[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 121 (Wednesday, July 18, 2018)]
[House]
[Page H6467]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
UPDATE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson) for 5 minutes.
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, when the Endangered
Species Act was signed into law in 1973, its goal was simple: safeguard
endangered species and assist in the recovery of their population.
Until last week, no recent attempts have been made to reform this
essential piece of legislation. Over the past several years, the
Congressional Western Caucus has been working together to determine
what parts of the Endangered Species Act are broken and to develop
solutions to repair this law.
The Endangered Species Act is in dire need of modernization and
reform, which is why, last week, the Western Caucus, which I am proud
to belong to, rolled out some solutions; among them is to address the
broken litigation process that incentivizes litigation for profit at
the expense of the taxpayer, address the lack of clear listing and
delisting criteria, addressed the lack of transparency in Endangered
Species Act decisionmaking and data collection, consider the needs of
States more seriously, and address the unnecessary impediments to
economic development and land management that affect endangered
species.
Mr. Speaker, as far as statutes that require costly litigation, the
Endangered Species Act was the third most expensive for the Department
of Agriculture and the most expensive for the Department of the
Interior.
Endangered Species Act litigation cost the Department of Agriculture
and the Federal taxpayers $1.63 million from 2000 to 2010. It cost the
Department of the Interior $22 million from 2000 to 2010, all at the
expense of the taxpayer. These frivolous lawsuits have severe
consequences on local economies.
Additionally, the absence of State consultation weakens the overall
data that can be used to justify the Endangered Species Act listings
and recovery plans, a complete lack of transparency. State and local
expertise is needed to strengthen and streamline the Endangered Species
Act listing and delisting process.
I am happy to say that these issues are addressed in some of the
bills that were introduced last week. I proudly cosponsored a number of
the bills that will make progress on this front, including the LOCAL
Act, which was introduced by my colleague Scott Tipton. This bill would
set up new incentives and opportunities for voluntary conservation by
establishing a private party conservation grants program and a habitat
conservation planning loan program for State and local governments.
These programs will save the taxpayers money while boosting
conservation.
Mr. Speaker, we know that the majority of the recent species that
have been delisted happened not as a result of the Endangered Species
Act or the Fish and Wildlife Service, but through voluntary
conservation with the leadership of the Department of Agriculture.
The LAMP Act, introduced by my colleague Congressman Don Young,
permits the Secretary of the Interior to enter into cooperative
management agreements with States, local governments, Tribes, and other
non-Federal persons in order to better manage species and improve
habitat conservation. The bill also empowers States with robust species
conservation programs already in place to take the lead in managing and
preserving such species when meeting certain qualifying conditions.
Mr. Speaker, these are just two examples of great pieces of
legislation that have been introduced in the House to upgrade,
modernize, and bring into the 21st century the Endangered Species Act.
The Endangered Species Act is in dire need of modernization, and I am
eager to work with my colleagues to address these needs and reform this
outdated law. I urge my colleagues to examine these commonsense bills,
look at the facts behind them, and cosponsor them today.
____________________