[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 27, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H2889-H2890]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        RESTORING REASON TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION LEGISLATION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Doolittle] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I will only use a minute or two, because 
I know the gentleman from California, [Mr. Radanovich] would like to 
comment on this. I would just commend the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. 
Young] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo] for their 
leadership efforts in doing something to restore some reason, I think, 
to the laws of our country pertaining to this area.
  The ESA is something that has a legitimate purpose. We need to have a 
law, however, that is balanced and reasonable and effective. I would 
submit that we have a number of stories heard in testimony around the 
country and I

[[Page H2890]]

have heard many of these myself as I have sat on the task force, on the 
committee, and we have held hearings, we have had a number of instances 
where this has proven not to be the case.
  It is one thing to talk about it in theory. It is another to be the 
private property owner and to have the big hand of Government holding a 
gun pointed at your head. That is what we heard time and time again 
from these private property owners who all of a sudden are forced with 
mandates from the EPA or the Corps of Engineers, or any other number of 
State and Federal agencies. It is just nearly overwhelming.
  Let me just express strong support for the efforts of the chairman of 
the committee, and indicate to the American people that there is a real 
need to make sure that we are reasonable and responsible in dealing 
with our species, but there is also an obligation to protect our 
private property rights, and there is an obligation to make sure we 
have a balanced, reasonable, and effective approach on this.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Radanovich].
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I wanted to add 
my comments into the Record regarding this legislation. I think anybody 
here on this floor is in favor of protecting endangered species, is in 
favor of protecting the environment, is in favor of good stewardship. 
The question remains, though, is it a responsibility of the private 
property owners, is it a responsibility of local government, is it a 
responsibility of State government, or is it a responsibility of the 
Federal Government, and where do those responsibilities lie?
  I think the folly of the endangered species over the last year has 
demonstrated that the heavy hand of Federal Government in care of the 
environment can produce some pretty crazy results. For instance, there 
was the arresting of a farmer in California for disking up five 
kangaroo rats and being sent to trial in Federal court. My hope is that 
in the adoption of the Endangered Species Act, according to the Pombo-
Young bill, that that responsibility begins to be returned away from 
Federal bureaucrats and back down to the State, local, and private 
property owner level, because that is where good stewardship begins in 
this country.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman happens to come from a part of 
the country that has probably been impacted as greatly as any other 
region of the country in the central valley in California, with the 
multitude of species that are directly in the area that have been 
listed, as well as the aquatic species that survive within the natural 
river system in California, which has impacted the delivery of 
irrigation water to a number of the gentleman's constituents.
  Is it his opinion that if we went to an incentive-based system that 
operated where the individuals were rewarded for their stewardship or 
rewarded for being good stewards of the lands and, quite frankly, had 
more of an impact on what recovery plans were adopted, what they look 
like, what best worked, would that work better for your constituency?
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Yes, it would. I have a number of cases where people 
have gone the extra mile to provide habitat on their farms, to provide 
for the environment, things that they would like to see on there, and 
then being further penalized because of the fact that they have done 
that. Current law penalizes any initiative like that that is out there 
and currently exists.
  This country will not survive unless stewardship is brought down to 
the local level and people are given incentives to take care of their 
private property and the environment, because that is really a natural 
thing for people to want to do. I think that natural tendency ought to 
be encouraged through legislation.
  Mr. POMBO. If the gentleman will continue to yield, being a farmer 
himself, could the gentleman describe the fear that his constituents 
feel when they may or may not have an endangered species on their 
property?
  Mr. RADANOVICH. I can tell you from personal experience where there 
were times when we would allow onto our property certain environmental 
groups to catalog certain species of flowers and different things. 
There is no way in God's green Earth we would be allowing that right 
now, simply because what it does is it leads to stealing of your 
private property rights. So under current law, there is a disincentive. 
The gentleman earlier mentioned the term ``shoot, shovel, and shut 
up.'' That is very, very clear in response to current legislation.

                          ____________________