[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 144 (Thursday, November 3, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H9560-H9562]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4128, PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS
PROTECTION ACT OF 2005
Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 527 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 527
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 4128) to protect private property rights. The
first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points
of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not
exceed 90 minutes, with 60 minutes equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Judiciary and 30 minutes equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Agriculture. After general debate the bill shall
be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It
shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment
in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
the Judiciary now printed in the bill. The committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered
as read. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no
amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with
or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Miller of Michigan). The gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
Madam Speaker, House Resolution 527 is a structured rule. It provides
90 minutes of general debate, with 60 minutes equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on the Judiciary and 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture.
It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. It
provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended
by the Committee on the Judiciary and now printed in the bill shall be
considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment, and shall
be considered as read. It makes in order only those amendments that are
printed in the Rules
[[Page H9561]]
Committee report accompanying the resolution. It provides that the
amendments printed in the report may be considered only in the order
printed, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report,
shall be considered as read, debatable for the time specified in the
report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand
for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the
Whole. This resolution waives all points of order against the
amendments printed in the report, and it provides one motion to
recommit, with or without instructions.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in full support of House Resolution 527
and the underlying bill, H.R. 4128, the Private Property Rights
Protection Act of 2005. I would like, first, to express my personal
pleasure in seeing this important piece of legislation come before the
House for consideration.
Since the Supreme Court's now infamous Kelo decision, homes and small
businesses across the country have been placed in grave jeopardy and
threatened by the government wrecking ball.
{time} 1030
Madam Speaker, I also want to take this opportunity to commend
Representative Sensenbrenner, the distinguished chairman of the
Judiciary Committee and the author of this legislation; Ranking Member
Conyers; Representative Goodlatte, the chairman of the Agriculture
Committee; and Ranking Member Peterson not just for the underlying
bill, but also for the thorough and expeditious way in which the
committees have moved to legislatively address this Kelo decision.
With a margin of only one vote, a very divided Supreme Court struck
down over two centuries' worth of precedent and constitutional
protections for property owners across this great Nation. In response
to the deplorable Kelo decision, this body passed House Resolution 340
that I proudly sponsored along with 78 other Members from both sides of
the aisle; and on June 30, 2005, we passed this resolution by a wide
margin of 365 to 33.
Madam Speaker, the very last subparagraph of House Resolution 340
states: ``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. The City of
New London, et al.''
Well, Madam Speaker, the day of reform is at hand, and this Congress
has an excellent opportunity to set the record straight and to reaffirm
the traditional meaning of the fifth amendment that guarantees no
private property shall be taken except for public use and with just
compensation.
Accordingly, H.R. 4128 will prohibit State and local governments from
taking property from one private party and giving it to another private
party. If a court determines that a State or a local government
violates this prohibition, that State or local government will become
ineligible for Federal economic development funds for a period of 2
years.
Nevertheless, any government found in violation of this provision
will have an opportunity to restore fully the private property owner in
order to preserve Federal economic development dollars; and by
``fully,'' I mean completely restore to its original state prior to the
government taking of this property. Additionally, this bill expressly
prohibits the Federal Government from exercising its power of eminent
domain for economic purposes. So not just the State and local
governments, but the Federal Government, as well, is prohibited.
Madam Speaker, while the title of this bill, the Private Property
Rights Protection Act, fits this legislation to a tee, one could also
accurately call it the Private Property Rights Enhancement Act, for
this bill will ensure that private property owners can take States and
local governments to court in order to enforce the provisions of this
act. And this bill also allows a prevailing property owner to recoup
legal and expert fees for litigation involving the enforcement of this
bill.
H.R. 4128 answers the call of almost every American and a diverse,
expansive array of interest groups who have railed against the Kelo
decision and its judicial encroachment on our rights. Listen to these,
Madam Speaker: the National Association For the Advancement of Colored
People, the NAACP; the American Association of Retired Persons, AARP;
the American Farm Bureau; and various religious groups that include the
Becket Fund for Religious Liberty are just a few of the organizations
who stood up in the face of Kelo to fight for the rights of the
disadvantaged who might lose their home, business, or yes, even house
of worship to some well-connected developer's sweetheart deal.
These organizations have stood up for the rights of rural America
which grows our food and sustains our country. They have stood up for
the rights of our houses of worship that should not have to fear
because God does not pay enough in taxes. Madam Speaker, I am proud to
say that today we in this House stand with them in defense of the
private property rights of every American.
In closing, Madam Speaker, I want to again express my gratitude that
this House has the opportunity to consider such a fundamentally
important and fundamentally just piece of legislation. By a one-vote
margin, the Kelo decision ripped from the Constitution the private
property rights of the fifth amendment, and we are going to put them
back. Madam Speaker, I look forward to the discussion of this rule, and
I urge my colleagues to support it and the underlying bill.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Gingrey) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself
such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of the
underlying legislation.
H.R. 4128, the Private Property Rights Protection Act, demonstrates
that a bipartisan, collaborative effort can produce sound legislation.
This bill is directly aligned with H. Res. 340, a resolution passed by
this House on a vote of 365 to 33, which expressed Congress's
disapproval of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Kelo v. The
City of New London.
In taking the next step, H.R. 4128 contains appropriate measures to
ensure the protection of private property and addresses the potential
for abuse under the power of eminent domain. By providing effective
deterrents to abuse, H.R. 4128 protects the constitutional and legal
rights of private property owners.
The majority in the Kelo decision found that the City of New London,
Connecticut, could condemn and take property as part of its economic
revitalization plan. Essentially, this decision grossly expanded the
use of eminent domain as granted by the fifth amendment.
Madam Speaker, this decision legitimized an abuse of the fifth
amendment, specifically, the takings clause. According to the
Constitution, the government's taking authority over land that is
restricted for public use. Expanding the government's ability to
strong-arm private property, not necessarily for public use, sets a
troubling precedent.
Thankfully, H.R. 4128 discourages States and localities from
exploiting eminent domain. Overall, this legislation will prohibit
State and local governments from receiving Federal economic development
funding should they use eminent domain to seize land for private
economic development purposes. Federal funding will be lost for 2
fiscal years if a court determines that eminent domain was used
improperly.
Madam Speaker, Congress, through its spending powers, is authorized
to impose policies on State and local governments through
appropriations of Federal funds. In the case of eminent domain abuse,
it is the duty of Congress to intercede to protect the property rights
of all Americans.
Protecting the constitutional rights of our citizens should continue
to be on the forefront of our concerns. Economic development is clearly
crucial for every community in this country, but economic development
can and must be achieved without compromising our constitutional
rights.
I believe that the Kelo case was wrongly decided. Eminent domain
[[Page H9562]]
must not grant State and local governments the power to take private
property away from one and give it to another, all in the name of
economic development. Economic development takings are not necessarily
in the essence of public use and, therefore, do not constitute the use
of eminent domain.
As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in her dissent in the case:
``The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to
prevent the States from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any
home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.''
Madam Speaker, as Members of Congress, we all took oaths to uphold
and defend the Constitution. By supporting this bill, Members are
fulfilling their constitutional obligations.
This bill, Madam Speaker, is not perfect; but it is needed and it is
necessary. I am pleased that the Rules Committee made amendments by our
colleagues, Congressman Nadler and Congressman Watt, in order. They and
other Members have real concerns with this bill, and their perspectives
deserve to be debated and deserve an up-or-down vote.
Madam Speaker, while I would prefer an open rule and I, quite
frankly, cannot understand why we do not have an open rule here, the
Rules Committee did make all the germane amendments in order, so we are
not going to object to this rule.
I have no further speakers. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to support the underlying bill and to support the rule, and let
us move on and get this thing done.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I will close the debate by again thanking
both the Committees on the Judiciary and Agriculture for all the hard
work in bringing this bill to the floor today. H.R. 4128 would restore
the centuries-old protections guaranteed by the fifth amendment's
takings clause. Property rights have been fundamental to the foundation
of our society and have been one of the pillars that have supported our
form of government and enabled our Constitution to endure the test of
time. While it has only been 4 months since the Kelo decision, 4 months
without these fifth amendment protections is 4 months too long; and one
abuse of the eminent domain power is one abuse too many.
Therefore, Madam Speaker, following the passage in the House of
Representatives today, I would encourage the other body to take up this
legislation quickly and to pass it so that we can get it to the
President's desk.
I also want to encourage all Members on both sides of the aisle to
support this rule and the underlying bill. Let us get this done for the
American people because it is simply the right thing to do.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Miller of Michigan). The question is on
the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. GINGREY. Madam 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 question will
be postponed.
____________________