Charles T. Canady: “I think the point we need to understand here is that people have a right to use their property. The presumption the…”

“I think the point we need to understand here is that people have a right to use their property. The presumption the gentleman seem to be operating off of is that people do not have a right to use their property, they do not have a right to the value of their property. I simply disagree with that. The philosophy behind this bill is that people do have a right to their property. When the Federal Government is going to impose restrictions on them that prevent them from using their properties, and those restrictions significantly diminish the value of that property, they are entitled to compensation. I understand there is a difference of opinion on that subject. I think what is happening here, Mr. Chairman, is we are clouding that issue. I will not say it is an attempt, but I think the effect of what is going on here is to obfuscate that critical issue, when the interest that the gentleman purports to be protecting, and the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Wyden, is my friend, and I accept his good faith in this, however, the interests that the gentleman is attempting to protect here are interests that are already protected by local zoning ordinances. Let me point out, Mr. Chairman, that the interests that we are attempting to protect do not receive that same sort of protection. I think that is something that is important to understand.”