mr. speaker , i thank the gentleman for yielding me time . 
first of all , i want to thank the major coauthor of the bill , the gentleman from california ( mr. cardoza ) xz4000650 , for working with me in a bipartisan way over the last several months to craft a bipartisan solution to the problems that we have got with the endangered species act . 
i also would like to thank the gentleman from west virginia ( mr. rahall ) xz4003310 , the ranking member on the committee , for all of the work that he put in , and that his staff put in , particularly jim zoia , who did yeoman 's work in putting this bill together . 
lori sonken , tod willens , and rob gordon worked tirelessly to try to compromise and work out a bill that we could all be proud of , along with hank savage from the office of legislative counsel . 
we have come a long way , a long way , from where we were . 
this debate over endangered species has been raging across this country for years , and our effort was to throw away everything that we had tried to do in the past and put it aside and try to start again and say how do we sit down as members of the committee on resources and come to a solution that we can all agree with . 
that is what we attempted to do . 
we knew that the endangered species act had problems . 
we knew that there were things that had to be fixed , that just were not working in current law . 
it is kind of ironic this morning to hear people come to the floor and talk about how radical the bill is and how quickly we moved on it . 
we have held over 50 hearings on the endangered species act . 
we traveled around the country , going to places where people actually have to live with the implementation of the law and listened to them and what they told us . 
and we came back and we started to craft a bill . 
i did not push through the bill that i wanted . 
i did not allow the gentleman from california ( mr. cardoza ) xz4000650 or the gentleman from west virginia ( mr. rahall ) xz4003310 to push through the bill they wanted . 
we sat down and worked it out . 
it is amazing to hear all of this stuff that is supposedly in the bill . 
from what i see , all of these folks are going to vote `` no '' on the bill and they are going to vote `` no '' on the substitute , because the substitute claims to be the same thing . 
it claims to deal with all the same issues , and in fact they use the exact same language . 
`` critical habitat. '' both bills use identical language . 
`` provide certainty for landowners. '' both bills use identical language . 
`` provide incentive for landowners. '' both bills use identical language . 
and on and on and on . 
what is the major difference ? 
what is the major difference ? 
in our bill , we protect the small property owners . 
yes , we do . 
and we should . 
if the federal government steps in and takes somebody 's land for a highway , we all pay for it . 
i do not see people running down here screaming it is an entitlement . 
i do not see people running down here screaming that it is a budget buster if we pay people if we take that property for a highway . 
if we take it for a wildlife refuge to protect a wildlife refuge , we pay them for it , and nobody is down here screaming about it saying it is an entitlement . 
nobody is down here screaming , saying it is unfair to pay somebody if you take their property for a wildlife refuge . 
if you take their land for a national park , we pay them for it , and nobody is saying that is an entitlement . 
nobody is saying that we are busting the budget . 
but when we get to endangered species , we tell a farmer , you can not farm part of your land , 10 percent , 20 percent , 50 percent , whatever it is , you can not farm that part of your land , now , all of a sudden , oh , we can not do that . 
well , we have got the responsibility to do it . 
if you take away somebody 's private property , if you take away the use of their private property , you have to pay them for it . 
there is nothing wrong with that . 
why you guys are so wed to the old debates and the old rhetoric , i have no idea . 
we sat down as a committee and we worked out this bill . 
half the democrats that voted in the committee voted for it . 
it was a bill that was worked out . 
it is not everything i wanted ; it is not everything the gentleman from california ( mr. cardoza ) xz4000650 wanted . 
it was a compromise , a reasonable way to protect endangered species , to protect the habitat in which they need to recover ; and if that does involve private property , yes , we pay them for it . 
and , dang it , we should . 
