[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 14982-14991]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   EXPRESSING THE GRAVE DISAPPROVAL OF THE HOUSE REGARDING MAJORITY 
         OPINION OF SUPREME COURT IN KELO v. CITY OF NEW LONDON

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree 
to the resolution (H. Res. 340) expressing the grave disapproval of the 
House of Representatives regarding the majority opinion of the Supreme 
Court in the case of Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al. that 
nullifies the protections afforded private property owners in the 
Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                              H. Res. 340

       Whereas the takings clause of the fifth amendment states 
     ``nor shall private property be taken for public use, without 
     just compensation'';
       Whereas upon adoption, the 14th amendment extended the 
     application of the fifth amendment to each and every State 
     and local government;
       Whereas the takings clause of the 5th amendment has 
     historically been interpreted and applied by the Supreme 
     Court to be conditioned upon the necessity that Government 
     assumption of private property through eminent domain must be 
     for the public use and requires just compensation;
       Whereas the opinion of the majority in Kelo et al. v. City 
     of New London et al. renders the public use provision in the 
     Takings Clause of the fifth amendment without meaning;
       Whereas the opinion of the majority in Kelo et al. v. City 
     of New London et al. justifies the forfeiture of a person's 
     private property through eminent domain for the sole benefit 
     of another private person;
       Whereas the dissenting opinion upholds the historical 
     interpretation of the takings clause and affirms that ``the 
     public use requirement imposes a more basic limitation upon 
     government, circumscribing the very scope of the eminent 
     domain power: Government may compel an individual to forfeit 
     her property for the public's use, but not for the benefit of 
     another private person'';
       Whereas the dissenting opinion in Kelo et al. v. City of 
     New London et al. holds that the ``standard this Court has 
     adopted for the Public Use Clause is therefore deeply 
     perverse'' and the beneficiaries of this decision are 
     ``likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence 
     and power in the political process, including large 
     corporations and development firms'' and ``the government now 
     has license to transfer property from those with fewer 
     resources to those with more''; and
       Whereas all levels of government have a Constitutional 
     responsibility and a moral obligation to always defend the 
     property rights of individuals and to only execute its power 
     of eminent domain for the good of public use and contingent 
     upon the just compensation to the individual property owner: 
     Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That--
       (1) the House of Representatives--
       (A) disagrees with the majority opinion in Kelo et al. v. 
     City of New London et al. and its holdings that effectively 
     negate the public use requirement of the takings clause; and
       (B) agrees with the dissenting opinion in Kelo et al. v. 
     City of New London et al. in its upholding of the historical 
     interpretation of the takings clause and its deference to the 
     rights of individuals and their property; and
       (2) it is the sense of the House of Representatives that--
       (A) State and local governments should only execute the 
     power of eminent domain for those purposes that serve the 
     public good in accordance with the fifth amendment;
       (B) State and local governments must always justly 
     compensate those individuals whose property is assumed 
     through eminent domain in accordance with the fifth 
     amendment;
       (C) any execution of eminent domain by State and local 
     government that does not comply with subparagraphs (A) and 
     (B) constitutes an abuse of government power and an 
     usurpation of the individual property rights as defined in 
     the fifth amendment;
       (D) eminent domain should never be used to advantage one 
     private party over another;
       (E) no State nor local government should construe the 
     holdings of Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al. as 
     justification to abuse the power of eminent domain; and
       (F) Congress maintains the prerogative and reserves the 
     right to address through legislation any abuses of eminent 
     domain by State and local government in light of the ruling 
     in Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner).


                             General Leave

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. 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 material on H. Res. 340.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 340, a resolution 
introduced by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) strongly 
condemning the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in Kelo v. City of New 
London. In this case, handed down on June 23, the Supreme Court 
transformed the public use doctrine under the fifth amendment's takings 
clause to allow the government to take property for economic 
development.
  The fifth amendment of the U.S. Constitution specifically provides 
that private property shall not be taken for public use without just 
compensation. This decision insults the constitutional rights of all 
Americans and unsettles decades of judicial precedent.
  As the dissent in this case pointed out, under the majority's 
opinion, ``Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another 
private party. 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.''
  To give legislative force to this resolution, today I introduced H.R. 
3135, the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005. This 
bipartisan bill will help restore the property rights of all Americans 
that the Supreme Court took away last week. I am pleased that the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, is the

[[Page 14983]]

lead Democratic cosponsor and that 64 additional Members have already 
agreed to support this measure.
  This legislation would prevent the Federal Government from using 
economic development as a justification for taking privately owned 
property. It would also prohibit any State or municipality from doing 
so whenever Federal funds are involved with the project for which 
eminent domain authority is exercised. American taxpayers should not be 
forced to contribute in any way to the abuse of government power.
  The impact of this decision cuts across social, economic and 
demographic lines. In their joint amicus brief, the NAACP and the AARP 
stated, ``The takings that result from the Court's decision will 
disproportionately affect and harm the economically disadvantaged and, 
in particular, the racial and ethnic minorities and the elderly.''
  In its brief, the American Farm Bureau Federation stated, ``Each of 
our members is threatened by the decision with the loss of productive 
farm and ranch land, solely to allow someone else to put it to a 
different private use.''
  The representatives of religious organizations have stated that the 
Supreme Court's decision will ``grant municipalities a special license 
to invade the autonomy of and take the property of religious 
institutions.''
  Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) for 
introducing this important resolution and encourage my colleagues to 
support it. I also ask Members to join me in cosponsoring H.R. 3135 to 
assure the American people that we will not allow our churches, our 
homes, our farms and other private property to be bulldozed in abusive 
land grabs that solely benefit private individuals whose only claim to 
that land is that their greater wealth will increase tax revenues.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I rise in opposition to this sense of Congress resolution.
  This is a great evening in the House of Representatives. We had the 
gentleman from Wisconsin, the chairman, joining me and the great civil 
rights organizations of America that he has named, all working in 
common cause to right a decision that has come out of the Supreme Court 
about eminent domain that will require the attention of all of the 
Members of this body.
  In a way, I am reluctantly in opposition to the sense of Congress 
resolution because if I had had a little part in drafting it, I can 
tell my colleagues we would have taken out some of the over-the-top 
criticism of the Court itself, and I would probably be arguing for this 
sense of Congress resolution.
  I have serious concerns regarding the misuse and overuse of eminent 
domain procedures in this country and oppose the elevation of corporate 
profits and corporate uses of land over individual rights. So like the 
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, I joined NAACP, the 
Southern Christian Leadership Council, Operation Push, and the 
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights because I think this Court 
opinion makes it too easy for private property to be taken and 
transferred to another private owner. This is a particular problem. 
Eminent domain has been used historically to target the poor, people of 
color, and the elderly.
  Since I am a cosponsor of the bipartisan legislation that the 
chairman of the committee has called for, then what is my problem with 
the resolution? Well, it gratuitously overtargets the judicial branch. 
There are terms in here that are not helpful as we engage in a debate 
with a co-equal branch of government.
  The resolution insists that Congress, and Congress alone, can address 
abuses of eminent domain. I am not so sure about that. That ignores and 
demeans the historic role the courts have played in protecting 
individual rights and property rights.
  The other problem that leads me not to be supportive of the sense of 
Congress resolution is that it inaccurately misstates the scope of the 
Supreme Court's ruling. For example, the resolution states that the 
majority opinion justifies the forfeiture of a person's private 
property through eminent domain for the sole benefit of another private 
person. As a matter of fact, Justice Stevens stated at the outset of 
his opinion that the sovereign may not take property for the sole 
purpose of transferring it to another party.
  The resolution states that the majority opinion renders the public 
use provision in the takings clause meaningless, but it is more 
accurate to say that the public purpose requirement is still 
applicable, although somewhat diminished.
  In reality, the majority opinion held that the eminent domain may be 
used where the plan serves a public purpose. The issue of eminent 
domain in takings are complex, fact-specific issues. They warrant more 
than the short discussion that we will be limited to today. The issue 
deserves full legislative hearings, which our legislation will, of 
course, provide for in the Committee on the Judiciary.
  We want to all work on this constitutional issue. It is sensitive. We 
cannot go over the top on this. We have got to keep it down.
  I am tired of corporations wiping out communities because they need a 
plant or casinos developed and taken under eminent domain. We need to 
rein this in, and this case gives us an opportunity to do so.
  I am shocked that I am standing in the well here reciting the members 
that signed the dissent: Scalia, Rehnquist, Thomas and O'Connor. What 
an evening this has been for those of us here in the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), the author of the resolution.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the author of H. Res. 340, 
a resolution expressing the grave disapproval of the House of 
Representatives regarding the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in 
the case of Kelo et al. v. City of New London, Connecticut. I encourage 
all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this 
bipartisan resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I first would like to take this opportunity to thank the 
leadership of this House and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman 
Sensenbrenner) for so expeditiously scheduling and shepherding this 
resolution to the floor for a vote. I would also like to thank the over 
75 Members who have contacted my office to become cosponsors of the 
resolution and those who are speaking in support of it tonight.
  H. Res. 340 demonstrates the commitment of this House to not stand 
idly by, but rather to act now in addressing this atrocious and 
negligent decision. By a margin of only one vote, the Supreme Court has 
struck down 2 centuries' worth of precedents and constitutional 
protections for property owners.
  It is the responsibility of this House to ensure that the American 
people, the owners of this great country, are never run over by a 
handful of judges who refuse to enforce the written laws of this land 
and to uphold the guarantees of the Constitution.

                              {time}  2130

  Mr. Speaker, despite the failings of the majority in the New London 
decision, at least there were four justices who got it right. I applaud 
them in their steadfast determination and commitment to uphold the 
Constitution and express their own dismay at the majority's rulings.
  As Justice O'Connor writes in the dissenting opinion: ``Any property 
may now be taken for the benefit of another private property, and the 
beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate 
influence and power in the political process.''
  No home, no business, no property, no person is safe from the 
destructive consequences of this decision. Imagine a local city council 
using its power of eminent domain to condemn and demolish the local 
church or synagogue and put up a Starbucks because God is not making 
them any money.
  As Americans across this country prepare to celebrate the 229th 
anniversary of our independence, I can think

[[Page 14984]]

of no greater tribute to our fine and Founding Fathers and no greater 
gift to the American people than declaring that this land is their land 
and not the government's.
  Mr. Speaker, I again want to thank the leadership of this House and 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), and I would encourage 
all of my colleagues to pass this resolution and speak united in one 
voice declaring liberty and justice for all.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the author of H. Res. 340, a resolution 
expressing the grave disapproval of the House of Representatives 
regarding the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in the case of Kelo 
et al. v. the City of New London Connecticut. I encourage all of my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bipartisan 
Resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I would first like to take this opportunity to thank the 
leadership of this House and Chairman Sensenbrenner for so 
expeditiously scheduling and shepherding this Resolution to the floor 
for a vote.
  I would also like to thank the over seventy-five members who have 
contacted my office to become cosponsors of this Resolution, and those 
who are speaking in support tonight.
  House Resolution 340 demonstrates the commitment of this House to not 
stand idly by, but rather to act now in addressing this atrocious and 
negligent decision. By a margin of only one vote, the Supreme Court has 
struck down two centuries worth of precedent and Constitutional 
protections for property owners.
  It is the responsibility of this House to ensure that the American 
people, the owners of this great country, are never run over by a 
handful of judges who refuse to enforce the written laws of this land 
and uphold the guarantees of the Constitution.
  Mr. Speaker, despite the failings of the majority in the New London 
decision, at least there were four justices who got it right. I applaud 
them in their steadfast determination and commitment to uphold the 
Constitution and express their own dismay at the majority's ruling. As 
Justice O'Connor writes in the dissenting opinion: ``any property may 
now be taken for the benefit of another private party . . . and the 
beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate 
influence and power in the political process.''
  No home, no business, no property, no person is safe from the 
destructive consequences of this decision. Imagine, a local city 
council using its power of eminent domain to condemn and demolish the 
local Church or Synagogue and put up a Starbucks, because God isn't 
making them any money.
  As Americans across this great country prepare to celebrate the 229th 
Anniversary of our Independence, I can think of no greater tribute to 
our Founding Fathers and no greater gift to the American people than 
declaring that this land is their land and not the government's.
  Mr. Speaker, I again want to thank the Leadership of this House and 
Chairman Sensenbrenner, and I would encourage all of my colleagues to 
pass this Resolution and speak united in one voice declaring liberty 
and justice for all.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the ranking member on the 
Subcommittee on the Constitution.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I am pleased that my colleagues have focused on the 
importance of the Supreme Court's Kelo decision. The power of eminent 
domain is an extraordinary power that must be used rarely and with 
great care. Even where the constitution might permit the exercise of 
this extraordinary power, government must take great care to respect 
the rights of families, of small businesses and of communities. This is 
not a power that should be used for the benefit of private parties who 
might be well connected, as Justice O'Connor said. It is a power that 
can be abused, and that has been abused.
  I want to point out that the Supreme Court, in this decision, is 
essentially saying that power that communities have exercised, they can 
continue to exercise, where some thought that we ought to pull it back. 
For example, when President Bush was one of the owners of the Texas 
Rangers baseball team, they were able to get the town of Arlington, 
Texas, to condemn private property to give them land to build a 
baseball stadium. Ask the Mathes family about the abuse of power. The 
city condemned 13 acres of their land for George Bush's baseball team, 
and the Mathes family had to go to court to compensate them for the 
actual value of the land.
  Now, I think we would agree that was not right, and the Supreme Court 
now says that that is okay. We cannot allow private individuals to be 
enriched at the expense of their neighbors by hijacking and abusing the 
power of government.
  The Kelo decision raises a great many questions, and I want to 
commend my colleagues, the chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Conyers), for introducing legislation and allowing the Committee 
on the Judiciary to consider the full impact of the court's decision 
and draw the proper line between the public interest and private 
enrichments. We need to protect families like the Mathes family, 
victimized by the Texas Rangers and the town government in Texas, and 
we need to protect our communities from the abuse of government power 
to benefit private interest.
  Now, I am going to reluctantly vote against the resolution because, 
as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) said, it says things about 
the decision that probably are not accurate. I do not think the 
decision said that you can use the power of eminent domain for the sole 
benefit of another private person. It might be the incidental benefit 
of a private person if you could concoct a theory of public benefit. I 
do not think it completely negates the public use requirements of the 
takings clause.
  Having said that, the basic purpose of the resolution is a good one, 
and the basic purpose of the legislation that the chairman has 
introduced is a good purpose. But I hope we will hold a series of 
hearings on the Committee on the Judiciary. We should hold one hearing 
to determine from experts exactly what the Supreme Court said; how far 
it went and how far it did not go. When the dissent says it went this 
far, it does not mean that is what the majority meant. Dissents often 
overemphasize the implications of the majority decision.
  So I think we should have one hearing on what the Supreme Court 
actually said and what we are faced with, and I think we should have 
another hearing on where we think we should draw the line. Communities 
need to be able to use eminent domain for legitimate economic 
development, but they should not be able to use it for private 
enrichment. How do you draw that line?
  These are serious questions that we should consider adequately. I 
think we should hold a few hearings and craft careful legislation to 
limit the effect of the Supreme Court's decision, and I would hope that 
we could craft legislation carefully that we could all support in this 
House.
  So, again, I commend Chairman Sensenbrenner, and I am glad to be able 
to have the opportunity to do that after recent history. I commend 
Ranking Member Conyers. But I will reluctantly vote against this 
resolution because, although I approve of its main thrust, I believe it 
says things about the court decision that are not quite accurate, and I 
look forward to working with my colleagues to fashion legislation that 
we can all support and that gets us what the Greeks called the proper 
mien to protect the rights of communities for proper economic 
development, but protect the rights of individuals. But I do, once 
again, thank the gentleman for bringing this subject to our attention.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority leader.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his generosity in 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, the Constitution of the United States was written as 
much for any other reason as to protect the private property rights of 
the American people. The Supreme Court last week, in the already 
infamous Kelo case, essentially rejected the very idea of private 
property rights at all.
  I know some believe that the Supreme Court is some Citadel with all 
knowledge and all wisdom and that every decision they make is the right

[[Page 14985]]

decision. But by this narrow 5-4 decision, our high court essentially 
set aside the most basic fundamental tenet of the social contract that 
underlies self-government, the inviolability of private property 
rights; the unchangeable principle of politics, morality, and common 
sense; that what is mine is mine, and what is yours is yours.
  What the court decided last week was that what is mine is not really 
mine and what is yours is not really yours; that, in fact, private 
property only exists as a political expedient, a psychological 
contrivance wholly subject to the government's whim. The court ruled 
that private property, your home or your small business, may be taken 
by the government and given to someone else who, in the government's 
judgment, will put that property to better use.
  This is not the taking of someone's property without compensation for 
specific public use, like a highway or a military base. Congress and 
States are explicitly granted such power in the Constitution. This is, 
instead, the government taking your home and giving it to some business 
because they will generate more tax revenue. Indeed, given the risible 
logic employed by the court's majority last week, there is no reason 
your city council cannot kick you out of your house and give it to a 
wealthier family who will add on to the home and, therefore, pay higher 
property taxes down the road.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not a lawyer, so do not just take my word for it. 
Justice O'Connor, writing in dissent of this awful decision said: ``If 
predicted, or even guaranteed, positive side effects are enough to 
render transfer from one private party to another constitutional, then 
the words ``for public use'' in the Constitution do not realistically 
exclude any takings.'' Justice Thomas adds, ``If such economic 
development takings are for public use, any taking is, and the court 
has erased the Public Use Clause for our constitution.''
  Both Justices O'Connor and Thomas went on to warn the result of this 
foolhardy decision would be that people most vulnerable to the 
government preying on their property would be the poor, the elderly, 
and racial minorities. No kidding. Those people with the least economic 
and political power, with the least means to fight back, and the most 
need for government protection of their God-given rights have been told 
by the Supreme Court that while property rights are sacred, some 
people's property rights are more sacred than others.
  This is madness, Mr. Speaker, and it must not stand. The court's Kelo 
decision will go down in history as a travesty. It is not a debatable 
ideological overreach but a universally deplorable assault of the 
rights of man. The only bright lining to it is that this time the court 
may have finally gone too far and the American people will reassert 
their constitutional authority.
  We can only hope, Mr. Speaker, that this resolution will be the first 
step in a long overdue process of constitutional renewal. Begin that 
process and vote ``yes'' on this resolution.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to thank the Supreme Court for bringing us all together here in the 
House tonight. It is very unusual.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Frank), an active member for many years on the 
Committee on the Judiciary who is now on leave.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
ranking member for yielding me this time, and, like him and the ranking 
member of the subcommittee, I have some differences with the wording 
here. I was particularly struck by the second whereas. ``Whereas upon 
adoption, the 14th amendment extended the application of the fifth 
amendment to each and every State and local government.'' In fact, it 
did not. Not at adoption.
  When the 14th amendment was adopted, it was not considered to extend 
it. And, in fact, it was what some would have called a liberal Supreme 
Court that decided to apply the Bill of Rights to the States through 
the 14th amendment. Now, I am glad they did, and I welcome the support 
in this resolution for that concept. I know not everybody on that side 
agrees with it.
  Having said that, I am going to vote for the resolution, even though 
I disagree with some of the wording. I long ago had to come to the 
reluctant conclusion that voting for resolutions and literary criticism 
were two very different activities, and too high an aesthetic standard 
applied to resolutions would make me always vote no. So I tend to not 
pay too much attention to the whereases. I look at the resolves, and I 
agree with these resolves.
  But let me rephrase the question, because this is the question the 
majority is asking. Remember, the Supreme Court, the five-member 
majority, made what I think is a wrong decision, but they did not take 
the property. You know who took the property? The elected government of 
the City of New London, people who were elected, and they did it 
pursuant to laws adopted by the elected legislature and governor of 
Connecticut. So what you are accusing the Supreme Court of, and I am 
agreeing with, is very simple: They were insufficiently activists.
  Here is this Supreme Court majority letting elected officials do what 
they want. And the majority is asking an often-asked question: Where is 
judicial activism when we need it? Because people are not opposed to 
judicial activism, they are only opposed to judicial activism when they 
do not want the result. This is judicial activism you are calling for.
  Let me read your resolves. ``State and local governments should only 
execute the power of eminent domain for those purposes.'' ``State and 
local governments must always justly compensate.'' It is State and 
local governments in the resolution that we are telling what to do. And 
your problem with the Supreme Court is that it is letting those pesky 
elected local and State governments do what they want.
  My colleagues are saying, wait a minute, we cannot have elected 
officials just doing whatever they want. We cannot let elected 
officials deciding to do these things. If they violate constitutional 
rights, we want a Supreme Court that stops them. Well, so do I. But 
sometimes you call that activism. Because that is what you are asking 
for.
  The Supreme Court has never taken a piece of property. Go right 
across the street. You can look. It has not gotten any bigger. I have 
been here 25 years, and they have not expanded one tree. What they did 
was allow locally elected and State elected officials to do it. So let 
me say that I agree with your complaint about insufficient judicial 
activism in this case. Let us just not think that that is a faucet you 
turn on and off.
  The second issue is let us get consistent application of it. The 
gentleman from New York correctly mentioned a case where they took land 
in Texas for a baseball stadium. A number of Members here have been 
enjoying the new baseball team in Washington. We have seen a couple of 
outrageous assaults on the notion that Mr. Soros should be allowed to 
buy the team. Whoever believes in free enterprise ever thought they had 
the right to dictate who is the owner of a private team. That is an 
argument that you will lament for lack of judicial activism. But what 
they are doing here, the government of Washington, D.C., is doing 
exactly what you are saying is wrong here.
  So I guess Members here are going to boycott that stadium. They are 
taking property down there on O Street. May not be property everybody 
here wants to go to, it may not be your farms and your beaches, but it 
is private property, and the District of Columbia Government is going 
to take that private property over the objection of the owners to build 
that baseball stadium. So instead of trying to drive out some owner 
that you do not like, why not look into that situation?
  But then there is finally an even more important aspect to this. In 
my earlier years on the then-Committee on Banking, we dealt with 
something called UDAG, Urban Development Action Grants, and I and some 
others, including a former Republican Member of this House, who went on 
to become the

[[Page 14986]]

Mayor of Dallas, Mr. Bartlett, joined together to object to 
displacement.

                              {time}  2145

  We have had Federal programs that have given money to local 
governments for urban renewal, it was originally called, for various 
forms of advancement. So I would assume, and I have been upset with 
displacement of poor people with no replacement housing. It is 
considered a good thing if you remove blight. Do Members know what 
blight is? Blight is poor people with houses with peeling paint, and we 
have too often in the past funded the destruction of that housing and 
not funded its replacement.
  Let me serve notice now, I will be, as we deal with legislation in 
the Committee on Financial Services, and hope others will do it as 
well, every piece of legislation that comes through here where we use 
public money in a way that would diminish the housing opportunities for 
low-income people, let us provide alternative opportunities, because 
here is the problem. The problem is this, they do not own. I think 
these are important principles.
  But the resolution says it right: you do not let those with more 
resources benefit at the expense of those with fewer resources. The 
people with the fewest resources are poor people who rent.
  So even though it is not the exact constitutional principle, I hope 
Members will join us when we say you are not going to use public money 
and public powers to destroy housing that low-income renters live in, 
because that will be in that spirit. And then we will go to a nice 
activist Supreme Court and ask them to enforce it.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I must say the gentleman's logic is 
impeccable, and I think the gentleman has convinced me to vote for the 
resolution despite what I said before.
  My question is this: According to principles of this resolution and 
of the draft legislation introduced by the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), if 
that were to pass, do you think that would prevent or would have 
prevented the seizure of land for the Texas Rangers baseball stadium 
and it would prevent the seizure of land for the Washington National 
baseball stadium?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, if Federal money is 
involved, and Federal money is involved in a lot of ways.
  By the way, I am a great believer in autonomy for Washington, D.C. I 
belive they should be able to do what they want to do; but the money 
does pass through here, so people better be very careful how they draft 
it, or they may knock out that stadium. But certainly that would be the 
case.
  I never ever voted for funding for a public stadium. I am glad to see 
this because the biggest abuse of this is low- and middle-income 
taxpayers who are taxed to build public stadiums so people can make 
tens of millions of dollars having a good time playing ball. And, yes, 
I do believe if there were any Federal funds involved in either the 
Texas stadium, and that could include State funds depending upon their 
fungibility, but certainly it is the case, as I understand what is 
going on in Washington, D.C., it violates the principles here and it 
would be stricken by the minority and it would perhaps be stricken by 
the bill if Federal funds were involved.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Utah (Mr. Cannon), the Chair of the Western Caucus.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I find myself in the anomalous position of 
associating myself with the comments of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), and I hear some chuckles on the other side, 
and I think that is appropriate, as to, in particular, the 
constitutional history cited, the effect on the poor, and the problem 
with the aesthetics of this resolution, which I strongly support.
  We have already heard the Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of 
New London represents a clear blow to private property rights. The 
Supreme Court has now established that local governments can seize 
private land if government and business interests think they have an 
idea for more profitable use for the property. If commercial 
development now meets the definition of ``public use,'' no private 
property is safe from government hands.
  Worst of all, the groups most affected by the decision are the 
poorest and least likely to be able to defend themselves. The 
frightening prospect of the wealthy and connected preying on the poor 
does not escape the public.
  The Daily Herald, my local newspaper, stated, ``The true 
beneficiaries of this deal are the private developers who are getting 
the land they want without the hassle of protracted real estate 
negotiations. Rather than trying to find a price at which the residents 
would sell or finding a willing seller somewhere else, the developers 
just got the city to do their dirty work. Eminent domain leaves little 
room for quibbling or sentimentality. One of the residents who 
challenged New London was an 87-year-old woman who was born in the 
house she lived in and planned to spend the rest of her life there.''
  Historically, the fifth amendment has restrained government's ability 
to take away people's homes through eminent domain. Despite the 
holdings of the Court in this decision, State and local governments 
should not use the New London decision as cover to abuse eminent domain 
powers and trample cherished individual property rights.
  But, unfortunately, this process has already begun. This mistaken 
ruling has already emboldened governments and developers seeking to 
take property from home and small business owners and local communities 
in Texas, Missouri, New Jersey, Wisconsin, and Tennessee; and other 
States are likely to follow.
  I would encourage them to do a better job of protecting their 
citizens, their residents, and their voters rather than following the 
license now allowed them by the Supreme Court.
  I believe it is incumbent upon Congress as a coequal branch of 
government to protect these local communities as well as countless 
others around the country. Thankfully, the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Sensenbrenner) has prepared a timely piece of legislation that 
will prevent any State or municipality from using economic development 
as a justification for exercising its power of eminent domain wherever 
Federal funds are involved in any way.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage the support of this resolution and the bill 
that will be introduced by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) in the near future.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the distinguished Republican whip.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution. I 
also think I rise in support of four of the Supreme Court Justices who 
agreed with the spirit of the resolution, four of those Justices 
disagreeing with the other five in a principle of long-term property 
rights.
  This ruling effectively rewrote the fifth amendment to the 
Constitution which says that private property cannot be taken for 
public use without just compensation. Private property cannot be taken 
for public use without just compensation.
  The Bill of Rights clearly intended that the government's power to 
take someone's property was limited by two conditions: first, that just 
compensation be provided; and, second, that the property be taken and 
used for public use. Five of the Supreme Court Justices have decided 
that that second condition would no longer apply. That second condition 
applied for 218 years without a problem, and suddenly it is gone.
  I think Justice O'Connor in her dissent said it better than I might 
when she said: ``The specter of condemnation hangs over all property, 
nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-
Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.''

[[Page 14987]]

  When the Supreme Court decides that the public good benefits only by 
the best taxpayer, the highest tax use benefits the public, that is a 
hugely wrong step. I look forward to not only supporting this 
resolution, but I understand that the chairman and the ranking member 
of the Committee on the Judiciary intend to move legislation that will 
do what we can do in the Congress of the United States to see that the 
four members of the Court who upheld a long constitutional provision 
ultimately prevail.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that we add 6 
additional minutes to the time of each side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, just a few hours ago I voted 
for the amendment to the appropriations bill that addressed this 
question. But I rise this evening to further emphasize as a former 
member of a local city council that sometimes it is appropriate for 
property owners to have the hand of the Federal Government to protect 
their constitutional rights.
  Although I might quarrel with the language of the resolution as it 
relates to the description of the Court's decision, there is no doubt 
that I quarrel with an understanding of being able to take private 
property for private use.
  So I rise simply to support the idea of a remedy for those who have 
been harmed. I always believe that the Federal Government, using the 
Constitution, using the issue of due process, even though this falls 
under the question of taking, the taking clause, but simply giving 
those homeowners who were facing up against a large obstacle of 
government and corporate interest the right to protect their property.
  In this instance, this was not a depressed area, the facts will 
determine. These are homeowners who have been providing or keeping 
their homes and all of a sudden because they are on choice property, 
they now become vulnerable to a heavy hand.
  I believe this is a right direction, and I have joined the chairman 
and the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary in legislation 
that not only remedies or corrects the unlawful taking of the property 
in New London, Connecticut, but will protect Americans around the 
Nation, rural and urban areas, from overaggressive taking of eminent 
domain when taking for private purpose, and a government is taking your 
property for private purpose.
  I ask that my colleagues do continue on this bipartisan ground 
because I believe that the first step we made was the appropriation 
announcement of our opposition to this particular decision; but 
clearly, clearly, I believe the Supreme Court made a misdirected 
decision in taking the property away from homeowners and due owners of 
their property for truly private purpose.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Pombo), the chairman of the Committee on 
Resources.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting for this day for 13 years, and that 
is to have all of my colleagues down on the floor talking about 
protecting private property rights.
  The Supreme Court did do us all a favor because this is a battle that 
has been going on across rural America for decades, where they have 
misused and abused Federal and State law to take private property away 
from property owners.
  What this particular case does is it takes it right into urban and 
suburban America. It goes right into every homeowner in this country; 
and they say you are not safe in your home, we can take it away from 
you if we want to. That is exactly what they have been telling every 
farmer and rancher in this country for the last 30 years, that is, if 
we think your property is better used as critical habitat to recover 
species or to protect a wetland, we are going to take it, and there is 
nothing you can do about it.
  Now Mr. and Mrs. America realize what the farmers and ranchers and 
property owners of this country have been going through for the last 30 
years. The Supreme Court has now told you we do not care that it is 
your private property. We do not care. The Constitution does not count 
because if the city, the county, the State or the Federal Government 
decides that your property is a better use for something else, we are 
going to take it.
  Yes, we have taken the debate, we have taken the battle right into 
suburban America. And you know who is really going to get hurt in all 
of this, the same kind of people who are hurt in rural America. It is 
not the big guys. It is not the big landowners that get it; it is the 
little guys who end up getting it because what this law, what this 
decision allows is it allows the city to decide who gets your property.
  If they decide that someone else can make a better and higher use of 
your property, they will take it by eminent domain and give it to them. 
That is what it allows. It is not the big developer; it is not the rich 
corporation. It is the guy who does not even know who their city 
councilman is that is going to get it. It is the guy who cannot afford 
to hire a lobbyist, a lawyer, an attorney, a biologist, to go in and 
defend them.
  Thank you for coming down here and defending property rights.

                              {time}  2200

  And I am thrilled that this House is going to finally pass 
legislation hopefully unanimously to protect Mr. and Mrs. America and 
their single family home. But I ask Members, when we bring a bill to 
the floor to protect the farmers and ranchers in this committee, to 
join me in passing that unanimously as well.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished whip, to close 
the debate on our side.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers), my friend, the ranking member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary, very much for yielding me this time.
  And I rise in recognition that there is a pretty broad consensus on 
this floor, which I share. As I sat here and listened to the debate of 
the gentleman from Massachusetts, I lamented that I am neither as smart 
nor as articulate nor as incisive nor as humorous as the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank). But then again, I thought that I fell in the 
category of 434 others of us on this floor as well. And I adopt the 
remarks of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) almost in their 
entirety, for I have reservations about some of the whereas clauses but 
recognize the whereas clauses are not the gravamen, as we lawyers would 
say, of this resolution.
  The central portion of this resolution is to address whether or not 
government can decide that there is a public purpose for a taking of 
private property and thereby make it so. My own belief is that that 
ought not to be the case, that there ought to be better protection for 
individuals and particularly, as the previous gentleman said, usually 
smaller individuals in terms of their power and influence; individuals 
who may want to retain that home that their mom or dad bought, left to 
them and they live in and want their kids to live there as well and see 
a government who says, oh, no, we think this property can be used for a 
better purpose. The constitutional framers were careful in addressing 
that issue, careful in the sense they wanted to make sure that the king 
could not come in and say, ``I am going to take your property.'' That 
was not what they thought America ought to be. They thought it ought to 
be a country where only under law for public use could property be 
taken.
  I seldom find myself in agreement with the legal opinions of the 
Supreme Court Justices Thomas or Scalia. Neither of them will be 
surprised of that, I am sure, nor will some of my colleagues here. Nor, 
for that matter, do I often find myself in agreement with a number of 
the sponsors of this resolution. But I do tonight.
  I believe, however, and I want to make this comment, as I have 
adopted

[[Page 14988]]

the remarks of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), that when 
dealing with the court at any level, we frankly should be more 
temperate than we have been. I think this resolution, which I am going 
to support, is, nevertheless, premature. We have not had the 
opportunity to digest it, to analyze it, to determine how better we 
might state the resolution. But having said that, the resolution is 
here.
  Tonight I do agree with the proponents of this legislation in 
disagreeing with the Supreme Court five-to-four decision. Since our 
Nation's founding, the protection of private property has been a 
bedrock principle of our society. It ought to remain so. The fifth 
amendment provides in relevant part, as has been quoted, ``nor shall 
private property be taken for public use without just compensation.'' 
That amendment, of course, does not prohibit all takings, nor should 
it. Instead, it permits the government to take private property so long 
as it has a good public use for the land and so long as it provides 
just compensation. However, in this decision, the Court's majority 
greatly weakened, in my opinion, this basic constitutional principle. 
It held that a public use could be defined more broadly as a ``public 
purpose.'' I agree with the gentleman from Massachusetts's (Mr. Frank) 
finding irony in the positions with reference to activism on the 
courts, for after all in this case, the Court deferred to the 
legislature. But, in fact, the Constitutional Framers said not even the 
legislature, not even the people's representatives, could take property 
unless it was for a public use. I agree with that proposition and 
therefore disagree with this decision.
  As Justice O'Connor wrote in dissent: ``Under the banner of economic 
development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and 
transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be 
upgraded.''
  We do not want to leave our citizens vulnerable in that position. As 
a result, I will join my colleagues in voting for this resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Sensenbrenner) has 10\3/4\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for 
yielding me this time and for bringing this resolution to the floor 
tonight.
  This 5-to-4 decision by the Supreme Court in the Kelo case is one 
that will ultimately be very harmful to our freedom and our prosperity. 
Even a brief study of economics and world history shows that the most 
prosperous nations in world are those that have given the most freedom 
to their people and the greatest protection to private property. Some 
have said we do not need to worry about this decision because this new 
power will be used sparingly by local governments. Those who say that 
either do not believe very strongly in the right of private property or 
they do not realize how government at all levels can rationalize or 
justify almost anything, especially almost any taking of property.
  People do not really get upset unless or until it is their property 
being taken. Yet we can never satisfy governments' appetite for money 
or land. They always want more.
  Will your property be next?
  The City of New London wanted more tax revenue than these small homes 
could provide. As I said, we can never satisfy governments' appetite 
for money or land.
  Justice O'Connor wrote that there is now no realistic constraint on 
the taking of private property. Her words have already been quoted at 
length, but I will insert them in my statement.
  In my home region of East Tennessee, government has taken huge 
amounts of land. Almost all has been taken from poor or lower-income 
families who would be wealthy today if they still had their beautiful 
land.
  Justice Thomas said in his dissent, ``Something has gone seriously 
awry with this Court's interpretation of the Constitution. Though 
citizens are safe from the government in their homes, the homes 
themselves are not.'' He went on to say, ``The consequences of today's 
decision are not difficult to predict and promise to be harmful . . . 
Extending the concept of public purpose to encompass any economically 
beneficial goal guarantees that these losses will fall 
disproportionately on poor communities. Those communities are not only 
systematically less likely to put their lands to the highest and best 
social use, but are also the least politically powerful.''
  Mr. Speaker, this decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is a very 
dangerous one and will end up being especially harmful to the poor and 
lower-income and working people of the country.
  Thomas Jefferson once said, ``A government big enough to give you 
everything you want is a government big enough to take away everything 
you have.''
  Justice O'Connor wrote that there is now no realistic constraint on 
the taking of private property.

       She said: `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 . . . 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.'

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. King), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me 
this time, and I thank also the gentleman from Georgia for bringing 
this resolution before this Congress this evening and for acting as 
quickly as we all have.
  It is a good feeling to be here with my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle with the Committee on the Judiciary talking about defending 
the Constitution in concert instead of conflict. I appreciate this 
opportunity to do so.
  And I found myself standing on the floor last night quoting Justice 
O'Connor and agreeing with Justice O'Connor, and it has been a little 
while. But she nailed it exactly right. What happened, though, in this 
case, in the Kelo case, was five of nine Justices amended our 
Constitution. That is exactly what they did. They amended our 
Constitution with their sliver thin majority opinion. Fifth amendment: 
``nor shall private property be taken for public use without just 
compensation.'' They drew a line through the words ``for public use,'' 
and now the fifth amendment reads: nor shall private property be taken 
without just compensation; and, by the way, government will decide what 
just compensation is, who shall be compensated, and for what purpose, 
be it public or be it private.
  The economic strength of the United States of America has been rooted 
in our property rights. We look across our history, and we see this 
Nation that we have and the wonderful economy that has grown. It has 
grown because we had collateral called ``real property.'' Real property 
that could be collateralized by bankers and financial institutions so 
investors and entrepreneurs could pledge that collateral and borrow the 
capital and build the businesses. That is what put the transcontinental 
railroad across this country. That is what has built the businesses on 
Wall Street and in Washington, D.C., in Iowa, and all across this land 
has been the guarantee of property rights. We look at a Third World 
country where there are no guarantees like that, and it is easy to see 
these people cannot borrow money against their collateral, they cannot 
ensure their property as collateral; so when they get a paycheck, they 
buy two or three bricks and they go home and they mix a little mortar 
and they lay two or three bricks up alongside that house, and over 30 
years, they build a house two or three bricks at a time as opposed to 
paying for that mortgage payment one payment at a time. That is how 
much difference it makes to have property rights.
  The victims of this, I happen to have brought along some pictures of 
these individuals. Here are three entities that are affected by this 
decision: Here

[[Page 14989]]

 is Susette Kelo. She received notice of condemnation from the New 
London Development Corporation, which, by the way, is an entity that 
was empowered by the City of New London, a private corporation. This 
was the day before Thanksgiving in 2000, and ``we are going to take 
your home.''
  And this: Bill Von Winkle's, one of the 15 properties condemned 
because of this decision. And Susanne and Matt Dery, both may lose 
their home. They have had that home for 20 years.
  The difference of what happens between small towns and large towns 
too, in an incorporated community of 50 people with five council 
members representing 10 percent of that city, three of them, a majority 
of that, can decide that they do not like a particular blighted region 
like a single house and condemn that house and put up a convenience 
store. They can do so also in a large city by wiping out whole sections 
of communities, whether they be business interests or not.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez).
  Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for 
yielding me this time.
  I especially want to commend the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) 
for bringing this resolution to the floor tonight, and I rise in strong 
support of it.
  As has been cited repeatedly in this debate, the fifth amendment of 
the Constitution of the United States states clearly that private 
property cannot be ``taken for public use without just compensation.'' 
The recent egregious ruling by the Supreme Court in the Kelo versus the 
City of New London case ignores the word ``public'' and opens the doors 
for the government to deprive any individual of his or her private 
property for any reason, including to directly benefit a private 
individual or private corporation. Under the guise of economic 
development, State and local officials can now arbitrarily kick 
families out of their homes, farmers and ranchers off their land, and 
close small businesses that do not provide enough tax revenue for the 
city or the State. Mr. Speaker, that is unbelievable in the United 
States of America.
  I believe in the same thing that our Founding Fathers addressed when 
drafting the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. 
Government is morally obliged to serve the people, namely by protecting 
life, liberty, and, yes, private property. The Supreme Court should 
honor these values, and I applaud the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Gingrey) and those other Members who are actively taking the initiative 
tonight to protect the fundamental private property rights of all 
Americans.
  I urge every Member to support this resolution expressing the grave 
disapproval of the House of Representatives regarding the majority 
opinion of the Supreme Court in the Kelo versus the City of New London 
case.

                              {time}  2215

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, we have had a great debate on this resolution. I would 
like to close with a quote from the amicus brief filed by the National 
Association for the Advancement of Colored People in the Kelo case:
  ``In this case, public use has been defined so broadly that eminent 
domain authority has no practical limits. Allowing a taking simply 
because the party to whom the State wishes to transfer the property has 
a greater ability to maximize the value of the property fails to 
account for the rights of the individual property owners and would 
systematically sanction transfers from those with less resources at 
their disposal to those with more. Moreover, expanding the scope of 
public use to include the potential for economic development that may 
ultimately benefit the public would arguably include virtually any 
case, and thus render meaningless the judicial review of taking 
cases.''
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that the debate that has gone on in this House 
for the better part of the last hour has very clearly shown the 
dangerous consequences of the majority opinion in the Kelo case. It is 
a decision that will have profound impact in terms of the relationship 
of the owners of private property with their government in this country 
for years to come, unless we take immediate action to limit or even 
reverse those consequences.
  I would point out that the property that is probably the most at risk 
under the Kelo case is that which belongs to our religious institutions 
and other organizations that have been granted tax exempt status 
pursuant to State law.
  The Kelo case holding essentially says that if a municipality can get 
more tax revenue out of a condemnation and sale to another private 
party, then the public purpose clause of the fifth amendment to the 
United States Constitution no longer applies. And what property is most 
vulnerable to that erroneous interpretation, but property which is tax 
exempt, belonging to our churches, our synagogues, our mosques, our 
private schools, our fraternal societies, and any other organization 
that has gotten a tax exemption because the legislature has determined 
that the public policy of the State is advanced by the granting of that 
exemption.
  I believe that this decision may have the same effect in the long 
term as the Dred Scott decision, which started a civil war in our 
country because the Supreme Court made a serious mistake in the 1850s.
  This resolution is the first step to express the outrage of Congress 
and the fact that Congress is standing up to protect the private 
property rights of the citizens who vote to send us to this Congress to 
act in their name.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and I have introduced H.R. 
3135, which takes away the Federal funding of municipalities that wish 
to use taxpayer dollars for this perverse purpose. There is a cosponsor 
sheet that I will have on the desk for those that wish to be a part of 
the crusade to legislate taking away Federal funding to municipalities 
and States that wish to do this.
  We are on a crusade here. I would urge an ``aye'' vote on the 
resolution, but the Committee on the Judiciary will be very active in 
making sure that the door to the Federal Treasury is locked shut and 
locked shut tight so that no municipality will be coming to Washington 
to ask for money to finance goofy condemnations like the Supreme Court 
upheld in the Kelo case.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this 
resolution expressing disapproval of the majority opinion of the U.S. 
Supreme Court in the case of Kelo et al. v. New London et al.
  That case involved the question of the scope of a local government's 
authority to use the power of eminent domain, and in particular whether 
local governments may condemn private houses in order to use the land 
for uses that are primarily commercial.
  The question before the court was whether such use of eminent domain 
is consistent with the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment--made 
applicable to the States by the 14th Amendment--which says ``nor shall 
private property be taken for `public use without just compensation.'' 
Answering that question required the court to decide what qualifies as 
a ``public use.''
  The case involved actions aimed at redevelopment of a particular 
neighborhood in New London, Connecticut to encourage new economic 
activities. Toward that end, a development corporation--technically a 
private entity although evidently under the city's control--prepared a 
development plan.
  The city approved the plan and authorized the corporation to acquire 
land in the neighborhood. However, nine people who owned property there 
did not wish to sell to the corporation. The city of New London chose 
to exercise its right of eminent domain and ordered the development 
corporation, acting as the city's legally appointed agent, to condemn 
the holdout owners' lots. These owners were the petitioners in this 
case, with the lead plaintiff being Susette Kelo, who owned a small 
home in the development area.
  The owners sued the city in Connecticut courts, arguing that the city 
had misused its eminent domain power, but lost. They then asked the 
U.S. Supreme Court to review the Connecticut Supreme Court's decision 
in favor

[[Page 14990]]

of the city, arguing that it was not constitutional for the government 
to take private property from one individual or corporation and give it 
to another, simply because the other might put the property to a use 
that would generate higher tax revenue.
  The Supreme Court agreed with the City of New London in a 5-4 
decision. The majority decision, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, 
said that local governments should be afforded wide latitude in seizing 
property for land-use decisions of a local nature. The primary dissent, 
written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, suggested that the use of this 
power in a reverse Robin Hood fashion--take from the poor, give to the 
rich--would become the norm, not the exception: ``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.'' A separate dissent was written by Justice Clarence Thomas, 
while Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote a separate concurrence with the 
majority's ruling.
  The court's decision in this case has attracted considerable comment 
and criticism. For example, the Rocky Mountain News said ``The 5-to-4 
decision expands the already expansive definition of `public use' to 
mean anything that might conceivably benefit the public through 
economic development. As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said in her 
stinging dissent, the effect is to `wash out any distinction between 
private and public use of property.' Other editorials and opinion 
columns were even harsher.
  I am not a lawyer, and certainly no expert on this aspect of 
Constitutional law. But I find Justice O'Connor's analysis of the 
likely fallout of the decision persuasive and I share the concerns of 
many of those who have been critical of the decision, especially those 
related to the possible abuse of the power of eminent domain in 
situations such as the one involved in this case.
  That is why I am voting for this resolution.
  I do not fully agree with every word of it--especially the statement 
that the majority's decision in the ``Kelo'' case ``renders the public 
use provision in . . . the fifth amendment without meaning.''
  But I definitely agree that, as the resolution states, ``State and 
local governments should only execute the power of eminent domain for 
those purposes that serve the public good . . . must justly compensate 
those individuals whose property is assumed through eminent domain . . 
. [and] any execution of eminent domain by State and local government 
that does not comply [with the conditions stated] constitutes an abuse 
of government power and an usurpation of the individual property rights 
as defined in the fifth amendment.''
  I also am in sympathy with the parts of the resolution that state 
that ``eminent domain should never be used to advantage one private 
party over another,'' and that state and local governments should not 
``construe the holdings'' in the Kelo case ``as a justification to 
abuse the power of eminent domain.''
  And I certainly agree that ``Congress maintains the prerogative and 
reserve the right to address through legislation any abuses of eminent 
domain by State and local government.''
  However, of course Congress can only take such action in ways that 
are themselves consistent with the Constitution, and in any event I 
think we should be reluctant to take actions to curb what some--perhaps 
even a temporary majority--in Congress might consider improper actions 
by a State or local government.
  The States, through their legislatures or in some cases by direct 
popular vote, can put limits on the use of eminent domain by their 
agencies or governments. I think this would be the best way to address 
potential abuses, and I think we in Congress should consider taking 
action to impose our ideas of proper limits only as a last resort.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Supreme Court this week effectively 
changed our Constitution by removing the protection of a fundamental 
right of a free people--the right to private possession of land and 
property. Our Founding Fathers knew how vital private land ownership is 
to a democratic society. Article V of the U.S. Constitution states, 
``nor shall private property be taken for public use without just 
compensation.'' For centuries Americans have relied upon this article 
for protection against abusive land transfers from one person to 
another.
  Yet last week, five Supreme Court justices ruled that private 
property can be taken by a government and then transferred to another 
private owner if such a taking will supposedly result in greater 
economic benefit to the community.
  With a weak majority ruling, a massive blow has been dealt to 
Americans' basic right to own and manage private property, without fear 
of the government taking that property. History reminds us that nations 
that disregard the rights associated with private property ownership 
disregard other fundamental rights of the citizenry. In fact, our own 
Supreme Court at its inception in 1789 called eminent domain a 
``despotic power.''
  We have recognized there are times when governments need to purchase 
private land to build a road or construct a school for use by the 
general public, sometimes against a landowner's wishes. Our Founders 
believed that only under these extreme reasons should land be taken 
from a private property owner for the greater public good. However, the 
idea that a government would use this eminent domain power to take land 
from one private owner and transfer it to another private owner for 
economic reasons smells of Robin Hood gone corrupt.
  Local governments and States will now be able to use this case to 
seize any land believed to make a higher profit if it were owned by a 
more entrepreneurial owner. Houses of worship, charitable organizations 
and other non-profits are extremely vulnerable to land grabs by greedy 
governments seeking more tax revenue.
  Even the icon of the American spirit, the family farm, could 
effectively be forced to sell to another private owner who has grand 
plans for an economic development project. Farmers and ranchers whose 
families have worked the land for generations could have to unwillingly 
forfeit their heritage so a shopping mall can be constructed.
  A mom-and-pop business could be forced to sell its property to a 
corporate competitor, or simply an entrepreneur who wants the land for 
other revenue-generating purposes. First-time home owners in poorer 
neighborhoods could easily be targeted for development projects against 
the will of the community. These are not over-hyped scenarios. The very 
case the Supreme Court ruled on this week forcefully removes longtime 
Connecticut homeowners out of their homes so a developer can build a 
hotel and office buildings.
  This distorted ``public use'' definition is nothing short of public 
abuse. Under the Supreme Court's new definition, everyone's property is 
suddenly for sale, and the auctioneer is any government that wants more 
tax revenue.
  If we do nothing and the Court's ruling goes unchallenged, the public 
good submits to the whim of the wealthy abetted by government's 
insatiable appetite for more money.
  I urge my colleagues to join me today in supporting Mr. Gingrey's 
resolution that appropriately expresses outrage at this misguided 
decision by the Nation's highest court.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, today I voice my opposition to the Supreme 
Court's recent decision granting local governments the power to seize 
private property for economic development. The Constitution protects an 
individual's right to own a home free of government intervention, and 
ensures just compensation for any property taken in the name of the 
greater public good, such as vitally necessary roads or water projects. 
The Court erred in its determination that private development interests 
constitute a legitimate public good. Private interests should not 
justify the bull-dozing of homes in a working-class neighborhood. This 
divided decision, Kelo v. New London, may represent an open invitation 
for abuse by local governments and private developers at the expense of 
hardworking Americans who have a right to their property. While I 
oppose the Supreme Court's decision, I also believe in the separation 
of powers and do not believe it is appropriate for Congress to seek to 
punish the Court for its decision. It is my hope that the Supreme Court 
has another opportunity to correct this bad decision, and provide 
greater protections for homeowners.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) that the 
House suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 340.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of 
those present have voted in the affirmative.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

[[Page 14991]]



                          ____________________