mr. chairman , i yield myself such time as i may consume .  this all boils down to a principal difference .  there are a number of differences , but a principal difference .  the substitute does not have the controversial section 13 in it ; the base bill does .  here is something that could actually happen under section 13 .  a developer could buy a parcel of land knowing that part of it could not be used because of the presence of endangered species .  the developer then could request permission to build , say , a hotel on the property without doing much more than outlining the proposal on the back of an envelope .  the developer would not even have to try to get necessary state permits or local zoning variances before submitting a claim .  when the federal government says that the hotel could not be built , that developer could get a payment from the government based upon what his appraiser said it was worth without providing much evidence that the project was realistic or serious .  then the developer could propose to build a landfill on the same site and go through the same process again and get money from the government again .  then the developer could propose to build a store on the same site and get money from the government again because the store could not be built .  in the meantime , the developer could proceed with the same project on other portions of the property , make substantial profits on his property , and never have that affect the steady stream of payments coming from the government from what was always known to be a problematic site .  this is no exaggeration , and it shows how right the provision is for abuse .  the bill puts the taxpayers at risk .  that is why the same concerns that we have expressed to our colleagues on the floor today have been expressed by the administration in the statement of administration policy , which is otherwise supportive of the bill , in part because of the provisions that we also have in our substitute .  the statement of administration policy warns : `` the new conservation aid program for private property owners provides little discretion to federal agencies and could result in a significant budgetary impact ... ..  the bill would affect direct spending .  to sustain the economy 's expansion , it is critical to exercise responsible restraint over federal spending. '' we want to help exercise responsible restraint by eliminating section 13 .  mr. chairman , there is no doubt about it .  the endangered species act has to be revisited .  that is the responsible thing to do .  the committee on resources has put a lot of hard work into and has come up with a product that , in many respects , is just wonderful , necessary .  that is why we embrace the product .  but section 13 is absolutely , totally unacceptable for a whole lot of very good reasons , and it is unacceptable to the taxpayers of america because , boy , does this impose a burden on them .  i urge support for the substitute .  it is responsible .  it is bipartisan .  it is thoughtful .  it eliminates section 13 .  it provides more opportunity for good science .  it emphasizes the need of small property owners , and we want to help them .  