[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 30 (Thursday, March 7, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1611-S1613]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT LISTING MORATORIUM

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, about 11 months ago, I stood on this floor 
and indicated to this body that it was about to make a crucial mistake, 
a critical mistake. At that time the U.S. Senate was considering a 
moratorium on the listing of endangered species. Those people at that 
time who were calling for a so-called time out in the listing of 
endangered species, I do not think, or I hope, did not understand the 
consequences. They did not want to wait for reauthorization of this 
list. They did not want to wait for the reauthorization to take place 
through the legislative process. They said they could not wait for 
reforms to be deliberated and drafted by the committees of 
jurisdiction. In fact, Mr. President, they could not even wait for the 
Environment and Public Works Committee to consider the moratorium.
  It was brought to the floor without a single hearing. There was 
nothing done in the way of a deliberative process to point out the 
inherent weaknesses of what was about to be done. In sum, they started, 
without justification, a piecemeal dismantling of the act, which is to 
jeopardize forever the existence of various species of plants and 
animals.
  My colleagues reacted by giving pieces of history where the 
Endangered Species Act did not work well, and thereafter imposed the 
moratorium on any further listing of endangered species. One Member of 
the House of Representatives claimed at that time that ``we must put 
regulators on a leash.''
  Mr. President, there are a number of ways to control regulators, but 
the path taken was, in my opinion, the worst path. The path taken was 
to cause damaging and unreasonable requirements. In fact, we had to 
simply stand by and watch extinction take its toll. No doubt that 
Member of the

[[Page S1612]]

other body overlooked the only real impact, which is the increased risk 
to plants and animals in an endangered state.
  Mr. President, now, not a single plant or animal has been added to 
the list since before April of last year. So, what good is this list? 
It initiates the recovery through a planning process and provides the 
benefit of State protections, and it affords restraint on Federal 
activities which jeopardize listed species, and that is the need for 
listing, to protect that which cannot protect itself.
  What is it that we achieve by removing the protection? Everything the 
critics hate--the process, the definitions, the mission of the 
Endangered Species Act--they all remain the same. We have not changed 
anything of that.
  Mr. President, I think there are problems with the Endangered Species 
Act, things that need to be changed. The moratorium does not change a 
single thing. It did not touch the definitions, the process, the 
mission of the Endangered Species Act. They all are just like they were 
before April 10 of last year. Instead, my colleagues simply waged a war 
on the variety of species that truly need protection. If reform of the 
listing process had been intended, anyone could have talked to this 
Senator, who is the ranking member on the subcommittee with 
jurisdiction, or my colleague, the esteemed, distinguished Senator from 
Idaho, the junior Senator, Senator Kempthorne, who is chairman of this 
subcommittee, to talk about substantive reform. If the act was to be 
made more efficient, then my colleagues could have addressed the many 
proposals that were brought forth by various coalitions throughout the 
last session.
  But, if my colleagues were honest with themselves and would recognize 
that this moratorium sought neither to reform nor to protect but to 
prohibit protection of species, then I think we see the picture.
  When the moratorium was passed in April of last year, there were 
about 80 species that had been proposed for listing. Today, there are 
more than 250 species listing decisions from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. In 1 year, because 
of our inactivity, we have three times more than we had then.
  We were also told that there are another 270 candidate species which 
need to be evaluated for either cooperative conservation agreements or 
proposed listings.
  This has had a tremendous impact--the action taken by this body and 
the other body last year. It has had a tremendous impact on individual 
species. Once the Florida black bear roamed throughout Florida, 
southern Georgia, and most all of Alabama. Thousands of these bears 
roamed this part of the country. Today, if we are lucky, there are 
1,200 to 1,500 bears remaining, and they are scattered and isolated.
  The black bear, interestingly, Mr. President, is more important than 
just being a bear. It is known as an umbrella threshold species, whose 
own population well-being is reflective of the health of the rest of 
the habitat area and the other species in that same ecosystem.
  Currently, there are insufficient conservation areas in Florida to 
adequately protect the habitat base needed for long-term survival of 
the State's black bear population.
  This unique species, the Florida black bear, was scheduled to be 
listed by 1996. But now because of the moratorium, the very future of 
the black bear is bleak and really uncertain. Many scientists say the 
black bear is finished.
  The west coast steelhead of the Northwest has also steadily lost its 
habitat and consequently consistently declined in population. This 
fish, which runs from California through Oregon and Washington and 
Idaho, is a game fish. The annual revenues from this sport fishery is 
valued at about $32 million. It is in danger because of activities now 
being carried out because there is no protection under the Endangered 
Species Act.
  Logging, urbanization, agricultural water diversion, dams, and 
effects of hatchery fish on native populations are all happening 
without any restraint, without any concern for species conservation, 
and are now being carried out because there is no protection of the 
Endangered Species Act.
  The bog turtle of the Northeastern United States was proposed for 
listing last year. Its protection was delayed because of the listing 
moratorium, and biologists are now wondering if the remaining 
populations will be viable once the moratorium is lifted. Probably not 
is the order. The bog turtle survives in wetlands which are separated 
by development. Consequently, the bog turtle has a difficult time 
finding others of the species to mate with.
  While the moratorium is in effect and the budget cuts deny execution 
of the act's mandate, the Fish and Wildlife Service is prohibited from 
conducting any research or taking actions to prevent further decline of 
the bog turtle species.
  The real tragedy is that there are countless others for which we have 
no current data and no concept of the welfare of the species. 
Extinction is forever. But we know there are some in trouble:
  The swift fox;
  There is a plant in New Jersey called the bog asphodel, a plant found 
only in the State lands of New Jersey;
  The Topeka shiner was to be protected by an agreement of private 
landowners, but because more information needed to be collected, the 
agreement was not signed due to the moratorium.

  All of these species which I have just talked about will be 
unmonitored and unprotected if the moratorium remains in place.
  The moratorium, Mr. President, inherently costs time, effort, and 
species. I repeat that extinction is forever.
  When we do resolve the reform issues for the Endangered Species Act, 
we will have to do a great deal of research over again. We will be 
playing catchup, and ultimately the moratorium will end up costing the 
taxpayers more to recover a species that is further down the road to 
extinction.
  Mr. President, the moratorium does not benefit the landowners or the 
regulated interests. On the contrary, the future of species on their 
land is as uncertain as it ever was. When the landowners throughout the 
country come to my office, they do not ask that we stop trying to 
preserve species. I have never heard anyone say that. They say they 
want certainty in the process.
  More importantly, the moratorium fails to acknowledge the permanency 
of extinction. We are spending time trying to come up with a reasonable 
approach to the Endangered Species Act. I have worked with Senator 
Kempthorne, and I think we can come up with something. But I want to 
alert everyone here, Mr. President, as I did in the Appropriations 
Committee yesterday, that when the appropriations bills--this bill, 
which is going to have five bills wrapped into one, the so-called 
continuing resolution--comes up in next few days, I am going to offer 
an amendment to do away with the moratorium. That is the right thing to 
do.
  What is needed is substantive reform. We need a more efficient 
listing process with a deadline, with peer review, and with State and 
local participation in the process, making recovery plans practical 
with such measures as deadlines, multispecies priorities, and 
cooperative efforts. That is essential to any substantive reform.
  We need to bring non-Federal parties such as State and local 
governments and affected parties to the table to work cooperatively in 
a teamwork approach that is vital to bringing balance to the delisting 
and recovering process.
  We need to establish a relationship with private landowners, and it 
must be changed to include voluntary conservation agreements, safe-
harbor provisions providing the landowner protection for unforeseeable 
species habitat on their land, or private land, and we also need a 
short-form habitat conservation plan from minimal impact landowners.
  In effect, we should not have one program for all. We need to have 
various programs to meet the circumstances. We can do that.
  But this moratorium, in my opinion, is cruel, it is unusual, and it 
is unnecessary.
  Mr. President, I have said on other occasions, and I say today, that 
we need to protect species of plant and animals. Extinction is forever.
  Some within the sound of my voice may say, ``What difference does it 
make? Why should we be concerned about an animal becoming extinct and

[[Page S1613]]

losing it forever?'' If we do not care about animals, why in the world 
should we care about plants?
  I have a friend with whom I went to high school. He was one class 
ahead of me. We played ball together. He had a son. His oldest boy hit 
a home run in the Little League. He could not make it around the third 
base. When he got to home, the parents were a little concerned that 
maybe he was lazy. The fact of the matter was this little boy had 
leukemia. In those days, when children got leukemia, 20 or 25 years 
ago, they died. They did not survive. Childhood leukemia was fatal. My 
friend's little boy died, and he died quickly.

  Mr. President, as a result of a plant called the periwinkle plant, 
scientists found that the substances from that plant allow children to 
live. Children with leukemia now live because of the plant called 
periwinkle. Childhood leukemia is no longer fatal, because of this 
plant.
  About 40 percent of the curative substances we take come from plants, 
many of them from the rain forests and other areas that are going out 
of business because of population density. I urge my colleagues who 
recognize the need for substantive reform of the Endangered Species 
Act, who understand the devastating effect of this moratorium, will 
support an immediate repeal of this devastating moratorium and allow us 
to move forward with a sound, substantive, bipartisan reform of the 
Endangered Species Act.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.

                          ____________________