[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 25 (Wednesday, March 11, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H1085-H1086]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 992, TUCKER ACT SHUFFLE RELIEF ACT 
                                OF 1997

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 382 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 382

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 992) to end the Tucker Act shuffle. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate 
     shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider 
     as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 
     five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in 
     the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be considered as read. During consideration 
     of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of 
     the Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of 
     whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be 
     printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated 
     for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. Amendments so 
     printed shall be considered as read. The Chairman of the 
     Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during 
     further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request 
     for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five 
     minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any 
     postponed question that follows another electronic vote 
     without intervening business, provided that the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions 
     shall be fifteen minutes. At the conclusion of consideration 
     of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, 
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is 
for purposes of debate only.
  (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 382 is an 
open rule consideration of H.R. 992, the Tucker Act Shuffle Relief Act. 
The rule provides 1 hour of general debate, equally divided between the 
chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  The rule makes in order as an original bill for the purpose of 
amendment the Committee on the Judiciary amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, which shall be considered as read. The rule further 
provides that Members who have preprinted their amendments in the 
Congressional Record prior to their consideration will be given 
priority in recognition to offer their amendments if otherwise 
consistent with the House rules.

[[Page H1086]]

  The rule also allows the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to 
postpone votes during consideration of the bill, and to reduce the 
voting time to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 
15-minute vote.

                              {time}  1730

  Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, the purpose of H.R. 992 is to end the so-called Tucker 
Act Shuffle that can bounce private property owners between the U.S. 
district courts and the court of Federal claims when seeking redress 
against the government for the taking of their property.
  The fifth amendment to the Constitution provides in part, and I 
quote, ``nor shall private property be taken for public use without 
just compensation.''
  Based on the legal doctrine of sovereign immunity, the Federal 
Government can only be sued with its consent. In 1887, Congress passed 
the Tucker Act permitting money claims based on the U.S. Constitution 
to be brought in the court of claims. However, if a property owner 
would prefer not to receive compensation for the Federal Government's 
confiscation of property, but to challenge the government's right to 
confiscate the property, the owner should go to the U.S. district 
court.
  If a property owner wishes to both challenge the appropriateness of a 
taking of property and pursue monetary damages arising from the taking, 
the owner must choose to pursue one claim before the other. Both 
claims, in other words, may not be pursued at the same time.
  To make matters worse, the owner cannot go to the court of Federal 
claims until a final decision, including appeals, has been reached in 
the district court.
  The court of Federal claims statute of limitations prevents the owner 
from bringing suit for more than 6 years after a claim first accrues. 
Thus, incredibly and through no fault of his own, under current law the 
property owner may be left with no legal remedy.
  This problem and property rights in general are of special concern 
throughout the West, and in central Washington which I represent. Far 
too often landowners facing the prospect of long and costly litigation 
against the Federal Government feel they have no choice but to accept a 
settlement that they believe is unfair. This is wrong and it must stop; 
that is the goal of H.R. 992.
  Mr. Speaker, the Tucker Act Shuffle Relief Act seeks to correct this 
injustice by granting the U.S. district courts and the court of Federal 
claims the power to determine all claims arising out of Federal agency 
actions alleged to constitute takings in violation of the fifth 
amendment. The property owner then would choose which court would hear 
his case.
  Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules has reported an open rule in 
order to permit Members seeking to amend H.R. 992 the fullest possible 
opportunity to offer any germane amendment during floor consideration 
of the bill.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to pass not only the rule, but H.R. 
992 as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  House Resolution 382 is an open rule providing for the consideration 
of H.R. 992, the Tucker Act Shuffle Relief Act. The rule allows for the 
consideration of all germane amendments and accords priority 
recognition to those Members who have preprinted their amendments in 
the Congressional Record.
  Mr. Speaker, it is especially important that H.R. 992 be considered 
under an open rule because it was a matter of some controversy during 
its consideration in the Committee on the Judiciary. It was reported on 
a vote of 17 to 13, and eight Democratic members signed dissenting 
views in the committee report.
  H.R. 992 seeks to simplify the resolution of disputes between 
landowners whose property has been subject to a government taking and 
the Federal Government by allowing such suits to be heard in either the 
U.S. district court or the U.S. court of Federal claims.
  Under current law, the 1887 Tucker Act, a landowner must go to the 
court of Federal claims in order to sue for financial award or to a 
U.S. district court to challenge the validity of the agency action that 
resulted in the taking. Opponents of this bill make the claim that this 
legislation simplifies and expedites the process for landowners who 
seek to challenge the takings of their property. However, the 
legislation is opposed by the United States Judicial Conference, as 
well as a wide array of environmental groups, because of the 
controversy.
  I support the open rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla).
  (Mr. BONILLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and in 
support of the Tucker Act Shuffle Relief Act. It is a mouthful, and to 
some it might sound like some popular dance step that today's young 
people are doing. But, in fact, it is a very old dance step that is 
practiced by the court system all too often.
  Private property owners are forced to choose between filing a takings 
claim in either the U.S. court of Federal claims or Federal district 
court. The Tucker Act splits jurisdiction between these two courts so 
no one court can provide full relief to a property owner. Then what 
happens is, the courts wind up shuffling the property owners back and 
forth, bouncing them back and forth like ping pong balls between the 
two court systems, literally dancing around the problem and avoid 
ruling in the case.
  This bill will stop the old song-and-dance routine by giving both 
courts jurisdiction over all claims relating to property rights. It 
would not change any current takings law. Property owners who feel they 
have had their property taken unfairly should be allowed to have their 
day in court and not spend years waiting while two courts argue over 
who should hear their case. I believe this will eliminate unnecessary 
delays and reduce court costs as well.
  It is absurd for a landowner's problems to be tied up in court for 
sometimes up to 10 years or more, Mr. Speaker, waiting on the courts to 
figure out jurisdiction has forced landowners to watch their time and 
money waltz away. The time has come to give priority to citizens' 
constitutional rights over jurisdictional disputes between judges.
  The right to private property is one of our most fundamental and 
sacred constitutional rights. That right should be respected by the 
Federal court system.
  I encourage Members to vote for the rule and for the bill and for the 
right of every American to have their day in court. I would also like 
to commend my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Smith) for taking a leadership role in this effort.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the rule, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I also urge adoption of the 
rule. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous 
question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________