[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 31 (Tuesday, February 28, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H997-H1003]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT OF 2012

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 
the bill (H.R. 1433) to protect private property rights, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 1433

       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 2012''.

     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 used for 
     economic development within 7 years after that exercise, if 
     that State or political subdivision receives Federal economic 
     development funds during any fiscal year in which the 
     property is so used or intended to be used.
       (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. In addition, the State 
     must pay applicable penalties and interest to reattain 
     eligibility.

     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 (1) owner of private property 
     whose property is subject to

[[Page H998]]

     eminent domain who suffers injury as a result of a violation 
     of any provision of this Act with respect to that property, 
     or (2) any tenant of property that is subject to eminent 
     domain who suffers injury as a result of a violation of any 
     provision of this Act with respect to that property, may 
     bring an action to enforce any provision of this Act in the 
     appropriate Federal or State court. A State shall not be 
     immune under the 11th Amendment to the Constitution of the 
     United States from any such action in a Federal or State 
     court of competent jurisdiction. In such action, the 
     defendant has the burden to show by clear and convincing 
     evidence that the taking is not for economic development. Any 
     such property owner or tenant may also seek an appropriate 
     relief through a preliminary injunction or a temporary 
     restraining order.
       (b) Limitation on Bringing Action.--An action brought by a 
     property owner or tenant under this Act may be brought if the 
     property is used for economic development following the 
     conclusion of any condemnation proceedings condemning the 
     property of such property owner or tenant, but shall not be 
     brought later than seven years following the conclusion of 
     any such proceedings.
       (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. REPORTING OF VIOLATIONS TO ATTORNEY GENERAL.

       (a) Submission of Report to Attorney General.--Any (1) 
     owner of private property whose property is subject to 
     eminent domain who suffers injury as a result of a violation 
     of any provision of this Act with respect to that property, 
     or (2) any tenant of property that is subject to eminent 
     domain who suffers injury as a result of a violation of any 
     provision of this Act with respect to that property, may 
     report a violation by the Federal Government, any authority 
     of the Federal Government, State, or political subdivision of 
     a State to the Attorney General.
       (b) Investigation by Attorney General.--Upon receiving a 
     report of an alleged violation, the Attorney General shall 
     conduct an investigation to determine whether a violation 
     exists.
       (c) Notification of Violation.--If the Attorney General 
     concludes that a violation does exist, then the Attorney 
     General shall notify the Federal Government, authority of the 
     Federal Government, State, or political subdivision of a 
     State that the Attorney General has determined that it is in 
     violation of the Act. The notification shall further provide 
     that the Federal Government, State, or political subdivision 
     of a State has 90 days from the date of the notification to 
     demonstrate to the Attorney General either that (1) it is not 
     in violation of the Act or (2) that it has cured its 
     violation by returning all real property the taking of which 
     the Attorney General finds to have constituted a violation of 
     the Act and replacing any other property destroyed and 
     repairing any other property damaged as a result of such 
     violation.
       (d) Attorney General's Bringing of Action to Enforce Act.--
     If, at the end of the 90-day period described in subsection 
     (c), the Attorney General determines that the Federal 
     Government, authority of the Federal Government, State, or 
     political subdivision of a State is still violating the Act 
     or has not cured its violation as described in subsection 
     (c), then the Attorney General will bring an action to 
     enforce the Act unless the property owner or tenant who 
     reported the violation has already brought an action to 
     enforce the Act. In such a case, the Attorney General shall 
     intervene if it determines that intervention is necessary in 
     order to enforce the Act. The Attorney General may file its 
     lawsuit to enforce the Act in the appropriate Federal or 
     State court. A State shall not be immune under the 11th 
     Amendment to the Constitution of the United States from any 
     such action in a Federal or State court of competent 
     jurisdiction. In such action, the defendant has the burden to 
     show by clear and convincing evidence that the taking is not 
     for economic development. The Attorney General may seek any 
     appropriate relief through a preliminary injunction or a 
     temporary restraining order.
       (e) Limitation on Bringing Action.--An action brought by 
     the Attorney General under this Act may be brought if the 
     property is used for economic development following the 
     conclusion of any condemnation proceedings condemning the 
     property of an owner or tenant who reports a violation of the 
     Act to the Attorney General, but shall not be brought later 
     than seven years following the conclusion of any such 
     proceedings.
       (f) Attorneys' Fee and Other Costs.--In any action or 
     proceeding under this Act brought by the Attorney General, 
     the court shall, if the Attorney General is a prevailing 
     plaintiff, award the Attorney General a reasonable attorneys' 
     fee as part of the costs, and include expert fees as part of 
     the attorneys' fee.

     SEC. 6. 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 and tenants 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 and Tenants.--Not later 
     than 30 days after the enactment of this Act, the Attorney 
     General shall publish in the 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 
     and tenants under this Act.

     SEC. 7. REPORTS.

       (a) By Attorney General.--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 violations reported by property owners and 
     tenants under section 5(c) of this Act;
       (3) identify the percentage of minority residents compared 
     to the surrounding nonminority residents and the median 
     incomes of those impacted by a violation of this Act;
       (4) identify all lawsuits brought by the Attorney General 
     under section 5(d) of this Act;
       (5) 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; and
       (6) discuss all instances in which a State or political 
     subdivision has cured a violation as described in section 
     2(c) of this Act.
       (b) Duty of States.--Each State and local authority that is 
     subject to a private right of action under this Act shall 
     have the duty to report to the Attorney General such 
     information with respect to such State and local authorities 
     as the Attorney General needs to make the report required 
     under subsection (a).

     SEC. 8. 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. 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. 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.

[[Page H999]]

     SEC. 9. 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--
       (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; and
       (iv) for use as an aqueduct, flood control facility, 
     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;
       (F) taking private property for use by a public utility, 
     including a utility providing electric, natural gas, 
     telecommunications, water, and wastewater services, either 
     directly to the public or indirectly through provision of 
     such services at the wholesale level for resale to the 
     public; and
       (G) redeveloping of a brownfield site as defined in the 
     Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields 
     Revitalization Act (42 U.S.C. 9601(39)).
       (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. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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.

     SEC. 13. 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.).

     SEC. 14. 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.

     SEC. 15. 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.

     SEC. 16. 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.

     SEC. 17. DISPROPORTIONATE IMPACT ON MINORITIES.

       If the court determines that a violation of this Act has 
     occurred, and that the violation has a disproportionately 
     high impact on the poor or minorities, the Attorney General 
     shall use reasonable efforts to locate and inform former 
     owners and tenants of the violation and any remedies they may 
     have.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 1433, as 
amended, currently under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Congressman Sensenbrenner and 
Congresswoman Waters for introducing 1433, the Private Property Rights 
Protection Act, to restore vital property rights protections following 
the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London.
  This bipartisan legislation passed the House during the 109th 
Congress by a vote of 376 38 with 99 percent of Republicans and 81 
percent of Democrats present voting in favor of final passage. 
Unfortunately, the bill was never voted on in the Senate. Today, over 6 
years later, the Kelo decision continues to call out for congressional 
action.
  Our Founders realized the fundamental importance of property rights. 
Property rights protections are enshrined throughout the Constitution, 
including in the Fifth Amendment, which provides that private property 
shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.
  Despite these protections, in Kelo the Supreme Court held that the 
government may take private property from one owner and transfer it to 
another for private economic development. The dissenting Justices 
sharply criticized the Court's decision, writing that the result of the 
majority opinion was:

       Effectively to delete the words ``for public use'' from the 
     takings clause of the Fifth Amendment. The specter of 
     condemnation hangs over all property. The government now has 
     license to transfer property from those with few resources to 
     those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this 
     perverse result.

  This legislation essentially reverses this result and prohibits State 
and local governments that receive Federal economic development funds 
from abusing eminent domain for private economic development. It also 
prohibits the Federal Government from using eminent domain for economic 
development purposes.
  This bill restores Americans' faith in their ability to build, own, 
and keep their property without fear of the government taking their 
homes, farms, or businesses to give to other people. It tells 
commercial developers that they should seek to obtain property through 
private negotiation, not by public force.
  Too many Americans have lost homes and small businesses to eminent 
domain abuse, forced to watch as private developers replace them with 
luxury condominiums and other upscale uses. Local governments often 
approve the use of eminent domain for private economic development in 
order to expand their tax basis.
  Federal law currently allows Federal funds to be used to support 
condemnations for the benefit of private developers, which encourages 
this abuse nationwide.

[[Page H1000]]

  As the Institute for Justice's witness observed during our hearing on 
this bill:

       Using eminent domain so that another richer, better-
     connected person may live or work on the land you used to own 
     tells Americans that their hopes, dreams, and hard work do 
     not matter as much as money and political influence. The use 
     of eminent domain for private development has no place in a 
     country built on traditions of independence, hard work, and 
     protection of property rights.

  Americans' homes are their castles. Federal taxpayer dollars should 
not be used to fund the battering ram of eminent domain abuse.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation to 
restore the Constitution's broad protections for private property 
rights.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Crawford). Without objection, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) controls 20 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I reluctantly rise in opposition to the measure before us, the so-
called Private Property Rights Protection Act. Now, while the goal of 
this legislation to protect property owners and tenants from the abuse 
of eminent domain is laudable and important, it would, in reality, 
supplant the work States have already done to respond to the Supreme 
Court's decision in Kelo v. The City of New London in the 7 years since 
the Court handed down that decision.
  Most importantly, whatever the concerns my colleagues may have about 
the Kelo decision, the use and abuse of the power of eminent domain, I 
hope that every Member would look very carefully at the penalty it will 
impose on States, counties, cities, and towns across the country. Even 
if they never take a single piece of property, even if a jurisdiction 
never uses eminent domain at all, the mere possibility that some future 
administration would use eminent domain in a prohibited manner would 
cast a permanent cloud over the jurisdiction's finances.
  The risk of the catastrophic penalties being imposed over the life of 
a 10-year or 20-year bond would be enough to destroy or mitigate a city 
or State's ability to float bonds at any time for any reason. At the 
very least, our cities and States would be forced to pay a risk premium 
that would make us envy Greece.
  While it would destroy the finances of every community in the 
country, it would still allow some of the most flagrant abuses of 
eminent domain today. One glaring example is that the Keystone XL 
pipeline, and all pipelines, specifically is exempted. Even now, when a 
Canadian company is threatening farm families with eminent domain for a 
project that hasn't even been approved, this bill would give 
TransCanada a free pass. Whatever your concerns, this bill is not the 
right answer to a very important question.
  You see, since 2005, there have been new developments that call into 
question whether Congress should even act at this point. When this 
House last considered similar legislation, the Kelo decision was new, 
and there was real concern that the Supreme Court had opened floodgates 
to abusive takings of homes, businesses, churches, and farms. The 
States responded, which is their role in our Federal system. They 
responded to the concerns of the people who live in those communities 
to restrain State power and safeguard property rights. In some cases, 
the State courts have acted to restrain State governments in ways that 
the Federal law would not.

                              {time}  1640

  In response to the Kelo decision, States have moved aggressively to 
reconsider and amend their own eminent domain laws. More than 40 States 
have acted, and States have considered carefully the implications of 
this decision and the needs of their citizens.
  Congress should not now come charging in after 7 years of work and 
presume to sit as a national zoning board, arrogating to our national 
government the right to decide which States have gotten the balance 
right and deciding which projects are or are not appropriate. Yet my 
colleagues who decry an intrusive Federal Government, who exalt States' 
rights, and who demand that the courts defer to the elected branches of 
government to make important decisions are not satisfied. They want the 
courts to interfere. They want a one-size-fits-all, Washington-knows-
best solution. They don't want to respect the way States have dealt 
with this issue.
  The power of eminent domain is an extraordinary one, and it should be 
used rarely and with great care. All too often, it has been abused for 
private gain or to benefit some at the expense of others.
  Has this bill drawn the appropriate line between permissible and 
impermissible uses of eminent domain? I think that is one of the 
questions we will really need to consider. We all know the easy cases. 
As the majority in Kelo said:

       The City would no doubt be forbidden from taking 
     petitioners' land for the purpose of conferring a private 
     benefit on a particular private party . . . nor would the 
     City be allowed to take property under the mere pretext of a 
     public purpose when its actual purpose was to bestow a 
     private benefit.

  But which projects are appropriate and which are not can sometimes be 
a difficult call.
  Historically, eminent domain has been used to destroy communities for 
projects having nothing to do with economic development as prohibited 
by this bill. For example, highways have cut through neighborhoods, 
destroying them. I know about that. Many of these communities have been 
low-income and minority communities, and many of them have yet to 
recover from the wrecker's ball. Yet this bill would permit those 
projects to go forward, using eminent domain, as if nothing had 
happened. Other projects that have genuine public purposes would, 
nonetheless, be prohibited.
  There is no rhyme or reason for this legislation. I believe, as I did 
in 2005, that this bill is the incorrect approach to a very serious 
problem.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), who is the sponsor of this 
legislation and also a former chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
  After that, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) be allowed to control the remainder of 
the time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to state at the beginning that I deeply 
appreciate my cosponsor of this legislation, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters). This is a Sensenbrenner-Waters bill. You will 
never see another Sensenbrenner-Waters bill, and that is probably one 
of the best reasons to vote in favor of it.
  Yet, on the merits, I am pleased that the House of Representatives 
today is considering H.R. 1433, the Private Property Rights Protection 
Act. This legislation will prevent economic development from being used 
as a justification for exercising the power of eminent domain.
  I first introduced a version of this bill after the 2005 Supreme 
Court's ruling in Kelo v. City of New London. In this decision, the 
Court held 5 4 that ``economic development'' can be a ``public use'' 
under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause, justifying the government's 
taking of private property and giving it to a private business for use 
in the interest of creating a more lucrative tax base. As a result of 
this ruling, the Federal Government's power of eminent domain has 
become almost limitless, providing citizens with few means to protect 
their property.
  Under the decision, farmers in my State of Wisconsin are particularly 
vulnerable. The fair market value of farmland is less than that of 
residential or commercial property, which means it doesn't generate as 
much property tax as homes or offices. Uncle Sam can condemn one 
family's house only because another private entity would pay more in 
tax revenue.
  This bill is needed to restore to all Americans the property rights 
the Supreme Court took away. Although several States have independently 
passed legislation to limit their power of eminent domain and even 
though the Supreme Courts of Illinois, Michigan, and

[[Page H1001]]

Ohio have barred the practice under their State constitutions, these 
laws exist on a varying degree.
  The Private Property Rights Protection Act will provide American 
citizens in every State of this country with the means to protect their 
private property from exceedingly unsubstantiated claims of eminent 
domain. Under the legislation, if a State or a political subdivision of 
a State uses its eminent domain power to transfer private property to 
other private parties for economic development, the State is ineligible 
to receive Federal economic development funds for 2 fiscal years 
following a judicial determination that the law has been violated. 
Additionally, the bill prohibits the Federal Government from using 
eminent domain for economic development purposes.
  The protection of property rights is one of the most important tenets 
of our government. I am mindful of the long history of eminent domain 
abuses, particularly in low-income and often predominantly minority 
neighborhoods, and of the need to stop it. I am also 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. This bill accomplishes both of those goals.
  The need to ensure that property rights are returned to all Americans 
is as strong now as it was when Kelo was decided. Congress must play a 
pivotal role in reforming the use and abuse of eminent domain. I urge 
my colleagues to join me in protecting property rights for all 
Americans and in limiting the dangerous effects of the Kelo decision on 
the most vulnerable in society.
  Mr. CONYERS. It is my pleasure to yield such time as she may consume 
to a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, my longstanding friend 
and supporter for many years, the gentlewoman from California, the 
Honorable Maxine Waters.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Conyers, I want to thank you for not only granting me 
this time but for being my friend for many years. It is odd for me to 
be on the opposite side of you. This may be the first time, certainly, 
in my career that we have ever disagreed on anything.
  Mr. Sensenbrenner is correct in that this will be the only time we 
will probably come together around an issue, but we've been together on 
this one for a long time.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1433, the 
Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2012. This legislation on 
which I joined with Representative Sensenbrenner will restore the 
property rights of all Americans and 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. Economic 
development condemnations have all too often been used by powerful 
interest groups to acquire land at the expense of the poor and 
politically weak.
  As the dissent in the Kelo case pointed out:

       To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public 
     benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of 
     private property render economic development takings ``for 
     public use'' is to wash out any distinction between private 
     and public use of property. The beneficiaries are likely to 
     be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power 
     in the political process, including large corporations and 
     development firms. As for the victims, the government now has 
     license to transfer property from those with fewer resources 
     to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this 
     perverse result.

  Few protested the Kelo ruling more ardently than the National 
Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the NAACP. In an 
amicus brief filed in the case, it argued ``the burden of eminent 
domain has and will continue to fall disproportionately upon racial and 
ethnic minorities, the elderly and economically disadvantaged.'' 
Unfettered eminent domain authority, the NAACP concluded, is a 
``license for government to coerce individuals on behalf of society's 
strongest interests.''

                              {time}  1650

  The Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2011 will discourage 
eminent domain abuse by denying local governments that take private 
property for economic development access to Federal economic 
development funds for a period of 2 years.
  One of the basic constitutional functions of American government is 
the protection of private property rights. H.R. 1433 will protect 
homes, communities, churches, and other privately owned property from 
predatory takers under the guise of ``economic development.''
  Private developers and local governments that have a genuine project 
should be able to acquire the land or property they need through 
legitimate, voluntary purchases. If the project really is more valuable 
than the current use of the same land, then they should be willing to 
negotiate with property owners who are willing to sell.
  Eminent domain abuse impacts both urban and rural communities, and it 
is past time that Congress acted affirmatively to protect the private 
property rights of all Americans, who all too often are not evenly 
matched to challenge private companies in lengthy litigation. Where the 
Supreme Court created ambiguity with its Kelo ruling, Congress must be 
clear: There should never be a legal question concerning the rights 
individuals have to be secure in their homes and communities.
  With that, let me just wrap this up by saying I have been engaged for 
the past several years with the subprime meltdown in this country that 
caused so many families to be in foreclosure, and I have been engaged 
on that subject because I consider the home the most precious asset, 
the most precious possession that any American can have.
  And so whether it's trying to protect people who got involved in 
mortgages that they did not understand, mortgages where they were 
suckered into signing on the dotted line because we had exotic products 
that had been put into the marketplace which caused them to lose that 
home, or whether it is the pure question of eminent domain, property 
ownership is the basis of our American government and protected, should 
be always, by the Constitution and the Members who are elected to come 
to Congress to uphold the Constitution and protect our citizens.
  And so today I join with Congressman Sensenbrenner and others on the 
opposite side of the aisle in ways that I don't normally do, and 
probably won't have the opportunity to do for a long time to come, but 
today is important. We join together in the interest of American 
citizens who simply want to be able to own their home without their 
government intervening in their lives and taking their property and 
saying they are doing it in the name of economic development.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, 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 give the property owners just compensation.
  However, the Supreme Court's 5 4 decision in Kelo v. City of New 
London was a step in the opposite direction. This controversial ruling 
expanded the ability of State and local governments to exercise eminent 
domain powers to seize property 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 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.

[[Page H1002]]

  For these reasons, I joined with Chairman Sensenbrenner to introduce 
H.R. 1433, the Private Property Rights Protection Act.
  I am pleased that H.R. 1433 incorporates many provisions from 
legislation I coauthored in the 109th Congress, the STOPP Act. 
Specifically H.R. 1433 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 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. 1433 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 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.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished chairman and the 
manager of the legislation, the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, 
and look forward to joining in supporting this legislation, H.R. 1433.
  This is legislation that has been long in coming. It is a bipartisan 
initiative, and I think it is particularly important, when we speak to 
our colleagues who are representing the American public, to be able to 
say that property is valuable, that the Bill of Rights that requires 
due process before a taking is being reinforced by this legislation.
  H.R. 1433 would prohibit a State or political subdivision from 
exercising its power of eminent domain, or allowing the exercise of 
such power by delegation, over property to be used for economic 
development, or of a property that is used for economic development, 
within 7 years after that exercise if the State or political 
subdivision receives Federal economic development funds during any 
fiscal year in which the property is so used or intended to be used.
  Texas has faced a number of incidences, Mr. Speaker. One, in 
particular, is after the aftermath of Hurricane Ike. Although there are 
different laws dealing with coastal property, I saw the pain in a 
number of beach owners's faces as their property was condemned, even 
though they were trying to anxiously save it.
  This bill establishes a private cause of action for any private 
property owner or tenant who suffers injury as a result of violation of 
this act. This helps the little guy--someone who owns property can 
actually have a remedy to stand up and challenge the taking of their 
property.
  The bill prohibits State immunity in Federal or State court and sets 
the statute of limitations at 7 years. Although I offered an amendment 
to extend that to 10 years, I was willing to compromise at 7, as well 
as requiring the Attorney General to bring an action to enforce this 
act in certain circumstances, but prohibits an action brought later 
than 7 years following the conclusion of any condemnation proceedings.

                              {time}  1700

  And maybe as it makes its way through, we'll have an opportunity to 
expand that 7-year period. These are the efforts of Mr. Sensenbrenner 
and Congresswoman Waters, along with the rest of us who cosponsored 
this amendment.
  The three amendments I offered to the bill, some of them were 
accepted. My first amendment requires that a study be conducted to 
identify the number of minorities versus non-minorities who will be 
impacted by the act, in addition to the median incomes of those who are 
mostly highly affected.
  My second amendment requires the United States Attorney General to 
locate and inform members of minority communities if it is determined 
that the act has a disproportionate impact. Both of those amendments, I 
believe, were accepted.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlelady 3 additional 
minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman.
  I also offered an amendment to ensure that States are required to pay 
penalties and interest in cases where they run afoul of this bill.
  I am well aware of the needs of local communities and the needs of 
economic development; but I am glad that this Congress seeks today to 
stand up on behalf of private property rights and owners. I am 
delighted that in the course of working in particular with this issue, 
we have a fair and balanced approach. Let me just give you a very brief 
example, and I thank the gentleman for his courtesy.
  The history of eminent domain is rife with abuse specifically 
targeting racial and ethnic and poor neighborhoods. Now, redlining may 
not be equated to condemning neighborhoods or eminent domain; but when 
you don't allow a neighborhood to refurbish itself, to refinance, you 
are putting it in the line quickly for being a target of eminent 
domain. A 2004 study estimated that 1,600 African American 
neighborhoods were destroyed by municipal projects in Los Angeles. In 
San Jose, California, 95 percent of the properties targeted for 
economic redevelopment are Hispanic or Asian owned, despite the fact 
that only 30 percent of businesses in that area are owned by racial or 
ethnic minorities.
  In Mount Holly Township, New Jersey, officials have targeted for 
economic development a neighborhood in which the percentage of African 
American residents, 44 percent, is twice that of the entire township 
and nearly triple that of Burlington County. Lastly, according to a 
1989 study, 90 percent of the 10,000 families displaced by highway 
projects in Baltimore were African Americans.
  In my own home State of Texas, I remember a very well-stocked 
neighborhood of teachers and various blue collar workers. We called it 
Third Ward, Riverside, a thriving area. Its schools were schools like 
E.O. Smith and Jack Yates High School. And in the course of trying to 
develop a major highway, in fact, that neighborhood was ultimately, in 
essence, diminished--diminished greatly.
  So as growth comes, I understand it, but I think this is an excellent 
balance. I want economic development. I want to see growth, but I would 
like it to support and encourage thriving neighborhoods of all 
backgrounds and diversity.
  This legislation will help in doing so, and I believe it will correct 
decisions made previously and allow Texans, allow Californians, New 
Yorkers, Midwesterners, Southerners, Northerners, Easterners and 
Westerners to have a fair balance when the government comes and says 
it's time to take your property. I ask my colleagues to support this 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate H.R. 1433. I appreciate this 
opportunity to explain my support for H.R. 1433, ``Private Property 
Rights Protection Act of 2011.'' First I would like to thank the 
Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who accepted three of the four 
amendments I offered to H.R. 1433 during the Committee markup.
  H.R. 1433 would prohibit a state or political subdivision from 
exercising its power of eminent domain, or allowing the exercise of 
such power by delegation, over property to be used for economic 
development or over property that is used for economic development 
within seven years after that exercise, if the state or political 
subdivision receives federal economic development funds during any 
fiscal year in which the property is so used or intended to be used.
  In addition, it prohibits the federal government from exercising its 
power of eminent domain for economic development. Also, establishes a 
private cause of action for any private property owner or tenant who 
suffers injury as a result of a violation of this Act. The bill 
prohibits state immunity in federal or state court and sets the statute 
of limitations at seven years, as well as requiring the Attorney 
General, DOJ, to bring an action to enforce this Act in certain 
circumstances, but prohibits an action brought later than seven years 
following the conclusion of any condemnation proceedings.

[[Page H1003]]

  This bill has been the product of a tremendous effort by 
Representative Maxine Waters. I, along, with Representative Waters have 
worked for nearly a decade on this issue. During Committee markup, I 
added several changes to this bill that I believe have enhanced this 
bill.
  The three amendments that I have offered to the bill would ensure 
that both minorities and non-minorities will have additional 
protections under this measure. My first amendment requires that a 
study be conducted to identify the number of minorities versus non-
minorities who will be impacted by the Act, in addition to the median 
incomes of those who are most highly affected.
  My second amendment requires the United States Attorney General to 
locate and inform members of minority communities, if it is determined 
that this Act has a disproportionate impact on them.
  My final amendment to this measure will ensure that states are 
required to pay penalties and interest in cases where they run afoul of 
this bill. The purpose of my amendment was to ensure that both small 
businesses and low-income homeowners are protected as well, those who 
might not have the ability to engage in drawn-out and expensive 
litigation.
  The Private Property Rights Protection Act prohibits state and local 
governments that receive federal economic development funds from using 
eminent domain to transfer private property from one private owner to 
another for the purpose of economic development.
  The history of eminent domain is rife with abuse specifically 
targeting racial and ethnic minority and poor neighborhoods. A 2004 
study estimated that 1,600 African American neighborhoods were 
destroyed by municipal projects in Los Angeles.
  In San Jose, California, 95 percent of the properties targeted for 
economic redevelopment are Hispanic or Asian-owned, despite the fact 
that only 30 percent of businesses in that area are owned by racial or 
ethnic minorities.
  In Mt. Holly Township, New Jersey, officials have targeted for 
economic redevelopment a neighborhood in which the percentage of 
African American residents, 44 percent, is twice that of the entire 
township and nearly triple that of Burlington County.
  Lastly, according to a 1989 study 90 percent of the 10,000 families 
displaced by highway projects in Baltimore were African Americans.
  Thousands of Texans, from Houston to San Antonio to El Paso, now live 
under the threat of eminent domain abuse. These minority home and 
business owners have well-founded fears that their property may soon be 
taken from them to make way for private redevelopment projects cooked 
up by developers and city officials.
  The threatened homes and businesses are important parts of 
functioning communities, many of which have been there since the 
earliest days of Texas' history as an independent nation. Their only 
fault is that they are located on land coveted by developers and 
government officials.
  In Justice O'Connor's dissent in Kelo, she predicted, ``Any property 
may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the 
fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are 
likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power 
in the political process, including large corporations and development 
firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer 
property from those with fewer resources to those with more.''
  Following the decision in Kelo, Texans, and minorities in particular, 
remain tremendously vulnerable to eminent domain abuse by ambitious 
cities and developers.
  Hours after Kelo was decided, the city of Freeport, Texas, urged its 
attorneys to redouble their efforts to take a family-owned seafood 
business for a private marina development project. This so outraged the 
Texas legislature that Texas became the second state--out of 43 so 
far--to reform its eminent domain laws.
  In El Paso, a neighborhood called El Segundo Barrio (which has been 
called the ``Ellis Island of the Southwest'') is being targeted by a 
large consortium of developers and business owners who want to remake 
the U.S.-Mexico border area for the overwhelming benefit of private 
parties.
  In San Antonio, the city wants to expand its famed River Walk 
northward again, to be filled with private businesses owned by people 
other than the current land owners.
  In Houston, the threat is everywhere. One little noticed part of the 
city's light rail plan allows the rail authority to condemn any 
property within a quarter mile of any light rail station to facilitate 
something called ``transit-oriented development.''
  Municipalities often look for areas with low property values when 
deciding where to pursue redevelopment projects because it costs the 
condemning authority less and thus the state or local government gains 
more, financially, when they replace areas of low property values with 
those with higher property values.
  This abuse can happen anywhere in the United States. Eminent domain 
abuses affecting racial minorities and those in the relatively low 
income bracket must be stopped.
  My amendment permits judicial review, to determine if this Act has a 
disproportionate impact on minorities, and for the Attorney General to 
locate those affected and inform them of their rights.
  The displacement of African Americans and urban renewal projects are 
so intertwined that ``urban renewal'' was often referred to as ``Black 
Removal.''
  There are vast disparities of African Americans or other racial or 
ethnic minorities that have been removed from their homes due to 
eminent domain actions are well documented and must continue to be 
judicially reviewed.
  When an area is taken for ``economic development,'' low-income 
families are driven out of their communities and find that they cannot 
afford to live in the ``revitalized'' neighborhoods.
  The remaining ``affordable'' housing in the area is almost certain to 
become less so. When the goal is to increase the area's tax base, it 
only makes sense that the previous low-income residents will not be 
able to remain in the area.
  This is borne out not only by common sense, but also by statistics: 
one study for the mid-1980s showed that 86 percent of those relocated 
by an exercise of the eminent domain power were paying more rent at 
their new residences, with the median rent almost doubling.
  I am keenly aware that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
see this bill as the reversal of the Kelo decision from an 
ideologically different window but I hope that this bill can be used as 
a marker to help support the rights of property owners who do not have 
access to the ``Big Litigation.''
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and so I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to say that I urge my colleagues to adopt this bipartisan legislation 
to restore meaning to the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. As 
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor noted in her dissent in that opinion, the 
Kelo decision effectively renders meaningless the protections under 
this law because, as the interpretation exists, as the Court ruling 
exists, State and local governments can seize property for almost any 
reason under the context of calling it for purposes of economic 
development, and we need to change that.
  We need to make sure that private property is what people think it 
is, and that is something that they have the right to own and not be 
interfered with by the government except for real purposes of eminent 
domain, taking land for pure public uses like roads and utilities and 
schools and other clearly public uses.
  I urge my colleagues to support the legislation, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) that the House suspend the rules and 
pass the bill, H.R. 1433, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________