[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 8]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 10023]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




      INTRODUCTION OF THE PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION ACT OF 2009

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. MAXINE WATERS

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, April 2, 2009

  Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to reintroduce the 
Private Property Protection Act of 2009. I am also pleased to be joined 
again by Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, the Chairman Emeritus of the 
Judiciary, and the lead Republican on this bipartisan bill. This bill 
is successor to H.R. 3053, from the 110th Congress and we are joined 
today by 24 original copsonsors.
  The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution provides in part that ``nor 
shall private property be taken for public use, without just 
compensation.''
  On June 23, 2005, a majority of the Supreme Court chose to close its 
eyes to the Constitution and our Nation's rich history of protecting 
private property rights. The Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in Kelo vs. 
City of New London, held that ``economic development'' can be a 
``public use'' under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause justifying 
the government's taking of private property. The Court held that the 
creation of a more lucrative tax base can justify the government's 
taking of private property from one small homeowner and giving it to a 
large corporation for a private research facility.
  The Kelo decision interpreted government taking for ``public use'' to 
mean no more than ``public purpose.'' Put simply, this decision meant 
that government would have an almost unlimited ability to seize private 
property--homes, churches, synagogues, and thriving businesses--and 
hand it over to private companies so long as they convince the local 
land authority that the project will yield economic benefit for a 
community that has been arbitrarily deemed ``distressed.'' Private 
companies and developers all over the country went into a frenzy to 
file project site plans when Kelo was decided. They knew that they 
would be able to make huge amounts of money so long as they produced 
public benefit--this was a ridiculous over-expansion of the Fifth 
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
  As the dissent in Kelo pointed out, ``To reason, as the Court does, 
that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent 
ordinary use of private property render economic development takings 
`for public use' is to wash out any distinction between private and 
public use of property--and thereby effectively to delete the words 
`for public use' from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.'' The 
dissent made clear that, as a result of the majority's decision, ``Any 
property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but 
the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries 
are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and 
power in the political process, including large corporations and 
development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license 
to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with 
more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result.''
  The bottom line is that local and Federal governments must take every 
landowner as a special case because the people who own the properties 
that are subject to economic redevelopment play just as big a role as 
the projected revenues that the local jurisdiction hopes to bring in 
with a new development. Just because you are poor does not mean that 
your right to private property is worth any less than that of a wealthy 
developer.
  The Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2009 will restore the 
property rights of all Americans that the Supreme Court changed with 
the Kelo decision. This legislation would prevent the Federal 
Government or any authority of the Federal Government from using 
economic development as a justification for exercising its power of 
eminent domain. This bill would also discourage States and localities 
from abusing their eminent domain power by denying States or localities 
that commit such abuse all Federal economic development funds for a 
period of two years. This bill is substantially similar to H.R. 4128, 
legislation that passed the House in the 109th Congress by an 
overwhelmingly vote of 376-38, nearly a 10-1 margin, but unfortunately, 
was never enacted.
  I am looking forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle to protect the private property rights of every American and 
hope they will join me in sponsoring the Private Property Rights 
Protection Act of 2009.

                          ____________________