>STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

(Senate - December 15, 2005)

   By Mr. CRAPO (for himself, Mrs. LINCOLN, Mr. THOMAS, and Mr. ALLARD):

   S. 2110. A bill to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to enhance the role of States in the recovery of endangered species and threatened species, to implement a species conservation recovery system, to establish certain recovery programs, to provide Federal financial assistance and a system of incentives to promote the recovery of species, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.

   Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Collaboration for the Recovery of the Endangered Species Act, or CRESA. Over the years, this body and the Nation as a whole have fiercely debated the merits of the Endangered Species Act. But there is one fundamental concept on which we all agree--saving endangered species is essential.

   We have 30 years of experience with the laws that govern species management. We know the original intent. We have witnessed the strengths of the Act and its capability and commitment to save species from extinction. We know about the endless litigation. We have seen disappointingly few species recover. We have lost farms and valuable ranch land, putting families out of business. Ironically, the biggest losers are the very species we are attempting to recover.

   However, we have also seen amazing things happen in Idaho, in Arkansas, Wyoming and in California to name just a few. We have seen landowners, conservationists, local, state and Federal agencies come together, figure out a workable plan and set about to do the business of recovering species. These plans are tried and true--they work, and they need to have the strength of the law behind them.

   Some ask why the Endangered Species Act needs to be improved. The answer is short--we must apply lessons learned, the most important one being that collaboration works. Collabortion allows the process to move forward. By its very nature, litigation sets one group against another--making them rivals, not partners. Too often we work against each other, rather than with and for each other. We need to encourage what works in order to create the results we all want.

   The next logical step and what is needed now is a way to facilitate the ESA in its methods of promoting ongoing species recovery--something that requires collaboration by all--from the marble halls of Federal agencies here in Washington to rangeland in rural Idaho and forests of Arkansas. So, too, in every other state. This is not just a Western problem; the. entire country is searching for effective ways to accomplish the goals of the ESA. The good news is that many of these valuable partnerships are in place, functioning very effectively all across our country.

   Take one example from my home State of Idaho, that of sage grouse recovery. Landowners and conservation groups came together to establish strong conservation programs that respected landowners' rights and satisfied environmental concerns. This collaborative, cooperative effort, utilizing the wisdom of those who live and work on the land, the expertise of specialists and those with knowledge of government rules and regulations, has been a magnificently successful alternative to the perils and dead end road of litigation.

   Collaboration means more voices. More voices mean more solutions. More solutions mean more options. More options create the best solutions and also bring ownership by all members of the group. Applying this method to species recovery and the ESA means that more people will become involved and concerned about recovering species, especially those who bear the direct burden of compliance with the law. More voices bleans greater innovation in the field of species recovery. Collaboration decreases conflict, and conflict, as we in this body know all too well, usually puts us nowhere.

   Collaboration works. Our bill codifies these proven solutions to protect them from the dead-end often found in litigation.

   Why do we need to make a change? It is time to build on lessons learned with regard to species recovery, and our bill will put these lessons into concrete, effective action.

   CRESA accomplishes the goal of species recovery by building on the successes of the ESA and by applying valuable lessons learned over the past 3 decades.

   It promotes species restoration and recovery by rewarding landowners for their recovery efforts. Private property rights are guaranteed to us by our laws. Cost burdens can be onerous, and landowners should be rewarded for recovery efforts under the Endangered Species Act.

   Laws must first positively reinforce public values and penalize only as a last resort. We have had it backward for many years and littered in the wake of this travesty are lost family farms and ranches. The old adage about the danger of burning bridges is relevant here: much of the action driven by existing ESA rules and regulations burns bridges--bridges that left intact could bring species across the chasm of extinction to recovery.

   CRESA also promotes flexibility. One lesson learned in the course of creating and implementing the successful species management partnerships that I have mentioned today is that it is vital to work at the point of recovery--on the ground, as we tend to say. Working at the point of recovery realizes the benefits of fine-tuning individual solutions to meet specific challenges, but with the greater and broader goal of species recovery. This is flexibility and it cannot be achieved 2,500 miles from where a species needs restoration. It is on the ground that our resources should be applied.

   CRESA promotes a freedom of process which encourages flexibility. I cannot emphasize how many times I have spoken with Idaho farmers and ranchers who tell me that, ``that solution might work in the halls of Congress--it doesn't work here on my land.'' It is ludicrous to believe that one-size-fits-all in the arena of species recovery. No two species, topography, environment or human natural resource use are the same, not even in the same county. There are multiple considerations that must be addressed in a cooperative, collaborative manner in order to achieve any kind of effectiveness.

   Private property rights are not the enemy of conservation. Rather, the law can encourage landowners to involve themselves in the process. Landowners have a great deal of respect for species. Many of them are the first ones to tell you about the bear they caught sight of in the dim light of evening or the early morning grazing of deer in their fields. If landowners, especially ranchers and farmers, didn't like animals, they likely wouldn't do what they do. It doesn't make sense.

   In the same way, environmentalists don't hate people. They, too, live on land somewhere, and many use the products that large landowners produce for our country: meat, wood, leather, and mining products, to name a few. Put in that perspective, it is obvious that working against one another is futile and counterproductive for people and species. We have innovative solutions that work for both species and people, and we need laws that facilitate this critical flexibility.

   It is time to come together, sit down at the table and get down to the real matter at hand. We have to, in the words of a good friend who knows this issue well, ``concentrate on problem-solving rather than ideologies.'' While there are great ideological divides on this issue, the ideas for how to solve conservation challenges are not polarized. There is a consensus that there are conservation solutions that can benefit people and species.

   We have a tremendous responsibility with regard to our valuable natural resources. Growing up and living in Idaho, I cannot fully convey to those who have never seen it the absolute wonder of my State's wildlife and land. It is farfetched to imagine that I or anyone else who lives and works this breathtaking setting would want to destroy it. Clearly, this is not just an Idaho issue. There are endangered species and wonderful lands in all 50 States and landowners nationwide are instrumental to solving the challenge of species recovery and restoration.

   The Collaboration for the Recovery of Endangered Species Act facilitates this tried and true method of species recovery--species recovery not just for today or next week or next year, but for our children and grandchildren. I look forward to this bipartisan, progressive approach to species recovery and encourage all of my colleagues to give very careful consideration to this important legislation that we are introducing today.

   I yield the floor.

   Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I join with my friend from Idaho as a cosponsor to this bill on endangered species. He and I and others have worked on this for a good long time. Both of us have been on the Committee on Environment and Public Works. We are no longer there, but we started working there. We certainly are excited about the opportunity to bring to the floor some ideas that would deal with this whole notion of endangered species.

   As the Senator has mentioned, all of us support the idea of continuing to have a program to protect endangered species. That concept is a good one. All of us support that. What we are talking about is a program that would be modernized and reorganized to be able to do that in a more efficient way.

   We have good evidence that the program as it is, is not working. In a very simple way, what we have had is nearly 1,500 species listed. We have had less than a dozen delisted or put back where we want them. The emphasis has been on the listing, the emphasis has been on lawsuits, and the emphasis has been on disagreements. We should do what we can do to bring together the people who are interested. Whether they are environmentalists, whether they are landowners, whether they are naturalists, whatever, we all have the notion that we want to continue to make this program work, and we believe we have some ways to make it work better.

   As was mentioned, the law is about 30 years old, so it is time to be updated. I agree with the Senator from Oklahoma, we need to review programs as time goes by. What we have learned as they have been in operation is we can make them much more effective.

   There are two things that concern me. One is that there needs to be a substantial amount and a necessary amount of scientific data and science required for the listing. We have had some experience in Wyoming with having species listed, and it turns out they were not endangered at all. They were not identified properly and, therefore, we went through all of this debate and all of this discussion only to discover that they were not, in fact, endangered species. So we need to have more science and get into what is necessary to identify an animal or a plant as an endangered species.

   Second, the other challenge is to have a plan for recovery, to have a plan for getting cooperation between the landowners and the users and all the people who are interested in a way to lead us to recovery.

   One of our latest experiences in Wyoming and in the western part of the country where we are has been with grizzly bears. Grizzly bears were listed, nearly 20 years ago, as endangered species. The numbers that were set forth in the plan for recovery were reached 15 years ago, and we are just now in the process of actually having the recovery and the delisting take place. So we have really lost sight of the goals of recovering species.

   This is bipartisan language. We will have supporters from both sides of the aisle, and there is also an Endangered Species Revision Act that passed in the House. So we will have an opportunity when this is passed to come together with the House program to put together something that will be amenable and acceptable to both the House and Senate. It is bipartisan legislation, as indeed it should be.

   I am sure we will have hearings, as we should, because there is a lot of interest in this issue. As the Senator pointed out, you have them on the east coast and you have them on the west coast and the situations are different. This bipartisan language would require recovery goals to be published at the time the species is listed. So there is a plan, and we do not go through this endless proposition. It would make it easier to delist them as soon as recovery goals are met, and that should be the purpose of the program.

   It increases the State's role. This is very important. Many on the side of animals as opposed to plants, you have Fish and Wildlife Service, you have Park Service, you have Forest Service, you have State game and fish, you have State land agencies, so there needs to be a good deal of cooperation.

   There also, of course, needs to be involvement with landowners who are impacted and affected by the plan for listing and the existence of those critters. So that needs to be there.

   We need to provide incentives for working together. Much of this can be done without a lot of rules and regulations. The sage grouse was mentioned. There is a good deal of progress being made there in the private sector with groups coming together. We can do that.

   I will not take any more time. I look forward to working with my colleagues. It is going to be in the Finance Committee. We hope we can have hearings soon and get this bill on the floor, work with the House, and be able to have a successful program put into place so we can continue to protect endangered species.