[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.

                          ____________________