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




             THE PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS IMPLEMENTATION ACT

  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule that 
was just considered. I want to thank the Committee on Rules, 
particularly the gentleman from New York, Chairman Solomon, for the 
very fair approach that has been taken on this bill. The rule will 
allow full and open debate on a policy dispute of great significance. 
Again, I offer my appreciation and my support.
  What is the policy dispute that is at the center of H.R. 1534? It 
comes down to this: Do Members of this body want to interfere for the 
first time with the most basic sorts of local zoning decisions? I say 
we should not do that, that any problems that exist with local zoning 
procedures ought to be remedied by State law, not by the intrusion of 
Federal judges.
  I am more than a little bit surprised to see some of my more 
conservative colleagues throwing overboard their professed belief in 
Federalism to allow Federal judges to intrude early on in these 
extremely local matters.
  This is not just my view. I do not stand alone in the well of this 
House. The bill is opposed by the National Governors' Association, by 
40 States Attorneys General, including Attorney General Lundgren of 
California, Attorney General Vacco of New York.
  The list goes on and on. It is opposed by the Judicial Conference of 
America, chaired by Chief Justice Rehnquist of the Supreme Court of the 
United States; it is opposed by the National League of Cities; by the 
U.S. Conference of Mayors; by all the environmental groups who, 
incidentally, are going to double score this bill, because of the 
significance of what is being proposed. The list of opponents of H.R. 
1534 goes on and on. I think it is very important for all of my 
colleagues to really give full focus to what is being proposed.
  I am not sure how anyone could claim with a straight face that this 
bill is ``noncontroversial''; anything but. The manager's amendment 
represents a decided improvement in the bill, but it does not remedy 
the fatal flaw. The bill still would let Federal judges interfere with 
far more local zoning decisions. Think about that. Do we want 
everything kicked upstairs to the Federal Government, where all 
decision-making is made here? I think the answer to that is clearly no.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Boehlert] has expired.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 1 
additional minute.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, my substitute, the Boehlert substitute, is 
the only way to correct that flaw, because it would eliminate the 
portion of the bill dealing with local zoning laws.
  Let me reemphasize what we are talking about. We are talking about 
local decisions made in local communities on whether or not, for 
example, to deny a permit for building in an area, if when that permit 
were granted it would bring in unnecessary intrusion in terms of heavy 
traffic, where adequate infrastructure does not exist. It happens in 
our home towns every single day.
  Do we want decisions made for us in our home towns by Washington, DC 
in every single zoning issue? I think the answer is clearly no, so we 
have to deal with it in a different way.
  We would expedite Federal court access for property owners with a 
claim against a Federal agency. I think that is very appropriate. I 
urge support of the rule and support for the Boehlert substitute. I 
thank the Chair for being so indulgent.

                          ____________________