[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 54 (Tuesday, May 5, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4225-S4226]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   ENDANGERED SPECIES REAUTHORIZATION

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today I come to the floor to speak to the 
reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act. I ask unanimous consent 
my name be added to the cosponsorship of S. 1180, a bill reauthorizing 
the Endangered Species Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes today to 
talk about S. 1180, the Endangered Species Act reauthorization bill, 
and why I have decided to cosponsor it at this time.
  As our colleagues know, this bill was passed by the Environment and 
Public Works Committee last fall, and it is currently on the calendar, 
ready for consideration by the full Senate. I have been slow to 
cosponsor S. 1180 because of some reservations I had--and still have--
about the bill. I will talk in more detail about those details in a 
minute.
  However, I am absolutely convinced that the current Endangered 
Species Act is not only a dismal failure at saving species, but is 
actually working against that goal. Furthermore, every day we tolerate 
this defective law, its unfair and unnecessary burdens increase on 
citizens and the economy. Yet at the same time, the American people 
continue to believe that conserving fish and wildlife species for the 
enjoyment of future generations is the right thing to do. And I 
certainly agree with that. They want to make changes to the law, but 
don't want to see the Endangered Species Act thrown out.
  That is why for the last three years, my colleague and friend from 
Idaho, Senator Kempthorne, has been working mightily to improve this 
complex law. He has held hearings, built coalitions, drafted and re-
drafted language to correct the problems while still advancing the 
goals of the Endangered Species Act. I congratulate him, as well as our 
other Senate colleagues who have worked with him to produce this bill.
  S. 1180 would make some positive reforms in the current system. It 
would re-focus the process on actually saving species. It would create 
opportunities and benefits for people who are affected by the 
government's actions in these areas.

  For example, the bill emphasizes sound science--instead of politics--
to guide actions taken to conserve and recover species. It requires 
independent peer review for listing and delisting decisions, and for 
the establishment of a biological recovery goal in a recovery plan. 
Specific time limits would be observed, and States and local citizens 
would have a larger role in the process.
  I believe these provisions and others would make significant 
improvements

[[Page S4226]]

in our current process, to the benefit of both our wildlife and our 
citizenry. While additional corrections could be made, those who 
drafted this bill believe that a more comprehensive overhaul of ESA is 
not going to pass this Congress. I tend to agree with that assessment 
and I am also willing to pursue the strategy of trying to pass these 
reforms now as a foundation for further reforms later. That is the 
message I would like to send with my cosponsorship of S. 1180 today.
  Having said all that, Mr. President, I cannot endorse each and every 
provision within this legislation. I will be supporting amendments that 
will change or add to the bill in a number of areas.
  For instance, while I support S. 1180's stated goal of providing 
incentives to promote voluntary habitat conservation by private 
landowners, I am very concerned about what the bill as a whole will 
fail to do in the area of protecting private property rights.
  This is no small matter. The right to own and use property goes to 
the very heart of our American democracy. It was so important to our 
founding fathers that they enshrined the protection of private property 
in the Constitution's Bill of Rights.
  It is equally important today. Yet our federal government has 
increasingly ignored these rights. President Clinton rejected the 
Constitution's guarantee outright when he pledged to veto any 
``compensation entitlement legislation'' intended to strengthen 
Americans' private property rights. Representatives of this 
administration have even suggested that the idea of private property is 
an outmoded notion.
  Let me say to them, how dare they. Nowhere in the administration's 
hostility toward private property rights is there more evidence of that 
than in their threat to veto an endangered species reform that has that 
in it.
  Let's take a look at Secretary Babbitt's ``no surprises'' policy, for 
example. The basic idea is that if landowners surrender control over 
the use of part of their property for ESA purposes, then the Federal 
Government will let them use the rest of it without interference. To 
put it another way, Secretary Babbitt proposes that you pay the 
Government for the right to use your own land. By comparison, the 
Constitution of the United States promises that if the Federal 
Government wants your land used a certain way, the Federal Government 
has to pay you for it.
  Even more outrageous than Secretary Babbitt's program is the fact 
that many landowners think it is actually a pretty good deal. How 
oppressive and tyrannical have ESA regulations become, when citizens 
are willing, even eager, to give up their property and their 
constitutionally protected right to compensation just to get the 
Government off their back, just to get the Government to leave them 
alone.
  I applaud the goal of S. 1180 in reducing regulatory burdens and 
improving the certainty and finality of Government action in protecting 
endangered species. It is bad policy to require the American people to 
sacrifice their constitutionally protected rights for any Federal 
program, even this one.
  I would like to see S. 1180 strengthen and protect fifth amendment 
rights to compensation. I will vote for amendments and/or legislation 
that strengthens our citizens' private property rights.
  The paramount natural resource issue for Americans in the West is 
sovereignty of our States over water that flows and exists within the 
boundaries of those Western States. It is easy to say that all we need 
to do is remain silent on this issue and it will be OK. In fact, 
however, preserving State water sovereignty is not so easy. The reality 
of how Federal water rights are created, or not created, requires that 
we speak to the question, I believe, in this legislation.

  The appropriation doctrine is the water law of Western States and has 
as its central premise that the first person to claim a water right has 
priority on its use over those water claimants who assert claims at a 
later date. In the arid West, this principle lies at the very heart of 
our economy. It is the ability to allocate this precious resource--the 
resource of water--that allows us to exist in the West.
  It is for this reason we westerners become particularly agitated when 
the Federal Government tries to disrupt this principle or to ``take'' 
our water. Does this legislation create a Federal reserved water right? 
The answer is no, it doesn't. But it should say that very clearly. And 
I will support an amendment that I hope can pass, which will say very 
clearly that, within the Endangered Species Act reauthorization, it 
doesn't.
  With all of those considerations, though, I believe it is important 
that we move S. 1180. I think it is a positive step forward. As I have 
said, I believe it lays the right foundation for further changes in 
Congresses to come. It says to the American people that we are 
concerned about preserving species of animals, insects, of all things 
on this earth, if we can possibly do it. At the same time, there is a 
reasonable right and a reasonable responsibility enshrined within the 
Constitution that we preserve the right of the citizenry to exist also.
  It is for this reason that this legislation should clearly state the 
Congress' intent. For the record, this Senator does not intend for the 
endangered species reauthorization legislation to create a federal 
reserved water right. This is why I believe S. 1180 must state clearly 
that no implied or express federal water right is created in this 
legislation. I will support and vote for such an amendment.
  With these areas of concern in mind, I am also inclined to support a 
shorter term of reauthorization than S. 1180 provides. As I mentioned 
previously, it is my goal to build additional improvements on the 
foundation laid by this legislation. Accelerating the opportunity for 
Congress to re-open the issue would only advance that goal.
  In closing, Mr. President, let me repeat my endorsement for the goals 
that Senator Kempthorne and the other supporters of this bill set out 
to achieve in reauthorizing the Endangered Species Act. I think the 
bill will make improvements that are critical to ongoing EAS efforts in 
my state and elsewhere in the nation, and amendments in the areas I 
have discussed today will enhance those improvements.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The Senator from Utah is 
recognized.

                          ____________________