[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 18]
[House]
[Pages 24761-24798]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT OF 2005

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 527 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4128.

                              {time}  1402


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 4128) to protect private property rights, with Mr. Kline in the 
chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  General debate shall not exceed 90 minutes, with 60 minutes equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member 
of the Committee on the Judiciary, and 30 minutes equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Agriculture.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will control 30 minutes and the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) each will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4128, the Private Property 
Rights Restoration Act, overwhelmingly bipartisan legislation I 
introduced along with Agriculture Committee Chairman Goodlatte and 
Judiciary Ranking Member Conyers.
  On June 23, the Supreme Court in a 5 to 4 decision in the case of 
Kelo v. City of New London transformed established constitutional 
principles when it held that the fifth amendment's public use clause 
permitted government to seize the private property of one small 
homeowner and to give it to a large corporation for a private business 
use.
  As the dissent in that case made clear, under the majority's opinion: 
``Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private 
party. The government now has the license to transfer property from 
those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have 
intended this perverse result.''
  Reaction to the Kelo decision has united strong opposition from 
across the political, ideological, and socioeconomic spectrum. The 
NAACP and the AARP faulted Kelo's failing reasoning by stating: ``The 
takings that result from the Court's decision will disproportionately 
affect and harm the economically disadvantaged and, in particular, 
racial and ethnic minorities and the elderly.''
  Representatives of religious organizations have also condemned the 
failed logic of the Kelo Court, stating: ``Houses of worship and other 
religious institutions are, by their very nature, nonprofit and almost 
universally tax exempt. These fundamental characteristics of religious 
institutions render their property singularly vulnerable to being taken 
under the rationale approved by the Supreme Court.''
  Public reaction to the Kelo decision has also been swift and strong. 
The protection of private property rights is the number one issue that 
concerns Americans today, according to a Wall Street Journal/NBC News 
poll; and by an 11-to-1 margin, Americans say they oppose the taking of 
private property for private uses, even if it is for the public 
economic good.
  According to an American Survey poll: ``Public support for limiting 
the power of eminent domain is robust and cuts across demographic and 
partisan groups.'' Even Justice John Paul Stevens, who authored the 
Court's 5 to 4 decision, recently acknowledged that if he were a 
legislator, he would oppose the results of his own ruling by working to 
change current law. That is what we are doing here today, working to 
change current law.
  A week after the Supreme Court's now notorious Kelo decision, I 
introduced H.R. 3135, the Private Property Rights Protection Act, to 
help restore Americans' property rights the Supreme Court took away. On 
October 25, I introduced an even stronger version of the bill which we 
are considering today, which has benefited greatly from the 
contributions of Ranking Member Conyers, Ms. Waters, Mr. Goodlatte, and 
others, including Mr. Cannon and Mr. Flake.
  H.R. 4128 helps restore the property rights of all Americans by 
establishing a penalty for States and localities that abuse their 
eminent domain power by denying those States and localities that commit 
such abuse all Federal economic development funds for a period of 2 
years. Under this legislation, there is a clear connection between the 
Federal funds that would be denied and the abuse Congress is intending 
to prevent. If States and localities abuse their eminent domain power 
by using economic development as a rationale for a taking, they shall 
not receive Federal economic development funds that could contribute to 
similarly abusive land grabs.
  I am very mindful of the long history of eminent domain abuses, 
particularly in low-income and often predominantly minority 
neighborhoods, and the need to stop it. I am also very mindful of the 
reasons we should allow the government to take land when the way in 
which the land is being used constitutes an immediate threat to public 
health and safety. I believe this bill accomplishes both goals.
  The legislation contains an express private right of action to make 
certain that those suffering injuries from a violation of the bill will 
be allowed to access the State or Federal court to enforce its 
provisions and includes a fee-shifting provision, identical to those in 
other civil rights laws, that permits the recovery of attorney and 
other litigation fees to prevailing property owners. The legislation 
gives the States and localities the clear opportunity to cure any 
violation before they lose any Federal economic development funds by 
either returning or replacing the improperly taken property to the 
property owner.
  H.R. 4128 also includes carefully crafted refinements of the 
definition of ``economic development'' that specifically allow the 
types of takings that, prior to the Kelo decision, had achieved a 
consensus as to their appropriateness. These include takings in which 
the public itself owns the property, where the property is used by a 
common carrier or public utility, and for related infrastructure like 
pipelines, and where the property is abandoned.
  Finally, in order to facilitate State compliance with its terms, the 
bill will not become effective until the start of the first fiscal year 
following enactment of the legislation, nor would it apply to any 
project for which condemnation proceedings have begun prior to its 
enactment.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting 
this vital bipartisan legislation that will protect the property rights 
of the most

[[Page 24762]]

vulnerable in our society and limit the effect of the now notorious 
Kelo decision.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the measure before us today, the 
Private Property Rights Act of 2005. I am pleased to join with my 
chairman, Mr. Sensenbrenner; the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Waters); and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) in support of this 
measure.
  This legislation was introduced in response to the Supreme Court's 
decision in Kelo in June of this year, which shocked most Americans 
because if State and local governments can transfer property from one 
private owner to another based on a judgment which will produce the 
most taxes and jobs, then, in essence, no one's property is safe. 
Increasingly, governments across the country are taking private 
property for public use in the name of ``economic development.'' Under 
the guise of economic development, private property is being taken and 
transferred to another private owner, so long as the new owner will use 
the property in a way that the government deems more beneficial to the 
public.
  In fact, in Detroit, Michigan, we have faced the same kinds of issues 
that arose in the Kelo case. The infamous Poletown decision in the 
Michigan Supreme Court in 1981 allowed the City of Detroit to bulldoze 
an entire neighborhood, complete with 1,000 or more residences, 600 or 
more businesses, and numerous churches in order to give the property to 
General Motors for an automobile plant. This case set a precedent, both 
in Michigan and across the country, for widespread abuse of the power 
of eminent domain. In Detroit, eminent domain was subsequently used to 
make way for casinos.
  Fortunately, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed its decision. 
Citizens in most other States, though, have not been afforded the same 
protection and have witnessed an increase in takings for economic 
development that has been rationalized in Kelo. As a result, a Federal 
legislative response to Kelo is warranted; and today I am pleased to 
say that we take up a response with friends on both sides of the aisle.
  This act before us now will afford our citizens greater protections 
against governments' forced takings for private development. First, the 
State and local government will not be able to any longer exploit 
eminent domain for private development without consequence. Second, a 
more traditional view of public use is advanced so that we protect 
property interests as well as meet contemporary challenges. Third, we 
set an example for States and cities as to how our citizens' property 
rights must be protected.
  Our measure before us is clear and states in no uncertain terms that 
State and local governments will lose economic development funding if 
they take someone's home or business for private commercial 
development.

                              {time}  1415

  Homeowners can also bring suit against those States and cities that 
want to continue violating their property rights. We are making the 
financial gains that come with replacing residential areas with 
commercial districts less attractive.
  This legislation advances a more traditional view of public use. By 
restricting the use of eminent domain powers for economic development, 
we reserve those powers for projects that have traditionally been 
considered public use.
  We can justify a State or city's takings when the taking is for a 
road, a school, a public utility, but we cannot agree with a State or 
city's takings when it is done for private uses like condominiums and 
shopping malls.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the Private Property Rights Protection Act.
  Two hundred years ago, our Founders wrote into the Bill of Rights a 
guarantee of the right to private property. Such a right lies at the 
foundation of a democracy where citizens have the freedom to buy, sell, 
exchange or make a profit on all forms of property.
  In recent years, it has become more and more common for the 
government to seize private property under the guise of eminent domain 
for public use.
  Last year, the Supreme Court gave landowners more reason to worry. 
They decided that State and local governments can take property from a 
private landowner in order to give or sell it to another private owner. 
This 5 to 4 decision in Kelo v. City of New London threatens the 
legitimate rights of landowners. We must act to protect those rights.
  In the months following the Kelo decision, several different bills 
aimed at preventing eminent domain abuses were introduced. The Private 
Property Rights Protection Act is a fair and sensible combination of 
all of those bills.
  It prevents States or localities that seize private property in order 
to transfer it to other private owners from receiving economic 
development funding from the Federal Government for 2 years. But the 
bill is not automatically applied. It gives a State or locality the 
opportunity to correct any abuse of power by returning all property to 
the landowner or replacing any property that has been damaged. If the 
State or locality does so, they will still be allowed to obtain Federal 
funding.
  Mr. Chairman, the right to private property ownership is one of the 
cornerstones on which this country was founded. H.R. 4128 will make 
sure that right continues to be protected.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the legislation, which is the 
congressional response to the Supreme Court decision Kelo v. City of 
New London. By enacting this legislation, we are undermining the 
States' rights and assuming the role of a city council. We should not 
change Federal law every time Members of Congress disagree with the 
judgment of a locality when it uses eminent domain for the purpose of 
economic development. We were elected to the United States Congress, 
not to local city councils.
  Mr. Chairman, it is impossible for Congress to draw a bright line 
principle separating those cases in which economic development is 
appropriate for a particular area and when it is not. The Constitution 
does require that the taking be for public use. It is the role of a 
city council to weigh the needs of a particular community and consider 
when the government should use eminent domain.
  Sometimes that might mean taking property for the purpose of economic 
development. Sometimes it may not. Sometimes we will agree with the 
judgment of the locality. Sometimes we will disagree.
  I cannot think of a more fitting example of the quagmire this bill 
presents than the situation we have right here in Washington, D.C., 
where they are trying to build a baseball stadium. I find it ironic 
that, at the same time we are marking up the bill, Washington, D.C. is 
using eminent domain to build a baseball stadium.
  The debate on this bill has already exposed the shortcomings of the 
legislation. For example, we found that if a stadium were built and 
owned by the city at taxpayer expense, it would clearly be allowed 
under the bill. On the other hand, if the owner offered to build a 
stadium at his own expense, that might not be allowed.
  The bill requires public access to the stadium as ``a matter of 
right.'' Does that mean that the skyboxes must be put to public 
auction, or can the owner pick and choose which businesses can acquire 
rights to skyboxes?
  Anybody who surveys baseball or football stadiums around the country 
will find all kinds of public and private and joint public-private 
ownership combinations. Could some use eminent domain, while others be 
prohibited

[[Page 24763]]

from using eminent domain based on the fact that they want to limit 
access to skyboxes or how the title of the stadium is held?
  Mr. Chairman, the World Trade Center and Lincoln Center in New York, 
the Baltimore Inner Harbor, even President Bush's baseball stadium in 
Houston, Texas, were all made possible by eminent domain takings for 
the purpose of economic development. And although we might agree or 
disagree with the wisdom of these projects, most would agree that they 
should not have been illegal. These are political decisions that ought 
to be left to the localities within the confines of their State 
legislature's parameters.
  If Congress cannot leave eminent domain to the States, then we should 
focus on the real issues involved in eminent domain. We should require, 
for example, that just compensation should include replacement cost, 
not just technical appraisal value. We should require that relocation 
expenses be paid to owners and tenants.
  As written, the bill does nothing to ensure that displaced 
individuals receive reasonable compensation for the replacement value 
and relocation expenses. The bill does nothing to ensure compensation 
for loss of goodwill of a business, nothing to ensure that due 
consideration is given for the length of time a family or business has 
been at a particular location. Nothing in the bill deals with the fact 
that the poor and minorities are usually the victims of eminent domain 
abuses. Let us put some protections in the bill so that those who are 
relatively weak politically can be protected from unfair use of eminent 
domain.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to place in the Record at this point 
letters from the National League of Cities, the National Conference of 
State Legislatures and the National Association of Housing and 
Redevelopment Officials.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that the decision-making power of eminent 
domain should remain at the State and local level and that 
congressional attempts to define when eminent domain is reasonable and 
when it is not will cause more problems than they solve. Therefore, I 
urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.

                                    National League of Cities,

                                 Washington, DC, October 27, 2005.
     Hon. James Sensenbrenner,
     Chair, House Judiciary Committee, Rayburn House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. John Conyers, Jr.,
     Ranking Member, House Judiciary Committee, Rayburn House 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers: The 
     National League of Cities (NLC) strongly opposes H.R. 4128, 
     the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005. NLC is 
     the country's largest and oldest organization serving 
     municipal government, with nearly 1,600 direct member cities 
     and 49 state municipal leagues, which collectively represent 
     more than 18,000 United States communities.
       NLC acknowledges the spirit underlying this bill and does 
     not condone abuse of eminent domain power that violates state 
     law. However, NLC believes this bill, or any anti-eminent 
     domain bill pending in Congress, is unnecessary at this time 
     because of the ongoing actions of state legislatures and the 
     absence of direct evidence confirming that alleged abuses of 
     eminent domain authority are of a national scope and scale 
     that demand immediate federal action.
       Despite fearful rhetoric in the press, the Supreme Court's 
     decision in Kelo v. City of New London did not expand the use 
     or powers of eminent domain. The Kelo decision confirmed that 
     eminent domain, a power derived from state law, is not a one-
     size-fits-all power. The Court declared that this power is 
     one best left to the states and their political subdivisions. 
     The Kelo Court, affirming federalism, did not preclude ``any 
     state from placing further restrictions on its exercise of 
     the Takings power.'' Approximately 30 states are already 
     reviewing or planning to review their eminent domain laws 
     during upcoming legislative sessions, with the majority 
     focused on just compensation and comprehensive planning 
     process modifications. Since June 2005, Alabama, Texas, and 
     Delaware enacted laws that tighten the application of eminent 
     domain power in each state.
       NLC urges Congress to let state governments act on their 
     own eminent domain laws and not move forward with federal 
     legislation.
       Many aspects of H.R. 4128, led by the proposed definition 
     at Section 8 of ``economic development,'' trouble NLC. 
     Economic development is a process, not the concrete act of 
     taking private property from A and giving it to B for a 
     ``commercial enterprise carried on for profit.'' If enacted, 
     the bill could have the unintended consequence of preventing 
     hurricane-damaged communities from rebuilding. In those 
     communities, eminent domain may be necessary to assemble land 
     and help with negotiations associated with comprehensive 
     redevelopment plans. Implementing those comprehensive 
     redevelopment plans would ``increase tax revenue, tax base, 
     employment, or general economic health,'' violating the 
     bill's further definition of economic development.
       Moreover, the bill at Section 2(b) grants final authority 
     to the appointed--not elected--judiciary to determine what 
     constitutes ``economic development.'' Curiously, this was an 
     important argument against the Kelo decision raised by 
     property rights activists.
       The practical effects from this bill, including its loose 
     definition at Section 8 of ``Federal economic development 
     funds'' and its creation of a private right of action at 
     Section 4 that invites forum shopping, would not chill, but 
     rather freeze the process of economic development across the 
     country.
       Eminent domain is a powerful tool for local governments--
     its prudent use, when exercised in the sunshine of public 
     scrutiny, helps achieve a greater public good that benefits 
     the entire community.
       Again, NLC opposes H.R. 4128 for the reasons stated in this 
     letter. Please weigh carefully the unintended consequences 
     from a rush to pass federal legislation in response to 
     unsubstantiated fears over the Supreme Court's decision in 
     Kelo v. City of New London.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Donald J. Borut,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                               National Conference


                                        of State Legislatures,

                                 Washington, DC, October 25, 2005.
     Subject: H.R. 3135.

     Hon. James Sensenbrenner,
     Chair, Judiciary Committee, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. John Conyers,
     Ranking Member, Judiciary, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers: On 
     behalf of the National Conference of State Legislatures 
     (NCSL), I write in strong opposition to H.R. 3135 the 
     ``Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005'' which is 
     scheduled to be marked up on October 26. This ill-advised 
     bill would severely chill state and local revitalization 
     efforts, preempt state and local land use laws, and curtail 
     many valid and constitutional state and local projects that 
     require the use of the eminent domain power by prohibiting 
     any federal funding that goes to the states from being used 
     for ``any activity, including increasing tax revenue, other 
     than making private property available in substantial part 
     for use by the general public or by an entity that makes the 
     property available for use by the general public, or as a 
     public facility, or to remove harmful effects.'' This means 
     that if a state or locality were to use the power of eminent 
     domain for economic development purposes, even if such action 
     was completely in accordance with its own statutes and land 
     use development ordinances and regulations, the state could 
     lose all applicable federal funding. This piece of 
     legislation amounts to federal blackmail of states for using 
     a completely constitutional and valid state power.
       The power of eminent domain has always been, and should 
     remain, a state power. The Kelo v. New London Supreme Court 
     decision did not expand state authority to condemn private 
     property for economic development. It merely reaffirmed 
     existing law on the subject. There is substantial Supreme 
     Court case law dating as early as 1954 which upholds the 
     power of state and local governments to take and retransfer 
     property, upon payment of just compensation, in order to 
     promote economic development.
       It is also important to be aware that in the aftermath of 
     the Kelo decision, twelve states--Alabama, California, 
     Delaware, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New 
     York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Texas--have already 
     introduced bills, and three of these states--Alabama, 
     Delaware, and Texas--have already enacted legislation in 
     special session to address the power of eminent domain in 
     their state. We expect to see many more states address the 
     issue of eminent domain in their next legislative session. 
     All of our state materials on eminent domain can be found on 
     NCSL's Web site: www.ncsl.org/programs/natres/EMINDOMAIN.htm
       Again, I urge you to oppose H.R. 
     3135. If you have any questions, please 
     contact Susan Pamas Frederick, Senior 
     Committee Director at 202-624-3566, 
     [email protected]. Thank you.
           Respectfully,
                                   Representative Janice L. Pauls,
         Kansas House of Representatives, Chair, NCSL Committee on 
           Law & Criminal Justice.
                                  ____

                                   National Association of Housing


                                  and Redevelopment Officials,

                                 Washington, DC, November 3, 2005.
       Dear Member of Congress: I am writing to convey the 
     National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials' 
     (NAHRO's)

[[Page 24764]]

     strong opposition to HR 4128, the ``Private Property Rights 
     Protection Act of 2005.'' NAHRO is the nation's oldest and 
     largest association of housing and community development 
     professionals and the leading advocate for adequate and 
     affordable housing and strong, viable communities for all 
     Americans--particularly those with low- and moderate-incomes.
       The bill in its current form is unacceptable to our 
     members. NAHRO acknowledges three amendments we understand 
     will be considered. First, within the context of this bill, 
     Congressman Michael Turner's proposed amendment to HR 4128 
     creates a broader and more reasonable scope of activities for 
     which eminent domain takings would be appropriate. Second, 
     Congressman Jerrold Nadler's amendment removes the bill's 
     unreasonable and disproportionate penalty provisions, which 
     would lead to unprecedented fiscal uncertainty for State and 
     localities by forcing them to pursue community revitalization 
     under the constant threat of losing all Federal economic 
     development funding. Finally, Congressman Melvin Watt's 
     amendment would remove most of the bill's objectionable 
     content while still providing the Congress with an 
     opportunity to express its sense that abuses of eminent 
     domain are unacceptable and that eminent domain as a strategy 
     for pursuing economic development deserves careful, ongoing 
     scrutiny.
       Although NAHRO believes that these amendments improve the 
     legislation to varying degrees, I want to make clear that HR 
     4128, even if amended, would still undermine important 
     community and economic development activities across the 
     nation and should not be adopted.
       NAHRO believes that eminent domain should properly remain 
     an instrument of last resort. In those rare instances when 
     eminent domain is needed, it must be used prudently. 
     Nevertheless, eminent domain remains an important community 
     and economic development tool that allows State and local 
     governments to respond to community needs, and it must remain 
     available to our nation's housing and community and economic 
     development professionals as they work to revitalize American 
     communities. It is therefore essential that the Congress not 
     place new and overly burdensome restrictions on traditionally 
     permissible, Constitutional uses of eminent domain employed 
     by State and local agencies for the purpose of community and 
     economic redevelopment.
       The recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Kelo v. 
     City of New London broke less legal ground than many reports 
     in the popular media would have led the reader to believe. 
     The decision did uphold the ability of local governments to 
     exercise the power of eminent domain to achieve economic 
     development. However, the opinion of the Court did not 
     provide carte blanche authorization for go vernments to take 
     private property merely to hand it over to other private 
     owners. To the contrary, the Court emphasized that the 
     property at issue was taken pursuant to a carefully 
     considered plan that would act as a catalyst for much needed 
     job creation and further development. The Court also made it 
     clear that its decision would establish only the 
     constitutional permissibility of such takings under the Fifth 
     Amendment.
       Importantly, the Court in Kelo held that States and local 
     governments are free to narrow the circumstances under which 
     the power of eminent domain may be exercised. At least 31 
     States have recently taken steps to avail themselves of that 
     right. NAHRO therefore believes this bill is unnecessary at 
     this time. Indeed, instead of allowing States to exercise 
     their rights in this area, HR 4128 in its current form would 
     instead severely undermine state and local community 
     revitalization efforts by placing every state and locality in 
     permanent fiscal peril and bringing community and economic 
     development to a grinding halt.
       Again, while NAHRO acknowledges the efforts of some to 
     improve the legislation, we believe the most responsible 
     course of action would be to vote against HR 4128. Eminent 
     domain policy remains a complex issue area and deserves 
     careful ongoing scrutiny, not overly broad legislation that 
     would leave a cloud of financial uncertainty hanging over 
     nearly every local government in the nation. Congress should 
     not, in an effort to preemptively redress speculative future 
     consequences of the Kelo decision, trample the concept of 
     federalism embodied in the Constitution and the traditional 
     prerogatives of local governments that exist under that 
     system.
           Sincerely,
                                             Saul N. Ramirez, Jr.,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlemen 
from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I first want to thank the chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin, and also the ranking member, 
the gentleman from Michigan, for their leadership in this area.
  This is a very important issue before Congress, and I am very pleased 
that Congress is acting. The idea that a person's home or business can 
be taken by the government and transferred to another private entity 
simply to allow the government to collect additional tax revenue seems 
anathema to the values that Americans cherish. But the Supreme Court 
has now thrown its weight behind this distinctly un-American ideal by 
ruling that economic development can be a public use under the fifth 
amendment's takings clause.
  Few would question the Constitution provides a legitimate role for 
eminent domain when the purpose is a true public use and the property 
owner receives just compensation. That happens all of the time, and 
that is appropriate. Properly used, eminent domain should give 
communities an option of last resort to complete the development of 
roads and schools and utilities and other essential public 
infrastructure projects.
  As a former Cincinnati city councilman and Hamilton County 
commissioner myself, I would be remiss if I did not mention my concern 
for some unintended consequences that congressional action could have 
on communities if we do not act carefully, and I think we have acted 
carefully in this bill, and I thank, again, the chairman and the 
ranking member for doing that.
  We had testimony by the mayor of Indianapolis. I also want to commend 
the former mayor of Dayton, Congressman Mike Turner, who is the head of 
the Saving America's Cities Working Group, who has worked diligently to 
try to make this a better bill as well. Many people have worked on 
this.
  I am very pleased that Congress is going to take this action to make 
sure that eminent domain is not used in an inappropriate purpose. If 
Kelo was left as it was ruled by the Supreme Court, it could be used in 
a way that could be dangerous, that could be to the detriment of 
communities all around this country.
  So I am very pleased that we are acting on this today, and again want 
to commend the chairman and Congress for acting.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding 
me the time and permitting me to speak on this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand the frustration that we have heard on the 
floor, the reaction to the Kelo decision which I personally looked at 
those circumstances. I was troubled in terms of what was proposed in 
that city.
  But I am concerned that we have the big picture in mind, because we 
have been dealing with eminent domain for decades. We do not have a 
national crisis here. What we had was a State and local government that 
did not do their job appropriately.
  The Supreme Court, appropriately, indicated that this was not a 
constitutional issue. There are tools. There are remedies.
  I am a former local official. I dealt for years, as public works 
commissioner for the City of Portland, with things that dealt with 
redevelopment. We rarely if ever used eminent domain. The fact that it 
was there made a difference to be able to do things the public wanted.
  I hope that Members reflect on the dangers of having the Federal 
Government rush into something that is appropriately the province of 
State and local affairs. Think about what the approach you are 
advocating here would have had on cleaning up Times Square. This was an 
area that for years was a center of violence and vice. Eminent domain 
was used to transform Times Square with the crime rate plummeting and 
change the face of that area.
  There are communities around the country where this has been done. 
Look at the Roxbury neighborhood in Boston or look out the door here of 
the Capitol at Pennsylvania Avenue, where eminent domain was used in 
the 1960s and 1970s to reformulate the face of it.
  I understand the sensitivity. We do not want it abused. But, for 
heavens sake, we should be careful before we rush in with a Federal 
solution which may have unintended consequences.

[[Page 24765]]


  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I so much appreciate the chairman and the 
proponents of this bill bringing it to the floor. What brings this 
about is one more reason why it is critical that we do not have Supreme 
Court justices who read the Constitution while they are having visual 
hallucinations.
  That is what has been happening. There is no way to read this, ``Nor 
shall private property be taken for public use without just 
compensation,'' that is in the fifth amendment without realizing that 
means public use. It does not mean taking property from someone who has 
lived there for generations or some farmer that has been farming the 
land, to give it over to some developer just because he is going to 
give a bigger kickback to the local government.
  That goes back to the days of King George when he says, gee, you have 
been a good friend, you have paid taxes, but this guy over here has 
promised me a bigger kickback, so I am kicking you off your property. 
We had a revolution to try to stop that kind of thing.
  Anyway, I just want to put this question to my friends across the 
aisle. I know I have heard them express their concerns about 
constituents and the poor and those who cannot help themselves, and we 
ought to be helping them. Do you really want to go back to your 
constituents, do you really want to tell voters that you support this 
ridiculous Supreme Court notion that a government can take their 
property, not property that is a threat to the community, not that it 
is blighted, but take their property against their will to give it over 
to someone richer who is going to pay more taxes, and that is the only 
reason?
  That is not the American way. That is not what the supporters and 
proponents of this bill want to see happen. We are sending a loud 
message, that is not what the Constitution says, it is not what is 
intended, it is not what we fought a revolution to end; and we will not 
stand by and allow a ridiculous Supreme Court decision to overrule 
that.

                              {time}  1430

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support 
of H.R. 4128.
  Mr. Chairman, the people of my home State of Tennessee know the 
stories of eminent domain all too well. They know the stories of when 
the Corps of Engineers and TVA condemned property of hard-working 
farmers to impound lakes. The folks I represent were willing to give up 
their land for the benefit of the valley.
  They knew the public works projects would bring about much needed 
economic opportunity. They knew that the readily available cheap power 
would spawn new industries and provide good jobs for hard-working 
individuals. Although the promised benefits did become a reality, many 
of my ancestors, like my grandfather, felt the government takeover of 
land was wrong. Often I would hear stories of dissatisfaction about the 
loss of lands that have been in families since their families moved to 
the Appalachians.
  I firmly believe that if the taken property had been given to another 
property owner, my ancestors would have felt like declaring war on the 
government. Fortunately, my grandfather and others were able to accept 
that the taking of their land was good for the public.
  Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt in my mind that the Court's decision 
in Kelo is wrongheaded and wrong-hearted. One of the basic founding 
principles of this country is the right to own private property. Since 
our founding, governments have had the leverage needed to encourage 
capital and economic development for our communities, while still 
recognizing the intrinsic value of a family's private property.
  Mr. Chairman, I know that without a constitutional amendment our 
actions today are about as far as this Congress can go to dehorn the 
impact of the Kelo decision. Although this bill addresses and puts in 
place compelling penalties to cities, counties, and States that violate 
private property rights, I really think it needs to go further.
  It is my hope that some day we can bring about stricter penalties to 
local governments who choose to run roughshod over the property rights 
of private landowners. I know that is what my grandfather would have 
expected of me, and I hope that is what we can expect of this Congress 
as we work to solidify the intrinsic value of people who own private 
property.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, the fifth amendment to the Constitution states that 
``no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due 
process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use 
without just compensation.''
  Thomas Jefferson said: ``The true foundation of republican government 
is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in 
their management.''
  However, that was then. We have heard a lot of talk about the 
Founding Fathers; and they are not turning in their graves, Mr. 
Chairman, they are spinning.
  Jefferson warned: ``A government big enough to give you everything 
you want is a government big enough to take away everything you have.''
  It looks like we are at that stage.
  A school does not generate tax revenue. A church does not generate 
any tax revenue, but that does not mean that a school ought to become a 
Starbucks and that a church ought to become the next Costco.
  Thanks to the recent Supreme Court decision on eminent domain, the 
fifth amendment has been vastly expanded. In the past, public use meant 
projects for the common good, not for the bottom line. With this 
decision, no citizen's property is safe and the American dream of 
owning your own home is now at risk. Private ownership of property is a 
pillar of our freedom and our prosperity.
  The Private Property Rights Act, H.R. 4128, will begin to right the 
wrong that was wrought on our Nation this past June. I urge all Members 
of this House to support this important legislation.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of H.R. 4128.
  I was one of those individuals who was shocked at the Supreme Court 
decision. On June 23, 2005, Kelo v. The City of New London, the Supreme 
Court held in a 5 to 4 decision that the city's use of eminent domain 
to implement its area's redevelopment plan aimed at invigorating a 
depressed economy was a public use satisfying the U.S. Constitution, 
even though the property would be turned over from private homeowners 
and businesses to private developers.
  Never in my wildest imagination did I think there would be a Supreme 
Court ruling that would take private property and give it to private 
individuals for private use.
  This decision was born out of what took place with the giant 
pharmaceutical company Pfizer. Pfizer built a plant next to an area 
called Fort Trumbull, and the city determined that someone else could 
make better use of the land than the people who actually lived there: 
the Fort Trumbull residents. The city handed over its power of eminent 
domain, that is, the ability to take private property for public use, 
to the New London Development Corporation, a private body; and that 
private body then exercised eminent domain to take the entire 
neighborhood for private development.
  The Supreme Court decision is wrong, and I cannot see how any Member 
of the House of Representatives could support the taking of private 
property for private use. Someone spoke of this as being a pillar of 
democracy. It is a strong American value that we hold dear, and I do 
not think that we should not do something, exercise our power in this 
House to deny the Supreme Court decision to be used

[[Page 24766]]

by all of these cities and redevelopment agencies and other entities. I 
believe that we have to protect the American people.
  As a matter of fact, one Member came and said, well, you know, this 
is an isolated case. It is not. I have over 125 cases throughout the 
United States where cities and other entities, community redevelopment 
agencies, in those cities where they can give the eminent domain rights 
to private developers, such as they did in this Kelo decision, are 
taking people's private property.
  What is more, many of these entities are trying to take private 
property, take homes and businesses to give over to the big-box 
developers who need a lot of land to put down these big-box shops.
  I do not believe we can stand by and not do something. There are 
those who would argue that the Federal Government should not be 
involved. If not us, who will protect people? We know that you are 
getting lobbied, Members are getting lobbied by Members of city 
councils, even by mayors; but many of them are lying with these 
developers. They have relationships; money is changing hands. They are 
in bed with the very developers who want to take the private property 
for private development.
  Again, we cannot afford to let this happen. What we do here today 
will help to slow down this taking of private property for private use. 
As far as I am concerned, the bill could have even been stronger 
because we have got a few exceptions in the bill that I question.
  I wanted a pure bill with no exceptions. My chairman who worked so 
hard on this bill made a case for some takings for certain kinds of 
very, very important public use of private lands. And even though I am 
supporting the bill, I could support an even stronger bill because I 
think there should be no exceptions, none, zilch, zero, no exceptions. 
I do not believe in taking private property to give to someone else for 
private use to make money off of.
  You will hear this described in any number of ways, the taking of 
private property to get rid of blight. Whose blight? By whose 
definition? The taking of private property by economic development. 
What kind of economic development? Who is going to make the money? Who 
is going to suffer?
  Your home is your castle. And for those people who save their money 
and invest in their homes, raise their children, that home should be 
their castle in toto. That home should never be in jeopardy because 
some city government, some redevelopment agency decides that they want 
to take it. I do not care what for. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott) came and talked about the taking for ballparks. I disagree with 
that.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Alaska (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, while I do not have any problems 
with the bill at this time, there is some concern that the bill may 
adversely affect the transportation projects, including those 
constructed under public and private partnerships.
  There is also a concern that the bill may have unintentional effects 
on the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition 
Policy Act of 1970.
  I would like to thank the gentleman for including the language 
changes that we have suggested in the manager's amendment to help fix 
these problems. These changes are meant to clarify that this bill does 
not have any adverse impacts on issues under the jurisdiction of the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask that if we discover any additional problems with 
this legislation for transportation projects, you will agree to work 
with me in conference on a mutually agreeable solution.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. If unintended transportation consequences are 
discovered, I would be happy to work with the gentleman from Alaska 
(Mr. Young) to fix them in conference.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I agree with the gentleman's goals and look 
forward to working with the entire delegation to meet the goals of this 
conference. I thank the gentleman for doing this.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).
  Mr. POE. As a former judge, I want to thank the chairman for leading 
the fight to protect private property rights.
  One reason we started this country was because back in the days of 
England, the king and the nobles owned all the land, and regular folks 
like us had to work the land, but we could never own the land. That is 
one reason this country got started, because of the desire to own 
private property.
  John Locke, the great philosopher who was influential in much of the 
law that came into our Constitution, said that we are all born with the 
right of life, liberty, and property. And Thomas Jefferson incorporated 
that concept in the Declaration of Independence when he said that we 
are given by our creator life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 
And then we put in our Constitution in the fifth amendment that basic 
right, that we all have life, liberty, and property and it will not be 
taken without due process of law.
  That simple phrase that is in that fifth amendment, that private 
property shall not be taken for public use without due compensation, it 
is the American dream to own a part of America, own a part of the land. 
More Americans own land and houses than ever before in our history. 
Then the Supreme Court came around and misinterpreted this very simple 
rule in our Constitution, allowing private property to be taken by 
local governments so they can give it to somebody else all in the name 
of money. It is all about the money. It ought to be all about what is 
right.
  This law will prevent government land-grabbing authorized by the 
Supreme Court. Their ruling was an error in judgment of constitutional 
proportions and hopefully the Supreme Court will find its way and 
reverse this absurd ruling.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  I must rise to object to this bill. I think it is too broad. The 
period of time within which you can take legal action is too long, and 
in some specific cases it is too restrictive. It will be subject to the 
law of unintended consequences.
  My views, I have to acknowledge, are formed by having been mayor of 
Alexandria, Virginia. We did at times use the power of eminent domain 
primarily to help lower-income people to restore blighted areas of the 
city. In those situations, the improvement of those rundown areas could 
not have happened without government intervention because the private 
sector simply was not willing to make the investment.
  We were able to establish scattered site public housing throughout 
the city. We were able to achieve substantial economic improvements 
along the Alexandria waterfront which had been relegated to a place of 
neglect where only people of the lowest income lived. And now people of 
all incomes are able to take advantage of public use in these areas, 
and we have expanded the availability of affordable housing.
  We could not have done it without this power. And, in fact, if our 
constituents did not like what we were doing, they had the ability to 
take us out of office through the normal democratic process. I 
understand that this is a power that can be abused, but that 
possibility does not warrant its elimination.

                              {time}  1445

  In fact, if you want it restricted, the proper place to do so is not 
at the Federal level. It is at the State and local level.

[[Page 24767]]

  I have an amendment that will correct this bill so that it will not 
be subject to the law of unintended consequences. I intend to introduce 
that amendment shortly.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4128, a 
bill that seeks to undo the damage wrought by one of the worst Supreme 
Court decisions in my memory.
  The court in Kelo decided that the fifth amendment of the 
Constitution can be hijacked by a rogue, private developer to take 
homes or private property from hardworking Americans to build new 
shopping malls and luxury resorts in their place to increase tax 
revenues.
  Our Constitution, which every Member of this body has sworn to uphold 
and protect, has, in essence, been changed by five people who are 
charged only with interpreting the Constitution, not rewriting it.
  I am not sure how many ways there are to interpret the clause: ``nor 
shall private property be taken for public use without just 
compensation.''
  Mr. Chairman, it seems pretty clear to me that an office building 
owned by a private party that restricts its use to only those who pay 
rent is not a public use facility; or that a public use is a highway, 
not a high-rise; or that a public use is a park, not a private parking 
lot; or that a public use is a courthouse, not a condo.
  A society that allows its big developers to take the private property 
of ordinary citizens in the name of economic development is not a free 
society.
  The potential for greater profits and higher tax revenue is not what 
our Founding Fathers envisioned as public use.
  Importantly, Mr. Chairman, one of those constitutional provisions is 
the protection of private property. The Founders of this great Nation 
knew that a government that can take a citizen's property on a whim is 
a government that can take away everything else as well.
  H.R. 4128 offers a reasonable solution, and I urge my colleagues to 
support this bill.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, private property has been among the most sacred rights 
of the American people since our founding as a Nation. Likewise, the 
government's duty to protect private property has remained among its 
most sacred responsibilities.
  John Adams once wrote, ``The moment the idea is admitted into society 
that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is 
not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and 
tyranny commence.''
  Well, Mr. Chairman, the recent Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. New 
London has commenced the tyranny. It is laying siege to the idea that a 
man's home is his castle.
  While it is true that the principle of eminent domain is established 
in our Constitution, it exists for an extremely limited purpose.
  The dissenters in the Kelo case correctly note that the Court has 
abandoned a ``long-held basic limitation on government power. Under the 
banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable 
to being taken and transferred to another private owner.''
  The Court essentially now gives local governments the power to seize 
property to simply generate tax revenue. Under their ruling, your local 
city council can now take your home and give it to Starbucks so they 
can sell vente mocha lattes. Mr. Chairman, are we still in America?
  By passing the Private Property Rights Protection Act, Congress can 
help secure this most sacred right. H.R. 4128 will rightfully increase 
the penalties for States. We should stand for freedom and private 
property and support this act.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake).
  Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 4128, 
and I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill on behalf of 
property owners across our Nation.
  This legislation clearly prohibits economic development as a public 
use, period, with no room for misunderstanding. Eminent domain, for the 
purpose of economic development, is absolutely opposite our belief as 
Americans of our right to own private property.
  Our role as Members of Congress is to protect the public. We have a 
responsibility to use legislative powers to clearly define private 
property rights.
  I would like to thank the sponsors of the bill, the chairman and 
committees that have worked on it, and I urge my colleagues to vote in 
favor of H.R. 4128.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, the power of eminent domain should never be abused to 
take private property for the private benefit of another, and I agree 
with the concept of the bill, but it is very poorly drafted. It goes 
too far and not far enough.
  It will permit many of the abuses and injustices of the past, while 
bankrupting State and local governments.
  It would allow highways to cut through communities and all the other 
public projects that have historically fallen most heavily on the poor 
and powerless.
  It does nothing to protect displaced renters. They get no 
compensation, no day in court, but absentee slumlords, they get their 
day in court.
  It allows a taking to give property to a private party ``such as a 
common carrier, that makes the property available for use by the 
general public as of right.''
  Does that mean a stadium? It seems to me that is privately owned. It 
is ``available for use by the general public as of right'' at least as 
much as a railroad; you can buy a seat. Does that mean a shopping 
center? You do not even need a ticket. So this would not even prevent 
the use of public domain, apparently, for sport stadiums and shopping 
centers.
  The World Trade Center, on the other hand, could not have been built 
under this law. It was publicly owned, but leased as office and retail 
space.
  Affordable housing, like the Hope VI program would be prohibited.
  Local governments under this bill would risk all their economic 
development funding for 2 years, even for unrelated projects. The 
financial cloud this would place over all cities would ensure that they 
could never issue a bond, for any purpose, and companies doing business 
with the city would face the threat of bankruptcy.
  If we really want to help property owners, we should give them the 
right to stop the taking before it happens. This bill makes them wait 
until after the condemnation and offers them no damages. People do not 
want to bankrupt their communities. They want to keep their homes. This 
bill does not do that. I will offer an amendment that will at least 
change this part of the bill and solve that problem.
  A bill to prevent takings for improper purposes makes sense. It does 
not make sense to say that if the government makes a mistake, instead 
of giving private injunctive relief in advance to prevent that mistake 
to help the property owner, you put a cloud on the future finance of 
the State or city as they can never issue bonds for any purpose.
  Let us protect property owners but not destroy our communities. We 
should do this right.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for bringing this bill to the floor as 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee which I have the privilege of 
serving on.
  I rise today in support of the Private Property Rights Protection 
Act.
  This spring, the Supreme Court put a ``For Sale by Government'' sign 
in

[[Page 24768]]

front of every American home, farm and business. It does not matter how 
many coats of paint you put on your house or how much landscaping you 
do, no amount of your investment and upkeep can match the tax base 
provided by corporate America. If the government thinks that it can get 
more tax revenue from your property when put to a different use, a 
bigger house, a new factory, you are out of luck and out of your home.
  We were taught as children and read in the Constitution that eminent 
domain meant that government could take property only for public use, 
like roads and railroads, but the 15 Connecticut citizens who had their 
homes and businesses taken away from them in the Kelo case found out 
that public use now means whatever the powerful want to do with your 
home, as long as it might bring in more tax dollars.
  Whatever happened to our rights to life, liberty and property, which 
were the very rights so important to the people who founded this 
country?
  Mr. Chairman, the Supreme Court took that right away. The Framers had 
no intention of allowing Federal judges to impart their wisdom on this 
issue. That is why they put the eminent domain clause directly into the 
Constitution by the Bill of Rights.
  The Constitution here in my pocket says, ``nor shall private property 
be taken for public use without just compensation.''
  If we do not act today, the consequences of that Supreme Court 
decision will not be hard to foretell. The winners are those with great 
influence, wealth and power. What happens when the potential buyer of a 
property is a foreign-owned entity? Or if a Nevada church is bulldozed 
to make room for a brothel?
  Americans will not stand for usurpation of their constitutional 
rights by the Court. Today, we have the opportunity to restore those 
rights that we fought so hard for. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 
4128.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague from 
California because not only is she supportive of this legislation but 
she has been speaking out consistently since the Kelo decision against 
that decision and the consequences.
  Mr. Chairman, I have grown concerned with the increasing rate of 
eminent domain abuse cases across the country, so I appreciate that we 
will be able to vote on this bill today.
  Many of us in Congress were shocked by the Supreme Court's 5-4 
decision in Kelo, allowing the town of New London, Connecticut, to 
seize 15 homes so a developer could build offices, a hotel and 
convention center. This set a disturbing precedent and raised serious 
concerns about whether there are any limits to the government's power 
under the takings clause of the Constitution.
  I believe the Private Property Rights Protection Act, this 
legislation, is a strong first step in the fight against eminent domain 
abuse. However, I think we can do better. I think we need to pass 
stronger legislation to ensure that we curb all abuses of eminent 
domain, not just those in areas where Federal funds are being used for 
a project.
  That is why I have introduced my own legislation to curb the 
inappropriate use of eminent domain. The Protect Our Homes Act simply 
states that there should be no taking of homes for economic development 
unless there are rare and exceptional circumstances involving a public 
health or safety crisis. This legislation would render any State or 
local government that does otherwise ineligible for Federal financial 
assistance under any HUD program. It would also put in place 
appropriate safeguards to ensure that any eminent domain process is 
fair and transparent.
  We have an obligation to protect our citizens as we revitalize our 
aging neighborhoods. We should not sit idly by and tolerate abuses of 
eminent domain in the name of economic revitalization. It is time to 
strengthen the Federal law to guarantee that homeowners throughout this 
great country are protected.
  I am pleased to support the legislation before us which will send a 
strong message that taking private homes for generating revenue will 
not be tolerated. There is still much more for Congress to do to 
prevent eminent domain abuse, however, and I look forward to this bill 
passing and to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
  It is very refreshing to see that this legislation has bipartisan 
support and that we are moving on this legislation today.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, the question before us today is not 
really whether we agree or disagree with the Supreme Court's 
interpretation of the term ``public use,'' but, rather, who we stand 
with and what we stand for. Do we stand with large private developers 
or with ordinary private citizens? Do we stand for government 
assistance for the powerful economic interests, at the expense of 
ownership of small interests?
  Let it be clear, this debate is about condemnation of property. Will 
we condemn our constituents by allowing their land to be taken without 
just cause? Will we condemn small business owners by allowing their 
stores to be removed simply because a big developer has a different 
idea for what the economy should look like? Or will we stand with our 
constituents and condemn the idea that their property can be sacrificed 
for the sake of a big corporate company's development plans?
  The Declaration of Independence holds that all people are endowed 
with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The 
Supreme Court's Kelo decision would limit the right to the pursuit of 
happiness to large corporate developers at the expense of small 
businesses and private citizens.
  We must take a stand today and reaffirm the unalienable rights of 
citizens and stand for our constituents and declare that everyone has 
the right to pursue happiness, and we cannot and will not take that 
right away.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in standing with our constituents to 
support this bill.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
gentlewoman for the time.
  I am very pleased to join my colleagues who are aware of the need to 
fix an issue that is broken. I join the chairman of this committee and 
thank the gentlewoman for her leadership, and I am glad to be an 
original cosponsor.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. Chairman, the reason we are on the floor today is that the 
Supreme Court, some would say rightly so, relied upon State law in 
Connecticut that allowed for the taking of private property for 
economic development. In essence, a public entity sanctioned private 
developers in taking private property for an economic enhancement. I am 
here to say that the fifth amendment's due process and the protection 
of property rights, to the extent that we protect those who cannot 
speak for themselves, should allow this Congress to fix the problem.
  I am also concerned that this very tool will be utilized to go into 
communities, poor communities, and have them succumb, if you will, to 
untoward and unwelcomed investment or development without their input 
and without the opportunity to build communities that would embrace all 
economic levels.
  The Kelo decision needs to be fixed by this Congress, and I welcome 
this legislation so that we can fix it and provide due process to all.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the base bill before the Committee 
of the Whole today, H.R. 4128, the Private Property Rights Protection 
Act of 2005. It pleases me to join the Gentlemen, Chairman 
Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers in supporting this 
legislation, H.R. 4128, just as I was enthusiastic about co-sponsoring 
the resolution introduced by the Gentleman on the Floor of the House on 
June 30, 2005 that denounces the

[[Page 24769]]

holding of the Supreme Court of the United States in Kelo v. City of 
New London.
  The Supreme Court, with its five-member majority, made a wrong 
decision and ratified the unconstitutional acts of a local government, 
the City of New London, Connecticut.
  The bill before this body rejects the act of the Supreme Court 
majority in giving these elected officials carte blanche to abuse the 
rights of the property owners in that case. Our highest court should 
stop the violation of constitutional rights. Our job 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. There should exist 
better protection for the individual with less economic power--the 
individual that has only his or her land as an asset. The Framers of 
the Constitution were careful in addressing that issue, careful in the 
sense they wanted to make sure that the ruling powers that be could not 
come in and say, ``I am going to take your property.'' That was not 
what the Framers envisioned free America.
  A recently published law journal note stated our dilemma quite well: 
``But still more unsettling to many than the notion that property might 
be taken for an obvious general public benefit is the suggestion that 
this power might be used to transfer private property for another 
private owner's profit, along with all the traditional rights that 
permit sale, use, rental, disposition, and other choices of fee simple 
ownership. Seemingly, if property can be forcibly passed from one 
private owner to another, `public use' is a phrase with no meaning and 
no end.''
  ``If property can be forcibly passed from one private owner to 
another, `public use' is a phrase with no meaning and no end.'' This 
legislation allows us as legislators to draw a thicker line of 
demarcation between private property and property that is truly 
intended for public use. The threshold must be higher for the ownership 
rights of individuals to be usurped--when the underlying objective is 
merely to engorge the pockets of developers.
  I would hope that my colleagues will support me in the amendment that 
the Rules Committee made in order Mr. Chairman, as No. 12. Kelo held 
``economic development'' to be a ``public use'' under the Fifth 
Amendment's Taking Clause. The Takings Clause states that ``nor shall 
private property be taken for public use without just compensation.''
  In the 1990's, a state agency declared that New London, CT was a 
``distressed municipality'' after its unemployment numbers hit double 
the rate in the rest of Connecticut. The holding by the Supreme Court 
purported to defer to the city's judgment and that the development 
would be a ``catalyst to the area's rejuvenation.''
  The land use situation in the areas most affected by Hurricane 
Katrina presents the situation that is most ripe for eminent domain 
takings under the guise of ``economic development.'' My amendment seeks 
to add the legislative intent to H.R. 4128 that the law seeks to put 
the people first even in the face of post-disaster reconstruction.
  I thank the Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for his 
support of this amendment. It is critical that we continue the spirit 
of bi-partisanship that was started with the resolution disapproving 
the Kelo decision, of which I was an original co-sponsor, the Private 
Property Rights Protection Act of 2005, H.R. 3135.
  New Orleans will be the center of a reconstruction project that will 
have a price tag in excess of $200 billion. Eminent domain will play a 
major role in the local governments' ability to assemble properties to 
carry out their plans--whether the residents like it or not. NAACP 
representative Hillary Shelton stated that ``the eminent domain process 
mostly targets racial and ethnic minorities because cities often want 
to redevelop areas with low property values and because minorities have 
less political clout and are less able to fight back.'' My amendment 
seeks to clarify that, in redefining the boundaries of the federal 
government's Taking power, unfair practices will not be tolerated and 
that the rights of property owners will be given the highest regard.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask that the Committee colleagues support this 
amendment.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as you can see, this is not a Democrat-Republican issue. 
The people who care about property rights, the people who respect 
homeownership, the people who believe that this is an important value 
are standing up for the citizens of this country. Folks who believe 
that somehow the government has a right to take private property for 
private use are standing on the side of the developers.
  While I respect Members on both sides of the aisle, I have had some 
Members on this side of the aisle talk about what they have done for 
poor people, and you will hear people talk about what they do for 
minorities, that they are doing this to get rid of blight, to create 
better communities. Well, on this one, I would like to say to all of my 
would-be friends who are helping poor communities and minority 
communities, we do not need you on this one.
  We need you to respect the right of those minorities and those poor 
people to hold on to whatever it is they own, whether it is a little, 
small business or whether it is a two-room shack or a one-room shack or 
whatever it is. It is theirs. They have a right to it. And no one, no 
mayor, no city council member, no one has the right to think they know 
better; that they can take that property for a private use.
  I think it is unconscionable for anybody that is elected by the 
people to undermine the people by supporting the taking of private 
properties for private use. I would hope even those Members who have 
been past mayors, who have been past city council members who agreed 
with the developers, indeed listen to this debate here on the floor 
today and agree that if we want to do anything to support the right of 
citizens to own property, we will support this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from 
Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California 
for being so gracious in yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, our Nation's eminent domain laws exist to help our 
communities, not to deprive Americans of their businesses and homes. 
For 11 years, Harry Pappas and his family battled to win back property 
taken from them in downtown Las Vegas, property which they rightfully 
owned and that was home to seven shops the family leased to other 
businesses for more than 40 years. This was a 40-year holding of one 
family in Las Vegas.
  In 1994, the Las Vegas Redevelopment Agency notified Mrs. Pappas that 
they were condemning her property. At a hearing only 7 days later, it 
was decided that the agency would take immediate possession of the 
property, and the family business promptly demolished.
  The Pappases' dreams were torn down with the building they lost that 
day, and their dignity was taken from them as they were forced to watch 
as a for-profit parking garage was built on their family property.
  The Pappas family took their case all the way to the United States 
Supreme Court, hoping that the justices would recognize their 
fundamental rights under our Constitution. But they were turned away by 
the Supreme Court, and their case seeking justice was dismissed.
  So now it is up to us, the United States Congress, to protect other 
families against the injustice that has been done to the Pappases as a 
result of the ever-growing expansion of eminent domain. Voting to limit 
the use of eminent domain for economic development will restore the 
rightful limits on this power that have been eroded by time. It is time 
to protect the Harry Pappases of the world.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the 
chairman.
  As the chairman knows, I have offered an amendment in the Rules 
Committee to address the problem of legal fees for property owners 
faced with the exercise of eminent domain by State and local 
governments. Homeowners in particular do not have the money to pay 
lawyers. Their main asset is tied up in a legal fight, so they cannot 
afford a challenge to the taking itself.
  In addition, most eminent domain lawyers operate on contingency for a 
percentage of the eventual price of the property condemned, so it is 
hard to get anybody to challenge the taking, and you certainly cannot 
get it without paying.
  The idea of the amendment is that owners are supposed to be no worse 
off after the condemnation than they were

[[Page 24770]]

before. But if they have to pay their lawyer, whether by the hour or as 
a percentage of the sale price, they will always be worse off.
  Would the chairman be willing to work with me on this issue in 
conference in a way to address the needs of private property owners 
without encouraging frivolous lawsuits?
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FLAKE. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The answer is absolutely.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, very briefly, this bill attempts to do what the Federal 
Government can to reverse the impact of the Kelo decision, and the 
heart of this bill is to deny Federal economic development funds for 2 
years to any States or locality that attempts to use its condemnation 
powers to take private land for essentially a nonpublic use purpose and 
to turn around and resell it to another private developer who will 
bring in more tax revenue.
  We have heard time and time and time again on this floor during the 
last hour that this is wrong. But the Supreme Court has said that it is 
not wrong if a developer can convince a majority of one on a city 
council or local governing board to authorize the local attorney to go 
and commence condemnation actions. That is true if somebody has lived 
in a house for all their life and the city council puts them in the 
cross hairs; it is true for a church that has got a prime piece of 
property on the corner of a busy intersection that a developer wants to 
build a strip mall on; and it is true for someone who has run a small 
business in a prime area of town and has made a lot of money but does 
not pay a lot of property taxes because they have a small shop, and 
they can be put out of business even for a competition that wants to 
have a larger and, thus, more tax-yielding facility on that piece of 
property.
  Everything I have said is wrong, and everything I have said can be 
done with the use of Federal economic development funds under the Kelo 
decision. What we need to do now is pass this bill to right this wrong.
  And I would just remind the membership, Mr. Chairman, that the author 
of the majority opinion in Kelo, Justice John Paul Stevens, recently 
spoke to a local bar association in Nevada and said that if he was a 
legislator rather than a justice of the United States Supreme Court, he 
would have ruled the other way. So if Justice Stevens were sitting here 
as a representative in Congress today, he would be supporting this 
bill, too, and I think that is the reason why this bill should receive 
overwhelming support. We all should vote for it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson). All time for general debate by the 
Committee on the Judiciary has expired.
  It is now in order for general debate by the Committee on 
Agriculture, 30 minutes equally divided.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this important piece of 
legislation. I want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner for his leadership 
on this issue. I also appreciate the hard work of Congressman Henry 
Bonilla, who introduced the STOPP Act, legislation that passed out of 
the Agriculture Committee, and Ranking Member Peterson on the 
Agriculture Committee, as well as Ranking Member Conyers on the 
Judiciary Committee.
  I especially want to thank my colleague from South Dakota (Ms. 
Herseth) who was the first Democrat to take a leading role on this 
issue in introducing the STOPP Act, and it is in part due to her 
leadership that we will have a very strong bipartisan vote on this 
legislation today.
  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 gives the property owners just compensation.
  However, the Supreme Court's recent 5-4 decision in Kelo v. City of 
New London is a step in the opposite direction. This controversial 
ruling expands the ability of State and local governments to exercise 
eminent domain powers to seize properties 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.
  For these reasons, I joined with Chairman Sensenbrenner to introduce 
H.R. 4128, the Private Property Rights Protection Act. This important 
piece of legislation represents a merger between two pieces of 
legislation, H.R. 3135, introduced by Chairman Sensenbrenner, and H.R. 
3405, the STOPP Act, which I introduced along with the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Bonilla) and the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth) 
and which passed the House Committee on Agriculture by a strong 
bipartisan vote of 40 to 1.
  I am pleased that H.R. 4128 incorporates many provisions from the 
STOPP Act. Specifically, this new legislation 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 new 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. 4128 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 to 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.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in strong support of the Private Property Rights Protection 
Act of 2005. I want to thank the Judiciary Chairman Sensenbrenner and 
Ranking Member Conyers, as well as Agriculture Committee Chairman 
Goodlatte and Ranking Member Peterson, for their hard work in moving 
this legislation to the floor today.
  I would also like to acknowledge and thank the Agriculture 
Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Henry Bonilla for his strong 
leadership on this very important issue as well as the work of Chairman 
Pombo and Congresswoman Waters who have been steadfast in their 
advocacy for private property rights in light of the threat posed by 
the Kelo decision.
  This legislation is a priority for farmers and ranchers and 
landowners across my home State of South Dakota. I am extremely pleased 
that the Agriculture Committee acted swiftly

[[Page 24771]]

on the legislation originally introduced by the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Bonilla) and myself, the Strengthening the Ownership of Private 
Property, or STOPP Act, and that Chairman Goodlatte made reporting out 
the bill from the Agriculture Committee a priority.
  I am equally pleased by the determined, thoughtful attention 
demonstrated by the Judiciary Committee and the collaborative approach 
taken as we put together the Private Property Rights Protection Act. It 
is important, commonsense legislation that deserves our attention.
  As my colleagues know, the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City 
of New London dealt a serious blow to the fundamental rights of 
property owners in the United States. The House overwhelmingly 
expressed its disapproval shortly after the decision by a vote of 365 
to 33. This court ruling allows governments to take private property 
from one landowner and give it to another private individual so long as 
some economic development justification is given. In short, it means 
that governments can take your property and give it to someone else.

                              {time}  1515

  I have been impressed by the widespread support for the proposition 
that this decision requires prompt congressional action.
  As I have said before, South Dakotans from all walks of life are 
outraged about the Supreme Court's Kelo decision. As I have repeatedly 
noted in previous discussions of the case and as noted by Chairman 
Sensenbrenner earlier today, even Justice John Paul Stevens, the author 
of the Kelo decision, has expressed the feeling that the use of eminent 
domain by the City of New London was unwise as a matter of policy. And 
I agree.
  I am pleased to have been part of the effort to craft a good 
bipartisan response that addresses these policy shortcomings by 
discouraging State and local governments from arbitrarily taking land 
from private landowners and giving that land to another private party. 
I felt compelled to take a lead in this process because of the people I 
represent and my roots on my family's farm in South Dakota. South 
Dakota is a rural State, and our population's livelihood is deeply tied 
to the land. This is true for virtually all of the State's citizens, 
whether they live in town or whether they live on the farm.
  Because of this, the belief in private property rights runs strong 
and deep, and everyone I have talked to back home on this matter has 
delivered the same message: Landowners should not be vulnerable to the 
whims of a government that decides to take their land and often their 
livelihood just to give it to someone else who the government decides 
would deliver more in tax revenues. I am pleased to say that many of my 
colleagues agree with this, which is why in the short term since its 
introduction, this act and other initiatives have garnered broad 
bipartisan support, because the legislation makes sense.
  As many of you know and as Chairman Goodlatte was discussing, 
Chairman Bonilla and I, along with Chairman Goodlatte, drafted H.R. 
3405 to provide a strong response to the Kelo decision. At the time we 
introduced the STOPP Act, other legislation which took a similar 
approach by withholding some Federal funds when eminent domain is used 
to facilitate a private-to-private transfer of property for economic 
development purposes left open the possibility that a creative 
community or State could essentially shift funds within its budget to 
render the Federal response less effective.
  In the words of Bob Stallman, president of the American Farm Bureau, 
in his testimony before the Agriculture Committee: ``All of the Federal 
bills introduced thus far take this approach. The differences among 
them are the degree to which such funding is withheld. While we support 
all the approaches taken in these bills, H.R. 3405 seems to offer the 
most effective deterrent to abuses of eminent domain.''
  The Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005 incorporates the 
core components of the STOPP Act, namely, the withholding of all 
Federal economic development assistance for 2 years if communities 
choose to use eminent domain to take private property from one 
landowner and give it to another private individual for the purposes of 
economic development.
  I think this development is a testament to the hard work of 
individuals like Chairman Bonilla, Chairman Goodlatte, Congresswoman 
Waters, Chairman Pombo, and others to define, develop, refine, and 
promote a strong commonsense approach to the situation presented by the 
Kelo decision.
  As I have said, I am happy to have been a part of these important 
efforts, and I encourage my colleagues to join with me today in passing 
this important bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Bonilla), the chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations 
Subcommittee and the author of the STOPP Act, which was passed out of 
the Committee on Agriculture.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a rare moment in this town when we have a major 
issue that has widespread bipartisan support. I want to thank the 
gentlewoman from South Dakota, my original partner in this cause, who 
just spoke about this and gave a little history as to how we got this 
bill rolling several months ago; and also Chairman Goodlatte under 
whose jurisdiction this bill originally fell, the STOPP Act that we 
filed, because so many of the programs that we are talking about here 
today that are funded come through the Agriculture Committee.
  We would not have been able to come this far without this partnership 
with Ms. Herseth and Chairman Goodlatte; and I want to thank both of 
them, not just personally, but I know there are a lot of people out 
there that are very grateful for the support they have given this and 
have brought us to this day where we have a bill that, again, was 
reported out of the Agriculture Committee by a vote of 40 to 1 and then 
out of the Judiciary Committee with only three people voting against 
it. That is a profound statement across partisan lines in this 
Congress.
  It also has widespread support among groups like the NAACP, the AARP, 
religious organizations, and the American Farm Bureau. I think people 
understood the impact this bill could have because it is very simple, 
Mr. Chairman. It says to communities that if they do not care about 
property rights, they are not going to get their money. No property 
rights, no money for 2 years. And that is going to make any local 
government or any State think long and hard before they take that first 
step toward trying to take someone's property for private gain.
  This bill, of course, does not do anything to infringe on the 
community's rights and the constitutional history in this country of 
communities taking private property for public use, i.e., airports, 
roads, bridges, et cetera. It does not touch that at all. So I believe 
that is why we were able to come to this state. We have gone through 
the process, worked through regular order. We had our hearings. 
Attorneys scrubbed the bill. People asked questions, what if this 
happened, what if that happened. And we tried to address every issue 
that has come to us thus far.
  Again, it is a great day when we have two committees coming together, 
two parties coming together. People from all over the country, whether 
they live in a rural area or whether they live in an urban area, have 
the same concern about property rights after the Kelo decision.
  I look forward to a resounding victory today for the people of this 
country.
  Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe 
Lofgren).
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, as a member of the House Judiciary Committee I had the 
opportunity to

[[Page 24772]]

review quite carefully this bill. While I disagreed with the Supreme 
Court decision, I must confess that the bill before us today is not 
drafted as carefully and clearly as I would have hoped. There will, in 
all likelihood, be litigation if this bill becomes law because the 
exemptions are written in such a way that reasonable people may 
disagree as to their meaning.
  I hope that I can help clarify the application of this bill in at 
least one area: The meaning of the bill as it relates to affordable 
housing.
  What follows are the concurring views in the Committee Report 
accompanying this bill. It is my hope that by including them here today 
during our floor debate that in the future this clarification will be 
of value to public entities, litigants and the courts.
  At markup, I intended to offer an amendment to this legislation 
creating an exception to the definition of ``economic development'' for 
the development of affordable housing for low-income residents. I 
ultimately decided not to offer this amendment, however, based on my 
recognition, and the apparent recognition of my colleagues, that this 
bill as introduced does not in any way limit the ability of States and 
local governments to exercise their eminent domain powers for the 
building of affordable housing for low-income residents. In fact, 
during markup, I pointed this out and received no objections from my 
colleagues.
  The provision of low-income housing, whether by a for-profit or a 
non-profit entity, should not constitute ``economic development'' under 
the definition in this bill because such activity constitutes neither 
``commercial enterprise'' nor an activity designed to ``increase tax 
revenue, tax base, employment or general economic health.'' Rather, the 
development of affordable housing for low-income residents constitutes 
a traditional public purpose for which eminent domain powers have long 
been recognized. Given that this bill will not in any way limit the 
exercise of eminent domain powers for the development of affordable 
housing, I concur in the Committee's report.
  Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Salazar).
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from South Dakota 
for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, in my district, the values of faith, family, and 
commitment to community are sacred. We also hold sacred the right to 
own property without fear of its being taken away by government.
  Unfortunately, local governments are seizing property in the name of 
economic development and transferring ownership to other private 
individuals. American citizens are losing their homes in the interest 
of building strip malls or big-box stores. Even more disheartening is 
the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has endorsed this behavior in what 
I feel is a misinterpretation of the takings clause of the fifth 
amendment to the Constitution.
  I voted to prohibit this kind of action when I was a State 
representative in Colorado, and I have also voted my disapproval of the 
ruling in the case of Kelo v. New London.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 4128, the Private Property Rights 
Protection Act. I am a cosponsor of this bill, and I supported passage 
of the STOPP Act, H.R. 3405, in the Agriculture Committee just last 
month.
  This important legislation will help prevent local governments from 
abusing their power of eminent domain. While local governments may be 
well intentioned, the fact is that people are losing their homes 
because of misguided economic development principles.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure; and I 
thank Chairman Sensenbrenner, Ranking Member Conyers, Chairman Bonilla, 
and Congresswoman Herseth for their dedication to persevering and 
protecting property rights.
  The right to own property is a fundamental right of this country, and 
I will do whatever I can to ensure that it is preserved.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).
  Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4128, the 
Private Property Rights Protection Act. The Supreme Court decision of 
Kelo v. City of New London is one of the most unpopular decisions ever 
rendered. I believe more than 90 percent of United States citizens 
oppose this ruling, and it may be that the other 10 percent do not 
fully understand it. So it has been certainly roundly denounced.
  The Court states that ``any property may now be taken for the benefit 
of another private property.'' So if one party has a project that will 
yield more tax revenue than is currently provided by a piece of 
property, that property may be taken. This gives local governments 
broad powers. This creates great concern in the Agriculture Committee, 
as has already been noticed. Farm and ranch land can be taken very 
easily because a golf course, a shopping mall, an amusement park can 
easily be classified as being more important as far as economic 
development than agricultural land. Nonprofits, such as churches, 
Salvation Army, Goodwill Industries, shelters, are very vulnerable. 
They generate little or no tax revenue. So almost any project can 
supersede them in this regard.
  Small businesses are very vulnerable. I had a farmer athlete who 
played for me who had worked very hard to develop a small business in 
an old building, a restaurant, and a new hotel was coming into the 
area. The local city council was thinking about shutting him down, 
destroying the building, building a new hotel, which would be economic 
development. And this person was essentially very vulnerable. His whole 
life savings, his whole investment was going to be gone. So this bill 
would prevent that.
  H.R. 4128 prevents States and local governments from receiving 
Federal economic development funds if they abuse their powers of 
eminent domain. These are important protections.
  I would like to thank Chairman Goodlatte, Chairman Sensenbrenner, and 
others who have worked so hard on this bill; and certainly I urge 
adoption of it.
  Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from 
South Dakota for yielding me this time. It is a pleasure to work with 
her on this, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this 
important issue on the House floor today.
  As we all know, on June 23, 2005, the Supreme Court handed down its 
decision in the case of Kelo v. The City of New London. In Kelo, the 
Court addressed the city's condemnation of private property to 
implement its redevelopment plan aimed at invigorating a depressed 
economy. By a 5-4 decision, the Court held that the condemnation 
satisfied the fifth amendment requirement that property condemnations 
be for a ``public use,'' notwithstanding that the property, as part of 
the plan, might be turned over to private developers.
  The Supreme Court decision was indeed a wake-up call, Mr. Chairman, 
for many communities; and I have heard loud and clear from my own 
constituents in Georgia that they are worried that their property 
rights are in jeopardy. Today we are going to remedy this wrongful 
application of the law of eminent domain and restore important property 
rights to private citizens. This is very important, Mr. Chairman, what 
we are doing today. And as a cosponsor of H.R. 4128, the Private 
Property Rights Protection Act, I believe that passage of this 
legislation will ensure that no Federal dollars will be used to 
unjustly take any property at the local and State levels. In addition, 
I will continue to support efforts to curtail the power of eminent 
domain in an effort to protect private property rights.
  H.R. 4128 is important, and I support it because it prohibits State 
and local governments that receive Federal economic development funds 
from using eminent domain to seize land for economic development 
purposes, except for the construction of public facilities such as 
hospitals or military bases, and for use by a public utility, aqueduct, 
or a pipeline.
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the States and local governments that 
take lands for private development could not receive Federal economic 
development funds for those years. I am therefore very pleased that the 
House is voting on this important bill today.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Pence).

[[Page 24773]]

  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a rare moment of bipartisanship in Congress, 
and it bears some reflection as I rise in strong support of the Private 
Property Rights Protection Act. I think that agreement springs from our 
oath of office, which we take at the beginning of every Congress. It 
provides: ``I do solemnly swear/affirm that I will support and defend 
the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and 
domestic and that I will bear true faith and allegiance to same.''
  And I believe that is what Republicans and Democrats are doing today 
is bearing true faith to the Constitution, which in its fifth amendment 
provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property 
without due process of law nor shall private property be taken for 
public use without just compensation.
  The Private Property Rights Protection Act by virtue of its 
outstanding authorship, Chairman Sensenbrenner, Chairman Goodlatte, 
Chairman Bonilla, fulfills this oath of office in a profound way. In 
the wake of the June 2005 Kelo decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, 
which held that economic development could be a ``public use'' under 
the fifth amendment's takings clause, Congress and every Member of 
Congress, in my judgment, has a duty under that oath to support and 
uphold and defend the Constitution. Indeed, John Adams remarked: ``The 
moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred 
as the law of God and that there is not a force of law and public 
justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.''
  As a Member of the House Agriculture Committee, I can say that the 
fear of development and the unbridled appetite of urban areas against 
rural areas makes this an especially important initiative of the 
Agriculture Committee and its distinguished chairman.

                              {time}  1530

  In the discharge of our duty to support and defend the fifth 
amendment to the Constitution, I urge my colleagues very humbly, say no 
to Kelo, say yes to the Private Property Rights Protection Act.
  Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 4128 and glad to 
rise in support of it.
  The Private Property Rights Protection Act prohibits States and 
localities from using eminent domain powers for economic development 
purposes if the State or local governing jurisdiction received Federal 
economic development funds during the same year.
  In the past, governments were only able to acquire property from 
private owners if the property was going to be used for real public 
use, highways, roads, schools, parks, or to eliminate that property 
from endangering the public. These transactions have typically not 
occurred when the government buys a property by the power of eminent 
domain from a private owner and then sells the property to a different 
private owner under the premise that the property would benefit the 
community with increased economic development.
  We all support economic development, but if a community wants to do 
that, they need to go to that individual landowner and say, this what 
we want, we want to buy your property, and this is what we are going to 
do with it. We should not take it under the cloud of eminent domain.
  The fifth amendment to the Constitution states that ``private 
property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.'' 
This did not seem to matter when the Kelo decision was made.
  The Kelo ruling has essentially stripped the public of the 
constitutional right to own that property if someone thought they had a 
better use for it than they did. I think that is what bothers so many 
people on a bipartisan basis, rural, urban. The fact that a small 
business or home can be taken away from a private citizen simply to 
increase tax revenues is disturbing and shows a blatant disregard I 
think for the constitutional rights of our citizens.
  In Texas, our State legislature has already taken steps to correct 
the decision, at least under State law, by passing legislation that 
would prohibit the local government or private entity from taking 
private property through eminent domain for private benefit or economic 
development purposes, and we should do the same, at least as much as we 
can do under our Federal laws.
  So this bill does give us that opportunity to defend our fundamental 
constitutional rights of our constituents.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), another member of the 
House Agriculture Committee.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, Chairman Goodlatte and Chairman Sensenbrenner 
are to be applauded for the excellent, prompt work they have done on 
this outstanding bill.
  Fundamentally, this bill is truly one of the most important pieces of 
legislation that this Congress has or will consider. The Supreme 
Court's eminent domain decision contradicts the very ideals of liberty 
and property rights that have for 229 years defined the greatest 
government on earth.
  Our forefathers put their lives on the line and took up arms to 
obtain the liberties and independence we enjoy. They left their wives 
and families to shed blood so their children would not be subject to 
British taxation, invasion of privacy and wrongful seizures of 
property.
  The Framers of our Constitution clearly defined the rights to speak 
and worship freely, bear arms and hold personal property when they 
crafted the greatest form of government the world has ever known.
  Property rights are a hallmark of what separates America from nations 
whose citizens live in fear of their own government. In fact, property 
rights and the opportunity for homeownership are principal reasons that 
citizens come from other nations desperately to America. However, as a 
result of the atrocious decision made by the Supreme Court, those exact 
rights became jeopardized.
  As Members of Congress, we have a responsibility to uphold the 
Constitution and protect the rights of our constituents. We also have 
the responsibility to carefully monitor the actions of the judicial 
branch.
  The bipartisan support this bill has both in Congress and in our 
districts loudly proclaims the widely held opposition to the Supreme 
Court's un-American eminent domain decision. I am proud to help ensure 
that such an appalling ruling will not be made again.
  I hope and pray the newly appointed Supreme Court justices will never 
rule as irresponsibly as those five justices who supported the eminent 
domain decision did. We cannot let courts or local governments trample 
on property rights.
  I urge all my colleagues to support this bill.
  Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt), the newest Member of Congress, 
who is standing up on this important issue.
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
4128, of which I am a cosponsor, legislation to protect private 
property of all Americans. As my fellow Ohioan William Howard Taft, the 
only person to serve as President and Chief Justice of the Supreme 
Court, said, ``Next to the right of liberty, the right of property is 
the most important individual right guaranteed by the Constitution.''
  When the Supreme Court decided in Kelo that the State and local 
governments can require homeowners to vacate their property to make way 
for commercial development, it failed property owners' rights and our 
Constitution.
  This legislation is important to me because of residents in Norwood, 
Ohio. In Norwood, Ohio, these residents are

[[Page 24774]]

suing right now saying that it misused the power of eminent domain by 
declaring a neighborhood was blighted and turning the property over to 
a private company for the development of a shopping center. The Ohio 
Supreme Court is taking this matter. We hope there is a better 
resolution than the one in Kelo.
  I want to commend Chairman Sensenbrenner and Chairman Goodlatte for 
their good work and their courageous effort in this most needed 
legislation.
  Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Chairman, let me just conclude by commenting in my 
remaining time on some of the testimony that we heard in Chairman 
Pombo's Committee on Resources, on which I also sit, about the 
compelling testimony of individuals, business owners, who have been 
victims of abuses of eminent domain for the purpose of a private-to-
private transfer.
  So not only have we heard these compelling stories from individuals, 
families who have been affected, both in cities and in the country, but 
we have also had good bipartisan work in drafting sessions, our 
legislative hearings, our markups, in the Agriculture Committee, in the 
Resources Committee, now the Judiciary Committee. The bill that is 
under consideration today, that has attempted to respond in the most 
effective way to a ruling, as I mentioned, that received strong 
disapproval from this body shortly after the Supreme Court's ruling and 
on which even the opinion's author and, as I understand, even another 
member of the court who recognized that this is something the 
legislatures should contend with. And that is precisely what we are 
doing today on the House floor.
  Congress needs to take action. We need to take it immediately. Our 
hope is certainly that we can make this bill law in short order, 
because, as some of the testimony before the Resources Committee last 
week also indicated, certain municipalities and other local units of 
government moved quickly after the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo to 
exercise their eminent domain powers for purposes of economic 
development for a public purpose, public benefit, beyond the plain 
language of the United States Constitution that limits the eminent 
domain power to public use. This has been a broad trend for a number of 
years, culminating in the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo, that 
requires the action of this body.
  I urge my colleagues to support final passage of this bill that is a 
well-crafted, careful, thoughtful attempt to address a serious problem 
for property owners across the country.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to start by thanking some people who do 
not always get thanked, and that is the diligent, hard-working staff of 
the Agriculture Committee on both sides of the aisle, the Judiciary 
Committee on both sides of the aisle and my congressional office staff. 
They worked very, very hard on what I think is a comprehensive and 
carefully crafted piece of legislation.
  We are going to begin to entertain some amendments, and some of those 
amendments could have a devastating impact, a gutting effect on this 
legislation, and I urge my colleagues to follow that debate closely and 
help us defeat amendments that would open this back up to the same kind 
of court misinterpretation that has been a problem here.
  Finally, let me say that the United States Constitution protects 
private property rights as a fundamental right, and we need to make 
sure that we respond to a Supreme Court decision that has cast private 
property rights in America into question by passing this important 
legislation today.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased the House of Representatives 
is again taking action to curb further abuse of eminent domain for 
economic development purposes. Ever since the infamous Kelo v. City of 
New London Supreme Court decision in June, Kansans have voiced their 
strong opposition to this ruling.
  I agree fully with my constituents that governments should not be 
given the authority to transfer private land from one owner to another 
for economic development purposes. Securing the right of individuals to 
own and manage their own property is provided for in the U.S. 
Constitution. The Fifth Amendment states, ``nor shall private property 
be taken for public use without just compensation.''
  Every constituent who talks with me about this issue strongly 
believes the Supreme Court went too far when it said that a government 
can transfer private land from one owner to another if the second owner 
will supposedly generate more tax revenue. The court's decision does 
not pass the common sense test.
  The court's flawed reasoning is precisely what the original Supreme 
Court, warned against at its inception in 1789 when it called eminent 
domain a ``despotic power.'' Unfortunately, we have been forced to 
respond to the 2005 Supreme Court's decision with legislation to deter 
future land grabs by greedy local governments.
  The Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005, H.R. 4128, would 
deny federal economic development assistance to any State or local 
government that chooses to use the power of eminent domain for economic 
development purposes.
  I strongly support H.R. 4128 and congratulate Chairman Sensenbrenner 
for his leadership on this important land-rights issue. I support the 
bill's passage and am hopeful the Senate will act quickly so we can get 
it to the President for his signature.
  Americans have relied on constitutional protection against abusive 
land transfers from one person to another for more than two centuries. 
History reminds us that nations that disregard the rights associated 
with private property ownership disregard other fundamental rights of 
the citizenry.
  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. Occasionally, this has to be done against a landowner's 
wishes. But our Founders believed only under extreme circumstances 
should property be taken from a land owner for the greater public good. 
The idea that a government would use its eminent domain power to take 
land from one private owner and transfer it to another land owner for 
economic development is an abuse of the public good definition.
  H.R. 4128 will prohibit States and local governments from exercising 
eminent domain for economic development, or for property that is 
subsequently used for economic development, if the State is a recipient 
of Federal economic development funds that fiscal year. If a State or 
local government is in violation of this provision, it would be 
ineligible for Federal economic development assistance for 2 fiscal 
years following a final judgment.
  Many farmers in my district have expressed particularly how harmful 
this court ruling could be to them if a local government wants to take 
their land for development. Many farms have been in the same family for 
generations. Under the Supreme Court's ruling, a government could 
forcefully take all or a portion of the family farm so more tax revenue 
could be generated by a developer. This scenario is a real possibility 
that demands the Congress take action to prevent such an unjust land 
grab.
  The same situation could arise for a house of worship or other non-
profit organization. Entities that do not generate tax revenue are 
particularly vulnerable to land grabs by governments interested in 
generating more tax dollars.
  Small businesses are also in support of this bill because it protects 
their property from being handed over to a larger company, or even a 
competitor. Small shop owners that may be struggling to survive would 
be an easy target for a local government. It is important we pass 
legislation that helps protect small businesses. H.R. 4128 does just 
that by alleviating the threat a local body could pose to small 
businesses when it comes to supposed economic development.
  I look forward to seeing this bill passed and signed into law. 
Support for this bill is support for home owners, small businesses, 
farmers, ranchers, houses of worship and anyone who believes in private 
property rights.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, today the House passed H.R. 4128, a bill 
that makes states and local governments ineligible for Federal economic 
development funds for 2 years if they exercise eminent domain in the 
name of economic development.
  Protecting the rights of individual property owners is of the utmost 
importance. However, there are certain circumstances when the best 
interest of a town is served by the responsible use of eminent domain. 
As a former City Council Member, I know how effective this tool can be 
when it is used judiciously. In my State of California there are 
restrictions on local

[[Page 24775]]

governments' use of eminent domain to ensure that situations like that 
of Kelo v. City of New London do not happen.
  We have to trust local authorities to use this power responsibly and 
respectfully and only when it truly benefits the community at large and 
when property owners are fairly compensated. By restricting the use of 
eminent domain, we take away our local governments' ability to serve 
and improve their jurisdictions. As the leaders of our neighborhoods 
and towns, we must trust they know best how to use the resources and 
assets that are available.
  Mr. Chairman, by restricting the use of eminent domain we have in 
fact impeded our local governments' ability to make necessary progress.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, the Supreme Court Ruling in Kelo v New 
London sparked many fears among citizens that their property was at 
risk of being taken away by the government. These fears, however, are 
unwarranted and stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of eminent 
domain.
  Eminent domain is a power granted local governments by the Fifth 
Amendment. The Supreme Court decision in no way precluded the rights of 
States to place further restrictions on eminent domain and to more 
narrowly define public use. The court leaves these rights to local 
officials and citizens for public debate. In my experience as a local 
elected official, eminent domain was the absolute last resort, but it 
was an important tool to have if was absolutely necessary.
  In the discussion on the House floor today, my colleagues failed to 
recognize the many benefits we experience thanks to eminent domain. 
Twenty years ago, Times Square was a notoriously dangerous neighborhood 
in New York City. Eminent domain was used to take 13 acres of land, 
condemning 56 lots and moving 404 tenants. The public-private 
redevelopment included a highly successful mixture of for-profit and 
non-profit theaters, retail facilities, hotels, and office buildings. 
What was once a blighted, unsafe neighborhood is now a safe and vibrant 
city center.
  Connecting the U.S. Capitol and the White House, Pennsylvania Avenue 
is one of this country's most important thoroughfares. Fifty years ago, 
however, it was a street bordered by many problematic land uses and 
buildings that significantly detracted from its role in the life of 
Washington, D.C. and America. In 1972, Congress created the 
Pennsylvania A venue Development Corporation, which in turn exercised 
the power of eminent domain to revitalize this important avenue of 
American life.
  This bill is a hasty political response to a narrow Supreme Court 
decision. I am concerned that it is overly broad and will have many 
unintended consequences for our States and communities and hamper their 
ability to build safer, healthier and economically secure 
neighborhoods. I urge my colleagues to defeat this bill and allow local 
governments to reform eminent domain laws in manners consistent with 
their communities' needs.
  Miss McMORRIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer my support of H.R. 
4128 the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005.
  I am pleased the House of Representatives recognizes the importance 
of protecting private property rights, and clarifying legitimate 
takings by the Federal Government and discouraging takings for private 
development.
  Without a doubt, I am a strong defender of private property rights. 
Uncompensated regulatory takings of private property have become an 
immense problem across our Nation. As Federal, State, and local 
regulations have increased in number and scope, property owners have 
increasingly found themselves unable to use their property and unable 
to recover the losses that result.
  In Kelo v. City of New London, decided June 23, 2005, the Supreme 
Court ruled 5-4 that the city's condemnation of private property, to 
implement its area redevelopment plan aimed at invigorating a depressed 
economy, was a ``public use'' satisfying the U.S. Constitution--even 
though the property might be turned over to private developers. The 
majority opinion was grounded on Supreme Court decisions holding that 
``public use'' must be read broadly to mean ``for a public purpose.''
  This decision does not take into sufficient account the distinction 
between projects where economic development is only an instrumental or 
secondary aspect of the project, and those where economic development 
is the primary interest. I am concerned by this decision.
  Our founding fathers believed so much in the sanctity and importance 
of private property that they felt it needed to be protected in the 
Constitution. However, due to the recent ruling, government officials 
can confiscate private property if they simply argue the local 
community will receive an economic benefit to do so. In fact, the 
Institute for Justice estimates that over 10,000 homes nationwide are 
in danger of being destroyed by aggressive local governments. Now 
officials can seize the homes of private citizens to generate more tax 
income to fuel big government spending programs.
  Justice O'Connor had it right when she stated, ``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--given to an owner who will use it in a way that the 
legislature deems more beneficial to the public--in the process.''
  Property rights are civil rights. There can be no individual freedom 
without the power of an individual to control their own autonomy 
through the free use of their own property. The Supreme Court's 
decision poses an immediate threat to that essential freedom, and the 
most likely victims will be the most vulnerable in our society if 
Congress does not act.
  Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this 
bill, H.R. 4128.
  What we witnessed as a result of the Supreme Court's ruling in Kelo 
vs. City of New London was unfortunate.
  I know that all across the country local governments are looking for 
ways to revitalize their communities. I believe these efforts are 
important and necessary to help their neighborhoods and families 
thrive, however, I believe that the City of New London acted 
inappropriately.
  The Supreme Court's ruling in the case went too far and made 
governments' eminent domain powers too broad.
  I am extremely concerned with the apparent disregard by a majority of 
the Supreme Court regarding the purpose of the Takings Clause under the 
Fifth Amendment. The Kelo ruling would allow the taking of private 
property for the benefit of another private entity.
  When I was County Executive I put forward a plan to use eminent 
domain for the purpose of public safety although there were private 
entities that would have benefited. My goal was to revitalize a 
deteriorating community and I felt that eminent domain was a tool I 
needed to address revitalization of an area with high levels of poverty 
and a high crime rate.
  As a consequence of the public debate on that experience, I have come 
to better appreciate the severity of the government intervening to 
benefit one private entity to the detriment of another private entity. 
I believe that using eminent domain to take private property should 
only be used in situations where there is an overwhelming public 
benefit such as roads, schools, hospitals, and public safety needs. I 
understand this legislation as preventing the use of eminent domain for 
economic development and that any use of eminent domain for the 
purposes of public safety is still permitted.
  By prohibiting the Federal Government from using strictly economic 
development as a justification for condemnation of private property; 
and by prohibiting States and local governments that receive Federal 
economic development funds from taking private property for strictly 
economic development purposes, the supporters of this legislation hope 
to prevent another New London.
  This legislation would not prevent the Federal, State or local 
governments from exercising eminent domain for public facilities or 
other uses defined as public use.
  It is vital that we protect the property rights of all Americans from 
arbitrary application of eminent domain by passing this legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, the Private Property Rights Protection Act 
would hopefully, once and for all, prohibit Federal, State and local 
use of eminent domain to take private property for economic 
development.
  The Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause gives eminent domain 
authority to States and localities if seizing property for a ``public 
use.'' However, in the Kelo decision, the Supreme Court ruled that New 
London, Connecticut's redevelopment plan was constitutional and, in 
fact, for a ``public use''--largely ignoring the reality that the 
property, as part of the plan, would be turned over to private 
developers.
  The Fourteenth Amendment also contains what's known as the equal 
protection clause, which states: ``No State shall make or enforce any 
law which shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the 
equal protection of the laws.'' But the Kelo ruling deliberately 
declares that heretofor, certain persons and their property will in 
fact be protected UNequally. Or, in the case of Kelo, not at all.
  In addition to prohibiting any level of government from using 
economic development as a reason for exercising its power of eminent 
domain, H.R. 4128 would also provide assurances that those who are 
victimized by eminent domain property seizures will get their day in 
court. Eminent domain victims suffering

[[Page 24776]]

injuries from a violation of the protections in H.R. 4128 will be 
allowed access to State or Federal court to enforce its provisions.
  Mr. Chairman, the home ownership rate is at the highest level in our 
Nation's history. Owning one's home and property is the cornerstone of 
the American Dream. The Kelo decision sets a precedent that can turn 
the American Dream into a nightmare for victims of eminent domain.
  I salute Chairman Sensenbrenner and Chairman Smith of the Judiciary 
Committee and Chairman Goodlatte of the Agriculture Committee for 
developing this strong, bipartisan legislative defense of private 
citizens. I am proud to cosponsor the legislation, and urge all Members 
to support this prudent bill.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4128, which 
bars local governments from using eminent domain for economic 
development.
  The urban renewal of the last decade has benefited every part of the 
country and many cities in the 13th Congressional District. The very 
purpose of government is to make tough decisions that benefit the 
community, and I cannot support Congress taking away this essential 
government function.
  This bill would also extend the Federal Government ever further into 
matters in which it doesn't belong--in this case--real estate planning 
and development. City councils are elected and empowered to make the 
difficult choice when private property should be utilized for the good 
of the community. Congress cannot and should not tie the hands of 
locally elected leaders to do what they believe is in the best interest 
of their communities. If those local officials make the wrong choices, 
voters will no doubt respond.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, the bill before the House today is a good 
example of a legislative cure that is worse than the underlying 
disease.
  I want to say at the outset that there have been some very 
questionable uses of eminent domain. The fifth amendment to the 
Constitution clearly states that private property may not be taken 
except for public use, and then only after just compensation has been 
paid to the property owner. In many cases, the use of eminent domain is 
justified, but it is invariably controversial. I remember the 
controversy that attended the construction of the Walter Reuther 
Freeway in my home State during the 1960s and 1970s. Some communities 
were furious over the project, but there was no doubt in anyone's mind 
that the road served a clear public use.
  Other uses of eminent domain are much more questionable. In 
Washington, as in so many other cities, a decision has been made to 
spend hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to build a new stadium 
for the benefit of Major League Baseball and the future owner of the 
Washington Nationals. Indeed, the District Government filed court 
papers the other day to seize $84 million worth of property from its 
current owners. Are stadium deals like this a legitimate public use? 
Evidently, they must be since the legislation before the House contains 
an exception that would seem to allow the use of eminent domain to 
build such facilities.
  While lucrative stadium deals apparently enjoy protection under this 
bill, there is a blanket prohibition placed on the use of eminent 
domain for economic development purposes. States and localities that 
take land for private, for-profit projects or those designed to 
increase the tax base or employment stand to lose all their Federal 
economic development funding for 2 years. The penalty would extend to 
all economic development funds, even those going to meritorious 
projects that do not use eminent domain. The language of this 
legislation is so broadly written, and the penalties are so severe, 
that it will tie our cities and States in knots. Any use of eminent 
domain could conceivably trigger the overly broad penalties contained 
in this legislation. The potential liability facing cities and States 
that use eminent domain is open-ended and could extend for years or 
even decades into the future.
  Land use planning is primarily a State and local function. Members of 
Congress frequently pay lip service to States' rights and local 
control, but this bill would overrule the limitations that many States 
have placed on eminent domain and land transfers to private entities 
for economic development purposes. In the case of my own State, in 
2004, the Michigan Supreme Court limited the use of eminent domain by 
narrowly interpreting the State constitution's takings clause in County 
of Wayne v. Hathcock.
  There is a lot of room for improvement in the use of eminent domain. 
Unfortunately, the legislation before the House is an unreasonable and 
unworkable solution.
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today is support of the Private 
Property Rights Protection Act of 2005. I was disturbed--as were so 
many Americans--both by the decision of a local Connecticut community 
to seize private property for area economic development and the Supreme 
Court's upholding their right to do so.
  While I believe our Constitution allows for State and local 
governments to execute the power of eminent domain for those purposes 
that specifically serve the public good, condemning property solely to 
implement economic development plans is not serving the public good. 
Private property rights matter in this country, and violating those 
rights insults a very basic tenet of American fairness. For my 
constituents, owning a home is the culmination of many years of hard 
work and the realization of the American Dream. At no time should a 
local entity take those years of hard work solely to increase their tax 
revenue.
  I am proud to support this bipartisan legislation.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, the Constitution and the fifth amendment 
allows the government to use ``eminent domain'' to condemn and take 
private property only if the owner receives ``just compensation'' and 
only if the property is taken for ``public use.'' Common sense and 
Supreme Court decisions tell us that public uses are schools, roads, 
parks, railways, hospitals, and military bases. That is something that 
we all know and realize.
  Unfortunately, earlier this year, in Kelo v. City of New London, the 
Supreme Court empowered the government to seize private property, 
including someone's own home, and transfer it to another private owner 
as long as the transfer would provide an economic benefit to the 
community.
  The hope of one day owning a home is the backbone of the American 
Dream. The house is the single most important purchase most Americans 
will ever make. The average family invests more in their homes than 
they invest in the stock market, the money market, or their retirement 
savings plans. There's a good reason for that. Housing has been a safe, 
leveraged investment, and one of the best investments one can make.
  That is why government must not have a green light to seize our homes 
just because it believes it would be more profitable as something else. 
While eminent domain has been used successfully throughout our history 
to advance important public projects, it should never be manipulated to 
solely support the interests of private developers.
  Increasingly, local governments are exploiting eminent domain powers 
to take property for retail, office or residential development. In my 
State of New Jersey, some localities have abused eminent domain so that 
beachfront homes can be replaced by luxury townhouses and condominiums.
  That is why I support H.R. 4128, the Private Property Rights 
Protection Act. This legislation would deny States and localities from 
receiving any Federal economic development funds if they abuse their 
eminent domain power. H.R. 4128 also bars the Federal Government from 
exercising eminent domain for economic development.
  Mr. Chairman, over 200 years ago, James Madison said that 
``Government is instituted to protect property of every sort . . . This 
being the end of government, that alone is a just government which 
impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.''
  That is why this bill is so needed. I urge my colleagues to support 
H.R. 4128 to not only protect homeowners, but to also ensure that 
homeownership remains the hallmark of American life.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise today sharing the 
concerns of my colleagues about the dangerous expansion of the eminent 
domain power and the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New 
London. I firmly believe there need to be safeguards against the 
excessive and unfair use of the government's eminent domain power. 
Governors and State legislators across the country, including those in 
my home State of Connecticut, are currently grappling with this 
important issue. As a former State legislator, I understand that these 
issues are best reviewed and addressed at the local level. The Federal 
approach is overly broad and although well intentioned, falls short of 
protecting the communities it purports to protect.
  Let me make my position clear, private property is one of the most 
fundamental rights our founding fathers safeguarded in the 
Constitution. Property rights deserve the utmost protection from 
governmental intrusion. As a lifelong resident of Connecticut, I am 
saddened by the Supreme Court's decision in the Kelo case and like many 
in Connecticut and across the country, feel vulnerable to the potential 
abuse of eminent domain authority. However, I do not feel this bill 
brings justice to communities or comprehensively secures property 
rights from the misuse of the local and State government taking 
authority.

[[Page 24777]]

  By attempting to narrow the scope of eminent domain through broad and 
vague terms, Congress is assuming to identify what does and does not 
constitute a local public need--a job historically left to our towns, 
cities and States. These local municipalities would risk losing much-
needed economic development funds should they exercise eminent domain 
authority that goes outside the ambiguous Federal standard set in this 
bill. Unfortunately, the people most affected by this punitive measure 
are not the local and city governments making the decisions or the ones 
at the bargaining table, it is individuals and families living in 
communities throughout the city, in neighborhoods that depend on 
federally funded economic development projects for decent housing and 
livable communities. These are the ones who will truly be penalized by 
this bill.
  Eminent domain is a careful balance of protecting private rights and 
local public needs. This bill is not yet there. Because of the work 
still ahead of us, I am voting against this legislation today in the 
hope that these issues will continue to be addressed during conference 
with the Senate and that it will work to clarify these remaining 
questions.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I will vote for this 
legislation.
  The bill responds to the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the 
case of Kelo et al. v. New London et al., a case that 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.
  Earlier this year, I voted for a resolution expressing disapproval of 
that decision. I did so because it is my strong view that, as the 
resolution stated, ``State and local governments should only execute 
the power of eminent domain for those purposes that serve the public 
good . . . [and that for them to do otherwise] constitutes an abuse of 
government power and an usurpation of the individual property rights as 
defined in the fifth amendment.''
  In voting for that resolution, I also noted my endorsement of its 
statement that ``Congress maintains the prerogative and reserves the 
right to address through legislation any abuses of eminent domain by 
State and local government.''
  That is the purpose of this legislation.
  The bill prohibits Federal agencies from using the power of eminent 
domain for the kind of economic development project that was involved 
in the Kelo case. It also would deny Federal economic development 
assistance to any State or local entity that uses its eminent domain 
authority in that way.
  Specifically, the bill would penalize any State or local government 
that takes private property and conveys or leases it to another private 
entity, either for a commercial purpose or to generate additional 
taxes, employment, or general economic health. A State or local 
government found to have violated this prohibition would be ineligible 
for certain Federal economic development funds for 2 years, but could 
become eligible by returning or replacing the property.
  The bill also would give private property owners the right to bring 
legal actions seeking enforcement of these provisions and would waive 
States' immunity to such suits.
  This is strong medicine, but I think the prescription is appropriate.
  I found persuasive the views of Justice O'Conner who, dissenting in 
the Kelo case, warned that the decision could make more likely that 
eminent domain would be used in a reverse Robin Hood fashion--taking 
from the poor, giving to the rich--and that ``The beneficiaries are 
likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power 
in the political process, including large corporations and development 
firms.''
  The bill is intended to make this less likely.
  It does not do so by attempting to replace State and local authority 
with Federal law. I do not think the Constitution gives us that power, 
and it would not be right to do it even if we could.
  Instead, it would require the States and local governments to decide 
whether they are prepared to sacrifice certain Federal assistance for 2 
years as the price for exercising their authority in ways covered by 
the bill.
  It is important to note that the bill would apply only to cases 
involving the taking of private property, without the consent of the 
owner, in order to conveyor or lease it 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.
  Thus, the bill would not apply to the types of takings that have 
traditionally been considered appropriate public uses, and it also 
includes exceptions for the transfer of property to public ownership, 
to common carriers and public utilities, and for related things like 
pipelines. It includes exceptions for the taking of land that is being 
used in a way that constitutes an immediate threat to public health and 
safety and makes exceptions for incidental use of a public property by 
a private entity--such as a retail establishment on the ground floor in 
a public property; for the acquisition of abandoned property; and for 
clearing defective chains of title.
  During the debate on the resolution about the Kelo decision, I noted 
that the States, through their legislatures or in some cases by direct 
popular vote, can put limits on the use of eminent domain by their 
local governments and that I thought this would be the best way to 
address potential abuses.
  That is still my view, and I think the view of many Coloradans. 
Already, members of our State's legislature are acting to curb 
potential abuses in the use of the eminent domain power--an effort I 
support--and some have suggested that as a result there is no need for 
this bill.
  I think there is some merit to that argument, and I have given 
careful consideration to the points made by some of its most thoughtful 
and respected proponents, such as Sam Mamet of the Colorado Municipal 
League, who are concerned about the potential that Congress could put 
unnecessary constraints on the ability of local governments to address 
the needs of our communities.
  However, after careful consideration, I have concluded that Congress 
should act to provide an effective deterrent to abuse of eminent 
domain, while still allowing its use in appropriate circumstances. And 
I think this bill, while certainly not perfect, does strike a fair 
balance and deserves to be supported.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, this bill attempts to right a great wrong.
  The Supreme Court's June 23 ruling in the case of Kelo v. the City of 
New London struck at the heart of American liberties, effectively 
eliminating the pursuit of happiness or property as a basic unalienable 
right.
  I think events since then have proven that the Court was wrong, at 
least in the eyes of the American people.
  According the Institute for Justice, eminent domain reform 
legislation will be considered in 35 states over the next year.
  Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote an opinion in favor of the Kelo 
decision, recently said he was troubled by the policy implications of 
the ruling and that, if he were a legislator, he would work to change 
it.
  And, in a final stroke of justice, New London City Council recently 
fired the New London Development Corporation that was at the heart of 
the Kelo case. Unfortunately, this action came after $73 million in 
public dollars were spent and after it had razed virtually the entire 
Fort Trumbull neighborhood.
  Akhil Reed Amar, a Yale law professor and author of the book 
America's Constitution, recently observed that the Supreme Court's 
exalted status as the infallible interpreter of the Constitution is a 
fairly recent phenomenon and that the Court has been proven wrong 
before. He pointed to the Dred Scott decision as one example.
  This is another.
  And when the Supreme Court is wrong, it is the duty of this body, the 
Congress, to correct it.
  This bill goes a long way toward doing that. I'd like to see it go 
further. Because while I am a supporter of States' rights, I do not 
know whether individual States have the right to abrogate basic 
freedoms.
  But I'll settle for this. We all took an oath to defend the 
Constitution and that's what this bill tries to do. Therefore, I urge 
its support.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support 
of H.R. 4128, legislation to address the U.S. Supreme Court's June 23, 
2005, decision in Kelo v. City of New London. This ruling by the Court 
deeply concerns me, and that is why I rise in strong support of this 
bill.
  It has long been established that the United States may invoke its 
power of eminent domain to take private property if it is for ``public 
use.'' However, in its Kelo decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has broken 
dangerous, new ground by redefining public use. Under Kelo, no longer 
is the government limited in its acquisition of private property to the 
creation of roads, military bases, parks, and so forth. Instead, the 
takings clause has been reinterpreted to allow a government to seize 
private property from one individual and give it to another private 
individual, if the local government deems that such condemnation and 
transfer of property serves a public purpose.
  The result of such a decision played out to its logical extreme was 
seen days after the ruling, when Logan Clements took initial steps to 
seize the Weare, NH, home of Supreme Court Justice David Souter. On 
that site, he hoped

[[Page 24778]]

to build ``The Lost Liberty Hotel,'' which would leave copies of Ayn 
Rand's Atlas Shrugged in each room, and have a museum exhibit on the 
loss of freedom in America.
  While this may have been done more to make a point than with serious 
intent or concern for the economic development of Weare, NH, it does 
illustrate the dangers of the Kelo decision. There is nothing to 
prevent a local planning board from seizing homes, businesses, 
churches, or other property if, in the opinions of some, a more 
economically productive purpose for that land may be pursued. Private 
property rights are drastically eroded by Kelo and they must be 
restored.
  Government should not be permitted to take property from one 
individual and give it to another. Thanks to the precedent of Kelo, the 
private property guarantee the Founders placed in the U.S. Constitution 
is no more. Legislation, like H.R. 4128, is needed to preserve the 
right to own private property, and I encourage my colleagues to vote 
for this bill.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I submit the following 
jurisdictional letters of exchange for inclusion in the Congressional 
Record during floor consideration of H.R. 4128, the ``Private Property 
Rights Protection Act.''

                                         House of Representatives,


                             Committee on Energy and Commerce,

                                 Washington, DC, November 2, 2005.
     Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of 
         Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner: I understand that you will 
     shortly bring H.R. 4128, as amended, the Private Property 
     Rights Protection Act of 2005, to the House floor. This 
     legislation contains provisions that fall within the 
     jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
       I recognize your desire to bring this legislation before 
     the House in an expeditious manner. Accordingly, I will not 
     exercise my Committee's right to a referral. By agreeing to 
     waive its consideration of the bill, however, the Energy and 
     Commerce Committee does not waive its jurisdiction over H.R. 
     4128. In addition, the Energy and Commerce Committee reserves 
     its right to seek conferees on any provisions of the bill 
     that are within its jurisdiction during any House-Senate 
     conference that may be convened on this or similar 
     legislation. I ask for your commitment to support any request 
     by the Energy and Commerce Committee for conferees on H.R. 
     4128 or similar legislation.
       I request that you include this letter in the Congressional 
     Record during consideration of H.R. 4128. Thank you for your 
     attention to these matters.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Joe Barton,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                 Washington, DC, November 2, 2005.
     Hon. Joe Barton,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of 
         Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Barton: Thank you for your recent letter 
     concerning the Committee on Energy and Commerce's 
     jurisdictional interest in H.R. 4128, the ``Private Property 
     Rights Protection Act.'' This legislation was introduced on 
     October 25, 2005, and referred solely to the Committee on the 
     Judiciary. The Committee on the Judiciary conducted a mark up 
     and ordered the bill reported on October 27, 2005. I 
     appreciate your willingness to waive further consideration of 
     H.R. 4128 to expedite consideration of the legislation, and 
     acknowledge the Committee on Energy and Commerce's 
     jurisdictional interest in the legislation.
       I agree that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 4128, the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce does not waive any 
     jurisdiction it may have had over subject matter contained in 
     this legislation. In addition, I agree to support 
     representation from the Committee on Energy and Commerce for 
     provisions of H.R. 4128 determined to be within its 
     jurisdiction in the event of a House-Senate conference on the 
     legislation.
       Finally, as requested, I will include a copy of your letter 
     and this response in the Congressional Record during floor 
     consideration of this legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                      F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                       Committee on Resources,

                                 Washington, DC, October 28, 2005.
     Hon. James Sensenbrenner,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Rayburn House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Congratulations on your successful 
     markup of H.R. 4128, the Private Property Rights Protection 
     Act of 2005. As you are aware, I have been a vocal advocate 
     for the protection of private property since coming to 
     Congress 13 years ago. You should be commended for your 
     leadership in marshaling this important private property 
     rights legislation through your committee.
       I have reviewed the legislation and discovered provisions 
     that are within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
     Resources. Because of the importance of moving this 
     legislation to the floor quickly, I will not seek a 
     sequential referral of H.R. 4128 based on their inclusion in 
     the bill. Of course, this waiver does not prejudice any 
     future jurisdictional claims over these provisions or similar 
     language. I also reserve the right to seek to have conferees 
     named from the Committee on Resources on these provisions, 
     should a conference on H.R. 4128 or a similar measure become 
     necessary.
       Once again, it has been a pleasure to work with you and 
     your staff. I look forward to seeing H.R. 4128 enacted soon.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Richard W. Pombo,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                 Washington, DC, November 2, 2005.
     Hon. Richard W. Pombo,
     Chairman, Committee on Resources, Longworth House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Pombo: Thank you for your recent letter 
     concerning the Committee on Resource's jurisdictional 
     interest in H.R. 4128, the ``Private Property Rights 
     Protection Act.'' This legislation was introduced on October 
     25, 2005, and referred solely to the Committee on the 
     Judiciary. The Committee on the Judiciary conducted a mark up 
     and ordered the bill reported on October 27, 2005. I 
     appreciate your willingness to waive further consideration of 
     H.R. 4128 to expedite consideration of the legislation, and 
     acknowledge the Committee on Resources' jurisdictional 
     interest in the legislation.
       I agree that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 4128, the 
     Committee on Resources does not waive any jurisdiction it may 
     have had over subject matter contained in this or similar 
     legislation. In addition, I agree to support representation 
     from the Committee on Resources for provisions of H.R. 4128 
     determined to be within its jurisdiction in the event of a 
     House-Senate conference on the legislation.
       Finally, as requested, I will include a copy of your letter 
     and this response in the Congressional Record during floor 
     consideration of this legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                      F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

         U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on 
           Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                 Washington, DC, November 3, 2005.
     Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Rayburn Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning the 
     jurisdictional interest of the Transportation and 
     Infrastructure Committee in matters being considered in H.R. 
     4128, the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005.
       Our Committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 4128 and 
     the need for the legislation to move expeditiously. 
     Therefore, while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over 
     certain provisions of the bill, I will agree not to request a 
     sequential referral. This, of course, is conditional on our 
     mutual understanding that nothing in this legislation or my 
     decision to forego a sequential referral waives, reduces or 
     otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the Transportation and 
     Infrastructure Committee, and that a copy of this letter and 
     of your response acknowledging our valid jurisdictional 
     interest will be included in the Congressional Record when 
     the bill is considered on the House Floor.
       The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure also 
     asks that you support our request to be conferees on the 
     provisions over which we have jurisdiction during any House 
     Senate conference.
       Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Don Young,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                 Washington, DC, November 3, 2005.
     Hon. Don Young,
     Chairman, Committee on Transportation, House of 
         Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Young: Thank you for your recent letter 
     concerning the Committee on Transportation's jurisdictional 
     interest in H.R. 4128, the ``Private Property Rights 
     Protection Act.'' This legislation was introduced on October 
     25, 2005, and referred solely to the Committee on the 
     Judiciary. The Committee on the Judiciary conducted a mark up 
     and ordered the bill reported on October 27, 2005. I 
     appreciate your willingness to waive further consideration of 
     H.R. 4128 to expedite consideration of the legislation, and 
     acknowledge the Committee on Transportation's jurisdictional 
     interest in the legislation.
       I agree that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 4128, the 
     Committee on Transportation does not waive any jurisdiction 
     it may have had over subject matter contained in this 
     legislation. In addition, I agree to support representation 
     from the Committee on

[[Page 24779]]

     Transportation for provisions of H.R. 4128 determined to be 
     within its jurisdiction in the event of a House-Senate 
     conference on the legislation.
       Finally, as requested, I will include a copy of your letter 
     and this response in the Congressional Record during floor 
     consideration of this legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                      F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                              Committee on Financial Services,

                                 Washington, DC, November 1, 2005.
     Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of 
         Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner: On October 27, 2005, the 
     Committee on the Judiciary ordered reported H.R. 4128, the 
     Private Property Rights Protection Act. This bill protects 
     private property rights by prohibiting eminent domain abuse 
     by States or the Federal Government through limiting the use 
     of ``Federal economic development funds.'' This term is 
     broadly defined in the bill to mean any Federal funds 
     designed ``to improve or increase the size of the economies 
     of States or political subdivisions of States.'' This bill 
     will be considered by the House shortly, and I want to 
     confirm our mutual understanding with respect to 
     consideration of this bill.
       Under rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, 
     the Committee on Financial Services has jurisdiction over 
     legislation involving financial aid to commerce and industry 
     as well as urban development. This jurisdiction has been 
     exercised in a number of ways. The term Federal economic 
     development funds as defined in this bill would apply to a 
     number of programs developed by this Committee. For example, 
     these programs would include Community Development Block 
     Grants, Brownfields Economic Development Initiative, Economic 
     Development Initiative, Renewal Communities, Empowerment 
     Zones and Enterprise' Communities and the Section 3 Program 
     of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968. The term 
     would also apply to the Economic Development Administration, 
     Delta Regional Authority and the Appalachian Regional 
     Commission. Had time permitted, this Committee would have 
     asked for, and likely would have received, a sequential 
     referral of the bill. However, given the desire to expedite 
     consideration of the bill, I will forego making that request. 
     I do so with the understanding that this will not prejudice 
     the Committee on Financial Services with respect to its 
     prerogatives on this or similar legislation. I further 
     request that you support appropriate representation from this 
     Committee in the event of a House-Senate conference.
       I will conclude by requesting that you place a copy of this 
     letter and your response in the Congressional Record during 
     consideration of the bill. Thank you for your assistance.
           Yours truly,
                                                 Michael G. Oxley,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                 Washington, DC, November 2, 2005.
     Hon. Michael G. Oxley,
     Chairman, Committee on Financial Resources, Rayburn House 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Oxley: Thank you for your recent letter 
     concerning the Committee on Financial Service's 
     jurisdictional interest in H.R. 4128, the ``Private Property 
     Rights Protection Act.'' This legislation was introduced on 
     October 25, 2005, and referred solely to the Committee on the 
     Judiciary. The Committee on the Judiciary conducted a mark up 
     and ordered the bill reported on October 27, 2005. I 
     appreciate your willingness to waive further consideration of 
     H.R. 4128 to expedite consideration of the legislation, and 
     acknowledge the Committee on Financial Service's 
     jurisdictional interest in the legislation.
       I agree that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 4128, the 
     Committee on Financial Services does not waive any 
     jurisdiction it may have had over subject matter contained in 
     this or similar legislation. In addition, I agree to support 
     representation from the Committee on Financial Services for 
     provisions of H.R. 4128 determined to be within its 
     jurisdiction in the event of a House-Senate conference on the 
     legislation.
       Finally, as requested, I will include a copy of your letter 
     and this response in the Congressional Record during floor 
     consideration of this legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                      F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4128, 
legislation that would prohibit State and local governments that 
exercise eminent domain for economic development purposes from 
receiving federal funds.
  John Adams once said ``Property must be secured or liberty cannot 
exist.'' I join my colleagues in taking action to secure private 
property rights.
  The recent Supreme Court decision Kelo v City of New London 
eviscerated one of our most fundamental constitutional rights. This 
case dealt a serious blow to property rights and it is incumbent upon 
Congress, a co-equal branch of government, to remedy this erroneous 
decision.
  Eminent domain, or the ``despotic power,'' as Justice William 
Patterson called it in 1795, is the power to force citizens from their 
homes and small businesses. The Members of the Constitutional 
Convention were cognizant to the possibility of abuse and that's why 
the Fifth Amendment provides the simple restriction and remedy: ``nor 
shall private property be taken for public use, without just 
compensation.''
  The expansion of eminent domain began with the urban renewal movement 
in the 1950's and it continues today. A recent study by the Institute 
for Justice found nearly 10,000 cases from 1998 to 2002 of local 
governments in over 40 States using or threatening to use eminent 
domain to transfer home and properties from one private owner to 
another.
  Simply put, this abuse has to stop!
  Three months prior to the Kelo decision, lawmakers in my home state 
of Utah passed Senate Bill 184, preventing the exercise of eminent 
domain authority by redevelopment agencies, which otherwise has the 
power to transfer land from one private entity to another.
  This legislation effectively took the matter out of the courts by 
placing a higher value on the private property rights of individuals 
than a city's desire to increase tax revenues.
  Just as this legislation served as a wake-up call to redevelopment 
agencies throughout Utah, I believe the Kelo decision woke America up 
to the fact that over time, our property rights have quietly been 
eroded like a stream of water slowly erodes its bank. Fortunately, this 
erosion has not gone unnoticed by westerners or those they've sent to 
Washington to represent them.
  Private property rights have long been held close to the heart by 
families and landowners in the Western United States and for good 
reason. Their farms and ranches have been their livelihood and part of 
our national heritage since the frontier was closed and the West was 
settled.
  Today many westerners not only have to fight for their economic 
survival but also have to worry whether their property will be around 
for them to pass on to future generations. The Federal Government owns 
more than 50 percent of all land in the West and the population 
continues to grow.
  I am Chairman of the Congressional Western Caucus, and one of our 
core principles is ``the necessity to protect private property.'' It is 
the Caucus' position that property rights are the foundation of a free 
society; that landowners should be compensated when their land is taken 
or when regulations deprive them of the use of their property.
  In H.R. 4128, Chairman Sensenbrenner and the Committee have produced 
a bill that represents an important step towards revitalizing basic 
property rights in this country.
  I also believe there is more that can be done to help stem the long-
term trend away from property right protections. I, along with my 
western colleagues, plan to introduce a broad, comprehensive piece of 
property rights legislation in the near future that will restore much 
of what has been lost. We believe this bill, in addition to H.R. 4128, 
will help breathe life into the property rights movement.
  The property rights issue is not a class issue. It's not a partisan 
issue. It's an issue that concerns every property owner in the United 
States. As Justice Sandra Day O'Conner said in her dissent, ``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.''
  I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting H.R. 4128 to 
prevent further abuse of government power.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Eminent Domain 
Property Act offered by my colleague from Wisconsin, Chairman 
Sensenbrenner. This bipartisan-supported bill was introduced in 
response to the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in Kelo vs. City of New 
London, which condoned the use of eminent domain to take private 
property and transfer it to another private entity for the stated 
purpose of economic development.
  Mr. Chairman, the Kelo decision put homeowners, small business 
owners, and farmers all across the country at risk of losing their 
property to this expansion of the government's eminent domain powers.
  The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution allows local government 
to use eminent domain powers to condemn private property. The only 
requirement is that owners are given ``just compensation'' and that the 
land in question goes to a ``public use.'' Traditionally, the

[[Page 24780]]

``public use'' requirement in eminent domain cases allowed the local 
government to condemn property to build railroads, or bridges, or 
highways. But in a 1954 case, Berman v. Parker, the Supreme Court found 
that ``public use'' could include condemning blighted neighborhoods to 
build better ones as a means to raise more tax revenue. But, whereas 
the Berman case was predicated on the property being `blighted,' the 
Kelo decision goes further down the slippery slope and rests solely on 
whether the condemnation would improve tax revenues.
  I would assert, as Justice Scalia did in the Kelo case, that any 
conceivable commercial development that replaces a church, house, or 
farm will produce more tax revenue, and that once condemned land is 
passed off to private developers, it is no longer going to ``public 
use.'' That is why I strongly believe Congress must act to limit 
States' eminent domain actions if the only requirement is that the 
proposed project improves the tax base.
  The Eminent Domain Property Act of 2005 will prohibit the Federal 
Government from using eminent domain for private economic development 
and also prohibits States from using eminent domain for private 
economic development if the State receives any Federal economic 
development funding. A violation by any State will result with the 
State being ineligible for a Federal economic development for two 
years. By denying municipalities all Federal development funds when 
they abuse their eminent domain authority, H.R. 4128 provides a strong 
economic disincentive to prevent municipalities and local governments 
from taking private property for the purpose of private economic 
development.
  Lastly, Mr. Chairman, my district in western Wisconsin is largely 
rural and dependent on the agricultural economy of its many small 
family farmers. As the sense of Congress portion of this legislation 
points out, the unfortunate truth is that agricultural lands are 
particularly vulnerable to the abuse of eminent domain power. 
Agricultural lands tend to have a lower fair market value than 
surrounding commercial and residential properties, making them a prime 
target for growing communities.
  It is hard enough, for our struggling farmers who are facing 
softening commodity prices and weather related disasters, to also have 
to contend with losing their way of life so that others can have yet 
another shopping mall.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend my colleague, Chairman Sensenbrenner on 
crafting this bipartisan legislation and I urge it's adoption and 
support.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 
4128, the Private Property Rights Protection Act. The bill is in 
response to the recent Supreme Court decision, Kelo v. City of New 
London, which condoned the use of eminent domain to take private 
property and transfer it to another private entity for the stated 
purpose of economic development. This decision puts all property owners 
at risk. In rural communities and in urban communities, our livelihood 
is deeply tied to the land and our belief in private property rights 
runs strong and deep. Landowners should not be vulnerable to the whims 
of a government that decides to take their land away.
  I am opposed to the ruling because it threatens to make all private 
property subject to the highest bidder. In response to the Supreme 
Court decision, I am pleased to lend my support to this legislation 
because it protects Americans' constitutional rights and punishes those 
who abuse those rights.
  The bill does not change state law, nor does it affect the 
traditional use of eminent domain for the construction of roads, 
military bases, hospitals, or other truly public uses. Rather, H.R. 
4128 provides an effective deterrent against states using their eminent 
domain authority for private economic development and I urge my 
colleagues to support its passage.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4128, the ``Private Property Rights 
Protection Act'' is a timely response to the horrendous Kelo decision. 
I am supportive of this bill and call for its expedited passage. I want 
to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner for his leadership on this issue and 
look forward to working with him and others to see this bill as it 
moves through the House and Senate.
  Property rights are the heart of the individual freedom and the 
foundation for all other civil rights guaranteed to Americans by the 
Constitution. Without the freedom to acquire, possess and defend 
property, all other guaranteed rights are merely words on a page.
  The Fifth Amendment holds that private property shall not be taken by 
the government for public use without compensation. These safeguards 
have been under assault for decades and until now, the typical victims 
were family farmers and ranchers in the West.
  The Supreme Court's decision in the Kelo v. City of New London case 
to allow local governments to declare eminent domain in this case goes 
beyond compensation; it wholly perverts the intent of public use, and 
in so doing, may turn the American dream of home ownership into a 
nightmare. It has delivered the property rights assault from rural 
America right to the doorsteps of suburbia.
  In New London, Connecticut, city planners essentially decided that 
evicting 15 homeowners from their homes was in the ``greater good'' as 
a ``public use'' for an office park and new condos. But the public, to 
be directly served in this case, was a private corporation. Whether 
they were newly wed couples in their first home or life-long residents 
who owned their homes outright, whether it is farmers and ranchers 
which have been on their land for generations or urban and suburban 
communities with the promise of fellowship, this appalling behavior 
cannot be tolerated any more. The Supreme Court's decision to allow 
local government to declare eminent domain turns the Fifth Amendment on 
its head. However, we cannot forget about rural America. Rural America 
has been fighting this fight for decades and deserves praise for their 
unshakable stance on protecting private property.
  No longer will public use correctly be defined as a road, bridge, or 
hospital. Now it can be defined as an abstract good, such as increased 
tax revenue or economic development. Private property can now be taken 
at will by government and reallocated to another private entity if it 
runs afoul of a local bureaucrat's notion of public use and greater 
good. H.R. 4128 would greatly discourage this behavior and the total 
disregard for private property protections.
  Fortunately, Congress maintains the power over the purse strings. We 
will act to minimize the effects of this ruling to the greatest extent 
possible. This bill will prevent States and localities from ever doing 
this again by withholding economic development funds. However, many 
States and local communities alike are recognizing the importance of 
private property rights and beginning to act to protect themselves from 
this decision. This will assist their efforts.
  On the other hand, I do believe this legislation can be improved. 
Under this bill, if a State or locality takes property in violation of 
this legislation they will incur a 2 year prohibition of economic 
development funds. That is not long enough. We need to hold States and 
localities to a higher standard. By withholding Federal economic 
development funds for a longer period of time, if not permanently, 
States and localities will rethink the taking of private property, or 
remedy their previous egregious actions. They need to know there will 
be consequences. By withholding these funds for an extended period of 
time, if not indefinitely, they will understand the seriousness of our 
intentions.
  We have a chance at real reform here and this legislation should be 
passed. Again, I would like to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner for 
bringing this to the Floor as quickly as you did and I look forward to 
working with you in every step of the process to see this commendable 
legislation enacted. I have been fighting these injustices since before 
I was elected to this body and will continue to do so in the future.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4128, the 
Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005.
  I was alarmed by the United States Supreme Court's 5-4 decision to 
allow private property to be seized in the name of ``economic 
development.'' On June 23, 2005, the Court ruled that the City of New 
London, Connecticut could seize a series of privately owned homes, 
offer the homeowners ``just compensation'' and re-sell those properties 
to private entrepreneurs as part of a city-approved plan aimed at 
raising the land value and increasing the city's tax base. The court 
justified the ruling by arguing that the city had the right to seize 
the private property under the ``public use'' clause of the United 
States Constitution's 5th Amendment. The 5th Amendment reads as 
follows:

       No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or 
     otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or 
     indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the 
     land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual 
     service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person 
     be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy 
     of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case 
     to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, 
     liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall 
     private property be taken for public use, without just 
     compensation.

  No one has ever denied the fact that in certain rare cases, a 
government (federal, state, or local) must exercise its 
Constitutionally limited power to seize land in order to complete a 
public project like a road, school, military base, or court house. That 
power is known as ``eminent domain.'' America's Founding Fathers 
acknowledged it as an unfortunate, but

[[Page 24781]]

sometimes necessary, evil and it has historically been pursued in 
America with great reservation. According to a majority of the Court 
however, seizing private property in the name of ``public use'' does 
not necessarily mean that the property seized must be used for the 
public. Instead, the land seized could merely be used in the name of a 
``public purpose.'' While the concurring justices never actually define 
what constitutes a ``public purpose,'' they write that the elected 
politicians on the local, state, and federal level are more than 
capable of making such determinations on their own. In this particular 
case, the ``public purpose'' happened to be a pharmaceutical research 
facility, a waterfront hotel, and a series of new commercial and 
residential buildings.
  As a result of the Court's 5-4 ruling, any government body (city 
council, state assembly, Congress) with a good enough lawyer or simply 
a one vote majority can now take any citizen's private property, offer 
``just compensation,'' and dispense with it as it sees fit. In other 
words, your property is now only your property so long as the 
government wants it to be.
  John Adams once said, ``The moment that the idea is admitted into 
society that property is not as sacred as the Laws of God, and that 
there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy 
and tyranny commence. Property must be sacred or liberty cannot 
exist.'' Allowing a man's property to be so easily taken at the whim of 
a legislative body represents a complete departure from the very core 
value upon which America was founded--your natural human right to your 
property. America's Founding Fathers considered property to be the one 
sacred right above all others. They knew that true freedom came not 
from a political declaration or a legislative promise but from the 
ability of each and every citizen to dispense with his property as he 
saw fit. Those who would take that right away often try to assure us 
that by surrendering the freedom to control the supposedly less 
important aspects of our lives, we shall somehow obtain freedom in the 
pursuit of higher values. I could not disagree more. The ability to 
control your own property, whether it be your home, your car, or even a 
simple trinket, is not simply some marginal aspect of life which can be 
separated from the rest. It is the means to express your values and 
strive for your dreams. It is the ability to offer shape to your 
highest ideals and reject those that conflict. In short, it is freedom.
  Now the human right to property seems relegated to a mere 
afterthought. The Institute for Justice, which represented the New 
London residents in court, released a study showing some 10,000 cases 
between 1998 and 2002 where local governments in 41 states used or 
threatened to use eminent domain to take property from one private 
owner and give it to another. The New York State Supreme Court forced a 
man off of property his family had owned for more than a hundred years 
to make way for the new headquarters of The New York Times. Several 
cities in Ohio have already seized homes in the name of ``economic 
development''--be it a shopping mall or a new factory. And now the 
highest court in the land has confirmed that this is all completely 
legal.
  The Kelo decision merely confirmed a depressing trend where those who 
think ``government knows best'' gain and property rights and therefore 
liberty yield. I believe that government which governs best is that 
which governs least. I believe in property rights and the rule of the 
written law that is the Constitution.
  I am proud to support the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 
2005. But this bill is merely a first step. The only truly effective 
way to stop these abuses of power is for every American citizen to 
remain vigilant in observing that every government official that has 
sworn an allegiance to uphold the written law of the Constitution 
remains true to his word. That fight however, begins here, today. I 
urge my colleagues to take the first step toward once again defending 
every American's basic human right to his or her property by voting for 
this important bill.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, as a fourth generation rancher, my life has 
been shaped by the traditions and values associated with proper 
stewardship of the land. Our Constitutional rights put property 
ownership of capital importance in the Fifth Amendment.
  The right to own property is the backbone of our free-market system. 
With eminent domain becoming an expanding practice, a bipartisan 
approach bridging urban, suburban, and rural communities is necessary 
to uphold the rights of the individual.
  The regulatory takings that have been plaguing America's family 
farmers and ranchers have now spread to suburban neighborhoods, as the 
decision in the Kelo v. City of New London made absolutely clear. 
Congress has an inherent responsibility to uphold the Constitution, and 
on the property rights of United States citizens, the Constitution is 
clear. The need for H.R. 4128 has never been greater.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of The Private 
Property Rights Protection Act, H.R. 4128. I have heard from a number 
of my constituents in New Jersey. They have come to my town hall 
meetings, sent me emails and called me on the phone, to express their 
concern about the potential for abuse of the power of eminent domain. I 
have heard their concerns and I share their concerns. That is why I 
support this legislation to make clear that local authorities may not 
use the power of eminent domain solely to increase the tax revenue for 
the town.
  H.R. 4128 is a bipartisan bill that responds to the Supreme Court 
ruling in Kelo v. City of New London. Most troubling about the decision 
was that the Court upheld the right of New London to take private 
property and transfer it to another private individual for the purpose 
of increasing the tax revenue of the city. I am glad we are acting 
today to prevent this from becoming a regular practice.
  The rights of property owners were so important to our nation's 
founders that they enshrined property rights in our Constitution. They 
knew that towns and municipalities would need to look after the greater 
public good and occasionally acquire property with just compensation to 
the owners in order to use that property for public good. The power of 
eminent domain has enabled us to make many advances over the years. It 
was used to create the national railroad system, the interstate highway 
system, and make telephone, electric, sewer, and water lines available 
to all our communities. Eminent domain, when used property, is a 
critical power of government that has benefited people in New Jersey 
and across America.
  When used improperly, however, eminent domain is a fearsome power. 
Transfer of a person's property--particularly their home--to another 
private interest solely on the basis of tax revenue is an unwise and 
dangerous authority. With this bill, Congress is rightly acting to 
protect private property rights and ensure that property owners will 
not have their house taken from them by an over zealous town council 
seeking to increase its tax coffers.
  Mr. Chairman, while eminent domain is used across America for 
beneficial and important reasons that support the public good, we need 
to ensure that towns do not overstep their powers. H.R. 4128 helps 
define the boundary lines.
  Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4128, The 
Private Property Right Protection Act of 2005. This bill is overbroad 
and unreasonably restricts States and municipalities from crafting 
practical legislation that addresses their specific needs.
  H.R. 4128 is Congress' response to the Kelo v. City of New London 
decision. The Kelo decision allows local governments to take private 
property to build the tax base and promote economic development. H.R. 
4128 prohibits government use of eminent domain where private property 
is taken for economic development purposes. It unduly restricts States 
and local governments from exercising their sovereign powers to 
eliminate abuses in eminent domain, while maintaining an ability to 
develop their community. As a former Mayor of Somerville, MA, I am very 
familiar with the issues surrounding municipalities exercising eminent 
domain for public use.
  While I do not wish to see local government recklessly and 
irresponsibly take property from private owners, especially the low-
income and disadvantaged, I cannot support a bill that preemptively 
acts before a municipality has an opportunity to develop its own 
policies. Some 30 States have either already drafted legislation 
concerning this issue or are working on legislation. It is unfair to 
invalidate State and local attempts to adjust, legislatively, to a 
Supreme Court decision just issued in June of this year.
  The House should have spent more time developing legislation that was 
less intrusive on States' and local governments' sovereignty. For 
example, this bill could strip Federal economic development funding for 
two years from a State or local government that exercised eminent 
domain, even if the project taken did not receive Federal funds. All 
economic development funds, including those not involved with the 
condemned project, would be lost. Projects worthy of being built might 
be eliminated due to the lack of economic development funds. This can 
be disastrous for a local government's economic growth and 
sustainability. Local officials would be constantly concerned that 
exercising eminent domain could result in lawsuits and loss of funds.
  I voted for an amendment that would have added some sense of fairness 
to the government's use of eminent domain, but it did not

[[Page 24782]]

pass. The amendment, offered by Congressman Michael Turner of Ohio, 
would permit cities to continue using eminent domain to redevelop a 
Brownfield site. It also enumerated several instances where, for the 
public's health and safety, the government could use eminent domain 
when necessary to rid the community of a hazardous property.
  I could support a bill that strikes a balance and is fair to State 
and local governments. This bill does not meet that threshold.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson). All time for general debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered 
read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                               H.R. 4128

       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 2005''.

     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 subsequently 
     used for economic development, 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) 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.

     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 owner of private property who 
     suffers injury as a result of a violation of any provision of 
     this Act may bring an action to enforce any provision of this 
     Act in the appropriate Federal or State court, and a State 
     shall not be immune under the eleventh amendment to the 
     Constitution of the United States from any such action in a 
     Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction. Any such 
     property owner may also seek any appropriate relief through a 
     preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order.
       (b) Limitation on Bringing Action.--An action brought under 
     this Act may be brought if the property is used for economic 
     development following the conclusion of any condemnation 
     proceedings condemning the private property of such property 
     owner, but shall not be brought later than seven years 
     following the conclusion of any such proceedings and the 
     subsequent use of such condemned property for economic 
     development.
       (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. 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 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.--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 under 
     this Act.

     SEC. 6. REPORT.

       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 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;
       (3) discuss all instances in which a State or political 
     subdivision has cured a violation as described in section 
     2(c) of this Act.

     SEC. 7. 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. 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.

     SEC. 8. 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 to public ownership, such as 
     for a road, hospital, or military base, or to an entity, such 
     as a common carrier, that makes the property available for 
     use by the general public as of right, such as a railroad, or 
     public facility, or for use as a right of way, aqueduct, 
     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; and
       (F) taking private property for use by a public utility.
       (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. 9. SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) Severability.--The provisions of this Act are 
     severable. If any provision of this Act, or

[[Page 24783]]

     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. 10. 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. 11. 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.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the committee amendment is in 
order except those printed in House Report 109-266. Each amendment may 
be offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member 
designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable 
for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by 
the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to an amendment, 
and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.


              Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 printed in House Report 109-266 offered by 
     Mr. Sensenbrenner:
       Page 9, strike lines 1 through 7, and insert the following:
       (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;
       (iv) for use as an aqueduct, flood control facility, 
     pipeline, or similar use;
       Page 8, line 7, after ``States.'' insert the following: 
     ``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.''.
       Add at the end the following new section:

     SEC. __. 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.).

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 527, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the manager's amendment simply makes clear that private 
roads and those that are open to the public, free or by toll, and flood 
control facilities are covered under the exceptions of the bill. It 
also includes a savings clause making clear that nothing in the 
legislation shall be construed to affect the Uniform Relocation 
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, which 
requires the Federal Government to pay the displacement costs of those 
adversely affected by the Federal Government's use of eminent domain.
  The manager's amendment also incorporates into the bill's sense of 
congress section some language provided by the Resources Committee 
regarding the effect of the abuse of eminent domain on irrigation and 
reclamation projects and on public lands.
  I urge my colleagues to support the improvements made by this 
manager's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed to the amendment, and I 
ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin.
  This amendment does not change the bill in any substantive way. 
Rather, this amendment seeks to clarify some of the exceptions that 
provide for the use of eminent domain for those uses that have 
traditionally been considered for a public purpose.
  This amendment also enhances the sense of congress provision and 
points out that the bill does nothing to restrict the Federal 
Government from fulfilling its obligation under current law when it 
exercises eminent domain.
  Most importantly, this amendment serves to reflect the bipartisan 
interests of the various committees that have been at the forefront of 
this issue, Agriculture, Resources and Judiciary. I am pleased that we 
have been able to work together on what I feel is an appropriate 
response to the Kelo decision.
  I just want to say to Chairman Sensenbrenner, you know how strongly I 
feel about this issue. And while I offered some amendments in committee 
so that there would be absolutely no exceptions, I think that if we are 
able to pass this bill today we will have taken a giant step to stop 
what I think is a wrongheaded decision by the Supreme Court. So I am 
willing to certainly support the chairman's amendment, and if we have 
to continue to work on this issue to get to where I want to be with no 
exceptions, then I will look forward to working with the gentleman in 
the future on it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Nadler

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 printed in House Report 109-266 offered by 
     Mr. Nadler:
       Page 2, line 8, strike ``(a) In General.--''.
       Page 2, strike line 16 and all that follows through line 17 
     on page 3.
       Page 4, beginning in line 1, strike ``to enforce any 
     provision of this Act'' and insert ``to obtain appropriate 
     injunctive or declaratory relief,''.
       Page 4, beginning in line 6, strike ``Any'' and all that 
     follows through line 16.
       Page 4, line 17, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(b)''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 527, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Nadler) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very straightforward and, in my 
opinion, will better protect the rights of property owners than the way 
the bill is designed.
  Under the bill, if the government takes your property for a 
prohibited purpose, you could sue, and if you win your lawyers get paid 
and your town gets bankrupted. You get no damages, and if you think the 
town will bulldoze the new downtown and rebuild your house, you are 
fooling yourself.

                              {time}  1545

  Instead, you should have the right, and my amendment grants you the 
right, to go to court and stop the government in the first place dead 
in its tracks. Americans do not want to bankrupt their towns; they want 
to keep their homes.
  Keep in mind the economic threat the penalties of this bill would 
pose to

[[Page 24784]]

every single State and local government in the country.
  Any property owner under this bill could sue for 7 years after the 
conclusion of the condemnation proceeding, or at any time in the future 
if a public facility is later used for a private purpose.
  This is an open-ended and catastrophic threat. No financial 
institution would underwrite a bond or extend any financing to a city 
or State because the risk is too great. No private company would take a 
public contract because the city could lose 2 years' funding in the 
future. If the current city administration does not want to use eminent 
domain for any improper purpose or, for that matter, any proper 
purpose, it will still have trouble floating bonds because maybe its 
successor 10 years from now will use eminent domain improperly, they 
will lose 2 years of all the Federal revenue, and they will not be able 
to repay the bonds. Therefore, the bond counsel now will instruct the 
people not to lend to the city. No bank would do business with a public 
contractor for the same reason.
  This is absurd. We should protect our homes. The way to do that is to 
establish in this bill, as it does, a substantive right not to have 
eminent domain used against your home or property for the prohibited 
purposes, and then give you the right to enforce that by an injunction, 
with attorneys' fees paid in advance, that stops it. You do not need 
the ability of someone in the future to go to court and punish the city 
which does not even get the property owner help.
  So my amendment would say no penalty for the State or city later, 
that is unnecessary, because we are granting you the right to get an 
injunction, a permanent injunction to stop the taking in the first 
place. That is the proper protection.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman this is a gutting amendment. It is a gutting amendment 
because it removes the constitutional hook that this Congress and the 
Federal Government have to prevent the abuses that have been sanctioned 
by Kelo, and that is the Federal funds that have been used for economic 
development.
  The amendment strikes out all the penalty in the bill that would 
prevent the government officials from abusing eminent domain. No 
penalty, no tap on the wrist. We say you should not do it; but if you 
go ahead and do it, then you are not going to be penalized. Without 
these penalties in the bill, the government could take private property 
from one person and simply give it to a wealthy corporation. Because 
this amendment guts the entire bill, it ought to be opposed.
  Under this legislation, there is a clear connection between the 
Federal funds that would be denied and the abuse that Congress is 
intending to prevent. The policy is that States and localities that 
abuse their eminent domain power by using economic development as a 
rationale for a taking should not be trusted with Federal economic 
development funds that could contribute to similarly abusive land 
grabs.
  There is an entirely appropriate connection in the base bill between 
the Federal policy of protecting private property rights from eminent 
domain abuse and making sure that the Federal Government does not 
subsidize eminent domain abusers. The amendment should be defeated for 
these reasons.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not a gutting amendment. The constitutional 
basis for granting the injunction against the taking is the fact that 
the State is accepting Federal funds. The bill, on lines 12 through 15 
on page 2, says clearly: ``if that State or political subdivision 
receives Federal economic development funds during any fiscal year in 
which it does so.'' That is the constitutional basis for saying, you 
cannot do certain kinds of takings as this bill prohibits and, if you 
do, you can establish penalties or injunctive relief.
  All I am saying is, we are using the Federal jurisdictional hook that 
the chairman mentioned and instead of penalizing later, which does not 
help the homeowner who has lost his home, you say you can stop it now, 
get an injunction for stopping it now, because the State has agreed not 
to use its power in this way as a condition of taking Federal funds. 
There is well-established constitutional law that we can condition 
Federal funds on that.
  That being the case, you can go into Federal or State court and get 
an injunction if you do my amendment. With the injunction, you do not 
have the taking, you do not have to worry about punishing anybody 10 
years later, because there is no taking in the first place. It is a 
much better protection for the property owner. We prohibit the taking. 
The court says you cannot do it. There is no constitutional problem 
with that.
  It does not gut the bill because it says you do not have to punish 
what cannot have occurred. It cannot have occurred because the bill 
would now say you may not do it; and if you may not do it, the court 
will prohibit you from doing it, because we are establishing the right 
to go into court in advance and get an injunction against it.
  So total protection of the property owner against the improper 
taking. You do not have to worry about fouling up the State or city's 
ability to float bonds or the State or city finances later; you do not 
punish all the citizens of the city because the mayor is paying off 
some campaign contributor with a private taking, just prohibit the 
mayor from doing so in the first place and enforce that by letting the 
property owner get an injunction, period.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully offer this statement against 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York. Essentially, this 
amendment eliminates the teeth of this bill: the denial of Federal 
funds for 2 fiscal years to those States and cities that have violated 
this act. The denial of Federal economic development funds should serve 
as a real deterrent for those States and cities that want to exercise 
eminent domain for development, that is, the taking of private property 
for private use. Without this provision, this bill will not be taken 
seriously, and the eminent domain abuses that many in this country are 
complaining about will continue.
  I just waved before my colleagues a list of over 125 cases of the 
taking of private land for private use, or attempts to do that; and I 
think the bill that we have before us today will stop this kind of 
abuse of eminent domain.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
  Mr. Chairman, the fact is, this does not gut the bill, as the 
gentlewoman from California said. It takes out the penalty, but you do 
not need the penalty because you establish the right of the court and 
the duty of the court to stop it in the first place. There will be no 
private taking for the prohibited use because you give the rights to 
the landowner to get an injunction against it in the first place. It is 
a much better protection than worrying about punishing the city later. 
You do not have to punish the city because you protect against it in 
advance, 100 percent.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, we do not know if the gentleman from New York's 
approach is constitutional. That has not been tried before, and it 
would be a case of first impression in the courts.
  We know that the provision of denying Federal funds in the base bill 
is constitutional, because it was done by this Congress 20 years ago 
where we denied States transportation funds that did not raise the 
drinking age to 21. So the constitutional precedent was set 20 years 
ago in the transportation area. The base bill does that. The 
gentleman's amendment does not. That is why it ought to be rejected.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

[[Page 24785]]

  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Sodrel

  Mr. SODREL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 printed in House Report 109-266 offered by 
     Mr. Sodrel:
       Page 4, line 6, after ``jurisdiction.'' insert ``In such 
     action, the defendant has the burden to show by clear and 
     convincing evidence that the taking is not for economic 
     development.''

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 527, the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Sodrel) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. SODREL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the chairman and ranking member for bringing this bill 
forward, a bill that I was proud to cosponsor.
  H.R. 4128 is a good bill. It addresses a new-found power of 
government that frightens every homeowner and small businessman, the 
possibility of having their home or business involuntarily taken to be 
given to someone else to build some other business or development that 
government may prefer. Compounding that fear is the fear of having to 
go to court and pay to prove that the government violated the 
provisions of this bill, having to pay a lawyer and possibly hire 
experts to prove that the taking of their property is for economic 
development in violation of the act.
  My amendment clarifies that the burden of proof is on the State or 
the agency seeking to take the property, and the evidence it has 
provided must go beyond merely saying so. This issue is important 
enough that a court reviewing the taking should not give deference to 
the government assertions that the ultimate use of the property is for 
other than economic development as outlined in the act. The burden of 
proof should rightly be placed on the government entity that initiated 
the action, not on the property owner. I urge the adoption of this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I will claim the time in opposition, 
even though I am not opposed.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Wisconsin 
will control the time in opposition.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would help property owners by putting 
the burden of proof on the government to show that it is not abusing 
eminent domain by taking private property for a private use. It is a 
good amendment, and I support it.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment also. I am tired 
of poor people and working people having to go and find lawyers and pay 
them. Who can afford $250 and $300 an hour? The average poor person 
certainly cannot. So you are right, let us put it on the entity that is 
trying to pull these tricks in the first place to take these properties 
away from these citizens.
  So I support the amendment.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Sodrel).
  The amendment was agreed to.


            Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Moran of Virginia

  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 5 printed in House Report 109-266 offered by 
     Mr. Moran of Virginia:
       Page 8, strike line 17 and all that follows through line 19 
     on page 9 and insert the following:
       (1) Economic development.--The term ``economic 
     development'' means taking private property, without the 
     consent of the owner, and conveying or leasing such property 
     from the taking authority to a private person or entity, or 
     from such private person or entity to another private person 
     or entity, where the grantee or lessee person or entity is to 
     use the property for commercial enterprise carried on for 
     profit, or where the conveying or leasing is for the primary 
     purpose of increasing tax revenue, tax base, employment, or 
     general economic health, except that such term shall not 
     include--
       (A) conveying private property for a public use, such as--
       (i) for a road, hospital, or military base;
       (ii) for use by the general public as of right, such as a 
     railroad or public facility; or
       (iii) for use as a right of way, aqueduct, pipeline, 
     utility 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; and
       (E) clearing defective chains of title.
       Page 4, beginning in line 15, strike ``and the subsequent 
     use of such condemned property for economic development''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 527, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Well, here we have those folks who are considered to be on the far 
left and those on the far right and those just left of center and those 
just right of center; everybody agrees that this bill should be passed. 
It reminds me of a comment or observation that Plato once made: ``The 
minority are oftentimes wrong, but the majority always are.''
  Now, I can understand why we are reflexively doing this bill, but I 
cannot understand why we would make this bill so broad with such an 
interminably long period of time with which to take any grievance to 
the courts, that it will create unintended consequences which will 
cause very severe consequences and economic problems for localities all 
over our country.
  We do not have one dictatorship at the local level of American 
government. Every single official at every single level of local 
government is elected, so all of them are responsible to the voters; 
and that is where this should be decided.
  But I am going to suggest two changes that will be achieved by my 
amendment. They address the two major deficiencies of this bill: first, 
it is much too broad; and, secondly, the period of time within which a 
government can be sued is much too long.
  The broad definition of ``economic development'' in section 8 
includes a conveyance or lease of property that is ``to increase tax 
revenue, tax base employment, or general economic health.''
  Unfortunately, practically every conveyance of condemned property can 
have at least an incidental or secondary purpose and effect of 
increasing taxes, creating jobs, or otherwise producing a positive 
economic impact, virtually everything that a local government may need 
to do even though that might not be the primary purpose of the taking.

                              {time}  1600

  So the bill has the potential of prohibiting virtually every taking 
which occurs as part of public-private partnerships that are not for 
economic development purposes at all, for example, the conveyance or 
lease of condemned property as part of a public-private partnership to 
a private entity that could be used for a waste-to-energy facility.
  The processing of solid waste would be prohibited under this. 
Delivering

[[Page 24786]]

recreational services in a public area, a public park. Supplying 
affordable housing. I could give you any number of examples that would 
have been precluded under this. Providing a parking facility in a 
downtown that is desperately needed in many communities.
  These projects may well produce tax revenues, new jobs, a healthier 
economy, but that is not the primary purpose of these projects. Their 
primary purpose is simply to deliver a service that the local community 
needs and to do so by partnering with a private for-profit entity. Yet 
the broad language of the bill would prohibit virtually all such 
public-private partnerships.
  My amendment addresses this problem by making clear that the bill 
reaches the conveyance or lease of condemned property definition only 
when the primary purpose of the transaction is the increase of taxes, 
jobs or economic benefits. That is a change that is very much needed to 
this legislation.
  Secondly, the time to file suit under the bill is much too long. 
Under the bill, a cause of action must be brought no later than 7 years 
following the conclusion of condemnation proceedings and the subsequent 
use of such condemned property for economic development. So where you 
have a property that was condemned, say, next year, in 2006, and the 
owner believes its economic development use begins in 2011, the owner 
has until 2018, 12 years after the property's condemnation, to 
challenge its validity. In many cases, the statute could extend the 
right to sue for generations to come.
  There is no need or reason to provide such a lengthy statute of 
limitations. The validity of a condemnation action has to be put to 
rest in some reasonable time; and the Judiciary Committee has, in other 
contexts, agreed with that principle.
  The 7 years should be measured from the conclusion of the 
condemnation proceeding. At this time, a property owner knows whether 
his or her property has been taken, knows the reasons for the taking, 
and can judge whether the taking is subject to the bill's prohibition. 
My amendment would reduce the statute of limitations to 7 years from 
the end of the condemnation proceeding, not 7 years after the 
property's economic development.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill needs additional clarification, and I do 
think this amendment would provide it. I have substantial problems with 
this bill. So I am reluctant to fix it, but I know it is going to pass. 
If it passes, it should be a bill that does not cause the kind of 
unintended consequences this bill will impose on every locally elected 
government.
  Third, the bill defines ``economic development'' as conveying or 
leasing condemned property from one private party to another private 
party--but not from the condemning government to a private party. 
However, in the ``real world,'' many economic development projects 
involve the conveyance of condemned property from the condemning 
authority to a private person or entity--a project the bill does not 
reach. For instance, the bill would not reach the conveyance by a city 
or county of 10 acres of taken property to, say, the Marriott 
Corporation for the use as a convention center, even though the primary 
purpose of the conveyance is the production of increased tax revenue 
and jobs.
  The amendment addresses this problem by including in the definition 
of ``economic development'' conveyances and leases from the condemning 
government to a private party. In addition, the bill makes some 
corresponding technical changes to the definition of economic 
development in light of the other changes I have just explained.
  Mr. Chairman, to conclude, this bill is too broad, too unclear, and 
overreaching. I urge you to adopt this amendment.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, unlike the characterization that my friend from 
Virginia has made in this bill, this is a bill that is supported by the 
mainstream of Members of Congress. And how many times in anybody's 
congressional career would you see Jim Sensenbrenner and Maxine Waters 
supporting the same bill? That means that we have a very, very big tent 
of people who are supporting it, because it is the right thing to do.
  The amendment should be defeated because it would gut the bill. 
Because it completely goes back to the definition of public purpose 
that the Supreme Court allowed this terrible miscarriage of justice to 
occur in the Kelo case.
  The Kelo decision held that the term public use could actually mean a 
private use such that the government can take perfectly fine property 
from one person just to give it to another wealthier person. And the 
amendment would put back into the bill an exception for any public use, 
I would submit, as defined by a majority vote of the city council, 
which in the wake of the Kelo decision means a private use as well.
  This amendment would put property owners everywhere back to where 
they were before the Kelo decision, and that is way behind the eight 
ball, subject to the mercy of a majority vote of their city council. 
The whole point of this legislation is to counter the Supreme Court's 
reading of public use in a way that includes private use as well, and 
the amendment guts the bill by allowing exceptions for private uses as 
well as public uses. Because this amendment is a giant step backwards 
in the protection of property rights, it should be soundly defeated.
  With respect to the comments the gentleman made on the statute of 
limitations, yes, it is a long statute of limitations. Because the city 
has the time and the money to wait out the property owner simply by 
putting it on the shelf until the time expires. And we should have a 
longer statute of limitation, rather than a shorter one, so that the 
city cannot be tempted by the siren song of using its power and using 
its money to run roughshod over the owner of a piece of private 
property.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully offer this statement against 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to prohibit a taking of private 
property only when the taking's primary purpose is economic 
development, maybe for the parking lots he described.
  I am fearful that such an amendment would create a loophole for 
States and cities, allowing them to take property in a manner that is 
inconsistent with this Act, by arguing that the economic benefits of 
the taking were incidental rather than primary.
  Also, this amendment seeks to confine property owners to a 7-year 
period in which they must bring a suit under this Act. This means that 
an owner who has had his or her property taken better hope that the 
State or the city puts the property to use in 7 years. If a State or 
city takes property for a public purpose, sits on it for 8 years and 
then puts it to use for economic development, the owner has no 
recourse.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not think that you can argue that the statute of 
limitations is too long. These people, citizens buy their homes, and 
they expect to live in them for life. They do not expect someone to 
come along and say that we have decided that we are going to give it to 
someone else, a developer to develop for private purposes to make money 
on.
  So I would ask my colleagues to reject this amendment.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I would say very quickly to the 
gentleman from Virginia, the majority that he mistrusts is about the 
business of protecting the minority that he values, because a private 
property owner facing eminent domain powers being used to take their 
property for private economic development purposes is very much alone, 
and he needs this kind of weight of authority behind him or her to 
protect their private property rights.
  If the gentleman's amendment is adopted, it will reopen exactly the 
kind of confusing and controversial court decisions that we are about 
trying to address here today. The specificity in the bill is superior 
to the gentleman's amendment.

[[Page 24787]]

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Turner

  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 6 printed in House Report 109-266 offered by 
     Mr. Turner:
       Page 9, beginning in line 8, strike ``provided'' and all 
     that follows through line 10 and insert ``, including a 
     property or preponderance of properties which constitute a 
     threat to public health and safety by reason of dilapidation, 
     obsolescence, overcrowding, lack of ventilation, light, and 
     sanitary facilities, excessive land coverage, deleterious 
     land use, obsolete subdivisions, or because it constitutes a 
     brownfield, as that term is defined in the Small Business 
     Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act (42 
     U.S.C. 9601(39))''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 527, the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Turner) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the Supreme Court in Kelo v. City of New London went 
too far in allowing the taking of private property for private 
development. Congress must take action to protect property rights of 
individuals. However, we must be careful not to prohibit traditional 
pre-Kelo justifications for eminent domain.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment enumerates harmful effects which 
constitute a threat to public health and safety. These harmful effects 
are traditional justifications for cities, municipalities and other 
governmental entities to acquire property to protect public health and 
safety. In fact, the list of harmful effects in my amendment includes 
elements from several State laws.
  The amendment is derived from the State definitions from Wisconsin, 
the home of Chairman Sensenbrenner; Texas, the home of our President; 
Illinois, the home of our Speaker; Missouri, the home of Majority 
Leader Blunt; and Virginia, the home of Chairman Goodlatte.
  I have also included an exception for brownfields in my amendment. 
Brownfields, which are contaminated properties, are a dangerous problem 
for cities and must be redeveloped to protect the current residents of 
these communities and also bring people back into our cities.
  This amendment, in order to protect public health and safety, has 
been endorsed by the National Association of Home Builders, the 
International Council of Shopping Centers, the National Association of 
Industrial and Office Properties, the International Economic 
Development Council, the Building Owners and Management Association 
International, the Real Estate Roundtable, the American Institute of 
Architects, the American Planning Association, the National Association 
of Local Government Environmental Professionals, the United States 
Conference of Mayors, the International City County Management 
Association, and the National League of Cities.
  This amendment, Mr. Chairman, is necessary. Without this amendment, 
our States will lose their pre-Kelo authority.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment must be defeated because it uses 
undefined terms that would gut this vital legislation designed to 
protect the property rights of all Americans from abuse of Government 
land grants.
  The list of organizations that the gentleman from Ohio read off in 
support of his amendment shows why it ought to be defeated, if we want 
to stand up for the property rights of individual landowners.
  The terms used in this amendment are broad in their scope; and, 
consequently, the amendment would subject just about any property owner 
in America to the threat of having their property taken by a government 
official willing to abuse the power of eminent domain to take property 
from one private citizen and give it to another wealthier developer.
  The amendment would allow the taking profit for ``excessive land 
coverage,'' ``lack of ventilation,'' ``lack of light,'' and 
``obsolescence,'' just to name a few. None of these terms are defined 
in the amendment, and each would be subject to tremendous abuse. No 
home in the country would be safe if a government official were allowed 
to use those concepts to take private property.
  If a government bureaucrat thinks your porch is too big, they can 
take your whole house and all of your land under the amendment. If your 
barn has only one light bulb in it or no artificial light at all, then 
your barn and all of the farm land surrounding it could be confiscated 
by the government. Webster's Dictionary defines obsolete, which is one 
of the terms used in this amendment, as of a kind or style no longer 
current. Under the amendment, then, if the design of your house is out 
of fashion in the eyes of government officials, you could lose both 
your house and your property; and that is wrong.
  The base bill already includes a reasonable exception that allows the 
government to take property when property is being used in a way that 
imposes an immediate threat to the public health and safety. And the 
base bill does absolutely nothing, absolutely nothing that prevents 
States and localities from enforcing public nuisance laws under its 
police powers and tearing down an unsafe building.
  But the amendment goes much further in a way that threatens low-
income and minority communities, and for that reason I join the NAACP 
in opposing this amendment. Listen to what actual practitioners in the 
field have to say about it. This is from the Institute for Justice, the 
public interest law firm that represented Suzette Kelo and the other 
New London homeowners who took their fight to keep their homes from 
being taken for private commercial development all the way to the 
Supreme Court.
  The Institute for Justice states, ``In our experience litigating 
eminent domain cases all over the country, we have seen each of the 
terms in the amendment applied in such a way as to allow the use of 
eminent domain on perfectly normal residential and business 
neighborhoods. Dilapidation can mean that a building has chipped mortar 
or needs a new handrail. Obsolescence can be a single-family home that 
lacks three bedrooms, two full bathrooms and a two-car attached garage. 
Both overcrowding and lack of ventilation, light and sanitary 
facilities were routinely used during urban renewal to remove poor and 
minority communities from their neighborhoods. Deleterious land use can 
mean a combination of residences and businesses in a single area, even 
though many planners think that such neighborhoods are ideal. Time and 
time again, the terms found in this amendment have served as vehicles 
for the abuse of eminent domain for private commercial development''. 
From the Institute.
  This gutting amendment should be defeated.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, wow, light bulbs burnt out, paint peeling, those are 
scary things that the chairman has said would be used for eminent 
domain. But not in America. That is not what the eminent domain pre-
Kelo has been in America.
  The 49 States who have definitions of harmful effects that are in 
this amendment are from States that have litigated over this issue and 
that have

[[Page 24788]]

taken into consideration the issue of property rights, the issue of the 
property rights of individuals that live next to abandoned factories, 
the people who have children that are in neighborhoods that have 
property that is near them that has an impact on the public health and 
safety. The ability for them to enjoy their property and to enjoy it 
where they are living next to public health and safety threats are what 
the amendment would rise to.

                              {time}  1615

  It does not permit anybody to take any property because a light bulb 
is burned out. In fact, again it is based on 49 States and the exact 
language that is used by them in defining harmful effects. The 
chairman's own State's language includes, from Wisconsin, dilapidation, 
obsolescence, sanitation, light, air. These are not terms of burned-out 
light bulbs. These are issues where they rise to the level of a safety 
and health threat to the individuals of the communities, of the people 
whose properties are next to them. It is not Kelo.
  We all believe that Kelo has gone too far and that an individual's 
property rights of his home should be protected. But similarly, the 
home that stands next to a property that is abandoned and is a health 
threat or the property that is next to a factory for which there are 
health and safety issues for a community needs to be addressed. Forty-
nine States have passed legislation permitting eminent domain in public 
safety and health threats. Certainly we should acknowledge this and not 
take away from these communities the pre-Kelo rights of eminent domain.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner). This is the 
most dangerous of all the amendments that have been offered today.
  We take up the Private Property Rights Protection Act today in an 
effort to provide all property owners with greater protections. The 
Turner amendment will essentially create a blight exception. By 
prohibiting the use of eminent domain for economic development in 
almost all instances except blight, we make blighted communities an 
easy target for States and cities.
  This is why the NAACP supports this bill also. Too many of our 
communities, the minority, the elderly and the low-income have 
witnessed an abuse of eminent domain powers. Given this history of 
abuse, we would like all legislative responses to Kelo to be sensitive 
to that.
  Historically and today, it has been too easy to characterize 
minority, elderly or low-income communities as blighted for eminent 
domain purposes and subject them to the will of the government. If 
legislative proposals contain language that could potentially excluding 
these communities from protection against eminent domain abuses, we 
have failed to be sensitive to the interests of this constituency.
  These communities should be afforded the same rights and protections 
all homeowners, business owners, and other property owners will be 
afforded in a Federal policy response to Kelo.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Ohio has 1 
minute remaining.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I have mixed emotions about this bill, but I 
see it as an environmental bill. This is a great bill. This stops 
growth, particularly the section of the sense of Congress on the use of 
eminent domain funds to take farmland or other real property for 
economic development. It just says you cannot do that.
  But what really bothers me in this bill is the fact that the terms of 
Federal economic development means any Federal funds distributed to or 
through States or political subdivision of the States under Federal 
laws designed to improve or increase the size of economies of the State 
or political subdivisions.
  As I look at it, those laws mean all the BRAC money that comes to 
reuse of military bases. It means transportation monies. It means sewer 
and water monies. It essentially is a no-growth bill. For those on the 
environmental side this is good. For those who want to see some 
economic development, we need this amendment.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, in communities all across this country, there are 
buildings that represent a public health and safety threat to a 
community. Many times people drive by those buildings and they say to 
their elected officials, someone ought to do something about that. It 
is not a Kelo decision of saying we ought to have something better. It 
is saying that there is something damaging to our community and 
damaging to our neighborhoods.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio will be 
postponed.


      Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Gary G. Miller of California

  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 7 printed in House Report No. 109-266 offered 
     by Mr. Gary G. Miller of California:
       Page 9, line 17, strike ``and''.
       Page 9, line 19, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 9, after line 19, insert the following:
       (G) redeveloping of a brownfield site as defined in the 
     Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields 
     Revitalization Act (42 U.S.C. 9601(39)).

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 527, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner).
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The amendment would simply make an exception for the taking of 
property that is categorized as a brownfield under Federal law, meaning 
it is a site that contains or is perceived to contain hazardous 
contaminants. I support the adoption of the amendment and commend the 
gentleman from California for introducing it.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Reclaiming my time, I rise to offer 
a modest amendment to ensure the Federal Government continues to work 
with local communities to promote and encourage brownfield 
redevelopment in America.
  The bill has a list of exemptions that recognizes eminent domain is 
sometimes used for legitimate purposes. These exemptions in H.R. 4128 
are not sufficient to address brownfield sites. While the bill is an 
important step to protect private property rights, it could have the 
unintended consequence of inhibiting redevelopment of brownfield sites.
  My amendment corrects the oversight by adding brownfield 
redevelopment as specifically defined in the Small Business Liability 
Relief and Brownfield Revitalization Act of 2001. Owners of brownfield 
sites are frequently unwilling to sell them for fear of cleanup and 
cost of contamination they find. Eminent domain can often help break 
through legal and procedural barriers to the sale of the land.
  To address this, local governments can take advantage of the 
liability protection in CERCLA for acquiring potentially contaminated 
sites ``through

[[Page 24789]]

the exercise of eminent domain authority by purchaser or 
condemnation.''
  Without using eminent domain as provided for in CERCLA, a local 
government would be held strictly liable for all costs and cleanup of 
polluted land as the owner and operator of the site.
  I want to stress strongly that brownfield sites are not residential 
properties. They are abandoned, idle, or underused industrial and 
commercial facilities where expansion or redevelopment is complicated 
by real or perceived environmental contamination.
  Let us make sure the cities have the tools they need to clean up 
brownfield sites. It is a reasonable amendment, and I ask for an 
``aye'' vote.
  I rise today to offer a modest amendment to ensure the Federal 
Government continues to work with local communities to promote and 
encourage Brownfields redevelopment in America.


            Protecting Private Property Rights is Important

  There is no question that the right to own private property is one of 
the cornerstones of American freedom.
  Governmental regulatory takings are becoming more and more prevalent 
in today's society and Congress must do everything possible to ensure 
that lands acquired by private means are protected. As more and more 
Americans are working to purchase property and become homeowners, the 
threat of governmental takings must not overshadow the pursuit of the 
American dream.
  The recent United States Supreme Court decision set the precedent 
that local governments may be afforded wide latitude in seizing 
property for land-use decisions. I strongly disagree with the 
implications of this decision. Private property has been the foundation 
of our society, and I believe it is unwise for government to deprive 
citizens of this most basic tenet of the American dream.
  I am pleased that we have a bill before us today to respond to the 
Supreme Court's ill-advised decision. While the bill is an important 
step to protect private property rights, it could have the unintended 
consequence of inhibiting the redevelopment of Brownfields sites.


               Bill's Exemptions Do Not Cover Brownfields

  The bill has a list of exemptions that recognize that eminent domain 
is sometimes used for legitimate purposes. However, Brownfields 
redevelopment is not part of this list.
  The current exemptions in H.R. 4128 are not sufficient to address 
Brownfields sites. Brownfields are not always ``abandoned'' and may not 
``impose an immediate threat to health or safety.'' My amendment 
corrects this oversight by adding Brownfields redevelopment as 
specifically defined in the Small Business Liability Relief and 
Brownfields Revitalization Act.


                 Brownfields Redevelopment is Important

  Experts estimate that the United States has more than 450,000 vacant 
or underused industrial sites as a result of environmental 
contamination caused by chemical compounds and other hazardous 
substances. These sites are known as Brownfields.
  Brownfields represent more than just eyesores--they threaten our 
groundwater supply, cost our local communities jobs and revenue, and 
contribute to urban sprawl. Returning the nation's Brownfields sites to 
productive economic development could generate more than 550,000 
additional jobs and up to $2.4 billion in new tax revenues for cities 
and towns.
  We must not inhibit or stymie the ability of localities to 
responsibly exercise eminent domain authority for the redevelopment of 
Brownfield sites. The redevelopment of Brownfield sites has proven to 
revitalize distressed neighborhoods, while fostering economic growth, 
creating jobs, increasing local tax revenues, and reducing public 
service demands.
  This amendment will ensure that the use of eminent domain to 
redevelop Brownfield sites will remain available.


Brownfields Pose Obstacles to Redevelopment that Sometimes Can Only Be 
                       Overcome by Eminent Domain

  Owners of Brownfield sites are frequently unwilling to sell them for 
fear of the cleanup costs of any contamination found. Eminent domain 
can often help break through legal and procedural barriers to the sale 
of the land.
  To address this, local governments can take advantage of the 
liability protections in CERCLA for acquiring potentially contaminated 
sites ``through the exercise of eminent domain authority by purchase or 
condemnation.'' Without using eminent domain as provided for in CERCLA, 
a local government would be held strictly liable for all costs of 
cleaning up polluted land as an ``owner or operator'' of the site. As a 
result, local governments would be less likely to redevelop a 
Brownfield site.


By Promoting Brownfields Redevelopment, we are not throwing people out 
                             of their homes

  Brownfields are not Residential Properties. They are abandoned, idle, 
or under-used industrial and commercial facilities where expansion or 
redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived environmental 
contamination.


       Cities will not be able to abuse the Brownfields exception

  The Brownfields Revitalization Act creates a specific scientific 
standard for determining whether a former industrial site is a 
potential Brownfield site.
  The real problem is that when a property is a Brownfield, it is in 
legal limbo. It is the ``possibility'' of contamination alone that 
results in the lack of redevelopment. The land might not be 
contaminated, but if the owners have reason to believe it might be, it 
will likely sit, unused.
  Without the city's ability to exercise eminent domain, many 
contaminated properties that can be redeveloped would instead continue 
to impose heavy environmental, financial, and social burdens on 
communities.


                               Conclusion

  We must give cities the opportunity to minimize urban sprawl and 
preserve existing green space by allowing communities to work with 
local developers and builders to utilize previously developed 
properties.
  This amendment preserves the ability of cities to take ownership of 
Brownfields and work with their development community to design 
projects that utilize existing infrastructure.
  Most importantly, it is estimated that up to $2.4 billion in new tax 
revenues can be generated through Brownfields redevelopment. Let's make 
sure cities have the tools they need to clean up Brownfields sites.
  I urge my colleagues to support this crucial amendment to demonstrate 
that we support Brownfields redevelopment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I claimed this time to raise some concerns 
about the amendment offered by the gentleman from California. I believe 
the gentleman from California and the gentlewoman from Texas have a 
sincere interest in furthering this Nation's development of 
brownfields, land that is difficult to expand because of environmental 
contamination. However, I believe that such development is already 
protected under the bill.
  First, this bill will provide an exception for removing harmful uses 
of land provided such uses constitute an immediate threat to health and 
safety. If land truly constitutes a brownfield, then it meets this 
exception.
  Second, brownfields are often acquired by clearing title on, for 
example, old industrial property where ownership exchanged numerous 
times without proper recording. The bill creates an exception for 
clearing defective claims of title; and, again, brownfields would be 
protected.
  Brownfields are also protected under the abandoned property exception 
that is in the bill. Owners often abandon these properties to escape 
liability. I am confident that there are sufficient protections in this 
bill for brownfields in question if an additional exception needs to be 
created.
  We do not want cities to now use the brownfields label as an excuse 
to take private property and turn it over to a private business or 
developer. Worse yet, we do not want brownfields to become the modern-
day blight exception.
  You can see that we have heard requests for any number of exceptions, 
and if we stayed on this floor for 24 hours or 48 hours, more Members, 
perhaps, could think of reasons why you should take private land for 
private use. I maintain that if you want to package land or you want to 
acquire land, you have to work within the marketplace to do it. You 
have to go out, you have to find the owners, you have to negotiate 
market rates, you ``have'' to convince people it is for good uses. You 
have to work. And you have to engage in order to acquire land. You 
cannot simply come up with every excuse that is convenient to mayors 
and city council members and to developers to take people's private 
land.
  If it is private, if it is owned, whether it is residence or business 
or ``vacant''

[[Page 24790]]

land, whatever, it belongs to somebody, somebody paid for it. They have 
a right to it. The government does not have the right to take it. And 
so I would simply be opposed to yet another request for an exception to 
this very good bill that is put forth to protect the citizens of the 
States.
  I commend the chairman and those of us on both sides of the aisle for 
stepping forward in the manner that we have in a timely fashion to say 
no.
  I have often criticized my friends on the opposite side of the aisle 
for accusing courts and the Supreme Court of creating law, of creating 
legislation. They did it on this one. They absolutely did. The 
Constitution simply says that you must compensate for the taking of 
land for public use.
  We are not opposed to eminent domain for public use. I question it 
from time to time, but that is not what this is all about. This is 
about the taking of private land for private use.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/4\ 
minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I proudly join the 
gentleman from California in supporting this amendment.
  I appreciate the response that H.R. 4128 is attempting to convey. We 
just feel that there is a possibility that it might have some 
unintended consequences.
  In 2002, President Bush signed the Small Business Liability Relief 
and Brownfields Revitalization Act, and that bill authorized $200 
million annually for Federal assistance to States and local communities 
to assess brownfield sites and to conduct cleanup where the assessment 
indicates the cleanup was warranted.
  The measure represented the centerpiece of the administration's 
environmental agenda. It was widely praised and received broad 
bipartisan support, and rightfully so. According to the Government 
Accountability Office, there are well over 500,000 brownfields in 
communities around the country; and brownfields represent the economic 
opportunity wherever they exist.
  These abandoned and underused industrial sites pose heavy economic, 
financial, and social burdens on the community. These burdens include 
blight, deterioration of neighboring properties and property values, 
neighborhood health hazards from contamination, and increased need for 
fire and police protection to limit the nuisance effect of brownfields, 
and increased sprawl as individuals and families and businesses 
relocate to the suburbs, farmland, and open space.
  Over the past decade, communities across the country have realized 
that responsible brownfield redevelopment can transform environmentally 
impaired property into productive property and positively impact 
distressed communities.
  The city of Dallas that I represent was one of the first cities to be 
designated as a brownfield showcase community by the Environmental 
Protection Agency. Dallas has used assessment and remediation grant 
programs to redevelop 35 sites in the core of the city.
  Although the city has not used eminent domain to date in its 
brownfield redevelopment projects, they have shared with me that they 
certainly can anticipate perhaps a situation where the city might want 
to do this to acquire. I fully and strongly support the amendment.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the 
balance of my time.
  The gentlewoman from California said a few things that I think I have 
to address. She said she believed this is included within the bill. It 
is not. The other thing she said is that the cities should work within 
the marketplace to acquire these properties.
  The problem you have with cities doing that is without eminent domain 
that is provided for in CERCLA, a local government would be held 
strictly liable for all costs of cleanup of the polluted land as the 
owner-operator of the site. That is a complete different liability that 
the city would accept through eminent domain.
  By not having eminent domain through CERCLA, a city then would not 
want to have a piece of property that was a brownfield because they 
then are accepting the total liability of the owner. This is going to 
shut down development in local communities. The problem we have with 
the bill, there is no immediate threat to health because, as you know, 
brownfields are usually fenced in. They are sites that are not being 
used. The owners generally do not want to know if they are contaminated 
because then they have to accept liability.
  It is a reasonable amendment. I thank the chairman for accepting it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1630

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  I respect the gentleman's request for yet another exception, but I 
oppose it. I think that the chairman and the framers of this 
legislation have been very responsible in the way that we have tried to 
advance a piece of legislation to protect the citizens of this Nation 
from a bad Supreme Court decision.
  A lot of people may be inconvenienced by our bill, people who want to 
acquire property, people who want to take private property for a 
development, people who want to make money, people who will use any 
means necessary by which to gain property that they think will help to 
bring them additional profits. There are a lot of reasons why people 
will be inconvenienced by this bill.
  The bottom line is we do not wish to continue to abuse and 
inconvenience, marginalize and deny property owners of this country. We 
feel that our number one responsibility is to the property owners. We 
are elected to represent our citizens in the best way possible. There 
is no better way to represent citizens than to say we stand with you in 
the ownership of the land that you have bought, that you have 
inherited, that you have invested in.
  We know a lot of people may not like it. It may inconvenience some 
people. You may not be able to build that parking lot, you may not be 
able to develop that shopping center, but we stand with the people 
against those kind of inconveniences. We ask for a ``no'' on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Gingrey

  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 8 printed in House Report 109-266 offered by 
     Mr. Gingrey:
       Add at the end the following new section:

     SEC. 12. 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

[[Page 24791]]

     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.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 527, the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise today in support of this amendment I have offered to H.R. 
4128, the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005.
  Mr. Chairman, from Matthew 22:17, we know that the Pharisees tried to 
trap Jesus regarding allegiance to the Roman government; and, of 
course, Jesus said, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's but 
render to God the things that are God's.
  Mr. Chairman, for over 2,000 years God has owed no taxes to the 
government, but that all changed on June 23, 2005.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment would add an additional section to this 
bill to ensure that our houses of worship and other nonprofit 
organizations are not penalized because they are tax-exempt and, 
therefore, provide no revenue to the treasuries of State and local 
governments. Thus, they became low-hanging fruit, ripe for the taking.
  In the wake of the Kelo decision that gutted the property protections 
of the fifth amendment, the properties of religious organizations and 
other nonprofits have indeed become potential prime targets for the 
government wrecking ball.
  State and local governments should never target, or even contemplate 
targeting, our houses of worship or nonprofit organizations simply 
because another use of the property would almost certainly build up 
their tax base.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe my amendment turns this unique vulnerability 
into an asset for our houses of worship and nonprofit organizations. 
Its chilling effect will force State and local governments to think 
twice before they contemplate buying gasoline for a steamroller to plow 
down our houses of worship.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to encourage my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to support my amendment and the overall bill to strengthen 
private property rights for the sake of all Americans.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GINGREY. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia 
for yielding.
  What the Kelo decision has said is that the land that the house of 
God is built on belongs to Caesar and Caesar can go condemn the land 
that the house of God is built on to turn it to into a strip mall or 
hotel or whatever will bring in more tax base, and that is wrong.
  The amendment that the gentleman from Georgia has offered simply 
states that the tax-exempt status of a religious or nonprofit 
organization cannot be used for a taking under the Kelo case. The 
amendment is a good one. It ought to be supported, and I am happy that 
he offered it.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GINGREY. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and 
I am going to acquiesce with the chairman on the amendment, but I want 
to express some reservations.
  It appears that it is the author's intention that nonprofit and 
religious organizations not be singled out by local governments due to 
their tax-exempt status alone. Is that correct?
  Mr. GINGREY. That is correct.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, is it also the gentleman's intention 
that this provision would not trump the other provisions of the bill 
that provide additional protections to nonprofits by prohibiting 
takings from private entities for other economic development reasons to 
give to other private entities?
  Mr. GINGREY. That is correct. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, to the extent that the language in the 
bill could be confusing in the amendment, would the gentleman be 
willing to work with the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and myself 
and others to ensure in conference that his intentions are accurately 
reflected in the amendment language?
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, certainly we would be glad to work with 
both chairmen in regard to that in the conference if there is any 
confusion regarding the amendment.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I appreciate the gentleman's willingness to work with 
us; and, on that basis, we will support the amendment.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, with the indulgence of the chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Bartlett), who has asked for time on this amendment.
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to 
support the Gingrey amendment.
  Before Kelo, a Christian church, after spending 5 years acquiring 
property, had the city intercede when it learned there would be a 
church built on the property. The city initiated eminent domain to give 
the land to Costco. The church prevailed, but that was before Kelo.
  In Justice O'Connor's Kelo dissent, she warned that in expanding the 
definition of ``public use,'' the majority had come close to embracing 
``the absurd argument that any church might be replaced with a retail 
store.'' She continued to state that this ``is inherently harmful to 
society.''
  Because of Kelo in general and in this situation in particular, the 
fifth amendment takings clause has been stretched beyond the bounds 
that the Framers intended. By expanding the fifth amendment's 
definition of ``public use,'' it could limit the scope of the ``free 
exercise'' of religion guaranteed in the first amendment.
  Kelo shattered our private property rights. Today, by passing H.R. 
4128, Congress will help pick up the pieces. Congress must act to 
prevent the demolition of our rights, our homes, our businesses and our 
houses of worship.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Cuellar

  Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 9 printed in House Report 109-266 offered by 
     Mr. Cuellar:
       Add at the end the following:

     SEC. 13. 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.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 527, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Cuellar) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin and the 
gentlewoman from California for this opportunity to present this 
amendment. I believe this amendment is acceptable to the chairman and 
the gentlewoman from California.
  Chairman Sensenbrenner and Congresswoman Waters, thank you for this 
opportunity to present my amendment to H.R. 4128, the Private Property 
Rights Protection Act of 2005.
  I will not spend much time describing my amendment, which is 
acceptable to the Chairman and Congresswoman Waters, because the 
concept is simple. My amendment will require all Federal agencies and 
departments to submit a report to the Attorney General verifying that 
all rules, regulations, and procedures of that agency are in compliance 
with the provisions of H.R. 4128.

[[Page 24792]]

  There is a saying in business: ``what gets measured gets done.'' H.R. 
4128 is an important and timely bill, and it will do a great deal to 
help protect private property rights in this country. My amendment will 
strengthen H.R. 4128, by making sure that the practices and procedures 
of Federal agencies are quickly and uniformly brought into compliance 
with the new law.
  My amendment will require all Federal agencies and departments to 
review their practices with regard to eminent domain, and to submit a 
report to the Attorney General verifying that all rules, regulations, 
and procedures of that agency are in compliance with the provisions of 
H.R. 4128. This amendment will help to make the transition clearer, and 
will introduce an added dimension of accountability into the process.
  As a believer in responsible government, I always have and will 
continue to hold our bureaucracy accountable for knowing the law and 
following it correctly. This simple reporting requirement will ensure 
that it is done in a timely fashion. H.R. 4128 is a good bill, and my 
amendment will help to ensure that it is enforced quickly, uniformly, 
and fairly.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUELLAR. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to accept the amendment 
because it requires the Federal Government agencies do whatever they 
need to do to come into compliance with the bill's prohibition on abuse 
of eminent domain. It is a good amendment, and I hope we accept it.
  Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).
  The amendment was agreed to.


          Amendment No. 10 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 10 printed in House Report 109-266 offered by 
     Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       Add at the end the following:

     SEC. __. 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.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 527, the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
might consume.
  Might I just for my colleagues read very briefly the language of this 
amendment, and I hope that we can join in a bipartisan manner in the 
spirit of this underlying legislation.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding.
  I am happy to accept this amendment that amends the sense of Congress 
section of the bill that says that victims of Hurricane Katrina cannot 
have their property condemned simply because it was damaged by the 
hurricane. Unless the amendment is adopted, then victims of Hurricane 
Katrina end up getting penalized twice. That is twice too many times. 
We can take away one of those times by adopting the amendment, and I 
urge the House to support it.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I cannot thank you enough, 
and I would ask your kind indulgence if I could reclaim my time to put 
these items in the Record, and I would like to yield a moment to the 
gentlewoman from California, but let me just say this.
  The chairman is so very right. Let me make these points. It is 
legislation to, in fact, make a very pronounced statement that we are 
very much watching and seeking to protect the Hurricane Katrina 
survivors from unreasonable taking of property away from them for 
economic development or for private use.
  Let me share this paragraph: New Orleans will be the center of a 
reconstruction project that will have a price tag in excess of $200 
billion. Eminent domain will play a major role in the local 
government's ability to assemble properties to carry out their plans, 
whether residents like it or not.
  The NAACP, which the chairman cited in another debate, stated that 
the eminent domain process mostly targets, in many instances, racial 
and ethnic minorities because cities often want to redevelop areas with 
low property values because minorities have less political clout and 
are less able to fight back. That is one aspect, but the rural 
community and the surrounding areas in New Orleans and Gulfport and 
other areas are equally victims, and so this amendment speaks to the 
wholeness of the region that will be under attack for economic 
development.
  Might I close by these words: ``South-of-Boston residents, especially 
those in coastal towns, need to confront the nasty implications of the 
recent Supreme Court decision in a post-Katrina era. If a Category 5 
hurricane wipes houses from Houghs Neck, Minot, Humarock, Marion, or 
Mattapoisett, might not the remaining citizens take kindly to an offer 
to replace the houses with a resort hotel?''
  I want to remind my colleagues that the eminent domain theory came 
when the British soldiers wanted to place their soldiers in American 
homes or colonial homes, and so this has the underpinnings of a long 
history. This is an important step for us to take for the Katrina 
survivors, and I thank the chairman for supporting it.
  Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to H.R. 4128, the Private Property 
Rights Protection Act of 2005, that has been reported by the Committee 
on Rules, #12 as printed in the Congressional Record and captioned as 
Jackso.177. This legislation seeks to curtail the decision handed down 
by the U.S. Supreme Court in Kelo v. City of New London on June 23, 
2005. Kelo held ``economic development'' to be a ``public use'' under 
the Fifth Amendment's Taking Clause. The Takings Clause states that 
``nor shall private property be taken for public use without just 
compensation.''
  In the 1990's, a state agency declared that New London, CT was a 
``distressed municipality'' after its unemployment numbers hit double 
the rate in the rest of Connecticut. The holding by the Supreme Court 
purported to defer to the city's judgment and that the development 
would be a ``catalyst to the area's rejuvenation.''
  To lay the foundation for the relevance of my amendment, I cite an 
article in the Tulsa World:

       The situation in New London is a time-extended version of 
     the crisis in New Orleans . . . New Orleans saw its demise in 
     the course of days, not decades. There was no choice but to 
     create a package of initiatives that would bring the private 
     sector in on the rebuilding effort. In some areas, eminent 
     domain may be the only answer. The urgency of government 
     planning, however, is offset by the fact that the first 
     contracts have gone out to some of the usual suspects--
     namely, corporations with strong ties to the administration 
     In Washington.

  The land use situation in the areas most affected by Hurricane 
Katrina presents the situation that is most ripe for eminent domain 
takings under the guise of ``economic development.'' My amendment seeks 
to add the legislative intent to H.R. 4128 that the law seeks to put 
the people first even in the face of post-disaster reconstruction.
  I thank the Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for his 
support of this amendment. It is critical that we continue the spirit 
of bi-partisanship that was started with the resolution disapproving 
the Kelo decision, of which I was an original co-sponsor, the Private 
Property Rights Protection Act of 2005, H.R. 3135.
  New Orleans will be the center of a reconstruction project that will 
have a price tag in excess of $200 billion. Eminent domain will play a 
major role in the local governments' ability to assemble properties to 
carry out their plans--whether the residents like it or not. NAACP 
representative Hillary Shelton stated that ``the eminent domain process 
mostly targets racial and ethnic minorities because cities often want 
to redevelop areas with low property values and because minorities have 
less political clout and are less able to fight back.'' My amendment 
seeks to clarify that, in redefining the boundaries of the federal 
government's Taking power, unfair practices will not

[[Page 24793]]

be tolerated and that the rights of property owners will be given the 
highest regard.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask that my colleagues support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to thank Chairman 
Sensenbrenner for accepting the gentlewoman's amendment, and I would 
like to thank her for this very timely amendment.
  While we began to work on this simply because of the Supreme Court 
decision and the danger that American citizens' homes and lands were 
placed in with this decision, the gentlewoman is absolutely right: We 
have to take another step to protect those victims of Katrina.
  There has been a lot of discussion from homeowners and others who are 
observing what is going on and what could possibly happen, wondering if 
there are not schemes already going on that would deny these homeowners 
who have lost their homes the ability to hold on to that land, whether 
or not the speculators are cooking up schemes with those in local 
government even. So this amendment would protect the victims of 
Katrina, and they will be very grateful for this, and they will be 
very, very thankful that the gentlewoman provided the leadership in 
thinking about them as this legislation was winding its way through the 
government of the United States of America.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to 
support this amendment, and it lays further precedent for the victims 
of Hurricanes Rita and Wilma. I thank the chairman for accepting it, 
and I yield back my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Watt

  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 11 printed in House Report 109-266 offered by 
     Mr. Watt:
       Page 2, strike line 3 and all that follows through line 25 
     on page 6.
       Page 8, strike line 15 and all that follows through line 4 
     on page 11.
       Page 7, strike line 1 and insert the following:

     SECTION 1. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 527, the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  First of all, I am fully aware that it is a dangerous combination to 
be opposing both the chairman of the full Judiciary Committee and the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), but I simply think this bill 
is an overreaction.
  This amendment would strike all the provisions of the bill except the 
sense of Congress which I believe adequately conveys the legitimate 
concerns with the decision of the Supreme Court in Kelo and does what 
we should appropriately do, express our concern about it and any 
possible abuse of it but not go so overboard as this bill does in my 
opinion.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  The amendment guts the bill by striking out every provision of it 
except the sense of Congress and the report requirement. If we are for 
the bill, we ought to vote against the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, we can all agree that Federal powers 
should not be used to enrich the powerful and the wealthy, but the 
first response to Kelo should be from responsible local and State 
governments, not the United States Congress. One narrow Supreme Court 
decision should not be the basis for an overbroad Federal amendment 
that will have many unintended consequences.
  Earlier I asked what would be the impact if this legislation had been 
passed for the revitalization of Times Square, where eminent domain 
transformed one of the most notorious places in America or the Dudley 
Street neighborhood initiative in the Roxbury Dorchester area in Boston 
or just outside our window where we have had Pennsylvania Avenue 
restored using eminent domain.

                              {time}  1645

  I would strongly suggest that the gentleman from North Carolina's 
approach is a more reasonable and prudent one. We do not have a crisis 
at this point. State and local governments should be dealing with this 
in an appropriate fashion. We should not have overbroad legislation 
that could have many unintended consequences.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First of all, I want to thank the gentleman from Oregon for his 
thoughtful approach to this and express my desire to have all of the 
Members of the Congress have an equally thoughtful approach to it.
  The Kelo decision was met with a tremendous uproar, with many echoing 
the view that all private property is now vulnerable to condemnation as 
long as the new use of the land will produce additional tax revenue. 
While I appreciate that concern and share the view that private 
property should not be taken solely for the purpose of increasing State 
coffers or local coffers with additional tax revenue, I do not believe 
that the Court's decision leads to that result.
  What is even more important is I do not believe that this bill does 
much, if anything, to address that concern even if it did do that. 
Unless we get down to a definition of what removal of blight is, and 
this bill does nothing to do that, local communities are still going to 
be able to condemn property, as they should, for public purposes. There 
really is nothing inconsistent with that in the Kelo decision.
  Flexibility by local communities in determining whether the public 
use requirement has been served by ensuring that condemned property 
creates a public benefit or advantage has long existed, and I believe 
should continue to exist, as the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) 
has so eloquently stated. I feel like State and local officials have as 
much intellect and discretion and are as accountable, probably even 
more so, to their constituents than Members of Congress; and they 
should be answering to their constituents on these issues.
  Again, while I believe that the power of eminent domain must be 
exercised judiciously, I think this bill goes too far in limiting the 
power of States and local governments. In addition, the punitive 
measures included in the bill will visit additional harms on the very 
distressed communities that are often the target of eminent domain 
proceedings.
  I would just point out that apparently after this bill is passed, if 
it is passed, a local government, a State government could still 
condemn blighted property. The problem now is that it would just have 
to sit there vacant with nothing developed on it, otherwise they would 
be in violation of the provisions of this bill if there were any kind 
of private development, even a public-private partnership.
  So I think we are going too far and we need to take a giant step 
back, take a deep breath, and pass the sense of Congress part of this 
resolution expressing our concern, but not the bill.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the 
Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the committee for 
yielding me this time.

[[Page 24794]]

  This is an unusual note to end the debate on a very important subject 
like this, because the last amendment from my friend from North 
Carolina is to strike everything in the bill except the sense of 
Congress provisions expressing support for property rights. Well, that 
is a vote on the bill. Why do we not just have a vote on final passage 
and skip this? Because that is what this is.
  And I would like to emphasize the fact that the people, the citizens, 
are in support of this amendment. I am proud that we have the civil 
rights organizations supporting me and not my friend from North 
Carolina. The NAACP is not known to take issues against the majority of 
ordinary people. That is what it was founded on. We support the NAACP 
in everything. Here is the thing. Here is the point. The NAACP says, 
support this bill, and my friend and I, who support the NAACP, tells 
me, let us have a vote before final passage that strikes every blooming 
thing from the bill.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield briefly to my friend from North Carolina, 
contrary to my best instincts.
  Mr. WATT. I just want to clarify for the gentleman that the NAACP has 
advised me that they are concerned about the abuse of eminent domain, 
as everybody else is, and the sense of Congress part of the resolution 
would continue to express that concern. They do not endorse the bill, 
however.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman, 
but this is an unusual division.
  Here I am supporting many of my friends on the other side of the 
aisle, but we have this unusual division here. What I am saying is that 
the concept of not using private takings for private use should not be 
allowed. We know that casinos benefit from these takings. We know that 
hotels and private developments benefit. And all I am saying, and I 
thought that everybody would mostly agree with this in the Congress, is 
that that is wrong. That is a misuse. That is an abuse.
  So let us be careful. Let us control this. Let us not overdo it, but 
let us support the measure of 4128, which tries to finally answer what 
happened to us in Detroit. Our experience was that we had thousands of 
residences, businesses, and churches that were taken to develop an 
automobile plant. That is not what my idea of an eminent domain should 
be about. That is all we are saying here. It is not that complicated.
  Now, I am not pitting somebody's intellectual abilities at the local 
level versus the national level or who is more dedicated. I am dealing 
with a Supreme Court case that has forced us into this action. This 
measure would not have been here if the Supreme Court had not given us 
one of the most shocking rulings that just came out this year. So I 
urge that not only my friend from North Carolina's amendment be 
rejected but that this bill be supported on final passage.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I 
make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North 
Carolina will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Nadler of New York.
  Amendment No. 5 by Mr. Moran of Virginia.
  Amendment No. 6 by Mr. Turner of Ohio.
  Amendment No. 11 by Mr. Watt of North Carolina.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Nadler

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Nadler) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 63, 
noes 355, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 564]

                                AYES--63

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capuano
     Case
     Cleaver
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Farr
     Fattah
     Hinchey
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Larson (CT)
     Levin
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meeks (NY)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Rangel
     Rothman
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Schakowsky
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Slaughter
     Solis
     Thompson (CA)
     Towns
     Watt
     Weiner
     Woolsey

                               NOES--355

     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Honda
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Obey
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence

[[Page 24795]]


     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buyer
     Davis (FL)
     Hastings (FL)
     Lewis (GA)
     McMorris
     Norwood
     Ortiz
     Pombo
     Roybal-Allard
     Schiff
     Sullivan
     Tiahrt

                              {time}  1723

  Messrs. GRIJALVA, AL GREEN of Texas, BONILLA, CARDOZA, SKELTON, WYNN, 
RYUN of Kansas, WAXMAN, BECERRA, Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California, and 
Ms. VELAZQUEZ changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania and Mr. ABERCROMBIE changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 564. I inadvertently 
voted ``aye.'' I would like the record to reflect that I meant to vote 
``no.''


            Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Moran of Virginia

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Davis of Kentucky). The pending business is 
the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) on which further proceedings were 
postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 49, 
noes 368, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 565]

                                AYES--49

     Baird
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Capuano
     Carson
     Case
     Cleaver
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Dingell
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Fattah
     Hinchey
     Holt
     Hooley
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (RI)
     Larson (CT)
     Levin
     Lowey
     Markey
     McGovern
     Miller (NC)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Olver
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Rothman
     Sabo
     Schakowsky
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (VA)
     Shays
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                               NOES--368

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Honda
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Osborne
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buyer
     Davis (FL)
     Feeney
     Hastings (FL)
     Lewis (GA)
     McMorris
     Norwood
     Ortiz
     Pombo
     Roybal-Allard
     Schiff
     Sullivan
     Tiahrt

                              {time}  1734

  Mr. BAIRD and Mr. ENGEL changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Turner

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Davis of Kentucky). The pending business is 
the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner) on which further proceedings were 
postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.

[[Page 24796]]

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 56, 
noes 357, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 566]

                                AYES--56

     Baker
     Beauprez
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Capuano
     Case
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Ehlers
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fortenberry
     Gerlach
     Granger
     Green, Gene
     Hobson
     Jackson (IL)
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moran (VA)
     Neal (MA)
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Pickering
     Pryce (OH)
     Regula
     Rothman
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schmidt
     Souder
     Sweeney
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Watson
     Weller
     Wicker
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--357

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Castle
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Osborne
     Otter
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Towns
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Bishop (UT)
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buyer
     Davis (FL)
     Dingell
     Green, Al
     Hastings (FL)
     Hunter
     Lewis (GA)
     McMorris
     Norwood
     Ortiz
     Pombo
     Roybal-Allard
     Schiff
     Sullivan
     Tiahrt

                              {time}  1742

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 566, I was 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


                  Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Watt

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Watt) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 44, 
noes 371, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 567]

                                AYES--44

     Ackerman
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Capuano
     Carson
     Case
     Clay
     Cleaver
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Dingell
     Emanuel
     Fattah
     Hinchey
     Jackson (IL)
     Kanjorski
     Larson (CT)
     Levin
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Markey
     Matsui
     McDermott
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Olver
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Rangel
     Rothman
     Sabo
     Schakowsky
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (VA)
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Visclosky
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wynn

                               NOES--371

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)

[[Page 24797]]


     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Osborne
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanders
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buyer
     Davis (FL)
     Harris
     Hastings (FL)
     Lewis (GA)
     McMorris
     Norwood
     Ortiz
     Pombo
     Roybal-Allard
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Sullivan
     Tiahrt

                              {time}  1750

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Davis of Kentucky). The question is on the 
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Terry) having assumed the chair, Mr. Davis of Kentucky, Acting Chairman 
of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
4128) to protect private property rights, pursuant to House Resolution 
527, he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted 
by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 376, 
nays 38, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 568]

                               YEAS--376

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Osborne
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--38

     Ackerman
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Brady (PA)
     Capuano
     Case
     Cleaver
     DeGette
     Dingell
     Emanuel
     Fattah
     Hinchey
     Jackson (IL)
     Larson (CT)
     Levin
     Lowey
     McDermott
     Meeks (NY)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Olver
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Rothman
     Sabo
     Schakowsky
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (VA)
     Stark
     Turner
     Visclosky
     Watt
     Waxman
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Bachus
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown-Waite, Ginny

[[Page 24798]]


     Buyer
     Davis (FL)
     Ehlers
     Hastings (FL)
     Lewis (GA)
     McMorris
     Norwood
     Ortiz
     Pombo
     Roybal-Allard
     Schiff
     Sullivan
     Tiahrt
     Wolf


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry) (during the vote). Members are 
advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1808

  Ms. WOOLSEY changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to make votes today on the House 
floor because of an untimely and unexpected need requiring me to be 
back home with my family in California. I take my responsibility to 
vote very seriously.
  Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on H.R. 4128, the 
Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005.

                          ____________________