[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 124 (Thursday, September 29, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H8537-H8545]
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 further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 3824.
{time} 1320
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 further 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. Sweeney in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) had 36\1/2\ minutes remaining and
the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) had 36 minutes remaining.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Pombo) has 16\1/2\ minutes remaining and the gentleman
from California (Mr. Cardoza) has 20 minutes remaining.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza).
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, when the Endangered Species Act was adopted by Congress
in 1973, it was heralded as landmark use of environmental legislation
for the protection and conservation of threatened and endangered
species. At that time, it was clearly understood that the ultimate goal
of the act was to focus Federal resources on listed species so that, in
time, they could be returned to a healthy state and be removed from the
list.
[[Page H8538]]
I fully support the goal of species protection and conservation and
believe that recovery and ultimately delisting of species should be the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's top priority under ESA. I am in full
support of the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act that we
are hearing today because I think it is an innovative and creative
approach to ending the long-running conflict between protecting species
and enforcing conservation actions on private land.
There seems to be no question that ESA is due for an update since the
substitute offered by many of my colleagues eliminates critical habitat
in much the same manner as H.R. 3824. For good reason, too. Currently,
the system of critical habitat designations is so dysfunctional that it
seems to defy logic.
For example, in 2002, the service proposed to designate 1.7 million
acres as critical habitat in California and Oregon for vernal pool
species. Almost one-third of the entire acreage of Merced County, where
I live, would have been designated as critical habitat.
In 2003, the service proposed over 4.1 million acres in California as
critical habitat for the red-legged frog. One must wonder, if it can be
found on 4 million acres, then is it truly endangered; or, on the flip
side, are all 4 million acres truly critical habitat?
The Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act will fix the
problems associated with critical habitat by replacing it with a
recovery plan which will shift the focus from litigation to biology and
recovery; provide for greater cooperation between the service and
landowners and States; establish new incentives for voluntary
cooperation efforts.
Coming up with a thoughtful way to enable recovery of endangered
species without costly litigation has been a top priority for me since
being elected to the Congress, and I am pleased that this bill does
just that. My original bill, H.R. 2933, from the 108th Congress, tied
the development of a recovery plan to the designation of critical
habitat. The Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act takes that
idea one step further and elevates the recovery plan system to the
primary mechanism to protect species.
I also feel compelled, however, to mention a few things that this
bill does not do. This bill does not, and I repeat, does not weaken
current law; it does not create a sweeping new entitlement program for
landowners; it does not allow for pesticides to be used at random to
harm farm workers and at-risk species; and it most definitely would not
in any case allow for national treasures like the bald eagle and the
grizzly bear to become extinct. That has been reported by a number of
my colleagues, and it is simply not true.
In fact, I think many of my colleagues would be interested to know
that my office has been inundated by representatives from so-called
industry lobbyists requesting that certain provisions that were once
included in this bill be put back in.
This bill is in no way a home run for anyone. In my opinion, it is a
true balance between the sides, no side getting everything they want;
and, when you achieve that, you usually have the best policy.
I think it is unfortunate that the media and some members of the
environmental community have chosen to vilify this bipartisan
legislation over the past few weeks and provide nothing but a knee-jerk
negative analysis because they have already prejudged Chairman Pombo's
bill as being the enemy.
Now we are here battling it out on the floor against one another, and
another opportunity could be lost for us to move the ball forward
together. I am proud of this bill, and I am proud of the work that
Chairman Pombo and his staff have done to create a document that is
truly a compromise, and it is a real shame we could not agree on these
last few things.
Whether some people want to admit it or not, the ESA is not working
to the best of its ability to protect the species, and it is our job as
Members of Congress to do something about it. We can do better, and
better is voting in favor of this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Watson).
Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, we must protect what we can never get back.
We are not only protecting wildlife, but we are defending our citizens
as well.
The stringent regulations in the Endangered Species Act have
benefited many species in our great country. Our national symbol, the
bald eagle, is one of the most profound stories of recovery in
progress. The American alligator, the Peregrine falcon, and the
California condor are but a few examples of species that have benefited
by the provisions in the bill. According to the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service, nearly half of the species that had been on the list
more than 7 years were stable or improving, and those are the facts.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3824 is full of giveaways to large development
companies and other special interests. The Pombo legislation includes
provisions that require the government to use taxpayer dollars to pay
developers and other special interests not to violate the Endangered
Species Act, instead of creating commonsense incentive programs that
would foster greater involvement in conservation efforts.
Congress should choose to send a national message regarding the
mindful stewardship of our country. If not, further abuses will occur
as evidenced by Governor Schwarzenegger in my own home State of
California. Tuesday, the Governor fired all six members of the State
Reclamation Board, an agency that oversees flood control. The board had
recently become aggressive about slowing development on the flood
plains.
Is the Governor's protection of developers and big landowners worth
the devastation that oversight can avoid? Congress would be wise to
take notice, in light of the no-bid contracts, pleas to exempt all
environmental regulations in the gulf States after Katrina, and the
same old companies slurping up Federal funds in egregious excess.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California's bill is not the
legislation we need. It would also allow the unlimited use of dangerous
pesticides at the expense of the people, plants, and wildlife. This
bill would repeal all Endangered Species Act provisions that regulate
the use of pesticides like DDT, which nearly resulted in the extinction
of the American bald eagle in the mid-20th century and decimated the
California brown pelican population in my own State.
{time} 1330
We must protect what we can never get back.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to defeat this bill.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3824, the
Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act. I congratulate the
gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) and the gentleman from California
(Mr. Cardoza) for their outstanding work on this legislation.
This legislation will reform the 1973 Endangered Species Act so that
real species recovery can be achieved while minimizing conflict with
landowners, businesses, public land managers, and communities, and
particularly the farmers and ranchers of America that my committee
represents.
Since the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) introduced this bill,
we have heard groups on both sides of the issue recite statistics with
the intent of proving or disproving the effectiveness of the law. Well,
I do not believe I can change many minds simply by pointing out that
over 99 percent of the species placed on the list are still on it. I
would like to make a comparison that may put this dismal success rate
in perspective.
If I, for instance, ran a hospital where only one half of 1 percent
of the critical patients who checked in recovered, I could hardly claim
to be doing a good job. What we need is an endangered species law that
not only protects the species, but allows them to recover, to expand
and to get off of the endangered species list as a thriving species.
This is, however, the record the Endangered Species Act has today
compiled, one where only one half of 1 percent of the species have
recovered.
[[Page H8539]]
Its proponent, nonetheless, continue to claim that that is a success.
Along with its glaring shortcoming, the law contains numerous
unintended consequences that have proven to be extremely harmful to
landowners and local communities. In fact, landowners have come to fear
the Endangered Species Act as it has evolved into a giant regulatory
menace.
Under the current law, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has the
power to halt lawful landowner activities if an endangered species is
identified on their property and it is determined their actions would
take that species. The landowner and his right to use his land are then
simply left to the mercy of the courts.
Private property rights are fundamental rights embodied in the
Constitution, and Congress periodically needs to take steps to ensure
that government is protecting them, not trampling on them.
In my own committee, the Committee on Agriculture, we have recently
examined another example of the infringement of property rights through
the use of eminent domain. I commend the gentleman from California (Mr.
Pombo) for working with us to address that problem as well.
TESRA achieves a balance between environmental concerns and property
rights protection through its compensation and cooperative conservation
provisions. Through these provisions, this legislation will fairly
compensate landowners when they must forego use of their property and
provide varied and unique ways to work with landowners.
The bill also makes other important changes, such as doing away with
the Act's emphasis on designating critical habitat by placing emphasis
instead on functional recovery plans. These reforms will not only be
more effective in achieving species recovery, but do so in a flexible,
non-adversarial manner. I believe the protection of endangered species
is exceedingly important, however, a law that forces Federal wildlife
officials to simply catalog declining species while alienating
landowners and discouraging good management practices is a bad thing.
Support this legislation.
Failing to improve the lot of species in more than 99 cases out of
100 isn't working. TESRA is a commonsense step towards improving and
modernizing the 35-year-old law, and I urge my colleagues to support
this important legislation.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3824. This
legislation is a reasonable, balanced response that I think will
address many of the unintended difficulties and consequences that have
arisen since the passage of the original Act.
Over 30 years have passed since that time. That has given us an awful
good opportunity to see what sort of insight and experience in terms of
what has worked in preserving and protecting endangered species and
habitat and what just as importantly has not worked.
California faces numerous challenges in complying with the Endangered
Species Act, like many parts of our country. In California, we have 293
threatened and endangered species in the State, the second largest
number in the Nation. We also have 11 million acres of designated
critical habitat of which 30 percent of it is privately owned. In Kern
County, part of which lies in my district, we have more listed species
than any other county in the State of California.
To relay an anecdotal story of which there have been many here today,
in 1995, we had a Chinese immigrant farmer who, believe it or not, was
jailed and prosecuted due to an accidental taking of a species on his
land that he had farmed for years. As a matter of fact, his tractor had
been confiscated as corroborating evidence.
As a result of that, I and others in the California legislature led a
successful effort to change the law to ensure that that would not
happen again.
During the committee markup last week, I successfully passed two
amendments that clarify local governments' role in participating in the
development of habitat conservation planning. As we know, many of the
habitat conservation plans have had difficulty in their adoption. The
on-the-ground information from our local governments and water agencies
and land use agencies is beneficial in the crucial input in the listing
process and for trying to provide recovery efforts that are successful.
Mr. Chairman, the Endangered Species Act needs improvement, and I
think this bill is a step in that direction. It obviously is a work in
progress, but we should understand that the dilemma that we face in
America today is that while we all want to protect native plants and
species, the dilemma is that our population growth has threatened the
habitats for many of those plants and animals, and therein lies the
dilemma.
We must continue to work on efforts that I think are included in this
legislation, realizing that we are going to have to revisit them in
future years.
I applaud the bipartisan efforts of the gentleman from California
(Mr. Pombo) and the ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia
(Mr. Rahall) and their staff for working with all the members of the
committee, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza) for
addressing the problems of the original bill.
I urge my colleagues to vote for its passage.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the chairman
of the Committee on Resources.
My amendment that I referenced a moment ago that was accepted by the
committee is meant to assure that States and units of local government
have fair input in the listing process for threatened and endangered
species. Local governments, we know, often have the best on-the-ground
information on the status of communities of plants and animals that are
in the area.
This bill would formally recognize the local governments' rights to
comment on the listing process and the acquisition of the best
available scientific data. In many areas of California, we have water
districts that are an extremely active part of the local governmental
units that are involved in the species recovery process. The
contributions that they make are many.
In order to understand the status and the challenges of the various
species that are listed, is it the chairman's understanding that the
reference to units of local government in section 8 of the bill would
include water districts?
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COSTA. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. POMBO. Yes, that is our intention.
Mr. COSTA. I thank the gentleman very much for that clarification.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).
(Mr. UDALL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to
support the Miller-Boehlert substitute.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the substitute amendment in
opposition to H.R. 3824.
H.R. 3824 is being promoted as a piece of legislation that is good
for business. As a senior member of both the Small Business committee
and the Resources committee, I think I have an important perspective on
this issue.
I would like to draw a parallel between the Endangered Species Act
and landmark legislation that has been passed by Congress to protect
the health and safety of workers. One could easily and logically argue,
if they were so inclined, that child labor laws and occupational safety
and health laws were bad for business. But we don't because we
intuitively understand that supporting the very foundation of business,
the people who do the work, is a long-term economic benefit for
society, even though it may cost a few dollars up front.
That goes to the basic fact that practically every adult in America
has worked hard at a job for a business or a corporation at some point
in his or her life. All of us can easily relate to the problems caused
by unfair labor practices and unsafe working conditions. However, very
few of us are scientists. We are not a scientifically literate society.
I am not here to say whether that is good or bad but just to offer
one explanation why we find it so difficult to grasp that the health of
our environment and the continuity of all the pieces in our environment
is as important to the health of our society and the strength of our
economy as sound labor practices. Legislation that hurts the health of
the worker is not
[[Page H8540]]
good for business. Laws, like the one being proposed today, that
undermine the very foundation of our society's well-being and economic
infrastructure, are not good for business.
When we undermine the basic tenets and goals of the Endangered
Species Act, we do so at our own peril. Most of us in the House were
alive in the early 1960s when Rachel Carson published her book, Silent
Spring. The silence of which she spoke caused by the extermination of
songbirds, dying because the shells that protected their offspring
shattered long before the young were ready to hatch. The eggs shattered
and the next generation died because DDT weakened the structure of the
eggs. The spring, once filled with the sound of songbirds, was growing
ever more silent as DDT began to pervade every corner of our
environment.
DDT nearly exterminated our Nation's symbol of freedom, the bald
eagle, because it shattered their shells. DDT nearly exterminated the
endless flocks of brown pelicans flying low over the ocean's horizon,
because it shattered the shells of their young. In my lifetime, I have
witnessed the near extinction of these birds. And, thank God, I have
witnessed their return because we banned that chemical.
Even though the birds have returned, did we ban DDT too late, because
we all know that every one of us harbors residues of DDT in our bodies,
that DDT is found in our mother's milk? Or, were the eagle and the
pelican sentinels, helping us to right our wrongs just in time, before
they disappeared from this planet and our own bodies weakened along
with, them.
The Environmental Protection Agency banned DDT a year before the ESA
was passed and here we are, 35 years later, about ready to pass a so-
called ``ESA reform bill'' that would suspend all Endangered Species
Act provisions related to pesticides.
The Endangered Species Act is really about a single species--us,
human beings. I am not going to be dramatic and suggest that our
species faces extinction. At six and a half billion and growing, I
think the human species is going to be around for a good long time. But
the existence of today's young people is not the existence I remember
from my youth.
Bottled water, mercury poisoning the womb, rates of asthma attacks
skyrocketing, beaches closed because E.coli pollutes the water and
sickens our children.
The Endangered Species Act is not about saving the tiny silvery
minnow that lives in the Rio Grande and it is not about saving the
spotted owl that exists in mature forests. It is about alerting us to
the fact that our rivers no longer sustain fish and our forest no
longer sustains birds. The Endangered Species Act sounds the five-
minute buzzer for humanity and says ``Watch out!'' Our fellow creatures
are sickening. The animals that share our water, our air, our soils are
dying. Something is wrong and we better do something about it before it
begins to weaken and sicken us and we have to scramble to pick up the
pieces.
Let me close where I began--whether or not a drastic weakening of the
Endangered Species Act is good for business. The simple cost/benefit
analysis often applied to endangered species protection only reflects
what can easily be given a monetary value. This highly selective
economic analysis only counts what can be most easily quantified--the
cost of timber not cut, the cost of water not sold, the cost of crops
not sprayed with pesticide.
These economic analyses do not account for the cost if environmental
protections are not put in place--an aquifer that dries up, a hillside
that erodes into a river, people stricken with cancer from unsafe
pesticides. It is easy to hold up the first balance sheet and say,
``Business will suffer'' in the same way one could say that by
prohibiting the labor of children, ``Business will suffer''.
But the cumulative costs of a thousand cuts into the environment that
sustains us as humans will be borne by everyone in society, consumers
and businesses alike. Without environmental laws, our economy polluted
our rivers, darkened our air, paved our wetlands, and drained our
rivers. The Endangered Species Act does not take property from private
entities; it protects the property, the health and the wealth of all
Americans.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the dean of the House as well as
the father of the Endangered Species Act, the ranking member on the
House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my dear friend, the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), not only for his friendship,
but for all the good things he has done on the matter of endangered
species and other matters on nature and conservation of natural
resources.
I want to pay tribute to my friend, the chairman of the committee. He
has behaved in all manners in this connection with this, as he always
does, as a complete gentleman. I greatly regret that we were not able
to conclude our negotiations in a way which enabled us to together
support this legislation. But he has made an honest effort and I want
him to know of my appreciation and respect.
Having said that, endangered species is a very important piece of
legislation that has worked well. It has served the Nation splendidly
well. Large numbers of species which would have been extinct are saved
by the fact that this has been in place. And the government now has the
tools and guidelines for its behavior.
This is not new legislation. It passed in 1973. The gentleman from
Alaska (Mr. Young), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Regula) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) all supported it.
It passed by a heavy bipartisan vote in the House. It passed 92 to
nothing in the Senate.
I would note that there are few real differences between the
substitute which will be offered shortly and the legislation as it is
before us. They are, however, noteworthy. I would note that the success
of the Act I do not believe would be furthered by the adoption of the
manager's amendment, but it would be by the substitute to be offered.
I would note that there is reason to constantly review the
legislative pronouncements of the Congress and to see how it is working
and what needs to be changed to make it work better and more fairly. I
would note that it is working well and fairly. 56 percent of the top
prescription drugs in the world contain natural compounds from plants
found in the wild, many of which come from endangered plants. We have
saved large numbers of animals who might otherwise have been extinct. I
would note that there are also economic benefits. In a sense, we do
good by doing well.
I would note that wildlife has created recreation for more than $108
billion in revenue and more than a million jobs in both the public and
private sector at the local and national level.
There are problems with this. Science is the core of ESA and should
remain so. H.R. 3824 regrettably changes it so that scientific data do
not work in the same fashion they do and it creates new layers of
bureaucracy. It also creates impacts which are supposedly related to
national security, which may be important in terms of the recovery plan
but not in terms of whether the animal should be listed or the species
should be listed.
Economics are treated in the same way. They become a part of the
decisionmaking rather than in the creation of the recovery plan. It is
unfortunate that the legislation allows threatened species to dwindle
until they become endangered, making the problem of recovery still more
difficult.
We can and we should address the real needs of small farmers,
landowners, ranchers and others; and we can do this, I believe, without
allowing unlimited claims upon the Treasury. This would, I think,
entail an intelligent review of this matter, something which the
gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) and I tried to do.
I would note that the President has expressed concerns in his
statement of the administrative policy on September 29 and he says,
``Requirements related to species recovery agreements, new statutory
deadlines, new conservation and programs for private property owners
provide little discretion to Federal agencies and could result in a
significant budgetary impact.''
So if you want fiscally and financially responsible legislation,
legislation which, in fact, protects the species, which is fair to all,
which makes progress and which is close to the area of the legislation
but which has broad citizen support, conservation support, and does
move the process forward, I would urge my colleagues to support the
substitute which will be offered by my colleagues, the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller), and the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Boehlert). This is the way to go.
We can continue our efforts to try in good faith as has been done by
both the
[[Page H8541]]
distinguished gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and the
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) to achieve good
legislation which will again address the concerns of all while at the
same time protecting and conserving species which we have no right to
remove from this world.
{time} 1345
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Threatened
and Endangered Species Recovery Act, H.R. 3824.
I want to first of all commend the gentleman from California
(Chairman Pombo) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza) for
what is very commonsense, bipartisan legislation; and I want to thank
the chairman and his staff for all the long hours and the hard work
they have put into this bill.
The latest figures I have show that my home State of Tennessee has
one of the highest numbers of listings on the endangered species list.
As my colleagues can imagine, this is a very big issue in my State.
I think everyone has read and heard horror stories about ridiculous
rulings that have come out over the years, very unfair rulings, under
the Endangered Species Act. The burden of compliance under present law
is, by far, the hardest for the smallest of our landowners.
It is a simple fact that the existing law hits the hardest on the
small- and medium-size farmers and ranchers and landowners, and these
are the people least able to fight it.
The wealthiest people and the biggest corporations always seem to be
able to get their way. They have enough money, and compliance with the
law is either a simple nuisance or just a small cost of doing business.
I think, and the fact is, that the way the present law is, it drives
out a lot of the competition for the big guys by getting rid of some of
the little guys.
I think that anyone who approaches this legislation with a truly open
mind would call this a very moderate bill. In fact, in almost any other
country in the world, H.R. 3824 would be held as great environmental
legislation.
The United States has made greater progress in regard to
environmental protection than any other country in the world in the
last 30 years. Yet there are some extremist groups that simply cannot
seem to admit we have made this progress.
Right now, these groups are telling their members how terrible this
legislation is. However, if we look at their mailings, they always tell
their members how bad things are, and I think it is probably more
related to fund-raising and money than it is to actual concern about
endangered species.
If people want to both protect endangered species and not force small
farmers or small landowners off their land and force them to sell to
big developers or big government, then this is balanced legislation
that will accomplish these goals.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Baca).
(Mr. BACA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3824, the
Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act. I commend the gentleman
from California (Chairman Pombo) and the gentleman from California (Mr.
Cardoza) for this legislation.
This legislation modernizes the Endangered Species Act, or ESA, to
allow for more scientific review, better conservation plans, and to
focus on a recovery process that is based on collaboration and not
conflict.
After more than 3 decades, the ESA has failed. This legislation is a
bipartisan effort to fix the flawed law.
Less than 1 percent of endangered species have recovered, less than 1
percent. The ESA has only helped 10 of 1,300 species listed under the
law. Thirty-nine percent of the species are unknown. Twenty-one percent
are declining, and they are declining, and 3 percent are extinct. This
law has a 99 percent failure rate.
We need to update. We need to update and modernize the ESA to
strengthen the species recovery by turning conflict into cooperation
and allowing the use of sound science.
In the Inland Empire, the ESA has prevented or increased costs for
freeway interchanges, economic development, and things as simple as
trash removal. There are certain areas that are blighted in portions of
our communities. It is like walking into a mine. You have got to watch
every step that you take because you are afraid you are going to step
on an endangered species.
In my district, we have two infamous endangered species. I want to
point to one, the Delhi sand flower-loving fly, and of course, the
other one is the kangaroo rat.
Look at this fly. If anyone were to see this fly, we would swat it.
It is our first, immediate reaction, and we have always heard the buzz
at night when we hear a fly. We do not stop to look at it to see if it
is an endangered species. Immediately we react; we swat it.
Now, when we look at this fly, and it was buzzing around, I would
swat it. What would happen if a cow swatted this fly? Would we fine the
cow or the owner? It seems pretty ridiculous, I say.
ESA has many ridiculous examples. As we can see in these posters next
to me, the fly costs San Bernardino County Medical Center $3 million to
move the hospital about 200 feet when the fly was found in the
property. That is about $600,000 per fly. Can my colleagues imagine
what it would do to our communities, $600,000 to move a hospital? They
reserved a certain area that is full with blight that is overlooking
the hospital.
Also in my district, ambulances driving to this emergency room at
Arrowhead Medical Center need to slow down so that the endangered flies
will not hit their windshield. Can my colleagues imagine someone who
needs emergency services cannot get to the hospital, has to slow down
because they are afraid this fly might run into the windshield? That is
ridiculous. It is about a life that we need to save, not a fly.
It has even been suggested that traffic be slowed down on Interstate
10. Interstate 10 goes into Palm Springs. It is a route that moves
traffic back and forth. It is ridiculous. They are saying, all right,
this fly only comes out between July and September. So people are
suggesting when we travel on that freeway that you should reduce your
speed limit from 65 to 25 miles an hour because we might endanger this
fly and hit this fly. Can my colleagues imagine the traffic congestion
in the area, the impact it would have in that area, on the flow of
goods and others that would not be able to be moved? That is
ridiculous.
The Inland Empire is indeed species rich, but we have been hit hard
by jobs lost by ESA. That is why we need to take into account the human
cost.
For example, in the cities of Colton and Fontana, California, a
handful of flies, yes, flies are responsible. The city of Fontana alone
has spent $10 million in legal fees associated with the ESA and has
been forced to put aside $50 million worth of land that has been
intended for development. A scrapped commercial center with a
supermarket would have generated $5 million in revenue.
Can my colleagues imagine what this would have done to the area,
better schools, more police officers, new fire stations, teen centers,
paving the streets, fixing our potholes? Yet we have not been able to
generate the kind of revenue that we need.
The ESA is related to the development that led the city to default on
bonds. Will the Federal Government restore the city's credit rating?
No. It has hindered us.
Imagine if endangered species suddenly thrive in the areas flooded by
the hurricanes. Do we stop the hurricane construction?
This law affects more people than what we think. Think of the farmers
not able to harvest their crops because an endangered species is found
in the field.
Local cities have offered land for habitat, changed development plans
and tried to partner in that process; but ESA, as written, will not
permit that.
I support this legislation, and I think this is good legislation. I
ask my colleagues also to support the passage of this.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
[[Page H8542]]
Mr. Chairman, there is probably not a Member of this body that cannot
get up and tell some horror story with the current administration of
the Endangered Species Act. We all agree there is need for reform and
change.
The previous gentleman, while not speaking to the legislation
whatsoever, should take note, and he has referred to the cost to a
hospital in his district that had to pay some enormous costs, but it is
important to realize anytime we allow species to go extinct we lose
enormous potential to understand and improve our world and to create
medicines that many times can save people's lives. Nowhere is that more
evident than in the world of medicine.
I have my chief of staff who has returned from the hospital, thank
the Lord to many medicines that have been produced from nearly extinct
species. It has made him well and brought him to this floor, and I
could go down the list. There are a number of important medicines,
including possibly the next effective treatment of cancer, AIDS, or
heart disease that can come from species that we are trying to protect
and save on this world.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Dicks), ranking member on the Subcommittee on
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies of the Committee on
Appropriations and a member of my class.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Everybody has been talking gloom and doom about the Endangered
Species Act. Let me give my colleagues a few success numbers. This
comes from the National Wildlife Federation.
According to the National Research Council, the Endangered Species
Act has saved hundreds of species from extinction. A study published in
the ``Annual Review of Ecological Semantics'' calculated that 172
species would potentially have gone extinct during the period from 1973
to 1998 if Endangered Species Act protection had not been implemented.
According to the Fish and Wildlife Service, 99 percent of the species
ever listed under the Endangered Species Act remain on the planet
today. That is not a failure. That is an enormous success.
According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, of the listed
species whose condition is known, 68 percent are stable or improving,
and 32 percent are declining. The longer a species enjoys the
Endangered Species Act protection, the more likely its condition will
stabilize or improve.
Now, I just want to say something. Everybody has been saying that
H.R. 3824 has been this great effort in terms of collaboration, and I
respect that. I respect the way that the chairman and the gentleman
from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) have approached this thing.
I come from the State of Washington. No part of the country has been
more affected by the Endangered Species Act than the State of
Washington with the spotted owl listings and the marbled murrelet
listings; but I believe that this legislation, H.R. 3824, is a step
backwards. It is not going to help protect these species that we want.
It will hurt them.
I think that the ESA should be reformed in a responsible manner. In
fact, the substitute amendment that I have cosponsored with the
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Boehlert), and others that will be debated later today
embodies those kinds of practical reforms which still provide us the
kind of potent tools necessary to prevent extinction of species and to
work towards their recovery.
There are some aspects of this bill that I agree with to a point.
Over time, many supporters of the ESA have come to question the way in
which habitat is designated as critical in order to help species
recovery. While it is vitally important that habitat be set aside,
these critical habitat designations have led to much controversy.
The substitute amendment also eliminates the critical habitat
designation, but replaces it with the requirement that the Interior
Secretary identify specific areas that are necessary for the
conservation of species and then enforce these designations.
In addition, the substitute amendment will require that Federal land
be considered first for designation as habitat necessary for a species'
survival and recovery before private landowners are burdened.
Another provision of this bill is one offered by my friend from
Oregon, but the idea that we are not any longer going to have EPA
consult on pesticides is a tragic mistake. This is enough to defeat
this bill in its own right. This is a terrible mistake. Sixty-seven
million birds each year die because of pesticides; and if we let this
pesticide provision be enacted, it will be the most damaging thing I
can think of for birds and other wildlife.
{time} 1400
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, the Endangered Species Act is broken and
needs to be fixed. Those are not my words, those are the words of a
city counselor from Santa Barbara, California. In a hearing we had on
endangered species last year, she described California as being the
greenest State, Santa Barbara as being the greenest of the cities in
California, and she as being the greenest of the green. She said that
the Endangered Species Act is blocking people from making additions
onto their homes, it is keeping the beach closed, it is stopping
development in their town, and they are tired of it. They either want
it eliminated or fixed.
Elimination of the Act is too extreme. The gentleman from California
(Mr. Pombo), our chairman, has taken a very good stance in reforming
it. In New Mexico, we have the silvery minnow. In order to keep the
flow in the Rio Grand River at the level that the biologists said we
had to have, we had to release storage of water that had been building
up for 50 years in four different reservoirs. And storage for water
like that in New Mexico is not easy to get. When we empty those, we
cannot maintain the flow. So one of the most important provisions in
this bill is that sound science must be used for any decision.
We also are affecting the outcome for our private property owners,
and so I thank the gentleman for his hard work on this and I support
the bill.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from the great State of Oklahoma (Mr. Boren).
Mr. BOREN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this important
very important reform legislation because it is an issue that is very
important to me and many of my constituents in my district.
As we all know, the challenge we face in reforming the ESA is to
create a balance between the important goal of conservation and
preservation of our Nation's species and making sure property owners,
businesses, workers and communities do not suffer unnecessarily for
these efforts. Under the current structure of the Endangered Species
Act, these two goals have unfortunately been at odds and have been a
barrier to important economic development.
By reforming the current law, we have the opportunity to craft
balanced legislation that brings all stakeholders together in common
interest. I feel strongly that this legislation achieves that balance
and, therefore, should be approved.
A community in my district seeking this balance is Durant, Oklahoma,
which is in part of the ``historic range'' of the American burying
beetle. The leaders of Durant have worked hard and have had success in
bringing business to their area of far southeastern Oklahoma, but each
year, the construction of new sites for these businesses is brought to
a screeching halt, always looking for the burying beetle, but no
presence of the beetle has been found for a number over years. This
disruption costs the community time, money, and the potential for
future job growth.
There must be a better way to balance the needs of the species and
the needs of the communities. This bill provides important reform. It
does not gut the law, but actually continues to provide important
protections for endangered species which we all care about deeply. This
reform should improve the recovery process and provide real success in
saving our national treasures.
I commend the hard work of those who have brought us here today.
[[Page H8543]]
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time, and I rise in opposition to the Threatening Endangered
Species From Recovering Act.
This legislation, as many of us know, will do nothing to improve our
ability to help species recover. As a matter of fact, this legislation
will repeal all Endangered Species Act provisions that protect
threatened and endangered plants and wildlife from the harmful impact
of pesticides.
Let us focus on this for a moment. Every schoolchild in America is
aware that pesticides are threatening to birds. Our own national
symbol, the bald eagle, is threatened with the provisions of this bill
that would repeal the pesticides provisions that currently exist and
which help protect endangered species. We would not spray pesticides on
a bald eagle, would we? And if we would not do that, why would we vote
for this bill? Pesticides have played a large part in the decline of
many species, including the bald eagle.
The bald eagle is the symbol of our national unity. There is
something about the Endangered Species Act which represents something
even greater than talking about plants and wildlife. There is a
recognition that plants and wildlife and human beings are all part of
the same interconnected process; that we are interdependent; that we
are all one. To act as though plants and wildlife and insects are just
here for our use, for our commercialization, for our disposal actually
rejects our own humanity. There are deeper questions here about who we
are as human beings that are reflected in legislation like this.
I could talk for a while about how this bill is going to provide
giveaways to developers at the expense of wildlife and endangered
species. I could talk about how it is going to require the government
to use taxpayer dollars to pay big developers to not violate the
Endangered Species Act. I could talk about how this Threatening
Endangered Species From Recovery Act would call for a tentative
schedule for developing recovery plans for species that are currently
protected. I could talk about all that, but I want to stress that what
we are really doing here in voting for this bill is rejecting the whole
idea of interdependence and interconnection; rejecting the idea of a
bald eagle which stands for national unity and that we are all
together.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I appreciate the chairman's efforts to reach across the aisle
and produce a true bipartisan bill, and I thank the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cardoza) for working on this.
If any of my colleagues have served on the Committee on Resources, as
I have, you know that this is a truly bipartisan bill. The gentleman
from West Virginia mentioned that everybody can find an example of how
the current ESA is out of whack, and he uses that as an excuse not to
move forward with a bill that reforms it. I would say that that is
precisely the reason we need to reform it, because everybody can find
not just one but two or three or a dozen examples in their own State of
how the current law is not leading to recovery, but it is, rather,
tying people up and making individuals and organizations simply pay for
a regulation rather than recovery.
The purpose of this bill is to lead to the recovery of species, and
that is what this is all about. My own State of Arizona has had its own
issues with the Endangered Species Act. Many times, those who manage
water resources have been tied up with regulation that has required
them to spend money on that rather than the recovery of species. This
will make it far easier to do that.
This bill will also mean a deal between a landowner and a Federal
agency is a deal. So for many reasons, I would support the bill.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth).
Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for
yielding me this time, and I wish to engage the chairman of the
Committee on Resources in a colloquy.
For many years, Mr. Chairman, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has
engaged in river management practices that have harmed several species
of native wildlife that live in and near the Missouri River and
undermine the economic livelihood of many communities along the upper
Missouri River basin. My State, and others in the upper reaches of the
basin, have repeatedly endeavored to influence the decisions of the
Corps as it makes critical river management decisions.
The interagency consultation provisions found in the current law are
one of the few tools at our disposal. So I am concerned that the
alternative procedures defined but not specified in section 12 of the
Threatened and Endangered Species Act would create a way for the Corps
to disregard the consultation requirement, and I want to make sure the
alternative procedures provision is not designed as a way to eliminate
consultation between Federal agencies.
Therefore, under the new bill, would the Corps be required to manage
the Missouri River in a manner that meets current standards under the
ESA?
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. HERSETH. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. POMBO. Yes, they would.
Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for recognizing my
concern and clarifying the intent of the bill. I am satisfied the bill
will not weaken the interagency consultation requirement, and I
appreciate your consideration.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Inslee), a very valued member of our Committee on
Resources.
(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I think it is appropriate to refer to the
first Endangered Species Act in Genesis. ``Bring out every kind of
living creature that is with you, the birds, the animals, and all the
creatures that move along the ground, so that they can multiply on the
earth and be fruitful and increase in number upon it.''
Are we acting in the spirit of Noah when we purport to vote, some may
vote, for a bill that would prevent protecting the bald eagle from
pesticides, when DDT almost removed it from the treasure-trove of
American icons? Are we acting in the spirit of Genesis? I think
Americans think we are not. When we act to remove any meaningful
enforcement provisions to protect the habitat, are we acting in the
spirit of Genesis? Americans think not.
What is a fish without a river? What is a bird without a tree to nest
in? What is an Endangered Species Act without any enforcement mechanism
to ensure their habitat is protected? It is nothing. This is not a
modernization of the Act, this is a euthanization of the Act, and I
will tell you why.
The underlying bill says that we are going to have these maps of
habitat that will be developed, and that is a wonderful thing. And
under the bill, as written, the maps will hang on the walls of these
agencies in beautiful pink and blue, and the Cub Scouts and the Girl
Scout Troops can come through and look at the beautiful maps. But it
has one missing thing. If we pass this underlying bill, we would have
removed any single legal enforcement mechanism that those maps had
whatsoever. The bipartisan amendment will say that those maps have some
degree of teeth.
This underlying bill is a chimera. It is a total falsehood to say it
does the first thing for habitat because there is no enforcement
mechanism for those maps.
I want to tell my colleagues of a woman who was in my office the
other day. She wants habitat protection so she can see those salmon.
And just to make sure no one thinks this is just some esoteric thing,
her name is Gail and she lives in Miller Bay in Washington State,
Kitsap County. She told me about the thrill of seeing the salmon going
up the stream on Miller Bay, and they do that because we have an
enforceable mechanism to protect habitat. She knows that if we pass
this bill, we will remove the ability to protect the streams. We remove
the enforcements mechanisms.
[[Page H8544]]
Mr. Chairman, that is why we need to do this substitute, which has a
better way of identifying habitat in the recovery process so we do not
have this frustration with the landowners, so we do not waste 3 years
just bothering landowners and not recovering species, but we have a
mechanism to get this job done.
I want to reiterate what the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks)
suggested. To suggest that an Act that saves 99 percent of the species
from extinction is a failure is not a way to keep score. If you want to
know how to do more, let us make sure that the executive branch
enforces this law. Clinton listed 500. The first Bush listed 250. This
administration has done zero without a court order.
Let us pass the substitute bill and reject this underlying bill.
Honor creatures, honor the taxpayer, honor yourself.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I rise as a Member probably more affected by this law than
anybody else in the United States Congress. I probably represent more
critical habitat in the coastal counties of Monterey Bay than anybody.
That is the Big Sur, Carmel, Pebble Beach, Santa Cruz region.
That critical habitat has made us a lot of money on what is watchable
wildlife. Watchable wildlife is the largest business, fastest-growing
business in the United States. Of all the sports in this country,
watchable wildlife exceeds them all. This bill undermines the greatest
economic asset we have, which is our natural things by creating a new
issue on takings.
You argue the bill is broken because the administration has not been
able to administer it.
{time} 1415
Well, it is not the bill that is at fault; it is the United States
Congress and the President of the United States that are at fault.
I am on the Committee on Appropriations, and in 2003 the Fish and
Wildlife Service said it needed approximately $153 million to address
the critical backlog of listings of critical habitat; yet the President
only asked for $18 million. This is the way to kill an organization.
You do not fund it, and say, look, the law does not work, you have a
backlog.
So let us take the law. Every city councilmember, every city
supervisor in the United States ought to wake up and look at this law
because now they give full development rights under this law. If you do
not like the way the law is, you have trees in your backyard that the
government says, the community says you ought to preserve, you do not
have to worry about that now because you can say that is a taking.
Pebble Beach, cut all of your cypress trees and pine trees, which are
the Monterey cypress and the Monterey pines, because now instead of
beautiful scenery, you can build hotels all over that land. And if they
do not allow you to do that because of the trees, the government will
pay you.
Mr. Speaker, guess what, the government has no money. It cannot even
pay the bureaucrats that are responsible for carrying out the law. This
bill is a gun to the head. This bill says if you do not grant that
development, by God, government, you have to pay it. The lawyers say,
government, you have no money, you better grant the request.
This is a full development rights. It is an attack on America's
greatest heritage. It endangers wild and scenic species.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Brady).
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, in Washington everything looks
perfect on paper and people hate to admit they made a mistake; but the
truth of the matter is how it works in real life is completely
different, and we have a responsibility to make those changes.
I strongly support this recovery act and thank the gentleman from
California (Mr. Pombo) for his leadership and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cardoza) for his hard work. My east Texas district,
which was hit very hard by Hurricane Rita, is jam packed with trees.
The piney woods are our heritage. They are our economy; and they
provide habitat for the red cockheaded woodpecker, among other
endangered species.
But for decades, responsible landowners have been afraid that the
Federal Government would swoop in and take their livelihood away for
the sake of this bird due simply to the outdated and unsubstantiated
burdens of the Endangered Species Act.
America's farmers and ranchers and private property owners in east
Texas have spent long enough fearing the Federal Government.
Unfortunately, current law has created incentives for landowners to
destroy species habitat to rid their properties of liability. I
strongly support this measure.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to engage in a
colloquy with the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo).
Mr. Chairman, I believe it is critical for us to make sure we do not
change the regulatory landscape on property owners regulated under
existing law. These individuals, our constituents, are committed to
doing what the Federal Government asked them to do in order to secure
authorization to proceed with various activities. We should not require
those same landowners to renegotiate what they have already agreed to
under the new rules of this bill after it is enacted.
Based on that premise, I believe the Threatened and Endangered
Species Recovery Act should include a grandfather clause to cover any
ESA permits or approvals issued prior to the date of enactment of this
bill, not just habitat conservation plans.
I would inquire, is that the intent of the gentleman from California
(Mr. Pombo)?
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CARDOZA. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, that is the intent, yes, sir.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), a valued member of the Committee on Resources.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the approach that the committee
is taking in trying to revamp and revise the Endangered Species Act.
This has been a vitally important and successful act throughout recent
decades. And while there is wide agreement here on the House floor that
it should be amended and tweaked and improved on in light of past
experience and modern times, we need to do it responsibly; and I
believe that responsible approach is better reflected in the substitute
that is being offered here today.
Unlike some in this Chamber who believe that the Endangered Species
Act has been an unmitigated failure, there are countless success
stories around the country. In my home State of Wisconsin, an example
of how well it has worked, working with local officials and the
stakeholders involved, the Higgins eye mussel has come back in the
Mississippi River, which acts as a great filtration system in the river
basin. The Karner blue butterfly, on the verge of extinction in
Wisconsin, due to the Endangered Species Act and the recovery plan that
was in place, is making a healthy comeback.
The whooping crane is making a strong comeback in the Necedah
Wildlife Refuge, as has the granddaddy of them all, which has been
referenced here today, the American bald eagle. If Members would like
to see some bald eagles, come to western Wisconsin along the
Mississippi during the spring and fall ice flows, and you will see
literally thousands of them. There are new nests that are going up in
habitat where they had never been found before. They are on the verge
of being delisted because of their success story. EPA identified the
adverse effects of DDT, Congress took action, and the bald eagle is
resurging today.
And the grizzly bear that is about to be delisted in Yellowstone and
portions of Montana from the threatened species list, I can personally
attest to the strength of their comeback, having just been in Glacier
Park in August and coming within 20 yards of a big grizzly bear and her
two cubs. Fortunately, I was able to retreat, or I would have been a
threatened or endangered species during that time.
[[Page H8545]]
The act has worked, and the point is there is a responsible approach
that recognizes the bureaucratic red tape that we streamline, working
with private property owners and also putting in place a strong
recovery plan for species that makes more sense. That is the
substitute. I encourage my colleagues to support the substitute.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).
Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, I serve a very rural district, a lot of
landowners. Currently, a landowner with an endangered species on his
land often sees the species as a threat to his survival. That is not
good for the species, and it is certainly not good for the landowner.
It is not working. It is largely adversarial. H.R. 3824 provides
incentives for landowners to preserve endangered species, and this will
help the species, and it will help people as well.
In 1978, 50 miles of the Central Platte River in Nebraska was
designated as critical habitat for whooping cranes. Only 3 to 4 percent
of the whooping cranes visit the Platte River annually. The great
majority of whooping cranes never see the Platte River, never visit it
at all; and so many have questioned this designation because this
designation has led to a cooperative agreement between Nebraska,
Colorado, and Wyoming involving thousands of acres of lands, hundreds
of thousands of feet of water to support critical habitat; and it is
still not complete after 8 years of spending millions of dollars.
So we have case after case after case like this where this thing
simply is not working well. Hopefully, applying the best available
current science required by this legislation will improve this process.
I think it will. I thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Pombo)
for his efforts, as well as the gentleman from California (Mr.
Cardoza), and ask support for H.R. 3824.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
I, too, come from a rural area. The two major industries in my
district are agriculture and fishing. So we know the landscape and
people cooperate. The present ESA, maybe it is because we are on the
east coast, the present ESA bill is working fine. I know we need to
tweak it because it does not work the same way all over the place, but
I would urge my colleagues to support the substitute. Here are some
reasons why:
In the substitute, there are specific criteria for science laid out.
Members want good science; the methods, procedures, and practices are
laid out. What species should be determined endangered, there are five
criteria laid out on page 4 of the substitute. Members should review
all species that are designated every 5 years.
We have repealed the critical habitat designations, but we have
replaced it with recovery plans found on page 20 of the substitute. It
has time frames and objective, measurable criteria. It has a very
specific description of where that species should be recovered, and the
emphasis of where that species should be recovered is not private land;
it is public land. The emphasis is on public land; but whenever you go
on private land, there should be some restitution, some sharing of
Federal dollars with those private landowners; and 10 percent of the
appropriated amount on an annual basis of this substitute will go for
that very specific purpose.
What if livestock are endangered or threatened by a reintroduced
species? That is taken care of. Landowners are going to be reimbursed
for that lost livestock.
What about national security? Take a look at the substitute. There is
a very specific exemption. Page 43 of the substitute, there is a
national security exemption.
I urge my colleagues to vote for a specific, balanced ESA bill. Vote
for the substitute.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member, my
friend, for yielding me this time.
``Shortsighted men, in their greed and selfishness will, if
permitted, rob our country of half its charm by the reckless
extermination of all useful and beautiful wild things.'' So said
Republican President Theodore Roosevelt almost 100 years ago, and how
relevant his remarks are today.
If we cannot find a way to live in harmony and conserve our natural
resources in a sustainable way, we humans may, too, be doomed to
extinction. The Endangered Species Act is a litmus test on the degree
to which we are willing to conserve our livable environment.
To date this act has succeeded. Its success rate is 99 percent. Only
7 out of 1,200 species, according to Fish and Wildlife Service, have
become extinct, and they became extinct because of their status before
they were listed.
There are problems with the Act that need to be addressed, but many
of the changes embodied in this bill are not designed to fix the
problems. They are designed to eviscerate the law. The proposal before
us today will gut the law by making any recovery plan unenforceable and
by creating a new compensation program for those who own land that may
host a threatened or endangered species.
We are a Nation of laws and constitutional rights, but where in the
Constitution does it say property rights are an immutable and an open-
ended entitlement?
Where would we be as a Nation if the law did not allow reasonable
government regulations of private property without payment of
compensation if undertaken for the public good? That kind of regulation
occurs every day in every State in every locality throughout the
country. It occurs as a result of practically every regulatory statute
we pass. It is a long-standing principle of the jurisprudence of our
courts. But this bill turns that principle on its head, and in so doing
it creates a very dangerous precedent that this body should not
knowingly adopt.
Section 13 of the bill establishes a new program of conservation aid;
and under this program the government must provide compensation to
landowners whenever an ESA restriction prevents a particular use of
property, regardless of the fact that other uses of the property remain
and those uses are very valuable.
This new aid program, therefore, requires the payment of compensation
to landowners even though no governmental taking of their property has
occurred. And rather than compensation being required where a
restriction essentially strips property of all of its valuable uses,
the standard under the takings clause, which exists today, this bill
requires compensation whenever a restriction prevents a single use of
property.
{time} 1430
It is a standard for compensation that goes far beyond the standard
imposed under the Constitution's ``taking'' clause, and it does not
exist in any other Federal statute. If enacted, this bill will set a
very dangerous precedent that could lead to the insertion of similar
provisions in other environmental and regulatory statutes. It has to be
rejected.
Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, I know that
there are some problems with the implementation of this Act. The
current ``critical habitat'' designation needs to be revised and should
be established later in the process during the development of species
recovery plans.
In that regard, the approach taken by the substitute put together by
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks) and others is the right way to go and should be
adopted.
Mr. Chairman, Federal land belongs to all of us. The Endangered
Species Act is a vehicle through which we can conserve our land and
balance the needs of all against the short-term and destructive
interests of the few. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Threatened and
Endangered Species Recovery Act, but strongly support the substitute.
The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally.
The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Pearce) assumed the Chair.
____________________