Mr. Speaker, it is really a pleasure to serve with Chairman Newhouse on the Western Caucus as well as in other capacities here in the U.S. House. Indeed, he has really invigorated the effort that the caucus is making on having these key…
Mr. Speaker, it is really a pleasure to serve with Chairman Newhouse on the Western Caucus as well as in other capacities here in the U.S. House.
Indeed, he has really invigorated the effort that the caucus is making on having these key issues on all manner of things, not just western but really, for the whole country, having so much to do with resources and such.
As we contemplate here tonight what the Endangered Species Act's original intention 50 years ago was when passed by Congress, and really, for those of us in production, agriculture, energy, minerals, just about anything that uses the basic building blocks of the economy and the things that our modern society needs, the Endangered Species Act has been weaponized against that.
What it has turned into now due to activism in the courts, the endless lawsuits and the way the courts reinterpret things is nothing close to what Congress would have passed back in the early 1970s.
Had they passed that, I think they would have been ridden out of town on a rail because it was so destructive toward the cornerstones of our economy and what has made America strong and independent in so many areas.
We agree with the purpose originally. It is to protect and recover vulnerable species. I think the focus at the time, really, was on the bald eagle with expansion from there to many other species that we deem valuable.
The world has well over a million species in it, and they are discovering more all the time; a lot of it in the insect world and such.
To think that we are going to just completely move all human beings, especially Americans, into caves or something like that and say we can't affect the environment or touch it in any way is really unrealistic. Mankind has a piece in the world as well. That is even a biblical truth.
The Endangered Species Act, what it has turned into, is really harming the ability for people to get what they need.
Also, the focus hasn't really been on recovering species, which I think was well intended, because we have heard my colleagues talk about the ratio here of recovery. It is extremely low, especially if you put a ratio of dollars spent and pain inflicted on agriculture, on mining, on domestically produced products versus the number of species recovered. It is way out of whack.
You heard my colleague from Minnesota a minute ago talking about the recovery of the wolves. They have an incredible number of wolves in the upper Midwest, but the ESA can be misinterpreted and misused and abused to say we need to have wolves everywhere: in Oregon, in California, in Washington.
For that matter, should we introduce them into the Golden Gate Park and the Santa Monica Pier to make sure they have their share as well?
If you want to see a wolf, you are still going to be able to see a wolf in the areas where they have been more indigenous for a long time, and they have successfully recovered.
This is what we put up with. They introduce them in areas where now livestock and people making a living in rural areas in Wyoming, Montana, northeast California, and Oregon have to suffer with the ideology of just introducing them everywhere and saying this is now going to make them not on the list anymore.
In my northern California area, for example, we had very important levee projects needed to be done for flood control around the north central area of Sacramento Valley, places like Hamilton City, Yuba City, Marysville, Sacramento, areas like that.
Well, they seemed to shop for a species du jour to stop projects, and what they settled on was the valley elderberry longhorn beetle, which not that many years ago U.S. Fish and Wildlife actually recommended for it to be delisted. In the meantime, however, they won't make a decision and take it off the list.
Now, mind you, you don't even find the beetle in some of these areas, but because the habitat for it exists in some of these areas, the law has been interpreted to be, well, if there is habitat there, if there is an elderberry bush and a beetle might come along and land in it or dwell in it, we have to leave that bush there. If you take that bush out in order to redo a levee, then we have to plant 50 or 70 more bushes somewhere else.
In one case here, we had to take out a couple hundred acres of orchard land
to have this mitigation area because they wanted to fix the dang levee that was already in existence and keep a town from flooding at the next rain because they are not maintaining the river in between the levee banks from all the siltation and such going on there. But that starts another whole narrative.
The beetle doesn't get delisted, and the levee work doesn't get done farther south in the Yuba City-Marysville area. This was going on 20, 30 years ago. A lot of great work has been done since then, but it has been made much more expensive and much more arduous because of the threat of lawsuit and the ESA.
I will remind you that years ago lives were lost and hundreds of millions of dollars of damage were done by a levee blowing out in that southern area of my district in Yuba City-Marysville on the Marysville side. With all that damage, three lives were lost, and finally the State of California lost a lawsuit for, I think, $400 million because they were derelict in doing the work to maintain the levees, all because of this.
What I am talking about here as well is the ability to keep food on the table. This chart I have shows that California is responsible for, in some of these crops, 100 percent, well above 90 percent of the crops that Americans consume that come primarily from California.
We have the ESA stopping us from keeping farmland safe from floods but, also, at the same time building the water storage projects that are important to store water. Now, we were blessed this year with a tremendous amount of rain and snowpack, and we are really happy about it, but that doesn't happen every year. That is why we build these long-term water projects that store water for 5 years of drought, like Shasta Lake, Lake Oroville, and others. If we don't have those projects, we don't ride through that time.
They try to stop those projects from being further built, and they also seek to tear down projects like the Klamath dams, make hydroelectric green power with no CO2. Much work needs to be done to keep crops on the table, to keep the electricity and the wires, keep the minerals coming to produce all the things we need to keep energy, all of that. The ESA needs to be revisited and actually focused on truly recovering species but not used as a weapon to stop things people need, our economies need, rural economies especially. That is some of the work we do in the Western Caucus.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate, again, Chairman Newhouse's leadership on this and the opportunity to speak on it here tonight. There is much more that I could say; you know me.
Mr. Speaker, I am a farmer in my real life. I hope I talk plainly enough to get my thoughts across.