[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 148 (Wednesday, October 27, 1999)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2202-E2203]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


      COMMON SENSE PROTECTIONS FOR ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 2000

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. DON YOUNG

                               of alaska

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, October 27, 1999

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, today we introduce the Common Sense 
Protection for Endangered Species Act of 2000. My efforts to improve 
and update the Endangered Species Act date back over my entire 26 years 
of service in the House of Representatives. The Endangered Species Act 
or the ESA, was originally adopted in 1973, with the goal of protecting 
those species of fish, wildlife and plants that were in danger of 
extinction. However, over the last 26 years the ESA has gotten off 
course. It is now in danger of foundering in a sea of bureaucratic 
abuse and misuse.
  The Committee on Resources has held over 25 hearings on the impacts 
of the Endangered Species Act since I became the Chairman. We have 
heard hundreds of witnesses testify regarding the misuse of this law 
for purposes that have nothing to do with protecting wildlife. We know 
that there are 1,197 U.S. species listed as endangered or threatened, 
yet no species has recovered due to actions taken under the Endangered 
Species Act. The ESA is a failure, when it is judged solely on the 
basis of the number of species recovered and it is a failure when you 
realize that it punishes those private property owners who do the most 
to protect wildlife on their property. We need to turn this failure 
into a success story and we can do that through the application of some 
basic common sense principles.
  First, we need to return more authority and responsibility for 
wildlife protection back to the states. The states have primary 
responsibility for wildlife and plants within their borders. The states 
have done the best job of managing their own wildlife. State programs 
to restore depleted species of game through good scientific management 
have been a resounding success. Species such as wild turkey, deer, elk, 
mountain lions, bear, and countless others managed by the states are 
becoming so plentiful that their numbers are now considered too 
plentiful in some areas.
  Almost every state has its own endangered and threatened species 
program. Most of the states are doing a better job than the federal 
government at protecting endangered species and they are doing it in a 
common sense fashion, unlike some of our federal agencies. However, we 
seem to be imposing the greatest number of federal resources in those 
states that have had the best endangered species programs. The State of 
California, under the leadership of former governor Pete Wilson, 
developed an endangered species program that is as stringent as the 
federal program and is the best funded state ESA program in the 
country, yet we have spent more federal ESA funds in California than in 
any other state. We need to insure that our scarce federal resources 
are used in those areas that need federal help--not in those states 
that are doing a good job. Let's stop duplicating the state's good work 
and let them do what they do best--manage their own wildlife.
  Second, it is absolutely imperative that when a new species is added 
to the list of endangered and threatened species, that the science used 
to justify that listing is accurate and adequate. We need to improve 
the quality of the scientific data used to list species. We can only do 
that by requiring the agency to use good science, not just whatever 
science happens to be available at the time a petition is received to 
list a species. When a species is listed that is not really endangered 
or threatened with extinction, there are severe economic consequences 
for local communities and for affected private property owners. This 
should be avoided through the use of well-founded science.
  Thirdly, we need to be fair to landowners who are affected by the 
listing of endangered species. Most endangered species are found on 
private lands. Private landowners need to be given incentives and 
rewards for protecting endangered and threatened species. 
Unfortunately, the ESA has been used against landowners to deprive them 
of the right to use their own property and to demand both land and 
money from affected landowners. The federal agencies that administer 
the ESA have been given extraordinary powers which they are using to 
force landowners to set aside ``in perpetuity'', huge amounts of 
privately owned lands that can only be used for one purpose--the 
protection of the public's wildlife and plant species. This type of 
treatment only discourages other landowners from providing habitat for 
wildlife.
  We need to guarantee the public's right to know what the federal 
government is going to require for the protection of endangered 
species. The public and affected landowners should be included at every 
step in the process and should have a right to be heard and to have 
their questions answered about what kinds of new regulations the 
government may be proposing.
  Fourth, we need to insure that when federal agencies' activities 
affect endangered species that the species are protected, but also 
those agencies need to fulfill their primary missions. We have seen 
examples of our military unable to prepare for the national defense 
because of the presence of endangered species on military lands. Flood 
control projects are delayed over many years resulting in ever 
increasing damage from floods. Much needed roads, bridges, and other 
transportation projects are stopped or delayed. Entire forests are 
closed to harvesting while timber workers are left unemployed. The list 
goes on and on.
  We must insure that the government keeps its promises to private 
property owners. The Fish and Wildlife Service has issued over 250 
permits to various landowners for the use of their property. We need to 
insure that the federal government does not ignore those permits and 
demand even greater amounts of land and money in the future during the 
term of those agreements.
  Fifth, we must recover the populations of species and then be sure 
they are taken off the lists of endangered species. Under the current 
ESA, the federal agencies list species and then never remove them from 
the lists even when their populations increase dramatically. This is 
unacceptable. The federal government must work with the local community 
and affected landowners to develop workable recovery plans for species. 
The federal government must then keep its word to delist species when 
the communities make concessions to recover species.

  Our bill, the Common Sense Protections for Endangered Species Act of 
2000 would bring back basic common sense solutions to help achieve all 
these goals. It would:
  1. Improve the listing process by involving and relying upon the 
expertise of States.
  2. Improve petitions and listing investigations and insure greater 
public participation in the listing process.
  3. It would require the use of peer reviewed science to support the 
listing of species.
  4. It would reduce conflicts and economic dislocation caused by 
federal agency shut downs and provide deadlines for agency decision 
making. It would insure that agencies fulfill their missions and 
provide a faster and surer method of resolving conflicts between 
agencies. It would insure that public safety will be protected.
  5. It would allow affected citizens a full opportunity to participate 
in consultations; discuss the impacts of a biological opinion and any 
proposed alternatives, receive information on the biological opinion; 
and receive a copy of the draft biological opinion prior to its 
issuance.
  6. It would prevent abusive and excessive demands on private 
landowners for their land and money as a condition of getting an ESA 
permit from the federal government and require reasonable deadlines for 
making permit

[[Page E2203]]

decisions. It would insure that conservation agreements are binding on 
all parties to the agreement.
  7. It would make recovery planning an inclusive process and would 
allow the Secretary to delegate to the states the development and 
implementation of recovery plans. Designation of critical habitat would 
become part of the recovery process. It would insure that recovery 
results in the delisting of species.
  While I would personally prefer to make even more improvements in the 
ESA, I feel that these changes will be a good first start toward 
bringing back a common sense and reasonable approach to our federal 
government's efforts to recover species. I fully support protecting the 
rights of private property owners and believe that you can't protect 
wildlife unless you protect property owners. I also recognize that in 
order to achieve any goal, you have to take a first step. This is our 
first step toward Common Sense Protections for Endangered Species.

                          ____________________