding areas for the levers being put into lace along the river without input from the local stakeholders. again, perception is the federal government cares more about the endangered species than they do about those who reside in the areas. it has caused erosion from some of the land where people live. have homes along the river. so there is a mistrust between

the federal government and the folks along the river. do you believe that if there was collaboration that that would help get rid of the perception? >> absolutely. and even beyond that, if you want to have voluntary efforts for your land, farm or ranch, you have to have the trust involved. i do mean the sisters -- this respectfully that it is more organically grown at the state and local level. that's i think the partnership is a real opportunity for species. the one thing i have learned as we all become very centered on our own world. it is in education, there of a lot -- are a lot of species i have learned about.

i think you are exactly right about the trust and local involvement. you brought up mother nature. for example, let's look at the polar bear. that is listed because climate change. the state won't be able to do that. the long-haired bat is listed because of a fungus. those who say states can't be trusted because look at the polar bears - that is outside the states control and maybe federal control as well. that state and local participation is absolutely critical for better success with the endangered species act. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you for your testimony and i commend the bipartisan process used with respect to the western governors

association. do you know whether the western governors association democratic governors have supported your process and this draft bill? >> i don't know the answer to that. i'm not disclosing private conversations, but some democratic senators - governors i have talked to believe in the work and the draft, their fear frankly is that in this process that it will not go forward as we envisioned. that is why as a condition they have made their we reserve the right to withdraw our help on this if it goes awry. i haven't heard from any democratic

governors part of the association about supporting this draft. haven't seen a piece of paper. until i do, i recognize the supported your process and have an open invitation to them that they don't support the coming draft. we all recognize there are things we can do in a way that is in way to improve laws on the books. my view is you took the right of first getting everyone around the able. we have not followed that approach in drafting this legislation here. >> let me give you lots of examples. there is a lot of positions -- provisions in this bill. one requires government and state give feedback on the performance of individual employees of the fish and wildlife service. i recognize there are and communications between the states and federal government.

do you think it would be appropriate for you to be told that the federal government will weigh in on the performance of your statement please? >> no, i don't agree with that. but i do want to say i support the working draft as it is consistent western governors. it is a good start to a process . senator, i would not make the assumption that democratic governors don't support the working draft. i would say they would support provisions, but maybe not everything in their. to get started, i am doing what i think is best to getting governors involved. >> i appreciate that. the governor you pointed at you disagree with a particular provision and i share your disagreement.

there are obviously going to be honest disagreements sometimes between employees. why would we want to give people that? some employees have gone death threats on their work. my time has run out. >> think you everyone, i appreciate the hard work you are doing. in my experience this had a lot of bipartisan support. when i was attorney general this was a huge issue. i cochaired the endangered species act working group with my democratic cochair gary king was the former attorney general of new mexico. particularly in western ag's we saw a lot of common ground where we didn't think it would be a partisan issue at all. how does that work on the recovery of listed species and

employing the best science? >> let me talk to that issue. i know you believe it, senator. but i would disagree a little bit in terms of expertise, particularly to the state of alaska. we have thousands of state employees who are the top experts in the field and probably the world with regard to science and expertise for endangered species, including the polar bear. >> the role of the states from your perspective should be heightened. why shouldn't it include a veto on decisions? if a state, for example - i know there are issues of cost countries -- cross boundaries, but if you have to be in the state the size of a continent there is no cross boundary

issues. >> of course i'm sure you know this and i think for the working draft you need to make sure the secretary has that authority. i appreciate the magnitude of alaska and the challenges you have. but often times these are across state. >> correct and where i see that as an issue is one state shouldn't have a veto. maybe it's unique to my state - which is so big with so many species, we care about them way more than the feds do. can you see an example where if there isn't a cross boundary challenge like there are in the lower 48 dates, could the state

have more power? >> i appreciate what you are saying, but i guess what i would tell you is this came out and there were certain things that i wanted more. if you start carving up states and territories, my goal is to get this moving forward and i worry about that hurrying the process. >> i appreciate the hard work and bipartisan work. let me ask another issue relating to expertise beyond the federal government. one that is important in alaska and is in the draft bill is the issue of traditional knowledge. in my state, that typically means alaska native communities that have been harvesting and

watching species for thousands and thousands of years. you might know the bowhead whale or scientist -- where it ended up that the whaling captains and traditional knowledge ended up being right on the numbers. way more than the western scientists. i am glad the traditional knowledge is being highlighted in this. do you care to speak on that topic? there are a lot of people who know about species who don't necessarily have a phd. >> i'm not familiar with the example you gave and it rings

true to me. when we were working on the gray wolf, local ranchers would say - i think more credible information is certainly helpful. >> i know my time is expiring and there has been an issue with federal agencies abusing statutory authority by having examples of listings that stretch the definition of a foreseeable future and making listing decisions. let me give you an example, the bearded seal is based on projections of what was going to happen 100 years in the future. nobody knows what will happen

at that time, but more federal agencies claim to list the species because 100 years from now we believe it will be threatened. >> that mostly relates to climate change, which is certainly happening in alaska. >> it's helping out, but we believe it will be unhealthy 100 years from now. i think that is an abuse of authority and i am hopeful this legislation can rain -- reign in that decision-making that doesn't have statutory basis. do you care to comment? >> we struggled with that at western governors for the reason that you said. not only because you have the foreseeable future and the issue of climate change, like in alaska.

then you can list a species and what do you do about it? what local work can be done? what state and federal work can be done? you have to have an opportunity to say we are concerned, here are the steps you can take. whether it is climate change, if you say it is listed and based upon review of a 100 year foreseeable future, how do you look away -- motivate the local rancher, fisherman or concerned environmentalist to have a voluntary effort? i think we have to be careful about that. that is something western governors and staff are saying we need to be careful with, the term foreseeable future. >> there is bipartisan discussion? >> there is lots. i don't know that we came to a helpful resolution, but that was part of the concern. >> we are heading to senator

carter. >> this letter of support is signed by the governor of hawaii . there has been a submission by the democratic senator requesting earlier. additionally, i have a number of letters with over 100 stakeholders writing support of the draft of the endangered species act amendment of 2019 . -- 2018. they represent every state, including wildlife agencies, conservation groups, energy, forestry, livestock and water groups. 's letters have been submitted. >> thank you all for your

efforts. we do appreciate the fact that we are having this discussion and you are bringing democrats and republicans together in a bipartisan manner. the endangered species act has been an extremely important part of this country. i want to thank you for your

attention to the realities upon the change as of relation to endangered species. sometimes it is controversial for us to mention those words. it is important on adaptation as it relates to dangerous species there are things that you can't do as a result of management of a species because of exterior factors. we want to change the exterior factors, but you don't have the ability to make that impact. i appreciate the matter on which you dealt with that. i want to deal with one area that has brought us some concern, that is the modifications you make in traditional -- judas review and your recommendation. you mentioned that governors like to have a lot of power. that is really true. legislators like a lot of power. this review is checks and

balances in our system. because we have strong checks and balances, it makes for a much more open process for people to have an input because there is a possibility of the judicial branch getting involved in the process. i want to wait a concern, a lot of people who are committed to the working of the endangered species act have brought to their attention -- my attention the concern on the modifications you make in the review. i would just urged us to step back a moment and recognize it is in all of our to make sure that we do have checks and balances in our system. it is very possible that state officials in your state will act responsibly and act with process, and in other states they may not. the judicial review gives us a balance in hours. when you look at policies today, it has never been more important.

i would just ask you to be open- minded as we look at ways that we may make this more effective. >> as a senator, working on this , it keeps the open-minded. it is absolutely important that we have checks and balances. we know that. in this context, i mentioned in my opening comments about the years and the multiple lawsuit with regard to gray wolf, long after the population members have been breached. if you want to have ongoing efforts, and i just want to highlight the work we have done in the state of wyoming with ranchers, energy companies, autobahn societies, to have those voluntary efforts, you also have to know that if you do right, you take care of the species, and you get to the goal line, it can be a delisting that you reach your goal. there has to be a point, and

that is why i think with the chairman's comment about needing to see that it works. i would never suggest that courts not be part of the process. i am suggesting that as you the now, individual species being addressed by congress, is by frustration that there is no end in sight. that is not, in my view, the best way to address species conservation. >> congress in the statute have left the areas ambiguous or not in the best interest, getting the court's discretion as to how they review. the great wolf is an example of maybe a statue of not being appropriate with dealing with circumstances in different regions of our company. if we draft the statute correctly, traditional review is an extremely important part,

and can be done in a timely way, but allows for a more transparent access, as the administrative areas move forward. >> one last question. i just wanted to touch on again, this is a really bipartisan issue we had in a here a couple years ago, the obama administration, fish and wildlife services, dan ash, we talked about opportunities for bipartisan warmth -- reforms to the esa, that i don't the minutes and 1988. but, it went to this issue of multiple listing you have certain groups come and they are trying to get a listing where they file dozens if not more species in one petition, and that of course sums up the entire process, which may have been their intent.

even director ash, under president obama, said we don't think that is help will, we should be able to perform that and have a much more narrow passes. that at least, in a hearing here, was something that was a very bipartisan view. did the governors get to that issue of multiple listings? >> we did in the discussion. frankly in history the last time i was here testifying on the house side was with director ash. we had that conversation at times about the multiple listing. i just want to underscore one of the things you said, part of the problem that we have with multiple listings, and part of the problem we were trying to address with governors, is this issue of what a species is listed, or when multiple species are thrown out there, you are spending money and time in areas that you don't need to

spend. who suffers from that is not the people, it is the species. that is in my view one of the reasons the -- this is how blessed we are spending a lot of money, and time making sure employees are employed. western governors, governors of the country care about you let about how we are spending our money and time. >> significant number of environmental conservation organizations have expressed their enthusiasm to modernize the endangered species act. among these groups are the western agriculture coalition.

additionally the national wildlife federation and the theodore roosevelt conservation partnership have echoed this willingness. i look forward to working with these and other organizations that believe the status quo is not good enough, and the endangered species act can be improved. >> i object. no, i don't object. i have a request of my own. i do not object. a 2017 letter from the department of control recommends the statutory integrity of endangered species be maintained. >> without objection, and there is none. >> of an ami, thank you, we appreciate you being here.

you are welcome to stay and listen to the discussions of the next panel. there are a number of interns from hawaii -- wyoming who are listening. we look forward to being with you this weekend, the following weekend, and also the week of frontier days. >> sure, i think you for your leadership. we recognize that this is up to us and we hope we have got a good start. we appreciate your continued bipartisan work. thank you for your time today and your efforts. >> even a notion that senator rounds is at, is he not here? senator rounds was trying to get here to ask a couple of questions. our next panel, and i invite them to come to the table

is the director of the colorado parks and wildlife, and not strickler who is the secretary of natural resources for the commonwealth of virginia. thank you to you both for being here. i hope you have enjoyed and benefited from the testimony of governor mead. as you are readying your testimony, we ask you limit your testimony for 5 minutes, so there is time for questions. with that, welcome to the committee, and please proceed at your leisure. >> thank you, and thank you for the warm welcome. thank you for the opportunity to represent the governor of colorado who could not be here and asked me to come instead, and to discuss my experiences as a state director who is at the frontlines of management of threatening endangered species

conservation. as i provided in testimony, the governor has not taken a position on this draft, but has been supportive of the governors association process that governor mead had laid out, and continuing this dialogue with congress for a bipartisan solution that improve the implementation of the endangered species act. for the past 25 years, i have had the privilege of working in partnership with many federal state and federal agencies on many issues associated with the endangered species act implementation. the endangered species act as congress laid out in the passage is premise to the state and federal partnership approach. however, there are frustrations, and disagreements on all sides, about what is broken and why, but no -- more notably, how do we fix it. these frustrations are evident

in a numerous number of lawsuits being litigated and discussed in court all over the country, on both sides of these issues. for colorado, we maintain 960 species that inhabit our state border, in which 210 species fall under some level of special concern. my agency spends an average of $8 million of state funding for year on those 210 special status feces. in the last 10 years, my agency alone has been in excess of $100 million on just two species . our expenditures are viewed as not only conserving a for species or an endangered species , but we view them as investments to prevent a need for that listing. additionally, congress congressionally appropriated revenue services such as farmville conservation programs, land and water conservation fund, who also provided

critical support, but it is not enough. draft legislation as you had expressed with the previous panel that is being considered in the house right now is recovering america's wildlife act. it is intended to alleviate this financial shortfall and provide much-needed funding for those species at risk all over the country. one of the provisions in the discussion draft talk about state involvement. not all states have the same technical financial or political wherewithal to engage in the endangered species act. we believe we need to allow each state to opt in, to whatever desired level of engagement. this is consistent with what congress intended 45 years ago when the endangered species act was passed. the other wall from the state is our desire to be better engaged in the act is not

solely about shifting or the loss of a species from state to federal jurisdiction, or about veto power, it is also about ensuring other state interests, and authorities, are fully considered in the listing and recovery process. these authorities such as water rights, land-use development, private property rights, and air quality, are also of the factors that influence state and local economies in recovery of the species. mr. chairman, i keep my comments very short, thank you very much. >> thank you for being with us today and sharing your comments. now, i would like to turn to mr. strickler. >> thank you for inviting me to testify behalf -- on behalf of this type of legislation. my name is not strickler. i oversee the commonwealth department of game and land fisheries. we protect the

general wildlife and plants, including state and federally listed threatened and endangered species. virginia currently has 89 species ranging from a fine squirrel, sea turtles, the atlantic sturgeon, a fish that can reach 14 feet long, and 800 pounds that has been around the time of the dinosaurs. we have strong relationships with u.s. fish and wildlife service and the national fish line service on endangered species act issues. collaboration among fish and wildlife service, and other partners and serve critical bald eagle nesting areas and to reduce impact land disturbance. fish and wildlife service, work together to protect a woodpecker habitat in southeast virginia. now the population is expanding.

the restoration plan could develop by the fish and wildlife service to bring fresh wattle -- water muscles back from the brink of extinction. we certainly have work left to do. we see speeds to look for species conservation recovery as an opportunity, not a hurdle. we believe that when our lands and waters are kept clean enough, they are better able to support a better and healthy economy. these become attractive enough to hunters and those alight. they become desirable places to work, live, play, start a business and raise a family. we need to do more to help the endangered species. the most important thing we can do is create more resources. the endangered species act can be strengthened.

the discussion draft contains provisions that would hinder virginia's ability to make the most of our partnerships with federal agencies by complicating established processes. the commonwealth of virginia cannot support legislation in its current form. i am also concerned that more effort could open the door to harm the essential purpose. the primary reason many species are where they are is because states including virginia who have not had the resources or the political will to do the jobs themselves. that is why the endangered species act of some form. it separates the complicated, scientific, and management questions from a local political pressures.

as a philosophical matter, these resources do not belong just to virginia, wyoming, or any single state, they belong to all americans. we offer information on political species as well. we know that the fish and wildlife service and national fisheries service is looking at what we provided them and using it to the best of their abilities. federal agencies should absolutely be held accountable for how these funds are spent and should be required to document progress and results. we should not forget that the esa has a 99% success rate at preventing the endangered list

species, and 99% of species on track to meet their goals. if you look at the endangered species act in the emergency room, an er doctor and of a 99 of keeping patients alive is impressive. moving forward, we hope to work with congress and improving the endangered species act, and secure funding that is necessary to speed recovery to save these species. >> thank you testimony. the challenges facing surrounding species don't just affect the west. according to the u.s. fish and wildlife service is, there are over 360 additional species that are going to be considered for listing by 2002 -- 2023. many of these species are in states in the east, south, and midwest.

in terms of the members of the list, if you look at virginia, north carolina, these places to the east and the south, 68 species are going to be considered in virginia alone. dozens more are going to be considered and other states throughout the country. shouldn't these states be given a greater role to play in helping prevent these listings in the first place? if listings do occur, states need to have a greater role in helping to recover the species. >> thank you for that question. i agree on all of those points. you had talked previously with the governor, and i agree with his response. state and wildlife agencies maintain a very broad police powers within their borders. we in colorado maintain a very strong scientific and research

program as well as the landowner connections that we have with local governments and private -- private wildlife -- land owners, that can work with the government. we are engaged in water, we are aware of those numbers. with the limited amount of funding we have got available, we are having to make decisions on where to put that funding and have the biggest impact, prioritize essentially. our role in recovering plantings as well as bringing forth available the best available science, in most cases, states are the only ones who have that in conjunction with university. i think that affords us an opportunity to discuss these decisions. >> we had our hearing in

february this past 2017, and the ceo of the defenders of wildlife former director of u.s. fishery and wildlife service under president clinton said the esa could work better. i guess you agree with that, and i say why it is important for states to have more of a say? >> states are concerned. they are very concerned about threatened and endangered species, their management, and their future survival. states like mine have been very lucky about the funding that is available, nonfederal funds, that we can commit to this. i think in the broader suspense of the highest level it is talk about -- talking about economy. it is about our water supply, and is about all of those things

that as a state that we are very concerned about. i think that should afford us an opportunity and a seat at the table when we talk about listings and recovery. >> senator carper? >> i'll ask later. >> thank you very much. i want to start off by saying the endangered species act has been successful by any measure. the data is compelling. 99% of the wildlife of the major species of protection has been saved from extinction. we have a great track record. while the huge task of recovering a species from the brink of extinction often takes

decades, the majority of the species that have been listed under the esa are recovering within the track -- time frames that have been projected. i want to emphasize for the record how dire our current situation is on the planet earth. we are in a global extinction crisis of a commercial that most americans don't understand. it is estimated that right now more than 1 in 6 species on the planet are threatened with extinction in this century alone. the global population of fish, birds, mammals, amphibians, and reptiles declined 58% between the time i was born, 1970, and today. meaning, we have lost more than half of all of the wildlife on the planet, more than half of all of the wildlife on the planet earth, in the last 50 years. species today are going extinct thousands of times faster than

the natural extinction rate. this is staggering, this is stunning. half of all of the wildlife in planet earth in my lifetime have gone. given this extinction crisis, i just believe that we are considering a bill that in its total conception is taking us in the wrong direction, a step in the wrong direction. rather than focusing on what we have heard from the other testimonies on the urgent need to increase resources, to do a better job at protecting species, governors from both sides of the aisle would echo that we need more investment on the federal level to deal with a crisis, and this is not just about animals, this is a profound impact on human beings, on every american. i just believe this bill would move us away from the best available solution, and would delay judicial review.

in the few moments i have left mr. strickler, the bill we are considering today would prevent any legal challenge to delisting discrimination -- determination by the fish and wildlife service for five years. the fish and wildlife service, if they make a de smet -- a mistake, this mistake could not be challenged for five years in court. i am wondering about that particular section. do you have an opinion about that, and do you believe it is going to help the crisis we have right now in america and beyond? >> thank you for the question. i understand the sentiment behind this proposal. i think it is a practical matter. it is concerning to the commonwealth of virginia.

as you mentioned, species recovery is a question of science. science is an involving process. we always find out more than what we currently know about species and the ecosystems they live in. judicial review is a tool that we have to make sure we are doing things right. if there is a situation where we make a delisting decision that we find out a few years later was an error, having to wait three more years for somebody to be able to challenge that is not really the place we want to be. for that reason i think it -- >> it's a balance. there is not an american that things we are over litigious and anyways. but it is a balance between having the flexibility necessary so science can actually guide. that is the next question i have , one of the strengths of the esa as we know it has the strength to provide the fish and wildlife service to update a recovery plan. this bill would require a unanimous agreement among

members on a recovery team to change the goals of her recovery plan. do you believe that this change would help or hurt the efforts to protect endangered species? >> thank you for your question. i think it would hinder species recovery efforts. i understand where this is coming from, states have expressed frustration in the past when recovery criteria as set to recovery process. because of new data and trends coming into the equation, the endgame changes a bit as far as what is necessary to recover species. it is following the best available science. i think this provision will be best to do that. >> thank you mr. chairman. we heard about the par partisan process that leaders from this committee tossed the endangered

species recovery act of 1997. i am concerned about the current discussion as evidenced by numerous conservation stakeholders who have already come out in opposition to the current draft. as we look to modernize the essay, it is important that we remember the foundational policy goals of this act to protect and recover our nation's endangered species and ecosystems. we must never forget that esa has been incredibly successful in pulling back more than 99% of species from the book of extinction. any effort to reform this critical law must recognize the fact and be careful to guarantee that at the least we do no harm when it comes to modifying our current science- based framework. that is where my questioning is going to go to, mr. strickler. i am going to address you first. in your testimony, you noted that the federal government use their department scientific information and will use it so long as it references the best

available data. can you explain why this is the best available science, and describe how this bill might negatively impact the way the u.s. fish and wildlife service is uses fake data? >> thank you for the question. the importance of using the best available science is because these species are critically imperiled. we may not have another chance to get it right. in many cases, the chairman and others have noted the best available science is science being produced by state agencies. in other cases, the best available science is being produced by research organizations, or nonprofit groups. elevating fig produce data above data produced that was science produced by

organizations that have just as much care of the endangered species act, runs the risk of marginalizing a potentially good science and may put us in a situation where a listed species is easier, but recovering them in a meaningful sense is more difficult. >> thank you. i want to address pending a bit as well. this draft dramatically states the states role, it also states what hinders federal and cc based -- the -- species based programs. should congress prioritize using any esa modernization efforts to increase federal funding to help states better

increase efforts? >> i think that funding is the critical question here. a big part of that is because the information that i have shows that about a quarter of federally listed species receive $10,000 or less per year towards the recovery. that is just inadequate, we are never going to make the progress we need regardless of what states are doing if that is the kind of commitment that the federal government is able to make. >> thank you. can you talk about the funding needs for states in terms of federal funding for the management of endangered species? >> i agree with mr. strickler, it is essential.

it is everything. to recover habitats, to conduct a science, to sit on recovery teams and develop these recovery plans all take resources right now that are coming from state or legislatively at the state level appropriated dollars. funding is probably the biggest impact and prevention of recovery of species of not just to prevent them from extinction, but to move them from off the list where they don't need the protections of the act anymore. >> thank you so much. thank you to both of you gentlemen for being here today. >> senator merkley? >> thank you very much. i appreciate you all's testimony. in your testimony, you have spoken to the importance of collaboration between federal and state agencies.

true collaboration is very helpful and essential to understanding what is going on at both levels, and how those things will interact. i want to understand if you other practical events of the bill. secretary strickler, what is the practical effect of a governor appointing half the members of a recovery team? does it make it easier or harder for local interest to influence recovery outcomes? >> it makes sense for local localities or states that are in a physical area of a threatened or endangered species to have a greater role in recovery. this particular provision will throw things out of balance. in one sense, when a species is listed, it means that the

states where those species exist have not done an adequate job of conserving the species in the first place. it gives the states the primary authority an equal number or majority of members on a recovery team, that kind of goes against common sense. the other thing i think worth noting is that there are other states were perhaps the species don't exist, that have an interest in protecting the species, we certainly in virginia have folks who visit the west and appreciate western states wildlife, and have an interest to making sure that wildlife is conserved. for those reasons, i think that is where we come down on that. >> just in terms of basic collaboration and understanding, it makes sense to have a rich dialogue with local experts, local decision-

makers, but your concern is about the formal structure of the recovery team. does that take us to the issue of the unanimous vote being required to be able to update a plan? >> yes sir. i think that particular provision would make it very challenging if new science was introduced, to be able to do adaptive management and shift on the fly the way that we are working to recover species. back to your original question, collaboration is absolutely necessary to this process. it is collaboration among states, it is collaboration between states and the federal government. at least in virginia, and i can't speak directly to the experience of other states, we feel like we have that relationship. our organizations work closely on a daily basis with fish and wildlife service. there is nothing that fish and wildlife service is planning to do with respect to threatened

and endangered species that our fish and wildlife service is don't know about and are not working hand-in-hand with the federal government on. >> we have a situation in the west or oregon put together a whole teat of state experts to try to develop a plan, because we want to develop a federal listing. not only did we do the state plan, but we also used extensive use of conservation agreements, because they said if you do these things on your own private land, then you are protected from additional measures that might be adopted if we do get listed. if that combination worked, and really motivated people to come together. i am looking at the structure here and seeing if the federal action depends upon both sign off by the state then essentially oregon would not have acted on the stage, the

federal government would have kicked in late in the process a great stress and all rather than having a true collaboration. is there a possibility he can undermanned this type of collaboration that keeps actions that are made quickly on the endangered species? >> can a conservation agreement and safe harbor agreements and proactive collaboration work to try to take positive conservation steps before a species is listed? those things show the flexibility of the esa as it is written. of course, there are processes that can be improved, and they are always improving, and they would make things a little bit more seamless resort -- with respect to those kind of voluntary agreements. they are helpful, and they are able to be entered into the act, and that is a valuable thing.

>> thank you, senator markey. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. secretary, good to have you here. mr. chairman, the secretary was on my staff over at the natural resource committee, so i am used to having him sit next to me in a hearing, so it is good to see you on the other side. you say in your testimony that the best way to improve the limitation of the endangered species act is to recover more species faster is for congress

to provide adequate funding for science and management of those resources. what does adequate funding look like? how much more do we need, where is the need the greatest? >> thank you for the question and for your kind remarks, good to see you again. the answer of how much is enough is a difficult one to answer, and perhaps is one that congressional appropriators need to deal with. i think it is safe to say that we are not there yet. at the risk of being redundant, the information that i have received a showing that a quarter of threatened and endangered species are receiving less than $10,000 a year towards recovery. that is just not acceptable. we are not going to be able to

make meaningful progress in recovering these species, or doing much more than keeping them on life support, without a significant dedication of resources. >> we have prevented 99% of listed species from going extinct because of the act, but it always depends upon the best science. in your opinion, how much of that success has been dependent on using the best science? >> thank you for the question. in my opinion, the science is critical, it is the most important piece of ensuring that the endangered species act works successfully. >> what would be -- the impact be on this draft of legislation that is being presented to us, in terms of the role that science will play in making decisions? >> thank you for the question. i think that there is some frustration that has been expressed, and this may be

based on some experience that states are not having science that they produced -- produce, at least in their consideration from the fish and wildlife service when they are making lists and planning. my experience and virginia's experience is that fish and wildlife service does take the state concern into account, and is using state science, when it is the best available. the current process is working, and we are scriptable of upsetting the balance.

we share threatened and endangered populations of aquatic species with tennessee. without the federal government, the fish and wildlife service being able to step in and be a referee to that process, i don't think things will work as well with trying to recover these species if virginia and tennessee were pointing fingers at each other on how to coordinate things. >> finally, this draft legislation when it's judicial review of the endangered species act on decisions such as the delisting of species. what what in your opinion the impact of to daschle -- judicial review would have? >> i don't want to be redundant on this either, but limiting

judicial review and limiting the ability of citizens to hold their government accountable for decisions in the view of citizens they think are not the right decisions, if people bring court challenges that are frivolous or not adequate, they are going to be rejected. we have seen that in the past. litigation is an important tool. >> thank you. thank you, we are proud of you. we thank you for your service. thank you mr. chairman. >> mr. strickland, do i understand you once served in the house of representatives as a professional staffer? >> with great trepidation i'll answer yes. >> who were some of the people you worked with? >> i have the lunch. working for them ranking member ed markey and when he moved over to -- i worked for peter

defazio for oregon, then more recently for arizona. >> of those three, who would you say was your favorite? >> put in other words, who hired you? >> i was hired by senator markey. >> thank you both for being here today and for bring your sense of humor. also for your commitment and service. mr. secretary, your testimony mentions the economic opportunity to maintain diverse ecology and for restoring our land and water. you state that these places become more attractive for use by hunters, hikers and bikers in virginia.

i grew up in virginia, i grew up in danville and roanoke. you drive down interstate 81 on the way from maryland, which where my wife is from, i used to take my hunting dogs in hunting for quail. i have a great affection for that part of virginia. as i said in my opening statement, we share this experience in delaware. we want these places to become more attractive. not only do people travel to see the endangered species, all kinds of threatened and endangered species in delaware, but when they do, they spend money, and they support our local economy. would you elaborate on how habitat restoration and species

conservation can improve economies in virginia and he on? >> yes, thank you for the question. directly speaking with respect to individual species, there are industries and economies that we have seen pop up in virginia around recovery of threatened and endangered species. humpback whales is a great example. a long time in virginia, you would never see well off the coast. now, we have will watching trips, he will pay money to see humpback whales in the wintertime last week i was down in far southwest virginia on a trip with the nation conservancy and local partners who are working to recover a number of threatened and endangered muscle species on the clinch record. it is a really fascinating effort because these muscles when they are recovered, they filter 10 gallons of water every day.

you got a few of them in the river and the river is not going to reclaim if you have thousands of them and the water, your water quality can be much better. that supports a water quality that can support boss fisheries in the country. people are coming far and wide to certificate and those fisheries. this is a river system that was decimated by the messages of pollution with the coal industry a decade or so, and we have really brought it back now the rc tourism pop up around the restoration efforts. >> is there anything you want to mention that helping steer us to a compromise on what is a difficult issue? >> thank you very much. i agree. as far as the west coast and

states like colorado, half of the state is private, and half is next final land along with some state trust lands out there, it gets complicated. habitat is where it is, is were the species lives, you can work towards habitat conservation, new will likely have recovery of species that reside in the habitat. that is not necessarily the case all the time. we have got a population of gunnison sage grouse that is located in the gunnison basin and small parts of utah. we have consent of the time i want to listing a 5% of that habitat working with local governments, federal agencies, and those entities to secure 85% of the habitat the bird was still listed as threatened

despite a discussion of the decision by the service that that would be needed. my point is that birds will fluctuate, and anybody who does bird hunting knows when you're dreaming have a great year, and the next couple you may not. birds do that naturally, this is the information that is coming out of the science that we are starting to learn. securing the habitat does not necessarily mean that species will recover, we have to include in their what the scientific and daily needs of that species are. but it does get trickier when you are in a significant amount of federal land, private land and state land as you are talking within the borders of the state. >> briefly, same question. we look for principal compromise on what is a difficult issue, mr. strickland? i apologize senator, can you

repeat the question. i asked a with of devices which include here today is as we look for some principal compromise on what is important . i think i would just add insight to continue answering your previous question on the economics of species recovery. as we look at protecting the habitat and ecosystems that were threatened, we are also protecting and conserving land that has multiple uses. the outdoor recreational economy is a huge business, we as the, will have a land conservation strategy that focuses on diversity conservation and multiple uses, and when you have this kind of

synergy, you can protect a threatened species and also economic benefits. the last point i would make, is if the committee will just keep in mind the significant interest that states like virginia, unfortunately have lost a lot of our iconic wildlife species decades and centuries ago. don't take for granted what you have when you have as far as iconic wildlife. our folks have to travel across the country to see bryson or elk or mountain lions, that used to not be the case. places where they do exist are special. >> thank you to both of you very much. >> the special places are called wyoming. >> reporter: thank you. >> and, there is a wyoming in delaware, south of dover. >> just a couple of quick things.

this discussion job is to make state equal partners in implementing the endangered species act. some claim that they cannot adequately conserve wildlife don't have interest to do so. the sierra club went so far as to say the authority over wildlife decisions hostile state management was their phraseology. you have served in high-level positions, are states hostile to protecting wildlife in their states, what is your experience? >> i think hostile is a strong word. i think it is more frustration. i think that the frustration comes from uncertainty in decision-making processes that you are told something, this would be the best in conservation, and then as you start marching down the road of spending millions of millions

of dollars that you probably don't have, and then to have those goalposts move constantly, it creates a frustration to a point that you have to work with, towards conservation. it makes private land owners, it makes individuals in the federal land management agencies as well as the fish and wildlife service is very frustrated, when at the end of the day, a lot of these decisions are being decided in court, and judges are making these decisions whether there is science and that decision or not. it is really born out of frustration, mr. chairman, when you see some states that may have constructive criticism for the act. >> i appreciate everyone being here today. the hearing has been useful in outlying -- outlining the need

and expertise of our state around the country, we need to move beyond the current feeling policy of listed species and then leaving them on life support. over the weekend, eric vance editorialized about endangered species in the washington post. we are losing the fight to save endangered species he stated modern conservation is increasingly about maintaining insanely thin population with shallow gene pools. not only is this expensive, but it undermines the whole point of wildlife management. that is how today's endangered species act operates. defenders of the status quo have a vintage prior congresses and administrations from approving the law. we need the endangered species act worked -- to work better.

now, it is our turn. i look forward to working across the aisle with members would join me in using the western governors association bipartisan work to make the endangered species act worked better for most wildlife and for people. i appreciate you being here today. members may submit follow-up questions for the record. the hearing record will be open for the next two weeks. i want to thank all of the witnesses today for your time and testimony. governor mead, i am grateful you took the time to be with us. with that, the hearing is adjourned.

ahead, a panel examines the dangers of radioactive waste, and the challenges in safely decommissioning nuclear plans. in the morning, federal reserve chair jerome paul returns to capitol hill for his second day of testimony. in the afternoon, dr. anthony fauci, director of the national institute of allergy and infectious diseases at the national press club in washington will speak live at 1 pm eastern. at two, the house reviews the

impact of tariffs on u.s. agriculture. tonight, it is my honor and privilege to announce i will nominate judge brett cavanaugh to the united states supreme court. >> mr. president, i am grateful to you. i am humbled and your confidence in me. brett kavanaugh is >>'s nominee for supreme court. >> i am pleased with the nominee the president has chosen. after talking to him yesterday morning, i look forward to supporting his nomination and doing whatever i can to ensure his bipartisan confirmation. if brett kavanaugh is confirmed, williams free them

-- women's freedom to make decisions about their bodies, the quality of our air and water, and much more will be at risk. >> i cannot think of anybody who is more qualified to serve the supreme court. >> follow the confirmation progress on c-span watch last -- live on in cspan. next, a discussion focusing on the dangers of radioactive waste, hosted by the environmental and energy study institute. >> i want to immediately correct myself and clarify my remarks. if you move tech front, we would like to give priority to them.