Summary:
All articles in House section
PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION ACT OF 1995
(House of Representatives - March 03, 1995)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
H2599-H2639]
PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION ACT OF 1995
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Doolittle). Pursuant to House Resolution
101 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration
of the bill,
H.R. 925.
{time} 1226
in the committee of the whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (
H.R. 925) to compensate owners of private property for the
effect of certain regulatory restrictions, with Mr. Shuster in the
chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] to the
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Canady], as amended, had been disposed of.
Pursuant to the order of the House, further consideration of the bill
for amendment will end at 12:54.
amendment offered by mr. watt of north carolina to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute offered by mr. canady of florida as amended
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the
amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Watt of North Carolina to the
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the
gentleman from Florida, Mr. Canady, as amended: Strike
section 6(f).
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the effect of this amendment will become apparent very
quickly. If we read the provisions of the fifth amendment, my
colleagues here have spent a lot of time and rhetoric talking about the
fifth amendment. The provision we are talking about in this particular
bill says ``nor shall private property be taken for public use without
just compensation.'' They have told us throughout this debate that the
purpose of this bill is to assure that people who are deprived of their
property receive just compensation. They have told us that a reduction
in value of people's property is a taking, and therefore, they should
be compensated for it under the fifth amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about this for a little bit, and find
out from my colleagues whether we believe this right is a right that is
a first-class right, or whether it is a right which is a second-class
right that we have under the Constitution.
Mr. Chairman, we started out with a bill that said ``If you have a
diminution in the value of your property, a reduction in the value of
your property as a result of any agency action, you would be
compensated.'' We then spent hours debating whether to limit that bill
to compensation for just two kinds of agency action, that agency action
being for the Endangered Species Act
[[Page
H2600]] and for the Clean Water Act, disregarding all of the
other agency actions that might have the impact of reducing the value
of an individual's property.
{time} 1230
We then spent hours more debating the issue of whether the reduction
in value that would be required to trigger this amendment, or this
bill, would be 10 percent reduction or whether it would be 30 percent
reduction, or where we finally got to under the last amendment, the 20
percent reduction.
I am not interested in talking about a constitutional right that
triggers only if it is 70 percent. We do not have any constitutional
rights in our country that trigger at 70 percent, or 80 percent, or
even 90 percent. We cannot put a value on our constitutional rights.
Now we come to the amendment that I have offered, and I want to
direct my colleagues' attention to the bill because in the first
section of the bill, it says the Federal Government shall compensate on
owner of property whose value has been diminished.
Then we read on over to the fine print of the bill and we got to the
source of payment and it says, ``Any payment made under this section to
an owner and any judgment obtained by an owner in a civil action shall
come out of the agency's budget'' and the agency, if it gets a judgment
against it, must come back and seek appropriations.
My question to my colleagues is, is this a constitutional right, or
is it a second-class right?
The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] has been very articulate
about the rights that we are talking about here. They are all
constitutional rights. Do they apply only when the Clean Air Act steps
on them or only when the Clean Water Act steps on them, or only when
the Endangered Species Act?
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr.
Watt] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Watt of North Carolina was allowed to
proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Or is this a real constitutional right
that we are wiling to pay for as we pay for all other constitutional
rights in this country?
So when our constituents come and say, ``We can get recovery if our
values are diminished,'' will we scratch our heads and say, ``Oh, well,
if we appropriate the money, you will get a recovery''?
If someone gets a judgment against the United States of America and
the agency does not have the money, will we say to them, ``Oh, no, the
agency is bankrupt now. You must wait until next year's
appropriation''? That is what the bill says. ``It shall be the duty of
the head of the agency to seek the appropriation of such funds for the
next fiscal year.''
I have never known anybody who got a judgment against the United
States who we can put off until the next fiscal year and tell we are
not going to pay that judgment until a year from now, or 2 years from
now, or we may not pay it at all if they do not appropriate the funds.
The question I ask my colleagues in this amendment is to abolish this
provision that says you can get your money only from an agency. There
is no agency. This is the U.S. Government.
I call on my colleagues to make this a first-class constitutional
right, not a second-class constitutional right.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, some things change in time and some things just do not
change in time. I want to bring that into focus in my comments. Some
things that do not change in time is the nature of government, the
nature of a government that when it grows too large, then it begins to
encroach on our constitutional rights and our ability to make a living
off the land.
I want to share with Members a little bit of history, and, that is,
that about 125 years ago, the U.S. Army sent General Custer into the
West to conquer the Sioux Nation. In doing so, what they did not
realize is that the Sioux were very keen people in regard to the
promises that the American Government had made them, promises that were
broken, promises that were broken when the American Army went in and
they wounded and sometimes killed women and children. It was a broken
promise between the American Government and the Sioux Nation. And so
the American Government sent General Custer out to the West to conquer
the Sioux Nation, not realizing that the Sioux were people who did not
take very kindly to broken promises.
Of course, we know the history of what happened at Wounded Knee, and,
that is, that when General Custer went in, a terrible battle ensured
and there was a great slaughter and a great setback of the American
Army at that time. But the Army retaliated and in conquering the West,
went ahead and sent other troops out and they chased the Sioux Nation
into Canada and finally captured and conquered them.
Sitting Bull, a great medicine man from the Sioux Nation, was asked
to stand in this gallery, in this place, nearly 125 years ago, and I am
standing in the same place that Sitting Bull stood when he addressed a
joint session of the House and the Senate.
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, some things change but some things never
do, because this is what Sitting Bull said when he stood exactly in
this place. He said, ``The government has made us many promises, more
than I can remember, and they never kept but one. They promised to take
our land and they took it.''
As a lady from Idaho, I can tell you I live with that every day,
because more and more of our land is being taken. I appreciate the
bill,
H.R. 925. I think it is historic. It is part of living up to the
Contract With America and beginning to reclaim our land.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I accept the idea that society ought to pay for
societal policies. When the public wants a highway, it wants to enjoy
the benefits of the highway, those who have to suffer by losing their
land are compensated so that everyone else can enjoy the benefits of
the public policy.
If this bill is going to work, we have to acknowledge that no agency
has in it the money for these reimbursements. When we again fund money
for highway, we not only have money for the road itself but also in the
appropriation enough money to fulfill expenses and condemnation as part
of that budget.
If this is going to be implemented, we have to have a budget from
which these payments can be made. The Watt amendment, Mr. Chairman,
provides that resource.
Mr. Chairman, I would hope that this amendment would pass. Otherwise,
the bill just cannot operate.
I would ask, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from North Carolina to
respond, if he would, to the question of how the judgments would be
enforced if his amendment is not passed.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. If the gentleman would yield, as I
understand it, in every other situation where a judgment is obtained
against Government agencies, it is the Federal Government that stands
behind that judgment and the full faith and credit of the United States
is at risk any time a judgment is entered.
If this amendment is to have any meaningful effect, if this bill is
to have any meaningful effect, and people who we have not guaranteed if
this bill passes that they will be compensated will be subjected to the
whims of the appropriation process or nonappropriation. It is like we
have got these naughty Federal Government agencies over there that are
somehow separate and part from the Federal Government, itself, and the
laws that the Congress passes who are out there acting as renegades and
we are looking for somebody to blame, and trying to tell our
constituents that somehow we are compensating them and protecting them
against these naughty Federal Government agencies and hiding our head
when really the agencies and the rules that they are applying and
promulgating that result in these reductions in value are pursuant to
the laws we passed here in this body and this is all a charade designed
to make it appear that it is not us that is causing the problem by
passing the Endangered Species Act or the Clean Water Act, but it is
some Federal Government agency over there that is separate from us over
here in Congress and they
[[Page
H2601]] ought to go over there and get their judgment satisfied.
What I want to make sure the public understands is that there is no
Federal Government agency, and Congress, that this is one Federal
Government. If the Federal Government agency does something wrong, it
is being done pursuant to a law that we have passed and we cannot just
pass the buck over there and leave the public out there saying they
have a valuable constitutional right, yet they have no assured means of
collecting the judgment that is at play.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I finally say that as we pass future laws,
we could include in those appropriations the money for reimbursement
under this law as well as for the promulgation of the policy just as we
do with highways. I would hope that his amendment would pass so that we
could implement the law as soon as possible and not have to get into
the situations as the gentleman from North Carolina has indicated.
I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Rose].
Mr. ROSE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I would like to say about my colleague from North Carolina's
amendment, that without this amendment, this is an unworkable piece of
legislation, assuming that you feel that it needs to be enacted. I
intend to vote for the bill, but it will be a much better bill with
your amendment in it. Without it, it is rather mean-spirited as you
pointed out. With it in it, it is extremely focusing of the public's
mind and the Government's mind that the whole Government, not just some
particular agency, has got to pay for it. I encourage my colleagues to
support the Watt amendment. It perfects this bill.
Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I have a different interpretation than my friend from
North Carolina because what this amendment does is gut this
legislation. It guts the private property rights of property owners
which we are trying to protect because it takes out what is the real
stick in this legislation. The real stick is if the Government comes in
and takes your property because of an endangered species designation or
a wetland declaration and you lose the beneficial use of your property
as guaranteed by the Constitution, you are not going to be compensated
by the Government.
It is my hope that you do not see this used as an entitlement. This
is intended to be used when property is lost, when the Government comes
in and says there really is a need for this particular piece of
property as a wetland, or there really is a particular need for this
property because of an endangered species.
When we passed the Endangered Species Act and when we passed Clean
Water, it was never envisioned by this Congress that the basic water
rights in the State of Texas would be abrogated because of a fountain
darter.
{time} 1245
It was never intended by this body when those two acts were passed
that farmers and ranchers in the Texas hill country would lose the
ability to control cedar on their property because of two birds. It was
never intended when those acts were passed that a Golden Eagle's nest,
and by the way, there never has been proof that there really was an
eagle's nest in the example I cited, it was never intended that would
stop the construction of a badly needed road in my congressional
district.
Another particular story, Marge and Roger Krueger spent $53,000 of
their savings on a lot for their dream house in the Texas hill country.
They and other owners have been barred from building their dream houses
because the Golden Cheek Warbler was found in adjacent canyons. Surely
that was not the intent when the Endangered Species Act was passed and
I think our forefathers had great foresight in understanding that
through the actions of Government, property could be taken, and that is
why they made provision in the Constitution for payment when in fact
those takings have taken place.
So again I say to my friend from North Carolina I appreciate the
sincerity with which he comes to the floor, but I have to say in all
candor to my friend, this is a gutting amendment if you support the
basic and fundamental private property rights guaranteed under the
Constitution.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FIELDS of Texas. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from North
Carolina.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I am concerned about Marge and Roger
Krueger. The question I would ask the gentleman is if whatever agency
that caused that adverse impact to Marge's land runs out of money, and
they have gotten a judgment against the United States or against that
agency, and the agency then comes back a year later and asks for an
appropriation, what kind of protection has the gentleman provided in
this bill for Marge Krueger?
Mr. FIELDS of Texas. First you have the civil court, but then second
let me say what this is designed to do.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. They have the judgment already.
Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Reclaiming my time, what this stick of
compensation is designed to do is to force the Federal Government in
the first instance to make the right decision, to protect in this
particular instance the warbler and the vireo. Other things could be
done. You have State properties in this particular area where there was
a concerted effort to save those birds. The fountain darter, there are
things that could be done to propagate and actually increase the
population and actually introduce this to the ecosystem of Texas. In
regard to the eagle's nest I talked about just a minute ago, through
cooperative effort people would bend over backwards in my area to
protect if in fact that was an eagle's nest. But what has happened is
we have lost the cooperation and the consultation with and of that
local private landowner and that is what this legislation is designed
to protect. This amendment guts it.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FIELDS of Texas. I am glad to yield to my friend from Louisiana.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to make
the point that it is the very language the gentleman's amendment would
delete from the bill that provides the answer. It says that
notwithstanding any other provision of law, payment must come from that
agency. Therefore, the citizen can compel mandamus against that agency
for payment.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to point out with respect to this
amendment that it would eliminate the essential feature of this bill
which provides an incentive for agencies to behave responsibly, for
agencies to consider the real cost of their action, to take into
account when they are imposing burdens on landowners, and I think for
that reason this amendment would be counterproductive.
I believe that in many of the instances where we are currently seeing
landowners burdened, we are seeing agencies that are overreaching, they
are going beyond the real intent of the law, and agencies who are doing
that can exercise their discretion not to do that. And I believe that
would be the consequence, the major consequence of passing this law.
I want to also take this opportunity to thank all of those who have
assisted and helped in the movement of this legislation. I want to
particularly thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith], the gentleman
from California [Mr. Pombo], and the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young],
for their hard work in putting together the compromise, the substitute
amendment which I have offered. Without their hard work on this issue
we would not have been able to move this bill to the floor and I am
very grateful to them for this.
I also want to thank particularly the gentleman from Idaho [Mr.
Crapo] for his hard work on this issue and his active participation in
the floor debate. His very able participation here has been very
important to the success of this bill.
Finally, it is very important also to thank the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] and the Members on the Democratic side who are
participating in this effort. It is true that the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin]
[[Page
H2602]] has worked on this issue for years. I am very pleased
that we are now seeing this issue brought to the floor, and I believe
we are going to see this issue move forward to the Senate, and I am
hopeful that we are going to see this issue passed into law later this
year. So I am very grateful to them.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from
California.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I think we all would like to thank the gentleman for
the wonderful job he has done in managing this bill on the floor, and I
appreciate all of the hard work you have put in in battling over the
last 12 long hours.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to rise in opposition to this amendment
and to bring it into perspective in that if you take the incentive
away, the hammer away from the agencies, you run into the situation
that is the result of this bill coming to the floor, where an agency
like the Fish and Wildlife Service can list the fairy shrimp and
declare most of California habitat and control most of California
without any cost to the agency, without any fear that anything is going
to happen to them. They have run amok. It is the bureaucracy out of
control, it is the bureaucracy and the regulators with a free hand
running all over the Western United States and the Southern United
States, without anyone having the ability to come down on them, unless
of course you happen to have 10 years and a half million dollars to
spend on attorneys' fees.
That is what we are trying to correct in this bill. And I know what
the gentleman's intentions are, but I feel that if this amendment were
passed, it would completely damage the bill, so that we would not be
able to accomplish what is truly needed, and that is to restore some
responsibility to the agencies, and to put that hammer in the hands and
I guess to restore the power to the people who are out there having to
live under this.
I think this is an extremely damaging amendment, and I would urge all
of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on it.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CANADY of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I will just take a minute and thank the
gentleman for yielding. Let me concur in the last remarks. I do not
want to use words like gutting and all of that, but this is extremely
damaging. It takes from the bill the method of payment.
Let me say to my friend who offered the amendment, this is a first
class right under the Constitution. Any citizen under this bill that
wants to exercise that right can do so at 1 percent, 2 percent, 10
percent, 20 percent. This bill simply creates a new remedy for citizens
at home under the criteria set by this bill to get justice at home. For
it to work the agency has to want to cooperate, and if you do not make
the agency responsible for damage it does, and do not make the agency
responsible for payment, you will never get cooperation. Just day
before yesterday Mr. Babbitt just announced the first of its kind safe
harbor provision for the red cockaded woodpecker offering to cooperate
with a landowner instead of taking their land.
This is what we need.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
Under the previous order of the House of today, the question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt]
to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman
from Florida [Mr. Canady], as amended.
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XXIII, the Chair may
reduce to not less than 5 minutes the time for any recorded vote that
may be on another of the pending amendments without intervening
business or debate.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 127,
noes 299, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 196]
AYES--127
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brown (FL)
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Coyne
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Engel
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Green
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
LaFalce
Lantos
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Mink
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Rahall
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Slaughter
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Thompson
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NOES--299
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Browder
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Luther
Manzullo
Martini
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Traficant
Upton
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
[[Page
H2603]] NOT VOTING--8
Brown (CA)
Bryant (TX)
Chapman
Collins (IL)
Dornan
Gonzalez
Moakley
Rangel
{time} 1312
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mr. Rangel for, with Mr. Dornan against.
Mrs. THURMAN, Mr. LEVIN, and Mr. McHALE changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. FAZIO, Mr. OBEY, and Mrs. LOWEY changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as
amended, was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended, offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Canady].
The amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed
to.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of
H.R. 925, the Private
Property Protection Act of 1995 and I encourage my colleagues to
support the bill as well.
The bill is not an assault on the Constitution and it is not a scheme
to benefit a select few as some propaganda has suggested. The bill
simply affords Americans the protection that they have been guaranteed
under the Constitution's fifth amendment. The bill is easily the most
important measure to protect private property rights since the Bill of
Rights was ratified in 1791.
Tomorrow, March 4, 1995, marks the 206th year that the U.S. Congress
has met. When the First Congress met, there was great concern that the
Constitution did not include a basic Bill of Rights to limit the powers
of the Federal Government. In their wisdom, the First Congress proposed
a Bill of Rights and determined that the Bill of Rights should
guarantee compensation for the taking of private property for public
use.
When the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1789, guarantee of
compensation for the taking of private property became the fifth
amendment to the Constitution.
Since the Bill of Rights was ratified, the fifth amendment has been
relied upon to limit Federal intrusion into private lives without due
process of law. When we look back over the past 200 years, it is easy
to see a clear pattern of increased takings of private property. The
number of takings have rapidly escalated over the past two decades in
direct relation to the increase in Federal regulatory actions.
Unfortunately, private property owners who are victims of regulatory
takings are not receiving due process guaranteed to them under the
fifth amendment.
The Federal regulatory morass has unfairly punished private property
owners by restricting the use of their lands. While such Federal
regulations clearly ``take'' from private property owners, tragically,
the private property owner must sue to get compensation due to them by
the Federal Government.
We must not allow the Federal Government to continue to grow and
regulate without regard for the public, of which private property
owners are a part. We must not allow the Federal Government to take
private lands for public purposes and then require the property owners
to pay for costly, time consuming litigation in order to receive
compensation.
We must pass
H.R. 925 and protect the constitutional guarantee of
compensation for the taking of private lands.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, farmers and other landowners in the Second
Congressional District are frustrated by a complex, burdensome,
inefficient, and expensive set of procedures and restrictions dealing
with wetlands and drainage. This has led to demands for compensation
and reform of the process.
I am drafting and will introduce legislation to dramatically simplify
the procedures and reduce the harsh effects of these drainage and
wetlands restrictions. The problem must be solved, and it must be
solved now.
The alternative approach set up in
H.R. 925 of establishing a right
to compensation for a loss of land value due to Federal restrictions is
inviting but ill-advised. It will be a full employment act for
attorneys and appraisers, potentially explosive liability, and an
increase in the Federal debt. It is unworkable, unfair, and poorly
thought out. For example, owners of areas with cattails that could be
drained would be entitled to farmland value. Another example of the
problem is how to handle parcels that are subject to, and then relieved
of, restrictions. Should the land owner be obligated to refund the
payment? Should the Federal Government have a lien on the land to
receive the refund? Query, what is to be done about the situation where
property both receives very substantial benefits from Federal activity
that increases land value and then a more modest loss of value due to
regulations?
The real goal is to eliminate the unreasonable burdens. The promise
of compensation, contained in
H.R. 925 that was hastily considered by
the House of Representatives, is an inadequate, elusive, and
unacceptable solution. For these reasons, I voted against the bill.
Hopefully, the idea of reasonable compensation for unreasonable
restrictions in
H.R. 935 will be improved in the U.S. Senate to deal
with the problems I have identified. If it is, I look forward to voting
for the measure.
For the present, I look forward to working to lift the harsh burdens
that are the real problem. Farmers in my area do not want a new and
endless controversy. They want to farm. They are responsible stewards
of the land.
Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, on March 2, 1995, I voted ``aye'' on the
Tauzin amendment to
H.R. 925. However, the computer did not record my
vote. I would like to declare my support for this amendment which would
protect the rights of property owners from overzealous government
takings. I reaffirmed my support for this legislation by voting in
favor of final passage of
H.R. 925.
Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
H.R. 925, the
Private Property Protection Act. The Private Property Protection Act
comes under the guise of protecting private property rights, while in
reality it pits the property rights of some against the rights of
others and the rights of the community as a whole. Private property
rights are sufficiently protected under the fifth amendment to the
Constitution; codifying a specific interpretation of these rights is
not only unnecessary, but dangerous as well. I urge a ``no'' vote on
this legislation.
The courts have outlined the factors to be considered on a case-by-
case basis in determining if a ``taking'' has occurred, including the
economic impact on the property owner, the public purpose for which the
regulation was adopted, and the character of the governmental action.
H.R. 925 calls for an extended, legislated, interpretation of the fifth
amendment of the Constitution. This bill would require the Federal
Government to pay a private property owner for any decrease in value to
his/her land due to Federal regulations. The effect of this legislation
would be to have the Government--i.e. the taxpayers--pay land owners
not to destroy the environment.
Along with property rights come property responsibilities. Nobody has
the right to use his or her property in a manner that may harm the
public health or damage the property of another landowner or the
community as a whole. American citizens are able to use environmental
laws in order to protect their property from damage at the lands of
irresponsible industries and landowners. Environmental laws, in turn,
have been established to preserve our natural resources for the benefit
of future generations and so that Mother Earth can survive.
The intent of
H.R. 925 is to make it fiscally impossible to enforce
such important legislation as the Clean Water Act, the Endangered
Species Act, and other environmental initiatives. A broader
interpretation of this bill could limit the ability of the Federal
Government to enforce such laws as the Americans with Disabilities Act,
the Civil Rights Act, and other laws which protect American citizens
but may place a financial burden on business. The possibilities of
abuse under this legislation are enormous. We must not fall for the
``what's mine, is mine'' pitch used by ``takings'' legislation
advocates if it comes at the expense of the American taxpayer, or the
community at large. I urge my colleagues to vote against
H.R. 925.
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, bureaucracies have little respect for
private property.
In my district, for example, a constituent has been fighting an
uphill battle with USDA's Forest Service over an easement right.
Here is a letter from Jeffrey Green, county counsel of Mariposa
County--my home community and on whose board of supervisors I formerly
served. He explains the problem in a straightforward way that I believe
my colleagues will find illuminating, and I ask that it be included
with my remarks in the Record.
I also want to point out that the problem discussed by Mr. Green has
a further dimension that illustrates the indifference Federal
bureaucrats can display. More than a year ago--January 10, 1994--the
district ranger of Stanislaus National Forest wrote Mr. Green that the
requested road use permit for my constituents would be ready within the
next 30 days.
When that didn't happen, Mr. Green made further inquiry. On May 17,
1994, the district ranger wrote that he could ensure that the permit
would be received shortly. Knowing I planned to use this awful apathy
by the Forest Service in remarks on the House floor, my
[[Page
H2604]] counsel called the district ranger to ask whether the
promised permit yet had issued. Sad to say, Mr. Chairman, the answer
was ``no.''
These are intolerable circumstances that, I am learning go on every
day across our country. Citizens are at the mercy of a corps of
overpaid, underworked dolts who make a mockery of the term, ``public
service.''
The County Counsel,
Mariposa County, CA, March 2, 1995.
Re National Forest Service Use Permit for Billy J. Lovelace.
Office of Congressman Radanovich,
Cannon Building, Washington, DC:
I have previously forwarded to your office my
correspondence relative to the above matter and the failure
of the Forest Service, after numerous promises, to issue a
Use Permit to Mr. Lovelace to access his property wherein he
resides. You have requested that I provide you additional
information as to why in my opinion this type of activity
illustrates the federal government's failure to respect
property rights of its citizens. Mr. Lovelace purchased his
property with the access road to his dwelling already
constructed. That access road did in fact cross a small
portion of the Forest Service property and an easement
existed for the use of that Forest Service strip of land.
When the easement expired, the Forest Service basically took
the position that Mr. Lovelace was going to have to find
other access to his property, although as a practical matter
no other access existed. Mr. Lovelace felt totally
ineffectual in dealing with the National Forest Service
personnel, as they made him feel that access to his property
would be granted upon their whim only and not as any property
right he may have acquired over a period of time. We all know
that you cannot acquire a prescriptive easement against a
governmental entity, however, there is a concept of fair play
and due process when the federal government has allowed
access over a period of years and then arbitrarily determined
that it may not continue that access to the property owner.
That is what happened in the Lovelace case and the possible
denial of the Use Permit has caused great emotional distress
to Mr. Lovelace. He feels totally helpless in dealing with
the federal government and therefore contacted his County
Supervisor, Doug Balmain, to intervene on his behalf.
Supervisor Balmain and myself did in fact intervene on Mr.
Lovelace's behalf and had a number of conversations with the
Forest Service personnel. Essentially the first meetings
indicated that the Forest Service was adopting a blanket
policy without any regard to the private
property rights of the individuals in that it was
inappropriate to access private property over a Forest
Service land if there was any other conceivable way to
access the property. Of course, to the Forest Service, any
conceivable way to access the property did not take into
consideration the extreme expenses involved in most cases,
and the topography of the land which may make it
impossible to access. However, after a number of
conversations and written correspondence, the Forest
Service did in fact agree that Mr. Lovelace was entitled
to a Use Permit to access his property. As you know, that
permit has still not been issued even though it was
promised well over a year ago. Certainly when Mr. Lovelace
purchased his property, he felt he had a property right to
access his dwelling over the road that had been
constructed prior to his purchase. It was only after his
purchase that he discovered that the Forest Service may
restrict access to his property. In my opinion, as well as
Supervisor Balmain's opinion, the federal government has a
moral right and obligation to deal honestly and fairly
with citizens who are affected by its rules and
regulations. Access to an individual's dwelling is
certainly viewed by that individual as a property right
and the threat of removing that access generates a great
deal of distress for the property owner.
Based upon other experiences with the Forest Service, this
is not an unusual way in which the Forest Service personnel
deals with citizens' property rights and values. In one of
the letters which my office received from the District Ranger
regarding this matter, the following language was contained
in the letter which, in effect, chastised Supervisor Balmain
and myself for becoming involved in this issue: ``Since the
issues revolve around the administration and management of
National Forest lands, all future correspondence will be
carried out through the concerned individuals.'' I read that
sentence to essentially tell Supervisor Balmain and myself to
butt out of Supervisor Balmain's constituent's business with
the federal government.
Should you desire any additional information regarding this
matter, please feel free to contact me.
Very truly yours,
Jeffrey G. Green,
County Counsel.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my concern over
legislation under consideration in the House today to place into
statute guidance for takings allowance under the fifth amendment of the
Constitution. While I support efforts to offer this guidance, I am
concerned the original bill proposed by the majority goes too far.
This bill would require Federal agencies to reimburse private
property owners if 10 percent of their land is affected by any Federal
regulation. While the intent of this bill is good, the potential cost
to the Federal Government for a 10-percent diminishment of property
value is enormous.
In addition, the bill's basic provisions are unworkable. For
instance, if the Federal Government raises the speed limit on a rural
highway, property owners adjacent to the highway could claim their
property has been devalued by at least 10 percent due to increased
noise from greater automobile traffic or higher speed limits. They
could then demand reimbursement from the Department of Transportation
for that diminished land value.
I have made efforts to work with my colleagues to try and raise this
threshold to a more reasonable level. I have voted for amendments to
raise this threshold beyond the 10-percent level, to one which builds
on current legal precedent but which is not too narrow. In addition, I
am working with my Democratic colleagues who also favor protecting
private property rights to narrow the bill to instances of likely
takings--for wetlands protections, for example--instead of every
Federal regulation. Making Federal regulations more reasonable is my
goal, which is also why I have cosponsored wetlands reform in the past.
An effort was made to try and narrow this bill, but it did not go far
enough. The amendment offered by Representative Tauzin would have gone
beyond just a wetlands provision to include rights of western water
use, mining and other use western lands. It also raised the threshold
to only 50 percent, one which I feel is still too unworkable. That is
why I opposed the Tauzin amendment.
One amendment I did support would have required a private property
impact assessment by an agency prior to any taking. This would have
written into law an Executive order signed by President Ronald Reagan,
that would allow property owners to seek compensation based on this
assessment. Unfortunately, this amendment was rejected by a majority of
my colleagues. However, this bill has improved as it has moved through
the House, and it is my hope that in supporting this bill on final
passage we may move it to the Senate and reach common ground to protect
private property rights, and our Nation's critical environment areas,
in a final package.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to
H.R. 925.
This is yet another proposal offered by the new majority to undermine
our Nation's health, safety, and environmental standards in order to
benefit their favorite special interest: the pollution industry.
This bill is a cruel joke which endangers helpless private property
owners throughout the country and allows land abusers the opportunity
to raid the Federal treasury.
Make no mistake, this bill is incapable of protecting the public from
health or safety hazards.
In my State of Washington, clear cut logging on steep slopes caused
extreme run-off and excessive flooding along the Tolt River. Slides
sent trees and debris choking the river and deflecting flows.
Meanwhile, the flooding caused a family's mobile home to be washed
down river and significantly eroded several other properties. The
effect: property devaluation and serious expense to the downstream
landowners, serious harm to the environment, and huge profits for the
loggers.
This bill does nothing to either prevent such environmental damages
or protect the landowners who undoubtedly will be harmed by the ensuing
reckless developments.
In fact, even as amended,
H.R. 925 makes the government liable for
the negligent actions of industry polluters, reckless developers, and
the property owners whose land is harmed by such development.
For example, when a developer seeks a permit to clear cut a steep
slope as occurred in my State, or to fill in a wetland which endangers
the property of downstream landowners, the government is damned if it
grants the permit and damned if it doesn't.
If the government issues the permit, it then becomes liable for the
damages incurred by the developers on the downstream property owner's
lands. Yet, if the government denies the permit, this bill forces it to
compensate the developer who requested it--no matter how negligent the
developer's proposal may be.
By voting in favor of
H.R. 925, the majority will commit our
government to a financial conundrum which will drain the Federal
treasury.
There are not enough health, education, nutrition, or family programs
for the new majority to eliminate in order to pay for a bill which
mandates such financial recklessness.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that you take a look beyond your political focus
groups and examine the actual, real world implications of this
dangerous bill.
I hope my colleagues find the wisdom and courage to vote against this
horrifying piece of legislation which, as usual in this new majority,
benefits a select few and harms the rest of us.
[[Page
H2605]] Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, the fifth amendment to
the U.S. Constitution clearly speaks to the issue of Federal land
acquisition when it states: ``[N]or shall private property be taken for
public use, without just compensation.'' The Constitution is clear on
the issue of Federal land takings and compels us to deal justly with
the impact of Federal action on private land.
H.R. 925 is currently being touted as the cure for private land
owners whose land has been devalued by Federal regulations. However, it
does not answer Guam's outrage over Federal land policies.
The people of Guam have for many years been the victims of unjust
land grabs and the heavy hand of Federal land policy. Within the
borders of the war in the Pacific Park, land owners cannot develop
their private property due to Federal regulations. Land owners at
Ritidian Point, landlocked by the Andersen Air Force Base, are also
denied free use of their land because access is restricted.
Unfortunately, this legislation would not compensate these land owners
or any others whose land is currently controlled by the Federal
Government.
Guam needs more than just promises for the future; we need Congress
to recognize and commit itself to resolving Guam's unique Federal land
problems.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, today we are considering
property rights legislation, one of the most important pieces of
legislation we will vote on this year. The right to own property is one
of the basic doctrines of our Constitution. The fifth amendment
requires the Government to provide just compensation for property taken
for public purposes. Property rights has come to the forefront of
debate in rural America. This debate is vital to every landowner in
this country, specially to the American farmer.
Over the past three decades, there has been an enormous expansion in
Government regulation of private property. The intent of these
regulations is for the most part positive. However, the rigidity of the
regulations is completely unnecessary and over burdensome and often
defeats the purpose of the objective of the regulation. The Federal
Government makes it a practice to spell out step by step the method
each person should use to accomplish the goal of a regulation. This
rigidity is costly and actually creates more obstacles.
These regulation restrictions are out of control, specifically in
regard to wetlands. For example, a farmer in my district bought 160
acres of land with the intent to farm the 160 acres. After talking to
his local soil and conservation service [SCS], and looking at the
records from the sight, including soil samples and all inclusive maps,
the SCS office confirmed that no wetlands were contained on the land.
My constituent then proceeded to purchase the land and begin to make
the necessary changes to farm. His local SCS came out again to approve
the site, and on the way out noticed some cattails in the field. The
SCS then proceeded to discover, new wetlands which affected about 26
acres of land. This farmer would have reconsidered buying the property
if he knew he could not farm on a large portion of his land.
As a result of this type of common practice by Federal agencies,
private property owners repeatedly lose economic use of their property.
In situations where the Government regulates to the point that the
property owner may not use his property, or the property is
substantially devalued, it is only fair and just for the property owner
to be compensated.
No one argues that we need to regulate certain activities and
restrict certain practices on land for the common good and well being
of the country. We need clean water, we need clean air. And we need to
protect the environment. However, the burden of providing public good
should not be on an individual landowner. If the American public
benefits from restrictions on land uses, then the public should pay for
the costs.
Furthermore, as recourse to Federal taking, wealthy people and big
corporations have the resources to protect their property rights
through the legal process. The average person on the other hand doesn't
have the money and should not have to defend his or her property rights
in the current lengthy, complicated and expensive legal process. More
often than not, the small property owner has no way to combat the
expansive authority and resources of Federal agencies. We must set up a
process where people don't have to hire a lawyer, spend a lot of their
own money, and waste millions of taxpayer dollars to defend their basic
property rights.
For these reasons, I strongly support
H.R. 925, private property
rights legislation.
H.R. 925 ensures that private property owners are
compensated when the use or value of their property is limited. This
bill lays out clear and specific guidelines for government officials
and property owners in determining when Federal regulations go too far,
and result in violate individual property rights. Federal agencies will
have to weigh their actions cautiously before issuing regulations and
will be required to pay for the imposed regulations.
People in this country who purchase and pay taxes on property should
not have to endure their rights being stripped away. The Federal
Government must be responsible for its actions. Congress must act now
to minimize the taking of our constitutionally protected property
rights. I urge my colleagues to support
H.R. 925.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose
H.R. 925, the
Private Property Protection Act of 1995. This legislation will create
an entitlement program for polluters, a billion dollar sweepstakes for
land speculators, and will leave the American taxpayer holding the bag.
In the words of a Justice Department official who testified before
the House Judiciary Committee, ``hard-working American taxpayers * * *
will be forced to watch as their hard-earned wages are collected by the
Government as taxes and paid out to corporations and large landowners
as takings compensation.''
At a time when so-called entitlement programs are under attack by the
Republican Party,
H.R. 925 would create an immense new entitlement
program and bureaucracy with so much legal uncertainty that the only
sure winners will be our Nation's lawyers.
Mr. Chairman, contrary to what the authors of this legislation would
have us believe, American law is based on a deep respect for private
property rights. The fifth amendment itself symbolizes this respect for
property rights by ensuring that private property shall not be taken
for public use without just compensation.
H.R. 925 represents a radical departure from long-settled Supreme
Court doctrine. It abandons the modern definition of the fifth
amendment's ``takings'' clause by requiring that private property
owners be compensated if regulations limit land use and diminish
property values by just 10 percent.
This means that almost any loss in market value would require
compensation. This replaces an entire body of constitutional law with a
clumsy measure that ignores the collective wisdom of two centuries of
Supreme Court decisions.
Mr. Chairman, for over 200 years, private claims to compensation
under the fifth amendment's ``takings'' clause have been successfully
balanced against the public interest on a case-by-case basis.
H.R. 925 does not add to this delicate judicial balance in a
constructive manner. Rather, it shatters legal precedent by imposing a
heavy-handed new doctrine that will only result in unjust windfalls to
wealthy corporations at a tremendous cost to the health, safety and
pocketbooks of all Americans.
Who will pay for the costs of environmental clean-up when polluters
degrade our environment? The American taxpayer. This bill protects the
interests of polluters at the expense of the American taxpayer.
Mr. Chairman, we should heed the voice of our constituents as we
consider this bill. In a recent CNN/Time poll, people were asked
whether a landowner that is barred from installing a toxic waste dump
should be compensated. Fully two-thirds of those interviewed, 66
percent, said no.
Let's not allow the American taxpayer to get ``taken'' by this
legislation. I urge my colleagues to vote against
H.R. 925.
Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, once again the House
Republican leadership has brought us a bill in
H.R. 925, the Private
Property Protection Act, which addresses a legitimately important
issue, but which is overly broad, ill-considered and poorly drafted. I
believe the debate on this important issue should continue, and so I
will for now support this legislation in order for the Senate and the
conference committees to have an opportunity to revise and improve the
legislation. If no such significant improvement is forthcoming from
those bodies, however, I am very doubtful that I will be able to vote
for this bill on final passage.
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to
H.R. 925, the Private Property Protection Act. This bill establishes a
dangerous and disturbing precedent that would allow individuals to do
whatever they want with their property, regardless of whether it
des
Major Actions:
All articles in House section
PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION ACT OF 1995
(House of Representatives - March 03, 1995)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
H2599-H2639]
PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION ACT OF 1995
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Doolittle). Pursuant to House Resolution
101 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration
of the bill,
H.R. 925.
{time} 1226
in the committee of the whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (
H.R. 925) to compensate owners of private property for the
effect of certain regulatory restrictions, with Mr. Shuster in the
chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] to the
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Canady], as amended, had been disposed of.
Pursuant to the order of the House, further consideration of the bill
for amendment will end at 12:54.
amendment offered by mr. watt of north carolina to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute offered by mr. canady of florida as amended
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the
amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Watt of North Carolina to the
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the
gentleman from Florida, Mr. Canady, as amended: Strike
section 6(f).
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the effect of this amendment will become apparent very
quickly. If we read the provisions of the fifth amendment, my
colleagues here have spent a lot of time and rhetoric talking about the
fifth amendment. The provision we are talking about in this particular
bill says ``nor shall private property be taken for public use without
just compensation.'' They have told us throughout this debate that the
purpose of this bill is to assure that people who are deprived of their
property receive just compensation. They have told us that a reduction
in value of people's property is a taking, and therefore, they should
be compensated for it under the fifth amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about this for a little bit, and find
out from my colleagues whether we believe this right is a right that is
a first-class right, or whether it is a right which is a second-class
right that we have under the Constitution.
Mr. Chairman, we started out with a bill that said ``If you have a
diminution in the value of your property, a reduction in the value of
your property as a result of any agency action, you would be
compensated.'' We then spent hours debating whether to limit that bill
to compensation for just two kinds of agency action, that agency action
being for the Endangered Species Act
[[Page
H2600]] and for the Clean Water Act, disregarding all of the
other agency actions that might have the impact of reducing the value
of an individual's property.
{time} 1230
We then spent hours more debating the issue of whether the reduction
in value that would be required to trigger this amendment, or this
bill, would be 10 percent reduction or whether it would be 30 percent
reduction, or where we finally got to under the last amendment, the 20
percent reduction.
I am not interested in talking about a constitutional right that
triggers only if it is 70 percent. We do not have any constitutional
rights in our country that trigger at 70 percent, or 80 percent, or
even 90 percent. We cannot put a value on our constitutional rights.
Now we come to the amendment that I have offered, and I want to
direct my colleagues' attention to the bill because in the first
section of the bill, it says the Federal Government shall compensate on
owner of property whose value has been diminished.
Then we read on over to the fine print of the bill and we got to the
source of payment and it says, ``Any payment made under this section to
an owner and any judgment obtained by an owner in a civil action shall
come out of the agency's budget'' and the agency, if it gets a judgment
against it, must come back and seek appropriations.
My question to my colleagues is, is this a constitutional right, or
is it a second-class right?
The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] has been very articulate
about the rights that we are talking about here. They are all
constitutional rights. Do they apply only when the Clean Air Act steps
on them or only when the Clean Water Act steps on them, or only when
the Endangered Species Act?
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr.
Watt] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Watt of North Carolina was allowed to
proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Or is this a real constitutional right
that we are wiling to pay for as we pay for all other constitutional
rights in this country?
So when our constituents come and say, ``We can get recovery if our
values are diminished,'' will we scratch our heads and say, ``Oh, well,
if we appropriate the money, you will get a recovery''?
If someone gets a judgment against the United States of America and
the agency does not have the money, will we say to them, ``Oh, no, the
agency is bankrupt now. You must wait until next year's
appropriation''? That is what the bill says. ``It shall be the duty of
the head of the agency to seek the appropriation of such funds for the
next fiscal year.''
I have never known anybody who got a judgment against the United
States who we can put off until the next fiscal year and tell we are
not going to pay that judgment until a year from now, or 2 years from
now, or we may not pay it at all if they do not appropriate the funds.
The question I ask my colleagues in this amendment is to abolish this
provision that says you can get your money only from an agency. There
is no agency. This is the U.S. Government.
I call on my colleagues to make this a first-class constitutional
right, not a second-class constitutional right.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, some things change in time and some things just do not
change in time. I want to bring that into focus in my comments. Some
things that do not change in time is the nature of government, the
nature of a government that when it grows too large, then it begins to
encroach on our constitutional rights and our ability to make a living
off the land.
I want to share with Members a little bit of history, and, that is,
that about 125 years ago, the U.S. Army sent General Custer into the
West to conquer the Sioux Nation. In doing so, what they did not
realize is that the Sioux were very keen people in regard to the
promises that the American Government had made them, promises that were
broken, promises that were broken when the American Army went in and
they wounded and sometimes killed women and children. It was a broken
promise between the American Government and the Sioux Nation. And so
the American Government sent General Custer out to the West to conquer
the Sioux Nation, not realizing that the Sioux were people who did not
take very kindly to broken promises.
Of course, we know the history of what happened at Wounded Knee, and,
that is, that when General Custer went in, a terrible battle ensured
and there was a great slaughter and a great setback of the American
Army at that time. But the Army retaliated and in conquering the West,
went ahead and sent other troops out and they chased the Sioux Nation
into Canada and finally captured and conquered them.
Sitting Bull, a great medicine man from the Sioux Nation, was asked
to stand in this gallery, in this place, nearly 125 years ago, and I am
standing in the same place that Sitting Bull stood when he addressed a
joint session of the House and the Senate.
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, some things change but some things never
do, because this is what Sitting Bull said when he stood exactly in
this place. He said, ``The government has made us many promises, more
than I can remember, and they never kept but one. They promised to take
our land and they took it.''
As a lady from Idaho, I can tell you I live with that every day,
because more and more of our land is being taken. I appreciate the
bill,
H.R. 925. I think it is historic. It is part of living up to the
Contract With America and beginning to reclaim our land.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I accept the idea that society ought to pay for
societal policies. When the public wants a highway, it wants to enjoy
the benefits of the highway, those who have to suffer by losing their
land are compensated so that everyone else can enjoy the benefits of
the public policy.
If this bill is going to work, we have to acknowledge that no agency
has in it the money for these reimbursements. When we again fund money
for highway, we not only have money for the road itself but also in the
appropriation enough money to fulfill expenses and condemnation as part
of that budget.
If this is going to be implemented, we have to have a budget from
which these payments can be made. The Watt amendment, Mr. Chairman,
provides that resource.
Mr. Chairman, I would hope that this amendment would pass. Otherwise,
the bill just cannot operate.
I would ask, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from North Carolina to
respond, if he would, to the question of how the judgments would be
enforced if his amendment is not passed.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. If the gentleman would yield, as I
understand it, in every other situation where a judgment is obtained
against Government agencies, it is the Federal Government that stands
behind that judgment and the full faith and credit of the United States
is at risk any time a judgment is entered.
If this amendment is to have any meaningful effect, if this bill is
to have any meaningful effect, and people who we have not guaranteed if
this bill passes that they will be compensated will be subjected to the
whims of the appropriation process or nonappropriation. It is like we
have got these naughty Federal Government agencies over there that are
somehow separate and part from the Federal Government, itself, and the
laws that the Congress passes who are out there acting as renegades and
we are looking for somebody to blame, and trying to tell our
constituents that somehow we are compensating them and protecting them
against these naughty Federal Government agencies and hiding our head
when really the agencies and the rules that they are applying and
promulgating that result in these reductions in value are pursuant to
the laws we passed here in this body and this is all a charade designed
to make it appear that it is not us that is causing the problem by
passing the Endangered Species Act or the Clean Water Act, but it is
some Federal Government agency over there that is separate from us over
here in Congress and they
[[Page
H2601]] ought to go over there and get their judgment satisfied.
What I want to make sure the public understands is that there is no
Federal Government agency, and Congress, that this is one Federal
Government. If the Federal Government agency does something wrong, it
is being done pursuant to a law that we have passed and we cannot just
pass the buck over there and leave the public out there saying they
have a valuable constitutional right, yet they have no assured means of
collecting the judgment that is at play.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I finally say that as we pass future laws,
we could include in those appropriations the money for reimbursement
under this law as well as for the promulgation of the policy just as we
do with highways. I would hope that his amendment would pass so that we
could implement the law as soon as possible and not have to get into
the situations as the gentleman from North Carolina has indicated.
I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Rose].
Mr. ROSE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I would like to say about my colleague from North Carolina's
amendment, that without this amendment, this is an unworkable piece of
legislation, assuming that you feel that it needs to be enacted. I
intend to vote for the bill, but it will be a much better bill with
your amendment in it. Without it, it is rather mean-spirited as you
pointed out. With it in it, it is extremely focusing of the public's
mind and the Government's mind that the whole Government, not just some
particular agency, has got to pay for it. I encourage my colleagues to
support the Watt amendment. It perfects this bill.
Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I have a different interpretation than my friend from
North Carolina because what this amendment does is gut this
legislation. It guts the private property rights of property owners
which we are trying to protect because it takes out what is the real
stick in this legislation. The real stick is if the Government comes in
and takes your property because of an endangered species designation or
a wetland declaration and you lose the beneficial use of your property
as guaranteed by the Constitution, you are not going to be compensated
by the Government.
It is my hope that you do not see this used as an entitlement. This
is intended to be used when property is lost, when the Government comes
in and says there really is a need for this particular piece of
property as a wetland, or there really is a particular need for this
property because of an endangered species.
When we passed the Endangered Species Act and when we passed Clean
Water, it was never envisioned by this Congress that the basic water
rights in the State of Texas would be abrogated because of a fountain
darter.
{time} 1245
It was never intended by this body when those two acts were passed
that farmers and ranchers in the Texas hill country would lose the
ability to control cedar on their property because of two birds. It was
never intended when those acts were passed that a Golden Eagle's nest,
and by the way, there never has been proof that there really was an
eagle's nest in the example I cited, it was never intended that would
stop the construction of a badly needed road in my congressional
district.
Another particular story, Marge and Roger Krueger spent $53,000 of
their savings on a lot for their dream house in the Texas hill country.
They and other owners have been barred from building their dream houses
because the Golden Cheek Warbler was found in adjacent canyons. Surely
that was not the intent when the Endangered Species Act was passed and
I think our forefathers had great foresight in understanding that
through the actions of Government, property could be taken, and that is
why they made provision in the Constitution for payment when in fact
those takings have taken place.
So again I say to my friend from North Carolina I appreciate the
sincerity with which he comes to the floor, but I have to say in all
candor to my friend, this is a gutting amendment if you support the
basic and fundamental private property rights guaranteed under the
Constitution.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FIELDS of Texas. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from North
Carolina.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I am concerned about Marge and Roger
Krueger. The question I would ask the gentleman is if whatever agency
that caused that adverse impact to Marge's land runs out of money, and
they have gotten a judgment against the United States or against that
agency, and the agency then comes back a year later and asks for an
appropriation, what kind of protection has the gentleman provided in
this bill for Marge Krueger?
Mr. FIELDS of Texas. First you have the civil court, but then second
let me say what this is designed to do.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. They have the judgment already.
Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Reclaiming my time, what this stick of
compensation is designed to do is to force the Federal Government in
the first instance to make the right decision, to protect in this
particular instance the warbler and the vireo. Other things could be
done. You have State properties in this particular area where there was
a concerted effort to save those birds. The fountain darter, there are
things that could be done to propagate and actually increase the
population and actually introduce this to the ecosystem of Texas. In
regard to the eagle's nest I talked about just a minute ago, through
cooperative effort people would bend over backwards in my area to
protect if in fact that was an eagle's nest. But what has happened is
we have lost the cooperation and the consultation with and of that
local private landowner and that is what this legislation is designed
to protect. This amendment guts it.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FIELDS of Texas. I am glad to yield to my friend from Louisiana.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to make
the point that it is the very language the gentleman's amendment would
delete from the bill that provides the answer. It says that
notwithstanding any other provision of law, payment must come from that
agency. Therefore, the citizen can compel mandamus against that agency
for payment.
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to point out with respect to this
amendment that it would eliminate the essential feature of this bill
which provides an incentive for agencies to behave responsibly, for
agencies to consider the real cost of their action, to take into
account when they are imposing burdens on landowners, and I think for
that reason this amendment would be counterproductive.
I believe that in many of the instances where we are currently seeing
landowners burdened, we are seeing agencies that are overreaching, they
are going beyond the real intent of the law, and agencies who are doing
that can exercise their discretion not to do that. And I believe that
would be the consequence, the major consequence of passing this law.
I want to also take this opportunity to thank all of those who have
assisted and helped in the movement of this legislation. I want to
particularly thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith], the gentleman
from California [Mr. Pombo], and the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young],
for their hard work in putting together the compromise, the substitute
amendment which I have offered. Without their hard work on this issue
we would not have been able to move this bill to the floor and I am
very grateful to them for this.
I also want to thank particularly the gentleman from Idaho [Mr.
Crapo] for his hard work on this issue and his active participation in
the floor debate. His very able participation here has been very
important to the success of this bill.
Finally, it is very important also to thank the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] and the Members on the Democratic side who are
participating in this effort. It is true that the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin]
[[Page
H2602]] has worked on this issue for years. I am very pleased
that we are now seeing this issue brought to the floor, and I believe
we are going to see this issue move forward to the Senate, and I am
hopeful that we are going to see this issue passed into law later this
year. So I am very grateful to them.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from
California.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I think we all would like to thank the gentleman for
the wonderful job he has done in managing this bill on the floor, and I
appreciate all of the hard work you have put in in battling over the
last 12 long hours.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to rise in opposition to this amendment
and to bring it into perspective in that if you take the incentive
away, the hammer away from the agencies, you run into the situation
that is the result of this bill coming to the floor, where an agency
like the Fish and Wildlife Service can list the fairy shrimp and
declare most of California habitat and control most of California
without any cost to the agency, without any fear that anything is going
to happen to them. They have run amok. It is the bureaucracy out of
control, it is the bureaucracy and the regulators with a free hand
running all over the Western United States and the Southern United
States, without anyone having the ability to come down on them, unless
of course you happen to have 10 years and a half million dollars to
spend on attorneys' fees.
That is what we are trying to correct in this bill. And I know what
the gentleman's intentions are, but I feel that if this amendment were
passed, it would completely damage the bill, so that we would not be
able to accomplish what is truly needed, and that is to restore some
responsibility to the agencies, and to put that hammer in the hands and
I guess to restore the power to the people who are out there having to
live under this.
I think this is an extremely damaging amendment, and I would urge all
of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on it.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CANADY of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I will just take a minute and thank the
gentleman for yielding. Let me concur in the last remarks. I do not
want to use words like gutting and all of that, but this is extremely
damaging. It takes from the bill the method of payment.
Let me say to my friend who offered the amendment, this is a first
class right under the Constitution. Any citizen under this bill that
wants to exercise that right can do so at 1 percent, 2 percent, 10
percent, 20 percent. This bill simply creates a new remedy for citizens
at home under the criteria set by this bill to get justice at home. For
it to work the agency has to want to cooperate, and if you do not make
the agency responsible for damage it does, and do not make the agency
responsible for payment, you will never get cooperation. Just day
before yesterday Mr. Babbitt just announced the first of its kind safe
harbor provision for the red cockaded woodpecker offering to cooperate
with a landowner instead of taking their land.
This is what we need.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
Under the previous order of the House of today, the question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt]
to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman
from Florida [Mr. Canady], as amended.
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XXIII, the Chair may
reduce to not less than 5 minutes the time for any recorded vote that
may be on another of the pending amendments without intervening
business or debate.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 127,
noes 299, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 196]
AYES--127
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brown (FL)
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Coyne
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Engel
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Green
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
LaFalce
Lantos
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Mink
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Rahall
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Slaughter
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Thompson
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NOES--299
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Browder
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Luther
Manzullo
Martini
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Traficant
Upton
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
[[Page
H2603]] NOT VOTING--8
Brown (CA)
Bryant (TX)
Chapman
Collins (IL)
Dornan
Gonzalez
Moakley
Rangel
{time} 1312
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mr. Rangel for, with Mr. Dornan against.
Mrs. THURMAN, Mr. LEVIN, and Mr. McHALE changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. FAZIO, Mr. OBEY, and Mrs. LOWEY changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as
amended, was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended, offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Canady].
The amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed
to.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of
H.R. 925, the Private
Property Protection Act of 1995 and I encourage my colleagues to
support the bill as well.
The bill is not an assault on the Constitution and it is not a scheme
to benefit a select few as some propaganda has suggested. The bill
simply affords Americans the protection that they have been guaranteed
under the Constitution's fifth amendment. The bill is easily the most
important measure to protect private property rights since the Bill of
Rights was ratified in 1791.
Tomorrow, March 4, 1995, marks the 206th year that the U.S. Congress
has met. When the First Congress met, there was great concern that the
Constitution did not include a basic Bill of Rights to limit the powers
of the Federal Government. In their wisdom, the First Congress proposed
a Bill of Rights and determined that the Bill of Rights should
guarantee compensation for the taking of private property for public
use.
When the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1789, guarantee of
compensation for the taking of private property became the fifth
amendment to the Constitution.
Since the Bill of Rights was ratified, the fifth amendment has been
relied upon to limit Federal intrusion into private lives without due
process of law. When we look back over the past 200 years, it is easy
to see a clear pattern of increased takings of private property. The
number of takings have rapidly escalated over the past two decades in
direct relation to the increase in Federal regulatory actions.
Unfortunately, private property owners who are victims of regulatory
takings are not receiving due process guaranteed to them under the
fifth amendment.
The Federal regulatory morass has unfairly punished private property
owners by restricting the use of their lands. While such Federal
regulations clearly ``take'' from private property owners, tragically,
the private property owner must sue to get compensation due to them by
the Federal Government.
We must not allow the Federal Government to continue to grow and
regulate without regard for the public, of which private property
owners are a part. We must not allow the Federal Government to take
private lands for public purposes and then require the property owners
to pay for costly, time consuming litigation in order to receive
compensation.
We must pass
H.R. 925 and protect the constitutional guarantee of
compensation for the taking of private lands.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, farmers and other landowners in the Second
Congressional District are frustrated by a complex, burdensome,
inefficient, and expensive set of procedures and restrictions dealing
with wetlands and drainage. This has led to demands for compensation
and reform of the process.
I am drafting and will introduce legislation to dramatically simplify
the procedures and reduce the harsh effects of these drainage and
wetlands restrictions. The problem must be solved, and it must be
solved now.
The alternative approach set up in
H.R. 925 of establishing a right
to compensation for a loss of land value due to Federal restrictions is
inviting but ill-advised. It will be a full employment act for
attorneys and appraisers, potentially explosive liability, and an
increase in the Federal debt. It is unworkable, unfair, and poorly
thought out. For example, owners of areas with cattails that could be
drained would be entitled to farmland value. Another example of the
problem is how to handle parcels that are subject to, and then relieved
of, restrictions. Should the land owner be obligated to refund the
payment? Should the Federal Government have a lien on the land to
receive the refund? Query, what is to be done about the situation where
property both receives very substantial benefits from Federal activity
that increases land value and then a more modest loss of value due to
regulations?
The real goal is to eliminate the unreasonable burdens. The promise
of compensation, contained in
H.R. 925 that was hastily considered by
the House of Representatives, is an inadequate, elusive, and
unacceptable solution. For these reasons, I voted against the bill.
Hopefully, the idea of reasonable compensation for unreasonable
restrictions in
H.R. 935 will be improved in the U.S. Senate to deal
with the problems I have identified. If it is, I look forward to voting
for the measure.
For the present, I look forward to working to lift the harsh burdens
that are the real problem. Farmers in my area do not want a new and
endless controversy. They want to farm. They are responsible stewards
of the land.
Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, on March 2, 1995, I voted ``aye'' on the
Tauzin amendment to
H.R. 925. However, the computer did not record my
vote. I would like to declare my support for this amendment which would
protect the rights of property owners from overzealous government
takings. I reaffirmed my support for this legislation by voting in
favor of final passage of
H.R. 925.
Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
H.R. 925, the
Private Property Protection Act. The Private Property Protection Act
comes under the guise of protecting private property rights, while in
reality it pits the property rights of some against the rights of
others and the rights of the community as a whole. Private property
rights are sufficiently protected under the fifth amendment to the
Constitution; codifying a specific interpretation of these rights is
not only unnecessary, but dangerous as well. I urge a ``no'' vote on
this legislation.
The courts have outlined the factors to be considered on a case-by-
case basis in determining if a ``taking'' has occurred, including the
economic impact on the property owner, the public purpose for which the
regulation was adopted, and the character of the governmental action.
H.R. 925 calls for an extended, legislated, interpretation of the fifth
amendment of the Constitution. This bill would require the Federal
Government to pay a private property owner for any decrease in value to
his/her land due to Federal regulations. The effect of this legislation
would be to have the Government--i.e. the taxpayers--pay land owners
not to destroy the environment.
Along with property rights come property responsibilities. Nobody has
the right to use his or her property in a manner that may harm the
public health or damage the property of another landowner or the
community as a whole. American citizens are able to use environmental
laws in order to protect their property from damage at the lands of
irresponsible industries and landowners. Environmental laws, in turn,
have been established to preserve our natural resources for the benefit
of future generations and so that Mother Earth can survive.
The intent of
H.R. 925 is to make it fiscally impossible to enforce
such important legislation as the Clean Water Act, the Endangered
Species Act, and other environmental initiatives. A broader
interpretation of this bill could limit the ability of the Federal
Government to enforce such laws as the Americans with Disabilities Act,
the Civil Rights Act, and other laws which protect American citizens
but may place a financial burden on business. The possibilities of
abuse under this legislation are enormous. We must not fall for the
``what's mine, is mine'' pitch used by ``takings'' legislation
advocates if it comes at the expense of the American taxpayer, or the
community at large. I urge my colleagues to vote against
H.R. 925.
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, bureaucracies have little respect for
private property.
In my district, for example, a constituent has been fighting an
uphill battle with USDA's Forest Service over an easement right.
Here is a letter from Jeffrey Green, county counsel of Mariposa
County--my home community and on whose board of supervisors I formerly
served. He explains the problem in a straightforward way that I believe
my colleagues will find illuminating, and I ask that it be included
with my remarks in the Record.
I also want to point out that the problem discussed by Mr. Green has
a further dimension that illustrates the indifference Federal
bureaucrats can display. More than a year ago--January 10, 1994--the
district ranger of Stanislaus National Forest wrote Mr. Green that the
requested road use permit for my constituents would be ready within the
next 30 days.
When that didn't happen, Mr. Green made further inquiry. On May 17,
1994, the district ranger wrote that he could ensure that the permit
would be received shortly. Knowing I planned to use this awful apathy
by the Forest Service in remarks on the House floor, my
[[Page
H2604]] counsel called the district ranger to ask whether the
promised permit yet had issued. Sad to say, Mr. Chairman, the answer
was ``no.''
These are intolerable circumstances that, I am learning go on every
day across our country. Citizens are at the mercy of a corps of
overpaid, underworked dolts who make a mockery of the term, ``public
service.''
The County Counsel,
Mariposa County, CA, March 2, 1995.
Re National Forest Service Use Permit for Billy J. Lovelace.
Office of Congressman Radanovich,
Cannon Building, Washington, DC:
I have previously forwarded to your office my
correspondence relative to the above matter and the failure
of the Forest Service, after numerous promises, to issue a
Use Permit to Mr. Lovelace to access his property wherein he
resides. You have requested that I provide you additional
information as to why in my opinion this type of activity
illustrates the federal government's failure to respect
property rights of its citizens. Mr. Lovelace purchased his
property with the access road to his dwelling already
constructed. That access road did in fact cross a small
portion of the Forest Service property and an easement
existed for the use of that Forest Service strip of land.
When the easement expired, the Forest Service basically took
the position that Mr. Lovelace was going to have to find
other access to his property, although as a practical matter
no other access existed. Mr. Lovelace felt totally
ineffectual in dealing with the National Forest Service
personnel, as they made him feel that access to his property
would be granted upon their whim only and not as any property
right he may have acquired over a period of time. We all know
that you cannot acquire a prescriptive easement against a
governmental entity, however, there is a concept of fair play
and due process when the federal government has allowed
access over a period of years and then arbitrarily determined
that it may not continue that access to the property owner.
That is what happened in the Lovelace case and the possible
denial of the Use Permit has caused great emotional distress
to Mr. Lovelace. He feels totally helpless in dealing with
the federal government and therefore contacted his County
Supervisor, Doug Balmain, to intervene on his behalf.
Supervisor Balmain and myself did in fact intervene on Mr.
Lovelace's behalf and had a number of conversations with the
Forest Service personnel. Essentially the first meetings
indicated that the Forest Service was adopting a blanket
policy without any regard to the private
property rights of the individuals in that it was
inappropriate to access private property over a Forest
Service land if there was any other conceivable way to
access the property. Of course, to the Forest Service, any
conceivable way to access the property did not take into
consideration the extreme expenses involved in most cases,
and the topography of the land which may make it
impossible to access. However, after a number of
conversations and written correspondence, the Forest
Service did in fact agree that Mr. Lovelace was entitled
to a Use Permit to access his property. As you know, that
permit has still not been issued even though it was
promised well over a year ago. Certainly when Mr. Lovelace
purchased his property, he felt he had a property right to
access his dwelling over the road that had been
constructed prior to his purchase. It was only after his
purchase that he discovered that the Forest Service may
restrict access to his property. In my opinion, as well as
Supervisor Balmain's opinion, the federal government has a
moral right and obligation to deal honestly and fairly
with citizens who are affected by its rules and
regulations. Access to an individual's dwelling is
certainly viewed by that individual as a property right
and the threat of removing that access generates a great
deal of distress for the property owner.
Based upon other experiences with the Forest Service, this
is not an unusual way in which the Forest Service personnel
deals with citizens' property rights and values. In one of
the letters which my office received from the District Ranger
regarding this matter, the following language was contained
in the letter which, in effect, chastised Supervisor Balmain
and myself for becoming involved in this issue: ``Since the
issues revolve around the administration and management of
National Forest lands, all future correspondence will be
carried out through the concerned individuals.'' I read that
sentence to essentially tell Supervisor Balmain and myself to
butt out of Supervisor Balmain's constituent's business with
the federal government.
Should you desire any additional information regarding this
matter, please feel free to contact me.
Very truly yours,
Jeffrey G. Green,
County Counsel.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my concern over
legislation under consideration in the House today to place into
statute guidance for takings allowance under the fifth amendment of the
Constitution. While I support efforts to offer this guidance, I am
concerned the original bill proposed by the majority goes too far.
This bill would require Federal agencies to reimburse private
property owners if 10 percent of their land is affected by any Federal
regulation. While the intent of this bill is good, the potential cost
to the Federal Government for a 10-percent diminishment of property
value is enormous.
In addition, the bill's basic provisions are unworkable. For
instance, if the Federal Government raises the speed limit on a rural
highway, property owners adjacent to the highway could claim their
property has been devalued by at least 10 percent due to increased
noise from greater automobile traffic or higher speed limits. They
could then demand reimbursement from the Department of Transportation
for that diminished land value.
I have made efforts to work with my colleagues to try and raise this
threshold to a more reasonable level. I have voted for amendments to
raise this threshold beyond the 10-percent level, to one which builds
on current legal precedent but which is not too narrow. In addition, I
am working with my Democratic colleagues who also favor protecting
private property rights to narrow the bill to instances of likely
takings--for wetlands protections, for example--instead of every
Federal regulation. Making Federal regulations more reasonable is my
goal, which is also why I have cosponsored wetlands reform in the past.
An effort was made to try and narrow this bill, but it did not go far
enough. The amendment offered by Representative Tauzin would have gone
beyond just a wetlands provision to include rights of western water
use, mining and other use western lands. It also raised the threshold
to only 50 percent, one which I feel is still too unworkable. That is
why I opposed the Tauzin amendment.
One amendment I did support would have required a private property
impact assessment by an agency prior to any taking. This would have
written into law an Executive order signed by President Ronald Reagan,
that would allow property owners to seek compensation based on this
assessment. Unfortunately, this amendment was rejected by a majority of
my colleagues. However, this bill has improved as it has moved through
the House, and it is my hope that in supporting this bill on final
passage we may move it to the Senate and reach common ground to protect
private property rights, and our Nation's critical environment areas,
in a final package.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to
H.R. 925.
This is yet another proposal offered by the new majority to undermine
our Nation's health, safety, and environmental standards in order to
benefit their favorite special interest: the pollution industry.
This bill is a cruel joke which endangers helpless private property
owners throughout the country and allows land abusers the opportunity
to raid the Federal treasury.
Make no mistake, this bill is incapable of protecting the public from
health or safety hazards.
In my State of Washington, clear cut logging on steep slopes caused
extreme run-off and excessive flooding along the Tolt River. Slides
sent trees and debris choking the river and deflecting flows.
Meanwhile, the flooding caused a family's mobile home to be washed
down river and significantly eroded several other properties. The
effect: property devaluation and serious expense to the downstream
landowners, serious harm to the environment, and huge profits for the
loggers.
This bill does nothing to either prevent such environmental damages
or protect the landowners who undoubtedly will be harmed by the ensuing
reckless developments.
In fact, even as amended,
H.R. 925 makes the government liable for
the negligent actions of industry polluters, reckless developers, and
the property owners whose land is harmed by such development.
For example, when a developer seeks a permit to clear cut a steep
slope as occurred in my State, or to fill in a wetland which endangers
the property of downstream landowners, the government is damned if it
grants the permit and damned if it doesn't.
If the government issues the permit, it then becomes liable for the
damages incurred by the developers on the downstream property owner's
lands. Yet, if the government denies the permit, this bill forces it to
compensate the developer who requested it--no matter how negligent the
developer's proposal may be.
By voting in favor of
H.R. 925, the majority will commit our
government to a financial conundrum which will drain the Federal
treasury.
There are not enough health, education, nutrition, or family programs
for the new majority to eliminate in order to pay for a bill which
mandates such financial recklessness.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that you take a look beyond your political focus
groups and examine the actual, real world implications of this
dangerous bill.
I hope my colleagues find the wisdom and courage to vote against this
horrifying piece of legislation which, as usual in this new majority,
benefits a select few and harms the rest of us.
[[Page
H2605]] Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, the fifth amendment to
the U.S. Constitution clearly speaks to the issue of Federal land
acquisition when it states: ``[N]or shall private property be taken for
public use, without just compensation.'' The Constitution is clear on
the issue of Federal land takings and compels us to deal justly with
the impact of Federal action on private land.
H.R. 925 is currently being touted as the cure for private land
owners whose land has been devalued by Federal regulations. However, it
does not answer Guam's outrage over Federal land policies.
The people of Guam have for many years been the victims of unjust
land grabs and the heavy hand of Federal land policy. Within the
borders of the war in the Pacific Park, land owners cannot develop
their private property due to Federal regulations. Land owners at
Ritidian Point, landlocked by the Andersen Air Force Base, are also
denied free use of their land because access is restricted.
Unfortunately, this legislation would not compensate these land owners
or any others whose land is currently controlled by the Federal
Government.
Guam needs more than just promises for the future; we need Congress
to recognize and commit itself to resolving Guam's unique Federal land
problems.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, today we are considering
property rights legislation, one of the most important pieces of
legislation we will vote on this year. The right to own property is one
of the basic doctrines of our Constitution. The fifth amendment
requires the Government to provide just compensation for property taken
for public purposes. Property rights has come to the forefront of
debate in rural America. This debate is vital to every landowner in
this country, specially to the American farmer.
Over the past three decades, there has been an enormous expansion in
Government regulation of private property. The intent of these
regulations is for the most part positive. However, the rigidity of the
regulations is completely unnecessary and over burdensome and often
defeats the purpose of the objective of the regulation. The Federal
Government makes it a practice to spell out step by step the method
each person should use to accomplish the goal of a regulation. This
rigidity is costly and actually creates more obstacles.
These regulation restrictions are out of control, specifically in
regard to wetlands. For example, a farmer in my district bought 160
acres of land with the intent to farm the 160 acres. After talking to
his local soil and conservation service [SCS], and looking at the
records from the sight, including soil samples and all inclusive maps,
the SCS office confirmed that no wetlands were contained on the land.
My constituent then proceeded to purchase the land and begin to make
the necessary changes to farm. His local SCS came out again to approve
the site, and on the way out noticed some cattails in the field. The
SCS then proceeded to discover, new wetlands which affected about 26
acres of land. This farmer would have reconsidered buying the property
if he knew he could not farm on a large portion of his land.
As a result of this type of common practice by Federal agencies,
private property owners repeatedly lose economic use of their property.
In situations where the Government regulates to the point that the
property owner may not use his property, or the property is
substantially devalued, it is only fair and just for the property owner
to be compensated.
No one argues that we need to regulate certain activities and
restrict certain practices on land for the common good and well being
of the country. We need clean water, we need clean air. And we need to
protect the environment. However, the burden of providing public good
should not be on an individual landowner. If the American public
benefits from restrictions on land uses, then the public should pay for
the costs.
Furthermore, as recourse to Federal taking, wealthy people and big
corporations have the resources to protect their property rights
through the legal process. The average person on the other hand doesn't
have the money and should not have to defend his or her property rights
in the current lengthy, complicated and expensive legal process. More
often than not, the small property owner has no way to combat the
expansive authority and resources of Federal agencies. We must set up a
process where people don't have to hire a lawyer, spend a lot of their
own money, and waste millions of taxpayer dollars to defend their basic
property rights.
For these reasons, I strongly support
H.R. 925, private property
rights legislation.
H.R. 925 ensures that private property owners are
compensated when the use or value of their property is limited. This
bill lays out clear and specific guidelines for government officials
and property owners in determining when Federal regulations go too far,
and result in violate individual property rights. Federal agencies will
have to weigh their actions cautiously before issuing regulations and
will be required to pay for the imposed regulations.
People in this country who purchase and pay taxes on property should
not have to endure their rights being stripped away. The Federal
Government must be responsible for its actions. Congress must act now
to minimize the taking of our constitutionally protected property
rights. I urge my colleagues to support
H.R. 925.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose
H.R. 925, the
Private Property Protection Act of 1995. This legislation will create
an entitlement program for polluters, a billion dollar sweepstakes for
land speculators, and will leave the American taxpayer holding the bag.
In the words of a Justice Department official who testified before
the House Judiciary Committee, ``hard-working American taxpayers * * *
will be forced to watch as their hard-earned wages are collected by the
Government as taxes and paid out to corporations and large landowners
as takings compensation.''
At a time when so-called entitlement programs are under attack by the
Republican Party,
H.R. 925 would create an immense new entitlement
program and bureaucracy with so much legal uncertainty that the only
sure winners will be our Nation's lawyers.
Mr. Chairman, contrary to what the authors of this legislation would
have us believe, American law is based on a deep respect for private
property rights. The fifth amendment itself symbolizes this respect for
property rights by ensuring that private property shall not be taken
for public use without just compensation.
H.R. 925 represents a radical departure from long-settled Supreme
Court doctrine. It abandons the modern definition of the fifth
amendment's ``takings'' clause by requiring that private property
owners be compensated if regulations limit land use and diminish
property values by just 10 percent.
This means that almost any loss in market value would require
compensation. This replaces an entire body of constitutional law with a
clumsy measure that ignores the collective wisdom of two centuries of
Supreme Court decisions.
Mr. Chairman, for over 200 years, private claims to compensation
under the fifth amendment's ``takings'' clause have been successfully
balanced against the public interest on a case-by-case basis.
H.R. 925 does not add to this delicate judicial balance in a
constructive manner. Rather, it shatters legal precedent by imposing a
heavy-handed new doctrine that will only result in unjust windfalls to
wealthy corporations at a tremendous cost to the health, safety and
pocketbooks of all Americans.
Who will pay for the costs of environmental clean-up when polluters
degrade our environment? The American taxpayer. This bill protects the
interests of polluters at the expense of the American taxpayer.
Mr. Chairman, we should heed the voice of our constituents as we
consider this bill. In a recent CNN/Time poll, people were asked
whether a landowner that is barred from installing a toxic waste dump
should be compensated. Fully two-thirds of those interviewed, 66
percent, said no.
Let's not allow the American taxpayer to get ``taken'' by this
legislation. I urge my colleagues to vote against
H.R. 925.
Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, once again the House
Republican leadership has brought us a bill in
H.R. 925, the Private
Property Protection Act, which addresses a legitimately important
issue, but which is overly broad, ill-considered and poorly drafted. I
believe the debate on this important issue should continue, and so I
will for now support this legislation in order for the Senate and the
conference committees to have an opportunity to revise and improve the
legislation. If no such significant improvement is forthcoming from
those bodies, however, I am very doubtful that I will be able to vote
for this bill on final passage.
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to
H.R. 925, the Private Property Protection Act. This bill establishes a
dangerous and disturbing precedent that would allow individuals to do
whatever they want with their property, regardless of wheth
