mr. chairman , i thank the ranking member , my friend , for yielding me this time .  `` shortsighted men , in their greed and selfishness will , if permitted , rob our country of half its charm by the reckless extermination of all useful and beautiful wild things. '' so said republican president theodore roosevelt almost 100 years ago , and how relevant his remarks are today .  if we can not find a way to live in harmony and conserve our natural resources in a sustainable way , we humans may , too , be doomed to extinction .  the endangered species act is a litmus test on the degree to which we are willing to conserve our livable environment .  to date this act has succeeded .  its success rate is 99 percent .  only 7 out of 1 , 200 species , according to fish and wildlife service , have become extinct , and they became extinct because of their status before they were listed .  there are problems with the act that need to be addressed , but many of the changes embodied in this bill are not designed to fix the problems .  they are designed to eviscerate the law .  the proposal before us today will gut the law by making any recovery plan unenforceable and by creating a new compensation program for those who own land that may host a threatened or endangered species .  we are a nation of laws and constitutional rights , but where in the constitution does it say property rights are an immutable and an open-ended entitlement ?  where would we be as a nation if the law did not allow reasonable government regulations of private property without payment of compensation if undertaken for the public good ?  that kind of regulation occurs every day in every state in every locality throughout the country .  it occurs as a result of practically every regulatory statute we pass .  it is a long-standing principle of the jurisprudence of our courts .  but this bill turns that principle on its head , and in so doing it creates a very dangerous precedent that this body should not knowingly adopt .  section 13 of the bill establishes a new program of conservation aid ; and under this program the government must provide compensation to landowners whenever an esa restriction prevents a particular use of property , regardless of the fact that other uses of the property remain and those uses are very valuable .  this new aid program , therefore , requires the payment of compensation to landowners even though no governmental taking of their property has occurred .  and rather than compensation being required where a restriction essentially strips property of all of its valuable uses , the standard under the takings clause , which exists today , this bill requires compensation whenever a restriction prevents a single use of property .  it is a standard for compensation that goes far beyond the standard imposed under the constitution 's `` taking '' clause , and it does not exist in any other federal statute .  if enacted , this bill will set a very dangerous precedent that could lead to the insertion of similar provisions in other environmental and regulatory statutes .  it has to be rejected .  mr. chairman , as a member of the interior , environment , and related agencies subcommittee of the committee on appropriations , i know that there are some problems with the implementation of this act .  the current `` critical habitat '' designation needs to be revised and should be established later in the process during the development of species recovery plans .  in that regard , the approach taken by the substitute put together by the gentleman from michigan ( mr. dingell )  and the gentleman from washington ( mr. dicks )  and others is the right way to go and should be adopted .  mr. chairman , federal land belongs to all of us .  the endangered species act is a vehicle through which we can conserve our land and balance the needs of all against the short-term and destructive interests of the few .  i urge my colleagues to oppose the threatened and endangered species recovery act , but strongly support the substitute .  