[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 143 (Wednesday, October 22, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H8938-H8940]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1534, PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS 
                       IMPLEMENTATION ACT OF 1997

  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call

[[Page H8939]]

up House Resolution 271 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows.

                              H. Res. 271

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1534) to simplify and expedite access to the 
     Federal courts for injured parties whose rights and 
     privileges, secured by the United States Constitution, have 
     been deprived by final actions of Federal agencies, or other 
     government officials or entities acting under color of State 
     law; to prevent Federal courts from abstaining from 
     exercising Federal jurisdiction in actions where no State law 
     claim is alleged; to permit certification of unsettled State 
     law questions that are essential to resolving Federal claims 
     arising under the Constitution; and to clarify when 
     government action is sufficiently final to ripen certain 
     Federal claims arising under the Constitution. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. Points of order 
     against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with 
     clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an 
     original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in 
     the bill, modified by the amendments printed in part 1 of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. That amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     shall be considered as read. No amendment to that amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except a 
     further amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by 
     Representative Conyers of Michigan or his designee, which 
     shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for thirty 
     minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and 
     an opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment. If that 
     further amendment is rejected or not offered, then no other 
     amendment shall be in order except the amendment printed in 
     part 2 of the report of the Committee on Rules, which may be 
     offered only by the Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for thirty minutes 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may 
     demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted 
     in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado [Mr. McInnis] is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During the 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 271 is a modified closed rule providing 
for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided between the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, and waiving 
points of order against consideration of the bill for the failure to 
comply with clause 2(L)(6), relating to the 3-day availability of 
committee reports.
  Additionally, House Resolution 271 makes in order the Committee on 
the Judiciary amendment in the nature of a substitute now printed in 
the bill as an original bill for the purpose of amendment, modified by 
the amendments printed in part 1 of the Committee on Rules report. 
Moreover, the rule provides that the committee amendment in the nature 
of a substitute shall be considered as read.
  Additionally, House Resolution 271 provides for an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, if offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Conyers] or his designee. The rule provides that this amendment, if 
offered, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 30 minutes 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and opponent, and shall 
not be subject to amendment. If the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Conyers] or his designee does not offer the amendment or if the 
amendment is rejected, no other amendment shall be in order except the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], which 
shall be considered as read, shall be debated for 30 minutes, equally 
divided between the proponent and opponent of the amendment.

                              {time}  1115

  Likewise, this amendment shall not be subject to amendment.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with 
or without instructions. House Resolution 271 was reported out of the 
Committee on Rules by voice vote.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1534, the Private Property Rights 
Implementation Act of 1997, is an attempt to address procedural hurdles 
which currently prevent property owners claiming a violation of the 
fifth amendment's takings clause from having fair and equal access to 
Federal court. H.R. 1534 attempts to remedy this situation by defining 
when a final agency decision takes place and prohibiting Federal judges 
from invoking the abstention doctrine to avoid cases that revolve on 
the fifth amendment takings claims. I urge my colleagues to support 
this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1534, the Private Property 
Rights Implementation Act of 1997. This important legislation seeks to 
provide a clear end to the process of resolving land use disputes 
which, under the current administrative and judicial system, can drag 
on for years.
  While this legislation seeks to give property owners their day in 
court, it does not change the statutory underpinnings that define 
takings, it does not change environmental laws, and it does not mandate 
compensation. What it does do, Mr. Speaker, is to provide a much more 
expeditious remedy to land use and property rights disputes arising 
from Federal statutes and constitutional law.
  In spite of my support for the legislation, Mr. Speaker, I must 
oppose this rule which provides for its consideration. The Committee on 
Rules majority has recommended a rule which denies the House the 
opportunity to fully debate the matter. This rule, in effect, forces 
Democratic Members to barter among themselves for which amendment to 
the bill might be included as a part of a Democratic substitute.
  In addition, an amendment relating to homeowners and their property 
rights, which was brought to the committee by the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Vento] was rejected by the committee Republicans. The 
excuse offered by the Republican majority was that there was not 
sufficient time to consider amendments before the House completes is 
business for the year. This is a very poor excuse, Mr. Speaker, for 
denying Members the opportunity to fully debate a matter of such 
importance.
  I support this legislation and I will urge all Members to vote for 
its passage, but I am of the opinion that the consideration of one or 
two additional amendments would not have tied up the House and delayed 
our departure. Perhaps it would have been wise for the Republican 
leadership to have scheduled more legislative days this month and fewer 
district work period days. We have important business to attend to in 
Washington, and H.R. 1534 is just one of those important matters that 
should be heard and should be passed.
  I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, about the outcome of the vote on this 
rule, but I would like to remind my Republican colleagues once more of 
their pledge to open the process in this House. This legislation is 
seeking to clear away hurdles encountered by property owners who seek 
to assert their rights in court. Why then cannot the Republican 
majority do the same for Members of this House, and clear away the 
hurdles that they have erected which prevent Members from expressing 
their points of view?
  Mr. Speaker, again, I support H.R. 1534. It is a bill which enjoys 
bipartisan support, and is a far cry from the takings legislation 
passed by this House 2 years ago. This legislation is a procedural bill 
which clarifies how the Federal courts should address Federal property 
rights claims. It seeks to bring relief to property owners, who now can 
spend an average of 10 years

[[Page H8940]]

jumping through the administrative and judicial hurdles that currently 
exist in order to be allowed to use their property. It is relief that 
is long overdue, and which can be remedied through passage of this 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all, I appreciate the support of the bill 
offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost].
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________