Tom DeLay

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] get 3 additional minutes.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DeLAY. I am glad to yield to my good friend and neighbor from Texas.

Mr. DeLAY. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. DeLAY. I think we have had a lot of time on this bill and it has generated a very stimulating debate.

Mr. DeLAY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. What a stimulating debate. I was just absolutely excited to watch that debate go on, and I hate to step in, what I hope is not the end of the debate, but I am not sure that I follow it in the right schedule of things in this debate, because my statements are in support of the bill and in support of the amendment.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I would have to object.

Mr. DeLAY. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, has this been cleared with the leadership?

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, in recent years the issue of property rights has been hotly debated, as a growing movement of property owners at the grassroots level feel that their rights are being seriously infringed upon. Some have characterized this movement as greedy, comprised of people who have no interest in the public good. I would like to go back to the beginning of the debate and bring some historical perspective into this discussion. In 1772, Samuel Adams set out to ``state the rights of the Colonists * * * as men, and as subjects; and to communicate the same to the several towns and the world.'' He began his task with the declaration that: The absolute rights of Englishmen and all freemen, in or out of civil society, are principally personal security, personal liberty, and private property. Throughout the succeeding revolutionary period, these three rights were time and again recalled--life, liberty, and property. It was only in drafting the Declaration of Independence that Thomas Jefferson altered the phrase to read, ``life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'' In later years, Jefferson explained why he chose those words. ``A right to property,'' he said, ``is founded in our natural wants, is the means with which we are endowed to satisfy those wants.'' To Jefferson, the pursuit of happiness and right to private property were inextricably linked. One could not be attained without the other. Two centuries later, the institution of private property has lived up to Jefferson's expectations. America's agricultural productivity, leadership in medical and engineering technology, and wealth of entrepreneurial opportunity can all be tracted to the incentives inherently created by private property rights. Unfortunately, however, numerous battles are being waged at this time because of the continued infringement by government on private property. Although the fifth amendment to the Constitution requires fair compensation to a property owner when the Government takes his land, courts have interpreted that provision narrowly and many property owners are not being adequately compensated. For example, the Wall Street Journal describes the case of Marj and Roger Krueger, who spent $53,000 on a lot for their dream house in the Texas Hill Country. But they and other owners were barred from building because the golden-cheeked warbler was found in ``the canyons adjacent'' to their land. Further, a current law with respect to regulatory ``takings'' is unclear, requiring courts to resolve claims without set standards. It doesn't make sense that a person is compensated when the Federal Government wants to build a highway through his front yard, but is not compensated when the Government prohibits him from farming on his land because it is determined that a wetland needs protection. In both cases, private use of one's land is being sacrificed for the public good. We can argue the merits of whether land should be used for one particular purpose or another, but everyone should agree that one person should not have to shoulder the full costs of achieving a particular goal, whether it be environmental protection or improved infrastructure. Further, a person is not greedy when he asks not to have to bear the entire burden. The Canady-Tauzin substitute will set clear standards for Federal agencies to follow under the Endangered Species Act, wetlands, and water rights. In this way, property owners will be guaranteed fair compensation when their land is either restricted in use or reduced in value. Ownership of property is a right protected by the Constitution, a precious right which should not be infringed upon except in the most grave of situations. When such situations arise, let us live by the tenets of the Constitution and grant property owners the compensation that they are due. Mr. Chairman, I ask Members' support for the bill. I ask Members' support for the Tauzin amendment and I ask Members' support to stave off any amendments to the bill.

Mr. DeLAY. I think giraffes are an endangered species in America and if you find a footprint it will probably be on the endangered species list.

Mr. DeLAY. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. DeLAY. I appreciate the gentleman making those remarks about what is happening with the Corp of Engineers and the Fish and Wildlife Service in Houston. It reminds me we have been working now for 2\1/2\ years to build a golf course in Lake Jackson, TX where the Fish and Wildlife are claiming that footprints from cows are wetlands and we have to identify every footprint on this piece of property before we can get a permit. Footprints of cows are wetlands, it is just amazing to me and it is the reason we are coming together to try to pass this bill and try to bring some common sense to what is going on around the country.

Mr. DeLAY. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. DeLAY. Well, it is the same thing. What we are doing, what the gentleman is doing, is making it easier on the bureaucrats and easier for them to hide and manipulate and game the system. I just think this is unfortunate. If you are strongly for property rights, if you are strongly for the rights of the property owner to be protected from loss of value of the property, then you will vote against the Goss amendment. Mr. Chairman, earlier today I spoke of the historical basis for including the right to property in our Constitution. Federal overregulation has severely infringed on this right, and landowners are rebelling. Tonight we are fighting for the rights of private property owners to receive fair compensation for the loss of the use of their land. As it stands currently, H.R. 925 requires the Federal Government to compensate a private landowner if regulations reduce the value of the property by 10 percent or more. The Goss amendment would raise that threshold to 30 percent. Now, there is something here I don't quite understand. If you believe in the principle that property owners should receive compensation if the value of their land is reduced due to federal regulation, there is something strange about placing a percentage threshhold on that right. I think property owners should receive compensation if government action reduces the value of their land by any percentage. However, I understand the difficulty involved in accurately appraising land value and believe 10 percent is a reasonable threshhold. Raising that threshhold to 30 percent means if the value of your land is reduced by one quarter, you're out of luck. You simply can't use one fourth of your land or you lose one fourth of its market value if you choose to sell it. The Supreme Court has said that the fifth amendment of the Constitution is designed to prevent the government from requiring a few individuals to ``bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.'' If you believe in this principle, you must vote ``no'' on the Goss amendment.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I will try not to take the 5 minutes. I know we want to move ahead to the next amendment. I just have to strongly rise to oppose my friend from Florida's amendment. I hesitate to do so because I know the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] is a strong Member and a well-thinking Member. I have to speak on this amendment. I understand the argument about it is easier to prove a 30-percent loss of value than it a 10-percent loss of value. But I have to tell you something: I do not care if it is easier for the bureaucrats to determine whether it is 10 percent or 30 percent. I am interested in that homeowner, that farmer, that person that loses the value of that property because some bureaucrat or some agency has imposed a regulation on them. And I can guarantee you that if my house lost 10 percent of its value because of some action by the Federal Government, by the oppressive Federal Government, I will know that it is 10 percent but I can participate in the process and be able to bring forth my substantiation for a 10 percent loss in value. What you are talking about is loss of value from 30 percent on is okay, but if you lose 29 percent or less of value, we do not care. The Federal Government does not care, this House does not care. So you just eat the loss of value of the 29 percent.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] yielding to me. If Members will listen up, if Members will listen up, there will not be any more votes tonight. We will continue to debate on the Mineta amendment, but we will rise before we take any more votes tonight.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I can just answer the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] very quickly in that I am taking this time so that I do not have to take 5 minutes, but I just want to compliment the gentleman from Louisiana. That was one of the most eloquent speeches on this issue, and many other issues for that matter, that I have heard. The gentleman understands this issue better than any man in the House, and any woman in the House, and understands it so well. He has been pushing for property rights for American citizens for many years. He is part of this American revolution that we are experiencing right now. We have made great progress with this American revolution. We passed the balanced budget amendment, we passed the line-item veto, we worked to rein in unfunded mandates, and this week we passed several very important regulatory reform measures. Today in this legislation we take a giant step forward by protecting private property interests. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] is a giant step backward. Make no mistake about it, the Porter amendment will deal a devastating blow to the rights of private property owners. It creates an enormous loophole which will prevent government agencies from being accountable for the costs they impose on American citizens. A single landowner would still be forced to shoulder the entire burden of regulations as long as agencies perform an impact analysis. But this impact analysis will be used by Federal bureaucrats to dodge responsibility for their regulations. And in the end, if the Porter amendment is adopted, the bureaucrats will get the land while the private property owners will once again get the shaft. Mr. Chairman, the issue here is very simple: Do you support the rights of private property owners or do you support the power of government bureaucracies. My constituents as well as the constituents of the gentleman from Louisiana are sick and tired of the heavy hand of the Federal Government. They want relief from bureaucrats, not more power for the Federal bureaucracy. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to defeat the Porter amendment and score a victory for the private property owners of this country.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, let me just finish that conversation a little bit. Yes, we are trying to impose on the agencies to do their job, as the Congress outlines it to be done and try to not impose these kinds of costs on small business people in America. That is what this regulatory reform is all about, is to take the burden off of the small businesses, off the American families, and put it on these regulatory agencies, and make them do their jobs and do them with a little common sense and with good science. Mr. Chairman, the Regulatory Flexibility Act is law. It was passed in 1980, so that the Federal agencies would review the potential impact of new regulations on small businesses and consider that impact as regulations are promulgated. The problem is that the Regulatory Flexibility Act has no teeth in it, has not been used, and there is no way to enforce compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. H.R. 926 puts teeth into the act by allowing judicial review of agency compliance with it. Unfortunately, this bill only gives small businesses this 6 months to file these suits under the RFA. I am a small businessman, although I just sold my company a couple of months ago. I am intimately familiar with the regulatory burdens that are placed on our Nation's entrepreneurs. From the very day I opened up my business, and even before that day, I had to deal with regulators knocking on my door and piling on the paperwork. By experience as a small business owner I also know that 6 months is not long enough to adequately judge the impact of a regulation on a small business. Let me describe a small business to Members, as some of the lawyers on the other side of the aisle cannot seem to understand what a small business is. I will describe my small business to Members. As owner of that business when I was actively involved in that business, I was the janitor, the accountant, the lawyer, the person that practices before regulatory bodies. I was the counselor, I was the health care expert, I was the service technician, I was the trouble shooter and yes, I was a member of the NFIB, by the way, I was a member of the NFIB. But because I was having to work 12 to 18 hours a day, 6 to 7 days a week to build a business, create jobs and realize my American dream, I did not get to read the NFIB bulletins every time they came into my office. What did get my attention was when the regulators came into my office, or when I read something in the paper of what new regulation the Federal Government is piling on top of me; then I would have loved to have had the opportunity to cause that agency to review the potential impact of a new regulation on me and my business. But I can guarantee Members it takes longer than 6 months, it takes longer than a year sometimes for small businesses to realize that these regulations are going to have an impact on them. But I think a year is a reasonable time, because maybe I only have a convention of the pest control industry once a year; maybe when this regulation is promulgated and I only have 6 months to go, I have not been to my convention and go to a seminar to tell me that there was this regulation imposed upon me, but within a year, I will have the opportunity or I should take the responsibility to read the NFIB bulletins, to go to the seminars held by my industry, to go to the conventions held by my industry, or maybe go to the local Pest Control Association's dinner that is held monthly and find out that this regulation is happening to me. Therefore, within that year I will have an opportunity to take advantage of this bill. In fact, many small businesses do not even know that a new regulation exists 6 months after it is in effect, much less know how it impacts their business. For the Regulatory Flexibility Act to function as it was intended back in 1980, I believe small businesses should have 1 year to challenge regulation flexibility analysis, notwithstanding shorter deadlines currently under other laws. Only with an adequate time period to determine the effect of the new regulation and how it compares to an agency's review under the Regulatory Flexibility act will the purpose of the act be achieved: much needed flexibility and considerations for the impact regulations have on struggling small businesses. Do not render meaningless the Reg Flex Act. Vote ``yes'' on the Ewing amendment.

Mr. DeLAY. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I will respond to the gentleman's statement. I know the gentleman wants to protect the Federal Government from being sued by small businesses and American citizens. I do not. I want the American citizens to have the opportunity to sue the Federal Government when they are imposing regulations.

Mr. DeLAY. I appreciate it, and I will yield to the chairman. I just want to know, I know the gentleman wants to protect the Federal Government from being sued by American citizens.

Mr. DeLAY. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.