As I have said before, Mr. Chairman, I am for growth on a planned basis, but I believe we can be both for growth and pro-environment at the same time. I hope we can arrive at a consensus on this committee on that point.
At its best, the habitat conservation plan is the ultimate pro-growth, pro-environmental statement. An HCP should ideally give the landowner the certainty needed to develop land while specifying measures that would allow endangered species to be protected. The challenge is to turn this ideal into reality.
While I salute the Administration for its willingness to try new approaches, I am worried about the accelerated pace of its work in the HCP area. HCPs are already approved for about 11 million acres of our nation -- an area more than the size of my own state -- and are pending for about another several million acres.
I am particularly concerned that in our haste, we may leave sound science behind. For example, the "No Surprises Policy" may not be creating enough incentives to use sound science in developing an HCP. And while I appreciate the scientific basis of the "5-point policy guidance," I am concerned that it is not used uniformly.
In this context, Mr. Chairman, I especially appreciate the way you framed this hearing. This is a hearing on "The Science of Habitat Conservation Plans." The science should be our focus here, just as it was in the Critical Habitat bill we reported out of this committee. Focusing on science will be the key to your continued success, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.