Debbie Dingell: “I just want to ask a question to my colleagues on the other side. They said there is no taking here, and so we need to…”

“I just want to ask a question to my colleagues on the other side. They said there is no taking here, and so we need to have no fear on that. The gentlewoman from Maryland offers an amendment which says there can be no taking. Well, if they do not intend to do a taking, if the amendment says there is no taking, if in fact there is no taking, what is wrong with the amendment? I would think those who say there is going to be no taking here would accept this amendment with vast enthusiasm and would be speaking for it, not against it. I am curious. What is it that they are trying to tell us; that there is a taking and so they do not want the amendment, or that there is not a taking so the amendment is not needed? I do not know. But I do know one thing. If there is a possibility of the taking, we better doggone well see to it that we adopt the amendment so that we do not impose upon our constituents $6 or $7 billion of liability because of the unwise action in this Chamber today.”