[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 90 (Thursday, June 30, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H5577-H5585]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXPRESSING THE GRAVE DISAPPROVAL OF THE HOUSE REGARDING MAJORITY
OPINION OF SUPREME COURT IN KELO V. CITY OF NEW LONDON
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree
to the resolution (H. Res. 340) expressing the grave disapproval of the
House of Representatives regarding the majority opinion of the Supreme
Court in the case of Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al. that
nullifies the protections afforded private property owners in the
Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. Res. 340
Whereas the takings clause of the fifth amendment states
``nor shall private property be taken for public use, without
just compensation'';
Whereas upon adoption, the 14th amendment extended the
application of the fifth amendment to each and every State
and local government;
Whereas the takings clause of the 5th amendment has
historically been interpreted and applied by the Supreme
Court to be conditioned upon the necessity that Government
assumption of private property through eminent domain must be
for the public use and requires just compensation;
Whereas the opinion of the majority in Kelo et al. v. City
of New London et al. renders the public use provision in the
Takings Clause of the fifth amendment without meaning;
Whereas the opinion of the majority in Kelo et al. v. City
of New London et al. justifies the forfeiture of a person's
private property through eminent domain for the sole benefit
of another private person;
Whereas the dissenting opinion upholds the historical
interpretation of the takings clause and affirms that ``the
public use requirement imposes a more basic limitation upon
government, circumscribing the very scope of the eminent
domain power: Government may compel an individual to forfeit
her property for the public's use, but not for the benefit of
another private person'';
Whereas the dissenting opinion in Kelo et al. v. City of
New London et al. holds that the ``standard this Court has
adopted for the Public Use Clause is therefore deeply
perverse'' and the beneficiaries of this decision are
``likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence
and power in the political process, including large
corporations and development firms'' and ``the government now
has license to transfer property from those with fewer
resources to those with more''; and
Whereas all levels of government have a Constitutional
responsibility and a moral obligation to always defend the
property rights of individuals and to only execute its power
of eminent domain for the good of public use and contingent
upon the just compensation to the individual property owner:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That--
(1) the House of Representatives--
(A) disagrees with the majority opinion in Kelo et al. v.
City of New London et al. and its holdings that effectively
negate the public use requirement of the takings clause; and
(B) agrees with the dissenting opinion in Kelo et al. v.
City of New London et al. in its upholding of the historical
interpretation of the takings clause and its deference to the
rights of individuals and their property; and
(2) it is the sense of the House of Representatives that--
(A) State and local governments should only execute the
power of eminent domain for those purposes that serve the
public good in accordance with the fifth amendment;
(B) State and local governments must always justly
compensate those individuals whose property is assumed
through eminent domain in accordance with the fifth
amendment;
(C) any execution of eminent domain by State and local
government that does not comply with subparagraphs (A) and
(B) constitutes an abuse of government power and an
usurpation of the individual property rights as defined in
the fifth amendment;
(D) eminent domain should never be used to advantage one
private party over another;
(E) no State nor local government should construe the
holdings of Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al. as
justification to abuse the power of eminent domain; and
(F) Congress maintains the prerogative and reserves the
right to address through legislation any abuses of eminent
domain by State and local government in light of the ruling
in Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Conyers) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner).
General Leave
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 340.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
[[Page H5578]]
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 340, a resolution
introduced by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) strongly
condemning the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in Kelo v. City of New
London. In this case, handed down on June 23, the Supreme Court
transformed the public use doctrine under the fifth amendment's takings
clause to allow the government to take property for economic
development.
The fifth amendment of the U.S. Constitution specifically provides
that private property shall not be taken for public use without just
compensation. This decision insults the constitutional rights of all
Americans and unsettles decades of judicial precedent.
As the dissent in this case pointed out, under the majority's
opinion, ``Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another
private party. The government now has license to transfer property from
those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have
intended this perverse result.''
To give legislative force to this resolution, today I introduced H.R.
3135, the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005. This
bipartisan bill will help restore the property rights of all Americans
that the Supreme Court took away last week. I am pleased that the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the
Committee on the Judiciary, is the lead Democratic cosponsor and that
64 additional Members have already agreed to support this measure.
This legislation would prevent the Federal Government from using
economic development as a justification for taking privately owned
property. It would also prohibit any State or municipality from doing
so whenever Federal funds are involved with the project for which
eminent domain authority is exercised. American taxpayers should not be
forced to contribute in any way to the abuse of government power.
The impact of this decision cuts across social, economic and
demographic lines. In their joint amicus brief, the NAACP and the AARP
stated, ``The takings that result from the Court's decision will
disproportionately affect and harm the economically disadvantaged and,
in particular, the racial and ethnic minorities and the elderly.''
In its brief, the American Farm Bureau Federation stated, ``Each of
our members is threatened by the decision with the loss of productive
farm and ranch land, solely to allow someone else to put it to a
different private use.''
The representatives of religious organizations have stated that the
Supreme Court's decision will ``grant municipalities a special license
to invade the autonomy of and take the property of religious
institutions.''
Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) for
introducing this important resolution and encourage my colleagues to
support it. I also ask Members to join me in cosponsoring H.R. 3135 to
assure the American people that we will not allow our churches, our
homes, our farms and other private property to be bulldozed in abusive
land grabs that solely benefit private individuals whose only claim to
that land is that their greater wealth will increase tax revenues.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I rise in opposition to this sense of Congress resolution.
This is a great evening in the House of Representatives. We had the
gentleman from Wisconsin, the chairman, joining me and the great civil
rights organizations of America that he has named, all working in
common cause to right a decision that has come out of the Supreme Court
about eminent domain that will require the attention of all of the
Members of this body.
In a way, I am reluctantly in opposition to the sense of Congress
resolution because if I had had a little part in drafting it, I can
tell my colleagues we would have taken out some of the over-the-top
criticism of the Court itself, and I would probably be arguing for this
sense of Congress resolution.
I have serious concerns regarding the misuse and overuse of eminent
domain procedures in this country and oppose the elevation of corporate
profits and corporate uses of land over individual rights. So like the
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, I joined NAACP, the
Southern Christian Leadership Council, Operation Push, and the
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights because I think this Court
opinion makes it too easy for private property to be taken and
transferred to another private owner. This is a particular problem.
Eminent domain has been used historically to target the poor, people of
color, and the elderly.
Since I am a cosponsor of the bipartisan legislation that the
chairman of the committee has called for, then what is my problem with
the resolution? Well, it gratuitously overtargets the judicial branch.
There are terms in here that are not helpful as we engage in a debate
with a co-equal branch of government.
The resolution insists that Congress, and Congress alone, can address
abuses of eminent domain. I am not so sure about that. That ignores and
demeans the historic role the courts have played in protecting
individual rights and property rights.
The other problem that leads me not to be supportive of the sense of
Congress resolution is that it inaccurately misstates the scope of the
Supreme Court's ruling. For example, the resolution states that the
majority opinion justifies the forfeiture of a person's private
property through eminent domain for the sole benefit of another private
person. As a matter of fact, Justice Stevens stated at the outset of
his opinion that the sovereign may not take property for the sole
purpose of transferring it to another party.
The resolution states that the majority opinion renders the public
use provision in the takings clause meaningless, but it is more
accurate to say that the public purpose requirement is still
applicable, although somewhat diminished.
In reality, the majority opinion held that the eminent domain may be
used where the plan serves a public purpose. The issue of eminent
domain in takings are complex, fact-specific issues. They warrant more
than the short discussion that we will be limited to today. The issue
deserves full legislative hearings, which our legislation will, of
course, provide for in the Committee on the Judiciary.
We want to all work on this constitutional issue. It is sensitive. We
cannot go over the top on this. We have got to keep it down.
I am tired of corporations wiping out communities because they need a
plant or casinos developed and taken under eminent domain. We need to
rein this in, and this case gives us an opportunity to do so.
I am shocked that I am standing in the well here reciting the members
that signed the dissent: Scalia, Rehnquist, Thomas and O'Connor. What
an evening this has been for those of us here in the House.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), the author of the resolution.
(Mr. GINGREY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the author of H. Res. 340,
a resolution expressing the grave disapproval of the House of
Representatives regarding the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in
the case of Kelo et al. v. City of New London, Connecticut. I encourage
all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this
bipartisan resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I first would like to take this opportunity to thank the
leadership of this House and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman
Sensenbrenner) for so expeditiously scheduling and shepherding this
resolution to the floor for a vote. I would also like to thank the over
75 Members who have contacted my office to become cosponsors of the
resolution and those who are speaking in support of it tonight.
H. Res. 340 demonstrates the commitment of this House to not stand
idly by, but rather to act now in addressing this atrocious and
negligent decision. By a margin of only one vote, the Supreme Court has
struck down 2 centuries' worth of precedents and constitutional
protections for property owners.
It is the responsibility of this House to ensure that the American
people,
[[Page H5579]]
the owners of this great country, are never run over by a handful of
judges who refuse to enforce the written laws of this land and to
uphold the guarantees of the Constitution.
{time} 2130
Mr. Speaker, despite the failings of the majority in the New London
decision, at least there were four justices who got it right. I applaud
them in their steadfast determination and commitment to uphold the
Constitution and express their own dismay at the majority's rulings.
As Justice O'Connor writes in the dissenting opinion: ``Any property
may now be taken for the benefit of another private property, and the
beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate
influence and power in the political process.''
No home, no business, no property, no person is safe from the
destructive consequences of this decision. Imagine a local city council
using its power of eminent domain to condemn and demolish the local
church or synagogue and put up a Starbucks because God is not making
them any money.
As Americans across this country prepare to celebrate the 229th
anniversary of our independence, I can think of no greater tribute to
our fine and Founding Fathers and no greater gift to the American
people than declaring that this land is their land and not the
government's.
Mr. Speaker, I again want to thank the leadership of this House and
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), and I would encourage
all of my colleagues to pass this resolution and speak united in one
voice declaring liberty and justice for all.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the author of H. Res. 340, a resolution
expressing the grave disapproval of the House of Representatives
regarding the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in the case of Kelo
et al. v. the City of New London Connecticut. I encourage all of my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bipartisan
Resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I would first like to take this opportunity to thank the
leadership of this House and Chairman Sensenbrenner for so
expeditiously scheduling and shepherding this Resolution to the floor
for a vote.
I would also like to thank the over seventy-five members who have
contacted my office to become cosponsors of this Resolution, and those
who are speaking in support tonight.
House Resolution 340 demonstrates the commitment of this House to not
stand idly by, but rather to act now in addressing this atrocious and
negligent decision. By a margin of only one vote, the Supreme Court has
struck down two centuries worth of precedent and Constitutional
protections for property owners.
It is the responsibility of this House to ensure that the American
people, the owners of this great country, are never run over by a
handful of judges who refuse to enforce the written laws of this land
and uphold the guarantees of the Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, despite the failings of the majority in the New London
decision, at least there were four justices who got it right. I applaud
them in their steadfast determination and commitment to uphold the
Constitution and express their own dismay at the majority's ruling. As
Justice O'Connor writes in the dissenting opinion: ``any property may
now be taken for the benefit of another private party . . . and the
beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate
influence and power in the political process.''
No home, no business, no property, no person is safe from the
destructive consequences of this decision. Imagine, a local city
council using its power of eminent domain to condemn and demolish the
local Church or Synagogue and put up a Starbucks, because God isn't
making them any money.
As Americans across this great country prepare to celebrate the 229th
Anniversary of our Independence, I can think of no greater tribute to
our Founding Fathers and no greater gift to the American people than
declaring that this land is their land and not the government's.
Mr. Speaker, I again want to thank the Leadership of this House and
Chairman Sensenbrenner, and I would encourage all of my colleagues to
pass this Resolution and speak united in one voice declaring liberty
and justice for all.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the ranking member on the
Subcommittee on the Constitution.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I am pleased that my colleagues have focused on the
importance of the Supreme Court's Kelo decision. The power of eminent
domain is an extraordinary power that must be used rarely and with
great care. Even where the constitution might permit the exercise of
this extraordinary power, government must take great care to respect
the rights of families, of small businesses and of communities. This is
not a power that should be used for the benefit of private parties who
might be well connected, as Justice O'Connor said. It is a power that
can be abused, and that has been abused.
I want to point out that the Supreme Court, in this decision, is
essentially saying that power that communities have exercised, they can
continue to exercise, where some thought that we ought to pull it back.
For example, when President Bush was one of the owners of the Texas
Rangers baseball team, they were able to get the town of Arlington,
Texas, to condemn private property to give them land to build a
baseball stadium. Ask the Mathes family about the abuse of power. The
city condemned 13 acres of their land for George Bush's baseball team,
and the Mathes family had to go to court to compensate them for the
actual value of the land.
Now, I think we would agree that was not right, and the Supreme Court
now says that that is okay. We cannot allow private individuals to be
enriched at the expense of their neighbors by hijacking and abusing the
power of government.
The Kelo decision raises a great many questions, and I want to
commend my colleagues, the chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Conyers), for introducing legislation and allowing the Committee
on the Judiciary to consider the full impact of the court's decision
and draw the proper line between the public interest and private
enrichments. We need to protect families like the Mathes family,
victimized by the Texas Rangers and the town government in Texas, and
we need to protect our communities from the abuse of government power
to benefit private interest.
Now, I am going to reluctantly vote against the resolution because,
as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) said, it says things about
the decision that probably are not accurate. I do not think the
decision said that you can use the power of eminent domain for the sole
benefit of another private person. It might be the incidental benefit
of a private person if you could concoct a theory of public benefit. I
do not think it completely negates the public use requirements of the
takings clause.
Having said that, the basic purpose of the resolution is a good one,
and the basic purpose of the legislation that the chairman has
introduced is a good purpose. But I hope we will hold a series of
hearings on the Committee on the Judiciary. We should hold one hearing
to determine from experts exactly what the Supreme Court said; how far
it went and how far it did not go. When the dissent says it went this
far, it does not mean that is what the majority meant. Dissents often
overemphasize the implications of the majority decision.
So I think we should have one hearing on what the Supreme Court
actually said and what we are faced with, and I think we should have
another hearing on where we think we should draw the line. Communities
need to be able to use eminent domain for legitimate economic
development, but they should not be able to use it for private
enrichment. How do you draw that line?
These are serious questions that we should consider adequately. I
think we should hold a few hearings and craft careful legislation to
limit the effect of the Supreme Court's decision, and I would hope that
we could craft legislation carefully that we could all support in this
House.
So, again, I commend Chairman Sensenbrenner, and I am glad to be able
to have the opportunity to do that after recent history. I commend
Ranking Member Conyers. But I will reluctantly vote against this
resolution because, although I approve of its main thrust, I believe it
says things about the court decision that are not quite accurate, and I
look forward to working with my colleagues to fashion legislation that
we can all support and that gets us what the Greeks called the proper
mien to protect the rights of
[[Page H5580]]
communities for proper economic development, but protect the rights of
individuals. But I do, once again, thank the gentleman for bringing
this subject to our attention.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority leader.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his generosity in
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, the Constitution of the United States was written as
much for any other reason as to protect the private property rights of
the American people. The Supreme Court last week, in the already
infamous Kelo case, essentially rejected the very idea of private
property rights at all.
I know some believe that the Supreme Court is some Citadel with all
knowledge and all wisdom and that every decision they make is the right
decision. But by this narrow 5-4 decision, our high court essentially
set aside the most basic fundamental tenet of the social contract that
underlies self-government, the inviolability of private property
rights; the unchangeable principle of politics, morality, and common
sense; that what is mine is mine, and what is yours is yours.
What the court decided last week was that what is mine is not really
mine and what is yours is not really yours; that, in fact, private
property only exists as a political expedient, a psychological
contrivance wholly subject to the government's whim. The court ruled
that private property, your home or your small business, may be taken
by the government and given to someone else who, in the government's
judgment, will put that property to better use.
This is not the taking of someone's property without compensation for
specific public use, like a highway or a military base. Congress and
States are explicitly granted such power in the Constitution. This is,
instead, the government taking your home and giving it to some business
because they will generate more tax revenue. Indeed, given the risible
logic employed by the court's majority last week, there is no reason
your city council cannot kick you out of your house and give it to a
wealthier family who will add on to the home and, therefore, pay higher
property taxes down the road.
Mr. Speaker, I am not a lawyer, so do not just take my word for it.
Justice O'Connor, writing in dissent of this awful decision said: ``If
predicted, or even guaranteed, positive side effects are enough to
render transfer from one private party to another constitutional, then
the words ``for public use'' in the Constitution do not realistically
exclude any takings.'' Justice Thomas adds, ``If such economic
development takings are for public use, any taking is, and the court
has erased the Public Use Clause for our constitution.''
Both Justices O'Connor and Thomas went on to warn the result of this
foolhardy decision would be that people most vulnerable to the
government preying on their property would be the poor, the elderly,
and racial minorities. No kidding. Those people with the least economic
and political power, with the least means to fight back, and the most
need for government protection of their God-given rights have been told
by the Supreme Court that while property rights are sacred, some
people's property rights are more sacred than others.
This is madness, Mr. Speaker, and it must not stand. The court's Kelo
decision will go down in history as a travesty. It is not a debatable
ideological overreach but a universally deplorable assault of the
rights of man. The only bright lining to it is that this time the court
may have finally gone too far and the American people will reassert
their constitutional authority.
We can only hope, Mr. Speaker, that this resolution will be the first
step in a long overdue process of constitutional renewal. Begin that
process and vote ``yes'' on this resolution.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to thank the Supreme Court for bringing us all together here in the
House tonight. It is very unusual.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Frank), an active member for many years on the
Committee on the Judiciary who is now on leave.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished
ranking member for yielding me this time, and, like him and the ranking
member of the subcommittee, I have some differences with the wording
here. I was particularly struck by the second whereas. ``Whereas upon
adoption, the 14th amendment extended the application of the fifth
amendment to each and every State and local government.'' In fact, it
did not. Not at adoption.
When the 14th amendment was adopted, it was not considered to extend
it. And, in fact, it was what some would have called a liberal Supreme
Court that decided to apply the Bill of Rights to the States through
the 14th amendment. Now, I am glad they did, and I welcome the support
in this resolution for that concept. I know not everybody on that side
agrees with it.
Having said that, I am going to vote for the resolution, even though
I disagree with some of the wording. I long ago had to come to the
reluctant conclusion that voting for resolutions and literary criticism
were two very different activities, and too high an aesthetic standard
applied to resolutions would make me always vote no. So I tend to not
pay too much attention to the whereases. I look at the resolves, and I
agree with these resolves.
But let me rephrase the question, because this is the question the
majority is asking. Remember, the Supreme Court, the five-member
majority, made what I think is a wrong decision, but they did not take
the property. You know who took the property? The elected government of
the City of New London, people who were elected, and they did it
pursuant to laws adopted by the elected legislature and governor of
Connecticut. So what you are accusing the Supreme Court of, and I am
agreeing with, is very simple: They were insufficiently activists.
Here is this Supreme Court majority letting elected officials do what
they want. And the majority is asking an often-asked question: Where is
judicial activism when we need it? Because people are not opposed to
judicial activism, they are only opposed to judicial activism when they
do not want the result. This is judicial activism you are calling for.
Let me read your resolves. ``State and local governments should only
execute the power of eminent domain for those purposes.'' ``State and
local governments must always justly compensate.'' It is State and
local governments in the resolution that we are telling what to do. And
your problem with the Supreme Court is that it is letting those pesky
elected local and State governments do what they want.
My colleagues are saying, wait a minute, we cannot have elected
officials just doing whatever they want. We cannot let elected
officials deciding to do these things. If they violate constitutional
rights, we want a Supreme Court that stops them. Well, so do I. But
sometimes you call that activism. Because that is what you are asking
for.
The Supreme Court has never taken a piece of property. Go right
across the street. You can look. It has not gotten any bigger. I have
been here 25 years, and they have not expanded one tree. What they did
was allow locally elected and State elected officials to do it. So let
me say that I agree with your complaint about insufficient judicial
activism in this case. Let us just not think that that is a faucet you
turn on and off.
The second issue is let us get consistent application of it. The
gentleman from New York correctly mentioned a case where they took land
in Texas for a baseball stadium. A number of Members here have been
enjoying the new baseball team in Washington. We have seen a couple of
outrageous assaults on the notion that Mr. Soros should be allowed to
buy the team. Whoever believes in free enterprise ever thought they had
the right to dictate who is the owner of a private team. That is an
argument that you will lament for lack of judicial activism. But what
they are doing here, the government of Washington, D.C., is doing
exactly what you are saying is wrong here.
So I guess Members here are going to boycott that stadium. They are
taking property down there on O Street. May not be property everybody
here wants to go to, it may not be your farms and
[[Page H5581]]
your beaches, but it is private property, and the District of Columbia
Government is going to take that private property over the objection of
the owners to build that baseball stadium. So instead of trying to
drive out some owner that you do not like, why not look into that
situation?
But then there is finally an even more important aspect to this. In
my earlier years on the then-Committee on Banking, we dealt with
something called UDAG, Urban Development Action Grants, and I and some
others, including a former Republican Member of this House, who went on
to become the Mayor of Dallas, Mr. Bartlett, joined together to object
to displacement.
{time} 2145
We have had Federal programs that have given money to local
governments for urban renewal, it was originally called, for various
forms of advancement. So I would assume, and I have been upset with
displacement of poor people with no replacement housing. It is
considered a good thing if you remove blight. Do Members know what
blight is? Blight is poor people with houses with peeling paint, and we
have too often in the past funded the destruction of that housing and
not funded its replacement.
Let me serve notice now, I will be, as we deal with legislation in
the Committee on Financial Services, and hope others will do it as
well, every piece of legislation that comes through here where we use
public money in a way that would diminish the housing opportunities for
low-income people, let us provide alternative opportunities, because
here is the problem. The problem is this, they do not own. I think
these are important principles.
But the resolution says it right: you do not let those with more
resources benefit at the expense of those with fewer resources. The
people with the fewest resources are poor people who rent.
So even though it is not the exact constitutional principle, I hope
Members will join us when we say you are not going to use public money
and public powers to destroy housing that low-income renters live in,
because that will be in that spirit. And then we will go to a nice
activist Supreme Court and ask them to enforce it.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I must say the gentleman's logic is
impeccable, and I think the gentleman has convinced me to vote for the
resolution despite what I said before.
My question is this: According to principles of this resolution and
of the draft legislation introduced by the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), if
that were to pass, do you think that would prevent or would have
prevented the seizure of land for the Texas Rangers baseball stadium
and it would prevent the seizure of land for the Washington National
baseball stadium?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, if Federal money is
involved, and Federal money is involved in a lot of ways.
By the way, I am a great believer in autonomy for Washington, D.C. I
belive they should be able to do what they want to do; but the money
does pass through here, so people better be very careful how they draft
it, or they may knock out that stadium. But certainly that would be the
case.
I never ever voted for funding for a public stadium. I am glad to see
this because the biggest abuse of this is low- and middle-income
taxpayers who are taxed to build public stadiums so people can make
tens of millions of dollars having a good time playing ball. And, yes,
I do believe if there were any Federal funds involved in either the
Texas stadium, and that could include State funds depending upon their
fungibility, but certainly it is the case, as I understand what is
going on in Washington, D.C., it violates the principles here and it
would be stricken by the minority and it would perhaps be stricken by
the bill if Federal funds were involved.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Utah (Mr. Cannon), the Chair of the Western Caucus.
(Mr. CANNON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I find myself in the anomalous position of
associating myself with the comments of the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), and I hear some chuckles on the other side,
and I think that is appropriate, as to, in particular, the
constitutional history cited, the effect on the poor, and the problem
with the aesthetics of this resolution, which I strongly support.
We have already heard the Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of
New London represents a clear blow to private property rights. The
Supreme Court has now established that local governments can seize
private land if government and business interests think they have an
idea for more profitable use for the property. If commercial
development now meets the definition of ``public use,'' no private
property is safe from government hands.
Worst of all, the groups most affected by the decision are the
poorest and least likely to be able to defend themselves. The
frightening prospect of the wealthy and connected preying on the poor
does not escape the public.
The Daily Herald, my local newspaper, stated, ``The true
beneficiaries of this deal are the private developers who are getting
the land they want without the hassle of protracted real estate
negotiations. Rather than trying to find a price at which the residents
would sell or finding a willing seller somewhere else, the developers
just got the city to do their dirty work. Eminent domain leaves little
room for quibbling or sentimentality. One of the residents who
challenged New London was an 87-year-old woman who was born in the
house she lived in and planned to spend the rest of her life there.''
Historically, the fifth amendment has restrained government's ability
to take away people's homes through eminent domain. Despite the
holdings of the Court in this decision, State and local governments
should not use the New London decision as cover to abuse eminent domain
powers and trample cherished individual property rights.
But, unfortunately, this process has already begun. This mistaken
ruling has already emboldened governments and developers seeking to
take property from home and small business owners and local communities
in Texas, Missouri, New Jersey, Wisconsin, and Tennessee; and other
States are likely to follow.
I would encourage them to do a better job of protecting their
citizens, their residents, and their voters rather than following the
license now allowed them by the Supreme Court.
I believe it is incumbent upon Congress as a coequal branch of
government to protect these local communities as well as countless
others around the country. Thankfully, the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Sensenbrenner) has prepared a timely piece of legislation that
will prevent any State or municipality from using economic development
as a justification for exercising its power of eminent domain wherever
Federal funds are involved in any way.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage the support of this resolution and the bill
that will be introduced by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner) in the near future.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the distinguished Republican whip.
(Mr. BLUNT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution. I
also think I rise in support of four of the Supreme Court Justices who
agreed with the spirit of the resolution, four of those Justices
disagreeing with the other five in a principle of long-term property
rights.
This ruling effectively rewrote the fifth amendment to the
Constitution which says that private property cannot be taken for
public use without just compensation. Private property cannot be taken
for public use without just compensation.
The Bill of Rights clearly intended that the government's power to
take someone's property was limited by two conditions: first, that just
compensation be provided; and, second, that the property be taken and
used for public
[[Page H5582]]
use. Five of the Supreme Court Justices have decided that that second
condition would no longer apply. That second condition applied for 218
years without a problem, and suddenly it is gone.
I think Justice O'Connor in her dissent said it better than I might
when she said: ``The specter of condemnation hangs over all property,
nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-
Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.''
When the Supreme Court decides that the public good benefits only by
the best taxpayer, the highest tax use benefits the public, that is a
hugely wrong step. I look forward to not only supporting this
resolution, but I understand that the chairman and the ranking member
of the Committee on the Judiciary intend to move legislation that will
do what we can do in the Congress of the United States to see that the
four members of the Court who upheld a long constitutional provision
ultimately prevail.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that we add 6
additional minutes to the time of each side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, just a few hours ago I voted
for the amendment to the appropriations bill that addressed this
question. But I rise this evening to further emphasize as a former
member of a local city council that sometimes it is appropriate for
property owners to have the hand of the Federal Government to protect
their constitutional rights.
Although I might quarrel with the language of the resolution as it
relates to the description of the Court's decision, there is no doubt
that I quarrel with an understanding of being able to take private
property for private use.
So I rise simply to support the idea of a remedy for those who have
been harmed. I always believe that the Federal Government, using the
Constitution, using the issue of due process, even though this falls
under the question of taking, the taking clause, but simply giving
those homeowners who were facing up against a large obstacle of
government and corporate interest the right to protect their property.
In this instance, this was not a depressed area, the facts will
determine. These are homeowners who have been providing or keeping
their homes and all of a sudden because they are on choice property,
they now become vulnerable to a heavy hand.
I believe this is a right direction, and I have joined the chairman
and the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary in legislation
that not only remedies or corrects the unlawful taking of the property
in New London, Connecticut, but will protect Americans around the
Nation, rural and urban areas, from overaggressive taking of eminent
domain when taking for private purpose, and a government is taking your
property for private purpose.
I ask that my colleagues do continue on this bipartisan ground
because I believe that the first step we made was the appropriation
announcement of our opposition to this particular decision; but
clearly, clearly, I believe the Supreme Court made a misdirected
decision in taking the property away from homeowners and due owners of
their property for truly private purpose.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Pombo), the chairman of the Committee on
Resources.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting for this day for 13 years, and that
is to have all of my colleagues down on the floor talking about
protecting private property rights.
The Supreme Court did do us all a favor because this is a battle that
has been going on across rural America for decades, where they have
misused and abused Federal and State law to take private property away
from property owners.
What this particular case does is it takes it right into urban and
suburban America. It goes right into every homeowner in this country;
and they say you are not safe in your home, we can take it away from
you if we want to. That is exactly what they have been telling every
farmer and rancher in this country for the last 30 years, that is, if
we think your property is better used as critical habitat to recover
species or to protect a wetland, we are going to take it, and there is
nothing you can do about it.
Now Mr. and Mrs. America realize what the farmers and ranchers and
property owners of this country have been going through for the last 30
years. The Supreme Court has now told you we do not care that it is
your private property. We do not care. The Constitution does not count
because if the city, the county, the State or the Federal Government
decides that your property is a better use for something else, we are
going to take it.
Yes, we have taken the debate, we have taken the battle right into
suburban America. And you know who is really going to get hurt in all
of this, the same kind of people who are hurt in rural America. It is
not the big guys. It is not the big landowners that get it; it is the
little guys who end up getting it because what this law, what this
decision allows is it allows the city to decide who gets your property.
If they decide that someone else can make a better and higher use of
your property, they will take it by eminent domain and give it to them.
That is what it allows. It is not the big developer; it is not the rich
corporation. It is the guy who does not even know who their city
councilman is that is going to get it. It is the guy who cannot afford
to hire a lobbyist, a lawyer, an attorney, a biologist, to go in and
defend them.
Thank you for coming down here and defending property rights.
{time} 2200
And I am thrilled that this House is going to finally pass
legislation hopefully unanimously to protect Mr. and Mrs. America and
their single family home. But I ask Members, when we bring a bill to
the floor to protect the farmers and ranchers in this committee, to
join me in passing that unanimously as well.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished whip, to close
the debate on our side.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Conyers), my friend, the ranking member of the Committee on the
Judiciary, very much for yielding me this time.
And I rise in recognition that there is a pretty broad consensus on
this floor, which I share. As I sat here and listened to the debate of
the gentleman from Massachusetts, I lamented that I am neither as smart
nor as articulate nor as incisive nor as humorous as the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank). But then again, I thought that I fell in the
category of 434 others of us on this floor as well. And I adopt the
remarks of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) almost in their
entirety, for I have reservations about some of the whereas clauses but
recognize the whereas clauses are not the gravamen, as we lawyers would
say, of this resolution.
The central portion of this resolution is to address whether or not
government can decide that there is a public purpose for a taking of
private property and thereby make it so. My own belief is that that
ought not to be the case, that there ought to be better protection for
individuals and particularly, as the previous gentleman said, usually
smaller individuals in terms of their power and influence; individuals
who may want to retain that home that their mom or dad bought, left to
them and they live in and want their kids to live there as well and see
a government who says, oh, no, we think this property can be used for a
better purpose. The constitutional framers were careful in addressing
that issue, careful in the sense they wanted to make sure that the king
could not come in and say, ``I am going to take your property.'' That
was not what they thought America ought to be. They thought it ought to
be a country where only under law for public use could property be
taken.
I seldom find myself in agreement with the legal opinions of the
Supreme Court Justices Thomas or Scalia. Neither of them will be
surprised of that,
[[Page H5583]]
I am sure, nor will some of my colleagues here. Nor, for that matter,
do I often find myself in agreement with a number of the sponsors of
this resolution. But I do tonight.
I believe, however, and I want to make this comment, as I have
adopted the remarks of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank),
that when dealing with the court at any level, we frankly should be
more temperate than we have been. I think this resolution, which I am
going to support, is, nevertheless, premature. We have not had the
opportunity to digest it, to analyze it, to determine how better we
might state the resolution. But having said that, the resolution is
here.
Tonight I do agree with the proponents of this legislation in
disagreeing with the Supreme Court five-to-four decision. Since our
Nation's founding, the protection of private property has been a
bedrock principle of our society. It ought to remain so. The fifth
amendment provides in relevant part, as has been quoted, ``nor shall
private property be taken for public use without just compensation.''
That amendment, of course, does not prohibit all takings, nor should
it. Instead, it permits the government to take private property so long
as it has a good public use for the land and so long as it provides
just compensation. However, in this decision, the Court's majority
greatly weakened, in my opinion, this basic constitutional principle.
It held that a public use could be defined more broadly as a ``public
purpose.'' I agree with the gentleman from Massachusetts's (Mr. Frank)
finding irony in the positions with reference to activism on the
courts, for after all in this case, the Court deferred to the
legislature. But, in fact, the Constitutional Framers said not even the
legislature, not even the people's representatives, could take property
unless it was for a public use. I agree with that proposition and
therefore disagree with this decision.
As Justice O'Connor wrote in dissent: ``Under the banner of economic
development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and
transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be
upgraded.''
We do not want to leave our citizens vulnerable in that position. As
a result, I will join my colleagues in voting for this resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Sensenbrenner) has 10\3/4\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for
yielding me this time and for bringing this resolution to the floor
tonight.
This 5-to-4 decision by the Supreme Court in the Kelo case is one
that will ultimately be very harmful to our freedom and our prosperity.
Even a brief study of economics and world history shows that the most
prosperous nations in world are those that have given the most freedom
to their people and the greatest protection to private property. Some
have said we do not need to worry about this decision because this new
power will be used sparingly by local governments. Those who say that
either do not believe very strongly in the right of private property or
they do not realize how government at all levels can rationalize or
justify almost anything, especially almost any taking of property.
People do not really get upset unless or until it is their property
being taken. Yet we can never satisfy governments' appetite for money
or land. They always want more.
Will your property be next?
The City of New London wanted more tax revenue than these small homes
could provide. As I said, we can never satisfy governments' appetite
for money or land.
Justice O'Connor wrote that there is now no realistic constraint on
the taking of private property. Her words have already been quoted at
length, but I will insert them in my statement.
In my home region of East Tennessee, government has taken huge
amounts of land. Almost all has been taken from poor or lower-income
families who would be wealthy today if they still had their beautiful
land.
Justice Thomas said in his dissent, ``Something has gone seriously
awry with this Court's interpretation of the Constitution. Though
citizens are safe from the government in their homes, the homes
themselves are not.'' He went on to say, ``The consequences of today's
decision are not difficult to predict and promise to be harmful . . .
Extending the concept of public purpose to encompass any economically
beneficial goal guarantees that these losses will fall
disproportionately on poor communities. Those communities are not only
systematically less likely to put their lands to the highest and best
social use, but are also the least politically powerful.''
Mr. Speaker, this decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is a very
dangerous one and will end up being especially harmful to the poor and
lower-income and working people of the country.
Thomas Jefferson once said, ``A government big enough to give you
everything you want is a government big enough to take away everything
you have.''
Justice O'Connor wrote that there is now no realistic constraint on
the taking of private property.
She said: `any property may now be taken for the benefit of
another private party, but the fallout from this decision
will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those
citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the
political process . . . As for the victims, the government
now has license to transfer property from those with fewer
resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have
intended this perverse result.'
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. King), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
(Mr. KING of Iowa asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me
this time, and I thank also the gentleman from Georgia for bringing
this resolution before this Congress this evening and for acting as
quickly as we all have.
It is a good feeling to be here with my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle with the Committee on the Judiciary talking about defending
the Constitution in concert instead of conflict. I appreciate this
opportunity to do so.
And I found myself standing on the floor last night quoting Justice
O'Connor and agreeing with Justice O'Connor, and it has been a little
while. But she nailed it exactly right. What happened, though, in this
case, in the Kelo case, was five of nine Justices amended our
Constitution. That is exactly what they did. They amended our
Constitution with their sliver thin majority opinion. Fifth amendment:
``nor shall private property be taken for public use without just
compensation.'' They drew a line through the words ``for public use,''
and now the fifth amendment reads: nor shall private property be taken
without just compensation; and, by the way, government will decide what
just compensation is, who shall be compensated, and for what purpose,
be it public or be it private.
The economic strength of the United States of America has been rooted
in our property rights. We look across our history, and we see this
Nation that we have and the wonderful economy that has grown. It has
grown because we had collateral called ``real property.'' Real property
that could be collateralized by bankers and financial institutions so
investors and entrepreneurs could pledge that collateral and borrow the
capital and build the businesses. That is what put the transcontinental
railroad across this country. That is what has built the businesses on
Wall Street and in Washington, D.C., in Iowa, and all across this land
has been the guarantee of property rights. We look at a Third World
country where there are no guarantees like that, and it is easy to see
these people cannot borrow money against their collateral, they cannot
ensure their property as collateral; so when they get a paycheck, they
buy two or three bricks and they go home and they mix a little mortar
and they lay two or three bricks up alongside that house, and over 30
years, they build a house two or three bricks at a time as opposed to
paying for that mortgage payment one payment at a time. That is how
much difference it makes to have property rights.
The victims of this, I happen to have brought along some pictures of
these individuals. Here are three entities that are affected by this
decision: Here
[[Page H5584]]
is Susette Kelo. She received notice of condemnation from the New
London Development Corporation, which, by the way, is an entity that
was empowered by the City of New London, a private corporation. This
was the day before Thanksgiving in 2000, and ``we are going to take
your home.''
And this: Bill Von Winkle's, one of the 15 properties condemned
because of this decision. And Susanne and Matt Dery, both may lose
their home. They have had that home for 20 years.
The difference of what happens between small towns and large towns
too, in an incorporated community of 50 people with five council
members representing 10 percent of that city, three of them, a majority
of that, can decide that they do not like a particular blighted region
like a single house and condemn that house and put up a convenience
store. They can do so also in a large city by wiping out whole sections
of communities, whether they be business interests or not.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez).
Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for
yielding me this time.
I especially want to commend the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey)
for bringing this resolution to the floor tonight, and I rise in strong
support of it.
As has been cited repeatedly in this debate, the fifth amendment of
the Constitution of the United States states clearly that private
property cannot be ``taken for public use without just compensation.''
The recent egregious ruling by the Supreme Court in the Kelo versus the
City of New London case ignores the word ``public'' and opens the doors
for the government to deprive any individual of his or her private
property for any reason, including to directly benefit a private
individual or private corporation. Under the guise of economic
development, State and local officials can now arbitrarily kick
families out of their homes, farmers and ranchers off their land, and
close small businesses that do not provide enough tax revenue for the
city or the State. Mr. Speaker, that is unbelievable in the United
States of America.
I believe in the same thing that our Founding Fathers addressed when
drafting the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.
Government is morally obliged to serve the people, namely by protecting
life, liberty, and, yes, private property. The Supreme Court should
honor these values, and I applaud the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Gingrey) and those other Members who are actively taking the initiative
tonight to protect the fundamental private property rights of all
Americans.
I urge every Member to support this resolution expressing the grave
disapproval of the House of Representatives regarding the majority
opinion of the Supreme Court in the Kelo versus the City of New London
case.
{time} 2215
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, we have had a great debate on this resolution. I would
like to close with a quote from the amicus brief filed by the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People in the Kelo case:
``In this case, public use has been defined so broadly that eminent
domain authority has no practical limits. Allowing a taking simply
because the party to whom the State wishes to transfer the property has
a greater ability to maximize the value of the property fails to
account for the rights of the individual property owners and would
systematically sanction transfers from those with less resources at
their disposal to those with more. Moreover, expanding the scope of
public use to include the potential for economic development that may
ultimately benefit the public would arguably include virtually any
case, and thus render meaningless the judicial review of taking
cases.''
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the debate that has gone on in this House
for the better part of the last hour has very clearly shown the
dangerous consequences of the majority opinion in the Kelo case. It is
a decision that will have profound impact in terms of the relationship
of the owners of private property with their government in this country
for years to come, unless we take immediate action to limit or even
reverse those consequences.
I would point out that the property that is probably the most at risk
under the Kelo case is that which belongs to our religious institutions
and other organizations that have been granted tax exempt status
pursuant to State law.
The Kelo case holding essentially says that if a municipality can get
more tax revenue out of a condemnation and sale to another private
party, then the public purpose clause of the fifth amendment to the
United States Constitution no longer applies. And what property is most
vulnerable to that erroneous interpretation, but property which is tax
exempt, belonging to our churches, our synagogues, our mosques, our
private schools, our fraternal societies, and any other organization
that has gotten a tax exemption because the legislature has determined
that the public policy of the State is advanced by the granting of that
exemption.
I believe that this decision may have the same effect in the long
term as the Dred Scott decision, which started a civil war in our
country because the Supreme Court made a serious mistake in the 1850s.
This resolution is the first step to express the outrage of Congress
and the fact that Congress is standing up to protect the private
property rights of the citizens who vote to send us to this Congress to
act in their name.
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and I have introduced H.R.
3135, which takes away the Federal funding of municipalities that wish
to use taxpayer dollars for this perverse purpose. There is a cosponsor
sheet that I will have on the desk for those that wish to be a part of
the crusade to legislate taking away Federal funding to municipalities
and States that wish to do this.
We are on a crusade here. I would urge an ``aye'' vote on the
resolution, but the Committee on the Judiciary will be very active in
making sure that the door to the Federal Treasury is locked shut and
locked shut tight so that no municipality will be coming to Washington
to ask for money to finance goofy condemnations like the Supreme Court
upheld in the Kelo case.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this
resolution expressing disapproval of the majority opinion of the U.S.
Supreme Court in the case of Kelo et al v. New London et al.
That case involved the question of the scope of a local government's
authority to use the power of eminent domain, and in particular whether
local governments may condemn private houses in order to use the land
for uses that are primarily commercial.
The question before the court was whether such use of eminent domain
is consistent with the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment--made
applicable to the States by the 14th Amendment--which says ``nor shall
private property be taken for `public use without just compensation.''
Answering that question required the court to decide what qualifies as
a ``public use.''
The case involved actions aimed at redevelopment of a particular
neighborhood in New London, Connecticut to encourage new economic
activities. Toward that end, a development corporation--technically a
private entity although evidently under the city's control--prepared a
development plan.
The city approved the plan and authorized the corporation to acquire
land in the neighborhood. However, nine people who owned property there
did not wish to sell to the corporation. The city of New London chose
to exercise its right of eminent domain and ordered the development
corporation, acting as the city's legally appointed agent, to condemn
the holdout owners' lots. These owners were the petitioners in this
case, with the lead plaintiff being Susette Kelo, who owned a small
home in the development area.
The owners sued the city in Connecticut courts, arguing that the city
had misused its eminent domain power, but lost. They then asked the
U.S. Supreme Court to review the Connecticut Supreme Court's decision
in favor of the city, arguing that it was not constitutional for the
government to take private property from one individual or corporation
and give it to another, simply because the other might put the property
to a use that would generate higher tax revenue.
The Supreme Court agreed with the City of New London in a 5-4
decision. The majority decision, written by Justice John Paul Stevens,
said that local governments should be afforded wide latitude in seizing
property for land-use decisions of a local nature. The primary dissent,
written by Justice Sandra Day
[[Page H5585]]
O'Connor, suggested that the use of this power in a reverse Robin Hood
fashion--take from the poor, give to the rich--would become the norm,
not the exception: ``Any property may now be taken for the benefit of
another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be
random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with
disproportionate influence and power in the political process,
including large corporations and development firms.'' A separate
dissent was written by Justice Clarence Thomas, while Justice Anthony
M. Kennedy wrote a separate concurrence with the majority's ruling.
The court's decision in this case has attracted considerable comment
and criticism. For example, the Rocky Mountain News said ``The 5-to-4
decision expands the already expansive definition of `public use' to
mean anything that might conceivably benefit the public through
economic development. As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said in her
stinging dissent, the effect is to `wash out any distinction between
private and public use of property.' Other editorials and opinion
columns were even harsher.
I am not a lawyer, and certainly no expert on this aspect of
Constitutional law. But I find Justice O'Connor's analysis of the
likely fallout of the decision persuasive and I share the concerns of
many of those who have been critical of the decision, especially those
related to the possible abuse of the power of eminent domain in
situations such as the one involved in this case.
That is why I am voting for this resolution.
I do not fully agree with every word of it--especially the statement
that the majority's decision in the ``Kelo'' case ``renders the public
use provision in . . . the fifth amendment without meaning.''
But I definitely agree that, as the resolution states, ``State and
local governments should only execute the power of eminent domain for
those purposes that serve the public good . . . must justly compensate
those individuals whose property is assumed through eminent domain . .
. [and] any execution of eminent domain by State and local government
that does not comply [with the conditions stated] constitutes an abuse
of government power and an usurpation of the individual property rights
as defined in the fifth amendment.''
I also am in sympathy with the parts of the resolution that state
that ``eminent domain should never be used to advantage one private
party over another,'' and that state and local governments should not
``construe the holdings'' in the Kelo case ``as a justification to
abuse the power of eminent domain.''
And I certainly agree that ``Congress maintains the prerogative and
reserve the right to address through legislation any abuses of eminent
domain by State and local government.''
However, of course Congress can only take such action in ways that
are themselves consistent with the Constitution, and in any event I
think we should be reluctant to take actions to curb what some--perhaps
even a temporary majority--in Congress might consider improper actions
by a State or local government.
The States, through their legislatures or in some cases by direct
popular vote, can put limits on the use of eminent domain by their
agencies or governments. I think this would be the best way to address
potential abuses, and I think we in Congress should consider taking
action to impose our ideas of proper limits only as a last resort.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Supreme Court this week effectively
changed our Constitution by removing the protection of a fundamental
right of a free people--the right to private possession of land and
property. Our Founding Fathers knew how vital private land ownership is
to a democratic society. Article V of the U.S. Constitution states,
``nor shall private property be taken for public use without just
compensation.'' For centuries Americans have relied upon this article
for protection against abusive land transfers from one person to
another.
Yet last week, five Supreme Court justices ruled that private
property can be taken by a government and then transferred to another
private owner if such a taking will supposedly result in greater
economic benefit to the community.
With a weak majority ruling, a massive blow has been dealt to
Americans' basic right to own and manage private property, without fear
of the government taking that property. History reminds us that nations
that disregard the rights associated with private property ownership
disregard other fundamental rights of the citizenry. In fact, our own
Supreme Court at its inception in 1789 called eminent domain a
``despotic power.''
We have recognized there are times when governments need to purchase
private land to build a road or construct a school for use by the
general public, sometimes against a landowner's wishes. Our Founders
believed that only under these extreme reasons should land be taken
from a private property owner for the greater public good. However, the
idea that a government would use this eminent domain power to take land
from one private owner and transfer it to another private owner for
economic reasons smells of Robin Hood gone corrupt.
Local governments and States will now be able to use this case to
seize any land believed to make a higher profit if it were owned by a
more entrepreneurial owner. Houses of worship, charitable organizations
and other non-profits are extremely vulnerable to land grabs by greedy
governments seeking more tax revenue.
Even the icon of the American spirit, the family farm, could
effectively be forced to sell to another private owner who has grand
plans for an economic development project. Farmers and ranchers whose
families have worked the land for generations could have to unwillingly
forfeit their heritage so a shopping mall can be constructed.
A mom-and-pop business could be forced to sell its property to a
corporate competitor, or simply an entrepreneur who wants the land for
other revenue-generating purposes. First-time home owners in poorer
neighborhoods could easily be targeted for development projects against
the will of the community. These are not over-hyped scenarios. The very
case the Supreme Court ruled on this week forcefully removes longtime
Connecticut homeowners out of their homes so a developer can build a
hotel and office buildings.
This distorted ``public use'' definition is nothing short of public
abuse. Under the Supreme Court's new definition, everyone's property is
suddenly for sale, and the auctioneer is any government that wants more
tax revenue.
If we do nothing and the Court's ruling goes unchallenged, the public
good submits to the whim of the wealthy abetted by government's
insatiable appetite for more money.
I urge my colleagues to join me today in supporting Mr. Gingrey's
resolution that appropriately expresses outrage at this misguided
decision by the Nation's highest court.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) that the
House suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 340.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those present have voted in the affirmative.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________