Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. I just want to commend the gentleman for his statement. It's an outstanding statement. You covered this very comprehensively, especially the part about infrastructure. There was a $688 billion wastewater backlog during the Bush administration. We should be putting people to work on those kinds of projects. The gentleman is absolutely right, and I appreciate him being here late in the evening to support my amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Former Senator Kempthorne worked on it.

Mr. DICKS. Reclaiming my time, because I can't go on forever, I just would say nobody is stopping you. Hold your hearings. Have your meetings. Bring up the witnesses, but don't stop listing 260 candidate species until you get the job done.

Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. DICKS. I want to be involved in this.

Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Idaho, my good friend and the chairman and former ranking member, one of the best ranking members I've ever had.

Mr. DICKS. I yield to the ranking member.

Mr. DICKS. No one is objecting. I agree. We should look at how to improve the ESA. I don't like to hear these examples of where the process has not been able to be worked out. I have had to go through this as you have in the Pacific Northwest with the spotted owl, the marbled murrelet, salmon, et cetera. Now, those are starting to recover. We're making some progress, but I still believe we can make this act better. I just think by taking out the ability to list and to have critical habitat, we're risking some of these species that are close to extinction. And remember this: it's also about biodiversity, the web of life. We don't know how all of these things relate and whether something can be created, a medicine that could save lives in the future. And that's why trying to protect these species is an important thing.

Mr. DICKS. It's important for civilization, for humanity. We're creatures here, too. We depend on a lot of other animals in order to survive. And so this goes beyond just a legislative ``it's difficult.'' This is down and dirty. This is very important. This is very important to survival.

Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.

Mr. DICKS. We'll fix it in conference. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. Colin Powell was there to thank all of the troops that had served in Iraq and Afghanistan, and many of the wounded warriors were there as well.

Mr. DICKS. I thank the gentleman for yielding and I hope we can defeat this unneeded amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Madam Chair, we don't have a copy of the gentleman's amendment, and it is usually the protocol to give one to the minority.

Mr. DICKS. I withdraw my point of order, but would like to ask a question of the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. DICKS. I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. DICKS. In your amendment, it says: funds made available and all that follows through that period--but-- and insert a charter school as that term is defined in section 1141 of the Education Amendments of 1978. Would you tell us what that definition is, please.

Mr. DICKS. So you have no idea what this amendment means?

Mr. DICKS. How do you know that if you don't know what the language is?

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. DICKS. I rise to offer an amendment that would strip a dangerous rider from this bill, a rider that would seriously compromise the effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act. This is a bipartisan amendment, I might add. I'm offering it with the support of Congressman Thompson and Congressman Fitzpatrick and Congresswoman Hanabusa. The fiscal year 2012 Interior and Environment bill passed by the full committee a few weeks ago contains a direct attack on the ESA. I offered an amendment at that time to strike the provision, but the full committee rejected it. The provision would block the Fish and Wildlife Service from listing candidate species as either threatened or endangered as well as the designation of the critical habitat necessary for species recovery. These listing activities are preliminary steps that the Fish and Wildlife Service must take in order to begin the recovery process. After those steps are taken, then the hard work begins. Without these important preliminary steps of listing and critical habitat designation, it would be impossible to develop a scientifically valid and legally defensible recovery plan for declining species. This funding limitation aimed at the heart of the ESA is simply postponing the day of reckoning. It is important to note that the bill does provide funding for the Fish and Wildlife Service to downgrade the protections offered to species under the ESA. After all, the goal of the ESA is to eventually delist recovered species. Delisting is the reward after all the hard work recovering these species. But we can't get to the point of delisting species without listing them first. My amendment would remove these restrictions on listing and up- listing and the designation of critical habitat. Many critics of the ESA argue the law simply does not work. I would argue that the recovery leading to the delisting of the bald eagle and the American alligator under the ESA is a strong success. In the last few months, the gray wolf in the northern Rockies has been delisted in two States and the Fish and Wildlife Service recently announced the intention to delist the gray wolf in the western Great Lakes. Other animals that are still listed under the ESA but have made tremendous recoveries include the whooping crane, the black footed ferret, and the California condor. In the Pacific Northwest, I'm glad to report that we are seeing signs of healthy recovery for the ESA- listed salmon, although it will be awhile before delisting could occur. Clearly these examples show us the success of the ESA, a law, by the way, that the American people overwhelmingly support. As for species listed under the ESA, they still are struggling. It is naive to think that a quick turnaround is easy when it took decades, if not centuries, for a species to decline. Also, it takes more time to recover long-lived species. Here is a situation that the Fish and Wildlife Service faces in the administration of the ESA. Currently, there are about 260 species that have been identified as potential candidates for ESA protection. Of that total, there are just under 30 species that are poised for listing in the near future. The spending provisions in this bill would block further activity to protect these declining species. And remember, if you delay listing too long, a species will go extinct, thus making a recovery impossible. And that is why some people call this the ``extinction rider.'' The Endangered Species Act is one of the most effective environmental laws ever written. Recovering species is hard, often long, work; but it is a responsibility that cannot be dismissed like this Interior appropriation bill attempts to do. I know that many of my colleagues would like to drastically reform the ESA, but it would be a sounder path to do such a reform through the authorization process rather than accomplishing the goal with a few lines in the appropriation bill. And I see that the distinguished chairman of the Natural Resources Committee is here, and he has pledged to get to work on this important endeavor. In closing, I will point out that this amendment is supported by former directors of the Fish and Wildlife Service who served under Presidents Nixon, Ford, Carter, the first President Bush, and Bill Clinton. It is also supported by several hook-and-bullet groups including the Izaak Walton League and Trout Unlimited. I urge support for this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.