mr. chairman , i rise at this point to make a clarification and to , again , speak to my opposition to the substitute . 
the first clarification is that when the fish and wildlife service compensates an owner for a restriction on his property , it is done through a deed restriction or a fee title . 
so this claim that subsequent owners can make the same claims against the fish and wildlife service is simply inaccurate . 
when they buy an easement , they buy a perpetual easement unless the secretary were to make a mistake , and , simply , that is just not the way we do it in law currently . 
the second point , and the main objection that i have to the substitute goes to the fundamental fifth amendment protection under the constitution that says that when we take someone 's property , we compensate them for it . 
and that is what the pombo bill does , and that is what the substitute does not do . 
i would ask my colleagues to cast an `` aye '' vote on the underlying bill and oppose the substitute . 
