Jared Huffman

I want to dig in a little further to this idea of voluntary and incentive-based conservation as an alternative, perhaps, it has been suggested, to some of the more prescriptive aspects of the ESA.

Happy 50th anniversary to the Endangered Species Act, for those who celebrate.

ESA is actually sensible, it is quite flexible, and it is reasonable.

voluntary conservation efforts alone are going to get us very far down the road with respect to the Endangered Species Act?

I think we should be celebrating the ESA.

This is an extreme solution in search of a problem that does not exist. The Department of Defense is not asking for this huge loophole from the Endangered Species Act. They have never asked for this, and they don't need it. This year is…

I believe that our oceans are central to the conversation about the climate crisis and also could be very, very important to many of our climate solutions.

A lot of folks think that this is just good, plain common sense and sensible policy, as do I.

The bill before us today would not only close the door to you taking this step, it would lock the door.

I don't think it is wildly controversial at all.

It is high time that we elevate conservation to equal footing with these other uses.

It would be easy to forget that we are talking about public lands that belong to the people of the United States.

Protecting new Wilderness Study Areas and ACECs in a durable way as envisioned in FLPMA would be a significant step to mitigate climate change and reach the administration's 30 x 30 goal.

I want to just enter into the record two letters that Congresswoman DeGette and I have sent on this matter.

It seems long overdue and sensible, putting it on equal footing.

If it resulted in significant losses to the Treasury, though, is that something that would be a concern?

The heavy, burdensome fees that were just being discussed for farms over 960 acres, the translation for folks that don't know some of this arcane lingo, that means you just pay the full cost of the water.

I look forward to hearing more about the bills on the agenda today and how they will affect Reclamation's work.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the witnesses for joining us for today's hearing on three bills relating to the Bureau of Reclamation.

We are strongly in favor of these improvements from the previous rule and ask that you support these common sense changes that are the best tool for reducing death and injury to right whales from being struck by vessels.

But today we are hearing fierce opposition to a regulation that NMFS is trying to develop in a sensible, science-based way.

You are required by law to take action, given the threat of extinction to the North Atlantic right whale under the current facts, right?

We have to take action to reduce the risk from vessel strikes if we are to prevent what now is up to 30 mortalities per year from vessel strikes and entanglements.

We need to control what we have the power over, which is human-caused mortality.

Frankly, I am disappointed to hear what we just heard from the Chairman.