[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 89 (Friday, May 26, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1145]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


      INTRODUCTION OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES RELISTING ACT OF 1995

                                 ______


                         HON. CALVIN M. DOOLEY

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 25, 1995
  Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Endangered 
Species Relisting Act of 1995. I represent the most productive 
agricultural region in the entire country, and as such, we have 
experienced our fair share of frustration with the Endangered Species 
Act. Of the 944 U.S. species currently listed as endangered or 
threatened, my home State of California has 107 of these listed 
species.
  This bill is not intended to be a comprehensive reform of the 
Endangered Species Act, but rather a focused approach to address 
specific issues that I believe must be a part of the debate on 
reforming the Endangered Species Act. I would like to take this 
opportunity to explain my legislation.
  First, I think it is very important that we not only amend the 
process for future listings of species, but that we ensure that those 
species already on the list meet a level of scientific scrutiny. For 
that reason, my legislation requires relisting of all species now on 
the threatened and endangered list. The concept is simple. if the 
science is there, the species can stay on the list. If the science 
isn't there, it come off. One of the most disturbing aspects of the 
current listing process is that a species like the San Joaquin kit fox, 
which was originally listed in 1967, was placed on the list with little 
or no scientific information.
  The second concept in my proposal is to require peer review of all 
science used in all stages of the listing and delisting process. This 
is a simple concept that merely ensures that one scientist or group of 
scientists doesn't unilaterally make decisions on a species. I think 
that this concept has been embraced by nearly all involved in the ESA 
debate.
  The next concept deals with the development of recovery plans. I 
believe that recovery should be the cornerstone of the Endangered 
Species Act. Leaving species on the threatened or endangered list for 
30 years is not a productive way of protecting important species. I 
believe we must make a determination of whether a species can be 
recovered and implement a plan quickly. Without a timeline for 
recovery, landowners are left in a situation of not knowing what can 
and cannot be done on their property and how long these restrictions 
will last. My proposal would require the development of a recovery plan 
within 12 months after the listing of a species. More importantly, it 
would require the Secretary of the Interior to consider multiple 
recovery plans and to choose the least cost alternative. This provision 
is based on a provision of the Clean Water Act. It allowed for the 
development of a historic agreement on the bay-delta in California.
  Finally, my proposal address the issue of incidental take. As you 
know, under current law, a landowner must apply for an incidental take 
permit. This can be a long and frustrating process. However, without a 
permit, any destruction of critical habitat or killing of a listed 
species constitutes a violation of the law regardless of the intent of 
the landowner. This section of my proposal attempts to allow landowners 
to engage in certain activities that may result in the incidental take 
of critical habitat or a listed species without being subject to action 
under the ESA, without going through the present onerous permit 
process.
  As I stated earlier, the current endangered species list has well 
over 700 species listed. However, according to the Fish and Wildlife 
Service only 17 species have ever been removed from the list--and some 
of these have been removed because they became extinct, not because 
they were recovered. It seems that progress on recovering species is, 
at best, ineffective. At worst, the recover portion of the Endangered 
Species Act seems to be nonexistent.
  I hope that we will be able to make responsible reforms to the ESA to 
ensure that significant species are protected, while balancing the 
economic and social costs of such protection. I want to be able to 
point to an ESA that actually accomplishes the recovery of species and 
gives landowners some certainty of the availability of land for 
continue and future use.


                          ____________________