[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 13684-13685]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     ENDANGERED SPECIES FUNDING ACT

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, there is no question that the goals of the 
Endangered Species Act are noble. Wyoming residents understand the 
desire to maintain a healthy environment and to manage and protect 
wildlife. In fact, it is a business we have been in for generations. 
The fact that today's private lands are the primary habitat for a more 
abundant range of wildlife than can be found on Federal public lands is 
a strong testament to my Wyoming's residents' belief in protecting 
wildlife and their willingness to put those beliefs in action.
  It was the State of Wyoming, not the Federal Government, that took 
action to find the believed extinct black-footed ferret. The State then 
used its own money to build a facility that was able to nurse the 
ferret back into existence. As a result of the State's unilateral 
efforts we now have several populations of black-footed ferrets spread 
across several States.
  Unfortunately, the ESA has moved beyond its goals of recovery species

[[Page 13685]]

and had become a tool to control development, to shut down small 
businesses, and to impose costs--in the form of unfunded mandates--on 
States, local governments and private individuals.
  Then there are those other costs, the ones that can't be put into 
exact dollar figures but which seem to drain the already limited 
resources of private land owners. Whether it is the grizzly bear, 
black-footed ferret, Canada lynx, Preble's meadow jumping mouse, gray 
wolf, whooping crane, bald eagle, western snowy plover, sage grouse, 
Wyoming toad, Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, Colorado butterfly 
plant, or a flower called the Ute Ladies' tresses, Wyoming residents 
have been forced to invest valuable man hours and personal property to 
ensure these plants, fish and animals are managed according to national 
priorities as set by non-resident Federal agencies.
  It is only fair that Federal dollars be provided to pay for Federal 
priorities.
  Imagine, as a home owner, that an endangered species is discovered in 
your yard. What if you were then denied the use of your garden, back 
yard and driveway, couldn't mow or pull any weeds and were told, oh, 
yes, you have to change jobs too. You'd be on the phone to your lawyer, 
your governor, your Senator and the President. And all of them would 
say, ``It's the law and you are not entitled to a dime of 
compensation.'' Now how would you feel about the Endangered Species 
Act?
  Granted, a farm or ranch is larger than your garden or back yard, but 
it is often the sole source of support for some of our Nation's 
hardworking families--and to have acres taken away and out of use 
without compensation would appear to violate the Constitution! My bill 
merely provides for just compensation for this, a Federal priority and 
mandate.
  My bill would guarantee funding for implementing the ESA while 
requiring the Federal Government to pay for all the costs relating to 
the establishment of State management plans, monitoring, consultation 
and administration, surveys, conservation agreements, land 
acquisitions, losses from predation, losses in value to real or 
personal property or any other cost imposed for mitigating management 
of a species covered by the ESA.
  When they see the real costs of these regulations and their impact on 
communities, the American public will, for the first time, realize what 
it costs to declare a species as endangered. It's one thing to dictate 
how someone else or another community spends its resources, and it's 
quite another to face those costs and lost opportunities yourself.
  There should be no question in anyone's mind that the Endangered 
Species Act is an unfunded mandate. For far too many years States, 
local governments and individual property owners have borne the brunt 
of implementing the Federal Endangered Species Act. They stagger 
beneath the momentous weight of having to pay for the mismanagement and 
policy decisions of Federal bureaucracies.
  One of the biggest problems with this statute is that the people 
forcing implementation have no real perspective on what it does or how 
it impacts States and local communities. It is very easy for them to 
sit back in their protected communities, surrounded by granite walls 
and pavement, and dictate to the West that our herds of cows and flocks 
of sheep are needed to feed the wolves they transplanted here, or that 
species preservation is more important than providing jobs for the 
community and putting food on the table. It's easy for them because 
they don't have to live with the results of their decisions. It doesn't 
cost them anything and they have nothing to lose. The only investment 
most Americans make in the Endangered Species Act is rhetoric.
  I love Wyoming and the plants and animals that populate it. I would 
hate to see anything happen that would change the ability of Wyoming 
and individuals to continue managing its land with the kind of 
productivity that we now have.
  The reality is, however, that the Endangered Species Act has become 
more of a hindrance than a help. Not one species has been recovered 
because of the rules and regulations imposed by this statute. What has 
had the biggest impact has been the people on the ground who are not 
allowed to make personal choices on how they manage their own property. 
If we continue to impose the costs and expenses on local landowners and 
communities, there will come a day when they are no longer there to 
make the wise and well informed management decisions that will make a 
real difference in the future existence of our Nation's endangered 
species.
  I hope my colleagues will consider this bill and the costs it puts on 
individuals and recognize that the Endangered Species Act is a Federal 
priority and, as such, it should be a Federal cost, not a personal 
cost.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________