by David Lightman
The chairman of the Republican congressional campaign committee thought he was helping his party when he tried to sink a rookie member's bill.
Turns out he may have sunk his own legislation.
Rep. Tom Cole, (R-Okla.), chairman of the GOP committee, got up on the House floor recently to oppose one of those barely-noticed local bills, this one to give 25 miles of Connecticut's Eightmile River special federal status so it can get more money to protect water quality and different species.
He stirred a Republican frenzy.
House Minority Whip Roy Blunt’s office sent a memo to members warning them that the bill "goes so far as to pass judgment on local zoning regulations and requires the National Park Service to pressure zoning officials."
Cole's complaint: "Fuzzy language included in this bill may leave the door open for the federal government to use eminent domain to seize private property in this new designation," Cole told colleagues in a House floor speech.
The sponsor was freshman member Joe Courtney, a Connecticut Democrat.
The Property Rights Alliance, a private Washington-based group, warned "private property will cease to exist" if the bill passed, and Americans for Tax Reform told members the bill would allow the government to try to "steal land from private citizens and forever prevent its use."
But none of that was true.
Courtney is particularly familiar with eminent domain concerns because it was his district that was the focus of the 2005 Kelo v. New London decision in the Supreme Court. The court ruled that the government could seize a home, small business or private property and transfer it to another private interest if the action helped a community's economic development.
To ease that concern, a section of the bill on page 7, line 19, makes it difficult, if not impossible, for Washington to take land without the owner's consent.
"This is an ideological crusade that says, `Don't confuse me with the facts or the law,'" Courtney said.
The plot of all this gets even thicker.
On the same day Courtney's bill was first scheduled for a vote, Cole had his own bill on the schedule. It would provide for a feasibility study of alternatives to augment the water supply of the Central Oklahoma Master Conservancy District.
Democratic leaders put out the word: Vote against Cole's bill. Punish him.
Cole, suddenly realizing what he had wrought, called Courtney and apologized.
Cole later explained that when he spoke against Courtney on the floor, he was not fully prepared.
"I was called at the last minute and asked, `Could you possibly speak about this?'" he said. "I wasn't there to argue my personal beliefs."
He did fault the Democrats for trying to pass the Courtney bill under rules that required a two-thirds vote - a procedure that sharply limits debate - saying, "They shouldn't have tried to force this on us."
Cole ultimately voted for Courtney's bill, but it was too late.
Courtney's bill got 239 votes for and 173 against, short of the two-thirds majority. A minute later, Democrats brought up Cole's bill and defeated it, 211-208.
Courtney's measure could be brought up again soon, perhaps in the next two weeks, under different rules that require only a simple majority. Even if it passes, it faces another hurdle - the Senate, where Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, has been active in property rights issues.
He wasn't taking a position on the Courtney bill yet. But, he said, "I do want to look at it."
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Actually, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, which H.R. 986 will now fall under allows for the federal government to aquire private property and prevent development. What the Private Property Alliance was saying, is that with OR WITHOUT just compensation, the point is that this land is not threatened and this is a further example of the federal government abuses eminent domain legislation. The central point of order is, that if just compensation is offered, and the land owner does not wish to sell or give their land to the federal government - then the courts will uphold that due to the offering of just compensation, and due to the fact that this area is now protected under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968; that the private citizen MUST accept the offer. Regardless of if the offer is a "good value", or considered, "just compensation" is not the point, not the point PRA is trying to make. PRA was stating that this legislation sets dangerous precedent that all the government has to due is classify land a certain way, and eventually (by offering compensation or just taking it), private citizens will be and can be forced off their land. If you continue to contest with this point of issue, look at H.R. 319, the Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Act. This legislation wishes to place private land under the control of a select group of elite individuals (land management non-profit of course) and give them $1 million dollars per year (to their non-profit) for the purposes of land management. Well what's wrong with the people that currently own the land actually managing it. Further example that the federal government, by increasing its size and scope on various levels, feels that they can determine what is best for the common individual. The Property Rights Alliance is standing up for the fundamental right of land ownership and private control over property.
Posted by: Property Pirate | July 23, 2007 12:05 PM
No Press here, and when the floods hit and you all are sitting trying to figure out why. Well its because you allowed this to happen, look at Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, South Dakota and on and on. We have floods because we have people who think they can control the water ways to ensure profit at the utility pump. Mother nature has its own course, and the eminent domain is something the Supreme Court issued early on in this administration, making it easier for the "Secretary" to tell Department of Interior and the Department of Agriculture that we are taking that land for a private investor named..Halliburton or KBR or...you know one of Jacks friends.
Posted by: Roger Davis | July 23, 2007 8:00 PM
Actually Roger, the problem with eminent domain is mainly focused on the Kelo vs. The City of New London decision where a state court decided that Ms. Susette Kelo's house could be taken for PRIVATE use, not public use (while that is bad too). The Supreme Court upheld that decision. While Poperty Rights Alliance, I am certain, is against all levels of government land takings - the division of power as represented from a federalist perspective is no clearer illustrated than in the Kelo decision. No one is "controlling" the water at the pump. The issue is fundamental ownershsip of property and the battle between land owners, and government acts such as the Endangered Species Act (sucess rate of less than 1% since its inception), and other government programs. Such failed "land conservation" effforts do nothing more than restrict use for personal ownership and exploration. This directly impedes the capitalist system and does nothing to promulgate America's economic vitality. It is not a "government conspiracy" to take to land and water and give it to Halliburton (like they need the help to begin with). However, what is happening is the scope and size of the federal government is expanding and with that comes more and more attempts to lock land forever under government protection using the guise of "endangered" or "threatened". However, with the recently offering of H.R. 3053, the re-introduction of the Private Property Rights Protection Act (previously H.R. 4128 from the 109th Congress), legislatures have the tools to do what is necessary to enact federal legislation. The question remains...will they act?
Posted by: Property Pirate | July 24, 2007 3:06 PM