[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3269-3273]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT OF 2013

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 1944) to protect private property rights.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 1944

       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 2013''.

     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 used for 
     economic development within 7 years after that exercise, if 
     that State or political subdivision receives Federal economic 
     development funds during any fiscal year in which the 
     property is so used or intended to be used.
       (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. In addition, the State 
     or political subdivision must pay any applicable penalties 
     and interest to reattain eligibility.

     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 (1) owner of private property 
     whose property is subject to eminent domain who suffers 
     injury as a result of a violation of any provision of this 
     Act with respect to that property, or (2) any tenant of 
     property that is subject to eminent domain who suffers injury 
     as a result of a violation of any provision of this Act with 
     respect to that property, may bring an action to enforce any 
     provision of this Act in the appropriate Federal or State 
     court. A State shall not be immune under the 11th Amendment 
     to the Constitution of the United States from any such action 
     in a Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction. In 
     such action, the defendant has the burden to show by clear 
     and convincing evidence that the taking is not for economic 
     development. Any such property owner or tenant may also seek 
     an appropriate relief through a preliminary injunction or a 
     temporary restraining order.
       (b) Limitation on Bringing Action.--An action brought by a 
     property owner or tenant under this Act may be brought if the 
     property is used for economic development following the 
     conclusion of any condemnation proceedings condemning the 
     property of such property owner or tenant, but shall not be 
     brought later than seven years following the conclusion of 
     any such proceedings.
       (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. REPORTING OF VIOLATIONS TO ATTORNEY GENERAL.

       (a) Submission of Report to Attorney General.--Any (1) 
     owner of private property whose property is subject to 
     eminent domain who suffers injury as a result of a violation 
     of any provision of this Act with respect to that property, 
     or (2) any tenant of property that is subject to eminent 
     domain who suffers injury as a result of a violation of any 
     provision of this Act with respect to that property, may 
     report a violation by the Federal Government, any authority 
     of the Federal Government, State, or political subdivision of 
     a State to the Attorney General.
       (b) Investigation by Attorney General.--Upon receiving a 
     report of an alleged violation, the Attorney General shall 
     conduct an investigation to determine whether a violation 
     exists.
       (c) Notification of Violation.--If the Attorney General 
     concludes that a violation does exist, then the Attorney 
     General shall notify the Federal Government, authority of the 
     Federal Government, State, or political subdivision of a 
     State that the Attorney General has determined that it is in 
     violation of the Act. The notification shall further provide 
     that the Federal Government, State, or political subdivision 
     of a State has 90 days from the date of the notification to 
     demonstrate to the Attorney General either that (1) it is not 
     in violation of the Act or (2) that it has cured its 
     violation by returning all real property the taking of which 
     the Attorney General finds to have constituted a violation of 
     the Act and replacing any other property destroyed and 
     repairing any other property damaged as a result of such 
     violation.
       (d) Attorney General's Bringing of Action To Enforce Act.--
     If, at the end of the 90-day period described in subsection 
     (c), the Attorney General determines that the Federal 
     Government, authority of the Federal Government, State, or 
     political subdivision of a State is still violating the Act 
     or has not cured its violation as described in subsection 
     (c), then the Attorney General will bring an action to 
     enforce the Act unless the property owner or tenant who 
     reported the violation has already brought an action to 
     enforce the Act. In such a case, the Attorney General shall 
     intervene if it determines that intervention is necessary in 
     order to enforce the Act. The Attorney General may file its 
     lawsuit to enforce the Act in the appropriate Federal or 
     State court. A State shall not be immune under the 11th 
     Amendment to the Constitution of the United States from any 
     such action in a Federal or State court of competent 
     jurisdiction. In such action, the defendant has the burden to 
     show by clear and convincing evidence that the taking is not 
     for economic development. The Attorney General may seek any 
     appropriate relief through a preliminary injunction or a 
     temporary restraining order.
       (e) Limitation on Bringing Action.--An action brought by 
     the Attorney General under this Act may be brought if the 
     property is used for economic development following the 
     conclusion of any condemnation proceedings condemning the 
     property of an owner or tenant who reports a violation of the 
     Act to the Attorney General, but shall not be brought later 
     than seven years following the conclusion of any such 
     proceedings.
       (f) Attorneys' Fee and Other Costs.--In any action or 
     proceeding under this Act brought by the Attorney General, 
     the court shall, if the Attorney General is a prevailing 
     plaintiff, award the Attorney General a reasonable attorneys' 
     fee as part of the costs, and include expert fees as part of 
     the attorneys' fee.

     SEC. 6. 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 and tenants 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 and Tenants.--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 
     and tenants under this Act.

     SEC. 7. REPORTS.

       (a) By Attorney General.--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 violations reported by property owners and 
     tenants under section 5(c) of this Act;
       (3) identify the percentage of minority residents compared 
     to the surrounding nonminority residents and the median 
     incomes of those impacted by a violation of this Act;

[[Page 3270]]

       (4) identify all lawsuits brought by the Attorney General 
     under section 5(d) of this Act;
       (5) 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; and
       (6) discuss all instances in which a State or political 
     subdivision has cured a violation as described in section 
     2(c) of this Act.
       (b) Duty of States.--Each State and local authority that is 
     subject to a private right of action under this Act shall 
     have the duty to report to the Attorney General such 
     information with respect to such State and local authorities 
     as the Attorney General needs to make the report required 
     under subsection (a).

     SEC. 8. 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. 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. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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 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.

     SEC. 11. 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.

     SEC. 12. 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.

     SEC. 13. DISPROPORTIONATE IMPACT.

       If the court determines that a violation of this Act has 
     occurred, and that the violation has a disproportionately 
     high impact on the poor or minorities, the Attorney General 
     shall use reasonable efforts to locate former owners and 
     tenants and inform them of the violation and any remedies 
     they may have.

     SEC. 14. 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--
       (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; and
       (iv) for use as an aqueduct, flood control facility, 
     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;
       (F) taking private property for use by a utility providing 
     electric, natural gas, telecommunication, water, wastewater, 
     or other utility services either directly to the public or 
     indirectly through provision of such services at the 
     wholesale level for resale to the public; and
       (G) redeveloping of a brownfield site as defined in the 
     Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields 
     Revitalization Act (42 U.S.C. 9601(39)).
       (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. 15. 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.).

     SEC. 16. 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.

     SEC. 17. SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.

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

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.

[[Page 3271]]




                             General Leave

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1944, currently under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  In 1997, Susette Kelo was trying to rebuild her life when she 
purchased a small, Victorian house perched on the waterfront in the 
Fort Trumbull neighborhood of New London, Connecticut. It was Susette's 
dream to own a home that looked out over the water. The little pink 
house she purchased was in need of repair, but with lots of hard work, 
she was able to restore it and start a new life for herself on the 
banks of the Thames River. Susette was finally living her dream.
  Tragically, however, the city of New London turned that dream into a 
nightmare.
  In 1998, pharmaceutical giant Pfizer announced its intent to build a 
plant in Fort Trumbull, and the city of New London began planning a 
massive redevelopment of the area surrounding the Pfizer plant. The 
city handed its power of eminent domain to a private corporation to 
take the entire neighborhood for economic development purposes.
  Susette and several of her neighbors, some of whose families had 
lived in their homes for generations, challenged the city's use of 
eminent domain all of the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in a desperate 
attempt to save their homes and their mostly blue collar neighborhood.
  However, the Supreme Court, in one of the most controversial rulings 
in its history, held that private economic development constitutes a 
``public use'' under the Fifth Amendment to the United States 
Constitution. Under the Court's reasoning, the government can now use 
the eminent domain power to take the property of any individual for 
nearly any reason. As the dissenting justices observed, by defining 
public use so expansively, the result of the decision is:

       Effectively to delete the words ``for public use'' from the 
     takings clause of the Fifth Amendment. 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. The 
     government now has license to transfer property from those 
     with few resources to those with more. The Founders cannot 
     have intended this perverse result.

  The Court's 5-4 decision against Susette and her neighbors sparked a 
nationwide backlash against eminent domain abuse. Susette's fight 
helped remind Americans that private ownership of property is vital to 
our freedom and our prosperity, and is one of the most fundamental 
principles embedded in the Constitution. Poll after poll that came out 
in the wake of the Court's ruling consistently showed that Americans 
from across every demographic cross-section overwhelmingly opposed the 
decision and supported efforts to strengthen property rights 
protections.
  Although Susette's story is probably the most infamous case of 
eminent domain abuse, it is by no means an isolated case. Every day 
across this country, Americans are forced to sit back and watch 
powerlessly as their homes, small businesses, family farms, and 
churches are bulldozed to make way for high-end condos, shopping malls, 
and other upscale developments.
  Oftentimes, after Americans go through the trauma of losing their 
private property to eminent domain abuse, the planned private economic 
development doesn't even occur. In New London, for instance, the Fort 
Trumbull redevelopment project never got off the ground. After spending 
close to $80 million in taxpayer money, there has been no new 
construction, and the neighborhood where Susette Kelo's little pink 
house was located is now a barren field, overrun by weeds.
  It is time for Congress finally to step in and do its part to rein in 
eminent domain abuse by passing the Private Property Rights Protection 
Act. I want to thank Mr. Sensenbrenner for reintroducing this 
legislation. He and I have worked together on this issue for many 
years, and I am pleased that this legislation incorporates many 
provisions from legislation I helped introduce in the 109th Congress, 
the STOPP Act.
  Specifically, the Private Property Rights Protection Act prohibits 
State and local governments that receive Federal economic development 
funds from using economic development as a justification for taking 
property from one person and giving it to another private entity. Any 
State or local government that violates this prohibition will be 
ineligible to receive Federal economic development funds for a period 
of 2 years.
  Moreover, this legislation grants adversely affected landowners the 
right to use appropriate legal remedies to enforce the provisions of 
the bill. In addition, it allows State and local governments to cure 
violations by giving the property back to the original owner. No one 
should have to live in fear of the government snatching up their home, 
farm, church, or small business. As the Institute for Justice has 
observed:

       Using eminent domain so another richer, better-connected 
     person may live or work on the land you used to own tells 
     Americans that their hopes, dreams, and hard work do not 
     matter as much as money and political influence. The use of 
     eminent domain for private development has no place in a 
     country built on traditions of independence, hard work, and 
     protection of property rights.

  This bill creates incentives for State and local governments to help 
ensure that eminent domain abuse does not occur in the future. I urge 
my colleagues to support this legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 
1944, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. 
City of New London, I have been concerned that States and 
municipalities could use this decision to expand their power of eminent 
domain, whether for the benefit of private parties or for public 
projects, to the detriment of those who are least powerful in the 
community.
  While I believe the power of eminent domain has been abused, 
particularly against those lacking economic or political power, in the 
9 years since the Kelo decision, States have properly addressed the 
issue on their own, and we should respect their judgment rather than 
impose this awkward, one-size-fits-all Federal legislative response.
  I have reached this conclusion for several reasons. The first and 
foremost is that it is important to note that in Kelo, the Supreme 
Court acknowledged that State courts may interpret their own eminent 
domain powers in a manner that is actually more protective of property 
rights. I am, therefore, encouraged that no fewer than 43 States have 
followed that advice and taken steps to restrict their own powers of 
eminent domain to guard against abuse.

                              {time}  1645

  Given the fact that our system of federalism appears to be working 
and that the States have already enacted legal protections that are 
needed to prevent abuse of eminent domain power, I do not believe that 
Federal intervention is necessary or appropriate at this time.
  Second, the bill's enforcement provisions are very troubling. A 
jurisdiction found in violation of this legislation would be stripped 
of all Federal economic development funds for 2 years, which could have 
a devastating impact on its financial health.
  The Supreme Court has long held that, ``when Congress attaches 
conditions to a State's acceptance of Federal funds, the conditions 
must be set out `unambiguously.''' But the term ``Federal economic 
development funds'' is, in fact, ambiguous and could conceivably 
include transportation, housing, and all kinds of significant Federal 
funding.
  Those who could bear the heaviest burden of cuts and programs like 
the Community Development Block Grants could be precisely the same 
communities that have suffered the most

[[Page 3272]]

under the abuse of eminent domain power in the past, that is, the 
powerless in our communities.
  Furthermore, the impact of this legislation could be severe, even if 
a city or State never exercised the power of eminent domain. That is 
because no lender could ignore the risk of a future administration 
violating this legislation by using them in a domain for a prohibited 
purpose and, consequently, facing the devastating penalties during the 
life of the bond, thereby affecting the city's ability to make the 
payments on the bond.
  This bill gives no discretion and no flexibility with respect to the 
penalty. It fails to take into account the severity or magnitude of the 
violation, so even a small violation would have to result in a complete 
loss of all economic development funds for 2 years.
  No matter how clean a city's record may be, the danger that some 
future violation would have such a devastating effect could negatively 
impact its bond rating.
  Finally, against this backdrop, we need to remember that eminent 
domain has a long and shameful history of disproportionately impacting 
foreign minority communities.
  Inner-city neighborhoods that lacked institutional and political 
power were often designated as blighted areas slated for redevelopment 
through urban renewal programs. Properties were condemned, and land was 
turned over to private developers.
  That abuse was not confined to the use of eminent domain for economic 
development purposes. Many of those abuses would still be allowed under 
this bill. You can trace the cost of any major highway in America to 
see where poor and minority communities were located. You can map 
political power, where it is and where it isn't, by the proposed route 
of the Keystone pipeline today.
  This bill does nothing to protect property owners like the witness 
who testified before the House Judiciary Committee about how her 
property was taken to benefit the foreign corporation building that 
pipeline.
  The bill does not even give property owners the right to sue to stop 
an illegal taking in the first place. Suits can only be brought after 
the property is taken, after it is too late. Despite the draconian 
penalties in the bill, the actual property owner would get nothing.
  This underscores why it is important that we continue to monitor the 
facts on the ground to determine whether Federal action is warranted. 
If so, what effective action should be taken?
  If the States fail to protect our citizens, Congress should remain 
ready, willing, and able to do so. However, as the States have already 
acted to curb reviews, we in Congress should allow them to maintain 
their authority to act.
  Even if you believe the bill achieves the correct balance between 
State authority and Federal intervention and prohibits the 
inappropriate use of eminent domain, the irrational penalties it 
imposes and the fact that individual property owners are not even 
protected still require that the bill be defeated.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the legislation and reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 
such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Crime, Terrorism, Homeland 
Security, and Investigations Subcommittee, and the chief sponsor of 
this legislation.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House of 
Representatives today is considering H.R. 1944, the Private Property 
Rights Protection Act, as part of Stop Government Abuse Week. My bill 
aims to restore the property rights of all Americans the Supreme Court 
took away 9 years ago.
  The Founders of our country recognized the importance of an 
individual's right to personal property when they drafted the 
Constitution. The Fifth Amendment states, ``nor shall private property 
be taken for public use, without just compensation.''
  In Kelo v. the City of New London, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme 
Court decided that economic development can be a public use under the 
Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. The Court held that the government 
could take private property from an owner to help a corporation or a 
private developer.
  The now infamous Kelo decision was met with swift and strong 
opposition. As former Justice O'Connor stated, ``Government now has 
license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those 
with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result.''
  In the nearly 9 years since Kelo, polls show that Americans 
overwhelmingly oppose property being taken and transferred to another 
private owner, even if it is for a public economic good.
  Groups including the AARP and NAACP oppose Kelo, noting that, ``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 stated that, ``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.''
  Should the government be able to close churches if it prefers malls?
  The Private Property Rights Protection Act is needed to restore to 
all Americans the property rights the Supreme Court took away. Although 
several States have independently passed legislation to limit their 
power of eminent domain, the supreme courts of Illinois, Michigan, and 
Ohio have barred the practice under State constitutions. These laws 
exist on a varying degree.
  H.R. 1944 would prohibit State and local governments that receive 
Federal economic development funds from using economic development as a 
justification for taking property from one person and giving it to 
another private entity.
  Any State or local government that violates this prohibition will be 
ineligible to receive Federal economic development funds for 2 years.
  The protection of property rights is one of the most important tenets 
of our government.
  I am 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 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.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in protecting property rights for all 
Americans and limiting the dangerous effects of the Kelo decision on 
the most vulnerable in society.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for 
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I have in my hand bits of the few remaining bricks from the 
foundation of Susette Kelo's home in New London, Connecticut. They were 
picked up at the site just over a year ago.
  They once supported the lovingly arranged sanctuary of a woman who 
raised five sons and put herself through nursing school by working as 
an emergency medical technician. They gave her a place to rest after a 
long day's work surrounded by the things that meant the most to her. 
They were the foundations of her castle until the government's 
bulldozers arrived.
  Mr. Speaker, Ms. Kelo's home, known as the ``little pink house,'' was 
reduced to rubble--this rubble--by the government's abuse of eminent 
domain and has remained just that--rubble.
  These bits of bricks serve as a stark reminder of the government's 
inability to plan people's lives better than they can plan them 
themselves. They are the dramatic result of a type of government abuse 
that should never be rewarded with Federal taxpayer dollars. The homes 
that hardworking Americans have earned should be protected

[[Page 3273]]

from government abuse, and we here in the people's House have a duty to 
do just that.
  I had the opportunity to meet Susette Kelo. To me, she is a genuine 
American hero, fighting all the way to the United States Supreme Court 
to protect her little pink house and to protect all of our Fifth 
Amendment rights under the United States Constitution.
  To me, the failure of the Court to correctly rule on that eminent 
domain case cries out for the Congress to correctly rule on this abuse 
by passing Mr. Sensenbrenner's bill, by passing the Private Property 
Rights Protection Act.
  As has been noted, 43 States have acted to protect eminent domain 
rights. Isn't it time for the United States Congress to do the same?
  I urge my colleagues to support the Private Property Rights 
Protection Act, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1944, the 
Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2013.
  This legislation addresses the eminent domain practice of seizing 
private property for the ``public benefit'' of economic development, 
which was deemed constitutional by the United States Supreme Court in 
its decision in Kelo v. City of New London. This bill prohibits a state 
or local government from seizing private property for economic 
development if that state or local government receives federal economic 
development funds, and prohibits the federal government from exercising 
eminent domain powers for economic development purposes.
  While it has not received much attention or debate in the full House 
of Representatives, my colleagues on the Committee on Financial 
Services and I have become increasingly concerned about a new proposed 
use of eminent domain which would be incredibly destructive to our 
housing markets and to Main Street investors alike.
  Dozens of communities across the country are considering a vulture 
fund-developed investment scheme by which the municipality's eminent 
domain power is used to acquire underwater--but otherwise performing--
mortgage loans held by private-label mortgage-backed securities and 
then refinance those loans through programs administered by the Federal 
Housing Administration (FHA).
  Our housing finance system depends on private capital to take risk, 
make loans, purchase mortgage-backed securities, and help millions of 
Americans fulfill the dream of homeownership. What this eminent domain 
scheme considers would be incredibly destructive to the finance of 
homeownership and would do little more than help a few homeowners who 
can already afford their mortgage and line the pockets of the investors 
who developed this proposal. Who would invest in a mortgage knowing 
that their investment could be stolen just a few months or years later? 
Ironically, this new risk to the housing finance system would freeze 
the return of private capital to our markets at a time when many in 
Congress are looking for ways to increase the role of the private 
sector and decrease the federal government's footprint.
  Using eminent domain in this manner will hurt Main Street investors 
the most. Those investors and pensioners may be invested in mortgages 
sitting in communities considering this plan--like Richmond, 
California--and not even know it. They are the ones who will suffer the 
most from this particular form of eminent domain.
  Mr. Sensenbrenner's legislation shines a spotlight on the abusive 
uses of eminent domain, including this investment scheme, and I am 
proud to support the bill. I believe this legislation may have the 
effect of defeating such a scheme. In addition, I support Chairman 
Hensarling's efforts to directly target and defeat this use of eminent 
domain, and I look forward to future opportunities to ensure the 
protection of private property and the security of our housing finance 
system.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1944, the 
Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2013. Unfortunately, I was 
delayed in returning to Washington and, regrettably, but want to take 
this opportunity to note its importance.
  When we hear the words ``eminent domain,'' we often visualize the 
government taking a home, an office building, or a piece of land, often 
for a highway or some other public infrastructure. But my colleague Mr. 
Sensenbrenner articulated well in his remarks that the powers of 
eminent domain are sometimes used for very different purposes.
  One abuse of eminent domain that I have long been publicly against is 
the use of eminent domain to seize mortgage notes from investors, using 
the courts to unilaterally restructure the terms of those loans before 
selling them to other investors. In this scheme, some private investors 
have their investments seized and incur losses while other private 
investors benefit. Many of the investors who will incur losses are the 
savers and retirees who own them through their 401(k), IRA, or pension 
accounts. But ultimately, this is a blatant abrogation of private 
property rights and undermines longstanding contract law. As a 
response, I have introduced H.R. 2733, which prohibits Fannie Mae, 
Freddie Mac, and the Federal Housing Administration from making, 
purchasing, or guaranteeing loans in areas where eminent domain is 
being used to seize mortgage notes. This legislation is also included 
in the Protecting American Taxpayers and Homeowners (PATH) Act.
  I believe that property rights, whether real property or the 
financial instruments that finance them, should be protected. Doing so 
will give certainty to the housing finance system, which is necessary 
to transition from a system dominated by government-guaranteed 
mortgages to one based on private capital.
  The Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2013 is not the only 
legislation to address the issue of abusive eminent domain practices. 
Section 407 of the Consolidated Appropriation Act of 2014, Pub. L. No. 
113-76, prohibits the expenditure of federal funds to support 
activities that utilize eminent domain powers, unless it's exclusively 
for a public purpose. The schemes being considered call for the Federal 
Housing Administration (FHA) to guarantee the seized and restructured 
mortgage loans. Given that some private investors and their paid 
intermediaries stand to benefit, it is apparent that FHA is unable to 
participate in these restructuring programs, so long as eminent domain 
powers are used. With this provision signed into law just last month, 
Congress and the President have already begun to define the limits of 
acceptable usage of eminent domain.
  I thank Mr. Sensenbrenner for his important work on this issue.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, in 2005 I supported a similar version of this 
bill that was truly bipartisan and aimed at reversing a Supreme Court 
decision, Kelo v. City of New London. In that decision, 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. The House passed that bill (H.R. 4128) by a vote 
of 376-38, but the Senate never took up H.R. 4128.
  Unfortunately, the version before us today goes much farther than the 
more narrowly tailored 2005 bill. H.R. 1944 would bar any form of 
eminent domain related to generating economic activity. Such a sweeping 
approach is contrary to the Constitution and to our history.
  The rights of property owners were so important to our nation's 
founders that they enshrined property rights in our Constitution. 
However, the Founders 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 properly, is a critical power of government that has 
benefited people in New Jersey and across America. This bill would 
eviscerate this power, and for that reason I cannot support this bill 
in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1944.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

                          ____________________