mr. speaker , i would like to address my comments to the members who do have serious concerns about the endangered species act who have had frustrations from their citizens about its application , but still believe that we ought to have a workable act , and i want to suggest that voting for this bipartisan substitute and `` no '' on the pombo bill will really satisfy their needs for five reasons . 
reason number one , the substitute bill will make a significant change to reduce the amount of frustration that landowners feel by moving the listing process of habitat from the time of listing to a time of the development of the recovery plan . 
and the reason this will alleviate much frustration by landowners is it will allow these services to make a more acute and scientifically sound judgment where this land needs to be listed for habitat and will relieve significant frustration of landowners . 
second , the substitute will make sure that we try to use public land first when we try to protect habitat to take care of these species . 
third , and importantly , it will have a conservation grant program to allow the use of federal funds to help private landowners who will agree to use their lands to help in the preservation of these species . 
these are three very significant changes to the environmental protection act which will help property owners avoid some of the frustration that now exist while still moving forward with the purposes of this act . 
but we then need to vote `` no '' on the underlying bill for these two reasons : first , the underlying bill is a massive entitlement program that could be subject to massive fraud because the language is so loose and so speculative , we would be expecting the american taxpayers to shell out literally millions of dollars on highly speculative developments . 
when a developer comes in there , buys up land that is used for a wheat field and says he wants to put in a strip club or a casino , american taxpayers , under the underlying bill , would now have to pay entitlement funds where there is no money in this bill appropriated to do it , or even especially authorized for these highly speculative enterprises . 
why should the taxpayers have to pay for this flim-flam type of speculation ? 
and , by the way , nowhere in american law is any taxpayer required in any jurisdiction in this country to do that right now . 
this is a radical change which exposes the taxpayers to millions of dollars of loss that is not required by the u.s. constitution and makes no common sense . 
and second and lastly , very importantly , the underlying bill provides no enforceable protection for the habitat of these species . 
sure , it says that the agencies have to draw these maps , but what is a map if they do not have to follow the map ? 
five reasons . 
members can vote for this with honor , go home and tell their constituents this they have relieved their frustration and protected these species and protected the taxpayers . 
respect for the taxpayers and respect for god 's creatures at the same time . 
