Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY ACT OF 2005 -- (House of Representatives - September 29, 2005)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong opposition to the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005. Despite the deceptive title of this bill, it is a measure designed to weaken the protections secured under the landmark Endangered Species Act (ESA).

While scientists are uncertain about the exact rate of extinction, they estimate that it is probably thousands of times greater than the rate prior to human civilization. In 1973 Congress enacted the ESA to address this problem of species extinction. The ESA is a comprehensive legal measure that is used to identify and protect species that are determined to be the most at risk. Under this law, once a species is designated as either ``endangered'' or ``threatened,'' powerful legal tools are available to aid in the recovery of the species and to protect its habitat. Without these strong federal protections hundreds of species including the bald eagle, grizzly bear, Florida panther, and the manatee would all be extinct.

The bill we are debating today is flawed in many ways, but I am particularly concerned with its removal of habitat protection from the Endangered Species Act. Habitat destruction, degradation, and fragmentation is the most significant cause of species extinction. This legislation blatantly ignores the integral role habitat plays in the survival of a species by eliminating the designation of ``critical habitat.'' Without this special designation, our government's ability to recover species will be severely undermined.

It is disconcerting that some of my colleagues do not value saving our unique natural treasures, but it is appalling that they refuse to acknowledge that the Endangered Species Act is about much more than saving a unique species. It is undeniable that the world in which we live is an intricately connected environment that is suffering from human abuse and neglect. The loss of a species interrupts the life cycle of the ecosystem it was part of and alters our environment in ways far beyond this isolated event. The Endangered Species Act is a vital tool in preventing and reversing these life cycle disruptions before they ripple out and cause further damage to our natural communities.

We all agree that this law should be revisited and improvements to the law should be implemented. I understand the concerns of my colleagues that this law has been abused at the detriment of their constituents' rights. However, I believe there are ways to balance the needs of development and property rights with the need to protect the health of the environment which we all share. Instead of working towards a true compromise, we are considering legislation that is based on the fallacious premise that environmental protection requires a trade-off with private interests. It takes a very short-sighted, short term view of our world and our economy. It ignores the long term damage catering to these private interests will have on our future.

The Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005 severely hampers the effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act. I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation that will result in far reaching and detrimental impacts.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov