[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 145 (Friday, October 24, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2089]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS IMPLEMENTATION ACT OF 1997

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. JANE HARMAN

                             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:

  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, earlier this week, I voted in support of 
H.R. 1534, the Private Property Rights Implementation Act.
  As with most measure this body considers, the bill is a first broad 
stroke at a very important problem--helping property owners resolve as 
quickly as possible issues related to land use. The bill is intended to 
afford property owners access to Federal courts when constitutionally 
protected rights have been taken or affected by government actions.
  To be sure, the bill needs some tailoring of its provisions and, as 
it moves forward, I believe that in working with landowners, 
environmentalists, and local officials such tailoring will occur. But 
to vote down the bill is a mistake. It is a mistake. It is a mistake 
because reforms need to be made in this area of our law and we need to 
begin the process by which these reforms can be made. H.R. 1534 is that 
beginning.
  I very much appreciate the concerns raised by local elected 
officials. Dee Hardison, the mayor of Torrance, the largest city in my 
district, outlined in a letter to me the effect city officials believe 
H.R. 1534 might have. But let me point out that local governments will 
have no new limits imposed on their ability to zone or regulate land 
use. Local agencies will still have at least two and up to three 
opportunities, including one involving elected officials, to resolve 
land use controversies before their decision will be defined as final.
  At that point, under the bill, landowners will be afforded recourse 
to file private property takings cases in Federal court. Takings cases, 
or claims that a State or local government action reduced the value of 
property, take on average over 9 years of litigation before conclusion, 
yet it is important to point out that the legal basis for takings cases 
is the fifth amendment prohibition against taking private property 
without just compensation.
  Because some landowners do not have the resources to defend their 
cases for so long and that the current situation causes unreasonable 
delay in resolving takings cases, the bill allows property owners to 
take their cases directly to Federal courts, thereby circumventing the 
more lengthy and often disadvantageous State courts or local resolution 
processes. Under current law, the cases cannot go to Federal court 
until it is ripe, or local resolution processes and State court appeals 
have been exhausted. This bill shortens the period after which ripeness 
occurs.
  Property use decisions are appropriately the provence of local 
communities and States. H.R. 1534 is intended to affect a streamlining 
of a time-consuming process where landowners are denied a requested use 
but where the ultimate question is a constitutional one--has there been 
a taking. In my view, the opportunity to answer that question is 
appropriately accelerated under the bill and appropriately raised 
before the Federal courts.
  I support H.R. 1534 and look forward to making such changes as 
necessary to ensure it protects property rights consistent with the 
Constitution.

                          ____________________