[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 167 (Thursday, October 26, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15849-S15851]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. KEMPTHORNE (for himself, Mr. Warner, Mr. Faircloth, Mr. 
        Inhofe, Mr. Thomas, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Craig, Mr. Bennett, Mr. 
        Burns, and Mr. Cochran):
  S. 1364. A bill to reauthorize and amend the Endangered Species Act 
of 1973, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and 
Public Works.


                the endangered species conservation act

 Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, today I introduced a bill that 
I believe will restore Americans' faith and confidence in the 
Government's ability to 

[[Page S15850]]

protect the environment and our future.
  I am talking about reform of the Endangered Species Act, first 
enacted in 1973. If we do nothing, the act will collapse under the 
weight of regulation and inefficiencies.
  Everyone I speak with considers themselves an environmentalist, and I 
believe they are right. We all want a future for our children. We only 
have one planet, and we must do all we can to protect it and the 
species living on it.
  We can all agree with the goals of the act--identify species and 
habitat in danger of extinction and try to reverse the process for 
those that we can. Unfortunately, many Americans have come to destruct 
the act and its bureaucracy. We need to restore a balance in order to 
allow the act to work.
  That is why I am introducing my Endangered Species Conservation Act 
today. I consider myself a probusiness environmentalist. Some may think 
that is an oxymoron, but I do not believe so. Here is why: Without a 
healthy economy, we will not have the resources needed to conserve the 
rare species among us.
  How can we have both?
  My Drinking Water, Fisheries, and Wildlife Subcommittee held 
extensive hearings on the act this spring and summer. We held hearings 
in Washington, DC, Idaho, Oregon, and Wyoming.
  In those hearings, some common themes emerged. First, almost everyone 
agreed it is time to reform the Endangered Species Act.
  We heard that from almost everyone, from the unemployed timber worker 
in Idaho to the Secretary of the Interior. And I intend with this bill 
to bring about the meaningful and substantial reform to the act that 
everyone has asked for.
  While all of us agree on the general goals of the Endangered Species 
Act, the message that we received at our hearings is that the ESA is 
too much regulation, too much Federal control, and too much Government. 
That message has come through loud and clear. People who have to live 
with the ESA are angry with how the Government uses it against them. 
The ESA relies too often on untested science, bureaucratic delays, and 
excludes State and local government from decisions that affect their 
own people, and threatens private property rights.

  An example of this is the case in Idaho, where a Federal judge 
threatened to shut down all activities in six national forests. The 
loggers, miners, ranchers, businessowners, and the thousands of jobs 
they provide were at risk because Federal agencies were not talking to 
each other.
  We must bring balance back to the process of saving rare and 
threatened species. This is not just an issue in my home State of Idaho 
or elsewhere in the West. Indeed, the Endangered Species Act has 
implications in the Northeast, where the Atlantic Salmon remains a 
concern, the Southwest with the Mexican Spotted Owl, the Red Cockaded 
Woodpecker in the Southeast, and the Midwest's whooping cranes. Nearly 
every American has a stake in this debate, and I believe, Mr. 
President, that nearly every American will understand the reasons why 
my bill will be better for people, species, and the environment.
  The said truth is that since 1973, only a handful of species have 
been successfully removed from the endangered species list. Yet despite 
our efforts to document the cost, untold millions of dollars have been 
spent in the effort. We need a bill that works better, more 
effectively, and actually accomplishes what that original 1973 law 
intended to do.
  I believe this bill will do that by allowing science to take its 
proper place in the debate. Science, not political science, should 
determine whether a species is at risk of extinction. Right now, it is 
the other way around, with a political decision made first on a species 
and then the necessary data found to justify that decision. Science 
should provide options for public policymakers. Until we use science to 
allow us to make the best public policy decisions, and until we openly 
move into the political arena and discuss the competing concerns facing 
our country, we never will be able place our society's priorities in 
balance.
  I believe that is where Congress has abdicated its responsibilities. 
Congress tells Federal agencies to go out and make the ESA work, but 
often the only tools those agencies have are the blunt instrument of 
regulation.
  Examples like the 29 homes lost to fire in southern California 
because homeowners couldn't cut fire lines due to ESA regulations have 
eroded public confidence in the act, and have made them openly 
skeptical of its goals. I doubt whether many Americans will make the 
Stephens' Kangaroo Rat a priority over those 29 homes. Under the ESCA 
we would find a way to protect both the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat and the 
private property rights of the 29 homeowners.

  In this manner this legislation restores the balance to the equation 
and allows for a healthy economy, vibrant communities, better species 
protection, and hope for our children's futures. It makes the 
Endangered Species Act actually work better and stronger and is good 
reform. If we do nothing, public opposition to how the act has been 
implemented will cause it to fail altogether. I do not think anyone 
here wants that to happen.
  Let me go over the major provisions of the ESCA: This bill 
effectively separates science from politics; it is designed to actually 
conserve species while recognizing the rights of private property 
owners; the current act's mandate to recover every species regardless 
of cost or consequence is changed to allow us to prioritize our 
Nation's needs and to conserve species in the process; the ESCA 
involves State and local governments in the conservation process and 
treats them as equals; we remove bureaucratic delays that destroy the 
relationship between property owners and Government; this bill provides 
incentives to encourage the protection of endangered and threatened 
species; it makes all Federal agencies partners, instead of 
adversaries, in the conservation of species.
  This bill introduces several innovations and new ideas that I think 
are crucial to bringing balance to the act. First, we recognize the 
progress science has made in genetics. Genetics are not even mentioned 
in the 1973 act. In the ESCA we recognize genetics as a measure of 
species distinctness. And, as requested by the scientists, we protect 
the biological species and genetically distinct populations and 
subspecies.
  Whether a species should be listed is measured in human generations, 
because I believe we must look to our children's future, and how we can 
provide for them. Is this sound science? I believe so because 
population biologists tell me they can now make such forecasts within 
those bounds.
  The fact remains we are spending millions of dollars now and putting 
jobs and communities at risk with no clear policy, priorities, or 
ability to measure results. We must acknowledge that extinction is a 
natural phenomenon over which man has limited control. Today we have an 
opportunity to reform the Endangered Species Act to do a better job of 
preventing the increasing loss of species. Congress must take a 
forceful step in this area, because we can't afford to let the courts 
distort our good intentions.
  I do not expect this bill to be embraced by those in our country who 
view this issue only from the extremes. But extremists get very little 
accomplished. I contend that extremists probably deserve each other and 
ought to be on some remote island where they have to help each other. 
The balance between people and our natural world can only be maintained 
with a partnership--a partnership brought about by legislation like 
this.
  If we do nothing, and do not work together, and if we continue to 
rely solely on regulation instead of incentives we will fail. That is 
something we cannot allow for our present and for our childrens' 
future.
 Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of 
the Endangered Species Conservation Act [ESCA] introduced by Senator 
Kempthorne.
  The Endangered Species Act [ESA] has been misused and twisted from 
its original intent, and I believe the bill we are introducing today 
puts us back on track.
  Montana's largest industry is agriculture. If you asked Montana's 
farmers and ranchers what law they want Congress to fix, most will say 
the Endangered Species Act. The wood products industry represents 
almost half of 

[[Page S15851]]

western Montana's economy. If you ask the folks who make a living in 
the woods what law is currently infringing on their ability to make a 
living for their families, they'll tell you about grizzly bears and 
road closures--once again coming back to the Endangered Species Act.
  There is no doubt that we must reform the ESA. It is the single most 
restrictive law that Montanans and other American who rely on the land 
to make a living, must deal with. The communities in Montana lack the 
economic stability and predictability they deserve. The current law has 
many communities in Montana and throughout our Nation living on pins 
and needles. The bottom line is communities are hurting.
  We need to change the ESA so that it truly protects and recovers 
species, won't cost millions of dollars per species, and will protect 
private propertyowners' rights. The bill we're introducing today 
accomplishes these goals.
  Emphasis must to placed on recovery. The current law emphasizes the 
listing of species instead of protecting and recovering species. In 
order to do this, the Endangered Species Conservation Act contains the 
following principles:
  First, as I stated earlier, above all we must concentrate our efforts 
on recovery plans. If we do so, we would focus on the least costly 
alternative and we would assess the impacts of decisions made under the 
act for State and local economics. In addition, this would force 
priorities to be set and would generate recovery plans which are 
reasonable and obtainable.
  Second, the ESCA bill we've introduced today recognizes that a one-
size-fits-all recovery standard is flawed. The ESCA establishes 
standards for prioritizing where Federal dollars should be spent and 
what level of conservation will be sought.
  Finally, it also ensures decisions are based on better science. Peer 
review procedures need to be added to improve the overall data 
collected so that the right decisions are made. We must have three 
decisions made outside of politics and instead done by objective 
individuals who have a background in science. The bill establishes an 
Endangered Species Commission which will ensure sound science, not 
politics, drives our decisions.
  The best decisions are those made at the local level, and I believe 
we need increased private participation in our conservation efforts. 
The fact is, local individuals are the best people to support any 
conservation plan. They work and live in the areas affected, and they 
have a stake in what happens in their own backyards.
  Washington should not forget, these people want to maintain the 
quality of life they have for their families. The ESCA encourages 
cooperative management agreements for non-Federal efforts and other 
incentives for private land owners. These include deferment of estate 
taxes where conservation easements are in place, technical assistance, 
and cost sharing.
  Without a doubt, compensation must be given to individuals who lose 
the use of their private property under a Federal Government 
conservation plan. Our Constitution and property rights need protection 
on every front. Anything short of that is selling our constitutional 
rights down the river. I am pleased that the ESCA contains a provision 
to protect our private property rights.
  The Endangered Species Act has a good goal. However, since it became 
law, it has been twisted and misused for other purposes. We need some 
common sense put back into recovering species. Starting from a new view 
point, and crafting an act which truly reflects what we want to do--
conserve and recover species--has to be the focus. We can't let the 
existing law and regulations run multiple use off our lands.
  Reforming the Endangered Species Act is essential to Montana's 
economy. Our four largest industries--agriculture, timber, mining, and 
oil and gas rely on the use of land. And it's these industries which 
supply the jobs and the tax base for Montana. Changing the laws on 
conserving and recovering endangered species is important for jobs for 
Montanans, and it is important for sound land management activities.
  The Endangered Species Conservation Act is a good bill and I hope the 
Senate will act quickly in considering this important issue.

                          ____________________