mr. chairman , i yield myself such time as i may consume . 
mr. chairman , i rise in strong support of the substitute . 
i want to thank all of our co-sponsors for their support , the gentleman from michigan ( mr. dingell ) xz4001100 , the gentleman from washington ( mr. dicks ) xz4001090 , the gentleman from new jersey ( mr. saxton ) xz4003590 , the gentlewoman from california ( mrs. tauscher ) xz4003960 , the gentleman from illinois ( mr. kirk ) xz4002220 , the gentlewoman from california ( ms. matsui ) xz4002562 , the gentleman from illinois ( mr. johnson ) xz4002041 , and the gentleman from new hampshire ( mr. bass ) xz4000190 . 
that is a pretty good sampling of congressional centrists because there is a moderate , targeted solution . 
our substitute truly reforms the endangered species act without endangering any species or the american taxpayer . 
and that is where it differs from h.r. 3824 . 
but before i describe the differences , i want to emphasize the similarities . 
both the bill and the substitute eliminate the current requirements for setting aside critical habitat and rely instead on recovery plans to save endangered and threatened species . 
they are identical . 
both the bill and the substitute offer new financial incentives and legal protections to landowners to save species . 
both the bill and the substitute require greater involvement of states in decisionmaking involving species . 
both the bill and the substitute ensure that the public will have greater information about and a greater role in the decisionmaking . 
in fact , while it is hard to quantify , i would guess about 80 to 90 percent of the language in the substitute is identical to the base bill . 
that is because we developed the substitute by reading through the base bill , once we could seize a copy , and by incorporating into our substitute every word of h.r. 3824 that we possibly could . 
what we could not accept was language weakening the act by , for example , making recovery plans unenforceable , sit on a shelf , gather dust or making it too easy for the federal government to take actions that would harm species . 
and most of all what we could not accept was the new mandatory spending required by this bill which would open the federal purse to developers while eliminating basic taxpayer protections . 
i laid out my specific concerns for that provision during the general debate . 
i urge support for the substitute and opposition to h.r. 3824 as presented . 
mr. chairman , i reserve the balance of my time . 
