William Tauzin: “Mr. Chairman, we need to make one more point before we end this debate. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank]…”

“Mr. Chairman, we need to make one more point before we end this debate. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] said or intimated that the real intent is to gut the Endangered Species Act, the Wetlands Act. Let me read from the article by Sue Waldron in the Wall Street Journal: The dispute over endangered species isn't over whether or not society should protect them. It's between a policy that refuses to set priorities and insists on preservation no matter what the costs to the human species or, alternatively, a more balanced approach. We are hard put to see how the species act can itself survive politically operating as an environmentalist land grab of other peoples property. The seriousness of the claims for these various species might be better tested if the government had to compensate landowners for their losses. That is all we are asking: balance, respect. We want a good Endangered Species Act, a good Wetlands Act, but we also want balance in landowner rights.”