mr. speaker , the endangered species act is a safety net for wildlife , plants and fish that are on the brink of extinction . 
over its 32-year history , the endangered species act has been 99 percent successful in saving species from extinction , with only 7 out of over 1 , 200 species having gone extinct after being listed under the act . 
the number of species that have fully recovered is not as high , however , and at this point there is a recognition that the current critical habitat arrangement does n't work , for a whole host of reasons . 
i believe that any legislation amending the endangered species act should include a number of critical principles . 
it should not weaken existing law , nor should changes be adopted that would alter the original intent of the endangered species act . 
the act was written to protect all plants and animals in the united states from extinction and to restore them to stable populations . 
limiting protections for imperiled species now would serve only to make protection and recovery much more difficult and expensive in the future . 
i also believe that habitat protections for threatened and endangered species should not be weakened . 
the loss of habitat is widely considered by scientists to be the primary cause of species extinction and endangerment . 
preservation of habitat is an essential element to any and all efforts to protect and recover endangered species . 
additionally , any amendments should maintain the mandate for the endangered species act to work towards recovery . 
the endangered species act requires not only that we protect species from extinction but also that we recover species to the point where protection is no longer needed . 
merely maintaining the survival of a species contradicts the spirit and letter of the law , which is why we need to hold federal actions to the standard of recovering species . 
citizen input and oversight are vital to good endangered species act decisions and management , so any changes to the act should avoid unnecessary hurdles to public participation . 
it is also important to uphold the scientific process behind endangered species act decisions . 
the scientific review of matters relating to the endangered species act is already sufficiently rigorous . 
adding another layer of bureaucracy would serve only to slow the process , to the detriment of both the species in question and affected citizens . 
finally , i believe that while vigilant congressional oversight is critical to the success of any law , putting an arbitrary expiration date on the endangered species act would place the protection of species at the mercy of the legislative calendar . 
mr. chairman , white i realize that the endangered species act is not perfect , i believe that the version of the bill that is before us today will eliminate critical habitat without including other mechanisms to protect species ' homes . 
unless substantial amendments to address this and other shortcomings are passed on the floor today , i will not support h.r. 3824 . 
i applaud the efforts of a bipartisan group of my colleagues , including mr. miller , mr. boehlert , and the original author of esa , representative dingell , who have worked hard to develop an alternative bill that i am happy to support . 
