Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3824) to amend and reauthorize the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to provide greater results conserving and recovering listed species, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as may consume.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, today, this House stands at a very important crossroad. We are faced with a decision that will have severe consequences for years to come. On one side, we have this bill, the Threatened and Endangered Species Act, facing off on the other side against sound, science-based environmental policy.

The Republican leadership had a unique opportunity to provide us with a carefully constructed bill, one that strengthens current protections for endangered species while also finding the necessary balance between property rights and environmental concerns. But, instead, the bill that we have before us essentially guts the Endangered Species Act. It is as simple as that, and it certainly comes as no surprise.

In 1994, many Republicans were elected to this body promising to repeal the Endangered Species Act. There are dozens of news stories describing rallies and press conferences held by opponents of the Endangered Species Act. For many who now sit on the Committee on Resources, including the distinguished chairman, eliminating the Endangered Species Act was almost a singular campaign issue. Ten years after the Republicans took control of the House, they may be one step closer to repealing one of the most successful environmental laws in the history of the country.

Dismantling the Endangered Species Act has also been a top priority of the Bush administration. One of the sad realities of the Republican control of our government is their absolute contempt for the environment. Since they have taken control of the Congress, they have been rolling back environmental protections nonstop. This bill, unfortunately, falls into that tradition.

Make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker, this bill is not about fixing the Endangered Species Act, it is about gutting it. In fact, just months ago, legislation was drafted and subsequently circulated by the Chair of the Committee on Resources that would have completely eliminated endangered species protections over the next 10 years. Fortunately, that bill failed to ever come before the committee for consideration.

Instead, here we are with their next best thing, or should I say the next worst thing, H.R. 3824. While this legislation does not go as far as to formally repeal the Endangered Species Act, it burdens the current system with a weakened mandate, limited funding, and minimal protections.

Now, let us be clear about what we are debating here today. The bill before us is a major first step toward complete elimination of the Endangered Species Act. For proof, we only have to look at the Endangered Species Act itself. Over 30 years ago, the Endangered Species Act was signed into law by President Richard Nixon, and in the years that followed, it became renowned as one of our Nation's most

successful, effective, and vital conservation laws.

The Endangered Species Act alone has been credited with saving hundreds of species from extinction, most notably the Florida manatee, the California condor, and the bald eagle. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 99 percent of the species ever listed under the Endangered Species Act remain on the planet today.

The current Endangered Species Act did this by banning hazardous pesticides, like DDT; protecting natural habitats and instituting and enforcing a science-based decision-making process. But the benefits of the Endangered Species Act extend far beyond protections for any one or group of endangered plants or animals. In fact, there are clear economic benefits to this law.

Each year, hunting, fishing, and wildlife watching bring in over $100 billion in revenue. These industries alone employ 2.6 million people each year. For example, the reintroduction of the gray wolf into Yellowstone National Park 10 years ago increased revenues in adjacent local communities by $10 million annually. Imagine the impact the bill before us could have on local economies that depend on recreation and ecotourism for jobs and tax revenues. It could be devastating.

H.R. 3824 takes us back to the bad old days and completely repeals protections against the use of hazardous pesticides, and removes one of the most important parts of the Endangered Species Act, the protection of critical habitat. No alternative is provided, and in the end, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is left in an unenforceable and nonbinding mandate.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill creates an endless slush fund for private developers. This is one of the most shocking proposals I think I have seen. We do not pay power plants not to violate clean air laws, nor provide incentives for businesses to comply with the minimum wage standards. But under this bill, we would pay landowners to not break the law.

What is the cost of this sweetheart deal? According to the Congressional Budget Office, the full price tag of this deal could reach $2.7 billion over the next 5 years. That amounts to an additional $118 million in the first year alone.

So contrary to what the proponents of H.R. 3824 will say today, this is really a new entitlement for developers and other business interests. It allows direct spending that will not only be expensive, but will drain the resourses from other important environmental programs.

With the largest deficit in American history, with mounting costs from the recent hurricanes, and with the war still raging in Iraq and Afghanistan, is this the right time to open a slush fund that will funnel millions of dollars to developers and businesses, while undoubtedly resulting in the extinction of unique animals and habitats across this country?

I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will take a close look at this legislation and recognize it is not our only option.

Yes, the Endangered Species Act could benefit from revisions. Everybody will agree with that. But this bill is not the answer. And it is for this reason that I would urge my colleagues to support the Miller-Boehlert substitute, and I commend my colleagues for their hard bipartisan work.

Together, they have drafted a substitute that protects private landowners from unnecessary government regulation while also preserving current initiatives that have proven successful. On a smaller scale, a similar approach has been overwhelmingly successful in my home State of Massachusetts. In 1985, the piping plover, a small shore bird, was in steep decline. There were approximately 130 pairs remaining in the United States. But in just 14 years, they have made a dramatic comeback, and this was largely the result of coordinated efforts between conservationists and private land managers.

Mr. Speaker, I am not the only one who feels this way about H.R. 3824. Environmental and animal rights groups strongly oppose this bill, and so do many of the Nation's leading editorial pages: The New York Times, The Boston Globe, The Los Angeles Times, The Seattle Post Intelligencer, The Idaho Falls Post Register, to name a few, all oppose scrapping the Endangered Species Act. But I want to read from the hometown newspaper of the first President Bush and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), The Houston Chronicle:

``After 32 years of success, the Endangered Species Act may need streamlining and adjustment to the realities of the continued development of rural areas of the country. It should not be destroyed and replaced with a law that would give all the advantages to business interests and allow the Secretary of the Interior to play God with the Nation's biodiversity.''

The Miller-Boehlert amendment is proposed to modernize responsibly the Endangered Species Act. It is clear that times have changed since President Nixon signed this bill into law. But the challenge is to update the Endangered Species Act responsibly, and H.R. 3824 does not do that. A vote for this bill is a vote to repeal the Endangered Species Act. A vote for this bill is a vote to once again threaten national treasures like the bald eagle, the grey wolf, the Florida manatee, and the piping plover with extinction, and I would urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I submit herewith for the Record the editorial I quoted from earlier:

An Endangered Act

[From the Houston Chronicle, Aug. 12, 2005]

Since President Richard Nixon signed it in 1973, the

Endangered Species Act has prevented the extinction of

hundreds of species of American plants and animals, restoring

many to sizable populations. In the process of designating

1,370 species eligible for protection, the act also has

generated court battles by opponents who chafed at

restrictions on commercial development of essential habitat.

Backed by land development and agricultural interests, as

well as the Bush administration, several members of Congress

are pushing legislation that would gut what some consider the

most important environmental law in U.S. history. U.S. Rep.

Richard Pombo, R-Calif., who chairs the House Resources

Committee, has offered a draft bill that would replace the

Endangered Species Act and cancel all agreements to protect

threatened species.

Environmentalists charge that Pombo's bill eliminates any

provision to help species recover from near extinction and

effectively forbids the designation of critical habitats on

virtually all federal land. The existing law requires that

species be protected if they are endangered in a significant

portion of their range. Pombo's draft narrows that

requirement to species threatened throughout their range.

This month the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service adopted

similar reasoning when it proposed the removal of the pygmy

owl in Arizona from the list of threatened species because

healthy populations exist in Mexico. Under President Clinton

the agency had proposed designation of 1.2 million acres in

the state as critical habitat. Under the Pombo standard,

animals such as the grizzly bear, bald eagle and timber wolf,

with large populations in Alaska, would not have qualified

for protection in other parts of the United States.

Polls consistently have found that Americans strongly

support the act's protections for threatened wildlife. The

Supreme Court recently refused to hear a challenge to

enforcement of the act brought by developers in a dispute

involving the endangered Kretschmarr Cave mold beetle in

Texas.

Pombo's bill would allow the secretary of the interior to

determine what scientific evidence is relevant in deciding if

a species is endangered and give the secretary the power to

overturn decisions by federal biologists and wildlife

managers. It would saddle agencies with massive paperwork and

create an appeals process that could be launched by any

person affected by an agency decision or habitat conservation

plan.

After 32 years of success, the Endangered Species Act may

need streamlining and adjustment to the realities of the

continued development of rural areas of the country. It

should not be destroyed and replaced with a law that would

give all the advantages to business interests and allow the

secretary of the interior to play God with the nation's

biodiversity.

When Congress returns from its summer recess, Texas

representatives and Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and John

Cornyn should insist that any changes to the Endangered

Species Act be aimed at improving its effectiveness. Texans

are justly proud of the vast array of wildlife that thrives

in protected forests, mountains and marshes across the state.

Let's make sure that natural treasure is preserved for the

benefit of future generations.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my colleague on the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Utah, but he uses statistics very selectively.

Let me cite a more important statistic, and that is more than 1,800 species currently protected by the Act are still with us. Only nine have been declared extinct. That is an astonishing success rate of more than 99 percent. So this has been a successful Act.

I will also provide for the Record an article that appeared in the Salt Lake Tribune by Ben Long, who is a contributor to the Writers on the Range, a Service of High Country News, who has written a great article about how the Endangered Species Act succeeds with flying colors.

[From the Salt Lake Tribune, Sept. 24, 2005]

Species Act Succeeds With Flying Colors

(By Ben Long)

The Endangered Species Act--which is being reviewed by

Congress this week--is a soaring success. Just look up.

Look skyward for a while and you might spy an American bald

eagle. Hundreds of them live in my home state of Montana.

Across the United States, the bald eagle is a living, flying

example of what works about the Endangered Species Act.

Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Calif., is spearheading the effort to

change the landmark, 30-year old anti-extinction law. ``The

act isn't working to recover species now,'' Pombo said in a

recent speech in Washington state. ``At the same time it has

caused a lot of conflicts.''

Pombo evidently spends too much time inside his stuffy

Washington office. If he got out in the forests and rivers

more, he might know the story of the bald eagle.

The American symbol was listed as endangered in 1978. That

year, surveys turned up only 12 bald eagle nests in all of

Montana. Then, environmental laws such as the Endangered

Species Act and a federal ban on the pesticide DDT kicked in.

They protected the birds from chemical poisoning, destruction

of habitat and needless, wasteful killing.

The results were gradual, but dramatic. By 2005, the number

of bald eagle nests in Montana multiplied to 300 nests--25

times the number before the bird was included on the

endangered species list.

That's just one state. Eagles were similarly successful in

other states as well. In 1999, the bald eagle's status was

upgraded from ``endangered'' to ``threatened.'' If trends

continue, they will soon be officially recovered and all

America will celebrate.

Today, Montana is one of the top 10 eagle-producing states

in the United States. In a recent winter, I watched more than

30 eagles clean up a carcass in a rancher's back pasture.

Bald eagle congregations have been tourist attractions at

places like Canyon Ferry and Libby dams, where they feed on

fish in the winter.

No matter how many times I see a bald eagle on the wing, I

am taken aback by its beauty--and thankful for the Endangered

Species Act.

Conflicts over endangered species make headlines. Success

happens in quiet obscurity. But over time, the successes are

dramatic indeed.

Gray wolves are another Endangered Species Act success

story in the northern Rockies. Wiped out by over-zealous

predator control a century ago, wolves began trickling back

into Montana in the 1980s. Now, there are hundreds of wolves

in western Montana, and more in neighboring Idaho and

Wyoming.

Because Montana stepped up to the plate and agreed to

manage these animals for the future, the federal U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service recently handed wolf management over to

the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. This is

evidence of the flexibility built into the law.

While I don't like to see any animal needlessly wasted, I

respect that ranchers need to protect their stock to make a

living. The Endangered Species Act has allowed wildlife

managers to kill problem wolves--even wipe out entire packs

that made a habit of killing livestock.

We humans now dominate planet Earth. We share a

responsibility not to push species into extinction. For 30

years, the Endangered Species Act has helped keep America the

rich and beautiful land we love. My 17-month-old son loves

watching finches and chickadees at the feeder outside our

kitchen window. He will grow up also watching bald eagles,

some perching on a snag close to our backyard.

What a change. When I was a kid, the only eagle I ever saw

was on the back of a quarter.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, just for the record, I want to make it clear that the gentleman from Oregon did offer his amendment before the Committee on Rules. It was amendment No. 5 last night. Again, we believe his amendment should have been made in order.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).

(Mr. UDALL of New Mexico asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).

(Mr. UDALL of New Mexico asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would again urge my colleagues to, first of all, vote ``no'' on the rule, and I would also urge them to vote ``no'' on the underlying bill. I appreciate the work that the gentleman from California (Chairman Pombo) and others have put into this bill, but the bottom line is that the underlying bill eliminates habitat protections; it abandons the commitment to recovery of endangered species; it repeals protection against hazardous pesticides; it politicizes scientific decision-making; it eliminates the vital check-and-balance of consultation; it requires the Fish and Wildlife Service to allow unfettered habitat destruction; it would require taxpayers to pay developers, oil and gas companies and other industries, for complying with the law; and it is an entitlement.

I know the chairman has kind of objected to that characterization, but that is not my characterization. It is what CBO has concluded. It is what our colleague from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) who testified yesterday on behalf of the Republican Study Committee and the Republican Tuesday Group said last night in the Committee on Rules, that this bill creates an expensive new Federal entitlement program.

Mr. Speaker, the Endangered Species Act has done a great deal to protect endangered species. Everybody agrees that there needs to be adjustments. Everybody agrees that we can come together and make those necessary adjustments. But what we object to is that the underlying bill guts the Endangered Species Act. It is a bad bill; it is bad policy. I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 470 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 470 is a rule providing for consideration of H.R. 3824, the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005. The rule provides for 90 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Resources and waives all points of order against consideration of the bill.

House Resolution 470 provides that, in lieu of the amendment recommended by the Committee on Resources now printed in the bill, the amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of the Committee on Resources print dated September 26 shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment and shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.

House Resolution 470 makes in order only those amendments printed in the

Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution. The rule provides that amendments printed in the report may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.

Lastly, the resolution waives all points of order against amendments printed in the report and provides one motion to recommit, with or without instruction.

Mr. Speaker, the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act is one of the most important bills we will consider on species recovery and property rights this year. I commend the gentleman from California (Chairman Pombo) and other members of the Committee on Resources and their staffs who have worked hard to bring this legislation to this point. The result of their efforts is a solid bipartisan bill that updates key parts of the Endangered Species Act and provides enhanced protection for property owners.

For people of the rural West where I live, there are few more important matters than modernization of the ESA. Unfortunately, some of the most well-known examples of the ESA problems have occurred in my region of the country, the Pacific Northwest.

For example, Mr. Speaker, the Northwest timber industry was decimated by the listing of the spotted owl 15 years ago, only to discover that today, the spotted owls have actually been endangered and displaced by other owls. Imagine if we had emphasized recovery then. How many family-wage jobs would have been saved and how many more spotted owls would we have today?

Four years ago, water to family farms in the Klamath Basin in Oregon was cut off in the name of the sucker fish, when everyone knew there were other measures that would truly help species recover without bankrupting businesses and families. Every summer, in excess of $3 million is being spent per listed salmon. Mr. Speaker, let me repeat that. Every summer in excess of $3 million per salmon is spent to spill water over dams, even though science and common sense tells us that there are better ways of species recovery.

This is all the result of the Endangered Species Act becoming too driven by litigation and conflict. Simply put, this act is broken, and it is in need of updating.

If we put off modernizing the ESA, it is not just the people of my region that will suffer. It is also the animals and plants that the ESA is supposed to protect that are the victims. ESA's record of recovery of listed species is abysmal. Less than 1 percent of the species listed under the act have actually been recovered. According to the Fish and Wildlife Service, only 6 percent of the species are categorized as recovering. Each year, Federal agencies are spending more on paperwork, process, court cases, and lawyers and less on real on-the-ground recovery efforts. We, frankly, must reverse this trend.

The Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act puts the priority where it should be, on recovery. This bill will require agencies to complete recovery plans within 2 years of listing. These plans will require the identification of lands important for species recovery, in lieu of the cumbersome and litigation-driven critical habitat process.

In addition, the bill authorizes collaborative recovery teams made up of a diverse group of stakeholders, including people with conservation expertise as well as those whose livelihoods are affected by environmental policies. Again, there is a fundamental shift here from confrontation and litigation to cooperation and recovery. It is long overdue.

This legislation also offers important new tools for encouraging voluntary participation in species recovery efforts by private property owners. The ESA is currently written with its emphasis on punitive measures and regulation serves as a disincentive for any private property owner to provide habitat for a listed species.

This legislation provides ``no surprises'' protections for land holders entering into habitat conservation plans with the government. In addition, this bill offers financial aid to those whose property has been restricted for conservation purposes. After all, species recovery is a national goal that benefits all Americans, and the cost of that effort should not fall solely on the shoulders of land holders.

Another important improvement in the ESA that this bill would provide is strengthening the science and data used in decision-making. This legislation puts the emphasis on objectively quantifiable and peer- reviewed science. Stronger science and ESA information will result in our limited Federal resources going to where they will do the most good, while reducing instances of drastic Federal actions being taken on poor or limited data. These are the things that we should all be able to agree upon.

H.R. 3824 is a solid bipartisan bill that will do much to bring this important law up to date. I again commend my colleagues for their hard work on this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support both the rule, House Resolution 470, and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), a valued member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I would advise the gentleman from Oregon that his amendment during the markup in the Rules Committee was not offered by either side to be voted on.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), chairman of the Committee on Science.

(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, for clarification, I acknowledge that the gentleman from Oregon sent his amendment to the Committee on Rules. My point was during the markup of the rule, there was no attempt on the other side to amend the rule to make his amendment in order.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), a member of the Committee on Resources.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter).

(Mr. OTTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), the chairman of the Committee on Resources, the author of this bill, and somebody who has worked extremely hard on this for at least 12 years.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of rhetoric thus far on the rule, and I suspect there will be a lot of rhetoric when we debate the bill; but there is one underlying thread here that needs to be mentioned. It was mentioned by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza), and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).

That is that the Endangered Species Act needs to be updated.

I came here 10 years ago, and this is one of the big issues that was very important to my constituency when I first ran. There was talk then about amending the Endangered Species Act, but there was no agreement at all. We did get a bill out of committee. Unfortunately, it did not go any further.

But now we hear today that there is 90 percent agreement on the need to change the Endangered Species Act, but there is violent 10 percent disagreement on what those means should be. I contend that is huge, huge movement from where we have gone in 10 years. I do not know what the reasons are, but I expect the reasons are the inflammation of the existing Act.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, Psalms 104, verses 25, 30: ``In wisdom You made them all, the earth is full of Your creatures. There is the sea, vast and spacious, teeming with creatures beyond number, living things both large and small . . . When You send Your spirit, they are created and You renew the earth.''

Such is the appropriate Biblical quote, I say to my colleagues, that should guide our deliberations today on this particular legislation.

Species keep people alive. In the earlier comment, I stated that there are numerous Members of this body, perhaps to the person, who could tell of horror stories involved with the administration of the current Endangered Species Act. And while some of those stories are probably valid and have their good points, the current regime, as I also previously stated, has not been working. It has not been working because it has not been adequately funded nor administered by the current administration. Funding is a problem. Funding perhaps would have solved many of these horror stories to which Members of this body refer.

But this particular legislation, as we have heard throughout the debate on this general debate and we will hear more during the amendment process, is an expensive proposition. If we could not fund the regime that exists today that implements the ESA, how, I ask, are we going to fund an even more expensive regime that is set up by the pending legislation? A compensation program to property owners that truly is going to cause us to go further into deficit spending. The legislation would increase direct spending by requiring the Secretary of the Interior to pay aid to private landowners who are prohibited from using their property under certain circumstances. That means money, I say to my colleagues. That means appropriations from this body's Committee on Appropriations, at a time when we are finding tremendous costs being imposed upon the taxpayers that was unexpected 2 or 3 months ago.

At a time when we are already cutting Bureau of Reclamation projects, western water projects, Indian programs, our national parks. Indeed, there are some in this administration that would sell our national parks and other public lands in order to address our ever-mounting deficit. This legislation will only exacerbate our deficit problems.

And as I have said and referred to in earlier responses, why should we care about critters? Those who criticize this Act refer to the supporters of the Act as being more concerned about critters than human beings. I will tell them why we should be concerned about critters, why we should care about the Endangered Species Act.

Nowhere should that care be more evident than in the world of medicine. Anytime we allow a species to go extinct, we lose enormous potential to understand and improve our world. Nearly 50 percent of all our medical prescriptions, for example, dispensed annually in our country, are derived from nature or modified to mimic natural substances. Yet we have only investigated about 2 percent of the more than 250,000 known plant species for their possible medical breakthroughs. The extinction of a single species may mean the loss of the next effective treatment for cancer, for AIDS, or for heart disease. Mold fungus led to the development of Penicillin over 50 years ago. Mold fungus, it has saved countless lives in recent generations, and it continues to do so every day. Morphine and codeine, both made from poppy plants, are among the most widely used medications in the world today. Venoms from snakes have led to important medications, including an important drug to control blood pressure.

Even insects have their value in medicine. We now know that the genes that turn out to form a heart in a fruit fly are actually the same genes that form hearts in higher animals and people.

Again, quoting from the Bible, from Ecclesiastes: ``Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath.''

Mr. Chairman, at the appropriate time, I will be speaking on the manager's amendment and I will also be speaking in support of the substitute amendment that will be offered. As I said in my opening comments, I introduced these negotiations in good faith with the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), my chairman, because I thought there was not adequate funding to enforce the current endangered species law, and those negotiations were conducted in good faith, and we came quite close, and he will say probably that 90 percent of the current bill is a bill upon which I agree.

But at the same time, in the manager's amendment that will be coming up, there were changes made in literally the last minute that came very close to violating the good-faith negotiations that were ongoing on this legislation. I will speak to that at the proper time.

But I will say at this point that this legislation needs to be defeated, the substitute that will be offered needs to be supported, and we need to look very seriously at how we can enforce better the endangered species laws on the books today rather than the overhaul that exists in the pending legislation, and I urge defeat of the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the manager's amendment makes significant changes in the bill as it was reported from the Committee on Resources. These changes are likely to result in more species extinctions at greater loss of taxpayer dollars.

The pending legislation will increase direct spending in the discretionary funding law, which we will get into in general debate, and it could rise to more than $600 million a year, $235 million more per year than we are spending today for species conservation, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Let me make one point perfectly clear here: the manager's amendment is not something I agreed to in my discussions with the gentleman from California (Chairman Pombo). To say that I agree with 90 percent of this bill is not an accurate description, or is an unfair way to paint the matter.

One of the points that we had reached agreement on was that there was to be a recovery-based standard of determining when Federal agency actions jeopardize the continued existence of a species. The manager's amendment drops this crucial provision. It cripples it.

While I was willing to eliminate critical habitat, it was only on the condition that we ensure that there were adequate provisions in place to encourage recovery. Without this definition, the bill will not promote recovery. We will likely see more endangered and threatened species. It is upon that ground that I oppose this manager's amendment, as well as the loosened compensation standards put in order by the manager's amendment.

It eliminates the bill's requirement that appraisals determining the market value of foregone use of property are binding on both the Secretary and the property owner. Instead, the appraisal is binding only on the Secretary, and the property owner may then go to court to seek additional compensation. That makes the current pending legislation worse, and it will increase the cost of this entitlement program to property owners and it will increase that cost to the American taxpayer.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close?

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I say to my chairman, I appreciate his concluding comments there and, as I have said all along, we have negotiated in good faith, and I do want to continue that relationship that we have. Maybe we can still work on this bill together; I hope we can. But we will see as the process goes forward.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).

(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

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

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order under the rule.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the manager's amendment makes a number of technical changes to clarify certain provisions and address issues concerning science, the definition of ``jeopardy,'' consolidation of ESA-related programs, and review of protective regulations. It allows actions authorized under an approved section 10 permit to be carried out without duplicative consultation. It prevents water stakeholders from being held accountable for impacts due to State actions. It requires the four Power Marketing Administrations to include ESA costs in their monthly billing statements. It directs the Secretary of the Interior to survey certain Federal lands to assess their value for a report back to Congress. It clarifies conflicting statutes to make ESA the governing statutory authority when receiving a dock-building permit.

That is the short version of what is included in the manager's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I look forward to the gentleman's opposition to the highway bill and any new purchases of land, to the wildlife refuge system, to the park system, or any other thing that we spend money on, because he sees it as a big giveaway, a big government giveaway system.

Again, what the underlying bill does is if you step in and take habitat from a private property owner and you tell them that you restrict them and you tell them they cannot use part of their property, then we set up a system of incentives and grants.

But, if in the end, the Secretary says your property is necessary for the recovery of an endangered species, therefore you cannot use it, we compensate them for that and we pay them for it. If we build a highway across somebody's property, even though that may increase the value of the rest of the property, we pay them for it. If we take part of their property for a wildlife refuge, even though that may increase the value of the rest of their property, we pay them for it. But, if we take their property for endangered species habitat, we tell them, you are out of luck.

Now I have guys coming down here saying, this is a big, new giveaway system, that we are going to give away things to people. No. This is a big takeaway. You are taking away from them. You have been doing it for 30 years. Now it is time to pay for it. You are taking land away from people. Every little small farmer, rancher across the country, every homeowner across the country who has had their property taken away from them should

be compensated for it. You are taking away their land. There is nothing wrong with that.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this provision was not in the Contract With America. Nobody seems to be constrained by the truth here. This is a brand-new way of dealing with compensating property owners whose land is taken. CBO scored this at $10 million. This is a brand-new way of dealing with a very real problem and assuring some kind of protection to my property owners and your property owners.

Mr. Chairman, it was just a couple of weeks ago that the Supreme Court came out with a decision where this Congress stood up and said, you cannot use eminent domain to take away private property, to take someone's house away from them and give it to another individual. And all of you ran down on the floor and said you were all in support of that.

We are going to stop the government from being able to use eminent to take away somebody's house and give it to somebody else. But, under that provision, you have to pay them for their house. Under current law, you do not have to pay when you steal somebody's property for declared habitat at this time. You guys are all fine with that. Is that because we are talking about farmers and ranchers? Is that why you do not want to pay them? But when we are talking about somebody's house, all of a sudden you want to pay them? I mean, you guys have no consistency in this whatsoever.

I believe if you take away somebody's private property, you should have to pay them for it, and that is what we are trying to do in this underlying bill. I know that some of my colleagues are just philosophically opposed to that, and God love you. But the fact of the matter is, if you take away somebody's private property, you ought to have to pay for it.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is not what the Constitution says. The Constitution says, nor shall private property be taken for a public use without just compensation. That is what it says. It does not say the government can step in and take 90 percent of your value and then it is okay; it does not say they can take away 30 percent of your value and that is okay.

Is the gentleman going to oppose the highway bill because we compensate people when we take their land away for a highway, even though we do not take 100 percent of the use? Why is it okay in that instance, but it is not okay when it comes to protecting habitat?

You guys talk big about wanting to protect habitat and protect species, but 90 percent of the habitat for endangered species is on private property. The only way you are going to recover species is if you bring in the property owners and have them be part of the solution. You are stopping that from happening right now under current law and in the substitute. You are wrong on this one.

We have to pay when you take away somebody's private property. That is what we have to do. That is what is in the underlying bill. I am sorry if you have a philosophical problem with paying for what you are taking.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman how much time remains?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to say, this is another area where you guys are just not consistent. One of you comes down and beats us up because we are spending too much money about this massive increase in spending under this bill. Somebody else comes down and says, you do not fully fund endangered species under this bill. Either we spend too much or we do not spend enough. You cannot have it both ways. Either we spend too much or we do not spend enough, but you cannot keep coming down here and trying to make both arguments.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Chairman, I say to my friend from West Virginia, I appreciate all the work that he and his staff put into this bill. This was an important thing for us to go through, and I think that we produced a good bill at the end of that.

I know that there are issues in the underlying bill that we disagree on, and we probably always will. I will tell the gentleman, as we continue to work forward, I will continue to work with the gentleman as this bill moves through the process, continue to work with the gentleman and try to work out whatever differences that still exist under the bill.

The gentleman from West Virginia operated under good faith with me, I believe I did the same thing with the gentleman throughout this entire process, and I pledge to the gentleman that we will continue to work together to produce the best possible bipartisan bill we can to deliver to the President's desk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown).

(Mr. BROWN of South Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California and I have been working together for the last several months to try to find common ground on the amendments to the Endangered Species Act. As the chairman knows and many of my colleagues, I came to our discussions with the view that the ESA does not need amendment, that most of its problems could be fixed by additional appropriations or administrative changes that this administration is not willing to make.

Recognizing reality, I decided to enter into good-faith negotiations with

my chairman, and that is what they were. I salute the manner in which the gentleman from California conducted himself and the manner in which his staff treated the minority during this entire process. It was a fair process; and, indeed, when we had problems, we found open communication was received from the other side of the aisle, and I appreciate that. In the end, however, we could not reach agreement.

I do not support the pending legislation, but I must admit that we have come a long way. Yet we still have differences that divide us, differences in some instances that I have yet to discover. In fact, the manager's amendment has been redrafted so many times, the latest version is still hot off the presses.

I wish the bill, because of these latest changes in the manager's amendment, were not being rushed to the House floor. I wish that the driving force was not the zeal to pass anything that could be labeled ESA reform, but instead could be labeled truly species recovery.

With a little more time to consider how much this bill is going to cost the American taxpayers, we could at least have had a chance to see how much we are going to lose in the exchange. In the last several hours, the bill passed out of the committee has completely blown apart. For example, the manager's amendment abandons the definition of jeopardizing a species we agreed upon in committee. Instead, the Secretary of the Interior will use existing regulations which allow Federal actions to proceed, even if they will reduce the likelihood of a species' survival and recovery. The survival standard is akin to keeping a patient on life support without any chance of recovery.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, if this is enacted into law, it will increase direct spending and would cost almost $3 billion to implement from the years 2006 to 2010.

So in my view, this bill offers endangered species less protection at far greater cost. Not only was fiscal responsibility thrown to the wind in this process, but we have turned back the clock to an era in which DDT was commonly known as ``drop dead twice.'' H.R. 3824 includes a provision adopted in the Committee on Resources that would repeal the Endangered Species Act provisions that protect threatened and endangered species from the harmful impact of pesticides.

H.R. 3824 would insulate those who use pesticides from the Endangered Species Act prohibitions against killing endangered and threatened species. As long as corporations comply with Federal requirements to register pesticide users, they will have no obligation to meet the requirements in the Endangered Species Act. The economic and environmental implications of this provision are staggering.

But where the budget really leaks is from the gaping hole created by a new, potentially open-ended entitlement program for property developers and speculators. This, I might add, is where we truly broke down in our negotiations.

Section 14 would establish the dangerous precedent that private individuals must be paid to comply with an environmental law. If this language were applied to local zoning, no mayor, no city council could govern a community without fear that their decisions might drive the community into financial ruin. This section pays citizens to comply with the law. What is next, paying citizens to wear seat belts, to comply with speed limits, to pay their taxes?

This bill also contains provisions that would severely weaken the consultation process, the very heart of the ESA. Under current law, the Fish and Wildlife Service analyzes a proposed action to gauge if it is likely to place the continued existence of a species in jeopardy. The process is grounded in science and must meet reasonable criteria.

This bill, quite to the contrary of current practice, wipes away any standards for that process. It wipes away review by wildlife experts. Gone. Proponents claim this change is justified because of the service's heavy workload. Instead of fixing the problem by giving Fish and Wildlife more resources, the bill simply changes the rules and undermines species recovery.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I oppose another provision that would further weaken the section 7 consultation requirement when applied to state cooperative agreements. Under section 10 of H.R. 3824, no additional consultations will be required once the Secretary enters into a cooperative agreement with a State. It is questionable whether consultation would ever occur, even in those situations causing jeopardy to a listed species.

These provisions, taken together, raise a whole host of questions and concerns. What is clear is that this bill will not improve species' ability to recover. Quite likely it will result in more extinctions, the loss of more of the creatures God has placed in our care. Frankly, we cannot be good stewards of His creation and pass this bill.

For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose H.R. 3824. However, I have worked, as I said in the beginning, well with the gentleman from California on this bill; and I do salute his tenaciousness, his patience, and his courage in bringing this bill to the floor.

I would have preferred we keep trying to resolve our differences, but that is not the situation we are in today, so I would urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 3824.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, in response to the last colloquy that just took place between the two gentlemen from California in regard to emergency powers that would be granted the President to waive provisions of the Endangered Species Act, I just wanted to respond that the Endangered Species Act did not get in the way in any manner whatsoever of recovery efforts in response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Whatever provisions that were needed to be waived were waived under current law, without any additional authority being needed by the President.

So I just wanted to make that clear for the record that ESA did not hamper any recovery efforts for any of the most recent hurricanes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), a distinguished member of our committee.