Billy Tauzin

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Let me make a point. If you will look at the very last conclusion in that manual, in the scientific report, you will see that the scientists very carefully said, We're not telling you what kind of policy to make on wetlands. We're not telling you whether to protect all wetlands the same way because they are different. We're not telling you that our definition of wetlands should be a legal policy definition. What we've written for you is a reference definition. You take our definition and you define from it which wetlands you need full protection for, which wetlands are you going to treat differently in what region of the country. That is what the bill does, I should say to my friend. My friend destroys that class A, class B, class C determination as we have in the bill, substitutes a single definition again, which has caused us so much problems, and then destroys the compensation provision by saying in effect that that is out of the bill. I can say to my friend again, if you truly oppose property rights, I understand that, that is a fair debate, we have had it a couple of times, but that is what your amendment does. It takes property rights out of the bill. If you truly like the system where Federal bureaucrats and their scientists are making policy for America, they will love your amendment and I know you support it.

Mr. TAUZIN. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman has made his point. Let me counter that point. First of all, it is a single definition of wetlands that cause the problem. It is the definition designed by the agencies with the scientists telling them what they think scientifically a wetland is which has caused these problems in America. It is 5 or 6 agencies meeting behind closed doors that produced the last manual that sent this country into a tizzy. It is time for policymakers now to make a decision in this Congress as to which wetlands deserve how much protection. That has long been overdue.

Mr. TAUZIN. I want to take you quickly through a real case, too, the Bowles decision. Here is a fellow who bought a lot in a subdivision, specifically lot 29 of Treasure Island Subdivision, Brazoria County, TX. None of his neighbors applied for nor did they require a Corps of Engineers permit to build their House. This fellow had that property, I think, for about 10 years, and litigated 10 years in court for the right to build on the property ought to be compensated. The Corps of Engineers in his case, because he checked to see whether he needed a Corps of Engineers permit, said, ``No, you can't build on that property.'' This was a $70,000 lot, pretty expensive waterfront lot. All of his neighbors are building on that property all this while. The Corps says, ``You can't build on it. We think it's a wetland.'' Not you and I, not the people of the United States defining what a wetland is and what is going to be regulated in Congress. What the Corps of Engineers said a wetland was. The Corps said, ``You can't use the property.'' Then they said, ``If you sue us for compensation we're willing to pay you what it's now worth, $4,500.'' Our Justice Department litigated that case for 10 years. Mr. Bowles, I should add, was one of the good guys. He was on the conservation committee. He was in the nature conservancy in Texas. But he was denied the right to build on his property, specifically the right to get a permit to put a septic tank in so he could build his house. [[Page H4950]] Ten years later, the court of appeals finally said he was due in the Court of Claims compensation equal to the value of his lot before the Government took away the use of that property, the $70,000 he was taken, that was stolen from him when the Corps of Engineers said you can no longer build on this property. The court rendered in his favor and said, ``This case presents in sharp relief the difficulty that current takings law forces upon both the Federal Government and the private citizen. The Government here had little guidance from the law. The citizen likewise had little more precedential guidance than faith in the justice of his cause,'' and I might add a 10-year trip in the court of appeals and the Court of Claims. What this amendment does that we are debating today is to tell Mr. Bowles, and everyone like him, ``If you don't like the way the Federal Government treats your property, if you don't like the way the Corps of Engineers defines a wetland, if you don't like the way they regulate the use of your property away, well, you go to court and settle it over the next 10 years if you can afford it. If you can't afford it, I'm sorry, you don't get justice in America.'' That is what this amendment does, because it takes away the private property rights compensation provisions of this wetlands reform. Let me say it again. The bill does two things critical that the amendment destroys. The one thing it does, it gives some guidance in law as to what wetlands are truly going to be protected all the way and which ones are going to be protected somewhat and which ones are truly not worthy of the kind of functional protection that Mr. Bowles was subjected to when he could not build on his residential lot. Second, it provides compensation. This amendment destroys both of those reforms. It ought to be rejected just as the substitute was earlier rejected.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Frist, Mr. Chairman, let me set the record straight. The scientific report that was just issued to define wetlands did not say to this Congress ``You should necessarily protect every wetland as we scientifically define it.'' It did not. What it said is: ``What we are going to give you is a reference definition. Then you make the policy decisions as to which of these so-called wetlands, by scientific definitions, to protect.'' The point is the Academy said: ``This is our reference definition of what a wetland is. That means that is what you use as a reference, what you are going to use as a reference, to see which of these you want to protect, which you want to protect more strongly, which deserve more or less protection.'' Let me also put the thing in perspective. What we are debating right now is an amendment that was contained in the substitute which this House already turned down last week, an amendment that deals with the part of that substitute that would, in fact, delete, almost, the wetland reforms that are in the bill, and substitute, instead, a package of language that the House would have to adopt if they adopted this amendment, authored by those who have opposed property rights in this body, and who want every wetland, as defined by those scientists, to be subjected to the kinds of protection current law does under the 1987 manual. Let me tell the Members what is wrong with that. First, what is wrong with that is if we do not in this bill, as the bill currently does, begin to define wetlands on the basis of which wetlands are truly functional, which really makes sense protecting with this heavy hand of Federal regulation, and define instead those that have some limited functional value, and those which have no real functional value whatsoever, such as an isolated wetland inside an urban area, if we do not do that in this bill, we are left with the status quo. We are left with laws and regulations built around what some scientists declare to be a wetland, which may not even resemble a wetland in your home State and in your home county. Second, Mr. Chairman, if we adopt this amendment, we completely undo, we completely reverse, what this House has done with 72 Democrats and almost, the great majority, I guess 90 percent, of the Republicans earlier this year in the 100 days in defining the right of private property owners to compensation when the Government regulates their lands values away. I want to take a brief minute to reacquaint Members with that issue. In the case of Florida Rock, a case that started in 1978 when the Corps issued a cease and desist order upon the plaintiff not to use his property, a case that is still in court, that was again decided in the court of appeals, I think, for the second or third time, and has now been remanded to the Court of Claims for the second or third time, the court said in that case, in answer to the defendant's complaint, the U.S. Government, the defendant argued that, well, using this property, this activity, would eliminate wetlands protection within the valuable habitat and food chain resources. The court said, Defendant's argument stands our traditional concepts of private property rights on their head. It is impossible to use one's property in society without having some impact, positive or adverse, on others. Courts do not view the public's interest in environmental and aesthetic values as a servitude upon all private property, but as a public benefit that is widely shared and therefore must be paid for by all. In short, the Government in protecting wetlands in America, which is indeed a good and worthy goal, cannot create a servitude on your or my property for the public good without compensating us. That is what the court said, that is what the bill does, that is what gets eliminated by this amendment. The court cited a list of other laws that protect the environment where Congress has already specified that some sort of compensation must be given: the Wilderness Act, the National Trail Systems Act, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and the Water Bank Act. Here is a quote from the court of appeals in the Florida Rock case: ``What these regulatory schemes have in common is that in each case the property owner's interest has been considered and accommodated, not sacrificed on the alter of public interest. By contrast, the regulatory scheme pursuant to which plaintiff's land was rendered economically useless''--the wetlands laws--``provides for no accommodation whatsoever of plaintiff's right to use and enjoy its property.''

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the minority leader for yielding. I suppose the question I want to ask is in terms of Monday night's treatment of the current bill we are on, the Clean Water Act, I understand there will be no votes Monday night, but will there be debate on amendments, and how long will we go Monday night, do you expect?

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman. Let me say to my colleagues and point out again, if you believe your State ought to have the flexibility to adopt its coastal zone program to the needs of your coastal zone, then you vote against the Boehlert amendment. If you like Federal mandates and new Federal EPA authorities to determine land use restrictions and the coastal zone of your State, then vote for Mr. Boehlert's amendment because that's what it does. It ought to be defeated.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the scientists in the study told us what they think a wetland is. Read the report carefully. This is a reference definition. We are not telling you to regulate all the wetlands.

Mr. TAUZIN. Let me complete the answer, please. The academy said this is a reference decision, a scientific decision. We are not telling you you ought to regulate all these wetlands. Your amendment says regulate all them if they meet the reference definition criteria. This amendment ought to be defeated.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I particularly want to thank the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], for bringing this bill to the floor, and I particularly want to pay a great debt of gratitude, I hope, on behalf of this entire House for the efforts, the long-standing efforts that have been made by my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes], in this effort that has finally reached the floor to reform the wetland laws of America and create some sound, sensible regulations of wetlands in America combined with the right of property owners to be reimbursed when their property is taken for these regulatory purposes. My colleagues, one of my colleagues from California rose earlier today to complain about lobbyists' hands in the writing of this bill. Let me set the record straight. This bill, the reforms have long been on this table, not this year when the new majority came to town. These reforms have long been on the table, never brought to the floor of this House unfortunately, but long on the table, drafted in part by the efforts, personal efforts of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Laughlin], many other Members of this body who have urged this House to consider these amendments for many, many years when the Democratic Party was in the majority. I want to remind my colleagues from California that it was at a meeting with lobbyists of the radical environmental groups in this town on March 4, 1992, with some Members of this House, that a decision was made then to kill the holy trinity, ``unholy trinity'' they called it, ideas called property rights, unfunded mandates and the risk assessment cost-benefit analysis regulatory reform. It was that link, that collusion between the radical environmental left and Members of this House that prevented this bill, these ideas, from ever getting to the floor. Let me finally make a point. I say to my colleagues, this bill is not just about pollution and clean water. This bill is also about land regulations and activities that are not polluting activities, activities like building a home, activities like forming your property, activities like simply digging a drainage ditch on your property so it drains properly, nonpolluting activities that do not create nuisances for anybody, that have nothing to do with violations of local zoning laws, that simply have to do with the right of a person to use his property for the purposes he intended it for, perhaps to cut a tree for timber purposes, to grow some corn for agricultural purposes, perhaps just to build a house for that son or daughter on the farm so that they can live close to their parents. Those activities are regulated as land-regulated activities under this clean water bill in the guise of wetlands protection, and so when we discuss this bill, and you hear talk about pollution and this bill being only a bill dealing with pollution, remember this is land regulation, too, of nonpolluting activities.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. It has already been stated, but let me make it clear again. This amendment deletes property rights compensation from the bill. I will say it again. It deletes property rights compensation from the bill, so that whatever one believe about wetlands management and wetlands regulation, if they believe that people ought to be compensated when their property is taken because of a wetlands regulation, they ought not vote for this amendment. This deletes it. Second, it deletes risk assessment cost-benefit analysis. Many of you voted for this principle on the House floor in days gone by. I say to my colleagues, if you believe in that principle, why would you support an amendment that deletes it from wetlands management and wetlands regulation? Little inconsistent, I would suggest. But let me give you some other reasons why you ought to oppose this amendment. This amendment, unlike the original bill, literally takes the science academy scientific definition of wetlands and makes it the regulatory definition. I say to my colleagues, now, if you read the academy report, the academy report said this is how we think you ought to scientifically define wetlands, but how you ought to regulate them, which ones you ought to regulate and how in the public policy, is a political decision we can't make. You need a referenced decision. Here is one. Here is the definition, but then you decide on policy on how to regulate. This bill will in fact mandate that the manuals adopt the scientific definition which, by the way, is the current kind of definition that is causing the problem in America today, definitions that talk about hydrology and vegetation and sometimes have very little to do with the real functional aspects of the wetland that is to be regulated. Third, this bill not only does not compensate someone when the Government regulates your property away. This amendment says that you will mandatorily be required to mitigate in all cases where permits are granted and wetland functions are disturbed. In effect this bill mandates that in every permit given in this regulatory regime set up under this massive new Federal coordinating agency, that in every case the landowner is not only not going to be compensated for the taking of his property, he is going to have to pay for the privilege of being regulated and, in fact, lose the use of this property in every case where a permit is granted. Imagine that. Not only does this amendment destroy the property rights provisions that my colleagues, and I, and 72 Democrats and almost all the Republicans joined in supporting just in the last hundred days, but it turns it on its head and says that: If you're granted a permit, not only will we not compensate you for any loss of value that may be a part of the limitation under that permit, but you're going to have to compensate the government and the public at large for the fact that you've been granted a permit. Now the amendment goes on. It is even worse. When it defines what is a fill of a wetlands, this really gets good. The definition of a fill of a wetland now includes under this amendment the cutting of vegetation, cutting the grass. Cutting the grass on a lot that they are going to describe as a wetland is now filling a wetland under this definition. Protecting the vegetation now becomes a part of this wetlands protection program. You think you have problems with the Corps of Engineers today? You think you have problems with the EPA today, who works in cooperation with the environmental groups who support this amendment, going so far as to send them information that is confidential and illegally distributed, as I demonstrated on the House floor last night? You think you got problems with an agency out of control like that? Wait until you see an agency with the power to say we can regulate your grass cutting in America. We are going to go that far. That is the kind of amendment you fellows want to support on this side. That is the kind of amendment you want to support on this side. Shame on you. If you think you have problems with regulations today, imagine, envision a situation where the scientists, not policymakers, not the Congress, the scientists say what is a wetland, what is going to get regulated. If you get a permit, you have to pay the Government for getting that permit. You do not get compensated for the loss of your property. And if you dare cut your grass without a permit, look out. That is a filling of a wetland under this definition. This amendment creates a whole new regulatory authority to monitor all decisions, to coordinate not only wetlands regulations, but all flood control, all water management decisions, on a State and local and regional basis, and it creates it under authority that, as I pointed out to you, destroys property rights.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, it destroys property rights provisions, eliminates risk assessment cost-benefit analysis, turns it on its head, and forces you to pay the Government to votes for this better not go home.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I realize the time is late, but I think it is important to correct the Record. You heard tonight that all of the coastal States are in support of this program called CZARA 6217. That is incorrect. We are in possession of a letter from the State of Louisiana opposing that section of the CZM law and supporting the provisions of the bill that would, in fact, fold language back into section 319 of the current Coastal Management Act. We are in possession also of letters from the State of Wisconsin indicating support for the bill and for elimination of the coastal nonpoint pollution control program contained in section 6217, and a letter from the Texas department of agriculture similarly in support of the changes embodied in the bill. Let me correct another point in the Record. The Boehlert amendment that contained the same amendment we now debate was not defeated on a close vote. If 58 votes is a close vote, I am very surprised in this House. That is a very good margin. Let me tell you why this amendment ought to be defeated and why the bill, as it recommends changes in the law, should be approved. The bill that we are talking about does, in fact, repeal a section of the Coastal Zone Act, not the act that was passed years ago; it repeals a section of the act that was adopted in a budget resolution in 1990, not through the normal process. The section of the Coastal Zone Management Act that the bill repeals was not adopted as a part of the original act. It was adopted as a part of a budget resolution, an amendment attached to a budget resolution, not the normal process by which we write environmental law in this body. It was attached in 1990, and those programs are about to go into effect unless we change it here tonight. Now, why should we change it here tonight? Because if we do not change it here tonight, what will go into effect is a program that mandates a one-size-fits-all Federal mandate program on the States inflexible, that gives the EPA the power to determine appropriate land use practices in coastal zones, that gives the EPA the power to determine coastal zone boundaries, unlike the current law which allowed the States to make those determinations. If we do not repeal that section, you will be giving in effect the EPA that authority. What the bill does is repeal that section, fold this section of environmental law protection for coastal zone into Section 319 where the States have the power to focus their resources on the critical coastal areas they want to work on and, in fact, protect those areas as much as any of my colleagues in this House want to have them protected.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong objection to the Mineta amendment. The pollution prevention provisions of H.R. 961 are not a loophole. Instead, this bill would allow a facility to engage in multimedia offsets within a facility, or to trade between facilities, if it could produce an overall net benefit to the environment. A chemical plant in my district, Union Carbide, identified a multimedia pollution prevention project as an alternative to a rigid Clean Water Act technology-based numerical effluent limitation for certain non-toxic pollutants. Instead of a costly expansion of end-of- pipe treatment that would just shift waste from the water to a landfill, this innovative solution would have recovered 40 thousand pounds of product each day, reduced land disposal of sludge by 3,000 pounds a day, cut air emissions and saved energy. The only problem is that while pilot studies showed that the rigid Clean Water Act numerical limit could be met under most weather conditions, it could not guarantee that it would meet the standard 100 percent of the time. Pilot studies show that temperatures below 50 degrees F during the months of January and February would decrease the treatment efficiency. A conservative estimate, based on the unlikely prospect of 2 months of Southern Louisiana temperatures below 50 degrees, would still result in the treatment system meeting the standard a minimum of 84 percent of the time. Variance from the standard would be between 15 and 25 parts per million (ppm) for total suspended solids. The variance could be made up by executing a trading agreement with another source under section 302(c) of H.R. 961. A few cold days in Louisiana might cause the limit to be exceeded by an environmentally insignificant amount. The plant could not take the risk of going forward with the project without the certainty of meeting the standard. Ironically, it would have cost more in initial capital expense than conventional end-of-pipe treatment, but the company was willing to do it because it made more environmental sense, and would have paid for itself over time. The plant was also willing to pay a farmer up-river to reduce his non-point discharge of TSS into the river. A greater reduction could have been achieved more cheaply. But because there was no flexibility available in the foreseeable future, this innovative solution has been shelved. Everybody loses. Especially the environment! This bill, unlike the current law, will promote and reward innovation rather than stifle it. It's about time we started writing laws that unleashed creativity rather than shackled our industry to an outdated system of one size fits all regulations.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. While I brought up the case of my friend in Kraemer, LA who does the swamp tours, I want to remind Members that not all the alligators in America live in the swamps of Louisiana. This is a bad piece of regulation, until we wrestle it to the ground. With the gentleman's help, I think we can do it. I thank him for his commitment today on the floor of the House.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman, if the gentleman will yield. I want to thank him and again particularly express my appreciation for accepting the challenge to help us in this investigation, to get to the bottom of this, put a stop to it, then eventually to change some laws in this country so that the fifth amendment of the Constitution is not just some piece of paper, that it is a real and enforceable right for Americans who are being deprived of their property without just compensation through these regulatory overkills. I look forward to working with the gentleman, thank him for joining me tonight. And I think we both owe a debt of thanks to the Chair for being so patient with us this evening.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman so much for his statement. Let me assure you, it does not just happen to farmers and to little landowners like Mr. Gautreau. They do not care who they pick on. I just got a fax tonight from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals judge in Shreveport, LA. I was in Shreveport last weekend. He told me about this and promised to send me a fax on it and authorized me to tell the story tonight. This is a court of appeals judge who bought 460 acres in Tangipahoa Parish across the lake from New Orleans. The tract is about 1\1/4\ miles frontage on Louisiana Highway 22 between Ponchatoula and Madisonville. It has been owned by the family for 80 years, primarily used as timber land. In 1993, he spent $10,000 to map an aerial survey, do soil studies, and to submit all those studies to the Corps of Engineers. On December 14, 1993, the Corps of Engineers, in a two-page document signed by, guess who, Dr. Thom Davidson of Gautreau-Chaconas fame, Dr. Thom Davidson, which document was identified with a survey that was attached, declared over 90 percent of the 460 acres nonwet. Only 41 acres out of the 460 was determined to be wet, subject to the jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers under the Clean Water Act. He has that document signed by Thom Davidson. Well, spring of 1994 comes along. I entered into a venture with a partner ``to test the real estate market'' by beginning a residential development on 58 acres of a larger tract. Not one part of the 58 acres was wetland. Absolutely none. Here comes the horror part. He is away in Europe for the 50th anniversary of D-day in June 1994, * * * when several of the bearded wonders of the U.S. Army came out and told my partner to get off his bulldozer and stop his work, as he was violating wetlands. Since then, the Army has reevaluated the 58 acres and has declared over half of it to be wetlands. We have been stopped since last June, 11 months ago, while attempting the so-called permitting process. The cost, expenses and damages resulting from this invasion have yet to be determined. If folks in Washington, D.C. do not understand why so many people in this country are angry, then they really do not get it. This is not a militia man. This is not an angry man with a gun on talk radio. This is a Second Circuit Court of Appeals judge who, 4 years after the corps wrote him a letter saying the land is not wetlands, shows up with a cease and desist order and has now got him all tangled up in a wetlands dispute, much like the Gautreaus and the Chaconases who, 3 years after the home was built, showed up to say, We now think it is a wetland in spite of the fact that we sent you a letter earlier saying this property was exempt. Now you are in trouble. That is the kind of mess Americans are going through. Farmers, little missed?

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I also wanted to point out I am not sure that everyone in America understands that it does take some real courage on the part of this House to take on some of these people. The Sierra Club is livid right now. They are livid that we uncovered this. I wrote a letter to Mr. Peter Dykster of CNN Headline News complaining about the despicable piece of journalism he performed on behalf, I think, of the environmental community. And guess what? The Sierra Club wrote me a letter today distributed all over the Hill. The Sierra Club has received a copy of the letter you sent Mr. Peter Dykster of CNN News dated April 13. They got the letter already. They are good old buddies. They are working hand and glove. The letter establishes again this connection, this connection that weaves through some of these liberals in the media who are prepared to do anything to propagandize this effort. These environmental groups are working with taxpayer funds in some cases; in some other cases, in direct collusion with EPA officials that do not mind violating the law to help them out to spread their disinforma- tion. And the fabric, this weave of collusion and interaction is beginning to be exposed. I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I see what I see, and I read what I read. And when an agency of the Government is willing to violate a citizen's rights to help a lobby group who then runs to the media with something as confidential as that and gets livid when we expose it, I think you understand what is going on. They will attack. The Sierra Club will attack you, will attack every Member of this body who dares to take them on. But it is time we take them on. They are wrong. And the agencies of Government are wrong when they work with them in order to take away the rights of Americans. We are in this fight to win, not for you and I, but for the sake of those landowners and Americans who thought they could depend upon the Constitution who now need a law to protect them as rapidly as we can pass them.

Mr. TAUZIN. I want to thank the chairman of the committee, not only for his efforts in uncovering more and more of the evidence that leads inescapably to some of the conclusions you and I and others are coming to. The agency is out of control. It is literally engaging in political activities it was never designed to engage in and in violation of citizens' rights, but also for accepting the challenge as other committees have already done, by the way. The INI Subcommittee of the Committee on Energy and Commerce has already started an investigation of this matter. We have enough investigators out there. We might just uncover enough to put a stop to some of this stuff. I want to thank the gentleman for all of his efforts in regulatory reform and for the courage many Members of the House have shared with him in passing legislation that the Senate I hope will take up soon and pass for us and give it to the President, and hopefully the American people and we soon can end some of those abuses as rapidly as we can.

Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica] who has been a leader in the fight as I said to rein in this agency. I appreciate your offers of help. We are going to need a lot of help in that regard.

Mr. TAUZIN. My friend will love this. This is a letter I just received this last couple of months from attorneys writing to the office of the General Counsel, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, one of the environmental agencies working hand-in-globe with EPA. It is regarding settlement discussions of the turtle/shrimp litigation. You have shared my problems in Florida with this and requiring more and more regulations upon the shrimpers in my State because of the Endangered Species Act. Listen to this paragraph. Finally, on a public policy note, my clients are becoming deeply distressed about how the agency appears to be more responsive to, and to some extent acting in collusion with, representatives of the environmental community with respect to the shrimp/turtle controversy. Although Andy Kemmerer and Rollie Schmitten appear anxious to hear industry's concerns, we still sense the agency is responding to what appears to be a ``shadow government'' formed by certain environmental groups. The link I talked about tonight, this illegal transmission of confidential data to one of the environmental groups, is part and parcel of what this is all about, an agency out of control, accomplish their agenda.

Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman for his comments and concerns, and indeed those of you who live in California understand tragedy and natural disaster, and I appreciate the gentleman's comments tonight. Mr. Speaker, I do this special order tonight not out of a great pleasure, but actually with some real degree of regret and sorrow that it has to be done. Today, at a press conference here in Washington, I announced a call for an investigation into activities of the Environmental Protection Agency in region 6, Dallas, activities which clearly violated the rights of a citizen in my district and his family, activities which may have, in fact, violated Federal criminal statutes, certainly violated the civil rights of that citizen, and are going to result almost certainly in a lawsuit by the citizen against his own Government, and in my opinion should result in a dismissal of the Federal employee responsible for what has occurred. The case involves a case that I cited on this House floor when we debated the property-rights bill that was passed by this House and sent onto the Senate and now awaits action by that body. When we debated that property-rights bill in the context of one of the amendments offered to gut the bill, I told the story, a true story, of two families in my district who were embroiled in a bitter lawsuit, one against the other, and who were also embroiled in an awful conflict with the EPA and the Corps of Engineers in New Orleans in a wetlands dispute. Now there are many allegations flying back and forth in that lawsuit. But the facts as we know them are these: The facts are that in 1990 one of the families, the Gautreau family, decided to build a pond on their property in Ascension Parish in my district. In desiring to build this farm pond, they contacted the LSU Agricultural extension personnel who came out and examined the site with them. In that initial examination of the site, those LSU officials suggested to the Gautreaus that they should contact the Corps of Engineers to make sure that they did not need a permit for the construction of the pond. As a matter of fact, one of the Gautreau brothers, Jeff, did call the Corps of Engineers the next day. Approximately on or about September 1990, I think it was around September 10, he contacted the Corps of Engineers, and according to Mr. Jeff Gautreau, the Corps of Engineers representative, the then Dr. Tom Davidson, told them that if he was going to build a livestock pond on his farm that he really did not need a permit, all he needed to do was send a letter describing what he intended to do and including a sketch of the site, and that his activity would be exempt under the wetlands laws as they then understood them in 1990 and as they applied them from the Corps of Engineers office in New Orleans. According to Jeff Gautreau, in the chronology of events that he supplied to me, Dr. Davidson told him to do whatever he wanted with the dirt, and the Corps had no jurisdiction over than. In fact, the Corps did send, at the request of Mr. Gautreau, who wrote him a letter the next day, a letter indicating that the pond construction was exempt, and that he could proceed without a Corps of Engineers wetlands permit. No mention was made in that letter that he was in any way restricted as to what to do with that dirt. Mr. Gautreau proceeded to dig that pond. He proceeded to spread the dirt on his property, and later on constructed a home on that same property. In 1993 all hell broke loose. In 1993 Mr. Gautreau was interested in selling that home and that property. In the context of selling it, he decided to shape the pond a bit more, and also spread a little more dirt to fill in any little holes in the lawn of the property where the house was. So he began that work, only to be met with a cease-and- desist order from the Corps of Engineers. In the context of those days and that event, Mr. Gautreau ended up selling that home. In those same months, the Corps of Engineers, by a written letter to him in the cease-and-desist order, indicate he could make everything right by simply applying for an after-the-fact permit, which if the Corps granted it would make everything right. He, in fact, applied for an after-the-fact permit. In that letter from the Corps, Mr. Gautreau was told that while the Corps could take action against him, they had decided that there was no willful violation, and that he should proceed either to restore the site or apply for an after-the-fact permit. Mr. Gautreau applied for that after-the-fact permit. It was never granted. Today, they are in an awful wetlands dispute. Today as we meet here in this Chamber tonight, Mr. Gautreau and his purchaser, Mr. Chaconas, are in an awful lawsuit over rescission of that sale. The agents who handled the sale are part of the lawsuit. The insurance companies for the real estate agents are part of the lawsuit. Both parties are currently listed as co-violators of the wetland laws of the United States of America, and the Corps of Engineers and the EPA are still considering an enforcement action that could require the Gautreaus or the Chaconases, whoever owns the land, to take down that home, to destroy it. In fact, a lane leading to that property and to another property across the street is also built on that property, and while no decision has yet been made, an enforcement option still available to the EPA and the Corps is removal of that lane. I told the House that day in the debate how in conversations with representatives of the Corps and the EPA, when the parties asked how they might get to their home if the lane were removed, someone said, ``Take a helicopter.'' I pointed out the arrogance of the State agency that would do that sort of thing. During our break, when we went away to do our hometown meetings, to take a break from the 100-day session, my office began to be contacted by scores of agencies wanting to do a news story on this awful piece of wetlands drama going on in my State. As we began to check into what the news people were interested in, it became clear the focus of the news story was to make a case that we had not told the truth about that story on the House floor in the middle of that debate. One of the news agencies, NBC, contacted us and asked for an interview. I gave them the interview. I was still in town. In the course of the interview, it became clear what was going on. There was an attempt to say, ``Did you really tell the story the way it really happened? Mr. Chaconas does not believe you told the story right.'' I asked the NBC interviewer if he had bothered to talk to the other family, the Gautreaus. He had not at that point. I suggested to him he ought to do that. This was a lawsuit between two parties. They each had different versions of the facts. He ought to at least talk to the other side. He did. He called the attorney for the Gautreaus, and in an hour conversation with the Gautreaus' lawyer, a new fact emerged. NBC was in possession of a document, possession of a document that represented itself to be an enforcement discussed what they considered to be the willful, criminal violations of the Gautreaus violating the laws of the United States in a criminal way. NBC was in possession of this confidential memo that was not available to the Gautreau family despite the fact that Mr. Gautreau and his lawyers had filed a Freedom of Information request upon the agency for all documents that should be available to them. Where did NBC get this document? The Gautreaus' lawyers asked for a copy of it. NBC was kind enough to fax it to the Gautreaus' lawyers. And when it arrived and when it was examined, the little muddy footprint led right back to the scene of the crime. The little muddy footprints in this case are the fax numbers, the fax transmittal numbers that appear on the top of the transmittals. Next to me is a copy of the NBC facsimile transmission sheet sending this document to the Gautreaus' attorney. The document is next, the transmission fax numbers are right on the header of the document. Those transmission fax numbers tell the story. This document, pertaining to highly sensitive considerations by the EPA that the work was performed willfully, flagrantly, and justifiably should be treated as a crime, that confidential memo had been faxed by the EPA Region 6, to the Defense Fund of the Sierra Club in New Orleans upon their request. A document denied the Gautreaus had been sent to a lobby organization, a document referring to potential criminal activity on the part of an American family, and the Sierra Club, shame on them, transmitted this confidential data, implying criminal activity on the part of an American to NBC, and heaven knows who else. This transmittal of this confidential memo by the EPA, denied the parties under the Freedom of Information Act, may constitute a criminal violation of the National Privacy Act. The National Privacy Act, in part, provides that no record contained by an agency that refers to a particular individual and an enforcement action can be shared with anyone without the written consent of the person it talks about, and any agent/employee of the Federal Government who willfully does, in fact, send a document out to individuals other than the person it talks about without their written consent is guilty of a Federal criminal violation and subject to criminal penalties under the statutes. Certainly, the rights of the Gautreaus have been awfully violated here. They intend to file a lawsuit now against the Federal Government, the EPA, for the damage they have done their reputation, the damage it may have done their lawsuit, the damage it may do to them eventually if, in fact, they are ordered to tear down a house they may be ordered to repurchase from the Chaconases in a lawsuit. This illegal transmission also contains the following language: ``Restoration should include removal of the House and fill. How to handle removal of the house, restoration work, while Chaconas still owns the property is under debate.'' In short, it tells the story of EPA, Region 6, contemplating enforcement action to order the destruction of that house, but obviously reluctant to do so as long as the Chaconases own it. The next sentence, at the bottom, says the Chaconas' suit against the Gautreaus is scheduled for April 5, 1995. In fact, that suit has been continued until June. This little muddy footprint facsimile transmission is, in fact, evidence that officials within the EPA are working hand in glove with environmental lobby groups in Washington, in an obvious attempt to influence the debate on the property rights, the Clean Water bill which comes up just tomorrow in this House, and those environmental organizations are working hand in glove with friends of theirs in the media to attempt to influence this debate, and in this case sharing with them a confidential memo implying criminal guilt on a party in America that should never have been in their hands in the first place, protected under the Privacy Act that we thought protected us all in this country. This is a transmittal from the EPA on the next day to the Sierra Club, again in New Orleans, ``Thought I'd send a copy of the Corps of Engineers' delineation. Let me know if you need anything else.'' You can see how cooperative they are. When the parties requested a Freedom of Information from the EPA, a whole list of documents that were not shared with them is contained on the transmittal to the Gautreaus, but you can see how cooperative the EPA is with the Sierra Club in not only answering their request illegally, but in sending more documents the next day just because they thought they ought to have them. This is part of the chronology of events that was shared with me and my office when both the Chaconases and the Gautreaus appealed to us for assistance in this matter way back last year, early in the year. In this chronology of events, you can see that Mr. Jeff Gautreau pointed out and was questioned further by Dr. Davidson, and the Corps of Engineers stated Roger could do whatever he wanted with the dirt from the pond, as the corps had no authority and could not tell him what to do with the dirt. That is what Mr. Gautreau says he was told by the Corps of Engineers when he applied for the right to build that pond and, in fact, to do what he did on his property. What followed his written request was the following letter from the Department of the Army Corps of Engineers: Dear Mr. Gautreau: This is in response to your letter of approximately, September 12, 1990, in which you indicate your intention to dig a farm pond to provide water for your livestock in Ascension Parish, Louisiana. We have reviewed your project as proposed and have determined the farm pond work is exempt from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' jurisdiction as authorized in 33 CFF 323.4, 83 of our regulations, dated November 13, 1986. That is the wetlands regulations, 404 permits. I enclose the photocopy of this regulation for your convenience. Should you have further questions regarding the matter, please contact Dr. Tom Davidson, again at that number and that address. This letter telling the Gautreaus they were exempt and could proceed with the pond contains no restriction on the use of that dirt, and yet in 1993 the Department of the Army Corps of Engineers sends this letter to Mr. Gautreau, this letter saying-- You are in violation of the Clean Water Act. You are in violation of 404 wetlands laws. You cannot move dirt around that property. That is a wetland, and in fact you have got two choices. You may apply for an after-the-fact permit, or you can, in fact, restore the site to its existing conditions before the unauthorized work. In the letter the corps says, ``Removal of the existing unauthorized work,'' which later came to be interpreted as not only the construction of fill around the house but also the house itself-- May be necessary if the permit is denied after we complete a public interest review of the application. You can also see in the letter that this work could have subjected you to judicial proceedings. However, after a careful review of the investigative findings and the nature of the work involved, I have decided against such action at this time. Things change. Things changed mightily. And as this lawsuit proceeds and as the parties await the determination of the judge as to who should own the house, we continue our debate on the property rights laws of America and the wetlands reform bill that will be before us tomorrow. Could this have been prevented? Could this have been prevented? I think so. If we only had a law on the books that said parties have a right to contest the finding by the Corps of Engineers that their property is wetlands, that the Corps of Engineers were required to inspect the site before they sent a letter saying. ``We have no problems when you are doing something on your property,'' if the Corps of Engineers would have posted publicly in some public place a notice that they think a violation has occurred so that owners might not sell their property and buyers might not buy without knowing what is going on so they can avoid lawsuits like this, and finally, if the corps does want to take somebody's property and destroy their home because they think it is a wetland, then, by golly, somebody ought to be willing to pay an American the price of his property when the Government takes it from him. That is what this fight tomorrow is going to be all about. Now, NBC was not the only news agency that was apparently invited to the other agencies, CNN Headline News, to be precise. Unlike NBC, they did their little story while we were away. I did not get a chance to get interviewed on that story. We were away at home. But in that story, CNN proceeded to show this horrible wetlands case, to interview Mr. Chaconas. They did not contact the lawyers, as the Gautreaus suggested, to clear an interview with the Gautreaus. They only interviewed Mr. Chaconas. Then they proceeded to do a hit piece. Why do I call it a hit piece? Because it was just what we expected. Before they did this piece on Headline News, hour after hour, every day all day, rather, on the day they ran the story, my office sent them all the documents I have shown you and more documents which indicated that we had responded when the Chaconases and the Gautreaus asked us for help, that we received letters of thanks from the parties thanking us, that we received letters from Mr. Chaconas supporting our efforts on property rights, that we received a copy of the letter Mr. Chaconas sent to the EPA demanding payment for taking property in violation of the fifth amendment of the Constitution. We also sent them documents that contained information unequivocally that indicated the corps and the EPA had, as an enforcement option, as I demonstrated to you earlier, the removal of the House and the rug. Those were clearly options EPA had on its desk and, by the way, continues to potentially have on its desk. And yet I wanted to show you this CNN piece tonight. I was not allowed to bring a monitor. I would have loved to have run the piece for you to show you what they did. In the piece, they asked the question, ``What about the congressman's claim,'' speaking of me, ``that the Federal regulators might force the Chaconases to tear the House down?'' The CNN reporter asked that, and immediately they turned to Ron Ventola, an employee of the Corps of Engineers in New Orleans, LA, who, by the way, signed that letter, who signed the letter indicating that the property, the pond, was exempt under the wetlands laws, Mr. Ron Ventola. Mr. Ron Ventola appears on CNN in this piece and, he says, ``Oh, no, no one from this agency told them they would have to tear down their house or remove the road,'' leaving the clear impression that we had told a falsehood in the House in the debate on property rights. That was the purpose of the CNN piece apparently. CNN knew this was a lie. CNN had documents that we sent to them indicating that the Corps and the EPA indeed has discussed tearing this man's house down. In fact, in fact, the Corps of Engineers had a copy of Mr. Chaconas' letter to the EPA dated September 22 which reads in part: The house is situated in the wetland, and the three alternatives the EPA is considering, a demolition, moving or elevating the structure. And yet the Corps reported on CNN, no, no one from this agency told them they would have to tear down their house or remove the road. What a lie told on national television hour after hour and repeated hour after hour in an attempt by those in this environmental community working with those liberal friends in the environmental sector of CNN Headline News to make it look like those of us who believe in property rights who are fighting this battle do not tell our stories right. What a shame. What a despicable piece of journalism from an awfully good and credible news agency. What a credit NBC earned for sharing this scandal to us, for giving us a chance to expose it to the American public. I wanted to show you also Mr. Chaconas' request to the EPA dated September 22, 1994. Here is his words to the EPA on that date: We received the wetlands determination from the Corps. The Federal Government has thus taken control of a majority of our property in the residence. We consider this a taking of our private property for the public good and demand fair and just compensation from the EPA. Consider this as my formal request. Does that sound like a gentleman who would testify in the Senate against the property rights bill? Does that sound like a gentleman who would go to a House committee and attempt to testify against the property rights bill allegating all the facts that he thought were correct in his lawsuit? A gentleman who made a formal demand on EPA for payment for taking his property? A gentleman who wrote us, in fact, on June 27 that property rights are very important, and my wife and I continue to support your efforts. The point is that buyers and existing land owners are slipping through the cracks because of Federal Government agencies, EPA and the Corps, are really doing a poor job of enforcement. June 27. Same letter, June 27 again: Please commend Mr. Constien who is my district director. His efforts have served to diminish my role as a coviolator. EPA did assure me, as long as I cooperated with them and allowed access to the property for corrective measures, they would not seek damages from me. Well who would they seek damages from? You get the picture? Cooperate with us or else. Well, the Chaconases apparently have started to cooperated with the EPA and the Sierra Club. Here again on June 28. I listened to Mike Reagan's show on 11:50 a.m., WJBO, on Monday afternoon, caught the taped show you guest-hosted for Mr. Reagan. I was quite impressed. It was at this time we caught the reference to our case that you had mentioned on the air. You doing a good job in Washington, my birth place. Everybody down here is talking about it. Does this sound like a man going to the Senate and attack this Congressman for misrepresenting his case? What happened? Who poisoned Mr. Chaconas' mind? What made him come out against property rights when he was demanding payment for the taking of his property of the September 22 letter? Who suggested to him that his Congressman was no longer on his side? Well, in that memo, in that first memo, we get a hint, we get a hint. How to handle removal of a house or restoration work while the Chaconases still own the property is still under debate. We get a hint of what happened. Cooperate or else. We will enforce the demolition order against the Gautreaus, but maybe not against the Chaconases. Cooperate with us. Now I am sure Mr. Chaconas would not ever admit that he was coerced into changing his mind so dramatically, that he came to Washington, just on his own, that he did not have the help of the Sierra Club, that he did not have the cooperative arm of the EPA, whom I have just shown has violated Federal privacy laws in this case, in Dallas Region 6. I am sure he would say that. I do not blame him frankly. He is trying to protect his home, and the gun of regulation is pointed at his head. We could demolish your home. Cooperate with us, and we will not penalize you. Maybe the Gautreaus, but not you. What a story. What a disgusting story of a person's own government treating him that way. What a rotten mess. What an example for us as we tomorrow take up the wetlands reform bill of the Clean Water Act, as we try once and for all to reign in those Federal agents and agencies who dare to treat people that way, who violate the Gautreau's privacy rights, who inflict these after-the-fact determinations of wetlands on people and threaten them with demolition of their home and who, in my opinion, end up coercing people to change their opinion on an issue and to cooperate with them or else face the disaster of destruction of their property. What a mess. What an awful mess. Tomorrow we get a chance to change it. Tomorrow we begin the debate on the Clean Water Act which contains those regulations, those 404 wetlands laws that are so often abused, so often are used to coerce people in my State and all over America, so often end up taking property away from people without just compensation. But worse than that, in this case putting one neighbor in a lawsuit against his neighbor, making it almost impossible then for them to live next to one another, putting them now in a lawsuit against their own government, and perhaps, if the Justice Department and Carol Browner do their job, perhaps costing some people their job in Dallas. And I have called upon Carol Browner to clean up that mess, and, if ought to think about cleaning out her desk. But we in America ought to say enough is enough, and Federal agencies ought not be our master. The government ought to be our servant again in this country, and then when the government becomes such a master that it can so willingly violate our rights, as they did the Gautreaus' in this case, that it can create such a mess as it has in Ascension Parish, Louisiana, and when it can work so hand and glove with lobbyists here in Washington, DC bent on influencing this issue, who then work hand and glove with their liberal friends and some of the media to distort the facts and propagandize their case again reform, then something needs to change. Tomorrow we get a chance to change that. I hope, I pray we do not miss that chance. We need to pass reforms of the wetlands laws, and we need to make sure that property compensation is a part of that law, and if the President dares to veto it, as he threatened to do without even reading the bill, I hope we have the guts in this Congress to override his veto and to give the Americans the protection they deserve under the Constitution, protection against employees of this Government who would take advantage of them the way these employees have. I am going to file a new bill, by the way, to make it a Federal crime to do what they have done to the Gautreaus and to do it and make it a Federal crime to do what they have done to the Chaconases. No regulatory agency ought to ever have the power to curse somebody with the threat of enforcement action, and no Federal agent ought to keep his job when he violates the privacy rights of Americans and cooperates with lobby groups with sensitive memos detailing protential criminal activity. That has gone too far, and we ought to end it in this body. Tomorrow we strike a blow for land owners and citizens all over this country, and, if this Congress has the will and the fortitude to override the expected veto whenever it comes, perhaps we can remake a relationship in this country between the Goovernment and its people again, where there is credibility, and trust, and fairness, and where we do not have to be suing our Government, and ordering investigations and criminal charges brought against Government officials who ought to know better, who ought to do better than Ron Ventola did in the New Orleans office and lying on television and who ought to do better than those EPA officials did in Dallas. I yield to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica]. 3

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, before I begin tonight, I want to call to the Nation's attention the fact that there are quite a few folks in my home State of Louisiana who are indeed suffering tonight. Yesterday and up until about 1 o'clock this morning we were deluged with about 18 inches of rain in the New Orleans area. That is 18 inches in 1 day for those of you who live in States that may only get as much as 4 inches a year. I see my friend from out West in the audience. The 18 inches of rainfall has inundated communities all over my district and the districts adjacent to mine, that of Bill Jefferson and Bob Livingston and others out West, and we have situations ongoing right now of tragedy, tornadoes and homes destroyed. People have drowned in their cars as they were trying to get to and from their work and residences. I just spoke to my mother in Chackbay, and God bless her, she is an awfully wonderful and devout woman, and I think her prayers saved her. I understand a tornado just hopped over our house and just missed her, and I wanted to say a word of thanks to the Good Lord for sparing her and others tonight, and a word of comfort and consolation for families who have losses and who are grieved in this awful flood that is unfortunately still unfolding in many communities in south that my office and other offices up here are working in coordination with the Governor's office in Louisiana to see as rapidly as possible that we get every bit of Federal assistance we can to families who are in need, and that we get a disaster declaration as rapidly as we can in place to help you and your families. In the meantime, we are all in the Good Lord's care tonight, and we hope and pray your grief and losses are kept to a minimum. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my good friend from California.