Statement of Senator Jon S. Corzine
Committee on Environment and Public Works
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Water
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for holding this hearing
on one of our most important environmental laws, the Endangered Species
Act.
Mr. Chairman, extinction is occurring at alarming
rates worldwide. The World Conservation
Union estimates that current global extinction rates are between 1,000 and
10,000 times higher than the normal background extinction rate. And extinction rates are increasing rather
than decreasing.
Here in the U.S., we
are doing better than many places, but we still have a pressing problem. More than 1,200 species are listed as
threatened or endangered under the ESA, more than 200 species are awaiting
listing decisions, and some scientific experts believe that as many as 3,000
U.S. species may require protection under the ESA.
These are daunting statistics.
For me, they put into focus the reasons why we need to continue to work
to protect our natural heritage.
From an ecological standpoint, there is still much we
do not know about how our planet works and what is important to keeping it
healthy. Aldo Leopold, in his seminal
environmental work, A Sand County Almanac, observed that “the first rule
of an intelligent tinkerer is to keep all of the pieces.” Mr. Chairman, we are losing pieces here and
abroad, and we do not understand the consequences.
From an economic standpoint, I observe that less than scientists have
studied less than one percent of the world’s species extensively. The potential of these unstudied species to
provide medicines, food, and other benefits to humankind is vast, unknown and
untapped.
Finally, I believe we owe it to our grandchildren and their grandchildren
to hand them down a world rich in the biological diversity that we have
inherited. A planet poorer in wildlife
is a planet diminished, and we owe it to our heirs to preserve what we can.
So, for all these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the goals of
the Endangered Species Act and want to look for ways to strengthen it and make
it more effective.
Today’s hearing will focus on the listing and delisting processes under
the Act, and I want to make several comments about these processes.
First, some will suggest that the listing process is not based on sound
science. I disagree. If you look at the history of the listing
process, less than one percent of species that have been listed or proposed for
listing have been withdrawn because they their listing was backed by incomplete
data. That is an extremely low error
rate, and does not suggest a systematic problem with the role of science in the
listing process. I think that one
reason for this is that peer-review is built into the listing process, which
ensures that independent scientists review the information that the government
relies on.
Second, I have heard the suggestion that the listing process is
secretive. That the data behind the
listings are not available. This is
simply not the case. The administrative
record for a listing includes all relevant data, how the data supports listing,
and the comments of the peer reviewers.
All of this information is available to anyone who wants to see it.
Finally, I want to address ESA funding.
Simply put, ESA has suffered from chronic underfunding. The listing program is no exception. Unfortunately, the President’s budget does
not remedy this problem. Rather than
limiting the ability of citizens to participate in the ESA process, as the
budget proposes, we should provide the Fish and Wildlife Service and National
Marine Fisheries Service with the resources they need to do the job right.
With that, I conclude my remarks, and look forward to the testimony of
our witnesses.