Jim Costa: “I very much wanted to support the substitute amendment that we are debating this afternoon. I have the utmost respect…”

“I very much wanted to support the substitute amendment that we are debating this afternoon. I have the utmost respect for the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). Both he and I have been afforded the opportunity to spend some time together in the wonderful Sierra Nevada mountains, and I know how much respect and pride he has for America's natural resources. I share it as well. But there are three areas as it relates to the proposed substitute amendment that I find to be very problematic and important to the constituents that I represent that have had difficulty with this act over the years. First of all, the definition as it relates to property rights I think is lacking and needs to be worked on in an important way. Second, as it relates to the discussion of jeopardy to species, it is so vague. How it would be applied to section 7 and other aspects of the measure, I do not believe it is clear and could indicate further need for litigation, which is the current problem and part that we are trying to solve. I just do not believe that the jeopardy definitions under the current proposed substitute amendment could work as they currently are drafted. Finally, this is very important and I mentioned it in my comments in supporting the bill: there are no clear definitions as it relates to takings for farmers and ranchers, not just in California but throughout the country.…”