[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 91 (Thursday, July 14, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 14, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                CALIFORNIA DESERT PROTECTION ACT OF 1994

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Visclosky). Pursuant to House Resolution 
422 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration 
of the bill, H.R. 518.

                              {time}  1053


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 518) to designate certain lands in the California Desert as 
wilderness, to establish the Death Valley and Joshua Tree National 
Parks and the Mojave National Monument, and for other purposes, with 
Mr. Peterson of Florida in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, July 
13, 1994, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Traficant] had been disposed of, and title VII was open to amendment at 
any point.
  Are further amendments to title VII?


               amendment offered by mr. thomas of wyoming

  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Thomas of Wyoming: Add the 
     following:
       Sec. 801. Within one year of acquiring any non-Federal land 
     or interest therein for any purpose of this Act, the 
     Secretary shall dispose of all right, title, and interest in 
     and to a quantity of Federal lands equal in value to the non-
     Federal land or interest acquired, as determined by the 
     Secretary. The Secretary shall not dispose of any wilderness 
     areas, wilderness study areas or lands owned by the National 
     Park Service for the purposes of this section.

  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Chairman, I am presenting this amendment 
in behalf of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] who had it prepared 
and, I think, presented it at previous times. I also have had a bill 
that would do exactly the same thing. It is quite a simple proposition 
actually. It says, if we are to acquire additional Federal lands, that 
we ought to dispose of nonessential Federal lands in equal value, and 
it seems to me to make a great deal of sense.
  In the case of the California wilderness, Mr. Chairman, it has 
application. There is in the bill a field of, perhaps, $100 to $300 
million that would be needed for the acquisition of land; a substantial 
amount of land would be acquired, mostly inholdings within the proposed 
acquisitions by the Federal Government. Some 700,000 acres of private 
land and private holdings would need to be acquired to accomplish the 
mission of the park as now set forth in the wilderness area.
  Actually, Mr. Chairman, 28 percent of the property, real property, in 
this country belongs to the Federal Government; in the case of 
California, some 44 percent belongs to the Federal Government. 
Certainly in the West, in my home State of Wyoming, some 40 percent. 
These, of course, are not all lands such as Yosemite or Yellowstone 
National Park. These are lands that are, for the most part, managed by 
the Bureau of Land Management. They are lands that are residual lands 
that were left after the homesteading was taken up, and, as a matter of 
fact, the early organic act of the Bureau of Land Management said 
specifically that the bureau was to manage them pending disposal. It 
was never the notion that these lands were to be held. They have no 
particular unique characteristics such as wilderness, such as parks, 
which are not involved in this tradeoff.
  So, Mr. Chairman, the hope here of this amendment is that, when lands 
need to be acquired to accomplish the goals of this particular, that 
lands of equal value that are not set aside or withdrawn could be 
disposed of, and that, No. 1, it would have something to do with the 
cost. It would reduce the cost, which I think is quite necessary in 
that we do have $7 to $9 billion of unfulfilled needs in the parks and 
in the Federal lands that we have now. I think it is also a concept 
that is acceptable. These lands are not there for any particular 
purpose, and there is no arguable reason why the Federal Government 
should maintain them.
  So this amendment would simply say that when private lands need to be 
acquired to accomplish the goals of this particular bill, Mr. Chairman, 
that Federal lands of equal amount would be disposed of, and I 
appreciate this opportunity to explain the amendment.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we might get a 
unanimous-consent agreement to limit the time of debate on this 
amendment to 15 minutes which would give us each 7\1/2\ minutes after 
the author of the amendment has spoken.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman's unanimous-consent request to limit 
the time for debate on this amendment include the amendment and all 
amendments thereto?
  Mr. MILLER of California. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, we have no 
objection to the gentleman's proposal. But may I ask, who would control 
the time on this?
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, 
the time would be equally divided, 7\1/2\ minutes to be controlled by 
myself and 7\1/2\ minutes to be controlled by the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I will draw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Miller] for 7\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Wyoming [Mr. Thomas] because I 
think it is a bad amendment, and it is for this reason:
  We should not be making decisions on the disposal of the acquisition 
of land unevenly balanced out. What this amendment says is that for 
equal amount, an equal amount of land that we would acquire, we would 
dispose of that land somewhere else, and I assume that that has to be 
done in the same timeframe. What that means is that, when we are ready 
to acquire land, we would have to wait until disposal of land somewhere 
else takes place.
  Also this does not limit this to the State of California. This means, 
if we were to go out and acquire 100,000 acres in the State of 
California, we could require that this amendment would require the 
disposal of land, of maybe a hundred thousand acres in Wyoming, or 
25,000 acres in Wyoming, 25,000 acres in Oregon, without regard to the 
interest of those individuals in that area. We are already hearing from 
numerous communities that do not want this land back because they 
cannot police the land, they cannot take care of the land, but, if we 
acquired a hundred thousand acres in the Mojave, we could dump a 
hundred thousand acres onto other communities in other States and other 
areas without regard to those communities because we deem it important 
to be there. The fact is also that this has nothing to do with the 
acquisition powers, priorities or the power. This is an amendment that 
was rejected overwhelmingly last year by a vote of 379 to 49 because it 
simply does not make sense on its face.
  Mr. Chairman, we just completed some hearings in the West where 
people were concerned about what would happen if we started to pull out 
of these lands. Who would patrol them? Communities do not have the 
police force. They do not have the health and sanitation facilities. 
They are not able to cope with these lands, and all of a sudden they 
would be within their county jurisdiction and in the State 
jurisdictions. Who would they be ceded to in that kind of authority? To 
say that we are going to cede these lands because we have a high 
priority acquisition in the Everglades, or anywhere else, or in the 
east Mojave, or Yosemite, or any of these other areas, is simply a 
mindless approach to the disposal of Federal land. That does not mean 
that we should hold onto all Federal land. That does not mean that we 
should not reconsider the classifications of Federal lands and whether 
or not decisions that were made 5 years ago, 10 years ago and 100 years 
ago we ought to be living with today. But we ought not to say that the 
acquisition of lands, perhaps to save it from some detrimental use, 
that that should force the disposal of lands somewhere else, because 
the two acts are not equivalent acts, and I think that is why the House 
overwhelmingly rejected this amendment the last time out, and I find it 
interesting that this disposal could take place anywhere else, and 
yesterday amendments were offered to reject these kinds of actions only 
to California.
  I also do not know if this means, if we acquire land by acquisition, 
as opposed to an outright, willing seller/willing buyer purchase.

                              {time}  1100

  So the amendment is poorly drawn. It is ambiguous. But, more 
importantly, it has nothing to do with the real world of trying to 
acquire and dispose of lands. Both of those are very controversial 
acts, and what this is an effort to try to keep the acquiring portion 
from taking place because some other community or some other part of 
the country will raise an objection to getting land dumped onto them, 
with the cost of that acquisition, and thwart efforts to try to acquire 
lands for the protection of the Mojave and other Federal assets.
  Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to point this out. Maybe some Member on 
the other side could clarify this, but as I read the amendment, if 
someone were to offer property for park purposes to the Government as a 
gift, in order to accept that gift, we would then be required to 
surrender Federal landholdings somewhere else. So it would in effect 
inhibit that kind of transaction from taking place. It certainly should 
not apply in circumstances like that, but that is the manner in which 
the amendment is drawn at the present time.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman makes a very 
good point, because it is a simple acquisition of land. It is not 
acquisition by purchase. It is acquisition by apparently gift or 
exchange. So if somebody has a time problem and they want to get rid of 
a property in an estate or they want to make a gift before they die, or 
what have you, we could lose the access to those assets because we do 
not have the ability to trade out a like value in a like piece of 
property. It would be a terrible mistake and a squandering of the 
opportunities this Government has to protect some of the most vital 
natural resources in the country.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, this is interesting. It is interesting that there is a 
basic concept here--and the gentleman from California defends this 
idea--that the Federal Government is the only one that should own and 
control land, the only one that has the ability to manage. It is just 
very interesting to me that the Federal Government has the only people 
we can imagine who can manage these kinds of BLM lands. It is amazing 
to me.
  The other point is that it does not matter how it is acquired, if you 
believe that maybe there ought to be some limit to the amount of 
Federal ownership. Now, of course, if one's notion is that the Federal 
Government ought to own everything, then that makes it quite different. 
But regardless of how it is acquired, if you believe in the concept 
that there is a limit to how much the Federal Government ought to own, 
then this does make sense. If you do not, then, of course, it does not 
make sense.
  Mr. Chairman, let me yield 3 minutes to my friend the ranking 
Republican member, the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis].
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much my 
colleague's yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, as a Member who represents both Inyo and San Bernardino 
counties in California, let me say that Inyo has in excess of 95 
percent federally-owned land, and, much of the land in San Bernardino 
County, well over 80 percent, is federally owned land.
  So it strikes me as rather strange to have territory that involves 
just in my desert area alone enough territory to put 4 Eastern States 
in. Yet, as the chairman of the committee suggests, there is not very 
much land we can afford to get rid of.
  It was not so long ago that the Federal Government had signs out by 
the roadside asking people to come and take sections in 40-acre parcels 
of land. They recognized that they cannot manage these millions of 
acres they are controlling.
  The arguments of Chairman Miller and, I presume, of the author of 
this odious measure, the gentleman from California [Mr. Lehman], would 
suggest that this amendment would result in the selling of cherished 
national treasures like the Shenandoah National Park in Virginia, the 
Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado, or even the Great Smoky 
National Park in Tennessee.
  This amendment is designed in a fashion to be very careful about 
that. It does involve land that would be wilderness land or wilderness 
study areas or parkland. That would not be covered by this amendment. 
Instead, it suggests to the Secretary that somewhere within that huge 
inventory of millions and millions of acres we ought to be getting rid 
of as much property as we are arbitrarily taking in.
  There is a philosophy around here reflected in our committee and, I 
am afraid, reflected by this Secretary that more is better, the more 
land the Federal Government controls and owns, the better. We are 
suggesting that perhaps it would be simply a good idea, as people are 
about the process of trying to expand the Federal largesse, that there 
ought to be a trading of equally valued lands so we can get it back on 
the property tax rolls, so we can support government in a way that 
makes sense instead of continuing to build a national deficit.
  This amendment is a very sensible, very logical amendment, and it is 
about time the Congress took back some authority and gave some 
direction to that Federal bureaucracy that wants nothing but more and 
more and more from our American property owners and taxpayers.
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. McCandless].
  Mr. McCANDLESS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleague touched very briefly on what I consider to 
be a critical element of this ownership aspect of government.
  In Riverside County, approximately 65 percent of the total land mass 
is owned by the Federal Government or by some other government on a 
level at which they do not pay taxes.
  Now, in California the State and local governments--and we know about 
the Federal Government--are having all kinds of problems meeting their 
debts and meeting their obligations to the people. Now we are saying, 
``All right, let's continue to increase the stock of Federal land at 
the expense of State and local governments,'' the prime source of their 
revenue being related to land values and land taxes in the form of 
property that is improved or not improved.
  I have a lot of problems with this, I must say, the fact that we 
continue to absorb property and continue to absorb these obligations.
  Another point that I would like to make is that these properties are 
a direct financial drain upon the Federal Government in that, in 
Riverside county and other counties where there is a large percentage 
of National Forests, or other federal lands, the Federal Government 
compensates the local county for the loss of tax revenue on that land. 
Now, if we continue to add to this land, we continue to reduce what it 
is that people in these jurisdictional areas can receive in the way of 
property tax, and we increase what the Federal Government then pays 
these localities for what these Federal lands are worth.
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo].
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I am one of the fortunate Members from California whose 
district is not owned by the Federal Government. I, like the chairman 
of the Committee on Natural Resources, have a district that is very low 
in Federal ownership. But we are at the point right now where over half 
of California is owned by one government agency or another, and I 
strongly support this concept that if the Federal Government is going 
to take over more land, they should have to divest themselves of land 
to make up for it, for a number of reasons, the main reason being that 
I think the Federal Government owns too much land already.
  Constitutionally, the Federal Government is limited as to what land 
it can own, and when other States were brought into the Union after the 
original Thirteen, they were guaranteed the same rights that the 
original Thirteen States had. One of those rights was that the Federal 
Government would divest itself of its large land ownership. Somehow 
that was forgotten when we got west of the Mississippi because most of 
the land west of the Mississippi is land that the Federal Government 
owns.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it would be a very important and a very good 
idea to force the Federal Government to give up as much as it is buying 
so that we can maintain private property in this country.
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire, how much time do 
I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wyoming [Mr. Thomas] has 1 minute 
remaining, and he has the right to close debate.

                              {time}  1110

  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Let me just say, this is not about whether or not we believe the 
Federal Government should own more lands or less lands. This is once 
again whether we want to impose on the Federal Government the kinds of 
restrictions we would never impose on the private sector.
  We have all heard from our constituents, ``Why don't you run the 
government like a business?''
  Let me tell Members, no real estate firm worth its salt, no family 
worth their salt would say, if we acquire a duplex, we have to get rid 
of something else here. They would say, let us figure out how we can 
get the best deal for ourselves.
  In this case how do we get the best deal for the taxpayers? We have 
to be able to dispose of land on an orderly basis. We ought to be 
disposing of land. We ought to be able to acquire land on an orderly 
basis and to try to get the best deal. If people know that we have to 
get rid of this, the price goes down. The advantages that we seek, the 
exchanges that we can bring about, it changes the entire marketplace.
  None of my colleagues would suggest this for their local government, 
for their State government, for the private sector. But somehow they do 
not care what happens to the Federal Treasury.
  When we have got to get rid of Federal assets, we have to put them in 
a forced sale because people know that time is running out on this end 
of the bargain or somebody wants to give us land so we have got to get 
rid of this, what does the buyer say, ``Come to me; lower your price; 
maybe I will take it off your hands.''
  We would never do that in the private sector. That is how we create 
deficits. We keep operating in a fashion where we buy high and sell 
low. We keep operating in a fashion where we force onto the market 
assets that we do not need to get rid of.
  We just went through this with the S&L's. We have gone through this 
time and again with the management of these properties.
  We owe it to the taxpayers to try to get the best deal at any given 
time and not have forced upon us the disposal of or the management of 
assets beyond what the marketplace will dictate and what the needs of 
the various parties dictate.
  This is an artificial move to get rid of land without regard to the 
taxpayer, because we cannot take advantage of any situation that comes 
up anywhere in the country unless we can immediately get rid of the 
same amount of land.
  This also suggests that the Department should never get rid of any 
land until it does have an acquisition. So they cannot independently go 
out and dispose of that land base because it does not make sense 
anymore. They better hold on to it until sometime when they can work it 
to their advantage.
  We have to reject this amendment as we rejected it last year. We 
rejected it overwhelmingly in the last Congress because it simply makes 
no sense for the Treasury. It makes no sense for land management. It 
makes sense for the Department and for the acquisition of valuable 
natural assets in this country.
  I hope that we would reject the amendment.
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I just have to say, the gentleman makes an eloquent statement. I do 
not disagree with him. The only fact is that it does not work.
  We have gone on all these years and not disposed of anything. We can 
talk all we want to about it. The fact is that we keep acquiring more.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Utah [Mr. Hansen].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] is recognized for 
45 seconds.
  (Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, this Nation was founded upon the idea that 
there is a whole big nation here and nobody owns any ground. The 
thirteen Colonies came along and others came along and started saying, 
this is ours, and they decided it is up to the States. And before long 
did we find any Federal ground in Massachusetts? Did we find any 
Federal ground to speak of in New York or any of these Eastern States? 
Nothing to speak of, infinitesimal amounts in these States.
  Yet as we went West all kinds of Federal ground was there. We did not 
have any people out there so little by little we can ask ourselves this 
question, where did the Federal ground go that was back here? It all 
seems to be in the West; 28 percent of America is owned by the Federal 
Government.
  We know how Oklahoma got theirs. They have somebody shoot off a gun 
and the man that had the fastest horse got the best land.
  Now, all we are saying is, instead of buying more ground out there 
and more regulation and more problem, we are asking that it be limited. 
I think the gentleman from Wyoming came up with an excellent amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, and I 
ask support of this amendment.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The amendment is neither necessary nor desirable. It would require 
the United States to dispose of lands equal in value to any lands or 
interests acquired for any purpose of the California Desert Protection 
Act.
  The amendment does not specify that disposals would be of lands in 
California, so evidently they could be of any Interior Department lands 
in any State.
  The amendment is not workable. It says that ``within one year of 
acquiring any * * * lands or interests * * * the Secretary shall 
dispose'' of any equal value of lands. What happens if that cannot be 
done within that timeframe? Does that mean that a disposal must be 
completed, or merely a contract for a disposal has been concluded?
  The amendment would prohibit disposals of wilderness or wilderness 
study lands, or lands owned by the National Park Service. Of course, 
the National Park Service does not own lands--they manage some of the 
lands owned by the American people, that are Federal property--but I 
assume that the meaning is that there are to be no disposals of lands 
that are managed by the National Park Service.
  However, the amendment does not protect other categories of Federal 
lands. So, presumably, the amendment would require disposals of lands 
from the National Wildlife Refuges or BLM-managed public lands, or 
possibly national forest lands as well.
  And, the amendment does not require that these disposals be by sale--
so, ready strictly, the amendment might require that Federal lands be 
given away in order to satisfy the disposal requirement--even if in 
fact tax dollars had been spent to acquire the lands.
  So, this is a very badly thought-out and very unwise amendment.
  It is unnecessary. If the amendment is supposed to be a solution, it 
is a solution in search of a problem.
  The amendment seems to reflect a concern that the Federal Government 
in recent years has been acquiring more and more land.
  In 1992, the subcommittee looked into the question of whether there 
had been a significant increase in Federal land ownership. We found 
that in fact the extent of Federal land holdings has not been 
increasing--it has been going down.
  We reviewed the information on Federal land ownership that is 
regularly compiled and reported by the Bureau of Land Management. The 
BLM's reports show that in fiscal 1979 the National Government owned 
about 32.48 percent of the land in the United States, but by fiscal 
1989--the most recent data available--the total had decreased to about 
29.15 percent.
  The data for individual States are similar: They show that over the 
decade--Alaska went from over 89 percent Federal ownership to about 68 
percent; Nevada went from over 86 percent Federal ownership to about 82 
percent; Idaho went from over 63 percent Federal ownership to about 62 
percent; Oregon went from over 52 percent Federal ownership to about 48 
percent; Colorado went from over 35 percent Federal ownership to about 
34 percent; and, Montana went from over 29 percent Federal ownership to 
about 28 percent.
  It is true that there were some increases in other States, including 
California--but obviously that is not the concern of the author of the 
amendment, since the amendment would not require disposals of lands in 
California or any other particular State. Obviously, the gentleman's 
concern is a national concern--and, nationally, there has been no net 
increase in Federal land holdings.
  So, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is unworkable, unwise, and 
unnecessary. It should be rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wyoming [Mr. Thomas].
  The amendment was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to title VII?


                    amendment offered by mr. lehman

  Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Lehman:
       Page 69, after line 23, add the following:

                  TITLE VIII--PROTECTION OF BODIE BOWL

     SEC. 801. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Bodie Protection Act of 
     1994''.

     SEC. 802. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) the historic Bodie gold mining district in the State of 
     California is the site of the largest and best preserved 
     authentic ghost town in the Western United States.
       (2) the Bodie Bowl area contains important natural, 
     historical, and aesthetic resources;
       (3) Bodie was designated a National Historical Landmark in 
     1961 and a California State Historic Park in 1962, is listed 
     on the National Register of Historic Places, and is included 
     in the Federal Historic American Buildings Survey;
       (4) nearly 200,000 persons visit Bodie each year, providing 
     the local economy with important annual tourism revenues;
       (5) the town of Bodie is threatened by proposals to explore 
     and extract minerals: mining in the Bodie Bowl area may have 
     adverse physical and aesthetic impacts on Bodie's historical 
     integrity, cultural values, and ghosttown character as well 
     as on its recreational values and the area's flora and fauna;
       (6) the California State Legislature, on September 4, 1990, 
     requested the President and the Congress to direct the 
     Secretary of the Interior to protect the ghosttown character, 
     ambience, historic building, and scenic attributes of the 
     town of Bodie and nearby areas;
       (7) the California State Legislature also requested the 
     Secretary, if necessary to protect the Bodie Bowl area, to 
     withdraw the Federal lands within the area from all forms of 
     mineral entry and patent;
       (8) the National Park Service listed Bodie as priority one 
     endangered National Historic Landmark in its fiscal year 1990 
     and 1991 report to Congress entitled ``Threatened and Damaged 
     National Historic Landmarks'' and recommended protection of 
     the Bodie area; and
       (9) it is necessary and appropriate to provide that all 
     Federal lands within the Bodie Bowl area are not subject to 
     location, entry, and patent under the mining laws of the 
     United States, subject to valid existing rights, and to 
     direct the Secretary to consult with the Governor of the 
     State of California before approving any mining activity plan 
     within the Bodie Bowl.

     SEC. 803. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this title:
       (1) The term ``Bodie Bowl'' means the Federal lands and 
     interests in lands within the area generally depicted on the 
     map referred to in section 804(a).
       (2) The term ``mineral activities'' means any activity 
     involving mineral prospecting, exploration, extraction, 
     wiling, beneficiation, processing, and reclamation.
       (3) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the 
     Interior.

     SEC. 804. APPLICABILITY OF MINERAL MINING, LEASING AND 
                   DISPOSAL LAWS.

       (a) Restriction.--Subject to valid existing rights, after 
     the date of enactment of this title Federal lands and 
     interests in lands within the area generally depicted on the 
     map entitled ``Bodie Bowl'' and dated June 12, 1992, shall 
     not be--
       (1) open to the entry or location of mining and mill site 
     claims under the general mining laws of the United States;
       (2) subject to any lease under the Mineral Leasing Act (30 
     U.S.C. 181 and following) or the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 
     (30 U.S.C. 100 and following), for lands within the Bodie 
     Bowl; and
       (3) available for disposal of mineral materials under the 
     Act of July 31, 1947, commonly known as the Materials Act of 
     1947 (30 U.S.C. 601 and following).

     Such map shall be on file and available for public inspection 
     in the Office of the Secretary, and appropriate offices of 
     the Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service. 
     As soon as practicable after the date of enactment of this 
     title the Secretary shall publish a legal description of the 
     Bodie Bowl area in the Federal Register.
       (b) Valid Existing Rights.--As used in this subsection, the 
     term ``valid existing rights'' in reference to the general 
     mining laws means that a mining claim located on lands within 
     the Bodie Bowl was properly located and maintained under the 
     general mining laws prior to the date of enactment of this 
     title, was supported by a discovery of a valuable mineral 
     deposit within the meaning of the general mining laws on the 
     date of enactment of this title, and that such claim 
     continues to be valid.
       (c) Validity Review.--The Secretary shall undertake an 
     expedited program to determine the validity of all unpatented 
     mining claims located within the Bodie Bowl. The expedited 
     program shall include an examination of all unpatented mining 
     claims, including those for which a patent application has 
     not been filed. If a claim is determined to be invalid, the 
     Secretary shall promptly declare the claim to be null and 
     void, except that the Secretary shall not challenge the 
     validity of any claim located within the Bodie Bowl for the 
     failure to do assessment work for any period after the date 
     of enactment of this title. The Secretary shall make a 
     determination within respect to the validity of each claim 
     referred to under this subsection within 2 years after the 
     date of enactment of this title.
       (d) Limitation on Patent Issuance.--
       (1) Mining claims.--(A) After January 11, 1993, no patent 
     shall be issued by the United States for any mining claim 
     located under the general mining laws within the Bodie Bowl 
     unless the Secretary determines that, for the claim 
     concerned--
       (i) a patent application was filed with the Secretary on or 
     before such date; and
       (ii) all requirements established under section 2325 and 
     2326 of the Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 29 and 30) for vein 
     or lode claims and sections 2329, 2330, 2331, and 2333 of the 
     Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. 35, 36, 37) for placer claims 
     were fully complied with by that date.
       (B) If the Secretary makes the determinations referred to 
     in subparagraph (A) for any mining claim, the holder of the 
     claim shall be entitled to the issuance of a patent in the 
     same manner and degree to which such claim holder would have 
     been entitled to prior to the enactment of this title, unless 
     and until such determinations are withdrawn or invalidated by 
     the Secretary or by a court of the United States.
       (2) Mill site claims.--(A) After January 11, 1993, no 
     patent shall be issued by the United States for any mill site 
     claim located under the general mining laws within the Bodie 
     Bowl unless the Secretary determines that, for the claim 
     concerned--
       (i) a patent application was filed with the Secretary on or 
     before January 11, 1993; and
       (ii) all requirements applicable to such patent application 
     were fully complied with by that date.
       (B) If the Secretary makes the determinations referred to 
     in subparagraph (A) for any mill site claim, the holder of 
     the claim shall be entitled to the issuance of a patent in 
     the same manner and degree to which such claim holder would 
     have been entitled to prior to the enactment of this title, 
     unless and until such determinations are withdrawn or 
     invalidated by the Secretary or by a court of the United 
     States.

     SEC. 805. MINERAL ACTIVITIES.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding the last sentence of 
     section 302(b) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
     of 1976, and in accordance with this title and other 
     applicable law, the Secretary shall require that mineral 
     activities be conducted in the Bodie Bowl so as to--
       (1) avoid adverse effects on the historic, cultural, 
     recreational and natural resource values of the Bodie Bowl; 
     and
       (2) minimize other adverse impacts to the environment.
       (b) Restoration of Effects of Mining Exploration.--As soon 
     as possible after the date of enactment of this title, 
     visible evidence or other effects of mining exploration 
     activity within the Bodie Bowl conducted on or after 
     September 1, 1988, shall be reclaimed by the operator in 
     accordance with regulations prescribed pursuant to subsection 
     (d).
       (c) Annual Expenditures; Filing.--The requirements for 
     annual expenditures on unpatented mining claims imposed by 
     Revised Statute 2324 (30 U.S.C. 28) shall not apply to any 
     such claim located within the Bodie Bowl. In lieu of filing 
     the affidavit of assessment work referred to under section 
     314(a)(1) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 
     1976 (43 U.S.C. 1744(a)(1)), the holder of any unpatented 
     mining or mill site claim located within the Bodie Bowl shall 
     only be required to file the notice of intention to hold the 
     mining claim referred to in such section 314(a)(1).
       (d) Regulations.--The Secretary shall promulgate rules to 
     implement this section, in consultation with the Governor of 
     the State of California, within 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this title. Such rules shall be no less 
     stringent than the rules promulgated pursuant to the Act of 
     September 28, 1976 entitled ``An Act to provide for the 
     regulation of mining activity within, and to repeal the 
     application of mining laws to, areas of the National Park 
     System, and for other purposes'' (Public Law 94-429; 16 
     U.S.C. 1901-1912).

     SEC. 806. STUDY.

       Beginning as soon as possible after the date of enactment 
     of this title, the Secretary of the Interior shall review 
     possible actions to preserve the scenic character, historical 
     integrity, cultural and recreational values, flora and fauna, 
     and ghost town characteristics of lands and structures within 
     the Bodie Bowl. No later than 3 years after the date of such 
     enactment, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on 
     Natural Resources of the United States House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources of the United States Senate a report that discusses 
     the results of such review and makes recommendations as to 
     which steps (including but not limited to acquisition of 
     lands or valid mining claims) should be undertaken in order 
     to achieve these objectives.

  Mr. LEHMAN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 518 
that would protect the integrity of a very important landmark in the 
Bodie State Park and the surrounding Federal lands.
  This amendment is identical to H.R. 240, the Bodie Protection Act, as 
the bill passed the House. This bill has passed the House BLM twice 
under suspension of the House rules and is supported by the State of 
California, and major environmental and historic preservation 
organizations, among others. Bodie, a former gold mine district and 
preserved authentic ghosttown was designated a national historic 
landmark in 1961 and a California State Historic Park in 1962. The 
National Park Service listed Bodie as a priority No. 1 endangered 
national historic landmark in its fiscal year 1990 report to Congress 
entitled ``Threatened and Damaged National Historic Landmarks'' and 
every year since then, and recommended protection of the Bodie area.
  The 19th century Bodie mining district is located east of the Sierra 
Nevada Mountains in Yosemite National Park, CA. Today over 200,000 
tourists visit Bodie every year to see the 100-plus buildings still 
standing in the West's oldest mining town. At Bodie, visitors can see 
firsthand how people lived in the mining camps that cropped up 
throughout California in the aftermath of the discovery of gold at 
Sutters Mill in 1848; a discovery that gave rise to the world famous 
California gold rush. While Bodie stands as testament to the mining 
days of old--and despite its status as a national landmark and State 
park--the area is in jeopardy from the threat of modern-day mining 
activities. In order to extract and process the gold and silver 
believed to be in the area surrounding Bodie, large-scale mining 
techniques, such as strip mining, heap-leach piles, cyanide spraying 
and waste ponds, most likely would be required.
  The 450-acre Bodie State Historic Park is closed to mining. However, 
the area adjacent to the State park and under BLM jurisdiction is open 
to mining and as such poses a threat to the historic district. In 
recognition of this danger, the BLM has recently designated the bowl 
Bodie as an area of critical environmental concern and--consistent with 
this legislation--is recommending that the area be closed to mining. 
H.R. 240 would provide some additional protections to Bodie in order to 
preserve its historic and visual integrity. The pending amendment would 
put the nearly 6,000 acres of public land within the Bodie bowl off-
limits to mining under the general mining laws.
  Mining on valid claims would be allowed to proceed under rules 
designed to protect the area's important historic and cultural 
resources. In addition, mining claims could not be patented in the 
Bodie bowl except where rights had vested by January 11, 1993.
  Finally, the amendment would require the Secretary of the Interior to 
review possible actions to preserve the cultural and natural values of 
the Bodie Bowl and report back to Congress within 3 years.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge immediate passage of this very valuable 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there further debate on this amendment?
  If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Lehman].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title VII?


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Tauzin

  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Tauzin: At the end of the bill, 
     add the following new section:

     ``SECTION 703. LAND APPRAISAL.

       Lands and interests in lands acquired pursuant to this act 
     shall be appraised for their highest and best use without 
     regard to the presence of a species listed as threatened or 
     endangered pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 
     U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)''


            Modification of Amendment Offered by Mr. Tauzin

  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to make a technical 
correction to the amendment that was printed in the Record for section 
703. The language of this modified amendment deletes the language ``for 
their highest and best use,'' and it is designed to clear up confusion 
regarding the meaning of highest and best use versus their market value 
in determining the value of private property.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification of amendment offered by Mr. Tauzin: Strike out 
     ``for their highest and best use''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  (Mr. TAUZIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  The text of the amendment, as modified, offered by Mr. Tauzin is as 
follows:

       At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

     ``SECTION 703. LAND APPRAISAL.

       Lands and interests in lands acquired pursuant to this act 
     shall be appraised without regard to the presence of a 
     species listed as threatened or endangered pursuant to the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)''

  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, the amendment we offer involves the 
question of the appraisal of property that is purchased pursuant to 
this act from private property owners to enlarge the land area 
protected under the act.
  Under the law of this country, when the government acquires property 
from private landowners for a public purpose, be it a road, a bridge, a 
hospital, a wilderness preserve or a park, the landowner is entitled to 
compensation under the fifth amendment of the Constitution.
  I want to quote the fifth amendment precisely for my colleagues. The 
fifth amendment, in its last concluding statement, says, ``Nor shall 
private property be taken for public purposes without just 
compensation.''
  It does not say simply ``without some form of compensation'' or ``a 
little compensation'' or ``somewhat compensation.'' It says, ``just 
compensation.''
  The question that is before the House with this amendment is what is 
just or fair compensation when private property is taken for public 
purposes, in this case for wilderness protection.
  The problem that this amendment addresses is a problem that many 
Americans face across this country when the government places a 
restriction on the use of property prior to acquiring it.
  Here is the situation. In this case, the government comes along and 
says that ``Your property is now subject to a critical habitat 
restriction.''

                              {time}  1120

  ``We have decided that in order to protect some plant, bug, bird, or 
mammal that may be threatened or endangered, that you can no longer use 
your property the way you used to use it or the way you might propose 
to use it. We are going to restrict the use of your property. In some 
cases you may not be able to use it at all, because it is now an 
important critical habitat of some threatened or endangered species of 
plant or animal.''
  Here is the problem. The government says a week later, ``I will tell 
you what we are going to do. We are going to buy your property now, but 
we are not going to pay you the value of your property before we 
restricted your use. We want to pay you the value of your property 
after we have destroyed your ability to use the property.''
  Let me give some real number kinds of examples. You might have bought 
property at $20,000 an acre, intending to build a home on it, intending 
to use it as farm land, intending to sell the timber on it as forest, 
only to find out the next week that the government has declared your 
property a critical habitat. In Texas this week, for example, the 
Fish and Wildlife Service announced a 20.5-million-acre critical 
habitat proposal for something called the golden throated warbler. 
Twenty-three counties of Texas would be affected by this immense 
declaration of critical habitat.

  When that habitat declaration is made, if it goes through, as many 
such habitat declarations have already gone through in areas with the 
spotted owl, for example, the value of your land tumbles. Who wants to 
buy a piece of property you cannot see? Who will take the property from 
you and pay you that $20,000 you spent for your property? Obviously, no 
one in the marketplace would do that, so the government has literally 
taken away the value of your property when it declared it a critical 
habitat.
  Two weeks later then the government comes along and says, ``No 
problem, we are going to pay you just compensation under the 
Constitution.'' You say, ``What am I going to get?'' They say, ``We are 
not going to pay you $20,000, we are going to pay you $500 instead, 
because that is all it is worth now.''
  The government will have taken your property from you and then 
refused to pay you the fair market value of the property before the 
government use restriction hits your property. Is that a real case 
scenario, Mr. Speaker? I promise that it is.
  In my home State of Louisiana, on the West Bank of New Orleans in the 
parish known as Jefferson Parish, we are trying to build a hurricane 
protection levee to protect that enormous population from the storms 
and ravages of hurricanes when they hit the Gulf Coast. To build the 
hurricane protection levee, we had to get a Corps of Engineers permit.
  The Corps said, ``You cannot build it out on the wetlands, you have 
to build it on the high ground in Jefferson Parish.'' That high ground 
had been valued at $20,000 an acre.
  When the levee board went to acquire it from the landowners, they 
said. ``We do not have to pay you $20,000 an acre. All we have to pay 
you is $500 an acre.''
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Tauzin was allowed to proceed for 5 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. TAUZIN. They said, ``All we have to pay you is what it is worth 
now, because the government has condemned it as wetland property. All 
we have to pay you is $500 an acre.''
  The landowners are in court today. The original court decision, and 
it is on appeal, said, ``No, you cannot do that, government. The 
Constitution says you cannot take property from people without paying 
them just, fair compensation, and fair compensation is what the land 
was worth before you devalued it, before you came along with your new 
regulations, your new restrictions on use.''
  Mr. Chairman, that is all this amendment does. This amendment 
guarantees that for property owners who will lose their property to the 
government by virtue of an eminent domain taking, that they will get 
their fair, just compensation. They will not get paid what the property 
is now worth because the government has devalued it with a critical 
habitat declaration. They are going to get a fair appraisal of the 
property based on market value without regard to that designation.
  Mr. Chairman, if we do not do that, we will literally be allowing the 
government to take people's property from them without fair or just 
compensation as required in the fifth amendment. The courts of our land 
have been looking at this question. They have been looking hard at it.
  In the Florida Rock decision issued in March of this year, the Court 
of Appeals here in Washington, DC, the court looked squarely at that 
issue. It said very succinctly, very clearly, that the landowner who is 
affected by a regulatory decision like a wetland or endangered species 
declaration must be paid the difference in value from the market value 
prior to that decision to what it is worth today, after that decision.
  Mr. Speaker, in effect, when the government devalued the property in 
a wetlands declaration, in that case it owed the landowner the 
difference in value before and after that declaration. That is what the 
courts are saying.
  In addition to that, the Supreme Court looked at the case of private 
property rights in a decision rendered just a couple weeks ago entitled 
``Dolan versus City of Tigert,'' a case arising out of the Northwest. 
In that case a city government tried to force a landowner to give up 
part of that property, in that case for a bike path and a green area, 
in return for the right to get a building permit.

  The court in that case said something very profound. It said that the 
fifth amendment protection of private property and the requirement to 
pay just or fair compensation for it when the government takes it is as 
sacred in this country as are the protections of free speech, the free 
practice of religion, freedoms of the press, freedoms to assemble in 
this country, the freedom to be protected in due process from unlawful 
search and seizures.
  In fact, Mr. Chairman, it said it is as sacred as any provision in 
the Bill of Rights, and that the government in the city of Tigert could 
not compel that land owner to give up its property just to get a 
building permit.
  In effect, our Supreme Court is increasingly recognizing what all of 
us believe to be the law in this land, which is that private property 
is pretty sacred to our economic institution, to the institution of our 
government and our society in America. It is what separates us from the 
systems that have fallen apart in Eastern Europe, the communist systems 
of communal ownership.
  If we are to protect the rights of citizens under the fifth amendment 
to fair and just compensation, this amendment is necessary. It is 
critical. If people's property will not be appraised fairly and justly 
before the government devalues it with its regulation, we will be 
allowing the government to take private property without fair or just 
compensation. That is what this is all about.
  If Members believe, as I do, and as the courts are increasingly 
saying, that the right to own private property is pretty doggone sacred 
in America, and that the government cannot take it from you without 
paying for it one way or the other, then you must support this 
amendment. It simply says that in the appraisal of private property, 
when it is taken by the government, the government must pay the fair 
compensation, the market value before the government devalued your 
property with a regulatory process called critical habitat or wetlands 
designation.
  If Members believe in that, as I do, then I urge them to support this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] 
has again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Tauzin was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment, as I understand, 
though, upsets the Park Service and other land management agencies. He 
is obviously addressing this only to the Government in an instance 
where we may have occasion to purchase land, is that correct, in those 
terms, or to sell it?
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, I do not understand the 
gentleman's question.
  Mr. VENTO. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, 
this amendment is directed to and of course affects, it is directed 
only to the Government agencies or entities that would be purchasing or 
selling land, is that correct?
  Mr. TAUZIN. That is correct.
  Mr. VENTO. That is all this is directed to. If the gentleman will 
yield further, the point is that the gentleman says the Park Service 
and others are directed to pay fair market value, and what the 
gentleman's amendment does is to define what constitutes fair market 
value.
  In other words, normally this is not something that is written in 
statute. There are many facets to fair market value. This is, of 
course, contained in an interpretation of the law with regard to the 
fifth amendment of the Constitution.
  Mr. TAUZIN. The gentleman is not defining fair market value. In fact, 
by unanimous consent I have amended the amendment so it did not refer 
to highest and best use or any characterizations of market value.
  Reclaiming my time, the gentleman's amendment merely says that in the 
appraisal of property, you cannot deduct it, you cannot lower the 
value, because of the critical habitat designation under the Endangered 
Species Act.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] 
has expired.
  (At the request of Mr. Vento and by unanimous consent, Mr. Tauzin was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAUZIN. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, what the gentleman merely does is to begin 
to interject actions on the floor here in the legislative body in the 
law as to what constitutes fair market value. While he says he is not 
doing that, he is qualifying it and saying you cannot consider this 
fact and you can consider another.
  Would it not also be true and possible under this particular 
procedure, then, to begin to put things into the law that would devalue 
the land? In a sense, just as the gentleman says you cannot consider 
this factor, but you can consider this factor, you are down a slippery 
slope here with the gentleman's proposed policy.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. TAUZIN. Reclaiming my time, I am on no slippery slope. If there 
is a slippery slope in America, it is the slippery slope on which the 
Government comes along, devalues your property, then tries to acquire 
it at the lower value. The bottom line is that Government ought not to 
be doing that to private citizens. If the Government is going to 
devalue property before we purchase it, we are not being paid fair 
compensation.
  Mr. Chairman, all we are doing in this amendment is saying that when 
the Government buys property, it ought to pay the fair market value 
before the Government devalues it for regulatory taking.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  (Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Louisiana did a 
super job in explaining this extremely important amendment. He talked 
about the fifth amendment which talks about the right that people will 
be justly compensated if their ground is taken.
  Many of us in this body have come out of the State legislature and 
many of us have served in city councils. Having spent 12 years on the 
city council of my little hometown of Farmington, UT, from time to time 
as we expanded our water system, roads, or whatever it may be, we had 
to practice eminent domain.
  What is eminent domain? When we have to take over some property, we 
had to establish the value of that private property, and then we would 
go about a legal procedure. Out of that, the city ended up paying for 
that ground. We paid what was the fair market value of that property.
  In the State legislature, as Speaker of the House, I saw where our 
department of transportation had to do it, where the natural resources 
had to do it, and that is sacrosanct in America and has been around 
since the Constitution was written. Then in 1973 came along the 
Endangered Species Act, and we may talk about the Wetlands Act. I do 
not know if we will have time to do that.
  Mr. Chairman, we find people all over America that somebody says, 
``This particular species is endangered.'' Did they then go to the 
person who may have owned the ground since the 1800's? No, they did not 
go to him and say, ``We're going to pay you for this.'' They said, ``If 
you move this animal, if you hurt this animal, you are going to find 
yourself in jail, you're going to find yourself with a big penalty.''
  Is this fair? We have seen houses burned down because of a rat. We 
have seen problems come about because of a fly. We may ruin the whole 
Colorado River drainage because of four fish that 30 years ago we 
called trash fish, and we tried to kill those trash fish and we tried 
to kill them with rotenone, and now we are going to maybe ruin the 
whole Colorado River compact because of this Endangered Species Act.
  We look through this and we say, ``Is this fair and equitable to 
individuals in America?'' The resounding answer is ``no.''
  Mr. Chairman, I could stand up here for 2 hours and give names to 
Members of citizens of the United States of America who have lost their 
land and had it devalued, people who have been there, fourth and fifth 
generation ranchers and owners and developers who wanted to do 
something with their ground.
  Down in Cedar City, UT, the Secretary of Interior, Mr. Babbitt, came 
in and made this statement. He said: ``We are going to value the 
property with the species on it.'' These people owned that property 
long before the 1973 Endangered Species Act. It is totally unfair to 
these folks to say, ``Great, now, you're not going to get the value of 
your ground.'' This may be the inheritance for your entire family, but 
instead of being worth $20,000 an acre in that growing area of 
Washington County, St. George, which has more retirees go to it than 
anyplace in the West, they are now going to get $200, $300 an acre for 
it. It is totally unfair to those people.
  In Washington County, we have a group of people who have tried their 
best to come up with a habitat conservation plan to protect the desert 
tortoise. We have had all sides together on the thing. After 4 years of 
working on this, after millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours, 
the Department of Interior wants to give them 25 percent of the value 
of their land.
  Why should people have to put up with this? I think if I have ever 
seen an amendment in the last little while on this floor that makes 
eminent good sense, it is the amendment of the gentleman from 
Louisiana. I am happy to join with him on that particular amendment and 
would urge that Members of the body vote in support of this amendment.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
all debate on this amendment and any amendments thereto end in 40 
minutes, with the time to be divided equally.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would 
object to that request. We have a number of Members who want to speak 
on this particular amendment and who feel very strongly about it.
  Would the gentleman agree to a request for an hour on each side? Is 
that too much for him?
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, 
I would not agree to an hour on each side, no. I thank the gentleman, 
and I withdraw my request.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the desert bill is symbolic of problems we are having 
in California. This magnificent State which at one time had a great 
deal of Federal ownership because it was a U.S. territory before it 
became a State is now occupied by 32 million people. The issues that 
are driving California are essentially the management of that 
population, where it is growing, and how it is going to utilize the 
resources upon which it lives.
  Mr. Chairman, California has got a definite supply of water, a 
definite supply of air, and as we impact on those, we begin thinking 
about how we are going to manage the open spaces. That is what this 
desert act is all about.
  What we are flirting with in this amendment is government 
manipulation of property values. It is a very, very dangerous 
precedent. Property values are not an exact science. In fact, if we see 
what really drives up property, it is property that is near open space, 
it is property that has views, it is property where there is clear air 
and clean water. In fact, it may be driven up because we have declared 
the habitat surrounding it as habitat for endangered species. If we 
begin manipulating these prices, we are going to put serious detriment 
into land use values, not only in California but in the entire United 
States.
  Mr. Chairman, I served in local government as well as the 
distinguished gentleman who spoke before me. I served in the State 
government, have been involved in coastal zone management planning in 
California, a very regulated process, probably more regulated than any 
area in the United States. What has come out of that is higher property 
values. Why? Because the resources are being managed very meticulously 
and it increases property values.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment, I think, slaps a big burden on trying 
to determine what indeed those values are and in many cases may drive 
down from the willing seller the value.
  There is a question raised about eminent domain. I do not know of any 
property that has ever been taken in the United States for habitat 
protection by eminent domain. Those who have familiarity with it know 
that eminent domain is usually used in highway procedures where they 
are trying to drive a road through some property. There is also a 
liability in using eminent domain because if the government backs out 
of the agreed upon price, there are treble damages and government 
oftentimes has to pay more than anyone ever expected for land if they 
do enter eminent domain.
  I would like to point out that a lot of the land in California, 
people are talking about Federal ownership. Seventeen percent of the 
State is owned by the Bureau of Land Management. The BLM land is land 
that nobody wanted in California, and today many people, it cannot be 
given to them. There is no water, no roads, no access, no good soil. It 
cannot be mined, it cannot be grazed, it cannot be farmed, it cannot be 
used. Yet we say, ``OK, the Federal Government owns too much land.'' In 
fact, they ought to look at what we own.
  Lastly, I would like to say that this amendment, I think, is probably 
well intentioned by those who think we are going to protect property 
values, but indeed I think we are going to destroy the ability to 
determine what is real fair market value in California and in other 
States by adopting this amendment. It is a dangerous precedent. I urge 
a no vote on the amendment.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield on that point?
  Mr. FARR of California. I yield to the gentleman form Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, as I perceive the correspondence dealing 
with the process of land appraisal, the point is made from the code of 
professional ethics adopted by the Appraisal Institute, one of the 
leaders is the appraisal industry, prohibits accepting an assignment 
based on ignoring things like endangered species. Ethical rule 3-3 
states, ``It is unethical to accept or perform an appraisal assignment 
if the assignment is contingent upon reporting a predetermined analysis 
or opinion.''
  The fact is that the OMB and the various agencies involved have the 
uniform rules with regard to 18 Federal land management agencies that 
function. They have adopted these guidelines. They are forced to pay a 
fair market value for whatever they purchase. This issue that there is 
some conspiracy theory, that somehow the Federal Government 
specifically is the root of all evil and that they somehow are 
designing in passing these laws and this legislation, whether it be 
clean air, the Endangered Species Act or wetlands delineation with the 
idea of somehow taking away from the citizens of this Nation something 
for less than fair value I think is frankly a very flawed logic.
  I can understand that people may be very suspicious, but this gets 
beyond suspicion and into a conspiracy theory, as I said and should not 
be the basis for our vote or policy decision today.

                              {time}  1140

  I think such conjecture and allegations are not helpful to the 
debate. The law and the Federal policy is required payment of fair 
market value. If this Congress can in some way qualify or limit what 
the Government can look at or consider, they can also exclude other 
factors that would result in less than fair market value going to 
people for their property.
  So I would just suggest we avoid this pitfall--this slippery slope--
and oppose this amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I more to strike the requisite 
number of words, and I rise to support the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman and Members, I am just fascinated by this debate and the 
discussion by my colleagues who come largely from the urban center 
about what they think about our desert territory. My colleague, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Farr], who is a dear friend from the 
urban center of northern California, says there are no roads, no water, 
powerlines and aqueducts; nobody would buy this stuff in the first 
place.
  To suggest that is to say he has never really visited my desert. You 
know, Palm Springs is not the only part of the desert, I say to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Farr]. The lack of understanding about 
this issue is really unbelievable.
  The east Mojave is filled with fantastic values. There are thousands 
of miles of roadway. There are endless channels of aqueducts and 
utility corridors. Those elements are factors that would never be 
considered to be part of a park, yet, they want to take millions of 
acres, and say every one justifies park consideration.
  In the east Mojave there is a fantastic mix of potential value that 
would be limited by this committee and, indeed, by this debate. It is 
incredible that people do not understand the values that exist there 
today and are to be found there tomorrow.
  Just in the last couple of years a spot in the eastern Mojave Desert 
would be just inside this proposed park by less than 8 miles, one of 
our prospectors discovered a new mine. It just happened to be a minor 
item. Who worries about marble in the United States? It is a major 
deposit of marble that is of quality higher than the best marble to 
come out of Italy. I have no idea what its future value is. But it is 
tremendous.
  It would not have been available for even access if this bill had 
passed 8 years ago when the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] and 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] would have had it.
  It is very important to know the thrust of the gentleman's amendment 
specifically. To put values on land that involve an endangered species, 
designated or to be designated, could have a tremendous negative 
effective upon landowners, property owners in this country.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from 
Louisiana.
  Mr. TAUZIN, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I think we need to really focus on exactly what this amendment and 
this debate is really all about.
  The gentleman came up previously, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Farr], and talked about manipulating value. It is the Government in 
this case that manipulates value against the landowner.
  When the Government comes in and says, ``You cannot use your property 
anymore because we decided it is critical habitat, and then tomorrow we 
are going to buy it from you but only at the lower value,'' who is 
manipulating value? The Government has. The Government has literally 
taken your private property without paying you for it.
  That is forbidden in the Constitution. We ought to forbid it in this 
act. That is what the amendment is all about.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague's 
contribution as well as his amendment.
  The point he makes is emphasized by the following point: It was not 
very long ago that the gentleman from California [Mr. McCandless] and I 
shared territory in Riverside County. I will never forget the issue of 
the fringe-toed lizard coming to my attention.
  Suddenly a newly designated endangered species was impacting 
territory in and around that area that is Palm Springs, CA. Over time 
it became very apparent if the Department had its way they would take 
most of the open land left north of Palm Springs and put it in some 
kind of preserve.
  What eventually had to be done, because there was a designation of 
the fringe-toed lizard as an endangered species, we actually had to 
create a preserve; several hundred acres of otherwise extremely 
valuable property owned by private citizens would have been somehow 
essentially taken over in terms of its relative value by this 
Department. That is precisely what the gentleman is trying to get to, 
that the Government should not be able to manipulate the value of 
people's property long held or otherwise because they decide to 
designate ``X'' endangered.
  In my territory, another minor extension, I think expansion, of the 
original intention of Congress is as it relates to endangered species, 
the wooly star. I am sure that maybe even the gentleman from Minnesota 
[Mr. Vento] has not heard of the wooly star. But it is a cactus-like 
plant, an ugly little devil, I must say, but for about 3 weekends a 
year it develops a very small little purple flower, and it grows in 
watersheds, sandy territory.
  Now, frankly, that partially describes much of my desert. Right now 
it is located in the watershed near the Santa Ana that is very, very 
valuable property. It is the production point of sand and gravel that 
leads to building houses and roads, less expensively.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Lewis of California was allowed to proceed 
for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if one were to broaden that 
definition, pretty soon there would be no sand and gravel for building 
houses and roads for southern Californians.
  The kangaroo rat: Now, I do have a lot of empathy for endangered 
species, but the kangaroo rat is not on my list, and it is about to 
drive low-cost housing opportunities out of the Inland Empire in 
southern California. Young people already, including my kids, are 
having difficulty buying homes because of what Government is doing.
  My colleague from Louisiana is essentially saying we should not have 
the Government, by these mechanisms, manipulating the value of 
property.
  Mr. McCANDLESS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. McCANDLESS. Mr. Chairman, I must express some concern about the 
logic I heard from the other side of the aisle relative to the 
appraisal process.
  Having spent some time on the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban 
Affairs, and going through the savings and loan debacle, assessments 
and how appraisals and everything are arrived at became a very 
important part of the legislation coming out of the dark ages there and 
bringing these things to light.
  One of the things that we must understand is that the value of that 
land is based upon what that land has to offer in the way of 
development or esthetic value, or whatever else may be involved that 
the owner and the buyer wish to trade. If there is a ``slippery slope'' 
or however else you may wish to define it, that is a part of the actual 
land in question. The designation of this land for purposes of the 
Endangered Species Act totally ignores, totally ignores what is the 
value of the land, and places a cloud over that value that is not 
representative of what the land actually represents to its owner.
  Now, my experience in this has been rather extensive.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from 
Louisiana.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I was formerly commissioner of financial 
institutions for the State of Louisiana, although I do not serve on the 
Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs.
  My question to you is: If there is a $200,000 mortgage on a piece of 
property, and it is subsequent to that determination by a financial 
institution that it was a fair property value to use for that mortgage, 
and subsequently there occurs a listing under the Endangered Species 
Act; subsequently to that there is a purchase offered by the United 
States for $20,000. Is the gentleman simply saying that both the 
individual who will lose 180 and possibly the board of directors of the 
financial institution have liability to revalue all of their collateral 
assets in that institution which were given under one criterion and 
devalued under another?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] 
has again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Lewis of California was allowed to proceed 
for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. HAYES. To make it a simple question: What happens to prior 
mortgaged land?
  Mr. McCANDLESS. If the gentleman will yield further, I believe the 
statement the gentleman made eloquently outlines a framework of the 
real problem here of a third party, an intangible aspect of the 
activities around this issue.
  Mr. HAYES. If the gentleman will yield further, what is the legal 
responsibility of the members of a board of directors of a financial 
institution under title IV of the United States Code if they know for a 
fact land is worth less than they are holding it on their books even 
though the devaluation would bust the bank? What is their legal 
obligation with criminal penalties if they do not act?
  Mr. McCANDLESS. We are kind of involved here in the desert. If I may, 
I believe the obvious response is that many of the criminal actions 
addressed through the Resolution Trust Corporation and other Federal 
agencies involved in the savings and loan debacle have reflected the 
very things that you are talking about here, improper evaluation of 
property and what goes on as a result of that.
  Mr. HAYES. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, with the balance of my time, 
if I might, I mentioned earlier a gentleman who had found a deposit of 
marble in my district.

                              {time}  1150

  Mr. Chairman, my staff has brought to my attention something I did 
not realize. The Government has already driven Rick Domingo, a native 
American, out of business. He went to the Bureau of Land Management to 
attempt to lay the foundation for the creation of this mine, putting in 
the investment and the like, and because BLM was unsure of the future, 
they said, ``Hey, you had better go talk to your congressman.'' Well, 
then they could not get any security as to the future potential use of 
this property because of the debate in the House. His investors got 
shaky and Rick Domingo has gone belly up as a result of it. This is an 
illustration of the problem of excessive Government, wanting too much 
of our lives. Indeed, in this case even wanting to place a value on our 
property by their own arbitrary formula.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Lewis of California was allowed to proceed 
for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. McCandless].
  Mr. McCANDLESS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, my reason for getting up was to talk a little bit about 
this fringe-toed lizard and what kind of impact that had on the 
community that I represent and actually live in.
  It is a 14,000-acre preserve now I believe, paid for by the Federal 
Government, paid for by local government, paid for by county 
government, paid for by the building industry and those who represent 
it in a consortium of involvement and a payment over a period of time.
  It is important to note that for a length of time, which we are still 
recovering from, that the adjacent properties and the assessments on 
those adjacent properties to pay for this have substantially reduced 
the value of that property, whether it be for farming, whether it be 
for development, or for whatever other purpose.
  We briefly mentioned the kangeroo rat. The kangeroo rat has 
demoralized the county of Riverside, and has reduced values of property 
far less than what anybody would conceive of if a fire came through or 
a flood came through and reduced its overall worth or value to an 
assessment or an evaluation.
  The Endangered Species Act has been the most dynamic force in 
reducing property value below whatever it should be, according to a 
fair market and other factors, because it is not developable. If the 
county of Riverside were to say you can put 1 house on every 10 acres 
and that is the zoning of the property, if the K-rat was eventually 
found on that property then you could not put the 1 house on that 10 
acres, because the county of Riverside would not issue that permit 
because you would be in violation of the Endangered Species Act.
  I had a constituent who wanted to add one bedroom to his house 
because he had another child. He could not add that one bedroom to the 
house on the 5 acres that he owns because of the Endangered Species 
Act.
  This is the problem that we are talking about. My colleague, Mr. 
Tauzin, his amendment addresses that.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] 
has again expired.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
proceed for an additional 2 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, is there some 
agreement that we could gain on time in terms of the extension that are 
going on? I would suggest that there has been some over 25 minutes of 
debate on one side by the proponents of the amendment and 5 minutes by 
the opponents of the amendment. Is there some agreement we could get, 
even on an unequal basis, so that we could conclude this is a timely 
manner, say 35 minutes, for instance for Mr. Hansen and 25 minutes by 
Mr. Miller.
  Mr. VENTO. I reserved the right to object, and I yield to the 
gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that this is 
by far the most significant amendment remaining on the bill before us 
today. It involves people's property. I am very hesitant to lightly 
restrain the time. But I would certainly yield to the gentleman who is 
the author of the amendment.
  Mr. VENTO. Renewing my reservation, under my reservation: The issue 
is that I am suggesting an additional hour on top of the half-hour, 
spending an hour and half on this; is there any suggestion on the part 
of the gentleman?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I do have a suggestion. I suggest to the 
chairman that there are other amendments that I may very well choose 
not to take up today. It is very conceivable.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, under my reservation, I yield to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, we understand the gentleman has a whole series of 
amendments and that he can continue to drag out this bill. That is 
certainly his right under the rule that I sought that allows him to do 
that. The question is whether or not we can have a reasonable time 
limit on debate here so that we can move on either to the 
consideration--the gentleman's rights continue no matter what we do 
here--protecting the rights of all Members who are here on the floor, 
if we had 40 minutes, Members would have 5 minutes to spend on the 
amendment.
  Mr. VENTO. I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis].
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I must say that I would take the leave of the author of 
this amendment in connection with a specific amendment. But indeed we 
would not have the number of amendments on the floor that we have today 
if the committee had originally been halfway responsive or even 
consulted with Members who are elected to represent the desert.
  Mr. VENTO. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the issue is here. I 
seek a reasonable time to consider the amendment before us in terms of 
this issue, which has been debated repeatedly here on the floor. The 
issue here is tangential, at best.
  Under my reservation----
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman,----
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I continue my reservation of objections.
  The CHAIRMAN. There is one unanimous consent request on the floor.
  Mr. VENTO. And I reserved my right to object under it. I am yielding 
to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. McCANDLESS. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. McCANDLESS. Mr. Chairman, my colleague asked for an additional 2 
minutes, which the gentleman in question took exception to under the 
unanimous-consent request.
  Mr. VENTO. I reserved my right to object. Under my reservation, I 
yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, let me point out that we have not had long debates on 
this issue. This is the first time we have ever had a chance to bring 
this issue of property rights and compensation before this body. And to 
suggest that we have had a lot of time to debate it is wrong. Many 
Members are just now getting the messages in their offices right now 
who will want to come to the floor and debate it. I would be very, very 
careful about limiting time on this debate with Members just now being 
alerted to this very serious question.
  I think we ought to see who is coming to debate it first, and let us 
have a good debate.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VENTO. Under my reservation, I yield to the gentleman from 
Louisiana.
  Mr. HAYES. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Tauzin sponsored the amendment. The gentleman mentioned two 
lawsuits earlier today. One was Florida Rock, and the other was Dolan. 
Have not both of those been going on for over 20 years and are not, in 
fact, one of the original plaintiffs now deceased?
  Mr. VENTO. I cannot give the answer.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana to respond to 
the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. HAYES. We are speaking of time here. We will have nothing but 
dead plaintiffs left while we have wasted time in not enacting 
legislation to give people their rights.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I just want to correct the record here.
  The fact is that this amendment and all other amendments could have 
been offered in committee, and they were not offered in committee. So 
they have chosen to offer this amendment for the first time in this 
forum to continue the debate.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VENTO. I yield to the gentleman briefly.
  Mr. TAUZIN. I point out that this Member does not serve on Mr. 
Miller's committee. I would love to have served on this committee. I do 
not serve on this committee.
  Mr. Chairman, this committee is the Committee of the Whole House. 
This is my chance to get this amendment to the floor and get it 
debated, and I would like to have a full debate on it.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the point is that the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] suggested somehow this is the 
only place you could consider this amendment because in fact the 
committee did not allow that. The bill was considered, and any member 
of the committee could have offered any amendment. The members of the 
committee on the other side and on our side chose not to offer this 
amendment. The gentleman is perfectly right.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection and 
let the gentleman [Mr. Lewis] have his 2 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Lewis]?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I thank the chairman for being so kind with 
his time. I must comment to the chairman's remarks: It happens to be 
unfortunate that not one Member who is elected to represent the desert, 
out of the five, serves on the committee. They were not consulted at 
all by the committee. And were dealt with in an arbitrary manner by the 
committee, in this Member's judgment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from California 
[Mr. McCandless], a Representative of the desert.
  Mr. McCANDLESS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to make one other point regarding 
evaluation of property. In a recent wildfire in my district, 39 homes 
were burned down to the ground. Prior to that wildfire, one of the 
owners of one of these homes asked for a permit to build a tractor 
shed. That permit was requested and re-requested, but refused by the 
county because it said, ``Your property is on the Endangered Species 
List.'' That house and 38 others burned down because the Endangered 
Species Act did not permit the disking of the property which they 
owned, around their dwellings and other structures. And as a result, 
the wildfire came directly through, burning the grass up to and 
including the house.

                              {time}  1200

  My point here is that the Endangered Species Act, whether applied to 
improved or unimproved land, has been a substantial detriment to the 
value of the property in question, and so I take exception with those 
who say that the Endangered Species Act has no impact or should not 
have any impact upon the assessments of property as it relates to 
purchase by a Federal agency.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, let me 
mention that I started these remarks by discussing the fact that one of 
my constituents, Rick Domingo, has essentially been put out of business 
by government. I know that not too many of my colleagues may care about 
that native American who now is essentially out of work and has lost 
the potential value of his claim. I had hoped that the House would at 
least care about the 70 employees he was planning to hire from Baker, 
CA.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].
  Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot of discussion already in terms of 
the Endangered Species Act. The truth of the matter is, and, of course, 
this amendment affects the fundamental process of arriving at a fair 
market value; but the issue here is of whether or not we are going to 
begin to legislate different qualifications in terms of what fair 
market value is for at least some of the land management agencies in 
the context of this bill.
  We are talking about, in this case, the BLM management of land, and 
the Park Service management of land principally. As I said, there are 
18 different and acquiring agencies in the Federal Government which, 
under the uniform standards, would prohibit such practices as being 
inappropriate and would result in something less than what fair market 
value is, and proponents suggest that we are not affecting such 
standards. We, in a whole host of both national and State laws and 
zoning laws, have as impact on what the value of land is whether it is 
zoned for commercial development, residential development, other types 
of limitations and extensions that the State or national government may 
place on it, whether it has harmful deposits of toxic materials on it, 
whether it has other types of value associated with the land in terms 
of naturally occurring minerals, some obviously semiprecious or high 
value like gold. All of these factors enter into the fair market value.
  Congress has, Mr. Chairman, when attempting to interfere with that, 
has been put down on the basis of what the constitution provides in the 
fifth amendment, which is a good protection, and most recently my 
colleagues quoted cases, the Rock case, the Dolan court case, in which 
local governments, national governments, the Federal Government, may 
have taken action or attempted to disallow certain factors or impose 
certain conditions which reduce the fair market value.
  The proponents are intent upon legislating, in this instance and if 
the Congress can do so and passes laws that limit value and that say, 
``You can't look at a specific factor or factors; you have to be blind 
with regard to endangered species,'' I would suggest one could be blind 
with regard to certain mineral values on land. One has to disallow that 
particular value which would, indeed, bring us down a policy path where 
we would take away this particular function from the courts, form the 
professional appraisals, and take it upon ourselves to qualify property 
value judgments.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, we pass a whole host of laws if we disagree with 
the Endangered Species Act, or for that matter, with the toxic waste 
deposits that are on land or other factors. We can change those laws 
with regard to that. I do not think in a sense that we should, but, Mr. 
Chairman, nevertheless we can, and there are some problems that would 
then be resolved.
  One constituent explained that stated it well regulation, zoning land 
classification is really the hand of the State, local, and national 
government on the landscape of this Nation. That really is what the 
power and responsibility of government is, regards land use shaping 
such uses and limits some take about unfunded mandates. I say, ``If 
you're going to begin to define the context of what is and isn't 
considered a reduction in property value, you're going to really 
paralyze both State/local governments, the national land management 
agencies, in their ability to do fulfill their role, and I mean that 
job runs the gamut of the 18 land management agencies we have at the 
Federal level and every State and local government in the country. This 
would be the granddaddy of all unfunded mandates that one could 
imagine. It's a way to paralyze the government.''
  I would say that it is, I think, out of sight to consider the fact 
that the government somehow has an intention to impose certain 
conditions on land and private property so that it could take away 
property from individuals in this instance without payment of a fair 
value. This amendment, while perhaps well intended in pointing out a 
problem, is really inappropriate for the National Government to, in 
fact, not pay fair market value for any land it purchases.
  There are problems in these areas because, as we talked about, the 
fringe toed lizard, and the kangaroo rat, and the woolly cactus that 
occur in these lands, that simply shows that the likelihood of entire 
ecosystem in stress; that is, a serious problem, and we are losing 
those rare species, hopefully we would find solutions to get ahead of 
the curve, as Secretary Babbitt has articulated in directing the 
Department of the Interior with regard to the host of fauna and flora 
that are under stress in the desert and other critical habitats in this 
Nation, and that we would not take this particular one-sided approach 
to action or move in the direction we have before us today.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VENTO. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I think on the discussion when we are 
talking about the Federal Government, and then we are comparing it to 
the local governments, I think respectfully there is a difference. In 
local government we have a board of adjustment. In local government we 
have an appeal process. In this all we have is the courts, and we can 
go to the court, I am sure, but it would seem to me that it is not 
really the kind of comparison we would want to look at because in a 
local government and on the State basis we have boards of adjustment, 
people one can go to.
  The gentleman talks about Secretary Babbitt. In my home State----
  Mr. VENTO. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I do not think it has to 
do with whether we have a court.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Vento was allowed to proceed for 3 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller] in one moment, but my point would be that we 
are not talking about whether there is an appeal process, whether it is 
through a court or formal board. We are talking about what the rules 
are that govern or the values are that govern the value of the land; in 
essence, what is going to be paid or what is going to be compensated by 
adjusting that, and what is being suggested. Irregardless of whether 
there is an endangered species on the land that has an impact in how it 
can be used; that is the case when we talk about water rights on land. 
That is the case when we talk about whether there is an air pollution 
problem or whether there are certain types of mineral deposits on land. 
We are dealing with the fundamental value that is there, sometimes 
defined and regulated by reasonable law and Government actions.
  There is no difference between two plots of land at a local level 
except that they zone one for commercial and one for residential, and 
that is what we are dealing with. We are dealing with changing or 
structuring in Congress, such value in this amendment not depending on 
the marketplace, but structuring those.
  Now it is true that sometimes laws locally, nationally, federally, 
statewide, have an impact in terms of what the value of land is. I 
yield that particular point. But the fact is that you are proposing 
that Congress mix into such issue--we are not changing the fundamental 
law. We are saying, ``Disregard what the value is and pay that 
notwithstanding the Endangered Species Act in this instance, and you 
can do that with any one of the rules or any one of the laws that I 
just spoke to in the same vein.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VENTO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say, as my 
colleagues know, the strong suggestion is somehow this is going to 
relieve the endangered species problems on lands, and the fact is it is 
not. The fact is what the Government would do in this case, I guess if 
this was the land, the gentleman was going to force the Government to 
pay a higher price in spite of the reality on the land. The Government 
will come along, and they will make a determination, as they make 
today, about habitat, about land, that there is an endangered species 
problem. If, in fact, there is one, they will have to support that and 
go on about their business. And guess what? That landowner will have 
that land at that market rate, and they can then deal with anybody in 
the private sector they want, and the Government can just stand back 
and watch that because the fact is there will then be 404 permits, 
there will be clean water requirements, there will be endangered 
species, and that is fine.
  Now the question is whether or not we then want to, because basically 
what we are doing here is we are prohibiting the Government, we are 
prohibiting the Government from going in and acquiring that land if, in 
fact, they have made an endangered species determination because what 
we are saying to the Government is they must pay a higher value for 
that land than the land is really worth out in the market.

                              {time}  1210

  So they can let that landowner sit out in the market and determine 
what it is worth with these requirements, because let me say that if 
you are a developer, if you are a homeowner, or you are a rancher, and 
you want to buy that land, you are going to ask, ``Is there a species 
problem?''
  They may say, ``Yes, this an endangered species habitat, and there is 
a wetlands problem here.'' So you are going to say, ``Well, I am going 
to have to pay you a little less because I would have to get a permit. 
I would have to go through these processes, and I have to wait to see 
if that gets cleared up.''
  But you do not want to reserve that right to the Government. So the 
fact is that what this amendment dictates is that the Government goes 
ahead and makes its finding and they know that that land is going to be 
treated in accordance with the Clean Water Act, and so forth.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Vento was allowed to proceed for 3 
additional minutes.''
  Mr. McCANDLESS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I continue to yield to the gentleman [Mr. 
Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the point is that the 
Government really does not then have to deal with these lands because 
they will treat these lands as they can under the existing laws.
  Mr. McCANDLESS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of California. No; I cannot yield. The gentleman has the 
time, and I have asked him to yield to me. I have not completed my 
statement, and the gentleman has spoken several times on the amendment 
already.
  Mr. Chairman, the point is this: that the Government does not have to 
assume the burden because it already has, under existing laws that are 
not subject to this legislation, the ability to go out and to define 
whether or not various lands have habitat and species problems and 
whether various lands have wetlands problems, if it already comes to 
that, and that will continue. The only thing we have done here is we 
have taken the Government out of the market as to whether or not they 
choose to acquire those lands, and in this case most of the lands are 
not going to be a threat to the Federal reservations. We would like to 
acquire them for management purposes. A number of people may be there 
who would like to leave these lands to the Government because they want 
the Government to acquire them. But what you are simply saying is that 
if you are going to force this on the Government, a land manager cannot 
say, ``I am going to pay an artificially high price for these lands,'' 
because I think in fact we are working to an end which most of us would 
suggest we do not want. But that is fine because that classification of 
endangered species problem will be out there and the free market can 
deal with it, and you will find in fact the free market would treat 
this as would the Government but for the amendment, because we would be 
considering whether or not this is in fact a fair market value.
  Mr. McCANDLESS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VENTO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McCANDLESS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding.
  The issue here that started this spark was that the Endangered 
Species Act does not have an impact upon the appraisal of the property 
based upon the outline that the gentleman read with respect to 
professional assessments of property.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will let me reclaim my 
time, I would be happy to share the statement with the gentleman. I 
read a portion of it.
  I did not imply nor did I mean to imply, nor does the statement, I 
believe, imply that the Endangered Species Act has no impact. I believe 
we all know that it does, just as other types of laws have an impact, 
whether they be toxic waste laws or other types of laws, have an 
impact.
  Mr. McCANDLESS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield further for 
just one more point?
  Mr. VENTO. Yes; I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McCANDLESS. Mr. Chairman, if an area is designated by the Fish 
and Wildlife Service as an endangered species study area or if it is 
determined that this area is in the Endangered Species Act requirement, 
no county in the State of California and, I would assume, other States 
can issue a building permit for any type of structure, be it 
commercial, residential, or the improvement of an existing structure, 
since that cloud has been emplaced upon the property. That is my point. 
That dramatically reduces the value of the property.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] 
has again expired.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to 
proceed for 2 additional minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Minnesota?
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to 
object, this would be based upon the fact that my watch keeps up with 
everybody else's watch.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, let me inquire, has the gentleman from 
California concluded his statement?
  Mr. McCANDLESS. Yes, I have, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, let me suggest that I yield to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that what we 
have heard on that point is just not so. The fact is that people have 
endangered species on tracts of land and they engage in mitigation 
plans with Fish and Wildlife or with the corps, or whatever the agency 
is. Because they are both involved in this. We have some of the most 
valuable golf courses in America that are built across endangered 
species habitats because mitigation plans were put forth and the 
species continued to strive and the value is there, and the people 
still built the course and they are commercially successful. Let us not 
pretend that that is the end-all. In fact, that has enhanced the value 
of lands around them.
  So this amendment should really read either way. The point is that in 
fact the setting aside of habitat and the setting aside of wetlands 
also accrues to the value, and if we are honest about this amendment, 
we should also say that we should not be able to account any value that 
was added by governmental action, such as a county road down the front, 
a freeway down the front of it, a national park along the side of it, 
or a water project that brought water to the property.
  Why is it that the Government always has to take the losers and they 
never let us share in the values that are increased because of 
governmental action?
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I think that points up one of the problems. 
I am almost out of time, and I do not want to continue to extend my 
time because other Members may want to speak.
  But the point is, very simply, that if we are looking at something in 
a community or a city having some special species or plants, or other 
amenities on it, that can be a desirable feature. In fact, the park 
designations themselves have had the characteristics of increasing the 
value of lands around the parks. People want to live by national parks 
and by local and State parks.
  The point is this, Mr. Chairman, I would conclude by saying that if 
there is a demonstration that there is collusion between the Government 
designation of an endangered species and then coming back and 
purchasing the land cheaply, I think obviously in any court they would 
take action to rectify that situation. That is the Doland case where 
the local government was determined to overstep its lawful authority.
  Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say to my colleagues that what we have here is 
essentially an issue of the process around here. The gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] and others have tried for sometime to get 
Endangered Species Act questions on the floor of the House. He has a 
bill, and the chairman of the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
Fisheries, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds] has another 
bill. The issues are well understood by Members of the House, but we 
have had really no opportunity here on the floor to debate these issues 
or discuss the important parts of it, and I think what we are seeing 
here today is a real frustration over the ability to get the 
significant issues in full debate before the House and find out where 
the votes are as far as amending this act is concerned.
  It would certainly be preferable at this point to debate an issue 
like this in the context of the entire Endangered Species Act, with 
those problems before us, so the House could act, but since we do not 
have that opportunity, I think the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Tauzin] is going the only thing he can do here, and that is to try to 
use this opportunity to bring at least one issue connected with this 
before the House. This is not a perfect proposal by any means that the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] has, because it only affects the 
Federal acquisition of these lands, and certainly in the private sector 
between two parties the discount necessitated by the Endangered Species 
Act application would have to be factored in. But at least here he has 
made an attempt to deal with this issue.

  I would point out that the real tragedy here is that the individual 
whose land is impacted by the decision, whether that decision is right 
or wrong, under the existing process has no opportunity for public 
input into that process that affects his or her land, has no guarantee 
and in fact has no right to bring the economic issues that are at the 
core here to the table under the existing act. As to the very issues we 
are talking about, that person who owns the property has absolutely no 
possibility to get to the table in the discussion either in the 
decision to list the species or in the subsequent discussion of the 
mitigation.
  Finally and most egregious, if there is a decision to list, there is 
no right to go to court on the part of the property who opposes and 
challenges that decision. Only if there is a failure to list is there a 
right to go to court. The only instance here in which someone can 
exercise their right to go to court is under a takings process that 
could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and a lot of time, and most 
people are not in a position to do that.
  So my sympathies here lie with what the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Tauzin] is attempting to do. I would hope that a strong vote on this 
today would send a clear message that we ought to be dealing with this 
entire issue here on the floor of the House and find out where the 
votes are. Certainly there is a need for some change.
  But in this instance I think there is real injury here to a party 
that has no opportunity to defend themselves unless they have enough 
money to go to court and take the appeals process up on a taking.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEHMAN. I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Tauzin].
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend for his excellent 
statement, because that is what is at stake here. What is at stake here 
is not private manipulation of values or taking advantage of the 
Government.

                              {time}  1220

  What is at stake here is the Government taking advantage of small 
property owners who can not afford to spend 10 years in the court of 
claims or the court of appeals, all the way to the Supreme Court, to 
prove that the Government took their property by devaluating first 
before they acquired it in an eminent domain situation, where the party 
did not have a chance to complain and address the issues in advance.
  The gentleman is so correct. If we do not adopt this amendment, what 
we are left with is a situation where the Government can take advantage 
of small property owners who cannot afford to go to court and fight the 
Government, the Justice Department, to get justice in America. This 
amendment says to every small property owner, when your land is taken, 
you are not going to get some artificial value. You are going to get 
the real value before the Government took an action to devalue your 
property, and then tried to acquired it. It is so essential that we 
establish that in law for small property owners.
  Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
for his comments. I think we have the basic question of fairness. I 
wish we could deal with it in the larger context. I would suggest to 
Members listening, until we are given that opportunity here on the 
floor, we are going to continue to see this type of frustration, and 
maybe a clear vote here will send the right signal.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support for the Tauzin amendment. I 
think my colleague has laid out a strong case for this amendment by 
detailing the Florida Rock case. There is another reason for supporting 
this amendment, and this debate shows the direction we are moving in. 
It talks about fundamental fairness for the American people.
  It is unfair for anyone, especially a government green shirt, to come 
on to a person's land and declare that individual's land invaluable 
because of the government regulations that are placed upon it.
  You know, we used to prosecute people in this country for devaluing 
land and running those types of scams, and then trying to come on and 
buy it at the lower prices. I believe HUD has regulations against that 
even today as we speak. And here is the Federal Government doing much 
the same thing.
  The people of this country become wary of what the government does in 
the name of environmental protection. It is precisely because of this 
type of maneuvering that the public is concerned. If the government is 
going to pass strong environmental laws, it should pay the price.
  Now, we have before us a bill cosponsored by the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] and myself, which lies at the desk under a 
discharge petition, that would allow us to debate this. It would allow 
us to have a debate on the whole question of takings and how the public 
is to be compensated.
  You know, one of the Members previously mentioned that because of the 
pressures of population gains, that there is going to be more and more 
need for the Federal Government to be taking properties, there is going 
to be more and more pressure for government management and control.
  It is precisely because of that that we need to adhere to the 
protections of the Constitution more strongly than we do today. The 
fourth and fifth Amendments are going to become more and more important 
to protect the people of this country.
  The Constitution and the Bill of Rights was passed not to protect us 
from foreign power, but to protect us from just this type of onerous 
hand of government. And that is why we as, 435 Members of Congress, 
ought to be the champions of constitutional rights for the people of 
this country, not thinking up ways to undercut it, not thinking of ways 
we can get a cheaper dollar for the government, not thinking of ways we 
can abuse those rights, but be the champions.
  If we are going to err, let us err on the side of the people, not on 
the side of the bureaucrats.
  Now, I served on the board of transportation and in the State 
legislature as the gentleman from Utah did, and I know there are times 
when condemnation needs to be used. We tried to find alternative ways.
  When I first came to this Congress, we took up a bill in the 
subcommittee that I sat upon to take a farm that had been in a family's 
hands for hundreds of years, to provide a view shed for a corpse. Under 
condemnation of this government, we did that. Now, I do not consider 
that in an area of highest and public health and safety, which we 
ordinarily try to use condemnation for.
  We know that in many types of legislation, we have reform systems, 
such as in our State, where the court got its fees from deciding cases. 
So, naturally, it had to find a lot of people guilty in order to get 
the funds to operate the court. We abolished that system years ago. Yet 
we are talking about the same system here.
  The government, by pulling from its case a regulation that will 
devalue your property, can buy that property for a fraction of its 
value had it not applied those regulations. So it has an incentive to 
always find a regulation to devalue in order to deprive that person of 
his fair market value and enable the government to buy it at a lower 
price.
  This kind of chicanery should not be in any system that we have, and 
it is why we should pass the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. ORTON asked and was given permissible to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. 
I share the concerns of the subcommittee chairman that we not attempt 
to dictate in statutory language a specific fair market value. I also 
understand and share the concern of the chairman of the full committee 
that an amendment ought not to be just one way.
  In fact, I do not believe this amendment is just one way. If we read 
the exact wording, it says lands and interests and lands acquired 
pursuant to this act shall be appraised without regard to the presence 
of.
  It has nothing to do with just ignoring it if it devalues the land, 
but not ignoring it if it increases the value of the land. So it really 
does go both ways. I do not think the amendment is at fault in the 
language of the amendment.
  I believe that one of the very strongest principles in this country 
protected by our Constitution is the right of ownership of private 
property. That has been defended in the courts. In fact, recently, a 
few years ago, in the Lucas case, as this body is well aware, the 
Supreme Court ruled that when the Government, whether it be Federal or 
local, when the Government acts through something such as a zoning 
ordinance, which the subcommittee chairman mentioned may lower the 
value of land, that that in fact is a taking, even though it is not a 
condemnation, even though it is not taking all of the rights of 
ownership of the property; that the very restriction of use through 
zoning or such ordinances can in fact be a taking which is compensable, 
which the Government must compensate.
  Now, I believe that. In my opinion, the enlisting of endangered 
species or critical habitat is a similar taking, which must be 
compensated. I believe, in my opinion, that is in fact a taking.
  I would encourage the Supreme Court that when that case appears 
before it, to find that similarly, under Lucas, to be a taking. I would 
encourage those people who have the money to pursue this to the Supreme 
Court to in fact do so, so that we can get a ruling under the court.
  I would encourage this body to take up the Private Property Rights 
Act, so that we can deal with this in substance beyond just the Desert 
Protection Act, beyond just the Endangered Species Act, so we can deal 
with this issue of Federal Government action which lowers the value of 
property being a taking.
  I believe it is. It must be under the Constitution, and it should be 
compensable. But until someone takes that to the Supreme Court, or 
until this body acts to pass the Private Property Rights Act, we should 
adopt this amendment so that specifically we are saying that the 
government cannot benefit by or that we cannot take away the person's 
property value.
  The argument has been made very clearly by both the committee 
chairman and the subcommittee chairman that the listing of an 
endangered species or a critical habitat may very well, and often does, 
lower the value. Yet that is not being compensated.
  So what this does is seek in this particular bill to say we are going 
to compensate them because we are not going to appraise considering the 
listing of that species. We will appraise it without consideration of 
the listing of the species.
  So I think it is a very good amendment, and would urge adoption of 
it.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ORTON. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman raised the Lucas case. I have not read 
all the details. But the suggestion that if you have a zoning 
limitation and you reduce the value of the land regarding a zoning the 
gentleman, Mr. Orton, suggests that in that practice today for local 
governments, for State governments, in essence, is compensable and that 
they are or should be paying compensation.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the critical elements I think missing in the 
discussion here is a black and white argument sort of being portrayed 
today, the issue of reasonableness. That is exactly the case of the 
Dolan legal case. So what we are entering into, of course, is not a 
question of whether it is a reasonableness in terms of use here with 
regard to this amendment and this very narrow use, but, obviously, we 
are arguing on a broader ban. But the proponents of the amendment are 
avoiding the issue of reasonableness, which is at the heart or core of 
what the courts actually decide, and we are putting in place and 
substituting our judgment by saying if it is an Endangered Species Act, 
you cannot consider it as to reducing that value the Federal Government 
pays for such property.

                              {time}  1230

  Indeed, while I suggest and I think the chairman suggests that the 
Endangered Species Act could reduce the value of land because of 
limitations that are inherent in the use of it, it also may enhance it. 
I may want to have the Houston toad in my backyard. To me that may have 
something of value and I think to other individuals as well.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Orton was allowed to proceed for 3 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, in response to the comments of the 
subcommittee chairman, indeed the Lucus case is a fairly narrow issue. 
But the concept that was identified in the Lucas case is that in order 
to be a compensable taking, you do not need to take the entire rights 
in the property, that a restriction such as a zoning restriction can in 
fact be compensable under the Constitution, under the takings clause. I 
think that is the point that I am raising.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
think the question is one of reasonableness. Of course, it is not the 
operative function of our local governments, every time they have a 
reclassification, whether it increases or limits the use of the land, 
to either collect money on the increase or to pay money back on the 
decrease. In fact, that is a common activity, in fact, a major function 
of local and State government.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comment.
  The point we are making is, I think, one in fact of reasonableness. 
The Supreme Court has said that the action, something less than taking 
the entire rights of the property, is in fact compensable under the 
Constitution. I am saying that we ought to take that case to the 
Supreme Court to determine if this is compensable. I believe it is, in 
my opinion. Until that is done, I think it is very reasonable to say 
that when listing an endangered species or critical habitat which then 
clearly is a lowering value, it is reasonable for us to state that we 
are not going to reduce that property value through appraisal.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ORTON. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me thank the gentleman 
for his fine statement in support of the amendment, particularly the 
argument that if every landowner has to go all the way to the Supreme 
Court to find out if the Government has taken his property, what awful 
mess we are in. How small landowners will be denied justice in America.
  I hope Members appreciate the strength of that argument. The 
gentleman is correct. The court, in the Florida Rock Decision, said 
that zoning cases must in fact be judged on their reasonableness, but 
were there is shared benefit and burden, there is no taking. But if the 
burdens fall on the small class of landowners and the benefits fall to 
the public at large, under Florida Rock that is a taking.
  That is what we are talking about here. We are talking about 
endangered species designation so that the public at large gets the 
benefit of environmental protection but a single small landowner has to 
lose the value of his property.
  What we are saying in this amendment is, when the Government makes 
that kind of a decision, it ought not take advantage of that landowner 
by paying him the smaller degraded value. It ought to pay him the 
market value before the Government made the decision for the public 
good.
  I also want to thank the gentleman for his support and point out that 
yesterday or the day before I stood up in support of eminent domain to 
say the Government does have a right to buy property for wilderness 
protection. What we are saying today is, when it does it for wilderness 
protection, it pays real market value, not an artificial value 
determined after the Government regulates it to death.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] has 
again expired.
  (On request of Mr. Vento, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Orton was 
allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ORTON. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I just want the attention of the gentleman 
from Louisiana, because I do not think there is any disagreement that 
if, indeed, the Federal Government were to be classifying something as 
an endangered species or putting some other type of limitation on land 
through its regulatory role and laws that we pass lawfully doing this, 
that in essence that they ought to be doing so with the intent of 
actually devaluing or reducing the value of the cost. In fact, the 
entire impetus of the Federal Government and the 18 land managers we 
have is to pay fair market value.
  I think, as a matter of fact, I would say that very often that 
results in a higher cost, could result in a higher cost to be paid. We 
cannot pay less nor more than fair market value. So if there is a 
demonstration that there was actually an intention on the part of the 
Park Service, the Forest Service, any land management agencies to 
reduce the value and to take advantage of a citizen, I think that we 
would all be in the forefront seeking payment. I do not think there is 
any demonstration or intention to do that. There is no design to use 
the law to achieve such objective, as I said earlier there is no 
conspiracy.
  I find such suggestion not helpful in terms of this sensitive policy 
issue.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I do not know of anyone 
saying that that is the basis of this amendment, that there is some bad 
action on the part of the Park Service in doing so.
  I would simply suggest that I agree with many of the goals of the 
Endangered Species Act. We do not want to eliminate species from Earth. 
But we ought to recognize that if it is important enough for this 
country and this country's laws to protect that species, it is 
important enough for us to belly up to the bar and pay for it.
  Why should one landowner have to bear the brunt of protecting that 
species? If it is important enough for us to do it, let us pay for it. 
If we have to raise taxes to pay for it, raise taxes to pay for it. But 
we should not be imposing these requirements on individual landowners. 
That is the whole point of this argument.
  By devaluing the property and then appraising it and purchasing it at 
lower value, we are placing the burden of protecting that species on 
one landowner and not on the public at large. If it is important enough 
for the public at large to do it, then pay for it.
  I would urge the committee to adopt this resolution.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ORTON. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say, hallelujah.
  Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Thank goodness we have finally gotten to the heart of the debate in 
terms of this particular amendment--private property rights. I think it 
is ironic and it shows the gulf of the perceptions between two sides in 
terms of the dialogue that just occurred.
  First of all, we are talking about the Endangered Species Act, an act 
which expired 2 years ago but which is being kept on life support 
because, frankly, if the Endangered Species Act were here on this 
floor, a similar debate would be taking place. And I believe a number 
of Members, especially the chairmen of both the committee and the 
subcommittee, would be hard-pressed to defend the Endangered Species 
Act as it is currently written. Why? Because there is no economic 
impact statement required in the Endangered Species Act. What is 
society doing when it requires an individual not to be able to use 
their land for legitimate purposes because there are endangered species 
on it? That land is taken. How much does that cost the individual? The 
value of the land and its uses.
  The Tauzin-Hansen amendment goes to the heart of it, because it in 
fact shows what the economic expense would be. And that is, if you have 
a piece of private property and an endangered species is found on it, 
it is worth zero. The Tauzin-Hansen amendment is absolutely correct in 
requiring the Government to value the land on the basis of its market 
value without considering the Endangered Species Act. The difference 
between that property, its market value without considering the 
endangered species, and the zero worth of that land if you considered 
the Endangered Species Act, is the economic impact of the Endangered 
Species Act. So let us get honest here.
  The reason the opponents of this amendment are scared to death of 
this amendment is because it truly shows the cost of the Endangered 
Species Act. The Endangered Species Act does not require a 
determination of the economic impact of a decision under the act, but 
the Tauzin-Hansen amendment would require the Government to own up on 
the actual societal cost of the Endangered Species Act.
  I love the chairman's example of the golf course or his example of 
living next to the park and how valuable that makes the property and 
how we are not only living with mitigation today, but how mitigation 
helps people enhance the value of their land.
  Let me tell my colleagues what is going on in my district. In my 
district we do not deal with golf courses for mitigation.
  What do we deal with in my district? I represent an area which 
historically has the Tulare Lake. That was a lake formed by the Kern 
River, which ran down the Kern Canyon every year, one of the major 
white water rivers in the United States.

                              {time}  1240

  That land would be flooded, and then when the sun came out, as it 
does in the Central Valley, the lake would shrink, sometimes almost 
drying up. The next season it would flood again. Then it would 
contract, and it would flood and contract in God's design.
  Man came and built a dam, and the flow of that river was stopped or 
regulated by the dam. I have property owners who are attempting to 
release water on old Tulare Lake land to allow it to percolate back 
into the underground as it did historically, and the Government has 
said, ``You cannot run water on that land.'' Why? Because there are 
endangered species on that land.
  Wait a minute, wait a minute, before man ever came and built a dam, 
these endangered species were living where the lake had contracted, and 
then, guess what, when the water rose, what did the endangered species 
do? Ask where is Government to protect us? No. What did they do? They 
went to higher ground. Believe it or not, the kangaroo rat knows that 
when its hole is flooded and it ought to go to higher ground.
  However, if somebody today tries to release water on what used to be 
the Tulare Lake basin and there is an endangered species there, they 
are fined by the Government. They are not allowed to use the land for 
what was its historic purpose.
  Let me give another example, which is not a golf course. The United 
States has decided to build a Federal prison. We were building it on 
the west side of Kern County. Some of the land not used for the Elk 
Hill's Oil Preserve was appropriate land that is federally owned. We 
went to take a look at it for purposes of building a Federal prison. We 
could not build it there. Why? Because there are all kinds of 
endangered species there.
  Interetingly enough, the count of endangered species on military 
reservations, on other Government property don't exist for purposes of 
a species count. If we have a Government reservation that is absolutely 
loaded with endangered species, but somebody has 10 acres just the 
other side of the Federal boundary, the person on the other side of the 
Federal boundary has to pay mitigation regardless of how many 
endangered species are on the Government side.
  Now we try to build a Federal prison. We cannot do it because we have 
endangered species on the land. Where can we build a Federal prison? 
Thank goodness, Chevron Corp. had a 300 acre plot of land that they 
plowed religiously, did not plant anything there, but plowed it 
religiously, spring and fall, so that there would be no endangered 
species on it, and we were able to work a very reasonable deal for the 
taxpayer to acquire private property to build a Federal prison because 
we could not build it on Federal property. There was no determination 
of the actual cost to society on that decision because of the 
Endangered Species Act.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Thomas of California was allowed to 
proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Chairman, let met give one more example 
which is not a golf course, in terms of how wonderful this mitigation 
operation works. We have a gentleman who is an immigrant. He purchased 
some land. He wanted to engage in farming. The land was sold for 
farming purposes.
  He went into hock to get a tractor to be able to pursue the American 
dream of the yeoman farmer in tilling the soil to produce the crop for 
market. As he tilled that soil, 42 Federal agents descended upon him. 
This gentleman, and it is very difficult for him to speak English, he 
tried to understand what was happening to him.
  The Federal agents fanned out across the property, picked up pieces 
of fur, because he was disking the property for purposes of planting 
it, and he was arrested. Not only was he arrested, but his tractor was 
confiscated, just like the drug lords get their houses and their boats 
confiscated, because the Feds said it was a murder weapon.
  The fellow who owned the tractor had the tractor held by the Feds. He 
could not get the money for it. This poor fellow is now subject to all 
kinds of fines and imprisonment because he tried to till the soil. He 
might have been able to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to the 
Government to be able to till the soil, he might have been able to do 
it. This is not mitigation, it is blackmail.
  What really bothers me the most is these folks talking about the fact 
that, gee, why will we not let Government do this, because then your 
property next to it will be more valuable. No, it will not. If you have 
that piece of property next to a park and there are endangered species 
on it, unless this amendment passes, your property is worth zero. Worse 
than it being worth zero, it is worth zero and you cannot do anything 
with it.
  That ultimately is the biggest problem with this bill and with the 
Endangered Species Act without the Tauzin-Hansen amendment. It is the 
small landholder who is carrying 100 percent on their backs, the 
society's desire to protect endangered species. If society thinks it is 
important, society ought to pay for it.
  What is the cost? What is the economic cost of paying for it? We do 
not know, because the Endangered Species Act does not require an 
economic impact statement. If the Tauzin amendment is passed, you will 
have it, what is the market value of the land versus zero, and the 
difference between the market value and zero is the economic impact of 
the Government's decision.
  Mr. Chairman, all we are asking for in the Tauzin-Hansen amendment is 
for Government to own up to the societal cost of the Endangered Species 
Act; that if Government wants it, they ought to pay the market value 
for it.
  If the Government believes preserving endangered species on the 
property is higher than the private use of the private person, then 
Government ought to pay for it. If we are honest, society ought to say 
that preserving endangered species is more important than the economic 
value that the land brings in use, society ought to pay the market 
value for it, because society says that preserving species is more 
important than the private use of the land.
  However, I have a hunch that once society finds out exactly how much 
it costs, they are going to say no way. Pass the Tauzin-Hansen 
amendment.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. HUNTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Thomas], who just gave a great analysis of what 
has happened in the extreme, and I think I read the same case that he 
is referring to. I believe it was rats that the farmer was accused of 
murdering, and the tractor and disk were in fact confiscated.
  Let me just say, as a Member who was doing some other things today 
and thought I had a few other places I had to be, I saw a piece of this 
debate on C-Span and I thought it was important to come down and 
participate in it, because I think this is a very important debate for 
this House to take up.
  One of the most precious rights we have in this country is property 
rights. We have had a number of speakers who have alluded to it and 
talked about it. That is what Americans fought for, that is what people 
lined up by the thousands in land rushes in the last century to be able 
to get a piece of land that they could call their own, that they could 
build a home on, that they could farm. Property rights are a key to our 
society. They are a key to our prosperity. They are a key to our 
freedom.
  Against that backdrop of a very important right, we have the 
necessary evil of condemnation. The problem with what we are doing in 
applying condemnation to property rights, in this case, and I want to 
speak strongly in favor of the Tauzin-Hansen amendment, is we are 
taking a necessary evil, that is, condemnation, and we are compounding 
it.
  We are taking an agency in the Federal Government that has the power 
to devalue private property, and that means take a guy who is a plumber 
or a carpenter or another middle-class worker, who has put his weekly 
paycheck every year for the last 10 or 15 years at 8 or 9 or 10 percent 
interest to buy a piece of land at $50,000, and he finds that 
Government has taken away the value of his property, lowered it down to 
$20,000. In this case, in this particular bill, that same Government 
that devalued his land will now profit from that devaluation. That is 
bad policy, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, we are a House that puts checks and balances in place 
to keep one part of the Government from getting too much control over 
people's lives. That is bad policy.
  Mr. Chairman, obviously property owners who are going to be affected 
by this desert protection bill come from all walks of life. There are 
people that have little bitty homesteads out there where they put what 
is known as jackrabbit houses on them. Those are houses that working 
people in Southern California put up with $5 and $10 and $15 saved each 
week to be able to have a piece of property. They could not afford a 
piece of property, maybe, in urban San Bernardino or Los Angeles or San 
Diego County, so they go out to the desert and they own a piece of 
property out there.
  Now the Government comes along and finds an endangered rat, in the 
case of California, and puts limitations on the use of that property, 
if they have not already built a house on it or built a structure on 
it, and now the same Government is going to profit from the devaluation 
it put in place. That is bad, and it is happening not just in 
California, but it is happening in farmland across the country.
  It is happening everywhere where young Americans are going out and 
trying to save a few bucks every week and buy a piece of land, and find 
that their piece of land cannot be built on, it cannot be disked up. 
The only right that we are leaving our private property owners is the 
right to pay taxes. That is the last right that Government reserves to 
them.
  I want to thank the author of this amendment, the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin], and the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen], who 
also cosponsored this amendment, for their insight and for their 
advocacy for working people in this country who want to be able to use 
their property.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, let me go through some of the things, and why most of 
us are opposed to this bill. If we take a look at the whole agenda, we 
call some of the environmentalists Nazi environmentalists, and let me 
say why.
  There are some that are very, very good, working for the good, 
working with business, working with the military. However, the agenda 
of some of these groups is total no growth.

                              {time}  1250

  We had an amendment on this floor to where these environmentalists 
could come on to property without permission and check out things. That 
is private property rights.
  In San Diego, there are areas in which we cannot build. We own our 
own land but we cannot build on it.
  We purchase it, we have bought it, whether our home is on it or we 
have bought it for the future, but we cannot build in many cases 
because of the endangered species.
  We had a fire in San Diego, a bad fire. Every summer the grass grows 
up and some of the people wanted to cut down weeds and grass in front 
of their homes. Because of the Endangered Species Act, they could not 
cut the grass. It was on national television. One guy said, ``The heck 
with you. I'm going to cut it down.'' He did. He is the only guy with 
his house left that did not burn. The rest of them that did not because 
of the rule lost their homes. This is how degrading and this is how 
demeaning that this whole environmental movement has become in some 
directions.
  There are some groups that are trying to work and not to extremes.

  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Hunter was allowed to proceed for 3 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I continue to yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, you were in the Hanoi Hilton and you 
spent some time as a POW. There you had no rights.
  This is what is happening to American citizens. The Government is 
taking over their rights and using endangered species, parks and 
recreation, and so on, and that is not right, Mr. Chairman. I think you 
would agree with it. Would you want somebody to come into your home and 
be able to check it out, devalue it and say, ``We are going to take 
your land. By the way, we are not going to give you fair market price, 
we are going to devalue it,'' something that you have invested in for 
your future. That is wrong, Mr. Chairman.
  I have some other things that I will speak on my own time, but I know 
the gentleman from California wanted to yield to another gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just say that north of my district, in 
Riverside, CA, we have what is known as a rat fund. A rat fund is the 
money that is put aside, I think there is something like $100 million 
in it now, and it comes from every young couple that wants to buy a 
piece of land and build a house. The rat fund is metered out to about 
$1,500 per lot. That means a young working couple who comes up and 
wants to buy a piece of land, they are going to pay interest on $1,500 
for the next 30 years to support the rats.
  Mr. Chairman, that may play well with those people that are so-called 
purists with respect to the Endangered Species Act, but what it has 
done in most of Southern California is it has made it so that 82 
percent of our citizens do not have the economic wherewithal to buy the 
average home. One other driver of that price, of course, is the $5,000-
increase in lumber per home that comes about as a result of protecting 
the spotted owl and closing off large areas of lumber supply.
  Mr. Chairman, there is an encroachment on basic rights, basic 
centerpieces of the American dream, like home ownership, that is 
created by the acts that we have passed, including the Endangered 
Species Act, that are environmentally oriented. We have not inserted 
enough balance into these particular acts, and the Tauzin-Hansen 
amendment is one that inserts some balance. It says that the same 
Government that cuts your property in half cannot profit from that 
reduction. That is an important policy for us to pass and it is right 
for us in the House of Representatives to pass that policy.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I can 
give one of the best examples. A fellow named Bowles in Texas who was 
in court for 10 years because he bought a subdivision lot in Missouri 
County, TX. His neighbors had houses on their lots. He was told in 1984 
he could not build on that lot because of a Government decision.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] 
has again expired.
  (On request of Mr. Tauzin and by unanimous consent, Mr. Hunter was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, in 
1984 he applied for a permit to build his house. The Government said, 
``No. We have decided that land is now wetland. We are going to protect 
it under environmental laws.''
  Mr. Bowles went to court. It took him 10 years. The Government argued 
that they ought to pay him only $4,500, which was the value of the lot 
after they said he could not use it. He argued in the court of claims, 
through the appeals court, back to the court of claims 10 years that 
the Government owed him the real value of his lot.
  The court finally awarded him $55,000, the value of his real lot and 
punished the Government with interest, compounded daily since 1984. And 
the court pleaded with the Congress to make some law in this area, not 
to make every citizen spend 10 years in court to get justice. That is 
what this amendment is all about.
  Mr. Chairman, we believe in the Endangered Species Act. We simply 
think when it devalues property that the Government ought not take 
advantage of that devaluation. When it purchases property, it ought to 
pay the real value before it devalues the property.
  Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Wyoming.
  (Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Tauzin 
amendment.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire as to 
whether or not there is an ability to get a time limit. I think we have 
been on this amendment about 1\1/2\ hours.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this 
amendment and amendments thereto end in 40 minutes.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the manager 
of the amendment, is there any interest in arriving at a time limit?
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, the problem is, as I pointed out earlier, 
Members are just coming to the floor now. Members want to debate this 
who are not members of the committee. Members of the committee have a 
preferential right to debate. If we put a time limit on, all we are 
going to do is to hear a debate by the members of the gentleman's 
committee and not the other Members of the House. I would only urge the 
gentleman to allow a few other Members of the House at large to speak 
first and then perhaps we can talk about a time limit.
  Mr. MILLER of California. The gentleman would be allowed under any 
consideration to manage the time and to give it to whomever he would 
like.
  Mr. TAUZIN. I suggest the gentleman heard an objection by a Member of 
this House who does not serve on the committee the gentleman chairs. My 
concern is that they have a chance to speak too, and if we can assure 
them of a chance to speak, then perhaps we can reach an agreement. I 
see a lot more Members coming to the floor as this debate begins to 
catch their attention.
  I would only urge, perhaps, that we go a little longer and see 
whether Members are getting a fair shot at debating.
  The CHAIRMAN. An objection has been heard.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, we certainly heard a number of horror stories here and 
that raises some concern. Let me relate a story on the other side of 
the issue. It involves both zoning by Government and the mining law.
  In my district, some speculators from the State of Washington filed a 
claim in the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area which predated the 
actual enactment of that as a recreation area. They followed this claim 
through after 20 years or so of litigation for sand as a scarce raw 
material given the judgment of one now-dead Forest Service geologist 
that it was rare sand as opposed to common sand. They got the land for 
a few thousand dollars from the Federal Government. They have got a 
couple of problems. The State of Oregon has zoned it as natural 
resource land, which does not allow any consumptive use such as mining, 
so they have got a zoning problem there. Beyond that, they got it for a 
few thousand dollars from the Federal Government. The value of the land 
is recreational. Now they want the Federal Government to pay them tens 
of millions of dollars to buy back that which they bought for a few 
thousand dollars which certainly questions whether they ever really had 
any intent of mining this scarce sand resource.
  What is being proposed here as the gentleman who preceded me, a 
couple before me in the well, he talked about the highest and best use 
under the Tauzin amendment. The highest and best use in this case would 
overturn the State zoning in this situation and would give these 
speculators tens of millions of dollars for a piece of Federal land in 
a recreation area for which they paid a few thousand because of a sand 
claim.
  Beyond that, let us think. Let the American people think. What would 
we like our neighbor to do?
  I come from a State where every acre of the State is zoned, but we 
are ready to grow and it is zoned fairly and people get just 
compensation when they are deprived of any beneficial use. That is 
required under the Federal Constitution. The issue is, what is highest 
and best use? Under this gentleman's proposal, highest and best use, I 
own a few acres of land, I think that my land--even though it is on the 
edge of a residential neighborhood, on the edge of the city--would make 
a really dandy low-level nuclear waste site.
  The Government by edict has told me I cannot have a low-level nuclear 
waste site in the city of Springfield. I have been deprived of hundreds 
of millions of dollars of value for my acres of land because of edict 
by the Government and under this sort of legislation I would demand 
compensation.

                              {time}  1300

  We are taking this to the point of overturning all States' rights, 
all capabilities of States to zone, when you go to this highest and 
best use, and you take it to its absurd lengths.
  Let us get this debate back in context. The debate here really is, 
and there are a few well-intentioned people coming before us who truly 
have a concern here, and they have some horror stories to relate, and 
those should certainly be looked at, we have got to question the 
actions of the courts or the State legislatures in some of those areas, 
and that should be looked at.
  But in this context with this debate without any prior consideration 
by committees, what we see is an attempt to derail a park which will 
benefit the future of the greatest State, the largest populated State 
in this country, and other people in the West who want to see some of 
these desert lands preserved for future generations. That is what is 
going on here. It is an attempt to derail the bill with an amendment 
many find objectionable.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, obviously I know the intentions of the 
sponsor of the amendment with regards to the Endangered Species Act. 
One of the suggestions that came up in the debate was that you had to 
go all the way to the Supreme Court in order to deal with the 
modification of what is fair market value or just compensation, in 
other words, if there is a taking, and the reason for that is of 
course, that is the law of the land. That is where these decisions 
emanate from. You cannot change that in a lower court. An appeal 
process cannot change that. You have to go to the Supreme Court, 
because that is where the decisions are made. That is the law of the 
land.
  We do not look to the statutes necessarily to define what is fair 
market value, so what you have and what is being suggested here in a 
modest way obviously, in a very narrow way, but obviously an expansive 
debate because of the dynamics of this issue, what is being suggested 
here is that we begin to rewrite those rules in this House floor and in 
this body and write them into law. But there is not general consensus 
on that, and obviously no one here, I do not think, would argue any of 
the laws we have passed, whether it is wetlands, whether it is clean 
water, whether it is the Endangered Species Act, or a host of other 
legislation dealing with toxic waste and so forth, that these laws are 
perfect, that they are not flawed. Indeed, they are and need to be 
modified. We do not want to enshrine certain values and certain 
conditions into what fair market value is, a decision that has emanated 
from the Supreme Court under the fifth amendment of the Constitution.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am going to spend just a minute, and I am going to 
yield to my friend, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes].
  But let me tell you about some rights that have been violated in the 
past. We have gone through these.
  Sludge in Colorado: I hunt, and I have been through those mountains, 
and it is terrible the pollution that mining companies have left in 
Colorado. It is terrible. Yes, you here me right, I say to the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento]. That is a right, and it was 
violated
  The Great Lakes and the pollution it went through that was a 
violation of rights, people's rights to enjoy the environment, and I 
agree with you on those things. It probably took some pretty strong-
willed people to make sure over businesses interests and the rest of it 
to clean up those lakes.
  There are property rights that were taken away, and even the military 
by putting in single-lined fuel tanks, it is costing us millions of 
dollars now to reclaim our Earth and so on. Those are legitimate things 
and things that I want, and I know the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Vento] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] want to do the 
same thing.
  This amendment, to me, goes to the middle of the road in taking care 
of people's rights that if I own a home or property and the Government 
says, ``I want to take it,'' that is fine, under our existing laws, but 
where I draw the line and think it is wrong, and it is a Nazi tactic to 
come in and take it without giving me that compensation that that 
valuable land is worth, and the Government comes in and says, ``I want 
to devalue that land, and then I want to pay you for it.'' That is 
where, to me, it is wrong.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I only have a little bit of time, and if they will 
give me extra time at the end, because I promised the gentleman from 
Louisiana I would give him time.
  Mr. VENTO. We are under the 5-minute rule.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. If you will not object when I ask for additional 
time, I will be happy.
  That is the heart of this whole crunch, I think, is that the people 
that want to concrete the earth, the people that want to cause the 
sludge problems in the mining, and I agree with you, there are a lot of 
violations in our country, and I think we can work.
  But to give someone compensation, to keep someone from their property 
rights without access to a road, to keep somebody from hunting on land 
that we have hunted since the stone age time, those are the things that 
come to the heart of the agenda of the groups that are proposing this 
bill to stop property rights.
  Now, there are some good things in the bill, and the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller] and I have talked about that, and so has the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. TAUZIN. I take the time to correct the record.
  I will not let anyone stand in the well of the House and say that my 
intentions are to thwart the movement of this bill. That is not true.
  Our intention is to get this issue debated and voted on, and we have 
been trying to get it debated and voted on for many, many, many months. 
This is the first time we have had that chance.
  Second, our intention is not to damage or hurt or do anything to the 
Endangered Species Act. Nothing we say here changes the rules or the 
protection. We simply say that when the rules of the Endangered Species 
Act operate to devalue a person's property and then the Government 
comes in to buy it, they ought to pay the value first, not last, pay 
the real value, not the phony value created by the regulations.
  Let me, if you will, read what the court said in the case of Bowles 
versus the United States, in answer to my friend's argument, and we 
will get him some time, in answer to my friend's argument that 
everybody ought to go to court to get an answer to this question. This 
is the court speaking:

       The case presents in sharp relief the difficulty that 
     current takings law forces upon both the Federal Government 
     and the private citizen. The Government here had little 
     guidance from the law as to whether its action was a taking 
     in advance of a long and expensive course of litigation. The 
     citizen likewise and little more precedential guidance than 
     faith in the justice of his cause to sustain a long and 
     costly suit in several courts. There must be a better way to 
     balance legitimate public goals with fundamental individual 
     rights.

  We passed the civil rights law in this body to guarantee that every 
child, white, black, Hispanic, no matter what, had a chance to go to 
school in America, to sit wherever they wanted on a bus, to eat at a 
lunch counter, and we passed the civil rights law even though we had a 
constitutional protection. We did not say to every child in America, 
``You have got to go to court to find out whether you can go to 
school.'' We did not say to every person in America, ``You have got to 
go to the Supreme Court to find out if you can eat lunch with the rest 
of us.'' We did not say in this Congress, ``We are not going to vote on 
the civil rights law. We are going to leave it up to the courts to 
decide what our individual liberties are.''
  We are talking about the most important property-right vote we are 
going to face probably in this Congress.
  Do we respect property rights enough to say the Government cannot 
take your property without paying for it? That is what this amendment 
is about. We ought to pass a law. The courts are begging us to pass a 
law, not to leave it to every poor citizen to have to go to court to 
find out what his rights are.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Cunningham] has expired.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 
3 additional minutes, and I will not ask for any additional time, and I 
will yield to my friend.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to 
object, I am very reluctant to object. We know the leadership has 
additional legislation that they would like to bring to the floor, and 
I reluctantly object.
  There are other Members who have not spoken, and maybe they will 
yield time.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I 
understand. I am just trying to get time for the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Hayes].
  Mr. MILLER of California. If we can get a time limit, Members could 
use the time however they want.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  What existing law has provided, and would continue to provide under 
this bill, is that when land is taken for a public purpose, Government 
must pay the owner at full market value.
  This amendment would take us away from that principle. It would say 
the owner should be paid at market value as adjusted to reflect an 
estimate of what the market value would be if conditions were different 
than they are.
  This would take us down a potentially dangerous road. Fair market 
value under existing conditions is something that is clear and well 
understood. Fair market value as adjusted for this or for that takes us 
into very speculative areas, very subject to dispute and litigation and 
delay.
  For example, what if the property value is higher because of 
something Government has done, such as build a road nearby, or create a 
popular park. Should landowners' be paid less than fair market value 
because Government has raised the value higher than it would have been 
without Government action?
  Furthermore, this amendment would require compensation that in many 
instances would create an unjustified windfall. In a case where someone 
buys land at low prices because ESA or any other law depresses that 
value, they could under this amendment turn around and sell it to the 
Government at a much higher price than they paid for it, reaping a 
large windfall at the expense of the taxpayers. That's not fair to the 
taxpayers.
  These are the kinds of problems you get into once you depart from the 
longstanding principle of compensating landowners at fair market value.
  I would urge my colleague not to send us down this slippery slope. I 
urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

                              {time}  1310

  Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MINETA. I yield to my colleague in the neighboring district, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Edwards].
  Mr. EDWARDS of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope everybody listened to the gentleman's very 
cogent and accurate statement. I think most of us are watching with 
interest the confirmation proceedings, going on in the other body, of 
Judge Breyer, who is the President's nominee for the Supreme Court 
vacancy.
  Judge Breyer was asked the day before yesterday what his 
interpretation of the fifth amendment's clause is which provides for 
compensation when the Government takes your property. Judge Breyer 
answered in the accurate historical way that the founders intended, 
which has been the law for 230 years and which now our friends on the 
other side are attempting to overturn. He said that this clause of the 
fifth amendment that says that the Government must pay for property 
that it confiscates or condemns is not an absolute right like freedom 
of speech or freedom of the press. Of course it is not; otherwise you 
would bankrupt Government. Second, Government would not be able to 
protect where we live.
  You and I, the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], are on the San 
Francisco Bay, one of America's treasures. Before Government wisely 
intervened and limited the development and destruction of the San 
Francisco Bay more than one-third of it had been filled.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta] 
has expired.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I must reluctantly object. I 
hate to do it to my colleagues, but I have objected when Members on the 
other side of the aisle have asked for additional time, and I must be 
fair.
  I object, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to talk in support of this amendment and to talk 
a little bit about the debate that has been going on here this morning.
  The statement that just came from my colleague, the gentleman from 
California, about the Supreme Court nominee's interpretation of the 
fifth amendment is very interesting. I did not see anywhere in the 
Constitution where they rank which rights were important and which ones 
took precedence.
  I happen to believe that the fifth amendment and the protection of 
private property is just as important as the first amendment in the 
protection of free speech. There is no difference between the 
importance of either one.
  We have heard a lot of interesting debate this morning and this 
afternoon on this topic. I heard one of my California colleagues speak 
earlier about the California Coastal Commission and how sometimes their 
actions cause the value of property to increase. Well, that is true. 
Sometimes their actions do cause the value of those that they decide 
can build, it causes their property values to increase dramatically. 
But those who are not so fortunate, who end up in the area that cannot 
build, their property values immediately go to zero. Those are some of 
the tough decisions that local government is forced to make. That is 
some of the tough decisions I had to make as a city councilman before I 
came here, with respect to land use decisions.
  What this amendment is attempting to do is not to overturn land use 
decisions, the State's rights or the individual's rights. What this 
amendment is attempting to do is to rein in the regulatory body that we 
have created called the Federal Government, because what is currently 
happening in this country today is the Federal Government is 
designating land critical habitat and then going out and buying it, 
then deciding that they are going out to buy it.
  We have heard a lot about conspiracies. One of my colleagues made the 
comment that he did not believe that there was anything going on 
between the Government making a decision of what they were going to buy 
and then going to find an endangered species to fit it. Well, I happen 
to believe that that is going on, that they are making a calculated 
decision in finding endangered species that fit the areas in which they 
decide that they want to buy. In my home State of California you cannot 
find 1 square foot of that entire State that is not suitable habitat or 
habitat for an endangered species which is listed or is on the list of 
candidates. That is happening today.
  The reason that we need this amendment, the reason that we need this 
amendment to pass, is because there are a number of property owners 
within the desert whose property is being devalued by the Federal 
Government and then the Federal Government is going to step in and 
purchase it at a reduced price. I believe they are doing it on purpose 
in this instance, and I believe that they have done this throughout 
this country. It is an incredible situation that needs to be rectified. 
This is our ability to step in and try to make a difference. This is 
our ability.
  You know, the first day of session of the House of Representatives, 
we stand up and raise our hands and swear to uphold the Constitution of 
the United States. That is the inherent right of every one of us to 
make decisions based on what we feel the Constitution of the United 
States means. We have a responsibility as Members of this House to 
uphold the Constitution of the United States, which means protecting 
the fifth amendment as well as the first amendment and protecting 
peoples' private property rights .
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from 
Louisiana.
  Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the previous speakers, our good friend, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Edwards], pointed out a statement by 
Judge Breyer, who is attempting to become a member of the Supreme 
Court, regarding the fifth amendment.
  Let me read to you what a majority opinion of the Supreme Court just 
said a couple of weeks ago on that very point regarding the sanctity of 
the fifth amendment protection:

       We see no reason why the takings clause of the fifth 
     amendment, as much a part of the Bill of Rights as the first 
     amendment or the fourth amendment, should be relegated to the 
     status of a poor relation in these comparable circumstances.

  In short, the Supreme Court said the fifth amendment is as important 
as free speech, free practice of religion, press, assembly, and due 
process.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
  It is entirely inappropriate and arbitrary to isolate and remove a 
single factor--presence of endangered or threatened species--in 
appraising a property's value.
  What about the Government investment and subsidies that greatly 
increase the value of private property? I will give examples of these 
givings: Federally funded highways and bridges that provide easy access 
to otherwise inaccessible areas; tax benefits for farmers farming lands 
zoned exclusively for farm use; federally backed flood insurance that 
protects people who build in shoreline areas; federally acquired parks 
that provide an economic benefit for adjacent landowners; huge western 
water projects which provide low-cost water to irrigate otherwise 
unfarmable land.
  The list of the givings goes on and on. But no property owner has 
ever paid compensation to the Federal Government for those taxpayer-
funded Government investments that really amount to nothing less than 
private windfalls.

                              {time}  1320

  Let us be consistent.
  If the American taxpayers are going to be asked to pick up the full 
tab for the protection of endangered species on private lands, than let 
the American taxpayer be compensated for the taxpayer-funded 
investments that increase private property values. Our Federal 
Treasury, our Federal deficit, and our taxpaying constituents 
nationwide can afford nothing less.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. FURSE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, has the gentlewoman thought of who pays 
for those public services, the bridges, the roads, that increase 
values? Those are taxpayers, and, when they do not increase the 
property values, there are ways of taxing that increase so in fact it 
is not the Government which is providing these services, it is the 
taxpayers.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. FURSE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the point is that in fact, 
yes, there is $8 billion of unpaid cost to the Central Valley project, 
that it goes to the direct benefit of farmers in the Central Valley, 
and, when the Federal Government has to come along and buy that land, 
they want to sell us that land counting all of the value delivered 
there by the Federal Government. That is the point, and so there is no 
accounting system, and these properties that we are worried about under 
this act, they have country roads punched through, they have State 
highways punched through, they have Federal park lands and BLM roads, 
and without those the values of those lands are greatly diminished, but 
the gentleman does not say, ``Isolate that.'' He does not say, 
``Isolate that,'' when we are considering that, that we do not have to 
count the value. The landowner comes in and says this is an 
inaccessible piece of land, but the gentleman says, ``Yeah, but it's a 
county road, it's a BLM road, it's got fire suppression policy on it.''
  That is the point the gentlewoman is making. The gentleman only wants 
the Government to take the losers. He does not want the Government to 
recoup its costs, to recoup the benefits that it has bestowed upon 
these lands by governmental actions. He only wants the Government here 
to pay an artificially inflated price for the land.
  I think the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse] makes exactly the 
point. There is billions and billions of dollars that go into these 
lands throughout the country, throughout the country by virtue of 
Federal action, by virtue of Federal action. We clean up the sewage. We 
build the highways. Yet nobody here is suggesting that the Government 
should have the ability to recoup those lands.
  Mr. PACKARD. But if the gentlewoman would continue to yield--
  Ms. FURSE. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, what we have to do is we 
have to balance takings with givings. That is the point. We have got to 
be consistent in the way we value Federal action.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  (Mr. FIELDS of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to 
congratulate the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] and the 
gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen]. Certainly they have been in the 
vanguard of the property rights amendment in this House.
  I would encourage my colleagues to read two things before they come 
to the floor to vote on this particular amendment, Mr. Chairman. First 
of all, I would ask that they read the 34 words of this simple 
amendment. I say, ``Just read 34 words before you come to the floor.''
  Those 34 words are these:

       Lands and interests in lands acquired pursuant to this act 
     shall be appraised without regard to the presence of a 
     species listed as threatened or endangered pursuant to the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)

  Mr. Chairman, that is all this amendment says, 34 words.
  Then I would ask my colleagues to read 12 words, just 12 words, in 
the fifth amendment to our Constitution, and those 12 words are these: 
``nor shall private property be taken for public use without just 
compensation.''
  What we are really arguing about today, Mr. Chairman, is what is just 
compensation. It is not just compensation if the Federal Government 
makes a decision and in essence takes a person's property, denies that 
private property owner of their use of that property by declaring an 
endangered species.
  Now, if people think that will not happen, that argument was made in 
the Florida Rock case where the Government came forward and said 
because a property was going to be designated or would fall under the 
wetlands designation, ``You had to account the value based on the 
private landowner not being able to use that particular private 
property.''
  So, Mr. Chairman, there is a reason for this amendment, a sincere and 
real reason for this particular amendment.
  Now, if my colleagues wonder why some of our colleagues oppose this 
amendment, something that is so simple on its face, particularly after 
they read the amendment, and then they read those 12 words in the 
Constitution, the answer is we have some colleagues in this House who 
put the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, wetlands, other 
Federal agency decisions, about the Constitution, and they are 
afraid of the ramifications, that the Government has to pay the real 
value of property that is denied to the private landowner.

  Now for those who might think that there are no more horror stories, 
just this week in Texas we found out that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service is prepared to designate 33 Texas counties as critical habitat 
for the endangered golden cheek warbler. That is 20.5 million acres in 
the central and southwest regions of our State. That would be three 
times as big as the protected home of the Northwest northern spotted 
owl.
  But I think it is really compelling to look at what was said by the 
biologist in this particular instance, Mrs. Carol Beardmore. She said 
the regulations would have little effect on private landowners. She 
said for the private landowner it is more just a means of education, 
telling them that habitat within this area is essential or considered 
important for the recovery of the species. She went on to say that is 
major effect would be to require all Federal agencies within that 33-
county area, the 20 million acres, to consult with the Wildlife Service 
on activity that might harm the species of that habitat. It is that 
naive thinking; that is, that type of taking, that we are attempting to 
address today with what is a simple amendment.
  I will close with this, Mr. Chairman. The Tauzin-Hansen amendment is 
essential. It is egregious to think that the true value of property, 
that compensation would not be paid. Without looking at the real value 
there is no just compensation, and I am going to close with this 
sincere admonition to my colleagues. I say:

       Woe to the colleague who votes against this amendment 
     because they're saying to each property owner and their 
     district that the government can take their private property 
     without paying just compensation.

  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. HAYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, the most extraordinary thing that has 
occurred today is a fundamental positioning on those who will vote for 
and against this amendment. Despite the individual instances in which 
specific references were made, it really boils down to what one 
believes is government and what one believes is people.
  Over two centuries ago, Mr. Chairman, in the first year, the first 
Congress, Mr. Madison carried to New York the papers for Mr. Jefferson 
which included 12, that became finally 10, amendments. The question to 
be decided here today is whether Government derives its power from 
people or whether Government somehow is above and elevated beyond 
people. I suggest to my colleagues that the message of that First 
Congress, those who knew people who had fought and died to make the 
country free and to whom the name ``America'' was not new was that the 
individual people granted to Government its powers.
  Now contrast that to young Wayne Dominque in my district who is told 
by Government and an agency that he cannot on his own land put 
crawfish, and water, and rice together because he violated an obscure 
20-year-old permit process under a Clean Water Act intended to do an 
entirely different thing, or those under an Endangered Species Act who 
find a survey made by Fish and Wildlife in order to reduce the value of 
their property because they wanted it for 20 years, and now they found 
a way.

                              {time}  1330

  I hearken back to Mr. Wayne Dominque, who realizes that if, instead 
of crawfish and rice in the back of that yard, he was growing marijuana 
and selling crack, the Government would have had a giving for him. They 
would have given him a free lawyer; they would have given me an 
exhaustive remedy in the process; they would have given him a free 
library if he went to jail; they would have given him years of appeals. 
But instead, he has no rights, no remedy, and he is told he has one 
thing he can do--go to the courts, seek the fifth amendment, and pay 
what is an average of $250,000 per American.
  In other words, the message that government gave him was that his 
country stands for rich people, and ``If you have the money, then we'll 
give you some rights. If you don't then we won't, and we will simply 
knuckle and muscle you under.'' That combination of arrogance and 
ignorance has led to the floor debate here today.
  So those with a vengeance have seen the individual disasters and 
indeed onerous consequences of mindless bureaucracy without any 
humanity or thought whatsoever, watching foreclosure and losses, 
watching financial institutions not knowing how to value a dime of 
property, or watching those who want the legislative authority to 
``pull the bill under endangered species with a national biological 
survey and instead do it only through an appropriation bill with no 
legislative authority.''
  What we are saying today is the consequence of when a minority of the 
whole is a majority of one party and they tried to force a minority 
interest down our throats with a vote, and within a few minutes we are 
going to have one.
  I wish those who believe so much in freedom of democracy and 
representative government would notice the outcome of that vote and 
have a few more votes. That is what the people want, and that is what 
Government does not want. They can decide now what they represent, 
either the people or an entity which no one can any longer be willing 
to embrace.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla].
  (Mr. BONILLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Tauzin amendment.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Packard].
  (Mr. PACKARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Tauzin-
Hansen amendment.
  Land devalued because of meddling Government action and enforcement 
of extreme environmental laws is being extorted from hard-working 
taxpaying citizens by the Federal Government.
  In my district I can give you several recent examples of Government 
violating the rights of private property owners: 121 acres of most 
beautiful property in Dana Point valued at over $1.5 million an acre is 
being taken from a property owner because of the discovery of 39 pocket 
mice, an animal on the endangered species list. Years of planning for 
the use of this land had to be abandoned. The owner even offered to set 
aside four acres of his land just for the mice, about $150,000 per 
mouse, but the Government said that wasn't enough and wanted more.
  In another instance, a property owner was on the verge of selling his 
property in escrow for several million dollars, then the city declared 
it wetland. He was then offered $1 an acre for this useless wetland. 
This is a travesty.
  The city of Carlsbad, in its quest to relieve congestion of a local 
highway, was thwarted in its plan to enlarge and improve the highway 
when a gnatcatcher was seen darting in front of a car. Construction was 
halted immediately.
  My colleague from California, Mr. Bill Thomas, just illustrated the 
plight of the poor farmer who ran over the kangaroo rat with his 
tractor. The laws protecting this rat resulted in lost homes to fire 
when homeowners were prohibited from cutting the brush near their 
homes.
  These examples illustrate the assault on private property rights. You 
can't sell it, you can't build on it, but you must continue to pay 
taxes on it--and that is confiscation. If the Government is going to 
confiscate your land, they must reimburse you the fair market value for 
that land. I encourage my colleagues to support the Tauzin-Hansen 
amendment.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I would like to start by saying this is 
the people's house, this is where we debate, and this is where we 
reflect the Nation's wishes, and I want to make the comment that I know 
a number of people who want this Government to create laws and 
regulations that will in fact preserve the quality of life for 
ourselves and for future generations. In my judgment, that means a vote 
against this particular amendment.
  I also want to make this comment: The gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Fields] read Mr. Tauzin's amendment, and I will not read it again, but 
basically it says that ``Species listed as threatened or endangered'' 
cannot be considered as far as the value of the property is concerned 
when the Government is going to compensate.
  Does that mean that if the endangered species actually increase the 
value of that land, then the Government cannot take the increased value 
into consideration?
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GILCHREST. I will yield after I have finished.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that has to be taken into consideration. A 
basic law of real estate is that property is like owning a bundle of 
sticks. Property can be used for a variety of things. The emphasis is 
on the entire bundle, not just on one stick.
  A number of Members have referred to the Florida Rock case. In the 
Florida Rock case, there was an individual who bought a piece of 
property for $1,900 an acre. He could have sold that for $4,000 an 
acre, which is what I think a considerable profit, but he wanted to 
sell it for $10,000 an acre to put a rubble field there right over a 
wetland. And we understand the value and function of the wetland. The 
court did rule in his favor, but that is still circulating in the 
Federal courts. I think $4,000 is a considerable amount of profit that 
he could have made.
  There are two more points as far as Supreme Court decisions are 
concerned dealing with the takings law. No. 1, there is no absolute 
right of use, and the Supreme Court has said: ``No one has an absolute 
right to use his property in a manner that may harm the public health 
or welfare, or damage the interests of neighboring landowners or the 
community as a whole.''
  No. 2, reasonable return or use: ``Property owners have a right to a 
reasonable return or use of their land, but the U.S. Constitution does 
not guarantee that the most profitable use will be allowed.''
  Mr. Chairman, I want to bring in another dimension to this debate, 
which is something for people to consider. In 1790 the entire 
population of the United States was 4 million people. In 1890 the 
population was 76 million. In 1990 the population was 250 million 
people. What will it be in the year 2090?
  The quality of our existence depends upon our ability to manage our 
growth. We talk a great deal about the wise and frugal use of our 
resources. We debate here very often and very passionately about the 
Federal deficit and why we have to use the taxpayers' money wisely. 
Land use and our resources, including the full range of species, should 
be managed to preserve the quality of life for us today and for future 
generations.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask the Members to please take these things into 
consideration. I respect my colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana 
[Mr. Tauzin], but I urge a ``no'' vote on his amendment, and I yield 
now to my colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The agreement we have is that the gentleman is yielding and I might 
close on the amendment and then we might go to a vote.
  Let me first thank all the Members for what I think is an excellent 
debate on the point.
  The issue before us is not whether we believe in the Endangered 
Species Act, whether we like it or dislike it. I happen to believe in 
it. I think we could reform it to make it better.
  The issue is the most important one we are going to face on property 
rights in this session of Congress, and that is whether or not people 
will be compensated fully and fairly for the value of their property 
when it is taken under eminent domain for this park, and that is the 
eminent domain that I supported just a few days ago. The right of the 
Government to take the property for purposes of the park is in the 
bill. What we are now saying is that the right of the owners of the 
private property to be fully compensated should also be in the bill.
  Let me make it clear. Current law does not let that owner get 
enhanced value because of the Endangered Species Act. Our amendment 
does not do that. Our amendment simply says the owner should be fully 
compensated without regard to the devalued property because of the 
application of the Endangered Species Act.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the agreement was that I would close on the 
amendment, and so I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment, the most 
important property rights amendment in this session of Congress.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Brown].
  (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by Mr. 
Tauzin is another in a line of recent attempts to bankrupt the Federal 
treasury and reinterpret the fifth amendment. I resent the suggestion 
that Government regulation is a primary force in diminishing the value 
of either public or private property. This country is more than a 
collection of individuals. We are a community and all of us must make 
some sacrifices to make this work.
  Without the input of Federal funds and regulations, we would not have 
the agricultural fields that we now have throughout southern 
California. By providing water to the desert the government has indeed 
manipulated the value of land in southern California and it has 
increased it substantially with input of funds that were collected from 
citizens through this country.
  The courts will and should continue to mediate any disputes that 
arise if a landowner feels that he or she has been treated unfairly. 
This amendment has no place in this desert bill or in any other bill 
offered in the House.
  This bill does not keep private landowners from utilizing their land. 
This bill will increase the present and long-term value of this land 
for individuals and for the citizens of this Nation.
  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered 
by the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 281, 
noes 148, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 325]

                               AYES--281

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Flake
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Grams
     Grandy
     Green
     Gunderson
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Martinez
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Neal (NC)
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Royce
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Swift
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Valentine
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                               NOES--148

     Abercrombie
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Bacchus (FL)
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Blackwell
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Byrne
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Coppersmith
     Coyne
     de Lugo (VI)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Goss
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hamburg
     Hastings
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Klug
     Kopetski
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Markey
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Pickle
     Porter
     Rangel
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rostenkowski
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Snowe
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Synar
     Thompson
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bishop
     Carr
     Conyers
     Gallo
     McCurdy
     Obey
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Slattery
     Smith (TX)
     Washington

                              {time}  1357

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Smith of Texas for, with Mr. Conyers against.

  Messrs. de LUGO, JEFFERSON, and DURBIN changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. INSLEE, Mr. FISH, and Mrs. ROUKEMA changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 518, 
the California Desert Protection Act. Chairman Miller and 
Representative Lehman are to be commended for their hard work in 
bringing this important legislation to the floor. I urge my colleagues 
to support this landmark conservation effort.
  The California Desert is one of our most precious natural resources. 
The 25 million acres which comprise the desert are home to the world's 
largest Joshua-tree forest, more than 90 mountain ranges, and over 
2,000 species of plant and animal life, many of them threatened or 
endangered. The desert also serves as a sanctuary for the almost 20 
million residents of southern California seeking refuge from expanding 
cities and growing pollution.
  The desert's proximity to one of the world's largest urban areas is, 
however, a mixed blessing. Low annual rainfall and highly variable 
temperatures make the desert extremely fragile and the damage done by 
encroaching developers and irresponsible campers almost impossible to 
repair.
  For this reason, it is critical that legislation like H.R. 518 be 
enacted into law. The almost 9 million acres set aside by the bill as 
protected areas represent a crucial step in the preservation of a 
national treasure. For the first time, new mining and mineral leasing 
claims would be prohibited, as would increased levels of livestock 
grazing. The new Mojave National Park, as well as the expanded Joshua 
Tree and Death Valley National Parks, will provide us with the unique 
opportunity to safeguard a priceless and irreplaceable asset.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort to give the California 
desert the protection it needs and deserves.
  Vote ``yes'' on H.R. 518.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 518, the so-
called Desert Protection Act. This bill is an ill-conceived piece of 
legislation threatening National Park Service operations throughout the 
country.
  H.R. 518 epitomizes the Federal Government's inclination for bigger 
bureaucracy by creating three new national parks in a system which is 
having trouble sustaining its current operations. The National Park 
Service's own estimates show shortfalls of up to $9 billion. The 367 
existing units of the National Park System already struggle with 
deteriorated facilities for visitors, poor roads, and personnel 
shortages.
  So where is the money going to come from to create these three brand 
new parks with total acreage exceeding two Yellowstones? The answer--
funds will be siphoned away from the park in your area. Secretary 
Babbitt has stated over and over that no new money will be provided for 
the new parks. Instead, these new parks will be absorbed into the 
National Park Service's already overburdened budget.
  Furthermore, I ask my colleagues to consider the parks in their area. 
How much farther down on the list will it fall for construction and 
maintenance projects when the Park Service is saddled with the burden 
of sustaining three new parks.
  As a Member serving on the Appropriations Subcommittee charged with 
funding the National Park Service, I am acutely aware of the current 
fiscal crisis facing the National Park Service. During the fiscal year 
1994 appropriations hearings, officials lamented the fact that there 
already exists a backlog of $2.1 billion in National Park Service 
construction--projects, already approved, still awaiting funds to get 
started.
  The new parks created in H.R. 518 will only draw scarce funds away 
from the maintenance of parks in your area. What good are national 
parks if they cannot be maintained at a level which makes them 
accessible.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope my colleagues will keep in mind that the 
consequences of the California Desert Protection Act are not limited to 
California's borders. They will reach into every national park in the 
country. Vote to defeat the California Desert Protection Act.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do 
now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Swift) having assumed the chair, Mr. Peterson of Florida, chairman of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 518) 
to designate certain lands in the California desert as wilderness, to 
establish the Death Valley and Joshua Tree National Parks and the 
Mojave National Monument, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________