[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14385-14386]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          EMINENT DOMAIN ABUSE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kuhl of New York). Under a previous 
order of the House, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to be on the floor this 
evening speaking about this particular issue. As a matter of fact, I 
was hoping over the next few days I could concentrate all of my time on 
the Out of Iraq Congressional Caucus that we are working so hard on.
  But this is National Homeowner Month, and I could not help but focus 
on the fact that in America owning your own home is one of the most 
ideal things that you can do. Americans aspire to own their own homes. 
We socialize in such a way that we teach our children to go to school, 
to get an education, to get a good job or have a good career, become an 
entrepreneur, and buy your home.
  And so as I focus on National Homeowner Month, I am outraged that the 
Supreme Court of the United States of America last Thursday made a 
decision that local entities could take American's homes in eminent 
domain proceedings for something other than public use. I am amazed 
that the Supreme Court of the United States on a 5-to-4 decision, I 
believe it was, decided that the law, the Constitution as we know it, I 
think it is the fifth amendment, that says yes, you may use eminent 
domain for good public use, is something other than what was intended. 
This ruling says you can take anybody's home for private use. In this 
case Susette Kelo, the woman from New London, CT, who brought the case, 
was trying to protect her home from the desire by a huge corporation to 
build some condominiums.
  And so now with this Supreme Court decision, the State, the city, the 
public entity, can take your home for private use. They can take your 
home and they can give it to private developers to build shopping 
centers. They can take your home and give it to developers to build a 
condominium. They can take your home for any reason that they decide is 
in the public interest, and they are trying to hide behind the idea 
that there are some cities and some entities that need to get rid of 
slums and they need to redevelop in the best interest of the citizens 
of that community.
  Yes, it may go to a private company or to a private corporation and 
yes,

[[Page 14386]]

they may get rich from that development. But if the city fathers get 
together and believe that that somehow is in the best interest and it 
is already all right, that flies in the face of the Constitution of the 
United States.
  I do not think Members have to be a strict constructionist or a 
liberal constructionist. All you need is good sense to know that the 
Constitution of the United States did not mean for your city government 
or any other entity to be able to ride over your rights and take your 
private property and give it to somebody else.
  As a matter of fact, I think this is dangerous. I think it is 
dangerous because your city fathers could get together with developers 
and take land in ways it has never been done before. We know too many 
stories about the influence of developers on county council members and 
on city governments. We know too much about the flow of money. We know 
too much about campaign contributions to those who would just as soon 
institute eminent domain as do anything.
  As a matter of fact, without this interpretation that we got last 
Thursday, we have city fathers who have tried it, even though they did 
not have this ruling. You have communities that have to fight against 
city council members and mayors getting together trying to take their 
property and at least trying to call it for public use.
  But now the Supreme Court has made it clear that they can take it for 
private use. I do not like it. Members do not have to be a Democrat or 
Republican, liberal or conservative. Members just need to be an 
American with good sense that says you will not stand for it.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to get together with some of my friends on 
the other side of the aisle and we are going to create a law that will 
undermine this decision of the Supreme Court and take back amendment 5 
of the Constitution so we can redefine the meaning in the way it is 
supposed to be defined.

                          ____________________