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 ) xz4001040 , 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 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 . 
