Billy Tauzin

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. We are amending that to make sure that does not happen.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think the gentleman perhaps did not hear the discussion previously, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield on that point?

Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I asked the gentleman to yield for the purpose of clarifying one part of the amendment we are offering. The amendment provides that when the excessive regulations of the Government exceed 50 percent of the value of the property, that the landowner then has a right to demand the Government purchase the property. At that point ``It is yours, take it, just pay me, here is the title.'' That provision does not in any way derogate from the landowner's right, if he chooses, simply to be compensated for the diminution of value. It is simply an additional right accorded under the amendment to the landowner, where the Government really owns more of the property than he does anymore, to seek actual compensation for the property, and then turn the title over to the Government.

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

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, the case we opened this debate with, example of exactly the question the gentlewoman raises; that is, what is the Government's obligation in regard to paying the fair market value of a piece of property that came under a wetlands regulation. He had a lot in a subdivision. The Government for 10 years argued that they only owed him the value after they had told him he could not build on it, after they said ``You cannot build a house on it.'' He argued for a long time ``This is a subdivision lot. My neighbors have built houses. If you tell me I cannot build a house, I should get the fair market value as a subdivision lot.'' He won after 10 years. What we are saying is it is the fair market value before the use regulation restricts the property, as compared to the fair market value after the use restriction. That is it, pure and simple. If the gentlewoman recalls, we had the same debate on the Desert Protection Act last year. The arguments there were that when an endangered species occurs on a piece of property and it lowers the value of that property, that in that case, the person should be compensated for the value of his property before the endangered species restrictions were imposed upon his property, not after. That is the whole purpose of the act, to compensate him for the damage diminution by the imposition of the restriction. The gentlewoman is correct, it is not the prospective value after you build houses and buildings and subdivisions, it is the value as an undeveloped piece of property before the regulation is imposed upon it, compared to the value right after.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, the answer is absolutely yes.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. TAUZIN. Just to point out that one of the reasons people oppose this is, they say the American public can not be in support of this. Let me point out, Nations Business magazine just did a poll. The question was, should the Federal Government compensate owners when private property is restricted for environmental reasons? Do you know how many people responded yes? Ninety-two percent of Americans responding in that poll said yes. We ought to say yes today.

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

Mr. TAUZIN. The gentleman's concern is a valid one. The intent of the bill is that the fair market value is the fair market value at the time the regulation takes place as opposed to what it is worth once the regulation imposes a use restriction. Now, that is generally defined in compensation cases in areas where the Government shows up to take your land and build a road. It does not look at what your grandfather paid for it. It looks at what the value was on the day they showed up to buy it for a road. The courts have said for example, I would say to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor], that aberrational prices, the one you just cited, aberrational means outside the norm established by general activity. The court does not consider that fair market value. Neither have the appraisers under general law that applies to condemnation proceedings. So what I am telling the gentleman is the intent is to do exactly what happens in a general condemnation proceeding, look at the value right before the regulation is prescribed, and the value right after the use is denied.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman asked a very legitimate question, how do you determine the fair market value before and after the regulatory action takes place on the property. The courts have well-settled this issue. As the gentleman has indicated, if the gentleman wishes to incorporate that in the bill, that is fine. But the courts have held, and the arbitration proceeding called for in this act would follow those decisions, and I read from Florida Rock, The uncontroverted evidence of an active real estate market, you look at what a willing buyer, willing seller requirement in that real estate market produces as the fair market value on the date that the regulations took place. If willing buyers and sellers are really out in those areas spending $5,000 an acre, I would be greatly surprised, and so would you. You know that is a sham price, so would the arbitrator. He would not award such a ridiculous amount.

Mr. TAUZIN. It definitely was. And if the Government wants to repurchase the State of Louisiana for the purpose of the gentleman or any other purposes, we are indeed willing to negotiate, but I suggest you pay a fair price.

Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I point out that we purchased Louisiana for this Union for $14.5 million.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield further?

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

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I received a letter today that I want to read to the House. It is a letter from a young man named Patrick Becnel: My name is Patrick R. Becnel. I am twenty-eight years old and married with two children. I am a life long resident of Plaquemines Parish and a sixth generation citrus grower in the Jesuit Bend area. I have recently run into a serious problem in obtaining continued financing for my farm operation. The nature of this problem has been a letter from the Dept. of Corps. of Engineers. A wetland designation on a portion of my farming operation. (see attached) And there is a map. ``In an effort to obtain additional necessary financing the bank required an appraisal on my farming operation. The appraiser stated that due to a letter dated in November 1991, which is now expired, no value would be allocated to the portion of land subject to wetlands determination. This land is within the Plaquemines Parish maintained hurricane protection levee. ``We desperately and urgently request your assistance in this matter. My farming operation, which is my livelihood, is in serious jeopardy due to this situation.'' government regulations that tell a young farmer, 28 years old, married with two children, that he can no longer get financing on his farm because of a letter sent to him by the Corps of Engineers in 1991, a letter expired even, that designated a portion of his land as a wetland. If we do not give this farmer and other Americans some redress, not here in Washington in the Court of Claims, not at the Supreme Court, but at home in an arbitration proceeding that gives him his rights, shame on us. I thank the gentlewoman very much for yielding.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. TAUZIN. I will try to address that again as I tried to earlier. The concern is now we are limiting the bill to these areas of wetlands takings and ESA takings or actions of the agencies here to deprive people of water rights, that to allow the State to duplicate the Federal proscription and, therefore, violate the person's right to receive compensation by simply duplicating the same proscription would, in fact, not be appropriate. The person who has lost his property, whose rights to use it, whose value is diminished because of some Federal statute should not lose the right to compensation just because the State has also duplicated that prohibition. Only when the State has other reasons to prohibit it should that occur.

Mr. TAUZIN. If the gentlewoman will yield further, first of all, the bill as it comes out of committee includes this and all Federal agencies and all Federal acts. We are limiting under this amendment to these acts, so the bill contains the total regulatory effect. Second, the gentlewoman should not be concerned that anyone cannot renegotiate contracts under this bill. anywhere else to renegotiate contracts with the Federal Government. This bill only says if the contract is violated, invalidated by the Federal Government, and that diminishes someone's rights.

Mr. TAUZIN. If the gentlewoman will yield further, the second point, as long as the Federal Government keeps its contract with the owners of that water, as long as the Federal Government does not violate the contract, whatever the State does is something else, as long as the Federal Government keeps the contract, there is no trigger in this bill for compensation.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, let me reassert two facts that I hope should be abundantly clear. First of all, the basis on which we amend it as it comes out of committee does not affect State actions. To take water rights away from people, local actions to do that are not covered by this bill. So the State of Colorado, if it wants to take water away from people, is going to have to answer in some other court regarding that action.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. TAUZIN. I just want to make the point following the gentleman's debate on this issue before you make your statement in support of the bill, and that is that again we are not saying that the parties cannot contract water supplies any differently than they have contracted today. We are saying contracts are valid and contracts ought to be honored. All we are saying in our provision is if the Federal Government invalidates a contract, violates it by depriving someone of water that they were guaranteed under the contract and if that supply of water is interrupted and it devalues their property, that is a taking under the fifth amendment. You and I might like to agree to reallocate land values around the country or landownership around it. We do not have that right under the Constitution. If this Government takes land and property from people under the fifth amendment and violates a contract that entitles them to land or water, it is a taking of property, and that is all our bill provides for, the compensation for that taking. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. TAUZIN. If the gentleman will yield, I would say again to the gentleman that if the contracts the Government makes with those owners of water rights are upheld and the contracts are not violated by the Government, nothing triggers this act. It is only when by Government regulation the rights of an owner to water under those contracts are changed without their consent, are regulated and changed, in other words, the contract violated by the Federal Government. That is when the trigger occurs, that is when the owner would have a loss of value of property he was entitled to under that contract.