Howard Coble

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1534 is about Congress' duty to implement the 5th and 14th amendments to the Constitution. The U.S. Constitution protects individuals from having their private property ``taken'' by the Government without receiving just compensation. To file a claim of a violation of that fundamental right, plaintiffs encounter several high obstacles which must be negotiated or crossed prior to the Federal courts hearing the cases on their merits. Plaintiffs alleging violations of other fundamental rights oftentimes do not encounter the same hurdles before gaining access to the Federal courts. Plaintiffs filing taking claims in Federal court are met with steep requirements prior to their case being considered to be ripe. A plaintiff must show both that there has been a final decision by the State or local governmental entity which has authority over land use, and that the plaintiff has requested compensation by exhausting all possible State remedies. Ironically, it may be impossible to then get any Federal remedy because the case has been forced to be heard in the State court and a case cannot be tried twice in most instances. Deprivation of a Federal remedy goes against what our Founding Fathers saw as a uniquely Federal matter, it seems to me. Lower courts attempting to interpret when a final decision has occurred have reached conflicting and confusing decisions which are not instructive to takings plaintiffs trying to determine when their cases are ripe. H.R. 1534 defines when a final decision has been reached in order to give takings plaintiffs some certainty in the law so that their fifth amendment rights may be properly reserved. Takings plaintiffs also confront the barrier of the abstention doctrine when filing a claim in Federal court. This doctrine gives Federal judges the discretion to refuse to hear cases that are otherwise properly before the court. Judges often avoid land use issues based on the abstention doctrine, even when the case involves only a Federal fifth amendment claim. H.R. 1534 remedies this by prohibiting district courts from abstaining from or relinquishing jurisdiction when the case alleges only a violation of Federal law. H.R. 1534 would not affect the traditional abstention doctrines, Younger, Pullman, and Burford, used by the Federal courts because it allows a Federal court to abstain from hearing any case that alleges a violation of a State law, right, or privilege. H.R. 1534 does not remove State court jurisdiction, even over Federal claims. Plaintiffs with Federal takings claims will still be able to file in State courts. H.R. 1534, the bill before us, simply assures plaintiffs with a 5th or 14th amendment takings claim that a meaningful Federal option exists. This bill has undergone many improvements already since its introduction. For example, amendments included at the subcommittee and full committee levels addressed the special concerns of opponents that the bill was too broad and that it would circumvent local elected officials. At the subcommittee markup, an amendment making it clear that H.R. 1534 applies only to cases involving real property was offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly], the primary author of the bill, and approved. At the full committee markup, the amendment of the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren], who will be handling the bill for the minority, which required a land use applicant to seek review of a denied appeal, or waiver from a local elected body if that procedure is available, was approved. And I say to the gentlewoman from California, I think that was a sound proposal and I think improved the bill. Mr. Chairman, the bill includes a manager's amendment which will further address concerns expressed to the committee by other Members. These provisions narrow the scope of terms that could be construed more broadly than intended. It will include a provision that ensures local agencies an opportunity to offer suggestions to an applicant that must be taken into account or consideration in resubmitting the application before the applicant may seek an administrative or judicial appeal and subsequent Federal court litigation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady], a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson].

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Blumenauer].

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant]. (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith], a member of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Mr. SMITH of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce].

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 1534, the Clerk be authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation, and cross references and to make such other technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to reflect the actions of the House in amending the bill, H.R. 1534.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the motion. Mr. Chairman, we believe in Federal protection in Federal courts for Federal fundamental rights. States protect State and Federal rights, but our Founding Fathers put this right in the Federal Constitution for attention by the Federal Government with a Federal remedy. So I do not see any inconsistency there. Previously, Mr. Chairman, I said the Boehlert amendment would gut the Gallegly bill. I now say to my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], that his motion to strike the enacting clause will emasculate the bill. It does great damage to the bill.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm]. (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly], a member of the Committee on the Judiciary and primary sponsor of the bill. (Mr. GALLEGLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo]. (Mr. POMBO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell]. (Mr. CAMPBELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Ryun].

Mr. COBLE. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois. (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I say to the chairman and to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] and to the body, Mr. Chairman, that I have reviewed the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] and I am supportive thereof.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Boehlert amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 1534. Very frankly, Mr. Chairman, the amendment will effectively gut the bill. The fifth amendment to the Constitution prohibits the government from taking private property without just compensation. This prohibition is applicable to local governments through the 14th amendment. H.R. 1534 addresses the procedural difficulties encountered by property owners alleging the local or Federal Government has taken their property. Currently, property owners claiming a fifth amendment taking by local governments do not have a realistic option to file in Federal court. Under current case law, a takings plaintiff must meet both the ripeness standard, meaning have a final decision regarding the permissible uses on the property and exhaust all State remedies and overcome the well- documented abuse of the abstention doctrine which Federal judges use to avoid takings cases. Federal judges routinely abstain from takings cases even when the claim alleges only a Federal fifth amendment claim based on action by a local government. H.R. 1534 addresses this problem by prohibiting Federal judges from abstaining when the claim involves only a Federal fifth amendment claim, even when the taking was done by local governments. Mr. Chairman, the Boehlert amendment strikes the provisions of the bill which are applicable to local governments, leaving in the provisions which apply to the United States as a defendant. Mr. Chairman, this would exempt the vast majority of private property owners from the relief and assistance that H.R. 1534 provides. If the United States is a defendant, a takings claimant will have very little trouble getting into Federal court. However, claimants alleging a Federal fifth amendment taking by local government will continue to operate without any certainty as to when their case is ripe for Federal adjudication and continue to be routinely dismissed by Federal judges avoiding takings cases. Mr. Chairman, during the past couple of weeks, our staff and the staff of the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly], the sponsor of the bill, have worked tirelessly with the staff of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] to come to an agreement on several issues, and I think the gentleman from New York will admit to that. On October 15, 1997, the staff of the gentleman from New York handed a list of amendments that needed to be made in order to gain the gentleman's support for the bill. The manager's amendment incorporated each one of these items, either precisely as requested or in spirit. It is not an exaggeration to say that we bent over backward to accommodate the gentleman's concerns about H.R. 1534. The Boehlert amendment does not reflect the concerns raised in those meetings, but a complete gutting of the bill. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Boehlert amendment in the nature of a substitute for H.R. 1534. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Calvert].

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Madam Speaker, I want to ask a question of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] in an effort to clear the cloud. Would the gentleman from Ohio be willing for his amendment to follow that of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] since it appears he will object if it does not?

Mr. COBLE. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. COBLE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of H.R. 1534 in the Committee of the Whole, pursuant to House Resolution 271, first, it be in order to consider the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] in the form I have placed at the desk, after the disposition of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers], as though printed in part 2 of the House Report 105-335, which shall be debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and, second, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may, (a) postpone until a time during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and, (b) reduce to 5 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 15 minutes.