[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 145 (Friday, October 24, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2074-E2075]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS IMPLEMENTATION ACT OF 1997

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. RICHARD W. POMBO

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, October 22, 1997

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union 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:

  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1534 and 
compliment my colleague, Mr. Gallegly, on bringing this long overdue 
legislation to the floor today. H.R. 1534 will greatly increase the 
ability of landowners in this country to protect their basic civil and 
constitutional rights. The fifth amendment of the U.S. Constitution 
guarantees that no private property shall be taken for a public use 
without the payment of just compensation. We have seen an increasing 
disregard by various levels of government for this fundamental civil 
right.
  As chairman of the ESA Task Force of the Committee on Resources in 
the 104th Congress, I held hearings around the country on how the 
Endangered Species Act has impacted private property owners. The task 
force found that our Government often declares private property to be 
habitat for various species, with little if any concern about how that 
impacts the legal right of the landowners. We tried to address this 
problem by setting up a system of administrative appeals and 
arbitration to insure that landowners are promptly and fairly 
compensated when the needs of wildlife are placed above the needs of 
individual landowners. The response by the Government and environmental 
groups was that we should simply let the courts resolve these problems.
  The Environmental Defense Fund, the National Audubon Society, the 
National Wildlife Federation, the Natural Resources Defense Council, 
the Sierra Club. These are the groups leading the opposition to H.R. 
1534. Have any of these groups ever professed their faith in the 
abilities of local officials to make land use decisions? No. In fact, 
they have always taken the exact opposite position, that Federal 
environmental programs like the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water 
Act, and Superfund have to be run in Washington. In their eyes, local 
officials are not capable of protecting the health and environment of 
the areas they represent.
  Why the sudden change of heart? Why are these environmental groups 
and their supporters in Congress now posing as champions of States' 
rights and local decision-making? Because they don't want individual 
property owners to have fifth amendment rights protected.

[[Page E2075]]

The existing system of expensive and time-consuming delays serves their 
purpose--allowing them to control land use without having to consider 
the right of property owners.
  The Natural Resources Defense Council opposes H.R. 1534 out of fear 
that it could lead to more Federal lawsuits, burdening the Federal 
courts. Since when have they been concerned about flooding the courts, 
except when it is their own right to flood the courts. Who has abused 
the Federal court process more than the environmental movement? Why 
should we listen to their pleas to stop property owners from asserting 
their constitutional rights in Federal court when they have spent the 
last 30 years trying to expand their own access to Federal courts?
  The argument is intended to confuse and distract from the real issue 
at hand--that the constitutional rights of property owners across 
America are being eroded by expanding land use regulations imposed by 
all levels of government. H.R. 1534 doesn't attack local government--
they are already required to follow the Constitution.
  H.R. 1534 is a procedural bill--it simply helps people with Federal 
claims that are already in Federal court to get a hearing on the facts 
of their case without having to wait 10 years for the privilege. 
Opponents of H.R. 1534 like the obstacles and hurdles that keep people 
from having access to courts to defend their fifth amendment rights 
because they know if the delay is long enough, the small property 
owners cannot afford to fight them anymore. This is wrong. Vote for 
H.R. 1534 and support the rights of property owners. Everyone should be 
treated equally under the Constitution, even property owners.

                          ____________________