F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I will claim the time in opposition, even though I am not opposed.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding. What the Kelo decision has said is that the land that the house of God is built on belongs to Caesar and Caesar can go condemn the land that the house of God is built on to turn it to into a strip mall or hotel or whatever will bring in more tax base, and that is wrong. The amendment that the gentleman from Georgia has offered simply states that the tax-exempt status of a religious or nonprofit organization cannot be used for a taking under the Kelo case. The amendment is a good one. It ought to be supported, and I am happy that he offered it.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman this is a gutting amendment. It is a gutting amendment because it removes the constitutional hook that this Congress and the Federal Government have to prevent the abuses that have been sanctioned by Kelo, and that is the Federal funds that have been used for economic development. The amendment strikes out all the penalty in the bill that would prevent the government officials from abusing eminent domain. No penalty, no tap on the wrist. We say you should not do it; but if you go ahead and do it, then you are not going to be penalized. Without these penalties in the bill, the government could take private property from one person and simply give it to a wealthy corporation. Because this amendment guts the entire bill, it ought to be opposed. Under this legislation, there is a clear connection between the Federal funds that would be denied and the abuse that Congress is intending to prevent. The policy is that States and localities that abuse their eminent domain power by using economic development as a rationale for a taking should not be trusted with Federal economic development funds that could contribute to similarly abusive land grabs. There is an entirely appropriate connection in the base bill between the Federal policy of protecting private property rights from eminent domain abuse and making sure that the Federal Government does not subsidize eminent domain abusers. The amendment should be defeated for these reasons. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Chairman, we do not know if the gentleman from New York's approach is constitutional. That has not been tried before, and it would be a case of first impression in the courts. We know that the provision of denying Federal funds in the base bill is constitutional, because it was done by this Congress 20 years ago where we denied States transportation funds that did not raise the drinking age to 21. So the constitutional precedent was set 20 years ago in the transportation area. The base bill does that. The gentleman's amendment does not. That is why it ought to be rejected.

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

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

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

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the manager's amendment simply makes clear that private roads and those that are open to the public, free or by toll, and flood control facilities are covered under the exceptions of the bill. It also includes a savings clause making clear that nothing in the legislation shall be construed to affect the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, which requires the Federal Government to pay the displacement costs of those adversely affected by the Federal Government's use of eminent domain. The manager's amendment also incorporates into the bill's sense of congress section some language provided by the Resources Committee regarding the effect of the abuse of eminent domain on irrigation and reclamation projects and on public lands. I urge my colleagues to support the improvements made by this manager's amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back 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, 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. 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 offer an amendment.

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.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. 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. 4128.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, this commonsense legislation is long overdue. Congress must fulfill its constitutional duty, then exercise its authority under the commerce clause to deny a few State courts the power to bankrupt the national firearms industry and deny all Americans their fundamental constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms. I urge the passage of this critical legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. 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 S. 397, the bill currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 397, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. This legislation passed the Senate by more than a two-thirds vote this summer and contains the same legal reform provisions of H.R. 800 sponsored by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). The Committee on the Judiciary considered and favorably reported H.R. 800 in May of this year. Just like H.R. 800 and similar legislation that passed the House by more than a two-thirds majority during the last Congress, S. 397 will stop frivolous and abusive lawsuits against manufacturers and sellers of firearms or ammunition by prohibiting lawsuits resulting from the criminal and unlawful misuse of their products from being filed in Federal and State courts. It is important to stress at the outset what this legislation does not do. First, the legislation does not preclude lawsuits against a person who transfers a firearm or ammunition knowing it will be used to commit a crime of violence or drug-trafficking crime. Second, it does not prevent lawsuits against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se. Third, the bill includes several additional exceptions, including an exception for actions in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violates any State or Federal statute applicable to sales or marketing when such violation was the proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought. Finally, the bill contains additional exceptions for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the purchase of a firearm or ammunition, and an exception for actions for damages resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of a firearm or ammunition. Recent trends in abusive litigation have inspired lawsuits against the firearms industry on the theory of liability that would hold it financially responsible for the actions of those who use their products in a criminal or unlawful manner. Such lawsuits threaten to rip tort law from its moorings in personal responsibility and may force firearms manufacturers into bankruptcy. While some of these lawsuits have been dismissed and some States have acted to address them, the fact remains that these lawsuits continue to be aggressively pursued. The intended consequences of these frivolous lawsuits could not be more clear: the financial ruin of the firearms industry. As one of the personal injury lawyers suing American firearms companies told the Washington Post, ``The legal fees alone are enough to bankrupt the industry.'' Lawsuits seeking to hold the firearms industry responsible for the criminal and unlawful use of its products are brazen attempts to accomplish through litigation what has not been achieved by legislation and the democratic process. Various courts have correctly described such suits as ``improper attempts to have the court substitute its judgment for that of the legislature.'' As explained by another Federal judge, ``the plaintiff's attorneys simply want to eliminate handguns.'' Personal injury lawyers are seeking to obtain through the courts stringent limits on the sale and distribution of firearms beyond the court's jurisdictional boundaries. A New York appeals court stated recently that ``courts are the least suited, least equipped, and thus the least appropriate branch of government to regulate and micro-manage the manufacturing, marketing, distribution, and sale of handguns.'' Law enforcement, military personnel rely on the domestic firearms industry to supply them with reliable and accurate weapons that can best protect them in the line of fire. The best and most reliable guns will not be those designed under the requirements personal injury attorneys seek to impose through firearms lawsuits. Rather, these lawsuits threaten to injure the domestic firearms industry, endanger the jobs of thousands of hard-working Americans, and provide to foreign manufacturers an unfair advantage. One abusive lawsuit filed in a single county could destroy a national industry and deny citizens nationwide the right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Constitution. Insofar as these lawsuits have the practical effect of burdening interstate commerce in firearms, Congress has the authority to act under the commerce clause of the Constitution. The Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, by prohibiting abusive lawsuits against the firearms industry, supports core federalism principles articulated by the United States Supreme Court, which has made it clear that ``one State's power to impose burdens on the interstate market . . . is not only subordinate to the Federal power over interstate commerce but is also constrained by the need to respect the interests of other States . . . '' Before closing, I think it is important to set the record straight on one item. Some news outlets have claimed that this legislation would have barred a lawsuit involving the D.C. sniper and the gun the sniper obtained after it was stolen from a Washington State gun shop that did not keep track of its inventory and did not realize that the guns were stolen. Anyone who actually reads this bill will immediately realize that that claim is patently false, and it is important to note that some of the editorial pundits apparently do not believe in reading the bills before they write and publish. Under S. 397 a plaintiff would be permitted to conduct discovery to establish the facts and circumstances surrounding what happened to the firearm while in the possession, custody, and control of the dealer and how it came into the possession of the criminal shooters. A plaintiff would be permitted to have his or her day in court to try to establish whether the dealer knowingly violated or made any false entry in, or failed to make an appropriate entry in, his records, which he is required to keep pursuant to Federal law. I have here a report of violations filed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms regarding the Washington State gun dealer. It contains a record of dozens of violations of Federal law and quoting the following: ``The licensee's,'' that is, the dealer's, ``bound books were examined and compared to the physical inventory. It was initially determined that there were approximately 300 unaccounted for firearms. These initial 300-plus unaccounted for firearms are considered instances of failure to timely record disposition information in the bound record book.'' So under S. 397 a lawsuit against that dealer could go forward, and I include this report in the Record at this point.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), the principal author of the bill. (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, today I am Introducing the ``Federal Judgeship and Administrative Efficiency Act of 2005.'' I urge the House to pass the legislation expeditiously. The purpose of this bill is to provide the President with the necessary authority to appoint needed circuit and district court judges and to increase the number of authorized bankruptcy judgeships. A further purpose is to make changes in the structure of the court of appeals system, which are required to modernize, streamline, and improve the administration of justice for nearly one in five Americans. Mr. Speaker, the last comprehensive judgeship bill that was passed by Congress was enacted in 1990. Since that time, the volume of cases handled by the judiciary has increased substantially. The Federal Judgeship and Administrative Efficiency Act authorizes the creation of 68 new judgeships--12 at the circuit court level and 56 at the district courts. In addition, the bill contains authority to create 24 new permanent or temporary bankruptcy judgeships. These new judgeships will benefit districts across America. When confirmed, these new judges will be in a position to help address a growing backlog of cases that threatens to clog our courts and imposes substantial human and economic costs on our citizens. A judiciary that fails in its basic obligation to dispense justice in a timely, fair, and dispassionate manner compromises its own credibility. A court that is too far removed from those whose disputes it is responsible for adjudicating impose severe costs on those who must appear before it. The bill before us speaks to these concerns by providing for the realignment of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the establishment of a new Twelfth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth has become so big--in geographic size, in workload, in number of active and senior judges--that it can no longer appropriately discharge its civic functions on behalf of the American people. Consider: The Ninth has 47 judges, a figure that approaches twice the number of total judges of the next largest circuit. The Ninth represents 56 million people, or roughly one-fifth of our Nation's population. This is 25 million more people than the second largest circuit. The Ninth encompasses nearly 40 percent of the geographic area of the United States. The Ninth Circuit also has the most number of appeals filed and the highest percentage increase in appeals filed over the past 4 years. It is the circuit-wide leader in the number of appeals still pending and ranks a close second in the longest median time until disposition. Given these and other problems created by the mammoth breadth and size of the Ninth, I believe the responsible action is to modernize and streamline the structure of the Courts of Appeals. Briefly, H.R. 4093 creates a new Ninth that will feature California, Guam, Hawaii, and the Northern Mariana Islands. The new Twelfth will consist of the States of Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. Importantly in this regard, H.R. 4093 authorizes the President to appoint five new judges to permanent Ninth Circuit seats along with two other judges who will fill temporary seats. My bill provides that the official duty station for these newly authorized judges will be in California. These additions are consistent with requests made by the Judicial Conference and will ensure that future caseload demands on the new Ninth will more closely mirror its judgeship resources. California is not being singled out or punished by this legislation. Quite the contrary, the district and circuit courts that affect the rights of the citizens of California are being provided with their proportionate share of resources and being liberated to become more productive. Mr. Speaker, bigger does not always mean better. The constant expansion of the size of a court without also adopting commensurate reforms will, most assuredly, not result in improving the performance of the judiciary. The allocation of judicial resources must be made with an eye toward achieving structural coherence within each circuit. H.R. 4093 accomplishes that purpose and I urge its adoption.