mr. chairman , i very much wanted to support the substitute amendment that we are debating this afternoon . 
i have the utmost respect for the gentleman from california ( mr. george miller ) xz4002780 . 
both he and i have been afforded the opportunity to spend some time together in the wonderful sierra nevada mountains , and i know how much respect and pride he has for america 's natural resources . 
i share it as well . 
but there are three areas as it relates to the proposed substitute amendment that i find to be very problematic and important to the constituents that i represent that have had difficulty with this act over the years . 
first of all , the definition as it relates to property rights i think is lacking and needs to be worked on in an important way . 
second , as it relates to the discussion of jeopardy to species , it is so vague . 
how it would be applied to section 7 and other aspects of the measure , i do not believe it is clear and could indicate further need for litigation , which is the current problem and part that we are trying to solve . 
i just do not believe that the jeopardy definitions under the current proposed substitute amendment could work as they currently are drafted . 
finally , this is very important and i mentioned it in my comments in supporting the bill : there are no clear definitions as it relates to takings for farmers and ranchers , not just in california but throughout the country . 
farmers and ranchers , i would maintain , are , in many cases , one of the last bastions of protection for habitat . 
i mean , think about it . 
they really want to farm , and they want to be able to maintain their ranches . 
when we have growth areas throughout the country , like in california , those farms and those ranches are one of the last hedges to urban sprawl and uncontrolled growth . 
therefore , having no clear definitions for takings , i think , is critical . 
