Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this time. Madam Speaker, I oppose this closed rule and the underlying bill. This bill demonstrates how much of a stranglehold that the NRA and gun industry lobbyists have over the majority party. This bill is not being considered today because it is good policy; it is being considered because the majority leadership is bowing down to special interests. While the proponents of this bill claim that the intent of this legislation is to protect jobs at mom-and-pop gun stores from reckless lawsuits, the truth is that the bill is all about protecting profits for the gun industry. Ensuring its yearly profits, not protecting jobs nor safeguarding gun sales, is atop the priorities of the gun industry. This bill protects any gun manufacturer, distributor, or seller from any claim of negligence. Any lawsuit, current or future, would not be considered by the courts if this bill were signed into law. Madam Speaker, on Christmas Eve in 1999, in my hometown of Worcester, Massachusetts, 26-year-old Danny Guzman was shot and killed. A week later, police recovered the 9 millimeter Kahr Arms handgun used to kill young Danny. Through ballistics, the police determined that the gun was one of several stolen from Kahr Arms by Kahr employees with criminal records. According to the police, one of the employees had been hired by Kahr to work in its Worcester manufacturing facility, despite the fact that he had a long history of drug addiction, theft to support that addiction, alcohol abuse and violence, including several assault and battery charges. Police determined that the guns were stolen from Kahr before the weapons had serial numbers stamped on them and were then resold to criminals in exchange for money and drugs. In March 2000, police arrested a man who pled guilty to the gun thefts. The investigation also led to the arrest of a Kahr employee, a man with a criminal history who pled guilty to stealing from Kahr a pistol and a slide for another weapon. Now, Kahr did not conduct any criminal or general background checks on its employees. The company did not even have any metal detectors or x-ray machines or security cameras or other similar devices to monitor the facility or to determine if employees were stealing, nor were there guards to check employees at the end of their shifts. Mr. Speaker, anybody with half a brain has to understand that this company was negligent. Now, if this bill becomes law, gun manufacturers like Kahr Arms would be shielded from negligence. And the Guzman family's suit would be dismissed. This is just one of the many stories that illustrate the reckless and irresponsible nature of many, not all, but many in the gun industry. And this bill will only further shield them from accountability. Now, do not be fooled. The NRA and the gun industry want this bill not because jobs are threatened. They want this bill because they fear their precious profits will be affected should they be forced to change some of their irresponsible and reckless practices. To my colleagues who support this bill, tell the Guzman family that they have no right to be angry at the Worcester-based manufacturer. Tell them that the death of their beloved Danny Guzman was just bad luck and could not have been prevented. The fact of the matter is, it could have been prevented by more responsible practices by Kahr Arms. I have to believe that gun owners all across this country would not object to ensuring that gun manufacturers allow for more responsible practices in terms of protecting what they manufacture. This is not about taking people's guns away. This is about protecting people. Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, we have a national energy crisis now. If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not appreciate that fact, I would suggest that they go home to their districts and listen to their constituents. Instead, we are rushing a flawed bill to the floor that will once again reward the very industries that have gouged the American people. It is unacceptable for anybody in this Congress to say we cannot do anything about the short-term crisis of high energy costs. We must. That is what our constituents expect us to do. That is what we should be doing today here on the floor. The cost of filling a tank of gas ranges between $40 and $100. There are workers whose wages do not compensate for the cost of driving to and from work. I have senior citizens in my district and low- and moderate-income families who are scared out of their minds about how they will heat their homes this winter. We must crack down on price gouging in the short term and find other ways to lower prices. This is an emergency. It requires dramatic action by the Government of the United States. In the long term, we should reduce our reliance on foreign oil by aggressively pursuing renewable energy sources, something that we should have been doing a long time ago. What we have here in this so-called ``Gas Act'' is more of the same: tax breaks to reward the bad behavior of oil and gas companies; reduced regulations that compromise our communities; and nothing, absolutely nothing, for the relief of our citizens. Let me say to my colleagues who vote for this, do not go home and tell their constituents that they did anything for them because in truth they have not. When they ask them what did they do to lower the prices of gas and home heating oil, they can say honestly they did nothing. Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to support the Stupak substitute, which will deal head-on with the issue of price gouging; and if that fails, I would urge my colleagues to defeat this bill and to go back to the committee and do something meaningful. The status quo does not work. It is time for a comprehensive, honest-to-goodness energy plan, and this is not it.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. First of all, let me begin by saying something nice to the majority. I would like to point out for the record that this is the first conference report in this Congress that has lain over for 3 days as required under the rules of the House, so I want to thank the Speaker and the majority leader and the members of the Rules Committee for following the rules of the House for a change. I hope we can do this more often. Now, Mr. Speaker, let me address the substance of this conference report. This conference report cuts first-responder grants. We have heard that over and over and over again. And let me just say to my colleagues on the other side who say that somehow there is money in the pipeline, well, there shouldn't be any money in the pipeline. The need is that great. The first responders in this country, our fire fighters and our police officers, they do not want resolutions of support. They do not want your eloquent speeches. They do not want your meaningless proclamations. What they want, what they need are the resources to be able to do their job, to protect their communities. And yet, under this conference report, three of the four major grants programs for first responders in the Department of Homeland Security are cut below fiscal year 2005 levels. It underfunds communications equipment for first responders. We have been talking about that over and over throughout this debate. But what is particularly astonishing to me is that, despite what we saw in Katrina, where people could not communicate with each other, similar to what happened during 9/11, the conference report actually provides $15 million or 36 percent less than the amount the House provided for this equipment in the original bill back in May before Katrina ever struck. Now we have heard a lot on the other side about budget priorities and limited moneys and funding shortfalls. But we have to get this right. This is about protecting our homeland security. This is government's first responsibility, to protect the people of this country. You never talk about budget priorities. You never talk about money shortfalls when it comes to tax cuts that benefit mostly the richest people in this country. But yet when it comes to protecting people, providing the equipment that our first responders need, providing the equipment our communities need to protect themselves against a terrorist attack or a natural disaster, somehow we do not have the money. I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the conference report. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. Announcement by the Speaker pro Tempore.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I think one of the things that is missing in this bill is the lack of oversight. That is why some of us have great concerns about it. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), a leader on a number of homeland security issues.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just respond to the gentleman from Texas. One of my problems is the fact that this bill cuts some very important programs that I think do not deserve to be cut. It cuts first responder grants, which I think is a mistake. It underfunds communications equipment for first responders. Just like the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Hurricane Katrina highlighted the problem of first responders having incompatible communications equipment. When Hurricane Katrina hit, emergency personnel were on at least five different channels and were hampered in communicating with one another. Yet this conference report continues to underfund interoperable communications systems. It cuts the disaster relief account. It cuts predisaster mitigation. It underfunds port security. It underfunds rail and transit security. It fails to include dedicated funding for chemical plant security. I could go on and on and on. Homeland security is not for free. If we are not funding these agencies, and we are not funding the necessary personnel to be able to protect our country, then we are not doing a very good job at homeland security. One other thing I will say to the gentleman from Texas. I believe that we have an obligation when we spend the taxpayers' money that there is thoughtful and effective oversight. We have allocated billions and billions of dollars already in response to this hurricane with no oversight. I do not want taxpayers' money wasted, and I am uncomfortable with the fact the bill provides no oversight. The gentleman may not be, but I am. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), ranking Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, this Homeland Security conference report will be the third and one of the most important appropriations conference reports considered by Congress this session. In the wake of a wholly inadequate Federal response to Hurricane Katrina, it is this Congress's responsibility to provide the Department of Homeland Security with appropriate funding and resources. That funding must also come with proper direction and full oversight. Unfortunately, this conference report falls far short of that standard. Hurricane Katrina revealed several institutional problems with the Department of Homeland Security, in particular with the structure of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Over the past decade, FEMA has been stripped of its duties; folded into a disorganized department; and, most disturbingly, staffed by inexperienced people. With this bill, Congress had a golden opportunity to address the institutional disarray that has tarnished FEMA. Instead of doing the right thing, this conference report provides absolutely no guidance on how to spend billions of taxpayer dollars or how to properly restructure the agency. Furthermore, Secretary Chertoff has insisted on restructuring the Department again, for the sixth time, without any congressional oversight and hearings. He has proposed to place FEMA in the Preparedness Directorate, further splintering the agency's ability to respond quickly to disasters. Disaster preparedness and response are intrinsically linked. FEMA must be responsible for both. Separating these duties will only hinder the Federal Government's responsiveness potential. This systematic dismantling of FEMA's authority was the primary cause of the botched Federal response to Hurricane Katrina. Secretary Chertoff's proposal to restructure FEMA will not solve the institutional deficiencies of the agency. While FEMA was not perfect before it merged into the Department of Homeland Security, at least there existed a level of expertise and skill and FEMA's director had immediate and direct access to the President of the United States. Experience and professionalism have been missing from FEMA under the Bush administration. Michael Brown, a product of political cronyism, is the perfect example of what happens to government without thorough oversight. Instead of having somebody with disaster experience, President Bush ended up with an Arabian horse specialist. A year ago, when the State of Florida was ravaged by multiple hurricanes, State and Federal officials complained about the lack of preparedness and inadequate response from FEMA. Counties that were hit the hardest were overlooked while other counties that storms avoided received millions of dollars in funding. Florida lawmakers this past March urged two House committees with FEMA jurisdiction to hold hearings on what went wrong. Even after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita hit 6 months later, the Republican leadership has continued to block the Florida delegation's oversight request. And now we are all paying the price for neglecting oversight of FEMA, most notably the thousands who paid with their lives and their livelihoods. The House Republican leadership has consistently ignored proper oversight of this administration. It is clear that they do not want to ask tough questions or demand straight answers. This Congress has become a rubber stamp, and the results have been disastrous. Mr. Speaker, Brownie did not do a ``heckuva'' job and neither has this Congress. Unfortunately, when given the opportunity to do the right thing, the Republican leadership has once again acted against the best interests of the American people. Their response to these disasters and to these deficiencies at FEMA is to install a partisan committee that will simply gloss over the most important issues surrounding the failures of FEMA. Mr. Speaker, that is not oversight. That is a whitewash. A more effective FEMA can only be created when independent, experienced disaster specialists analyze the problems that Katrina exposed and then identify solutions. Restructuring FEMA without independent input and oversight is premature and will further plague its prevention and response capabilities. And not only is the oversight missing, Mr. Speaker, but so is the money. While my Republican friends will highlight the $1.3 billion increase over fiscal year 2005, let us be clear that this increase is only barely above the current rate of inflation. In reality, there are several funding cuts in this conference report that significantly and adversely affect the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA programs. This conference report cuts State and local preparedness funding by $585 million, a 19 percent cut from last year. Fire grants are funded at $60 million below the fiscal year 2005 level. Disaster relief funding is cut by $370 million, and pre-disaster mitigation funding is cut in half. Let me repeat that: Cut in half. How can we justify cutting disaster relief and mitigation funding by $420 million? Did Katrina not demonstrate how severely unprepared and ill-equipped FEMA really is? What kind of rationale is this? Thankfully, there are some programs in this conference report where funding levels are justifiable. For instance, the Coast Guard's ``Deepwater'' program is fully funded at $933 million, due mostly in part to the Guard's extraordinary rescue efforts after Katrina. Mr. Speaker, I do not understand what the majority is thinking. Every single disaster, pre-disaster, preparedness and response program should be fully funded. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita should have taught us that. And along with full funding, there needs to be proper oversight. Neither the two enacted relief packages totaling over $60 billion nor this conference report provide any meaningful oversight. None. No check on the flow of the money. No way to ensure the proper awarding of contracts through competitive bidding. No accountability. Thankfully, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, offered an amendment in conference requiring the Department of Homeland Security to provide detailed information on how Katrina disaster relief funding is being spent. The specific requirements laid out in this provision force the Department of Homeland Security to send Congress weekly reports that detail any and every kind of disaster relief spending, and I applaud the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for offering this important amendment. It is an important step in the right direction, a step toward accountability. I am also grateful to the efforts of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), the ranking member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, who fought hard last week to instruct the conferees not to accept Secretary Chertoff's reorganization program. Mr. Speaker, I suspect that this conference report will pass by a comfortable margin, but it will not have my vote. We can do so much better than this. We need to do so much better than this, and I hope in the coming weeks and months, both the majority and the Democratic side will work together to achieve a product that we all can be proud of and that will truly ensure the homeland security of the people of our country. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the achievements of Ms. Lucia Alfaro, Ms. Cristina Cartagena, Ms. Amanda Gonzalez, Ms. Genesis Melendez, Ms. Daniela Ortiz Bahamonde, Mr. Esteban Pacheco, Ms. Sylvia Roman, Mr. Enrique Sanchez, Ms. Elizabeth Zamora, Mr. David Hernandez, Ms. Mayra Jara, Mr. Josue Malaver, Ms. Sujeilly Rohena, Ms. Linette Serrano, Mr. Nolberto Alvarenga, Mr. Angel Amarat, Mr. Eric Familia, Mr. Karl Gonzalez, Ms. Makisha Rodriguez, Mr. Cruz Rosado, Mr. Benito Vega, Ms. Katherine Cortes, Ms. Carol Esparza, Mr. Narcisco Fernandez, Mr. Miguel Fuentes, Ms. Jessica Perez, Mr. Eric Sanchez, and Ms. Christina Gonzalez. These fine young people from the city of Worcester have recently been recognized at the annual HACE Youth Awards and Recognition Dinner. The Hispanics Achieving and Celebrating Excellence Committee, HACE, was created in 1985 by the faculty and staff at Quinsigamond Community College. The goal of HACE is to raise community awareness of the richness of Hispanic culture. The organization recognizes the achievements of young people, provides positive role models, and encourages youths to focus on education. Honorees are nominated by school principals, teachers, coaches, community leaders and agencies. Along with the honor, each student receives a scholarship. Each year, HACE holds an annual dinner to recognize youth leaders. The honorees from this year's annual dinner, include 28 students from Worcester high schools. These select few have distinguished themselves in five categories: the arts, athletics, academics, community service and/or leadership. This year's honorees will receive a gift in the amount of $200, as an incentive and encouragement to continue along the path of excellence. Over a span of 20 years, HACE is proud to have given monetary awards totaling over $57,000 in recognition of the achievements each honoree has accomplished. The committee members who dedicate themselves to coordinating HACE include Ms. Maria Addison, Ms. Olga Lopez-Hill, Mr. John Rodriguez, Mr. Dan de la Torre, Ms. Susan Laprade, Ms. Brenda Safford, Ms. Kirshner Donis, Ms. Viviana Troche, Honorable Harriette Chandler, Ms. Maria Florez, Mr. Javier Salort, Mr. Albert Vasquez, and Ms. Dolly Vazquez. I am sure all my colleagues and fellow constituents will join me in applauding the accomplishments of these young leaders, and praise HACE for the great service they perform in the city of Worcester.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as may consume. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, today, this House stands at a very important crossroad. We are faced with a decision that will have severe consequences for years to come. On one side, we have this bill, the Threatened and Endangered Species Act, facing off on the other side against sound, science-based environmental policy. The Republican leadership had a unique opportunity to provide us with a carefully constructed bill, one that strengthens current protections for endangered species while also finding the necessary balance between property rights and environmental concerns. But, instead, the bill that we have before us essentially guts the Endangered Species Act. It is as simple as that, and it certainly comes as no surprise. In 1994, many Republicans were elected to this body promising to repeal the Endangered Species Act. There are dozens of news stories describing rallies and press conferences held by opponents of the Endangered Species Act. For many who now sit on the Committee on Resources, including the distinguished chairman, eliminating the Endangered Species Act was almost a singular campaign issue. Ten years after the Republicans took control of the House, they may be one step closer to repealing one of the most successful environmental laws in the history of the country. Dismantling the Endangered Species Act has also been a top priority of the Bush administration. One of the sad realities of the Republican control of our government is their absolute contempt for the environment. Since they have taken control of the Congress, they have been rolling back environmental protections nonstop. This bill, unfortunately, falls into that tradition. Make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker, this bill is not about fixing the Endangered Species Act, it is about gutting it. In fact, just months ago, legislation was drafted and subsequently circulated by the Chair of the Committee on Resources that would have completely eliminated endangered species protections over the next 10 years. Fortunately, that bill failed to ever come before the committee for consideration. Instead, here we are with their next best thing, or should I say the next worst thing, H.R. 3824. While this legislation does not go as far as to formally repeal the Endangered Species Act, it burdens the current system with a weakened mandate, limited funding, and minimal protections. Now, let us be clear about what we are debating here today. The bill before us is a major first step toward complete elimination of the Endangered Species Act. For proof, we only have to look at the Endangered Species Act itself. Over 30 years ago, the Endangered Species Act was signed into law by President Richard Nixon, and in the years that followed, it became renowned as one of our Nation's most successful, effective, and vital conservation laws. The Endangered Species Act alone has been credited with saving hundreds of species from extinction, most notably the Florida manatee, the California condor, and the bald eagle. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 99 percent of the species ever listed under the Endangered Species Act remain on the planet today. The current Endangered Species Act did this by banning hazardous pesticides, like DDT; protecting natural habitats and instituting and enforcing a science-based decision-making process. But the benefits of the Endangered Species Act extend far beyond protections for any one or group of endangered plants or animals. In fact, there are clear economic benefits to this law. Each year, hunting, fishing, and wildlife watching bring in over $100 billion in revenue. These industries alone employ 2.6 million people each year. For example, the reintroduction of the gray wolf into Yellowstone National Park 10 years ago increased revenues in adjacent local communities by $10 million annually. Imagine the impact the bill before us could have on local economies that depend on recreation and ecotourism for jobs and tax revenues. It could be devastating. H.R. 3824 takes us back to the bad old days and completely repeals protections against the use of hazardous pesticides, and removes one of the most important parts of the Endangered Species Act, the protection of critical habitat. No alternative is provided, and in the end, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is left in an unenforceable and nonbinding mandate. Finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill creates an endless slush fund for private developers. This is one of the most shocking proposals I think I have seen. We do not pay power plants not to violate clean air laws, nor provide incentives for businesses to comply with the minimum wage standards. But under this bill, we would pay landowners to not break the law. What is the cost of this sweetheart deal? According to the Congressional Budget Office, the full price tag of this deal could reach $2.7 billion over the next 5 years. That amounts to an additional $118 million in the first year alone. So contrary to what the proponents of H.R. 3824 will say today, this is really a new entitlement for developers and other business interests. It allows direct spending that will not only be expensive, but will drain the resourses from other important environmental programs. With the largest deficit in American history, with mounting costs from the recent hurricanes, and with the war still raging in Iraq and Afghanistan, is this the right time to open a slush fund that will funnel millions of dollars to developers and businesses, while undoubtedly resulting in the extinction of unique animals and habitats across this country? I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will take a close look at this legislation and recognize it is not our only option. Yes, the Endangered Species Act could benefit from revisions. Everybody will agree with that. But this bill is not the answer. And it is for this reason that I would urge my colleagues to support the Miller-Boehlert substitute, and I commend my colleagues for their hard bipartisan work. Together, they have drafted a substitute that protects private landowners from unnecessary government regulation while also preserving current initiatives that have proven successful. On a smaller scale, a similar approach has been overwhelmingly successful in my home State of Massachusetts. In 1985, the piping plover, a small shore bird, was in steep decline. There were approximately 130 pairs remaining in the United States. But in just 14 years, they have made a dramatic comeback, and this was largely the result of coordinated efforts between conservationists and private land managers. Mr. Speaker, I am not the only one who feels this way about H.R. 3824. Environmental and animal rights groups strongly oppose this bill, and so do many of the Nation's leading editorial pages: The New York Times, The Boston Globe, The Los Angeles Times, The Seattle Post Intelligencer, The Idaho Falls Post Register, to name a few, all oppose scrapping the Endangered Species Act. But I want to read from the hometown newspaper of the first President Bush and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), The Houston Chronicle: ``After 32 years of success, the Endangered Species Act may need streamlining and adjustment to the realities of the continued development of rural areas of the country. It should not be destroyed and replaced with a law that would give all the advantages to business interests and allow the Secretary of the Interior to play God with the Nation's biodiversity.'' The Miller-Boehlert amendment is proposed to modernize responsibly the Endangered Species Act. It is clear that times have changed since President Nixon signed this bill into law. But the challenge is to update the Endangered Species Act responsibly, and H.R. 3824 does not do that. A vote for this bill is a vote to repeal the Endangered Species Act. A vote for this bill is a vote to once again threaten national treasures like the bald eagle, the grey wolf, the Florida manatee, and the piping plover with extinction, and I would urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. Mr. Speaker, I submit herewith for the Record the editorial I quoted from earlier: An Endangered Act [From the Houston Chronicle, Aug. 12, 2005] Since President Richard Nixon signed it in 1973, the Endangered Species Act has prevented the extinction of hundreds of species of American plants and animals, restoring many to sizable populations. In the process of designating 1,370 species eligible for protection, the act also has generated court battles by opponents who chafed at restrictions on commercial development of essential habitat. Backed by land development and agricultural interests, as well as the Bush administration, several members of Congress are pushing legislation that would gut what some consider the most important environmental law in U.S. history. U.S. Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Calif., who chairs the House Resources Committee, has offered a draft bill that would replace the Endangered Species Act and cancel all agreements to protect threatened species. Environmentalists charge that Pombo's bill eliminates any provision to help species recover from near extinction and effectively forbids the designation of critical habitats on virtually all federal land. The existing law requires that species be protected if they are endangered in a significant portion of their range. Pombo's draft narrows that requirement to species threatened throughout their range. This month the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service adopted similar reasoning when it proposed the removal of the pygmy owl in Arizona from the list of threatened species because healthy populations exist in Mexico. Under President Clinton the agency had proposed designation of 1.2 million acres in the state as critical habitat. Under the Pombo standard, animals such as the grizzly bear, bald eagle and timber wolf, with large populations in Alaska, would not have qualified for protection in other parts of the United States. Polls consistently have found that Americans strongly support the act's protections for threatened wildlife. The Supreme Court recently refused to hear a challenge to enforcement of the act brought by developers in a dispute involving the endangered Kretschmarr Cave mold beetle in Texas. Pombo's bill would allow the secretary of the interior to determine what scientific evidence is relevant in deciding if a species is endangered and give the secretary the power to overturn decisions by federal biologists and wildlife managers. It would saddle agencies with massive paperwork and create an appeals process that could be launched by any person affected by an agency decision or habitat conservation plan. After 32 years of success, the Endangered Species Act may need streamlining and adjustment to the realities of the continued development of rural areas of the country. It should not be destroyed and replaced with a law that would give all the advantages to business interests and allow the secretary of the interior to play God with the nation's biodiversity. When Congress returns from its summer recess, Texas representatives and Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn should insist that any changes to the Endangered Species Act be aimed at improving its effectiveness. Texans are justly proud of the vast array of wildlife that thrives in protected forests, mountains and marshes across the state. Let's make sure that natural treasure is preserved for the benefit of future generations. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my colleague on the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Utah, but he uses statistics very selectively. Let me cite a more important statistic, and that is more than 1,800 species currently protected by the Act are still with us. Only nine have been declared extinct. That is an astonishing success rate of more than 99 percent. So this has been a successful Act. I will also provide for the Record an article that appeared in the Salt Lake Tribune by Ben Long, who is a contributor to the Writers on the Range, a Service of High Country News, who has written a great article about how the Endangered Species Act succeeds with flying colors. [From the Salt Lake Tribune, Sept. 24, 2005] Species Act Succeeds With Flying Colors (By Ben Long) The Endangered Species Act--which is being reviewed by Congress this week--is a soaring success. Just look up. Look skyward for a while and you might spy an American bald eagle. Hundreds of them live in my home state of Montana. Across the United States, the bald eagle is a living, flying example of what works about the Endangered Species Act. Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Calif., is spearheading the effort to change the landmark, 30-year old anti-extinction law. ``The act isn't working to recover species now,'' Pombo said in a recent speech in Washington state. ``At the same time it has caused a lot of conflicts.'' Pombo evidently spends too much time inside his stuffy Washington office. If he got out in the forests and rivers more, he might know the story of the bald eagle. The American symbol was listed as endangered in 1978. That year, surveys turned up only 12 bald eagle nests in all of Montana. Then, environmental laws such as the Endangered Species Act and a federal ban on the pesticide DDT kicked in. They protected the birds from chemical poisoning, destruction of habitat and needless, wasteful killing. The results were gradual, but dramatic. By 2005, the number of bald eagle nests in Montana multiplied to 300 nests--25 times the number before the bird was included on the endangered species list. That's just one state. Eagles were similarly successful in other states as well. In 1999, the bald eagle's status was upgraded from ``endangered'' to ``threatened.'' If trends continue, they will soon be officially recovered and all America will celebrate. Today, Montana is one of the top 10 eagle-producing states in the United States. In a recent winter, I watched more than 30 eagles clean up a carcass in a rancher's back pasture. Bald eagle congregations have been tourist attractions at places like Canyon Ferry and Libby dams, where they feed on fish in the winter. No matter how many times I see a bald eagle on the wing, I am taken aback by its beauty--and thankful for the Endangered Species Act. Conflicts over endangered species make headlines. Success happens in quiet obscurity. But over time, the successes are dramatic indeed. Gray wolves are another Endangered Species Act success story in the northern Rockies. Wiped out by over-zealous predator control a century ago, wolves began trickling back into Montana in the 1980s. Now, there are hundreds of wolves in western Montana, and more in neighboring Idaho and Wyoming. Because Montana stepped up to the plate and agreed to manage these animals for the future, the federal U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently handed wolf management over to the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. This is evidence of the flexibility built into the law. While I don't like to see any animal needlessly wasted, I respect that ranchers need to protect their stock to make a living. The Endangered Species Act has allowed wildlife managers to kill problem wolves--even wipe out entire packs that made a habit of killing livestock. We humans now dominate planet Earth. We share a responsibility not to push species into extinction. For 30 years, the Endangered Species Act has helped keep America the rich and beautiful land we love. My 17-month-old son loves watching finches and chickadees at the feeder outside our kitchen window. He will grow up also watching bald eagles, some perching on a snag close to our backyard. What a change. When I was a kid, the only eagle I ever saw was on the back of a quarter. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I would again urge my colleagues to, first of all, vote ``no'' on the rule, and I would also urge them to vote ``no'' on the underlying bill. I appreciate the work that the gentleman from California (Chairman Pombo) and others have put into this bill, but the bottom line is that the underlying bill eliminates habitat protections; it abandons the commitment to recovery of endangered species; it repeals protection against hazardous pesticides; it politicizes scientific decision-making; it eliminates the vital check-and-balance of consultation; it requires the Fish and Wildlife Service to allow unfettered habitat destruction; it would require taxpayers to pay developers, oil and gas companies and other industries, for complying with the law; and it is an entitlement. I know the chairman has kind of objected to that characterization, but that is not my characterization. It is what CBO has concluded. It is what our colleague from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) who testified yesterday on behalf of the Republican Study Committee and the Republican Tuesday Group said last night in the Committee on Rules, that this bill creates an expensive new Federal entitlement program. Mr. Speaker, the Endangered Species Act has done a great deal to protect endangered species. Everybody agrees that there needs to be adjustments. Everybody agrees that we can come together and make those necessary adjustments. But what we object to is that the underlying bill guts the Endangered Species Act. It is a bad bill; it is bad policy. I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall). (Mr. UDALL of New Mexico asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall). (Mr. UDALL of New Mexico asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, just for the record, I want to make it clear that the gentleman from Oregon did offer his amendment before the Committee on Rules. It was amendment No. 5 last night. Again, we believe his amendment should have been made in order. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).