2023 Species Week

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Newhouse not only for his leadership here tonight in setting up the Special Order but also his leadership on the Western Caucus, which is a voice for us on not just Western issues but rural issues all across the country. I am honored to be a part of the Western Caucus even though I reside in Arkansas, which I do say at one time was the Western frontier.

Over its 50-year life, as has been discussed, ESA has gone from being a law geared toward recovering at-risk species through conservation and has now become a weapon to control land and activities through a misguided concept of preservation.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we take a minute here and look at the difference between conservation and preservation.

Conservation, which the Endangered Species Act was built around, is the idea of being a good steward of the resources we have, of taking care of and tending to the habitat of these endangered species. It really is like being the gardener of the habitat.

Preservation is this idea that you can preserve something in the natural world, and you really can't do that. The way you preserve something that is living, Mr. Speaker, is, for instance, take a cucumber. You boil it in vinegar, and you preserve it as a pickle.

Mr. Speaker, what I want to say tonight is that conservation is for critters; preservation is for pickles. The Endangered Species Act, as it was written in 1973, was about conservation and taking care of these at-risk species.

I went back to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and I want to read here what the people who came before us set forth in Congress in the findings of the Endangered Species Act.

The very first finding was that ``various species of fish, wildlife, and plants in the United States have been rendered extinct as a consequence of economic growth and development untempered by adequate concern and conservation.''

They pulled that out in the very first of their findings.

It goes on to say: ``The United States has pledged itself as a sovereign state in the international community to conserve to the extent practicable the various species of fish or wildlife and plants facing extinction.''

Then look at the purpose of the Endangered Species Act, Mr. Speaker, and I quote directly here: ``The purposes of this chapter are to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species, and to take such steps as may be appropriate to achieve the purposes of the treaties and conventions set forth in subsection (a) of this section.''

Our men and women who came before us knew that protecting endangered species was all about conservation.

The Endangered Species Act was actually passed as a call to action and conservation, but it has devolved into a weapon for stagnation and leverage for political activism.

The irony is that a misused ESA actually does more harm than good to the animals and plants that it was put in place to protect.

As chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, I have four guiding principles that form my priorities, and they are access, conservation, innovation, and transparency. In my view, the ESA falls short of all four.

The ESA often denies access to our public lands and negatively impacts private property rights. The ESA denies access.

The ESA fails at conservation, as has been mentioned many times here, as only a miniscule--less than 5 percent--of listed species have ever been delisted. It has already been brought out that the Endangered Species Act is a modern-day example of the ``Hotel California.'' ``You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.''

In addition, the act disincentivizes innovation and private investment while at the same time lacks transparency.

We have cases of private landowners who are doing conservation and trying to take the actions necessary to help the habitat for species, and when those species get listed, it is always: ``Hands off. Don't touch it. We are going to preserve it.'' That just doesn't work, and it is not ever going to work. The example is in the dismal recovery rate the way the ESA is being implemented.

We have made reforming the ESA a major part of the committee's business. If we wish to truly help threatened and endangered species, then we must strongly support science-based habitat management, and we cannot tolerate the weaponization of the ESA for political activism.

So far this Congress, the Natural Resources Committee has held two legislative hearings on bills that address fundamental flaws with how the ESA is being implemented. These bills include three Congressional Review Act resolutions designed to provide oversight of Biden administration rulemakings that represent the true excesses of the ESA. Each of these CRA resolutions has been passed by the U.S. Senate on a bipartisan base.

In addition, three other bills heard by the committee deal with species that have long been recovered, the grizzly bear and the gray wolf, as have been mentioned. These species have been prevented from being delisted due to persistent litigation by activist groups. Even with Republican and Democratic administrations saying these species have been recovered, they are still on the list.

Following these hearings, the committee held a markup on April 27 that resulted in all six bills being reported favorably by the committee. I ask all of my colleagues to join in supporting these measures.

This is just the beginning. This Congress and the Natural Resources Committee will bring forth policies that promote transparency, science- based decisionmaking, flexibility, and voluntary conservation within the ESA.

It is my desire to have a hearing and, hopefully, a bipartisan markup on legislation to allow the restoration of America's wildlife habitat. Focusing on wildlife habitat restoration is definitely the ounce of prevention worth many pounds of cure when it comes to species recovery.

I look forward to working in partnership with Chairman Newhouse and the Western Caucus to ensure that we continue to move the ball forward on bringing much-needed reform to the ESA. It has not been reauthorized in 50 years. Maybe we need to rewrite it and put it up for reauthorization.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman so much for his leadership.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source