Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Calvert for managing the time tonight and for getting us to this point.

By my calculation, it has been 5 years since we have been able to have these kind of debates on the floor of the House, and here we are, at 12:30 at night.

Speaking for myself, I have listened to the entire debate here tonight on the floor, starting with votes after 6:30. Mr. Chairman, I was struck by the amount of amendments having to do with the Endangered Species Act, number one; and, number two, having to deal with the lists, whether threatened or endangered lists of Endangered Species Act.

Clearly--and I would agree with the gentlewoman on the other side of the aisle on this--reform and major reform of the Endangered Species Act is needed. That will take some time. That discussion has been ongoing.

It is nothing that hasn't already started in this Congress or in previous Congresses. I look forward to being a part of that solution in a very constructive way.

What about the near term? We have people, human constituents who are really suffering; and that is what my amendment, Mr. Chairman, is about tonight. Summer is a big time for any industry that depends on tourism to survive. I offer this amendment out of concern for two lake communities in my district.

Just last year, during the height of the summer's busy tourist season, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service required that the Northern Indiana Public Service Company, locally known as NIPSCO, release more water into the Tippecanoe River from Lake Freeman to protect a bed of endangered freshwater mussels that live further down the Tippecanoe River, all under the guise of the Endangered Species Act.

As a result, in a matter of days, water levels on Lake Freeman dropped dramatically. I have visited with local residents near Lake Freeman multiple times and have seen the lake in person. Growing up during the summers, I spent my time on the sister lake, Lake Shafer.

Many who live and work near the lake discovered, to their surprise, their boats were stuck, businesses were in jeopardy, and home values were going down; but more than that, stumps were rising out of the water, and personal health and safety were also in jeopardy as a result.

Now, I immediately contacted Fish and Wildlife, and I want to applaud them for their responsiveness and NIPSCO for working together. We created a technical assistance letter, otherwise known as a TAL. It is my estimation that that is going to have some effect. Again, I appreciate the reasonableness of all involved.

The current plan there is a temporary fix, and really, we ought to be able to do more. Now, currently, Fish and Wildlife receives funding to enforce the Endangered Species Act, which protects six species of mussels that live in the river, as the Clerk mentioned as he read the amendment.

The Endangered Species Act gives the highest priority to protected and listed species, and there is little anyone can do in terms of exceptions or exemptions or even any kind of balancing test to make sure that there is not a solution that could be a win-win. It is a very draconian law--strict compliance, no balancing test, no room for discretion or creative solution. That is where this reform is needed.

The statute, like I said, provides no balancing test for weighing the economic harms, and the Supreme Court of this land has refused to allow us or even lower courts to construct their own test, us as citizens. Compliance with this law, as currently written, requires diverting water from Lake Freeman to the Tippecanoe River to balance water levels, despite consideration of the economic impact and human safety.

In essence, my amendment limits the funding mechanism Fish and Wildlife would be able to use to enforce the Endangered Species Act with respect to these six types of mussels and eliminates the financial repercussions for failing to enforce the law.

Speaking firsthand with residents, lowering these water levels in Lake Freeman negatively affects the community and small businesses that rely on the tourists who enjoy the lake and the steady water level. Lower water levels also pose dangerous swimming conditions to both boaters and swimmers as formerly underwater tree stumps breach the water. This is unnecessary and a preventable hazard to those who use the lake and, again, in a win-win way.

It is all because of this draconian law that, although well intended, is badly in need of reform so that its practical effect can be overhauled and any of its misguided applications halted.

Hoosiers, like myself, are just as concerned for the environment as they are for their incomes and family recreation. It is not about antienvironmentalism, but they believe, like I said, there is a win-win solution here, if only the law would allow such a solution to exist. In the meantime, we ought to defund Fish and Wildlife's ability to enforce this law as it is written.

While I value nature and seek to protect endangered animals, the reward of protecting the mussel does not outweigh the economic damage done to this community or the personal safety or health of my human constituents.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source