On the recordApril 17, 2012
I rise in strong support of the Peters amendment. Without this amendment, the bill will undermine the protections currently in place for wild species under the Endangered Species Act and under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. In this case, the hunters who chose to kill these polar bears knew they were taking a risk. They had good information that polar bears would be listed as an endangered, threatened species under the Endangered Species Act, and they acted contrary to it. They were repeatedly warned by Federal agencies and hunting associations that the final listing would cut off imports immediately, and they had well over a year's notice. Despite this knowledge, hunters still chose to shoot and kill polar bears at a time when the species faced severe hardship and when legal protections were imminent. We should not encourage a small group of people to take conscious risks and then turn around and ask Congress for relief. If we pass this bill without the Peters amendment, we are, in effect, telling hunters that, when species are likely candidates for the endangered or threatened lists, kill them as soon as you can, and then Congress will give you special treatment and exempt you from the law. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Peters amendment. Don't destroy the long-term conservation efforts for the special interests of a few trophy hunters who are hoping for home decor and bragging rights. I will strongly oppose the underlying bill.
