William Tauzin: “Mr. Chairman, let me first answer my friend the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo). Look at page 31. It provides that…”

“Mr. Chairman, let me first answer my friend the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo). Look at page 31. It provides that the money may be not expended except for those acquisitions that are specifically referred to and approved in an act of Congress. The bill requires that every act of purchase be specifically identified in an appropriation by an act of Congress, in fact, in a line item specifically referred to, not in any kind of a report language but in the bill, in the act of Congress. Secondly, the bill contains a statement of our basic property rights in the fifth amendment that no property can be taken without compensation. But do not be kidded about that. It is in the bill. Third, let me read the clear language of the bill. The clear language of the bill 'willing seller requirement: The Federal portion may not be used to acquire any property unless (a) the owner of the property concurs in the acquisition,' and that means the owner can object to any condemnation, 'or, Congress itself decides to take the property.' Congress always has that right whether the amendment of the gentleman passes or not. What we have done is given the willing seller total control of the situation unless Congress supersedes it with a direct appropriation and taking. The willing seller has total control, can object to the condemnation or use it if it helps him get a better selling price. The amendment should be rejected.”