Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY ACT OF 2005 -- (Extensions of Remarks - October 06, 2005)

The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union had under consideration the bill. (H.R. 3824) to amend and reauthorize the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to provide greater results conserving and recovering listed species, and for other purposes:

* Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the so-called ``Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act,'' (TESRA). The sponsors of TESRA claim that they want to ``reform'' the ESA because it's not helping enough threatened and endangered species recover. In reality, it is aimed at weakening, dismantling, and rendering unenforceable the Endangered Species Act, ESA.

* The original Endangered Species Act was a bipartisan effort to protect our natural heritage. Yet today, as we consider how to update and modernize that legislation, we are presented not with a truly bipartisan bill, but a massive special interest giveaway that guts ESA despite a thirty year track record of success. A vote for the passage of TESRA is a vote to abdicate responsible environmental policy and to create a new form of corporate welfare.

* Since the enactment of the Endangered Species Act in 1973, tens of millions of acres of land in the United States have been managed for conservation purposes. As a result, of the 1800 species protected under ESA, we have lost only 9 to extinction. That's a 99 percent success rate on extinction prevention.

* TESRA's most fundamental change abandons the basic priority of the Endangered Species Act: the commitment to species recovery. The overarching goal of ESA is to bring species back from the brink of extinction to the point where they no longer need to be given special protection. TESRA alters that mission by effectively negating the goal of species recovery. TESRA specifically eliminates the requirement that the Federal Government attempt to restore species to healthy population levels.

* Furthermore, under TESRA any species recovery plan the government might conceive would be non-binding. Had ESA had these guidelines in place since 1973, the recovery of many species, including the peregrine falcon and the American alligator, would have been almost inconceivable. In the case of the alligator, recovery was so successful that we are now even able to implement controlled farming of the restored population.

* There are two areas of the bill which I found particularly problematic and sought to address through amendments. My first amendment would strike language from TESRA that would turn back the clock on the scientific determination of an endangered species. My second amendment would strike language from TESRA that creates a very dangerous precedent: setting up a system where the government pays people for obeying the law.

* Rather than offer these separately on the floor, I am pleased to see their substance included in the bipartisan Miller-Boehlert substitute that we will be considering today.

* The use of science is of special importance in the implementation of the species protection program. Rather than using the best available science for species protection, TESRA explicitly prohibits the government from using advanced, modern scientific tools like statistical modeling that we have at our disposal today and that assist us in the implementation of ESA.

* By taking away these cutting edge tools, TESRA would make it exceedingly difficult to make determinations on the status of any species whose populations are small, isolated, and scattered. The result will be a weakened and limited scientific process in decisions made under the act, more obstacles and less protection. The substitute bill restores ESA's original approach to science, which is to use the best science available to help save and recover endangered species.

* My second proposed amendment addresses a trouble area in TESRA introducing a requirement that the Federal Government actually pay developers and polluters to comply with the law. This provision would have serious and widespread implications: it sets a dangerous precedent in environmental protection. This amounts to a new entitlement program that would result in a windfall for land developers and speculators--at the expense of the taxpayers and the species we seek to protect under ESA.

* This provision of TESRA is part of a broader movement to treat all environmental regulation as a form of ``property taking'' that requires government compensation. It is a novel legal theory that would strike at the heart of virtually every piece of environmental regulation ever passed. The proposal under TESRA is particularly ripe for abuse because it sets no cap or limitations. Under TESRA, someone could purchase cheap land, announce an intention to develop on it, and then demand a check from the government compensating them for the much higher value of the developed property, all without ever even intending to break ground. The same developer could conceivably come back an unlimited number of times for an unlimited number of ``projects''. My amendment, the substance of which is mirrored in the Miller-Boehlert substitute, strikes this payment scheme entirely.

* I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the TESRA roll back of the Endangered Species Act and to support the bipartisan Miller-Boehlert substitute to preserve and strengthen one of the most successful pieces of environmental legislation in 30 years.

http://thomas.loc.gov