mr. chairman , i thank the gentleman for yielding me time . 
everybody has been talking gloom and doom about the endangered species act . 
let me give my colleagues a few success numbers . 
this comes from the national wildlife federation . 
according to the national research council , the endangered species act has saved hundreds of species from extinction . 
a study published in the `` annual review of ecological semantics '' calculated that 172 species would potentially have gone extinct during the period from 1973 to 1998 if endangered species act protection had not been implemented . 
according to the fish and wildlife service , 99 percent of the species ever listed under the endangered species act remain on the planet today . 
that is not a failure . 
that is an enormous success . 
according to the u.s. fish and wildlife service , of the listed species whose condition is known , 68 percent are stable or improving , and 32 percent are declining . 
the longer a species enjoys the endangered species act protection , the more likely its condition will stabilize or improve . 
now , i just want to say something . 
everybody has been saying that h.r. 3824 has been this great effort in terms of collaboration , and i respect that . 
i respect the way that the chairman and the gentleman from west virginia ( mr. rahall ) xz4003310 have approached this thing . 
i come from the state of washington . 
no part of the country has been more affected by the endangered species act than the state of washington with the spotted owl listings and the marbled murrelet listings ; but i believe that this legislation , h.r. 3824 , is a step backwards . 
it is not going to help protect these species that we want . 
it will hurt them . 
i think that the esa should be reformed in a responsible manner . 
in fact , the substitute amendment that i have cosponsored with the gentleman from california ( mr. george miller ) xz4002780 , the gentleman from new york ( mr. boehlert ) xz4000350 , and others that will be debated later today embodies those kinds of practical reforms which still provide us the kind of potent tools necessary to prevent extinction of species and to work towards their recovery . 
there are some aspects of this bill that i agree with to a point . 
over time , many supporters of the esa have come to question the way in which habitat is designated as critical in order to help species recovery . 
while it is vitally important that habitat be set aside , these critical habitat designations have led to much controversy . 
the substitute amendment also eliminates the critical habitat designation , but replaces it with the requirement that the interior secretary identify specific areas that are necessary for the conservation of species and then enforce these designations . 
in addition , the substitute amendment will require that federal land be considered first for designation as habitat necessary for a species ' survival and recovery before private landowners are burdened . 
another provision of this bill is one offered by my friend from oregon , but the idea that we are not any longer going to have epa consult on pesticides is a tragic mistake . 
this is enough to defeat this bill in its own right . 
this is a terrible mistake . 
sixty-seven million birds each year die because of pesticides ; and if we let this pesticide provision be enacted , it will be the most damaging thing i can think of for birds and other wildlife . 
