[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 108 (Monday, July 28, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H5909-H5913]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 THE DANGERS OF THE PROPOSAL OF THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE TO 
                   INTRODUCE GRIZZLY BEARS INTO IDAHO

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Taylor of North Carolina). Under the 
Speaker's announced policy of January 7, 1997, the gentlewoman from 
Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth] is recognized for approximately 35 minutes, half 
the remaining time until midnight.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Speaker, I am taken with the comments of my 
colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart]. He truly is a 
freedom-fighter, and I am very pleased that he brought these comments 
to the attention of the American people.
  I want to speak on an entirely different issue, in an entirely 
different area of the world. I would like to begin my comments tonight, 
Mr. Speaker, with a joke. Members may have heard the joke. A preacher 
was being chased down the mountain by a grizzly bear. Just as the bear 
was about to catch him, the preacher fell to his knees and made a plea 
to God. He said, Oh, Lord, I implore you to make a Christian out of 
this bear. Shortly after this prayer, the grizzly bear immediately fell 
to his knees and proclaimed, Dear Lord, please bless this food I am 
about to eat.
  Mr. Speaker, that was a joke, but, unfortunately, what I am about to 
share with Members tonight is not a joke, it is reality. I rise this 
evening to speak about the proposed introduction of these man-eating 
animals in my State.
  Yes, that is true. I would say to my colleagues who are listening, if 
they have ever wondered why many Members in the West like me have real 
concerns about the current implementation of the Endangered Species 
Act, I beseech them to listen attentively to my comments. I think only 
then Members will begin to understand the sense of sometimes the absurd 
manner in which this act is being carried out by the Federal agencies. 
If there ever was an example of how out of touch our extreme 
environmental policies have become, this is it.
  Quite simply, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has actually 
prepared a plan to introduce grizzly bears, known by their Latin name 
as ursus horribilis, into a huge portion of my district.
  Mr. Speaker, let me explain to the Members what the implications are 
of this proposal to the management policies of a significant portion of 
the State of Idaho. To help illustrate my point, I would like to draw 
Members' attention to this rather large map of Idaho that has marked in 
it the area that the Fish and Wildlife Service has designated as the 
recovery area for the grizzly bear under their plan to introduce the 
bear back into the State.
  As we can see, this is an enormous area. It is almost 28.5 million 
acres. It includes 14 counties populated by nearly a quarter of a 
million people and has at least 13.2 million visitors a year. It is 
over one-third of the State of Idaho.

[[Page H5910]]

  The grizzly bear recovery area runs very close to Boise, ID. It 
includes an area that has our University of Idaho in it. It has many 
populated areas in this area. Just to give Members an idea about how 
big this area is, let me give a comparison. In this area we could fit 
the States of Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New 
Hampshire, Vermont, and Rhode Island, into this area that we see 
colored in red on this map, plus have over 1 million acres to spare.
  How would the introduction of the grizzly bear affect this massive 
area? The grizzly bear, in terms of management, is unlike any other 
species. In short, it is a huge and dangerous animal, and that is a 
huge and dangerous problem for us. The grizzly bear is, by its nature, 
a large predatory mammal that, provoked or unprovoked, can move very 
quickly to viciously attack a human or an animal. In addition, the 
grizzly has special dietary needs and requires a vast amount of area 
for its habitat, which can range between 10 square miles and 168 square 
miles, depending on the availability of food.
  The Wildlife Management Institute states in its book ``Big Game of 
North America, Ecology and Management,'' that, and I quote, ``For most 
species, protection is an uncomplicated and effective method of 
preservation. When bears are totally protected, however, some 
individual bears can be aggressive towards people or cause damage to 
livestock and property, which makes imperative a different form of 
management.''
  The book cites several distinct human-related activities grizzly bear 
management needs to address in favor of the grizzly bear. These 
management considerations include the construction of town sites and 
populated areas, which by the way, already exist; campgrounds, which 
already exist; trails; roads; storage of food or bait, and garbage 
disposal; the allowance of too many people into prime bear habitat for 
a multitude of activity, such as simple living, hiking, fishing, 
hunting, camping, livestock management, and the allocation of space for 
forage, and other resources in areas heavily used by both bears and 
humans.
  In essence, what introducing the unpredictable grizzly bear under the 
full protection of the Endangered Species Act means is that this large 
area that we see blocked in this map will experience a complete change 
in its lifestyle. People will not be able to behave or work in the way 
they used to in this area, in this part of Idaho. Roads normally open 
will be shut down. Hiking trails will be restricted. Camping areas will 
be closed. Hunting will be restricted. Livestock and logging practices 
will be dramatically altered.
  All in all, in order for the bears to survive and diminish human 
risk, hundreds of square miles at any given time, depending on where 
the bear roams, would either have to be shut down or have human 
activity severely restricted.
  Let me quote from a very interesting book about the behavior of 
grizzly bears, in a book titled ``Alaska Bear Tales.'' The book states 
that, ``A bear's nature is definitely interesting and different. They 
have their own individuality. No two bears will do the same thing in a 
given situation, and a bear may not do the same thing twice. But then 
again, though there will always be exceptions to the last statement, it 
would serve us well to commit it to memory.''
  I ask Members, Mr. Speaker, if every individual bear's behavior is so 
different, how in the world can the bureaucrats begin to come up with 
any workable management scheme for bears? It is just not going to work.
  How does the Fish and Wildlife Service intend to answer that 
question? Their only answer is, and I will tell the Members straight 
out, it is by shutting down human activity in the area that we see on 
this colored map.

                              {time}  2300

  The changes would result from the existence of protected grizzly 
bears that would dramatically alter the management of this area in 
Idaho and some in Montana. This is an absolute perversion of the 
Endangered Species Act. This is a perfect example of how the legitimate 
goals of the act, once supported by almost everyone, have been twisted 
to fit the whims of a few who have a different view on how our land 
should be managed. It is a ploy that those who are directly affected by 
this misapplication of the act have come to resent.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to expound further on a very important 
element of the grizzly bear introduction and that is the danger these 
predators present to human beings. This aspect brings the grizzly bear 
introduction into a whole new realm of incomprehensibility of purpose 
and unmeasured cost.
  Mr. Speaker, it is an undisputed fact that the grizzly bears tend to 
possess a propensity of violence toward humans and animals. As the Fish 
and Wildlife Service well documents, grizzly bears were almost 
exterminated from the lower 48 States, and this was not because there 
was a market for their fur or for their meat, because there was not, 
but simply because individuals who settled in the Great Plains in 
Idaho, Montana and California, whose flags bear the picture of an 
emblem of the grizzly bear, they all sought protection for their 
families and their domestic animals from what in their minds was the 
most terrifying of all animals in America.
  While settlers may have recognized the majesty of these animals, they 
realized the horrible threat that they were, and there was no Federal 
act that stopped them from taking action to eliminate this threat. 
Thank goodness. Lewis and Clark described in their journals the 
absolute terror that they and the Indians had for these animals, the 
extreme frustration that they felt when they could not successfully 
kill the animals, even with several shots fired from their 18th century 
guns.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that it is important in looking at this issue to 
share just how vicious the grizzly bears are to human beings. Let me 
warn you, what I am going to speak about is a bit gruesome but it is a 
real factor in this issue and it needs to be laid out there.
  An adult grisly can weigh as much as 450 pounds. It can run up to 40 
miles an hour over irregular terrain. It has a keen sense of hearing 
and an even keener sense of smell. The teeth are large and very, very 
sturdy, especially the canines, and although they are not particularly 
sharp, the power of the jaw muscles allow them to readily penetrate 
deep into soft tissues and to fracture facial bones and bones of the 
hand and forearm with ease.
  The resulting trauma is characteristically a result of punctures with 
sheering, tearing, and crushing force. Claws on the front pads can be 
as long as human fingers and can produce significant soft tissue damage 
in a scraping maneuver that results in deep parallel gashes. The bear 
paw is capable of delivering powerful forces, resulting in significant 
blunt trauma, particularly to the head and the neck region, the rib 
cage and the abdomen.
  In many reported cases bears attack and then they begin to back off 
and wait and watch and again resume mauling the victim, sometimes going 
for the head, especially if they see movement.
  The bears then wait and watch, once again, and then swipe claws 
across the genital areas to test signs of life. And this is typical. An 
unarmed person's only defense, say the experts, is to play dead and 
whatever, the experts advise, do not move. Unfortunately, if a bear is 
hungry or angered or if you happen to be between a bear and a cub or a 
pile of food, you may not have time to get down and play dead. When one 
studies bear attacks, it is easy to see why humans have developed a 
healthy fear of these animals.
  Let me also note that while it is an unusual occurrence, grizzly bear 
attacks on humans do continue on a regular basis in areas where the 
bear exists. That is why we do not want it to exist in Idaho.
  Grizzly bears have not become kinder and gentler with age. In fact, 
in the past few years, because more people are recreating in our 
forests and lands, documented attacks have increased.
  Let me share with you some of these recent occurrences. In early 
September 1996, an individual hunting elk in an area a few miles north 
of Yellowstone was attacked without provocation. He was with another 
hunter, questioning the notion that bears only attacked individuals who 
are alone, and had part of his biceps bitten off.
  In Alaska, where grizzly bear attacks occur on a regular basis, 
recently a

[[Page H5911]]

woman and her husband were backpacking in a wilderness area near 
Fairbanks. The woman was attacked by a grizzly which resulted in her 
facial bones being smashed, her nose missing, her scalp shredded or 
gone, massive wounds in her legs and buttocks.
  Also an American woman is suing the Canadian Government because of 
emotional and physical scars left from a grizzly rampage at a Canadian 
park campgrounds in 1995. A number of unreported bear encounters 
occurred shortly before the ranger and friends had their tents ripped 
through and were attacked by grizzly bears early in the morning, and 
the attack left the ranger with a number of disfiguring scars.
  In August 1996, a man on a hiking trip was killed by a grizzly bear 
in Alaska. The man and his friends had taken all the suggested 
precautions in going into known bear country, such as wearing bear 
bells and making noise while they hiked through the brush. The attack 
was quick and the man was killed very rapidly.
  In June 1996, an elderly man hiking a common trail in Glacier 
National Park while taking a rest was attacked by a grizzly bear 
leaving a gash in his scalp, a trail of holes down his back, and a 
broken leg bone. Park officials determined that the man had 
inadvertently invaded the bear's space and, therefore, it did not need 
to be relocated or killed.
  In August 1996, an experienced backpacker was killed in the Yukon 
Territory by a grizzly bear. And in October 1995, a man hiking in 
British Columbia was attacked by a bear after taking off his shoes and 
socks near a stream. Also in October 1995, two hunters were killed by 
three grizzly bears in British Columbia and they were carrying out a 
carcass of elk. You cannot possibly expect to hunt, dress out game, and 
pack it out without having blood on your hands, blood on your clothes, 
an immediate attraction for grizzly bears.
  In August 1996, a 9-year-old, 550-pound grizzly bear near the 
Yellowstone area was finally destroyed by park officials after killing 
dozens of cattle, preying on 10 calves alone in the 2 weeks before it 
was put to death. Since 1990, there have been 17 grizzly bear maulings 
in Glacier National Park, 5 maulings in Yellowstone Park.
  One very compelling story is that of an 18-year-old boy, living not 
far from my district in Broadus, MT. His name is Bram Shaffer. He 
was hunting near Horseshoe Mountain, 10 miles north of Yellowstone, and 
he was walking along quietly, not calling out and certainly no bear 
calls, keeping his eyes mostly on the ground, when he stepped out of 
the stand of trees to find a grizzly bear already charging him. The 18-
year-old had time to take four desperate steps, trying to get out of 
the way, when Bram's head was suddenly in the bear's mouth and then 
Bram later wrote, she threw me to the ground and started chewing on me 
like I was a big dog bone. She had my left thigh in her mouth, and she 
was shaking me around like a dog would a dish towel.

  When it was over, Bram was alone in the woods. It was getting dark 
and beginning to rain. The temperature near freezing. The bear had 
bitten a chunk of meat from his right side under his arm about the size 
of a football. One hand and wrist were chewed up. The scalp was open to 
the bone. He was covered with blood but worst of all was his left 
thigh. It looked like someone had taken an axe to it again and again. 
Most of the big muscle that runs down the front of the thigh was 
hanging out of his jeans, peeled back from his leg for much of its 
length.
  Most of us would have fainted at that sight but Bram tucked the 
muscle back in his jeans as best he could and tied it up with his 
hunting vest. He got up and he found that while he could not bend the 
leg, he could walk stiff legged using his wounded left knee as kind of 
a peg. He could not go uphill but he could go downhill and he had his 
rifle and 9 rounds so he knew he could fire signal shots and he knew 
they would come looking for him. Even after rescue, many hours later, 
his nightmare was not over. He waged a war against gangrene. As his 
doctors explained a bear's mouth is notoriously foul, especially one 
that had been feeding on intestines. But Bram managed to survive and 
after three operations expert surgeons managed to save his leg. About 
35 percent of his thigh is simply gone. He walks with the help of 
crutches and will likely have a severe limp for the rest of his life.
  Mr. Speaker, when I presented these types of concerns about human 
risk to the Fish and Wildlife Service at a recent hearing I held in the 
House Subcommittee on Forest and Forest Health, I was quite dumbfounded 
at the response that I was given by the officials in charge of this 
program. I asked them if they knew that there was a known killer in the 
forest, would they allow that killer to remain there to cause harm to 
human life and limb?
  They, too, recognized the danger of grizzly bears. However, they 
brushed the threat off as being rare and part of the thrill of being in 
the wild. They rationalized that putting grizzly bears in the woods 
only makes it a part of the other natural dangers that anyone must 
contend with when they venture out into the wide open. Even with their 
plan they estimate that there could be about one human injury or death 
each year.
  Let me repeat, the Fish and Wildlife Service is planning for about 
one human injury that could result in death due to the grizzly every 
single year.
  Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I was mystified by that response. I 
ask this House, Mr. Speaker, is introducing this predator, one that is 
not threatened with extinction, worth the cost of even one human life? 
Is it worth even the cost Bram Shaffer and his family have had to pay 
for his injuries?
  Mr. Speaker, using this same logic introducing the grizzlies into 
Idaho is like pouring toxic substance into a water supply. It may only 
kill one in 10,000 or so, but it still is not a good thing to do. And 
in addition, knowingly doing this makes one liable for serious personal 
injury claims involving negligent disregard for human life and safety. 
I would like to share with you how a dangerous instrumentality is 
defined by law. Keep in mind that these are the types of definitions 
created through case law that are used when liability cases are 
considered in court.
  The Black's Law Dictionary defines a dangerous instrumentality as 
anything which has the inherent capacity to place people in peril, 
either in itself or by careless use of it. Due care must be used to 
avoid injury to those reasonably expected to be in proximity. And it 
goes on to say, ``in certain cases absolute liability may be imposed.''
  Mr. Speaker, based on what I have described to you, can introducing 
the deadly grizzly bear into the human environment be construed to mean 
anything differently than the inherent capacity to place people who are 
in the proximity in peril? I think not.
  What this clearly means to me is that introducing a dangerous 
predator in a human environment will undoubtedly open up the prospect 
of making the Government or its personnel liable in courts from any 
resulting death or injury. This could potentially be very costly to the 
taxpayers.
  Let me say for the record, Mr. Speaker, not one human death or injury 
resulting from a grizzly bear attack is acceptable to this Congressman. 
In fact, it should not be accepted by anyone who values human life. I 
do not want to have to stand up before a spouse, a parent, a child, 
brother, or sister who have lost their loved one because of a rare 
occurring brutal grizzly bear attack and explain that this tragedy 
would not have occurred had we not introduced this dangerous animal 
into Idaho in the first place.

                              {time}  2315

  In addition, for those who visit and work in this beautiful area, the 
threat of abrupt death or injury, no matter how unlikely it may seem, 
will also always be in the back of their minds. When we hike on our 
trails, when we sleep in our tents or go about our business, we will 
always have to contend with the possibility that we have accidentally 
stepped in the pathway between a mother grizzly and her cub, an often 
fatal error.
  Mr. Speaker, with all of the concerns that I have shared tonight, and 
believe me this is not an easy special order speech to give because it 
is so unpleasant, but it should come as no small wonder that the 
opposition in Idaho against this misguided proposal is overwhelming and 
decisive. In fact, every single elected official in Idaho, and that 
includes the entire congressional delegation, the Governor, the

[[Page H5912]]

entire State House, the Attorney General, every State legislator, with 
the exception of one who voted against a resolution opposing the 
grizzly bear introduction, all the county commissioners, the sheriffs, 
so on and so forth, are adamantly opposed to the introduction of 
grizzly bears even as an experimental population.
  And, remember, Mr. Speaker, they are not in danger of extinction. 
Even the head of the Idaho Fish and Game Department has publicly stated 
that, under the direction of the Governor, he will not issue permits to 
allow the bears into this State, and yet the program goes on. This is 
utter arrogance, utter nonsense, and a total misexpenditure of the 
American taxpayer.
  In addition, 90 percent of the people who live, recreate and work in 
the affected area are dead set against this proposal. Campers and 
hikers are concerned, for obvious safety reasons, and because many of 
the trails in areas would be made off limits. Hunters are also 
concerned about dramatic reductions in the game animal population. 
Ranchers are concerned about loss of cattle and road closures, and 
private property owners are deeply concerned about bears foraging too 
close to their homes.
  Overall, people are not only afraid of the immediate threat, and I 
mean afraid of the immediate threat of having bears in their backyards, 
but also being subject to severe restrictions in accessing the forest 
and lands both for recreational and industrial purposes.
  Mr. Speaker, what part of ``no'' does the Fish and Wildlife not 
understand about this crazy program? Amazingly, despite being fully 
aware of the State's solidarity against their proposal, the Fish and 
Wildlife Service is moving forward with their plans to introduce these 
bears. What is even more incredible and even more unbelievable is that 
the way they are addressing the State's concerns.
  The preferred alternative for the introduction of the bear is to turn 
the day-to-day management of these animals over to the State and 
community as part of a citizens management committee. I can tell my 
colleagues the State does not want them. But what that really means is 
that the management and enforcement of an ill-advised and hazard-filled 
program will be passed to individuals, some of whom have strenuously 
opposed the very idea of introduction from the beginning.
  On its face, it is utterly preposterous. How will the local citizens 
feel when their county government has to close numerous roads and 
trails because it is bear habitat, grizzly bear habitat? Will the local 
governments be able to handle the cost of litigation coming from groups 
seeking costs of damages caused by the bear, or from environmental 
groups who feel that there are not enough restrictions on land use?
  How will local law enforcement deal with the dilemma of prosecuting a 
rancher who has killed one of the bears to protect his livestock? My 
colleagues may say the Endangered Species Act allows for ranchers to 
protect their property or their life. Well, ask John Schuler, a rancher 
in Montana, who early one February morning was awakened to the 
unmistakable sound of a grizzly bear in his sheep pens. He got up and 
went outside and fired a couple of shots and, sure enough, a couple of 
grizzlies bounded out of the sheep pens, and the sheep were piling up 
on one end.
  Well, John Schuler stayed out there for 2 or 3 hours with the sheep 
and he did not see any more signs of the grizzly so he decided to go 
back to get an hour or so of sleep before dawn. As he was going back to 
his house, suddenly out of the dark rose a grizzly bear with his paws 
in the air and he growled. John Schuler did what any human being would 
do with a gun in his hand: He shot the bear.
  Well, the bear came down, and there was no stirring or movement, so 
John Schuler went on and went ahead to his home to get a couple of 
winks of sleep, deciding he would take care of the carcass, notify the 
proper agencies in the morning, and so he did. But when he came out in 
the morning the grizzly bear was gone and all there was was a trail of 
blood into the woods.
  Well, John Schuler got his gun and dogs and went into the woods. He 
had not been there long when a wounded grizzly bear charged him, bent 
on killing John Schuler. Well, this time John Schuler shot the bear and 
made sure that the bear was dead. He notified the agencies and they 
came out and did the necessary investigation. And lo and behold, Fish 
and Wildlife Service sued John Schuler for the intentional taking of an 
endangered species.
  One might think that case would be easy to defend. In fact, one of 
America's finest litigating organizations, the Mountain States Legal 
Foundation, defended John Schuler. But in the lower court they lost, 
and that issue is on appeal now. But they lost and John Schuler was 
fined.
  The judge reasoned that when John Schuler shot the bear, when the 
bear rose up and growled at him when he was going back to his home, the 
judge reasoned that that was a greeting; a greeting, Mr. Speaker. And 
what about when the bear came out of the bushes bent on killing John 
Schuler? Did he not have a right to defend his life? Well, the judge 
reasoned that the bear was provoked by John Schuler's actions the night 
before, and so the bear was doing only what bears normally do when they 
are provoked: They kill humans.
  No, we must do something in this Congress to make sure that we begin 
to put the Endangered Species Act back on a stable and focused plan.
  I would like to make one last point, Mr. Speaker, that even makes 
this whole idea absurd. The introduction of the grizzly bear into Idaho 
is not even necessary, as I have said before, for their survival or 
even the recovery of the species. Let me say that again. For the fourth 
time, the introduction of the grizzly bear in Idaho is not even 
necessary for their survival or even the recovery of the species.
  The agency has arbitrarily chosen this area to introduce grizzly 
bears, not because the species is in danger of extinction but because 
they have determined this area is suitable habitat and historically 
inhabited by grizzly bears.
  Just wait, Mr. Speaker, until they try to introduce the grizzly bear 
into the Great Plains or California. Keep in mind, Mr. Speaker, grizzly 
bears currently inhabit and are beginning to thrive in such areas as 
Yellowstone Park and the Cabinet-Yaak Mountains in Montana, and are 
already currently protected by the Endangered Species Act. In addition, 
the grizzly bear numbers in the tens of thousands in Canada and Alaska.

  In other words, Mr. Speaker, where ursus horribilis exists, there is 
no threat of extinction. However, because they are not where the 
Government thinks they may have possibly existed, and where the 
Government thinks in their misguided wisdom that they should be now, 
which according to the Fish and Wildlife Service is most of the Western 
United States, the Endangered Species Act requires them to expend 
taxpayer resources to eventually return them to these areas, or so they 
think the ESA requires them.
  This, in my opinion, is not an appropriate utilization of the act or 
taxpayers' money. In fact, I would like to read from the act itself, 
the section that delineates the process of introducing experimental 
populations which the Service is citing as their authority for this 
proposed action.
  It states: ``Before authorizing the release of any experimental 
population, the Secretary shall by regulation identify the population 
and determine, on the best available information, whether or not such a 
population is essential to the continued existence of an endangered 
species or a threatened species.''
  Mr. Speaker, is the introduction of the grizzly bear into the 
Bitterroot area in Idaho essential to the continued existence of the 
grizzly bear as required by this section? Clearly, Mr. Speaker, it is 
not.
  Further, it might surprise my colleagues to know that when ESA was 
reauthorized in 1978, the Congress was concerned about the unnecessary 
expansion, back then, 9 years ago, the unnecessary expansion of the 
grizzly bear habitat in the West, and even addressed this concern in 
the committee report that accompanied the act.
  That is surprising, is it not? Allow me to read from the 1978 
congressional report.
  ``The committee is particularly concerned about the implications of 
this policy where extremely large land areas are involved in a critical 
habitat designation. For example, as much as

[[Page H5913]]

10 million acres of Forest Service land is involved in a critical 
habitat being proposed for the grizzly bear in the Western United 
States. Much of the land involved in this proposed designation is not 
habitat that is necessary for the continued survival of the bear.''
  We do not have just 10 million acres, Mr. Speaker, that they are 
proposing here. We can set five eastern States inside this area. 
Clearly, the agency is ignoring what the congressional intent is and 
what the Congress specifically addressed in 1978, and clearly Congress 
had in mind the unnecessary expansion of grizzly habitat when it 
reauthorized the Endangered Species Act in 1978.
  The real question is why the agencies blatantly disregard the 
explicit congressional intent in this matter and have moved forward in 
designating this massive area in Idaho and Montana for the grizzly 
bear, driven on by special interest national environmental groups.
  Mr. Speaker, I would venture to say that any Member of this Chamber, 
whether they are Democrat or Republican, eastern or western, 
conservative or liberal, if faced with the possibility of having ursus 
horribilis introduced into their district, I would be happy if they 
would stand up, as I have, and vigorously object to this. If there is 
one in this body who feel that they could defend having the bears in 
their district, please see me and I think we can arrange something. 
Somehow, I doubt that there is such a Member.
  If Members are among those who would oppose this action in their 
district, then I would implore them, any of the Members of this body, 
to join me in stopping this completely unnecessary and costly action 
from happening in my district. They can do so by cosponsoring H.R. 
2162, a bill that I have introduced that simply would prohibit the 
reintroduction of grizzly bears into the Bitterroot ecosystem in east 
central Idaho.
  With my colleagues' help we can stop this nonsense by the Fish and 
Wildlife Service and work on a more legitimate use of the Endangered 
Species Act. Continuing these efforts to introduce dangerous predators 
where millions of people live and work will only serve to give ESA 
another black eye and turn more people against the environmental 
policies of this administration.
  I hope that in my speech tonight, that I have been able to educate my 
colleagues with some very strong evidence of how the policies 
instituted under the Endangered Species Act have completely gone 
adrift. I also hope that it will drive my colleagues, as it has me, to 
come together and to rein in this extreme environmental policy that we 
now see running rampant in some of our agencies, and come up with one 
that addresses the real needs of our environment, while at the same 
time respecting the lives and livelihoods of those who are affected by 
our environmental policies.
  It can be done, Mr. Speaker. It must be done. And with all of our 
help, working together, it will be done.

                          ____________________