69 



STATEMENT OF AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION 



TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES 



OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE 



AND FISHERIES 



REGARDING PROTECTIONS PROVIDED TO 

 PLANTS UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT 



November 9, 1993 



The American Farm Bureau Federation, the nation's largest general farm organization 

 representing the interests of more than four million member families, appreciates the 

 opportunity to present this statement on the protection of plants under the Endangered 

 Species Act. 



At an October 13, 1993, hearing. Chairman Studds spelled out the challenge to be 

 addressed at the hearing in the following terms: 



"I think it is quite dear that unless we can satisfy the legitimate and rational, and 1 

 imderline legitimate and rational, concerns, and they are these, of those who are 

 focused on the problem of private property rights, we are not going to be able to 

 successfully sustain [the Endangered Species Act], period. So this — that — is 

 abundantly clear, 1 think, and everyone ought to recognize that." 



Also: 



"So to the extent that anyone can offer constructive ideas dealing with the problem, 

 then they will have made a major contribution to our efforts to extend the Endangered 

 Species Act itself." 



It is in this spirit that we offer the following statement. 



The witnesses at the November 9, 1993, hearing on this subject addressed the possible 

 beneficial effects that might accrue from protecting endangered or threatened plants. But 

 none of those witnesses offered suggestions for protecting such plants while at the same 

 time protecting private property rights. We offer a suggestion for addressing both issues. 



The perceived benefits of the Act extend to the public at large. All of the witnesses 

 testifying on November 9 detail the discovery of new medicines that have benefitted the 

 entire public. Yet, under the current Act, most of the cost of breeding, feeding and 

 sheltering these species falls upon those few people on whose property they happen to be 

 found. Costs of protecting such spedes that benefit the general public should be borne by 

 the general public. That is the requirement of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. 



There is no question that the brunt of the Endangered Spedes Act— as applied to both 

 plants and animals— falls primarily on our nation's farmers and ranchers. The vast majority 

 of the remaining privately owned "open space" is owned by agricultural producers. The 

 success of the Act depends on the cooperation of farmers and ranchers. 



