[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 42 (Tuesday, March 7, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E539-E540]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION ACT OF 1995

                                 ______


                               speech of

                         HON. RONALD D. COLEMAN

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, March 3, 1995

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 925) to 
     compensate owners of private property for the effect of 
     certain regulatory restrictions.

  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the bill 
H.R. 925. I am disappointed because there were a series of important 
measures that would have modified the legislation in such a way that I 
could have supported it. Unfortunately, those measures failed, and the 
bill that we are left with has extremely alarming implications. Were 
this legislation enacted, the Federal Government would be saddled with 
a huge new entitlement program, with unknown costs. Not only will this 
legislation be tremendously expensive in terms of Federal dollars, but 
the limitations that it will impose upon the regulatory power of 
Federal agencies could exact a huge toll upon human health and the 
environment.
  Many of the proponents of this bill have tried to argue that the 
decision before us is essentially a constitutional question. They have 
frequently read from the fifth amendment provision which bars the 
Federal Government from taking private property without just 
compensation. But H.R. 925 raises a constitutional question only 
insofar as the bill requires us to expand upon how this body chooses to 
define ``takings.'' In the past, this interpretation has been left to 
the jurisdiction of the courts. As the takings question is 
fundamentally one of constitutional interpretation, the court system is 
probably the most appropriate forum for determining the proper answer 
to this question.
  Yet, the precedent adhered to by the Supreme Court dictates that 
Government action must reduce the value of private
 property by almost 90 percent before the owner can be compensated. 
Many of my colleagues felt that such a threshold was unreasonably high, 
and wished to take steps to compensate property owners suffering large 
financial losses as the result of regulatory action. I strongly 
supported such initiatives. I feel that it is the proper role of the 
Congress to craft legislation to meet the changing needs of our society 
in a manner consistent with the intent of the Framers of the 
Constitution. I firmly believe that property owners should not be 
subject to undue financial burdens as a result of Government actions. 
[[Page E540]] However, this bill is not crafted simply to set new 
limitations on Government regulations. Indeed, this bill fundamentally 
redefines the ``takings'' question, giving it a meaning so broad that 
it has in effect been rendered meaningless.
  Under the provisions of this bill, any property owner who can 
demonstrate a loss of value to their property of 10 percent or more 
will be entitled to Federal compensation. Unfortunately, this threshold 
is absurdly low. Landowners will be tempted under the terms of this 
provision to subdivide their property to meet the threshold, thereby 
resulting in a plethora of cases brought against Federal regulatory 
agencies. The bill makes no provision to prevent this from happening. 
The bill also fails to make any provisions to prevent speculation. If 
an individual buys land with the full knowledge of pending regulations 
that will impact upon the value of their property, they are nonetheless 
able to seek compensation under the terms of this bill should those 
regulations go into effect. Although I am certain that this is
 not an intended result of the bill, it is important to note that 
efforts to remedy this oversight failed in committee.

  Aside from the technical problems of the bill, we must also face the 
fact that the language of this legislation threatens to vastly increase 
the size of the Federal Government. In establishing procedural channels 
for direct negotiations between Federal agencies while simultaneously 
promising to compensate all property owners who lose even 10 percent of 
their property value through regulations, we will open up a floodgate 
of litigations aimed at our various regulatory agencies. This bill will 
certainly increase the size of these Federal agencies. The agencies 
will be forced to hire a huge legal staff to help them determine the 
validity of claims brought against them. In effect, this bill ensures 
an increased bloating of our Federal bureaucracy. It seems strange to 
me the very people who are attacking big Government are actively 
engaged in the process of creating one.
  The takings problem is large enough that it deserved a substantial 
portion of our time and effort toward the creation of an effective 
solution. Instead, the Republicans in this body acted hastily to 
present us with a bill that is clumsy and will doubtlessly prove 
ineffective. Surely there were better ways to address the problem. 
Instead, we have just established a brand new entitlement program, with 
uncertain costs and a vast scope. Just as Republicans are attacking 
Democrats for failing to endorse the balanced budget, they establish a 
program that may render such a balance impossible. Without calculating 
the costs of this bill, they have proposed a new program that will 
certainly cost the American taxpayer billions of dollars. Of course, 
many of those dollars will go not to small property owners. Under the 
terms of this bill, we will be taking money out of necessary programs, 
and using it to line the pockets of many wealthy landowners and 
industrialists, a new breed of speculators, lawyers for the Government, 
lawyers for those who file claims, and the Federal bureaucrats who will 
be central to sorting out this new law long after we are gone. Language 
to prevent this outcome was presented in the Porter, Farr, Ehlers, and 
Bryant amendment. Unfortunately, this effort failed.
  While I would like to see the role of the Federal Government limited 
in relation to the rights of the owners of private property, I do not 
feel that H.R. 925 achieves that goal.


                          ____________________