mr. chairman , i rise today in strong opposition to this bill , h.r. 3824 , which would substantially weaken the essential protections we have in place for endangered plants and animals . 
since being signed into law over 30 years ago , the endangered species act has protected over twelve hundred species from extinction . 
only nine species listed under the act have gone extinct , and five of them were later determined to be extinct by the time they were listed . 
meanwhile , thanks largely to the act 's protections , we have fully recovered such species as the american alligator , grey whale , and peregrine falcon , and stabilized the populations of bald eagles , sea turtles , manatees , and hundreds more . 
and some species , such as the california condor and red wolf , would probably be extinct without the protections of the act . 
from looking at the record of the endangered species act , i would say that it has been a success . 
a study by the congressional research service has shown that 41 percent of listed species have improved their status after being listed . 
the act certainly has not brought every endangered or threatened species to full recovery , but many of these have only been listed a few years . 
rebuilding a species takes time . 
the u.s. fish and wildlife service reported that only 4 percent of species listed for less than 5 years have recovered by any appreciable amount . 
but that number jumps to 36 percent for species listed for over 10 years . 
the fact that so many species have yet to be fully recovered is a call for more endangered species protections , not less . 
and yet less protection is exactly what this bill is giving us . 
it eliminates the designation of critical habitat , which is one of the most important provisions in the endangered species act . 
a recent study showed that species with defined critical habitat are far more likely to be recovering than species without such habitat . 
the bill includes a number of other unfortunate provisions , but perhaps none are more unfortunate , or more mind-boggling , than the proposal to pay off developers for what they should be doing anyway -- obeying the law . 
this bill says that if a developer wants to build something but ca n't do it because of the endangered species act , the government must pay them for the loss of the income they would have received from the development , even when the development is economically unfeasible . 
think about this for a second . 
first of all , we are saying that the government will pay you for obeying the law . 
a power plant that does n't install pollution control devices will be more profitable than one that does , but we do n't pay off the cleaner power plant for obeying the clean air act . 
and we certainly do n't pay someone for not robbing a bank , even though it would be very profitable for them to do so . 
this has nothing to do with the government providing compensation for taking private land . 
this is about developers being encouraged to come up with incredible schemes , and then getting paid by the american taxpayer to not build them , because doing so would drive an endangered species to extinction . 
this is insane , and would ensure that all the money in the endangered species program would go to developer payoffs , and not species protection . 
there are a number of reasons why we need to focus our resources on protecting endangered species . 
wildlife means millions of dollars to local economies , both through tourism and outdoor recreation . 
just in two counties in southern new jersey alone , red knot watchers spend over $ 4 million a year . 
nationally , sportsmen and wildlife enthusiasts spend an estimated $ 100 billion each year on outdoor activities . 
but preserving species is about more than just economic value and being good stewards of the earth . 
it is also about our health . 
a recent study by the national cancer institute showed that in the past 20 years , 78 percent of new antibiotics and 74 percent of new anticancer drugs were linked to natural products . 
every species that goes extinct decreases our chances of finding the next miracle drug to fight infection , alzheimer 's , cancer , or aids . 
the substitute amendment being offered by mr. miller , mr. boehlert , and others is a considerable improvement on the underlying bill . 
it eliminates payoffs to developers , puts more teeth into recovery plans , and ensures that scientific standards do n't get watered down . 
it is not an ideal substitute , but it will certainly do much more for truly protecting endangered species than h.r. 3824 . 
the endangered species act is something we should be proud of , and something we should look to tweak to improve species recovery , not gut to give egregious and unwarranted payouts to developers . 
i urge my colleagues to join me in defeating h.r. 3824 . 
