Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just say that over the last 6 or 7 years under the leadership of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey], our subcommittee has held more than 20 hearings to examine the kinds of fraud that this amendment deals with. That has been the bipartisan tradition in the Committee on Commerce. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields] for continuing that bipartisan tradition. I think this is going to help reduce the kind of problems that make for securities litigation. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WYDEN. I thank my friend for his very gracious statement. He is absolutely right. We have passed this from our committee unanimously on several occasions. Mr. Chairman, I would conclude by asking unanimous consent that debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 15 minutes, equally divided, with the time I have already consumed to be counted against our side.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Speaker, I will shortly offer an amendment that stipulates that if there is a major fraud that corporate managers refuse to remedy, the corporate auditor would have to report the fraud to Government regulators. I want to thank Chairman Soloman and Mr. Hall from the Committee on Rules for their effort to support it, and would like to note that the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] joins me as a cosponsor in offering this amendment. This amendment has passed the House twice, it has the support of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the accounting profession. I would like to note that if this amendment had been the law of the land in the Keating case, the auditor, instead of slinking away when the auditor saw the wrongdoing, the auditor would have been required to bring that to the attention of Government regulators and taxpayers would have been spared considerable liability. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. The last time it came before the Committee on Commerce it passed unanimously with the support of every member of the committee.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, there are instances, of course, where the impacts of pollution are dispersed over a large area that are not covered under local ordinances. There are instances of pollution being dispersed across State lines.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, most of our citizens look at the title of this legislation. It has a sweeping name, the Private Property Protection Act. When you look at the sweeping title of this bill, one assumes that all American property owners are protected. In fact, this legislation protects only a limited group of private property owners, those property owners whose use or development of their property is regulated by the Federal Government. The typical homeowner that we all represent, and there are 65 million of them, live in an already-constructed they are not regulated by the wetlands law, the endangered species law, the reclamation law, and the various laws outlined in this bill, and that is why those 65 million typical homeowners are not protected under the legislation. I believe that these typical homeowners are going to be surprised that they are not protected. I think they deserve consideration, and it is why I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest], a bipartisan amendment, to make sure that the typical homeowner gets a fair shake and that some needed balance is brought to the legislation. As written now, the legislation provides exceptions when agencies do not have to pay compensation for agency actions that diminish the value of private property. This amendment that I offer with the gentleman from Maryland simply adds another exception when compensation does not have to be paid, so as to make sure that typical homeowner gets a fair shake. We stipulate that you would not have to pay compensation when the regulated property owner's activity would actually decrease the value of those homeowners that live in the adjoining area. This amendment would enable Federal agencies to avoid a Hobson's choice of either restricting development and incurring liability to the developer, or allowing the development to proceed, even when this will cause a typical homeowner to suffer a devaluation their property. Let me use an example very briefly. A property owner wants to develop a 10-unit subdivision. If the Corps of Engineers tells us the developer of the proposed subdivision that one of the units is a wetland and cannot be developed, under the legislation the Corps is liable to pay compensation. The corps's only choices are to write a check or let the developer fill in the wetland. To conserve scarce funds, the Corps often decides to let the developer fill the wetland. Wetlands often help control flooding by acting as sponges to soak up rainfall. When a wetland is filled, the excess water has to find someplace to go, and that could be the basement of one of the neighbors of a homeowner who lives downstream from the development. Under the bill as it stands now, even if the corps knows that allowing the developer to fill in the wetland might increase the risk of flooding to the homeowner downstream, the corps would have to pay compensation to the developer if it denies the permit. Under this amendment, the corps could deny the permit to fill in the wetland without incurring any liability, if it was determined that denying the permit was the lesser of the evils, that greater damage would be done to those homeowners who live downstream. I would also like to note this would help the corps to preserve its limited budget for flood control and other important activities. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] who worked with me on this legislation. We feel with this amendment the bill can protect the 65 million typical homeowners and be a true Private Property Protection Act.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the Canady substitute.

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

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

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

Mr. WYDEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Under this legislation as it is written now, if the developer hurts a huge number of private property owners downstream, that developer can still get compensation. Does the gentleman support that?

Mr. WYDEN. I want to come back to the fact that this legislation tries to ensure that pro-development interests get a fair shake. But now we also have to make sure that typical homeowners who are not development interests get a fair shake as well. I am just struck by the fact that my colleagues are willing to say that the typical homeowner, 65 million of them, are supposed to be satisfied to go off and see what happens at the local level and people who want to develop their property get this Federal Express lane and rapid consideration of their claims. That is not my vision of balance.

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

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. First, if the gentleman from Louisiana feels his legislation already takes care of things, I cannot understand why he is objecting so strenuously to mine. I want to make it clear that this legislation now sets out a double standard that treats development interests better than the typical homeowner. Development interests get compensated if their property values are merely diminished, but the neighboring homeowners have to meet a higher standard, requiring physical damage to their properties for the exemption in the bill to apply. What I would say to my colleagues is if they vote against this amendment, they are saying that developers can come to government agencies and get permits where the developers are going to be hurting neighboring homes, your constituents. When the constituents come to you and complain, and there are far more of them than there are of the developers, you should be ready to tell them why the developer's right to develop is more important than that typical homeowner's right to enjoy their home. That is what this amendment is all about, trying to provide some balance. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] is right in saying that there are examples of takings that warrant compensation, but there are also examples where in that process, the typical homeowner, who lives every day in a fashion that is not regulated by the wetlands law or the reclamation law, can be hurt in the process. We are saying in considering compensation, factor in that typical homeowner. I would suggest to my colleagues that if they vote against this amendment, when they have problems in their community, there are homeowners who are going to come and ask why you rejected this opportunity to provide them some protection.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, what troubles me is this legislation creates a Federal express line where the developer and commercial interests can come in and have their claims addressed, but when it is the typical homeowner, under this bill we say ``Sorry, Charlie, you do not get in the and local level and see if things will work out.'' That is the reason I think this bill has a double standard, one set of rules for the commercial interests, another set of rules for the typical homeowner, and why we seek to promote some balance. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. WYDEN. I make my point. You are talking about property owners that want to develop. There are property owners in America, folks, 65 million of them who just want to live in their homes. They are senior citizens, they are low-income people. They are not developers. I know that some of my colleagues think that all Americans are covered under this, but only people who want to operate under some kind of Federal permit are covered. That is not the 65 million typical homeowners.

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

Mr. WYDEN. More important, what I think highlights the lack of balance, and I use that word specifically, because there are takings, what highlights the lack of balance is, our friend, the gentleman from Florida, said that the homeowner, instead of getting this express lane, that this bill sets up for the developer, that their consideration is taken care of at the Federal level, the gentleman from Florida says, ``Sorry, Charlie, to the homeowner, you go try and get a fair shake at the local level. We won't be interested in you at the Federal level.''

Mr. WYDEN. Let me say again that while most people think all property owners are protected under the bill, the only property owners that are protected are those who are operating under some kind of Federal permit, such as a wetland.

Mr. WYDEN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WYDEN. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I laid out a problem involving wetlands not covered under the law.

Mr. WYDEN. If the gentleman will yield further, I would like to stipulate that I think there are takings, and there are certainly takings that warrant compensation. What I am concerned about is we are not factoring in the consideration for the other people getting hurt.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time. I want to commend the gentleman from Florida, the previous speaker, for his balanced statement. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, when most Americans look at the title of the bill, they see this sweeping name, ``the Private Property Protection Act,'' and they walk away and believe that this bill protects all of our citizens. The fact of the matter is that this legislation protects only a limited group of private property owners, those property owners whose use or development of their property is regulated by the Federal Government. The typical homeowners in our country, and there are 65 million of them, want to continue to enjoy the use of their property even when the Federal Government is not involved in regulating it. I believe that the typical homeowner is not fairly represented in this legislation, and on a bipartisan basis, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] and I will try to correct this legislation to make sure that the voice of that typical homeowner is heard. One way that we could go about doing that, and making sure that the typical homeowners got a fair shake would be to expand the exceptions when compensation is not paid. Right now the legislation provides two exceptions when agencies do not have to pay compensation for agencies' actions that diminish the value of private property. The first is when the agency action prevents a public health or safety hazard, the second is when it prevents damage to specific property. It would also be helpful to make sure that these 65 million typical homeowners in our country get a fair shake to create a third exception when agencies do not have to pay compensation, and this would apply when the agency's action would prevent or restrict any activity likely to diminish the fair market value of private homes. This amendment would enable agencies to avoid having to make a Hobson's choice of either restricting development and incurring liability to the developer or allowing the development to proceed and have those homeowners in our country suffer the devaluation of their property. When agencies take action to protect the value of private homes they would not incur liability to developers whose ability to develop their property is limited by the agency's action. In contrast to H.R. 925, this approach also provides protection for homeowners in situations where there has been no physical damage to homeowners' property but the market value is likely to be diminished by development activity adjoining the home. This would be the kind of situation where we would have the filling of a wetland that would increase the risk of flooding the homes, but there has not yet been any damage. What it comes down to, I would offer to may colleagues, is that the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] and I hope that this legislation can have a bit more balance. Louisiana on the Committee on Commerce has made this case over the year, that there are takings and there are takings that warrant compensation. But let us before we finish this bill make sure that the 65 million typical homeowners who use their property in a fashion that is not regulated by the Federal Government get the same voice in this legislation as those developers and others who also deserve a fair treatment and likely to get it under this bill. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that this legislation has a bit more balance, and that the voice of the typical homeowner is heard.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation and would like to briefly address title I of the bill that deals with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I and a number of other Members on both sides of the aisle were troubled with the original language in the Contract With America with respect to the Regulatory Flexibility Act. That original language would have applied the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act to big business as well as the country's small businesses. We felt that the Regulatory Flexibility Act was supposed to respond to the kinds of problems the majority has been talking about. A lot of our small businesses do go through bureaucratic water torture when they run up against some of these regulations, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act is supposed to be a fast-track process for adjusting regulation to the needs of small entrepreneurs. But the Contract With America would have changed all that. We want what amounts to an HOV lane for entrepreneurs so that the Federal Government responds to their concerns. So fortunately, on a bipartisan basis, working with the chairman of the committee, the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers], the gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce], the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Sisisky], the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton], and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Poshard], there has now been a bipartisan agreement worked out with all the relevant committees that regulatory flexibility provisions will apply just to small business. In my view, this is the way to ensure that the Federal bureaucracy is sensitive to America's entrepreneurs. That is what is in the public interest.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn. and 42 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Monday, February 27, 1995, at 12:30 p.m.