enormous investment of time and resources has accomplished nothing, other perhaps than to spur the Service to make an ad hoc modification of its rules.

STATEMENT OF David LanghorST, EXECUTIVE BOARD MEMBER, IDAHO WILDLIFE

FEDERATION

Good morning. My name is David Langhorst and I am here to testify on behalf of the National Wildlife Federation, the Nation's largest conservation education organization. I serve as Executive Board member of the Idaho Wildlife Federation, one of NWF's 45 affiliated conservation organizations throughout the United States. NWF and its affiliated organizations have an active and longstanding commitment to ensuring the conservation of our Nation's wealth of biological resources. We are currently performing an extensive review of the Endangered Species Act's record of implementation and will soon be offering an array of new policy proposals. In the meantime, we are pleased to be able to offer some of our ideas relating to the ESA recovery process here today.

The ESA has produced a remarkable string of successes. In its 23-year history, it has stabilized or improved the conditions of hundreds of plant and animal species that had been in serious decline. In my own work as Executive Director of the Wolf Education and Research Center in Ketchum, ID, I have seen large numbers of concerned citizens work with the ESA to help bring about the recovery of the gray wolf in the Northern Rockies ecosystem. By educating communities about the importance of the wolf to the health of the ecosystem and using the ESA's flexible provisions, we are successfully restoring this wonderful animal to the wild in a manner sensitive to local economic interests.

The gray wolf recovery effort is a model of how diverse groups of local citizens can work together and achieve results using the ESA. However, as a result of delaying tactics by narrow ranching interests, wolf recovery is taking too many years and is generating inordinate costs to the Federal taxpayer: the delay was intentional. Meanwhile, during the period of the wolf recovery effort, the recovery of numerous other listed species is being neglected.

NWF believes that the ESA can and should be revised to make the law work better for both people and endangered species. In a moment (Section II), I will recommend revisions to the ESA that would expand public participation in recovery and greatly enhance the prospects that threatened and endangered species will recover and no longer need the protections of the Act. But first (Section I), I would like to address the central purpose of the ESA-to protect and recover all of the Nation's imperiled plant and animal species-and discuss the enormous benefits to people that the law provides.

1. THE NEED TO SAVE ALL SPECIES

Certain regulated industry groups are now advocating that the ESA's goal of protecting and recovering all of the Nation's imperiled plant and animal species be abandoned and that the fate of each species be left to the discretion of the Secretaries of Interior and Commerce. Such an abandonment of the ESA's goal would be unwise for at least two reasons. First, conserving the fullest extent of our natural heritage provides enormous benefits to people, benefits that greatly exceed the costs of protection measures. Second, the alternative separately deciding the fate of each species using a cost/benefit analysis-is simply unnecessary, unworkable and would be extremely wasteful considering the numerous ESA procedures already in place to ensure that economic consequences are considered before the law is implemented. Congress established the goal of protecting and recovering all imperiled species when it first enacted the ESA in 1973. This ambitious goal was not chosen carelessly, but was arrived at after Congress determined that the rapid loss of biodiversity in the U.S. and abroad posed a direct threat to the well-being of the American people. When the law was reauthorized in 1978, 1982 and 1988, Congress reaffirmed that recovering all threatened and endangered species was essential.

The scientific evidence that motivated previous Congresses to set the goal of recovering all species has only strengthened in recent years. Today there is no dispute in the scientific community that human activity has brought about a loss of biodiversity not witnessed since the cataclysmic changes ending the dinosaur era 65 million years ago. Edward O. Wilson, the eminent Harvard biologist, estimates that the current extinction rate in the tropical rainforests is somewhere between 1,000 to 10,000 times the rate that would exist without human disturbances of the environment. According to the recent study of the ESA by the National Academy of Sciences (at p. 29), the "current accelerated extinction rate is largely human-caused and is likely to increase rather than decrease in the near future."

This rapid loss of biodiversity is occurring not just in the tropical rainforests. In the nearly 400 years since the Pilgrims arrived to settle in North America, about 500 extinctions of plant and animal species and subspecies have occurred-a rate of extinction already much greater than the natural rate. According to recent calculations by Peter Hoch of the Missouri Botanical Garden, over the next five to 10 years another 4,000 species in the U.S. alone could become extinct. This evidence of increased extinctions provides sad testimony to the need for improving the ESA rather than scaling back its fundamental goal.

A. The Benefits to People of Saving All Species

It has become more apparent than ever that stemming this tide of biodiversity loss is essential for the well-being of the American people. Species are essential components of natural essential materials, regulate local climates and watersheds, and satisfy basic cultural, aesthetic and spiritual needs. Below are six examples of how endangered species protections help people.

1. New Medicines to Respond to the Health Crises of Tomorrow

Wild plant and animal species are an essential part of the $79 billion annual U.S. pharmaceutical industry. One-fourth of all prescriptions dispensed in the U.S. contain active ingredients extracted from plants. Many other drugs that are now synthesized, such as aspirin, were first discovered in the wild.

Researchers continue to discover new potential applications of wild plants and animals for life-saving or life enhancing drugs. In fact, many pharmaceutical companies screen wild organisms for their medicinal potential. Yet to date, less than 10 percent of known plant species have been screened for their medicinal values, and only 1 percent have been intensively investigated. Thus, species protections are essential to ensure that the full panoply of wild plants and animals remains available for study and future use. Below are three examples of pharmaceutical benefits.

• More than three million American heart disease sufferers would find their lives cut short within 72 hours without digitalis, a drug originally derived from the purple foxglove plant.

• The endangered Houston toad, on the verge of extinction due to habitat loss, produces alkaloids that may prevent heart attacks or act as an anesthetic more powerful than morphine.

The National Cancer Institute is now studying four plant compounds-from a Malaysian tree, a tropical vine in Cameroon, a bush from Western Australia and a Western Samoan tree that show promising results in stopping replication of the HIV-1 and HIV-2 viruses, the precursors to AIDS, in laboratory

tests.

2. Wild plant species that safeguard our food supply

The human population depends upon only 20 plant species, out of over 80,000 edible plant species, to supply 90 percent of its food. These plants are the product of centuries of genetic cross-breeding among various strains of wild plants. Continual cross-breeding enables these plant species to withstand ever-evolving new diseases, pests and changes in climatic and soil conditions. According to a recent study, the constant infusion of genes from wild plant species adds approximately $1 billion per year to U.S. agricultural production.

If abundant wild plant species were unavailable to U.S. agriculture companies for cross-breeding, entire crops would be vulnerable to pests and disease, with potentially devastating repercussions for U.S. farmers, consumers and the economy.

• As noted by the Archer Daniels Midland Company in a September 1994 letter to the U.S. Senate in support of the Convention on Biological Diversity, today's U.S. wheat crop is under siege from a Russian wheat aphid. The only four known sources of resistance, which will enable the agricultural industry to create aphid resistant wheat strains, come from wild species found in Southwest Asia.

3. Renewable Resources for a Sustainable Future

At existing levels of consumption, nonrenewable resources such as petroleum will inevitably become increasingly costly and scarce in the coming decades. To prepare the U.S. for the global economy's certain transition toward renewable resources, Congress must ensure the health of the U.S. biological resource base. Fish, wildlife and plant species could potentially supply the ingredients for the products that drive the U.S. economy of the 21st century.

• According to a 1992 Newsweek article, "Potatoes-not to mention beetle carapaces, iridescent blue mussels, abalone shells, apples and other natural bounty could well form the basis of the next revolution in what the world is made of. Having taken petroleum based plastics and fabrics just about as far as they

can, researchers in materials science are looking to nature for inspiration. The idea is not to fabricate bulletproof vests, tanks, and jet wings out of lowly tubers, but rather to study natural products for clues to making materials stronger, more durable, more flexible." The substance that holds mussels to rocks through stormy seas, for example, may hold clues for a better glue to use in applications from shipbuilding to dentistry.

• The jojoba plant is a promising source of oil similar to that derived from the sperm whale. The guayule shrub is rich in natural rubber and complex resin. Both plants grow in southwestern deserts and could become significant cash crops in an area unsuitable for most other agricultural purposes.

4. Early Warning of Ecosystem Decline

Scientists have long known that the loss of any one species is a strong warning sign that the ecosystem that supported the species may be in decline. A recent study in the widely respected journal Nature reported that loss of species could directly curtail the vital services that ecosystems provide to people. A subsequent study in the same publication suggests that destruction of habitat could lead to the selective extinction of an ecosystem's "best competitors," causing a more substantial loss of ecosystem functions than otherwise would be expected.

Negative impacts in wild species often portend negative impacts for human health and quality of life. For example, some animal species are critical indicators of the harm that heavy chemicals can cause in our environment.

• The bald eagle served as an environmental indicator of the dangers of the pesticide DDT. Efforts to stabilize the endangered bird's condition led to the discovery of the harmful shell-thinning effects of DDT on eagles and other species. DDT, which was banned in 1973, is also thought to be linked to higher incidences of breast cancer in humans.

• A National Wildlife Federation report released last year, Fertility on the Brink: The Legacy of the Chemical Age, demonstrates that hormone-mimicking industrial chemicals and pesticides buildup in concentration as they rise up the food chain. The result is disastrous effects on multiple species, including behavioral abnormalities in lake trout, gender blurring in alligators and gulls, and an increased incidence of cancer and low sperm count among humans.

5. Ecosystems: Life-support Systems for People

Our society has become so alienated from nature that sometimes we forget that we rely on ecosystems for our survival. Ecosystems carry out essential natural processes such as those that purify our water and air, create our soil, protect against floods and erosion, and determine our climate. For example:

• The Chesapeake Bay, the nation's largest estuary, not only supports 2700 plant and animal species, but also plays a major role in regulating environmental quality for humans. Rapid development around the Bay has sent countless tons of sediment downstream, landlocking communities that were once important ports. The construction of seawalls and breakwaters in some areas has led to rapid beach erosion in others. In addition, as of March 1993, the flow of industrial and agricultural toxins into the Bay was responsible for 13 advisories and four outright bans on catching or consuming certain fish and shellfish. This degradation jeopardizes important food sources, recreational activities, and numerous other benefits.

6. Ecosystems: Industries and Jobs Depend on Them

Healthy ecosystems enable multi-billion dollar, job industries to thrive. Examples of industries that are on the health of ecosystems are:

• Tourism. In 1993, tourism brought in $396.7 billion to the U.S. economy. Tourism is the fastest-growing industry in the West and the largest private employer in seven of the 11 western States.

• Commercial Fishing. Apart from providing a key component of the U.S. diet, commercial fishing is a $3.9 billion industry. The Pacific Coast Federation of Commercial Fishermen, a trade association based in the Pacific Northwest, has emphasized the importance of the ESA to the future of this vital industry and has urged Congress to strengthen the ESA's essential habitat protections. • Recreational Fishing. Nearly 36 million Americans fish for sport in the Nation's fresh and salt waters, resulting in $24 billion in consumer spending, one million jobs, and $3 billion in State and Federal tax revenues.

• Hunting. Annually, over 14.1 million Americans spend 236 million days hunting a variety of game animals and migratory birds. Hunting activity results in annual consumer spending of over $12.3 billion.

Wildlife-Watching. The conservation of sandhill and whooping crane habitat along the Platte River in Central Nebraska has generated significant economic

benefit for local communities. In 1991, an estimated 80,000 crane-watchers infused more than $15 million into the local Platte River economy. The cities of Rearney and Grand Island have both initiated festivals targeting crane-watch

ers.

• Sauk City, Wisconsin (population 4000), a primary winter roosting area for bald eagles, draws approximately 50,000 eagle-watchers each winter, generating an estimated $1 million in revenues for local businesses.

• The Kirtland's warbler, unique to Michigan, provides direct economic benefits to local communities. FWS tours of warbler nesting areas increased 7 percent in 1992, drawing 775 people from 38 States and six foreign countries. The Holiday Inn of Grayling has begun marketing to warbler-watchers and the Oscoda County Chamber of Commerce held its first Kirtland's Warbler Festival in June 1994.

When ecosystems are degraded, the result is economic distress. Here are just a few of the countless examples:

• Destruction of salmon runs on the Columbia and Snake river systems in the Pacific Northwest led to the near collapse of that region's multi-billion dollar commercial and sport fishing industries. In New England, overfishing and the resultant crash of the fishery has cost the regional economy roughly $350 million annually and the loss of 14,000 jobs.

• New York and New Jersey lost more than $4 billion in the late 1980's from beach closings due to pollution. Across the country, polluted waters have led to more than 7700 beach closings in the past 5 years.

• Every day in Florida, an average of 450 acres of forested or vegetated land is cleared, a deforestation rate about twice that of Brazil's rainforest. Meanwhile, Florida Bay and the Everglades are in serious decline due to agricultural runoff and other environmental abuses. According to the Tampa Tribune, such environmental degradation is jeopardizing the future of the State's multi-billion dollar tourism industry.

• The Laredo, Texas health department recently concluded that polluted water was responsible for the death of a boy who had been swimming in the Rio Bravo river. Nearly forty percent of U.S. waters are currently unfit for recreational

use.

B. Industry-Backed Cost/Benefit Proposals are Unworkable, Unnecessary and a Recipe for Mass Extinction

Anti-ESA advocates propose to replace the goal of saving all species with a cost/ benefit analysis to determine whether to save each species. The details of this approach can be found in S. 768, the ESA reauthorization bill introduced earlier this year by Senator Gorton. Under this bill, which Interior Secretary Babbitt has appropriately characterized as a "repeal" of the Endangered Species Act, the Secretary of Interior or Commerce would have complete discretion to allow any endangered species to go extinct if they find that the economic costs of saving the species would exceed the benefits.

Such cost/benefit analyses would likely produce an extinction of hundreds of endangered species due to human disturbances of habitat. In the absence of any legal obligation to recover species, the Secretary of Interior could ultimately succumb to political pressures and choose meager objectives for any species that dare to get in the way of industry and development. For most species, any objective short of full recovery would effectively perpetuate the continued slide toward extinction.

Even if the cost/benefit analysis could somehow be insulated from political manipulation, its outcome would still be totally unreliable. The information available to the Secretary about the costs of protecting the species in question would be extremely incomplete, because no one could know at the time of the cost/benefit analysis what human activities would ultimately threaten the species and whether those activities could be modified through the ESA consultation process to avoid or reduce

economic losses.

Equally important, the Secretary would also have incomplete information about the benefits to people provided by the species. Despite years of research and development, we have only just begun to discover the beneficial uses of species. Of the estimated five to 30 million species living today on Earth, scientists have identified and named only about 1.6 million species, and most of these have never been screened for beneficial uses. As species become extinct, we simply don't know what we are losing. The species that become extinct today might have provided the chemical for a miracle cancer treatment or the gene that saves the U.S. wheat crop from the next potentially devastating disease.

Before adopting the cost/benefit approach, Congress ought to consider how such analyses would have affected our ability to produce today's miracle drugs. For exam

ple, a cost/benefit analysis of the penicillin fungus in the years prior to the discovery its antibiotic qualities would have been a surefire recipe for extinction because no one could foresee its future role in the development of wonder drugs that would save and enhance the lives of millions of people.

There is yet another reason why we should not attempt to decide the fate of species based on a prediction of their future benefits. Species within an ecosystem are interdependent, and thus the extinction of one species potentially disrupts other species and the functioning of the entire ecosystem. As reported by the Missouri Botanical Garden, the loss of one plant species can cause a chain reaction leading to the extinction of up to 30 other species, including insects, higher animals, and other plants. Like pulling a single bolt from an airplane wing, we cannot know beforehand what effect the loss of a single species might have on the entire ecosystem.

A final flaw with the cost/benefit approach is that it is based on a false premise that the ESA lacks opportunities for consideration of economic and social impacts of listings. In fact, numerous ESA provisions require that economic and social consequences be balanced with species protection goals. Only in the decision of whether to list a species does the ESA limit consideration to biological factors. This is perfectly justified because the viability of a species is a purely scientific question. Once a species is listed, the ESA provides for the consideration of socioeconomic factors in the designation of critical habitat, the development of special regulations for threatened species and experimental populations, the issuance of incidental take permits, the development of reasonable and prudent alternatives during Federal agency consultations, and the existence and operation of the Endangered Species Committee. The Endangered Species Committee is explicitly designed to resolve any conflicts between conservation and economic goals in the unlikely event that normal ESA procedures fail.

II. IMPROVING THE ESA RECOVERY PROCESS

NWF believes that improving the recovery process should be one of the highest priorities of this Congress as it prepares to reauthorize the ESA. Recovery of imperiled species is the fundamental purpose of the ESA, and yet often the recovery process takes a "back seat" to other concerns when the ESA is considered. We are grateful that this subcommittee has chosen to focus its attention on the recovery process for a substantial part of today's hearing.

Anti-ESA advocates often contend that the ESA is a failure because few species have been removed from the Act's threatened and endangered lists due to recovery. These critics ignore two important facts. First, they ignore the fact that hundreds of species have benefited enormously from the Act's protections-many of them might be extinct today if the ESA had not been in place. Second, they also ignore the fact that species usually become threatened or endangered due to a powerful combination of biological, economic and political forces. The measures needed to bring a species to the condition where it no longer needs the protections of the ESA can often be daunting. The 22 years of progress under the ESA have been remarkable in addressing problems that have been developing for hundreds of years.

On the other hand, it is a legitimate cause for concern when each year, far more species become imperiled (and thus need the protections of the Act) than are recovered and no longer need the protections of the Act. At the present time, FWS has developed plans for only 513 of the 927 listed species within its jurisdiction. Even where recovery plans are prepared, implementation often suffers from long delays. It is clear that a new recovery process is needed-one in which all biological, economic and political roadblocks to planning and implementation are confronted.

Set forth below are NWF's key recommendations for reformulating the ESA recovery process, which were developed after careful consideration of what has worked and what has not in past recovery efforts.

1. Create a Two-Phase Planning Process

The first step that Congress could take to improve the recovery process would be to increase funding. (See discussion of funding below.) But moneys devoted toward recovery efforts could also be more wisely spent. Today's recovery planning efforts are often bogged down in discussions of implementation strategies that avoid biological and political realities. Often the discussions produce a recovery plan that contains no clear goals and inadequate explanation of the steps that will need to be followed to achieve recovery.

This situation can be remedied substantially by disentangling the two objectives of recovery planning: the setting of recovery goals based on a scientific evaluation of needs of the species; and the designing of implementation strategies to achieve those goals. Because the recovery plan the document against which all subsequent actions affecting the listed species are measured, it is essential that the scientific