21st Century Endangered Species Transparency Act

Floor Speech

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I oppose H.R. 4315, the so-called ``Endangered Species Transparency and Reasonableness Act,'' which is an overt assault on the Endangered Species Act designed to weaken its protections and guarantee the likelihood of extinction for wildlife, plants, and fish.

The Endangered Species Act is one of the Nation's most important environmental laws. Signed into law by President Richard Nixon over forty years ago, the Endangered Species Act continues to serves as an effective tool for protecting our wildlife, plants, and fish from the brink of extinction.

To ensure enforcement of the Endangered Species Act, Congress empowered citizens to bring enforcement actions to hold parties accountable for violating the law or to compel the government to protect endangered species. Importantly, the law does not provide for rewards of damages for the citizen bringing the suit. Rather, the Endangered Species Act allows for courts to award reasonable attorneys' fees to parties that substantially prevail on the merits.

Congress has long recognized the importance of encouraging citizens to bring meritorious claims under the Endangered Species Act that they would otherwise abandon due to the financial costs of hiring competent counsel. Many other federal statutes contain similar enforcement mechanisms that encourage citizens to act as a private attorney general.

The Supreme Court has likewise observed in numerous contexts that if private citizens are to enforce laws against ``those who violate the Nation's fundamental laws are not to proceed with impunity, then citizens must have the opportunity to recover what it costs them to vindicate these rights in court.''

Contrary to the stated goal of H.R. 4315 to ``standardize the awarding of attorneys' fees to prevailing parties against the federal government,'' this legislation is a thinly-disguised effort to prohibit litigation by citizens and public-interest groups.
By eliminating the possibility of reasonable attorneys' fees, this bill creates yet another hurdle that will make it more difficult to find competent legal representation to enforce complex environmental laws.

Reasonable attorneys' fees are particularly appropriate for complex and highly specialized adjudications involving environmental law. Environmental groups are almost uniformly non-profit organizations. Many file lawsuits for injunctive relief to enforce laws and protect the public health. But as a result of this bill, many of these organizations will be deterred from bringing such actions if they cannot recover attorneys' fees.

For these reasons, a broad coalition of interest groups--including Alliance for Justice, Public Citizen, American Association for Justice, Sierra Club, and dozens of other environmental, civil rights, and civil liberties organizations--oppose H.R. 4315.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this misguided legislation.

Source