[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 143 (Wednesday, October 22, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H8950-H8964]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS IMPLEMENTATION ACT OF 1997

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 271 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole on 
the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 
1534.

                              {time}  1240


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the further 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 U.S. 
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, with Mr. Snowbarger in the 
chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble] had 3 minutes remaining in 
debate, and the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren] had 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, what happened to the Federalists in the 
Congress? We were going to empower the States. This is the most 
extraordinary preemption of local and State laws in my 11 years in the 
Congress.
  This is unbelievable. We heard horror stories from people from States 
that do not have a regular land use process. Those States should adopt 
a land use process. Those local jurisdictions should adopt a land use 
process, and it should be regular. It should have process of appeal and 
litigation through their States. But not the Federal Government.
  Do we want the Federal Government wading into every single local land 
use dispute? Peep shows next to schools, liquor stores next to high 
schools? I think not.
  I do not think the people on that side of the aisle really believe 
that. They are playing here to an audience of special interests, very 
well-funded special interests. This is horrible legislation for small 
town America. It is horrible legislation for our States and States' 
rights. Reject this legislation.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe in the fifth amendment and the minority 
believes in the fifth amendment. I believe there ought to be 
compensation when there is a taking, and there ought to be due process. 
There is no dispute about that. But what we dispute is this remedy. We 
have heard a lot of discussion about widows who have been abused by the 
heavy-handed Government. But we need to get beyond that appealing image 
to what is really going on here.

[[Page H8951]]

  Zoning protects neighborhoods, zoning protects homeowners, and what 
this bill does is allow developers rights that are much greater than 
those that would attach to neighborhoods and to homeowners.
  These rights will attach, whether it is 20,000 housing units being 
built, or whether a town is trying to regulate the hours of operation 
of a topless bar or pornographic bookstore. That is what is so terribly 
flawed with this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this and to search for a 
more rational response to this problem.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Ryun].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Ryun] is recognized for 
3 minutes.
  Mr. RYUN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1534. Mr. Chairman, 
one of the pillars of our democracy is the right of every individual to 
own private property. In 1792, James Madison said this, and I quote: 
``That is not a just government nor is property secure under it where 
the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal 
liberty is violated by an arbitrary seizure of one class of citizens 
for the service of the rest.''
  Because our Founding Fathers understood this very important 
principle, they included a guarantee in the Bill of Rights to protect 
private property owners from politicians and bureaucrats who believe 
that they know best how to use someone else's lands.
  The fifth amendment to the Constitution assures the Government cannot 
take a person's private property without first providing the owner due 
process and just compensation. Unfortunately, the fears which motivated 
our Founding Fathers to include this property guarantee are being 
realized today.
  For example, in the first 10 years after the enactment of the 1983 
Rails to Trails Act, trails groups and State governments used that law 
to take the property from 62,000 landowners. Yet, not one of those 
aggrieved farmers and homeowners has received a single penny in 
compensation for their loss.
  While courts have ruled that compensation must be paid to the 
property owners, endless bureaucratic redtape would first require a 
small Kansas farmer to retain a high-priced Washington lawyer to begin 
jumping over administrative hurdles. This lawyer would then need almost 
10 years of expensive court time before securing a farmer's 
compensation for his strip of land that was taken to create a 
recreational trail for others to use.
  All we have to do is do a little math, and if the value of a farmer's 
confiscated land is about $30,000 but a Washington lawyer would charge 
the farmer $100,000 to pursue the farmer's claim, there is no farmer 
who will be able to afford any compensation. That is why this private 
property rights bill, this one particularly, H.R. 1534, is so 
important. It is our duty as Members of this House, the peoples' House, 
the House of Representatives, to protect private property owners from 
arbitrary actions and guarantee their right to due process.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' for property 
rights, to vote ``yes'' for due process, and to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 
1534.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1534, 
the Private Property Rights Implementation Act.
  Mr. Chairman, last night I brought a germane amendment to the Rules 
Committee and asked that it be made in order. My amendment seeks to 
balance this bill with adequate protection for the 65 million Americans 
that own their own homes. It would have limited the application of H.R. 
1534 to States that provide adequate protection for homeowners in this 
country. All I asked for was 30 minutes to make my case to the Members 
of this House. My request was denied.
  This measure, H.R. 1534, is an end of the session effort to avert 
full debate on a very important issue, property rights, the rights of 
special interests not the property rights of homeowners, yet on the 
floor today the rule was again expanded to accommodate another unheard, 
unrequested amendment.
  I don't know for the life of me why the leadership in this House of 
Representatives is not willing to spend 30 minutes on the concerns of 
homeowners. H.R. 1534 is not a purely procedural, noncontroversial 
bill, as supporters of this bill would have you believe, they are 
wrong. This bill sides with developers who have made their views clear 
and, of course, generously contribute to the campaigns of those who 
support them. This is a new judicial superhighway that places the 
decisions in Federal courts, out of the hands of local government and 
State courts.
  Ironically, the underlying bill we are considering today does not 
protect the property of homeowners--the most important investment made 
by the American family--from adverse actions by State and local 
government and others. This bill protects developers that may have been 
unjustifiably or justifiably stymied by local and State courts that are 
carrying out their own laws and rules. Under H.R. 1534, Congress 
rearranges this authority and moves it away from local and State 
governments. It's ironic that a Congress emblematic of devolution 
initiatives over the past several years are suddenly moving to 
superimpose such a national policy. The Federal courts, with this new 
guideline, will be no doubt more friendly to the interests of 
developers than State and local courts. The handwriting is on the wall 
as to the expense and policy change that this bill gives developers to 
easier access, and assure more profitable treatment in the Federal 
courts.
  The real motive I believe is apparent, to first remove local 
decisionmaking power from communities, States, and the respective 
courts. And in the future create a wholly new class of takings which 
will hamstring the United States both State and Federal with a new 
class of taxpayer payments whenever zoning and the limits of common 
interest for the common good guide the use of real property to stop 
pollution, to enhance--their community they would be forced to buy 
theoretical development rights--this turns the local decisionmaking on 
its head.
  I have drafted an amendment which is very important and seeks to 
balance this newly proposed policy path. I must admit, Mr. Chairman, I 
have some interests to worry about, too. They are the property 
homeowners of St. Paul, of Minnesota, and the Nation--the families that 
work hard every day and believe in the importance of neighborhoods and 
communities and their only property is their family homes. My amendment 
would have sought to at least protect them and their homes. It would 
have prevented this bill from going into effect in States that have not 
passed laws that protect homeowners' property rights. These laws will 
have to provide families with adequate notice when adverse development 
is moving in to affect their property. The intent was to provide 
homeowners with guaranteed access to the courts when their property is 
devalued by harmful developments nearby. I'm not sure anybody would 
oppose such an amendment. It will significantly improve H.R. 1534 and 
insures protection of the rights of American families and homeowners. 
We all have homeowners in our districts, and they deserve this right a 
priori.
  All I asked for, Mr. Speaker, was 30 minutes. Claims have been made 
we simply don't have time to consider all the amendments that are in 
order. What I want to know is why we are wasting floor time on 
legislation that is opposed not just by all the environmental groups. 
But, Mr. Chairman, this bill is opposed by the National League of 
Cities, the Conference of Mayors, 40 State attorneys general, and is 
headed for a certain veto by the President. With a list that long you 
have to wonder who supports this bill and why. The point is, however, 
that we are engaged in a futile exercise. If we have the time to 
consider this bill on the floor, we certainly have time to consider the 
property rights of homeowners in this country, but the advocates of 
this legislation obviously feared this germane amendments; that placed 
homeowners property rights on a par with developer's for who this 
measure will benefit.
  This procedure for debate silences the voices of the 65 million 
Americans who own their own homes and are concerned about reckless 
activities that could cause their

[[Page H8952]]

most precious investment to lose its value. For these reasons, I urge 
my colleagues to resoundingly defeat this measure and maintain the 
protections accorded homeowners by State and local governments, they 
are far better served at the local level where they have a place at the 
table than being shut out by this redefined property rights effort in 
the Federal courts where they are for all practical purpose excluded.
  Nr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly oppose this bill which 
would override local zoning procedures, undermine local governments, 
burden Federal courts, and weaken efforts to protect public health, 
welfare, and the environment. It is bad policy and ought to be soundly 
rejected.
  The current judicial procedures, which may appear cumbersome, have in 
fact served to protect communities across the Nation from misguided 
property use which may have been detrimental to the society at large. 
This bill will allow those who seek to risk public health, safety, and 
welfare for private gain to go over the heads of local officials and 
appeal directly to Federal judges, some of whom may have less 
understanding and expertise in the issues and concerns of the local 
community.
  We learned while considering this bill in committee that this bill is 
specifically designed to undermine legitimate efforts to protect pubic 
health and safety. During consideration of this bill in committee, I 
offered an amendment to ensure that in cases where public health and 
safety are involved, the plaintiff cannot circumvent State and local 
courts to get the Federal courts. And the bill's sponsor rejected it. 
It appears then that supporters of this bill would deliberately seek to 
undermine the health and safety of our Nation's communities. That is 
simply wrong, and more than that, it is shameful.
  I also want to mention that it appears that this bill could be used 
to undermine rent regulation in cities like New York, because it may 
allow landlords to challenge rent regulation and public housing laws 
and rulings in expedited fashion in Federal court. Tenants may lack the 
financial resources, the legal know-how or standing to appear in 
Federal court to defend their rights. Some have argued that this bill 
could undermine tenants' rights and threaten to eliminate low- and 
moderate-income housing in some of our biggest cities.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill that would jeopardize pubic 
health, destroy the environment, and put citizens' lives in danger.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1534, 
the Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 1997.
  This bill would streamline the court procedures when a case is 
brought by a private property owner to protect their legal and civil 
rights as guaranteed in the fifth amendment of the U.S. Constitution. 
This is a bill that is sorely needed.
  As chairman of the Committee on Resources, we have documented in our 
hearings the many cases where governments assert the right to set aside 
private lands for the protection of wildlife.
  When a landowner wants to sell land and the Government pays for the 
land, that is legal and an acceptable manner for the Government to 
protect wildlife.
  However, as is happening more frequently, the Government sometimes 
finds it inconvenient to find the funds to buy the land, so they 
designate it as habitat for an endangered species.
  When that happens, landowners find that they cannot use their land. 
In the last 2 years, under extreme pressure from this Republican 
Congress, the Government is beginning a process to allow landowners to 
use land designated as habitat, but only at a very high cost to 
landowners.
  When landowners cannot afford to go to court to protect their legal 
and civil rights, the Government can use pressure to take the land from 
the landowner.
  We need to give landowners a more level playing field. We need to 
ensure that going to court is not so expensive that only the biggest 
and richest landowners can afford to protect their rights.
  A case in point is the Headwaters Forest in California. For years the 
Government tried to use various forestry laws and the ESA to force the 
landowner off a portion of its land.
  The landowner filed a takings suit in the court of claims and now the 
Government has come to the bargaining table and offering to pay for the 
property. This would not have happened if this landowner had not been a 
large, wealthy corporation with the resources to fight a long and an 
expensive court battle.
  Now some environmentalists are arguing that this bill would increase 
the number of Federal lawsuits. Some environmentalists are now in the 
business of filing lawsuits. In the last 10 years, environmentalists 
have received over $10 million in payments from the Federal Treasury 
for filing endangered Species Act lawsuits. I believe many of these 
lawsuits are frivolous and an abuse of the courts, and their numbers 
are increasing dramatically. For environmentalists to argue against 
allowing average citizens to sue at the same time they are making a 
living off their lawsuits is hypocrisy of the highest order. I have a 
list of environmentalists who have received payments for lawsuits and 
would ask that it be entered into the Record with my testimony.
  Let's ensure that the smallest and poorest landowner can have the 
same rights as the biggest corporation or the environmental groups. 
Let's pass H.R. 1534 and protect our constitutional rights.

                                       ATTORNEY FEES AWARD BY ORGANIZATION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Name                       Court No.                   District                    Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska Wilderness Recreation and                    94-033  Alaska...........................            $853.20
 Tourism Assoc. v. Gary A. Morrison, et
 al. (Tongass Nat'l Forest).
Bay Institute of San Francisco v.                  92-2132  California East..................          60,000.00
 Lujan--Delta Smelt.
Bay Institute of San Francisco, et al.             94-0265  California East..................           5,000.00
 v. Babbitt--Delta Smelt.
Biodiversity Legal Foundation v.                    96-641  District of Columbia.............          10,000.00
 Babbitt (Categroy 2 Species).
Biodiversity Legal Foundation v.                    95-601  Colorado.........................           1,000.00
 Babbitt.
Biodiversity Legal Foundation v.                    95-382  Colorado.........................           8,000.00
 Babbitt.
Biodiversity Legal Foundation v.                   95-1815  Colorado.........................           3,500.00
 Babbitt.
Biodiversity Legal Foundation v.                    95-816  Colorado.........................             500.00
 Babbitt (Pending see above)--N. Am.
 Wolverine.
Biodiversity Legal Foundation, et al.              94-0920  District of Columbia.............           5,000.00
 v. Babbitt--Flatwoods Salamander.
Biodiversity Legal Foundation, et al.              94-0920  District of Columbia.............           3,815.00
 v. Babbitt--Flatwoods Salamander.
Biodiversity Legal Foundation, et al.              94-1086  Colorado.........................           1,408.19
 v. Babbitt--Western Boreal Toad.
Biodiversity Legal Foundation v.                  94-02441  District of Columbia.............           4,000.00
 Babbitt--Selkirk Mountain Woodland
 Caribou.
Biodiversity Legal Foundation v.                   95-2509  Colorado.........................           3,435.61
 Babbitt.
California Trout, et al. v. Babbitt                95-3961  California North.................          40,000.00
 (Santa Ana Speckled Dace) (Pending see
 above).
California Native Plant Society v.                 91-0038  California East..................          16,678.25
 Manuel Lujan, Jr. (Pending see above)--
 Plant listings.
Canadian Lynx, Greater Ecosystem                   92-1269  Washington West..................           2,000.00
 Alliance v. Lujan--Listing of Can.
 Lynx.
Canadian Lynx, Greater Ecosystem                   92-1269  Washington West..................           9,500.00
 Alliance v. Lujan--Listing of Can.
 Lynx.
Citizens Cmte to Save Our Canyons, et                95-68  Utah.............................             145.50
 al v. USFS, Bernie Weingardt, Dale
 Boswort (John Paul Area).
Clemmys Karmorata v. USFWS--Western                93-6135  Oregon...........................           2,522.30
 Pond Turtle, Red Legged.
CLR Timber Holdings, Inc. et al v.                 94-6403  Oregon...........................          40,000.00
 Bruce Babbitt, et al (Marbled
 Murrelet).
Colorado Wildlife Federation v. Turner--            92-884  Colorado.........................           5,000.00
 Razorback Sucker.
Colorado Wildlife Federation v. Turner--            92-884  Colorado.........................          31,351.90
 Razorback Sucker.
Colorado Environmental Coalition v. J.             91-1765  Colorado.........................           5,168.40
 Turner--Razorback Sucker.
Conservation Council for Hawaii, et al            89-00953  Hawaii...........................          44,635.25
 v. Manuel Lujan and John F. Turner.
Defenders of Wildlife v. Thomas--               Strychnine  Minnesota........................         122,500.00
 Strychnine.
Desert Tortoise, et al. v. Lujan--Ward             93-0114  California North.................          69,000.00
 Valley--Tortoise.
Dioxin/Organi-chlorine Center and                  91-1442  Washington West..................          61,500.00
 Columbia River United v. Dana
 Rasmussen.
Earth Island Institute, et al v. Manuel            91-6015  Oregon...........................          32,338.70
 Lujan--5 Year Review.
Edward Wilkinson Mudd Jr. v. William               91-1392  Alabama North....................          39,000.00
 Reilly Admin., EPA--CWA/ESA
 consultation.
Energy and Resource Advocates, et al               90-2479  California North.................          10,000.00
 vs. Kenneth R. Quitoriano, et al and
 James D. Watkins (Energy Dept.)--
 (Purex Waste).
Environmental Defense Center v.                    94-0743  California Central...............           4,074.75
 Babbitt--Red Leggedfrog/salamander.
Environmental Defense Center v.                    94-0788  California Central...............           3,815.00
 Babbitt--Fairy Shrimp.
Environmental Defense Center v. Bruce              93-1847  California Central...............           4,700.00
 Babbitt--Western Pond Turtle.
Environmental Defense Center v.                    95-2867  California Central...............          44,511.53
 Babbitt--Red Legged Frog.
Environmental Defense Center v. Lujan--            92-6082  California Central...............           7,500.00
 Tidewater Goby.
Environmental Defense Center v.                    93-3379  California Central...............           4,300.00
 Babbitt--California Tiger Salamander.
Environmental Defense Center v. Bruce              93-1848  California Central...............           4,700.00
 Babbitt--Southwestern Willow
 Flycatcher.
Environmental Defense Fund v. Lujan--              89-2034  District of Columbia.............           2,237.50
 Desert Tortoise.
Florida Key Deer, et al v. Robert H.              90-10037  Florida South....................         130,000.00
 Morris--Fema/Flood Insurance.
Friends of the Wild Swan, Inc.,                    94-0246  District of Columbia.............           4,500.00
 Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Inc.,
 et al. v. Babbitt--Bull Trout Listing.
Friends of Walker Creek Wetlands v.                92-1626  Oregon...........................          12,000.00
 Dept. of the Interior--Nelson's
 Checker Mallow.
Fund for Animals v. Manuel Lujan, et                92-800  District of Columbia.............          67,500.00
 al. (Pending see above) ESA Listings.
Fund for Animals v. Manuel Lujan                    92-800  District of Columbia.............          24,500.00
 (Pending see above) (ESA Listings).
Fund for Animals, Swan View Coalition,             91-2201  District of Columbia.............          36,000.00
 D.C. ``Jasper'' Carlton (Director, of
 Biodiversity Legal Foundation) v.
 Turner--Grizzly Bears.
Greater Gila Biodiversity Project v.               94-0288  Arizona..........................           2,048.91
 USFWS--Pygmy Owls.

[[Page H8953]]

 
Greater Gila Biodiversity Project v.               93-1913  Arizona..........................          11,000.00
 USFWA--Loach Minnow.
Greater Yellowstone Coalition, et al.              93-1495  District of Columbia.............          32,750.00
 v. F. Dale Robertson (USFWS)--Grizzly
 bears.
Greenpeace v. Baldridge................            86-0129  Hawaii...........................          88,794.01
Hawaiian Crow v. Manuel Lujan--Hawaiian           91-00191  Hawaii...........................         195,000.00
 crow.
Hughes River Watershed Conservancy, et            1-94-113  West Virginia North..............          63,367.71
 al v. Dan Glickman, et al.
Idaho Department of Fish and Game v.               93-1603  Oregon...........................           8,405.06
 NMFS--hydro transfer/salmon.
Idaho Conservation League v. Manuel                92-0260  Idaho............................          21,166.00
 Lujan, et al.--Bruneau Hot Springs
 Snail.
Idaho Conservation League v. Babbitt--             94-0351  Idaho............................           5,000.00
 White Sturgeon.
Idaho Conservation League, et al. v.               92-0406  Idaho............................           8,000.00
 Lujan--Idaho Springsnail.
Jeffrey Mausolf, William Kullberg,                 95-1201  Minnesota........................          28,821.50
 Arlys Strehlo; Minnesota United
 Snowmobilers Association v. Babbitt
 (Wolf/Eagle) (Pending see above).
La Compania Ocho Inc., et al v. USFS,               94-317  New Mexico.......................         303,635.67
 et al (Carson Nat'l Forest).
Marbled Murrelet et al v. Manuel Lujan              91-522  Washington West..................          61,109.47
 (Pending see above)--Listing and
 critical habitat for marbled murrelet.
Mountain Lion Foundation v. Babbitt--              94-1165  California East..................           6,500.00
 Santa Ana Mountain Lion.
National Audubon Society et al. v.                 93-1152  District of Columbia.............          22,500.00
 Babbitt et al.--Guam species.
National Audubon Society v. Lujan--                 92-209  California South.................           7,348.75
 Least Bell's vireo.
National Audubon Society v. Babbitt, et            94-0105  California South.................           7,540.61
 al.--Snowy Plover.
National Wildlife Foundation, et al. v.            79-1851  District of Columbia.............          20,000.00
 Endangered Species Committee, et al.
National Wildlife Federation, et al v.             89-2089  District of Columbia.............          42,500.00
 Robert Mosbacher (Commerce).
Native Plant Society of Oregon v. U.S.              93-180  Oregon...........................          13,046.19
 DOI--Oregon Plants.
Natural Resources Defense Council, et              93-0301  California North.................         262,096.76
 al. v. Bruce Babbitt--Desert Tortoise.
Natural Resources Defense Council v.               85-1214  California East..................          57,000.00
 Donald Hodel (Kesterson).
Natural Resources Defense Council v.               85-1214  California East..................         518,000.00
 Donald Hodel (Kesterson).
Northern Spotted Owl, et al v. Donald               88-573  Washington West..................          56,718.00
 Hodel, et al.--Spotted Owl Listing.
Northwest Forest Resource Council v.               95-6244  Oregon...........................         298,144.36
 Dan Glickman (Emergency Salvage Timber
 Sale)(Pending see above).
Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to            94-6339  Oregon...........................          10,500.00
 Pesticides v. Babbitt.
Oregon Council of the Federation of Fly            95-1969  Oregon...........................          24,706.49
 Fishers v. Brown (Cutthroat
 Trout)(Pending see above).
Oregon Trout Inc., et al v. USFS (Trout            96-1460  Oregon...........................          21,400.00
 Creek Salvage Sale).
Oregon Natural Resources Council v.                 94-666  Oregon...........................           4,000.00
 Babbitt--Western lily.
Oregon Natural Resources Council v.                 93-293  Oregon...........................          16,200.00
 Department of Commerce.
Oregon Natural Resources Council v.                95-3117  California North.................         120,952.54
 Schmitten (Steelhead Trout)(Pending
 see above).
Pacific Rivers Council v. Thomas                   92-1322  Oregon...........................         165,000.00
 (Pending see above)--Salmon/Umatilla
 Forest.
Resources Limited Inc., et al v. F.                  89-41  Montana..........................          47,000.00
 Dale Robertson, et al (Pending see                                                                    90,000.00
 above)--Flathead Forest/Grizzlies.
Restore: The North Woods v. Babbitt                  95-37  New Hampshire....................           5,400.00
 (Pending see above)--Atlantic salmon.
Save Our Springs Legal Defense Fund,                95-230  Texas West.......................          72,500.00
 Inc. v. Babbitt (Barton Springs
 Salamander) (Pending see above).
Save our Ecosystems, et al. v. Federal             96-6161  Oregon...........................           2,560.80
 Hwy Admin. (West Eugene Parkway).
Sierra Club and League for Coastal                 86-1942  California South.................          44,774.16
 Protection v. John Marsh, et al.
Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund v.                  89-1140  District of Columbia.............           9,000.00
 Manuel Lujan.
Sierra Club v. Lujan (Pending see                   91-069  Texas West.......................         666,666.67
 above)--Edwards Aquifer** same case
 but Justice split the fee in four
 portions.
Sierra Club v. Lujan (Pending see                   91-069  Texas West.......................         666,666.67
 above)--Edwards Aquifer.
Sierra Club v. Lujan (Pending see                   91-069  Texas West.......................         666,666.66
 above)--Edwards Aquifer.
Sierra Club v. Lujan (Pending see                   91-069  Texas West.......................       1,550,000.00
 above)--Edwards Aquifer.
Sierra Club, et al. v. Bruce Babbitt,              93-1717  California South.................          11,368.76
 et al.--10 species of plants and
 animals.
Sierra Club, et al v. James A. Baker,              89-3005  District of Columbia.............          18,583.72
 et al--Turtles??.
Sierra Club, et al v. Richard Lyng                   85-69  Texas East.......................         149,647.50
 (Pending see above)--Southern Pine
 Beetle and Red Cockaded Woodpecker.
Sierra Club, et al. v. David Garber, et             93-069  Montana..........................          55,000.00
 al.
Silver Rice Rat, et al v. Manuel Lujan--           89-3409  District of Columbia.............          19,500.00
 Silver Rice Rat Listing.
Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v.               93-2376  Colorado.........................           8,500.00
 Bruce Babbitt--Virgin River Club.
Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v.                94-717  Colorado.........................           4,200.00
 Morgenweck--Virgin Spinedace.
Southwest Center for Biological                    94-1969  Arizona..........................          15,509.11
 Diversity v. Babbitt (SW Willow
 Flycatcher)(Pending see above).
Southwest Center for Biological                    94-0739  Arizona..........................           1,000.00
 Diversity, et al. v. USFWS--Loach
 Minnow/spinedace.
Southwest Center for Biological                    94-2036  Arizona..........................          40,000.00
 Diversity v. Babbitt (Pending see
 above).
Southwest Center for Biological                    94-1946  Arizona..........................           1,971.01
 Diversity v. Babbitt.
Southwest Center for Biological                    94-0696  Arizona..........................           1,665.00
 Diversity, et al. v. USFWA--Jaguar
 listing.
Southwest Center for Biological                    94-1034  Arizona..........................           5,145.00
 Diversity v. Babbitt--Arizona Willow.
Southwest Center for Biological                    96-1170  California South.................          17,000.00
 Diversity v. Babbitt (Laguna Mtn
 Skipper).
Dr. Robin Silver et al. v. Babbitt                 94-0337  Arizona..........................           4,000.00
 (Pending see above).
Dr. Robin Silver v. Thomas (USFWS)                 94-1610  Arizona..........................         231,393.75
 (Mexican Spotted Owl) (Pending see
 above).
Dr. Robin Silver, et al. v. Babbitt                94-0337  Arizona..........................         102,418.86
 (Pending see above)--Mexican spotted
 owl.
Steven Krichbaum (w/Virginias for                  96-0108  Virginia West....................             345.00
 Wilderness) & Michael Jones v. USFS,
 William Damon (GW Nat'l Forest).
Swan View Coalition Inc v. USFS                       93-7  Montana..........................          23,700.00
 (Flathead Forest/Grizzlies)(Pending
 see above).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my 
support for H.R. 1534, the Private Property Implementation Act. I 
believe this bill takes a new, more modest approach to the issue of 
property rights and has received widespread bipartisan support. The 
legislation helps property owners by clearing some of the legal and 
procedural hurdles that make it both excessively time consuming and 
expensive to assert their claims. This bill proposes to do nothing 
except clarify the jurisdiction of Federal courts to hear and determine 
issues of Federal constitutional law.
  H.R. 1534 is vastly different from previous property rights bills. It 
does not attempt to define for a court when a taking has occurred nor 
does it change or weaken any environmental law. The bill would have no 
budgetary impact because, unlike previous bills, it contains no 
compensation requirement or trigger. Simply put, the legislation amends 
Federal procedural laws governing the jurisdiction of the U.S. district 
courts. H.R. 1534 would provide more straightforward access to Federal 
courts for property owners seeking redress of their fifth amendment 
rights.
  There has been a lot of controversy generated surrounding this bill. 
More of the criticism of this legislation is based upon the assumption 
that the bill cuts local governments out of the decisionmaking process 
when it comes to land use. Nothing could be further from the truth.
  The truth is that H.R. 1534 applies only to Federal claims based on 
the 5th and 14th amendments that are filed in Federal court. The bill 
creates no new cause of action against local governments. H.R. 1534 is 
only a procedural bill, clarifying the rules so a decision can be 
reached faster on the facts of the case instead of wasting taxpayer 
money on jurisdictional questions.
  Local governments will have no new limits on their ability to zone or 
regulate land use. Local agencies will get at least two, maybe three, 
chances to resolve a land use decision locally before their decision 
will be defined as ``final''--once on the original application, once on 
appeal, and yet again on review by an elected body.
  H.R. 1534 doesn't provide a ticket to Federal court--individuals 
already have a right to go to Federal court. The bill simply provides 
an objective definition of when ``Enough is Enough,'' so that both 
parties in a land use dispute can participate in meaningful 
negotiations. I believe H.R. 1534 represents a moderate approach that 
Members can and should support. Let's not miss an opportunity to do 
something that will provide a direct benefit to our constituents.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1534--the 
Private Property Rights Implementation Act. I strongly believe land use 
decisions should be made at the local level to the greatest degree 
possible. In fact, this Congress has fought hard to move more Federal 
programs out of the hands of Washington bureaucrats and into the 
control of the folks back home. The folks in Wisconsin and other States 
are better suited to make decisions that affect local areas than 
bureaucrats in Washington. Nevertheless, there are limitations that 
exist on local governments to ensure they do not trample on the rights 
of individuals. Those limitations are embodied in the Constitution and 
the Bill of Rights.
  H.R. 1534 allows a property owner, who feels his or her 
constitutional rights have been violated, a chance to seek protection 
in Federal court--the same chance that anyone else would have. H.R. 
1534 simply puts fifth amendment protections on par with other 
constitutional rights.
  Those who argue that H.R. 1534 would ``federalize local land use 
decisions,'' have long supported Federal land use controls to protect 
the environment. Where is the consistency? Support H.R. 1534 and 
support the right of all Americans to be treated equally under the 
Constitution--even property owners.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, this is a tough subject, involving the need 
to balance protection of constitutionally guaranteed private property 
rights with other constitutional guarantees of public health, safety, 
and welfare as traditional, legitimate functions of Government.

[[Page H8954]]

While I agree this is a subject that needs our attention, and I commend 
Mr. Gallegly for his work in bringing the matter forward, I do have 
some concerns about the bill we are about to consider.
  As a former mayor and county commissioner, I'm particularly 
interested in H.R. 1534. While the current system we have of layering 
government an division of authority isn't perfect, I believe it works 
well and ensures a balanced role for all three levels of government 
involved in these decisions. We ought to trust the local officials to 
work through the zoning issues. They're the ones on the frontlines--
they deal with these questions every day and are in the best position 
to be directly responsive to the needs and concerns of the community. 
Of course, there are poster child examples of the extreme development 
abuses and cases of egregious takings without compensation.
  If there are questions of State law that need to be resolved, we need 
State courts to decide those issues. If a legitimate takings claim 
exists, it is critical we ensure landowners their day in court.
  We need to maintain for local officials a meaningful opportunity to 
work with the landowners and other constituents to craft a compromise. 
In my view, it is not appropriate to have the Federal Government 
deciding or pressuring local land use questions. In addition, some 
critics of this bill have argued that the Federal judiciary would be 
flooded with claims and simply could not handle the caseload that would 
result if this bill were enacted. For example, the Federal district 
court for the area of Florida that I represent is already short handed 
and has a backlog of cases that is measured in years, not just months. 
I think we need to ensure that any changes to the current system take 
these concerns into account.
  In the end, Mr. Speaker, balancing the right of a landowner to 
develop his property within the bounds set by the health, safety, and 
welfare interests of the community is a difficult question--I, for one, 
do not believe there's any particular magic a Federal court has that 
can solve these problems and make them go away.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I am a cosponsor of H.R. 1534, the 
Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 1997 because I believe 
that relief needs to be provided to property owners who are seeking 
finality to their land use plans, and I have become convinced that 
reform is necessary.
  Since cosponsoring the measure, I have heard from opponents, 
especially many of the local elected officials from the 10th 
Congressional District, whom I'm proud to represent. I have continued 
to meet with both advocates and opponents to discuss in depth many of 
the concerns raised and fully explore the various interpretations of 
the bill as amended. Earlier this week, I wrote to Chairman Hyde of the 
House Judiciary Committee with several of my questions and urged him to 
postpone floor consideration of the bill until these issues are 
sufficiently resolved. Unfortunately, this measure is before the full 
House for consideration today and I, despite my support for reform, 
cannot vote for a measure with such important and potentially far-
reaching implications without the time needed to fully explore the 
ramifications of this amended bill.
  As I stated, I want to see a more streamlined and fair process for 
property owners, and I wish that this body had taken the time necessary 
in developing a needed reform measure, without overburdening our cities 
and counties. It is my hope that we can continue to work on this issue 
in the future to develop a consensus bill that can be supported by a 
coalition of involved parties.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, while I realize that it is too late to 
formally remove my name as a cosponsor of H.R. 1534, I want to indicate 
that I do not support this bill in its current form. My initial 
understanding of this legislation was that its central thrust was to 
facilitate the ability of aggrieved parties to have Federal question 
claims adjudicated by Federal judges. However, it is now clear that the 
bill would significantly alter the abstention doctrine and more 
importantly, would allege to alter the Supreme Court definition of 
ripeness. I am concerned that a legislative effort to alter such a 
constitutional doctrine may be unconstitutional. I support the effort 
of my colleague, Mr. Gallegly, to make reasonable changes to unfair 
impediments to the consideration of takings claims but, acknowledging 
the two concerns outlined above, I cannot support this legislation.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute printed in the bill, as modified by the 
amendments printed in part 1 of House Report 105-335, shall be 
considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 
5-minute rule and shall be considered as read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as 
modified by the amendments printed in part 1 of House Report 105-335, 
is as follows:

                               H.R. 1534

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Private Property Rights 
     Implementation Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. JURISDICTION IN CIVIL RIGHTS CASES.

       Section 1343 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Whenever a district court exercises jurisdiction 
     under subsection (a) in an action in which the operative 
     facts concern the uses of real property, it shall not abstain 
     from exercising or relinquish its jurisdiction to a State 
     court in an action where no claim of a violation of a State 
     law, right, or privilege is alleged, and where a parallel 
     proceeding in State court arising out of the same operative 
     facts as the district court proceeding is not pending.
       ``(d) Where the district court has jurisdiction over an 
     action under subsection (a) in which the operative facts 
     concern the uses of real property and which cannot be decided 
     without resolution of an unsettled question of State law, the 
     district court may certify the question of State law to the 
     highest appellate court of that State. After the State 
     appellate court resolves the question certified to it, the 
     district court shall proceed with resolving the merits. The 
     district court shall not certify a question of State law 
     under this subsection unless the question of State law--
       ``(1) will significantly affect the merits of the injured 
     party's Federal claim; and
       ``(2) is patently unclear and obviously susceptible to a 
     limiting construction as to render premature a decision on 
     the merits of the constitutional or legal issue in the case.
       ``(e)(1) Army claim or action brought under section 1979 of 
     the Revised Statutes of the United States (42 U.S.C. 1983) to 
     redress the deprivation of a property right or privilege 
     secured by the Constitution shall be ripe for adjudication by 
     the district courts upon a final decision rendered by any 
     person acting under color of any statute, ordinance, 
     regulation, custom, or usage, of any State of territory of 
     the United States, that causes actual and concrete injury to 
     the party seeking redress.
       ``(2)(A) For purposes of this subsection, a final decision 
     exists if--
       ``(i) any person acting under color of any statute, 
     ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or 
     territory of the United States, makes a definitive decision 
     regarding the extent of permissible uses on the property that 
     has been allegedly infringed or taken
       ``(ii)(I) one meaningful application, as defined by the 
     locality concerned within that State or territory, to use the 
     property has been submitted but has not been approved, and 
     the party seeking redress has applied for one appeal or 
     waiver which has not been approved, where the applicable 
     statute, ordinance, custom, or usage provides a mechanism for 
     appeal to or waiver by an administrative agency; or
       ``(II) one meaningful application, as defined by the 
     locality concerned within that State or territory, to use the 
     property has been submitted but has not been approved, and 
     the disapproval explains in writing the use, density, or 
     intensity of development of the property that would be 
     approved, with any conditions therefor, and the party 
     seeking redress has resubmitted another meaningful 
     application taking into account the terms of the 
     disapproval, except that--
       ``(aa) if no such reapplication is submitted, then a final 
     decision shall not have been reached for purposes of this 
     subsection, except as provided in subparagraph (B); and
       ``(bb) if the reapplication is not approved, or if the 
     reapplication is not required under subparagraph (B), then a 
     final decision exists for purposes of this subsection if the 
     party seeking redress has applied for one appeal or waiver 
     with respect to the disapproval, which has not been approved, 
     where the applicable statute, ordinance, custom, or usage 
     provides a mechanism of appeal or waiver by an administrative 
     agency; and
       ``(iii) in a case involving the use of real property, where 
     the applicable statute or ordinance provides for review of 
     the case by elected officials, the party seeking redress has 
     applied for but is denied such review.
       ``(B) The party seeking redress shall not be required to 
     apply for an appeal or waiver described in paragraph (1)(B) 
     if no such appeal or waiver, is available, if it cannot 
     provide the relief requested, or if the application or 
     reapplication would be futile.
       (3) For purposes of this subsection, a final decision shall 
     not require the party seeking redress to exhaust judicial 
     remedies provided by any State or territory of the United 
     States.
       ``(f) Nothing in subsections (c), (d), or (e) alters the 
     substantive law of taking of property, including the burden 
     of proof borne by the plaintiff.''.

     SEC. 3. UNITED STATES AS DEFENDANT.

       Section 1346 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(h)(1) Any claim brought under subsection (a) that is 
     founded upon a property right or privilege secured by the 
     Constitution, but

[[Page H8955]]

     was allegedly infringed or taken by the United States, shall 
     be ripe for adjudication upon a final decision rendered by 
     the United States, that causes actual and concrete injury to 
     the party seeking redress.
       ``(2) For purposes of this subsection, a final decision 
     exists if--
       ``(A) the United States makes a definitive decision 
     regarding the extent of permissible uses on the property that 
     has been allegedly infringed or taken; and
       ``(B) one meaningful application to use the property has 
     been submitted but has not been approved, and the party 
     seeking redress has applied for one appeal or waiver which 
     has not been approved, where the applicable law of the United 
     States provides a mechanism for appeal to or waiver by an 
     administrative agency.

     The party seeking redress shall not be required to apply for 
     an appeal or waiver described in subparagraph (B) if no such 
     appeal or waiver is available, if it cannot provide the 
     relief requested, or if application or reapplication to use 
     the property would be futile.
       ``(3) Nothing in this subsection alters the substantive law 
     of takings of property, including the burden of proof borne 
     by the plaintiff.''

     SEC. 4. JURISDICTION OF COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS.

       Section 1491(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Any claim brought under this subsection founded upon 
     a property right or privilege secured by the Constitution, 
     but allegedly infringed or taken by the United States, shall 
     be ripe for adjudication upon a final decision rendered by 
     the United States, that causes actual and concrete injury to 
     the party seeking redress. For purposes of this paragraph, a 
     final decision exists if--
       ``(A) the United States makes a definitive decision 
     regarding the extent of permissible uses on the property that 
     has been allegedly infringed or taken; and
       ``(B) one meaningful application to use the property has 
     been submitted but has not been approved, and the party 
     seeking redress has applied for one appeal or waiver which 
     has not been approved, where the applicable law of the United 
     States provides a mechanism for appeal to or waiver.

     The party seeking redress shall not be required to apply for 
     an appeal or waiver described in subparagraph (B) if no such 
     appeal or waiver is available, if it cannot provide the 
     relief requested, or if application or reapplication to use 
     the property would be futile. Nothing in this paragraph 
     alters the substantive law of takings of property, including 
     the burden of proof borne by the plaintiff.''.

     SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act shall apply to actions 
     commenced on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

  The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature 
of a substitute is in order except a further amendment in the nature of 
a substitute offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers], or 
his designee. That amendment shall be considered as read, shall be 
debatable for 30 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, no other 
amendment is in order except, No, 1, the Traficant amendment made in 
order by the House today; and, No. 2, the amendment printed in part 2 
of the report, which may be offered only by the Member designated in 
the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 30 
minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole may postpone until a time during further 
consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded 
vote on the Traficant amendment made in order today by the order of the 
House, and may reduce to not less than 5 minutes the time for voting by 
electronic device on any postponed question that immediately follows 
that recorded vote by electronic device without intervening business, 
provided that the time for voting by electronic device on the first in 
that series of questions shall not be less than 15 minutes.
  The Conyers amendment not being offered, for what purpose does the 
gentleman from Ohio rise?


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant:
       Insert the following after section 4 and redesignate the 
     succeeding section accordingly:

     SEC. 5. DUTY OF NOTICE TO OWNERS.

       Whenever a Federal agency takes an agency action limiting 
     the use of private property that may be affected by the 
     amendments made by this Act, the agency shall give notice to 
     the owners of that property explaining their rights under 
     such amendments and the procedures for obtaining any 
     compensation that may be due to them under such amendments.

  Mr. TRAFICANT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I support, in principle, the fact that when a Federal 
agency takes an action that limits the use of private property or 
causes the damage in property values that compensation is in order, and 
proper procedures affecting those goals shall be implemented.
  In essence, I support H.R. 1534. I want to commend the sponsor, the 
gentleman from California, Mr. Gallegly, and the gentleman from North 
Carolina, Chairman Coble, for this measure. I have supported it in the 
past. I support it today.
  My measure was added as an amendment the last time this legislation 
was offered on the floor, and unanimously accepted. Here is what it 
says: When a Federal agency takes an action that limits the use of or 
causes property damage, the agency shall give notice to that prisoner 
explaining the rights they have and where they go for compensation, if 
they qualify.
  Let me say this: The average private property owner does not have 
accountants and attorneys that monitor legislation. This is the right 
thing to do.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I say to the chairman and to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Traficant] and to the body, Mr. Chairman, that I have reviewed the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] and I am 
supportive thereof.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the distinguished sponsor of the 
legislation that I support, the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I join with my colleague, the chairman of the 
subcommittee, after having reviewed the amendment, and stand in strong 
support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Traficant]. I think it adds to the bill.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren] 
opposed to the amendment?
  Ms. LOFGREN. Yes, I am, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren] is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. LOFGREN. I yield myself such time as I may consume, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I recognize the motivation of the author of the 
amendment, and I think the motivation is entirely honorable and one 
that I concur with. I do, however, have grave reservations about the 
actual language of the amendment and the implications and unintended 
consequences that might occur. This is a very broad duty that is being 
imposed by the amendment on the Federal Government. Let me just give an 
example of why I think it is problematic.
  In the Clean Water Act we, the National Government, make some very 
stringent findings about what may and may not be discharged into a 
stream. For example, discharging arsenic into a river is something that 
we have tried to control and avoid. Under this amendment, control of 
the discharge of arsenic into a stream would or could qualify as a 
taking, because if you are

[[Page H8956]]

in a business that uses arsenic in manufacturing, and you are 
constrained from using arsenic and discharging it, you have, in fact, 
been impaired in the full utilization of your property. It could be a 
taking under the act. There would be a duty to provide notice to the 
business under the amendment.
  I think that would be a very difficult thing for the Federal 
Government to do. I would also like to make an additional point, which 
is that there is no burden under the amendment to notify other private 
property owners who are disadvantaged by the failure to proceed with 
the Government regulation.
  In the example I have previously outlined, for those downstream from 
the polluter, if there is arsenic in the water, their right to use the 
water for home consumption is going to be impaired. There is no duty 
under the amendment to notify the downstream users that the pollution 
is going to continue to be coming at them. I think that is a problem.
  I do not plan to ask for a recorded vote on this amendment, but I 
would think that narrowly drafting this amendment to cover land 
regulation activities that are directly aimed at use of property might 
go a long way toward perfecting this amendment and reaching what the 
author hopes to do.
  But in its current form, I think it is a massive new obligation for 
the Federal Government. It will be impossible, actually, to accomplish. 
Therefore, it will lead to litigation and further costs and expenses 
that none of us can afford, and all of us would like to avoid. These 
are all unintended consequences but nevertheless, severe ones. 
Therefore, I would urge opposition to this well-intentioned amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I could understand the grave reservations that the gentlewoman from 
California has, but she cited as an example the discharge of arsenic 
into a stream. If the Federal Government or one of its agents or 
agencies has discharged such a pollutant into our stream, the Traficant 
amendment says that any private property owner affected by it would not 
only be eligible under the bill, but they would be notified by the 
Traficant amendment that it has occurred.
  Mr. Chairman, the Traficant amendment is very clear. It says if a 
Federal agency, a Federal agency takes an action. If a Federal agency 
is responsible for discharging arsenic, the Traficant amendment says 
they shall notify all of the people. That is why it is so drafted, so 
everyone downstream in fact would have to be notified; would they not? 
There would have to be a notice, and if there was damage that was 
created from that, they would be eligible for compensation, and what 
are their procedures where they can go for such compensation.
  That is why it was unanimously accepted. This is the language that 
ensures that an average private property owner has some basic 
notification, more than anything else. That is the trouble around here. 
We pass laws at times that the legal eagles understand, identify, 
distill, and digest, and then come back and lobby to amend them, but 
the average American may not even know there is a protection that 
exists, or they are even eligible for compensation for an action that 
was taken wrongly; maybe not intended to be wrongful action, but it 
certainly was, such as arsenic in the river.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would note that the amendment says, whenever a 
Federal agency takes an agency action limiting the use of private 
property.
  In the example I used earlier, if the Environmental Protection Agency 
limits a business from discharging arsenic into the creek, they have 
impacted and limited the use of that private property, if the arsenic 
is important to the manufacturing process.
  Therefore, the polluter, the arsenic deliverer to the stream, would, 
under this amendment, be required to be notified of the limitation on 
the use of his or her property. And arguably also be entitled to 
compensation for the limitation of the use of their property.
  We will not, however, under the amendment be required to notify 
downstream users that the upstream user and deliverer of arsenic to the 
stream is not going to be constrained from so polluting because of the 
implication of this amendment, that essentially will stay action 
because of access to court.
  I understand that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] wants the 
average American to have notice. I do, too. But as a lawyer and prior 
professor of law, we also need to look at the plain language that we 
adopt. This will lead to unintended consequences certainly that the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] very clearly from his prior 
comments does not intend, nor do I. That is the problem with the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, if there is any language that needs to simplify this, 
that expresses the legislative intent in debate here today, I will not 
oppose it in conference. But the legislative intent and history is 
clear. Anybody downstream that would be subject to arsenic from the 
gentlewoman's debate here today would be eligible for notification and 
for compensation.

                              {time}  1300

  That is the purpose. If there is language in here that is so nebulous 
that the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren] feels that it may in 
fact negate that intention, then certainly, my request is to make those 
small minor adjustments to effect that legislative intent.
  But, Mr. Chairman, let me say this: When an average citizen's 
property is being limited or, in fact, the value is being diminished 
therein, they should get notice that such action is being taken and 
where they go for proper procedures. And if this amendment does not do 
that, then I do say to the drafters of the bill for those additional 
substantive language to be placed in there to, in fact, express that 
concern.
  With that, I would hope that the gentlewoman would take that in good 
faith and help to construct that language.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Foley). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  The amendment was agreed to.


    Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Boehlert

  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
     Boehlert:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Private Property Rights 
     Implementation Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. UNITED STATES AS DEFENDANT.

       Section 1346 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(h)(1) Any claim brought under subsection (a) that is 
     founded upon a property right or privilege secured by the 
     Constitution, but was allegedly infringed or taken by the 
     United States, shall be ripe for adjudication upon a final 
     decision rendered by the United States, that causes actual 
     and concrete injury to the party seeking redress.
       ``(2) For purposes of this subsection, a final decision 
     exists if--
       ``(A) the United States makes a definitive decision 
     regarding the extent of permissible uses on the property that 
     has been allegedly infringed or taken; and
       ``(B) one meaningful application, as defined by the 
     relevant department or agency, to use the property has been 
     submitted but denied, and the party seeking redress has 
     applied for but is denied one appeal or waiver, where the 
     applicable law of the United States provides a mechanism for 
     appeal to or waiver by an administrative agency.

     The party seeking redress shall not be required to apply for 
     an appeal or waiver described in subparagraph (B) if no such 
     appeal or waiver is available or if such an appeal or waiver 
     would be futile.''.

     SEC. 3. JURISDICTION OF COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS.

       Section 1491(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Any claim brought under this subsection founded upon 
     a property right or privilege secured by the Constitution, 
     but allegedly infringed or taken by the United States, shall 
     be ripe for adjudication upon a

[[Page H8957]]

     final decision rendered by the United States, that causes 
     actual and concrete injury to the party seeking redress. For 
     purposes of this paragraph, a final decision exists if--
       ``(A) the United States makes a definitive decision 
     regarding the extent of permissible uses on the property that 
     has been allegedly infringed or taken; and
       ``(B) one meaningful application, as defined by the 
     relevant department or agency, to use the property has been 
     submitted but denied, and the party seeking redress has 
     applied for but is denied one appeal or waiver, where the 
     applicable law of the United States provides a mechanism for 
     appeal or waiver.

     The party seeking redress shall not be required to apply for 
     an appeal or waiver described in subparagraph (B) if no such 
     appeal or waiver is available or if such an appeal or waiver 
     would be futile.''.

     SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act shall apply to actions 
     commenced on or after the 120th day after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 271, the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] and the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Coble] will each control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my substitute. Here is what the 
substitute would do. It would allow those who sue the Federal 
Government over property rights to get to Federal court more rapidly. 
It does that in language that is virtually identical to sections 3 and 
4 of the manager's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, here is what the substitute would not do. It would not 
interfere in any way with local government. It does that by eliminating 
section 2 of the manager's amendment. That is the section that allows 
Federal judges to intrude on local decision-making.
  As Federal officials, we ought to limit ourselves to effecting 
Federal decisions. That is what my substitute does.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the Boehlert amendment. It is the 
moderate approach to property rights. It grants relief without 
trampling on Federalism. It helps property owners without preventing 
local communities from deciding their own future. I urge its adoption.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Boehlert amendment in the 
nature of a substitute to H.R. 1534. Very frankly, Mr. Chairman, the 
amendment will effectively gut the bill.
  The fifth amendment to the Constitution prohibits the government from 
taking private property without just compensation. This prohibition is 
applicable to local governments through the 14th amendment. H.R. 1534 
addresses the procedural difficulties encountered by property owners 
alleging the local or Federal Government has taken their property.
  Currently, property owners claiming a fifth amendment taking by local 
governments do not have a realistic option to file in Federal court. 
Under current case law, a takings plaintiff must meet both the ripeness 
standard, meaning have a final decision regarding the permissible uses 
on the property and exhaust all State remedies and overcome the well-
documented abuse of the abstention doctrine which Federal judges use to 
avoid takings cases. Federal judges routinely abstain from takings 
cases even when the claim alleges only a Federal fifth amendment claim 
based on action by a local government.
  H.R. 1534 addresses this problem by prohibiting Federal judges from 
abstaining when the claim involves only a Federal fifth amendment 
claim, even when the taking was done by local governments.
  Mr. Chairman, the Boehlert amendment strikes the provisions of the 
bill which are applicable to local governments, leaving in the 
provisions which apply to the United States as a defendant. Mr. 
Chairman, this would exempt the vast majority of private property 
owners from the relief and assistance that H.R. 1534 provides.
  If the United States is a defendant, a takings claimant will have 
very little trouble getting into Federal court. However, claimants 
alleging a Federal fifth amendment taking by local government will 
continue to operate without any certainty as to when their case is ripe 
for Federal adjudication and continue to be routinely dismissed by 
Federal judges avoiding takings cases.
  Mr. Chairman, during the past couple of weeks, our staff and the 
staff of the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly], the sponsor of 
the bill, have worked tirelessly with the staff of the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Boehlert] to come to an agreement on several issues, and 
I think the gentleman from New York will admit to that.
  On October 15, 1997, the staff of the gentleman from New York handed 
a list of amendments that needed to be made in order to gain the 
gentleman's support for the bill. The manager's amendment incorporated 
each one of these items, either precisely as requested or in spirit. It 
is not an exaggeration to say that we bent over backward to accommodate 
the gentleman's concerns about H.R. 1534. The Boehlert amendment does 
not reflect the concerns raised in those meetings, but a complete 
gutting of the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Boehlert 
amendment in the nature of a substitute for H.R. 1534.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, it has been alleged that the manager's amendment 
accommodates all of our objections to the bill. This simply is not so. 
The fundamental flaw in this bill is not addressed in the manager's 
amendment. It does now say that if a zoning board offers alternatives, 
a developer must appeal one more time. That is good. But the bill still 
removes all incentives to negotiate because a developer can go to 
Federal court rather than follow the zoning board's instructions. 
Moreover, the bill still explicitly takes State courts out of the 
process.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Boehlert 
amendment and, contrarily, I do not believe that this guts the bill; it 
enhances it.
  Mr. Chairman, there is clear evidence that we do need something to 
ensure that the property owners are afforded their day in court. 
Several Law Review articles agree that the current takings ripeness 
barriers are unreasonable and that the obstacles confronting property 
owners are often insurmountable.
  However, I fear, in fact I am convinced, that this bill, H.R. 1534, 
swings the pendulum too far in the other direction. I commend to my 
colleagues a quote from a recent letter sent by the National Governors' 
Association, the National League of Cities, and the Conference of 
Mayors. And I quote, ``This represents,'' meaning the bill, ``a 
significant infringement on State and local sovereignty.'' Mr. 
Chairman, I do not know why Republicans want to do that. But State and 
local sovereignty, ``and interferes with our ability to balance the 
rights of certain property owners against the greater community good or 
against the rights of other property owners in the same community. It 
also represents a significant new cost shift to State and local 
governments as we are forced to resolve disputes in the Federal 
judiciary instead of through established State and local procedures.''
  Mr. Chairman, it is for this reason, all these reasons, of course, 
that I urge support of the Boehlert amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say to my colleagues, by the way, I have always 
lived under the rule that all politics is local and there is nothing 
more local than private property and zoning questions. Let us make sure 
that we are not shifting the balance from our local communities to the 
Federal Government. I urge my colleagues to support the Boehlert 
amendment.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Calvert].
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1534, the 
Private Property Rights Implementation Act. As a Member representing 
California, as well as a member of the Western Caucus, I am acutely 
aware of the need for legislation to protect priority property owners, 
especially those who have fallen victim to the current administration's 
ongoing war with the West.

[[Page H8958]]

  H.R. 1534 is fair legislation. It simply allows property owners 
injured by Government action equitable access to the Federal courts. 
Currently, 80 percent of Federal property claims are thrown out of the 
court before their merits can be debated. With a statistic like that no 
one can argue that the current process is fair.
  No matter what reason the Government has for restricting private 
property use, and there are many legitimate reasons, there is no excuse 
for denying landowners their day in court.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose all weakening amendments 
to H.R. 1534, especially the Boehlert amendment. This amendment would 
eliminate the bill provisions allowing landowners to take their appeals 
to Federal court. Instead, the amendment states it would help 
landowners get to court ``more quickly.'' But what does that mean, more 
quickly?
  It currently takes an average of 9\1/2\ years for the process to be 
resolved. ``More quickly'' could mean 8 or maybe 7 years, but it does 
not make that timeframe any more acceptable. This is not an issue about 
taking power away from the States and localities, as the Boehlert 
amendment would lead my colleagues to believe. H.R. 1534 is about the 
rights of property owners to have their claims considered fairly and in 
a timely manner.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Boehlert amendment 
and support H.R. 1534.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Calvert] that his State attorney general, Attorney 
General Lungren, a good Republican, is opposed to this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Gilchrest].
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I would like to address my colleagues 
with this concept: how many Members on this House floor are in favor of 
judicial activism where the unelected will determine land use and local 
zoning ordinances in their community? Who is in favor of that? If 
Members are in favor of judicial activism and if they are in favor of 
the unelected judicial judges determining local zoning in their area, 
then they will vote against the Boehlert amendment.
  If, however, Members are in favor of expedited process to the Federal 
courts whenever a Federal action impedes or regulates private property, 
then they will vote for the Boehlert substitute.
  The Boehlert amendment in the nature of a substitute expedites the 
process to Federal courts whenever a Federal action regulates Federal 
property. What the bill does without the Boehlert amendment is make 
Federal action control local land use and local zoning. That is the 
unintended consequences. The bill would send to Federal courts cases to 
decide local zoning and local land use.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, the small community might be able to afford State 
courts, but there is no way they are going to be able to afford Federal 
courts. We all believe in the fifth amendment. We strongly believe that 
if property rights are taken away for the public good, constitutionally 
landowners should be compensated and they will be compensated.
  However, if the local zoning board, the planning commission, decides 
in their management of their community that someone's property is going 
to cause public harm, that is a different story.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge an ``aye'' vote on the Boehlert substitute.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Boehlert], my good friend, I did not mean to mislead, when he said that 
the manager's amendment did not address all of his problems, what I 
said was that it addressed them either precisely or exactly or in 
spirit. And I think that is probably an accurate statement, although 
the gentleman's amendment did go a little farther than during the 
discussion.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COBLE. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, the spirit is one thing, but reality is 
something altogether different. There still is a fundamental flaw, as 
the gentleman from North Carolina would acknowledge.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we will talk about that 
another day.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan 
[Mr. Barcia].
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Boehlert 
amendment and in strong support of the passage of H.R. 1534.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. 
Coble] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly] and the other 
cosponsors for their leadership on this very vital issue that is so 
important to so many of our constituents across the country.
  Mr. Chairman, many of us here today were elected so that we could 
make the Federal Government smaller and give more power to State and 
local governments, and I am proud that we are making progress in that 
regard. But all of us were elected and are sworn to protect and defend 
the Constitution. We should never waiver from that protection.
  Mr. Chairman, as we continue to move toward a larger role for State 
and local government, the protection and defense of the Constitution 
must remain in the forefront of our minds, and perhaps no element of 
the Constitution is more important than the Bill of Rights.

                              {time}  1315

  House Resolution 1534 goes far toward ensuring that as local 
governments rightfully play larger roles, the rights of the citizenry 
do not fall prey to overzealous regulation. This bill does not infringe 
on the rights of States or localities to regulate land use. It merely 
ensures that the citizen will receive final decisions on those 
legitimate principles of governance in an expeditious manner.
  Even now, before the goal of devolution is fully achieved, takings 
claims brought under the fifth amendment are lengthy and time 
consuming. They are treated, as Justice Brennen of the U.S. Supreme 
Court said, like stepchildren to the Bill of Rights. The bipartisan 
authors of House Resolution 1534 have recognized that this current 
situation, already a problem, needs to be addressed before the laudable 
goal of devolution exacerbates the situation. As Robert F. Kennedy once 
said, back in 1964, justice delayed is democracy denied.
  Some elements of State and local government oppose this bill because 
House Resolution 1534 will, as the U.S. Conference on Mayors writes, 
lead to increased liability for municipalities. What more blatant 
admission is there than that this bill is needed? If the municipalities 
are engaging in activities for which the courts would find them liable, 
they should cease or pay in a timely manner without forcing the 
citizens into costly administrative procedures. The Constitution 
requires no less. House Resolution 1534 ensures that that will happen.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Delahunt].
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Boehlert 
amendment. I am particularly pleased to hear so many Members on the 
other side speak to the issues of States rights, devolution. It was the 
authors of the Contract With America that said they wanted to return 
power to the people through State and local governments. Yet the bill, 
H.R. 1534, that is before this Congress would take local land disputes 
that have always been decided by State and local authorities and turn 
them over to the Federal courts. Whatever happened to devolution and 
State rights?
  It also was the authors of the Contract With America that said they 
wanted to limit judicial activism. Yet the bill sweeps away the 
abstention doctrine which in effect restrains judicial judges. It also 
eviscerates the ripeness doctrine which prevents premature Federal 
involvement in such cases. It invites the Federal courts to strike down 
the actions of zoning boards and city councils across the land.
  Mr. Chairman, let us give federalism, devolution, and States rights 
another

[[Page H8959]]

chance and let us support the Boehlert amendment.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the Chair the time 
remaining on both sides.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Foley). The gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Coble] has 7 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Boehlert] has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Traficant].
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, this bill does not give property owners 
any new authority to sue the cities in Federal court. They have it. I 
believe that the Boehlert substitute would gut this bill and would 
treat property owners differently. That is my concern.
  Let me say this, the great Vince Lombardi was loved by everybody, but 
when they asked Mr. Willie Davis why they loved him, here is what he 
said, because he treats us all alike, like dogs at times, but all 
alike.
  I think that the gentleman's substitute would put and inflect some 
differences in the way property owners would be treated.
  Local officials still govern this. The process would be expedited 
under this bill. I think the bill is, in essence, good.
  I would like to see the gentleman work in conference for some of the 
ideas in his substitute which are good.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to my 
distinguished colleague from Ohio that this simply says that Federal 
courts deal with Federal issues. Local courts, State courts deal with 
local and State issues. Washington is not the source of all wisdom.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. 
Castle], former Governor.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  This is a very interesting bill. It is very conflicted in terms of 
the usual beliefs that we have here. We basically have private property 
rights versus local decisionmaking. The Republican Party which sides 
with local decisionmaking does not in this particular case.
  I can understand the argument for private property rights, but then 
to give it to the Federal judiciary, which is not exactly an entity 
that is supported readily by Republicans, strikes me as being highly 
unusual. I do not know how they are really qualified to handle these 
kinds of decisions on a regular, simple appeal at an early process. And 
that is what this is all about.
  Could we argue that eventually the appeal could go up to Federal 
court? It is very unlikely. Now, it is very likely that the Federal 
court is going to spend about half of its time handling these local 
property appeals. They are totally ill equipped to do this. It just is 
not going to work.
  Do we want to expand the Federal judiciary to do this? We should note 
that the National Governors Association, as has been stated, 39 State 
attorneys general, the Judicial Conference of the United States have 
all come out against this bill. They have serious problems with it and 
they rightfully should.
  This amendment is a pretty simple amendment. I support the amendment. 
Sections 3 and 4 basically are being changed here. It eliminates the 
direct appeal to the Federal courts on local property decisions, which 
really, in my judgment, absolutely should be done. But if one exhausts 
everything, they could still do it. If one is dealing with a Federal 
agency, they could still do it. So it still leaves the essence of the 
bill.
  Yes, I understand the concern. I have a lot of respect for the 
sponsor of the legislation because I believe there are some private 
property concerns that need to be addressed out there. But this 
unfortunately is not the right answer. The bill goes too far. Now that 
we have had a chance to really study that, I think we need to 
understand it.
  The best thing we can do today is to pass the Boehlert amendment, a 
good amendment which adjusts the bill and makes it correct, and then go 
on and pass the rest of the legislation at that point. I would urge 
everybody to look at this carefully. These are significant issues and 
the burden that we are shifting over to the Federal courts is something 
we should not do. I encourage support of the Boehlert amendment.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1534 and 
in stronger opposition to the Boehlert amendment. The bill, the base 
bill is an equitable solution aimed at balancing the rights of private 
property owners with increased environmental, economic, and land use 
concerns. The fifth amendment states that private property shall not be 
taken for public use without just compensation. The legislation before 
us today is a bipartisan and moderate approach that guarantees the 
protection of the fifth amendment. The Boehlert amendment guts the 
heart of H.R. 1534 by removing equal access to Federal courts for 
property owners.
  The base bill is a targeted limited bill that does not define when a 
taking has occurred. Consequently, the proper trigger point for 
compensation does not need to be debated. The Boehlert amendment 
creates a dangerous precedent by forcing Federal courts to deal 
differently with property rights cases depending on who the defendant 
is. The base bill does not give Federal courts new authority on 
questions that should be answered in State courts, rather, it provides 
an expedited way to resolve State issues.
  Furthermore, this bill does not amend environmental law or regulation 
which was a point of contention in previous debate. Simply put, this 
legislation would provide for quicker and more straightforward access 
to Federal courts. The Boehlert amendment micromanages the Federal 
courts.
  I would like to commend the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly] 
and other supporters of H.R. 1534 for their efforts to find a new way 
of reconciling the difficult issues addressed here. This legislation is 
balanced and fair. I urge my colleagues to support the base bill and 
oppose strenuously the Boehlert amendment which guts the base bill.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Gallegly], a member of the Committee on the Judiciary 
and primary sponsor of the bill.
  (Mr. GALLEGLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong opposition to this 
amendment. I would just like to respond to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Delahunt] and his comments. I am also very pleased 
to see the number of Democrats we have in strong opposition to the 
Boehlert amendment.
  As a former mayor, I could not agree more with those who have argued 
for local control and decisionmaking. What we are trying to do is to 
provide some certainty to a process that can otherwise be very open-
ended. What the bill now says is that the property owner must take a 
meaningful application, then if the locality chooses to deny that 
application, they should explain why in writing. If they do not approve 
that application, they should explain what type of development they 
would accept.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to strongly oppose this amendment. 
It guts the bill. I hope the Members will join me in helping to 
preserve the reforms that are intended in this legislation.
  I rise in opposition to the amendment by the gentleman from New York. 
Although the gentleman has made a number of positive suggestions about 
the bill recently, the amendment he is offering today is quite severe.
  The amendment on the floor today will gut an extremely important part 
of H.R. 1534.
  It is very important that we do not lose sight of the central point 
of this bill: Federal Constitutional property rights do not empower 
Federal judges to make land use decisions. H.R. 1534 would not empower 
Federal judges to decide whether a certain piece of land should be used 
for a grocery store or for a hair salon. Local governments will 
continue to have their traditional powers to make and enforce zoning 
regulations.
  Some of the people who are screaming the loudest about local control 
of all land-use decisions have also been big supporters of having

[[Page H8960]]

Federal environmental laws micromanage how land is used. Federal 
endangered species protections certainly interfere with how land is 
used. No locality can regulate land use in a way that does not comply 
with Federal wetlands protections. There are probably many other 
environmental laws, enforceable in Federal court, that directly impact 
local governments or lands use decisions.
  H.R. 1534 provides ample opportunity for the local process to work so 
that appropriate zoning and land use regulation can proceed.
  What we are trying to do is provide some certainty to a process that 
can be otherwise very open-ended. What the bill now says, is that the 
property owner must make a meaningful application. Then, if the 
locality chooses to deny that application they should explain why, in 
writing. If they will not approve the application, they should explain 
what type of development they would accept.
  Taking into account this information, the landowner must reapply. If 
that application is not approved, then he or she must appeal the 
decision or seek a waiver.
  As a former mayor, I could not agree more with those who have argued 
for local control and decision-making. I might also note that many of 
the cosponsors of H.R. 1534 bring to this debate extensive knowledge of 
State and local government--133 of the members supporting the bill 
previously served as mayors, city council members, or State 
legislators. They bring to this debate a very practical understanding 
of what is at stake, and they support this legislation.
  The question before us today is whether Americans should have 
reasonable access to the Federal courts to enforce Federal rights. I 
hope the Members of the House will support H.R. 1534 to provide legal 
protections that are fair and effective.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Pombo].
  (Mr. POMBO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Basically what we have here is the age-old debate, the debate of 
whether or not we have power to the government or power to the people. 
We get down to this basic debate many times over different issues, 
especially over private property issues. Whether the argument is to 
protect the power that the government controls over its citizens at the 
Federal level, the State level, or the local level, that is a debate 
that we continually hear from this particular side on this issue. They 
want to maintain that power over the citizenry.
  On the other side of this issue what we have is people who are 
arguing in favor of the private property owner, of the individual 
citizen, of the individual that we all represent. I think that that is 
one of the important distinctions in this debate.
  The importance of this underlying legislation is an attempt to give 
private property owners their so-called day in court. That is the 
effort that is being made. I admit that this bill does not go as far as 
I would like it to. I admit that the underlying legislation is a 
moderate attempt to achieve a very worthwhile goal. The Boehlert 
amendment guts even a moderate attempt to try to achieve that.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, for those who say that my substitute guts the bill, I 
would point out that my substitute retains section 3 and 4 of the 
manager's amendment. Are the sponsors saying that those sections of the 
bill are meaningless? I do not think so.
  To the previous speaker who says there is a choice, do we have power 
to the Government or power to the people? I say the choice is, do we 
have all power vested in Washington, DC, in the Federal Government, or 
do we leave to State and local governments power that they so jealously 
guard that they want to preserve, the power to make the decisions at 
the local level about local zoning issues?
  Should the Federal Government determine whether or not we will have a 
pornographic parlor on some corner in some small hamlet in some State 
in America? I do not think so. I think the local communities can deal 
very effectively with that issue.
  I would point out that the National Governors Association has spoken 
eloquently to this bill. Let me read an excerpt from their letter which 
has been addressed to all of our colleagues here:

       We are writing to express our strong opposition, strong 
     opposition, to H.R. 1534, the so-called Private Property 
     Rights Implementation Act of 1997.

  Continuing, the Governors letter says,

     the result will be substantially more Federal involvement in 
     decisionmaking on purely local issues.

                              {time}  1330

       This represents a significant infringement on State and 
     local sovereignty and interferes with our ability to balance 
     the rights of certain property owners against the greater 
     community good or against the rights of other property owners 
     in the same community.

  Now, that is an excerpt of a letter from the National Governors' 
Association signed by Gov. George Voinovich, chairman of the National 
Governors' Association, Mark Schwartz, councilmember, Oklahoma City, 
president, National League of Cities, and Mayor Paul Helmke, city of 
Fort Wayne, president, U.S. Conference of Mayors.
  As a matter of fact, my bill is the sensible approach to this issue 
because the basic bill, H.R. 1534, is not just opposed by me, not just 
opposed by a couple of Representatives of this great institution, it is 
opposed by the National Governors' Association, most State attorneys 
general, 40 at last count, including Dan Lungren, the attorney general 
of the State of California, including the attorney general of the State 
of New York, including the attorney general of the State of Texas, 
including the attorney general of the State of Connecticut, of 
Delaware, of Florida, of Georgia, of Hawaii, of Idaho, of Indiana, of 
Iowa, of Louisiana, of Maine, of Maryland, of Massachusetts, of 
Michigan, of Minnesota, of Mississippi, of Missouri, Montana, Nevada, 
New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, 
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, the attorney general of 
the Virgin Islands, the attorney general of Guam, the attorney general 
of the State of Washington, the attorney general of the State of 
Wisconsin.
  The list goes on and on. Not only the attorneys general but the 
Judicial Conference of the United States, chaired by the Chief Justice 
of the Supreme Court of the United States, a very conservative 
Republican, Chief Justice Rehnquist. It is opposed by the National 
League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and every single 
environmental group in America.
  Why do they oppose it? Because it simply does not make sense. The 
Republicans, my colleagues, my friends, are saying they favor 
devolution. They want to send more authority back to State and local 
governments, and I think that makes a lot of sense. This bill does just 
the opposite.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BOEHLERT. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in support of the gentleman's 
amendment and in opposition to the underlying bill.
  I think the gentleman has done good work in terms of this. This helps 
the bill. It does not completely fix it, but I think it does respect 
the issue of restraint, in terms of the Federal Court, which is 
something that I think others have spoken to.
  So I thank the gentleman, commend him for his work, and support his 
amendment.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I point out what the 
Judicial Conference of the United States says, and keep in mind we are 
talking about a basic issue decided by the Supreme Court that this bill 
proposes to overturn. That issue was decided 7 to 1 by the Supreme 
Court, with all the conservative justices voting in favor of Williamson 
County versus The Bank of Hamilton. Williamson County in Tennessee.
  The Judicial Conference of the United States says the judicial 
conference expresses concern with the Private Property Rights 
Implementation Act of 1997. The bill would alter deeply ingrained 
Federalism principles by prematurely involving the Federal courts in 
property regulatory matters that have historically been processed at 
the State and local level.
  Finally, let me point out to my colleagues that it has been said 
repeatedly that my concerns have been mainly accommodated, some 
directly, some in spirit. Well, in spirit, that leaves a lot for 
interpretation.

[[Page H8961]]

  The basic fact of the matter is, there is a fatal flaw in this bill. 
It does now say that if a zoning board offers an alternative, a 
developer must appeal one more time. But the bill removes all 
incentives for negotiations.
  I urge support of the Boehlert substitute and opposition to the basic 
bill unless it is properly amended.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell].
  (Mr. CAMPBELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, the States are the issue in this debate, 
and so the Boehlert amendment, the amendment of my good friend, will 
destroy the purpose of this bill. The debate is over States. Not 
Federal Government encroachment, but State government encroachment.
  That is why we are here. It is because when individual plaintiffs 
with objections under the fifth amendment to the Constitution complain 
that State governments have interfered with their rights, they are kept 
from getting an adjudication in Federal court in anything like an 
expedited or appropriate time frame. So if we remove from the bill all 
those provisions that deal with the States and local government, which 
is what the Boehlert amendment does, we do not have a bill worth 
discussing.
  We are not here because of Federal Government takings, we are here 
because of allegations against State governments and local governments. 
So, really, voting for the Boehlert amendment is voting against the 
bill. Do not make any mistake about it, that is what it is.
  I do not think we should vote against the bill, and here is why. 
Think what the Federal courts are supposed to do in the protection of 
constitutional rights. We do not tell Federal court plaintiffs to go 
somewhere else and wait their time when they are complaining of voting 
rights, when they are complaining of discrimination, of poll tax, 
illiteracy tax, being told they cannot have a right to the ballot. We 
do not say go take it to the board of election commissioners.
  When there is a restrictive zoning, keeping someone out of an area 
because of their race, we do not say, well, take it to 20 different 
appeals to the zoning commissioners of the particular State, county, or 
locality.
  And we deal with school desegregation. The day the Governor stands in 
the school and says someone may not come in there because of their 
race, that day the plaintiff goes into Federal court.
  Why is the fifth amendment less? Why are plaintiffs under the fifth 
amendment to our Constitution not entitled to that same access to the 
Federal courts that are available to those who plead under the other 
provisions that I have cited?
  The managers of the bill have accepted my amendment. I conclude by 
quoting it. ``Nothing in this bill alters the substantive law of 
takings of property, including the burden of proof borne by 
plaintiff.'' Vote for the bill, oppose the Boehlert amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Rogan). The question is on the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Boehlert].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 178, 
noes 242, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 518]

                               AYES--178

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doyle
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Goss
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Horn
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--242

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Evans
     Everett
     Fazio
     Flake
     Foley
     Ford
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Brown (CA)
     Chambliss
     Cubin
     Gonzalez
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Lantos
     Martinez
     McIntosh
     Parker
     Schiff
     Shays
     Stark
     Strickland
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1358

  Messrs. HINOJOSA, HOEKSTRA, GUTKNECHT, CLYBURN and PEASE changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York, Mr. MOAKLEY and Mr. GANSKE changed their 
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

[[Page H8962]]

                          personal explanation

  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 518, I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''


                          personal explanation

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 518, the Boehlert 
amendment to H.R. 1534, I had a malfunctioning beeper and was in 
meetings where there was no detection that the vote was going on and so 
I missed that vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

                              {time}  1400


       Preferential Motion Offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential 
motion.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore [Mr. Rogan]. The Clerk will report the 
motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Frank of Massachusetts moves that the Committee do now 
     rise and report the bill back to the House with the 
     recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken.

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I read today that Roger 
Ebert, I guess it was today, has an article in which he says there 
should be a new category of Nobel Prize for Movies.
  Well, I am going to add one. We should immediately ask that they 
institute a Nobel Prize for Inconsistency, because you would win it. 
There would be a problem: Under the rules, you could not accept the 
money, but maybe we can put it to the deficit. Because I do not think 
in recorded parliamentary history there has ever been a greater gap 
between people's professed principles and what they have voted for than 
there is in this bill.
  The last speaker for the bill, against the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], said it is about States. He was 
absolutely right. The premise of most of this bill is that States 
cannot be trusted to deal fairly with property rights; not State local 
officials, not State zoning boards, and, God forbid, State courts. 
Because what you are about to vote for is a bill that says let us tell 
every unelected life-tenured Federal judge in the country that they 
have not been sufficiently activist.
  This bill says to all those guys sitting on the bench, what are you 
doing, sitting back and letting controversies be decided by State 
officials? How dare you leave things to the electorial process? What 
are we paying you for? How come you have life tenure? Intervene. Do not 
let these State zoning boards work out their will. Do not let State 
courts decide these issues.
  In fact, it even says to them there is a State issue? You Federal 
judges, decide it. What do we pay you for? You have got life tenure.
  Never in history have people denounced activism so much and promoted 
it even more.
  The bill says this. And do we respect property rights? Yes. But what 
you are saying by this bill is we cannot trust State government. It is 
not a question about property rights, it is a question about whether 
State governments can be trusted, and it says we are not getting enough 
nonelected, life-tenured Federal judges intervening in the local 
process.
  Somebody has a zoning fight in his or her State, and we say, all 
right, we will give the zoning board one shot. They get one appeal. 
Stay away from the State courts, go right into Federal Court. We do not 
want the Governor, the mayor, mucking around in here. What do all these 
elected officials know?
  It also says, by the way, we do not decide enough judicially in 
America. It says that courts are sitting back and waiting for the 
political process. Let us intervene earlier.
  There is a Federal doctrine known as ``ripeness'' which says the 
courts should not rush in; the courts should defer. Do you know what 
this bill says? Enough of that stuff. Earn your money. Do not wait for 
these disputes to be worked out, do not wait until the local officials 
debate it more and get factual information. Decide it. What do you have 
life tenure for? Ignore those local people. Do not pay attention to the 
State judges.
  Let us be very clear: This bill says we need the Federal judges to be 
a lot more active than they have been. They should stop waiting for 
these things to be ripe. They should stop deferring to State courts to 
decide issues. They should stop letting local officials work these 
things out. We will solve it.
  You passed a bill that restricted the right of habeas corpus in 
Federal court so we will not have habeas corpus. What we will have now 
is ``habeas propertius.'' What you will do, if your life is at stake, 
why not take three more State appeals? But you did not like the zoning, 
where is the Federal judge? You can get right into it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman aware of any city or 
State organizations that support the Gallegly bill, himself a former 
mayor?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I do 
not know. I would have to say to my friend apparently there are some 
cities somewhere where people, having voted for the mayor, city council 
and to establish a zoning board, found they cannot trust them, and want 
the Federal courts.
  There may be some municipality somewhere that wants unelected Federal 
judges to ride to the rescue from the zoning boards. Maybe we should be 
playing the William Tell Overture, because here come the Federal judges 
riding to the rescue, protecting you from these local officials.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say in closing, I can understand people saying 
the Federal courts ought to do more, and if you think that you cannot 
trust the local people, okay. But, please, can I ask my colleagues on 
the other side, could you wait a week before you get up and denounce 
judicial activism? Can you wait a week before you pretend to be for 
States' rights? I do not think we can ban inconsistency, but let us 
have a waiting period.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend from Massachusetts 
for yielding.
  I would like to respond to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers], 
my good friend and neighbor, every mayor I have talked to in my 
district has signed a letter supporting it, cities over 100,000 people. 
I have not had one say no.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think 
there have been cases where mayors do not like what the Governors do. I 
do not doubt that. But if there is any respect left in this body for 
consistency, this bill will be voted down.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the motion.
  Mr. Chairman, we believe in Federal protection in Federal courts for 
Federal fundamental rights. States protect State and Federal rights, 
but our Founding Fathers put this right in the Federal Constitution for 
attention by the Federal Government with a Federal remedy. So I do not 
see any inconsistency there.
  Previously, Mr. Chairman, I said the Boehlert amendment would gut the 
Gallegly bill. I now say to my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Frank], that his motion to strike the enacting clause will 
emasculate the bill. It does great damage to the bill.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COBLE. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, under the bill with the manager's amendment, 
you do not get immediate access to the Federal court. You have to apply 
to the local land use agency. You get a ruling, you reapply, taking the 
conditions of the denial into account. Then you must appeal the 
application, or as much as necessary, to reach a body of elected local 
officials, if available.
  If all of the above are denied, you have concurrent jurisdiction. You 
may go the State route or you may go the Federal route.
  Now, I hasten to point out what we are vindicating here is a 
constitutional right, and the Federal courts exist to vindicate 
constitutional rights. The fifth amendment discusses the taking and the 
rights of property owners; the seventh commandment talks about thou 
shalt not steal.

[[Page H8963]]

  The real problem is delay. Data indicates nine years it takes to wend 
your way through the maze of local jurisdiction. The Federal judges are 
local people. These cases are not too tough for them to decide. 
Concurrent jurisdiction is given, and there are many civil rights cases 
that get expedited treatment under the statute.
  Why is not the right to have your property treated properly and 
legally a civil right? It is a human right. I simply say the Federal 
courts are not some exotic bizarre branch of justice only taking a few 
cases. Those judges can handle these cases. They are not tough. They 
handle a lot tougher cases.
  But give the property owner some relief before 9 years have elapsed. 
Justice is what the court systems are all about, and concurrent 
jurisdiction gives the property owner an opportunity to get his Federal 
right, his constitutional right, vindicated in a Federal court.
  I do not think there is anything improper with that.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COBLE. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I seriously appreciate 
having the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary give this 
testimony to the important role of Federal district judges. We have 
heard too little of that. While I disagree with him on the specific 
bill, I am glad to have him reaffirm the importance of the local 
resident Federal district judges having a major role in defending 
constitutional rights.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, then the 
gentleman agrees with me and ought to withdraw his motion.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw my motion.
  Mr. HYDE. God bless you.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I will ask unanimous consent to withdraw 
my motion, but the gentleman will lose his debate time. Does the 
gentleman want me to do it now, or wait?
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, you know, it is very unfair debating Barney 
Frank, because he can get 20 minutes into 3 minutes. Never forget, this 
is a Federal constitutional right we are seeking to vindicate, and if 
the Federal courts do not want to hear these cases, this is a shame.

                              {time}  1415

  That is denying justice. Justice delayed 9 years is not justice, and 
we ought to seek a remedy. This bill provides a remedy, and I urge its 
support.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COBLE. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw the motion.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the committee amendment 
in the nature of a substitute, as modified, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified, 
as amended, was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore [Mr. 
Hansen] having assumed the chair, Mr. Rogan, Chairman pro tempore of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
1534) to simplify and expedite access to the Federal courts for injured 
parties whose rights and privileges, secured by the U.S. 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, pursuant to House Resolution 
271, he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted 
by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature 
of a substitute.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


               Motion to Recommit Offered by Ms. Lofgren

  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
  Ms. LOFGREN. I am, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Ms. Lofgren moves to recommit the bill to the Committee on 
     the Judiciary.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The motion to recommit was rejected.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 248, 
noes 178, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 519]

                               AYES--248

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fazio
     Foley
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
       

[[Page H8964]]



                               NOES--178

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Blagojevich
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Goss
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Hooley
     Horn
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schumer
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Chambliss
     Cubin
     Gonzalez
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Lantos
     McIntosh
     Schiff
     Strickland

                              {time}  1437

  Mr. FLAKE changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________