Perhaps we can reach bipartisan agreement on that, Mr. Markey.

Actually, I think people would be appalled at the per-fish cost of many of these mandates, which, in many cases that I have seen, runs into the tens of hundreds of thousands of dollars per fish.

We cannot even get fire, salvage fire killed timber because the litigation delays the process beyond the period where that timber can be salvaged.

I have to ask you, if you are not going to relinquish these lands, what are you going to do to use this tremendous asset that you are sitting on to restore prosperity to these communities?

taxpayers are being asked to risk $3.25 billion on the same technology and by the same Administration that has just delivered the Solyndra scandal.

I think the public would be absolutely appalled to see such numbers.

But you are not increasing it. It has declined.

My advice would be not to wait for Federal legislation, just give it your best shot, so that people at least have a ballpark estimate of what they are paying through their power bills for all of these mandates.

The principal factor that was cited in these mill closures was the dwindling supply of timber coming from Federal lands.

It is amazing, when you pull out a pocket calculator, the lunacy of some of the requirements and the costs that they impose, real costs on real people paying real electricity bills every month.

When we were managing that land in a sustainable manner it supported a thriving economy.

And those ESA costs have nothing to do with power generation. They are tacked on, having nothing to do with that power generation.