From the House Congressional Record
The following excerpt was taken from the September 29, 2005, House Congressional Record, pages H8562 and H8563.
Mr. Pombo:
What the underlying bill does is, if you step in and take habitat from a private property owner, and you tell them that you restrict them and you tell them they cannot use part of their property, then we set up a system of incentives and grants.
But, if in the end, the Secretary says your property is necessary for the recovery of an endangered species, therefore you cannot use it, we compensate them for that, and we pay them for it. If we build a highway across somebody's property, even though that may increase the value of the rest of the property, we pay them for it. If we take part of their property for a wildlife refuge, even though that may increase the value of the rest of their property, we pay them for it. But, if we take their property for endangered species habitat, we tell them, you are out of luck.
Now, I have guys coming down here saying, "This is a big, new giveaway system, that we are going to give away things to people." No. This is a big takeaway. You are taking away from them. You have been doing it for 30 years. Now, it is time to pay for it. You are taking land away from people. Every little small farmer, rancher across the country, every homeowner across the country who has had their property taken away from them, should be compensated for it. You are taking away their land. There is nothing wrong with that.
Mr. DICKS:
Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. POMBO:
I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS:
Mr. Chairman, when the Contract With America was written, this provision was scored by CBO at $3.2 billion – $3.2 billion.
Mr. POMBO:
Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this provision was not in the Contract With America. Nobody seems to be constrained by the truth here. This is a brand-new way of dealing with compensating property owners whose land is taken. CBO scored this at $10 million. This is a brand-new way of dealing with a very real problem, and assuring some kind of protection, to my property owners and your property owners.
Mr. Chairman, it was just a couple of weeks ago that the Supreme Court came out with a decision, where this Congress stood up and said, "You cannot use eminent domain to take away private property, to take someone's house away from them, and give it to another individual." And, all of you ran down on the floor, and said you were all in support of that.
We are going to stop the government from being able to use eminent domain, to take away somebody's house, and give it to somebody else. But, under that provision, you have to pay them for their house. Under current law, you do not have to pay when you steal somebody's property for declared habitat, at this time. You guys are all fine with that. Is that because we are talking about farmers and ranchers? Is that why you do not want to pay them? But, when we are talking about somebody's house, all of a sudden, you want to pay them? I mean, you guys have no consistency in this, whatsoever.
I believe, if you take away somebody's private property, you should have to pay them for it, and that is what we are trying to do in this underlying bill. I know that some of my colleagues are just philosophically opposed to that, and God love you. But, the fact of the matter is, if you take away somebody's private property, you ought to have to pay for it.
Mr. FARR:
Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. POMBO:
I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. FARR:
Mr. Chairman, when you do take, meaning you have no value left, then you have just compensation, was the Supreme Court decision.
Mr. POMBO:
Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is not what the Constitution says. The Constitution says, "nor shall private property be taken for a public use without just compensation." That is what it says. It does not say the government can step in, take 90 percent of your value, and then it is okay; it does not say they can take away 30 percent of your value, and that is okay.
Is the gentleman going to oppose the highway bill, because we compensate people when we take their land away for a highway, even though we do not take 100 percent of the use? Why is it okay in that instance, but it is not okay when it comes to protecting habitat?
You guys talk big about wanting to protect habitat and protect species, but 90 percent of the habitat for endangered species is on private property. The only way you are going to recover species is if you bring in the property owners, and have them be part of the solution. You are stopping that from happening right now, under current law, and in the substitute. You are wrong on this one.
We have to pay when you take away somebody's private property. That is what we have to do. That is what is in the underlying bill. I am sorry if you have a philosophical problem with paying for what you are taking.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research and educational purposes only. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Source: http://eco.freedom.org/el/20051001/tesra2.shtml