[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 145 (Friday, October 7, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 7, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                          SAFE DRINKING WATER

  Mr. DOLE. The effort to pass the Safe Drinking Water Act has been a 
bipartisan affair. The Senate passed this legislation in May, and the 
bill recently passed the House. Unfortunately, there was never a 
conference between Members of the House or Senate on the Safe Drinking 
Water Act.
  Throughout the negotiations on this legislation, I have made it clear 
the final package must include the Senate-passed version of a Private 
Property Rights Act. During Senate consideration of the Safe Drinking 
Water Act in May, a bipartisan amendment was attached which required 
the Government to conduct an impact assessment before issuing or 
promulgating any policy, regulation, proposed legislation, or related 
agency action which is likely to result in the taking of private 
property. The Senate adopted this amendment on a voice vote. Mr. 
President, there were no objections to this language.
  The private property amendment was supported overwhelmingly by our 
colleagues. At this time, I would like to introduce for the Record a 
letter from 74 Members of the House of Representatives urging inclusion 
of the private property rights amendment in any final compromise on the 
Safe Drinking Water Act.
  Time and again, I have heard from people all across America that 
Congress must do more to stop the tide of infringement on private 
property rights. I believe we have all heard this message. This 
provision was a small first step toward ensuring that Government 
mandates and Government bureaucrats do not continue to run over 
individual citizens and individual rights. Unfortunately, the average 
citizen cannot afford to take the Federal Government to court. That is 
why they have asked Congress to intervene.
  Even though this provision was supported by our colleagues in May, 
there were doubts about keeping it in the legislation. Mr. President, 
the Safe Drinking Water Act is an important piece of legislation, and I 
support its intent. But there is no reason why it should not include 
language to protect the constitutional rights of Americans to keep 
their property from being taken without compensation. In the end, 
Congress failed to pass the Safe Drinking Water Act because of those 
who refused to protect these rights.
                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                     house of Representatives,

                                  Washington, DC, October 7, 1994.
     Hon. Max Baucus,
     Hon. John Dingell,
     Hon. John Chafee,
     Hon. Carlos Moorhead,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Coleagues: As part of the pending negotiations on the 
     reauthorization of the Safe Drinking Water Act, a major issue 
     continues to be the Dole Amendment to S. 2019 regarding the 
     protection of private property rights.
       In numerous votes throughout the 103d Congress, the House 
     and Senate have separately shown a strong desire to protect 
     private property rights as provided by the U.S. Constitution. 
     However, the protections separately approved by the House and 
     Senate are still to be enacted into law. Now is an 
     opportunity to pass and enact strong provisions to re-affirm 
     our earlier votes of the 103d Congress.
       We urge the inclusion of the Dole Amendment in any final 
     compromise on the SDWA.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Pat Roberts,
     (And 73 others).

                          ____________________