Endangered Species Improvements Act of 2005

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin).

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

No, Mr. Chairman. It is not in there.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves).

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order under the rule.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the manager's amendment makes a number of technical changes to clarify certain provisions and address issues concerning science, the definition of ``jeopardy,'' consolidation of ESA-related programs, and review of protective regulations. It allows actions authorized under an approved section 10 permit to be carried out without duplicative consultation. It prevents water stakeholders from being held accountable for impacts due to State actions. It requires the four Power Marketing Administrations to include ESA costs in their monthly billing statements. It directs the Secretary of the Interior to survey certain Federal lands to assess their value for a report back to Congress. It clarifies conflicting statutes to make ESA the governing statutory authority when receiving a dock-building permit.

That is the short version of what is included in the manager's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I look forward to the gentleman's opposition to the highway bill and any new purchases of land, to the wildlife refuge system, to the park system, or any other thing that we spend money on, because he sees it as a big giveaway, a big government giveaway system.

Again, what the underlying bill does is if you step in and take habitat from a private property owner and you tell them that you restrict them and you tell them they cannot use part of their property, then we set up a system of incentives and grants.

But, if in the end, the Secretary says your property is necessary for the recovery of an endangered species, therefore you cannot use it, we compensate them for that and we pay them for it. If we build a highway across somebody's property, even though that may increase the value of the rest of the property, we pay them for it. If we take part of their property for a wildlife refuge, even though that may increase the value of the rest of their property, we pay them for it. But, if we take their property for endangered species habitat, we tell them, you are out of luck.

Now I have guys coming down here saying, this is a big, new giveaway system, that we are going to give away things to people. No. This is a big takeaway. You are taking away from them. You have been doing it for 30 years. Now it is time to pay for it. You are taking land away from people. Every little small farmer, rancher across the country, every homeowner across the country who has had their property taken away from them should

be compensated for it. You are taking away their land. There is nothing wrong with that.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this provision was not in the Contract With America. Nobody seems to be constrained by the truth here. This is a brand-new way of dealing with compensating property owners whose land is taken. CBO scored this at $10 million. This is a brand-new way of dealing with a very real problem and assuring some kind of protection to my property owners and your property owners.

Mr. Chairman, it was just a couple of weeks ago that the Supreme Court came out with a decision where this Congress stood up and said, you cannot use eminent domain to take away private property, to take someone's house away from them and give it to another individual. And all of you ran down on the floor and said you were all in support of that.

We are going to stop the government from being able to use eminent to take away somebody's house and give it to somebody else. But, under that provision, you have to pay them for their house. Under current law, you do not have to pay when you steal somebody's property for declared habitat at this time. You guys are all fine with that. Is that because we are talking about farmers and ranchers? Is that why you do not want to pay them? But when we are talking about somebody's house, all of a sudden you want to pay them? I mean, you guys have no consistency in this whatsoever.

I believe if you take away somebody's private property, you should have to pay them for it, and that is what we are trying to do in this underlying bill. I know that some of my colleagues are just philosophically opposed to that, and God love you. But the fact of the matter is, if you take away somebody's private property, you ought to have to pay for it.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is not what the Constitution says. The Constitution says, nor shall private property be taken for a public use without just compensation. That is what it says. It does not say the government can step in and take 90 percent of your value and then it is okay; it does not say they can take away 30 percent of your value and that is okay.

Is the gentleman going to oppose the highway bill because we compensate people when we take their land away for a highway, even though we do not take 100 percent of the use? Why is it okay in that instance, but it is not okay when it comes to protecting habitat?

You guys talk big about wanting to protect habitat and protect species, but 90 percent of the habitat for endangered species is on private property. The only way you are going to recover species is if you bring in the property owners and have them be part of the solution. You are stopping that from happening right now under current law and in the substitute. You are wrong on this one.

We have to pay when you take away somebody's private property. That is what we have to do. That is what is in the underlying bill. I am sorry if you have a philosophical problem with paying for what you are taking.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman how much time remains?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to say, this is another area where you guys are just not consistent. One of you comes down and beats us up because we are spending too much money about this massive increase in spending under this bill. Somebody else comes down and says, you do not fully fund endangered species under this bill. Either we spend too much or we do not spend enough. You cannot have it both ways. Either we spend too much or we do not spend enough, but you cannot keep coming down here and trying to make both arguments.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Chairman, I say to my friend from West Virginia, I appreciate all the work that he and his staff put into this bill. This was an important thing for us to go through, and I think that we produced a good bill at the end of that.

I know that there are issues in the underlying bill that we disagree on, and we probably always will. I will tell the gentleman, as we continue to work forward, I will continue to work with the gentleman as this bill moves through the process, continue to work with the gentleman and try to work out whatever differences that still exist under the bill.

The gentleman from West Virginia operated under good faith with me, I believe I did the same thing with the gentleman throughout this entire process, and I pledge to the gentleman that we will continue to work together to produce the best possible bipartisan bill we can to deliver to the President's desk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown).

(Mr. BROWN of South Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly), a member of the Committee on Resources.

(Mr. GALLEGLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza), co-author of the underlying bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Well, George, we have come a long ways. We have come a long ways, because, as you know, I have been working on this since I got here, and when I first started, all I heard was there is nothing wrong with the act that a little bit more money would not solve. Here we are today, everybody saying that there is problems with the law and we have to fix it. So we have come a long ways, and I am being attacked for spending more money under the act on the reauthorization.

First of all, I wanted to respond to your comments on jeopardy. We stay with current law. That is what is in the bill, is current law. We stay with current law. We had a different definition in the bill originally, and that caused the administration to say that it would result in new litigation, so we said we will stay with current law; and that eviscerates the act, staying with current law that they have so dutifully defended.

I have heard here today that the underlying bill guts, eviscerates, euthanizes, is unreasonable, and then I get a handout that talks about how much the substitute is like the base bill. When it comes to critical habitat, both bills use identical language. When it comes to providing certainty for landowners, both bills contain identical language. When it comes to providing incentives for landowners, both bills contain identical language, and on and on and on, about how much alike the bills are; and yet they gut, eviscerate, euthanize, and they are unreasonable.

The gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) I think is right about this: The real difference between the two bills is how private property rights is protected.

The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and I spent months debating the meaning of a word, and we finally came pretty close to getting a bill put together. The substitute represents, I think, a step back in the negotiations in that everything that you wanted that you did not get, you put in the substitute; change the words a little bit so that they really do not mean anything. There is no protection for private property owners. I remember 10 years ago, I introduced a bill on endangered species, and one of the major provisions in that bill was to utilize public lands, and I got ripped over it because 90 percent of the species have their habitat on private land. You cannot just put the focus on public lands. You cannot. But if it is going to work, if we are truly going to put the focus on recovery, if we are truly going to try to bring these species back from the brink and do the responsible thing, private property owners have to be part of the solution.

We hear a lot of horror stories about things that have happened in my district and Mr. Cardoza's district and Mr. Costa's district and Mr. Baca's district, in your district, Mr. Miller.

If you do not do something to protect the property owners, those stories are never going to stop. The act has been a failure in recovering species. Now we can all agree.

When it comes to protecting private property owners, regardless of what all the hot rhetoric is, what the underlying law says is that if you meet State and local zoning laws, if you go through the process of getting that approval, then you have something. If you are a farmer farming your land and they tell you that you cannot farm your land anymore, you can get compensated for agriculture land.

If you are a developer who has gone through the process, gotten your land zoned and they tell you you cannot use it, then that is what you get compensated for. But once land has that restriction on it, whoever buys it cannot come back again and say they want something else, because they know it is restricted.

So this argument is totally out of line and off base. We protect private property owners. That is what leads to recovery. The substitute just does not.

Vote against the substitute, support the base bill, and let us move on with some decent legislation.

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to correct a couple of things. First of all, this is mandatory spending we are talking about. Secondly, we do not allow the taxpayer protection in this bill that is allowed in highway cases. That is important to distinguish between the two.

Mr. Chairman, we are all in agreement. There is broad and justifiable consensus that the act is overdue for reform, but reforming the law should not be a euphemism for gutting the law, and that is exactly what the bill would do.

The list of areas of disagreement are very strong, but I would also point out that we in the substitute bill embrace many of the provisions in the base bill because they need to be addressed in a responsible way and, in many cases, we take the exact language. But section 13 is totally unacceptable. That is the big controversy; opening up an open- ended entitlement, putting the taxpayers at great risk.

I urge opposition to the base bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill. I have no quarrel with the stated purpose of the bill--to reform the Endangered Species Act. Chairman Pombo is correct, there is broad and justifiable consensus that the Act is overdue for reform.

But ``reforming'' the law should not be a euphemism for ``gutting'' the law, and that's what this bill would do. I urge my colleagues to look beyond the descriptions of the bill and to examine the bill itself.

The most advertised feature of the bill is that it gets rid of the current ``critical habitat'' provisions of the law and replaces the habitat requirements with flexible, comprehensive, science-based ``recovery plans.'' Sounds pretty good. And it would be pretty good if that were a full description of what the bill did. But what the sponsors have obscured is that, under the bill, the recovery plans are utterly unenforceable. No one ever has to abide by them. Not only that, the plans will be written through a process that guarantees delay, but does not guarantee that the best science will be used.

So is there a way to get rid of the current ``critical habitat'' burdens and to use recovery plans without weakening the law? Of course there is. And our Bipartisan Substitute shows how. We eliminate all the provisions of current law that require critical habitat designations just as in H.R. 3824, but we make recovery plans enforceable and we ensure that they have strong scientific basis. That's how you get real reform while still protecting real species.

It's not impossible to balance the need for reform with the need to protect species. But instead, we have a bill before us that is balanced in its rhetoric, but not in its effect.

The bill weakens just about every feature of law designed to protect species--for example, the review of federal actions to make sure they do not unduly harm species.

Now I am not trying to suggest that H.R. 3824 is all bad news. In fact, many of its provisions--the incentives for landowners to protect species, the public information requirements, the requirements to better involve the states--are largely improvements to the law. That's why our Substitute includes all those provisions, often in language identical to that in H.R. 3824. So we commend the Resources Committee for so many of the bill's provisions and we embrace them.

But there is one provision of H.R. 3824 that our Substitute does not include at all. And that's Section 13, which creates an open-ended entitlement that will open the federal treasury to provide mandatory payments to developers. This is a bad idea on philosophical and legal grounds, but this is an especially bad time to expose taxpayers to such a burden.

We don't have to endanger taxpayers in order to reform the Endangered Species Act. We don't have to make it easier for species to become extinct to reform the Endangered Species Act. All we need to do to reform the Act is to make sure that common sense isn't trumped by ideology.

I urge my colleagues of defeat H.R. 3824, which just waves the banner of reform to distract attention from its actual content. Vote instead for real reform. Vote for the Bipartisan Substitute.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the substitute. I want to thank all of our co-sponsors for their support, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Johnson), and the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).

That is a pretty good sampling of Congressional centrists because there is a moderate, targeted solution. Our substitute truly reforms the Endangered Species Act without endangering any species or the American taxpayer. And that is where it differs from H.R. 3824.

But before I describe the differences, I want to emphasize the similarities. Both the bill and the substitute eliminate the current requirements for setting aside critical habitat and rely instead on recovery plans to save endangered and threatened species. They are identical. Both the bill and the substitute offer new financial incentives and legal protections to landowners to save species. Both the bill and the substitute require greater involvement of States in decisionmaking involving species. Both the bill and the substitute ensure that the public will have greater information about and a greater role in the decisionmaking.

In fact, while it is hard to quantify, I would guess about 80 to 90 percent of the language in the substitute is identical to the base bill. That is because we developed the substitute by reading through the base bill, once we could seize a copy, and by incorporating into our substitute every word of H.R. 3824 that we possibly could.

What we could not accept was language weakening the Act by, for example, making recovery plans unenforceable, sit on a shelf, gather dust or making it too easy for the Federal Government to take actions that would harm species. And most of all what we could not accept was the new mandatory spending required by this bill which would open the federal purse to developers while eliminating basic taxpayer protections.

I laid out my specific concerns for that provision during the general debate. I urge support for the substitute and opposition to H.R. 3824 as presented.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), a valued member from the Committee on Resources.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), an informed and valued member of the Committee on Resources.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This all boils down to a principal difference. There are a number of differences, but a principal difference. The substitute does not have the controversial section 13 in it; the base bill does.

Here is something that could actually happen under section 13. A developer could buy a parcel of land knowing that part of it could not be used because of the presence of endangered species. The developer then could request permission to build, say, a hotel on the property without doing much more than outlining the proposal on the back of an envelope. The developer would not even have to try to get necessary State permits or local zoning variances before submitting a claim.

When the Federal Government says that the hotel could not be built, that developer could get a payment from the government based upon what his appraiser said it was worth without providing much evidence that the project was realistic or serious. Then the developer could propose to build a landfill on the same site and go through the same process again and get money from the government again. Then the developer could propose to build a store on the same site and get money from the government again because the store could not be built.

In the meantime, the developer could proceed with the same project on other portions of the property, make substantial profits on his property, and never have that affect the steady stream of payments coming from the government from what was always known to be a problematic site.

This is no exaggeration, and it shows how right the provision is for abuse. The bill puts the taxpayers at risk. That is why the same concerns that we have expressed to our colleagues on the floor today have been expressed by the administration in the Statement of Administration Policy, which is otherwise supportive of the bill, in part because of the provisions that we also have in our substitute. The Statement of Administration Policy warns: ``The new conservation aid program for private property owners provides little discretion to Federal agencies and could result in a significant budgetary impact . . . The bill would affect direct spending. To sustain the economy's expansion, it is critical to exercise responsible restraint over Federal spending.'' We want to help exercise responsible restraint by eliminating section 13.

Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt about it. The Endangered Species Act has to be revisited. That is the responsible thing to do. The Committee on Resources has put a lot of hard work into and has come up with a product that, in many respects, is just wonderful, necessary. That is why we embrace the product. But section 13 is absolutely, totally unacceptable for a whole lot of very good reasons, and it is unacceptable to the taxpayers of America because, boy, does this impose a burden on them.

I urge support for the substitute. It is responsible. It is bipartisan. It is thoughtful. It eliminates section 13. It provides more opportunity for good science. It emphasizes the need of small property owners, and we want to help them.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, Psalms 104, verses 25, 30: ``In wisdom You made them all, the earth is full of Your creatures. There is the sea, vast and spacious, teeming with creatures beyond number, living things both large and small . . . When You send Your spirit, they are created and You renew the earth.''

Such is the appropriate Biblical quote, I say to my colleagues, that should guide our deliberations today on this particular legislation.

Species keep people alive. In the earlier comment, I stated that there are numerous Members of this body, perhaps to the person, who could tell of horror stories involved with the administration of the current Endangered Species Act. And while some of those stories are probably valid and have their good points, the current regime, as I also previously stated, has not been working. It has not been working because it has not been adequately funded nor administered by the current administration. Funding is a problem. Funding perhaps would have solved many of these horror stories to which Members of this body refer.

But this particular legislation, as we have heard throughout the debate on this general debate and we will hear more during the amendment process, is an expensive proposition. If we could not fund the regime that exists today that implements the ESA, how, I ask, are we going to fund an even more expensive regime that is set up by the pending legislation? A compensation program to property owners that truly is going to cause us to go further into deficit spending. The legislation would increase direct spending by requiring the Secretary of the Interior to pay aid to private landowners who are prohibited from using their property under certain circumstances. That means money, I say to my colleagues. That means appropriations from this body's Committee on Appropriations, at a time when we are finding tremendous costs being imposed upon the taxpayers that was unexpected 2 or 3 months ago.

At a time when we are already cutting Bureau of Reclamation projects, western water projects, Indian programs, our national parks. Indeed, there are some in this administration that would sell our national parks and other public lands in order to address our ever-mounting deficit. This legislation will only exacerbate our deficit problems.

And as I have said and referred to in earlier responses, why should we care about critters? Those who criticize this Act refer to the supporters of the Act as being more concerned about critters than human beings. I will tell them why we should be concerned about critters, why we should care about the Endangered Species Act.

Nowhere should that care be more evident than in the world of medicine. Anytime we allow a species to go extinct, we lose enormous potential to understand and improve our world. Nearly 50 percent of all our medical prescriptions, for example, dispensed annually in our country, are derived from nature or modified to mimic natural substances. Yet we have only investigated about 2 percent of the more than 250,000 known plant species for their possible medical breakthroughs. The extinction of a single species may mean the loss of the next effective treatment for cancer, for AIDS, or for heart disease. Mold fungus led to the development of Penicillin over 50 years ago. Mold fungus, it has saved countless lives in recent generations, and it continues to do so every day. Morphine and codeine, both made from poppy plants, are among the most widely used medications in the world today. Venoms from snakes have led to important medications, including an important drug to control blood pressure.

Even insects have their value in medicine. We now know that the genes that turn out to form a heart in a fruit fly are actually the same genes that form hearts in higher animals and people.

Again, quoting from the Bible, from Ecclesiastes: ``Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath.''

Mr. Chairman, at the appropriate time, I will be speaking on the manager's amendment and I will also be speaking in support of the substitute amendment that will be offered. As I said in my opening comments, I introduced these negotiations in good faith with the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), my chairman, because I thought there was not adequate funding to enforce the current endangered species law, and those negotiations were conducted in good faith, and we came quite close, and he will say probably that 90 percent of the current bill is a bill upon which I agree.

But at the same time, in the manager's amendment that will be coming up, there were changes made in literally the last minute that came very close to violating the good-faith negotiations that were ongoing on this legislation. I will speak to that at the proper time.

But I will say at this point that this legislation needs to be defeated, the substitute that will be offered needs to be supported, and we need to look very seriously at how we can enforce better the endangered species laws on the books today rather than the overhaul that exists in the pending legislation, and I urge defeat of the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the manager's amendment makes significant changes in the bill as it was reported from the Committee on Resources. These changes are likely to result in more species extinctions at greater loss of taxpayer dollars.

The pending legislation will increase direct spending in the discretionary funding law, which we will get into in general debate, and it could rise to more than $600 million a year, $235 million more per year than we are spending today for species conservation, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Let me make one point perfectly clear here: the manager's amendment is not something I agreed to in my discussions with the gentleman from California (Chairman Pombo). To say that I agree with 90 percent of this bill is not an accurate description, or is an unfair way to paint the matter.

One of the points that we had reached agreement on was that there was to be a recovery-based standard of determining when Federal agency actions jeopardize the continued existence of a species. The manager's amendment drops this crucial provision. It cripples it.

While I was willing to eliminate critical habitat, it was only on the condition that we ensure that there were adequate provisions in place to encourage recovery. Without this definition, the bill will not promote recovery. We will likely see more endangered and threatened species. It is upon that ground that I oppose this manager's amendment, as well as the loosened compensation standards put in order by the manager's amendment.

It eliminates the bill's requirement that appraisals determining the market value of foregone use of property are binding on both the Secretary and the property owner. Instead, the appraisal is binding only on the Secretary, and the property owner may then go to court to seek additional compensation. That makes the current pending legislation worse, and it will increase the cost of this entitlement program to property owners and it will increase that cost to the American taxpayer.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close?

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I say to my chairman, I appreciate his concluding comments there and, as I have said all along, we have negotiated in good faith, and I do want to continue that relationship that we have. Maybe we can still work on this bill together; I hope we can. But we will see as the process goes forward.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).

(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the substitute amendment. It will significantly improve the species recovery which is an important part of our negotiating process that led us up to this bill on the floor today.

It will assist landowners in their efforts to conserve species. The substitute will also include a statutory definition of jeopardy that will ensure that Federal agency actions do not diminish recovery. That is a very important part of giving up the critical habitat designation, that we have an improved consultation process and an improved definition of what constitutes jeopardy.

Mr. Chairman, I urge strong support of this bipartisan substitute and, again, opposition to the underlying bill.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, when you do take, meaning you have no value left, then you have just compensation, was the Supreme Court decision.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the underlying amendment, because in the middle of the night, the manager's amendment removed the NOAA fisheries provision in the Interior.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3824, the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act, as it is currently drafted.

Mr. Chairman, once again California leads the Nation: This time it is for the number of listings for threatened and endangered species. California has more than twice the species listed as any other State.

My home on the Central Coast in the 17th district has more habitat where both endangered plants and animals have lived with commercial farming and ranching. The same climate that produces over three billion dollars annually in agriculture farm gate also is home to the tar plant in Santa Cruz and the California condor in Big Sur.

Another example is the Big Sur area of California where you can find redwoods from

northern California growing next to the yucca of southern California.

I recognize the need for some ``tune-ups'' in the ESA, unfortunately, H.R. 3824 takes a meat axe approach when what we need is a scalpel.

The Endangered Species Act is one of America's most important and successful environmental laws. As one of the pillars of environmental law, it has brought public attention to the impact of human activities on our Nation's wildlife that contributes so much beauty and delight to life as well as growing economic development in environmental tourism.

But it also goes beyond that to declare the preservation of such species as the American bald eagle and the California condor, that glide on the thermals along the Big Sur coastline, a national priority.

While opponents of the law complain that it has restored healthy populations of only 16 of the more than 1,800 species on its endangered list, dozens of other species have dramatically increased their populations because of the law's protection.

Without the ESA these species could easily have succumbed to extinction as corporations and developers decided the fate of their habitats.

That's no small accomplishment. What's more, only nine endangered plants and animals have been lost. We cannot forget that robust biodiversity is absolutely necessary to a healthy human environment.

Ninety-eight percent of the species protected under the Endangered Species Act are still alive today, and many are stable or improving. Without the Endangered Species Act, wildlife such as the bald eagle, American alligator, California condor, Florida panther and many other animals that are part of America's natural heritage could have disappeared from the planet years ago. The Endangered Species Act works because it safeguards the places where endangered animals and plants live.

With the recent discovery of the once thought to be extinct Ivory- billed woodpecker in Arkansas and the Mount Diablo Buckwheat in California, I think this is an opportune moment to highlight the success of many of our conservation efforts. For example, in my home State of California, I am especially proud of the conservation and management efforts that have helped significantly restore populations of California condor, the Southern sea otter, the winter run Chinook salmon, the Least Bell's Vireo songbird, the California Brown Pelican, and the California gray whale.

Mr. Chairman, it is fitting that Congress is moving to reauthorize ESA on Sea Otter Awareness Week since the sea otters are a success story in my district. While the Southern Sea Otter still has a long way to go before being delisted, the increased numbers of sea otters along my district shoreline have greatly contributed to our tourism economy. Studies show sea otters draw tourists to my district where they spend money on lodging, restaurants and other merchandise.

The dramatic turnaround realized by the once thought extinct Southern sea otter is a result of two critical protection laws--the ESA and the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Southern sea otter population grew from less than 100 otters in the 1930's to the present total of 2,800. Scientists maintain that it will take 3,100 otters to make a population stable enough to even consider removing them from the Endangered Species list and many threats remain. As reauthorization of the ESA moves forward this week in the House, I will fight to keep it strong enough to successfully overcome these threats to the Southern sea otter.

Despite success stories, like this we need to be aware that more needs to be done. At this time, more than 1,000 species in the U.S. and abroad, are designated as ``at risk'' for extinction. One small step is to increase awareness about the seriousness of the circumstances facing many of these endangered species and educating the public about these species.

I know the ESA has it's problems and the proponents of this legislation have brought many of those cases to light today.

Any law that has been on the books for as long as the Endangered Species Act will have issues--Some of these issues deal with inadequate funding, and some with the law itself.

I agree we need to tweak and update the current law, to make changes, but we do not need to completely rewrite this critical protection legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I want to use the rest of my time to discuss a specific provision to move the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's ESA responsibilities to the Department of Interior.

This is an awful idea, and it should have been vetted within the Resources committee before being brought to the floor.

As you know, many of our constituents across the country care deeply about, whales, salmon, and sea turtles. Taking ESA responsibilities away from the experts at NOAA, will put these animals at further risk.

Giving jurisdiction of the ocean animals, whose survival is most at risk, to an agency without ocean expertise is ludicrous. Taking ESA responsibilities from NOAA will split jurisdiction on marine animals, creating a management nightmare and further fracturing our marine management.

For example, Pacific salmon will be a management nightmare. Fish in one river that arrive in spring will be managed by the Department of Commerce, while fish that arrive in that same river during fall will be managed by the Department of Interior. To make things more complicated, who will manage these fish when they are all mixed together in the ocean? Will the fishermen have to choose from two sets of fishing regulations, one from the Department of Commerce and the other from the Department of Interior?

As the Pew and US Commissions on Ocean Policy recommended, we need to consolidate our ocean management under one roof, Specifically the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the Department of Commerce, to be effective. Further splitting our ocean management is only going to create more problems.

Mr. Chairman, let's not send the message that this Congress is more interested in private property development than in the common good of America the beautiful, from sea to shining sea.

The action this House takes today is a step in the long process to reauthorizing the Endangered Species Act. I urge my colleagues not to take the meat axe approach but to support the bipartisan Miller/ Boehlert substitute.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I thank him for his extraordinary leadership on behalf of the American people in terms of the air they breathe, the water they drink, in protecting God's beautiful gift to us, this beautiful legacy that we have in our environment, and I commend the ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), for his leadership as well. He has been a champion as well in this area.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this legislation which would critically undermine protections for our Nation's endangered species. I support the bipartisan substitute that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) is putting forth with the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), and commend them for this good proposal because it provides common sense proposals to strengthen the Endangered Species Act, and yet give a common sense enforcement to it.

I rise as House Democratic leader, of course, in support of the substitute, but I also rise as a mother and as a grandmother; mother of five and grandmother of five. My husband always says I just like to know how long into a speech it is before you start talking about your grandchildren. But we teach our grandchildren, and I did teach my children when they were little, that everything in nature is connected and that there is a reason, a balance to it all, this beautiful web of life that is nature. Today's bill of course in this debate points out what value we place on that.

With the passage of the first Endangered Species law in 1966 and the modern Endangered Species Act in 1973, Congress made a commitment to future generations of Americans, at that time that would be our children, my grandchildren. We made a commitment to maintain the web of life and preserve the myriad species that form an essential part of our natural heritage. We must keep that commitment for the sake of our children and our grandchildren.

The Endangered Species Act is a safety net for wildlife, fish and plants that are on the brink of extinction. When other environmental laws have not provided enough protection, the Endangered Species Act is there to give endangered species one last chance to survive. Of the 1,800 species protected by the law, only nine species have been declared extinct. An impressive achievement.

Earlier in the debate, I heard the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) speaking, and I see he is still in the Chamber, and I thank him for his very enlightening presentation about how many species have been saved during the life of this law. That was very inspiring and encouraging. The safety net saved our majestic national symbol, the bald eagle, and the peregrine falcon. It saved the Florida manatee, the grizzly bear, the southern sea otter, sea turtles, and many other animals and plants, all important in the balance of nature.

On the floor of the House, week after week, month after month, the Republican leadership pushes through legislation shredding the safety net for children, for veterans, for the elderly, for the poor, for the sick and the disabled, so it comes as no surprise today that they bring a bill that will shred the safety net for the endangered plants and animals. This is really unfortunate, because, again, it all relates to the balance of nature.

We find these words from the psalms: ``How many are your works, O Lord! In wisdom you made them all; the earth is full of your creatures. There is the sea, vast and spacious, teeming with creatures beyond number, living things both large and small.'' In wisdom God has made them all ``living both things both large and small,'' and in wisdom we should preserve and protect them.

We have yet to learn the roles that many creatures play in the web of life, and we are yet to discover the practical effects many species may bring to humankind. One example in California is the Pacific forest yew. Once considered virtually useless, a trash tree, became extremely valuable as the source for the anti-cancer drug Taxol. Many of us have dear friends or family members whose chances of survival have been increased by the use of Taxol.

The bill we consider today is loaded with provisions that will make it harder to preserve endangered species. It undermines sound science by directing the Secretary of the Interior, a political appointee, to issue regulations

locking in a static definition of specific acceptable scientific data. It repeals all protections from pesticides, it drops the requirement for other Federal agencies to consult with wildlife experts at the Fish and Wildlife Service or the fisheries experts at the National Marine Fisheries Service. It establishes an extraordinarily new entitlement program for developers and speculators that requires taxpayers to pay them unlimited amounts of money, and the list goes on and on.

Reasonable people agree that there are ways to improve the Endangered Species Act. Many people who care very, very much about the environment, about the balance of nature, about the web of life have concerns about the enforcement. I think that is why it is important for Congress to be very clear what our intent is, so that intention of Congress and that clarity of our voices here will give guidance to those who enforce the law so that is the implementation and the execution of it is not in a way that is so risk averse as to be counterproductive.

We can do better than the current law, but it is hard to do worse than the legislation being proposed by the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo). That is why my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), joined by a group of Members and also the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), taking the lead on the Republican side, have developed a substitute to this bill that gives landowners assistance and incentives to protect endangered species, strengthens the science behind the Endangered Species Act, and requires improved coordination with the States.

I urge my colleagues to strengthen the Endangered Species Act by voting for a bipartisan substitute and opposing the underlying bill, and in doing so, to truly, as Members of Congress, show our children that we mean it when we say that we all know that everything in nature is connected and it is important to maintain the balance, the web of life.

In Isaiah in the Old Testament, we are told that to minister to the needs of God's creation, and that includes our beautiful environment, is an act of worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us.

Let us minister to the needs of God's creation. Let us support the substitute and oppose the underlying bill.