That is right. If we look at what the intention of the act was 23 years ago, and you voted for it because the intention was good, that action by this farmer would do nothing at all to enhance the species. It is counter to what we are trying to do. Why? Because of the heavyhanded administration coming from the Federal Government, because that is what this act says should be done. So it needs to be reformed, it needs to be reformed to bring the local people involved in this sort of stuff, but more important, common sense, and let us protect private property rights, because after all, that is a constitutional requirement.
Doc Hastings: “That is right. If we look at what the intention of the act was 23 years ago, and you voted for it because the intention…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the need for reform of a federal act related to species protection.
Share
More from Doc Hastings
I take notice that the Speaker pro tempore has changed, and I am very pleased that one of the leaders of the legislation that we are taking up today is now serving as Speaker pro tempore. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman…
I support pushing ahead with this inquiry because I swore an oath to defend the Constitution against America's enemies. The American people deserve the facts about how this abuse of power betrayed our national security and put our country…
In addition to those three hearings, the House Administration Committee held eight other election-related hearings this year. I also want to point out that while it isn't the primary committee of jurisdiction for this bill, the Judiciary…
Yesterday, before we began our proceedings in the Rules Committee, I asked one of my good friends if he would speak on this rule. It is for the reason that I consider him one of the preeminent constitutional scholars in this institution…





