mr. chairman , reclaiming my time , this provision was not in the contract with america . 
nobody seems to be constrained by the truth here . 
this is a brand-new way of dealing with compensating property owners whose land is taken . 
cbo scored this at $ 10 million . 
this is a brand-new way of dealing with a very real problem and assuring some kind of protection to my property owners and your property owners . 
mr. chairman , it was just a couple of weeks ago that the supreme court came out with a decision where this congress stood up and said , you can not use eminent domain to take away private property , to take someone 's house away from them and give it to another individual . 
and all of you ran down on the floor and said you were all in support of that . 
we are going to stop the government from being able to use eminent to take away somebody 's house and give it to somebody else . 
but , under that provision , you have to pay them for their house . 
under current law , you do not have to pay when you steal somebody 's property for declared habitat at this time . 
you guys are all fine with that . 
is that because we are talking about farmers and ranchers ? 
is that why you do not want to pay them ? 
but when we are talking about somebody 's house , all of a sudden you want to pay them ? 
i mean , you guys have no consistency in this whatsoever . 
i believe if you take away somebody 's private property , you should have to pay them for it , and that is what we are trying to do in this underlying bill . 
i know that some of my colleagues are just philosophically opposed to that , and god love you . 
but the fact of the matter is , if you take away somebody 's private property , you ought to have to pay for it . 
