[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 146 (Monday, November 7, 2005)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2281-E2282]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT OF 2005

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                        HON. MICHAEL E. CAPUANO

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, November 3, 2005

       The House in Committee of the White House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4128) to 
     protect private property rights.

  Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4128, The 
Private Property Right Protection Act of 2005. This bill is overbroad 
and unreasonably restricts States and municipalities from crafting 
practical legislation that addresses their specific needs.
  H.R. 4128 is Congress' response to the Kelo v. City of New London 
decision. The Kelo decision allows local governments to take private 
property to build the tax base and promote economic development. H.R. 
4128 prohibits government use of eminent domain where private property 
is taken for economic development purposes. It unduly restricts States 
and local governments from exercising their sovereign powers to 
eliminate abuses in eminent domain, while maintaining an ability to 
develop their community. As a former Mayor of Somerville, MA, I am very 
familiar with the issues surrounding municipalities exercising eminent 
domain for public use.
  While I do not wish to see local government recklessly and 
irresponsibly take property from private owners, especially the low-
income and

[[Page E2282]]

disadvantaged, I cannot support a bill that preemptively acts before a 
municipality has an opportunity to develop its own policies. Some 30 
States have either already drafted legislation concerning this issue or 
are working on legislation. It is unfair to invalidate State and local 
attempts to adjust, legislatively, to a Supreme Court decision just 
issued in June of this year.
  The House should have spent more time developing legislation that was 
less intrusive on States' and local governments' sovereignty. For 
example, this bill could strip Federal economic development funding for 
two years from a State or local government that exercised eminent 
domain, even if the project taken did not receive Federal funds. All 
economic development funds, including those not involved with the 
condemned project, would be lost. Projects worthy of being built might 
be eliminated due to the lack of economic development funds. This can 
be disastrous for a local government's economic growth and 
sustainability. Local officials would be constantly concerned that 
exercising eminent domain could result in lawsuits and loss of funds.
  I voted for an amendment that would have added some sense of fairness 
to the government's use of eminent domain, but it did not pass. The 
amendment, offered by Congressman Michael Turner of Ohio, would permit 
cities to continue using eminent domain to redevelop a Brownfield site. 
It also enumerated several instances where, for the public's health and 
safety, the government could use eminent domain when necessary to rid 
the community of a hazardous property.
  I could support a bill that strikes a balance and is fair to State 
and local governments. This bill does not meet that threshold.

                          ____________________