Steve Chabot

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 61, which observes and celebrates the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and invites all Americans to join in this commemoration. Dr. King's pursuit of social change and making this country worthy of its heritage was evident in all of his work. He was a member of the Executive Committee of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the NAACP. He became the leader of the Montgomery Improvement Association which, of course, was the organization responsible for one of the most important nonviolent demonstrations of modern times in the United States, the 382-day bus boycott. In 1957, Dr. King was elected President of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. Between 1957 and 1968, Dr. King appeared wherever he saw injustice. The injustice he saw took him many miles, and the speeches that he made are still taught in schools. They were taught yesterday. They are taught all over the country. They are things which we really do need to listen to and learn from and still have many things to learn from the things that Dr. King said. Dr. King led a massive protest in Birmingham, Alabama, that drew the attention of the world, sparking what he called a ``coalition of conscience.'' Dr. King later directed a peaceful march here in Washington, DC, a march that a quarter of a million people attended, where he delivered his now famous ``I Have a Dream'' speech. At the age of 35, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was the youngest man to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. When notified of his selection, he announced that he would turn over all of the prize money to further the civil rights movement. On the evening of April 4, 1968, while standing on the balcony of his motel room in Memphis, Tennessee, where he was to lead a protest march in sympathy with striking sanitation workers in that city, he was gunned down. Dr. King's name is synonymous with the civil rights movement. His life was devoted to changing the conscience of this Nation. His experiences shaped his character, and through them, one of the greatest nonviolent leaders of our country has ever known was created. Today, we honor the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King for his service and strength and devotion to the principle that all Americans are entitled to equal treatment under the law in this great Nation. We are a greater Nation because Dr. King lived. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, we have heard a number of very moving tributes to Dr. Martin Luther King and I think it is important that we continue to remember what he said. I think what Mr. Faleomavaega quoted sums it up better than anything else, and that is that a person should be judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin. I think that is something we should always strive for in this Nation. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. We have no further speakers at this time. However, I would note in the spirit of bipartisan cooperation, the gentleman from Michigan indicated he may have more speakers than he has time for. I would be happy to yield time to accommodate him if it comes to that.

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he might consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3, the Stem Cell Research and Enhancement Act of 2007. We all support advancing science to fight disease, particularly those diseases that may have already affected our loved ones or might affect them sometime in the future. Like so many other areas within science and technology, discoveries in stem cell research are occurring every day. Just this week, news reports highlighted a significant breakthrough made by researchers from Wake Forest University in the use of amniotic stem cells to treat diseases and other conditions. This discovery, coupled with the advances made in the therapeutic use of cord blood, bone marrow, and other stem cells, demonstrates that effective and ethical research are not mutually exclusive. In fact, Congress came together last May to support ethical stem cell research. By an overwhelming majority, Congress passed the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005, which made cord blood units collected by cord blood banks available for stem cell transplantation or peer-reviewed research. Since its passage, cord blood banks from around the country have collected and stored approximately 150,000 new units of cord blood which will allow the pleuripotent stem cells within the cord blood to be used to treat one of a number of diseases and conditions such as heart disease, nerve damage, and certain cancers, as well as to be used for research. These important advances illustrate that science can and should be advanced in an ethically minded manner. On Tuesday, the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) reintroduced H.R. 322, the alternative Pleuripotent Stem Cell Therapeutic Enhancement Act. I urge my colleagues to support and invest taxpayer dollars in stem cell research that is comprehensive, ethical, and effective. The bill before us today falls short of these goals, and therefore I urge opposition.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, as the ranking member of the Small Business Committee, I rise in opposition to this legislation as it is being offered to us today because it does not offer our Nation's small businesses the help that they need to pay for what amounts to a tax increase. Small businesses are the backbone of our Nation's economy. Over the last decade, small businesses have annually created 60 to 80 percent of America's new jobs; 99 percent of all businesses in the U.S. have 500 employees or fewer, and that is what constitutes a small business by definition in this country, 99 percent. We are a Nation of small businesses. Yet, we are debating a bill today that fails to take into consideration the impact such legislation could have on the bottom line of those small businesses, the most prolific job creators in our economy. Mr. Speaker, the simple fact of the matter is that this bill increases costs for mom-and-pop businesses, the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, estimates it to be $5 to $7 billion, without providing them the opportunity to grow their business and thus create more jobs. This bill does nothing to help small businesses lower their health care costs through association health plans. It does nothing to eliminate the egregious death tax that forces the sale of so many family businesses and small farms around the country, and it does not provide incentives for small business owners to invest in and grow their businesses and thus create the jobs or the futures for the teenagers and many other people who are coming up in this country. Mr. Speaker, our Nation's small businesses deserve better, and this House should do better. So vote ``no'' on H.R. 2.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to recognize the achievements of three exceptional high school teams from my district in Cincinnati, the volleyball teams from Mt. Notre Dame and Mother of Mercy High Schools, and the cross-country team from my alma mater, LaSalle High School. On November 11, Mt. Notre Dame and Mother of Mercy battled for Ohio's Division I State volleyball championship. In the third and most important meeting of the season, Mt. Notre Dame emerged victorious. The victory marks Mt. Notre Dame's fifth State volleyball title. Mother of Mercy also gave a top-notch effort and finished an impressive second in the State. The GCL also saw one of its own bring home a State championship when the LaSalle Lancers' cross-country team sprinted to their second consecutive State title. It gives me great pride to acknowledge the achievement of these exceptional young men and women, and their coaches and parents and fans and teachers and administrators. It is important to point out that while these schools enjoy tremendous success in athletics, they also have a tradition of academic excellence, and they should be equally proud of that accomplishment. Congratulations again to Mt. Notre Dame and Mother of Mercy, and my alma mater, LaSalle.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and I thank Chris Smith for his leadership on many pro-life issues and this one specifically. I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I would like to quote Ronald Reagan, who stated, ``Medical science doctors confirm that when the lives of the unborn are snuffed out they often feel pain, pain that is long and agonizing.'' The topic of pain in the unborn, including whether or how early and to what extent an unborn baby feels that pain, ignites heated debate. Yet 77 percent of individuals who were surveyed not too long ago by Zogby indicated that they favored this type of legislation, that mothers ought to be aware of the pain that their unborn infants can suffer through one of these terrible procedures. And as chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, we held hearings on this. And I would state unequivocally that I believe that this legislation is constitutional, and I would urge my colleagues to support it. As Mr. King mentioned, we have laws about slaughtering cattle in this country. We are talking about unborn children. Let's protect them. Let's let the mothers know the pain that these unborn children could go through.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Reclaiming my time, I happen to know that he also represents people that are at lower income levels that maybe are having their houses taken away by somebody. As all lawyers do, they represent a whole range of cases. And the other gentleman from Washington talked about how awful this legislation the Republicans are trying to pass is. I would just note to the gentleman that there were 37 Democrats that voted for this legislation just the other day. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. CHABOT. It is your time.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. We have the same zoning laws that are in many other places around the country. There is an appeals process that we go through, and there is a three- step process under this particular legislation: You have to be denied. You have to then appeal. You have to go a third level. And if you lose at all of those, then the owner has the option to go to either State court or Federal court under this legislation, which seems perfectly reasonable.

Mr. CHABOT. I agree that this is not directly related to Kelo, although there is, I think in many people's minds, some connection, and I think rightfully so.

Mr. CHABOT. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just make two quick points. The gentleman from Oregon disparages the reputation of the gentleman who testified at the committee, Mr. Trauth, who was an attorney, on the types of cases that he takes. I would just note that I oftentimes agree with people who come and testify, disagree. They are lawyers. They represent various sides.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CHABOT. Of course there are. We have various zoning boards. We have various agencies. We have the same basic things in our community that most of the other communities have. And I was on the community commission. We have appeals of all kinds of nature at all times.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman is bringing up statewide office holders in Ohio for credibility purposes, I think the gentleman should probably review the political situation in Ohio and some of the stature that some of those folks hold right now. If you are making an argument to support your side of the case, there are a number of them that are let's say not at the height of popularity as we speak here today. But just to mention a couple of things that the gentleman touched upon, especially the environmental concerns, for example. There is nothing in this bill that would prohibit the protection of land for environmental, health and safety reasons. However, if the land is so regulated as to deny the owner any use of it, then, yes, the owner needs to be paid just compensation. The fifth amendment does not have an exemption for environmental laws or any other laws. In fact, the best approach would be to purchase the land, possibly through eminent domain, rather than trying to pull a fast one and harm the property owner or take that person's property without just compensation. The basic idea is that individual property owners should not bear all of the costs of protecting our communities. A few land owners should not have to sacrifice their own land and economic well being for the betterment of a town or a city; rather, the town should give them just compensation. That is what we are supposed to do in this society. If we are taking it from a particular individual, and they cannot use their land as they want to see fit, the rest of us, through the appropriate way, should give them just compensation. The fifth amendment should apply in all taking cases, and we should not be carving out exceptions when it comes to public health and safety, just like in the Kelo legislation we passed; we did not carve out exceptions for the private use of eminent domain because some property is not as desirable to the community at large. All property should be treated the same. And if there is public health or environmental needs to take the land, owners should be compensated for its taking. There are limits to what the government can do. And that limit is called the Bill of Rights. When the government takes private property, owners must be fairly compensated for their land.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to, first, thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for his leadership and his cosponsorship of this bill, also the 35 other cosponsors and the 234 Members of this body that voted for it. It passed just the other day by a margin of 60 votes. Now, it needed two- thirds, so that is the reason for our being here today. But there is really overwhelming support. I also want to thank the gentleman from Tennessee, Bart Gordon, for his leadership as well in support of this legislation. Just to address a couple of the points that were made before I get into the bulk of my speech here, the gentleman from Michigan mentioned that this elevates property owners above all other constitutional rights and individuals who are trying to establish their constitutional rights. It doesn't do that at all. It puts them on the same level as other people who have a constitutional right that they are trying to enforce. And they should under existing law already have their constitutional rights. This is a fifth amendment right in the Bill of Rights. A person cannot have their property taken without just compensation, without due process of law, and this is just putting them on the same level with all the other constitutional rights that we enjoy in this country. The gentleman from New York said that this is radical and dangerous. I would venture to say there aren't too many things that this side has tried to pass in the 12 years that I have served with the gentleman that the gentleman hasn't considered to be radical and dangerous, with some exceptions where we have been on the same side. But I think this is not radical nor is it dangerous.

Mr. CHABOT. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. CHABOT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, as I had indicated, there have been times when the gentleman has not said things we are doing are radical and dangerous, and I agree with that part of what we just talked about. But the gentleman talks about this being only for big developers and not the little guy, so to speak. I would just note that H.R. 4772, this particular legislation, levels the playing field for small and middle- class property owners and retirees. The expense of bringing a Federal takings claim through the labyrinth of procedures in place today is disproportionately borne by private citizens who cannot draw on the public treasury to defend their rights. This bill, more than any big developer, helps small developers and the middle class, whose finances are particularly strained by the costs of defending their fifth amendment property rights. This bill helps, for example, elderly retirees who may have all their savings tied up in their home that the government is trying to take away from them for whatever. When their home is unjustly taken by the government, the elderly should not have to spend 10 years paying for expensive lawyers to defend themselves in court. And that is what happens in communities all over this country right now. They should be allowed to go right to the Federal court and defend their federally protected property rights, and this bill would allow them to do just that. On February 16 of this year, when I authored this, along with the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), this Private Property Rights Implementation Act, and I want to thank the gentleman, as I already did, we introduced this legislation as a result of recent Supreme Court decisions last term, Kelo and San Remo. They, quite frankly, ignored the constitutional rights of property owners. The fifth amendment to the Constitution, as I stated before, states: 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.'' And that is exactly what we are talking about remedying by this bill. The House of Representatives acted to correct the Kelo decision by passing a bill, H.R. 4128, by a bipartisan vote of 376-38. Today, Congress has an opportunity to restore the rights taken away by the San Remo decision by passing this bill which will correct that decision. Now, here is the problem. Strange as it sounds, under current law, property owners are now blocked from raising a Federal fifth amendment takings claim in Federal court. And here is why: The Supreme Court's 1985 decision in Williamson County v. Hamilton Bank requires property owners to pursue to the end all available remedies for just compensation in State court before the property owners can file suit in Federal court under the fifth amendment. Then just last year, in the case of San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco, the Supreme Court held that once a property owner tries their case in State court, the property owner is prohibited from having their constitutional claim heard in Federal court, even though the property owner never wanted to be in State court with their Federal claim in the first place. The combination of these two rules means that those with Federal property rights claims are effectively shut out of the Federal court on their Federal takings claims, setting them unfairly apart from those asserting any other kind of Federal right, such as those asserting free speech or freedom of religion or other rights that could be established under the Constitution. The late Chief Justice Rehnquist commented directly on this unfairness, observing in his concurring opinion in San Remo that ``the Williamson County decision all but guarantees that claimants will be unable to utilize the Federal courts to enforce the fifth amendment's just compensation guarantee.'' The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has also stated that ``it is both ironic and unfair if the very procedure that the Supreme Court requires property owners to follow before bringing a fifth amendment takings claim, a State court takings action, also precluded them from ever bringing a fifth amendment takings claim in Federal court. H.R. 4772, the Private Property Rights Implementation Act, will correct the unfair legal bind that catches all property owners in what amounts to a catch-22. This bill, which is based on Congress's clear authority to define the jurisdiction of the Federal courts and the appellate jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court, would allow property owners raising Federal takings claims to have their cases decided in Federal court without first pursuing a wasteful and unnecessary litigation detour, and possibly a dead end, in State court. H.R. 4772 would also remove another artificial barrier blocking property owners' access to Federal court. The Supreme Court's Williamson County decision also requires that before a case can be brought for review in Federal court, property owners must first obtain a final decision from the State government on what is an acceptable use of their land. This has created an incentive for regulatory agencies to avoid making a final decision at all by stringing out the process and thereby forever denying a property owner access to the court. Studies of takings cases in the 1990s indicate that it took property owners nearly a decade of litigation, which most property owners, let us face it, especially a small property owner, can't afford, before takings claims were ready to be heard on the merits in any court, whether it is State or Federal. To prevent that unjust result, this bill would clarify when a final decision has been achieved and when the case is ready for Federal court review. Under this bill, if a land use application is reviewed by the relevant agency and rejected, a waiver is requested and denied, and an administrative appeal is also rejected, so they have gone through this long process, then a property owner can bring their Federal constitutional claim, and, again, this is a Federal constitutional claim, in a Federal court. The bill would not change the way agencies resolve disputes; rather, H.R. 4772 simply makes clear the steps the property owner must take to make their case ready for court review. This bill also clarifies the rights of property owners raising certain types of constitutional claims in other ways. First, it would clarify that conditions that are imposed upon a property owner before they can receive a development permit must be proportional to the impact a development might have on the surrounding community. Second, it would clarify that if property units are individually taxed under State law, then the adverse economic impact the regulation has on a piece of property should be measured by determining how much value the regulation has taken away from the individual lot affected, not the development as a whole. Third, the bill would clarify that due process violations involving property rights should be found when the government has been found to have acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner. This legislation also applies these same clarifications to cases in which the Federal Government is taking the private property. This legislation is endorsed by a number of organizations: the National Association of Homebuilders; the National Association of Realtors; the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; the National Federation of Independent Businesses, which is oftentimes small businesses, most of the time; the United States Farm Bureau; and the Property Rights Alliance. Again, this legislation passed. A majority of more than 60 votes for this legislation, as opposed to against it just a couple of days ago. Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for his leadership and also the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) for his leadership.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and commend him for his leadership in this area. I rise in strong support of this amendment. Despite widespread support for parental involvement laws and clear public policy considerations justifying them, substantial evidence exists that such laws are regularly evaded by individuals who transport minors to abortion providers in States that do not have parental notification and consent laws. Confused and frightened young girls are routinely assisted by adults in obtaining abortions and are encouraged to avoid parental involvement by crossing State lines. Often these girls are guided by those who do not share the love and affection that most parents have for their children. Personal accounts indicate that sexual predators recognize the advantage they have over their victims and use this influence to encourage abortions in order to eliminate critical evidence of their criminal conduct and in turn allowing the abuse to continue undetected. Although not an interstate abortion, in my district in Cincinnati there is an ongoing court case involving parental rights. A teenage girl, 13 at the time of the abortion, was given parental consent by a man posing as her stepbrother. This man, her abuser, was later convicted on seven charges of sexual battery. Most recently, a judge ordered Planned Parenthood to turn over medical records in determining whether there was a pattern and practice within the clinic of violating parental consent laws. Public policy is clear that parents should be involved in decisions that their daughters make regarding abortions. CIANA will assist in enforcing existing parental involvement laws that meet the relevant constitutional criteria and will provide for parental involvement when minors cross State lines to have abortions. I urge my colleagues to support CIANA. There is no question that parents are the ones that should be involved in this type of critical decision. It shouldn't be the abuser or the rapist. I thank the chairman for pushing this legislation.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I would just point out, before I get out to my main statement, I think to the contrary, rather than elevating private property rights above other constitutional rights, it basically puts them on the same level, the same playing field, right to free speech, right to religion. In the fifth amendment it says a person's property cannot be taken away without due process of law, and all we are doing is putting people's rights relative to property under the same constitutional rights as all the others, which they have not had up to this point. I introduced H.R. 4772, the Private Property Rights Implementation Act, earlier this year to help Americans defend their constitutionally protected rights. And I want to thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) for his leadership in this area and for being the principal Democratic cosponsor. We thank him very much for that. Most Americans are familiar with one recent decision involving all Americans' property rights, which Chairman Sensenbrenner referred to earlier, the case of Kelo v. The City of New London, in which the Supreme Court held that the Constitution allows government to take private property from one citizen and give it to businesses. The House of Representatives acted to correct that decision by passing H.R. 4128, under the leadership of Chairman Sensenbrenner, by a very wide margin, 376-38. However, the Supreme Court, during its last term, handed down another bad decision that fails to protect the private property rights of all Americans, and correcting that decision through this legislation we will be addressing today should have the same bipartisan support. Here is the problem: strange as it sounds, under current law property owners are now blocked from raising a Federal fifth amendment takings claim in Federal court. Here is why: The Supreme Court's 1985 decision in which Williamson County v. Hamilton Bank requires property owners to pursue to the end all available remedies for just compensation in State court before the property owner can file suit in Federal court under the fifth amendment. Then just last year, in the case of San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco, also referred to by Chairman Sensenbrenner, the Supreme Court held that once a property owner tries their case in State court, the property owner is prohibited from having their constitutional claim heard in Federal court even though the property owner never wanted to be in the State court with their Federal claim in the first place. The combination of these two rules means that those with Federal property rights claims are effectively shut out of Federal court on their Federal takings claims, setting them unfairly apart from those asserting any other Federal rights such as those asserting free speech or religious freedom rights, as I mentioned before. The late Chief Justice Rehnquist commented directly on this unfairness, observing in his concurring opinion in San Remo that ``the Williamson County decision all but guarantees that claimants will be unable to utilize the Federal courts to enforce the fifth amendment's just compensation guarantee.'' The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has also noted that ``it is both ironic and unfair if the very procedure that the Supreme Court required property owners to follow before bringing a fifth amendment takings claim, a State court takings action, also precluded them from ever bringing a fifth amendment takings claim'' in Federal court. H.R. 4772, the Private Property Rights Implementation Act, this act, which I introduced along with, again, Congressman Gordon, will correct the unfair legal bind that catches all property owners in what amounts to a catch-22. This bill, which is based on Congress's clear authority to define the jurisdiction of the Federal courts and the appellate jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court, would allow property owners raising Federal takings claims to have their cases decided in Federal court without first pursuing a wasteful and unnecessary litigation detour, and possible dead end, in State court. H.R. 4772 would also remove another artificial barrier blocking property owners' access to Federal court. The Supreme Court's Williamson County decision also requires that before a case can be brought for review in Federal court, property owners must first obtain a final decision from the State government on what is an acceptable use of their land. This has created an incentive for regulatory agencies to avoid making a final decision at all by stringing out the process and thereby forever denying a property owner access to court. Studies of takings cases in the 1990s indicate that it took property owners nearly a decade of litigation, which most property owners cannot afford, before takings claims were ready to be heard on the merits in any court. To prevent that unjust result, H.R. 4772 would clarify when a final decision has been achieved and when the case is ready for Federal court review. Under this bill if a land use application is reviewed by the relevant agency and rejected, a waiver is requested and denied, and an administrative appeal is also rejected, then a property owner can bring their Federal constitutional claim in a Federal court. The bill would not change the way agencies resolve disputes. Rather, H.R. 4772 simply makes clear the steps the property owner must take to make their case ready for court review. H.R. 4772 also clarifies the rights of property owners raising certain types of constitutional claims in the following ways: First, it would clarify that conditions that are imposed upon a property owner before they can receive a development permit must be proportional to the impact that development might have on the surrounding community. Second, it would clarify that if property units are individually taxed under State law, then the adverse economic impact of a regulation has on a piece of property should be measured by determining how much value the regulating is taking away from the individual lot affected, not the development as a whole. And, third, the bill would clarify that due process violations involving property rights should be found when the Government has been found to have acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner. This legislation also applies the same clarifications to cases in which the Federal Government is taking the private property. And I would just note that some of the groups that strongly support this legislation are the home builders, the Realtors, the Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of Independent Business and the U.S. Farm Bureau. I would urge my colleagues to join in supporting this bipartisan legislation. I want to again thank Mr. Gordon for his leadership.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. In response to some of the issues raised by the gentleman, my good friend from New York (Mr. Nadler), I would just note a couple of things. There is nothing in this bill that would prohibit municipalities from taking land to protect health and safety or any government from protecting the environment. However, if the land is so regulated as to deny the owner any use of it, then, yes, the owner needs to be paid just compensation. That is what this bill does. The fifth amendment does not have an exception for environmental laws, for example. In fact, the best approach would be to purchase the land through eminent domain, for example, rather than trying to pull a fast one and harm the property owner. The basic idea is that the individual property owners should not bear all of the costs of protecting our communities. A few landowners should not have to sacrifice their own land and economic well-being for the betterment of a town or a city. Rather, the town should give them their just compensation. To quote the California Supreme Court in Ehrlich, 1977, ``the United States Constitution, through the takings clause of the fifth amendment, protects us all from being arbitrarily singled out and subjected to bearing a disproportionate share of the costs.'' Communities can enact all of the necessary zoning and land use requirements to protect the public welfare, but they cannot exact or enact unconstitutional regulations. Environmental groups wrote in their opposition letter to H.R. 4772 that, ``developers could use this hammer'', and I think the gentleman mentioned this, ``developers could use this hammer to side-step land use negotiations and avoid compliance with local laws that protect neighboring property owners and the community at large.'' This is simply not true. Reasonable protections will not violate the Constitution. But what these groups are really saying is that environmental regulations should be immune from court review. The fifth amendment should apply in all takings cases, and we should not be carving out exceptions when it comes to public health and safety. Just like in the Kelo legislation we passed, we did not carve out exceptions for the private use of eminent domain because some property is not as desirable to the community at large. All property should be treated the same; and if there is a public health or environmental need to take the land, owners should be compensated for its taking. The point is that there are limits to what the government can do, even for public health and safety, and that limit is called the Bill of Rights. This is what we are doing. We are essentially giving private property owners the same rights as other people would have in court if they brought a first amendment claim for free speech or freedom of religion or on whatever else. They are all on the same par and people should be treated fairly.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Under the gentleman's amendment, which would utilize election data from 1996 and 2000 and 2004 Presidential election data, as the chairman mentioned, the only State that would be fully covered under the preclearance and Federal observer provisions of the Voting Rights Act would be the State of Hawaii. Not only does this undermine the policy of protecting minority voters who have been historically discriminated against, the central crux behind the Voting Rights Act, but it threatens the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act and the progress made by minority voters over the last 40 years. And that is one of the principal things that the Subcommittee on the Constitution looked at and why we took so much testimony on this issue because we want to make sure that this stands up if there is a challenge in the Supreme Court, and there probably will be. Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act sets forth a formula under which certain jurisdictions are subjected to voting rule preclearance and Federal observer requirements. While the formula utilizes neutral registration and turnout data from the 1964, 1968 and 1972 elections, coverage is really about the documented history of discriminatory practices which is reflected in the first prong of the coverage formula that brings jurisdictions that maintain prerequisites for voting or registration under the scrutiny of the Federal Government. Examples of such discriminatory practices include that minorities, one, demonstrate the ability to read, write, understand or interpret any matter; two, demonstrate any education achievement or knowledge of any particular subject; three, possess good moral character; or, four, prove qualifications by the voucher of registered voters of members of any other class. I can tell you firsthand that the testimony gathered during the 12 hearings, which is reflected in more than 12,000 pages of record, demonstrates a continued need for the preclearance and Federal observer provisions. The Norwood amendment, without any historical basis, would revise the coverage formula which has been upheld by the Supreme Court as recently as 1999 in Lopez v. Monterey County. In one amendment, the underlying policy of the Voting Rights Act would be put at risk; and the constitutionality of the remaining provisions of the Voting Rights Act would be threatened, jeopardizing the protections for minority voters and thereby possibly jeopardizing the advances in voting rights that the Voting Rights Act has facilitated to date. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his kind words. I appreciate that. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to talk about the importance of passing this rule today to consider H.R. 9, the renewal of the Voting Rights Act. I have the honor of serving as the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution; and since October of 2005, our subcommittee has held 12 hearings, heard from 47 witnesses, and compiled over 12,000 pages on the Voting Rights Act. Obviously this is an important issue, and our committee has devoted more time to this legislation than on any other matter since I became the chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee 6 years ago. The right to vote is one of the most fundamental and essential rights we have as citizens. And the passage and renewal of the Voting Rights Act, in my opinion, is absolutely vital. H.R. 9 is a good bill, and I commend Chairman Sensenbrenner and the other members of the full Judiciary Committee, and especially the members of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, for their work on the drafting of this legislation. I am also confident that the bill will withstand constitutional scrutiny. The Supreme Court always looks very closely at the record created by Congress when reviewing Voting Rights Act claims. Because of this analysis, we took the time to carefully review and draft the bill. In addition to reviewing the temporary provisions of the Voting Rights Act for another 25 years, it will also address two detrimental Supreme Court cases that are inconsistent with the congressional intent and purpose of the Voting Rights Act: the Bossier Parish and Georgia v. Ashcroft cases. The bill will prevent discriminatory voting laws from being passed and will ensure that minority voters continue to elect the preferred candidate of their choice. The bill will extend the Federal observer program but retire the outdated Federal examiner program. I also wanted to talk about the bipartisanship of H.R. 9. I have been a member of the Judiciary Committee for 12 years now, and I will be honest, there is not a lot that is agreed upon in that committee by Republicans and Democrats, by conservatives and liberals. That is just the nature of most of the issues we take up in that committee. But we do agree on the importance of voting rights, and because of that commitment, H.R. 9 passed the committee by a vote of 33-1. Thirty-three to one. I look forward to hearing from my fellow supporters of this legislation and would personally like to thank Mr. Nadler for his dedication and his commitment and sitting through the extensive hearings that we had to create this particular bill. And I want to also thank Chairman Sensenbrenner, Mr. Watt, and Mr. Conyers and urge my colleagues to vote for passage of this rule and ultimately passage of the bill.