[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 40 (Friday, March 3, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H2590-H2599]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION ACT OF 1995
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Doolittle). Pursuant to House Resolution
101 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. 925.
{time} 1043
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. 925) to compensate owners of private property for the
effect of certain regulatory restrictions, with Mr. Shuster in the
chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday,
[[Page H2591]] March 2, 1995, pending was the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta]. Two hours remain for
consideration of amendments under the 5-minute rule.
Is there further debate on the amendment?
{time} 1045
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from California is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, the Mineta-Davis amendment is the
bipartisan alternative to the Goss amendment which we considered and
nearly approved last night.
When the Goss amendment was defeated by one vote, many members
approached me--very concerned that a 10-percent threshold was just not
workable. That is why Mr. Davis and I developed the bipartisan
alternative.
A 10-percent threshold is too inexact. It leaves the basic issue of
whether you have rights under this bill with the fluctuations in
appraisals which normally accompany any real estate evaluation. As my
colleague has stated so well, such a margin of error is not reasonable.
The 10-percent threshold is so ill-advised that not only could the
taxpayer be ripped off through variances in the appraisal process,
claims which would be allowed under this bill--claims of the very
developers and individuals which the proponents of this bill are
claiming to protect--could be denied because the margin for error is
just too slim.
Last night, 210 Members of this House agreed that a 10-percent
threshold was too low, too inexact, and that 30 percent was preferable.
When that was defeated, in the spirit of compromise, Mr. Davis and I
developed the bipartisan alternative at 20 percent.
This amendment is the Goss amendment reduced from 30 percent to 20
percent. If you believed last night that 20 percent was better than 10
percent, if you are on record as voting to support 30 percent, there
can be no explanation for not now supporting a 20-percent compromise.
Let me repeat, if you were one of the 210 who shared my concern and
supported the Goss amendment at 30 percent, there can now be no good
reason to not support the Mineta-Davis bipartisan alternative at 20
percent.
I urge an ``aye'' vote.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, 10 percent can be a lot of money. Last night my friend,
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields], raised a question about an
effort in San Antonio to control the water supply for several counties
by declaring a snail that no one has ever seen endangered and put it on
the list and threatening the entire economy of south Texas. Others have
attempted to shut down five or six military bases in south Texas by
using some bug or spider to declare the endangered species list. Think
of what 10 percent of buying a metropolitan area with a million people
in it would mean to the U.S. Government. There are many other examples
around the country.
At this time I would like to yield to my friend, the gentleman from
California [Mr. Pombo], to relate how 10 percent might affect the
development of construction of a hospital, perhaps, because my
understanding is that there are even flies on the endangered species
list in California that are a big problem.
Mr. POMBO. I thank the gentleman for yielding. We in the past couple
of years have had instances in California where in one specific
example, eight flies stopped the construction of a $600 million
hospital in southern California. Without any regard to what the use of
that property was for, what the effect was on the citizens of that
community, and with absolutely no regard at all for the well-being of
the community, Fish and Wildlife came in and stopped the construction
of a $600 million hospital.
They ended up having to mitigate their way out of it and give up, I
believe it was 40 percent of their site to be permanent fly habitat on
the grounds.
There are many instances where a little responsibility interjected
into the actions of the agency would make a large difference.
Mr. BONILLA. The gentleman would agree that 10 percent of the cost of
the hospital because of a fly or in the case of Texas, because of a
snail or beetle could add up to millions of dollars and perhaps
billions?
Mr. POMBO. Yes. We are talking about literally billions of dollars
that are involved here. Recently in California we had the fairy shrimp
listed. The fairy shrimp, I believe, will have a larger impact on
California than anything that has been on the endangered species list
or any proposal to the endangered species list that we have had yet. We
literally have all the way from Bakersfield to Redding and now we are
getting reports out of the Riverside and San Diego areas of fairy
shrimp in those areas as well where any mud puddle that holds water for
14 days in the springtime is habitat for the fairy shrimp.
This definitely affects all farming and ranching activities. We have
farmers who have fairy shrimp in their cow troughs, in their watering
troughs, in their watering holes. We are looking at on the listing of
the fairy shrimp alone billions of dollars that are affected in the
State of California.
The fairy shrimp is a third of an inch long, an eighth of an inch
across, an invertebrate that has been around for hundreds and hundreds
of years, and there is absolutely no cost to the agency to go out and
list this and declare all mud puddles habitat for the fairy shrimp.
What we are trying to do is instill a little common sense into the
way the agency responds.
Mr. BONILLA. I appreciate the gentleman's remarks. Again to emphasize
that we are trying to stop these shrimp, flies, snails, and spiders
from costing people more money.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I will not take the full 5 minutes, but I just want to point out that
this amendment is basically the same as the 30 percent, except instead
of 30 percent, it is now 20 percent, but it is 20 percent of the total
diminished value.
I would like to point out to the Members that what this amendment
does in deference to what others do when they do a taking, as I have
tried to point out to the gentleman from California where I consider
the inconsistency between what he thinks is fair and what I think is
fair.
If I have a 600-acre farm, Mr. Chairman, and the highway department,
Missouri State highway department or commission comes along and takes
20 acres along the bottom of that for highway purposes and takes
another 10 acres for right of way to abut the highway for an easement
so there would not have to be any traffic in that area but they move it
away from the farm, I get paid for every bit of that. No matter how
much it diminishes in value that land, I get paid for the whole thing.
Under this amendment that we have pending before us, if I have that
same 600-acre farm and if EPA or the Corps of Engineers or Fish and
Wildlife find that there is a drainage ditch that runs through that
farm with the same 20-acre amount and they say that that is swampland
or that is wetlands, I cannot use it for farming anymore. It is no
longer any use to me. I cannot do it. But under the present law, I get
paid nothing for it. If I put my plow across it, I get fined. If I do
anything to it, I get fined.
Under the bill, if that acreage, that 20 acres is diminished in value
by 10 percent, then I am entitled to compensation.
Under the gentleman's amendment, my whole 600-acre farm has to be
diminished in value by 20 percent. The likelihood of that happening is
zero. What the gentleman's amendment is doing to most of my farmers out
there who have small pockets in their fields that are now considered
wetlands because they have an indentation and water has settled in
there for a little while, no ducks have ever been on it, no geese have
ever been on it, nothing has ever been on it, but they cannot touch it,
they cannot use it, they are deprived of the use of it.
Under the present law, they get nothing. Under the gentleman's
amendment, they will get nothing. At least
[[Page H2592]] under the bill, there is an opportunity or a chance that
they will be at least compensated for that taking of their property.
Someone will say it is not a total taking, it is still theirs. What
difference does it make, Mr. Chairman, if it is still yours and you
cannot use it? If that is not a taking, I would like to know what a
taking is when you are deprived of the use of it, for what if has
always been used for. I speak in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, if we go right to the wording of the U.S. Constitution
and the fifth amendment, it says, ``Nor shall private property be taken
for public use without just compensation.'' That amendment was put in
there in order to protect people from having the government steal their
property for the general benefit of all.
Sad to say, up until today, from the time the Constitution was
drafted, this has been a right without an effective remedy, because in
order to get the remedy, you had to be wealthy enough to go through
years and years of litigation, 5 to 10 years on the average, and be
able to expend $50,000 to $500,000 or more in attorney's fees. We all
know that problems, with attorneys and their fees that we have in this
society today, and I know sometimes we need to get attorneys. Like to
pursue a takings claim. You need darned good attorneys. You need lots
of money to pay them.
When I hear Members act like this is some great remedy that we have
right now, I am here to say, it is not. That is why we need this piece
of legislation.
This effect of this amendment is to allow the government to take 19.9
percent of the entire value of your property without any compensation.
I know they are going to say in response, ``Oh, yes. But we still allow
you your fifth amendment right.''
Some right.
This bill is designed to give efficacy to that right, to make it
applicable to the average American. It is so important that we
understand that. We are not talking about standing up for big
corporations, for large landowners. They have the resources to hire the
attorneys to fight this. We are talking about the little guy, everyone
in this country who owns a piece of property, has worked hard to get
that, and would like not to see it wiped out.
Why are Members so worried about protecting the Federal Government,
Mr. Chairman? I am just amazed when I hear these expressions of
concern. You would think the Federal Government was the weakest thing
around. It has got enormous resources. These agencies behave with
impunity in many cases and there are dozens, indeed hundreds of abusive
examples of Federal agencies. That is why we have gotten to this point
where there is now a ground swell of support to rise up and make a
change.
Mr. Chairman, I would just observe in closing, George Washington,
understood what government was and he knew it was not our friend. He
said, ``Government is not reasoned, it is not eloquence, it is force,
and like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.''
This bill represents an attempt to give meaning to the fifth
amendment and protect our citizens.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment before us is as flawed as the amendment
that was previously offered that would have changed the 10 percent of
any affected portion criteria to 30 percent of the whole of the
property.
It is flawed primarily because it refers to the whole of the
property. The whole of the property is a variable sum. I can change the
whole of my property tomorrow by simply selling off a portion. I can
divide it. I can do a number of things to game this system when the
percentage is applied to the whole of my property.
We heard an eloquent statement from the gentleman from Missouri [Mr.
Volkmer] about how farmers would be treated under this kind of an
arrangement when the percent diminution was applied to the whole of
their property. What farmers would have to do in order to qualify for
compensation, under this plan, under this amendment, they would be
forced to sell off parts of their farm to divide it up in ways to
qualify under this amendment. No one should be forced to game a system
in order to receive fair compensation, but that is what this amendment
was done as it is constructed.
I am informed by managers of this bill and this is a very important
announcement that I hope Members are paying close attention to in their
offices, that if we defeat this amendment providing for 20 percent of
the entirety of one's property as a criteria, we will immediately offer
an amendment that will provide the criteria 20 percent of the affected
portion. This will get for those Members who think 10 percent is too
small a criteria a change in the bill, that modifies it to 20 percent.
But it will also make the bill workable. It will apply that 20 percent
to the regulated portion of a person's property, not to the entirety of
his property causing him and others to try to game the system.
In effect, let me say it again. If we are successful in defeating
this amendment, which is inartfully drawn, as inartfully drawn as the
30 percent amendment was previously drawn, and apply instead the
following amendment, we will reach the 20 percent criteria that some of
the authors of this amendment want to achieve but we will do it
correctly. We will apply it to the affected portion of the property
regulated under the act.
I want to make a quick point.
{time} 1100
In an editorial written by Sue Waldren, we find these words, and by
the way this was January 2, 1994:
The third amendment to the Bill of Rights states that no
soldiers can be quartered in any home without the consent of
the owner. Somehow, though, it apparently never occurred to
the Founding Fathers that we might someday need an amendment
against the arbitrary quartering of endangered species on
private land. Good thing the Founders did not see this day
when property owners all over America were to be told to idle
their land and effectively turn it into a wildlife refuge
without compensation from the government,
But that is what the endangered species law does now to farmers all
over America.
In California most of my colleagues remember, let me remind them of
the story that appeared April 19, 1994, where a southern farmer was
arrested and charged with the possibility of a year in prison and
$200,000 fine for doing what, for plowing his field because five dead
rats were found on his field after he finished plowing it. About the
same time, another farmer in Fresno, CA was brought to court for doing
nothing more than plowing his field and in order to avoid going to
jail, reached agreement with the Fish and Wildlife Service to pay a
$5,000 fine, to give them 60 acres of his 160-acre farm, to give it to
them, ordered by the court, and to sell the remaining 100 acres. Why?
Because he had plowed his field and there on his property was
apparently some sort of a bluenosed lizard that the Fish and Wildlife
Service deemed threatened or endangered.
That kind of story needs to end. This amendment needs to be defeated.
Then we can adopt an amendment for 20 percent of the affected portion
and we will so offer that amendment.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I come from a Western State where water is our
lifeblood, where without water there is no production of agriculture at
all, and without the systems of canals that were built beginning at the
turn of the century, we would not be able to apply water to our land,
and thus Idaho, whose largest industry is agriculture, would not be
able to survive.
The prior appropriation doctrine, the legal water law in the 12
Western States, requires a proving up of beneficial use, which means
that even if you had 100 acres to irrigate and you applied for a
certain volume of water to irrigate that 100 acres, if you even paid
for that water and there was more water that was left over, you would
lose the volume of water that you paid for. In other words, if we do
not use it we lose it. That is proving up of the beneficial use, which
all of the 12 Western States must do.
If we were cut down to 20 percent of the whole, that would mean that
20
[[Page H2593]] percent of our entire agricultural production in Idaho
would be cut down, and I am so pleased to hear my colleague from
Louisiana announce that there will be an amendment coming up which
would require 20 percent of the value of the taking. That is much more
acceptable but still not good enough for me.
I will support that amendment, however, but I do rise in opposition
to this amendment.
Starting in the Warren court with Lynch versus Household Finance, the
Supreme Court has historically backed up the fifth amendment. In Lynch
versus Household Finance, the Warren court said that people have rights
to use their property in its whole. It is not the property that has
rights.
We have had a series of Supreme Court cases that have backed up the
fact that we must reimburse people for their loss, the last one being
the Dolan case out of Oregon in June 1994, which said there has to be a
reciprocity in the exchange, which means equal value for equal loss.
Ladies and gentlemen, if this amendment succeeds, it is bound to be
challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court because it is simply not just
compensation.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo]
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman from Louisiana if he
would be willing to engage in a colloquy.
Mr. TAUZIN. If the gentleman will yield, I will be more than happy.
Mr. CRAPO. I thank the gentleman from Louisiana. Yesterday we were
pressed for time and we had a short colloquy on a matter I think we
need to clarify further. I am referring specifically to section 5 of
the legislation that we are discussing, which is entitled exceptions,
and it basically states there that compensation will not be made under
this act with respect to an agency action, the primary purpose of which
is to prevent and identify damage to specific property other than the
property whose use is limited.
The concern I want to clarify as much as we can here on the record is
that this language is not intended to create an exception for
compensation when wetlands are being considered by final agency action.
My concern is that wetlands could be argued to be referring to specific
property other than the property whose use is being limited and I would
just, following up on our private conversations, like to make it a
matter of record as to what this language is and is not intended to
reach.
Mr. TAUZIN. If the gentleman will yield, I suggest it would truly be
an oxymoron for anyone to argue that the bill provides compensation for
private property takings when the reason for that private property
taking is wetland protection under 404 and under sod-busters, and then
to argue that you do not get compensated because the wetlands
regulation on your property is designed to protect somebody else's
wetlands regulation, it would certainly be an oxymoron.
The purpose of that exception is not indeed to allow such an oxymoron
to occur, The purpose of that exemption is to provide a specific
exemption for those regulations which are not designed for wetland
protection but designed for other purposes, specifically purposes to
prevent one from creating a harm or a nuisance on your neighbor. That
is further amplified when as you know under the Tauzin amendment, we
specifically said that nuisance laws and zoning laws which similarly
regulate the property for valid reasons other than wetland protection
create an exemption from the act.
Mr. CRAPO. I appreciate that; and so to emphasize again this is
talking about when a person is seeking to use their own private
property in a way that could cause damage to someone else's property,
and somehow final agency action becomes involved. And in those specific
limited circumstances, the act is not intended to apply.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will further yield, if I
can make it crystal clear, it is not the intention in that exception to
say that you cannot be compensated for wetland protection regulations
on your own property. It is not the intent of that exception to say
that you will not be able to be compensated because the regulation is
designed to protect wetlands on somebody else's property. The idea is
to prevent harm or damage to the property itself of the neighbor, not
to carry out further wetlands protection. Therefore, that exemption
would not exonerate the government from liability for the wetlands
protection regulations as 404 or swamp-busters that diminish the value
of someone's property.
Mr. CRAPO. I thank the gentleman.
I would also like to address the committee with the remainder of my
time with regard to the amendment that is before us. There has been a
lot said about whether 10 or 20 percent is the right level of
demarcation in evaluating when compensation should occur. But it is
important, and again as the gentleman from Louisiana stated earlier he
hopes those listening to this in their offices or elsewhere will pay
close attention, because there is a very big difference in this bill in
addition to the 10 to 20 percent change that must be understood. This
bill also changes the property to which the standard applies from the
affected property to all of the property owned by the property owner,
and that change is why it dramatically changes the standard, increases
the potential for harm to private property owners and increases the
potential for private property owners who want to go around the act, to
game the act by subdividing their parcels, and so forth.
We are going to be following this amendment with another one which
does the specific change which seems to be the one which is relied upon
so much by the supporters of this amendment, and that is simply
changing the figure from 10 to 20 percent in the act, but not changing
the entire focus of the act on the affected property, rather than on
more broadly other property that is contiguous.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CRAPO. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I think we need to again make it crystal
clear to the Members who are in their offices listening to this debate,
when we defeat this amendment, which changes two provisions of the
bill, it changes it from 10 to 20, but also from the affected portion
to all of the property, we will offer an amendment that simply changes
it from 10 to 20.
Mr. CRAPO. That is correct. With that clarification, I thank the
gentleman.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Frank] is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I was at a meeting and I
did not get the welcome news bulletin we just got that apparently the
Republican whip operation was not able to get 20 percent. I do not know
if Members fully understood what we just heard but apparently the
effort to persuade people who voted to go from 10 to 30, they would
then vote to go from 10 to 20 was not successful, so apparently we have
some concession.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I should remind the gentleman that offer
was made to the gentleman yesterday when this amendment was made. We
immediately offered to do that. It was turned down.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I understand that. But that also does not
contradict what I just said, which is if the whip organization had been
able to turn it all around it would not have happened.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from California,
the author of the amendment.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr.
Chairman, it seems to me this is a significant list. These are people
who voted yesterday on the Goss amendment and it seems to me Members
ought to take a look at this list and see how they voted, if they voted
``aye'' on the Goss amendment for 30 percent, and again
[[Page H2594]] there are 210 Members who voted ``yes'' on the Goss
amendment, then it seems to me that these are the same people who ought
to be voting ``yes'' on the Mineta-Davis amendment.
So, I am anxious to get this to a vote. And Members who would not
yield to the arm twisting that is going on right now, they ought to
vote their conscience, they ought to vote their constituency and vote
``yes'' on the Mineta-Davis amendment.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman. Fortunate are
those who can vote their conscience and their constituency at the same
time. That is a great position to be in.
Let me say with regard to this whole 10 and 20 percent, one thing is
very important to note. All of the horror stories we have heard, and
many of them appear to be clear cases of abuse and misapplication of
the statute, would be covered by the 20 percent, and the effort to
restrict the number, the effort to defeat 30 percent and the effort to
water down the 20 percent makes it very clear. This legislation is not
aimed at alleviating those who have been the victims of horror stories,
it is aimed at restricting the very operation of these laws as Congress
intended them to operate, because if you were worried about the people
who were cited in the very poignant examples we have heard, all of them
would have been covered by the amendment that the gentleman from
California has offered, because they were 100 percent disabilities of
their property. Those were people who were told they could not live in
their homes; those were people told they could not do anything at all.
So the fight over the marginal number makes it very clear that this
bill is aimed not at the occasional excess, but at the very heart of it
today to correct the operations of these activities, and therefore, it
is a very important amendment.
We get, by the way, as to 10 and 20, into the question of what is a
de minimis level. Ten percent would mean that virtually every action
taken by these entities would be litigated and administered.
I preferred 30 percent, but I think since that lost, the gentleman
from California's amendment is a significant improvement. So take the
two together, the insistence on a 10-percent threshold or 20 percent
with the land so narrowly defined that it becomes far less than 10
percent to the whole property and what you see is this is not an
effort, as I said, to prevent abuse of the statute. That is being done
elsewhere when we rewrite the statute and deal with regulatory reform.
This is an effort to severely hinder the operation of these statutes as
written to say that there will be much less wetland regulation, that
there will be much less environmental endangered species regulations
because virtually every action that would be taken by these agencies
would trigger such a thing.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.
Mr. CRAPO. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just want to make it
clear there has been some discussion here as to whether people are
being pressured into voting for a different amendment. When we talked
to the Members about what their concern was, it was exactly what has
been debated on this floor; that is, the 10 to 20 percent. What the
gentleman just debated, many of them did not get an opportunity to vote
for a pure 10- to 20-percent change and wanted that rather than the
amendment which was put forth which changed it dramatically.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman's interest in
giving people that opportunity. I am touched by it. He is a soul of
generosity. But I do know that last night when we were ready to go to
vote at 9:35 on this and leave time for other amendments so we would
chew up the whole 12 hours, the Republican leadership said no because
they did not have the votes lined up yet.
{time} 1115
So I have not said there was pressure. It does seem to me, though,
there was some very intense persuasion going on.
Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, as I listened to this debate all day yesterday and this
morning as well, I think we are missing the point here. Let us go back
to why we are really here. We are here to discuss the fifth amendment
of the Constitution. Let us go back to the last phrase, ``Nor shall
private property be taken for the public use without just
compensation.''
We are starting now to dilute the Constitution by 10 percent, 20
percent, 30 percent. I do not think we should be doing it at all. But
if we are going to do something, let us make it the lowest common
denominator we possibly can. We should not be taking private property
without just compensation at any level.
For some reason this body has violated the Constitution indirectly by
passing environmental laws which have prohibited people from using
their property, which have been a taking without any compensation. We
in the West have suffered greatly from this action. We need to have
relief from this action. This bill will do that.
I say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who voted for the
change of 10, 20, 30 percent or whatever they want to talk about, if
they really believe the Government should take their property without
just compensation, next Monday when they go home let them donate 10,
20, 30 percent of their property to the Federal Government and let us
help balance this budget.
I mean let us get right down to what the people really believe in. We
do not want Government taking away our constitutional rights, and they
have done this indirectly through legislation over the last 20 and 30
and 40 years and, some said, since the beginning of the Constitution.
We need to go back to that. We need to restore private property
rights. This country was founded on private property rights. We were
taught in high school and in grade school that the pilgrims came here
for religious freedom. But they came here for another reason. They came
in here to own property. What our Founding Fathers did when they put
the Constitution together, the fifth thing on their mind was private
property rights because they did not have that in the countries from
which they came.
Since that time we have diluted this constitutional right. This is
the first time in 207 years we went back to address that, to give back
private property to the citizens and take away this horrible situation
that government, both local and State, have infringed upon
constitutional rights of the public.
So I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, if they really
believe that the Government should have the right to take their
property, let them donate their property to the Government and help us
balance this budget.
But I think we need to turn back to the Constitution and, therefore,
return full property rights to the citizenry.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COOLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. TAUZIN. I want to thank the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Cooley]
for an excellent statement. That is exactly what we are talking about.
Nobody in this room, I hope, believes that the Government has the right
to come and take 10, 20, percent, any amount of your property. If you
really believe that--the gentleman makes the point--how many people are
willing to donate 20 percent of their homes to the Federal Government?
But when the Government comes and takes it, clearly that requires the
Government to pay compensation. That is what this fight is all about.
I want to make another point. The debate we are on right now, whether
to accept the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr.
Mineta], will not only change it from 10 to 20 but will now involve all
of the property of the owner, not just the affected regulated portion,
The court, in Florida Rock, said that is wrong. It said the fifth
amendment prohibits uncompensated taking of private property without
reference to the owner's remaining property. We defeated this
amendment, and then we offered an amendment to change it from 10 to 20.
Mr. COOLEY. I concur with the gentleman.
[[Page H2595]]
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the remarks of the
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Cooley] and in strong opposition to the
amendment as offered.
I think we have seen here today, those who happen to be viewing
across the Nation, we have seen good, strong bipartisan support for a
reasonable action to be taken.
I could not help but note with interest today's headlines. In fact, I
just came from the other side of this building where a Member of the
new minority party has decided to join the new majority party on the
very issue that has been characterized, at least in my portion of the
country, as a war on the West. And as my friend from Louisiana points
out, although we may call it the war on the West, the gentlewoman from
Idaho would certainly concur, in essence, what we have here is a
fundamental conflict on the notion of private property and what the
government can demand from us.
As the gentleman from Oregon said so clearly, without just
compensation, remembering that clause, that provision of the fifth
amendment, we are tearing asunder the original intent of the Founding
Fathers. It is indeed unfortunate we have to bring this to the floor in
the first place. What should be a fundamental tenet of American rights
an liberties somehow are being stripped away. But as emblematic, as
systematic of the new approach by the new majority, we are engaged in a
new partnership with America and we move to address those rights.
So I oppose the amendment as offered by my friend from California on
the grounds mentioned so eloquently by the gentleman from Louisiana and
the gentleman from Oregon.
I would urge a ``no'' vote on this and let us restore the nature of
property rights.
My. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HAYWORTH. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, we need to make one more point before we end this
debate. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] said or intimated
that the real intent is to gut the Endangered Species Act, the Wetlands
Act. Let me read from the article by Sue Waldron in the Wall Street
Journal:
The dispute over endangered species isn't over whether or
not society should protect them. It's between a policy that
refuses to set priorities and insists on preservation no
matter what the costs to the human species or, alternatively,
a more balanced approach.
We are hard put to see how the species act can itself
survive politically operating as an environmentalist land
grab of other peoples property. The seriousness of the claims
for these various species might be better tested if the
government had to compensate landowners for their losses.
That is all we are asking: balance, respect. We want a good
Endangered Species Act, a good Wetlands Act, but we also want balance
in landowner rights.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman stands and points out
with eloquence the entire mission here. I cannot help but note the
irony that the current administration, which campaigned on the notion
of putting people first, would instead relegate people to the back
benches, if you would, or at least take away from people their
essential constitutional rights.
It is the mission of this body, as we stand in check with both the
executive and judicial branches to right the wrong, to legislate for
the people of this country, and to legislate effectively. It is in that
spirit that I oppose the amendment but endorse wholeheartedly the
concept of real property rights for the citizens of the United States.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I cannot help but comment on the remarks
of gentleman from Arizona when he says we should put people first. I
thank all of us agree with that. It is just how we do that which is
important. Ignoring certain aspects, like clean water or biodiversity,
and then say we are putting all the people first, I think we are losing
some important aspects of their multidimensional discussion of property
rights, endangered species, clean water, and so on.
In my area, clean water is absolutely essential for the quality of
peoples lives, not only for their health but for our economy,
protecting the wetlands in not a sterile, regimented regulatory form.
The way we do it in Maryland, we all sit down at the table and we
discuss this issue. Fish and Wildlife is there, the corps is there, the
Department of Natural Resources is there, the affected property owners
are there. We discuss how we can manage the resources and protect
peoples' lives.
Mr. Chairman, I want to make two points. One is that the gentleman
from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] is continuing to refer to the Florida Rock
case. Now, he refers to it in an accurate manner. He has not distorted
the facts.
But I want to bring in some more of the facts that were not included
there. It happens to deal with a person that wanted a limestone, in
particular a 98-acre parcel piece of property. He bought the property
for $1,900 per acre. The Corps of Engineers would not allow him to fill
part of that acreage because there were wetlands there.
Now, he was going to sell the property because he was not going to
engage in limestone mining, so he wanted to sell it for $10,500 per
acre. Now, that is a pretty good profit.
As a result of the corps' regulation, the appraisers valued the
property then at $4,000 per acre. Now, he was a little regulated there.
The corps diminished some of the value there. But a profit of $1,900
per acre to $4,000 per acre is pretty significant.
But we have to look at some other values here when we are talking
about that. That is, what is the value to the quality of the water that
is purified by the wetlands to the neighboring property owners? Then
what is the value of their property, the neighboring property owners,
if the wetlands were filled in, water is degraded? Who is going to buy
their homes, their property? Is that then diminished?
So the question in my mind, at least, is should we compensate people
to refrain, or stop them, refrain them from degrading the value of
somebody else's properties by filling in those wetlands?
Now, there is one other thing I want to bring out. One of these
famous, wonderful Dear Colleagues that are circulated around the House
for a number of reasons, there was a ``Dear Colleague'' circulated that
a Maryland couple was denied the right to shore up their property
because of an endangered beetle. And as a consequence of that, 15 feet
of the bank fell off while they were trying to wait for a permit.
Well, here are the facts: It was a piece of property in Lusby, MD,
which had a high bank. The guy that lived there wanted to move because
he knew the erosion problem was so bad. So he did not even pay the
mortgage, the bank took over the property.
This couple purchased the property at a very low price. While they
were living there, they realized there is a problem because 15 feet of
their bank falls
off. It was at that point, after the 15 feet fell off, that they
applied for a permit to put some riprap around it so no more would be
falling off.
The Federal Endangered Species Act, in its infinite flexibility, at
least in the State of Maryland, was going to permit that shoring up.
But the State of Maryland, which has an Endangered Species Act more
strict than the Federal act, was a little bit more inquisitive.
Now, they have built the riprap, they are protected at this point,
and the State of Maryland Endangered Species Act is going to become
more flexible, modeled after the Federal program. There still needs to
be some flexibility with the Federal program, I grant you that.
But one last point: A beetle, a fairy shrimp, a butterfly, let us not
forget the fact that biodiversity offers us a tremendous amount of good
things for medicine, for agriculture, for a whole lot of good reasons.
I just wanted to get those points out.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. McINTOSH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, the Mineta amendment would massively
reduce the number of Americans who would benefit from this the Private
Property Protection Act of 1995. It would change the current bill
ignoring existing case law and provide Government bureaucrats with the
power to
[[Page H2596]] impose onerous regulations without accountability.
{time} 1130
The amendment is most destructive because it departs from providing
compensation on affected parcels of property. Instead, it would provide
compensation only if the entire whole of an individual's holdings were
reduced in value.
In other words, if a property owner had 100 acres, 10 of which were
wetlands, the Government could prevent that landowner from developing
his property because of that wetlands on only 10 acres. Any other
property owned by the individual could be used to offset the fair
compensation due from the Government.
This is part of a conscious effort to support a national land-use
policy. The supporters of the wetlands provisions in the Endangered
Species Act have used those two acts to create a national intrusion
into the property rights of Americans across the country, and the
purpose of this amendment is to dilute the protections for property
rights that landowners would have in standing up against that policy.
Let me just close by saying that the Florida Rock case has been
mentioned earlier. It strikes me that in fact the value of protecting
wetlands is something that society should take into account. The
difference is that we should not ask innocent landowners to be the ones
who foot the bill for that; instead, we should ask all of society to
compensate that individual in order to preserve those truly valuable
natural resources.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield just briefly?
Mr. McINTOSH. I am delighted to yield to the gentleman from
Louisiana.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I am so glad my friend, the gentleman from Maryland, brought up
Florida Rock again. The reason I quote it so often is that it is now
Florida Rock III. These plaintiffs have made their third trip to the
court of appeals. The case started in 1978. They finally got a judgment
in March 1994 that says they are entitled to compensation. The case has
been remanded again to the Court of Claims. They are on their fourth
trip around. That is why this bill is so desperately needed.
Mr. McINTOSH. That is right. My point is that if those are valuable
wetlands, why should society not go ahead and pay compensation under
the fifth amendment and under the provisions of this act so that
someone who is an innocent landowner is not deprived of 60 percent of
the value of his property.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta] to the amendment in the nature
of a substitute offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady], as
amended.
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 173,
noes 252, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 194]
AYES--173
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Davis
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Ehlers
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Mollohan
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Thompson
Thornton
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
Zimmer
NOES--252
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
de la Garza
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Green
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Kasich
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Upton
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
NOT VOTING--9
Bryant (TX)
Gonzalez
Graham
Hoyer
Jones
Moakley
Rangel
Reynolds
Roberts
{time} 1150
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mr. Rangel for, with Mr. Graham against.
Messrs. PORTER, LEACH, and SKEEN changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Mr. LIPINSKI and Mrs. KELLY changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as
amended, was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained for rollcall No.
194. Had I been here, I would have voted ``no.'' I ask that the Record
reflect that.
limitation of debate on prospective amendments
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] be
[[Page H2597]] next recognized to offer an amendment and the debate on
the amendment be limited to 20 minutes, equally divided and controlled
by a proponent and an opponent thereto. I further ask unanimous consent
that the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor] and the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Trafficant] be next recognized to offer their amendments, and
that debate on each of these two amendments be limited to 5 minutes,
equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent thereto.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to
object, that timetable with a rollcall on the Goss amendment would, of
course, preempt any other amendments. I would not be able to accept
something that would preempt any other chance for any other amendments.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman's
concern, and I would be certainly willing to change the unanimous-
consent request to further limit the debate on the Goss amendment to 10
minutes, 5 minutes debate on each side.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, that will not be agreeable,
but it is the best we can get. We will still be at risk. I hope, if
Members will cooperate, we can get to the amendment of the gentleman
from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Canady], as amended?
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to
object, what I still have not heard is the final part of the uanimous-
consent request. I never heard what I understood to be the final part
of the unanimous-consent request.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the first part of the unanimous-
consent request, as now modified, is 10 minutes of debate on the Goss
amendment. After that there will be 5 minutes debate on the Taylor
amendment and 5 minutes debate on the Traficant amendment.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thought the final part
was that the Watt amendment would come up last and be the final issue.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, there was no mention of the Watt
amendment in the unanimous-consent request.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation
of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
There was no objection.
amendment offered by mr. goss to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Goss to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Canady of Florida, as
amended: In section 3(a), strike ``10'' and insert ``20''.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, what we are involved in here is obviously a
moving negotiation, and a number of things have happened in the last
couple of votes on this in this very difficult area of trying to come
to a compromise that will hold together a working block of votes to get
on with the benefits of this legislation and to make it as good as
possible and still attract a majority. A couple of things need to be
pointed out here.
Mr. Chairman, the three particular areas of trouble that we wanted to
discuss at this time were to get a further explanation on when we are
talking about affected areas that are going to be subject to
regulation, who sets those boundaries and how that happens. In a moment
I am going to yield to my friend, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr.
Tauzin], for that.
The second was an area where after the vote last night I had several
Members, particularly from the Midwest, come to me and suggest they had
a difficult time with my amendment that went to the total parcel, and
they had not supported us because of concerns they had in explaining to
me about prairie potholes and other types of situations that are very
important, but somewhat unique to that part of the country, and they
felt they did not understand it properly.
The third area was the question of the small lot owners. I am
satisfied by moving this percentage to 20 percent, we still protect the
small lot owners either way from unreasonable takings.
So I am, in the spirit of compromise, trying to get something that
will work, and that is the purpose of this amendment. We now have a 20-
percent threshold to trigger an automatic taking on the affected part
of the property.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] to explain about how these affected areas
actually work.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, what happens under the bill is that the property owner
who believes he is affected by one of these statutes, endangered
species, 404 wetlands or swampbusters, literally goes to the agency and
makes a request, am I affected by those statutes. If so, what part of
my property is affected.
A good example is the one I gave the other day from my farmer in
Plaquemines Parish. Included in his letter to me was a map. The corps
actually drew a map, showed him the affected area of his property
affected by the wetlands determination.
So the agency determines what part of your property is affected by
wetlands or endangered species. That area is defined, is certain, and
that is why this new revision to the amendment makes sense.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to make sure to all those who supported my
original amendment, that that explanation was going to be forthcoming,
it is forthcoming, and it is satisfactory to me, because it gives the
precision we were looking for, it allows the agency to make that
determination. That protects the public, and on the other hand the
private property owner is protected with this 20 percent threshold.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1200
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to speak in opposition to the
amendment?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
This is an amendment that is about a subspecies of land. This is the
planting of shade trees to give cover to Members who switched their
vote.
Since everything has already been arranged and since under this
restrictive 12-hour rule, if I debate this at any length my friend from
North Carolina will be preempted from offering his amendment, I would
simply say that I think this is just to cover Members who voted the
other way on the last one since all the votes have already been
accounted for.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of
my time, in the hopes that we will be able to protect the right of the
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] to offer his amendment.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] as
amended.
[[Page H2598]] The question was taken; and the Chairman announced
that the ayes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 338,
noes 83, not voting 13, as follow:
[Roll No. 195]
AYES--338
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bono
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Christensen
Chrysler
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Condit
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Cremeans
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehrlich
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E.B.
Johnson, Sam
Johnston
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
Longley
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Manzullo
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Reed
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torres
Traficant
Upton
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--83
Baker (CA)
Barton
Becerra
Beilenson
Bevill
Bonilla
Bonior
Borski
Cardin
Chenoweth
Clyburn
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Combest
Conyers
Cooley
Coyne
Crapo
Cubin
Dellums
Dingell
Dixon
Ehlers
Fattah
Fields (TX)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Furse
Gilchrest
Hall (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Herger
Hinchey
Hostettler
Hunter
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Markey
McDermott
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Mineta
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Neumann
Oberstar
Owens
Parker
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Porter
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Schaefer
Serrano
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stark
Stockman
Studds
Thompson
Thornberry
Torricelli
Towns
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Yates
NOT VOTING--13
Berman
Brown (CA)
Bryant (TX)
Clay
Dornan
Emerson
Gonzalez
Largent
Mfume
Moakley
Radanovich
Rangel
Stokes
{time} 1219
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mr. Radanovich for, with Mr. Rangel against.
Ms. WATERS and Messrs. COMBEST, STOCKMAN, and CRAPO, Mrs. CHENOWETH,
Mrs. CUBIN, and Messrs. HUNTER, RUSH, MEEHAN, FIELDS of Texas, and
SCHAEFER changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. GUTIERREZ, Mrs. SMITH of Washington, Ms. ESHOO, and Messrs.
GREENWOOD, MATSUI, JACOBS, and HILLIARD changed their vote from ``no''
to ``aye.''
So the amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as
amended, was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably detained during
rollcall No. 195, the vote on the Goss amendment to the Canady
substitute. Had I been here, I would have voted ``yes'' on it.
Personal explanation
Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably detained on rollcall No.
195. Had I been present I would have voted ``aye'' on the Goss
amendment to the Canady substitute to H.R. 925.
amendment offered by mr. taylor of mississippi to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute offered by mr. canady of florida, as amended
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the
amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Taylor of Mississippi to the
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Canady
of Florida, as amended: After paragraph (4) of section 9,
insert the following:
(5) the term ``fair market value'' means the most probable
price at which property would change hands, in a competitive
and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair
sale, between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither
being under any compulsion to buy or sell and both having
reasonable knowledge of relevant facts, at the time the
agency action occurs;
Redesignate succeeding paragraphs accordingly.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor] will be
recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes, and a Member opposed will be recognized
for 2\1/2\ minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor].
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, throughout the measure before us the term ``fair market
value'' is referred to but never defined. What we have done is take two
common uses of ``fair market value,'' one coming from the Treasury
regulations, another coming from a court case, Banks versus the United
States. We have combined those two definitions. We feel it is self-
explanatory. That is why we asked the Clerk to read it. I hope the
majority will accept this amendment.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman has a good
amendment. We will be happy to accept and support the gentleman's
amendment.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I yield to the gentleman from
Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Us, too, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
[[Page H2599]] Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, is it the understanding of
the gentleman, as we have discussed privately, that this amendment
defines ``fair market value'' without consideration of the agency
action. The agency action then occurs, and the next question is fair
market value, after the agency action diminishes, if it does, the value
of the property?
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, to clarify, the key words
``at the time the agency action occurs'' are included. It was in both
of those. It is included in this.
The CHAIRMAN. If no Member is seeking time in opposition, all time
has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Mississippi [Mr. Taylor] to the amendment in the nature of a substitute
offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady], as amended.
So the amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as
amended, was agreed to.
amendment offered by mr. traficant to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute offered by mr. canady of florida, as amended
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment in
the nature of a substitute, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from Florida,
Mr. Canady, as amended: After Sec. 7, insert the following:
SEC. . DUTY OF NOTICE TO OWNERS.
Whenever an agency takes an agency action limiting the use
of private property, the agency shall give appropriate notice
to the owners of that property directly affected explaining
their rights under this Act and the procedures for obtaining
any compensation that may be due to them under this Act.
Redesignate succeeding sections accordingly.
Mr. TRAFICANT (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
Ohio?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] will be
recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes and a Member in opposition will be
recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment ensures that property
owners will in fact be notified and given notice, and their rights will
be explained, and the procedures for obtaining any compensation
available under this act will be made known to them.
The big corporations and the big guys have attorneys that handle
this. The little guys many times that are hurt, and the families that
are hurt due to these limitations, may not necessarily know their
rights under this bill.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, let me first commend the gentleman on an
excellent addition to the bill.
Secondly, I want to also commend him for the fact that he was the
original author for the original 10- to 20-percent change we just
adopted. I thank him for contributing this change to the bill.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, the minority accepts the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. If no Member rises in opposition, all time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Traficant] to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered
by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady], as amended.
The amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as
amended, was agreed to.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now
rise.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman
from Florida [Mr. Canady].
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly the Committee rose, and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Doolittle) having assumed the chair, Mr. Shuster, 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. 925) to
compensate owners of private property for the effect of certain
regulatory restrictions, had come to no resolution thereon.
____________________