Sam Gejdenson: “I rise in opposition to H.R. 925 and urge my colleagues to defeat this ill-conceived measure. I want to thank the…”

“I rise in opposition to H.R. 925 and urge my colleagues to defeat this ill-conceived measure. I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] for their efforts to point out the substantial flaws in this bill. H.R. 925, as reported by the Judiciary Committee, requires the Federal Government to compensate any property owner whose property is devalued by 10 percent or more as the result of any agency action to limit its use in virtually any way. While the Federal Government has a special fund to pay compensation claims, this bill requires claims to be paid out of an agency's budget. I have several concerns about this bill. First and foremost, it is at odds with the fifth amendment and decades of consistent Supreme Court decisions. I firmly believe that the Government must compensate property owners when it takes their property for public purposes as required by the fifth amendment. When we take a parcel of land to build a highway or for another project it is only appropriate to compensate the owner of that property. However, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the right to compensation does not apply when the owner retains ownership of a parcel and can continue to derive economic benefit from it. The Supreme Court has ruled that compensation is required when a Federal action eliminates every conceivable use of a piece of property not just the most valuable possible use.”