 Center for Biological Diversity  Defenders of Wildlife
 Earthjustice  Endangered Species Coalition
National Wildlife Federation  Natural Resources Defense Council
 Sierra Club  Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation
***EDITORIAL ADVISORY***
“Field hearing” spends taxpayer money to undermine popular federal law
Despite strong public support, endangered species threatened by radical agenda
August
2004
Dear ,
On September 10, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Resources will be holding a “field
hearing” in Fontana at the request of Congressman Joe Baca (D-CA), with the ostensible purpose of
gauging public support for the endangered Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly.
Several similar “field hearings” have taken place across the western United States in the last several
months. Despite their official-sounding titles, these “hearings” are not the Congressional fact-finding
missions that they are touted to be. In fact, they are usually nothing more than sounding boards for Rep.
Richard Pombo (R-CA), chairman of the Resources Committee and a staunch opponent of wildlife
conservation, and his congressional allies like Rep. Baca, to advance a radical agenda driven by developer
and corporate interests aimed at reversing 30 years of endangered species protection in America.
Those attending Rep. Pombo’s “field hearings,” thinking that they are real, are surprised to see the
opposition to the Endangered Species Act. Rep. Pombo and his allies plan them that way. He is the
one of the most ardent opponents of wildlife conservation in Congress, and is supported philosophically
and financially by corporate development and agribusiness interests, all of which have an investment in
seeing the Endangered Species Act rendered powerless.
Congress often conducts hearings outside of the Washington, D.C. to gain a complete, balanced
understanding of how federal issues and legislation affect local communities. Taxpayers pay for these
hearings just like congressional hearings held in Washington, D.C. Unfortunately, Rep. Pombo and his
allies have turned the fieldhearings process into a farce. Consider the following:

The docket of invited witnesses to these hearings (testimony is by invitation only) has been
uniformly stacked against supporters of the Endangered Species Act. Anti-conservation
witnesses have sometimes outnumbered pro-conservation ten to one, and the pro-conservation
witnesses are usually placed at the end. At a July hearing in Washington, D.C. regarding two
anti-Endangered Species Act bills, for example, there were 13 witnesses against the Act and only
two asked to appear in support.

Congressman Bob Filner (D-CA), a supporter of wildlife conservation, had to “crash” a hearing
at Sea World in San Diego because he wasn’t invited by Rep. Pombo, even though the hearing
discussed issues in Rep. Filner’s district.

Rep. Pombo held a field hearing in Carlsbad, New Mexico, at the request of local Congressman
Steve Pearce (R-NM). The focus of that hearing was purported to be how the Endangered
Species Act has impacted oil and gas development in southern New Mexico. Like the other
hearings, only one pro-Endangered Species Act witness was invited to speak. Immediately
following the hearing, a $250 per person fundraiser was held for Rep. Pearce’s tightly contested
reelection campaign, a fundraiser where Rep. Pombo was the keynote speaker. In response, The
Albuquerque Journal editorialized against using the facade of a publicly funded hearing for a
campaign event (“Staged Hearings Don’t Serve Public Interest,” June 13, 2004).

A field hearing at Klamath Falls, Oregon, excluded dissenting voices from scientists,
conservationists, fishermen, and Native American tribes. Of the Klamath Basin's four separate
tribal nations, the committee allowed only one person to speak before the committee. The
decision came after Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and others in Congress circulated a
letter seeking balance between agribusiness interests and salmon-dependent communities. Alan
Foreman, Chairman of The Klamath Tribes, was allowed to attend and answer questions, but
not to make statements of his own. Chairman Foreman told the committee he was "somewhat
offended" by their blaming the Endangered Species Act for threatening the way of life of
farmers who lost water, without recognizing that Indian tribes and salmon fishermen have
suffered from damage to the environment. (“Legislators seek changes to Endangered Species
Act,” Associated Press, July, 18, 2004).
Thanks to the work of a few vehement opponents of endangered species protection, Congress is now
faced with a flurry of bills that seek to undermine habitat protection and change the way science is used
in Endangered Species Act decisions.
Despite the majority of the American public’s enduring support for the Endangered Species Act, and
despite the objections from over 420 scientists who recently signed a letter to Congress expressing
strong reservations about the bills, these demoralizing bills could become law.
Rep. Dennis Cardoza’s (D-CA) “Critical Habitat Reform Act of 2003”(H.R. 2933) seeks to undermine
protections for the places where imperiled plants and animals live. The Cardoza bill creates a series of
loopholes by making numerous changes in the definition of “critical habitat,” abandoning the recovery
goal that underpins habitat protection under the Act, making species recovery more difficult. Rather than
developing helpful, creative solutions to protecting natural habitats, this bill seeks to increase the
likelihood that America’s endangered species will be managed by politics instead of science.
Rep. Greg Walden’s (R-OR) bill, “Endangered Species Data Quality Act of 2004” (H.R. 1662) seeks to
undercut the use of the best available science in managing endangered species by forcing scientists to
jump through needless hurdles.
By requiring government agencies to “give greater weight” to some kinds of science over others, the bill
seeks to restrict the use of important methods, like statistics, that scientists currently use to assess
species’ status. Statistical models – prevalent in conservation biology, but also heavily used in health,
space, weather and climate sciences – would, under the bill, risk being discounted even if they were
known to be valid.
Scientists, not Congress, should determine which science best addresses any given issue.
The bill also creates multiple new hurdles and delays for federal agencies before they could protect a
species facing extinction. Rather than support truly sound science, H.R. 1662’s advocates seek to make
political appointees the arbiters of what constitutes sound science.
The Endangered Species Act has been one of the nation’s bedrock environmental laws since 1973 when
Congress gave its nearly unanimous, bipartisan support. More than 30 years later, a majority of
Americans still overwhelmingly endorses it. According to a recent poll, 90 percent of American
voters recognize the importance of providing a safety net for wildlife, plant and fish that are on
the brink of extinction.
It is unclear whether these bills will come to the House for a vote this year. Rep. Pombo’s goal is to hold
enough “field hearings” to show the House leadership that they should be voted on.
We encourage you to take the editorial stance that these “hearings” are a waste of taxpayers’ money, a
violation of democratic principles, and are merely political tools for Reps. Pombo, Baca, and other
opponents of endangered species protections to advance their radical agendas. We also encourage you
to oppose the so-called Endangered Species Act reform bills.
Attached are fact sheets that provide additional information on the Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly,
myths and facts surrounding Delhi fly conservation, and background on each of the two anti-endangered
species conservation bills supported by Reps. Pombo and Baca. We can also put you in touch with
scientists, economists and other experts who can offer additional insights into this unwarranted,
undemocratic attack on a popular and important law.
Sincerely,