[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 144 (Thursday, November 3, 2005)]
[House]
[Page H9613]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         PASSAGE OF THE PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kuhl of New York). Under a previous 
order of the House, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, earlier today I was proud to cast a firm 
vote in support of the Private Property Rights Protection Act. While 
this measure will not reverse the Supreme Court's mind-boggling 5-4 
decision in the Kelo v. New London case, it will ensure that American 
taxpayers will not have their hard-earned dollars used in its support.
  No State or locality shall be permitted to employ the power of 
eminent domain to seize private property in the name of economic 
development. In addition, the bill will grant appropriate access to 
State and Federal courts for those who seek justice and remedy for any 
nonmeritorious seizure of their property.
  There is no question that Americans do not wish to shirk their 
responsibility to take care of their community through support for 
measures which serve the public good. However, most do not view 
fulfillment of this obligation as necessitating a forfeiture of their 
fundamental rights. Few rights are as central to the foundation of our 
great Nation as is the right of control over one's private property.
  As James Madison laid out in the Federalist Papers, private property 
rights lie at the foundation of our Constitution: ``Government is 
instituted no less for the protection of property than of the persons 
of individuals.''
  Madison's declaration was echoed by Justice William Paterson in 
Vanhorne's Lessee v. Dorrance (1795) when he asserted: ``The right of 
acquiring and possessing private property and having it protected is 
one of the most natural, inherent, and inalienable rights of man.
  This does not require one to have expertise in constitutional law to 
conclude from these statements that the Framers did not intend for 
citizens to cede their ``natural, inherent, and inalienable rights'' in 
the name of expanding the local tax base or in the development of one 
of our favorite Starbucks or Wal-Marts.
  As Justice Clarence Thomas noted in his dissent, the text of the 
fifth amendment permits the taking of property ``only if in the public 
right to employ it.''
  In response to the public concern of the Kelo decision, the Ohio 
State legislature recently passed a measure prohibiting cities from 
seizing unblighted land for economic development in 2006. And Ohio is 
not alone. Excluding bills prefiled for the 2006 legislative session, 
the National Council of State Legislatures found that 12 States have 
already taken legislative steps to prohibit in some form or fashion the 
use of eminent domain in private property seizure.
  Today, we join in the fight on behalf of all Americans who own or 
aspire to own their small piece of paradise and, more importantly, to 
own it without fear from unwarranted, unjustified, and unconstitutional 
seizure.

                          ____________________