Survival habitat would be superseded once critical habitat had been designated.

We were asked to consider the definition of species as it is used under the Act. I'm sure you're all aware that the term species under the Act includes subspecies of plants and animals and distinct population segments of vertebrates. We advance a coherent, unified concept called the evolutionary unit concept which should provide scientific objectivity to the designation of biological entities. This concept is based on identifying the distinctive characteristics of a biological unit. Those distinctive characteristics should confer a potential for an independent evolutionary future. If entities qualify as evolutionary units, then they should be eligible for protection under the Act.

We also recommend a scientific framework for decision analysis, which should aid in the allocation of scarce resources in listing and other ESA actions, and our report attempts to look beyond the ESA. We endorse regionally negotiated approaches involving governmental and non-governmental entities, characteristic of habitat conservation plans.

We believe that the science of ecosystem management provides a promising approach to a broader framework of multispecies conservation. We endorse mixed use areas, the rehabilitation of ecosystems and the use of market-based economic incentives to achieve ESA goals.

Thank you. I'll be happy to try and answer any questions.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. All right. Dr. Clegg, thank you very much for your comments.

Dr. Lubchenco.

STATEMENT OF JANE LUBCHENCO, DEPARTMENT OF ZOOLOGY, OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY, CORVALLIS, OR Dr. LUBCHENCO. Thank you very much. It's a pleasure to be here. My name is Jane Lubchenco, I'm distinguished professor of Zoology at Oregon State University. I am the president-elect of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which publishes the journal, Science, among other things, and a past president of the Ecological Society of America. My particular expertise is marine ecology.

In my remarks this morning, I wish to emphasize three points. First, in my opinion, reauthorization of the ESA is one of the most important responsibilities that this Congress has. Second, vigorous protection of the Nation's biological resources will benefit all Americans. And third, recent scientific advances provide good guidance for achieving the goals of the ESA more effectively and efficiently. The Endangered Species Act of 1973 was a remarkable piece of legislation. Now the time has come to reconsider its goals and the mechanisms for achieving them. This task is one of the most important challenges facing the 104th Congress. The responsibility of safeguarding the Nation's biological resources is profound. The challenge is also fundamentally different from many of the other important responsibilities of Congress. Most policies formulated at one point in time can be altered at a later date.

However, because the loss of a species is irreversible many of the consequences of a poorly conceived ESA cannot be undone, cannot

be reversed. "Jurassic Park" notwithstanding, species cannot be brought back to life. Nor can many of their important functions be replaced. Losing species means losing genes, losing potentially important chemicals for medicines and losing life-supporting ecological services. The permanency of extinction and the folly of squandering the natural biological capital on which we all depend should prompt a profound sense of responsibility and a suitably cautious approach. Few bad decisions will have such irreversible consequences.

The task of reauthorization should take full advantage of the substantial recent advances in science. The scientific information relevant to the ESA has been recently reviewed and summarized by two independent expert panels. Professor Clegg has just summarized the excellent report issued by the National Research Council. A separate, independent but parallel scientific assessment has just been released by the Ecological Society of America. I request that this report be entered into the record.1

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Without objection.

[The report will print at the end of the hearing record with Ms. Lubchenco's prepared statement.]

Dr. LUBCHENCO. This report is remarkably similar in its conclusions to the Academy report, and focuses specifically on ways in which scientific information can help achieve the goals of the ESA more efficiently and effectively. Together, these reports provide unequivocal testimony to the strong consensus within the scientific community, strong consensus about the importance of preserving the Nation's biological resources, strong consensus about the critical importance of these resources to people, and strong consensus about the dual need to focus on species and on habitats.

People depend upon biological resources in myriad but generally unappreciated ways. Even the much maligned creepy crawly critters, or even the simply plain organisms, may be bountiful sources of useful products like medicines.

For example, the interaction between caterpillars of the day flying moth, Urania, and the Omphalea plants on which they feed results in the production by the plants of a chemical, dihydroxymethyldihydroxypyrrolidine, or DMDP. This compound has been shown to have remarkable properties. It blocks activity of the HIV virus, it protects stores of beans against attack by beetles, and it demonstrates some activity against cancer and diabetes. All these properties from a plant-caterpillar interaction.

Species provide, however, much more than goods such as medicine, food, and genes. They also provide services to people. Intact ecosystems with their full component of species provide many essential services which we take for granted, and are often not completely aware of. Old growth forests and wetlands, for example, purify water and detoxify pollutants. Kelp forests and salt marshes provide nursery grounds for fishes and protect shores from coastal erosion.

Other ecosystem services include the provision of fertile soil, pollination for crops and the control of pests and pathogens. These

1 The Ecological Society of America's report is entitled, "Strengthening the Use of Science in Achieving the Goals of the Endangered Species Act." It is in Ecological Applications (1966, Vol. 6(1)).

ecosystem services are provided to us free of charge. They are not included in our economic valuation system. They are not owned by anyone. They are not easily replaced. These services are of obvious importance to people, and warrant strong protection.

In some cases, protection of individual species through the ESA has had the added benefit of protection of the ecosystem in which. the species lives, and therefore, of these critical ecosystem services provided by the ecosystem. For example, protection of the northern spotted owl has resulted not only in protection of probably hundreds of other old growth species of plants, animals, invertebrates, but also protection of watersheds that provide clean drinking water for cities and spawning grounds for salmon.

The increases in scientific understanding of species and ecosystems over the past two decades strongly reinforces the original goals of the ESA. Thus, in addition to ethical and moral reasons to protect species and habitats, it is in our own best interests to do so. Protection of species benefits us all. New information also provides guidance about how to achieve this protection in more efficient and effective ways.

In closing, let me share with you my pleasure that my younger son Duncan is here with us today from Oregon. Throughout human history, parents have looked to the younger generation as the hope for the future, the hope for continuing the good things that we have begun and for correcting our errors. Now, however, the next generation may not be able to undo our most egregious and shortsighted mistakes. As E.O. Wilson has said, loss of biodiversity is the folly least likely to be forgiven us by future generations.

Thank you.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Dr. Lubchenco, thank you very much. Is this Duncan over here?

Dr. LUBCHENCO. This is Duncan.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Duncan, welcome. We're glad you're here. Dr. Pimm.

STATEMENT OF STUART PIMM, PROFESSOR OF ECOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE, KNOXVILLE, TN

Dr. PIMM. Mr. Chairman, gentlemen. I'd like to make two points this morning. The first is that we are in the midst of a massive loss of species. The second, the Endangered Species Act has been a valuable tool in preventing extinction. The first of my points has been so beautifully read by Senator Reid, including my punch line, that there would be little point in my repeating it.

Senator REID. Why don't you try, it was pretty good. [Laughter.]

Dr. PIMM. No, I will defer to your reading.

In small part, I think we scientists play into the hands of journalists who see in our debates the controversies that sell their books and newspapers. We scientists have made many predictions about the future of biodiversity. We do this to see how sensitive our conclusions are to the assumptions we must make. Certainly, we'd like to have more precise estimates about the rates of extinction. I took the liberty last night of phoning up one of my persistent critics, Professor Dan Simbeloff, from Florida State University, who has criticized me in the literature for as long as we have been

friends. I asked him what he would say if he were talking to this committee.

Without any prompting, his conclusions were almost verbatim the same as mine. He is desperately unhappy about the way that this debate is being portrayed in some of the popular accounts. He too feels extinction rates are high. He too feels that those extinction rates are accelerating. Without any prompting, he came up with exactly this same wording, whatever the uncertainties, no ecologist has predicted less than massive extinction.

The United States houses several of the Earth's extinction black spots. The Hawaiian islands have already lost most of their bird species, many of their plants, and are now home to more endangered species per square mile than almost any other part of the planet. In the lower 48 States, we've lost large numbers of fish and other freshwater species. Extinction should be a national concern. I've been privileged to work on endangered species with many outstanding scientists and universities, State governments and Federal agencies. My experiences taught me that the Act protects not just endangered species. Many of the species, too, the ecosystems that house them, and crucially, areas that are so valuable to use by Americans.

In Hawaii, island-wide biological surveys identified those areas richest in endangered birds. With the help of the Nature Conservancy, the Fish and Wildlife Service purchased some of the most important areas, providing permanent protection for many other species of animals and plants.

Following the recommendations of the National Research Council, the Service has brought back from the very brink of extinction the bird called the 'alala. Once again, in acquiring its habitat, the Act has protected much of the islands' rain forests and their unique biological heritage.

In Florida, my research group's current work involves a small sparrow. We call it Goldilocks. It requires very precise water levels, not too wet, not too dry. Changing the water flows to save the sparrow will benefit the entire Everglades ecosystem, including the productive fisheries of Florida Bay. The Act requires that we protect the sparrow, and in doing so, it ensures that we manage ecosystems skillfully.

No bird or endangered other species has been more pilloried than the Snail Darter of Tennessee, the small fish that held up the construction of the unwanted Tellico Dam. What would we have saved if the Act had been upheld? First, the family farm of one of my former undergraduates. Second, a fine trout stream.

And third, burial grounds sacred to Native Americans. And yes, a rich species river. Only unsupported anecdotes about the Snail Darter argued that the Act pitted species against people. Please let's recognize that the real controversy was over different versions of our own future.

That brings me to the Smoky Mountains National Park. Three generations ago, the debate over saving the last old growth forests in the eastern United States closely resembled today's debate over the forests of the Pacific Northwest. Had the Act been in effect 80 years ago, I can easily imagine the headlines of salamanders versus jobs.

Yes, logging large hardwoods is now an extinct profession. Before we decry that particular cost of environmental protection, please notice that this national park attracts millions of visitors a year, and several large communities depend upon their business. If the debate about this Act reduces to a consideration of economic costs and benefits, then let us carefully examine its history in this regard. For there are many cases where it has enriched both the economy and our lives.

Thank you.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Dr. Pimm, thank you very much.

Dr. Clegg, I'd like to begin my questions with you. I find many things in your report that I agree with, such as the statement you made that sound public policy often depends on sound science. Does the wide variety of things protected by the Act, and this would be plants through invertebrates and vertebrates, lend themselves to a single biological definition of a species?

Dr. CLEGG. We believe that the definition that we've advanced in the report provides that kind of generality. The evolutionary unit definition is based on the integration of a number of attributes of the unit, including genetic, morphological, and behavioral attributes, so that we could assess that it is a distinctive entity with an independent evolutionary future.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. OK. Does the Act currently discuss genetics and the use of genetics in the process of identifying what should be protected under the Act?

Dr. CLEGG. I cannot say whether the Act presently discusses genetics. Our report discusses it in detail.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. Should it?

Dr. CLEGG. I believe that genetics provides essential information, I am after all a geneticist, I have to confess that my bias would be progenetics. Genetics provides a very fundamental basis for evaluating biological distinctiveness, and it should be a criterion in most cases. There may be exceptions.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. All right. Then in your opinion, should the Act treat a full biological species in the same way that it treats a subspecies or a distinct vertebrate population?

Dr. CLEGG. Our report came to the conclusion that the Act was sound in its treatment of subspecific entities as well as species as eligible for protection.

Senator KEMPTHORNE. All right, thank you.

Dr. Lubchenco, and I appreciate that you brought Duncan with you, I too am a parent, I have two children, Heather and Jeff, that I've yet to be able to get to come to one of these hearings.

[Laughter.]

Senator KEMPTHORNE. But I join you, we're all dedicated to passing on a good world to these young people and make improvements to it.

Are there similarities between, let me ask you this. Are there similarities between multiple use management and ecosystem management? What are the differences?

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Ecosystem management is a term that is a relatively recent one. It has been used in various ways. I will define it for you in the way that I think is most appropriate, that is, taking large scale view of an ecosystem and managing it in a way that