Endangered and threatened species—and the law that protects them, the 1973 Endangered Species Act (ESA, P.L. §§1531-1543)—are controversial, in part, because dwindling species are often harbingers of resource scarcity. The most common cause of species' decline is habitat loss or alteration. Congressional efforts in the 110 th , 111 th , and 112 th Congresses focused on addressing specific controversial features of ESA and on oversight of concerns such as the science used for making decisions and designating critical habitat, but few bills related to ESA were enacted. In addition, an express purpose of ESA is to "provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved" (16 U.S.C. Under ESA, species of plants and animals (both vertebrate and invertebrate) may be listed as either endangered or threatened according to assessments of the risk of their extinction. Once a species is listed, legal tools, including penalties and citizen suits, are available to aid species recovery and to protect habitat. Foreign species are also addressed by international wildlife treaties. Issues in the 113th Congress

ESA reauthorization has been on the legislative agenda since the funding authorization expired in 1992, and bills have been introduced in each subsequent Congress to address various aspects of endangered species protection. Endangered Species and Climate Change

In another version of the debate over science and ESA, the focus is less on the use of science in ESA decision-making, per se, and more on the use of the act to force decisions on a scientific issue. In the 113 th Congress, Section 307(b) of S. 17 would amend ESA to prohibit the consideration of impacts from greenhouse gases in implementation of ESA. It proposes to address conflicting water management objectives and outstanding water rights claims in the Basin. No such bills were enacted. They would allow governors to determine whether species may be listed within their states; allow governors to assume sole authority for listed species found only within the state's boundaries as determined by the governor; eliminate petitions to list species; require congressional approval to list species; remove species from protection five years after listing; and allow property owners to seek compensation for a broad range of impacts on fair market value due to the statute's prohibitions on taking listed species, among other changes. ESA Appropriations

Appropriations play an important role in the ESA debate, providing funds for listing and recovery activities as well as financing consultations that are necessary for federal projects. The Administration proposed level funding for the Multinational Species Conservation Fund and for the Neotropical Migratory Bird Fund.
The Endangered Species Act (ESA; P.L. 93-205, 16 U.S.C. §§1531-1543) was enacted to increase protection for, and to provide for the recovery of, vanishing wildlife and vegetation. Under ESA, species of plants and animals (both vertebrate and invertebrate) can be listed as endangered or threatened according to assessments of their risk of extinction. Habitat loss is the primary cause for listing species. Once a species is listed, powerful legal tools are available to aid its recovery and protect its habitat. Accordingly, when certain resources are associated with listed species—such as water in arid regions like California, energy resources in sagebrush country, or free-flowing rivers—ESA is seen as an obstacle to continued or greater human use of these resources. ESA may also be controversial because dwindling species are usually harbingers of broader ecosystem decline or conflicts. As a result, ESA is considered a primary driver of large-scale ecosystem restoration issues.
Previous Congresses have conducted oversight hearings on the implementation of various federal programs and laws that address threatened and endangered species. This has ranged from addressing listing and delisting decisions under ESA to justifying funding levels for international conservation programs. In the 113th Congress, resource-specific issues may be addressed independently, whereas oversight on the implementation of ESA may be addressed in debates about particular species (e.g., wolves, polar bears, sage grouse, and salmon).
Major issues for the 113th Congress include how to allocate funds to activities and programs seeking to assist species adaptation to climate change. Other major issues concerning ESA in recent years have included the role of science in decision-making, critical habitat (CH) designation, incentives for property owners, and appropriate protection of listed species, among others.
Authorization for spending under ESA expired on October 1, 1992. The prohibitions and requirements of ESA remain in force, even in the absence of an authorization, and funds have been appropriated to implement the administrative provisions of ESA in each subsequent fiscal year. Proposals to reauthorize and extensively amend ESA were last considered in the 109th Congress, but none was enacted. No legislative proposals were introduced in the 110th, 111th, 112th, or 113th Congresses for a broad reauthorization of ESA.
This report discusses oversight issues and legislation in the 113th Congress that address ESA implementation and management of endangered and threatened species.