mr. chairman , i rise today in opposition to the substitute being offered for a number of reasons .  the substitute basically takes the pombo bill and cuts out everything that is important to my constituents , the small farmers and ranchers of the central valley who are being driven out of our valley through arbitrary and capricious regulatory burdens .  it is my constituents who are the ones that are begging me to help them reform the endangered species act , and i think this substitute leaves them behind and brings our efforts back to square one .  what i can not support is the removal of 2 provisions that i find absolutely critical to any reforms to the esa : mandatory landowner notification , and the conservation compensation plans for effective landowners .  the first issue , the landowner notification is just a no-brainer issue .  landowners deserve to know what they can and can not do with their property and the service should be responsible for telling them .  many of the opponents of this provision claim that landowners can simply go to court and get a decision but in reality , they can not because the court has ruled in previous cases that unless the service tells them no directly they have no standing in court .  this provision is crucial , especially to the little guy who does not have millions and millions of dollars to higher lawyers , biologists and surveyors needed to take on the service .  mr. chairman , these little guys deserve an answer just like the big guys do .  i understand that there is a provision in the substitute that attempts to address this issue with a similar 180 day timeline .  unfortunately , there is no enforcement behind the language other than a report to congress , and we all know what we do with reports to congress .  the service is under a number of other time lines under esa such as a time line for completing political opinions which they also choose to ignore .  the substitute provisions would do exactly the same thing and bring us back to square one .  the second is the strong private property rights section that are good in h.r. 3824 .  they did not seem to make the cut in the substitute .  it is not a sweeping entitlement program as some would have you believe .  it is a program that will fairly compensate landowners and will provide species with conservation mitigation measures that would otherwise go unprotected .  i do have to say that i am pleased that my colleagues chose to include a number of provisions from the underlying bill in the substitute .  the fact that the substitute includes the same repeal of critical habit speaks volumes for the overall consensus that this act needs to be changed and updated to reflect the evolving circumstances on the ground that have impeded the accurate critical habit designations .  but the deleted provisions from h.r. 3824 and the new definition of jeopardy , under which , frankly , i am not sure if i could mow my own lawn , will do nothing to relieve the conflict that currently exists under that esa .  it will do nothing more than the underlying bill to recovery species , and this will simply put us back to square one .  mr. chairman , i have one final comment .  i must correct the record .  i would ask that the gentleman from oregon ( mr. walden )  place back up the slide that he had from the bill which outlines that under the pombo bill , actually , it is here , under the pombo bill you can only become compensated for what is an allowable use for what is the current state or local regulation , under the current zoning use .  so a farmer who is plowing his field and trying to grow a crop every day , if he is denied the use of that property , he can only be compensated for the loss of his farming income and he can not claim that it could be a high rise hotel in its place .  he only gets compensated for what he was currently doing on the property , and that is just simply an erroneous statement to say anything else .  mr. chairman , we need to defeat this substitute .  we need to pass the underlying measure .  