[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 147 (Tuesday, October 28, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2100]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS IMPLEMENTATION ACT OF 1997

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                             HON. RICK HILL

                               of montana

                    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. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I rise as a cosponsor of H.R. 1534, the 
Private Property Rights Implementation Act. I proudly voted for this 
bill when it passed the full House on October 23, 1997.
  The fifth amendment in the Bill of Rights guarantees the protection 
of individuals against the power of all levels of government. According 
to recent studies, between 80 and 95 percent of all individuals trying 
to defend their fifth amendment rights in Federal court never get a 
hearing on the facts of their case. They get lost in a bureaucratic 
maze of administrative and judicial hurdles that waste time and money.
  Of those 5 to 20 percent who break through that maze, it takes an 
average of 10 years before the merits of their case are even heard. 
That's 10 years of fighting just to have your fifth amendment claim 
heard in Federal court. That is 10 years of financial burden and stress 
for the private property owner in Montana.
  Let me give you a specific example from my home State of Montana. 
There was a plan to develop a condominium project over a 4 acre area. 
The aim of this project was to provide affordable housing for the 
community, with plans to develop 34 units at about the average cost of 
$85,000 per unit.
  That sounds quite simple and certainly beneficial, but with the 
current process this was not the case. To go through the approval 
process, the project was zoned residential, went through a planned unit 
development hearing, numerous reviews, a redrawing of the plans 
approximately five times, and an extensive hearing process, all before 
the city commission granted a final approval. This took approximately 
1\1/2\ years.
  However, the city commission approved the project with only 24 units. 
This completely changed the concept of the project, and proved quite 
burdensome. After a year and a half of extensive hearings, what 
recourse did the project directors face? They could appeal, not to a 
court, but to the city commission who had granted this arbitrary number 
of 24 units or once again begin a costly and untimely review process.
  Without access to a court, the project managers had little choice but 
to proceed with the city commission's inflexible recommendation of 24 
condominiums. This, of course, had dramatic consequences.
  What was supposed to be affordable housing units at $85,000 per unit, 
ended up costing $135,000 per unit. Due to structural modifications 
forced by the commission's approval, this excessive cost undermined the 
intent of providing affordable housing.
  Furthermore, imagine if this were the case for first amendment rights 
protecting freedom of religion, or fourth amendment rights protecting 
against illegal search and seizure. I wonder whether those arguing 
against H.R. 1534 would feel so passionate about protecting the status 
quo. All Montanans including Montana property owners, deserve equal 
protection under the Constitution and an equal ability to defend their 
constitutional rights in Federal court.
  The House spoke on behalf of guaranteeing equal protection when it 
passed this much-needed legislation. I look forward to working with my 
colleagues further in the hope that the Senate will take up this 
measure.

                          ____________________