[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 12, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2355-S2356]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. THOMAS:
  S. 369. 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 2003.'' The Endangered Species Act has 
become one of the best examples of good intentions gone astray. 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. In 1998, the Preble's 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 regarding the 
handling of the Preble Mouse has been the confusion between the ``known 
range'' as opposed to the alleged ``historical range'' of the mouse. 
Historical data and current knowledge do not support the high, short-
grass, semi-arid plains of 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 to the 
Endangered Species Act are desperately needed.
  Not far behind the mouse in Wyoming, was the black tailed prairie 
dog. Petitions to list the prairie dog were 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

[[Page S2356]]

or commercial data that is empirical, field tested and peer-reviewed. 
Right 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 analysis 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 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 a private citizen's development of their 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, that person 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.
  Additionally, we need to revise the end of the process, the de-
listing procedure. Recovery should be the goal of the Endangered 
Species Act. Yet, it is virtually impossible to de-list a species. 
There is no certainty in the process, and the State who has 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 issue to no avail. Despite rebounded 
populations, we keep funneling money down a black hole.
  The point is something needs to be done. People in Wyoming have grown 
weary of the Endangered Species Act and the efforts of a vocal minority 
to run roughshod over their lives and interests. It is imperative to 
the longevity of many species and our citizens in the West that we 
bring this Act to the snubbing post and gain control of the process. 
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 lose sight of the real 
goal--recovery and delisting.
                                 ______