On the recordMarch 2, 1995
I take back my time to say that the gentleman clearly finds the court's interpretation is inadequate because this bill goes beyond the courts. The gentleman is entitled to do that. But having decided it is way beyond what the courts have said, you cannot come back and say, ``Oh, but this policy, we didn't do it, we are just carrying out what courts did.'' But the fact is, and the gentleman has confirmed what I said, under the bill as it was reported out of the committee, the Committee on the Judiciary, in these areas, the compensation is denied if anything is illegal under State law. If the gentleman's amendment is adopted, things that are illegal under State law could still be the basis for compensation unless they were illegal as nuisances. So if the State has outlawed something for reasons other than it is defined as a nuisance, it is entitled to compensation. By State law now. And it is very clear, and the law says on page 2, the underlying text of the bill, ``No compensation shall be made under this act if the use limited by the Federal agency action is proscribed under the law of the State.'' The gentleman's amendment would strike that. It would leave in the part that says, ``If the use is a nuisance as defined by the law of the State.'' So to there is a clear narrowing here of that exemption.
Source
govinfo.gov




