mr. chairman , reclaiming my time , this provision was not in the contract with america .  nobody seems to be constrained by the truth here .  this is a brand-new way of dealing with compensating property owners whose land is taken .  cbo scored this at $ 10 million .  this is a brand-new way of dealing with a very real problem and assuring some kind of protection to my property owners and your property owners .  mr. chairman , it was just a couple of weeks ago that the supreme court came out with a decision where this congress stood up and said , you can not use eminent domain to take away private property , to take someone 's house away from them and give it to another individual .  and all of you ran down on the floor and said you were all in support of that .  we are going to stop the government from being able to use eminent to take away somebody 's house and give it to somebody else .  but , under that provision , you have to pay them for their house .  under current law , you do not have to pay when you steal somebody 's property for declared habitat at this time .  you guys are all fine with that .  is that because we are talking about farmers and ranchers ?  is that why you do not want to pay them ?  but when we are talking about somebody 's house , all of a sudden you want to pay them ?  i mean , you guys have no consistency in this whatsoever .  i believe if you take away somebody 's private property , you should have to pay them for it , and that is what we are trying to do in this underlying bill .  i know that some of my colleagues are just philosophically opposed to that , and god love you .  but the fact of the matter is , if you take away somebody 's private property , you ought to have to pay for it .  