mr. chairman , reclaiming my time , that is not what the constitution says . 
the constitution says , nor shall private property be taken for a public use without just compensation . 
that is what it says . 
it does not say the government can step in and take 90 percent of your value and then it is okay ; it does not say they can take away 30 percent of your value and that is okay . 
is the gentleman going to oppose the highway bill because we compensate people when we take their land away for a highway , even though we do not take 100 percent of the use ? 
why is it okay in that instance , but it is not okay when it comes to protecting habitat ? 
you guys talk big about wanting to protect habitat and protect species , but 90 percent of the habitat for endangered species is on private property . 
the only way you are going to recover species is if you bring in the property owners and have them be part of the solution . 
you are stopping that from happening right now under current law and in the substitute . 
you are wrong on this one . 
we have to pay when you take away somebody 's private property . 
that is what we have to do . 
that is what is in the underlying bill . 
i am sorry if you have a philosophical problem with paying for what you are taking . 
mr. chairman , i reserve the balance of my time . 
