Richard Pombo

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. POMBO. I do not know how in the world you can say that there is one species per million before human impact as humans were not here and I do not really follow that. But the main point I rose on----

Mr. POMBO. The main reason why I came down here is because you and I have discussed this issue for a number of years about what to do. You have always said that you want to help, that you do want to protect people's private property and that that is an interest of yours. This amendment that is on the floor right now is purported to be the Reagan Executive order, or taken from the Reagan Executive order. I do not know if you even realize this or not, but the Executive order is still in existence. If this amendment passes, the only change in----

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would like to close out this debate on general debate on why this bill has come up to the floor in the way it has and why it is here at all. Several years ago, as a cattleman in the Central Valley in California, I was faced with the frustrations of dealing with the Federal Government and the ever growing bureaucracy, and as I became more and more involved with what was going on with our Federal Government, I made the decision to come here and to fight for the property rights of the people that I represent and the people across this country. Over the last 2 years that I have been here, I have pleaded and I have begged and I have tried to compromise on every piece of legislation that has come through here that affects private property. And it is being in the minority party and what at that time was the minority mindset in Washington, not across the country, but here, it was defeated time and time again, and in our dealings with people like the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields], and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith], who carried those issues for years, we were defeated over and over again. And we would say, ``Look, if you guys do it this way, you are going to take away people's private property rights. You are making it almost impossible for someone to continue to farm, because their ranch is not worth anything anymore. You are forcing bankruptcies across this country because of the actions that are happening on this floor, because of the decisions that are made in the ivory towers in Washington that say that we know better than the people out in the States, that we know better than the people that are farming the land and ranching the land.'' Well, you do not know better. Because my family has been on the same ranch for four generations, and we take care of it. And part of my heritage is the wildlife that is on that property, and we take care of it, and you are taking that away from us through your regulations and your laws that you have passed in this place in the past several years. That is why this country stood up and said, ``Enough is enough. If you take away someone's private property, you have got to pay them for that.'' Our forefathers understood that. That is why they put it in as a civil right in our Constitution that you cannot take away people's private property no matter what the goal. Now, this bill, I admit, is a compromise. It is not what I wanted to do. I wanted to cover all private property, and I wanted to cover all Federal regulations. But I realize that we would not pass that. So we did compromise. We did narrow the scope. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] is going to bring up the amendment that narrows the scope. We compromised on what a threshold was. We compromised on what private property was. We narrowed this down dramatically, so that it only affected four major regulatory areas, and that it only had a threshold of 10 percent, because I contend that if you take away the value of someone's car, you ought to pay them for it. I think that our forefathers were very clear about what they meant. Now, we are hearing all of this talk about this is going to be a budget buster. In fact, I heard someone a few minutes ago say this is going to cost billions of dollars. Well, if it did cost billions of dollars, are you admitting that you are stealing billions of dollars worth of private property and not compensating for it? Is that what it is? Well, that is not OK. That is not all right. If you take away someone's private property, you have to pay them for it, and you set up all the regulatory morass and all the judicial steps you want, it is still wrong, and we are trying to rectify that situation. We are trying to say that if you take away someone's private property, that you have to compensate them for it. It is a very simple concept that was grasped by our forefathers over 200 years ago that you cannot, as a tyrannical government, come in and take something away from an individual and not pay them for it. This is probably the most important vote that we have in the Contract With America to me, and I believe that this has to pass, and it will pass. I urge your support.

Mr. POMBO. I originally came down here to ask you one thing, and as you continued, there is something else I have to ask you. You said that we had one species a year for a million years.

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

Mr. POMBO. So it would not bust budgets and Mr. Dye would not be able to back his U-Haul trailer up to the U.S. Treasury to take money because the U.S. Agency would be forced to be responsible for the first time in 40 years?

Mr. POMBO. If that were the case and they had to prioritize what was critical habitat and they did not go after Mr. Dye, if there was a cost to the bureaucrats and the federal agencies of their actions and they did not go after Mr. Dye, what would it cost then?

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I will not take the entire 5 minutes, but I just would like to rise in opposition, because when we originally came up with this bill that we have been working on and all of the changes that have been made to it, in order to get it through committee and get it to the floor, when we originally started, we were at zero, because I felt that it was important that Federal agencies not come in and take people's private property. I am not comfortable going to 30 percent. I felt that it was a moderate, modest compromise to put in a threshold, because in the Constitution it does not say the Federal Government can take 10 percent of your land before they have to compensate you. They say that they cannot take your land, period. So the whole idea of putting in a threshold, I fought against, and because it was brought to my attention that appraisals can vary by 10 percent and market conditions can force things one way or the other, that we need to put in some kind of a threshold because of the other parts of the bill that make it easier to be compensated, I agreed to go to 10 percent. I agreed that that would be a modest and moderate way of attempting to get at the problem. Now, to stretch that and go to 30 percent, what we are saying is that the Government can take 29 percent of your property in order to qualify under the provisions of this bill.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask one of the authors of the amendment a question on that. That is that at a recent Committee on Agriculture hearing on private property rights that the gentleman was in attendance at, the question of the Reagan Executive order did come up. One of the people that was testifying happens to be Roger Marzullo, the author of that particular Executive order. The question was put out whether or not it was still in force, and the answer was yes, it has never been rescinded. And when we asked does the current administration, as well as the Bush administration, did they feel that they were implementing the Reagan Executive order, the answer came back yes. Now, if that is true, that it has never been withdrawn, then all we are doing by adopting something like the Porter amendment is reaffirming what we have now and telling the agencies to do what they claim to be doing now.

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

Mr. POMBO. I would just like to point out in light of some of the recent testimony that we have heard, in a recent case that Chief Judge Loren Smith of the Court of Federal Claims, I would just like to briefly read something that he said: There must be a better way to balance legitimate public goals with fundamental individual rights. Courts, however, cannot produce comprehensive solutions. They can only interpret the rather precise language of the fifth amendment to our Constitution in very specific factual circumstances . . . Judicial decisions are far less sensitive to societal problems than the law and policy made by political branches of our great constitutional system. At best courts sketch the outlines of individual rights, they cannot hope to fill in the portrait of wise and just social and economic policy. I would just venture to say what we are trying to do here today is fill in that portrait.

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

Mr. POMBO. If this legislation were to pass and in a few months when it is law, would Fish and Wildlife act in the same way and go out and just designate everything that they see as potential habitat and gain control of it? Or would they prioritize the areas?

Mr. POMBO. If the gentleman will yield, what you are worried about is you want to protect what is happening right now, which is not working, and that is what we are trying to change. That is the whole problem.

Mr. POMBO. Under this legislation, that would be a taking?

Mr. POMBO. In one of your examples, you talked about, I believe it was Mr. Dye, who had what would be suitable habitat or potential habitat for an endangered species, and they want to restrict the use of his property, based on the fact that if an endangered species ever wanted to live there, it could.

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

Mr. POMBO. If the gentleman will yield, the study on the 10,000 was based on, if it is the same study I saw, was based on one island and what happened on that one island and extrapolated throughout the entire country.

Mr. POMBO. Do you think that maybe small property owners may be hurt by losing 20 percent of their property?

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this particular amendment.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to see that the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act we are debating today is moving steadily toward passage in the House of Representatives. This measure, H.R. 5, is long overdue. For too many years, the Federal Government has been forcing regulations down the throats of State and local government officials without providing them with the necessary resources to pay for them. To give an idea of how outrageous this practice has become, the Environmental Protection Agency's own figures state that its rules and regulations cost this Nation $140 billion last year--that is 2.2 percent of our entire gross domestic product. Let me remind my colleagues that this represents the cost of mandates from just one single agency of the Federal Government. The successful passage of H.R. 5 will once-and-for-all end this outrageous, and arrogant, Federal Government practice. While I am disappointed that some in this House have tried to slow down the progress of H.R. 5, I am confident that the overwhelming bipartisan support it enjoys will enable us to make good on our promise with the American people. H.R. 5 is a top priority for those of us who have signed the Contract With America--and we intend to deliver. Mr. Chairman, we are not the only ones who have been eagerly waiting for this legislation. State and local officials around the country are so disgusted with the Federal Government's penchant for establishing new programs without paying for them, they established an official Unfunded Mandates Day to make their concerns felt here in Washington. They have done this because it is the simple fact that the burden of paying for unfunded mandates is minimizing the effectiveness of State and local governments to provide even the most basic local services. Let me make one thing clear--we have heard their voices, and are dedicated to making a real difference. What good do unfunded mandates serve if they require city officials to seriously consider buying and passing out bottled water to residents rather than comply with the strict Federal water testing requirements set forth in the Safe Drinking Water Act? How effective is requiring a city to spend over $250,000 over 3 years to remove petroleum- contaminated soil so that an asphalt parking lot could be put on top of it--when asphalt is a petroleum-based product? Mandates like these serve no one--except the Federal bureaucrats, of course. Once again, Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my strong support for the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act and urge its passage in the House of Representatives as well as the other body. We owe the American people nothing less. Mr. McKeon. Mr. Chairman, legislative mandates made by the Federal Government have placed a significant financial burden on communities in California. The city of Los Angeles estimates that Federal mandates will cost approximately $2.2 billion over 5 years (1993-94 through 1997-98). In recent years, many Federal mandates have been placed on cities like Los Angeles without Federal funding required for implementing and enforcing these mandates. Despite the attention to this issue, these Federal mandates have not subsided. The National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices is currently in the process of recommending improvements in traffic- control devices, including street signs, to the Federal Highway Administration. In its present form, the National Committee's proposal recommends new Federal guidelines that would require communities to: First, increase the size of the street sign lettering from 4 inches to 6 inches high; and second, modify street name signs to be reflective or illuminated. The proposed guidelines do not contain any provisions for cities to fund these changes. The city's department of transportation has reviewed this proposal and believes that the suggested requirements are extreme and unnecessary. The cost to change the more than 150,000 street name signs in the city would be approximately $10 to $15 million. Without financial assistance, the city of Los Angeles is not in a position to comply with the proposed new guidelines for street signs. Furthermore, in an urban area such as Los Angeles, many intersections are sufficiently illuminated and often feature additional identifying signs for drivers of motor vehicles. While this is one small example of a much larger problem, it is indicative of the costly Federal mandates imposed on local governments. With this in mind, I respectfully urge House Members to support H.R. 5, the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an outstanding public servant who has recently left distinguished public service in the 11th Congressional District of California. Douglass W. Wilhoit, Jr., of Stockton has personified the highest ideals of openness, honesty and courage as a San Joaquin County supervisor for the past 16 years. His support as an elected official resulted in re-election every 4 years without opposition, and he has achieved the respect of his fellow supervisors through four terms as chairman of the board of supervisors. Mr. Wilhoit, who retired at the end of December, was elected for several prestigious assignments while a county supervisor, including the 1994 presidency of the California State Association of Counties. He also was chosen at the State level by three Governors for leadership positions dealing with job training, corrections, and criminal justice. Mr. Wilhoit assumed leadership positions locally in such areas as criminal justice, youth programs, parks and recreations, aviation, and public works. His community involvement spans a wide range of service, such as the United Way, Boys and Girls Club, American Cancer Society, Rotary International, Boys Scouts, and the Chamber of Commerce. Prior to his election to the county board, he served the community for 12 years as a Stockton police officer. Mr. Wilhoit has been recognized through the years with honors as ``Who's Who in California,'' ``Outstanding Young Man of American,'' ``Community Leaders of America,'' and a Paul Harris Rotary Fellowship. Please join with me in recognizing Douglass W. Wilhoit as a great American who has served his community as the consummate public servant for more than a quarter of a century.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. If the gentleman will let me answer, I will tell him. It was combining. This was my concern, combining, commingling, official money with outside money, and that was my concern, and that is why I signed onto the letter.

Mr. POMBO. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?