Billy Tauzin

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. If the gentleman will yield, Mr. Chairman, the understanding is that no diminution of subsidy triggers the action to compensation. Subsidies are not a regulatory act under this bill. It is a change in the property ownership, a change in the right to own or the value to own that triggers the action under this for compensation under the act.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, we need to correct the Record whenever we hear misstatements. The fact of the matter is the eagle was saved not under the Endangered Species Act, it was saved under FIFRA, Federal Insecticide and Rodenticide Act, which banned DDT. That is what saved the eagle, No. 1. No. 2, the gentleman who spoke and said this bill is aimed at the the Government because the Government is there, whether it does something to your property or not, is absolutely wrong. This bill does not trigger compensation until the Government agency acts to regulate someone's property and diminishes the use of that property. Then the action is triggered. Then you go to an assessment of whether or not it has lost 10 percent or more value. Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me refer back to what the court said here on partial takings. The courts have held that even relatively minor physical occupations are compensable, and it said that logically the amount of just compensation should be proportional to the value of the inherent interest taken as compared to the total property, but partial takings are compensable. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

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

Mr. TAUZIN. The point is, regardless of what the value of the land is and how it is calculated, loss of a subsidy does not trigger the arbitration proceeding under this bill.

Mr. TAUZIN. If the gentleman would yield----

Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman. The bill is designed to compensate for lost value as a result of changes or applications of Federal regulations on the land. It does not compensate for loss of subsidy.

Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The problem is that under the original bill reported by the Committee on the Judiciary, the committee reported a bill that covered all Federal regulations, and the Committee on the Judiciary also contained an exception saying that, as to all these Federal regulations, there had to be an exception for State laws that also regulated in those areas. Since we have toned the bill down, if you will, focused it on wetlands and Endangered Species Act taking, the courts have said that in these exception is--to compensation--is nuisance or zoning laws. That is the court's interpretation. That is what this amendment does.

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

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, the statement of administration policy on the bill before us reads as follows: ``The administration strongly supports private property rights and is continuing to implement regulatory reforms that will provide relief to property owners.'' It goes on to say, ``H.R. 925, as reported by the Committee on the Judiciary, would impose,'' and it goes on to say, ``an arbitrary compensation requirement that is unacceptable and extreme.'' Let me say I agree with the position of the administration, at least insofar as it is stated in this policy. The bill, as reported by the Committee on the Judiciary, is, indeed, an extreme version of the private property rights bill that I and many other Democrats in joining with my great friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields], and many Republican colleagues have been fostering for many years now as a bill to be brought to the floor of this House. It is extreme because it covers all Federal agency regulations, and it is written in, I think, an unworkable fashion. I am pleased to join with the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] today in announcing that we have resolved our differences of opinion with regard to the bill reported by Judiciary, that the amendment I now offer will do several very important things. First of all, it will limit the scope of the bill. It will no longer cover all Federal regulatory actions that may amount to takings. It will now cover only those Federal regulatory actions undertaken pursuant to two, and actually three, if you consider water rights a separate issue, three kinds of regulatory takings. The two are the two that we have been discussing for many years, endangered-species takings, a proposition this House debated on the Desert Protection Act, and overwhelmingly said they wanted to ensure that property owners were fully compensated when endangered-species regulations took away the value of their property. And, second, the wetlands regulations under either the 404 Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act regulations or the wetlands regulations under the sodbuster provisions of the Food Security Act. And, last, the bill, the amendment, will focus the bill on the last area of takings covered by the bill, which will be takings of water rights. It is important to note that water out west is as important, in fact, much more important a property right than land is out east, and that this bill recognizes that and makes clear that Federal regulatory actions which diminish the value and take a person's water rights away are considered a taking which can be indeed, arbitrated and compensated under this bill. It is important to note with this amendment we will be scoping down the bill to the two general areas that the bill has generally focused on for many years, wetlands takings and endangered-species takings as they affect land and water. Second, the bill does a very important thing. It says that under the Republican version of the bill this year that we have agreed upon, when a compensation is made for only a partial taking, 10 percent or more of the value of the affected land or the water right, when a compensation is made for a partial taking, the government does not become a co-owner with the property owner in that proceeding. The government simply has the rights which are guaranteed under the statutes that created the regulatory authority to insist that the owner not use land in the ways that, indeed, amounted to the taking of that value of the property. The third change we make is another very important one. I call my colleagues' attention to it, particularly those who have been concerned about the bill's original overreach. It clearly says that even though you may have a wetland, even though you may have a piece of property that is affected by Endangered Species Act, if under State law you cannot already use that property because under State law or city or local zoning laws you cannot, or because it is declared a nuisance under State law, then you will not be entitled to compensation for that which you could not do anyhow under legitimate zoning or nuisance authority. Finally, the amendment will provide that when the diminution of value reaches that magical point of 50 percent or more, when the government owns more of your property than you do, when the government has more than 50 percent devalued the property you own, has told you that you cannot use it so much that the government now owns more of a right in that property than you own, when it reaches that point, as we had in our original bill, the owner will have the option to say to the government, ``All right, you got me, you have taken my property. Compensate me. Here is the title.''

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] for yielding me the time. Members of the House, this debate was opened by a discussion of a case entitled Bowles versus United States. My friend the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] called that case to our attention. I want Members to know a little bit more about Mr. Bowles. Mr. Bowles was a member, in fact an officer of a conservation group in Brazoria County, TX. He was one of the good guys. The group was designed to watch the Corps of Engineers so it did not give permits it should not give out. He was a member of the Texas Nature Conservancy, a good guy. He bought a lot in Brazoria County in a subdivision in 1980. In 1984 when he came to build on that lot, he was told he needed a 404 permit from the Corps of Engineers, a wetlands permit. In 1984, the corps denied him the right to build on his lot even though neighbors had built up next to him all around that subdivision. He then filed suit in the Court of Claims. Ten years later, in March 1994, Mr. Bowles was finally awarded a judgment against the Government of the United States for the value of his lot. For 10 years our Justice Department, our Government, our Justice Department, fought him in court day and night telling the court we should not have to pay him or if we had to pay him, we should pay him some diminished value of his lot, something like what it was worth after the Government regulated it. When Judge Loren Smith wrote the decision just last year after 10 years of litigation, Judge Loren Smith said, ``There must be a better way to balance legitimate public goals with the fundamental individual rights. Courts, however, cannot produce comprehensive solutions.'' Judge Loren Smith begged us to have this debate today, begged us to set down the guidelines for Government compensation of private citizens whose property is taken because of Federal regulations. Judge Loren Smith's call for us to act is a call upon all of us to protect, for little landowners like Mr. Bowles, who fought for 10 years and never got past the Court of Claims, for their rights under the fifth amendment. Most citizens cannot get it after 10 years in the Court of Claims. Most have to go all the way to the Supreme Court, such as Mr. Lucas did from South Carolina. Others are struggling. In the Florida Rock case, it started in 1978, it has been in the circuit court of appeals three times and has been remanded to the lower court. Citizens cannot afford a $500,000 trip through the court system to find out whether the Government took their property, took their farm, took their subdivision lot, took their ranch, took their forestry lands. We ought to have a simpler system for citizens who cannot afford big lawyers, cannot afford to spend 10 years in court, cannot afford $500,000 of court fees. We ought to have a better way for citizens in our country to get their basic rights under the Constitution. Remember what the court said in Dolan. This is a sacred right, a civil right under the fifth amendment.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. It may well be. I would tell the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta] that some of these Members walked in without hearing the debate, did not know that it was 30 percent of the whole of the property instead of the affected area, and may in fact want to vote against this amendment, too.

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

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments and point out, the courts have said that a partial taking of your property is a taking under the Constitution. The court in Florida Rock, for example, said nothing in the language of the fifth amendment compels this court to find a taking only when the Government divests the total ownership of the property. It says the fifth amendment prohibits the uncompensated taking of private property without reference to the owner's remaining property interest, and it cited an example. Indeed, if the Government took only 5 acres and left the property owner with 95, there would be no question that the owner was entitled to compensation for the parcels taken, plus even severance damages attributable to the remaining tract. The gentleman is right, partial takings should be compensable.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, absolutely. In fact, the legislation specifically says that the agency must provide money out of its own appropriated funds for the payment of these claims and give the agency the right to reprogram money within its budget to do that. If it does not do that, Congress, of course, has the authority to make sure it does the next time it visits this Congress.

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

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

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

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

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important, as the author of the amendment just discussed, to add that I think he has received exactly the correct answers in this colloquy, and I concur ecactly with those answers.

Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. In the little time the gentleman has left, I want to say a word about Jack Fields. He has been the principal cosponsor of this bill for many years. He was chiefly responsible for getting over 150 Members to sign a discharge petition on this effort last year. Jack, all of the country, all of the property owners of America who are looking forward to this day, deeply appreciate the gentleman's great work.

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

Mr. TAUZIN. Will the gentleman----

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

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, today we begin a historic debate, one that I and many Members of this House have long awaited, the debate on private property rights. I want to remind the House that this debate started with Democrats. It was Democrats who put together the private property owners' bill of rights which has now been incorporated into the Republican contract. Democrats like the gentleman from Texas, Greg Laughlin, the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Hayes, and the gentleman from California, Mr. Condit, and the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Stenholm, and I together joined with our colleague, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Fields. We have tried for years to bring this issue to the floor of the House. Today that debate begins and we are delighted. Today we begin providing protections for every private property owner in America, guaranteed under the fifth amendment. We are not going to be debating big landowner rights. They can go to court today to enforce their rights. Today we enforce the rights of every small landowner in America to enjoy the same civil rights and liberties guaranteed under the fifth amendment. Today we give meaning and life to the fifth amendment protection that says, no private property shall be taken by this Government, by regulation or otherwise, without just compensation.