Gene Taylor

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, every 2 minutes this Nation spends $1 million on interest on the national debt, every 2 minutes. I say to my colleagues: In a moment you're going to have an opportunity to say enough is enough, that we're going to save some money, but we're going to take that money and apply to towards the deficit and apply it towards the debt rather than giving millionaires a tax break. Mr. Speaker, again I would like to make the point that every 2 minutes the citizens of this country are paying $1 million on interest on the national debt. That is not going toward principal, that is just the interest. Now in a moment the people in this Chamber will have an opportunity to make a vote toward reducing the deficit and, hopefully, reducing the debt, or my colleagues can vote no and give millionaires another tax break. I say to my colleagues: If you care about the people of this country, vote to reduce the deficit. If you are what you told the people back home last fall, be a real conservative and vote to reduce the deficit. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. And a majority of Members voted to keep a Member from offering an amendment so that the savings from this bill could be placed towards deficit reduction?

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. How did that happen, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I am making a parliamentary inquiry, sir.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. At what point can I be recognized to offer an amendment so that whatever savings come from this bill, possibly $70 billion, would be dedicated for deficit reduction?

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I really had not intended to get involved in this until I had heard one of the most flagrant misstatements that might have ever been made on the House floor when my friend from Georgia said, you know, we want to put this money towards the deficit. Less than an hour and a half ago, the Republican Members of this body had an opportunity to vote for cuts that would have put the money towards the deficit. Unanimously, they voted against it because they want to give that money to millionaires who got all the tax breaks during the 1980s so they can get more tax breaks now.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman be granted 3 additional minutes so I may ask him a question.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. If I may, there are things that are more important than the Easter break. Passing well-thought-out legislation is more important than the Easter break, and I would sure hope the Republican leadership would keep that in mind.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I had hoped, with the change in the House, this practice of Members being expected to be in three places at once would hopefully come to an end. Today, for example, I had a Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and a Committee on National Security meeting as we had some very important tort reform legislation going on on the floor. Is it the intention of the Republican leadership to continue this practice for the remainder of the Congress, or at some time can we get to the point where Members can do one or maybe two things, and do them very well rather than running around like a bunch of chickens with our heads cut off?

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, throughout the measure before us the term ``fair market value'' is referred to but never defined. What we have done is take two common uses of ``fair market value,'' one coming from the Treasury regulations, another coming from a court case, Banks versus the United States. We have combined those two definitions. We feel it is self- explanatory. That is why we asked the Clerk to read it. I hope the majority will accept this amendment.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, to clarify, the key words ``at the time the agency action occurs'' are included. It was in both of those. It is included in this.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana. the gentleman, as we have discussed privately, that this amendment defines ``fair market value'' without consideration of the agency action. The agency action then occurs, and the next question is fair market value, after the agency action diminishes, if it does, the value of the property?

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, in my office I have a small bulldog that was awarded to me by a group for being a defender of the treasury. I try as often as I can to try to save the taxpayers some money. I am trying to do that today by getting a clarification, hopefully, in law, so that this bill that is well-intended does not become the scam of 1995. I would point out that the illustrations that many of you have given as far as wetland problems are real, and they have to be addressed, and I hope this bill will do that. But I also see, in addressing those problems, the potential for multibillion-dollar losses to our country that I think have to be addressed. This is an area of the district that I represent that adjoins Louisiana; it is a map of the Pearl River. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston's], district is right over here. It divides the State of Mississippi in the area that I represent. As you can see, it is pretty hard to distinguish between the water and the land. This is a U.S. Geological Survey map. The reason for that is, when you get there, it is pretty hard to distinguish between the water and the land. It is a coastal marsh. With the wind blowing out of the north, you can pretty well walk across with a good pair of waders. But if the wind is blowing out of the south during the springtime, the only way you are going to get across is by boat. It is a true wetland. Now, what I have trouble with, and I hope the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] can explain this to me, is if someone buys a tract of this, a lot of this land was purchased during the Depression for about 1 dollar an acre. Say someone goes to the owner of the land and there is a wink and a handshake and he says, ``I want to pay you $5,000 per acre for that land because I want to put a shopping center there.'' And then he takes a napkin and draws on the back of that napkin and goes down to the nearest Corps of Engineers and says, ``This is the plan for my shopping center. I want to put it right here, elevation, six inches.'' The Corps of Engineers is going to say-- There is no way on earth you can do that. It is the mouth of the Pearl River. Every spring it is going to flood, and every time there is a wind out of the south, it is going to flood. You will bankrupt the Federal flood insurance program. You can't build there. Under the provisions of this bill as I read them, the person could then sue the Federal Government for that $5,000 an acre he paid for it. Now, you and I may look at it and say he was foolish to pay $5,000 an acre. But when you consider the highest priced property in the State of Florida is right along the canals that used to be marshes, and some of the highest priced property throughout our country is waterfront property, that person could turn around and make a fairly intelligent argument that this is right here on the Mississippi Sound, it is waterfront property, and I ought to be entitled to my $5,000.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the sponsor of the bill in a colloquy. I am particularly much aware of the Federal flood insurance program, since a good portion of my district was devastated during Hurricane Camille, after Hurricane Frederick. As the gentleman knows from the Federal flood insurance program, the government goes in and sets a minimum at which your house can be built, so many feet off the ground, so that the people of this country are not turning around and reimbursing the same people over and over every time there is a high tide. It has turned out to be I think a very good program and it has helped people like myself to be able to live where I live, but also set some reasonable guidelines as to how I can construct my house. I think it is a two-way street. My question is when the Federal Government, through the Federal flood insurance program, comes in and says your minimum structure will look like this, your minimal floor will be so many feet off the ground so as to prevent it from flooding every time there is a high tide, does that constitute a taking, because it has increased the cost of my building my house?

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would say to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], it is well known I am not an attorney but I share your feelings that a clever attorney could certainly bill the United States for a lot of money if we do not define fair market value as being fair market value at the time of purchase, fair market value of the potential of the property. We have to have a definition of what fair market value will be and at what time it is estimated.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the sponsor of the measure and the sponsor of the amendment. I hope I have as a result of this colloquy the word, as a gentleman, of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady], that before the end of this day, before the passage of this measure, that we will do everything humanly possible to have a definition of fair market value included in this measure.