Mr. Chairman, yes, it is true that this debate really is not about the Endangered Species Act. I wish we were debating the Endangered Species Act on this floor today, but we are not. We are debating about whether or not we should protect the private property rights of these few people. What it really comes down to is that, yes, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] is correct about one thing. When your property is designated as critical habitat, and it is private property, it is not immediately affected under the law, unless you want to use it. If you want to use it for anything, you have to go to the Federal Government to get permission to use it.
Richard Pombo: “Mr. Chairman, yes, it is true that this debate really is not about the Endangered Species Act. I wish we were debating…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of the Endangered Species Act on private property rights.
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.
I pledge to the gentleman that as we move forward with a long-term solution, that the interests of all the States bordering the Gulf will be protected, and the gentleman will be part of those discussions.
I realize that the gentleman is correct when he talks about authorizing an appropriations bill and the effect that my amendment would have. But I would urge the Chair to rule the amendment in order because what I am trying to do is strip…
I yield 5 minutes to one of the chief authors of the legislation, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).





