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. GRAVES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time to speak on an issue that is very important to me and my constituents.
The Endangered Species Act plays a prominent role in my State of Missouri with over 25 endangered and threatened species located within the borders and nine in my district.
Mr. Chairman, the ESA is broken and needs to be fixed. Over the last 30 years, less than 1 percent of all listed species have been removed, and most of them have been removed because of poor data. I thought the intent of the ESA was to recover species and not leave them on the list indefinitely. Also, landowners seem to be getting cheated when species are identified on their property resulting in lower property values, less production and limited use. These unintended adverse impacts have resulted in a law that is hurting landowners while not recovering any species.
This is why I introduced H.R. 3300, the Endangered Species Recovery Act. I want to thank the chairman and staff for working with me to develop and incorporate this bill into the overall ESA bill. The language in section 10 of the bill creates ``species recovery agreements.'' Basically, it is an all-inclusive incentive program that will compensate landowners for their conservation efforts. It is my hope that this provision will foster a better working relationship with landowners and the Federal Government resulting in recovery of more species. My underlying goal is to protect landowners while keeping intact the spirit of the ESA.
As part of the farming community, I have heard stories of farmers afraid to report an endangered species on their land because of the implication it would have on their property and their farming operation. ``Shoot, shovel, and shut up'' was often the case when a species was identified on their property. My point is that the ESA was more of a burden on landowners, and without the cooperation of landowners, species recovery, I do not think, will ever be successful.
Another reason why I chose to get involved in this debate is because of the implication this Act has on the management of the Missouri River. The Missouri River is a vital waterway for Midwest farmers, providing cheaper and more efficient transportation for their grain. The Flood Control Act of 1944 authorized the Army Corps of Engineers to maintain flood control and navigation along the river. Then came the Endangered Species Act and this all changed. The ESA seems to supersede the Flood Control Act, and now transportation along the river is unreliable. Ultimately, I would like to see the provisions in this bill fix the situation so navigation becomes more reliable.
Again, I commend the chairman on his efforts and look forward to working with him on this bill and getting it passed this afternoon.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov