[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 22 (Thursday, February 15, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1477-S1479]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. THOMAS.
  S. 347. A bill to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to improve 
the processes for listing, recovery planning, and delisting, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Listing and 
Delisting Reform Act of 2001. The Endangered Species Act has become one 
of the best examples of good intentions gone astray, and so today I am 
taking one small step toward injecting some common sense into what has 
become a regulatory nightmare. It is my intention to start making the 
law more effective for local landowners, public land managers, 
communities and state governments who truly hold the key to any 
successful effort to conserve species. My legislation seeks to improve 
the listing, recovery planning and delisting processes so that 
recovery, the goal of the act, is easier to achieve.
  In Wyoming, we have seen first hand the need to revise the listing 
and delisting processes of the Endangered Species Act. Listing should 
be a purely scientific decision. Listing should be based on credible 
data that has been peer-reviewed. Not long ago, the Prebles Meadow 
Jumping Mouse was listed in the State of Wyoming. The listing process 
for this mouse demonstrates how the system has gone haywire devoid of 
good science. One of the more significant shortcomings of the Preble's 
Rule relates to confusion about claims regarding the ``known range'' of 
as opposed to the alleged ``historical range.'' Historical data and 
current knowledge do not support the high, short-grass, semi-arid 
plains for southeastern Wyoming as part of the mouse's historical 
habitat range. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has even admitted to 
uncertainties regarding taxonomic distinctions and ranges. Further, the 
state was not properly notified causing counties, commissioners, and 
landowners all to be caught off guard. Such poor practices do not 
foster the types of partnerships that are required if meaningful 
species conservation is to occur. Clearly, changes are desperately 
needed to the Endangered Species Act.
  Not far behind the mouse in Wyoming, was the black tailed prairie 
dog. Petitions to list the prairie dog were being filed with the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service. I've lived in Wyoming most of my life, and 
I've logged a lot of miles on the roads and highways in my state over 
the years. I can tell you from experience that there is no shortage of 
prairie dogs in Wyoming. Any farmer or rancher will concur with that 
opinion. This petition, and countless other actions throughout the 
country, makes it painfully clear that some folks are intent on 
completely eliminating activity on public lands, no matter what the 
cost to individuals or local communities that rely on the land for 
economic survival.
  My legislation will require the Secretary of the Interior to use 
scientific or commercial data that is empirical, field tested and peer-
reviewed. Right

[[Page S1478]]

now, it's basically a ``postage stamp'' petition: any person who wants 
to start a listing process may petition a species with little or no 
scientific support. This legislation prevents this absurd practice by 
establishing minimum requirements for a listing petition that includes 
an analyses of the status of the species, its range, population trends 
and threats. The petition must also be peer reviewed. In order to list 
a species, the Secretary must determine if sufficient biological 
information exists in the petition to support a recovery plan. Under my 
proposal, states are made active participants in the process and the 
general public is provided a more substantial role.
  This legislation requires explicit planning and forethought with 
regard to conservation and recovery at the time the species is listed. 
Let me be clear about the intent of this requirement. I do not question 
the basic premise that some species require the protection of the 
Endangered Species Act. However, listing a species can cause hardship 
on a community. For that reason, it is critically important and only 
reasonable that every listing be supported by sound science. We should 
be sure of the need for a listing before we ask the members of our 
communities and private landowners to make sacrifices.
  In the past in my State of Wyoming, I have found that with several 
listings, the Secretary of the Interior was unable to tell me what 
measures were required to achieve species recovery. The Secretary could 
not tell me what acts or omissions we could expect to face as a 
consequence of listing. How can this be, if the Secretary is fully 
apprized of the status of the species? Conversely, if the Secretary 
cannot clearly describe how to reverse threatening acts to a species so 
that we can achieve recovery, how can we be sure that the species is, 
in fact, threatened?
  This ambiguity has caused much undue frustration to the people of 
Wyoming. If the Secretary believes that certain farming or ranching 
practices, or the diversion of a certain amount of water, or a private 
citizen's development of one's own property, is the cause for a 
listing, then the Secretary should identify those activities that have 
to be curtailed or changed. If the Secretary does not have enough 
information to indicate what activities should be restricted, then why 
list a species? Why open producers and others to the burden of over-
zealous enforcement and even litigation without being able to achieve 
the goal of recovering the species?
  This legislation is ultimately designed to improve the quality of 
information used to support a listing. If the Secretary knows enough to 
list a species, he should know enough to tell us what will be required 
for recovery. That should be the case under current law, and that is 
all that this provision would require.
  Just as the beginning of the process needs changes, we need to revise 
the end of the process the de-listing procedure. Recovery and delisting 
are quite simply, the goals of the Endangered Species Act. Yet, it is 
virtually impossible to currently de-list a species. There is no 
certainty in the process and the states the folks who have all the 
responsibility for managing the species once it is off the list are not 
true partners in that process. Once the recovery plan is met, the 
species should be de-listed.
  Wyoming's experience with the grizzly bear pinpoints some of the 
problems with the current de-listing process. The Interagency Grizzly 
Bear Committee set criteria for recovery and in the Yellowstone 
ecosystem, those targets have been met, but the bear has still not been 
removed from the list. We've been battling the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service for years over this one to no avail, despite tremendous effort 
and financial resources to meet recovery objectives. Despite rebounded 
populations, we keep funneling money down a black hole.
  The point is something needs to be done. My constituents, rightly so, 
are angry and upset about this current law and the trickling effects of 
countless listings. Real lives are being impacted. It is time for some 
real changes. These are small changes but I believe they will make big 
impacts. The changes I've suggested will have a significant affect on 
the quality of science, public participation, state involvement, speed 
in recovery and finally the delisting of a species. Species that truly 
need protection will be protected, but let's not lost sight of the real 
goal recovery and delisting. I ask unamious consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 347

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Endangered Species Listing 
     and Delisting Process Reform Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. LISTING PROCESS REFORMS.

       (a) Best Scientific and Commercial Data Available.--
       (1) In general.--Section 3 of the Endangered Species Act of 
     1973 (16 U.S.C. 1532) is amended--
       (A) by striking the section heading and inserting the 
     following:


                ``DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS'';

       (B) by striking ``For the purposes of this Act--'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(a) Definitions.--In this Act:''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) General Provisions.--In any case in which this Act 
     requires the Secretary to use the best scientific and 
     commercial data available, the Secretary shall obtain and use 
     scientific or commercial data that are empirical or have been 
     field-tested or peer-reviewed.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--The table of contents in the 
     first section of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 
     U.S.C. prec. 1531) is amended by striking the item relating 
     to section 3 and inserting the following:

``Sec. 3. Definitions and general provisions.''.

       (b) Finding of Sufficient Biological Information To Support 
     Recovery Planning.--Section 4(b) of the Endangered Species 
     Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(A)--
       (A) by striking ``shall make'' and inserting the following: 
     ``shall--
       ``(i) make'';
       (B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; 
     and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(ii) determine that a species is an endangered species or 
     a threatened species only if the Secretary finds that there 
     is sufficient biological information to support recovery 
     planning for the species under subsection (f).''; and
       (2) in the first sentence of paragraph (3)(A), by inserting 
     before the period at the end the following: ``and as to 
     whether the petition presents sufficient biological 
     information to support recovery planning for the species 
     under subsection (f)''.
       (c) Petition Process.--Section 4(b)(3) of the Endangered 
     Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(E) Listing petition information.--In the case of a 
     petition to add a species to a list published under 
     subsection (c), a finding that the petition presents the 
     information described in subparagraph (A) shall not be made 
     unless the petition provides--
       ``(i) documentation from a published scientific source that 
     the fish, wildlife, or plant that is the subject of the 
     petition is a species;
       ``(ii)(I) a description of the available data on the 
     historical and current range and distribution of the species;
       ``(II) an explanation of the methodology used to collect 
     the data; and
       ``(III) identification of the location where the data can 
     be reviewed;
       ``(iii) an appraisal of the available data on the status 
     and trends of all extant populations of the species;
       ``(iv) an appraisal of the available data on the threats to 
     the species;
       ``(v) an identification of the information contained or 
     referred to in the petition that has been peer-reviewed or 
     field-tested; and
       ``(vi) a description of at least 1 study or credible expert 
     opinion, from a person not affiliated with the petitioner, to 
     support the action requested in the petition.
       ``(F) Notification to states.--
       ``(i) Petitioned actions.--If a petition is found to 
     present information described in subparagraph (A), the 
     Secretary shall--

       ``(I) notify and provide a copy of the petition to the 
     State agency of each State in which the species is believed 
     to occur; and
       ``(II) solicit the assessment of the agency as to whether 
     the petitioned action is warranted, which assessment shall be 
     submitted to the Secretary during a comment period ending 90 
     days after the date of the notification.

       ``(ii) Other actions.--If the Secretary has not received a 
     petition to add a species to a list published under 
     subsection (c) and the Secretary is considering proposing to 
     list the species as an endangered species or a threatened 
     species under subsection (a), the Secretary shall--

       ``(I) notify the State agency of each State in which the 
     species is believed to occur; and
       ``(II) solicit the assessment of the agency as to whether 
     the listing would be in accordance with subsection (a), which 
     assessment shall be submitted to the Secretary during a 
     comment period ending 90 days after the date of the 
     notification.

       ``(iii) Consideration of state assessments.--Before 
     publication of a finding described in subparagraph (A) that a 
     petitioned

[[Page S1479]]

     action is warranted, the Secretary shall consider any 
     assessments submitted with respect to the species within the 
     comment period established under clause (i) or (ii).''.
       (d) Improvement of Public Hearings in the Listing 
     Process.--
       (1) In general.--Section 4(b)(5) of the Endangered Species 
     Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(5)) is amended by striking 
     subparagraph (E) and inserting the following:
       ``(E) promptly hold at least 2 hearings in each State in 
     which the species proposed for determination as an endangered 
     species or a threatened species is located (including at 
     least 1 hearing in an affected rural area if 1 or more rural 
     areas within the State are affected by the determination), 
     except that the Secretary may not be required to hold more 
     than 10 hearings under this subparagraph with respect to the 
     proposed regulation.''.
       (2) Definition of rural area.--Section 3(a) of the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1532(a)) (as 
     amended by subsection (a)(1)(B)) is amended--
       (A) by redesignating paragraphs (12) through (14) as 
     paragraphs (11) through (13), respectively; and
       (B) by inserting before paragraph (15) the following:
       ``(14) Rural area.--The term `rural area' means a county or 
     unincorporated area that has no city or town with a 
     population of more than 10,000 individuals.''.
       (3) Conforming amendment.--Section 7(n) of the Endangered 
     Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536(n)) is amended in the 
     first sentence by striking ``, as defined by section 3(13) of 
     this Act,''.
       (e) Emergency Listing.--Section 4(b)(7) of the Endangered 
     Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(7)) is amended in the 
     first sentence by striking ``posing a significant risk to the 
     well-being'' and inserting ``that poses an imminent threat to 
     the continued existence''.
       (f) Other Listing Reforms.--Section 4(b) of the Endangered 
     Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(9) Availability of listing data.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), upon 
     publication of a proposed regulation determining that a 
     species is an endangered species or a threatened species, the 
     Secretary shall make publicly available--
       ``(i) all information on which the determination is based, 
     including all scientific studies and data underlying the 
     studies; and
       ``(ii) all information relating to the species that the 
     Secretary possesses and that does not support the 
     determination.
       ``(B) Limitation.--Subparagraph (A) does not require 
     disclosure of any information that--
       ``(i) is not required to be made available under section 
     552 of title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the 
     `Freedom of Information Act'); or
       ``(ii) is prohibited from being disclosed under section 
     552a of title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the 
     `Privacy Act').
       ``(10) Establishment of criteria for scientific studies to 
     support listing.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary shall promulgate 
     regulations that establish criteria that must be met for 
     scientific and commercial data to be used as the basis of a 
     determination under this section that a species is an 
     endangered species or a threatened species.
       ``(11) Field data.--
       ``(A) Requirement.--The Secretary may not determine that a 
     species is an endangered species or a threatened species 
     unless the determination is supported by data obtained by 
     observation of the species in the field.
       ``(B) Data from landowners.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(i) accept and acknowledge receipt of data regarding the 
     status of a species that is collected by an owner of land 
     through observation of the species on the land; and
       ``(ii) include the data in the rulemaking record compiled 
     for any determination that the species is an endangered 
     species or a threatened species.''.

     SEC. 3. DEADLINE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF RECOVERY PLANS.

       Section 4(f) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 
     U.S.C. 1533(f)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(6) Deadline for development of recovery plans.--The 
     Secretary shall--
       ``(A) begin developing a recovery plan required for a 
     species under paragraph (1) on the date of promulgation of 
     the proposed regulation to implement a determination under 
     subsection (a)(1) with respect to the species; and
       ``(B) issue a recovery plan in final form not later than 
     the date of promulgation of the final regulation to implement 
     the determination.''.

     SEC. 4. DELISTING.

       Section 4(f) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 
     U.S.C. 1533(f)) (as amended by section 3) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) Effect of fulfillment of recovery plan criteria.--
       ``(A) Change in status.--If the Secretary finds that the 
     criteria of a recovery plan have been met for a change in 
     status of the species covered by the recovery plan from an 
     endangered species to a threatened species, or from a 
     threatened species to an endangered species, the Secretary 
     shall promptly publish in the Federal Register a notice of 
     the change in status of the species.
       ``(B) Removal from listing.--If the Secretary finds that 
     the criteria of a recovery plan have been met for the removal 
     of the species covered by the recovery plan from a list 
     published under subsection (c), the Secretary shall promptly 
     publish in the Federal Register a notice of an intent to 
     remove the species from the list.''.
                                   ____
                                 
      By Mr. HUTCHINSON:
  S. 348. A bill to amend the Small Business Act to extend the 
authorization for the drug-free workplace program; to the Committee on 
Small Business.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Drug-
Free Workplace Program Extension Act of 2001. This important 
legislation will reduce the number of employees who engage in substance 
abuse while on the job and will thus directly improve worker safety. As 
employee substance abuse declines, there will be a corresponding 
decline in the number of drug-related fatalities, injuries, and lost 
workdays. Workers who abuse substances not only hurt themselves, but 
their coworkers as well.
  Approximately 1,000 workers are currently being injured and killed 
each year as a direct result of their own and their coworkers' 
substance abuse. Prior to 1993, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, BLS, 
reported that toxicological reports for occupational fatalities 
indicated that one-sixth of the nation's workers who died on the job 
were under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance. 
Unfortunately, the true extent of this problem is not definitively 
known as a result of the Department of Labor's decision to order the 
BLS to discontinue the tracking of this statistic. In the meantime, we 
can commit to providing additional funding to enhance drug-free 
workplace programs.
  The Drug-Free Workplace Program Extension Act of 2001 would simply 
amend the Small Business Act, SBA, to authorize another $10 million, $5 
million each, in fiscal years 2004 and 2005 for grants to states and 
non-profit organizations working with small businesses to promote drug-
free workplaces. I ask my colleagues to join me in this simple, non-
partisan attempt to enhance the safety of American workers and I ask 
unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 348

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Drug-Free Workplace Program 
     Extension Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. PROGRAM EXTENSION.

       (a) In General.--Section 27(g)(1) of the Small Business Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 654(g)(1)) is amended by striking ``2003'' and 
     inserting ``2005''.
       (b) Small Business Development Centers.--Section 
     21(c)(3)(T) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     648(c)(3)(T)) is amended by striking ``2003'' and inserting 
     ``2005''.
                                 ______