[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 161 (Thursday, December 15, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13677-S13679]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. CRAPO (for himself, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Thomas, and Mr. 
        Allard):
  S. 2110. A bill to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to 
enhance the role of States in the recovery of endangered species and 
threatened species, to implement a species conservation recovery 
system, to establish certain recovery programs, to provide Federal 
financial assistance and a system of incentives to promote the recovery 
of species, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Collaboration 
for the Recovery of the Endangered Species Act, or CRESA. Over the 
years, this body and the Nation as a whole have fiercely debated the 
merits of the Endangered Species Act. But there is one fundamental 
concept on which we all agree--saving endangered species is essential.
  We have 30 years of experience with the laws that govern species 
management. We know the original intent. We have witnessed the 
strengths of the Act and its capability and commitment to save species 
from extinction. We know about the endless litigation. We have seen 
disappointingly few species recover. We have lost farms and valuable 
ranch land, putting families out of business. Ironically, the biggest 
losers are the very species we are attempting to recover.
  However, we have also seen amazing things happen in Idaho, in 
Arkansas, Wyoming and in California to name just a few. We have seen 
landowners, conservationists, local, state and Federal agencies come 
together, figure out a workable plan and set about to do the business 
of recovering species. These plans are tried and true--they work, and 
they need to have the strength of the law behind them.
  Some ask why the Endangered Species Act needs to be improved. The 
answer is short--we must apply lessons learned, the most important one 
being that collaboration works. Collabortion allows the process to move 
forward. By its very nature, litigation sets one group against 
another--making them rivals, not partners. Too often we work against 
each other, rather than with and for each other. We need to encourage 
what works in order to create the results we all want.
  The next logical step and what is needed now is a way to facilitate 
the

[[Page S13678]]

ESA in its methods of promoting ongoing species recovery--something 
that requires collaboration by all--from the marble halls of Federal 
agencies here in Washington to rangeland in rural Idaho and forests of 
Arkansas. So, too, in every other state. This is not just a Western 
problem; the. entire country is searching for effective ways to 
accomplish the goals of the ESA. The good news is that many of these 
valuable partnerships are in place, functioning very effectively all 
across our country.
  Take one example from my home State of Idaho, that of sage grouse 
recovery. Landowners and conservation groups came together to establish 
strong conservation programs that respected landowners' rights and 
satisfied environmental concerns. This collaborative, cooperative 
effort, utilizing the wisdom of those who live and work on the land, 
the expertise of specialists and those with knowledge of government 
rules and regulations, has been a magnificently successful alternative 
to the perils and dead end road of litigation.
  Collaboration means more voices. More voices mean more solutions. 
More solutions mean more options. More options create the best 
solutions and also bring ownership by all members of the group. 
Applying this method to species recovery and the ESA means that more 
people will become involved and concerned about recovering species, 
especially those who bear the direct burden of compliance with the law. 
More voices bleans greater innovation in the field of species recovery. 
Collaboration decreases conflict, and conflict, as we in this body know 
all too well, usually puts us nowhere.
  Collaboration works. Our bill codifies these proven solutions to 
protect them from the dead-end often found in litigation.
  Why do we need to make a change? It is time to build on lessons 
learned with regard to species recovery, and our bill will put these 
lessons into concrete, effective action.
  CRESA accomplishes the goal of species recovery by building on the 
successes of the ESA and by applying valuable lessons learned over the 
past 3 decades.
  It promotes species restoration and recovery by rewarding landowners 
for their recovery efforts. Private property rights are guaranteed to 
us by our laws. Cost burdens can be onerous, and landowners should be 
rewarded for recovery efforts under the Endangered Species Act.
  Laws must first positively reinforce public values and penalize only 
as a last resort. We have had it backward for many years and littered 
in the wake of this travesty are lost family farms and ranches. The old 
adage about the danger of burning bridges is relevant here: much of the 
action driven by existing ESA rules and regulations burns bridges--
bridges that left intact could bring species across the chasm of 
extinction to recovery.
  CRESA also promotes flexibility. One lesson learned in the course of 
creating and implementing the successful species management 
partnerships that I have mentioned today is that it is vital to work at 
the point of recovery--on the ground, as we tend to say. Working at the 
point of recovery realizes the benefits of fine-tuning individual 
solutions to meet specific challenges, but with the greater and broader 
goal of species recovery. This is flexibility and it cannot be achieved 
2,500 miles from where a species needs restoration. It is on the ground 
that our resources should be applied.
  CRESA promotes a freedom of process which encourages flexibility. I 
cannot emphasize how many times I have spoken with Idaho farmers and 
ranchers who tell me that, ``that solution might work in the halls of 
Congress--it doesn't work here on my land.'' It is ludicrous to believe 
that one-size-fits-all in the arena of species recovery. No two 
species, topography, environment or human natural resource use are the 
same, not even in the same county. There are multiple considerations 
that must be addressed in a cooperative, collaborative manner in order 
to achieve any kind of effectiveness.
  Private property rights are not the enemy of conservation. Rather, 
the law can encourage landowners to involve themselves in the process. 
Landowners have a great deal of respect for species. Many of them are 
the first ones to tell you about the bear they caught sight of in the 
dim light of evening or the early morning grazing of deer in their 
fields. If landowners, especially ranchers and farmers, didn't like 
animals, they likely wouldn't do what they do. It doesn't make sense.
  In the same way, environmentalists don't hate people. They, too, live 
on land somewhere, and many use the products that large landowners 
produce for our country: meat, wood, leather, and mining products, to 
name a few. Put in that perspective, it is obvious that working against 
one another is futile and counterproductive for people and species. We 
have innovative solutions that work for both species and people, and we 
need laws that facilitate this critical flexibility.
  It is time to come together, sit down at the table and get down to 
the real matter at hand. We have to, in the words of a good friend who 
knows this issue well, ``concentrate on problem-solving rather than 
ideologies.'' While there are great ideological divides on this issue, 
the ideas for how to solve conservation challenges are not polarized. 
There is a consensus that there are conservation solutions that can 
benefit people and species.
  We have a tremendous responsibility with regard to our valuable 
natural resources. Growing up and living in Idaho, I cannot fully 
convey to those who have never seen it the absolute wonder of my 
State's wildlife and land. It is farfetched to imagine that I or anyone 
else who lives and works this breathtaking setting would want to 
destroy it. Clearly, this is not just an Idaho issue. There are 
endangered species and wonderful lands in all 50 States and landowners 
nationwide are instrumental to solving the challenge of species 
recovery and restoration.
  The Collaboration for the Recovery of Endangered Species Act 
facilitates this tried and true method of species recovery--species 
recovery not just for today or next week or next year, but for our 
children and grandchildren. I look forward to this bipartisan, 
progressive approach to species recovery and encourage all of my 
colleagues to give very careful consideration to this important 
legislation that we are introducing today.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I join with my friend from Idaho as a 
cosponsor to this bill on endangered species. He and I and others have 
worked on this for a good long time. Both of us have been on the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works. We are no longer there, but 
we started working there. We certainly are excited about the 
opportunity to bring to the floor some ideas that would deal with this 
whole notion of endangered species.
  As the Senator has mentioned, all of us support the idea of 
continuing to have a program to protect endangered species. That 
concept is a good one. All of us support that. What we are talking 
about is a program that would be modernized and reorganized to be able 
to do that in a more efficient way.
  We have good evidence that the program as it is, is not working. In a 
very simple way, what we have had is nearly 1,500 species listed. We 
have had less than a dozen delisted or put back where we want them. The 
emphasis has been on the listing, the emphasis has been on lawsuits, 
and the emphasis has been on disagreements. We should do what we can do 
to bring together the people who are interested. Whether they are 
environmentalists, whether they are landowners, whether they are 
naturalists, whatever, we all have the notion that we want to continue 
to make this program work, and we believe we have some ways to make it 
work better.
  As was mentioned, the law is about 30 years old, so it is time to be 
updated. I agree with the Senator from Oklahoma, we need to review 
programs as time goes by. What we have learned as they have been in 
operation is we can make them much more effective.
  There are two things that concern me. One is that there needs to be a 
substantial amount and a necessary amount of scientific data and 
science required for the listing. We have had some experience in 
Wyoming with having species listed, and it turns out they were not 
endangered at all. They were not identified properly and, therefore, we 
went through all of this debate and all of this discussion only to 
discover that they were not, in fact, endangered species. So we need to 
have more

[[Page S13679]]

science and get into what is necessary to identify an animal or a plant 
as an endangered species.
  Second, the other challenge is to have a plan for recovery, to have a 
plan for getting cooperation between the landowners and the users and 
all the people who are interested in a way to lead us to recovery.
  One of our latest experiences in Wyoming and in the western part of 
the country where we are has been with grizzly bears. Grizzly bears 
were listed, nearly 20 years ago, as endangered species. The numbers 
that were set forth in the plan for recovery were reached 15 years ago, 
and we are just now in the process of actually having the recovery and 
the delisting take place. So we have really lost sight of the goals of 
recovering species.
  This is bipartisan language. We will have supporters from both sides 
of the aisle, and there is also an Endangered Species Revision Act that 
passed in the House. So we will have an opportunity when this is passed 
to come together with the House program to put together something that 
will be amenable and acceptable to both the House and Senate. It is 
bipartisan legislation, as indeed it should be.
  I am sure we will have hearings, as we should, because there is a lot 
of interest in this issue. As the Senator pointed out, you have them on 
the east coast and you have them on the west coast and the situations 
are different. This bipartisan language would require recovery goals to 
be published at the time the species is listed. So there is a plan, and 
we do not go through this endless proposition. It would make it easier 
to delist them as soon as recovery goals are met, and that should be 
the purpose of the program.
  It increases the State's role. This is very important. Many on the 
side of animals as opposed to plants, you have Fish and Wildlife 
Service, you have Park Service, you have Forest Service, you have State 
game and fish, you have State land agencies, so there needs to be a 
good deal of cooperation.
  There also, of course, needs to be involvement with landowners who 
are impacted and affected by the plan for listing and the existence of 
those critters. So that needs to be there.
  We need to provide incentives for working together. Much of this can 
be done without a lot of rules and regulations. The sage grouse was 
mentioned. There is a good deal of progress being made there in the 
private sector with groups coming together. We can do that.
  I will not take any more time. I look forward to working with my 
colleagues. It is going to be in the Finance Committee. We hope we can 
have hearings soon and get this bill on the floor, work with the House, 
and be able to have a successful program put into place so we can 
continue to protect endangered species.
                                 ______