Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I can't argue with the gentleman. I'm simply saying we need to look at this. It has been 23 years.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. We share that concern about the salmon. I would point out to the gentleman that the salmon runs in the Snake River and the tributaries are coming back in greater number, which would suggest that the species is being recovered. And yet we are waiting for a judge to make a decision.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I just want to respond to my friend from Virginia. The bill passed, if my memory serves me correctly, with bipartisan support. But, yes, of course there are political risks in doing whatever we're doing in this body; and we all face that. After all, this is the people's government. But the point is it needs--and we've been saying over and over, the ESA needs to be updated. It's been 23 years, for goodness sake.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. As I mentioned in my remarks when I spoke, that certainly is the intent of the committee that I chair that has jurisdiction.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I appreciate the gentleman's remarks. I would remind him, from the time that we did get control of Congress in 1995 until your side gained control after the 2006 election, that was the issue that the then- chairman--the last chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, Richard Pombo from California--was working on. As a matter of fact, I think it was in 2005 that we did pass ES reform out of this House. It did not go anyplace in the other body. So history tends to repeat itself.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I appreciate the gentleman's closing remarks when he said this is not the proper venue to address the Endangered Species Act. That has been my argument, too. I think it should be done in the authorizing committee. But the fact of the matter is there is no incentive for the stakeholders to sit down if we continue to kick the ball ahead and not seriously look at the Endangered Species Act. As the chairman said very well in his remarks, this is simply a shot across the bow, not only on this, but on other authorized programs. So we are not picking on these.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I just want to say, because the gentleman made a very good remark, but since we're talking about bald eagles, in our State they're around, and I would invite the gentleman to come to where I live in the desert in central Washington where every fall and winter we see bald eagles. They are truly a majestic bird. But the point is, again--and I really thank the gentleman for yielding--this debate is not about the Endangered Species Act. This debate here is about trying to get people together so we can make the Endangered Species Act work in a way that will be beneficial to everybody, so that we can repeat the successes that we have had, albeit the successes are only 20 species; but, nevertheless, we ought to be working that way rather than restricting and having restrictions as the current act is.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. He did, as did Senator Crapo from Idaho. Here is the problem: The problem is that through all of the efforts of Chairman Pombo of trying to get this enacted and he couldn't get it through the Senate, then you know what the Appropriations Committee did?

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Reclaiming my time, that certainly is the intent that we tend to pursue.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Reclaiming my time, a couple of weeks ago Secretary Salazar acknowledged, ``There are changes and improvements that can be made to how we deal with endangered species'' and that ``we need to have an endangered species program that does, in fact, work.'' I couldn't agree more with the Secretary's statement. The Natural Resources Committee that I chair has jurisdiction over ESA, as well as NOAA and the Fish and Wildlife Service, and we will be working in coming months to conduct robust oversight and look at much needed proposals to update this law. I appreciate your leadership and look forward to working with you on this very important issue. I yield to the chairman.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield to the chairman.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for that clarification. As we both know, the problem goes far beyond wolves. The ESA has nearly 1,400 listed species in the U.S. and hundreds of millions of dollars being spent by local, State, Federal, and private entities on ESA activities; yet Federal agencies are being regularly sued for poor science and poorly drafted regulations, and only 20 species have been recovered. Do you agree with me that the Endangered Species Act is broken and needs to be modernized and updated? I yield to the chairman.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the chairman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, as you know, 2 months ago, the Secretary of the Interior announced that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would remove gray wolves from the Endangered Species Act list in areas covering the northern Rocky Mountain States and roughly the easternmost one-third of the State of Washington, the eastern quarter of the State of Oregon, and a small piece of Utah. I understand that H.R. 2584 also would exempt from judicial review any final rule issued by the Secretary that delists wolves in the State of Wyoming and the western Great Lakes. So I commend the chairman for your leadership to see that these States are given a chance to succeed in their management of species. As with other decisions, the Secretary of the Interior's May announcement does not resolve the problem for many agricultural areas in States that don't fit neatly within the Fish and Wildlife Service's arbitrarily set geographical boundaries, and it reverses a policy that the Fish and Wildlife Service itself implemented by regulation in 2003 in which wolves were delisted in all of the State of Washington and other areas with appropriate State recovery measures in place. Under the current administration's policy, in my own district in central Washington, wolves will be delisted on the eastern side up to a highway that cuts through a heavy agriculture area. Wolves on one side of the highway will be listed, the other side not. The same is true in Oregon and Utah. I appreciate the steps the gentleman has included in this bill to create a more rational approach toward delisting these recovered wolves by allowing the States to manage the populations using sound wildlife management principles. I want to confirm my understanding that the bill and accompanying report language on page 10 is intended to include all States in their entirety within the northern Rocky Mountain area, including Washington, Oregon, and Utah.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield to the distinguished chairman.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, in these tight budget times, it is more important than ever that the Federal Government focus its funding on the most essential and core functions. The Federal Government, however, should not subsidize private companies' business decisions, particularly when that business decision involves tearing out a 14 megawatt hydropower dam that has served two rural counties in my district. The Condit Dam, a privately owned and operated hydropower-producing dam located in my district, was constructed in 1913 on the White Salmon River, which is a tributary of the Columbia River. Since 1947, the Condit Dam has been owned and operated by PacifiCorp and has held a license with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Over the past 20 years, rather than agree to the rigorous and costly measures associated with the FERC relicensing process, PacifiCorp opted to pursue actions to surrender its license to operate the dam and now wants to remove that dam at its own cost. This amendment will ensure that no Federal tax dollars will be used by the Corps of Engineers to remove or mitigate for the removal of the Condit Dam. Recently, PacifiCorp representatives communicated to my office that they acknowledge that PacifiCorp itself, and not the Corps, is responsible for all impacts that removing this dam might cause to the Federal Columbia River navigation channel. My amendment simply ensures that the Federal taxpayers do not get left holding the bag for a private company's actions that could cost this private company, by their own admission, up to $32 million. Having said that, I do want to say this, Mr. Chairman. While I give tacit approval to a dam being removed in the Northwest--it's a private decision by a private company--I want to reiterate and continue my opposition to any attempt to remove any of the Federal dams along the Columbia or Snake River. This is a private company making their decision, and they should pay for it; and that's what this amendment attempts to address.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman very much. With that concurrence on the other side, I yield back the balance of my time and urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for his support.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield to the distinguished chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey.