[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 21796-21798]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




         THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY ACT OF 2005

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 470 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3824.
  The Chair designates the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) as 
chairman of the Committee of the Whole, and requests the gentleman from 
Idaho (Mr. Simpson) to assume the chair temporarily.

                              {time}  1258


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 3824) to amend and reauthorize the Endangered Species Act of 1973 
to provide greater results conserving and recovering listed species, 
and for other purposes, with Mr. Simpson (Acting Chairman) in the 
Chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as 
having been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) and the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) each will control 45 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo).
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We bring up today the Endangered Species Reform Act with the purpose 
of trying to deal with what some of the real issues are, what some of 
the real problems are that we have had and have developed over the last 
30 years.
  If one goes back and reads the original Endangered Species Act, it 
becomes difficult to be critical of specific language that is it in 
because the purpose of the Endangered Species Act was to, first of all, 
prevent species from becoming extinct but, more importantly, to recover 
those species. And as we look at what has happened over the intervening 
30 years, we begin to realize just what problems are with the Act and 
the way it is being implemented today.
  I came into this debate originally because I did not like the way 
that private property owners were treated under the implementation of 
the law. That became a big issue in my district and throughout much of 
the West. Private property owners felt threatened that they would lose 
their private property and that they could lose control and the ability 
to use their private property under the implementation of the law.

                              {time}  1300

  That became a big problem, and it is something that we began to work 
on, to try to have some kind of property rights protections in the law.
  But the more I got into the Endangered Species Act, the more I 
realized the law was just not working in terms of recovering species. 
About 1,300 species have been listed under the Endangered Species Act. 
Of those 1,300, 10 have been removed because they were recovered. More 
species have been removed from the list because they became extinct 
than were recovered.
  That less than 1 percent is a complete failure, so we began to really 
look at the law and see are species really doing better under the 
Endangered Species Act, and we came to the conclusion that they were 
not. About three-quarters of the species are either declining in 
population or the Fish and Wildlife Service has no idea. That is not a 
success.
  When people talk about the act and its importance, they are right, it 
is important. It is something we all share in terms of preserving 
wildlife and preserving species. But when the law is not working, we 
have to respond to that and step in and reauthorize the bill, put the 
focus on recovery and protect private property owners.
  As we have gone through this last several months, I have had the 
opportunity to work with the ranking member, the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Rahall), and his staff; and I thank them for all of the 
work that they put into this bill to get us to this point. We worked 
extremely hard to try and find a compromise bill.
  In the end, there were a few issues that we just disagreed on, there 
were issues we could not come to a conclusion on, but the vast majority 
of what is in the underlying bill was an agreement that we were able to 
work out and that I stand by. I believe it is good work, that it is 
something that is extremely important.
  But I will say that, in the end, private property rights, the 
protection of those property owners, has to be in the final bill, 
because the only way this is going to work is if we bring in property 
owners to be part of the solution and be part of recovering those 
species.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California and I have been working 
together for the last several months to try to find common ground on 
the amendments to the Endangered Species Act. As the chairman knows and 
many of my colleagues, I came to our discussions with the view that the 
ESA does not need amendment, that most of its problems could be fixed 
by additional appropriations or administrative changes that this 
administration is not willing to make.
  Recognizing reality, I decided to enter into good-faith negotiations 
with my chairman, and that is what they were. I salute the manner in 
which the gentleman from California conducted himself and the manner in 
which his staff treated the minority during this entire process. It was 
a fair process; and, indeed, when we had problems, we found open 
communication was received from the other side of the aisle, and I 
appreciate that. In the end, however, we could not reach agreement.
  I do not support the pending legislation, but I must admit that we 
have come a long way. Yet we still have differences that divide us, 
differences in some instances that I have yet to discover. In fact, the 
manager's amendment has been redrafted so many times, the latest 
version is still hot off the presses.
  I wish the bill, because of these latest changes in the manager's 
amendment, were not being rushed to the House floor. I wish that the 
driving force was not the zeal to pass anything that could be labeled 
ESA reform, but instead could be labeled truly species recovery.
  With a little more time to consider how much this bill is going to 
cost the American taxpayers, we could at least have had a chance to see 
how much we are going to lose in the exchange. In the last several 
hours, the bill passed out of the committee has completely blown apart. 
For example, the manager's amendment abandons the definition of 
jeopardizing a species we agreed upon in committee. Instead, the 
Secretary of the Interior will use existing regulations which allow 
Federal actions to proceed, even if they will reduce the likelihood of 
a species' survival and recovery. The survival standard is akin to 
keeping a patient on life support without any chance of recovery.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, if this is enacted into 
law, it will increase direct spending and would cost almost $3 billion 
to implement from the years 2006 to 2010.
  So in my view, this bill offers endangered species less protection at 
far greater cost. Not only was fiscal responsibility thrown to the wind 
in this process, but we have turned back the clock to an era in which 
DDT was commonly known as ``drop dead twice.'' H.R. 3824 includes a 
provision adopted in the Committee on Resources that would repeal the 
Endangered Species Act provisions that protect threatened and 
endangered species from the harmful impact of pesticides.
  H.R. 3824 would insulate those who use pesticides from the Endangered 
Species Act prohibitions against killing endangered and threatened 
species. As long as corporations comply with Federal requirements to 
register pesticide users, they will have no obligation to meet the 
requirements in the Endangered Species Act. The economic and 
environmental implications of this provision are staggering.
  But where the budget really leaks is from the gaping hole created by 
a new,

[[Page 21797]]

potentially open-ended entitlement program for property developers and 
speculators. This, I might add, is where we truly broke down in our 
negotiations.
  Section 14 would establish the dangerous precedent that private 
individuals must be paid to comply with an environmental law. If this 
language were applied to local zoning, no mayor, no city council could 
govern a community without fear that their decisions might drive the 
community into financial ruin. This section pays citizens to comply 
with the law. What is next, paying citizens to wear seat belts, to 
comply with speed limits, to pay their taxes?
  This bill also contains provisions that would severely weaken the 
consultation process, the very heart of the ESA. Under current law, the 
Fish and Wildlife Service analyzes a proposed action to gauge if it is 
likely to place the continued existence of a species in jeopardy. The 
process is grounded in science and must meet reasonable criteria.
  This bill, quite to the contrary of current practice, wipes away any 
standards for that process. It wipes away review by wildlife experts. 
Gone. Proponents claim this change is justified because of the 
service's heavy workload. Instead of fixing the problem by giving Fish 
and Wildlife more resources, the bill simply changes the rules and 
undermines species recovery.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I oppose another provision that would further 
weaken the section 7 consultation requirement when applied to state 
cooperative agreements. Under section 10 of H.R. 3824, no additional 
consultations will be required once the Secretary enters into a 
cooperative agreement with a State. It is questionable whether 
consultation would ever occur, even in those situations causing 
jeopardy to a listed species.
  These provisions, taken together, raise a whole host of questions and 
concerns. What is clear is that this bill will not improve species' 
ability to recover. Quite likely it will result in more extinctions, 
the loss of more of the creatures God has placed in our care. Frankly, 
we cannot be good stewards of His creation and pass this bill.
  For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose H.R. 3824. 
However, I have worked, as I said in the beginning, well with the 
gentleman from California on this bill; and I do salute his 
tenaciousness, his patience, and his courage in bringing this bill to 
the floor.
  I would have preferred we keep trying to resolve our differences, but 
that is not the situation we are in today, so I would urge my 
colleagues to oppose H.R. 3824.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Montana (Mr. Rehberg).
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
California for keeping this issue on the front burner.
  I have come to learn in my time in Congress that people support 
reform, as long as it does not change anything, and that is what we 
find with the endangered species reform.
  I thought I was given a great honor when I first got here in the year 
2001. The gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) of the Committee on 
Resources put me on the study group to talk about the Endangered 
Species Act, to try and finally get it off the dime. The gentleman from 
West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), 
and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) were the 
Democrats; and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Pombo) and myself were the Republicans, and, 
unfortunately, it took us literally 6 months to finally agree what time 
to meet and where.
  The difficulty with the Endangered Species Act is it is failing 
endangered species. Anytime you start getting T-shirts and bumper 
stickers and jokes about a law, you know you have got a problem. I 
brought along a shovel today because the biggest joke in Montana is 
shoot, shovel, and shut up.
  The problem is there are those that want to protect species. They do 
not want them to become extinct. They want to do the right thing. But 
this Congress many years ago created a disincentive to do the right 
thing, rather than an incentive; and if you learn anything about public 
administration or government, when you create a disincentive, usually 
you are pretty successful.
  We are not saving the species we need to. We need to get off the 
dime. We need to finally solve this issue. Everybody recognizes it is 
broke. We can no longer use the excuse that it is just not exactly what 
we want. It is time to end the joke of shoot, shovel, and shut up.
  I want to thank the gentleman from California for bringing this issue 
forward and finally getting off the dime and giving us an opportunity 
to vote for a reform package that truly does what we need to do, and 
that is save the species of this country.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Herger).
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, would the chairman of the Committee on 
Resources agree to enter into a colloquy?
  Mr. POMBO. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would.
  Mr. HERGER. First let me say to the gentleman that I am very 
appreciative of his efforts here to make the ESA a better law.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the legislation would 
provide the President the authority to waive or expedite any provision 
of the act in the event of a major national disaster. I also understand 
that the legislation would require the Secretary to develop regulations 
establishing procedures for an expedited application or waiver of the 
act for agency actions that would be undertaken to address threats to 
human health or safety.
  Mr. POMBO. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. HERGER. I thank the chairman.
  As you know, Mr. Chairman, a terrible situation occurred in my 
district in Northern California several years ago where a levee that 
protects one of the communities I represent had deteriorated to such a 
point that the Corps of Engineers predicted that this degraded levee, 
without repair, presented a threat to human life. Regrettably, repairs 
to that levee were unable to proceed in a timely manner due to the 
lengthy consultation process, even though this very serious warning had 
been issued by the corps. I am sure the chairman has heard of other 
similar examples where the application of the Endangered Species Act 
has complicated or delayed urgent and targeted levee repairs from 
occurring when they are needed to protect people from flooding.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I am certainly well aware of the situation 
that the gentleman is speaking to. I was a Member of Congress at the 
time that that levee broke and tried at that point to help the 
gentleman to take care of that problem before it broke.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the Secretary 
currently has in place emergency regulations that allow for expedited 
consultation in the event of an immediate threat to public safety, as, 
for example, when the floodwaters are rising and are feet or perhaps 
even inches away from breaking or breaching a levee.
  Is the chairman's understanding that the intent of the legislation is 
to require the development of additional regulations that would allow 
the Secretary to expedite the application of the act for agency actions 
necessary to address threats to human health or safety?
  Mr. POMBO. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for that 
clarification.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman for his 
leadership and years of work he has invested in making the Endangered 
Species Act a more responsive and effective law.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to allow the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza)

[[Page 21798]]

to have 20 minutes of my time and to control that time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is advised that the Committee of the 
Whole is not able to entertain such a request.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, in response to the last colloquy that just took place 
between the two gentlemen from California in regard to emergency powers 
that would be granted the President to waive provisions of the 
Endangered Species Act, I just wanted to respond that the Endangered 
Species Act did not get in the way in any manner whatsoever of recovery 
efforts in response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Whatever provisions 
that were needed to be waived were waived under current law, without 
any additional authority being needed by the President.
  So I just wanted to make that clear for the record that ESA did not 
hamper any recovery efforts for any of the most recent hurricanes.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), a distinguished member of our committee.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in opposition to H.R. 3824.
  In the 1960s, Rachel Carson's book ``Silent Spring'' documented the 
harmful effects of DDT and other pesticides on songbirds. This prompted 
a ban on DDT and the passage of the original Endangered Species Act. 
The ban on DDT, which the EPA said posed unacceptable risks to the 
environment and human health, saved the bald eagle and countless other 
species from going extinct.
  Today we are considering a bill that would usher in another silent 
spring by eliminating the oversight for the registration of pesticides 
which harm wildlife and people.
  H.R. 3824 contains a provision allowing EPA to consult with itself in 
determining the potential impacts of pesticide registration on 
endangered wildlife and fish, instead of consulting with the Fish and 
Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service, which are 
the expert agencies whose mission is either in whole or in part to 
conserve species.
  H.R. 3824 would take away the ability to stop pesticide use even when 
necessary to prevent extinction. Without existing checks and balances 
on pesticide use, the effect on wildlife could be devastating. Humans 
could be hurt too, because toxic pesticides are applied by farm workers 
that make their way into our Nation's streams, rivers, and food supply.
  Pesticides poison 10,000 to 20,000 agricultural workers each year and 
are estimated to kill more than 67 million birds annually. But the EPA 
currently only requires balancing the profits from using a pesticide 
against the dollar value of harm caused by that pesticide. The 
Endangered Species Act, on the other hand, recognizes what almost all 
Americans believe, that no dollar amount can be placed on the extension 
of our Nation's treasured wildlife or on the human health of people who 
work in those fields.
  The substitute to H.R. 3824 would leave existing law unchanged. It 
would leave in place current safeguards by requiring an analysis based 
on the health of wildlife, not the company's bottom line.
  For this reason and many others, I urge my colleagues to join me in 
opposing this controversial bill and voting ``yes'' on the Miller 
substitute.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Goodlatte) having assumed the chair, Mr. Sweeney, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3824) to 
amend and reauthorize the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to provide 
greater results conserving and recovering listed species, and for other 
purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________