- THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: HOW LITIGATION IS COSTING JOBS AND IMPEDING TRUE RECOVERY EFFORTS
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOC HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE
STATE OF WASHINGTON
The Chairman. Today's hearing is the first of several this
Committee will hold over the next year to examine and review
the Endangered Species Act. Enacted in 1973 and last
reauthorized in 1988, the ESA's fundamental goal is to
preserve, protect and recover domestic key species. This is an
objective that I believe we can all support.
However, it has been 23 years since Congress has reviewed
or updated the ESA. I believe it is the responsibility of this
Committee and Congress to ask questions and examine if the
original intent of this law is being carried out two decades
later. The intent of this hearing and those to follow is to
have an honest conversation about both the strengths and
weaknesses of the ESA and consider if there are ways to update
the law to make it work better for both species and for people.
The purpose of the ESA is to recover endangered species,
yet this is where the current law is failing and failing badly.
Of the species listed under ESA in the past 38 years, only 20
have been declared recovered. That is a 1 percent recovery
rate, and I firmly believe that we can do better. In my
opinion, one of the greatest obstacles to the success of the
ESA is the way in which it has become a tool for excessive
litigation.
Instead of focusing on recovering endangered species, there
are groups that use ESA as a way to bring lawsuits against the
government and thus sometimes block job opportunities. These
groups have filed hundreds of lawsuits against the Fish and
Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. In
fact, in July the Interior Department agreed to a settlement
that covered 779 species in 85 lawsuits in legal actions.
Information provided to us over the past few months from these
agencies indicates they have a combined total of over 180
pending ESA-related lawsuits. These lawsuits direct valuable
resources away from real recovery efforts.
Last May, the Department of the Interior stated, and I
quote, ``The Fish and Wildlife Service's highest priority is to
make implementation of the ESA less complex, less contentious
and more effective.'' While I applaud this goal and look
forward to hearing the Service's progress, I am concerned that
the Interior Department's real approach to addressing the
growing docket of ESA cases appears limited to settling
lawsuits with a few litigant groups. These settlements reward
the groups by having the taxpayers pay their attorney fees and
increase the already large list of species the Department is
struggling to recover.
American tax dollars and government biologists and
personnel should be focused on helping to save species from
extinction, not responding to hundreds of lawsuits. The
litigation mindset that is consuming the Endangered Species Act
has had significant job and economic impacts throughout the
West, unnecessarily pitting people against species. During
these challenging economic times, America cannot afford runaway
regulations and endless lawsuits.
In the Pacific Northwest, my area, the ESA-related
litigation touches nearly everyone, be it through Federal
judges determining the fate of irrigated agriculture and clean
renewable hydrodams, the impact of the listed spotted owl on
timber communities and jobs, the fear of litigation that has
blocked renewable wind projects or uncertainty of whether
predatory wolves are endangered on one side of the highway, but
not on the other side of that same highway.
I hope to hear more from our witnesses today about how
litigation is impacting species projection, job creation and
economic development across the country. We are also looking
for an explanation of why the Obama Administration settled
these lawsuits and how much time and resources litigation takes
away from real recovery efforts.
By strengthening and updating the Endangered Species Act,
improvements can be made so it is no longer abused through
lawsuits and instead can remain focused on fulfilling its true
and original goal of species recovery.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hastings follows:]