Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, in section 6, the Court cannot award attorney's fees or other costs and expenses if they find that doing so would be manifestly unjust.

Mr. GOODLATTE. In section 2, I guess it would be subsection (e)(6).

Mr. GOODLATTE. That is correct.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I think the gentleman read it correctly.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, that is possible just as it is possible for a poor defendant in a case to suffer those same consequences under the American rule, the current law that exists right now. We are equalizing the risk.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment and in support of the underlying bill. The opponents of this legislation, who are also the supporters of this amendment which will gut the bill, say that we do not need to do anything more with regard to private property rights than what is stated in the fifth amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states I think very clearly, ``Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.'' I think that is very clear, when we use private property for public use, as we do in many of the pieces of legislation that are passed, the private property owner is entitled to compensation. The problem is that the U.S. Supreme Court and other lower courts have interpreted that in a fashion that they see fit to say that sometimes you get compensation and sometimes you do not. The fact of the matter is that this Congress has the same responsibility that the Supreme Court has, to interpret the U.S. Constitution and pass laws in accord with the Constitution. And that is exactly what we are doing here. We are simply acknowledging that when you determine what private property is and when it is used for public purposes, then we have every bit as much right as the courts do to indicate our interpretation of that amendment so long as our interpretation is a constitutional interpretation. Clearly, this statute is such a constitutional interpretation. So if we are going to be realistic about our responsibility to private property owners in this country, and this important principle embodied in the Constitution, then it is important that we take action to compensate people when their land is taken for public use purposes.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I strongly disagree with the gentleman's statement that we should leave that to the discretion of the courts. We have the same responsibilities that the courts have for interpreting the law. If we find that they are indeed acting contrary to the intent of Congress and what we think is contrary to the U.S. Constitution, then we should take action. I think the gentleman is quite wrong. With regard to leaving this to the authorizing committees, in point of fact, the authorizing committee with regard to legislation related to the fifth amendment of the U.S. Constitution is the Committee on the Judiciary. We held hearings on this issue. We held an extensive markup on this issue. We have now come to the floor with authorizing legislation. As the chairman of the subcommittee has already indicated to the gentleman from New Jersey, this is not an entitlement. This is an authorization. I think that it is entirely wrong to suggest that just because somebody cannot use their property for a very major purpose because of legislation that has been passed by the Congress or because of court interpretations of those legislation, that they are not entitled to compensation when there is a substantial reduction in value of the property, which this bill requires, that they should indeed be compensated.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Reclaiming my time. I would say to the gentleman that I commend him for that and encourage him to do that because I think after this legislation passes and becomes law, it will be very important and very necessary for you to do that, whereas previously it has not been necessary and has not been done. requisite number of words. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise today in opposition to any legislation that would provide additional takings compensation beyond that allowed for under the fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I realize there are many citizens who believe they have been dealt with unfairly or uncaringly by Federal regulatory agencies. I strongly support initiatives that would grant them relief. I support the Porter amendment, which requires new takings assessments and which will heighten regulators' awareness of these important issues. I support the concept of installing agency ombudsmen--to explain the laws, to handle complaints, and to nip disputes in the bud. And I support the settlement of property claims by new, nonjudicial mechanisms. However, to support a new and broad-based system of takings compensation would be to support one of the most unwieldy, unworkable, and unneeded entitlement schemes that has ever come before this body. H.R. 925 would force us to make an impossible choice: either we agree to bloat the Federal deficit and clog the Federal judiciary with takings claims or--more likely--we must abandon the enforcement of those laws most crucial to the protection of our Nation's wildlife and its remaining natural areas. That is the choice before us today. It is a choice that none of us can make, and it is a choice none of us should have to make. To understand the law, Justice Holmes reminds us, we must understand what the law has been. Private property rights are not absolute--not now, not ever. In saying so, I am not quoting from the latest Greenpeace bulletin--I am not quoting from John Muir or Karl Marx. I am quoting a principle of common law which has existed for almost 1,000 years. From the time of King Henry the Second, in the year 1166 A.D., the Assize of Nuisance stated that a property holder could be held to account for ``things erected, made, or done'' on his land that gave trouble to others. If a property holder's cattle strayed from his land causing damage, his neighbors could sue and force him to build an enclosure. If the landowner raised or lowered the water level on his property, and that act caused detriment to others, the landowner could be held liable. If a man cast dung into the ``ditches or waters which are next to any city, borough, or town,'' another citizen could sue and force the mayor or sheriff to take corrective or punitive action. The nature of the nuisances and pollutants may have changed since the Middle Ages--the underlying principle has not. The principle that the polluter should pay is rooted in laws and customs that prevailed for centuries before Columbus sailed the Atlantic. The bill before us today would fundamentally undermine these principles. It would undermine the property holder's responsibility for the public goods of which he is but a temporary steward. A landowner does not own the air we all breathe, a landowner does not own the water that flows under his land and into our taps, a landowner does not own the eagle that lands in his tree. Rather, these are public goods, and as such, they are the greatest and proudest possession of the American people. These public goods are for the property owner to respect and protect--they are not for him to sell back to the American people, their true and rightful owner, at the auction block. I urge the defeat of the compensation bill, I urge passage of the Porter amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, because it will defeat the purpose of this legislation, which is to create the kind of flexibility for State and local governments to fight crime that this legislation is all about, and I would say to the proponents of the amendment that, quite frankly, we right now have in this bill $2 billion a year, all of which can be used for prevention programs. The bill itself specifically specifies, and I will read it, establishing crime prevention programs that may, though not exclusively, involve law enforcement officials that are intended to discourage, disrupt, or interfere with the commission of criminal activity, including neighborhood watch and citizen patrol programs, sexual assault and domestic violence programs, and programs intended to prevent juvenile crime, establishing or supporting drug courts, establishing early intervention and prevention programs for juveniles, to reduce or eliminate crime. There are, in point of fact, hundreds of crime prevention programs all across this country that will effectively fight crime. The problem with this amendment is it only recognizes 10 of them and hands them over to the States and localities with all manner of strings attached to those programs with very specific guidelines that might be just fine in New York City but might not apply at all in Highland County, VA, in my district which has 2,500 people. There is not a single community in my district with more than 100,000 people in it, and the way crime must be fought in different jurisdictions varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. That is also why we have taken the money from the Cops on the Beat Program and put it into this same block grant, because the fact of the matter is not every community wants to or can qualify for the funding for the Cops on the Beat Program. The President says we are going to get 100,000 new cops on the beat. If you divide that by 435 congressional districts, that comes to 230 per district. My district has received 15 new police officers in 8 of the 20 jurisdictions. Sixty percent of the jurisdictions in my district have either not applied for or not received funding under that program, and I have been talking to police chiefs and others in those communities and found out why. Some of them do not want to get dependent upon the Federal Government for a police officer and then have the funding end. Some of them do not feel a need for a police officer, but may feel a need for a crime prevention program, may feel a need for a drug court, may feel a need to have some form of equipment made available in fighting crime, computers or patrol cars or other things that can be made available to them. All of these things should be left to the localities. Flexibility is needed. When we tie their hands with specific programs that are not needed in specific communities, we are doing absolutely nothing to fight crime in those communities, and this will tie the hands of those communities and, therefore, I urge the rejection of this amendment.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would point out that the gentleman is correct. I was a member of the majority that voted to put the gentleman's language into the bill to make it perfectly clear that drug courts are an important part of this legislation, and the funding is available. In fact, any community that wants to use all of the funding made available to that community for drug courts can do so under their bill, and, in fact, we have almost $2 billion per year made available so conceivably, if drug courts are the preference of each locality in the country, all of the money could be spent on drug courts. I think they are a fine program. Some of the localities in my district are starting them and want to have this money available. Other communities in my district do not feel they need drug courts, and I think, as a result, we should make it plain that this program does have it available, the bill does that, but it does not sequester any funds in this program for any specific program. I think if we are going to give the localities the flexibility to handle fighting crime at the local level in the manner they see best fit, we should leave the bill as it is with the specific language allowing drug courts, but nothing more.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. This amendment is not about tampering with the Constitution. We are not doing that in any way, shape, or form here. And this is poor legislative procedure to take language that is already law, consecrated law in our Constitution, and attempt to substitute it in a bill. All that has the effect of doing is abandoning to the Supreme Court our responsibility to interpret the Constitution. Certainly the Supreme Court has that responsibility, and they have a whole history of cases determining what the fourth amendment means. But we are entitled to pass legislation so long as it is in compliance with that Constitution, and this language simply adds to that interpretation that the Supreme Court already has and creates a good-faith exception so that criminals do not get off on technicalities. All we are saying here is do not allow somebody who is guilty of a crime to evade conviction because of a police officer who acted in good faith, and everybody's constitutional right is protected because the judge will have the discretion and it can be taken up on appeal as well. The judge will have the discretion to determine whether or not the individual police officer was acting in good faith. If he finds he was not, the evidence is excluded. But if he was acting in good faith, not intentionally depriving anybody of their rights, the evidence should be brought in and the criminal should be convicted and put in prison. That is what their bill is about. That is why the amendment should be defeated and the bill passed.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I keep hearing the opponents of this amendment claim that they oppose the amendment because of the spending cuts that will affect their favorite programs that they feel are going to hurt people when they are cut. But what about their concern for the future of our children and grandchildren as we continue to pile debt upon debt on them? We now are averaging deficits of approximately $200 billion a year, a $4.7 trillion debt. That is $18,000 for every single person in this country. And as we increase that debt, we increase the interest payments. And right now by doing that year after year, we are reducing the portion of the debt budget each year that can be used to spend on programs, because an increasing proportion of it has to go to pay for interest on that debt. We need to stop that increase in the debt, we need to cut it back. Voting for this amendment is going to be an important part of this process, but it is only going to be the beginning. We are going to have to step up and make those cuts, but we are going to do it in the interests of our children and our grandchildren. We must make sure that the budget is balanced by cutting spending, which never seems to happen in this House, particularly on the domestic spending side. We cannot do it by continuing to increase the percentage of people's incomes that goes to taxes. We have a situation where year after year, whenever we have a crisis with our spending, we increase taxes, we do not decrease the spending. And that is why we have got to support the Barton amendment to level the playing field, because historically we have found it easier here to increase taxes than to cut spending. This has historically proven to work in States that have the supermajority requirement, and I urge the support of the Barton amendment.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. This amendment is not about protecting children. This amendment is about protecting the rights of so many here who want to take away the rights of parents and local governments and State governments to have their own input into how children should be cared for. We all believe in protecting the rights of children. But when we make a decision in one place about what we are going to do and in another place about how we are going to pay for it, that is a very bad way to handle things. And it takes away rights of people who care the most about children, and that is their parents. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I urge the defeat of this amendment.

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

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, calls for reduced Government spending have echoed throughout this great Nation of ours. Unfortunately, the voices of the people have often been ignored by this Chamber in previous years. When these cries have been heard, the response has been to shift the burden of budget cuts. I believe the time has come for the Members of Congress to lead by example. Today I am introducing legislation that demonstrates to the American people the steadfast commitment of this Congress to fight against excessive spending by tackling the largest perk in government-- Congressional pension plans. I also introduced this legislation in the 103d Congress. I hope and anticipate that the reform-minded 104th Congress will look upon this bill much more favorably and make the bold move to reconcile profitable congressional pensions with those of hard working Americans. Congressional retirement benefits are ridiculously more lucrative than those of many private sector and all Federal employees. Some Members of Congress make more in retirement than most Americans could hope to make in a lifetime. The National Taxpayers Union estimates that over 180 Members will collect over $1 million each in lifetime benefits. My legislation will slam shut the doors of this congressional pension millionaires club. Under current law, retired Members of Congress receive a pension that is 10 to 20 percent higher than comparable pensions for retired Federal employees. There is a drastic difference in the formulas used to calculate Members' pensions and those of Federal employees. Due to the huge disparity in the pension equations, Members of Congress receive thousands of dollars more in annual retirement benefits compared to Federal employees with comparable years of service. Furthermore, when you consider that Members of Congress are near the top of the Federal pay scale, the difference between most pension plans and the lucrative congressional plans is compounded. Clearly, Representatives' and Senators' retirement benefits should be consistent with Federal employees which is why I am introducing a bill which will do just that. My bill recalibrates the formula used to calculate Members' pensions. It changes the equation so that our pension plan is the same as that of any other Federal employee. It also increases the age at which a form Member may begin to collect their benefits from age 50 to age 55. The bill would finally put Members' retirement benefits on par with Federal employees. The time has come for us to address the gross disparities between congressional retirement benefits and those of the average American. The era of governmental abuse has come to a close and the buck stops with us. I urge my fellow Members to hear the calls of the American people, and demonstrate your leadership by setting the example and cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, this is a new day in the people's House, and a new day calls for new rules, and we are going to deliver those today. Let me say to our friends on the other side of the aisle who are claiming our reforms today do not go far enough, for 40 years you ran this place behind closed doors, keeping every perk, privilege, and partisan advantage. Now, suddenly, you are trying to tell the American people you have now become reformers. Well, I realize everyone should have ambitious New swallow. Today, despite the resistance from the minority party, we are going to bring more reform to the House in 12 hours than the other party brought in 40 years of iron-fisted rule. We are wiping out three full standing committees and over 20 subcommittees; we are slashing bloated committee staffs, imposing term limits on the Speaker and committee chairmen and eliminating proxy voting. Finally, we are going to start making Congress live by the laws that American businesses and families live by. I think I can speak for many Americans when I say it is about time. announcement by the speaker