mr. speaker , i rise in strong opposition to both the rule and the bill . 
no matter how the proponents of the bill classify putting soft words and talking about it being reasonable or a compromise , it does not make it so . 
this is less about reform of the esa and protecting species , and more about making it easier for the exploitation of the environment . 
we have been in a state of stalemate for a number of years because the goal has not been reasonable refinement . 
there are things we could do right now to make the endangered species act more efficient , more effective , for instance , adequately funding the enforcement and conservation mechanisms . 
but the goal was not modest reform and improvement ; it was a radical adjustment . 
the batting average analogy of my friend from utah simply misses the point . 
it is not about just the species that have been restored . 
it is the protection that has been extended across america to make it possible that we are not losing environmental ground , and given the environmental circumstances , that is no easy task . 
i have literally watched it work in my own backyard . 
i have an urban creek that flows 26 miles through the heart of my congressional district . 
the salmon listing under the endangered species act prompted action by four local cities and two counties . 
we were able to come forward with an innovative streamlining agreement to meet the standards necessary to comply with the endangered species act and move quickly through the permitting process . 
we have been able to make progress . 
i have seen it work when people are committed to doing so . 
there are many troubling aspects of this legislation . 
putting in the hands , we have seen in this administration , of political appointees really perverting the decisionmaking in the name of science , these are not people that i think we ought to turn this over to willy-nilly . 
but the most troubling part of the legislation is found in the new entitlement program contained in section 14 . 
it goes far beyond paying people to obey the law , far beyond compensating for loss of customary use . 
it actually would create a perverse incentive for developers to propose the most environmentally destructive projects possible in order to get higher payment from the government . 
if you think we have litigation under the endangered species act now , wait until you see people coming forward right and left with bizarre proposals for development seeking compensation for things that were never customary uses . 
it is not only an unfunded mandate . 
it is providing a form of environmental blackmail and promotes endless legal battles . 
i urge my colleagues to reject the rule and this radical rollback of the endangered species act . 
