House panel advances GOP-backed bills overhauling landmark law

E&E News
By Scott Streater
May 1, 2014

The House Natural Resources Committee today voted to advance four GOP bills that supporters say would make positive reforms to the Endangered Species Act, following a sometimes fiery markup hearing in which Democrats argued the bills would hamper the federal government's efforts to protect sensitive wildlife.

The committee voted almost exclusively along party lines to favorably report the bills to the full House. A committee spokeswoman said there is no timetable for a floor vote on the bills, which mostly focus on transparency in the scientific data used in making ESA decisions and the costs to taxpayers of ESA-related litigation.

The exception to the partisan voting was H.R. 4315 sponsored by Natural Resources Chairman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), which would require the Interior secretary to publish online "the best scientific and commercial data available" that is used in determining a threatened or endangered listing.

Rep. Jim Costa (D-Calif.) voted to support Hastings' bill after telling the committee that ESA, which turned 40 in December, needed to be tweaked to reflect updated science.

"I think it's time for the bickering to stop on both sides, frankly," Costa said, adding that the ESA "is not the Holy Grail" and that science has changed over the years. "It's past time for targeted reforms to the Endangered Species Act."

The three other bills approved today by the full committee are:

H.R. 4316, from Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), which would require the Fish and Wildlife Service to report how much it spends on ESA-related litigation.

H.R. 4317, from Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas), which has drawn opposition for including a provision that would define "best scientific and commercial data available" as including "all such data submitted by a State, tribal, or county government."

H.R. 4318, from Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-Mich.), which would cap reimbursement to plaintiff's attorneys in ESA lawsuits at $125 per hour.

All four bills stem from a 64-page report compiled by a working group of 13 House Republicans -- including Hastings -- that recommended updating the ESA.

The working group's report recommended emphasizing species recovery and delisting, reforming the settlements made between federal agencies and conservation groups, and improving cooperation with states, tribes and other stakeholders. Hastings and others vowed to swiftly move to propose legislation implementing the recommendations (Greenwire, Feb. 4).

A hearing on the four bills earlier this month revealed a deep divide along party lines on efforts to revamp ESA, with Democrats and conservationists accusing Republicans of trying to weaken the protection of wildlife under the guise of reform (E&E Daily, April 9).

That political divide was evident again at today's hearing.

Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) complained that committee Democrats were not involved in the working group's proceedings. He said it was ironic that supporters of the bills argued for more transparency in the ESA policy when the process for devising the bills was not transparent.

Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.) argued that there was no need to change the ESA, saying it works just fine.

"It has been one of the most, if not the most, successful environmental bills over the last few decades," Holt said.

But Lummis countered that "the status quo is unacceptable" and the law needs to be updated, and that the intent of the committee was not to gut the law but to improve it.

"We intentionally took a slow and thoughtful approach," Hastings told the committee members.

"These are four common-sense bills that are narrowly focused," he added. "If we were to put politics aside for a moment, they include proposals that both Republicans and Democrats can support."

The committee's approval of the four bills drew immediate criticism from environmental groups, including the Center for Biological Diversity.

"Let's be clear: None of these bills will save a single species from extinction or move it closer to recovery," Brett Hartl, the group's endangered species policy director, said in a statement. "Quite the reverse. Rather than focus on what's really needed -- more funding to save endangered species -- Rep. Hastings and other extreme Republicans have voted to hamstring the Fish and Wildlife Service, whittle away at citizen participation in enforcing the Act, and put imperiled species at greater risk of harm from poaching."