[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 124 (Thursday, September 29, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H8535-H8537]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY ACT OF 2005
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 470 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3824.
The Chair designates the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) as
chairman of the Committee of the Whole, and requests the gentleman from
Idaho (Mr. Simpson) to assume the chair temporarily.
{time} 1258
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the 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, with Mr. Simpson (Acting Chairman) in the
Chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as
having been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) and the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) each will control 45 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo).
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We bring up today the Endangered Species Reform Act with the purpose
of trying to deal with what some of the real issues are, what some of
the real problems are that we have had and have developed over the last
30 years.
If one goes back and reads the original Endangered Species Act, it
becomes difficult to be critical of specific language that is it in
because the purpose of the Endangered Species Act was to, first of all,
prevent species from becoming extinct but, more importantly, to recover
those species. And as we look at what has happened over the intervening
30 years, we begin to realize just what problems are with the Act and
the way it is being implemented today.
I came into this debate originally because I did not like the way
that private property owners were treated under the implementation of
the law. That became a big issue in my district and throughout much of
the West. Private property owners felt threatened that they would lose
their private property and that they could lose control and the ability
to use their private property under the implementation of the law.
{time} 1300
That became a big problem, and it is something that we began to work
on, to try to have some kind of property rights protections in the law.
But the more I got into the Endangered Species Act, the more I
realized the law was just not working in terms of recovering species.
About 1,300 species have been listed under the Endangered Species Act.
Of those 1,300, 10 have been removed because they were recovered. More
species have been removed from the list because they became extinct
than were recovered.
That less than 1 percent is a complete failure, so we began to really
look at the law and see are species really doing better under the
Endangered Species Act, and we came to the conclusion that they were
not. About three-quarters of the species are either declining in
population or the Fish and Wildlife Service has no idea. That is not a
success.
When people talk about the act and its importance, they are right, it
is important. It is something we all share in terms of preserving
wildlife and preserving species. But when the law is not working, we
have to respond to that and step in and reauthorize the bill, put the
focus on recovery and protect private property owners.
As we have gone through this last several months, I have had the
opportunity to work with the ranking member, the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Rahall), and his staff; and I thank them for all of the
work that they put into this bill to get us to this point. We worked
extremely hard to try and find a compromise bill.
In the end, there were a few issues that we just disagreed on, there
were issues we could not come to a conclusion on, but the vast majority
of what is in the underlying bill was an agreement that we were able to
work out and that I stand by. I believe it is good work, that it is
something that is extremely important.
But I will say that, in the end, private property rights, the
protection of those property owners, has to be in the final bill,
because the only way this is going to work is if we bring in property
owners to be part of the solution and be part of recovering those
species.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California and I have been working
together for the last several months to try to find common ground on
the amendments to the Endangered Species Act. As the chairman knows and
many of my colleagues, I came to our discussions with the view that the
ESA does not need amendment, that most of its problems could be fixed
by additional appropriations or administrative changes that this
administration is not willing to make.
Recognizing reality, I decided to enter into good-faith negotiations
with
[[Page H8536]]
my chairman, and that is what they were. I salute the manner in which
the gentleman from California conducted himself and the manner in which
his staff treated the minority during this entire process. It was a
fair process; and, indeed, when we had problems, we found open
communication was received from the other side of the aisle, and I
appreciate that. In the end, however, we could not reach agreement.
I do not support the pending legislation, but I must admit that we
have come a long way. Yet we still have differences that divide us,
differences in some instances that I have yet to discover. In fact, the
manager's amendment has been redrafted so many times, the latest
version is still hot off the presses.
I wish the bill, because of these latest changes in the manager's
amendment, were not being rushed to the House floor. I wish that the
driving force was not the zeal to pass anything that could be labeled
ESA reform, but instead could be labeled truly species recovery.
With a little more time to consider how much this bill is going to
cost the American taxpayers, we could at least have had a chance to see
how much we are going to lose in the exchange. In the last several
hours, the bill passed out of the committee has completely blown apart.
For example, the manager's amendment abandons the definition of
jeopardizing a species we agreed upon in committee. Instead, the
Secretary of the Interior will use existing regulations which allow
Federal actions to proceed, even if they will reduce the likelihood of
a species' survival and recovery. The survival standard is akin to
keeping a patient on life support without any chance of recovery.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, if this is enacted into
law, it will increase direct spending and would cost almost $3 billion
to implement from the years 2006 to 2010.
So in my view, this bill offers endangered species less protection at
far greater cost. Not only was fiscal responsibility thrown to the wind
in this process, but we have turned back the clock to an era in which
DDT was commonly known as ``drop dead twice.'' H.R. 3824 includes a
provision adopted in the Committee on Resources that would repeal the
Endangered Species Act provisions that protect threatened and
endangered species from the harmful impact of pesticides.
H.R. 3824 would insulate those who use pesticides from the Endangered
Species Act prohibitions against killing endangered and threatened
species. As long as corporations comply with Federal requirements to
register pesticide users, they will have no obligation to meet the
requirements in the Endangered Species Act. The economic and
environmental implications of this provision are staggering.
But where the budget really leaks is from the gaping hole created by
a new, potentially open-ended entitlement program for property
developers and speculators. This, I might add, is where we truly broke
down in our negotiations.
Section 14 would establish the dangerous precedent that private
individuals must be paid to comply with an environmental law. If this
language were applied to local zoning, no mayor, no city council could
govern a community without fear that their decisions might drive the
community into financial ruin. This section pays citizens to comply
with the law. What is next, paying citizens to wear seat belts, to
comply with speed limits, to pay their taxes?
This bill also contains provisions that would severely weaken the
consultation process, the very heart of the ESA. Under current law, the
Fish and Wildlife Service analyzes a proposed action to gauge if it is
likely to place the continued existence of a species in jeopardy. The
process is grounded in science and must meet reasonable criteria.
This bill, quite to the contrary of current practice, wipes away any
standards for that process. It wipes away review by wildlife experts.
Gone. Proponents claim this change is justified because of the
service's heavy workload. Instead of fixing the problem by giving Fish
and Wildlife more resources, the bill simply changes the rules and
undermines species recovery.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I oppose another provision that would further
weaken the section 7 consultation requirement when applied to state
cooperative agreements. Under section 10 of H.R. 3824, no additional
consultations will be required once the Secretary enters into a
cooperative agreement with a State. It is questionable whether
consultation would ever occur, even in those situations causing
jeopardy to a listed species.
These provisions, taken together, raise a whole host of questions and
concerns. What is clear is that this bill will not improve species'
ability to recover. Quite likely it will result in more extinctions,
the loss of more of the creatures God has placed in our care. Frankly,
we cannot be good stewards of His creation and pass this bill.
For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose H.R. 3824.
However, I have worked, as I said in the beginning, well with the
gentleman from California on this bill; and I do salute his
tenaciousness, his patience, and his courage in bringing this bill to
the floor.
I would have preferred we keep trying to resolve our differences, but
that is not the situation we are in today, so I would urge my
colleagues to oppose H.R. 3824.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Montana (Mr. Rehberg).
Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from
California for keeping this issue on the front burner.
I have come to learn in my time in Congress that people support
reform, as long as it does not change anything, and that is what we
find with the endangered species reform.
I thought I was given a great honor when I first got here in the year
2001. The gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) of the Committee on
Resources put me on the study group to talk about the Endangered
Species Act, to try and finally get it off the dime. The gentleman from
West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell),
and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) were the
Democrats; and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman
from California (Mr. Pombo) and myself were the Republicans, and,
unfortunately, it took us literally 6 months to finally agree what time
to meet and where.
The difficulty with the Endangered Species Act is it is failing
endangered species. Anytime you start getting T-shirts and bumper
stickers and jokes about a law, you know you have got a problem. I
brought along a shovel today because the biggest joke in Montana is
shoot, shovel, and shut up.
The problem is there are those that want to protect species. They do
not want them to become extinct. They want to do the right thing. But
this Congress many years ago created a disincentive to do the right
thing, rather than an incentive; and if you learn anything about public
administration or government, when you create a disincentive, usually
you are pretty successful.
We are not saving the species we need to. We need to get off the
dime. We need to finally solve this issue. Everybody recognizes it is
broke. We can no longer use the excuse that it is just not exactly what
we want. It is time to end the joke of shoot, shovel, and shut up.
I want to thank the gentleman from California for bringing this issue
forward and finally getting off the dime and giving us an opportunity
to vote for a reform package that truly does what we need to do, and
that is save the species of this country.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Herger).
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, would the chairman of the Committee on
Resources agree to enter into a colloquy?
Mr. POMBO. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would.
Mr. HERGER. First let me say to the gentleman that I am very
appreciative of his efforts here to make the ESA a better law.
Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the legislation would
provide the President the authority to waive or expedite any provision
of the act in the event of a major national disaster. I also understand
that the legislation would require the Secretary to
[[Page H8537]]
develop regulations establishing procedures for an expedited
application or waiver of the act for agency actions that would be
undertaken to address threats to human health or safety.
Mr. POMBO. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. HERGER. I thank the chairman.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, a terrible situation occurred in my
district in Northern California several years ago where a levee that
protects one of the communities I represent had deteriorated to such a
point that the Corps of Engineers predicted that this degraded levee,
without repair, presented a threat to human life. Regrettably, repairs
to that levee were unable to proceed in a timely manner due to the
lengthy consultation process, even though this very serious warning had
been issued by the corps. I am sure the chairman has heard of other
similar examples where the application of the Endangered Species Act
has complicated or delayed urgent and targeted levee repairs from
occurring when they are needed to protect people from flooding.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I am certainly well aware of the situation
that the gentleman is speaking to. I was a Member of Congress at the
time that that levee broke and tried at that point to help the
gentleman to take care of that problem before it broke.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the Secretary
currently has in place emergency regulations that allow for expedited
consultation in the event of an immediate threat to public safety, as,
for example, when the floodwaters are rising and are feet or perhaps
even inches away from breaking or breaching a levee.
Is the chairman's understanding that the intent of the legislation is
to require the development of additional regulations that would allow
the Secretary to expedite the application of the act for agency actions
necessary to address threats to human health or safety?
Mr. POMBO. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for that
clarification.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman for his
leadership and years of work he has invested in making the Endangered
Species Act a more responsive and effective law.
{time} 1315
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to allow the
gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza) to have 20 minutes of my time
and to control that time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is advised that the Committee of the
Whole is not able to entertain such a request.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
September 29, 2005--On Page H8537 the following appeared:
{time} 1315 Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
The online version should be corrected to read: {time} 1315 Mr.
POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to allow the
gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza) to have 20 minutes of my
time and to control that time. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is
advised that the Committee of the Whole is not able to entertain
such a request. Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30
seconds.
========================= END NOTE =========================
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, in response to the last colloquy that just took place
between the two gentlemen from California in regard to emergency powers
that would be granted the President to waive provisions of the
Endangered Species Act, I just wanted to respond that the Endangered
Species Act did not get in the way in any manner whatsoever of recovery
efforts in response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Whatever provisions
that were needed to be waived were waived under current law, without
any additional authority being needed by the President.
So I just wanted to make that clear for the record that ESA did not
hamper any recovery efforts for any of the most recent hurricanes.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), a distinguished member of our committee.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in opposition to H.R. 3824.
In the 1960s, Rachel Carson's book ``Silent Spring'' documented the
harmful effects of DDT and other pesticides on songbirds. This prompted
a ban on DDT and the passage of the original Endangered Species Act.
The ban on DDT, which the EPA said posed unacceptable risks to the
environment and human health, saved the bald eagle and countless other
species from going extinct.
Today we are considering a bill that would usher in another silent
spring by eliminating the oversight for the registration of pesticides
which harm wildlife and people.
H.R. 3824 contains a provision allowing EPA to consult with itself in
determining the potential impacts of pesticide registration on
endangered wildlife and fish, instead of consulting with the Fish and
Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service, which are
the expert agencies whose mission is either in whole or in part to
conserve species.
H.R. 3824 would take away the ability to stop pesticide use even when
necessary to prevent extinction. Without existing checks and balances
on pesticide use, the effect on wildlife could be devastating. Humans
could be hurt too, because toxic pesticides are applied by farm workers
that make their way into our Nation's streams, rivers, and food supply.
Pesticides poison 10,000 to 20,000 agricultural workers each year and
are estimated to kill more than 67 million birds annually. But the EPA
currently only requires balancing the profits from using a pesticide
against the dollar value of harm caused by that pesticide. The
Endangered Species Act, on the other hand, recognizes what almost all
Americans believe, that no dollar amount can be placed on the extension
of our Nation's treasured wildlife or on the human health of people who
work in those fields.
The substitute to H.R. 3824 would leave existing law unchanged. It
would leave in place current safeguards by requiring an analysis based
on the health of wildlife, not the company's bottom line.
For this reason and many others, I urge my colleagues to join me in
opposing this controversial bill and voting ``yes'' on the Miller
substitute.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Goodlatte) having assumed the chair, Mr. Sweeney, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration 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, had come to no resolution thereon.
____________________