OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing today on the Endangered Species Act. I am very pleased we're getting on with the serious business of reauthorizing this important law. I'm a strong supporter of endangered species and environmental protection, because I believe that leaving this Earth in better shape than we found it is one of our most important responsibilities. I also believe that we cannot have long-term economic growth without a healthy environment. As I always say, if you can't breathe, you can't work. But protecting endangered species is more than just a policy issue for me. It is a spiritual and a moral one. Mr. Chairman, how can we decide that a species does not deserve to share this planet with us, when we are all God's creatures? I believe that turning our backs on nature is immoral, and I believe it is foolish. But we all acknowledge that there are problems in implementing this law, and I believe it is time to make the Endangered Species Act work smarter and more efficiently for all Americans. We need to surgically improve the Act, not dismember it or gut it. Since 1988, when the ESA was last reauthorized, we have learned a great deal from the emerging science of conservation biology about the ecology of species and the ecosystems on which they all depend. We have developed new and creative land conservation tools. We need to incorporate these new tools and knowledge into the ESA to improve its efficiency. One reason that we've had some problems in implementing the Act is that the program has never been adequately funded. With the budget constraints we now face, and with the priorities of the new majority in Congress, I am under no illusions that we will have more money for this Act. But I believe these budget limitations require that we develop greater creativity and vision in solving our Nation's biodiversity crisis. I believe that early prevention through better regional planning is the solution. When problems are tackled early, there's more gain with less pain. We must encourage local and regional land use plans that accommodate economic development in the least environmentally sensitive areas, and conserve the natural ecosystems on which all life depends. The key to making this approach successful is to get everyone involved, so that they understand the problem and participate in the solution. Mr. Chairman, this approach has worked beautifully in California. We have some very wonderful models to go by. I believe that our land and our people have always been this Nation's greatest assets. To solve our endangered species problem, we must bring our people and our land together. History has shown that when we bring our people and our land together, we can achieve greatness. When we are polarized and divided, we invite disaster. I recently received a copy of this report, "Saving America's Wildlife, Renewing the Endangered Species Act," by the Defenders of Wildlife. On the cover you see one of the magnificent successes of this Act. Now, what's important is, not all the endangered species are as beautiful as the American bald eagle. Matter of fact, I've heard many of the species being laughed at, why are we saving this rat, that shrimp. Yes, they're not all as beautiful as this American bald eagle. But without them, this American bald eagle might not survive. And so down the chain, without the natural environment, some day we may not survive. So the Endangered Species Act is not only about little creatures, it's about some big creatures, human beings. I hope we won't lose sight of that as we work together to improve the Act. I certainly hope that we will work together, Mr. Chairman, because I'm dedicated to making the Endangered Species Act work. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Senator KEMPTHORNE. Senator Boxer, thank you for your comments. Now, the Senator from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be part of this discussion on the Endangered Species Act. This Act, I believe, helps detail not only the past, the history, the present, but certainly the future for ourselves and our families, frankly, I think ultimately for the human race. I commend you, Mr. Chairman, this is a good way to begin the comprehensive review of this issue, which goes to the heart of our relationship to other living organisms that share the Earth with us. The way we define that relationship will determine the degree to which we accept the Biblical injunction to be the stewards of our dominion. Like many environmental laws, the Endangered Species Act is under attack here in Congress. But before we move to change the law, we need to understand what moved the public and the Congress to pass it over 20 years ago, and reaffirm it many times since then. The Endangered Species Act was a bold attempt to halt the dangerous disappearance of an increasing number of species. The Act does more than preserve species, it protects people by conserving the biological resources upon which we depend. Some of that dependence is difficult to define. It exists in terms of the interdependence of all life and the sanctity of ecosystems. But some of the consequences of conserving species are clear. Some are so obvious, they save lives in the form of developments of medicines. They provide jobs in the case of the fishing industries and others. The healthy ecosystems promote economic development, such as tourism, recreation, generally. The Act enables us to take proactive steps that address threats to species before their decline is irreversible. We need to save endangered species before key components of our ecosystem are relegated to the walls of natural history museums. We have a moral responsibility to make sure that doesn't happen. The Act is due for reauthorization, and that's why we're here today. Once again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for opening the discussion on the Endangered Species Act. What we've seen is the Act being trivialized by statements on the floor, by trying to end its being by casual amendments to irrelevant legislation. While we need to hear from those on the extremes of the issues, and understand why they subscribe to these positions, we need to also find a common ground. Now, we all know that the Act is not perfect and the controversy surrounding the Act tells us that we need to reform it. We've all heard the horror stories of innocent landowners who have been wronged for one reason or another. However, we also need to recognize that many of these problems stem from the failure to fairly administer the Act, rather than the faults of the Act itself. The refusal to implement the Act has created the train wrecks that are now legendary, such as the Snail Darter or the northwest spotted owl controversies. The Act contains the flexibility to resolve many problems if administered creatively. Witness the recent reforms initiated by the Department of Interior. Those reforms were initiated because there was some common ground on how to solve some of the problems attributed to the Endangered Species Act. Our goal during these hearings should be to listen and learn from our panelists, as well as the public's reaction, to these hearings, and seek additional common ground. I hope that the common ground that we arrive at includes six basic ideas. First, we need to preserve the intent and the spirit of the Act as originally written and amended over the past 20 years. We need to protect disappearing species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Second, the Act itself and the methods developed to implement it must be based on sound science. Third, the focus should be on those initiatives that obviate the need for listings. That's what we need to engage thusly in a little preventive medicine. Fourth, to minimize conflict, we need to involve the stakeholders earlier in the process and provide more certainty for local and State communities and for landowners. Fifth, we ought to provide creative incentives to encourage landowners to kind of do the right thing by helping protect species. Sixth, we must insure that the program has adequate resources to carry out its mission. The Senator from California made the comment about how tough it's going to be. But we have to decide on how necessary the endangered species is to our lives currently and in the future. We've got to explore all the ideas and others to see where we agree and where we disagree. One thing is clear, however. We cannot legislate by emotion and anecdote. We ought to put the stories aside and get down to business. I am eager to begin. I look forward to this hearing and other hearings. While theoretical discussion is important, I also look forward to hearings on specific legislative language so we can study the details of the proposal to see if it meets our expectations. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator KEMPTHORNE. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg. I would like to place the statement of Senator Lieberman in the record at this point. [The statement of Senator Lieberman follows:] STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Thank you Mr. Chairman for this chance to express my support for a strong reauthorization for the Endangered Species Act. This hearing is timely considering re cent events: Just 2 weeks ago the Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Government's interpretation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) with respect to habitat protection on private lands. Days before, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) released a congressionally directed, 4-year study that endorsed the scientific soundness of the ESA and provided guidance for improvements to the Act. We are also debating regulatory reform on the Senate floor as we speak. One thing that seems clear to me is that Americans do not want environmental safeguards reduced or eliminated, but do want better ways of achieving them. I am looking forward to a good set of hearings on the ESA to elaborate on what we can do to achieve this. I am particularly heartened by the Supreme Court's affirmation of Congress' intent to protect habitat under the ESA. I regard it as common sense that protection of food, water and shelter is as essential to species protection as avoidance of death from injury or predators. Long before the ESA was enacted naturalists, wildlife scientists and resource managers in this country recognized habitat as a key limiting factor for wildlife. I think we all agree that balancing private and public values related to habitat protection can be a complex issue at times, certainly the courts have found this. But, I believe we should focus on the future of the Act now with this clarification behind us, and learn how to more effectively and expeditiously solve critical habitat needs. I hope we can focus on cooperative, win-win approaches to habitat protection that honor the intent of this Act. The NAS report provides this committee a strong framework for improvements to the ESA. It was a long time in coming-4 years but worth the wait. We should take advantage of the accumulated thinking and consensus this provides on the use of science for endangered species protection. In my view, any changes to the ESA should be based on, and consistent with, good science as defined by NAS and other respected groups. Toward this end, the NAS provides several useful findings, including: • a strong affirmation of the scientific basis for habitat protection and its importance to long-term survival of species; ⚫ the conclusion that the ESA is only one policy tool needed to assure long term survival of endangered species, and that supplementary policy and legislative approaches are necessary; ⚫ the finding that Federal agencies have done a good job of basing species listing decisions on good science; ⚫ the finding that Federal agencies need to improve the scientific basis and timing of Recovery Plans; this is an especially important point, since it seems to be the root of many concerns voiced about the Act; ⚫ the importance of giving priority status to “umbrella” species that serve as indicators for larger plant and animal communities. In addition to the NAS report, Interior Secretary Babbitt has provided a useful framework for improvements to the Act with the ten point plan released earlier this year. This plan includes administrative flexibility and quality control actions, including: stronger peer review of listings; a safe harbor policy for landowners creating new habitat; speedy habitat conservation plans and negotiated regional habitat protection approaches; greater State and local involvement in recovery planning. I believe that the combination of recommendations and actions by the administration and the NAS can go a long way toward improving the Act and resolving its problems. I think it is essential for us to work with the Administration and independent scientists throughout our hearings and legislative debate. The Secretary's recent announcement, from a nest site atop a New York skyscraper, that the recovery of the American Peregrine Falcon population is imminent comes at an important time. It symbolizes the great success of this Act. These birds narrowly escaped extinction due to conservation efforts and are very close to meeting scientifically determined recovery goals for long-term survival. It is truly something we can all be proud of. Can you imagine a more integrated and innovative approach to recovery of the peregrine than the combination of pesticides control, captive breeding and artificial nest site programs in such remote wilderness areas as Manhattan! The recovery of the Peregrine is also instructive because it relied in large part on legislation other than the ESA. The banning of pesticides that thinned egg shells was done through environmental laws other than ESA that are now coordinated with ESA through the section 7 consultation process. Pesticide laws prevented reproductive damage to adult birds, but that wasn't enough to engineer a recovery. Captive breeding and rearing programs were needed. The ESA Recovery process provided a long-term recovery program that involved active propagation and population management by wildlife biologists from a variety of institutions. Many birds other than the Peregrine were able to recover under tighter Federal pesticides laws, including the American Bald Eagle and Brown Pelican, both of which have made amazing recoveries. Many other species have recovered due to laws other than ESA that provide habitat protection. The Colombian Sharp-Tailed Grouse of Idaho was a candidate for listing as threatened under the ESA prior to the creation of the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) of the Farm Bill. According to the Wildlife Management Institute, this bird has recovered to the point that it no longer needs to be listed under ESA because of very successful CRP enrollments in Idaho. The Wildlife Management Institute suggests that many other declining species could benefit from the CRP, and help needy landowners in the process. The Wetlands Reserve Program of the Farm Bill may hold similar potential; an estimated one-third of all endangered species reside on wetlands. Other species depend on protection from Federal laws including: the Clean Water Act, Marine Mammals Protection Act, National Forest Management Act and others. If these Federal programs are downgraded by this Congress they may have serious negative impacts on our ability to protect habitat. We should be mindful of these complications. As we enter this series of hearings I think we should remember that the need to prevent species decline and habitat loss is growing, not declining. At the National Wildlife Visitor's Center at Patuxent National Wildlife Refuge in Beltsville, MD, there is an exhibit room called "Global Concerns" that provides displays and some real-time ticker tape meters that include: • world population growth—which increases by 175 per minute and 90 million per year; • loss of global rain forest-lost at 100 acres a minute, gone totally in 55 years at that rate, home to most of the world's plant species; • global warming changes estimated to increase between three and nine degrees, and sea levels from two to six feet, by the year 2050; • global ocean pollution-34 billion tons of contaminants are dumped in our oceans per year, home to over 250,000 plants and animals; ⚫ loss of U.S. wetlands-home to an estimated one-third of threatened and endangered species in this Nation, about 1000 acres are lost per day, and more than half have already been lost; • loss of fertile U.S. topsoil-at the rate of 24 billion tons per year, one third of the world's topsoil is already gone; • global loss of plant and animal species-plants are lost at 100 per day; at current rates half of the plant and animal species alive today will be gone in 55 years, a far greater rate than ever before in the fossil record; some scientists estimate that 10,000 species may be lost due to human causes by the year 2000. These numbers are truly staggering. They change so rapidly before your eyes that they are numbing. If you blink, you miss the passage of a large part of creation. In the 7 days it took to make creation, a huge chunk of it disappears. We can't turn these meters off and make the underlying problems go away. Nor can we eliminate them altogether. But we must recognize that they are interconnected, like our lives, our laws, our lands, our governments, our economic systems, our resources, and our cultures. As we proceed with reauthorization of the ESA I hope that our end result will significantly slow down one of the meters at this center. Otherwise our efforts are for naught. RESPONSES BY STUART L. PIMM TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS BY SENATOR LIEBERMAN Question 1. Senator Kempthorne recently gave me a copy of Mark Fuller's book Noah's Choice. I note that you are footnoted (page 76), along with Dr. Robert Askins of Connecticut College from New London, regarding the "species area curve" that is used sometimes to predict species extinction. Mr. Fuller is concerned that this method of predicting extinctions has its limitations that have not been recognized in its use. He concludes, ". . . . we need much more detailed knowledge about what's on the ground before we can construct a sensible biodiversity policy." Answer. The species-area curve is derived from both theory and abundant observation. It provides a mathematical formula to tell us how many species will go extinct following the destruction of so much habitat. Dr. Askins and I applied the result to show that the destruction of forests in the eastern USA should not-and in |