Patricia Schroeder: “actually the concept of this amendment is really fairly simple. It is rather a taxpayer protection amendment to make…”

“actually the concept of this amendment is really fairly simple. It is rather a taxpayer protection amendment to make sure there would be no double-dipping under the takings requirement we are debating today. Mr. Chairman, we all know that public property is one of America's basic foundations, and also we are concerned about the public good. That is why this issue is so difficult. But there are many areas where Federal action enhances the value of the property, and it enhances the value of the property but the person is also able to say that they get money back for a taking. Mr. Chairman, again I would think that this amendment would not be objectionable by anyone because it is really a very simple concept, and, that is, that we want to make sure that we do not see on some magazine program on television how somebody has been able to use this law to make all sorts of extra money. Let me give Members some examples how this could be done. Under the Tauzin amendment, the swamp-buster provision of the farm bill could be a taking, and that is very interesting. If you do not plow up wetlands, that is a precondition to receiving farm subsidies that we are already paying farmers not to farm. So if we were to consider then the bill also of the takings part, you would see someone getting a double dip. The farmer could get a double dip in his subsidy for not plowing and also the loss because it has been declared part of the wetlands.”