[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.

                          ____________________