[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 116 (Tuesday, July 18, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1455-E1456]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                         ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

                                 ______


                            HON. RON PACKARD

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, July 18, 1995
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, for decades the liberals in Congress have 
distorted the original intent of the Endangered Species Act to further 
their extreme agendas. In November, the voters cried foul and asked 
Republicans to restore rationality to our environmental laws.
  Our reform proposal stops the radical environmentalists in their 
tracks. They will no longer ride roughshod over our property rights. 
Instead, Republicans will protect our natural resources as well as our 
freedoms.
  In its current form, the Endangered Species Act creates perverse 
incentives for landowners to destroy habitat which could attract 
endangered species. Once these animals migrate there, landowners lose 
their property rights to the snails, birds, or rats who happen to move 
in. In essence, the ESA, as currently written discourages the very 
practices which will ultimately protect endangered species habitats. 
Instead, we need to ask landowners to participate in preserving our 
natural resources. Property owners are not villains. Everyone wants to 
preserve our resources.
  In addition, Federal bureaucratic administration and enforcement of 
the Endangered Species Act is tantamount to Federal zoning of local 
property. State and local officials have no say in how the ESA is 
implemented and enforced in their States and communities. State and 
local officials need to have greater control. They know what is best 
for their communities. 

[[Page E 1456]]

  Mr. Speaker, Congress passed the Endangered Species Act more than 20 
years ago. Originally intended to protect animals, this act hurts 
humans. It is time to give human needs at least as much consideration 
as those of birds, fish, insects, and rodents. The time has come for a 
change. Private, voluntary, incentive-driven environmental protection 
is the only effective and fair answer to this controversial law.


                          ____________________