[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2738-2739]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                    ISSUES CONCERNING RURAL AMERICA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I, too, wish to commend those who provided 
the leadership in the House of establishing the Congressional Rural 
Caucus. As a member of that caucus, I am enthusiastic about the work 
before us and the goals that we propose to undertake.
  The kick-off of that caucus is an exciting time and I think an 
important realization that rural issues need some help here in the 
United States Congress. There seem to be fewer and fewer of us who 
represent rural communities, and our goal and our charge over the rest 
of this Congress and on into the future years involves elevating the 
priority of rural issues in the Congress. I am excited to be part of 
that.
  Sixty-two million Americans live in rural America. That is one out of 
every four people. We should not be leaving 25 percent of our citizens 
out of the economic prosperity we are enjoying generally as a Nation 
today.
  In the Fourth Congressional District of Colorado, it is a largely 
rural area and depends heavily on agriculture. The fragile support 
system of small towns scattered throughout the region depends on the 
bounty of our natural resources. The tax base in small cities and 
counties in Colorado and all over rural America is usually small and 
less flexible than in larger cities in suburban areas. With such small 
populations, tax bases rarely grow, and increased taxes have a much 
greater impact on the individual property owner.
  Residents of these areas cannot afford tax increases to support the 
needs of their small communities, so local governments have to make do 
with what they have. They cannot afford to compensate for an ever-
changing Federal role with respect to an overregulatory propensity here 
in Washington. The Federal government and Congress must allow these 
people to raise the resources they need, and we should spend less of 
our time regulating every last penny out of them.
  All too often Federal agencies propose regulations without keeping in 
mind these rural communities. These communities, I submit, cannot 
afford to comply with too many more new rules and regulations.
  One of the biggest offenders in the overregulating of rural America 
is the Fish and Wildlife Service, through the Endangered Species Act. 
Regulations involving sensitive animals and plants can clean out just 
about any small town's economy if the species in question happens to be 
in a community.
  Rural communities, like those in my district, are often supported by 
agriculture. Agriculture is not benefiting from the economic prosperity 
that the rest of the country is currently experiencing. They are 
suffering even more thanks to the Endangered Species Act.
  My district contains the short grass prairie ecosystem that attracts 
many small critters, such as the Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse, the 
black-

[[Page 2739]]

tailed prairie dogs, the mountain plover, as well as their predators, 
and a handful of other species that the government has determined to be 
threatened or endangered.
  If one ran into a rare mineral on his land, his property value might 
increase overnight, but find an endangered species on your property, if 
that species decides to take up residence on your land, your property 
value will sink, because the Fish and Wildlife Service now determines 
what you do with your land, and any value received from production is 
subsequently lost.
  While many homeowners in our country do not have to worry about a 
Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse or a mountain plover, a rural American, 
or more specifically a farmer, can see these little animals ruin their 
livelihood and take away much of their rights as landowners.
  Often their losses are not even helpful in recovering the species. 
Out of thousands of Endangered Species Act listings, approximately 22 
species have been delisted since 1973. Seven of those were due to 
extinction, eight of them due to data error, and only seven have 
actually been helped by the Endangered Species Act. That is less than 1 
percent.
  Private landowners, I believe, are the best stewards of their land. 
They are often willing to set aside a portion of their land to help 
preserve these valuable species. In fact, private landowners are the 
most responsible and most helpful for endangered and threatened species 
recovery, more so, I say, than the government is.
  Unfortunately, farmers are often punished for voluntarily creating 
habitat suitable for these declining species by unknowingly giving the 
Fish and Wildlife Service a right of passage onto their land to monitor 
species recovery. Farmers and ranchers are often told what they can and 
cannot do with all of their land. That sometimes means they cannot 
produce the products that constitute the basis for their income.

                              {time}  1930

  The Endangered Species Act is not only invasive, but it impacts 
disproportionately rural America. This law and the regulations that 
come with it often eliminate the only income that rural communities 
have.
  In Colorado, here is an interesting example, Mr. Speaker, four fish 
which are found mostly in the rural part of my State, include two types 
of Chub, the squawfish and the sucker, are being protected with a 
budget of $60 million. However, the economic impact of this recovery is 
$650 million. Meanwhile, over in the State of Washington, anglers are 
paid a $3 bounty for every squawfish caught measuring over 11 inches in 
their rivers.
  The Endangered Species Act needs to be reformed, Mr. Speaker. It is 
just one more example of the kinds of issues that the rural caucus 
intends to focus on in our efforts to reach out to rural America and 
elevate the prominence of rural issues on the floor of the House.
  ESA affects all aspects of Rural America:
  Road building--Rural communities typically have inferior 
transportation systems to begin with. The ESA doesn't help a community 
build a much needed road that may bring more commerce to the area. They 
must check first to see if they are invading on any endangered or 
threatened species' territory or they could face litigation or 
government fines. These delays can be both costly and devastating to a 
community that needs the business to survive.
  Water use--Rural Communities tend to rely on less sophisticated 
systems to provide water for their communities. Unfortunately, these 
systems often rely on what is seen as potential habitat for endangered 
or threatened species. Towns often have to spend millions of dollars to 
divert water or create new systems to avoid impact to a species.
  Construction in general--when a rural community wants to build a new 
hospital, school or maybe even a new store to bring some revenue to the 
area, they frequently face road blocks because the only land they have 
might be the preferred habitat of a species that may not even be living 
in the area.
  Tax base--small towns may have to spend their small tax base to 
defend themselves from Environmental groups, or on costly modifications 
to their infrastructure, because of a species that may or not be in 
their community and, in some cases, may not actually be endangered or 
even exist.
  When the Fish and Wildlife Service considers a listing in Rural 
America, the economic consequences are brought to their attention, but 
they often place the lowest priority on the communities they devastate.
  While the Mountain Plover was being evaluated for listing, the 
government suggested if the plover was listed, farmers would have to 
cease normal farming practices from late April to mid-May because this 
coincides with the plover's nesting season. For a farmer in the Eastern 
Plains, this would be devastating because this is the only time of the 
year for planting most crops. USDA Natural Resource Conservation 
Service wrote that the plover's listing ``may adversely impact a number 
of common agriculture practices in the short-grass prairie region in 
the United States.'' In already difficult times for farmers in America, 
the elimination of their planting season would cause extinction of the 
Rural Farmer in the eastern plains.
  Farmers are often fined for continuing farming activities on their 
property, even if the species is not known to exist on their land, but 
just because their land might be potential habitat for an animal the 
government is concerned about.
  The bottom line:
  Federal agencies should not create mandates that will financially 
devastate entire communities.
  Rural America is already burdened because they face various economic 
disadvantages.
  Rural Americans cannot bear the burden of species recovery.
  The government should take into consideration the economic 
consequences to already strained Rural Americans, and work with the 
communities, not against them.

                          ____________________