F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. If unintended transportation consequences are discovered, I would be happy to work with the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) to fix them in conference.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, very briefly, this bill attempts to do what the Federal Government can to reverse the impact of the Kelo decision, and the heart of this bill is to deny Federal economic development funds for 2 years to any States or locality that attempts to use its condemnation powers to take private land for essentially a nonpublic use purpose and to turn around and resell it to another private developer who will bring in more tax revenue. We have heard time and time and time again on this floor during the last hour that this is wrong. But the Supreme Court has said that it is not wrong if a developer can convince a majority of one on a city council or local governing board to authorize the local attorney to go and commence condemnation actions. That is true if somebody has lived in a house for all their life and the city council puts them in the cross hairs; it is true for a church that has got a prime piece of property on the corner of a busy intersection that a developer wants to build a strip mall on; and it is true for someone who has run a small business in a prime area of town and has made a lot of money but does not pay a lot of property taxes because they have a small shop, and they can be put out of business even for a competition that wants to have a larger and, thus, more tax-yielding facility on that piece of property. Everything I have said is wrong, and everything I have said can be done with the use of Federal economic development funds under the Kelo decision. What we need to do now is pass this bill to right this wrong. And I would just remind the membership, Mr. Chairman, that the author of the majority opinion in Kelo, Justice John Paul Stevens, recently spoke to a local bar association in Nevada and said that if he was a legislator rather than a justice of the United States Supreme Court, he would have ruled the other way. So if Justice Stevens were sitting here as a representative in Congress today, he would be supporting this bill, too, and I think that is the reason why this bill should receive overwhelming support. We all should vote for it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).

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

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. The amendment would simply make an exception for the taking of property that is categorized as a brownfield under Federal law, meaning it is a site that contains or is perceived to contain hazardous contaminants. I support the adoption of the amendment and commend the gentleman from California for introducing it.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. The amendment guts the bill by striking out every provision of it except the sense of Congress and the report requirement. If we are for the bill, we ought to vote against the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlemen from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I am happy to accept this amendment that amends the sense of Congress section of the bill that says that victims of Hurricane Katrina cannot have their property condemned simply because it was damaged by the hurricane. Unless the amendment is adopted, then victims of Hurricane Katrina end up getting penalized twice. That is twice too many times. We can take away one of those times by adopting the amendment, and I urge the House to support it.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to accept the amendment because it requires the Federal Government agencies do whatever they need to do to come into compliance with the bill's prohibition on abuse of eminent domain. It is a good amendment, and I hope we accept it.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be allowed to file a supplemental report to accompany H.R. 4128, the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005, prior to its passage today.