[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 144 (Thursday, November 3, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H9569-H9604]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT OF 2005
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 527 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4128.
{time} 1402
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 4128) to protect private property rights, with Mr. Kline in the
chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
General debate shall not exceed 90 minutes, with 60 minutes equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and the 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.
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman
[[Page H9570]]
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will control 30 minutes and the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) each will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4128, the Private Property
Rights Restoration Act, overwhelmingly bipartisan legislation I
introduced along with Agriculture Committee Chairman Goodlatte and
Judiciary Ranking Member Conyers.
On June 23, the Supreme Court in a 5 to 4 decision in the case of
Kelo v. City of New London transformed established constitutional
principles when it held that the fifth amendment's public use clause
permitted government to seize the private property of one small
homeowner and to give it to a large corporation for a private business
use.
As the dissent in that case made clear, under the majority's opinion:
``Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private
party. The government now has the license to transfer property from
those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have
intended this perverse result.''
Reaction to the Kelo decision has united strong opposition from
across the political, ideological, and socioeconomic spectrum. The
NAACP and the AARP faulted Kelo's failing reasoning by stating: ``The
takings that result from the Court's decision will disproportionately
affect and harm the economically disadvantaged and, in particular,
racial and ethnic minorities and the elderly.''
Representatives of religious organizations have also condemned the
failed logic of the Kelo Court, stating: ``Houses of worship and other
religious institutions are, by their very nature, nonprofit and almost
universally tax exempt. These fundamental characteristics of religious
institutions render their property singularly vulnerable to being taken
under the rationale approved by the Supreme Court.''
Public reaction to the Kelo decision has also been swift and strong.
The protection of private property rights is the number one issue that
concerns Americans today, according to a Wall Street Journal/NBC News
poll; and by an 11-to-1 margin, Americans say they oppose the taking of
private property for private uses, even if it is for the public
economic good.
According to an American Survey poll: ``Public support for limiting
the power of eminent domain is robust and cuts across demographic and
partisan groups.'' Even Justice John Paul Stevens, who authored the
Court's 5 to 4 decision, recently acknowledged that if he were a
legislator, he would oppose the results of his own ruling by working to
change current law. That is what we are doing here today, working to
change current law.
A week after the Supreme Court's now notorious Kelo decision, I
introduced H.R. 3135, the Private Property Rights Protection Act, to
help restore Americans' property rights the Supreme Court took away. On
October 25, I introduced an even stronger version of the bill which we
are considering today, which has benefited greatly from the
contributions of Ranking Member Conyers, Ms. Waters, Mr. Goodlatte, and
others, including Mr. Cannon and Mr. Flake.
H.R. 4128 helps restore the property rights of all Americans by
establishing a penalty for States and localities that abuse their
eminent domain power by denying those States and localities that commit
such abuse all Federal economic development funds for a period of 2
years. Under this legislation, there is a clear connection between the
Federal funds that would be denied and the abuse Congress is intending
to prevent. If States and localities abuse their eminent domain power
by using economic development as a rationale for a taking, they shall
not receive Federal economic development funds that could contribute to
similarly abusive land grabs.
I am very mindful of the long history of eminent domain abuses,
particularly in low-income and often predominantly minority
neighborhoods, and the need to stop it. I am also very mindful of the
reasons we should allow the government to take land when the way in
which the land is being used constitutes an immediate threat to public
health and safety. I believe this bill accomplishes both goals.
The legislation contains an express private right of action to make
certain that those suffering injuries from a violation of the bill will
be allowed to access the State or Federal court to enforce its
provisions and includes a fee-shifting provision, identical to those in
other civil rights laws, that permits the recovery of attorney and
other litigation fees to prevailing property owners. The legislation
gives the States and localities the clear opportunity to cure any
violation before they lose any Federal economic development funds by
either returning or replacing the improperly taken property to the
property owner.
H.R. 4128 also includes carefully crafted refinements of the
definition of ``economic development'' that specifically allow the
types of takings that, prior to the Kelo decision, had achieved a
consensus as to their appropriateness. These include takings in which
the public itself owns the property, where the property is used by a
common carrier or public utility, and for related infrastructure like
pipelines, and where the property is abandoned.
Finally, in order to facilitate State compliance with its terms, the
bill will not become effective until the start of the first fiscal year
following enactment of the legislation, nor would it apply to any
project for which condemnation proceedings have begun prior to its
enactment.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting
this vital bipartisan legislation that will protect the property rights
of the most vulnerable in our society and limit the effect of the now
notorious Kelo decision.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the measure before us today, the
Private Property Rights Act of 2005. I am pleased to join with my
chairman, Mr. Sensenbrenner; the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Waters); and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) in support of this
measure.
This legislation was introduced in response to the Supreme Court's
decision in Kelo in June of this year, which shocked most Americans
because if State and local governments can transfer property from one
private owner to another based on a judgment which will produce the
most taxes and jobs, then, in essence, no one's property is safe.
Increasingly, governments across the country are taking private
property for public use in the name of ``economic development.'' Under
the guise of economic development, private property is being taken and
transferred to another private owner, so long as the new owner will use
the property in a way that the government deems more beneficial to the
public.
In fact, in Detroit, Michigan, we have faced the same kinds of issues
that arose in the Kelo case. The infamous Poletown decision in the
Michigan Supreme Court in 1981 allowed the City of Detroit to bulldoze
an entire neighborhood, complete with 1,000 or more residences, 600 or
more businesses, and numerous churches in order to give the property to
General Motors for an automobile plant. This case set a precedent, both
in Michigan and across the country, for widespread abuse of the power
of eminent domain. In Detroit, eminent domain was subsequently used to
make way for casinos.
Fortunately, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed its decision.
Citizens in most other States, though, have not been afforded the same
protection and have witnessed an increase in takings for economic
development that has been rationalized in Kelo. As a result, a Federal
legislative response to Kelo is warranted; and today I am pleased to
say that we take up a response with friends on both sides of the aisle.
This act before us now will afford our citizens greater protections
against governments' forced takings for private development. First, the
State and local government will not be able to any longer exploit
eminent domain for private development without consequence. Second, a
more traditional view of public use is advanced so that we protect
property interests as well as meet contemporary challenges. Third, we
set an example for States and cities as to how our citizens' property
rights must be protected.
[[Page H9571]]
Our measure before us is clear and states in no uncertain terms that
State and local governments will lose economic development funding if
they take someone's home or business for private commercial
development.
{time} 1415
Homeowners can also bring suit against those States and cities that
want to continue violating their property rights. We are making the
financial gains that come with replacing residential areas with
commercial districts less attractive.
This legislation advances a more traditional view of public use. By
restricting the use of eminent domain powers for economic development,
we reserve those powers for projects that have traditionally been
considered public use.
We can justify a State or city's takings when the taking is for a
road, a school, a public utility, but we cannot agree with a State or
city's takings when it is done for private uses like condominiums and
shopping malls.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I support the Private Property Rights Protection Act.
Two hundred years ago, our Founders wrote into the Bill of Rights a
guarantee of the right to private property. Such a right lies at the
foundation of a democracy where citizens have the freedom to buy, sell,
exchange or make a profit on all forms of property.
In recent years, it has become more and more common for the
government to seize private property under the guise of eminent domain
for public use.
Last year, the Supreme Court gave landowners more reason to worry.
They decided that State and local governments can take property from a
private landowner in order to give or sell it to another private owner.
This 5 to 4 decision in Kelo v. City of New London threatens the
legitimate rights of landowners. We must act to protect those rights.
In the months following the Kelo decision, several different bills
aimed at preventing eminent domain abuses were introduced. The Private
Property Rights Protection Act is a fair and sensible combination of
all of those bills.
It prevents States or localities that seize private property in order
to transfer it to other private owners from receiving economic
development funding from the Federal Government for 2 years. But the
bill is not automatically applied. It gives a State or locality the
opportunity to correct any abuse of power by returning all property to
the landowner or replacing any property that has been damaged. If the
State or locality does so, they will still be allowed to obtain Federal
funding.
Mr. Chairman, the right to private property ownership is one of the
cornerstones on which this country was founded. H.R. 4128 will make
sure that right continues to be protected.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the legislation, which is the
congressional response to the Supreme Court decision Kelo v. City of
New London. By enacting this legislation, we are undermining the
States' rights and assuming the role of a city council. We should not
change Federal law every time Members of Congress disagree with the
judgment of a locality when it uses eminent domain for the purpose of
economic development. We were elected to the United States Congress,
not to local city councils.
Mr. Chairman, it is impossible for Congress to draw a bright line
principle separating those cases in which economic development is
appropriate for a particular area and when it is not. The Constitution
does require that the taking be for public use. It is the role of a
city council to weigh the needs of a particular community and consider
when the government should use eminent domain.
Sometimes that might mean taking property for the purpose of economic
development. Sometimes it may not. Sometimes we will agree with the
judgment of the locality. Sometimes we will disagree.
I cannot think of a more fitting example of the quagmire this bill
presents than the situation we have right here in Washington, D.C.,
where they are trying to build a baseball stadium. I find it ironic
that, at the same time we are marking up the bill, Washington, D.C. is
using eminent domain to build a baseball stadium.
The debate on this bill has already exposed the shortcomings of the
legislation. For example, we found that if a stadium were built and
owned by the city at taxpayer expense, it would clearly be allowed
under the bill. On the other hand, if the owner offered to build a
stadium at his own expense, that might not be allowed.
The bill requires public access to the stadium as ``a matter of
right.'' Does that mean that the skyboxes must be put to public
auction, or can the owner pick and choose which businesses can acquire
rights to skyboxes?
Anybody who surveys baseball or football stadiums around the country
will find all kinds of public and private and joint public-private
ownership combinations. Could some use eminent domain, while others be
prohibited from using eminent domain based on the fact that they want
to limit access to skyboxes or how the title of the stadium is held?
Mr. Chairman, the World Trade Center and Lincoln Center in New York,
the Baltimore Inner Harbor, even President Bush's baseball stadium in
Houston, Texas, were all made possible by eminent domain takings for
the purpose of economic development. And although we might agree or
disagree with the wisdom of these projects, most would agree that they
should not have been illegal. These are political decisions that ought
to be left to the localities within the confines of their State
legislature's parameters.
If Congress cannot leave eminent domain to the States, then we should
focus on the real issues involved in eminent domain. We should require,
for example, that just compensation should include replacement cost,
not just technical appraisal value. We should require that relocation
expenses be paid to owners and tenants.
As written, the bill does nothing to ensure that displaced
individuals receive reasonable compensation for the replacement value
and relocation expenses. The bill does nothing to ensure compensation
for loss of goodwill of a business, nothing to ensure that due
consideration is given for the length of time a family or business has
been at a particular location. Nothing in the bill deals with the fact
that the poor and minorities are usually the victims of eminent domain
abuses. Let us put some protections in the bill so that those who are
relatively weak politically can be protected from unfair use of eminent
domain.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to place in the Record at this point
letters from the National League of Cities, the National Conference of
State Legislatures and the National Association of Housing and
Redevelopment Officials.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that the decision-making power of eminent
domain should remain at the State and local level and that
congressional attempts to define when eminent domain is reasonable and
when it is not will cause more problems than they solve. Therefore, I
urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.
National League of Cities,
Washington, DC, October 27, 2005.
Hon. James Sensenbrenner,
Chair, House Judiciary Committee, Rayburn House Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. John Conyers, Jr.,
Ranking Member, House Judiciary Committee, Rayburn House
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers: The
National League of Cities (NLC) strongly opposes H.R. 4128,
the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005. NLC is
the country's largest and oldest organization serving
municipal government, with nearly 1,600 direct member cities
and 49 state municipal leagues, which collectively represent
more than 18,000 United States communities.
NLC acknowledges the spirit underlying this bill and does
not condone abuse of eminent domain power that violates state
law. However, NLC believes this bill, or any anti-eminent
domain bill pending in Congress, is unnecessary at this time
because of the ongoing actions of state legislatures and the
absence of direct evidence confirming that alleged abuses of
eminent domain authority
[[Page H9572]]
are of a national scope and scale that demand immediate
federal action.
Despite fearful rhetoric in the press, the Supreme Court's
decision in Kelo v. City of New London did not expand the use
or powers of eminent domain. The Kelo decision confirmed that
eminent domain, a power derived from state law, is not a one-
size-fits-all power. The Court declared that this power is
one best left to the states and their political subdivisions.
The Kelo Court, affirming federalism, did not preclude ``any
state from placing further restrictions on its exercise of
the Takings power.'' Approximately 30 states are already
reviewing or planning to review their eminent domain laws
during upcoming legislative sessions, with the majority
focused on just compensation and comprehensive planning
process modifications. Since June 2005, Alabama, Texas, and
Delaware enacted laws that tighten the application of eminent
domain power in each state.
NLC urges Congress to let state governments act on their
own eminent domain laws and not move forward with federal
legislation.
Many aspects of H.R. 4128, led by the proposed definition
at Section 8 of ``economic development,'' trouble NLC.
Economic development is a process, not the concrete act of
taking private property from A and giving it to B for a
``commercial enterprise carried on for profit.'' If enacted,
the bill could have the unintended consequence of preventing
hurricane-damaged communities from rebuilding. In those
communities, eminent domain may be necessary to assemble land
and help with negotiations associated with comprehensive
redevelopment plans. Implementing those comprehensive
redevelopment plans would ``increase tax revenue, tax base,
employment, or general economic health,'' violating the
bill's further definition of economic development.
Moreover, the bill at Section 2(b) grants final authority
to the appointed--not elected--judiciary to determine what
constitutes ``economic development.'' Curiously, this was an
important argument against the Kelo decision raised by
property rights activists.
The practical effects from this bill, including its loose
definition at Section 8 of ``Federal economic development
funds'' and its creation of a private right of action at
Section 4 that invites forum shopping, would not chill, but
rather freeze the process of economic development across the
country.
Eminent domain is a powerful tool for local governments--
its prudent use, when exercised in the sunshine of public
scrutiny, helps achieve a greater public good that benefits
the entire community.
Again, NLC opposes H.R. 4128 for the reasons stated in this
letter. Please weigh carefully the unintended consequences
from a rush to pass federal legislation in response to
unsubstantiated fears over the Supreme Court's decision in
Kelo v. City of New London.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Borut
Executive Director.
____
National Conference
of State Legislatures,
Washington, DC, October 25, 2005.
Subject: H.R. 3135.
Hon. James Sensenbrenner,
Chair, Judiciary Committee, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. John Conyers,
Ranking Member, Judiciary, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers: On
behalf of the National Conference of State Legislatures
(NCSL), I write in strong opposition to H.R. 3135 the
``Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005'' which is
scheduled to be marked up on October 26. This ill-advised
bill would severely chill state and local revitalization
efforts, preempt state and local land use laws, and curtail
many valid and constitutional state and local projects that
require the use of the eminent domain power by prohibiting
any federal funding that goes to the states from being used
for ``any activity, including increasing tax revenue, other
than making private property available in substantial part
for use by the general public or by an entity that makes the
property available for use by the general public, or as a
public facility, or to remove harmful effects.'' This means
that if a state or locality were to use the power of eminent
domain for economic development purposes, even if such action
was completely in accordance with its own statutes and land
use development ordinances and regulations, the state could
lose all applicable federal funding. This piece of
legislation amounts to federal blackmail of states for using
a completely constitutional and valid state power.
The power of eminent domain has always been, and should
remain, a state power. The Kelo v. New London Supreme Court
decision did not expand state authority to condemn private
property for economic development. It merely reaffirmed
existing law on the subject. There is substantial Supreme
Court case law dating as early as 1954 which upholds the
power of state and local governments to take and retransfer
property, upon payment of just compensation, in order to
promote economic development.
It is also important to be aware that in the aftermath of
the Kelo decision, twelve states--Alabama, California,
Delaware, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New
York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Texas--have already
introduced bills, and three of these states--Alabama,
Delaware, and Texas--have already enacted legislation in
special session to address the power of eminent domain in
their state. We expect to see many more states address the
issue of eminent domain in their next legislative session.
All of our state materials on eminent domain can be found on
NCSL's Web site: www.ncsl.org/programs/natres/EMINDOMAIN.htm
Again, I urge you to oppose H.R. 3135. If you have any
questions, please contact Susan Pamas Frederick, Senior
Committee Director at 202-624-3566,
[email protected]. Thank you.
Respectfully,
Representative Janice L. Pauls,
Kansas House of Representatives, Chair, NCSL Committee on
Law & Criminal Justice.
____
National Association of Housing
and Redevelopment Officials,
Washington, DC, November 3, 2005.
Dear Member of Congress: I am writing to convey the
National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials'
(NAHRO's) strong opposition to HR 4128, the ``Private
Property Rights Protection Act of 2005.'' NAHRO is the
nation's oldest and largest association of housing and
community development professionals and the leading advocate
for adequate and affordable housing and strong, viable
communities for all Americans--particularly those with low-
and moderate-incomes.
The bill in its current form is unacceptable to our
members. NAHRO acknowledges three amendments we understand
will be considered. First, within the context of this bill,
Congressman Michael Turner's proposed amendment to HR 4128
creates a broader and more reasonable scope of activities for
which eminent domain takings would be appropriate. Second,
Congressman Jerrold Nadler's amendment removes the bill's
unreasonable and disproportionate penalty provisions, which
would lead to unprecedented fiscal uncertainty for State and
localities by forcing them to pursue community revitalization
under the constant threat of losing all Federal economic
development funding. Finally, Congressman Melvin Watt's
amendment would remove most of the bill's objectionable
content while still providing the Congress with an
opportunity to express its sense that abuses of eminent
domain are unacceptable and that eminent domain as a strategy
for pursuing economic development deserves careful, ongoing
scrutiny.
Although NAHRO believes that these amendments improve the
legislation to varying degrees, I want to make clear that HR
4128, even if amended, would still undermine important
community and economic development activities across the
nation and should not be adopted.
NAHRO believes that eminent domain should properly remain
an instrument of last resort. In those rare instances when
eminent domain is needed, it must be used prudently.
Nevertheless, eminent domain remains an important community
and economic development tool that allows State and local
governments to respond to community needs, and it must remain
available to our nation's housing and community and economic
development professionals as they work to revitalize American
communities. It is therefore essential that the Congress not
place new and overly burdensome restrictions on traditionally
permissible, Constitutional uses of eminent domain employed
by State and local agencies for the purpose of community and
economic redevelopment.
The recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Kelo v.
City of New London broke less legal ground than many reports
in the popular media would have led the reader to believe.
The decision did uphold the ability of local governments to
exercise the power of eminent domain to achieve economic
development. However, the opinion of the Court did not
provide carte blanche authorization for go vernments to take
private property merely to hand it over to other private
owners. To the contrary, the Court emphasized that the
property at issue was taken pursuant to a carefully
considered plan that would act as a catalyst for much needed
job creation and further development. The Court also made it
clear that its decision would establish only the
constitutional permissibility of such takings under the Fifth
Amendment.
Importantly, the Court in Kelo held that States and local
governments are free to narrow the circumstances under which
the power of eminent domain may be exercised. At least 31
States have recently taken steps to avail themselves of that
right. NAHRO therefore believes this bill is unnecessary at
this time. Indeed, instead of allowing States to exercise
their rights in this area, HR 4128 in its current form would
instead severely undermine state and local community
revitalization efforts by placing every state and locality in
permanent fiscal peril and bringing community and economic
development to a grinding halt.
Again, while NAHRO acknowledges the efforts of some to
improve the legislation, we believe the most responsible
course of action would be to vote against HR 4128. Eminent
domain policy remains a complex issue area and deserves
careful ongoing scrutiny, not overly broad legislation that
would leave a cloud of financial uncertainty hanging over
nearly every local government in the nation. Congress should
not, in an effort to preemptively redress speculative future
consequences of the Kelo decision, trample the
[[Page H9573]]
concept of federalism embodied in the Constitution and the
traditional prerogatives of local governments that exist
under that system.
Sincerely,
Saul N. Ramirez, Jr.,
Executive Director.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlemen
from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I first want to thank the chairman of the Judiciary
Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin, and also the ranking member,
the gentleman from Michigan, for their leadership in this area.
This is a very important issue before Congress, and I am very pleased
that Congress is acting. The idea that a person's home or business can
be taken by the government and transferred to another private entity
simply to allow the government to collect additional tax revenue seems
anathema to the values that Americans cherish. But the Supreme Court
has now thrown its weight behind this distinctly un-American ideal by
ruling that economic development can be a public use under the fifth
amendment's takings clause.
Few would question the Constitution provides a legitimate role for
eminent domain when the purpose is a true public use and the property
owner receives just compensation. That happens all of the time, and
that is appropriate. Properly used, eminent domain should give
communities an option of last resort to complete the development of
roads and schools and utilities and other essential public
infrastructure projects.
As a former Cincinnati city councilman and Hamilton County
commissioner myself, I would be remiss if I did not mention my concern
for some unintended consequences that congressional action could have
on communities if we do not act carefully, and I think we have acted
carefully in this bill, and I thank, again, the chairman and the
ranking member for doing that.
We had testimony by the mayor of Indianapolis. I also want to commend
the former mayor of Dayton, Congressman Mike Turner, who is the head of
the Saving America's Cities Working Group, who has worked diligently to
try to make this a better bill as well. Many people have worked on
this.
I am very pleased that Congress is going to take this action to make
sure that eminent domain is not used in an inappropriate purpose. If
Kelo was left as it was ruled by the Supreme Court, it could be used in
a way that could be dangerous, that could be to the detriment of
communities all around this country.
So I am very pleased that we are acting on this today, and again want
to commend the chairman and Congress for acting.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding
me the time and permitting me to speak on this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I understand the frustration that we have heard on the
floor, the reaction to the Kelo decision which I personally looked at
those circumstances. I was troubled in terms of what was proposed in
that city.
But I am concerned that we have the big picture in mind, because we
have been dealing with eminent domain for decades. We do not have a
national crisis here. What we had was a State and local government that
did not do their job appropriately.
The Supreme Court, appropriately, indicated that this was not a
constitutional issue. There are tools. There are remedies.
I am a former local official. I dealt for years, as public works
commissioner for the City of Portland, with things that dealt with
redevelopment. We rarely if ever used eminent domain. The fact that it
was there made a difference to be able to do things the public wanted.
I hope that Members reflect on the dangers of having the Federal
Government rush into something that is appropriately the province of
State and local affairs. Think about what the approach you are
advocating here would have had on cleaning up Times Square. This was an
area that for years was a center of violence and vice. Eminent domain
was used to transform Times Square with the crime rate plummeting and
change the face of that area.
There are communities around the country where this has been done.
Look at the Roxbury neighborhood in Boston or look out the door here of
the Capitol at Pennsylvania Avenue, where eminent domain was used in
the 1960s and 1970s to reformulate the face of it.
I understand the sensitivity. We do not want it abused. But, for
heavens sake, we should be careful before we rush in with a Federal
solution which may have unintended consequences.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I so much appreciate the chairman and the
proponents of this bill bringing it to the floor. What brings this
about is one more reason why it is critical that we do not have Supreme
Court justices who read the Constitution while they are having visual
hallucinations.
That is what has been happening. There is no way to read this, ``Nor
shall private property be taken for public use without just
compensation,'' that is in the fifth amendment without realizing that
means public use. It does not mean taking property from someone who has
lived there for generations or some farmer that has been farming the
land, to give it over to some developer just because he is going to
give a bigger kickback to the local government.
That goes back to the days of King George when he says, gee, you have
been a good friend, you have paid taxes, but this guy over here has
promised me a bigger kickback, so I am kicking you off your property.
We had a revolution to try to stop that kind of thing.
Anyway, I just want to put this question to my friends across the
aisle. I know I have heard them express their concerns about
constituents and the poor and those who cannot help themselves, and we
ought to be helping them. Do you really want to go back to your
constituents, do you really want to tell voters that you support this
ridiculous Supreme Court notion that a government can take their
property, not property that is a threat to the community, not that it
is blighted, but take their property against their will to give it over
to someone richer who is going to pay more taxes, and that is the only
reason?
That is not the American way. That is not what the supporters and
proponents of this bill want to see happen. We are sending a loud
message, that is not what the Constitution says, it is not what is
intended, it is not what we fought a revolution to end; and we will not
stand by and allow a ridiculous Supreme Court decision to overrule
that.
{time} 1430
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. Davis).
(Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support
of H.R. 4128.
Mr. Chairman, the people of my home State of Tennessee know the
stories of eminent domain all too well. They know the stories of when
the Corps of Engineers and TVA condemned property of hard-working
farmers to impound lakes. The folks I represent were willing to give up
their land for the benefit of the valley.
They knew the public works projects would bring about much needed
economic opportunity. They knew that the readily available cheap power
would spawn new industries and provide good jobs for hard-working
individuals. Although the promised benefits did become a reality, many
of my ancestors, like my grandfather, felt the government takeover of
land was wrong. Often I would hear stories of dissatisfaction about the
loss of lands that have been in families since their families moved to
the Appalachians.
I firmly believe that if the taken property had been given to another
property owner, my ancestors would have felt like declaring war on the
government. Fortunately, my grandfather and others were able to accept
that the taking of their land was good for the public.
Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt in my mind that the Court's decision
in Kelo is wrongheaded and wrong-hearted. One of the basic founding
principles of this country is the right to own private property. Since
our founding, governments have had the leverage needed
[[Page H9574]]
to encourage capital and economic development for our communities,
while still recognizing the intrinsic value of a family's private
property.
Mr. Chairman, I know that without a constitutional amendment our
actions today are about as far as this Congress can go to dehorn the
impact of the Kelo decision. Although this bill addresses and puts in
place compelling penalties to cities, counties, and States that violate
private property rights, I really think it needs to go further.
It is my hope that some day we can bring about stricter penalties to
local governments who choose to run roughshod over the property rights
of private landowners. I know that is what my grandfather would have
expected of me, and I hope that is what we can expect of this Congress
as we work to solidify the intrinsic value of people who own private
property.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, the fifth amendment to the Constitution states that
``no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due
process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use
without just compensation.''
Thomas Jefferson said: ``The true foundation of republican government
is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in
their management.''
However, that was then. We have heard a lot of talk about the
Founding Fathers; and they are not turning in their graves, Mr.
Chairman, they are spinning.
Jefferson warned: ``A government big enough to give you everything
you want is a government big enough to take away everything you have.''
It looks like we are at that stage.
A school does not generate tax revenue. A church does not generate
any tax revenue, but that does not mean that a school ought to become a
Starbucks and that a church ought to become the next Costco.
Thanks to the recent Supreme Court decision on eminent domain, the
fifth amendment has been vastly expanded. In the past, public use meant
projects for the common good, not for the bottom line. With this
decision, no citizen's property is safe and the American dream of
owning your own home is now at risk. Private ownership of property is a
pillar of our freedom and our prosperity.
The Private Property Rights Act, H.R. 4128, will begin to right the
wrong that was wrought on our Nation this past June. I urge all Members
of this House to support this important legislation.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of H.R. 4128.
I was one of those individuals who was shocked at the Supreme Court
decision. On June 23, 2005, Kelo v. The City of New London, the Supreme
Court held in a 5 to 4 decision that the city's use of eminent domain
to implement its area's redevelopment plan aimed at invigorating a
depressed economy was a public use satisfying the U.S. Constitution,
even though the property would be turned over from private homeowners
and businesses to private developers.
Never in my wildest imagination did I think there would be a Supreme
Court ruling that would take private property and give it to private
individuals for private use.
This decision was born out of what took place with the giant
pharmaceutical company Pfizer. Pfizer built a plant next to an area
called Fort Trumbull, and the city determined that someone else could
make better use of the land than the people who actually lived there:
the Fort Trumbull residents. The city handed over its power of eminent
domain, that is, the ability to take private property for public use,
to the New London Development Corporation, a private body; and that
private body then exercised eminent domain to take the entire
neighborhood for private development.
The Supreme Court decision is wrong, and I cannot see how any Member
of the House of Representatives could support the taking of private
property for private use. Someone spoke of this as being a pillar of
democracy. It is a strong American value that we hold dear, and I do
not think that we should not do something, exercise our power in this
House to deny the Supreme Court decision to be used by all of these
cities and redevelopment agencies and other entities. I believe that we
have to protect the American people.
As a matter of fact, one Member came and said, well, you know, this
is an isolated case. It is not. I have over 125 cases throughout the
United States where cities and other entities, community redevelopment
agencies, in those cities where they can give the eminent domain rights
to private developers, such as they did in this Kelo decision, are
taking people's private property.
What is more, many of these entities are trying to take private
property, take homes and businesses to give over to the big-box
developers who need a lot of land to put down these big-box shops.
I do not believe we can stand by and not do something. There are
those who would argue that the Federal Government should not be
involved. If not us, who will protect people? We know that you are
getting lobbied, Members are getting lobbied by Members of city
councils, even by mayors; but many of them are lying with these
developers. They have relationships; money is changing hands. They are
in bed with the very developers who want to take the private property
for private development.
Again, we cannot afford to let this happen. What we do here today
will help to slow down this taking of private property for private use.
As far as I am concerned, the bill could have even been stronger
because we have got a few exceptions in the bill that I question.
I wanted a pure bill with no exceptions. My chairman who worked so
hard on this bill made a case for some takings for certain kinds of
very, very important public use of private lands. And even though I am
supporting the bill, I could support an even stronger bill because I
think there should be no exceptions, none, zilch, zero, no exceptions.
I do not believe in taking private property to give to someone else for
private use to make money off of.
You will hear this described in any number of ways, the taking of
private property to get rid of blight. Whose blight? By whose
definition? The taking of private property by economic development.
What kind of economic development? Who is going to make the money? Who
is going to suffer?
Your home is your castle. And for those people who save their money
and invest in their homes, raise their children, that home should be
their castle in toto. That home should never be in jeopardy because
some city government, some redevelopment agency decides that they want
to take it. I do not care what for. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Scott) came and talked about the taking for ballparks. I disagree with
that.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Alaska (Mr. Young).
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, while I do not have any problems
with the bill at this time, there is some concern that the bill may
adversely affect the transportation projects, including those
constructed under public and private partnerships.
There is also a concern that the bill may have unintentional effects
on the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition
Policy Act of 1970.
I would like to thank the gentleman for including the language
changes that we have suggested in the manager's amendment to help fix
these problems. These changes are meant to clarify that this bill does
not have any adverse impacts on issues under the jurisdiction of the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
Mr. Chairman, I ask that if we discover any additional problems with
this legislation for transportation projects, you will agree to work
with me in conference on a mutually agreeable solution.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. If unintended transportation consequences
[[Page H9575]]
are discovered, I would be happy to work with the gentleman from Alaska
(Mr. Young) to fix them in conference.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I agree with the gentleman's goals and look
forward to working with the entire delegation to meet the goals of this
conference. I thank the gentleman for doing this.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).
Mr. POE. As a former judge, I want to thank the chairman for leading
the fight to protect private property rights.
One reason we started this country was because back in the days of
England, the king and the nobles owned all the land, and regular folks
like us had to work the land, but we could never own the land. That is
one reason this country got started, because of the desire to own
private property.
John Locke, the great philosopher who was influential in much of the
law that came into our Constitution, said that we are all born with the
right of life, liberty, and property. And Thomas Jefferson incorporated
that concept in the Declaration of Independence when he said that we
are given by our creator life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
And then we put in our Constitution in the fifth amendment that basic
right, that we all have life, liberty, and property and it will not be
taken without due process of law.
That simple phrase that is in that fifth amendment, that private
property shall not be taken for public use without due compensation, it
is the American dream to own a part of America, own a part of the land.
More Americans own land and houses than ever before in our history.
Then the Supreme Court came around and misinterpreted this very simple
rule in our Constitution, allowing private property to be taken by
local governments so they can give it to somebody else all in the name
of money. It is all about the money. It ought to be all about what is
right.
This law will prevent government land-grabbing authorized by the
Supreme Court. Their ruling was an error in judgment of constitutional
proportions and hopefully the Supreme Court will find its way and
reverse this absurd ruling.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
I must rise to object to this bill. I think it is too broad. The
period of time within which you can take legal action is too long, and
in some specific cases it is too restrictive. It will be subject to the
law of unintended consequences.
My views, I have to acknowledge, are formed by having been mayor of
Alexandria, Virginia. We did at times use the power of eminent domain
primarily to help lower-income people to restore blighted areas of the
city. In those situations, the improvement of those rundown areas could
not have happened without government intervention because the private
sector simply was not willing to make the investment.
We were able to establish scattered site public housing throughout
the city. We were able to achieve substantial economic improvements
along the Alexandria waterfront which had been relegated to a place of
neglect where only people of the lowest income lived. And now people of
all incomes are able to take advantage of public use in these areas,
and we have expanded the availability of affordable housing.
We could not have done it without this power. And, in fact, if our
constituents did not like what we were doing, they had the ability to
take us out of office through the normal democratic process. I
understand that this is a power that can be abused, but that
possibility does not warrant its elimination.
{time} 1445
In fact, if you want it restricted, the proper place to do so is not
at the Federal level. It is at the State and local level.
I have an amendment that will correct this bill so that it will not
be subject to the law of unintended consequences. I intend to introduce
that amendment shortly.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4128, a
bill that seeks to undo the damage wrought by one of the worst Supreme
Court decisions in my memory.
The court in Kelo decided that the fifth amendment of the
Constitution can be hijacked by a rogue, private developer to take
homes or private property from hardworking Americans to build new
shopping malls and luxury resorts in their place to increase tax
revenues.
Our Constitution, which every Member of this body has sworn to uphold
and protect, has, in essence, been changed by five people who are
charged only with interpreting the Constitution, not rewriting it.
I am not sure how many ways there are to interpret the clause: ``nor
shall private property be taken for public use without just
compensation.''
Mr. Chairman, it seems pretty clear to me that an office building
owned by a private party that restricts its use to only those who pay
rent is not a public use facility; or that a public use is a highway,
not a high-rise; or that a public use is a park, not a private parking
lot; or that a public use is a courthouse, not a condo.
A society that allows its big developers to take the private property
of ordinary citizens in the name of economic development is not a free
society.
The potential for greater profits and higher tax revenue is not what
our Founding Fathers envisioned as public use.
Importantly, Mr. Chairman, one of those constitutional provisions is
the protection of private property. The Founders of this great Nation
knew that a government that can take a citizen's property on a whim is
a government that can take away everything else as well.
H.R. 4128 offers a reasonable solution, and I urge my colleagues to
support this bill.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Chairman, private property has been among the most sacred rights
of the American people since our founding as a Nation. Likewise, the
government's duty to protect private property has remained among its
most sacred responsibilities.
John Adams once wrote, ``The moment the idea is admitted into society
that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is
not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and
tyranny commence.''
Well, Mr. Chairman, the recent Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. New
London has commenced the tyranny. It is laying siege to the idea that a
man's home is his castle.
While it is true that the principle of eminent domain is established
in our Constitution, it exists for an extremely limited purpose.
The dissenters in the Kelo case correctly note that the Court has
abandoned a ``long-held basic limitation on government power. Under the
banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable
to being taken and transferred to another private owner.''
The Court essentially now gives local governments the power to seize
property to simply generate tax revenue. Under their ruling, your local
city council can now take your home and give it to Starbucks so they
can sell vente mocha lattes. Mr. Chairman, are we still in America?
By passing the Private Property Rights Protection Act, Congress can
help secure this most sacred right. H.R. 4128 will rightfully increase
the penalties for States. We should stand for freedom and private
property and support this act.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake).
Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 4128,
and I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill on behalf of
property owners across our Nation.
[[Page H9576]]
This legislation clearly prohibits economic development as a public
use, period, with no room for misunderstanding. Eminent domain, for the
purpose of economic development, is absolutely opposite our belief as
Americans of our right to own private property.
Our role as Members of Congress is to protect the public. We have a
responsibility to use legislative powers to clearly define private
property rights.
I would like to thank the sponsors of the bill, the chairman and
committees that have worked on it, and I urge my colleagues to vote in
favor of H.R. 4128.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Chairman, the power of eminent domain should never be abused to
take private property for the private benefit of another, and I agree
with the concept of the bill, but it is very poorly drafted. It goes
too far and not far enough.
It will permit many of the abuses and injustices of the past, while
bankrupting State and local governments.
It would allow highways to cut through communities and all the other
public projects that have historically fallen most heavily on the poor
and powerless.
It does nothing to protect displaced renters. They get no
compensation, no day in court, but absentee slumlords, they get their
day in court.
It allows a taking to give property to a private party ``such as a
common carrier, that makes the property available for use by the
general public as of right.''
Does that mean a stadium? It seems to me that is privately owned. It
is ``available for use by the general public as of right'' at least as
much as a railroad; you can buy a seat. Does that mean a shopping
center? You do not even need a ticket. So this would not even prevent
the use of public domain, apparently, for sport stadiums and shopping
centers.
The World Trade Center, on the other hand, could not have been built
under this law. It was publicly owned, but leased as office and retail
space.
Affordable housing, like the Hope VI program would be prohibited.
Local governments under this bill would risk all their economic
development funding for 2 years, even for unrelated projects. The
financial cloud this would place over all cities would ensure that they
could never issue a bond, for any purpose, and companies doing business
with the city would face the threat of bankruptcy.
If we really want to help property owners, we should give them the
right to stop the taking before it happens. This bill makes them wait
until after the condemnation and offers them no damages. People do not
want to bankrupt their communities. They want to keep their homes. This
bill does not do that. I will offer an amendment that will at least
change this part of the bill and solve that problem.
A bill to prevent takings for improper purposes makes sense. It does
not make sense to say that if the government makes a mistake, instead
of giving private injunctive relief in advance to prevent that mistake
to help the property owner, you put a cloud on the future finance of
the State or city as they can never issue bonds for any purpose.
Let us protect property owners but not destroy our communities. We
should do this right.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. King).
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for bringing this bill to the floor as
chairman of the Judiciary Committee which I have the privilege of
serving on.
I rise today in support of the Private Property Rights Protection
Act.
This spring, the Supreme Court put a ``For Sale by Government'' sign
in front of every American home, farm and business. It does not matter
how many coats of paint you put on your house or how much landscaping
you do, no amount of your investment and upkeep can match the tax base
provided by corporate America. If the government thinks that it can get
more tax revenue from your property when put to a different use, a
bigger house, a new factory, you are out of luck and out of your home.
We were taught as children and read in the Constitution that eminent
domain meant that government could take property only for public use,
like roads and railroads, but the 15 Connecticut citizens who had their
homes and businesses taken away from them in the Kelo case found out
that public use now means whatever the powerful want to do with your
home, as long as it might bring in more tax dollars.
Whatever happened to our rights to life, liberty and property, which
were the very rights so important to the people who founded this
country?
Mr. Chairman, the Supreme Court took that right away. The Framers had
no intention of allowing Federal judges to impart their wisdom on this
issue. That is why they put the eminent domain clause directly into the
Constitution by the Bill of Rights.
The Constitution here in my pocket says, ``nor shall private property
be taken for public use without just compensation.''
If we do not act today, the consequences of that Supreme Court
decision will not be hard to foretell. The winners are those with great
influence, wealth and power. What happens when the potential buyer of a
property is a foreign-owned entity? Or if a Nevada church is bulldozed
to make room for a brothel?
Americans will not stand for usurpation of their constitutional
rights by the Court. Today, we have the opportunity to restore those
rights that we fought so hard for. I urge my colleagues to support H.R.
4128.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague from
California because not only is she supportive of this legislation but
she has been speaking out consistently since the Kelo decision against
that decision and the consequences.
Mr. Chairman, I have grown concerned with the increasing rate of
eminent domain abuse cases across the country, so I appreciate that we
will be able to vote on this bill today.
Many of us in Congress were shocked by the Supreme Court's 5-4
decision in Kelo, allowing the town of New London, Connecticut, to
seize 15 homes so a developer could build offices, a hotel and
convention center. This set a disturbing precedent and raised serious
concerns about whether there are any limits to the government's power
under the takings clause of the Constitution.
I believe the Private Property Rights Protection Act, this
legislation, is a strong first step in the fight against eminent domain
abuse. However, I think we can do better. I think we need to pass
stronger legislation to ensure that we curb all abuses of eminent
domain, not just those in areas where Federal funds are being used for
a project.
That is why I have introduced my own legislation to curb the
inappropriate use of eminent domain. The Protect Our Homes Act simply
states that there should be no taking of homes for economic development
unless there are rare and exceptional circumstances involving a public
health or safety crisis. This legislation would render any State or
local government that does otherwise ineligible for Federal financial
assistance under any HUD program. It would also put in place
appropriate safeguards to ensure that any eminent domain process is
fair and transparent.
We have an obligation to protect our citizens as we revitalize our
aging neighborhoods. We should not sit idly by and tolerate abuses of
eminent domain in the name of economic revitalization. It is time to
strengthen the Federal law to guarantee that homeowners throughout this
great country are protected.
I am pleased to support the legislation before us which will send a
strong message that taking private homes for generating revenue will
not be tolerated. There is still much more for Congress to do to
prevent eminent domain abuse, however, and I look forward to this bill
passing and to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
It is very refreshing to see that this legislation has bipartisan
support and that we are moving on this legislation today.
[[Page H9577]]
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, the question before us today is not
really whether we agree or disagree with the Supreme Court's
interpretation of the term ``public use,'' but, rather, who we stand
with and what we stand for. Do we stand with large private developers
or with ordinary private citizens? Do we stand for government
assistance for the powerful economic interests, at the expense of
ownership of small interests?
Let it be clear, this debate is about condemnation of property. Will
we condemn our constituents by allowing their land to be taken without
just cause? Will we condemn small business owners by allowing their
stores to be removed simply because a big developer has a different
idea for what the economy should look like? Or will we stand with our
constituents and condemn the idea that their property can be sacrificed
for the sake of a big corporate company's development plans?
The Declaration of Independence holds that all people are endowed
with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The
Supreme Court's Kelo decision would limit the right to the pursuit of
happiness to large corporate developers at the expense of small
businesses and private citizens.
We must take a stand today and reaffirm the unalienable rights of
citizens and stand for our constituents and declare that everyone has
the right to pursue happiness, and we cannot and will not take that
right away.
I urge my colleagues to join me in standing with our constituents to
support this bill.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished
gentlewoman for the time.
I am very pleased to join my colleagues who are aware of the need to
fix an issue that is broken. I join the chairman of this committee and
thank the gentlewoman for her leadership, and I am glad to be an
original cosponsor.
{time} 1500
Mr. Chairman, the reason we are on the floor today is that the
Supreme Court, some would say rightly so, relied upon State law in
Connecticut that allowed for the taking of private property for
economic development. In essence, a public entity sanctioned private
developers in taking private property for an economic enhancement. I am
here to say that the fifth amendment's due process and the protection
of property rights, to the extent that we protect those who cannot
speak for themselves, should allow this Congress to fix the problem.
I am also concerned that this very tool will be utilized to go into
communities, poor communities, and have them succumb, if you will, to
untoward and unwelcomed investment or development without their input
and without the opportunity to build communities that would embrace all
economic levels.
The Kelo decision needs to be fixed by this Congress, and I welcome
this legislation so that we can fix it and provide due process to all.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the base bill before the Committee
of the Whole today, H.R. 4128, the Private Property Rights Protection
Act of 2005. It pleases me to join the Gentlemen, Chairman
Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers in supporting this
legislation, H.R. 4128, just as I was enthusiastic about co-sponsoring
the resolution introduced by the Gentleman on the Floor of the House on
June 30, 2005 that denounces the holding of the Supreme Court of the
United States in Kelo v. City of New London.
The Supreme Court, with its five-member majority, made a wrong
decision and ratified the unconstitutional acts of a local government,
the City of New London, Connecticut.
The bill before this body rejects the act of the Supreme Court
majority in giving these elected officials carte blanche to abuse the
rights of the property owners in that case. Our highest court should
stop the violation of constitutional rights. Our job 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. There should exist
better protection for the individual with less economic power--the
individual that has only his or her land as an asset. The Framers of
the Constitution were careful in addressing that issue, careful in the
sense they wanted to make sure that the ruling powers that be could not
come in and say, ``I am going to take your property.'' That was not
what the Framers envisioned free America.
A recently published law journal note stated our dilemma quite well:
``But still more unsettling to many than the notion that property might
be taken for an obvious general public benefit is the suggestion that
this power might be used to transfer private property for another
private owner's profit, along with all the traditional rights that
permit sale, use, rental, disposition, and other choices of fee simple
ownership. Seemingly, if property can be forcibly passed from one
private owner to another, `public use' is a phrase with no meaning and
no end.''
``If property can be forcibly passed from one private owner to
another, `public use' is a phrase with no meaning and no end.'' This
legislation allows us as legislators to draw a thicker line of
demarcation between private property and property that is truly
intended for public use. The threshold must be higher for the ownership
rights of individuals to be usurped--when the underlying objective is
merely to engorge the pockets of developers.
I would hope that my colleagues will support me in the amendment that
the Rules Committee made in order Mr. Chairman, as No. 12. Kelo held
``economic development'' to be a ``public use'' under the Fifth
Amendment's Taking Clause. The Takings Clause states that ``nor shall
private property be taken for public use without just compensation.''
In the 1990's, a state agency declared that New London, CT was a
``distressed municipality'' after its unemployment numbers hit double
the rate in the rest of Connecticut. The holding by the Supreme Court
purported to defer to the city's judgment and that the development
would be a ``catalyst to the area's rejuvenation.''
The land use situation in the areas most affected by Hurricane
Katrina presents the situation that is most ripe for eminent domain
takings under the guise of ``economic development.'' My amendment seeks
to add the legislative intent to H.R. 4128 that the law seeks to put
the people first even in the face of post-disaster reconstruction.
I thank the Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for his
support of this amendment. It is critical that we continue the spirit
of bi-partisanship that was started with the resolution disapproving
the Kelo decision, of which I was an original co-sponsor, the Private
Property Rights Protection Act of 2005, H.R. 3135.
New Orleans will be the center of a reconstruction project that will
have a price tag in excess of $200 billion. Eminent domain will play a
major role in the local governments' ability to assemble properties to
carry out their plans--whether the residents like it or not. NAACP
representative Hillary Shelton stated that ``the eminent domain process
mostly targets racial and ethnic minorities because cities often want
to redevelop areas with low property values and because minorities have
less political clout and are less able to fight back.'' My amendment
seeks to clarify that, in redefining the boundaries of the federal
government's Taking power, unfair practices will not be tolerated and
that the rights of property owners will be given the highest regard.
Mr. Chairman, I ask that the Committee colleagues support this
amendment.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, as you can see, this is not a Democrat-Republican issue.
The people who care about property rights, the people who respect
homeownership, the people who believe that this is an important value
are standing up for the citizens of this country. Folks who believe
that somehow the government has a right to take private property for
private use are standing on the side of the developers.
While I respect Members on both sides of the aisle, I have had some
Members on this side of the aisle talk about what they have done for
poor people, and you will hear people talk about what they do for
minorities, that they are doing this to get rid of blight, to create
better communities. Well, on this one, I would like to say to all of my
would-be friends who are helping poor communities and minority
communities, we do not need you on this one.
We need you to respect the right of those minorities and those poor
people to hold on to whatever it is they own, whether it is a little,
small business or whether it is a two-room shack or a one-room shack or
whatever it is. It is theirs. They have a right to it. And no one, no
mayor, no city council member, no one has the right to think they know
better; that they can take that property for a private use.
I think it is unconscionable for anybody that is elected by the
people to
[[Page H9578]]
undermine the people by supporting the taking of private properties for
private use. I would hope even those Members who have been past mayors,
who have been past city council members who agreed with the developers,
indeed listen to this debate here on the floor today and agree that if
we want to do anything to support the right of citizens to own
property, we will support this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from
Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California
for being so gracious in yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, our Nation's eminent domain laws exist to help our
communities, not to deprive Americans of their businesses and homes.
For 11 years, Harry Pappas and his family battled to win back property
taken from them in downtown Las Vegas, property which they rightfully
owned and that was home to seven shops the family leased to other
businesses for more than 40 years. This was a 40-year holding of one
family in Las Vegas.
In 1994, the Las Vegas Redevelopment Agency notified Mrs. Pappas that
they were condemning her property. At a hearing only 7 days later, it
was decided that the agency would take immediate possession of the
property, and the family business promptly demolished.
The Pappases' dreams were torn down with the building they lost that
day, and their dignity was taken from them as they were forced to watch
as a for-profit parking garage was built on their family property.
The Pappas family took their case all the way to the United States
Supreme Court, hoping that the justices would recognize their
fundamental rights under our Constitution. But they were turned away by
the Supreme Court, and their case seeking justice was dismissed.
So now it is up to us, the United States Congress, to protect other
families against the injustice that has been done to the Pappases as a
result of the ever-growing expansion of eminent domain. Voting to limit
the use of eminent domain for economic development will restore the
rightful limits on this power that have been eroded by time. It is time
to protect the Harry Pappases of the world.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the
chairman.
As the chairman knows, I have offered an amendment in the Rules
Committee to address the problem of legal fees for property owners
faced with the exercise of eminent domain by State and local
governments. Homeowners in particular do not have the money to pay
lawyers. Their main asset is tied up in a legal fight, so they cannot
afford a challenge to the taking itself.
In addition, most eminent domain lawyers operate on contingency for a
percentage of the eventual price of the property condemned, so it is
hard to get anybody to challenge the taking, and you certainly cannot
get it without paying.
The idea of the amendment is that owners are supposed to be no worse
off after the condemnation than they were before. But if they have to
pay their lawyer, whether by the hour or as a percentage of the sale
price, they will always be worse off.
Would the chairman be willing to work with me on this issue in
conference in a way to address the needs of private property owners
without encouraging frivolous lawsuits?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FLAKE. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The answer is absolutely.
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the chairman.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Chairman, very briefly, this bill attempts to do what the Federal
Government can to reverse the impact of the Kelo decision, and the
heart of this bill is to deny Federal economic development funds for 2
years to any States or locality that attempts to use its condemnation
powers to take private land for essentially a nonpublic use purpose and
to turn around and resell it to another private developer who will
bring in more tax revenue.
We have heard time and time and time again on this floor during the
last hour that this is wrong. But the Supreme Court has said that it is
not wrong if a developer can convince a majority of one on a city
council or local governing board to authorize the local attorney to go
and commence condemnation actions. That is true if somebody has lived
in a house for all their life and the city council puts them in the
cross hairs; it is true for a church that has got a prime piece of
property on the corner of a busy intersection that a developer wants to
build a strip mall on; and it is true for someone who has run a small
business in a prime area of town and has made a lot of money but does
not pay a lot of property taxes because they have a small shop, and
they can be put out of business even for a competition that wants to
have a larger and, thus, more tax-yielding facility on that piece of
property.
Everything I have said is wrong, and everything I have said can be
done with the use of Federal economic development funds under the Kelo
decision. What we need to do now is pass this bill to right this wrong.
And I would just remind the membership, Mr. Chairman, that the author
of the majority opinion in Kelo, Justice John Paul Stevens, recently
spoke to a local bar association in Nevada and said that if he was a
legislator rather than a justice of the United States Supreme Court, he
would have ruled the other way. So if Justice Stevens were sitting here
as a representative in Congress today, he would be supporting this
bill, too, and I think that is the reason why this bill should receive
overwhelming support. We all should vote for it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson). All time for general debate by the
Committee on the Judiciary has expired.
It is now in order for general debate by the Committee on
Agriculture, 30 minutes equally divided.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this important piece of
legislation. I want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner for his leadership
on this issue. I also appreciate the hard work of Congressman Henry
Bonilla, who introduced the STOPP Act, legislation that passed out of
the Agriculture Committee, and Ranking Member Peterson on the
Agriculture Committee, as well as Ranking Member Conyers on the
Judiciary Committee.
I especially want to thank my colleague from South Dakota (Ms.
Herseth) who was the first Democrat to take a leading role on this
issue in introducing the STOPP Act, and it is in part due to her
leadership that we will have a very strong bipartisan vote on this
legislation today.
Private ownership of property is vital to our freedom and our
prosperity, and it is one of the most fundamental principles embedded
in our Constitution. The Founders realized the importance of property
rights when they codified the takings clause of the fifth amendment to
the Constitution, which requires that private property shall not be
taken for public use without just compensation.
This clause created two conditions to the government taking private
property: that the subsequent use of the property is for the public and
that the government gives the property owners just compensation.
However, the Supreme Court's recent 5-4 decision in Kelo v. City of
New London is a step in the opposite direction. This controversial
ruling expands the ability of State and local governments to exercise
eminent domain powers to seize properties under the guise of economic
development when the public use is as incidental as generating tax
revenues or creating jobs, even in situations where the government
takes property from one private individual and gives it to another
private entity.
By defining public use so expansively, the Court essentially erased
any protection for private property as understood by the Founders of
our Nation. In the wake of this decision, State and local governments
can use eminent domain powers to take the
[[Page H9579]]
property of any individual for nearly any reason. Cities may now
bulldoze private citizens' homes, farms, and small businesses to make
way for shopping malls or other developments.
For these reasons, I joined with Chairman Sensenbrenner to introduce
H.R. 4128, the Private Property Rights Protection Act. This important
piece of legislation represents a merger between two pieces of
legislation, H.R. 3135, introduced by Chairman Sensenbrenner, and H.R.
3405, the STOPP Act, which I introduced along with the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Bonilla) and the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth)
and which passed the House Committee on Agriculture by a strong
bipartisan vote of 40 to 1.
I am pleased that H.R. 4128 incorporates many provisions from the
STOPP Act. Specifically, this new legislation would prohibit all
Federal economic development funds for a period of 2 years for any
State or local government that uses economic development as a
justification for taking property from one person and giving it to
another private entity. In addition, this new legislation would allow
State and local governments to cure violations by giving the property
back to the original owner. Furthermore, this bill specifically grants
adversely affected landowners the right to use appropriate legal
remedies to enforce the provisions of the bill.
H.R. 4128 also includes a carefully crafted definition of economic
development that protects traditional uses of eminent domain, such as
taking land for public uses like roads, while prohibiting abuses of
eminent domain powers.
No one should have to live in fear of the government snatching up
their home, farm, or business; and the Private Property Rights
Protection Act will help to create the incentives to ensure that these
abuses do not occur in the future.
I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in strong support of the Private Property Rights Protection
Act of 2005. I want to thank the Judiciary Chairman Sensenbrenner and
Ranking Member Conyers, as well as Agriculture Committee Chairman
Goodlatte and Ranking Member Peterson, for their hard work in moving
this legislation to the floor today.
I would also like to acknowledge and thank the Agriculture
Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Henry Bonilla for his strong
leadership on this very important issue as well as the work of Chairman
Pombo and Congresswoman Waters who have been steadfast in their
advocacy for private property rights in light of the threat posed by
the Kelo decision.
This legislation is a priority for farmers and ranchers and
landowners across my home State of South Dakota. I am extremely pleased
that the Agriculture Committee acted swiftly on the legislation
originally introduced by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) and
myself, the Strengthening the Ownership of Private Property, or STOPP
Act, and that Chairman Goodlatte made reporting out the bill from the
Agriculture Committee a priority.
I am equally pleased by the determined, thoughtful attention
demonstrated by the Judiciary Committee and the collaborative approach
taken as we put together the Private Property Rights Protection Act. It
is important, commonsense legislation that deserves our attention.
As my colleagues know, the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City
of New London dealt a serious blow to the fundamental rights of
property owners in the United States. The House overwhelmingly
expressed its disapproval shortly after the decision by a vote of 365
to 33. This court ruling allows governments to take private property
from one landowner and give it to another private individual so long as
some economic development justification is given. In short, it means
that governments can take your property and give it to someone else.
{time} 1515
I have been impressed by the widespread support for the proposition
that this decision requires prompt congressional action.
As I have said before, South Dakotans from all walks of life are
outraged about the Supreme Court's Kelo decision. As I have repeatedly
noted in previous discussions of the case and as noted by Chairman
Sensenbrenner earlier today, even Justice John Paul Stevens, the author
of the Kelo decision, has expressed the feeling that the use of eminent
domain by the City of New London was unwise as a matter of policy. And
I agree.
I am pleased to have been part of the effort to craft a good
bipartisan response that addresses these policy shortcomings by
discouraging State and local governments from arbitrarily taking land
from private landowners and giving that land to another private party.
I felt compelled to take a lead in this process because of the people I
represent and my roots on my family's farm in South Dakota. South
Dakota is a rural State, and our population's livelihood is deeply tied
to the land. This is true for virtually all of the State's citizens,
whether they live in town or whether they live on the farm.
Because of this, the belief in private property rights runs strong
and deep, and everyone I have talked to back home on this matter has
delivered the same message: Landowners should not be vulnerable to the
whims of a government that decides to take their land and often their
livelihood just to give it to someone else who the government decides
would deliver more in tax revenues. I am pleased to say that many of my
colleagues agree with this, which is why in the short term since its
introduction, this act and other initiatives have garnered broad
bipartisan support, because the legislation makes sense.
As many of you know and as Chairman Goodlatte was discussing,
Chairman Bonilla and I, along with Chairman Goodlatte, drafted H.R.
3405 to provide a strong response to the Kelo decision. At the time we
introduced the STOPP Act, other legislation which took a similar
approach by withholding some Federal funds when eminent domain is used
to facilitate a private-to-private transfer of property for economic
development purposes left open the possibility that a creative
community or State could essentially shift funds within its budget to
render the Federal response less effective.
In the words of Bob Stallman, president of the American Farm Bureau,
in his testimony before the Agriculture Committee: ``All of the Federal
bills introduced thus far take this approach. The differences among
them are the degree to which such funding is withheld. While we support
all the approaches taken in these bills, H.R. 3405 seems to offer the
most effective deterrent to abuses of eminent domain.''
The Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005 incorporates the
core components of the STOPP Act, namely, the withholding of all
Federal economic development assistance for 2 years if communities
choose to use eminent domain to take private property from one
landowner and give it to another private individual for the purposes of
economic development.
I think this development is a testament to the hard work of
individuals like Chairman Bonilla, Chairman Goodlatte, Congresswoman
Waters, Chairman Pombo, and others to define, develop, refine, and
promote a strong commonsense approach to the situation presented by the
Kelo decision.
As I have said, I am happy to have been a part of these important
efforts, and I encourage my colleagues to join with me today in passing
this important bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Bonilla), the chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations
Subcommittee and the author of the STOPP Act, which was passed out of
the Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, this is a rare moment in this town when we have a major
issue that has widespread bipartisan support. I want to thank the
gentlewoman from South Dakota, my original partner in this cause, who
just spoke about this and gave a little history as to how we got this
bill rolling several months ago; and also Chairman Goodlatte under
whose jurisdiction
[[Page H9580]]
this bill originally fell, the STOPP Act that we filed, because so many
of the programs that we are talking about here today that are funded
come through the Agriculture Committee.
We would not have been able to come this far without this partnership
with Ms. Herseth and Chairman Goodlatte; and I want to thank both of
them, not just personally, but I know there are a lot of people out
there that are very grateful for the support they have given this and
have brought us to this day where we have a bill that, again, was
reported out of the Agriculture Committee by a vote of 40 to 1 and then
out of the Judiciary Committee with only three people voting against
it. That is a profound statement across partisan lines in this
Congress.
It also has widespread support among groups like the NAACP, the AARP,
religious organizations, and the American Farm Bureau. I think people
understood the impact this bill could have because it is very simple,
Mr. Chairman. It says to communities that if they do not care about
property rights, they are not going to get their money. No property
rights, no money for 2 years. And that is going to make any local
government or any State think long and hard before they take that first
step toward trying to take someone's property for private gain.
This bill, of course, does not do anything to infringe on the
community's rights and the constitutional history in this country of
communities taking private property for public use, i.e., airports,
roads, bridges, et cetera. It does not touch that at all. So I believe
that is why we were able to come to this state. We have gone through
the process, worked through regular order. We had our hearings.
Attorneys scrubbed the bill. People asked questions, what if this
happened, what if that happened. And we tried to address every issue
that has come to us thus far.
Again, it is a great day when we have two committees coming together,
two parties coming together. People from all over the country, whether
they live in a rural area or whether they live in an urban area, have
the same concern about property rights after the Kelo decision.
I look forward to a resounding victory today for the people of this
country.
Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a
unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe
Lofgren).
(Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California asked and was given permission to
revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
bill.
Mr. Chairman, as a member of the House Judiciary Committee I had the
opportunity to review quite carefully this bill. While I disagreed with
the Supreme Court decision, I must confess that the bill before us
today is not drafted as carefully and clearly as I would have hoped.
There will, in all likelihood, be litigation if this bill becomes law
because the exemptions are written in such a way that reasonable people
may disagree as to their meaning.
I hope that I can help clarify the application of this bill in at
least one area: The meaning of the bill as it relates to affordable
housing.
What follows are the concurring views in the Committee Report
accompanying this bill. It is my hope that by including them here today
during our floor debate that in the future this clarification will be
of value to public entities, litigants and the courts.
At markup, I intended to offer an amendment to this legislation
creating an exception to the definition of ``economic development'' for
the development of affordable housing for low-income residents. I
ultimately decided not to offer this amendment, however, based on my
recognition, and the apparent recognition of my colleagues, that this
bill as introduced does not in any way limit the ability of States and
local governments to exercise their eminent domain powers for the
building of affordable housing for low-income residents. In fact,
during markup, I pointed this out and received no objections from my
colleagues.
The provision of low-income housing, whether by a for-profit or a
non-profit entity, should not constitute ``economic development'' under
the definition in this bill because such activity constitutes neither
``commercial enterprise'' nor an activity designed to ``increase tax
revenue, tax base, employment or general economic health.'' Rather, the
development of affordable housing for low-income residents constitutes
a traditional public purpose for which eminent domain powers have long
been recognized. Given that this bill will not in any way limit the
exercise of eminent domain powers for the development of affordable
housing, I concur in the Committee's report.
Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Salazar).
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from South Dakota
for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, in my district, the values of faith, family, and
commitment to community are sacred. We also hold sacred the right to
own property without fear of its being taken away by government.
Unfortunately, local governments are seizing property in the name of
economic development and transferring ownership to other private
individuals. American citizens are losing their homes in the interest
of building strip malls or big-box stores. Even more disheartening is
the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has endorsed this behavior in what
I feel is a misinterpretation of the takings clause of the fifth
amendment to the Constitution.
I voted to prohibit this kind of action when I was a State
representative in Colorado, and I have also voted my disapproval of the
ruling in the case of Kelo v. New London.
I rise today in support of H.R. 4128, the Private Property Rights
Protection Act. I am a cosponsor of this bill, and I supported passage
of the STOPP Act, H.R. 3405, in the Agriculture Committee just last
month.
This important legislation will help prevent local governments from
abusing their power of eminent domain. While local governments may be
well intentioned, the fact is that people are losing their homes
because of misguided economic development principles.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure; and I
thank Chairman Sensenbrenner, Ranking Member Conyers, Chairman Bonilla,
and Congresswoman Herseth for their dedication to persevering and
protecting property rights.
The right to own property is a fundamental right of this country, and
I will do whatever I can to ensure that it is preserved.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).
Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4128, the
Private Property Rights Protection Act. The Supreme Court decision of
Kelo v. City of New London is one of the most unpopular decisions ever
rendered. I believe more than 90 percent of United States citizens
oppose this ruling, and it may be that the other 10 percent do not
fully understand it. So it has been certainly roundly denounced.
The Court states that ``any property may now be taken for the benefit
of another private property.'' So if one party has a project that will
yield more tax revenue than is currently provided by a piece of
property, that property may be taken. This gives local governments
broad powers. This creates great concern in the Agriculture Committee,
as has already been noticed. Farm and ranch land can be taken very
easily because a golf course, a shopping mall, an amusement park can
easily be classified as being more important as far as economic
development than agricultural land. Nonprofits, such as churches,
Salvation Army, Goodwill Industries, shelters, are very vulnerable.
They generate little or no tax revenue. So almost any project can
supersede them in this regard.
Small businesses are very vulnerable. I had a farmer athlete who
played for me who had worked very hard to develop a small business in
an old building, a restaurant, and a new hotel was coming into the
area. The local city council was thinking about shutting him down,
destroying the building, building a new hotel, which would be economic
development. And this person was essentially very vulnerable. His whole
life savings, his whole investment was going to be gone. So this bill
would prevent that.
H.R. 4128 prevents States and local governments from receiving
Federal economic development funds if they abuse their powers of
eminent domain. These are important protections.
I would like to thank Chairman Goodlatte, Chairman Sensenbrenner, and
others who have worked so hard on this bill; and certainly I urge
adoption of it.
[[Page H9581]]
Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from
South Dakota for yielding me this time. It is a pleasure to work with
her on this, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this
important issue on the House floor today.
As we all know, on June 23, 2005, the Supreme Court handed down its
decision in the case of Kelo v. The City of New London. In Kelo, the
Court addressed the city's condemnation of private property to
implement its redevelopment plan aimed at invigorating a depressed
economy. By a 5-4 decision, the Court held that the condemnation
satisfied the fifth amendment requirement that property condemnations
be for a ``public use,'' notwithstanding that the property, as part of
the plan, might be turned over to private developers.
The Supreme Court decision was indeed a wake-up call, Mr. Chairman,
for many communities; and I have heard loud and clear from my own
constituents in Georgia that they are worried that their property
rights are in jeopardy. Today we are going to remedy this wrongful
application of the law of eminent domain and restore important property
rights to private citizens. This is very important, Mr. Chairman, what
we are doing today. And as a cosponsor of H.R. 4128, the Private
Property Rights Protection Act, I believe that passage of this
legislation will ensure that no Federal dollars will be used to
unjustly take any property at the local and State levels. In addition,
I will continue to support efforts to curtail the power of eminent
domain in an effort to protect private property rights.
H.R. 4128 is important, and I support it because it prohibits State
and local governments that receive Federal economic development funds
from using eminent domain to seize land for economic development
purposes, except for the construction of public facilities such as
hospitals or military bases, and for use by a public utility, aqueduct,
or a pipeline.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the States and local governments that
take lands for private development could not receive Federal economic
development funds for those years. I am therefore very pleased that the
House is voting on this important bill today.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Pence).
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, this is a rare moment of bipartisanship in Congress,
and it bears some reflection as I rise in strong support of the Private
Property Rights Protection Act. I think that agreement springs from our
oath of office, which we take at the beginning of every Congress. It
provides: ``I do solemnly swear/affirm that I will support and defend
the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and
domestic and that I will bear true faith and allegiance to same.''
And I believe that is what Republicans and Democrats are doing today
is bearing true faith to the Constitution, which in its fifth amendment
provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law nor shall private property be taken for
public use without just compensation.
The Private Property Rights Protection Act by virtue of its
outstanding authorship, Chairman Sensenbrenner, Chairman Goodlatte,
Chairman Bonilla, fulfills this oath of office in a profound way. In
the wake of the June 2005 Kelo decision by the U.S. Supreme Court,
which held that economic development could be a ``public use'' under
the fifth amendment's takings clause, Congress and every Member of
Congress, in my judgment, has a duty under that oath to support and
uphold and defend the Constitution. Indeed, John Adams remarked: ``The
moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred
as the law of God and that there is not a force of law and public
justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.''
As a Member of the House Agriculture Committee, I can say that the
fear of development and the unbridled appetite of urban areas against
rural areas makes this an especially important initiative of the
Agriculture Committee and its distinguished chairman.
{time} 1530
In the discharge of our duty to support and defend the fifth
amendment to the Constitution, I urge my colleagues very humbly, say no
to Kelo, say yes to the Private Property Rights Protection Act.
Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for
yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 4128 and glad to
rise in support of it.
The Private Property Rights Protection Act prohibits States and
localities from using eminent domain powers for economic development
purposes if the State or local governing jurisdiction received Federal
economic development funds during the same year.
In the past, governments were only able to acquire property from
private owners if the property was going to be used for real public
use, highways, roads, schools, parks, or to eliminate that property
from endangering the public. These transactions have typically not
occurred when the government buys a property by the power of eminent
domain from a private owner and then sells the property to a different
private owner under the premise that the property would benefit the
community with increased economic development.
We all support economic development, but if a community wants to do
that, they need to go to that individual landowner and say, this what
we want, we want to buy your property, and this is what we are going to
do with it. We should not take it under the cloud of eminent domain.
The fifth amendment to the Constitution states that ``private
property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.''
This did not seem to matter when the Kelo decision was made.
The Kelo ruling has essentially stripped the public of the
constitutional right to own that property if someone thought they had a
better use for it than they did. I think that is what bothers so many
people on a bipartisan basis, rural, urban. The fact that a small
business or home can be taken away from a private citizen simply to
increase tax revenues is disturbing and shows a blatant disregard I
think for the constitutional rights of our citizens.
In Texas, our State legislature has already taken steps to correct
the decision, at least under State law, by passing legislation that
would prohibit the local government or private entity from taking
private property through eminent domain for private benefit or economic
development purposes, and we should do the same, at least as much as we
can do under our Federal laws.
So this bill does give us that opportunity to defend our fundamental
constitutional rights of our constituents.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to
the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), another member of the
House Agriculture Committee.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, Chairman Goodlatte and Chairman Sensenbrenner
are to be applauded for the excellent, prompt work they have done on
this outstanding bill.
Fundamentally, this bill is truly one of the most important pieces of
legislation that this Congress has or will consider. The Supreme
Court's eminent domain decision contradicts the very ideals of liberty
and property rights that have for 229 years defined the greatest
government on earth.
Our forefathers put their lives on the line and took up arms to
obtain the liberties and independence we enjoy. They left their wives
and families to shed blood so their children would not be subject to
British taxation, invasion of privacy and wrongful seizures of
property.
The Framers of our Constitution clearly defined the rights to speak
and worship freely, bear arms and hold personal property when they
crafted the greatest form of government the world has ever known.
[[Page H9582]]
Property rights are a hallmark of what separates America from nations
whose citizens live in fear of their own government. In fact, property
rights and the opportunity for homeownership are principal reasons that
citizens come from other nations desperately to America. However, as a
result of the atrocious decision made by the Supreme Court, those exact
rights became jeopardized.
As Members of Congress, we have a responsibility to uphold the
Constitution and protect the rights of our constituents. We also have
the responsibility to carefully monitor the actions of the judicial
branch.
The bipartisan support this bill has both in Congress and in our
districts loudly proclaims the widely held opposition to the Supreme
Court's un-American eminent domain decision. I am proud to help ensure
that such an appalling ruling will not be made again.
I hope and pray the newly appointed Supreme Court justices will never
rule as irresponsibly as those five justices who supported the eminent
domain decision did. We cannot let courts or local governments trample
on property rights.
I urge all my colleagues to support this bill.
Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt), the newest Member of Congress,
who is standing up on this important issue.
(Mrs. SCHMIDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
4128, of which I am a cosponsor, legislation to protect private
property of all Americans. As my fellow Ohioan William Howard Taft, the
only person to serve as President and Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court, said, ``Next to the right of liberty, the right of property is
the most important individual right guaranteed by the Constitution.''
When the Supreme Court decided in Kelo that the State and local
governments can require homeowners to vacate their property to make way
for commercial development, it failed property owners' rights and our
Constitution.
This legislation is important to me because of residents in Norwood,
Ohio. In Norwood, Ohio, these residents are suing right now saying that
it misused the power of eminent domain by declaring a neighborhood was
blighted and turning the property over to a private company for the
development of a shopping center. The Ohio Supreme Court is taking this
matter. We hope there is a better resolution than the one in Kelo.
I want to commend Chairman Sensenbrenner and Chairman Goodlatte for
their good work and their courageous effort in this most needed
legislation.
Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Chairman, let me just conclude by commenting in my
remaining time on some of the testimony that we heard in Chairman
Pombo's Committee on Resources, on which I also sit, about the
compelling testimony of individuals, business owners, who have been
victims of abuses of eminent domain for the purpose of a private-to-
private transfer.
So not only have we heard these compelling stories from individuals,
families who have been affected, both in cities and in the country, but
we have also had good bipartisan work in drafting sessions, our
legislative hearings, our markups, in the Agriculture Committee, in the
Resources Committee, now the Judiciary Committee. The bill that is
under consideration today, that has attempted to respond in the most
effective way to a ruling, as I mentioned, that received strong
disapproval from this body shortly after the Supreme Court's ruling and
on which even the opinion's author and, as I understand, even another
member of the court who recognized that this is something the
legislatures should contend with. And that is precisely what we are
doing today on the House floor.
Congress needs to take action. We need to take it immediately. Our
hope is certainly that we can make this bill law in short order,
because, as some of the testimony before the Resources Committee last
week also indicated, certain municipalities and other local units of
government moved quickly after the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo to
exercise their eminent domain powers for purposes of economic
development for a public purpose, public benefit, beyond the plain
language of the United States Constitution that limits the eminent
domain power to public use. This has been a broad trend for a number of
years, culminating in the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo, that
requires the action of this body.
I urge my colleagues to support final passage of this bill that is a
well-crafted, careful, thoughtful attempt to address a serious problem
for property owners across the country.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to start by thanking some people who do
not always get thanked, and that is the diligent, hard-working staff of
the Agriculture Committee on both sides of the aisle, the Judiciary
Committee on both sides of the aisle and my congressional office staff.
They worked very, very hard on what I think is a comprehensive and
carefully crafted piece of legislation.
We are going to begin to entertain some amendments, and some of those
amendments could have a devastating impact, a gutting effect on this
legislation, and I urge my colleagues to follow that debate closely and
help us defeat amendments that would open this back up to the same kind
of court misinterpretation that has been a problem here.
Finally, let me say that the United States Constitution protects
private property rights as a fundamental right, and we need to make
sure that we respond to a Supreme Court decision that has cast private
property rights in America into question by passing this important
legislation today.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased the House of Representatives
is again taking action to curb further abuse of eminent domain for
economic development purposes. Ever since the infamous Kelo v. City of
New London Supreme Court decision in June, Kansans have voiced their
strong opposition to this ruling.
I agree fully with my constituents that governments should not be
given the authority to transfer private land from one owner to another
for economic development purposes. Securing the right of individuals to
own and manage their own property is provided for in the U.S.
Constitution. The Fifth Amendment states, ``nor shall private property
be taken for public use without just compensation.''
Every constituent who talks with me about this issue strongly
believes the Supreme Court went too far when it said that a government
can transfer private land from one owner to another if the second owner
will supposedly generate more tax revenue. The court's decision does
not pass the common sense test.
The court's flawed reasoning is precisely what the original Supreme
Court, warned against at its inception in 1789 when it called eminent
domain a ``despotic power.'' Unfortunately, we have been forced to
respond to the 2005 Supreme Court's decision with legislation to deter
future land grabs by greedy local governments.
The Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005, H.R. 4128, would
deny federal economic development assistance to any State or local
government that chooses to use the power of eminent domain for economic
development purposes.
I strongly support H.R. 4128 and congratulate Chairman Sensenbrenner
for his leadership on this important land-rights issue. I support the
bill's passage and am hopeful the Senate will act quickly so we can get
it to the President for his signature.
Americans have relied on constitutional protection against abusive
land transfers from one person to another for more than two centuries.
History reminds us that nations that disregard the rights associated
with private property ownership disregard other fundamental rights of
the citizenry.
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. Occasionally, this has to be done against a landowner's
wishes. But our Founders believed only under extreme circumstances
should property be taken from a land owner for the greater public good.
The idea that a government would use its eminent domain power to take
land from one private owner and transfer it to another land owner for
economic development is an abuse of the public good definition.
H.R. 4128 will prohibit States and local governments from exercising
eminent domain for
[[Page H9583]]
economic development, or for property that is subsequently used for
economic development, if the State is a recipient of Federal economic
development funds that fiscal year. If a State or local government is
in violation of this provision, it would be ineligible for Federal
economic development assistance for 2 fiscal years following a final
judgment.
Many farmers in my district have expressed particularly how harmful
this court ruling could be to them if a local government wants to take
their land for development. Many farms have been in the same family for
generations. Under the Supreme Court's ruling, a government could
forcefully take all or a portion of the family farm so more tax revenue
could be generated by a developer. This scenario is a real possibility
that demands the Congress take action to prevent such an unjust land
grab.
The same situation could arise for a house of worship or other non-
profit organization. Entities that do not generate tax revenue are
particularly vulnerable to land grabs by governments interested in
generating more tax dollars.
Small businesses are also in support of this bill because it protects
their property from being handed over to a larger company, or even a
competitor. Small shop owners that may be struggling to survive would
be an easy target for a local government. It is important we pass
legislation that helps protect small businesses. H.R. 4128 does just
that by alleviating the threat a local body could pose to small
businesses when it comes to supposed economic development.
I look forward to seeing this bill passed and signed into law.
Support for this bill is support for home owners, small businesses,
farmers, ranchers, houses of worship and anyone who believes in private
property rights.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, today the House passed H.R. 4128, a bill
that makes states and local governments ineligible for Federal economic
development funds for 2 years if they exercise eminent domain in the
name of economic development.
Protecting the rights of individual property owners is of the utmost
importance. However, there are certain circumstances when the best
interest of a town is served by the responsible use of eminent domain.
As a former City Council Member, I know how effective this tool can be
when it is used judiciously. In my State of California there are
restrictions on local governments' use of eminent domain to ensure that
situations like that of Kelo v. City of New London do not happen.
We have to trust local authorities to use this power responsibly and
respectfully and only when it truly benefits the community at large and
when property owners are fairly compensated. By restricting the use of
eminent domain, we take away our local governments' ability to serve
and improve their jurisdictions. As the leaders of our neighborhoods
and towns, we must trust they know best how to use the resources and
assets that are available.
Mr. Chairman, by restricting the use of eminent domain we have in
fact impeded our local governments' ability to make necessary progress.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, the Supreme Court Ruling in Kelo v New
London sparked many fears among citizens that their property was at
risk of being taken away by the government. These fears, however, are
unwarranted and stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of eminent
domain.
Eminent domain is a power granted local governments by the Fifth
Amendment. The Supreme Court decision in no way precluded the rights of
States to place further restrictions on eminent domain and to more
narrowly define public use. The court leaves these rights to local
officials and citizens for public debate. In my experience as a local
elected official, eminent domain was the absolute last resort, but it
was an important tool to have if was absolutely necessary.
In the discussion on the House floor today, my colleagues failed to
recognize the many benefits we experience thanks to eminent domain.
Twenty years ago, Times Square was a notoriously dangerous neighborhood
in New York City. Eminent domain was used to take 13 acres of land,
condemning 56 lots and moving 404 tenants. The public-private
redevelopment included a highly successful mixture of for-profit and
non-profit theaters, retail facilities, hotels, and office buildings.
What was once a blighted, unsafe neighborhood is now a safe and vibrant
city center.
Connecting the U.S. Capitol and the White House, Pennsylvania Avenue
is one of this country's most important thoroughfares. Fifty years ago,
however, it was a street bordered by many problematic land uses and
buildings that significantly detracted from its role in the life of
Washington, D.C. and America. In 1972, Congress created the
Pennsylvania A venue Development Corporation, which in turn exercised
the power of eminent domain to revitalize this important avenue of
American life.
This bill is a hasty political response to a narrow Supreme Court
decision. I am concerned that it is overly broad and will have many
unintended consequences for our States and communities and hamper their
ability to build safer, healthier and economically secure
neighborhoods. I urge my colleagues to defeat this bill and allow local
governments to reform eminent domain laws in manners consistent with
their communities' needs.
Miss McMORRIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer my support of H.R.
4128 the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005.
I am pleased the House of Representatives recognizes the importance
of protecting private property rights, and clarifying legitimate
takings by the Federal Government and discouraging takings for private
development.
Without a doubt, I am a strong defender of private property rights.
Uncompensated regulatory takings of private property have become an
immense problem across our Nation. As Federal, State, and local
regulations have increased in number and scope, property owners have
increasingly found themselves unable to use their property and unable
to recover the losses that result.
In Kelo v. City of New London, decided June 23, 2005, the Supreme
Court ruled 5-4 that the city's condemnation of private property, to
implement its area redevelopment plan aimed at invigorating a depressed
economy, was a ``public use'' satisfying the U.S. Constitution--even
though the property might be turned over to private developers. The
majority opinion was grounded on Supreme Court decisions holding that
``public use'' must be read broadly to mean ``for a public purpose.''
This decision does not take into sufficient account the distinction
between projects where economic development is only an instrumental or
secondary aspect of the project, and those where economic development
is the primary interest. I am concerned by this decision.
Our founding fathers believed so much in the sanctity and importance
of private property that they felt it needed to be protected in the
Constitution. However, due to the recent ruling, government officials
can confiscate private property if they simply argue the local
community will receive an economic benefit to do so. In fact, the
Institute for Justice estimates that over 10,000 homes nationwide are
in danger of being destroyed by aggressive local governments. Now
officials can seize the homes of private citizens to generate more tax
income to fuel big government spending programs.
Justice O'Connor had it right when she stated, ``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--given to an owner who will use it in a way that the
legislature deems more beneficial to the public--in the process.''
Property rights are civil rights. There can be no individual freedom
without the power of an individual to control their own autonomy
through the free use of their own property. The Supreme Court's
decision poses an immediate threat to that essential freedom, and the
most likely victims will be the most vulnerable in our society if
Congress does not act.
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this
bill, H.R. 4128.
What we witnessed as a result of the Supreme Court's ruling in Kelo
vs. City of New London was unfortunate.
I know that all across the country local governments are looking for
ways to revitalize their communities. I believe these efforts are
important and necessary to help their neighborhoods and families
thrive, however, I believe that the City of New London acted
inappropriately.
The Supreme Court's ruling in the case went too far and made
governments' eminent domain powers too broad.
I am extremely concerned with the apparent disregard by a majority of
the Supreme Court regarding the purpose of the Takings Clause under the
Fifth Amendment. The Kelo ruling would allow the taking of private
property for the benefit of another private entity.
When I was County Executive I put forward a plan to use eminent
domain for the purpose of public safety although there were private
entities that would have benefited. My goal was to revitalize a
deteriorating community and I felt that eminent domain was a tool I
needed to address revitalization of an area with high levels of poverty
and a high crime rate.
As a consequence of the public debate on that experience, I have come
to better appreciate the severity of the government intervening to
benefit one private entity to the detriment of another private entity.
I believe that using eminent domain to take private property should
only be used in situations where there is an overwhelming public
benefit such as roads, schools, hospitals, and public safety needs. I
understand this legislation as preventing the use of eminent domain for
economic development and that any use of eminent domain for the
purposes of public safety is still permitted.
By prohibiting the Federal Government from using strictly economic
development as a justification for condemnation of private property;
[[Page H9584]]
and by prohibiting States and local governments that receive Federal
economic development funds from taking private property for strictly
economic development purposes, the supporters of this legislation hope
to prevent another New London.
This legislation would not prevent the Federal, State or local
governments from exercising eminent domain for public facilities or
other uses defined as public use.
It is vital that we protect the property rights of all Americans from
arbitrary application of eminent domain by passing this legislation.
I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, the Private Property Rights Protection Act
would hopefully, once and for all, prohibit Federal, State and local
use of eminent domain to take private property for economic
development.
The Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause gives eminent domain
authority to States and localities if seizing property for a ``public
use.'' However, in the Kelo decision, the Supreme Court ruled that New
London, Connecticut's redevelopment plan was constitutional and, in
fact, for a ``public use''--largely ignoring the reality that the
property, as part of the plan, would be turned over to private
developers.
The Fourteenth Amendment also contains what's known as the equal
protection clause, which states: ``No State shall make or enforce any
law which shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws.'' But the Kelo ruling deliberately
declares that heretofor, certain persons and their property will in
fact be protected UNequally. Or, in the case of Kelo, not at all.
In addition to prohibiting any level of government from using
economic development as a reason for exercising its power of eminent
domain, H.R. 4128 would also provide assurances that those who are
victimized by eminent domain property seizures will get their day in
court. Eminent domain victims suffering injuries from a violation of
the protections in H.R. 4128 will be allowed access to State or Federal
court to enforce its provisions.
Mr. Chairman, the home ownership rate is at the highest level in our
Nation's history. Owning one's home and property is the cornerstone of
the American Dream. The Kelo decision sets a precedent that can turn
the American Dream into a nightmare for victims of eminent domain.
I salute Chairman Sensenbrenner and Chairman Smith of the Judiciary
Committee and Chairman Goodlatte of the Agriculture Committee for
developing this strong, bipartisan legislative defense of private
citizens. I am proud to cosponsor the legislation, and urge all Members
to support this prudent bill.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4128, which
bars local governments from using eminent domain for economic
development.
The urban renewal of the last decade has benefited every part of the
country and many cities in the 13th Congressional District. The very
purpose of government is to make tough decisions that benefit the
community, and I cannot support Congress taking away this essential
government function.
This bill would also extend the Federal Government ever further into
matters in which it doesn't belong--in this case--real estate planning
and development. City councils are elected and empowered to make the
difficult choice when private property should be utilized for the good
of the community. Congress cannot and should not tie the hands of
locally elected leaders to do what they believe is in the best interest
of their communities. If those local officials make the wrong choices,
voters will no doubt respond.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, the bill before the House today is a good
example of a legislative cure that is worse than the underlying
disease.
I want to say at the outset that there have been some very
questionable uses of eminent domain. The fifth amendment to the
Constitution clearly states that private property may not be taken
except for public use, and then only after just compensation has been
paid to the property owner. In many cases, the use of eminent domain is
justified, but it is invariably controversial. I remember the
controversy that attended the construction of the Walter Reuther
Freeway in my home State during the 1960s and 1970s. Some communities
were furious over the project, but there was no doubt in anyone's mind
that the road served a clear public use.
Other uses of eminent domain are much more questionable. In
Washington, as in so many other cities, a decision has been made to
spend hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to build a new stadium
for the benefit of Major League Baseball and the future owner of the
Washington Nationals. Indeed, the District Government filed court
papers the other day to seize $84 million worth of property from its
current owners. Are stadium deals like this a legitimate public use?
Evidently, they must be since the legislation before the House contains
an exception that would seem to allow the use of eminent domain to
build such facilities.
While lucrative stadium deals apparently enjoy protection under this
bill, there is a blanket prohibition placed on the use of eminent
domain for economic development purposes. States and localities that
take land for private, for-profit projects or those designed to
increase the tax base or employment stand to lose all their Federal
economic development funding for 2 years. The penalty would extend to
all economic development funds, even those going to meritorious
projects that do not use eminent domain. The language of this
legislation is so broadly written, and the penalties are so severe,
that it will tie our cities and States in knots. Any use of eminent
domain could conceivably trigger the overly broad penalties contained
in this legislation. The potential liability facing cities and States
that use eminent domain is open-ended and could extend for years or
even decades into the future.
Land use planning is primarily a State and local function. Members of
Congress frequently pay lip service to States' rights and local
control, but this bill would overrule the limitations that many States
have placed on eminent domain and land transfers to private entities
for economic development purposes. In the case of my own State, in
2004, the Michigan Supreme Court limited the use of eminent domain by
narrowly interpreting the State constitution's takings clause in County
of Wayne v. Hathcock.
There is a lot of room for improvement in the use of eminent domain.
Unfortunately, the legislation before the House is an unreasonable and
unworkable solution.
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today is support of the Private
Property Rights Protection Act of 2005. I was disturbed--as were so
many Americans--both by the decision of a local Connecticut community
to seize private property for area economic development and the Supreme
Court's upholding their right to do so.
While I believe our Constitution allows for State and local
governments to execute the power of eminent domain for those purposes
that specifically serve the public good, condemning property solely to
implement economic development plans is not serving the public good.
Private property rights matter in this country, and violating those
rights insults a very basic tenet of American fairness. For my
constituents, owning a home is the culmination of many years of hard
work and the realization of the American Dream. At no time should a
local entity take those years of hard work solely to increase their tax
revenue.
I am proud to support this bipartisan legislation.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, the Constitution and the fifth amendment
allows the government to use ``eminent domain'' to condemn and take
private property only if the owner receives ``just compensation'' and
only if the property is taken for ``public use.'' Common sense and
Supreme Court decisions tell us that public uses are schools, roads,
parks, railways, hospitals, and military bases. That is something that
we all know and realize.
Unfortunately, earlier this year, in Kelo v. City of New London, the
Supreme Court empowered the government to seize private property,
including someone's own home, and transfer it to another private owner
as long as the transfer would provide an economic benefit to the
community.
The hope of one day owning a home is the backbone of the American
Dream. The house is the single most important purchase most Americans
will ever make. The average family invests more in their homes than
they invest in the stock market, the money market, or their retirement
savings plans. There's a good reason for that. Housing has been a safe,
leveraged investment, and one of the best investments one can make.
That is why government must not have a green light to seize our homes
just because it believes it would be more profitable as something else.
While eminent domain has been used successfully throughout our history
to advance important public projects, it should never be manipulated to
solely support the interests of private developers.
Increasingly, local governments are exploiting eminent domain powers
to take property for retail, office or residential development. In my
State of New Jersey, some localities have abused eminent domain so that
beachfront homes can be replaced by luxury townhouses and condominiums.
That is why I support H.R. 4128, the Private Property Rights
Protection Act. This legislation would deny States and localities from
receiving any Federal economic development funds if they abuse their
eminent domain power. H.R. 4128 also bars the Federal Government from
exercising eminent domain for economic development.
Mr. Chairman, over 200 years ago, James Madison said that
``Government is instituted to protect property of every sort . . . This
being the end of government, that alone is a just government which
impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.''
[[Page H9585]]
That is why this bill is so needed. I urge my colleagues to support
H.R. 4128 to not only protect homeowners, but to also ensure that
homeownership remains the hallmark of American life.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise today sharing the
concerns of my colleagues about the dangerous expansion of the eminent
domain power and the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New
London. I firmly believe there need to be safeguards against the
excessive and unfair use of the government's eminent domain power.
Governors and State legislators across the country, including those in
my home State of Connecticut, are currently grappling with this
important issue. As a former State legislator, I understand that these
issues are best reviewed and addressed at the local level. The Federal
approach is overly broad and although well intentioned, falls short of
protecting the communities it purports to protect.
Let me make my position clear, private property is one of the most
fundamental rights our founding fathers safeguarded in the
Constitution. Property rights deserve the utmost protection from
governmental intrusion. As a lifelong resident of Connecticut, I am
saddened by the Supreme Court's decision in the Kelo case and like many
in Connecticut and across the country, feel vulnerable to the potential
abuse of eminent domain authority. However, I do not feel this bill
brings justice to communities or comprehensively secures property
rights from the misuse of the local and State government taking
authority.
By attempting to narrow the scope of eminent domain through broad and
vague terms, Congress is assuming to identify what does and does not
constitute a local public need--a job historically left to our towns,
cities and States. These local municipalities would risk losing much-
needed economic development funds should they exercise eminent domain
authority that goes outside the ambiguous Federal standard set in this
bill. Unfortunately, the people most affected by this punitive measure
are not the local and city governments making the decisions or the ones
at the bargaining table, it is individuals and families living in
communities throughout the city, in neighborhoods that depend on
federally funded economic development projects for decent housing and
livable communities. These are the ones who will truly be penalized by
this bill.
Eminent domain is a careful balance of protecting private rights and
local public needs. This bill is not yet there. Because of the work
still ahead of us, I am voting against this legislation today in the
hope that these issues will continue to be addressed during conference
with the Senate and that it will work to clarify these remaining
questions.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I will vote for this
legislation.
The bill responds to the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the
case of Kelo et al. v. New London et al., a case that 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.
Earlier this year, I voted for a resolution expressing disapproval of
that decision. I did so because it is my strong view that, as the
resolution stated, ``State and local governments should only execute
the power of eminent domain for those purposes that serve the public
good . . . [and that for them to do otherwise] constitutes an abuse of
government power and an usurpation of the individual property rights as
defined in the fifth amendment.''
In voting for that resolution, I also noted my endorsement of its
statement that ``Congress maintains the prerogative and reserves the
right to address through legislation any abuses of eminent domain by
State and local government.''
That is the purpose of this legislation.
The bill prohibits Federal agencies from using the power of eminent
domain for the kind of economic development project that was involved
in the Kelo case. It also would deny Federal economic development
assistance to any State or local entity that uses its eminent domain
authority in that way.
Specifically, the bill would penalize any State or local government
that takes private property and conveys or leases it to another private
entity, either for a commercial purpose or to generate additional
taxes, employment, or general economic health. A State or local
government found to have violated this prohibition would be ineligible
for certain Federal economic development funds for 2 years, but could
become eligible by returning or replacing the property.
The bill also would give private property owners the right to bring
legal actions seeking enforcement of these provisions and would waive
States' immunity to such suits.
This is strong medicine, but I think the prescription is appropriate.
I found persuasive the views of Justice O'Conner who, dissenting in
the Kelo case, warned that the decision could make more likely that
eminent domain would be used in a reverse Robin Hood fashion--taking
from the poor, giving to the rich--and that ``The beneficiaries are
likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power
in the political process, including large corporations and development
firms.''
The bill is intended to make this less likely.
It does not do so by attempting to replace State and local authority
with Federal law. I do not think the Constitution gives us that power,
and it would not be right to do it even if we could.
Instead, it would require the States and local governments to decide
whether they are prepared to sacrifice certain Federal assistance for 2
years as the price for exercising their authority in ways covered by
the bill.
It is important to note that the bill would apply only to cases
involving the taking of private property, without the consent of the
owner, in order to conveyor or lease it to another private person or
entity for commercial enterprise carried on for profit, or to increase
tax revenue, tax base, employment, or general economic health.
Thus, the bill would not apply to the types of takings that have
traditionally been considered appropriate public uses, and it also
includes exceptions for the transfer of property to public ownership,
to common carriers and public utilities, and for related things like
pipelines. It includes exceptions for the taking of land that is being
used in a way that constitutes an immediate threat to public health and
safety and makes exceptions for incidental use of a public property by
a private entity--such as a retail establishment on the ground floor in
a public property; for the acquisition of abandoned property; and for
clearing defective chains of title.
During the debate on the resolution about the Kelo decision, I noted
that the States, through their legislatures or in some cases by direct
popular vote, can put limits on the use of eminent domain by their
local governments and that I thought this would be the best way to
address potential abuses.
That is still my view, and I think the view of many Coloradans.
Already, members of our State's legislature are acting to curb
potential abuses in the use of the eminent domain power--an effort I
support--and some have suggested that as a result there is no need for
this bill.
I think there is some merit to that argument, and I have given
careful consideration to the points made by some of its most thoughtful
and respected proponents, such as Sam Mamet of the Colorado Municipal
League, who are concerned about the potential that Congress could put
unnecessary constraints on the ability of local governments to address
the needs of our communities.
However, after careful consideration, I have concluded that Congress
should act to provide an effective deterrent to abuse of eminent
domain, while still allowing its use in appropriate circumstances. And
I think this bill, while certainly not perfect, does strike a fair
balance and deserves to be supported.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, this bill attempts to right a great wrong.
The Supreme Court's June 23 ruling in the case of Kelo v. the City of
New London struck at the heart of American liberties, effectively
eliminating the pursuit of happiness or property as a basic unalienable
right.
I think events since then have proven that the Court was wrong, at
least in the eyes of the American people.
According the Institute for Justice, eminent domain reform
legislation will be considered in 35 states over the next year.
Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote an opinion in favor of the Kelo
decision, recently said he was troubled by the policy implications of
the ruling and that, if he were a legislator, he would work to change
it.
And, in a final stroke of justice, New London City Council recently
fired the New London Development Corporation that was at the heart of
the Kelo case. Unfortunately, this action came after $73 million in
public dollars were spent and after it had razed virtually the entire
Fort Trumbull neighborhood.
Akhil Reed Amar, a Yale law professor and author of the book
America's Constitution, recently observed that the Supreme Court's
exalted status as the infallible interpreter of the Constitution is a
fairly recent phenomenon and that the Court has been proven wrong
before. He pointed to the Dred Scott decision as one example.
This is another.
And when the Supreme Court is wrong, it is the duty of this body, the
Congress, to correct it.
This bill goes a long way toward doing that. I'd like to see it go
further. Because while I am a supporter of States' rights, I do not
know whether individual States have the right to abrogate basic
freedoms.
But I'll settle for this. We all took an oath to defend the
Constitution and that's what this bill tries to do. Therefore, I urge
its support.
[[Page H9586]]
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support
of H.R. 4128, legislation to address the U.S. Supreme Court's June 23,
2005, decision in Kelo v. City of New London. This ruling by the Court
deeply concerns me, and that is why I rise in strong support of this
bill.
It has long been established that the United States may invoke its
power of eminent domain to take private property if it is for ``public
use.'' However, in its Kelo decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has broken
dangerous, new ground by redefining public use. Under Kelo, no longer
is the government limited in its acquisition of private property to the
creation of roads, military bases, parks, and so forth. Instead, the
takings clause has been reinterpreted to allow a government to seize
private property from one individual and give it to another private
individual, if the local government deems that such condemnation and
transfer of property serves a public purpose.
The result of such a decision played out to its logical extreme was
seen days after the ruling, when Logan Clements took initial steps to
seize the Weare, NH, home of Supreme Court Justice David Souter. On
that site, he hoped to build ``The Lost Liberty Hotel,'' which would
leave copies of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged in each room, and have a
museum exhibit on the loss of freedom in America.
While this may have been done more to make a point than with serious
intent or concern for the economic development of Weare, NH, it does
illustrate the dangers of the Kelo decision. There is nothing to
prevent a local planning board from seizing homes, businesses,
churches, or other property if, in the opinions of some, a more
economically productive purpose for that land may be pursued. Private
property rights are drastically eroded by Kelo and they must be
restored.
Government should not be permitted to take property from one
individual and give it to another. Thanks to the precedent of Kelo, the
private property guarantee the Founders placed in the U.S. Constitution
is no more. Legislation, like H.R. 4128, is needed to preserve the
right to own private property, and I encourage my colleagues to vote
for this bill.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I submit the following
jurisdictional letters of exchange for inclusion in the Congressional
Record during floor consideration of H.R. 4128, the ``Private Property
Rights Protection Act.''
House of Representatives,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC, November 2, 2005.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of
Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner: I understand that you will
shortly bring H.R. 4128, as amended, the Private Property
Rights Protection Act of 2005, to the House floor. This
legislation contains provisions that fall within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
I recognize your desire to bring this legislation before
the House in an expeditious manner. Accordingly, I will not
exercise my Committee's right to a referral. By agreeing to
waive its consideration of the bill, however, the Energy and
Commerce Committee does not waive its jurisdiction over H.R.
4128. In addition, the Energy and Commerce Committee reserves
its right to seek conferees on any provisions of the bill
that are within its jurisdiction during any House-Senate
conference that may be convened on this or similar
legislation. I ask for your commitment to support any request
by the Energy and Commerce Committee for conferees on H.R.
4128 or similar legislation.
I request that you include this letter in the Congressional
Record during consideration of H.R. 4128. Thank you for your
attention to these matters.
Sincerely,
Joe Barton,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC, November 2, 2005.
Hon. Joe Barton,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of
Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Barton: Thank you for your recent letter
concerning the Committee on Energy and Commerce's
jurisdictional interest in H.R. 4128, the ``Private Property
Rights Protection Act.'' This legislation was introduced on
October 25, 2005, and referred solely to the Committee on the
Judiciary. The Committee on the Judiciary conducted a mark up
and ordered the bill reported on October 27, 2005. I
appreciate your willingness to waive further consideration of
H.R. 4128 to expedite consideration of the legislation, and
acknowledge the Committee on Energy and Commerce's
jurisdictional interest in the legislation.
I agree that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 4128, the
Committee on Energy and Commerce does not waive any
jurisdiction it may have had over subject matter contained in
this legislation. In addition, I agree to support
representation from the Committee on Energy and Commerce for
provisions of H.R. 4128 determined to be within its
jurisdiction in the event of a House-Senate conference on the
legislation.
Finally, as requested, I will include a copy of your letter
and this response in the Congressional Record during floor
consideration of this legislation.
Sincerely,
F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC, October 28, 2005.
Hon. James Sensenbrenner,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Rayburn House Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Congratulations on your successful
markup of H.R. 4128, the Private Property Rights Protection
Act of 2005. As you are aware, I have been a vocal advocate
for the protection of private property since coming to
Congress 13 years ago. You should be commended for your
leadership in marshaling this important private property
rights legislation through your committee.
I have reviewed the legislation and discovered provisions
that are within the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Resources. Because of the importance of moving this
legislation to the floor quickly, I will not seek a
sequential referral of H.R. 4128 based on their inclusion in
the bill. Of course, this waiver does not prejudice any
future jurisdictional claims over these provisions or similar
language. I also reserve the right to seek to have conferees
named from the Committee on Resources on these provisions,
should a conference on H.R. 4128 or a similar measure become
necessary.
Once again, it has been a pleasure to work with you and
your staff. I look forward to seeing H.R. 4128 enacted soon.
Sincerely,
Richard W. Pombo,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC, November 2, 2005.
Hon. Richard W. Pombo,
Chairman, Committee on Resources, Longworth House Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Pombo: Thank you for your recent letter
concerning the Committee on Resource's jurisdictional
interest in H.R. 4128, the ``Private Property Rights
Protection Act.'' This legislation was introduced on October
25, 2005, and referred solely to the Committee on the
Judiciary. The Committee on the Judiciary conducted a mark up
and ordered the bill reported on October 27, 2005. I
appreciate your willingness to waive further consideration of
H.R. 4128 to expedite consideration of the legislation, and
acknowledge the Committee on Resources' jurisdictional
interest in the legislation.
I agree that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 4128, the
Committee on Resources does not waive any jurisdiction it may
have had over subject matter contained in this or similar
legislation. In addition, I agree to support representation
from the Committee on Resources for provisions of H.R. 4128
determined to be within its jurisdiction in the event of a
House-Senate conference on the legislation.
Finally, as requested, I will include a copy of your letter
and this response in the Congressional Record during floor
consideration of this legislation.
Sincerely,
F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman.
____
U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC, November 3, 2005.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Rayburn Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning the
jurisdictional interest of the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee in matters being considered in H.R.
4128, the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005.
Our Committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 4128 and
the need for the legislation to move expeditiously.
Therefore, while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over
certain provisions of the bill, I will agree not to request a
sequential referral. This, of course, is conditional on our
mutual understanding that nothing in this legislation or my
decision to forego a sequential referral waives, reduces or
otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee, and that a copy of this letter and
of your response acknowledging our valid jurisdictional
interest will be included in the Congressional Record when
the bill is considered on the House Floor.
The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure also
asks that you support our request to be conferees on the
provisions over which we have jurisdiction during any House
Senate conference.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Don Young,
Chairman.
[[Page H9587]]
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC, November 3, 2005.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation, House of
Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Young: Thank you for your recent letter
concerning the Committee on Transportation's jurisdictional
interest in H.R. 4128, the ``Private Property Rights
Protection Act.'' This legislation was introduced on October
25, 2005, and referred solely to the Committee on the
Judiciary. The Committee on the Judiciary conducted a mark up
and ordered the bill reported on October 27, 2005. I
appreciate your willingness to waive further consideration of
H.R. 4128 to expedite consideration of the legislation, and
acknowledge the Committee on Transportation's jurisdictional
interest in the legislation.
I agree that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 4128, the
Committee on Transportation does not waive any jurisdiction
it may have had over subject matter contained in this
legislation. In addition, I agree to support representation
from the Committee on Transportation for provisions of H.R.
4128 determined to be within its jurisdiction in the event of
a House-Senate conference on the legislation.
Finally, as requested, I will include a copy of your letter
and this response in the Congressional Record during floor
consideration of this legislation.
Sincerely,
F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Financial Services,
Washington, DC, November 1, 2005.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of
Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner: On October 27, 2005, the
Committee on the Judiciary ordered reported H.R. 4128, the
Private Property Rights Protection Act. This bill protects
private property rights by prohibiting eminent domain abuse
by States or the Federal Government through limiting the use
of ``Federal economic development funds.'' This term is
broadly defined in the bill to mean any Federal funds
designed ``to improve or increase the size of the economies
of States or political subdivisions of States.'' This bill
will be considered by the House shortly, and I want to
confirm our mutual understanding with respect to
consideration of this bill.
Under rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives,
the Committee on Financial Services has jurisdiction over
legislation involving financial aid to commerce and industry
as well as urban development. This jurisdiction has been
exercised in a number of ways. The term Federal economic
development funds as defined in this bill would apply to a
number of programs developed by this Committee. For example,
these programs would include Community Development Block
Grants, Brownfields Economic Development Initiative, Economic
Development Initiative, Renewal Communities, Empowerment
Zones and Enterprise' Communities and the Section 3 Program
of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968. The term
would also apply to the Economic Development Administration,
Delta Regional Authority and the Appalachian Regional
Commission. Had time permitted, this Committee would have
asked for, and likely would have received, a sequential
referral of the bill. However, given the desire to expedite
consideration of the bill, I will forego making that request.
I do so with the understanding that this will not prejudice
the Committee on Financial Services with respect to its
prerogatives on this or similar legislation. I further
request that you support appropriate representation from this
Committee in the event of a House-Senate conference.
I will conclude by requesting that you place a copy of this
letter and your response in the Congressional Record during
consideration of the bill. Thank you for your assistance.
Yours truly,
Michael G. Oxley,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC, November 2, 2005.
Hon. Michael G. Oxley,
Chairman, Committee on Financial Resources, Rayburn House
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Oxley: Thank you for your recent letter
concerning the Committee on Financial Service's
jurisdictional interest in H.R. 4128, the ``Private Property
Rights Protection Act.'' This legislation was introduced on
October 25, 2005, and referred solely to the Committee on the
Judiciary. The Committee on the Judiciary conducted a mark up
and ordered the bill reported on October 27, 2005. I
appreciate your willingness to waive further consideration of
H.R. 4128 to expedite consideration of the legislation, and
acknowledge the Committee on Financial Service's
jurisdictional interest in the legislation.
I agree that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 4128, the
Committee on Financial Services does not waive any
jurisdiction it may have had over subject matter contained in
this or similar legislation. In addition, I agree to support
representation from the Committee on Financial Services for
provisions of H.R. 4128 determined to be within its
jurisdiction in the event of a House-Senate conference on the
legislation.
Finally, as requested, I will include a copy of your letter
and this response in the Congressional Record during floor
consideration of this legislation.
Sincerely,
F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4128,
legislation that would prohibit State and local governments that
exercise eminent domain for economic development purposes from
receiving federal funds.
John Adams once said ``Property must be secured or liberty cannot
exist.'' I join my colleagues in taking action to secure private
property rights.
The recent Supreme Court decision Kelo v City of New London
eviscerated one of our most fundamental constitutional rights. This
case dealt a serious blow to property rights and it is incumbent upon
Congress, a co-equal branch of government, to remedy this erroneous
decision.
Eminent domain, or the ``despotic power,'' as Justice William
Patterson called it in 1795, is the power to force citizens from their
homes and small businesses. The Members of the Constitutional
Convention were cognizant to the possibility of abuse and that's why
the Fifth Amendment provides the simple restriction and remedy: ``nor
shall private property be taken for public use, without just
compensation.''
The expansion of eminent domain began with the urban renewal movement
in the 1950's and it continues today. A recent study by the Institute
for Justice found nearly 10,000 cases from 1998 to 2002 of local
governments in over 40 States using or threatening to use eminent
domain to transfer home and properties from one private owner to
another.
Simply put, this abuse has to stop!
Three months prior to the Kelo decision, lawmakers in my home state
of Utah passed Senate Bill 184, preventing the exercise of eminent
domain authority by redevelopment agencies, which otherwise has the
power to transfer land from one private entity to another.
This legislation effectively took the matter out of the courts by
placing a higher value on the private property rights of individuals
than a city's desire to increase tax revenues.
Just as this legislation served as a wake-up call to redevelopment
agencies throughout Utah, I believe the Kelo decision woke America up
to the fact that over time, our property rights have quietly been
eroded like a stream of water slowly erodes its bank. Fortunately, this
erosion has not gone unnoticed by westerners or those they've sent to
Washington to represent them.
Private property rights have long been held close to the heart by
families and landowners in the Western United States and for good
reason. Their farms and ranches have been their livelihood and part of
our national heritage since the frontier was closed and the West was
settled.
Today many westerners not only have to fight for their economic
survival but also have to worry whether their property will be around
for them to pass on to future generations. The Federal Government owns
more than 50 percent of all land in the West and the population
continues to grow.
I am Chairman of the Congressional Western Caucus, and one of our
core principles is ``the necessity to protect private property.'' It is
the Caucus' position that property rights are the foundation of a free
society; that landowners should be compensated when their land is taken
or when regulations deprive them of the use of their property.
In H.R. 4128, Chairman Sensenbrenner and the Committee have produced
a bill that represents an important step towards revitalizing basic
property rights in this country.
I also believe there is more that can be done to help stem the long-
term trend away from property right protections. I, along with my
western colleagues, plan to introduce a broad, comprehensive piece of
property rights legislation in the near future that will restore much
of what has been lost. We believe this bill, in addition to H.R. 4128,
will help breathe life into the property rights movement.
The property rights issue is not a class issue. It's not a partisan
issue. It's an issue that concerns every property owner in the United
States. As Justice Sandra Day O'Conner said in her dissent, ``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.''
I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting H.R. 4128 to
prevent further abuse of government power.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Eminent Domain
Property Act offered by my colleague from Wisconsin, Chairman
Sensenbrenner. This bipartisan-supported bill was introduced in
response to the Supreme
[[Page H9588]]
Court's 5-4 decision in Kelo vs. City of New London, which condoned the
use of eminent domain to take private property and transfer it to
another private entity for the stated purpose of economic development.
Mr. Chairman, the Kelo decision put homeowners, small business
owners, and farmers all across the country at risk of losing their
property to this expansion of the government's eminent domain powers.
The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution allows local government
to use eminent domain powers to condemn private property. The only
requirement is that owners are given ``just compensation'' and that the
land in question goes to a ``public use.'' Traditionally, the ``public
use'' requirement in eminent domain cases allowed the local government
to condemn property to build railroads, or bridges, or highways. But in
a 1954 case, Berman v. Parker, the Supreme Court found that ``public
use'' could include condemning blighted neighborhoods to build better
ones as a means to raise more tax revenue. But, whereas the Berman case
was predicated on the property being `blighted,' the Kelo decision goes
further down the slippery slope and rests solely on whether the
condemnation would improve tax revenues.
I would assert, as Justice Scalia did in the Kelo case, that any
conceivable commercial development that replaces a church, house, or
farm will produce more tax revenue, and that once condemned land is
passed off to private developers, it is no longer going to ``public
use.'' That is why I strongly believe Congress must act to limit
States' eminent domain actions if the only requirement is that the
proposed project improves the tax base.
The Eminent Domain Property Act of 2005 will prohibit the Federal
Government from using eminent domain for private economic development
and also prohibits States from using eminent domain for private
economic development if the State receives any Federal economic
development funding. A violation by any State will result with the
State being ineligible for a Federal economic development for two
years. By denying municipalities all Federal development funds when
they abuse their eminent domain authority, H.R. 4128 provides a strong
economic disincentive to prevent municipalities and local governments
from taking private property for the purpose of private economic
development.
Lastly, Mr. Chairman, my district in western Wisconsin is largely
rural and dependent on the agricultural economy of its many small
family farmers. As the sense of Congress portion of this legislation
points out, the unfortunate truth is that agricultural lands are
particularly vulnerable to the abuse of eminent domain power.
Agricultural lands tend to have a lower fair market value than
surrounding commercial and residential properties, making them a prime
target for growing communities.
It is hard enough, for our struggling farmers who are facing
softening commodity prices and weather related disasters, to also have
to contend with losing their way of life so that others can have yet
another shopping mall.
Mr. Chairman, I commend my colleague, Chairman Sensenbrenner on
crafting this bipartisan legislation and I urge it's adoption and
support.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of H.R.
4128, the Private Property Rights Protection Act. The bill is in
response to the recent Supreme Court decision, Kelo v. City of New
London, which condoned the use of eminent domain to take private
property and transfer it to another private entity for the stated
purpose of economic development. This decision puts all property owners
at risk. In rural communities and in urban communities, our livelihood
is deeply tied to the land and our belief in private property rights
runs strong and deep. Landowners should not be vulnerable to the whims
of a government that decides to take their land away.
I am opposed to the ruling because it threatens to make all private
property subject to the highest bidder. In response to the Supreme
Court decision, I am pleased to lend my support to this legislation
because it protects Americans' constitutional rights and punishes those
who abuse those rights.
The bill does not change state law, nor does it affect the
traditional use of eminent domain for the construction of roads,
military bases, hospitals, or other truly public uses. Rather, H.R.
4128 provides an effective deterrent against states using their eminent
domain authority for private economic development and I urge my
colleagues to support its passage.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4128, the ``Private Property Rights
Protection Act'' is a timely response to the horrendous Kelo decision.
I am supportive of this bill and call for its expedited passage. I want
to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner for his leadership on this issue and
look forward to working with him and others to see this bill as it
moves through the House and Senate.
Property rights are the heart of the individual freedom and the
foundation for all other civil rights guaranteed to Americans by the
Constitution. Without the freedom to acquire, possess and defend
property, all other guaranteed rights are merely words on a page.
The Fifth Amendment holds that private property shall not be taken by
the government for public use without compensation. These safeguards
have been under assault for decades and until now, the typical victims
were family farmers and ranchers in the West.
The Supreme Court's decision in the Kelo v. City of New London case
to allow local governments to declare eminent domain in this case goes
beyond compensation; it wholly perverts the intent of public use, and
in so doing, may turn the American dream of home ownership into a
nightmare. It has delivered the property rights assault from rural
America right to the doorsteps of suburbia.
In New London, Connecticut, city planners essentially decided that
evicting 15 homeowners from their homes was in the ``greater good'' as
a ``public use'' for an office park and new condos. But the public, to
be directly served in this case, was a private corporation. Whether
they were newly wed couples in their first home or life-long residents
who owned their homes outright, whether it is farmers and ranchers
which have been on their land for generations or urban and suburban
communities with the promise of fellowship, this appalling behavior
cannot be tolerated any more. The Supreme Court's decision to allow
local government to declare eminent domain turns the Fifth Amendment on
its head. However, we cannot forget about rural America. Rural America
has been fighting this fight for decades and deserves praise for their
unshakable stance on protecting private property.
No longer will public use correctly be defined as a road, bridge, or
hospital. Now it can be defined as an abstract good, such as increased
tax revenue or economic development. Private property can now be taken
at will by government and reallocated to another private entity if it
runs afoul of a local bureaucrat's notion of public use and greater
good. H.R. 4128 would greatly discourage this behavior and the total
disregard for private property protections.
Fortunately, Congress maintains the power over the purse strings. We
will act to minimize the effects of this ruling to the greatest extent
possible. This bill will prevent States and localities from ever doing
this again by withholding economic development funds. However, many
States and local communities alike are recognizing the importance of
private property rights and beginning to act to protect themselves from
this decision. This will assist their efforts.
On the other hand, I do believe this legislation can be improved.
Under this bill, if a State or locality takes property in violation of
this legislation they will incur a 2 year prohibition of economic
development funds. That is not long enough. We need to hold States and
localities to a higher standard. By withholding Federal economic
development funds for a longer period of time, if not permanently,
States and localities will rethink the taking of private property, or
remedy their previous egregious actions. They need to know there will
be consequences. By withholding these funds for an extended period of
time, if not indefinitely, they will understand the seriousness of our
intentions.
We have a chance at real reform here and this legislation should be
passed. Again, I would like to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner for
bringing this to the Floor as quickly as you did and I look forward to
working with you in every step of the process to see this commendable
legislation enacted. I have been fighting these injustices since before
I was elected to this body and will continue to do so in the future.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4128, the
Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005.
I was alarmed by the United States Supreme Court's 5-4 decision to
allow private property to be seized in the name of ``economic
development.'' On June 23, 2005, the Court ruled that the City of New
London, Connecticut could seize a series of privately owned homes,
offer the homeowners ``just compensation'' and re-sell those properties
to private entrepreneurs as part of a city-approved plan aimed at
raising the land value and increasing the city's tax base. The court
justified the ruling by arguing that the city had the right to seize
the private property under the ``public use'' clause of the United
States Constitution's 5th Amendment. The 5th Amendment reads as
follows:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or
otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or
indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the
land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual
service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person
be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy
of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case
to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall
private property be taken for public use, without just
compensation.
[[Page H9589]]
No one has ever denied the fact that in certain rare cases, a
government (federal, state, or local) must exercise its
Constitutionally limited power to seize land in order to complete a
public project like a road, school, military base, or court house. That
power is known as ``eminent domain.'' America's Founding Fathers
acknowledged it as an unfortunate, but sometimes necessary, evil and it
has historically been pursued in America with great reservation.
According to a majority of the Court however, seizing private property
in the name of ``public use'' does not necessarily mean that the
property seized must be used for the public. Instead, the land seized
could merely be used in the name of a ``public purpose.'' While the
concurring justices never actually define what constitutes a ``public
purpose,'' they write that the elected politicians on the local, state,
and federal level are more than capable of making such determinations
on their own. In this particular case, the ``public purpose'' happened
to be a pharmaceutical research facility, a waterfront hotel, and a
series of new commercial and residential buildings.
As a result of the Court's 5-4 ruling, any government body (city
council, state assembly, Congress) with a good enough lawyer or simply
a one vote majority can now take any citizen's private property, offer
``just compensation,'' and dispense with it as it sees fit. In other
words, your property is now only your property so long as the
government wants it to be.
John Adams once said, ``The moment that the idea is admitted into
society that property is not as sacred as the Laws of God, and that
there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy
and tyranny commence. Property must be sacred or liberty cannot
exist.'' Allowing a man's property to be so easily taken at the whim of
a legislative body represents a complete departure from the very core
value upon which America was founded--your natural human right to your
property. America's Founding Fathers considered property to be the one
sacred right above all others. They knew that true freedom came not
from a political declaration or a legislative promise but from the
ability of each and every citizen to dispense with his property as he
saw fit. Those who would take that right away often try to assure us
that by surrendering the freedom to control the supposedly less
important aspects of our lives, we shall somehow obtain freedom in the
pursuit of higher values. I could not disagree more. The ability to
control your own property, whether it be your home, your car, or even a
simple trinket, is not simply some marginal aspect of life which can be
separated from the rest. It is the means to express your values and
strive for your dreams. It is the ability to offer shape to your
highest ideals and reject those that conflict. In short, it is freedom.
Now the human right to property seems relegated to a mere
afterthought. The Institute for Justice, which represented the New
London residents in court, released a study showing some 10,000 cases
between 1998 and 2002 where local governments in 41 states used or
threatened to use eminent domain to take property from one private
owner and give it to another. The New York State Supreme Court forced a
man off of property his family had owned for more than a hundred years
to make way for the new headquarters of The New York Times. Several
cities in Ohio have already seized homes in the name of ``economic
development''--be it a shopping mall or a new factory. And now the
highest court in the land has confirmed that this is all completely
legal.
The Kelo decision merely confirmed a depressing trend where those who
think ``government knows best'' gain and property rights and therefore
liberty yield. I believe that government which governs best is that
which governs least. I believe in property rights and the rule of the
written law that is the Constitution.
I am proud to support the Private Property Rights Protection Act of
2005. But this bill is merely a first step. The only truly effective
way to stop these abuses of power is for every American citizen to
remain vigilant in observing that every government official that has
sworn an allegiance to uphold the written law of the Constitution
remains true to his word. That fight however, begins here, today. I
urge my colleagues to take the first step toward once again defending
every American's basic human right to his or her property by voting for
this important bill.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, as a fourth generation rancher, my life has
been shaped by the traditions and values associated with proper
stewardship of the land. Our Constitutional rights put property
ownership of capital importance in the Fifth Amendment.
The right to own property is the backbone of our free-market system.
With eminent domain becoming an expanding practice, a bipartisan
approach bridging urban, suburban, and rural communities is necessary
to uphold the rights of the individual.
The regulatory takings that have been plaguing America's family
farmers and ranchers have now spread to suburban neighborhoods, as the
decision in the Kelo v. City of New London made absolutely clear.
Congress has an inherent responsibility to uphold the Constitution, and
on the property rights of United States citizens, the Constitution is
clear. The need for H.R. 4128 has never been greater.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson). All time for general debate has
expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute
printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered
read.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
H.R. 4128
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Private Property Rights
Protection Act of 2005''.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON EMINENT DOMAIN ABUSE BY STATES.
(a) In General.--No State or political subdivision of a
State shall exercise its power of eminent domain, or allow
the exercise of such power by any person or entity to which
such power has been delegated, over property to be used for
economic development or over property that is subsequently
used for economic development, if that State or political
subdivision receives Federal economic development funds
during any fiscal year in which it does so.
(b) Ineligibility for Federal Funds.--A violation of
subsection (a) by a State or political subdivision shall
render such State or political subdivision ineligible for any
Federal economic development funds for a period of 2 fiscal
years following a final judgment on the merits by a court of
competent jurisdiction that such subsection has been
violated, and any Federal agency charged with distributing
those funds shall withhold them for such 2-year period, and
any such funds distributed to such State or political
subdivision shall be returned or reimbursed by such State or
political subdivision to the appropriate Federal agency or
authority of the Federal Government, or component thereof.
(c) Opportunity to Cure Violation.--A State or political
subdivision shall not be ineligible for any Federal economic
development funds under subsection (b) if such State or
political subdivision returns all real property the taking of
which was found by a court of competent jurisdiction to have
constituted a violation of subsection (a) and replaces any
other property destroyed and repairs any other property
damaged as a result of such violation.
SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON EMINENT DOMAIN ABUSE BY THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.
The Federal Government or any authority of the Federal
Government shall not exercise its power of eminent domain to
be used for economic development.
SEC. 4. PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION.
(a) Cause of Action.--Any owner of private property who
suffers injury as a result of a violation of any provision of
this Act may bring an action to enforce any provision of this
Act in the appropriate Federal or State court, and a State
shall not be immune under the eleventh amendment to the
Constitution of the United States from any such action in a
Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction. Any such
property owner may also seek any appropriate relief through a
preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order.
(b) Limitation on Bringing Action.--An action brought under
this Act may be brought if the property is used for economic
development following the conclusion of any condemnation
proceedings condemning the private property of such property
owner, but shall not be brought later than seven years
following the conclusion of any such proceedings and the
subsequent use of such condemned property for economic
development.
(c) Attorneys' Fee and Other Costs.--In any action or
proceeding under this Act, the court shall allow a prevailing
plaintiff a reasonable attorneys' fee as part of the costs,
and include expert fees as part of the attorneys' fee.
SEC. 5. NOTIFICATION BY ATTORNEY GENERAL.
(a) Notification to States and Political Subdivisions.--
(1) Not later than 30 days after the enactment of this Act,
the Attorney General shall provide to the chief executive
officer of each State the text of this Act and a description
of the rights of property owners under this Act.
(2) Not later than 120 days after the enactment of this
Act, the Attorney General shall compile a list of the Federal
laws under which Federal economic development funds are
distributed. The Attorney General shall compile annual
revisions of such list as necessary. Such list and any
successive revisions of such list shall be communicated by
the Attorney General to the chief executive officer of each
State and also made available on the Internet website
maintained by the United States Department of Justice for use
by the public and by the authorities in each State and
political subdivisions of each State empowered to take
private property and convert it to public use subject to just
compensation for the taking.
(b) Notification to Property Owners.--Not later than 30
days after the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General
shall publish in the
[[Page H9590]]
Federal Register and make available on the Internet website
maintained by the United States Department of Justice a
notice containing the text of this Act and a description of
the rights of property owners under this Act.
SEC. 6. REPORT.
Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
Act, and every subsequent year thereafter, the Attorney
General shall transmit a report identifying States or
political subdivisions that have used eminent domain in
violation of this Act to the Chairman and Ranking Member of
the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives and to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the
Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate. The report shall--
(1) identify all private rights of action brought as a
result of a State's or political subdivision's violation of
this Act;
(2) identify all States or political subdivisions that have
lost Federal economic development funds as a result of a
violation of this Act, as well as describe the type and
amount of Federal economic development funds lost in each
State or political subdivision and the Agency that is
responsible for withholding such funds;
(3) discuss all instances in which a State or political
subdivision has cured a violation as described in section
2(c) of this Act.
SEC. 7. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING RURAL AMERICA.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
(1) The founders realized the fundamental importance of
property rights when they codified the Takings Clause of the
Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which requires that
private property shall not be taken ``for public use, without
just compensation''.
(2) Rural lands are unique in that they are not
traditionally considered high tax revenue-generating
properties for State and local governments. In addition,
farmland and forest land owners need to have long-term
certainty regarding their property rights in order to make
the investment decisions to commit land to these uses.
(3) Ownership rights in rural land are fundamental building
blocks for our Nation's agriculture industry, which continues
to be one of the most important economic sectors of our
economy.
(4) In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v.
City of New London, abuse of eminent domain is a threat to
the property rights of all private property owners, including
rural land owners.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the use of eminent domain for the purpose of economic
development is a threat to agricultural and other property in
rural America and that the Congress should protect the
property rights of Americans, including those who reside in
rural areas. Property rights are central to liberty in this
country and to our economy. The use of eminent domain to take
farmland and other rural property for economic development
threatens liberty, rural economies, and the economy of the
United States. Americans should not have to fear the
government's taking their homes, farms, or businesses to give
to other persons. Governments should not abuse the power of
eminent domain to force rural property owners from their land
in order to develop rural land into industrial and commercial
property. Congress has a duty to protect the property rights
of rural Americans in the face of eminent domain abuse.
SEC. 8. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act the following definitions apply:
(1) Economic development.--The term ``economic
development'' means taking private property, without the
consent of the owner, and conveying or leasing such property
from one private person or entity to another private person
or entity for commercial enterprise carried on for profit, or
to increase tax revenue, tax base, employment, or general
economic health, except that such term shall not include--
(A) conveying private property to public ownership, such as
for a road, hospital, or military base, or to an entity, such
as a common carrier, that makes the property available for
use by the general public as of right, such as a railroad, or
public facility, or for use as a right of way, aqueduct,
pipeline, or similar use;
(B) removing harmful uses of land provided such uses
constitute an immediate threat to public health and safety;
(C) leasing property to a private person or entity that
occupies an incidental part of public property or a public
facility, such as a retail establishment on the ground floor
of a public building;
(D) acquiring abandoned property;
(E) clearing defective chains of title; and
(F) taking private property for use by a public utility.
(2) Federal economic development funds.--The term ``Federal
economic development funds'' means any Federal funds
distributed to or through States or political subdivisions of
States under Federal laws designed to improve or increase the
size of the economies of States or political subdivisions of
States.
(3) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, or any other territory or possession of the United
States.
SEC. 9. SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
(a) Severability.--The provisions of this Act are
severable. If any provision of this Act, or any application
thereof, is found unconstitutional, that finding shall not
affect any provision or application of the Act not so
adjudicated.
(b) Effective Date.--This Act shall take effect upon the
first day of the first fiscal year that begins after the date
of the enactment of this Act, but shall not apply to any
project for which condemnation proceedings have been
initiated prior to the date of enactment.
SEC. 10. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
It is the policy of the United States to encourage,
support, and promote the private ownership of property and to
ensure that the constitutional and other legal rights of
private property owners are protected by the Federal
Government.
SEC. 11. BROAD CONSTRUCTION.
This Act shall be construed in favor of a broad protection
of private property rights, to the maximum extent permitted
by the terms of this Act and the Constitution.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the committee amendment is in
order except those printed in House Report 109-266. Each amendment may
be offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered 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 an amendment,
and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 printed in House Report 109-266 offered by
Mr. Sensenbrenner:
Page 9, strike lines 1 through 7, and insert the following:
(A) conveying private property--
(i) to public ownership, such as for a road, hospital,
airport, or military base;
(ii) to an entity, such as a common carrier, that makes the
property available to the general public as of right, such as
a railroad or public facility;
(iii) for use as a road or other right of way or means,
open to the public for transportation, whether free or by
toll;
(iv) for use as an aqueduct, flood control facility,
pipeline, or similar use;
Page 8, line 7, after ``States.'' insert the following:
``The taking of farmland and rural property will have a
direct impact on existing irrigation and reclamation
projects. Furthermore, the use of eminent domain to take
rural private property for private commercial uses will force
increasing numbers of activities from private property onto
this Nation's public lands, including its National forests,
National parks and wildlife refuges. This increase can
overburden the infrastructure of these lands, reducing the
enjoyment of such lands for all citizens.''.
Add at the end the following new section:
SEC. __. LIMITATION ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act may be construed to supersede, limit,
or otherwise affect any provision of the Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970
(42 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.).
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 527, the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, the manager's amendment simply makes clear that private
roads and those that are open to the public, free or by toll, and flood
control facilities are covered under the exceptions of the bill. It
also includes a savings clause making clear that nothing in the
legislation shall be construed to affect the Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, which
requires the Federal Government to pay the displacement costs of those
adversely affected by the Federal Government's use of eminent domain.
The manager's amendment also incorporates into the bill's sense of
congress section some language provided by the Resources Committee
regarding the effect of the abuse of eminent domain on irrigation and
reclamation projects and on public lands.
I urge my colleagues to support the improvements made by this
manager's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed to the amendment, and I
ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin.
[[Page H9591]]
This amendment does not change the bill in any substantive way.
Rather, this amendment seeks to clarify some of the exceptions that
provide for the use of eminent domain for those uses that have
traditionally been considered for a public purpose.
This amendment also enhances the sense of congress provision and
points out that the bill does nothing to restrict the Federal
Government from fulfilling its obligation under current law when it
exercises eminent domain.
Most importantly, this amendment serves to reflect the bipartisan
interests of the various committees that have been at the forefront of
this issue, Agriculture, Resources and Judiciary. I am pleased that we
have been able to work together on what I feel is an appropriate
response to the Kelo decision.
I just want to say to Chairman Sensenbrenner, you know how strongly I
feel about this issue. And while I offered some amendments in committee
so that there would be absolutely no exceptions, I think that if we are
able to pass this bill today we will have taken a giant step to stop
what I think is a wrongheaded decision by the Supreme Court. So I am
willing to certainly support the chairman's amendment, and if we have
to continue to work on this issue to get to where I want to be with no
exceptions, then I will look forward to working with the gentleman in
the future on it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Nadler
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 2 printed in House Report 109-266 offered by
Mr. Nadler:
Page 2, line 8, strike ``(a) In General.--''.
Page 2, strike line 16 and all that follows through line 17
on page 3.
Page 4, beginning in line 1, strike ``to enforce any
provision of this Act'' and insert ``to obtain appropriate
injunctive or declaratory relief,''.
Page 4, beginning in line 6, strike ``Any'' and all that
follows through line 16.
Page 4, line 17, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(b)''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 527, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Nadler) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very straightforward and, in my
opinion, will better protect the rights of property owners than the way
the bill is designed.
Under the bill, if the government takes your property for a
prohibited purpose, you could sue, and if you win your lawyers get paid
and your town gets bankrupted. You get no damages, and if you think the
town will bulldoze the new downtown and rebuild your house, you are
fooling yourself.
{time} 1545
Instead, you should have the right, and my amendment grants you the
right, to go to court and stop the government in the first place dead
in its tracks. Americans do not want to bankrupt their towns; they want
to keep their homes.
Keep in mind the economic threat the penalties of this bill would
pose to every single State and local government in the country.
Any property owner under this bill could sue for 7 years after the
conclusion of the condemnation proceeding, or at any time in the future
if a public facility is later used for a private purpose.
This is an open-ended and catastrophic threat. No financial
institution would underwrite a bond or extend any financing to a city
or State because the risk is too great. No private company would take a
public contract because the city could lose 2 years' funding in the
future. If the current city administration does not want to use eminent
domain for any improper purpose or, for that matter, any proper
purpose, it will still have trouble floating bonds because maybe its
successor 10 years from now will use eminent domain improperly, they
will lose 2 years of all the Federal revenue, and they will not be able
to repay the bonds. Therefore, the bond counsel now will instruct the
people not to lend to the city. No bank would do business with a public
contractor for the same reason.
This is absurd. We should protect our homes. The way to do that is to
establish in this bill, as it does, a substantive right not to have
eminent domain used against your home or property for the prohibited
purposes, and then give you the right to enforce that by an injunction,
with attorneys' fees paid in advance, that stops it. You do not need
the ability of someone in the future to go to court and punish the city
which does not even get the property owner help.
So my amendment would say no penalty for the State or city later,
that is unnecessary, because we are granting you the right to get an
injunction, a permanent injunction to stop the taking in the first
place. That is the proper protection.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman this is a gutting amendment. It is a gutting amendment
because it removes the constitutional hook that this Congress and the
Federal Government have to prevent the abuses that have been sanctioned
by Kelo, and that is the Federal funds that have been used for economic
development.
The amendment strikes out all the penalty in the bill that would
prevent the government officials from abusing eminent domain. No
penalty, no tap on the wrist. We say you should not do it; but if you
go ahead and do it, then you are not going to be penalized. Without
these penalties in the bill, the government could take private property
from one person and simply give it to a wealthy corporation. Because
this amendment guts the entire bill, it ought to be opposed.
Under this legislation, there is a clear connection between the
Federal funds that would be denied and the abuse that Congress is
intending to prevent. The policy is that States and localities that
abuse their eminent domain power by using economic development as a
rationale for a taking should not be trusted with Federal economic
development funds that could contribute to similarly abusive land
grabs.
There is an entirely appropriate connection in the base bill between
the Federal policy of protecting private property rights from eminent
domain abuse and making sure that the Federal Government does not
subsidize eminent domain abusers. The amendment should be defeated for
these reasons.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this is not a gutting amendment. The constitutional
basis for granting the injunction against the taking is the fact that
the State is accepting Federal funds. The bill, on lines 12 through 15
on page 2, says clearly: ``if that State or political subdivision
receives Federal economic development funds during any fiscal year in
which it does so.'' That is the constitutional basis for saying, you
cannot do certain kinds of takings as this bill prohibits and, if you
do, you can establish penalties or injunctive relief.
All I am saying is, we are using the Federal jurisdictional hook that
the chairman mentioned and instead of penalizing later, which does not
help the homeowner who has lost his home, you say you can stop it now,
get an injunction for stopping it now, because the State has agreed not
to use its power in this way as a condition of taking Federal funds.
There is well-established constitutional law that we can condition
Federal funds on that.
That being the case, you can go into Federal or State court and get
an injunction if you do my amendment. With the injunction, you do not
have the taking, you do not have to worry about punishing anybody 10
years later, because there is no taking in the
[[Page H9592]]
first place. It is a much better protection for the property owner. We
prohibit the taking. The court says you cannot do it. There is no
constitutional problem with that.
It does not gut the bill because it says you do not have to punish
what cannot have occurred. It cannot have occurred because the bill
would now say you may not do it; and if you may not do it, the court
will prohibit you from doing it, because we are establishing the right
to go into court in advance and get an injunction against it.
So total protection of the property owner against the improper
taking. You do not have to worry about fouling up the State or city's
ability to float bonds or the State or city finances later; you do not
punish all the citizens of the city because the mayor is paying off
some campaign contributor with a private taking, just prohibit the
mayor from doing so in the first place and enforce that by letting the
property owner get an injunction, period.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Waters).
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully offer this statement against
the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York. Essentially, this
amendment eliminates the teeth of this bill: the denial of Federal
funds for 2 fiscal years to those States and cities that have violated
this act. The denial of Federal economic development funds should serve
as a real deterrent for those States and cities that want to exercise
eminent domain for development, that is, the taking of private property
for private use. Without this provision, this bill will not be taken
seriously, and the eminent domain abuses that many in this country are
complaining about will continue.
I just waved before my colleagues a list of over 125 cases of the
taking of private land for private use, or attempts to do that; and I
think the bill that we have before us today will stop this kind of
abuse of eminent domain.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
Mr. Chairman, the fact is, this does not gut the bill, as the
gentlewoman from California said. It takes out the penalty, but you do
not need the penalty because you establish the right of the court and
the duty of the court to stop it in the first place. There will be no
private taking for the prohibited use because you give the rights to
the landowner to get an injunction against it in the first place. It is
a much better protection than worrying about punishing the city later.
You do not have to punish the city because you protect against it in
advance, 100 percent.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the
time.
Mr. Chairman, we do not know if the gentleman from New York's
approach is constitutional. That has not been tried before, and it
would be a case of first impression in the courts.
We know that the provision of denying Federal funds in the base bill
is constitutional, because it was done by this Congress 20 years ago
where we denied States transportation funds that did not raise the
drinking age to 21. So the constitutional precedent was set 20 years
ago in the transportation area. The base bill does that. The
gentleman's amendment does not. That is why it ought to be rejected.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Sodrel
Mr. SODREL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 4 printed in House Report 109-266 offered by
Mr. Sodrel:
Page 4, line 6, after ``jurisdiction.'' insert ``In such
action, the defendant has the burden to show by clear and
convincing evidence that the taking is not for economic
development.''
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 527, the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Sodrel) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. SODREL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the chairman and ranking member for bringing this bill
forward, a bill that I was proud to cosponsor.
H.R. 4128 is a good bill. It addresses a new-found power of
government that frightens every homeowner and small businessman, the
possibility of having their home or business involuntarily taken to be
given to someone else to build some other business or development that
government may prefer. Compounding that fear is the fear of having to
go to court and pay to prove that the government violated the
provisions of this bill, having to pay a lawyer and possibly hire
experts to prove that the taking of their property is for economic
development in violation of the act.
My amendment clarifies that the burden of proof is on the State or
the agency seeking to take the property, and the evidence it has
provided must go beyond merely saying so. This issue is important
enough that a court reviewing the taking should not give deference to
the government assertions that the ultimate use of the property is for
other than economic development as outlined in the act. The burden of
proof should rightly be placed on the government entity that initiated
the action, not on the property owner. I urge the adoption of this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I will claim the time in opposition,
even though I am not opposed.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Wisconsin
will control the time in opposition.
There was no objection.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would help property owners by putting
the burden of proof on the government to show that it is not abusing
eminent domain by taking private property for a private use. It is a
good amendment, and I support it.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment also. I am tired
of poor people and working people having to go and find lawyers and pay
them. Who can afford $250 and $300 an hour? The average poor person
certainly cannot. So you are right, let us put it on the entity that is
trying to pull these tricks in the first place to take these properties
away from these citizens.
So I support the amendment.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Sodrel).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Moran of Virginia
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 5 printed in House Report 109-266 offered by
Mr. Moran of Virginia:
Page 8, strike line 17 and all that follows through line 19
on page 9 and insert the following:
(1) Economic development.--The term ``economic
development'' means taking private property, without the
consent of the owner, and conveying or leasing such property
from the taking authority to a private person or entity, or
from such private person or entity to another private person
or entity, where the grantee or lessee person or entity is to
use the property for commercial enterprise carried on for
profit, or where the conveying or leasing is for the primary
purpose of increasing tax revenue, tax base, employment, or
general economic health, except that such term shall not
include--
(A) conveying private property for a public use, such as--
(i) for a road, hospital, or military base;
(ii) for use by the general public as of right, such as a
railroad or public facility; or
[[Page H9593]]
(iii) for use as a right of way, aqueduct, pipeline,
utility or similar use;
(B) removing harmful uses of land provided such uses
constitute an immediate threat to public health and safety;
(C) leasing property to a private person or entity that
occupies an incidental part of public property or a public
facility, such as a retail establishment on the ground floor
of a public building;
(D) acquiring abandoned property; and
(E) clearing defective chains of title.
Page 4, beginning in line 15, strike ``and the subsequent
use of such condemned property for economic development''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 527, the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Well, here we have those folks who are considered to be on the far
left and those on the far right and those just left of center and those
just right of center; everybody agrees that this bill should be passed.
It reminds me of a comment or observation that Plato once made: ``The
minority are oftentimes wrong, but the majority always are.''
Now, I can understand why we are reflexively doing this bill, but I
cannot understand why we would make this bill so broad with such an
interminably long period of time with which to take any grievance to
the courts, that it will create unintended consequences which will
cause very severe consequences and economic problems for localities all
over our country.
We do not have one dictatorship at the local level of American
government. Every single official at every single level of local
government is elected, so all of them are responsible to the voters;
and that is where this should be decided.
But I am going to suggest two changes that will be achieved by my
amendment. They address the two major deficiencies of this bill: first,
it is much too broad; and, secondly, the period of time within which a
government can be sued is much too long.
The broad definition of ``economic development'' in section 8
includes a conveyance or lease of property that is ``to increase tax
revenue, tax base employment, or general economic health.''
Unfortunately, practically every conveyance of condemned property can
have at least an incidental or secondary purpose and effect of
increasing taxes, creating jobs, or otherwise producing a positive
economic impact, virtually everything that a local government may need
to do even though that might not be the primary purpose of the taking.
{time} 1600
So the bill has the potential of prohibiting virtually every taking
which occurs as part of public-private partnerships that are not for
economic development purposes at all, for example, the conveyance or
lease of condemned property as part of a public-private partnership to
a private entity that could be used for a waste-to-energy facility.
The processing of solid waste would be prohibited under this.
Delivering recreational services in a public area, a public park.
Supplying affordable housing. I could give you any number of examples
that would have been precluded under this. Providing a parking facility
in a downtown that is desperately needed in many communities.
These projects may well produce tax revenues, new jobs, a healthier
economy, but that is not the primary purpose of these projects. Their
primary purpose is simply to deliver a service that the local community
needs and to do so by partnering with a private for-profit entity. Yet
the broad language of the bill would prohibit virtually all such
public-private partnerships.
My amendment addresses this problem by making clear that the bill
reaches the conveyance or lease of condemned property definition only
when the primary purpose of the transaction is the increase of taxes,
jobs or economic benefits. That is a change that is very much needed to
this legislation.
Secondly, the time to file suit under the bill is much too long.
Under the bill, a cause of action must be brought no later than 7 years
following the conclusion of condemnation proceedings and the subsequent
use of such condemned property for economic development. So where you
have a property that was condemned, say, next year, in 2006, and the
owner believes its economic development use begins in 2011, the owner
has until 2018, 12 years after the property's condemnation, to
challenge its validity. In many cases, the statute could extend the
right to sue for generations to come.
There is no need or reason to provide such a lengthy statute of
limitations. The validity of a condemnation action has to be put to
rest in some reasonable time; and the Judiciary Committee has, in other
contexts, agreed with that principle.
The 7 years should be measured from the conclusion of the
condemnation proceeding. At this time, a property owner knows whether
his or her property has been taken, knows the reasons for the taking,
and can judge whether the taking is subject to the bill's prohibition.
My amendment would reduce the statute of limitations to 7 years from
the end of the condemnation proceeding, not 7 years after the
property's economic development.
Mr. Chairman, this bill needs additional clarification, and I do
think this amendment would provide it. I have substantial problems with
this bill. So I am reluctant to fix it, but I know it is going to pass.
If it passes, it should be a bill that does not cause the kind of
unintended consequences this bill will impose on every locally elected
government.
Third, the bill defines ``economic development'' as conveying or
leasing condemned property from one private party to another private
party--but not from the condemning government to a private party.
However, in the ``real world,'' many economic development projects
involve the conveyance of condemned property from the condemning
authority to a private person or entity--a project the bill does not
reach. For instance, the bill would not reach the conveyance by a city
or county of 10 acres of taken property to, say, the Marriott
Corporation for the use as a convention center, even though the primary
purpose of the conveyance is the production of increased tax revenue
and jobs.
The amendment addresses this problem by including in the definition
of ``economic development'' conveyances and leases from the condemning
government to a private party. In addition, the bill makes some
corresponding technical changes to the definition of economic
development in light of the other changes I have just explained.
Mr. Chairman, to conclude, this bill is too broad, too unclear, and
overreaching. I urge you to adopt this amendment.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, unlike the characterization that my friend from
Virginia has made in this bill, this is a bill that is supported by the
mainstream of Members of Congress. And how many times in anybody's
congressional career would you see Jim Sensenbrenner and Maxine Waters
supporting the same bill? That means that we have a very, very big tent
of people who are supporting it, because it is the right thing to do.
The amendment should be defeated because it would gut the bill.
Because it completely goes back to the definition of public purpose
that the Supreme Court allowed this terrible miscarriage of justice to
occur in the Kelo case.
The Kelo decision held that the term public use could actually mean a
private use such that the government can take perfectly fine property
from one person just to give it to another wealthier person. And the
amendment would put back into the bill an exception for any public use,
I would submit, as defined by a majority vote of the city council,
which in the wake of the Kelo decision means a private use as well.
This amendment would put property owners everywhere back to where
they were before the Kelo decision, and that is way behind the eight
ball, subject to the mercy of a majority vote of their city council.
The whole point of this legislation is to counter the Supreme Court's
reading of public use in a way that includes private use as well, and
the amendment guts the bill by allowing exceptions for private uses as
well as public uses. Because this amendment is a giant step backwards
in the protection of property rights, it should be soundly defeated.
[[Page H9594]]
With respect to the comments the gentleman made on the statute of
limitations, yes, it is a long statute of limitations. Because the city
has the time and the money to wait out the property owner simply by
putting it on the shelf until the time expires. And we should have a
longer statute of limitation, rather than a shorter one, so that the
city cannot be tempted by the siren song of using its power and using
its money to run roughshod over the owner of a piece of private
property.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Waters).
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully offer this statement against
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to prohibit a taking of private
property only when the taking's primary purpose is economic
development, maybe for the parking lots he described.
I am fearful that such an amendment would create a loophole for
States and cities, allowing them to take property in a manner that is
inconsistent with this Act, by arguing that the economic benefits of
the taking were incidental rather than primary.
Also, this amendment seeks to confine property owners to a 7-year
period in which they must bring a suit under this Act. This means that
an owner who has had his or her property taken better hope that the
State or the city puts the property to use in 7 years. If a State or
city takes property for a public purpose, sits on it for 8 years and
then puts it to use for economic development, the owner has no
recourse.
Mr. Chairman, I do not think that you can argue that the statute of
limitations is too long. These people, citizens buy their homes, and
they expect to live in them for life. They do not expect someone to
come along and say that we have decided that we are going to give it to
someone else, a developer to develop for private purposes to make money
on.
So I would ask my colleagues to reject this amendment.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I would say very quickly to the
gentleman from Virginia, the majority that he mistrusts is about the
business of protecting the minority that he values, because a private
property owner facing eminent domain powers being used to take their
property for private economic development purposes is very much alone,
and he needs this kind of weight of authority behind him or her to
protect their private property rights.
If the gentleman's amendment is adopted, it will reopen exactly the
kind of confusing and controversial court decisions that we are about
trying to address here today. The specificity in the bill is superior
to the gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Turner
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 6 printed in House Report 109-266 offered by
Mr. Turner:
Page 9, beginning in line 8, strike ``provided'' and all
that follows through line 10 and insert ``, including a
property or preponderance of properties which constitute a
threat to public health and safety by reason of dilapidation,
obsolescence, overcrowding, lack of ventilation, light, and
sanitary facilities, excessive land coverage, deleterious
land use, obsolete subdivisions, or because it constitutes a
brownfield, as that term is defined in the Small Business
Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act (42
U.S.C. 9601(39))''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 527, the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Turner) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the Supreme Court in Kelo v. City of New London went
too far in allowing the taking of private property for private
development. Congress must take action to protect property rights of
individuals. However, we must be careful not to prohibit traditional
pre-Kelo justifications for eminent domain.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment enumerates harmful effects which
constitute a threat to public health and safety. These harmful effects
are traditional justifications for cities, municipalities and other
governmental entities to acquire property to protect public health and
safety. In fact, the list of harmful effects in my amendment includes
elements from several State laws.
The amendment is derived from the State definitions from Wisconsin,
the home of Chairman Sensenbrenner; Texas, the home of our President;
Illinois, the home of our Speaker; Missouri, the home of Majority
Leader Blunt; and Virginia, the home of Chairman Goodlatte.
I have also included an exception for brownfields in my amendment.
Brownfields, which are contaminated properties, are a dangerous problem
for cities and must be redeveloped to protect the current residents of
these communities and also bring people back into our cities.
This amendment, in order to protect public health and safety, has
been endorsed by the National Association of Home Builders, the
International Council of Shopping Centers, the National Association of
Industrial and Office Properties, the International Economic
Development Council, the Building Owners and Management Association
International, the Real Estate Roundtable, the American Institute of
Architects, the American Planning Association, the National Association
of Local Government Environmental Professionals, the United States
Conference of Mayors, the International City County Management
Association, and the National League of Cities.
This amendment, Mr. Chairman, is necessary. Without this amendment,
our States will lose their pre-Kelo authority.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment must be defeated because it uses
undefined terms that would gut this vital legislation designed to
protect the property rights of all Americans from abuse of Government
land grants.
The list of organizations that the gentleman from Ohio read off in
support of his amendment shows why it ought to be defeated, if we want
to stand up for the property rights of individual landowners.
The terms used in this amendment are broad in their scope; and,
consequently, the amendment would subject just about any property owner
in America to the threat of having their property taken by a government
official willing to abuse the power of eminent domain to take property
from one private citizen and give it to another wealthier developer.
The amendment would allow the taking profit for ``excessive land
coverage,'' ``lack of ventilation,'' ``lack of light,'' and
``obsolescence,'' just to name a few. None of these terms are defined
in the amendment, and each would be subject to tremendous abuse. No
home in the country would be safe if a government official were allowed
to use those concepts to take private property.
If a government bureaucrat thinks your porch is too big, they can
take your whole house and all of your land under the amendment. If your
barn has only one light bulb in it or no artificial light at all, then
your barn and all of the farm land surrounding it could be confiscated
by the government. Webster's Dictionary defines obsolete, which is one
of the terms used in this amendment, as of a kind or style no longer
current. Under the amendment, then, if the design of your house is out
of fashion in the eyes of government officials, you could lose both
your house and your property; and that is wrong.
[[Page H9595]]
The base bill already includes a reasonable exception that allows the
government to take property when property is being used in a way that
imposes an immediate threat to the public health and safety. And the
base bill does absolutely nothing, absolutely nothing that prevents
States and localities from enforcing public nuisance laws under its
police powers and tearing down an unsafe building.
But the amendment goes much further in a way that threatens low-
income and minority communities, and for that reason I join the NAACP
in opposing this amendment. Listen to what actual practitioners in the
field have to say about it. This is from the Institute for Justice, the
public interest law firm that represented Suzette Kelo and the other
New London homeowners who took their fight to keep their homes from
being taken for private commercial development all the way to the
Supreme Court.
The Institute for Justice states, ``In our experience litigating
eminent domain cases all over the country, we have seen each of the
terms in the amendment applied in such a way as to allow the use of
eminent domain on perfectly normal residential and business
neighborhoods. Dilapidation can mean that a building has chipped mortar
or needs a new handrail. Obsolescence can be a single-family home that
lacks three bedrooms, two full bathrooms and a two-car attached garage.
Both overcrowding and lack of ventilation, light and sanitary
facilities were routinely used during urban renewal to remove poor and
minority communities from their neighborhoods. Deleterious land use can
mean a combination of residences and businesses in a single area, even
though many planners think that such neighborhoods are ideal. Time and
time again, the terms found in this amendment have served as vehicles
for the abuse of eminent domain for private commercial development''.
From the Institute.
This gutting amendment should be defeated.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, wow, light bulbs burnt out, paint peeling, those are
scary things that the chairman has said would be used for eminent
domain. But not in America. That is not what the eminent domain pre-
Kelo has been in America.
The 49 States who have definitions of harmful effects that are in
this amendment are from States that have litigated over this issue and
that have taken into consideration the issue of property rights, the
issue of the property rights of individuals that live next to abandoned
factories, the people who have children that are in neighborhoods that
have property that is near them that has an impact on the public health
and safety. The ability for them to enjoy their property and to enjoy
it where they are living next to public health and safety threats are
what the amendment would rise to.
{time} 1615
It does not permit anybody to take any property because a light bulb
is burned out. In fact, again it is based on 49 States and the exact
language that is used by them in defining harmful effects. The
chairman's own State's language includes, from Wisconsin, dilapidation,
obsolescence, sanitation, light, air. These are not terms of burned-out
light bulbs. These are issues where they rise to the level of a safety
and health threat to the individuals of the communities, of the people
whose properties are next to them. It is not Kelo.
We all believe that Kelo has gone too far and that an individual's
property rights of his home should be protected. But similarly, the
home that stands next to a property that is abandoned and is a health
threat or the property that is next to a factory for which there are
health and safety issues for a community needs to be addressed. Forty-
nine States have passed legislation permitting eminent domain in public
safety and health threats. Certainly we should acknowledge this and not
take away from these communities the pre-Kelo rights of eminent domain.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Waters).
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner). This is the
most dangerous of all the amendments that have been offered today.
We take up the Private Property Rights Protection Act today in an
effort to provide all property owners with greater protections. The
Turner amendment will essentially create a blight exception. By
prohibiting the use of eminent domain for economic development in
almost all instances except blight, we make blighted communities an
easy target for States and cities.
This is why the NAACP supports this bill also. Too many of our
communities, the minority, the elderly and the low-income have
witnessed an abuse of eminent domain powers. Given this history of
abuse, we would like all legislative responses to Kelo to be sensitive
to that.
Historically and today, it has been too easy to characterize
minority, elderly or low-income communities as blighted for eminent
domain purposes and subject them to the will of the government. If
legislative proposals contain language that could potentially excluding
these communities from protection against eminent domain abuses, we
have failed to be sensitive to the interests of this constituency.
These communities should be afforded the same rights and protections
all homeowners, business owners, and other property owners will be
afforded in a Federal policy response to Kelo.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Ohio has 1
minute remaining.
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I have mixed emotions about this bill, but I
see it as an environmental bill. This is a great bill. This stops
growth, particularly the section of the sense of Congress on the use of
eminent domain funds to take farmland or other real property for
economic development. It just says you cannot do that.
But what really bothers me in this bill is the fact that the terms of
Federal economic development means any Federal funds distributed to or
through States or political subdivision of the States under Federal
laws designed to improve or increase the size of economies of the State
or political subdivisions.
As I look at it, those laws mean all the BRAC money that comes to
reuse of military bases. It means transportation monies. It means sewer
and water monies. It essentially is a no-growth bill. For those on the
environmental side this is good. For those who want to see some
economic development, we need this amendment.
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, in communities all across this country, there are
buildings that represent a public health and safety threat to a
community. Many times people drive by those buildings and they say to
their elected officials, someone ought to do something about that. It
is not a Kelo decision of saying we ought to have something better. It
is saying that there is something damaging to our community and
damaging to our neighborhoods.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio will be
postponed.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Gary G. Miller of California
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 7 printed in House Report No. 109-266 offered
by Mr. Gary G. Miller of California:
Page 9, line 17, strike ``and''.
Page 9, line 19, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
Page 9, after line 19, insert the following:
(G) redeveloping of a brownfield site as defined in the
Small Business Liability Relief
[[Page H9596]]
and Brownfields Revitalization Act (42 U.S.C. 9601(39)).
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 527, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner).
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The amendment would simply make an exception for the taking of
property that is categorized as a brownfield under Federal law, meaning
it is a site that contains or is perceived to contain hazardous
contaminants. I support the adoption of the amendment and commend the
gentleman from California for introducing it.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Reclaiming my time, I rise to offer
a modest amendment to ensure the Federal Government continues to work
with local communities to promote and encourage brownfield
redevelopment in America.
The bill has a list of exemptions that recognizes eminent domain is
sometimes used for legitimate purposes. These exemptions in H.R. 4128
are not sufficient to address brownfield sites. While the bill is an
important step to protect private property rights, it could have the
unintended consequence of inhibiting redevelopment of brownfield sites.
My amendment corrects the oversight by adding brownfield
redevelopment as specifically defined in the Small Business Liability
Relief and Brownfield Revitalization Act of 2001. Owners of brownfield
sites are frequently unwilling to sell them for fear of cleanup and
cost of contamination they find. Eminent domain can often help break
through legal and procedural barriers to the sale of the land.
To address this, local governments can take advantage of the
liability protection in CERCLA for acquiring potentially contaminated
sites ``through the exercise of eminent domain authority by purchaser
or condemnation.''
Without using eminent domain as provided for in CERCLA, a local
government would be held strictly liable for all costs and cleanup of
polluted land as the owner and operator of the site.
I want to stress strongly that brownfield sites are not residential
properties. They are abandoned, idle, or underused industrial and
commercial facilities where expansion or redevelopment is complicated
by real or perceived environmental contamination.
Let us make sure the cities have the tools they need to clean up
brownfield sites. It is a reasonable amendment, and I ask for an
``aye'' vote.
I rise today to offer a modest amendment to ensure the Federal
Government continues to work with local communities to promote and
encourage Brownfields redevelopment in America.
Protecting Private Property Rights is Important
There is no question that the right to own private property is one of
the cornerstones of American freedom.
Governmental regulatory takings are becoming more and more prevalent
in today's society and Congress must do everything possible to ensure
that lands acquired by private means are protected. As more and more
Americans are working to purchase property and become homeowners, the
threat of governmental takings must not overshadow the pursuit of the
American dream.
The recent United States Supreme Court decision set the precedent
that local governments may be afforded wide latitude in seizing
property for land-use decisions. I strongly disagree with the
implications of this decision. Private property has been the foundation
of our society, and I believe it is unwise for government to deprive
citizens of this most basic tenet of the American dream.
I am pleased that we have a bill before us today to respond to the
Supreme Court's ill-advised decision. While the bill is an important
step to protect private property rights, it could have the unintended
consequence of inhibiting the redevelopment of Brownfields sites.
Bill's Exemptions Do Not Cover Brownfields
The bill has a list of exemptions that recognize that eminent domain
is sometimes used for legitimate purposes. However, Brownfields
redevelopment is not part of this list.
The current exemptions in H.R. 4128 are not sufficient to address
Brownfields sites. Brownfields are not always ``abandoned'' and may not
``impose an immediate threat to health or safety.'' My amendment
corrects this oversight by adding Brownfields redevelopment as
specifically defined in the Small Business Liability Relief and
Brownfields Revitalization Act.
Brownfields Redevelopment is Important
Experts estimate that the United States has more than 450,000 vacant
or underused industrial sites as a result of environmental
contamination caused by chemical compounds and other hazardous
substances. These sites are known as Brownfields.
Brownfields represent more than just eyesores--they threaten our
groundwater supply, cost our local communities jobs and revenue, and
contribute to urban sprawl. Returning the nation's Brownfields sites to
productive economic development could generate more than 550,000
additional jobs and up to $2.4 billion in new tax revenues for cities
and towns.
We must not inhibit or stymie the ability of localities to
responsibly exercise eminent domain authority for the redevelopment of
Brownfield sites. The redevelopment of Brownfield sites has proven to
revitalize distressed neighborhoods, while fostering economic growth,
creating jobs, increasing local tax revenues, and reducing public
service demands.
This amendment will ensure that the use of eminent domain to
redevelop Brownfield sites will remain available.
Brownfields Pose Obstacles to Redevelopment that Sometimes Can Only Be
Overcome by Eminent Domain
Owners of Brownfield sites are frequently unwilling to sell them for
fear of the cleanup costs of any contamination found. Eminent domain
can often help break through legal and procedural barriers to the sale
of the land.
To address this, local governments can take advantage of the
liability protections in CERCLA for acquiring potentially contaminated
sites ``through the exercise of eminent domain authority by purchase or
condemnation.'' Without using eminent domain as provided for in CERCLA,
a local government would be held strictly liable for all costs of
cleaning up polluted land as an ``owner or operator'' of the site. As a
result, local governments would be less likely to redevelop a
Brownfield site.
By Promoting Brownfields Redevelopment, we are not throwing people out
of their homes
Brownfields are not Residential Properties. They are abandoned, idle,
or under-used industrial and commercial facilities where expansion or
redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived environmental
contamination.
Cities will not be able to abuse the Brownfields exception
The Brownfields Revitalization Act creates a specific scientific
standard for determining whether a former industrial site is a
potential Brownfield site.
The real problem is that when a property is a Brownfield, it is in
legal limbo. It is the ``possibility'' of contamination alone that
results in the lack of redevelopment. The land might not be
contaminated, but if the owners have reason to believe it might be, it
will likely sit, unused.
Without the city's ability to exercise eminent domain, many
contaminated properties that can be redeveloped would instead continue
to impose heavy environmental, financial, and social burdens on
communities.
Conclusion
We must give cities the opportunity to minimize urban sprawl and
preserve existing green space by allowing communities to work with
local developers and builders to utilize previously developed
properties.
This amendment preserves the ability of cities to take ownership of
Brownfields and work with their development community to design
projects that utilize existing infrastructure.
Most importantly, it is estimated that up to $2.4 billion in new tax
revenues can be generated through Brownfields redevelopment. Let's make
sure cities have the tools they need to clean up Brownfields sites.
I urge my colleagues to support this crucial amendment to demonstrate
that we support Brownfields redevelopment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I claimed this time to raise some concerns
about the amendment offered by the gentleman from California. I believe
the gentleman from California and the gentlewoman from Texas have a
sincere interest in furthering this Nation's development of
brownfields, land that is difficult to expand because of environmental
contamination. However, I believe that such development is already
protected under the bill.
First, this bill will provide an exception for removing harmful uses
of land
[[Page H9597]]
provided such uses constitute an immediate threat to health and safety.
If land truly constitutes a brownfield, then it meets this exception.
Second, brownfields are often acquired by clearing title on, for
example, old industrial property where ownership exchanged numerous
times without proper recording. The bill creates an exception for
clearing defective claims of title; and, again, brownfields would be
protected.
Brownfields are also protected under the abandoned property exception
that is in the bill. Owners often abandon these properties to escape
liability. I am confident that there are sufficient protections in this
bill for brownfields in question if an additional exception needs to be
created.
We do not want cities to now use the brownfields label as an excuse
to take private property and turn it over to a private business or
developer. Worse yet, we do not want brownfields to become the modern-
day blight exception.
You can see that we have heard requests for any number of exceptions,
and if we stayed on this floor for 24 hours or 48 hours, more Members,
perhaps, could think of reasons why you should take private land for
private use. I maintain that if you want to package land or you want to
acquire land, you have to work within the marketplace to do it. You
have to go out, you have to find the owners, you have to negotiate
market rates, you ``have'' to convince people it is for good uses. You
have to work. And you have to engage in order to acquire land. You
cannot simply come up with every excuse that is convenient to mayors
and city council members and to developers to take people's private
land.
If it is private, if it is owned, whether it is residence or business
or ``vacant'' land, whatever, it belongs to somebody, somebody paid for
it. They have a right to it. The government does not have the right to
take it. And so I would simply be opposed to yet another request for an
exception to this very good bill that is put forth to protect the
citizens of the States.
I commend the chairman and those of us on both sides of the aisle for
stepping forward in the manner that we have in a timely fashion to say
no.
I have often criticized my friends on the opposite side of the aisle
for accusing courts and the Supreme Court of creating law, of creating
legislation. They did it on this one. They absolutely did. The
Constitution simply says that you must compensate for the taking of
land for public use.
We are not opposed to eminent domain for public use. I question it
from time to time, but that is not what this is all about. This is
about the taking of private land for private use.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/4\
minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I proudly join the
gentleman from California in supporting this amendment.
I appreciate the response that H.R. 4128 is attempting to convey. We
just feel that there is a possibility that it might have some
unintended consequences.
In 2002, President Bush signed the Small Business Liability Relief
and Brownfields Revitalization Act, and that bill authorized $200
million annually for Federal assistance to States and local communities
to assess brownfield sites and to conduct cleanup where the assessment
indicates the cleanup was warranted.
The measure represented the centerpiece of the administration's
environmental agenda. It was widely praised and received broad
bipartisan support, and rightfully so. According to the Government
Accountability Office, there are well over 500,000 brownfields in
communities around the country; and brownfields represent the economic
opportunity wherever they exist.
These abandoned and underused industrial sites pose heavy economic,
financial, and social burdens on the community. These burdens include
blight, deterioration of neighboring properties and property values,
neighborhood health hazards from contamination, and increased need for
fire and police protection to limit the nuisance effect of brownfields,
and increased sprawl as individuals and families and businesses
relocate to the suburbs, farmland, and open space.
Over the past decade, communities across the country have realized
that responsible brownfield redevelopment can transform environmentally
impaired property into productive property and positively impact
distressed communities.
The city of Dallas that I represent was one of the first cities to be
designated as a brownfield showcase community by the Environmental
Protection Agency. Dallas has used assessment and remediation grant
programs to redevelop 35 sites in the core of the city.
Although the city has not used eminent domain to date in its
brownfield redevelopment projects, they have shared with me that they
certainly can anticipate perhaps a situation where the city might want
to do this to acquire. I fully and strongly support the amendment.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the
balance of my time.
The gentlewoman from California said a few things that I think I have
to address. She said she believed this is included within the bill. It
is not. The other thing she said is that the cities should work within
the marketplace to acquire these properties.
The problem you have with cities doing that is without eminent domain
that is provided for in CERCLA, a local government would be held
strictly liable for all costs of cleanup of the polluted land as the
owner-operator of the site. That is a complete different liability that
the city would accept through eminent domain.
By not having eminent domain through CERCLA, a city then would not
want to have a piece of property that was a brownfield because they
then are accepting the total liability of the owner. This is going to
shut down development in local communities. The problem we have with
the bill, there is no immediate threat to health because, as you know,
brownfields are usually fenced in. They are sites that are not being
used. The owners generally do not want to know if they are contaminated
because then they have to accept liability.
It is a reasonable amendment. I thank the chairman for accepting it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1630
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
I respect the gentleman's request for yet another exception, but I
oppose it. I think that the chairman and the framers of this
legislation have been very responsible in the way that we have tried to
advance a piece of legislation to protect the citizens of this Nation
from a bad Supreme Court decision.
A lot of people may be inconvenienced by our bill, people who want to
acquire property, people who want to take private property for a
development, people who want to make money, people who will use any
means necessary by which to gain property that they think will help to
bring them additional profits. There are a lot of reasons why people
will be inconvenienced by this bill.
The bottom line is we do not wish to continue to abuse and
inconvenience, marginalize and deny property owners of this country. We
feel that our number one responsibility is to the property owners. We
are elected to represent our citizens in the best way possible. There
is no better way to represent citizens than to say we stand with you in
the ownership of the land that you have bought, that you have
inherited, that you have invested in.
We know a lot of people may not like it. It may inconvenience some
people. You may not be able to build that parking lot, you may not be
able to develop that shopping center, but we stand with the people
against those kind of inconveniences. We ask for a ``no'' on the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Gingrey
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
[[Page H9598]]
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 8 printed in House Report 109-266 offered by
Mr. Gingrey:
Add at the end the following new section:
SEC. 12. RELIGIOUS AND NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS.
(a) Prohibition on States.--No State or political
subdivision of a State shall exercise its power of eminent
domain, or allow the exercise of such power by any person or
entity to which such power has been delegated, over property
of a religious or other nonprofit organization by reason of
the nonprofit or tax-exempt status of such organization, or
any quality related thereto if that State or political
subdivision receives Federal economic development funds
during any fiscal year in which it does so.
(b) Ineligibility for Federal Funds.--A violation of
subsection (a) by a State or political subdivision shall
render such State or political subdivision ineligible for any
Federal economic development funds for a period of 2 fiscal
years following a final judgment on the merits by a court of
competent jurisdiction that such subsection has been
violated, and any Federal agency charged with distributing
those funds shall withhold them for such 2-year period, and
any such funds distributed to such State or political
subdivision shall be returned or reimbursed by such State or
political subdivision to the appropriate Federal agency or
authority of the Federal Government, or component thereof.
(c) Prohibition on Federal Government.--The Federal
Government or any authority of the Federal Government shall
not exercise its power of eminent domain over property of a
religious or other nonprofit organization by reason of the
nonprofit or tax-exempt status of such organization, or any
quality related thereto.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 527, the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise today in support of this amendment I have offered to H.R.
4128, the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005.
Mr. Chairman, from Matthew 22:17, we know that the Pharisees tried to
trap Jesus regarding allegiance to the Roman government; and, of
course, Jesus said, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's but
render to God the things that are God's.
Mr. Chairman, for over 2,000 years God has owed no taxes to the
government, but that all changed on June 23, 2005.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment would add an additional section to this
bill to ensure that our houses of worship and other nonprofit
organizations are not penalized because they are tax-exempt and,
therefore, provide no revenue to the treasuries of State and local
governments. Thus, they became low-hanging fruit, ripe for the taking.
In the wake of the Kelo decision that gutted the property protections
of the fifth amendment, the properties of religious organizations and
other nonprofits have indeed become potential prime targets for the
government wrecking ball.
State and local governments should never target, or even contemplate
targeting, our houses of worship or nonprofit organizations simply
because another use of the property would almost certainly build up
their tax base.
Mr. Chairman, I believe my amendment turns this unique vulnerability
into an asset for our houses of worship and nonprofit organizations.
Its chilling effect will force State and local governments to think
twice before they contemplate buying gasoline for a steamroller to plow
down our houses of worship.
Mr. Chairman, I want to encourage my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to support my amendment and the overall bill to strengthen
private property rights for the sake of all Americans.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GINGREY. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia
for yielding.
What the Kelo decision has said is that the land that the house of
God is built on belongs to Caesar and Caesar can go condemn the land
that the house of God is built on to turn it to into a strip mall or
hotel or whatever will bring in more tax base, and that is wrong.
The amendment that the gentleman from Georgia has offered simply
states that the tax-exempt status of a religious or nonprofit
organization cannot be used for a taking under the Kelo case. The
amendment is a good one. It ought to be supported, and I am happy that
he offered it.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GINGREY. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and
I am going to acquiesce with the chairman on the amendment, but I want
to express some reservations.
It appears that it is the author's intention that nonprofit and
religious organizations not be singled out by local governments due to
their tax-exempt status alone. Is that correct?
Mr. GINGREY. That is correct.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, is it also the gentleman's intention
that this provision would not trump the other provisions of the bill
that provide additional protections to nonprofits by prohibiting
takings from private entities for other economic development reasons to
give to other private entities?
Mr. GINGREY. That is correct. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, to the extent that the language in the
bill could be confusing in the amendment, would the gentleman be
willing to work with the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and myself
and others to ensure in conference that his intentions are accurately
reflected in the amendment language?
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, certainly we would be glad to work with
both chairmen in regard to that in the conference if there is any
confusion regarding the amendment.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I appreciate the gentleman's willingness to work with
us; and, on that basis, we will support the amendment.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, with the indulgence of the chairman of the
Judiciary Committee, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Bartlett), who has asked for time on this amendment.
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to
support the Gingrey amendment.
Before Kelo, a Christian church, after spending 5 years acquiring
property, had the city intercede when it learned there would be a
church built on the property. The city initiated eminent domain to give
the land to Costco. The church prevailed, but that was before Kelo.
In Justice O'Connor's Kelo dissent, she warned that in expanding the
definition of ``public use,'' the majority had come close to embracing
``the absurd argument that any church might be replaced with a retail
store.'' She continued to state that this ``is inherently harmful to
society.''
Because of Kelo in general and in this situation in particular, the
fifth amendment takings clause has been stretched beyond the bounds
that the Framers intended. By expanding the fifth amendment's
definition of ``public use,'' it could limit the scope of the ``free
exercise'' of religion guaranteed in the first amendment.
Kelo shattered our private property rights. Today, by passing H.R.
4128, Congress will help pick up the pieces. Congress must act to
prevent the demolition of our rights, our homes, our businesses and our
houses of worship.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Cuellar
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 9 printed in House Report 109-266 offered by
Mr. Cuellar:
Add at the end the following:
SEC. 13. REPORT BY FEDERAL AGENCIES ON REGULATIONS AND
PROCEDURES RELATING TO EMINENT DOMAIN.
Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the head of each Executive department and agency
shall review all rules, regulations, and procedures and
report to the Attorney General on the activities of that
department or agency to bring its rules, regulations and
procedures into compliance with this Act.
[[Page H9599]]
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 527, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Cuellar) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin and the
gentlewoman from California for this opportunity to present this
amendment. I believe this amendment is acceptable to the chairman and
the gentlewoman from California.
Chairman Sensenbrenner and Congresswoman Waters, thank you for this
opportunity to present my amendment to H.R. 4128, the Private Property
Rights Protection Act of 2005.
I will not spend much time describing my amendment, which is
acceptable to the Chairman and Congresswoman Waters, because the
concept is simple. My amendment will require all Federal agencies and
departments to submit a report to the Attorney General verifying that
all rules, regulations, and procedures of that agency are in compliance
with the provisions of H.R. 4128.
There is a saying in business: ``what gets measured gets done.'' H.R.
4128 is an important and timely bill, and it will do a great deal to
help protect private property rights in this country. My amendment will
strengthen H.R. 4128, by making sure that the practices and procedures
of Federal agencies are quickly and uniformly brought into compliance
with the new law.
My amendment will require all Federal agencies and departments to
review their practices with regard to eminent domain, and to submit a
report to the Attorney General verifying that all rules, regulations,
and procedures of that agency are in compliance with the provisions of
H.R. 4128. This amendment will help to make the transition clearer, and
will introduce an added dimension of accountability into the process.
As a believer in responsible government, I always have and will
continue to hold our bureaucracy accountable for knowing the law and
following it correctly. This simple reporting requirement will ensure
that it is done in a timely fashion. H.R. 4128 is a good bill, and my
amendment will help to ensure that it is enforced quickly, uniformly,
and fairly.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CUELLAR. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to accept the amendment
because it requires the Federal Government agencies do whatever they
need to do to come into compliance with the bill's prohibition on abuse
of eminent domain. It is a good amendment, and I hope we accept it.
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 10 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 10 printed in House Report 109-266 offered by
Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
Add at the end the following:
SEC. __. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
It is the sense of Congress that any and all precautions
shall be taken by the government to avoid the unfair or
unreasonable taking of property away from survivors of
Hurricane Katrina who own, were bequeathed, or assigned such
property, for economic development purposes or for the
private use of others.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 527, the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
might consume.
Might I just for my colleagues read very briefly the language of this
amendment, and I hope that we can join in a bipartisan manner in the
spirit of this underlying legislation.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding.
I am happy to accept this amendment that amends the sense of Congress
section of the bill that says that victims of Hurricane Katrina cannot
have their property condemned simply because it was damaged by the
hurricane. Unless the amendment is adopted, then victims of Hurricane
Katrina end up getting penalized twice. That is twice too many times.
We can take away one of those times by adopting the amendment, and I
urge the House to support it.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I cannot thank you enough,
and I would ask your kind indulgence if I could reclaim my time to put
these items in the Record, and I would like to yield a moment to the
gentlewoman from California, but let me just say this.
The chairman is so very right. Let me make these points. It is
legislation to, in fact, make a very pronounced statement that we are
very much watching and seeking to protect the Hurricane Katrina
survivors from unreasonable taking of property away from them for
economic development or for private use.
Let me share this paragraph: New Orleans will be the center of a
reconstruction project that will have a price tag in excess of $200
billion. Eminent domain will play a major role in the local
government's ability to assemble properties to carry out their plans,
whether residents like it or not.
The NAACP, which the chairman cited in another debate, stated that
the eminent domain process mostly targets, in many instances, racial
and ethnic minorities because cities often want to redevelop areas with
low property values because minorities have less political clout and
are less able to fight back. That is one aspect, but the rural
community and the surrounding areas in New Orleans and Gulfport and
other areas are equally victims, and so this amendment speaks to the
wholeness of the region that will be under attack for economic
development.
Might I close by these words: ``South-of-Boston residents, especially
those in coastal towns, need to confront the nasty implications of the
recent Supreme Court decision in a post-Katrina era. If a Category 5
hurricane wipes houses from Houghs Neck, Minot, Humarock, Marion, or
Mattapoisett, might not the remaining citizens take kindly to an offer
to replace the houses with a resort hotel?''
I want to remind my colleagues that the eminent domain theory came
when the British soldiers wanted to place their soldiers in American
homes or colonial homes, and so this has the underpinnings of a long
history. This is an important step for us to take for the Katrina
survivors, and I thank the chairman for supporting it.
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to H.R. 4128, the Private Property
Rights Protection Act of 2005, that has been reported by the Committee
on Rules, #12 as printed in the Congressional Record and captioned as
Jackso.177. This legislation seeks to curtail the decision handed down
by the U.S. Supreme Court in Kelo v. City of New London on June 23,
2005. Kelo held ``economic development'' to be a ``public use'' under
the Fifth Amendment's Taking Clause. The Takings Clause states that
``nor shall private property be taken for public use without just
compensation.''
In the 1990's, a state agency declared that New London, CT was a
``distressed municipality'' after its unemployment numbers hit double
the rate in the rest of Connecticut. The holding by the Supreme Court
purported to defer to the city's judgment and that the development
would be a ``catalyst to the area's rejuvenation.''
To lay the foundation for the relevance of my amendment, I cite an
article in the Tulsa World:
The situation in New London is a time-extended version of
the crisis in New Orleans . . . New Orleans saw its demise in
the course of days, not decades. There was no choice but to
create a package of initiatives that would bring the private
sector in on the rebuilding effort. In some areas, eminent
domain may be the only answer. The urgency of government
planning, however, is offset by the fact that the first
contracts have gone out to some of the usual suspects--
namely, corporations with strong ties to the administration
In Washington.
The land use situation in the areas most affected by Hurricane
Katrina presents the situation that is most ripe for eminent domain
takings under the guise of ``economic development.'' My amendment seeks
to add the legislative intent to H.R. 4128 that the law seeks to put
the people first even in the face of post-disaster reconstruction.
[[Page H9600]]
I thank the Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for his
support of this amendment. It is critical that we continue the spirit
of bi-partisanship that was started with the resolution disapproving
the Kelo decision, of which I was an original co-sponsor, the Private
Property Rights Protection Act of 2005, H.R. 3135.
New Orleans will be the center of a reconstruction project that will
have a price tag in excess of $200 billion. Eminent domain will play a
major role in the local governments' ability to assemble properties to
carry out their plans--whether the residents like it or not. NAACP
representative Hillary Shelton stated that ``the eminent domain process
mostly targets racial and ethnic minorities because cities often want
to redevelop areas with low property values and because minorities have
less political clout and are less able to fight back.'' My amendment
seeks to clarify that, in redefining the boundaries of the federal
government's Taking power, unfair practices will not be tolerated and
that the rights of property owners will be given the highest regard.
Mr. Chairman, I ask that my colleagues support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the
distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to thank Chairman
Sensenbrenner for accepting the gentlewoman's amendment, and I would
like to thank her for this very timely amendment.
While we began to work on this simply because of the Supreme Court
decision and the danger that American citizens' homes and lands were
placed in with this decision, the gentlewoman is absolutely right: We
have to take another step to protect those victims of Katrina.
There has been a lot of discussion from homeowners and others who are
observing what is going on and what could possibly happen, wondering if
there are not schemes already going on that would deny these homeowners
who have lost their homes the ability to hold on to that land, whether
or not the speculators are cooking up schemes with those in local
government even. So this amendment would protect the victims of
Katrina, and they will be very grateful for this, and they will be
very, very thankful that the gentlewoman provided the leadership in
thinking about them as this legislation was winding its way through the
government of the United States of America.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to
support this amendment, and it lays further precedent for the victims
of Hurricanes Rita and Wilma. I thank the chairman for accepting it,
and I yield back my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Watt
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 11 printed in House Report 109-266 offered by
Mr. Watt:
Page 2, strike line 3 and all that follows through line 25
on page 6.
Page 8, strike line 15 and all that follows through line 4
on page 11.
Page 7, strike line 1 and insert the following:
SECTION 1. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 527, the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
First of all, I am fully aware that it is a dangerous combination to
be opposing both the chairman of the full Judiciary Committee and the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), but I simply think this bill
is an overreaction.
This amendment would strike all the provisions of the bill except the
sense of Congress which I believe adequately conveys the legitimate
concerns with the decision of the Supreme Court in Kelo and does what
we should appropriately do, express our concern about it and any
possible abuse of it but not go so overboard as this bill does in my
opinion.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
The amendment guts the bill by striking out every provision of it
except the sense of Congress and the report requirement. If we are for
the bill, we ought to vote against the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon
(Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, we can all agree that Federal powers
should not be used to enrich the powerful and the wealthy, but the
first response to Kelo should be from responsible local and State
governments, not the United States Congress. One narrow Supreme Court
decision should not be the basis for an overbroad Federal amendment
that will have many unintended consequences.
Earlier I asked what would be the impact if this legislation had been
passed for the revitalization of Times Square, where eminent domain
transformed one of the most notorious places in America or the Dudley
Street neighborhood initiative in the Roxbury Dorchester area in Boston
or just outside our window where we have had Pennsylvania Avenue
restored using eminent domain.
{time} 1645
I would strongly suggest that the gentleman from North Carolina's
approach is a more reasonable and prudent one. We do not have a crisis
at this point. State and local governments should be dealing with this
in an appropriate fashion. We should not have overbroad legislation
that could have many unintended consequences.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First of all, I want to thank the gentleman from Oregon for his
thoughtful approach to this and express my desire to have all of the
Members of the Congress have an equally thoughtful approach to it.
The Kelo decision was met with a tremendous uproar, with many echoing
the view that all private property is now vulnerable to condemnation as
long as the new use of the land will produce additional tax revenue.
While I appreciate that concern and share the view that private
property should not be taken solely for the purpose of increasing State
coffers or local coffers with additional tax revenue, I do not believe
that the Court's decision leads to that result.
What is even more important is I do not believe that this bill does
much, if anything, to address that concern even if it did do that.
Unless we get down to a definition of what removal of blight is, and
this bill does nothing to do that, local communities are still going to
be able to condemn property, as they should, for public purposes. There
really is nothing inconsistent with that in the Kelo decision.
Flexibility by local communities in determining whether the public
use requirement has been served by ensuring that condemned property
creates a public benefit or advantage has long existed, and I believe
should continue to exist, as the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer)
has so eloquently stated. I feel like State and local officials have as
much intellect and discretion and are as accountable, probably even
more so, to their constituents than Members of Congress; and they
should be answering to their constituents on these issues.
Again, while I believe that the power of eminent domain must be
exercised judiciously, I think this bill goes too far in limiting the
power of States and local governments. In addition, the punitive
measures included in the bill will visit additional harms on the very
distressed communities that are often the target of eminent domain
proceedings.
I would just point out that apparently after this bill is passed, if
it is passed, a local government, a State government could still
condemn blighted property. The problem now is that it would just have
to sit there vacant with nothing developed on it, otherwise they would
be in violation of the provisions of this bill if there were any kind
of private development, even a public-private partnership.
So I think we are going too far and we need to take a giant step
back, take a deep breath, and pass the sense of
[[Page H9601]]
Congress part of this resolution expressing our concern, but not the
bill.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the
Judiciary Committee.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the committee for
yielding me this time.
This is an unusual note to end the debate on a very important subject
like this, because the last amendment from my friend from North
Carolina is to strike everything in the bill except the sense of
Congress provisions expressing support for property rights. Well, that
is a vote on the bill. Why do we not just have a vote on final passage
and skip this? Because that is what this is.
And I would like to emphasize the fact that the people, the citizens,
are in support of this amendment. I am proud that we have the civil
rights organizations supporting me and not my friend from North
Carolina. The NAACP is not known to take issues against the majority of
ordinary people. That is what it was founded on. We support the NAACP
in everything. Here is the thing. Here is the point. The NAACP says,
support this bill, and my friend and I, who support the NAACP, tells
me, let us have a vote before final passage that strikes every blooming
thing from the bill.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield briefly to my friend from North Carolina,
contrary to my best instincts.
Mr. WATT. I just want to clarify for the gentleman that the NAACP has
advised me that they are concerned about the abuse of eminent domain,
as everybody else is, and the sense of Congress part of the resolution
would continue to express that concern. They do not endorse the bill,
however.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman,
but this is an unusual division.
Here I am supporting many of my friends on the other side of the
aisle, but we have this unusual division here. What I am saying is that
the concept of not using private takings for private use should not be
allowed. We know that casinos benefit from these takings. We know that
hotels and private developments benefit. And all I am saying, and I
thought that everybody would mostly agree with this in the Congress, is
that that is wrong. That is a misuse. That is an abuse.
So let us be careful. Let us control this. Let us not overdo it, but
let us support the measure of 4128, which tries to finally answer what
happened to us in Detroit. Our experience was that we had thousands of
residences, businesses, and churches that were taken to develop an
automobile plant. That is not what my idea of an eminent domain should
be about. That is all we are saying here. It is not that complicated.
Now, I am not pitting somebody's intellectual abilities at the local
level versus the national level or who is more dedicated. I am dealing
with a Supreme Court case that has forced us into this action. This
measure would not have been here if the Supreme Court had not given us
one of the most shocking rulings that just came out this year. So I
urge that not only my friend from North Carolina's amendment be
rejected but that this bill be supported on final passage.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I
make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North
Carolina will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Nadler of New York.
Amendment No. 5 by Mr. Moran of Virginia.
Amendment No. 6 by Mr. Turner of Ohio.
Amendment No. 11 by Mr. Watt of North Carolina.
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Nadler
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Nadler) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 63,
noes 355, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 564]
AYES--63
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capuano
Case
Cleaver
DeGette
Delahunt
Dicks
Dingell
Emanuel
Engel
Farr
Fattah
Hinchey
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Larson (CT)
Levin
Lowey
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McKinney
Meeks (NY)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Olver
Owens
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Rangel
Rothman
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Schakowsky
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Slaughter
Solis
Thompson (CA)
Towns
Watt
Weiner
Woolsey
NOES--355
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boucher
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Honda
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Napolitano
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Obey
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Paul
Pearce
Pence
[[Page H9602]]
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salazar
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--15
Boswell
Boyd
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buyer
Davis (FL)
Hastings (FL)
Lewis (GA)
McMorris
Norwood
Ortiz
Pombo
Roybal-Allard
Schiff
Sullivan
Tiahrt
{time} 1723
Messrs. GRIJALVA, AL GREEN of Texas, BONILLA, CARDOZA, SKELTON, WYNN,
RYUN of Kansas, WAXMAN, BECERRA, Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California, and
Ms. VELAZQUEZ changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania and Mr. ABERCROMBIE changed their vote
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 564. I inadvertently
voted ``aye.'' I would like the record to reflect that I meant to vote
``no.''
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Moran of Virginia
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Davis of Kentucky). The pending business is
the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) on which further proceedings were
postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 49,
noes 368, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 565]
AYES--49
Baird
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Capuano
Carson
Case
Cleaver
DeGette
Delahunt
Dingell
Emanuel
Engel
Fattah
Hinchey
Holt
Hooley
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Kanjorski
Kennedy (RI)
Larson (CT)
Levin
Lowey
Markey
McGovern
Miller (NC)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Olver
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rangel
Rothman
Sabo
Schakowsky
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (VA)
Shays
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Woolsey
Wynn
NOES--368
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boucher
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Honda
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Napolitano
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Osborne
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--16
Boswell
Boyd
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buyer
Davis (FL)
Feeney
Hastings (FL)
Lewis (GA)
McMorris
Norwood
Ortiz
Pombo
Roybal-Allard
Schiff
Sullivan
Tiahrt
{time} 1734
Mr. BAIRD and Mr. ENGEL changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Turner
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Davis of Kentucky). The pending business is
the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner) on which further proceedings were
postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 56,
noes 357, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 566]
AYES--56
Baker
Beauprez
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
[[Page H9603]]
Capuano
Case
Chabot
Chocola
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeGette
Delahunt
Ehlers
Eshoo
Farr
Fortenberry
Gerlach
Granger
Green, Gene
Hobson
Jackson (IL)
Kanjorski
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Langevin
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
McDermott
McGovern
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moran (VA)
Neal (MA)
Oxley
Pascrell
Pickering
Pryce (OH)
Regula
Rothman
Sanchez, Loretta
Schmidt
Souder
Sweeney
Tiberi
Tierney
Turner
Udall (CO)
Watson
Weller
Wicker
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (FL)
NOES--357
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (NY)
Blackburn
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boucher
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Castle
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Graves
Green (WI)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Latham
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Osborne
Otter
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Towns
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--20
Bishop (UT)
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buyer
Davis (FL)
Dingell
Green, Al
Hastings (FL)
Hunter
Lewis (GA)
McMorris
Norwood
Ortiz
Pombo
Roybal-Allard
Schiff
Sullivan
Tiahrt
{time} 1742
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 566, I was
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Watt
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Watt) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 44,
noes 371, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 567]
AYES--44
Ackerman
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Capuano
Carson
Case
Clay
Cleaver
DeGette
Delahunt
Dingell
Emanuel
Fattah
Hinchey
Jackson (IL)
Kanjorski
Larson (CT)
Levin
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Markey
Matsui
McDermott
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Olver
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Rangel
Rothman
Sabo
Schakowsky
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (VA)
Slaughter
Stark
Visclosky
Watt
Waxman
Wynn
NOES--371
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boucher
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Napolitano
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Osborne
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Paul
[[Page H9604]]
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanders
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--18
Boswell
Boyd
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buyer
Davis (FL)
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Lewis (GA)
McMorris
Norwood
Ortiz
Pombo
Roybal-Allard
Sanchez, Loretta
Saxton
Schiff
Sullivan
Tiahrt
{time} 1750
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Davis of Kentucky). The question is on the
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Terry) having assumed the chair, Mr. Davis of Kentucky, Acting Chairman
of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R.
4128) to protect private property rights, pursuant to House Resolution
527, he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted
by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 376,
nays 38, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 568]
YEAS--376
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Napolitano
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Osborne
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--38
Ackerman
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Brady (PA)
Capuano
Case
Cleaver
DeGette
Dingell
Emanuel
Fattah
Hinchey
Jackson (IL)
Larson (CT)
Levin
Lowey
McDermott
Meeks (NY)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Olver
Pastor
Pelosi
Rothman
Sabo
Schakowsky
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (VA)
Stark
Turner
Visclosky
Watt
Waxman
Woolsey
Wynn
NOT VOTING--19
Bachus
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buyer
Davis (FL)
Ehlers
Hastings (FL)
Lewis (GA)
McMorris
Norwood
Ortiz
Pombo
Roybal-Allard
Schiff
Sullivan
Tiahrt
Wolf
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry) (during the vote). Members are
advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1808
Ms. WOOLSEY changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to make votes today on the House
floor because of an untimely and unexpected need requiring me to be
back home with my family in California. I take my responsibility to
vote very seriously.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on H.R. 4128, the
Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005.
____________________