[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 126 (Monday, October 3, 2005)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2003-E2004]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY ACT OF 2005

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. MARK UDALL

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, September 29, 2005

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill. (H.R. 3824) to 
     amend and reauthorize the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to 
     provide greater results conserving and recovering listed 
     species, and for other purposes:

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
bipartisan substitute.
  I am a supporter of the Endangered Species Act, but I have never 
rejected the idea of changing it. On the contrary, I have repeatedly 
said that I thought it would be possible to improve the way it was 
implemented.
  So, I regret that I was unable to support H.R. 3824 as ordered 
reported by the Resources Committee.
  I support much of the thrust of the original bill. I support putting 
more emphasis on recovery plans and on steps to provide incentives for 
landowners and other private parties to help with recovering species.
  And the Resources Committee did make improvements in the original 
bill.
  For example, the committee approved my amendment to retain 
protections for species listed as ``threatened'' and an amendment I 
offered with the gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Pearce, to authorize 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to compensate ranchers for livestock 
lost to an endangered predator that has been reintroduced into the 
wild.
  Unfortunately, though, other needed amendments were not approved--and 
as a result I concluded that the bill's defects were still so numerous 
and so serious that it should not be approved without further changes.
  Now, with this substitute, we can keep the best parts of the bill as 
reported--including the authorization for reimbursement for livestock 
losses--and make the further improvements that will make it into one 
that deserves approval by the full House of Representatives.
  Like the bill as reported, the substitute, with identical language, 
will eliminate the critical-habitat provisions of current law that have 
done relatively little to protect species and so much to foster 
lawsuits ,and red tape.
  And the substitute includes the same language as the bill as reported 
to codify and expand on regulations ensuring that land owners who enter 
into conservation agreements with the Fish and Wildlife Service won't 
be required to do more if circumstances beyond their control change.
  But the substitute goes further than the bill as reported by 
requiring the government first to do as much as possible on public 
lands to conserve species before it acts to put that burden on private 
land owners. This is a very important provision that will directly 
benefit landowners, especially in Colorado and other

[[Page E2004]]

States where there are extensive Federal lands.
  Also, like the bill as reported the substitute includes provisions to 
create a new, voluntary program of incentives to landowners who 
implement conservation practices on their lands. Ranchers and farmers 
in Colorado and across the west understand the importance of 
protecting threatened and endangered species, and want to do what they 
can to help, and I strongly support providing these incentives.

  But here again the substitute is better--because while both the bill 
as reported and the substitute include provisions for giving landowners 
technical assistance, only the bipartisan Substitute allows the 
Interior Department to give priority to smaller land owners who cannot 
afford expensive consultants.
  Just as important, the substitute not only improves on good features 
of the bill as reported, it also corrects its worst flaws.
  The bill as reported would weaken the protection of threatened and 
endangered species by making recovery plans unenforceable, by limiting 
the role of science, and in other ways as well. The substitute is 
better on these points.
  In addition the substitute does not include the reported bill's 
language to change the current law regulating the use of pesticides. 
That law may need some revisions, but if so they should be made after 
thorough consideration and careful deliberation, rather than through a 
last-minute amendment in the Resources Committee, which is how this was 
added to the bill.
  Proponents of the reported bill say the Endangered Species Act has 
led to too many lawsuits. But according to the Bush Administration's 
analysis of the bill as reported, ``the new definition of jeopardy in 
the bill, as well as various statutory deadlines, may generate new 
litigation and further divert agency resources from conservation 
purposes.'' The substitute does not have the same problems.
  And, finally, the substitute does not include the reported bill's 
vague provisions that would set up a new entitlement program--a program 
without clear boundaries that would increase Federal spending to an 
extent that cannot be easily calculated.
  Those provisions worry the Bush Administration, which has told us 
that they ``provide little discretion to Federal agencies and could 
result in a significant budgetary impact.''
  And after reviewing the bill as reported, the nonpartisan budget 
watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense concluded that ``This 
legislation is rife with loopholes and vague wording that have the 
potential to cost taxpayers billions of dollars, and must be revised.'' 
I completely agree and I support the bipartisan substitute because it 
makes the revisions necessary to close those loopholes. For the benefit 
of our colleagues, I attach the full text of the letter from Taxpayers 
for Common Sense.
  I urge the adoption of the substitute.

                                                     Taxpayers for


                                          Common Sense Action,

                               Washington, DC, September 28, 2005.
       Dear Representative: Taxpayers for Common Sense (TCS), a 
     non-partisan budget watchdog, has grave concerns regarding 
     H.R. 3842, the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act 
     of 2005. As reported by the House, this bill would establish 
     a new entitlement program that will not only burden taxpayers 
     but require the creation of an unnecessary and complex 
     Federal spending program.
       TCS believes that, as written, the true fiscal impacts of 
     this bill are impossible to calculate, but are likely to be 
     large. H.R. 3824 establishes a policy whereby landowners 
     could file takings claims against the government for 
     relatively unspecific future development plans. The bill's 
     vague language is also likely to encourage serial filers, as 
     there is nothing to prevent landowners from collecting 
     multiple times on the same piece of land property. 
     Additionally, H.R. 3824 would require Federal taxpayers to 
     pay even if the law affects only a small portion of a 
     landowner's property and has little or no impact on the 
     overall value of the remainder of that property. In fact, 
     this legislation, as written, would almost always result in 
     mandated payouts of taxpayer dollars, even if the value of 
     the property had risen. In addition, the threshold for filing 
     a claim and proving a taking under these new regulations 
     would be extremely low, resulting in not only a near 
     guaranteed payout from taxpayers to landowners, but also a 
     likely flood of applications to take advantage of the 
     windfall.
       As we have seen countless times in the past, a loophole 
     will always be exploited, and an enormous loophole will be 
     exploited enormously. This legislation is rife with loopholes 
     and vague wording that have the potential to cost taxpayers 
     billions of dollars, and must be revised.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Steve Ellis,
     Vice President for Programs.

                          ____________________