[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 9]
[House]
[Page 12338]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  PROPERTY RIGHTS IN AMERICA (ON THE ANNIVERSARY OF THE KELO DECISION)

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the first anniversary 
of Kelo v. New London, the Supreme Court's misguided interpretation of 
the fifth amendment's restrictions on the taking of private property 
rights.
  Both the Old Testament and Greek literature contain references to the 
government's ability to take private lands. However, in modern times, 
the exercise of eminent domain has been very limited and only used in 
public projects such as roads or the provision of electricity and 
telephone services.
  Yet, nearly a year ago this week, the Supreme Court struck a 
devastating blow to this Nation's homeowners and small businesses when 
it ruled that government may seize private property and transfer it to 
another private owner under the guise of promoting community 
improvement for so-called economic development. As Justice Sandra Day 
O'Connor said, ``The specter of condemnation now hangs over all 
property.''
  The Kelo ruling inspired citizens and legislators in more than 30 
States, including Florida, to enact laws to limit the scope of eminent 
domain. Their outrage was echoed in the words and actions of many of us 
here in Congress, and last November the House of Representatives 
overwhelmingly passed H.R. 4128, the Private Property Rights Protection 
Act of 2005.
  Yet, as quickly as our voices were raised in defense of our 
fundamental rights, they now seem to have fallen silent. H.R. 4128 
lingers in legislative limbo.
  In Riviera Beach, Florida, a poor, predominantly African American 
coastal community, city officials plan to use eminent domain to seize 
400 acres of land to build a $1 billion waterfront yachting and housing 
complex, displacing about 6,000 local residents. Surely this is not 
what the Founding Fathers meant by public use.
  Are we to tell the American people that private property is no longer 
guaranteed under the Constitution?
  Mr. Speaker, the battle of individual rights and liberties cannot be 
a part-time engagement. The expropriation of private property for 
private transfer in the name of economic development is not an act that 
speaks to the tradition of Robin Hood; it is one that betrays our 
fundamental constitutional rights.
  As James Madison eloquently wrote in the Federalist Papers, private 
property rights lie at the foundation of our Constitution. ``Government 
is instituted no less for the protection of property than of the 
persons of individuals.''
  The Kelo case illustrates only one front in a broader battle to 
preserve the individual rights granted to all citizens under the 
Constitution. We must apply equal vigilance to protecting intellectual 
property rights. Safeguarding property such as artistic, musical, and 
literary works, as well as the commercial branding tools, promotes 
entrepreneurship and creativity, and incentivizes honest innovation. 
Moreover, protection for intellectual property plays an ever 
increasingly prominent role in today's global economy, promoting trade 
and influencing foreign direct investment. American explorers rely on 
intellectual property protection.
  Mr. Speaker, property rights are basic principles of individual 
freedom, whether it is real property or intellectual property of which 
we speak. Today, I rise to marshal my colleagues in defense of this 
fundamental right of property ownership for every individual in every 
district that we are honored to represent from homeowners to 
entrepreneurs.

                          ____________________