mr. speaker , the gentleman from california tries to make the substitute and the bill that is on the floor sound the same ; but there are major differences , and we should recognize that . 
first of all , let us talk about some of those differences . 
the bill before us is a huge giveaway to big developers . 
it creates a program where the burden is on the government to disprove . 
it basically does not put a dollar amount in the bill , because they are afraid of the dollar amount because it is an entitlement program for landowners that want to gut the endangered species act . 
but the estimates are 10 , 20 , 30 , 40 billion . 
who knows how much this is going to cost . 
our bill , the substitute , does not do that . 
it is modest . 
it says we should work with private landowners . 
it sets up a program so that the government goes out and works with those landowners to accomplish the goals of the endangered species act . 
the majority bill , and this is another major difference , changes the endangered species act in a radical , radical way , especially with the adoption of the manager 's amendment . 
the substitute reforms the endangered species act , while protecting the core provisions of that magnificent environmental law that has been on the books for 30 years . 
at the end of this , we have not respected this institution by the way we brought the bill before the floor , the way we have worked in committee to put it on a rocket docket and speed it through , speed it through this process . 
we need to slow down . 
we need to take a look at this and work in a bipartisan way . 
i urge my colleagues to defeat the rule . 
