[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 3]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 3587-3588]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




      INTRODUCTION OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY ACT OF 1999

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. GEORGE MILLER

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, March 3, 1999

  Mr. GEORGIE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I and 67 co-sponsors, 
are reintroducing the Endangered Species Recovery Act of 1999. Similar 
to legislation I sponsored in the last Congress, the goal of this bill 
is to recover and delist endangered and threatened species. This was 
the original intent of the law, but it has not been the outcome. It is 
time the original goals were met.
  When the ESA was first enacted in 1973, stopping extinction seemed 
pretty straightforward. DDT was wiping out our nation's symbol, the 
bald eagle. Most species of the great whales had been hunted to near 
extinction. Foreign species like the African elephant were bordering on 
destruction after more than a century of uncontrolled commercial 
hunting. Congress responded, passing legislation to provide for the 
conservation and protection of endangered species.
  Unfortunately, resolving today's threats to imperiled species are not 
as simple as banning DDT or stopping the trade in elephant ivory. It is 
unlikely the ESA's authors could have foreseen the far more complicated 
environment which now exists where the preservation of habitat needed 
for species survival and recovery must constantly be balanced against 
the growing demands of development and urban sprawl.
  As a result, instead of recovering species and moving them off the 
endangered list, the law does little more than maintain animal 
populations in their devastated state in perpetuity or, at best, slow 
the inexorable slide towards extinction. Recovering endangered species 
and removing them from the list should be the ESA's real goals, but we 
have had very little success because federal agencies consistently 
allow activities to occur that undermine the recovery of the very 
species we are ``protecting.''
  In fact, while the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National 
Marine Fisheries Service spend tens of millions of tax dollars every 
year to recover species, they spend even more approving scientifically 
indefensible conservation plans and permits that are not consistent 
with--and in some cases actually undermine--they recovery of the same 
species they are trying to recover. That is the main reason why, a 
quarter of a century after the enactment of the ESA, we have moved only 
a handful of species off the endangered list.
  This bill will amend the ESA to fix the fundamental flaw in the Act 
by requiring that incidental take permits, habitat conservation plans, 
and federal actions to be consistent with recovery. This is the only 
way we will recover species, get them off the list, and get landowners 
out from under lifelong regulatory control.

[[Page 3588]]

  In addition, it provides incentives for both small and large 
landowners through the implementation of tax credits, deferrals and 
deductions for habitat protection. It provides assurance to landowners 
that wish to engage in activities that may damage habitat, while 
ensuring that taxpayers are not left to pay the costs of mitigating 
that damage. It also encourages ecosystem planning on a regional basis 
through the development of multiple landowner, multiple species 
conservation plans.
  This bill is endorsed by more than 300 environmental, religious, 
fishing, consumer, and scientific organizations representing millions 
of people across the country who overwhelmingly support the recovery of 
endangered species. It is only through this kind of modification that 
land owners, developers and others will receive the assurances under 
the ESA that they require to make long term business decisions. If we 
do not make these changes to the law, we might save the Act, but we 
won't save species.

                          ____________________