Barney Frank

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman's explanation is a very interesting one, and someday I will figure out what point he was explaining because it is not the issue I raised. The issue I raised is this: It says in the underlying bill with regard to wetlands and endangered species, if it violates State law, you do not get compensation, and the gentleman changes that. The gentleman's amendment says if it violates State law under the guise of a nuisance, you do not get compensation, but any other violation of State law will not defeat the claim for compensation.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. No. I take my time back to say this. That is simply inaccurate, for this reason: The original bill did not say if it is against the law in all these other areas and if it is a nuisance in the wetland and environmental area. What the gentleman has done is to narrow the scope of the law as it applies to the areas which would still apply because without that language, without that language, any State law violation would lead to no compensation even if it was under the Federal Wetland Act or Federal Endangered Species Act. Under the gentleman's language, if you are proceeding under the Wetlands or Endangered Species or the agricultural subsidy program, anything that violated State law would not defeat the claim for compensation unless it was a State law that defines it as a nuisance.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. But would the gentleman agree that this, in fact, narrows the exception?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. On this point.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I take back my time to say that the gentleman clearly finds the court's interpretation is inadequate because this bill goes beyond the courts. The gentleman is entitled to do that. But having decided it is way beyond what the courts have said, you cannot come back and say, ``Oh, but this policy, we didn't do it, we are just carrying out what courts did.'' But the fact is, and the gentleman has confirmed what I said, under the bill as it was reported out of the committee, the Committee on the Judiciary, in these areas, the compensation is denied if anything is illegal under State law. If the gentleman's amendment is adopted, things that are illegal under State law could still be the basis for compensation unless they were illegal as nuisances. So if the State has outlawed something for reasons other than it is defined as a nuisance, it is entitled to compensation. By State law now. And it is very clear, and the law says on page 2, the underlying text of the bill, ``No compensation shall be made under this act if the use limited by the Federal agency action is proscribed under the law of the State.'' The gentleman's amendment would strike that. It would leave in the part that says, ``If the use is a nuisance as defined by the law of the State.'' So to there is a clear narrowing here of that exemption.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I raised this before on Agriculture. It has always been my understanding in a variety of capacities at State and local governments as well as the Federal that what they talk about is appraising the value of property at the highest and best use. That is, whatever you can legally develop the property to be at the time that you had it and before the regulations that you were challenged under, that is what sets the value of the property. Any subsequent regulation which restricted the way you could use the property in fact devalues the property.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. It clearly does. The value of the land would include your right to get a subsidy. If, in fact, that were not the case, why would you be trying to put it back in? The fact is, if you are able to get Government subsidies in the tens of thousands of dollars for your crops per year, that land is more valuable. Clearly, what we are doing here is restoring peoples' rights to get back into a subsidy program. I think that ought to be clear. It is different from making them whole.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. To answer your question about whether or not this body would vote for the fifth amendment, would you leave any of that self-incrimination stuff in your version?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Then the answer is, no, you would not get it.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Whatever time I have.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I just want to underline the point the gentleman made. You are going to be hearing about horror stories all day. As the gentleman is pointing out, this bill is not aimed at correcting horror stories. This bill affects those programs where they work exactly as they are supposed to. That is the central point. It is not the horror stories that are under attack here, it is the workings of these statutes exactly as they are being affected that is at point here.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. If the majority whip would get us more time under this restrictive rule, we could extend the debate more, so we would be glad to accommodate him if he would only get us a little more time.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Let me just reinforce what the gentleman says. I am the ranking minority member of the subcommittee that would have had jurisdiction over this if the subcommittee. Behind me is the ranking member of the committee that would have had jurisdiction over it if we had been allowed to discuss this in committee. But to reinforce what the gentleman said, the bill on which we had hearings disappeared when we went to markup; we had a very different version. So the language that is before us now, the Canady substitute as amended by the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin], has never been before a committee for a hearing and in fact the great bulk of this has never been subjected to the markup process and that is why we do not have these answers because they did not want to subject it to scrutiny.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, we are stuck with their 12-hour rule which I am not crazy about, but we have already used up more than 6 hours on two amendments, and I am reluctant to have this go on. I will not object at this point, but I would ask that people understand they have put to a rule which already limits this important bill. This is an example of the unfairness of a 12-hour type rule. We are on the second amendment. I do not think anyone thinks anyone has been dilatory. We have had serious debate. Members have engaged each other. But while we have been trying to deal with this very complex issue we used up, as we started at about 11:25, 11:35, more than 6 hours. So, if they keep this up, we have other people who have important amendments. I am not going to object further. I am going to have to object if people keep extending it, but I wanted to make it very clear the reason is that they are insisting on debating this very complex subject under such a restrictive rule that I cannot allow this because other people who have important amendments are going to be constrained, and I hope they will, on the majority side, take this into account in the future so they will not be restricting the debate this much. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Texas who is going to please the assembly, and I am delighted to be an accomplice in his happy news.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I just want us to understand again, and I am not going to object, but that is what your restrictive rule has forced us to. We have several more important amendments. The time is being eaten up by this process. I hope people on the other side asking for extra time, cutting into the time of other people who want amendments, will remember that the next time they vote for a rule which so restricts us on so important a piece of legislation. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I think we are in need of this sort of an amendment. It comes from the former chairman of the House Committee on Public Works, the ranking minority member who fully understands this well, and we are in great danger of getting into a de minimis situation where we will all be overwhelmed with litigation, and to better make this case, Mr. Chairman, because of his expertise I now yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta].