[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 130 (Friday, October 7, 2005)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2071-E2072]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY ACT OF 2005

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. BETTY McCOLLUM

                              of minnesota

                    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. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition 
to H.R. 3824. This legislation seeks to undermine one of the most 
successful and visionary environmental policies, the Endangered Species 
Act. For 32 years, the Endangered Species Act has been a safety net for 
wildlife, plants, and fish that are on the brink of extinction.
  Since its enactment in 1973, the Endangered Species Act has prevented 
the extinction of hundreds of species. In fact, 99 percent of the 
species listed are still with us today, and more than two-thirds of all 
currently listed species are improving.
  Minnesotans have witnessed the success of this Act first hand. In 
Minnesota, the bald eagle population grew from a dwindling 380 eagles 
in 1981 to more than 1,400 eagles today. This is more than double the 
recovery goal of 600 eagles. We have seen the gray wolf population grow 
from 300 in 1975 to 3,020 in 2004. Again, that is more than double the 
recovery goal of 1,400 wolves. Minnesota is also home to the dwarf 
trout lily, which is found nowhere else in the world.
  In April 2005, many of my constituents showed their support for 
endangered species during Aveda Corporation's Earth Month. In Aveda 
salons and stores across the country, more than 170,000 people signed 
petitions asking for a strong, fully funded Endangered Species Act. 
These petitions were delivered to the steps of the Capitol in July. The 
message is clear. Americans want to protect endangered species for 
future generations.
  Unfortunately, H.R. 3824 makes it harder to protect threatened and 
endangered species. It repeals one of the most important parts of the 
act--critical habitat protection. Habitat destruction is the primary 
reason many animals end up on the Endangered Species List. Species with 
designated critical habitats recover at twice the rate of endangered 
species without critical habitat. Yet, this bill provides no 
alternative to protect the places where vulnerable species live.
  This bill also creates a new corporate welfare entitlement for 
developers. Under this bill,

[[Page E2072]]

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would have only 180 days to review 
proposed developments and their impact on endangered species. If an 
assessment cannot be reached within this time frame, the project is 
allowed to proceed. If it is determined that endangered species would 
be harmed by the project, the Federal Government must pay the landowner 
the value of the proposed development. This would encourage speculative 
development schemes aimed at harming endangered species in order to 
receive windfall payments from the government. A frenzy of fraud and 
abuse will not help responsible landowners comply with the law, and it 
will not help species recover.
  The use of sound science is also undermined by this bill. It gives 
political appointees the authority to determine the ``best available 
science'' without having to consult with recognized scientists and 
other experts in the field. Under this bill, the use of sophisticated 
scientific modeling could also be banned. This opens the door to the 
use of questionable science and politically-motivated findings.
  This bill also repeals all Endangered Species Act provisions related 
to pesticides. Pesticides, such as DOT, have contributed to the decline 
of many species, including the American bald eagle. Under this bill, 
the Environmental Protection Agency can approve pesticides without 
considering their impact on threatened and endangered species. Given 
the choice between recovery and extinction, this bill appears to favor 
extinction.
  I supported a responsible alternative aimed at recovering species. 
The Miller/Boehlert substitute amendment contained a more flexible 
timeline for consideration of projects, clarified the obligation of 
federal agencies, and provided real landowner incentives for 
conservation and species recovery. This approach responded to the 
legitimate concerns of landowners and sportsmen while continuing 
efforts to recover endangered species. Unfortunately, this amendment 
was not adopted.
  Mr. Speaker, the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act fails 
to protect vulnerable wildlife and plants and threatens to break the 
federal bank with a new open-ended entitlement for developers. I urge 
my colleagues to reject this bill and work together to create a strong, 
scientific and bipartisan Endangered Species Act.

                          ____________________