Richard Pombo

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We bring up today the Endangered Species Reform Act with the purpose of trying to deal with what some of the real issues are, what some of the real problems are that we have had and have developed over the last 30 years. If one goes back and reads the original Endangered Species Act, it becomes difficult to be critical of specific language that is it in because the purpose of the Endangered Species Act was to, first of all, prevent species from becoming extinct but, more importantly, to recover those species. And as we look at what has happened over the intervening 30 years, we begin to realize just what problems are with the Act and the way it is being implemented today. I came into this debate originally because I did not like the way that private property owners were treated under the implementation of the law. That became a big issue in my district and throughout much of the West. Private property owners felt threatened that they would lose their private property and that they could lose control and the ability to use their private property under the implementation of the law. That became a big problem, and it is something that we began to work on, to try to have some kind of property rights protections in the law. But the more I got into the Endangered Species Act, the more I realized the law was just not working in terms of recovering species. About 1,300 species have been listed under the Endangered Species Act. Of those 1,300, 10 have been removed because they were recovered. More species have been removed from the list because they became extinct than were recovered. That less than 1 percent is a complete failure, so we began to really look at the law and see are species really doing better under the Endangered Species Act, and we came to the conclusion that they were not. About three-quarters of the species are either declining in population or the Fish and Wildlife Service has no idea. That is not a success. When people talk about the act and its importance, they are right, it is important. It is something we all share in terms of preserving wildlife and preserving species. But when the law is not working, we have to respond to that and step in and reauthorize the bill, put the focus on recovery and protect private property owners. As we have gone through this last several months, I have had the opportunity to work with the ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), and his staff; and I thank them for all of the work that they put into this bill to get us to this point. We worked extremely hard to try and find a compromise bill. In the end, there were a few issues that we just disagreed on, there were issues we could not come to a conclusion on, but the vast majority of what is in the underlying bill was an agreement that we were able to work out and that I stand by. I believe it is good work, that it is something that is extremely important. But I will say that, in the end, private property rights, the protection of those property owners, has to be in the final bill, because the only way this is going to work is if we bring in property owners to be part of the solution and be part of recovering those species. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg).

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I am certainly well aware of the situation that the gentleman is speaking to. I was a Member of Congress at the time that that levee broke and tried at that point to help the gentleman to take care of that problem before it broke.

Mr. POMBO. The gentleman is correct.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to allow the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza) to have 20 minutes of my time and to control that time.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

Mr. POMBO. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would.

Mr. POMBO. The gentleman is correct.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. POMBO. No, Mr. Chairman. It is not in there.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves).

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin).

Mr. POMBO. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. POMBO. Yes, that is our intention.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, that is the intent, yes, sir.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. First of all, I want to thank the major coauthor of the bill, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza), for working with me in a bipartisan way over the last several months to craft a bipartisan solution to the problems that we have got with the Endangered Species Act. I also would like to thank the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the ranking member on the committee, for all of the work that he put in, and that his staff put in, particularly Jim Zoia, who did yeoman's work in putting this bill together. Lori Sonken, Tod Willens, and Rob Gordon worked tirelessly to try to compromise and work out a bill that we could all be proud of, along with Hank Savage from the Office of Legislative Counsel. We have come a long way, a long way, from where we were. This debate over endangered species has been raging across this country for years, and our effort was to throw away everything that we had tried to do in the past and put it aside and try to start again and say how do we sit down as members of the Committee on Resources and come to a solution that we can all agree with. That is what we attempted to do. We knew that the Endangered Species Act had problems. We knew that there were things that had to be fixed, that just were not working in current law. It is kind of ironic this morning to hear people come to the floor and talk about how radical the bill is and how quickly we moved on it. We have held over 50 hearings on the Endangered Species Act. We traveled around the country, going to places where people actually have to live with the implementation of the law and listened to them and what they told us. And we came back and we started to craft a bill. I did not push through the bill that I wanted. I did not allow the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza) or the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) to push through the bill they wanted. We sat down and worked it out. It is amazing to hear all of this stuff that is supposedly in the bill. From what I see, all of these folks are going to vote ``no'' on the bill and they are going to vote ``no'' on the substitute, because the substitute claims to be the same thing. It claims to deal with all the same issues, and in fact they use the exact same language. ``Critical habitat.'' Both bills use identical language. ``Provide certainty for landowners.'' Both bills use identical language. ``Provide incentive for landowners.'' Both bills use identical language. And on and on and on. What is the major difference? What is the major difference? In our bill, we protect the small property owners. Yes, we do. And we should. If the Federal Government steps in and takes somebody's land for a highway, we all pay for it. I do not see people running down here screaming it is an entitlement. I do not see people running down here screaming that it is a budget buster if we pay people if we take that property for a highway. If we take it for a wildlife refuge to protect a wildlife refuge, we pay them for it, and nobody is down here screaming about it saying it is an entitlement. Nobody is down here screaming, saying it is unfair to pay somebody if you take their property for a wildlife refuge. If you take their land for a national park, we pay them for it, and nobody is saying that is an entitlement. Nobody is saying that we are busting the budget. But when we get to endangered species, we tell a farmer, you cannot farm part of your land, 10 percent, 20 percent, 50 percent, whatever it is, you cannot farm that part of your land, now, all of a sudden, oh, we cannot do that. Well, we have got the responsibility to do it. If you take away somebody's private property, if you take away the use of their private property, you have to pay them for it. There is nothing wrong with that. Why you guys are so wed to the old debates and the old rhetoric, I have no idea. We sat down as a committee and we worked out this bill. Half the Democrats that voted in the committee voted for it. It was a bill that was worked out. It is not everything I wanted; it is not everything the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza) wanted. It was a compromise, a reasonable way to protect endangered species, to protect the habitat in which they need to recover; and if that does involve private property, yes, we pay them for it. And, dang it, we should.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 3824.