[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 129 (Thursday, October 6, 2005)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2020-E2021]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY ACT OF 2005

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. ANNA G. ESHOO

                             of california

                    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:

  Ms. ESHOO of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Pombo 
bill and in support of the reforms in the substitute amendment offered 
by Representatives George Miller and Sherwood Boehlert.
  The Endangered Species Act is a cornerstone of environmental 
protection. I'm very proud that one of my predecessors in the Congress, 
Pete McCloskey, was a leader in enacting this bipartisan law.
  After more than 30 years, it's worth reevaluating and updating this 
law to better meet its objectives. I understand some of the 
frustrations that constituents have with the current law, but I don't 
think we should throw ``the baby out with the bathwater'' as the 
underlying bill would do.
  While critics rightfully point out that we need to do more to help 
endangered species recover so they can be removed from the endangered 
list, the fact is the Endangered Species Act has been highly 
successful, with 99 percent of species listed under the ESA being saved 
from extinction.
  I have very deep concerns about the bill before us today.
  First, the bill requires the Federal Government to pay developers' 
costs in complying with the Endangered Species Act whenever even a 
portion of a property is impacted. There's no limit on the compensation 
payments that would be paid. The Congressional Budget Office has said 
this is a new entitlement that will increase spending by billions of 
dollars and establish a dangerous precedent. Imagine, for example, the 
Federal Government paying a factory owner for the costs of complying 
with the Clean Air Act when a decision is made to expand the plant. 
That's the principle this bill will establish. It's an extraordinary 
mistake.
  Second, the bill removes protections against the use of hazardous 
pesticides. It's estimated that 67 million birds die each year from the 
effects of pesticides. These protections must be kept in place. One of 
the reasons the Endangered Species Act was adopted in the first place 
was to address declines in the population of the bald eagle caused by 
DDT.
  Third, the bill strips the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration of its role in administering the Endangered Species Act, 
transferring it to the Department of Interior with no assurance 
whatsoever that this agency will have the resources or the expertise to 
take on this responsibility.
  Fourth, the bill reduces the role of science by ending the current 
requirement that Federal agencies consult with wildlife biologists 
before undertaking actions that might harm endangered species.
  The Miller-Boehlert Substitute makes great sense if we want to 
capitalize on the successes and the lessons of the last 30-plus years.
  The substitute will repeal the current requirement that the Secretary 
designate ``critical habitat'' for endangered fish, wildlife, and 
plants before formulating a plan for species recovery. Instead, the 
substitute requires real habitat recovery efforts to conserve rare and 
threatened fish and wildlife. It ensures that recovery plans include 
the best possible science and that they're enforceable.
  The substitute directs the Secretary to first determine whether 
public lands are sufficient to protect and save the endangered species 
before taking other measures that will impact private landowners.
  The substitute will help small landowners who may not have the 
resources to comply with the Act. It will provide dedicated funding for 
technical assistance for these private property owners and establish a 
conservation grants program for landowners who help conserve the 
species on or near their property. It

[[Page E2021]]

contains requirements that private citizens get timely answers from ESA 
enforcement agencies and insists on reporting requirements so that we 
know how many applications are really going unanswered.
  The reforms in the substitute make sense and they should be adopted. 
The base text should be rejected.

                          ____________________