[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.




                          ____________________