[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.

                          ____________________