[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 124 (Thursday, September 29, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H8517-H8525]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3824, THREATENED AND ENDANGERED 
                      SPECIES RECOVERY ACT OF 2005

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 470 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 470

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 3824) to amend and reauthorize the Endangered 
     Species Act of 1973 to provide greater results conserving and 
     recovering listed species, and for other purposes. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed 
     ninety minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Resources. 
     After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the 
     amendment recommended by the Committee on Resources now 
     printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an 
     original bill an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     consisting of the text of the Resources Committee Print dated 
     September 26, 2005. That amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against that committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute are waived. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule 
     XVIII, no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be in order except those printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made 
     in order as original text. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Hastings) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate 
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as 
I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time 
yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 470 is a 
rule providing for consideration of H.R. 3824, the Threatened and 
Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005. The rule provides for 90 
minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Resources and waives all 
points of order against consideration of the bill.
  House Resolution 470 provides that, in lieu of the amendment 
recommended by the Committee on Resources now printed in the bill, the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of the 
Committee on Resources print dated September 26 shall be considered as 
an original bill for the purpose of amendment and shall be considered 
as read. The rule waives all points of order against the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
  House Resolution 470 makes in order only those amendments printed in 
the

[[Page H8518]]

Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution. The rule 
provides that amendments printed in the report may be offered only in 
the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be 
debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and 
controlled by the proponent and opponent, shall not be subject to 
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the 
question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.
  Lastly, the resolution waives all points of order against amendments 
printed in the report and provides one motion to recommit, with or 
without instruction.
  Mr. Speaker, the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act is 
one of the most important bills we will consider on species recovery 
and property rights this year. I commend the gentleman from California 
(Chairman Pombo) and other members of the Committee on Resources and 
their staffs who have worked hard to bring this legislation to this 
point. The result of their efforts is a solid bipartisan bill that 
updates key parts of the Endangered Species Act and provides enhanced 
protection for property owners.
  For people of the rural West where I live, there are few more 
important matters than modernization of the ESA. Unfortunately, some of 
the most well-known examples of the ESA problems have occurred in my 
region of the country, the Pacific Northwest.
  For example, Mr. Speaker, the Northwest timber industry was decimated 
by the listing of the spotted owl 15 years ago, only to discover that 
today, the spotted owls have actually been endangered and displaced by 
other owls. Imagine if we had emphasized recovery then. How many 
family-wage jobs would have been saved and how many more spotted owls 
would we have today?
  Four years ago, water to family farms in the Klamath Basin in Oregon 
was cut off in the name of the sucker fish, when everyone knew there 
were other measures that would truly help species recover without 
bankrupting businesses and families. Every summer, in excess of $3 
million is being spent per listed salmon. Mr. Speaker, let me repeat 
that. Every summer in excess of $3 million per salmon is spent to spill 
water over dams, even though science and common sense tells us that 
there are better ways of species recovery.
  This is all the result of the Endangered Species Act becoming too 
driven by litigation and conflict. Simply put, this act is broken, and 
it is in need of updating.
  If we put off modernizing the ESA, it is not just the people of my 
region that will suffer. It is also the animals and plants that the ESA 
is supposed to protect that are the victims. ESA's record of recovery 
of listed species is abysmal. Less than 1 percent of the species listed 
under the act have actually been recovered. According to the Fish and 
Wildlife Service, only 6 percent of the species are categorized as 
recovering. Each year, Federal agencies are spending more on paperwork, 
process, court cases, and lawyers and less on real on-the-ground 
recovery efforts. We, frankly, must reverse this trend.
  The Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act puts the priority 
where it should be, on recovery. This bill will require agencies to 
complete recovery plans within 2 years of listing. These plans will 
require the identification of lands important for species recovery, in 
lieu of the cumbersome and litigation-driven critical habitat process.
  In addition, the bill authorizes collaborative recovery teams made up 
of a diverse group of stakeholders, including people with conservation 
expertise as well as those whose livelihoods are affected by 
environmental policies. Again, there is a fundamental shift here from 
confrontation and litigation to cooperation and recovery. It is long 
overdue.
  This legislation also offers important new tools for encouraging 
voluntary participation in species recovery efforts by private property 
owners. The ESA is currently written with its emphasis on punitive 
measures and regulation serves as a disincentive for any private 
property owner to provide habitat for a listed species.
  This legislation provides ``no surprises'' protections for land 
holders entering into habitat conservation plans with the government. 
In addition, this bill offers financial aid to those whose property has 
been restricted for conservation purposes. After all, species recovery 
is a national goal that benefits all Americans, and the cost of that 
effort should not fall solely on the shoulders of land holders.
  Another important improvement in the ESA that this bill would provide 
is strengthening the science and data used in decision-making. This 
legislation puts the emphasis on objectively quantifiable and peer-
reviewed science. Stronger science and ESA information will result in 
our limited Federal resources going to where they will do the most 
good, while reducing instances of drastic Federal actions being taken 
on poor or limited data. These are the things that we should all be 
able to agree upon.
  H.R. 3824 is a solid bipartisan bill that will do much to bring this 
important law up to date. I again commend my colleagues for their hard 
work on this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support both the 
rule, House Resolution 470, and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as 
may consume.
  (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1030

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, today, this House stands at a very 
important crossroad. We are faced with a decision that will have severe 
consequences for years to come. On one side, we have this bill, the 
Threatened and Endangered Species Act, facing off on the other side 
against sound, science-based environmental policy.
  The Republican leadership had a unique opportunity to provide us with 
a carefully constructed bill, one that strengthens current protections 
for endangered species while also finding the necessary balance between 
property rights and environmental concerns. But, instead, the bill that 
we have before us essentially guts the Endangered Species Act. It is as 
simple as that, and it certainly comes as no surprise.
  In 1994, many Republicans were elected to this body promising to 
repeal the Endangered Species Act. There are dozens of news stories 
describing rallies and press conferences held by opponents of the 
Endangered Species Act. For many who now sit on the Committee on 
Resources, including the distinguished chairman, eliminating the 
Endangered Species Act was almost a singular campaign issue. Ten years 
after the Republicans took control of the House, they may be one step 
closer to repealing one of the most successful environmental laws in 
the history of the country.
  Dismantling the Endangered Species Act has also been a top priority 
of the Bush administration. One of the sad realities of the Republican 
control of our government is their absolute contempt for the 
environment. Since they have taken control of the Congress, they have 
been rolling back environmental protections nonstop. This bill, 
unfortunately, falls into that tradition.
  Make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker, this bill is not about fixing 
the Endangered Species Act, it is about gutting it. In fact, just 
months ago, legislation was drafted and subsequently circulated by the 
Chair of the Committee on Resources that would have completely 
eliminated endangered species protections over the next 10 years. 
Fortunately, that bill failed to ever come before the committee for 
consideration.
  Instead, here we are with their next best thing, or should I say the 
next worst thing, H.R. 3824. While this legislation does not go as far 
as to formally repeal the Endangered Species Act, it burdens the 
current system with a weakened mandate, limited funding, and minimal 
protections.
  Now, let us be clear about what we are debating here today. The bill 
before us is a major first step toward complete elimination of the 
Endangered Species Act. For proof, we only have to look at the 
Endangered Species Act itself. Over 30 years ago, the Endangered 
Species Act was signed into law by President Richard Nixon, and in the 
years that followed, it became renowned as one of our Nation's most

[[Page H8519]]

successful, effective, and vital conservation laws.
  The Endangered Species Act alone has been credited with saving 
hundreds of species from extinction, most notably the Florida manatee, 
the California condor, and the bald eagle. According to the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, 99 percent of the species ever listed under the 
Endangered Species Act remain on the planet today.
  The current Endangered Species Act did this by banning hazardous 
pesticides, like DDT; protecting natural habitats and instituting and 
enforcing a science-based decision-making process. But the benefits of 
the Endangered Species Act extend far beyond protections for any one or 
group of endangered plants or animals. In fact, there are clear 
economic benefits to this law.
  Each year, hunting, fishing, and wildlife watching bring in over $100 
billion in revenue. These industries  alone employ 2.6 million people 
each year. For example, the reintroduction of the gray wolf into 
Yellowstone National Park 10 years ago increased revenues in adjacent 
local communities by $10 million annually. Imagine the impact the bill 
before us could have on local economies that depend on recreation and 
ecotourism for jobs and tax revenues. It could be devastating.

  H.R. 3824 takes us back to the bad old days and completely repeals 
protections against the use of hazardous pesticides, and removes one of 
the most important parts of the Endangered Species Act, the protection 
of critical habitat. No alternative is provided, and in the end, the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is left in an unenforceable and 
nonbinding mandate.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill creates an endless slush fund for 
private developers. This is one of the most shocking proposals I think 
I have seen. We do not pay power plants not to violate clean air laws, 
nor provide incentives for businesses to comply with the minimum wage 
standards. But under this bill, we would pay landowners to not break 
the law.
  What is the cost of this sweetheart deal? According to the 
Congressional Budget Office, the full price tag of this deal could 
reach $2.7 billion over the next 5 years. That amounts to an additional 
$118 million in the first year alone.
  So contrary to what the proponents of H.R. 3824 will say today, this 
is really a new entitlement for developers and other business 
interests. It allows direct spending that will not only be expensive, 
but will drain the resourses from other important environmental 
programs.
  With the largest deficit in American history, with mounting costs 
from the recent hurricanes, and with the war still raging in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, is this the right time to open a slush fund that will 
funnel millions of dollars to developers and businesses, while 
undoubtedly resulting in the extinction of unique animals and habitats 
across this country?
  I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will take a 
close look at this legislation and recognize it is not our only option.
  Yes, the Endangered Species Act could benefit from revisions. 
Everybody will agree with that. But this bill is not the answer. And it 
is for this reason that I would urge my colleagues to support the 
Miller-Boehlert substitute, and I commend my colleagues for their hard 
bipartisan work.
  Together, they have drafted a substitute that protects private 
landowners from unnecessary government regulation while also preserving 
current initiatives that have proven successful. On a smaller scale, a 
similar approach has been overwhelmingly successful in my home State of 
Massachusetts. In 1985, the piping plover, a small shore bird, was in 
steep decline. There were approximately 130 pairs remaining in the 
United States. But in just 14 years, they have made a dramatic 
comeback, and this was largely the result of coordinated efforts 
between conservationists and private land managers.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not the only one who feels this way about H.R. 
3824. Environmental and animal rights groups strongly oppose this bill, 
and so do many of the Nation's leading editorial pages: The New York 
Times, The Boston Globe, The Los Angeles Times, The Seattle Post 
Intelligencer, The Idaho Falls Post Register, to name a few, all oppose 
scrapping the Endangered Species Act. But I want to read from the 
hometown newspaper of the first President Bush and the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. DeLay), The Houston Chronicle:
  ``After 32 years of success, the Endangered Species Act may need 
streamlining and adjustment to the realities of the continued 
development of rural areas of the country. It should not be destroyed 
and replaced with a law that would give all the advantages to business 
interests and allow the Secretary of the Interior to play God with the 
Nation's biodiversity.''
  The Miller-Boehlert amendment is proposed to modernize responsibly 
the Endangered Species Act. It is clear that times have changed since 
President Nixon signed this bill into law. But the challenge is to 
update the Endangered Species Act responsibly, and H.R. 3824 does not 
do that. A vote for this bill is a vote to repeal the Endangered 
Species Act. A vote for this bill is a vote to once again threaten 
national treasures like the bald eagle, the grey wolf, the Florida 
manatee, and the piping plover with extinction, and I would urge my 
colleagues to oppose this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit herewith for the Record the editorial I quoted 
from earlier:

                           An Endangered Act

              [From the Houston Chronicle, Aug. 12, 2005]

       Since President Richard Nixon signed it in 1973, the 
     Endangered Species Act has prevented the extinction of 
     hundreds of species of American plants and animals, restoring 
     many to sizable populations. In the process of designating 
     1,370 species eligible for protection, the act also has 
     generated court battles by opponents who chafed at 
     restrictions on commercial development of essential habitat.
       Backed by land development and agricultural interests, as 
     well as the Bush administration, several members of Congress 
     are pushing legislation that would gut what some consider the 
     most important environmental law in U.S. history. U.S. Rep. 
     Richard Pombo, R-Calif., who chairs the House Resources 
     Committee, has offered a draft bill that would replace the 
     Endangered Species Act and cancel all agreements to protect 
     threatened species.
       Environmentalists charge that Pombo's bill eliminates any 
     provision to help species recover from near extinction and 
     effectively forbids the designation of critical habitats on 
     virtually all federal land. The existing law requires that 
     species be protected if they are endangered in a significant 
     portion of their range. Pombo's draft narrows that 
     requirement to species threatened throughout their range.
       This month the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service adopted 
     similar reasoning when it proposed the removal of the pygmy 
     owl in Arizona from the list of threatened species because 
     healthy populations exist in Mexico. Under President Clinton 
     the agency had proposed designation of 1.2 million acres in 
     the state as critical habitat. Under the Pombo standard, 
     animals such as the grizzly bear, bald eagle and timber wolf, 
     with large populations in Alaska, would not have qualified 
     for protection in other parts of the United States.
       Polls consistently have found that Americans strongly 
     support the act's protections for threatened wildlife. The 
     Supreme Court recently refused to hear a challenge to 
     enforcement of the act brought by developers in a dispute 
     involving the endangered Kretschmarr Cave mold beetle in 
     Texas.
       Pombo's bill would allow the secretary of the interior to 
     determine what scientific evidence is relevant in deciding if 
     a species is endangered and give the secretary the power to 
     overturn decisions by federal biologists and wildlife 
     managers. It would saddle agencies with massive paperwork and 
     create an appeals process that could be launched by any 
     person affected by an agency decision or habitat conservation 
     plan.
       After 32 years of success, the Endangered Species Act may 
     need streamlining and adjustment to the realities of the 
     continued development of rural areas of the country. It 
     should not be destroyed and replaced with a law that would 
     give all the advantages to business interests and allow the 
     secretary of the interior to play God with the nation's 
     biodiversity. 
       When Congress returns from its summer recess, Texas 
     representatives and Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and John 
     Cornyn should insist that any changes to the Endangered 
     Species Act be aimed at improving its effectiveness. Texans 
     are justly proud of the vast array of wildlife that thrives 
     in protected forests, mountains and marshes across the state. 
     Let's make sure that natural treasure is preserved for the 
     benefit of future generations. 

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), a valued member of the Committee on 
Rules.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that both sides of the 
aisle

[[Page H8520]]

have recognized the need of some modifications in the Endangered 
Species Act.
  I would like to, Mr. Speaker, introduce you to a man by the name of 
John Gochnauer. John Gochnauer was the shortstop for the Cleveland 
Indians in 1902 and 1903. In 1902, playing full-time at shortstop for 
the Indians, he hit a paltry .185 and committed a whopping 48 errors in 
that position. Nonetheless, he came back the next year to play for them 
in 1903, where he once again, full-time player, hit .185, and this time 
set a major league record, which has yet to be broken, of committing 98 
errors as shortstop, which means out of every five times, he touched 
the ball, he booted or threw it away once.
  The Endangered Species Act has established 1,300 species for 
preservation and has been able to preserve 12 of them, giving that act 
a batting average of .010, if you round up. Whereas John Gochnauer hit 
.185, the Endangered Species Act is hitting .009, which means the 
Endangered Species Act is the most inept program we have in the Federal 
Government. The Endangered Species Act is the John Gochnauer of Federal 
programs.
  The reason is quite simple. The Endangered Species Act creates more 
harm than it does good. Because if you are a good steward of the land, 
your practices which create and preserve habitat make you then open to 
government control and government regulations and produce an attitude 
of distrust and hatred.
  The Endangered Species Act is not there to prevent development or to 
change land use. It actually penalizes the practices that help in the 
process, which is one of the reasons why this bill before us recognizes 
that, and especially in 13(d), a section that is in the bill but not in 
the substitute. It is there to provide grants to encourage cooperation 
to solve the problem, not to encourage people running away from the 
fear of the Federal Government's control.
  I think that is probably one of the reasons why this bill is one of 
those unique bills to come before this body in which a majority of both 
parties in committee voted to support this particular bill. This bill 
is indeed one of modifications. It is a modification.
  I want to introduce you to one other person. I will call him Jim, 
simply because I do not want to give the full name. Jim should today be 
a middle-aged person with a family, running a business, and living a 
healthy life in California. But in 1995, in California, there was a 
levee that was in need of repair. On that levee they found 43 bushes. 
The bushes were not part of the Endangered Species Act, but a beetle 
who could potentially live in those bushes was, even though no beetle 
was found in those 43 bushes that grew up on that levee after it was 
built. Nonetheless, a mitigation plan was mandated, even though the 
directors of the levee said that it would weaken the levee. Sure 
enough, 1 year later, that levee broke. Five hundred homes were 
destroyed and three lives were taken, including Jim's.
  Mr. Speaker, the record of the Endangered Species Act over the 
decades here has been one of jobs lost, of property restricted, of 
homes destroyed and, sadly, of human lives lost. That is why it 
desperately needs modification. The bill before us does that type of 
modification.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my colleague 
on the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Utah, but he uses 
statistics very selectively.
  Let me cite a more important statistic, and that is more than 1,800 
species currently protected by the Act are still with us. Only nine 
have been declared extinct. That is an astonishing success rate of more 
than 99 percent. So this has been a successful Act.
  I will also provide for the Record an article that appeared in the 
Salt Lake Tribune by Ben Long, who is a contributor to the Writers on 
the Range, a Service of High Country News, who has written a great 
article about how the Endangered Species Act succeeds with flying 
colors.

              [From the Salt Lake Tribune, Sept. 24, 2005]

                Species Act Succeeds With Flying Colors

                             (By Ben Long)

       The Endangered Species Act--which is being reviewed by 
     Congress this week--is a soaring success. Just look up.
       Look skyward for a while and you might spy an American bald 
     eagle. Hundreds of them live in my home state of Montana. 
     Across the United States, the bald eagle is a living, flying 
     example of what works about the Endangered Species Act.
       Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Calif., is spearheading the effort to 
     change the landmark, 30-year old anti-extinction law. ``The 
     act isn't working to recover species now,'' Pombo said in a 
     recent speech in Washington state. ``At the same time it has 
     caused a lot of conflicts.''
       Pombo evidently spends too much time inside his stuffy 
     Washington office. If he got out in the forests and rivers 
     more, he might know the story of the bald eagle.
       The American symbol was listed as endangered in 1978. That 
     year, surveys turned up only 12 bald eagle nests in all of 
     Montana. Then, environmental laws such as the Endangered 
     Species Act and a federal ban on the pesticide DDT kicked in. 
     They protected the birds from chemical poisoning, destruction 
     of habitat and needless, wasteful killing.
       The results were gradual, but dramatic. By 2005, the number 
     of bald eagle nests in Montana multiplied to 300 nests--25 
     times the number before the bird was included on the 
     endangered species list.
       That's just one state. Eagles were similarly successful in 
     other states as well. In 1999, the bald eagle's status was 
     upgraded from ``endangered'' to ``threatened.'' If trends 
     continue, they will soon be officially recovered and all 
     America will celebrate.
       Today, Montana is one of the top 10 eagle-producing states 
     in the United States. In a recent winter, I watched more than 
     30 eagles clean up a carcass in a rancher's back pasture. 
     Bald eagle congregations have been tourist attractions at 
     places like Canyon Ferry and Libby dams, where they feed on 
     fish in the winter.
       No matter how many times I see a bald eagle on the wing, I 
     am taken aback by its beauty--and thankful for the Endangered 
     Species Act.
       Conflicts over endangered species make headlines. Success 
     happens in quiet obscurity. But over time, the successes are 
     dramatic indeed.
       Gray wolves are another Endangered Species Act success 
     story in the northern Rockies. Wiped out by over-zealous 
     predator control a century ago, wolves began trickling back 
     into Montana in the 1980s. Now, there are hundreds of wolves 
     in western Montana, and more in neighboring Idaho and 
     Wyoming.
       Because Montana stepped up to the plate and agreed to 
     manage these animals for the future, the federal U.S. Fish 
     and Wildlife Service recently handed wolf management over to 
     the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. This is 
     evidence of the flexibility built into the law.
       While I don't like to see any animal needlessly wasted, I 
     respect that ranchers need to protect their stock to make a 
     living. The Endangered Species Act has allowed wildlife 
     managers to kill problem wolves--even wipe out entire packs 
     that made a habit of killing livestock.
       We humans now dominate planet Earth. We share a 
     responsibility not to push species into extinction. For 30 
     years, the Endangered Species Act has helped keep America the 
     rich and beautiful land we love. My 17-month-old son loves 
     watching finches and chickadees at the feeder outside our 
     kitchen window. He will grow up also watching bald eagles, 
     some perching on a snag close to our backyard.
       What a change. When I was a kid, the only eagle I ever saw 
     was on the back of a quarter.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, there are some seeds for potential 
bipartisan agreement. We do need to reauthorize, update, and improve 
Endangered Species Act. I think there is some fair consensus on that. 
But we also do not want to go to a time where we have the next 
passenger pigeon, for instance, where we extirpate a species forever. 
That is a long time. I wore my eagle tie today in the hope that we will 
continue to protect the bald eagle, the symbol of our country.
  There are some serious problems with the bill that was unveiled last 
week, hastily pushed through the Committee on Resources, and further 
changed last evening by a manager's amendment which few have seen. 
Among them, and one that has to give pause to this body as we wrestle 
with how we are going to pay for Hurricane Katrina and other essential 
things here, and how much money is being borrowed in the name of future 
generations, is a section regarding compensation.
  Now, I had hoped to offer an amendment to say that we would 
compensate people for foregoing the usual historic and accustomed use. 
If you grow timber and you cannot cut the trees, you get compensated 
for the trees. If you ranch and you cannot graze the cattle, you get 
paid the value of the area on which you cannot graze your cattle. If 
you grew a crop and there is some sort of restriction and you cannot 
grow that crop, then you would be compensated.

[[Page H8521]]

  But the bill goes so far beyond that, it is extraordinary. It goes to 
speculative, proposed, possible, potential use. This is going to create 
a wonderful new market for speculators. If people across America 
thought that this was going to become law as written, which it will 
not, it will be changed dramatically after the Senate acts, if they do 
act, they would be out right now purchasing, on a speculative basis, or 
getting options on property that in any way was restricted by the 
Endangered Species Act. Because they could say, well, it is true that 
was a tree farm, but actually I was going to build a destination resort 
on that tree farm. And my destination resort would have provided me 
with a profit of $1 million a year for the next 30 years. Please pay me 
$30 million. And the government has 180 days to come up with that 
money.
  Now, there is a low-ball estimate for this new entitlement, and who 
knows how they came up with it, but they are saying, oh, no, it will 
only be $5 million to $10 million a year. Come on, only $5 million to 
$10 million a year? This is going to be hundreds of millions, if not 
billions a year of a new entitlement. And, remember, the compensation 
is in an amount no less than the fair market value.

                              {time}  1045

  So taxpayers are going to be obligated to borrow money for 
speculative, possible potential future profits, and maybe even a little 
on top of that because the Secretary cannot compensate less than the 
fair market value. It does not say that the Secretary is restricted to 
the fair market value; if the Secretary feels generous, borrow more 
money and pay more than the fair market value. It is binding only on 
the Secretary as I understand in the new manager's amendment.
  So the taxpayers are on the hook; but if the property owner says my 
speculative value was $2 million profit a year for the next 30 years, 
then that person could go to court. But the government could not go to 
court to say wait a minute, this is crazy, you really were not going to 
make $2 million a year on a destination resort on that tree farm. We 
will compensate you for the loss of harvest of the trees, but we are 
not going to pay for that speculative value.
  I cannot believe that any Member of this House is going to open the 
doors to the Treasury so wide for potential speculation. That is not 
compensating landowners for usual, historic, and customary use. If that 
amendment had been allowed, I think many more Members could support 
this bill; but that amendment was not allowed here in the House of 
Representatives today.
  There will be only one substitute and a manager's amendment, no other 
amendments are allowed. This is a perfect bill. After all, it was just 
introduced last week. It had no hearings. It was marked up one day in 
committee, and now it has been changed further by a manager's amendment 
last night which no one has seen. It is a perfect bill, and no 
amendment should be allowed here on the floor, but we are going to put 
the taxpayers on the hook for billions of dollars.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I would advise the gentleman 
from Oregon that his amendment during the markup in the Rules Committee 
was not offered by either side to be voted on.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Boehlert), chairman of the Committee on Science.
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, to my distinguished colleague from Utah 
for whom I have great respect, I point out that the infield for the 
Cleveland Indians has improved significantly since his reference. In 
fact, at shortstop they have a very able player, and they are hot in 
the middle of a pennant race. That assurance to the gentleman is very 
important, as is this assurance: both bills offer landowners technical 
assistance, but it is only the bipartisan substitute that allows the 
Secretary to give priority to smaller landowners who cannot afford 
expensive consultants.
  Having said that, I rise in strong support of the rule and in strong 
opposition to the base bill which we hope with a substitute, the 
bipartisan substitute, to improve substantially and make it a product 
worthy of the support of the entire House.
  But, frankly, we should not be having this debate today. The current 
version of the bill was not available until Monday afternoon. Everyone 
concerned with endangered species both inside and outside of government 
has been scrambling to understand what is H.R. 3824. The Congressional 
Research Service, a bunch of outside groups that we look to for some 
advice and counseling, they are scrambling. There has not been enough 
time for Members to fully digest the bill or work out any differences. 
I do not think that it should go forward in this manner. There is no 
reason for this rush except to limit discussion and maybe confuse us as 
we try to understand the full implications.
  The other body is not exactly about to rush to judgment with a 
measure on the floor. We should not be dealing with the most 
fundamental rewrite of an environmental statute in 15 years in this 
manner. There are so many areas of agreement that we have, let us find 
common ground. I urge opposition to the base bill and strong support 
for the bipartisan substitute amendment.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, just for the record, I want to make it 
clear that the gentleman from Oregon did offer his amendment before the 
Committee on Rules. It was amendment No. 5 last night. Again, we 
believe his amendment should have been made in order.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, this bill represents a new low. Wasteful 
drilling in the Arctic and dismantling the Clean Air Act are bad 
enough, but now the Republican majority wants to weaken the Endangered 
Species Act, weaken it by handing out subsidies to oil and gas 
companies and land speculators for not killing endangered species, 
meaning taxpayers will be giving money to these land developers for 
simply following the law or for taking a risk by making a big 
investment in land so they can sell it at a higher price.
  What next? Will taxpayers be asked to foot the bill to pay companies 
to follow other laws of the land?
  Mr. Speaker, I know we can do better. Protecting our endangered 
species is never easy, but if we do not do it right, if we do not 
depend on sound science, if instead we yield to greed and politics, 
there is no second chance. I urge my colleagues to vote against the 
bill and protect the environment for our children and their children 
and vote for the bipartisan substitute.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for clarification, I 
acknowledge that the gentleman from Oregon sent his amendment to the 
Committee on Rules. My point was during the markup of the rule, there 
was no attempt on the other side to amend the rule to make his 
amendment in order.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Gilchrest), a member of the Committee on Resources.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am in strong support of this rule. I also want to 
compliment the chairman of the Committee on Resources. He has been in 
Congress for seven terms. He has worked very hard on the things that he 
believes in. He has been relentlessly patient to deal with a number of 
issues that have affected his district and those in the western areas 
of the United States, and he has presented to us today a bill that will 
reform, refine, and reauthorize the Endangered Species Act.
  Now, I do not agree with everything in the chairman's bill or his 
approach, but I want to state here this morning that I respect his 
courage and his relentless patience to take years to bring something to 
the floor that he believes in.
  The substitute which I support, and I hope my colleagues in this body 
will support, is not a whole lot different than the base bill. We went 
through the base bill hour after hour after hour, members and staff; 
and we changed a few words here and there that we feel will present the 
approach to protecting endangered species in the appropriate way. Most 
people who are concerned about the Endangered Species Act either are 
concerned because, like the

[[Page H8522]]

chairman here from the Committee on Rules stated this morning, if you 
see a dam and it creates deep water and you can get your barges down 
with your grain, you appreciate the fact that the dam is there. So you 
have some concern about that.
  Or if you are downstream and you want more coho salmon and you 
believe the dam is degrading the habitat for coho salmon or other 
species of salmon, you are less likely to appreciate the dam; but both 
sides look at the Endangered Species Act as either reducing their 
economic viability or reducing species viability. I think we need to do 
a number of things that we have done in the substitute. We have taken 
the words out of the base bill. We create a scientifically acceptable 
procedure, look on page 2 of the substitute, methods, practices and 
procedures that are acceptable science.
  We have made a requirement for making a determination for what 
species are listed. Look at page 4 of the substitute, five specific 
criteria before you can list that species. We are reviewing all species 
every 5 years to see if the change of status is there, page 5. We 
repeal the critical habitat requirement in the base bill and replace it 
with a slightly different recovery plan.
  The recovery plan has a number of significant and important elements: 
a time frame for that recovery plan; objective measurable criteria; a 
description of where the site should be, and the emphasis is on Federal 
land and not private land; and an estimate of the cost and time it will 
take to recover that species. Look on page 20.
  There are a number of changes that we have made here to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Pombo) which I think improves on the bill. Support 
the substitute.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to both the 
rule and the bill. No matter how the proponents of the bill classify 
putting soft words and talking about it being reasonable or a 
compromise, it does not make it so. This is less about reform of the 
ESA and protecting species, and more about making it easier for the 
exploitation of the environment.
  We have been in a state of stalemate for a number of years because 
the goal has not been reasonable refinement. There are things we could 
do right now to make the Endangered Species Act more efficient, more 
effective, for instance, adequately funding the enforcement and 
conservation mechanisms. But the goal was not modest reform and 
improvement; it was a radical adjustment.
  The batting average analogy of my friend from Utah simply misses the 
point. It is not about just the species that have been restored. It is 
the protection that has been extended across America to make it 
possible that we are not losing environmental ground, and given the 
environmental circumstances, that is no easy task.
  I have literally watched it work in my own backyard. I have an urban 
creek that flows 26 miles through the heart of my congressional 
district. The salmon listing under the Endangered Species Act prompted 
action by four local cities and two counties. We were able to come 
forward with an innovative streamlining agreement to meet the standards 
necessary to comply with the Endangered Species Act and move quickly 
through the permitting process. We have been able to make progress. I 
have seen it work when people are committed to doing so.
  There are many troubling aspects of this legislation. Putting in the 
hands, we have seen in this administration, of political appointees 
really perverting the decisionmaking in the name of science, these are 
not people that I think we ought to turn this over to willy-nilly.
  But the most troubling part of the legislation is found in the new 
entitlement program contained in section 14. It goes far beyond paying 
people to obey the law, far beyond compensating for loss of customary 
use. It actually would create a perverse incentive for developers to 
propose the most environmentally destructive projects possible in order 
to get higher payment from the government. If you think we have 
litigation under the Endangered Species Act now, wait until you see 
people coming forward right and left with bizarre proposals for 
development seeking compensation for things that were never customary 
uses.
  It is not only an unfunded mandate. It is providing a form of 
environmental blackmail and promotes endless legal battles. I urge my 
colleagues to reject the rule and this radical rollback of the 
Endangered Species Act.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and in 
strong support of the underlying bill. The Endangered Species Act is a 
law with good intentions, but it has spun wildly out of control with 
tragic consequences for average Americans.
  The northern California district I represent has been ground zero for 
some of the worst examples of the human impacts of this law gone awry. 
In 2001, a community of family farmers in the Klamath Basin of northern 
California and southern Oregon had their entire water supply shut off 
to prevent a perceived threat to two species of listed fish.

                              {time}  1100

  Families who for generations had worked the soil to produce food for 
our Nation were literally left high and dry. To add insult to injury, 
it was later determined that that decision was not scientifically 
justified.
  Several years ago a levee protecting one of the communities I 
represent had deteriorated, and the Army Corps of Engineers predicted 
that in the event of high water, there would be a significant threat to 
human life. For nearly 7 years, local officials tried to repair that 
levee, Mr. Speaker, but those repairs were stymied because of the 
Endangered Species Act. Those delays had tragic consequences. The levee 
did break, just as the Corps predicted. Tragically, three people 
drowned.
  Mr. Speaker, the impact of this inflexible law have been real and 
devastating. The reforms proposed by this common sense legislation are 
long overdue.
  I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) on his good work 
and urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my comments to the 
Members who do have serious concerns about the Endangered Species Act 
who have had frustrations from their citizens about its application, 
but still believe that we ought to have a workable Act, and I want to 
suggest that voting for this bipartisan substitute and ``no'' on the 
Pombo bill will really satisfy their needs for five reasons.
  Reason number one, the substitute bill will make a significant change 
to reduce the amount of frustration that landowners feel by moving the 
listing process of habitat from the time of listing to a time of the 
development of the recovery plan. And the reason this will alleviate 
much frustration by landowners is it will allow these services to make 
a more acute and scientifically sound judgment where this land needs to 
be listed for habitat and will relieve significant frustration of 
landowners.
  Second, the substitute will make sure that we try to use public land 
first when we try to protect habitat to take care of these species.
  Third, and importantly, it will have a conservation grant program to 
allow the use of federal funds to help private landowners who will 
agree to use their lands to help in the preservation of these species.
  These are three very significant changes to the Environmental 
Protection Act which will help property owners avoid some of the 
frustration that now exist while still moving forward with the purposes 
of this Act.
  But we then need to vote ``no'' on the underlying bill for these two 
reasons: First, the underlying bill is a massive entitlement program 
that could be subject to massive fraud because the language is so loose 
and so speculative, we would be expecting the American taxpayers to 
shell out literally millions of dollars on highly speculative 
developments. When a developer comes in there, buys up land that is 
used for a wheat field and says he wants to put in a strip club or a 
casino, American taxpayers, under the underlying bill,

[[Page H8523]]

would now have to pay entitlement funds where there is no money in this 
bill appropriated to do it, or even especially authorized for these 
highly speculative enterprises. Why should the taxpayers have to pay 
for this flim-flam type of speculation?
  And, by the way, nowhere in American law is any taxpayer required in 
any jurisdiction in this country to do that right now. This is a 
radical change which exposes the taxpayers to millions of dollars of 
loss that is not required by the U.S. Constitution and makes no common 
sense.
  And second and lastly, very importantly, the underlying bill provides 
no enforceable protection for the habitat of these species. Sure, it 
says that the agencies have to draw these maps, but what is a map if 
they do not have to follow the map? Five reasons. Members can vote for 
this with honor, go home and tell their constituents this they have 
relieved their frustration and protected these species and protected 
the taxpayers. Respect for the taxpayers and respect for God's 
creatures at the same time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter).
  (Mr. OTTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate the 
gentleman from California for the great work he has done in getting the 
Endangered Species Act reform to the floor. This is a very 
controversial issue, and he and the committee should be commended for 
working to address some of the real problems in the current law.
  There are a couple of provisions for which I have been a strong 
proponent, and I am pleased that the chairman has agreed to include 
them in the manager's amendment.
  My first amendment is a common-sense one aimed at empowering 
electricity consumers with the ``right to know'' what they are paying 
for. This amendment simply seeks to provide ``sunshine'' and 
transparency to the way our Federal Government does business.
  Specifically, the provision requires that each of the Power Marketing 
Administrations, the Bonneville Power Administration, Western Area 
Power Administration, Southwestern Power Administration, and the 
Southeastern Power Administration, to include costs related to the 
Endangered Species Act in their customers' monthly electricity 
billings.
  In the Pacific Northwest alone, the Bonneville Power Administration 
accounts for 45 percent of the region's electricity sales and 75 
percent of the transmission lines.
  Bonneville Power's rates have risen 46 percent since 2001, due in 
main part to the Endangered Species Act's impact on the Columbia/Snake 
hydropower system. The Agency spends an average of $500 million per 
year on ESA compliance. To whom are these costs passed on to? Of 
course, the electricity ratepayers.
  The point of all this, Mr. Speaker, is that few Pacific Northwest 
consumers have a notion of the amount of money of their monthly bills 
that goes directly towards the Endangered Species Act compliance, nor 
do they or other end-user consumers of the other Power Marketing 
Administrations. It is estimated that as much as one third of the power 
bill from the BPA is devoted to salmon recovery, but no one knows for 
sure.
  I get a bill once a month from the power company that includes all 
sorts of information about tips on conserving energy and warnings on 
how to keep me from electrocuting myself, but nowhere does it detail 
what I am paying for. How much is for generating power and how much is 
for transmission costs and how much is for the ESA?
  I would like to thank the chairman for including language in the bill 
that consolidates jurisdiction of the Endangered Species Act management 
of species under one agency. During my first term in Congress, I 
introduced legislation that did just that, and I am pleased to see the 
concept is finally moving forward.
  NOAA Fisheries originally was part of the Department of Interior 
until 1970, when NOAA was created under the Department of Commerce to 
address federal management of commercial and tribal fisheries. This was 
prior to the enactment of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Now the 
Agency's mission of managing commercial and tribal harvests of salmon 
and recovering endangered species are in conflict.
  NOAA Fisheries and the Fish and Wildlife Service have differing 
processes for handling and permitting thousands of activities that must 
undergo federal conciliation under the ESA and competing science on how 
best to manage the species. It would be better for the species and for 
cost-effective government management to have one process that works.
  Consolidation of agencies managing the ESA will eliminate duplication 
and allow scarce Federal resources to be focused on achieving the true 
objective of the Endangered Species Act, the recovery of species 
through science-based management.
  I encourage Members to support the rule, the manger's amendment, and 
the bill and oppose the Miller-Boehlert substitute that lacks all the 
property rights protection that the Committee on Resources has worked 
so hard to restore. I thank the chairman for his leadership on this 
issue, and I look forward to the passage of this bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cardoza).
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts for yielding me this time.
  I am put in the unenviable position today, as a lifelong Democrat, to 
have to stand and oppose the Democratic position on this rule.
  As I have sat here and listened to the debate on the rule, I simply 
do not feel that some of the statements by my colleagues are accurately 
reflecting what is in the bill as it currently is written. It is simply 
untrue that this bill allows skyscrapers to be built on the prairie to 
endanger species. We are not going to be using taxpayer dollars to 
promote strip clubs or casinos, as one of my colleagues said. It is 
simply not true.
  The reality is that under the Endangered Species Act, most of the 
provisions of the Act, as it currently stands, will be in place. What 
we are talking about is compensating farmers if their land is taken 
away, and if they want to continue to farm and under the Act we have to 
protect a species, the farmer will be compensated for the right that 
has been taken away. That is a longstanding right of this country, to 
be compensated when government takes one's property.
  We had a vote recently on this floor of over 400 Members who said 
exactly that in one of the eminent domain cases that was recently 
challenged, when the Supreme Court took someone's property.
  We have a longstanding tradition here of protecting personal property 
rights but not when it comes to the Endangered Species Act. In my 
State, the Fish and Wildlife Service said that 4.7 million acres of 
California had to be set-aside for the red-legged frog, 1.7 million 
acres for vernal pools and fairy shrimp. This is not a new entitlement 
program. This is compensating landowners when their property is taken 
away.
  Those in support of the substitute have been distributing a handout, 
and in the substitute it says virtually everything that the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Pombo) and I and others have written and 
coordinated on. In fact, about 90 percent of this bill was written by 
Democratic staff. I will say that, frankly, that does not happen in 
this House very often where there is a bipartisan attempt to come to an 
agreement.
  There is 10 percent disagreement on this bill, and virtually what 
that 10 percent disagreement is, is whether or not people are going to 
be compensated when their land is taken and the fact that there has 
been a new focus, according to some of my colleagues, of putting the 
onus of this bill mainly on to public lands. Well, the reality is most 
of the endangered species, in fact, 90 percent of the endangered 
species, are on private lands. So that provision that is in the 
substitute simply will not work.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the challenge to the rule, to support 
the rule, and to support the underlying bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on Rules.

[[Page H8524]]

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this time, 
and I thank him for his very important work on this vital piece of 
legislation.
  I rise to support the rule and the underlying legislation and to 
begin by praising the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), the very 
distinguished chairman, for all of the effort that he has put in to 
assembling a bipartisan compromise on this.
  I will say I am somewhat disturbed with what I just heard from the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza) that 90 percent of this 
legislation was, in fact, crafted by Democratic staff. But I will say 
that if it embraces the core Republican goals that the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Pombo) is pursuing, I still will be supportive of it. 
But I think that that is demonstration of the fact that we are working 
in a bipartisan way and the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) has 
demonstrated his willingness to do just that.
  When I think about the long struggle which the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Pombo) has been involved in for a decade to try to 
bring about reform of the Endangered Species Act, I think back to one 
of the challenges that we have in Southern California, and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), who has worked long and hard 
on this, represents part of Riverside County, and I recounted up in the 
Committee on Rules yesterday the fact that dealing with the Stephens' 
kangaroo rat, an endangered species, we had conflicting directives that 
came from government.

                              {time}  1115

  The fire department in Riverside County said you should clear the 
brush away from your homes to ensure that you do not face the threat of 
fire. The County of Riverside said to comply with the Endangered 
Species Act we would be jeopardizing the Stephens' kangaroo rat's life. 
And, by the way, the Stephens' kangaroo rat had been found in great 
numbers later in Texas, but we would jeopardize that if you did clear 
the brush away from your home.
  What happened? To their benefit, many people who followed the 
directive of the fire department, their homes were saved; and, of 
course, those who did not tragically lost their homes because of fire.
  We right now in Southern California are dealing with tremendous fire 
problems in that area; and, frankly, I do believe that the kind of 
reform that is going to be assembled in a bipartisan way on the 
Endangered Species Act will go a long way toward preserving property 
and to make sure that we diminish the kind of threat that does exist 
out there.
  Recovery efforts, coupled with compensation for private property, 
that is a big part of what this effort is about. I congratulate, again, 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo); and I know the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Cardoza) has been working very hard on this, 
obviously, because he has had a lot of impact, as he just outlined.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that we can come with, I hope, a very, very 
strong vote from both Democrats and Republicans for both the rule and 
the underlying legislation. I thank again my friend for his efforts on 
this.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Mexico (Mr. Udall).
  (Mr. UDALL of New Mexico asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts for yielding me time, and I also thank him for his 
excellent presentation on the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. Once again the folks 
running this place have made a mockery of the legislative process. This 
bill was put on a rocket docket so that no one knows what is in it. 
Look at how we have proceeded here.
  First of all, last week, just a short 10 days ago, we first saw the 
bill. Some of the members of the committee did not even see it until 
Tuesday. Unveiled on Monday, and did not see it until Tuesday, 
Democrats and Republicans not knowing what is in the bill. On 
Wednesday, we had hearings, 2 short days later. We only had four 
witnesses and several hours of hearings; and the crucial witness in 
this case, the administration witness, would not even take a position 
on the bill.
  Here is the agency that for 30 years has administered the bill, with 
the scientists, with the expertise, and the administration witness 
walks in and says, We do not know. We do not have an idea. Just go 
ahead.
  We could have taken the time, I say to the gentleman from California 
(Chairman Pombo), to travel the country, to reach out and find out what 
was working with this law and what was not working and crafted a 
bipartisan bill. But that is not what we have here today.
  After we had that hearing with four witnesses, the very next day, 
rather than waiting a day or two and seeing how the hearing went and 
what the reaction was, we marked up the bill and reported it out of 
committee. So at the end of the week we thought we had one bill. Well, 
last night in the Committee on Rules, there were major changes to the 
bill again in the manager's amendment.
  So what the gentleman from California just said about the Democrats 
writing the bill, sure, we contributed some of the language, but the 
manager's amendment makes significant changes in this bill; and the 
things that we are really fighting over, we may have contributed 90 
percent, but the things we are fighting over in the 10 percent are huge 
things at stake: this huge giveaway to big developers, major changes in 
the environmental laws. Those were written by others in the bill.
  So this bill is an abomination. It has made mockery of the 
legislative process. I urge my colleagues to defeat the rule and start 
once again, start once again with a process that respects this 
institution.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), the chairman of 
the Committee on Resources, the author of this bill, and somebody who 
has worked extremely hard on this for at least 12 years.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  First of all, I want to thank the major coauthor of the bill, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza), for working with me in a 
bipartisan way over the last several months to craft a bipartisan 
solution to the problems that we have got with the Endangered Species 
Act.
  I also would like to thank the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rahall), the ranking member on the committee, for all of the work that 
he put in, and that his staff put in, particularly Jim Zoia, who did 
yeoman's work in putting this bill together. Lori Sonken, Tod Willens, 
and Rob Gordon worked tirelessly to try to compromise and work out a 
bill that we could all be proud of, along with Hank Savage from the 
Office of Legislative Counsel.
  We have come a long way, a long way, from where we were. This debate 
over endangered species has been raging across this country for years, 
and our effort was to throw away everything that we had tried to do in 
the past and put it aside and try to start again and say how do we sit 
down as members of the Committee on Resources and come to a solution 
that we can all agree with.
  That is what we attempted to do. We knew that the Endangered Species 
Act had problems. We knew that there were things that had to be fixed, 
that just were not working in current law.
  It is kind of ironic this morning to hear people come to the floor 
and talk about how radical the bill is and how quickly we moved on it. 
We have held over 50 hearings on the Endangered Species Act. We 
traveled around the country, going to places where people actually have 
to live with the implementation of the law and listened to them and 
what they told us. And we came back and we started to craft a bill.
  I did not push through the bill that I wanted. I did not allow the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza) or the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Rahall) to push through the bill they wanted. We sat down 
and worked it out.
  It is amazing to hear all of this stuff that is supposedly in the 
bill. From what I see, all of these folks are going to vote ``no'' on 
the bill and they are going to vote ``no'' on the substitute, because 
the substitute claims to be the same thing. It claims to deal with all

[[Page H8525]]

the same issues, and in fact they use the exact same language. 
``Critical habitat.'' Both bills use identical language. ``Provide 
certainty for landowners.'' Both bills use identical language. 
``Provide incentive for landowners.'' Both bills use identical 
language. And on and on and on.
  What is the major difference? What is the major difference? In our 
bill, we protect the small property owners. Yes, we do. And we should. 
If the Federal Government steps in and takes somebody's land for a 
highway, we all pay for it. I do not see people running down here 
screaming it is an entitlement. I do not see people running down here 
screaming that it is a budget buster if we pay people if we take that 
property for a highway.
  If we take it for a wildlife refuge to protect a wildlife refuge, we 
pay them for it, and nobody is down here screaming about it saying it 
is an entitlement. Nobody is down here screaming, saying it is unfair 
to pay somebody if you take their property for a wildlife refuge.
  If you take their land for a national park, we pay them for it, and 
nobody is saying that is an entitlement. Nobody is saying that we are 
busting the budget.
  But when we get to endangered species, we tell a farmer, you cannot 
farm part of your land, 10 percent, 20 percent, 50 percent, whatever it 
is, you cannot farm that part of your land, now, all of a sudden, oh, 
we cannot do that.
  Well, we have got the responsibility to do it. If you take away 
somebody's private property, if you take away the use of their private 
property, you have to pay them for it. There is nothing wrong with 
that. Why you guys are so wed to the old debates and the old rhetoric, 
I have no idea.
  We sat down as a committee and we worked out this bill. Half the 
Democrats that voted in the committee voted for it. It was a bill that 
was worked out. It is not everything I wanted; it is not everything the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza) wanted. It was a compromise, a 
reasonable way to protect endangered species, to protect the habitat in 
which they need to recover; and if that does involve private property, 
yes, we pay them for it. And, dang it, we should.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Mexico (Mr. Udall).
  (Mr. UDALL of New Mexico asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California 
tries to make the substitute and the bill that is on the floor sound 
the same; but there are major differences, and we should recognize 
that. First of all, let us talk about some of those differences.
  The bill before us is a huge giveaway to big developers. It creates a 
program where the burden is on the government to disprove. It basically 
does not put a dollar amount in the bill, because they are afraid of 
the dollar amount because it is an entitlement program for landowners 
that want to gut the Endangered Species Act. But the estimates are 10, 
20, 30, 40 billion. Who knows how much this is going to cost.
  Our bill, the substitute, does not do that. It is modest. It says we 
should work with private landowners. It sets up a program so that the 
government goes out and works with those landowners to accomplish the 
goals of the Endangered Species Act.
  The majority bill, and this is another major difference, changes the 
Endangered Species Act in a radical, radical way, especially with the 
adoption of the manager's amendment. The substitute reforms the 
Endangered Species Act, while protecting the core provisions of that 
magnificent environmental law that has been on the books for 30 years.
  At the end of this, we have not respected this institution by the way 
we brought the bill before the floor, the way we have worked in 
committee to put it on a rocket docket and speed it through, speed it 
through this process. We need to slow down. We need to take a look at 
this and work in a bipartisan way.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the rule.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would again urge my colleagues to, first of all, vote 
``no'' on the rule, and I would also urge them to vote ``no'' on the 
underlying bill. I appreciate the work that the gentleman from 
California (Chairman Pombo) and others have put into this bill, but the 
bottom line is that the underlying bill eliminates habitat protections; 
it abandons the commitment to recovery of endangered species; it 
repeals protection against hazardous pesticides; it politicizes 
scientific decision-making; it eliminates the vital check-and-balance 
of consultation; it requires the Fish and Wildlife Service to allow 
unfettered habitat destruction; it would require taxpayers to pay 
developers, oil and gas companies and other industries, for complying 
with the law; and it is an entitlement.
  I know the chairman has kind of objected to that characterization, 
but that is not my characterization. It is what CBO has concluded. It 
is what our colleague from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) who testified yesterday 
on behalf of the Republican Study Committee and the Republican Tuesday 
Group said last night in the Committee on Rules, that this bill creates 
an expensive new Federal entitlement program.
  Mr. Speaker, the Endangered Species Act has done a great deal to 
protect endangered species. Everybody agrees that there needs to be 
adjustments. Everybody agrees that we can come together and make those 
necessary adjustments. But what we object to is that the underlying 
bill guts the Endangered Species Act. It is a bad bill; it is bad 
policy. I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and the 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of rhetoric thus far on the rule, 
and I suspect there will be a lot of rhetoric when we debate the bill; 
but there is one underlying thread here that needs to be mentioned. It 
was mentioned by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Cardoza), and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Gilchrest).

                              {time}  1130

  That is that the Endangered Species Act needs to be updated.
  I came here 10 years ago, and this is one of the big issues that was 
very important to my constituency when I first ran. There was talk then 
about amending the Endangered Species Act, but there was no agreement 
at all. We did get a bill out of committee. Unfortunately, it did not 
go any further.
  But now we hear today that there is 90 percent agreement on the need 
to change the Endangered Species Act, but there is violent 10 percent 
disagreement on what those means should be. I contend that is huge, 
huge movement from where we have gone in 10 years. I do not know what 
the reasons are, but I expect the reasons are the inflammation of the 
existing Act.
  So with that, Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________