mr. speaker , i would like to thank the gentleman from massachusetts for yielding me this time .  i am put in the unenviable position today , as a lifelong democrat , to have to stand and oppose the democratic position on this rule .  as i have sat here and listened to the debate on the rule , i simply do not feel that some of the statements by my colleagues are accurately reflecting what is in the bill as it currently is written .  it is simply untrue that this bill allows skyscrapers to be built on the prairie to endanger species .  we are not going to be using taxpayer dollars to promote strip clubs or casinos , as one of my colleagues said .  it is simply not true .  the reality is that under the endangered species act , most of the provisions of the act , as it currently stands , will be in place .  what we are talking about is compensating farmers if their land is taken away , and if they want to continue to farm and under the act we have to protect a species , the farmer will be compensated for the right that has been taken away .  that is a longstanding right of this country , to be compensated when government takes one 's property .  we had a vote recently on this floor of over 400 members who said exactly that in one of the eminent domain cases that was recently challenged , when the supreme court took someone 's property .  we have a longstanding tradition here of protecting personal property rights but not when it comes to the endangered species act .  in my state , the fish and wildlife service said that 4.7 million acres of california had to be set-aside for the red-legged frog , 1.7 million acres for vernal pools and fairy shrimp .  this is not a new entitlement program .  this is compensating landowners when their property is taken away .  those in support of the substitute have been distributing a handout , and in the substitute it says virtually everything that the gentleman from california ( mr. pombo )  and i and others have written and coordinated on .  in fact , about 90 percent of this bill was written by democratic staff .  i will say that , frankly , that does not happen in this house very often where there is a bipartisan attempt to come to an agreement .  there is 10 percent disagreement on this bill , and virtually what that 10 percent disagreement is , is whether or not people are going to be compensated when their land is taken and the fact that there has been a new focus , according to some of my colleagues , of putting the onus of this bill mainly on to public lands .  well , the reality is most of the endangered species , in fact , 90 percent of the endangered species , are on private lands .  so that provision that is in the substitute simply will not work .  i urge my colleagues to reject the challenge to the rule , to support the rule , and to support the underlying bill .  