[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 52 (Tuesday, March 21, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H3329]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION ACT OF 1995

                                 ______


                               speech of

                          HON. LYNN C. WOOLSEY

                             of california

                        Wednesday, March 1, 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. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 
925, the Private Property Act. My colleagues in the House of 
Representatives who support the Contract on America claim that H.R. 925 
is to protect small private property owners from the Federal 
Government. In fact, this takings legislation has little to do with 
protecting small private property owners. The truth about H.R. 925 is 
that it provides a new entitlement program for wealthy special 
interests at a high cost to taxpayers and environmental protection.
  The right to own private property is a right that is cherished by the 
American people. That's why it is protected by the Constitution. Under 
the fifth amendment, if the Government takes land to build a highway or 
school, of course it must pay for it. But the fifth amendment's 
protection isn't enough for the corporate special interests. They want 
Congress to pass H.R. 925 because it provides that any regulation that 
limits their right to make as much money as possible from their 
property is a taking, regardless of the impact this might have on the 
health and safety of their neighbors, the general public, or the 
environment. The true agenda of the supporters of H.R. 925 is to 
increase profits for special interests and weaken valuable laws to 
protect our health and environment.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 925 will have a chilling effect on the 
implementation of environmental regulations. Most likely, Federal 
agencies will choose not to implement or enforce regulations because 
they will not be able to afford the high price of compensation required 
by H.R. 925. The Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act are 
just two of the many important environmental laws that will be 
jeopardized by this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this back door 
attack on environmental protections by voting against H.R. 925.
Vol. 141


WASHINGTON, TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 1995

No. 52


House of Representatives