[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 112 (Friday, July 13, 2007)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1508-E1509]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT OF 2007

                                 ______
                                 

                    HON. F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR.

                              of wisconsin

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, July 12, 2007

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, today I am reintroducing bipartisan 
legislation, the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2007, along 
with my friend and colleague from California.
  This legislation would prevent the federal government or any 
authority of the federal government from using economic development as 
a justification for exercising its power of eminent domain.
  The protection of private property rights lies at the foundation of 
American government. As James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers, 
``[G]overnment is instituted no less for the protection of property 
than of the persons of individuals.''
  Two years ago, the Supreme Court held in Kelo v. City of New London 
that ``economic development'' can be a ``public use'' under the Fifth 
Amendment's Takings Clause. The 5-4 decision has substantially weakened 
the rights of private property owners by handing the government a raw 
taking power with negligible accountability to the ``public use'' 
requirement in the Fifth Amendment's Taking Clause.
  The ``public use'' requirement imposed an important limitation on 
eminent domain power to ensure the government may not force individuals 
to forfeit their property for the benefit of another private party.
  However, Kelo transformed established constitutional principles when 
it permitted the government to seize the private property of one

[[Page E1509]]

small homeowner and to give it to a large corporation for a private 
business use in the interest of creating a more lucrative tax base.
  The dissenting opinion of that case made clear the far-reaching 
implications of the decision. Justice O'Connor wrote, ``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.'' Houses of worship and other religious 
institutions that are by their very nature non-profit and almost 
universally tax-exempt, render their property singularly vulnerable. 
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.''
  In response, I introduced H.R. 4128, the Private Property Rights 
Restoration Act of 2005 to restore to all Americans the property rights 
the Supreme Court took away. H.R. 4128 passed with the clear support of 
this House with a vote of 376-38. Since the Kelo decision, 41 States 
have passed laws to rein back eminent domain power. Yet, these laws 
exist on a varying degree, and the need to ensure that property rights 
are returned to all Americans is as strong now as it was 2 years ago.
  Like H.R. 4128, this year's legislation also establishes 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. This legislation 
sets up a clear connection between the Federal funds that would be 
denied and the abuse Congress is intending to prevent while providing 
States and localities with an opportunity to cure any violation by 
either returning or replacing the improperly taken property before they 
lose any Federal economic development funds.
  Included in this legislation is an express private right of action to 
ensure access to the State or Federal court and a fee-shifting 
provision identical to those in other civil rights laws, which allows a 
prevailing property owner to be awarded attorney and expert fees as 
part of the costs of bringing the litigation to enforce the bill's 
provisions. A change in this year's version of the bill includes a 
provision to protect not only property owners, but also tenants. 
Tenants who may lose their homes if the government exercises its 
eminent domain power deserve the same right of action as homeowners. 
Another improvement to this bill allows the Attorney General to file 
suit; this will help homeowners and tenants without the means to file a 
case on their own behalf.
  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.
  Property rights are civil rights. I urge all my colleagues to join me 
in protecting property rights of all Americans and limiting the 
dangerous effects of the Kelo decision on the most vulnerable in 
society.

                          ____________________