mr. speaker , i yield myself the balance of my time .  mr. speaker , i would again urge my colleagues to , first of all , vote `` no '' on the rule , and i would also urge them to vote `` no '' on the underlying bill .  i appreciate the work that the gentleman from california ( chairman pombo ) and others have put into this bill , but the bottom line is that the underlying bill eliminates habitat protections ; it abandons the commitment to recovery of endangered species ; it repeals protection against hazardous pesticides ; it politicizes scientific decision-making ; it eliminates the vital check-and-balance of consultation ; it requires the fish and wildlife service to allow unfettered habitat destruction ; it would require taxpayers to pay developers , oil and gas companies and other industries , for complying with the law ; and it is an entitlement .  i know the chairman has kind of objected to that characterization , but that is not my characterization .  it is what cbo has concluded .  it is what our colleague from illinois ( mr. kirk )  who testified yesterday on behalf of the republican study committee and the republican tuesday group said last night in the committee on rules , that this bill creates an expensive new federal entitlement program .  mr. speaker , the endangered species act has done a great deal to protect endangered species .  everybody agrees that there needs to be adjustments .  everybody agrees that we can come together and make those necessary adjustments .  but what we object to is that the underlying bill guts the endangered species act .  it is a bad bill ; it is bad policy .  i would urge my colleagues to vote `` no '' on the rule and the bill .  