Reclaiming my time, I think we went far enough when we went to 10 percent. I mean, I was trying to be nice about that. In regard to another comment that was made about zeroing in on environmental laws, I would just like to point out that when this was before Judiciary, that it was all Federal regulations; the compromise that was worked out involved the Federal regulations that provide about 90 percent of our problems. The other 10 percent we are going to have to take care of in other legislation. But the whole attempt here is being undermined, I believe, by moving the threshold to 30, because the Constitution is clear that you cannot take private property without compensating for it, whether at 10 or 30 or 50 or whatever number you want to plug in. And because we are setting up a different method of being reimbursed, a different method of being compensated, I felt that it was important that we do that.
Richard Pombo: “Reclaiming my time, I think we went far enough when we went to 10 percent. I mean, I was trying to be nice about that.…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of changing compensation thresholds for private property in environmental legislation.
Share
More from Richard Pombo
Yes, sir. Reclaiming my time, it actually gives the State the first 50 miles that they do not have to do anything, and they could ban anything within that first 50 miles.
Mr. Chairman how much time remains? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining; the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) has 2 minutes remaining.
on November 1, 2005 I missed recorded votes and would like my intentions included in the Congressional Record. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on both H.R. 3548 and H.R. 3989. ____________________
as a fourth generation rancher, my life has been shaped by the traditions and values associated with proper stewardship of the land. Our Constitutional rights put property ownership of capital importance in the Fifth Amendment. The right…





