[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 26 (Thursday, March 12, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H1135-H1140]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TUCKER ACT SHUFFLE RELIEF ACT OF 1997
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thomas). Pursuant to House Resolution
382 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration
of the bill, H.R. 992.
{time} 1323
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. 992) to end the Tucker Act shuffle, with Mrs. Emerson
(Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose on
[[Page H1136]]
Wednesday, March 11, 1998, pending was the amendment by the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
Pursuant to the order of the House of that day, no further debate or
amendment to the committee amendment in nature of a substitute shall be
in order except for the pending amendment, which shall be debatable for
20 minutes.
The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) and a Member opposed,
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds
for the benefit of explaining to the Members where we are in the
process so that people will know what we are doing.
We debated this bill yesterday and had part of the debate on the
Watt-Rothman amendment yesterday. We now have 10 minutes on each side
to further debate the Watt-Rothman amendment. Then there will be a vote
on the Watt-Rothman amendment, and then a vote on final passage, for
those who are trying to schedule their time at this point.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume, and I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The issues today are about equity and fairness. Every homeowner and
property owner across America deserves to have their day in court and
in the court that is best for them. An individual who seeks to contest
a governmental taking must deal with unreasonable obstacles and costs
in negotiating their way through the legal maze of the Tucker Act.
Current law denies the Court of Federal Claims authority to hear claims
for injunctive relief and denies the U.S. district courts the authority
to hear claims for monetary relief over $10,000.
The Federal Government often says that property owners have sued in
the wrong court, bouncing property owners back and forth between the
two courts. Some argue we should end the Tucker Act shuffle by giving
only U.S. district courts the ability to grant complete relief in
takings cases. But why should we disregard the Court of Federal Claims'
expertise or its large body of case law and deny the court the ability
to hearing takings claims for both monetary and equitable relief?
Property owners have the right to be heard either in the Court of
Claims or in the U.S. district court. Why not give property owners the
option of going to the court that they think is best? If the property
owner wants to pursue their claim in a court close to home, the
property owner can choose a district court. If the owner wants to
utilize the expertise of a specialized court, the owner can choose the
Court of Federal Claims. We should make it as easy as possible for
property owners to have their claims heard.
There has been a concern voiced about giving an Article III court's
powers to an Article I court; that it would somehow be
unconstitutional. But the answer is that both courts are clearly
constitutional. Furthermore, the bill directs that all appeals, whether
from the U.S. district court or the Court of Federal Claims, will go to
the same Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, an Article III
court. The Constitution clearly allows Congress to provide the Court of
Federal Claims with the power of providing relief in takings cases.
{time} 1330
First, each Federal court, whether an Article I court or an Article
III court, has the inherent authority and duty to disregard
unconstitutional statutes and regulations. In IBM vs. U.S., the Federal
Circuit recently affirmed a ruling by the Court of Federal Claims
declaring a Federal tax statute to be unconstitutional.
Second, the Court of Federal Claims already has the power to grant
injunctive relief in various areas, which today total 40 percent of its
current docket load. And third, the recent Supreme Court cases of
Northern Pipeline Construction Company vs. Marathon Pipeline Company,
and Commodity Futures Trading Commission vs. Schor, both signal
Congress' ability to give the Court of Federal Claims the power to
grant total relief in takings cases.
Private property owners should have the option and the opportunity to
assert their constitutional rights in the court of their choice without
being treated like a Ping-Pong ball. Every property owner in America
has the right to obtain a timely resolution, one way or the other, of
their takings claims. They deserve to have their day in court and in
the right court, the court of their choice.
There are some, and I certainly do not put my friend from North
Carolina in this category, but there are some who say they are for
property rights. What they mean is they are for property rights in the
abstract; they are for property rights theoretically; and they are for
property rights idealistically. But when it comes to relevant people
with real problems, and we have abundant examples of horror stories,
when it comes to real people with real problems, somehow these
theoretical abstract property rights supporters can never be found.
H.R. 992 is a fair, straightforward, common-sense way to get every
property owner across America their right to choose the court that they
think is best for their claim, either the Claims Court or the Federal
District Court; and this amendment would destroy that option that every
property owner in America should have. Madam Chairman, I urge my
colleagues to vote against this amendment.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Chairman, this could be a very good
bill, but only if the Watt/Rothman amendment does pass. People who have
had their land taken clearly should have it resolved in one court. But
that court is not the Court of Federal Claims, it is the U.S. District
Court.
The Watt/Rothman amendment sends it to the U.S. District Court,
accomplishes the efficiency, the fairness that people are looking for.
If Watt/Rothman passes, I would strongly support this bill. But a lot
of people understand that if the only court you can go to is the Court
of Federal Claims, this will not be a good bill and will have to vote
against it.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman).
Mr. ROTHMAN. Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the
Watt/Rothman amendment to H.R. 992. I want to begin by saying thank you
and congratulations to my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Smith), for identifying this problem that has caused private property
owners so much heartache and expense.
I do want to say also, though, with respect to my colleague from
Texas, that the solution that he offers, in my judgment, is
unconstitutional. The problem here we are talking about arises in
Federal cases involving the taking of land without just compensation.
The question is how do we solve the problem? Do we solve the problem in
what might arguably be an unconstitutional way?
There are laypeople and experts who say that this solution, H.R. 992,
is unconstitutional. Or do we solve the problem in an elegant, simple,
and completely effective way that happens to be perfectly
constitutional?
Last October, along with many of my colleagues from both parties, I
voted in favor of H.R. 1534, the Private Property Rights Implementation
Act. I did so proudly. H.R. 1534 was important because it cut years of
delay from Federal takings proceedings that kept people from having
their day in court.
However, notwithstanding H.R. 1534, there still remains an
unjustifiable shuffle within the Federal court system that people must
go through in order to get their Federal takings claims resolved. These
property owners are being shuffled between the U.S. District Court and
the Court of Federal Claims when they bring suit against the Federal
Government after their property has been taken without just
compensation.
But the problem with H.R. 992, with respect, is that the solution to
this shuffling problem gives broad powers that are normally reserved
for the judicial branch courts, Article III courts,
[[Page H1137]]
and instead gives them to the Court of Federal Claims, an Article I
court, whose judges happen to be appointed for a period of years as
opposed to the lifetime appointments of the Federal District Court
judges.
As you might imagine, these lifetime points of the Federal District
Court judges allow the judges to have a much more impartial attitude
regarding all cases, especially keeping them from the kind of political
pressure that we all feel is inappropriate in Federal cases.
For those Members who want to get rid of the shuffle that private
property owners seeking relief are now being required to go through,
there is a perfectly complete and constitutional solution to that
problem. That is the Watt/Rothman amendment to H.R. 992.
Our amendment is very simple. It says, if one is concerned about
getting shuffled around the Federal court system in order to get their
private property rights heard, their claims heard, they would now,
under the Watt/Rothman amendment, be able to challenge the validity of
the Federal statute authorizing the taking, have all other related
claims heard, and receive compensation as well as any and all other
remedies entirely with the one court, the Federal District Court. There
would be no shuffling. The problem would be solved completely,
elegantly, efficiently, and without any question, constitutionally.
So the question is, why do it any other way; why do it in a manner
that is subject to constitutional attack? If we are really all about
giving private property owners who have claims a clear and immediate
chance to avoid the shuffling between courts, why would we vote for a
bill, H.R. 992, that raises constitutional questions, is almost
certainly to be challenged in court, and be defeated in court as
unconstitutional, when there is available the Watt/Rothman amendment
that is perfectly constitutional and eliminates the shuffling problem?
That is why I urge all my colleagues, if they really care about
private property rights claims to help homeowners, to help business
people and others who are making private property claims in Federal
court, vote for the Watt/Rothman amendment. It is constitutional and it
works.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Madam Chairman, let me respond very briefly to my friend from New
Jersey and say that the constitutional problems that he raised are just
in the eyes of the beholder, just himself and a few others. They are
certainly not in the eyes of judges or other courts who have ruled on
this issue.
I mentioned a while ago one case, the IBM versus United States case,
where the Federal circuit recently affirmed a ruling by the Court of
Federal Claims declaring a Federal tax statute to be unconstitutional.
Clearly, the court is saying that the Court of Claims can so rule.
I have also mentioned the Northern Pipeline Construction Company,
which is a recent Supreme Court case, as well as the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission case, which was also a recent Supreme Court case.
Both of those cases put up tests that could be met by the Court of
Claims, and any ruling that it would make in regard to the Fifth
Amendment taking claims would clearly be constitutional.
If the plain language of the Supreme Court cases is not clear to my
friends, I am happy for the judges to stand corrected, but that is a
constitutional court, the Court of Claims.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, might I inquire how much
time remains on each side?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) has 5
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) has
5 minutes remaining.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I yield myself as much
time as I may consume.
Madam Chairman, let me first say to my colleagues what this dispute
is not about. First of all, both sides of the aisle, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Smith) and I agree that shuffling private citizens back and
forth between two courts is not acceptable.
I understand the historical reason that it was done. In fact, it was
done because the Court of Federal Claims could have jurisdiction over
the claims part of an issue, but they did not have the constitutional
authority to declare statutes unconstitutional.
So the reason that we have this two-party arrangement now, where the
Court of Federal Claims has part of the jurisdiction and the U.S.
District Court has part of the jurisdiction, is for the very
constitutional reason that I am offering this amendment. But both of us
agree that that should be eliminated.
This is not about taking jurisdiction away from the U.S. Court of
Federal Claims. I would love for them to have jurisdiction over this
matter. If they had the constitutional authority to deal with it, it
would not matter to me who had jurisdiction over the issue.
So why are we here? We are trying to find a solution which is a
constitutional solution. Why is that important? Go back to the founding
of our country when our Constitution was first written. The Founding
Fathers wrote this: That King George has made judges dependent on his
will alone for the tenure of their offices and the amount of payment of
their salaries.
That was unacceptable to the Founding Fathers. That is why they set
up an independent judiciary in our country, so that we would not have
to address that issue.
They set up some other courts, like the Court of Federal Claims. Yes,
it is a good court. No problem with the court. But they did not give
the judges over there lifetime tenure and guaranteed salaries that
separates them out and gives them independence on these issues. They
just do not have that authority.
So we are trying to find a place that we can send private property
takings and all of the issues related to those private property takings
where they can get a constitutional hearing in one location. The only
place to do that is the United States District Court, because it is an
Article III court set up under the Constitution for that kind of
purpose.
It makes you wonder why my colleagues on the other side might be
favoring giving this responsibility to the Court of Federal Claims.
There are two theories I have. Either they want the issue more than
they want a solution; that is one possibility. The other possibility is
that all 14 judges on the Court of Federal Claims are Reagan/Bush
appointees. And 11 out of the 13 appeals judges are Reagan/Bush
appointees. So all of a sudden, this becomes a political issue rather
than a problem to be solved, which is what we should be about in this
body.
The President has said, the administration has said that they are
going to recommend aggressively that this bill be vetoed if it is
passed in an unconstitutional form such as the one now. They have said
we will sign this bill if the Watt/Rothman amendment is passed.
Environmental groups, others who have opposed this bill have said, we
encourage people to vote for the bill if the Watt/Rothman amendment is
passed. It will solve the problem. It will repose the responsibility in
a constitutional court.
That is what we thought we were striving to do, to solve the problem.
But there are some people in this body who would rather have the issue
to complain about and raise it at that level than they would to solve
the problem.
I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, make this bill
vetoproof. Let us get it passed. Let us solve the problem and quit
worrying about where the issue is.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Madam Chairman, I just simply want to urge my opponents to read the
Supreme Court cases that I mentioned a minute ago. If they did, I am
sure they would understand why this bill is absolutely constitutional.
Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
{time} 1345
Mr. CHABOT. Madam Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment.
The main purpose of this legislation is to give those who feel that
their property has been taken by an action of the Federal Government
the ability to file a single suit in a single Federal court of their
choice, either the court
[[Page H1138]]
of claims or the Federal district court. This amendment would take that
choice away and force them to file in a district court, requiring them
to forgo the expertise of the court of claims.
Under current law, when a person believes that they have suffered a
taking by the Federal Government, they face an unfair decision that
makes them choose between compensation and putting a stop to the
action. Although this amendment represents a step in the right
direction when compared to the current law, it should be rejected in
favor of the broader step taken in the underlying legislation.
Finally, Madam Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Smith) for his perseverance in pushing this legislation to
help those who are already burdened by uncompensated takings to get
their day in court. I am proud to have cosponsored this important
legislation.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Once again, I want to say to my colleagues and reassure them that
H.R. 992 is a fair, straightforward, common-sense way to give every
property owner across America their right to choose the court that they
think is best for their claim, either the claims court or the Federal
district court. This amendment again would destroy that option.
If we support giving private property owners their day in court, if
we believe property owners, not the Federal Government, should choose
the court that hears their case, if we believe that property owners do
not deserve to be treated like a ping-pong ball and shuffled back and
forth between courts, if we believe in fairness and equity, then I
encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for this
fair, straightforward, common-sense bill and support the right of every
property owner across America to have their day in court and in the
court that is best for them.
Madam Chairman, I have made a good-faith effort over the last 2 days
to address the concerns of my colleagues that we not affect in any way
environmental laws. With the adoption of the amendment that I offered
last night during our debate, this bill does not affect those laws or
preempt them in any way. I urge my colleagues who had concerns to vote
for H.R. 992 with my amendment to protect environmental laws and to
vote no on the administration's amendment offered by the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
Among many organizations, the Chamber of Commerce, the realtors and
the homebuilders support this legislation and oppose this amendment. I
urge a strong bipartisan vote in opposition to this amendment and in
favor of the underlying bill.
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The question is on the
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 206,
noes 206, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 51]
AYES--206
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bilbray
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Conyers
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Ehlers
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gejdenson
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gordon
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pappas
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOES--206
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bereuter
Berry
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Boswell
Brady
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gingrich
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Graham
Granger
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
Lucas
Manzullo
Matsui
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Scarborough
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Turner
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--19
Berman
Brown (CA)
Bunning
Furse
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Goss
Harman
Hastert
John
Lofgren
Nadler
Poshard
Rangel
Redmond
Sanchez
Schaefer, Dan
Schiff
Tanner
{time} 1411
Messrs. TAYLOR of Mississippi, WHITE, and LIVINGSTON, and Ms. DANNER
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. ORTIZ, FROST and JEFFERSON 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.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The question is on the
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 992,
the Tucker Act
[[Page H1139]]
Shuffle Relief Act, introduced by my colleague from Texas, Mr. Smith.
The Tucker Act Shuffle Relief Act would bring clarity to the legal
process for landowners who make property rights claims under the Fifth
Amendment to the Constitution. As we all know, the Fifth Amendment
requires that no person be deprived of property without the due process
of law, nor shall private property be taken for pubic use without just
compensation.
As I have listened to the debate, I do not believe there is
disagreement over the need for just or fair compensation. However,
there is disagreement over the best way to ensure the rights of private
property owners are protected.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the Tucker Act is needed because of the
procedural nightmares many private property owners face when seeking
judicial relief from any outright taking of land or its restriction of
use by a federal agency or regulation. Under current law, a claim must
be made in two separate federal courts, U.S. Court of Federal Claims
(CFC) and a federal district court. The CFC will hear the money claims
against the U.S. government while district courts will address the
legality of the federal action. This jurisdictional split has been
called by many the ``Tucker Act Shuffle.''
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 992 is not anti-environment, nor will it amend any
environmental law, as many of my colleagues have said. H.R. 992 would
simply allow private property owners to seek redress in only one court,
either the CFC or a federal district court. I believe that streamlining
the legal process will greatly reduce the length of time and cost of
litigation, which is both good for the private property owner and the
federal government.
I thank my colleague from Texas for introducing his bill at this
time, and ask my colleagues to support H.R. 992.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, late last year we passed legislation
that was an important landmark in the debate over the resolution of
private property rights disputes.
In far too many parts of the country we have a patchwork system for
resolving land use disputes that relies almost entirely upon legal
maneuvering and political pressure. In many cases, this is because
these areas lack comprehensive land use plans developed by local
government with the help of their citizens and business interests.
This is an exceedingly inefficient and often unfair way to resolve
the important public policy decisions attendant to development. There
needs to be a way to provide incentives to State and local governments
to carefully codify their planning objectives in terms of zoning and
development requirements, along with cost and fee structures that
require development to pay its own way. A combination of sound land use
planning and appropriate user fee structures makes good development
possible.
The legislation before us today is, in part, a logical addition to
the steps we took in passing H.R. 1535. Members on both sides of the
aisle see the wisdom of allowing both the claim suit and the
compensation suit to be heard in one court opposed to two.
But unfortunately, in attempting to fix this problem, H.R. 992
creates a new one which is, for me, decisive. H.R. 922 would severely
weaken a critical component of our environmental and labor laws, the
so-called preclusive review. Under the bill, suits regarding the proper
use of land or water as those uses related to the Clean Water Act and
other critical environmental statutes could be heard in any of the
district courts, as well as the Court of Federal Claims. Such a
proposal opens the door to the possibility of courts establishing
different water or air standards for different parts of the country.
Without a uniform standard, as currently protected by preclusive
review, we undermine the entire purpose of our environmental status. I
don't believe a provision of this sort belongs in a bill specifically
oriented toward eliminating the burden of separate court filings for
takings claims. By supporting the Watt amendment, we can eliminate the
Tucker Act Shuffle without undermining our environmental statutes.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment to H.R.
992 offered by Representatives Watt and Rothman.
H.R. 992 would weaken existing environmental laws and increase the
number of court cases initiated to challenge longstanding environmental
protections. It would leave to the courts the interpretation of
environmental laws by expanding court jurisdiction and authority to
challenge government regulations.
As the bill stands, it would allow developers to shop the courts
until they located the most favorable venue for the most favorable
treatment of their arguments and to be heard in either the U.S.
District Court or the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. One court might
rule in one way affecting the same law that another court might act on
with an entirely different interpretation. Contradictory rulings would
lead to widespread confusion of the intent of laws developed and
approved by Congress. The Watt-Rothman amendment offers a more
reasonable approach to the court shopping spree provided under the
bill.
Under Article I of the Constitution, the Court of Federal Claims does
not have the authority to revoke federal statutes or to provide relief
other than monetary. The Watt-Rothman amendment addresses the question
of constitutionality and effectively eliminates the current ``shuffle''
between courts by consolidating claims within a single court, the U.S.
District Court. The Watt-Rothman amendment also preserves expedited
review which is important to determine the validity of federal
regulations in an expeditious manner.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Watt-Rothman amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 992, the
Tucker Act Shuffle Relief Act. This bill would simplify the court
procedures when a case is brought by a private property owner to
protect their legal and civil rights as guaranteed in the 5th amendment
of the United States 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 two years, under extreme pressure from the 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
insure 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 ten years, environmentalists have received over ten million
dollars 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 in
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 insure that the smallest and poorest landowner can have the
same rights as the biggest corporation or well financed environmental
groups.
Lets pass H.R. 992 and protect our constitutional rights.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Tiahrt) having assumed the chair, Mrs. Emerson, 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. 992)
to end the Tucker Act shuffle, pursuant to House Resolution 382, she
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.
[[Page H1140]]
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
{time} 1415
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tiahrt). 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.
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. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 230,
noes 180, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 52]
AYES--230
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bereuter
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Boswell
Boyd
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fazio
Foley
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Graham
Granger
Green
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
Lucas
Manzullo
Martinez
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Minge
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sandlin
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
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
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Traficant
Turner
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--180
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bilbray
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Conyers
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Ehlers
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Filner
Forbes
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gilman
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hamilton
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hooley
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pappas
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roukema
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Thompson
Tierney
Towns
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--20
Berman
Brown (CA)
Cunningham
Furse
Gonzalez
Goss
Harman
John
Lofgren
Markey
Nadler
Parker
Poshard
Redmond
Roybal-Allard
Sanchez
Schiff
Tanner
Torres
Weller
{time} 1436
So the bill was passed.
The result of vote was announced as above recorded.
The title of the bill was amended so as to read: ``A bill to end the
Tucker Act shuffle, and for other purposes.''.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________