This is not an endangered species debate. Instead, it is about the core differences here between those who seek to protect the rights of private property owners, including some longtime ranch families, and those who have little concern about government regulatory takings of property without compensation. So that is what this debate is about. Let us put an end to the taking. Let us keep our promises. Let us not betray rural America. If you were one of the 277 Members of this body who back on March 3, 1995, voted for the Private Property Protection Act, I urge you, I implore you, to reject the Dicks amendment, his motion to strike, and to stand firm for private property rights, stand firm for the small ranch families and rural America.
Frank Riggs: “This is not an endangered species debate. Instead, it is about the core differences here between those who seek to…”
Editor's note · Context
Addressing the importance of private property rights and opposing an amendment related to property protection.
Share
More from Frank Riggs
Now, what did the United States 5th Circuit Court of Appeals decide in the Hopwood case? Hopwood v. The University of Texas, I quote: ``The 5th circuit ruled that diversity does not justify preferential admissions based on race.''
I wish I would have heard a better response to his concerns from the delegate for the District of Columbia than to simply say, try parental choice in the City of Alexandria public schools. It so happens that the City of Alexandria…
I believe affirmative action is outdated. Affirmative action, contrary to what several speakers have suggested, is no longer a black and white issue, certainly not in California, the largest, most diverse State in our Union. Because the…
I am very astounded to hear the gentleman say that our proposed reforms constitute a one-size-fits-all mandate imposed on State and local education agencies. My question to the gentleman... is does he realize that under current Federal…





