The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“WHY THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SHOULD BE IMPROVED” mentioning the Department of Interior was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H2881-H2889 on March 27, 1996.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
WHY THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SHOULD BE IMPROVED
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 12, 1995, the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I take this time to bring to the attention of the floor, my colleagues, and those that might have the opportunity to hear what I have to say why the Endangered Species Act should be improved. That is the subject of this hour of debate. I will be joined by other Members that were directly involved in trying to improve the Endangered Species Act.
Madam Speaker, I came to this House as a Representative in 1973. Later that same year, I voted, one of the few remaining individuals that voted for the Endangered Species Act of 1973. There were only two hearings on the bill. There was no objection in the committee, and it very nearly passed unanimously on the floor. Those of us who voted for it never dreamed that some day it would be used by this Federal Government, the Government of the people, by the people, and for the people, supposedly, to control vast amounts of privately owned land, that it would be used by extremists to throw thousands of families on to the welfare roll.
The Government has said they want to improve the lot of the people, allowing this bill to be misused. And, Madam Speaker, that is what has happened to the Endangered Species Act. It is a tragedy. It is a law with good intentions, a good goal, but it has been taken to the extremes that the American people no longer support thus endangering the species and why we must improve the act.
This law has resulted in some people losing the right to use their land, their land, not your land, not the Federal Government's, but their land, because an agency, the Fish and Wildlife Service, has ordered them to use their land as a wildlife refuge. These landowners have not been compensated in any way, shape, or form, as our Bill of Rights requires. They still must pay their taxes on this federally controlled land and are singled out unfairly to bear the burden of paying for, supposedly, the public benefit. This has hurt not only the private landholder, the basis of our society, but it has also hurt the wildlife that depend on that land.
Because of the way that these Washington bureaucrats, primarily in the Fish and Wildlife agencies, have treated landowners, and particularly farmers, wildlife is no longer considered an asset by the landowners. Now the presence of wildlife is feared. A lucky few of these landowners have been able to file suit or fight the bureaucrats and extremists in court, a lucky few, those that have extremely great amounts of wealth. However, there are many people who have not been so lucky and have had to suffer the loss of their property or their livelihoods in silence without the tens of thousands of dollars needed to defend their rights in court.
Since I became chairman of the Committee on Resources, I have tried to ensure full and fair public debate on how to protect our endangered species and our threatened species while protecting the private property owner. Our committee held seven field hearings and five Washington, DC, hearings on this issue, the Endangered Species Act, and the revision of said act. We heard over 160 witnesses. Over 5,000 people attended and participated in these hearings.
Through our hearings all over the country, we gave the American people an opportunity to help us write our recommendations for repairing the Endangered Species Act. What we learned from these hearings is that American people love wildlife and have a true appreciation for our natural resources. However, the American people also love and cherish our Constitution, our way of life, and our freedom. The American people want a law that protects both wildlife and people. They want a law that is reasonable and balanced. They want a law that uses good science to list the species. Right now, today, all it takes is someone to file a petition saying they think, in fact, it is endangered, and then the Fish and Wildlife or Forest Service, Park Service, whoever it may be, will have to make a massive study even though that species may never reside there. That is how this act has been misused.
The American people are willing to make sacrifices if those sacrifices make sense and accomplish the goal of protecting truly endangered or threatened species. However, the current law on species, subspecies, and small regional subspecies, is based only on the best currently available science. That means, even though a species or subspecies may be thriving and abundant in various areas around the Nation, one small geographic population can be listed and can be used to stop the property owners from using their land in that area.
This is not America. The number of frivolous lawsuits that have been filed under the ESA have exploded. These lawsuits result in friendly settlements between the Government and extremist groups. Then the Government can use the excuse of court orders to shut down entire industries, put thousands of people out of work, and deprive landowners of their rights.
Lawyers are making millions of dollars, paid for by the taxpayers, by filing these suits, since the ESA requires judges to pay lawyers from the Federal Treasury.
{time} 1500
The result is entire communities are devastated while environmental groups get richer. Who is filing these suits? Only environmentalists are allowed to file these suits in most of the country. If a private citizen may be harmed economically and wants to file a suit to protect their own land or job, the courts have closed the door in their faces. The ESA has been identified recently by a government commission as the worst unfunded mandate on States and local governments.
The Fish and Wildlife Service and the courts are imposing exorbitant costs on species protection and on small local towns and districts which they cannot afford. These small towns either pass on these costs to their taxpayers and property owners or reduce important public safety, health, and educational services. There are other serious problems with the way the Federal Government is using the law.
Now, do I, do we, does the committee support gutting or repealing the Endangered Species Act? Absolutely not. Contrary to what you may read in the paper or is being reported by this administration, we do not believe in eliminating or gutting ESA. But the American people are not going to continue to support and pay for our efforts to protect their wildlife unless we make the ESA work for the people and the wildlife. We need to make necessary repairs in a law that has become broken.
We spend hundreds of millions of dollars in this country for the protection of our great natural resources. Our good Secretary of Interior, Bruce Babbitt, has a $6 billion budget, a $6 billion budget, to protect our natural resources, but he says that is not enough. He wants more land under Government control, more money under Government control, and more power. Let us not forget that word, power.
We want to keep a good Endangered Species Act that truly protects our wildlife and our people, but we want to give more to do these good things back to the people who can do it best, the American public.
I trust the American people to be good stewards. They have in the past and will be in the future. When Federal action is needed to protect our wildlife that migrates across State lines, to protect our parks and refuges, to protect our waters and the air we breathe, we will continue to fund the millions to do the job, but we want to do it right.
Mr. Speaker, I take this time today because we need to make the Endangered Species Act work. We can only do that if we take up this important law and repair the damage that has been done.
Mr. Speaker, may I say, before I yield time to my colleagues, there is a case in California where a gentleman in fact is taking care of a small acreage of land and protects all species around it because he wanted to do so. Now he is under threat by the Fish and Wildlife Service saying because there are certain species on the small acreage of land, that he can no longer till the land around it. In fact, he is prohibited from making a living, without compensation. They would be taking his livelihood away.
Why do you think those species are there? It is because he has protected them. He has provided them shelter. He has provided them with food and the love that takes to maintain the species. But along comes this Government and says, ``Now, we know what is best. You must not disturb their habitat.'' He was the one who protected the habitat.
He is being told by this Government that no longer has the sensibility to get out of the rain, that they know what is best for species. And he has a very serious choice to make: Is he in fact going to continue to protect those species, as he has done in the past, or will he retain his livelihood and eliminate that species? He does not want to do that.
It is time we review this act and improve this act, to make it work for the people of America, and for the species.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Utah, Mr.
[Hansen].
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Alaska yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman from Alaska. This is probably a very worthwhile piece of legislation, and I think the gentleman did the right thing in voting for it in 1973. However, that was not carved in stone. That did not come from Mount Sinai by the hand of Moses or some other great prophet. It was just done by puny little legislators who got together, and from time to time we have to make changes. Now is the perfect time to make changes in a law that we see is not working.
The gentleman from Alaska gave some very good illustrations. In another life I used to be Speaker of the House of the State of Utah. I that situation, I had to go talk to the Governor of the State every week.
I remember one day going down and talking to Governor Scott Matheson, a very fine man. He was just fuming. He was mad as could be. He said,
``I am not going to let another blankety-blank person come into this State and find an endangered species, because what do they do, they tie it up in critical habitat, in endangered habitat, and all they are trying to do is get their master's or doctorate degree on this.''
I remember also debating a law professor, Professor Jefferson from the University of Utah Law School. He made an interesting statement. He said, ``Why is it that man, the Homo sapien, has more rights than the shark?''
I said, ``Well, professor, if you would like to read the 27th chapter of Genesis, it says the Lord created all these things, and then He put man ahead of them and said he was supposed to be in charge of them all and be a good steward.''
The professor said, ``That just is myth and folklore in that book.''
I said, ``Take it that way if you want, professor, but that is what happened over the years. Man does have control. He is in control of these things and should be a good steward.''
We find ourselves here today talking about are we a good steward with what is here upon the Earth, and we are bound to take care of? I think it is important to know, is the Endangered Species Act working as it is currently on the books?
My constituents and I have an extensive experience with ESA. One of the most impacted areas is Washington County in the little State of Utah. There we have four fish and a desert tortoise in that area. In addition to those, there are also approximately 50 species on the candidate list, some of which under the current rules are likely to be listed in the near future.
Accordingly, Washington County has the unfortunate experience of being one of the most heavily impacted counties in the United States. It is in the best interests of everyone, including States, local government, private landowners and the Federal Government, to try and work in partnership to preserve biodiversity and recover savable species.
To this end, the good people of Washington County have undertaken a habitat conservation plan that represents over 5 years of gut-wrenching effort, including the expenditure of over $1 million by a relatively small county to get this HCP approved. Another approximately $9 million will be expended by Washington County to see the plan fully implemented.
In addition to the millions spent by the county, the Federal Government is obligated under this plan to provide approximately $200 million to justly compensate affected landowners. Notwithstanding the fact that the Federal Government has this obligation, to date not one, not one single landowner has received payment for their land that has been rendered worthless by this HCP.
Knowing that the preservation of species is a top priority for everyone, it is important to emphasize that the current ESA, as regulated and implemented by the Fish and Wildlife Service, makes it difficult, if not totally impossible, to achieve this goal. Conservation of endangered species is best accomplished in an atmosphere that promotes a healthy economy founded on the principles of respect for voluntary involvement of local communities and affected landowners.
Perhaps the biggest problem of the current act, as interpreted by the Fish and Wildlife Service, is the use of the ESA to take people's private property without compensation and in some cases to insist upon totally unreasonable mitigation that prevents a landowner from utilizing all or part of their property.
We all share the same goals of a clean environment and preservation of species, but in order to accomplish this, we must restore some balance in the ESA, and that is what the gentleman from Alaska and the gentleman from California are trying to do. In concept it is unflawed, but the actual implementation of the law has become a nightmare for hundreds of communities around the country that will only worsen unless we have the courage to amend this act.
Mr. Speaker, I would urge the Members of this body to carefully consider what we have done, the problems we have, and they all ought to look at the map that shows if everyone of these endangered species is brought forward and is listed as critical, and then endangered, the Homo sapien might as well walk out as Jefferson Fordham said, and just leave it up to other things, because there will be no room for the Homo sapien if everyone of these is implemented.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I hope the people watching and listening to this back in their offices understand that the gentleman from California and myself and the gentleman from Utah have tried to work out a solution to a very serious problem. When we passed this act, the regulatory law had come into effect. It is the regulatory law and the courts by extremist groups that have misinterpreted the law. We are trying to right this law so no longer can that occur, and keep our species and also recognize the importance of man and his right to participate on private property.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out the two gentlemen here have done an especially fine job in putting this together. All the criticism I have heard around America is in generalities. I wish these people would specifically point to the law and say this particular part is wrong or that particular part is wrong. Do not give us these generalities. Everyone can stand up and beat their chest. We want to have people tell us where we are wrong so we can discuss it. So far I have not personally had that opportunity. I wish the people of the House would take the time to look at the bill.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Alaska for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to join Chairman Young of the Resources Committee to discuss the critical need to fix the broken Endangered Species Act. The Endangered Species Act needs to be reformed because the current law harms people and the environment.
Today, the Endangered Species Act does not protect species. It violates the basic rights of hard-working, law-abiding, tax-paying Americans, the very people who ought to be empowered to protect our natural resources. While the Endangered Species Act is flawed in a number of ways, I'd like to focus on three of the most critical areas where the Endangered Species Act desperately needs to be reformed.
First, the Endangered Species Act needs to be operated in a way that respects the basic civil rights of all Americans. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides: ``Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.'' This amendment guarantees a basic civil right: that no citizen in society can be forced to shoulder public burdens which, in all fairness, the public as a whole should share.
The fifth amendment does not stop the Government from meeting important public objectives. It simply ensures that those who want certain public benefits do not obtain these benefits at the expense of particular individuals. The fifth amendment is about fairness.
Usually, this simple, common sense, rule of fairness is followed. If the Government wants to use private property for construction of a highway or to create a national park, the Government simply condemns the land and uses the private property.
The requirement that Government pay for this private property--rather than simply taking this land--has not impeded the development of our highways or national parks. To the contrary, we have the best and most impressive highways and national parks the world has ever known. The requirement that Government pay to acquire private property for use in these public endeavors simply ensures fundamental fairness.
But not all public uses are equal. When it comes to some public uses of private property, private landowners are denied compensation. Americans whose land is used to protect endangered species suffer condemnation without compensation.
One American whose fifth amendment rights have been violated by an unfair, and unconstitutional, application of the Endangered Species Act is Margaret Rector. A 74-year-old constituent, Ms. Rector purchased 15 acres in 1973 in order to plan for her retirement. Her retirement plans were destroyed when in 1990, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decided that her property might be critical habitat for the golden cheeked warbler, even though no birds were found on her property.
Ms. Rector was denied any productive uses of her private land. Today, Ms. Rector's property has lost over 97 percent of its value. Even though Ms. Rector is denied productive uses of her private property under a public law, the Government denies her just compensation.
The same rule of basic fairness that applies to Americans whose land is used for a highway or other public benefit also should apply to Margaret Rector. Americans whose land is used for protecting endangered species are not second-class citizens, and it's time that their Government stopped treating them that way. It is simply unfair, and a violation of basic civil rights, to obtain this kind of public benefit by forcing only a few Americans to should the entire cost.
It is essential that we reform the Endangered Species Act to ensure that all Americans' fifth amendment rights are respected. Government must compensate private landowners when it takes their land, or a portion of their property, for the public purpose of protecting and preserving endangered species.
Second, the Endangered Species Act must be reformed to encourage protection of endangered species. Today, it actually discourages resource conservation. Thousands of private landowners manage their lands as responsible environmental stewards. Unfortunately, in a classic example of unintended consequences of governmental action, the Federal Government's war on private property rights has actually undermined protection of endangered species, the very goal of the Endangered Species Act.
How did this happen? The Endangered Species Act imposes confiscatory regulations on private lands that contain valuable resources. It punishes ownership of vital or threatened natural resources. This discourages landowners from environmentally friendly land management practices, and deters the growth of wildlife habitat.
The story of Ben Cone is illustrative: Ben Cone is a North Carolina conservationist who carefully managed his 8,000 acres of timberland in North Carolina so as to develop natural resources and attract wildlife to his property. Mr. Cone was successful, so much so that Mr. Cone's property became the type of land that is habitat to the red cockated woodpecker. How did the Government reward Mr. Cone for his successful environmental management? It forced him to bear a $2 million loss for his hard work by prohibiting any development of a small portion of his property. His lesson: accelerate the rate of clearing the land to discourage the costly woodpecker.
The story of Mr. Cone is by no means the only evidence of the antienvironmental effects of the Endangered Species Act, as it is currently enforced. Officials at the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department contend that adding the golden-cheeked warbler and black-
capped vireo to the endangered species list has encouraged the rapid destruction of their habitat. It is my hope that the Government end its counterproductive, and unfair, reliance on heavy regulation and instead encourage private environmental stewardship.
As in so many other areas, the goal of our policies should be results, not more power and more bureaucracy in Washington, DC. Whether we're talking about welfare, Medicaid, education, or protection of endangered species, the people of Texas, California, Wyoming, or Maine understand what needs to be done to serve important public goals. They don't need unelected officials in Washington--who have never visited their land--telling them what to do.
The goal of our Endangered Species Act should be protection of species and conservation of natural resources. The difference between Secretary Babbitt's approach and the reform model that we're discussing today is not the goal: both of us want to protect species. The question is how best to accomplish this goal.
We believe that landowners have an important role to play in resource protection. We believe that our resource protection laws need to work with landowners, not against them. And we believe that the kinds of disincentives that discouraged Ben Cone from protecting species must be eliminated.
The Endangered Species Act must be reformed to accomplish its goal: protection of species. Today it actually harms species.
Third, the Endangered Species Act should be used to protect species, not as a national land use planning device. When Congress enacted the Endangered Species Act, it did not intend to grant the Federal Government an easement over much of the private lands west of the Mississippi.
From the beginning, Congress realized the need to balance species protection with the rights and needs of people. Congress enacted this law to protect the bald eagle, to avoid direct harm to species whose numbers were low or depleted so as to avoid extinction. This is a laudable, and reasonable goal.
Unfortunately, too often what starts out as a reasonable and laudable Government program does not remain that way. Government officials at the Department of Interior have interpreted this reasonable law in an overbroad and unreasonable way so as to restrict activities on private property, regardless of whether an endangered species in threatened by this activity.
The Government has used the Endangered Species Act to impose ruinous restrictions on private lands regardless of whether the endangered species is on the land, will be harmed by the proposed activity, or has ever visited the land. According to the Department of Interior, as long as the land in question is the type of habitat that the endangered species tends to use, the Endangered Species Act applies. Most recently, Secretary Babbitt has discussed expanding this habitat to cover entire ecosystems.
It's time to return the Endangered Species Act to the original intent of its authors: to prevent harm to particular species. It's time to remind Government officials that private property is privately owned, and that the families and individuals who purchased the land, not the Federal Government, have dominion over it.
The Endangered Species Act is in critical need of reform. Our reform goals must be: Protect civil rights. Encourage private stewardship. Prevent Federal land control. Adoption of these simple, commonsense reforms, each of which was intended by Congress when it enacted the Endangered Species Act, will put some balance into the Endangered Species Act and should actually help preserve the environment.
{time} 1515
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I want people to remember and visualize the lady, the widow in Texas. She purchased the land in 1973, basically as retirement, if I am not mistaken.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. That is correct.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. And the value of that land prior to the golden-
cheeked warbler supposedly was, it was valued to--do you have the value of that land?
Mr. SMITH of Texas. It was a couple hundred thousand and it depreciated in value 97 percent.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. My understanding is, it was valued close to a million dollars for her retirement and now is worth $30,000, if that, and, in fact, if it can be used at all. Again, it is my understanding, if I am not correct, you may answer this, that they had not found the golden-cheeked warbler but it was possibly the habitat for the golden-
cheeked warbler; thus they declared it an endangered area for the species; is that correct?
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, that is absolutely correct. The golden-cheeked warbler had never been seen on her property, past or present. It just might someday tend to land there. For that reason the regulations were imposed.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. It is also the fact, I think, if I am correctly informed, that they have found golden-cheeked warbler in many other different areas but because of the so-called habitat is the reason they classified it, but they never looked at the other areas to find out if there was an abundance of them there or whether in fact they could be helped in another area. They have taken this widow, this 70-year-old widow, invested the money in 1973, and taken her retirement away from her. I say that for those that are interested in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. This is your Government in action, with no science, only an agency's idea of how the act should be implemented. That is why I thank the gentleman for supporting my efforts to improve the act so that the American people can regain their faith in this Government and also protect the species. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, along the same lines with this particular lady, I had the opportunity to hear her testimony before the endangered species task force. One of the things that she brought up at that time, and I thought it was very interesting, was that this was not some pristine isolated location, that this was in the middle of an area that was zoned for industrial development.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, that is exactly correct. This is not an isolated incident. It is not the exception to the rule. This is very typically the rule where someone purchases property for investment purposes, for a retirement home in this case, and then sees the value of their lifetime savings, perhaps lifetime savings of two or three generations, wiped out just because of the Government-imposed regulation. In this case, it makes no sense and does not have any connection to actually protecting or preserving any species.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, this brings up another point in the gentleman's presentation.
Would you say that this is Government land management, Government land control, Government telling States and individuals what they have to do because the Federal Government says that is what you have to do?
Mr. SMITH of Texas. That is exactly right. I agree with the gentleman. Again, I appreciate his efforts and his leadership on this issue.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman also serves on the Committee on the Judiciary which has broad jurisdiction over constitutional issues.
Is it your understanding that there is any place for Federal land use policy in the Constitution?
Mr. SMITH of Texas. I think any Federal land policy of the kind that we are talking about, that means the way the current Endangered Species Act is being enforced, is in clear violation of the Constitution, particularly the fifth amendment. Until the Government decides to engage in some just compensation to compensate landowners for the lost value of their property, in my judgment they are in violation of the Constitution.
Mr. POMBO. So in essence what happened with your constituent in this case was you had someone who lost basically nearly all the value of her property, which she was going to use for retirement, but it could have been my property or anyone's property that lost the value of their property, based upon a decision that came out of fish and wildlife, which was, this is an industrial area, it is zoned for industrial use. It is not an isolated area. It is not a pristine habitat area. It is an industrial use that has industrial developments all around it. It borders on a major roadway, a major thoroughfare. But they were going to control any type of development on her property, not because there were endangered species on the property but because it was suitable habitat. If one wanted to live there, it could. It was suitable habitat.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Right.
Mr. POMBO. You are telling us that that is what they were basing their decision on.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. The gentleman is absolutely correct. It is not the fact that the golden-cheeked warbler had ever landed in any of the foliage on that particular piece of property. It is not that they had at any time in the past. It is just that they some day might. There is no current use of the endangered species. That to me is out of balance. That is why we need to amend the Endangered Species Act.
Furthermore, I want to say to the gentleman, he makes another good point which is to say that this type of overzealous regulation enforcement by the Federal Government can hit anybody at any time. We are not just talking about an isolated landowner that may have a large ranch or farm in a rural area. We are talking about anyone who lives anywhere close to habitat that might be considered by the Federal Government to be a critical habitat.
Mr. POMBO. As chairman of the task force, I had the opportunity to take the task force to your district to hold a hearing earlier last year. One of the good fortunes that we had while we were in your district is we had the opportunity to visit a cattle ranch, a very well-managed cattle ranch in that area, and the gentleman took us out and explained to us how he was managing it to get the highest return from the property.
One of the issues that came up when we were out there was what would happen or how cattle ranchers would respond to the listing of the golden-cheeked warbler; in fact, how they would destroy habitat so that they would not have a problem with the fish and wildlife coming in and tell them they could not run cattle or could not run goats on their property.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. I remember well that day you and I were together on that Texas ranch. When you tell someone that they may lose the right of use of their property, it does not take long for that rancher or farmer to decide they are going to clear the brush that might be that critical habitat. Why wait for the Federal Government to, in effect, take over your property. The gentleman is absolutely correct. unfortunately these regulations force individuals not to be good stewards, it forces them to perhaps take some action that actually hurts the habitat in order to try to protect themselves.
Mr. POMBO. So if the golden-checked warbler were truly an endangered species and we were truly trying to recover that species, is not the Endangered Species Act working in the exact opposite direction? Is it not giving people the perverse incentive to destroy habitat so that they do not have a problem?
Mr. SMITH of Texas. I agree with the gentleman. I do not think the Endangered Species Act is being enforced as originally intended and, quite frankly, it has gotten out of balance. The balance is too great on the side of the regulations, and they do not take, in their enforcement, enough consideration of the adverse economic impact on the real people, hard-working individuals that may have spent their lives working to cultivate the land, spent their lives investing in the land, spent their lives working from daylight to dark pouring everything they have into the land and then all of sudden they find they cannot use it in the way they intended. Clearly, the Endangered Species Act is not being enforced as it should be enforced. We need to get back to a better balance.
Mr. POMBO. So what we are faced with today is that the Endangered Species Act as it is being implemented today is not good for species, is not recovering species, is not helping out with wildlife, and at the same time it is causing severe economic and social hardship across the country?
Mr. SMITH of Texas. The gentleman is correct, absolutely correct.
general leave
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my special order?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Alaska?
There was no objection.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] newly acquired great Member of this side.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] not only for yielding time but for having this special order. It is important because I think all Americans love and appreciate the great outdoors. We appreciate the diversity of animal and plant life not only in America but on the planet. We all have an interest in preserving it and making sure that we do not lose it.
{time} 1530
When you come to areas like Alaska and Louisiana, you have a special appreciation for it, because of the land, the water, the species that inhabit them are special to us. I grew up in the bayou country of south Louisiana where we are extremely close to nature. Nature was not just something we experienced by watching the Discovery Channel. It was part of our lives every day. To see anything go extinct is nothing that is very pleasant and certainly something we all want to avoid, not simply for the esthetics of it, but for the importance of it in terms of life on this planet.
Life should be precious to all of us. The life of a species ought to be one of the things we deeply cherish and want to protect.
Mr. Speaker, the question is not whether we love the great outdoors and whether we appreciate the great outdoors. The real question is whether the great indoors is working well enough to preserve the great outdoors. The great indoors is the Interior Department, and so great indoors is where bureaucrats work night and day turning out the regulations we all have to live with that most concerns us.
Mr. Speaker, what I think we are about is asking for reforms that bring common sense and effectiveness, user friendliness, to the environmental laws, the endangered species laws, of this country, not simply because we do not like bureaucrats, but, Mr. Speaker, more importantly, because rules and regulations ought to, No. 1, make common sense, because we will understand them better, appreciate them more, and they will work better; No. 2, they ought to be user friendly. That is, the people they affect ought to be taken into the equation. They ought to be considered. Public hearings, good science behind the decisions, explanations and a chance for people to have an understanding of why this rule is important to protect a species and perhaps change the way somebody is using and enjoying their property, for example.
The rules in the end ought to be not only good common sense and user friendly, but they ought to be effective, to carry out the purposes they intend.
A good example in Louisiana right now is a thing called the black bear conservation effort going on in our State. It is a voluntary land management plan that landowners have entered into voluntary agreements with conservationists to help propagate the species of black bear that resides in Louisiana. The results have been dramatic.
Without Government intervention, without the Government coming in and declaring critical areas and coming down with all kind of rules about what you can do or not do with your property, landowners and conservationists are working cooperatively today to bring back a species, a subspecies of bear, that some said was threatened or perhaps endangered. The result is that we are getting an effective recovery.
Part of our commonsense plans to reform endangered species is to do just that, to put some good science into the equation that makes sure public hearings, that people have a chance to see and know what is going on, to make sure the regulations make common sense, that they are tested on the basis of effectiveness and cost benefit to make sure that we stress voluntary agreements first before we talk about command and control decisions out of Washington, DC, and then to test the bottom end result. Is it working? Is it recovering the species? Are we happy as a user family of American citizens who use this planet alongside the other species that inhabit this Earth? Are we happy together? Is it working out?
If we test it on that scale, the current law fails us pretty badly. If we test it on a scale of what we could accomplish, if we change the law in those respects, if we brought commonsense environmentalism to this Chamber, if we made our rules and regulations user friendly, and if we test it on the basis of how well they are recovering species, what good effect they are having, then I can guarantee you folks like the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] and the gentleman from California
[Mr. Pombo] and I would not only be happy with the results, but Americans generally, whether you call yourself an environmentalist, conservationist, or whatever else you want to call yourself, we would all be happy to know that the laws are working, that they are appreciated, and that landowners and other effective groups are partners and friends of the act rather than having made enemies of the act and, therefore, fighting its effect instead of working with it.
Mr. Speaker, it is the kind of goal we hope to achieve. I think special orders like this, where we talk about the value of changing the law and making it better, are extremely important if we are ever going to get to that point, and we get past the politics and all the demagoguery, and we talk realistically about how we can build a better environmental law for America that protects species, and does make common sense, and takes people into account, and landowners, and values of their property, into account as we go about recovering their species.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman was speaking about his bear and the cooperative effort. This is the one thing, I know, in 1973, when we voted for this act, we thought we were doing, but for some reason we have lost track of the agency, that they have decided without looking at Federal lands, which we have 835 million acres of, we find out with the species residing in those areas they do not do that unless it is multiple-use land. They will come after the individual and say, you must do this. We lose this cooperation, we lose this partnership.
Mr. Speaker, I have said all along that we must be partners in this law in order to protect the species. You cannot expect the Government to protect the species by itself. The partners who should be part of it will in fact extinguish the species because they have no other choice.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, a perfect example, this black bear deal in Louisiana. Not only was the conservation program working without any mandates from the Federal Government, not only was the black bear recovering nicely, but, believe it or not, the Department of the Interior was not happy with that. They instead came in and proposed a
$3 million critical habitat area. They were going to impose it without any public hearings. They would not tell landowners what it would do to affect the use of their property. In fact, they could not explain what the differences were going to be when they mandate this critical area.
Well, we insisted on some public hearings. We finally got a couple, and we literally brought to light the fact that the program was working without the Federal Government mandating and controlling and creating critical areas. Landowners were volunteering. The partnership, Mr. Young, was working.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Can I bring an example up that I ran into recently in the State of Florida down around Gainsville?
There was a sighting of a puma, or a mountain lion or a puma, whatever you like to call it, by farmers, and they made up their mind they were going to protect this puma if, in fact, it was. The Fish and Wildlife from the Federal Government said there is no such thing in Florida and this area. Well, they found tracks, they being the farmers, saying, all right, we know it is here. They took costs of the tracks. They named him Toby, by the way. They cast the track, took it to the Fish and Game Department, our Government in action, and they had to say, lo and behold, there is a puma. So they set out, and they finally zapped him with a tranquilizing gun, and then did a DNA on the puma and decided the puma was a western puma from New Mexico. Now how he got--
unless they are doing the Amtrak or a 747 plane.
Mr. TAUZIN. on vacation.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Or on vacation. How he got all the way to Florida, I do not know.
Remember now the farmers wanted to keep the puma. This is a Florida puma, in their minds. But Fish and Wildlife said in their minds, and in fact made an edict; they got him in a cage now, said that he is not indigenous to the area, he is a western mountain lion, or a puma, and thus they are going to transfer him via air to New Mexico because he does not belong and because they decided he did not belong there.
Now keep in mind, if I am sure how ridiculous this is under the Endangered Species Act, and in the meantime this same thing, Mr. Babbitt and the Fish and Wildlife Department saying in fact the wolves are endangered in Yellowstone Park, and in Idaho and Utah. And they go to Canada, get a foreign wolf, and tranquilize those foreign wolves, and, by the way, they killed five of them in doing so at a cost of $7 million and transferred foreign wolves down into the United States, which are not the same DNA.
Mr. TAUZIN. They were not French speaking; were they?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. They were not French speaking, saying this is perfectly all right. This is our Fish and Wildlife in a position of making absolutely outrageous decisions under this act, and that is where we have to----
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, one of the things the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo] has talked about at a number of our hearings was the fact that, overall, there are 4000 species waiting to get listed right now under the Government command and control system. Most of them are bugs. While we talk about the Endangered Species Act protecting beautiful animals, like pumas and bears and eagles, that actually the next listings, the next big round of listings, will be all kinds of insects. People's properties and values and their lives are going to be affected now dramatically because of the presence or absence of an insect anywhere near their home.
Mr. Speaker, this law is beginning to have effects that nobody calculated. If we do not somehow restore some common sense to it so that we can get more cooperative agreements in here and more good science behind some of these decisions, we are going to have some real problems in this country.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman says 3,000 are going to be bugs. Let us stress that, bugs, things that you squish if they get on you. You mean to tell me, if they decided that the red tick, the Mississippian tick that is awfully prevalent in the woods, and some places it is not because they are eradicated; if they decided that tick was--by the way, the tick carries diseases--was an endangered species, and I happened to get one of those ticks on my body as I was walking through the woods enjoying this beautiful flora and fauna, and that tick was on my body, I could not destroy it because of endangered species?
Mr. TAUZIN. You could if you wanted to pay----
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I would have to pay a $3,000 fine. Would I have to declare it with the Fish and Wildlife Department?
Mr. TAUZIN. I think you would probably find a way to hide that tick.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Got to be one of those SSS's.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield on that. He is correct in his assumption of the 4,000-4,200 candidates, species. The vast majority of those are insects that they have on the species list. That is one of the major reasons why it is so critical that the Endangered Species Act be reauthorized and reformed in doing so.
Mr. Speaker, if they were to declare the gentleman's tick an endangered species, and it would not have to be endangered across the country, just in specific regions of the country, unique species, localized species, subspecies of the major tick species, they could list that as an endangered species. Not only would you get in trouble for smashing that, on the other side of that, under the current law in the way it is being implemented, they would have to import them from other areas of the country to reintroduce them into the areas where they had become endangered in order to maintain a viable population of them.
That is the absurdity of the act in the way that it is currently being implemented.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, the biggest absurdity in my mind though, it is a fact that all of these decisions are being made without the benefit of good science. The law right now says that a listing can occur with what is called best available data, B-A-D. Bad science, whatever is available. If you only know a little bit, and that tells you it is endangered, then you have to list it under the current law. You do not need to do the research and find out whether or not, in fact, there are other populations of this animal or plant or insect somewhere else.
Mr. Speaker, we are driving, in effect, the whole body of regulations that are becoming increasingly difficult for Americans to live with on the basis of bad science. We do it without public hearings in many cases. We do not consider cost-benefit ratios. We do not consider whether the regulations we impose make common sense. We simply must impose them once that listing occurs on the basis of bad science.
Now, you cannot tell me that kind of a law makes good sense, to say that you are going to list something with bad science. Then you are going to have rules and regulations made without the benefit of public hearings and that in the end you are going to make a regulation that impacts dramatically the lives of people without ever considering the cost, without looking for the least-cost alternative, to find the best way to save that plant or animal without putting people out of work, or taking their property away from them, or putting in jail, as the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] said, smashing a bug.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is absolutely correct. Current law does not require them to use good science. If he went out and did a biological study on his black bear in Louisiana, and he wanted to print that in a scientific magazine, it would have to stand up to peer review before they would ever allow you to even print it in a scientific magazine. But it could be listed as an endangered species based on that biological data without ever being peer reviewed, without another scientist, biologist, in this entire world verifying that you----
Mr. TAUZIN. You mean a biologist could nominate a species, and on the basis of his information could get listed and impact millions of Americans?
Mr. POMBO. Absolutely, and it does have to be a biologist. It can be a college student doing their senior thesis on the disappearance.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, if I can, the gentleman has to understand one thing. We had a case in my great State of Alaska where there was a petition filed by two students from New Mexico saying that the archipelago wolf possibly could live in this forest and, by even filing the petition, 535,000 acres were put off limits for any man's activities until they can study if the archipelago wolf was, in fact, a reality.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is saying that the land was put off limits even before the listing?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Before the listing.
Mr. TAUZIN. Just because somebody--
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. No scientist, and on top of that, the Fish and Wildlife, I have to give them some credit, says there is no way that the archipelago wolf would ever be there.
{time} 1545
But Mr. Speaker, the Forest Service said we have to follow through with the studies. Consequently, the impact upon people in that community has been devastating. We have lost employment, we have put people on welfare, and still, there is no wolf and there never was a wolf and there never will be a wolf in that area, but because two people out of New Mexico filed a petition, that is why this act must be reformed.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I thought of something else that really does not make any common sense. Under the law, the way it is written today, interpreted by the Supreme Court, if I own a piece of property that may harbor some endangered species and I want to alter that property to enhance its capacity to hold that species, I cannot do it.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. You cannot do it. You cannot even develop a wetland for species that would reside in a wetland. You cannot do it.
Mr. TAUZIN. If I own a piece of property that I thought was mine and I want to enhance it for wildlife conservation, if there is an endangered species on it, I cannot even do that. The Government will not let me even enhance my property.
Mr. POMBO. Under current law, Mr. Speaker, they will not allow you to even enhance the current population of endangered species on your property.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. But they can. The Government can introduce a species, they can go to Canada and get a foreign wolf and bring it down, but you yourself cannot do it on your own property.
Mr. TAUZIN. I want you to think with me, if we were able to change the law, if we could get something past this Congress and signed by the President to bring some commonsense environmentalism to endangered species laws, and we had a situation where landowners would be encouraged to invite endangered species on their property and encouraged to enhance the conservation capabilities of their properties so these species could grow and actually enhance the population significantly, if had that kind of law in place, instead of the one that tells the landowner, ``You had better not find an endangered species on your property or we will shut you down; you had better not invite one on, because we will shut you down; you had better not even try to improve your property for species because we will shut you down,'' if we have that kind of law, which we do today, and we had the chance to build a better law that encouraged landowners to do the right thing, why would we not do that?
Mr. POMBO. If the gentleman will yield, Mr. Speaker, why we would not do it is because so many people have so invested in the current system. If we look at those that are protecting the status quo who do not want commonsense changes, it is because they would have to give up power, if you empowered people. They would have to give up money, the tens of millions of dollars a year in Federal grants that these extremists get in order to maintain the current system. They want to protect the system that is in place right now because they have a pretty good thing.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. But they do not want to protect the species. They have not protected the species.
Mr. POMBO. The species has become secondary.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. They say it is a great success. In reality, there have been no species protected. They claim the eagle. The eagle was very viable in my State. The eagle's problem was DDT. It was not the Endangered Species Act. Once we stopped using DDT, we have eagles now in the majority of the United States today, and we have an abundance of them in Alaska, so it was not the act; but they keep waving it because it was the American bird. They keep saying, ``This is what we did with this act.''
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, we talk about reversing the incentives so people have a positive incentive, a positive goal to create endangered species habitat, maintain endangered species habitat on their property, so we are using the carrot instead of the stick. People will respond to that.
The other side of this is the regulatory process. This right here represents what a developer goes through if he wants to develop a house on a piece of property. These are the steps that he has to go through just in case he has an endangered species problem. You wonder why houses cost so much money in this country. You wonder why the average working couple, the young couple my age, has such a difficult time purchasing a piece of property to follow the American dream. This is what has to happen before one shovel of dirt is turned, before one permit is issued.
Mr. TAUZIN. In fact, Mr. Speaker, not only are we not doing the right things, the law encourages landowners to do the wrong things, as the chairman of the committee pointed out.
We heard the testimony of one landowner whose father left him this beautiful property that they had develop over years, and all of a sudden, a woodpecker arrived. They discovered woodpeckers on the property they had enhanced. Now he is clear-cutting the rest of his property to avoid what he calls an infestation of an endangered species. Instead of doing the right thing, as his father had done for many years, he is clear-cutting now.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Because he had to do it.
Mr. TAUZIN. He had to do it to protect his value.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington, ``Doc'' Hastings.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for having this special order. The discussion that we have here has been, frankly, very interesting. What I would like to bring to this is the kind of a discussion from a macro standpoint. You have been talking about a micro standpoint.
When I look at reforming the Endangered Species Act, I look at bringing good science in as being very important, as the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Tauzin, has said, and also protecting private property rights. But in my area in the Northwest, I want to talk about it from a macro standpoint, because it has a huge impact beyond what we talked about.
For example, the power in the Northwest comes from falling water. About 90 percent of our power comes from water over dams. Whenever we deal with water, of course, what are we dealing with? We are dealing with fish. We have a potential listing of several species of salmon, as the chairman knows, in the Pacific Northwest, Snake River salmon, Columbia River salmon.
I can tell you from a scientific standpoint, and this is the important part, from a scientific standpoint there is little difference between the Snake River salmon or the Columbia River salmon. One kind goes up to the tributary, and the other continues on up. Yet, because of that potential listing and because, in part, of the bad science, that has been part of what is being suggested by NMFS we have drawdowns not based on science, where it simply has not worked. I think what the committee has done as part of a reform to this plan is to bring the local community, the State, the local counties, whatever the case may be, into saving those species.
We have, for example, in place in the big Columbia system an agreement that was brought about some 8 years ago by local entities, we call them the big Columbia PUD's, the public power systems that we have there, it is called the Bernita Bar agreement. What it has done is enhanced the spawning grounds on the last free-flowing stretch of the river.
This is precisely what people thought needed to be accomplished earlier on, and it was done on a local level. The way the act is written now, those sorts of things are not encouraged. What the committee has passed out, that is encouraged, so I congratulate the chairman of the committee for taking the lead on this. Hopefully, we can get something passed.
I also want to commend him for his leadership in introducing a comprehensive proposal that makes common sense reforms to the ESA. As a member of Representative Richard Pombo's House ESA Task Force, which held a series of field hearings throughout the country last year on this issue, I am quite pleased that he included so many of our recommendations in his bill, H.R. 2275.
Reforming this well-intentioned but out-of-control law has been one of my top priorities in the 104th Congress. The problem with the current version is that it does not properly balance our environmental needs with our economic realities. I strongly believe these goals are not mutually exclusive.
The Endangered Species Act is having a devastating impact on our local economy throughout the Pacific Northwest. Whether it be loggers, farmers, water users, or any other hard working man or woman dependent on our natural resources, the ESA is in desperate need of reform.
My own area of central Washington is certainly no stranger to the existing problems of the ESA. As the location of many large dams and irrigation districts along the Columbia and Snake Rivers that generate power and provide water for our farmers, we have been faced in recent years with an ESA mandated National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS] Plan to protect several species of salmon that will bring the total cost for salmon protection for our region to $500 million. Since 1982, our region has already spent $1.5 billion for salmon restoration. If we do not reform the ESA soon, the Pacific Northwest is likely to spend close to $1 billion annually on salmon recovery alone by the turn of the 21st century.
The NMFS proposal recommends depleting the storage reservoirs on the Columbia/Snake mainstem by 13 to 16 million acre feet [MAF]. Up to 90 percent of the total storage capacity will be used for flow augmentation at the annual cost of $200 to $300 million.
Worst of all, the best and most current science on this subject developed at the University of Washington indicates that in-river survival is better than previously expected, in the 90 percent survival range. That information, when included in current modeling, such as the University of Washington's CRiSP, Columbia River Salmon Passage Model, report indicates that reservoir depletion beyond some 5 million acre-
feet will not increase survival.
Clearly, the science upon which NMFS is basing its recommendations is highly suspect. However, NMFS seems to have ignored this evidence and concluded that only dam operations are the problem. The point is we are about to enter into a process that will further restrict the economic opportunities of thousands of hard working men and women in our area with little or no scientific evidence that this plan will enhance or even protect existing salmon populations.
There are many factors behind the recent decline in salmon runs including the increase in ocean temperatures off the coast of Oregon and Washington, better known as El Nino. This increase in temperatures off our coasts has even caused declines in salmon runs and populations in rivers and streams where no dams exist. At the same time, as I understand it, salmon runs in Chairman Young's home State of Alaska remain much stronger due in part to significantly lower ocean temperatures.
Let me be clear, my constituents and I are committed to protecting our precious salmon resource in the Northwest. However, we must do so in a common sense way that assures that these runs are protected for future generations to enjoy at minimal cost to our rural communities that depend on our dams for their economic survival.
One of the problems with the current law is that it mandates that all listed species be restored to original numbers. In some cases, this is a worthy and realistic goal. However, in other instances, this is counterproductive to the goal of species recovery.
For example, in my area of the country, there is the Snake River Sockeye salmon run that we are spending tens of millions of dollars in an attempt to restore to original numbers. Almost everyone admits that it is virtually impossible to completely recover this run.
However, under the current ESA, we are being forced to do just that when we could be spending this money more wisely on improving salmon runs that are genetically indistinguishable from the Snake River Sockeye but have a far better chance of complete recovery.
Under H.R. 2275, the ESA is amended so that salmon runs like the Snake River Sockeye are protected. At the same time, the bill gives greater consideration to enhancing healthier runs that have a better chance of full recovery. This change in the law will lead to a much larger and healthier salmon supply for our entire region.
When one considers the ESA's current problems with the fact that only a handful of species nationwide have fully recovered to the point where they could be removed from the list since the act was first enacted in 1973, it is quite evident that the current law is neither protecting species nor families that depend on our natural resources for their livelihoods.
One of the major reasons for the act's failure to fully recover species is the set of perverse incentives that it encourages. The current law punishes people for protecting habitant on their property and rewards those who develop their land with no consideration for wildlife. These perverse incentives were mentioned over and over again by witnesses at our task force field hearings. That is why I am delighted that Chairman Young has included a number of our recommended reforms in his bill.
First and foremost among our task force's concerns was the issue of compensation. H.R. 2275 encourages property owners to cooperate with the Federal Government in our efforts to protect species by compensating them when restrictions imposed by the ESA diminish their property's value by 20 percent or more.
This much needed reform will not only encourage greater cooperation between the public and private sectors in protecting species but will also force the Federal Government to prioritize our limited financial resources on species that are most in need of recovery. Rather than scattering our current resources on fully recovering all species, as the current act calls for, H.R. 2275 will lead to more recoveries and many more ESA success stories.
Equally important, our bill also encourages stronger science by requiring that current factual information be peer reviewed. In addition, the bill makes all data used in the decision process open to the public.
Mr. Chairman, I have barely scratched the surface in my limited time here this afternoon of all the improvements H.R. 2275 makes to the Endangered Species Act. Our task force continues to work hard in support of passing H.R. 2275 which addresses so many of our people's concerns.
I am pleased that Chairman Young and Congressman Pombo have taken the lead on this legislation and look forward to continuing to work together on reforming this act so that it will better protect species and communities had hit by the current law.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his support and information. He brings up a very valid point. If we had listened to the localities, the States, and the communities, we could have solved the problem on the river. I would suggest another thing, though, as long as the gentleman brought it up, because I brought it up myself about importing the Canadian wolves down to reintroduce wolves.
I have also suggested we can rebuild the Columbia River fishery by the enhancement with Alaskan stock. The answer I get from NMFS and the Fish and Wildlife: ``We cannot do it because they are not indigenous to the area. They are not part of the stream.'' To them I say, ``I thought you wanted to bring the fish back. We can help you do that.'' They say,
``We cannot do it.''
But it is all right for them to bring the wolves down, against everybody's wishes and beliefs, and they are Canadians; because our fish come from Alaska, a State of the United States, they are saying,
``They are not part of the system.'' It is the mindset that we are dealing with today that is not working.
Under our bill, we will bring the people in and it will be part of the State, part of the community, and we will solve the problems and bring the species back. I am very excited about that concept, and I hope those that might be listening to this program will think about what we are trying to do, not gut it, not repeal it, but to improve upon it. That is what our bill does. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. One last thing I would mention, if I may, Mr. Speaker. That is that we had a meeting of some local people from our State, talking about the need to amend this act.
One local farmer made a very profound statement. I think it is indicative of probably all of us across the West that have private property, where the treat would come by having an endangered species found on our private property. This particular farmer said, ``If I saw a potential endangered species walk across my property, my first reaction would be to shoot it and kill it and not tell anybody.''
Mr. HASTINGS of Alaska. They belong to the ``Three S Club,'' ``Shoot, shut up, and shovel.''
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. That is right. If we look at what the intention of the act was 23 years ago, and you voted for it because the intention was good, that action by this farmer would do nothing at all to enhance the species. It is counter to what we are trying to do. Why? Because of the heavyhanded administration coming from the Federal Government, because that is what this act says should be done. So it needs to be reformed, it needs to be reformed to bring the local people involved in this sort of stuff, but more important, common sense, and let us protect private property rights, because after all, that is a constitutional requirement.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, for decades the liberals in Congress have distorted the original intent of the Endangered Species Act to further their extreme agendas. In November, the voters cried foul and asked Republicans to restore rationality to our environmental laws.
Our reform proposal stops the radical environmentalists in their tracks. They will no longer ride roughshod over our property rights. Instead, Republicans will protect our natural resources as well as our freedoms.
In its current form, the Endangered Species Act creates perverse incentives for landowners to destroy habitat which could attract endangered species. Once these animals migrate there, landowners lose their property rights to the snails, birds or rats who happen to move in. In essence, the ESA, as currently written discourages the very practices which will ultimately protect endangered species habitats. Instead, we need to ask landowners to participate in preserving our natural resources. Property owners are not villains. Everyone wants to preserve our resources.
In addition, Federal bureaucratic administration and enforcement of the Endangered Species Act is tantamount to Federal zoning of local property. State and local officials have no say in how the ESA is implemented and enforced in their States and communities. State and local officials need to have greater control. They know what is best for their communities.
In my district I can give you several recent examples of government violating the rights of private property owners. One hundred twenty-one acres of the most beautiful property in Dana Point valued at over $1.5 million an acre was devalued because of the discovery of 30 pocket mice, an animal on the endangered species list. Years of planning for the use of this land had to be abandoned. The owner even offered to set aside four acres of his land just for the mice, about $150,000 per mouse, but the government said that was not enough.
In another instance, a property owner had a multimillion dollar piece of property in escrow when the city declared it as wetlands. He was then offered $1 an acre for this useless ``wetland''. This is a travesty.
Mr. Speaker, Congress passed the Endangered Species Act more than 20 years ago. Originally intended to protect animals, this act hurts humans. It is time to give human needs at least as much consideration as those of birds, fish, insects, and rodents. The time has come for a change. Private, voluntary, incentive-driven environmental protection is the only effective and fair answer to this controversial law.
____________________
