F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the debate that has gone on in this House for the better part of the last hour has very clearly shown the dangerous consequences of the majority opinion in the Kelo case. It is a decision that will have profound impact in terms of the relationship of the owners of private property with their government in this country for years to come, unless we take immediate action to limit or even reverse those consequences. I would point out that the property that is probably the most at risk under the Kelo case is that which belongs to our religious institutions and other organizations that have been granted tax exempt status pursuant to State law. The Kelo case holding essentially says that if a municipality can get more tax revenue out of a condemnation and sale to another private party, then the public purpose clause of the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution no longer applies. And what property is most vulnerable to that erroneous interpretation, but property which is tax exempt, belonging to our churches, our synagogues, our mosques, our private schools, our fraternal societies, and any other organization that has gotten a tax exemption because the legislature has determined that the public policy of the State is advanced by the granting of that exemption. I believe that this decision may have the same effect in the long term as the Dred Scott decision, which started a civil war in our country because the Supreme Court made a serious mistake in the 1850s. This resolution is the first step to express the outrage of Congress and the fact that Congress is standing up to protect the private property rights of the citizens who vote to send us to this Congress to act in their name. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and I have introduced H.R. 3135, which takes away the Federal funding of municipalities that wish to use taxpayer dollars for this perverse purpose. There is a cosponsor sheet that I will have on the desk for those that wish to be a part of the crusade to legislate taking away Federal funding to municipalities and States that wish to do this. We are on a crusade here. I would urge an ``aye'' vote on the resolution, but the Committee on the Judiciary will be very active in making sure that the door to the Federal Treasury is locked shut and locked shut tight so that no municipality will be coming to Washington to ask for money to finance goofy condemnations like the Supreme Court upheld in the Kelo case.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 340) expressing the grave disapproval of the House of Representatives regarding the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in the case of Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al. that nullifies the protections afforded private property owners in the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Mr. KING of Iowa asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), the chairman of the Committee on Resources.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), the Chair of the Western Caucus. (Mr. CANNON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez).

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. Res. 340.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), the author of the resolution. (Mr. GINGREY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 340, a resolution introduced by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) strongly condemning the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in Kelo v. City of New London. In this case, handed down on June 23, the Supreme Court transformed the public use doctrine under the fifth amendment's takings clause to allow the government to take property for economic development. The fifth amendment of the U.S. Constitution specifically provides that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. This decision insults the constitutional rights of all Americans and unsettles decades of judicial precedent. As the dissent in this case pointed out, under the majority's opinion, ``Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party. The government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result.'' To give legislative force to this resolution, today I introduced H.R. 3135, the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005. This bipartisan bill will help restore the property rights of all Americans that the Supreme Court took away last week. I am pleased that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, is the lead Democratic cosponsor and that 64 additional Members have already agreed to support this measure. This legislation would prevent the Federal Government from using economic development as a justification for taking privately owned property. It would also prohibit any State or municipality from doing so whenever Federal funds are involved with the project for which eminent domain authority is exercised. American taxpayers should not be forced to contribute in any way to the abuse of government power. The impact of this decision cuts across social, economic and demographic lines. In their joint amicus brief, the NAACP and the AARP stated, ``The takings that result from the Court's decision will disproportionately affect and harm the economically disadvantaged and, in particular, the racial and ethnic minorities and the elderly.'' In its brief, the American Farm Bureau Federation stated, ``Each of our members is threatened by the decision with the loss of productive farm and ranch land, solely to allow someone else to put it to a different private use.'' The representatives of religious organizations have stated that the Supreme Court's decision will ``grant municipalities a special license to invade the autonomy of and take the property of religious institutions.'' Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) for introducing this important resolution and encourage my colleagues to support it. I also ask Members to join me in cosponsoring H.R. 3135 to assure the American people that we will not allow our churches, our homes, our farms and other private property to be bulldozed in abusive land grabs that solely benefit private individuals whose only claim to that land is that their greater wealth will increase tax revenues. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority leader.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the distinguished Republican whip. (Mr. BLUNT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to codify and enact certain existing laws related to National and Commercial Space Programs as Title 51 of the United States Code. The bill was prepared by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel as part of that office's ongoing responsibility to prepare, and submit to the Committee on the Judiciary one Title at a time, a complete compilation, restatement, and revision of the general and permanent laws of the United States. All changes in existing law made by this bill are purely technical in nature. The bill was prepared in accordance with the statutory standard for codification legislation, which is that the restatement of existing law shall conform to the understood policy, intent, and purpose of the Congress in the original enactments, with such amendments and corrections as will remove ambiguities, contradictions, and other imperfections. The bill, along with a detailed section-by-section explanation of the bill, can be accessed on the Internet site of the Office of the Law Revision Counsel (http://uscode.house.gov/). Persons interested in obtaining a printed copy of the bill and explanation, and persons interested in submitting comments on the bill, should contact Rob Sukol, Assistant Counsel, Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives, H2-304 Ford House Office Building, Washington, DC, 20515. The telephone number is 202-226-9060. Comments on the bill should be submitted to the Office of the Law Revision Counsel no later than 60 days after date of introduction.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, the major argument that we have heard against the base amendment and in favor of the Watt substitute is that if we do not pass the Watt substitute, we will be amending the Bill of Rights for the first time in the history of this country. That is not true. In the Dred Scott decision, Chief Justice Taney claimed that the fifth amendment's due process clause, which he interpreted to include a substantive right to the protection of property, prohibited restrictions on slave ownership. The three amendments that were passed during the Civil War, the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments, corrected that gross constitutional misinterpretation and it slammed the door shut so tightly that that issue never has been raised again; and our country has been much, much better for it. In a similar manner, House Joint Resolution 10 seeks to correct two Supreme Court precedents that repudiated 2 centuries of jurisprudence. The time to correct those two precedents is today. We must vote against the Watt substitute amendment which guts the thrust of House Joint Resolution 10 and then pass House Joint Resolution 10 by a two-thirds majority to send it to the other body. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, would the gentleman restate the unanimous consent request.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the motion to recommit.

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.J. Res. 10.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, throughout the history of this Republic, the Congress has proposed constitutional amendments and sent them to the States to overturn Supreme Court decisions that were particularly onerous. The one that comes to mind as coming to the top of the list was the Dred Scott decision. That was based on constitutional grounds, and Congress proposed and the States ratified three amendments, the 13th, 14th and 15th amendment, to make sure that the mistake that was made by the Dred Scott decision would never be repeated again. There was a decision early in the country's history under the Constitution that related to the judicial power of the United States. The 11th amendment was proposed and ratified to correct that. And the Supreme Court also decided that levying income taxes violated the provision of the Constitution on apportionment of taxes, and the 16th amendment was proposed and ratified to correct that problem. So when there is a court decision that has resulted in consequences that the Congress and the States collectively deem are so bad that it requires an amendment to the Constitution, this Congress has not hesitated to propose an amendment to the Constitution, and the States have ratified it. Here we have had resolutions of all 50 State legislatures asking that we propose this amendment and send it to the States for ratification, and that is because the instances of flag desecration that have occurred have been deemed by them to be over the line and that the Supreme Court of the United States was wrong in its decision and it needs correction. I just go back to the quote that I made of the Wisconsin Supreme Court when they effectively invalidated my State's flag desecration amendment. It is up to the people through the constitutional amendment process to make the correction, and that is why we are here today. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence). (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Baird amendment. The gentleman from Washington has been very sincere in stating that there ought to be a Constitution amendment to provide for temporary appointments to the House of Representatives in case of a tragedy. The House debated that amendment in the last Congress, and it was rejected by the resounding margin of 63 ayes to 353 noes. That should have closed the issue of having appointed Members serve, even on a temporary basis. Evidently it has not, and that is why we are debating this here today. Earlier this year, the House passed the continuity of Representation Act. It was passed overwhelming, 329 to 68, a nearly 5-to-1 margin. And those who voted for that bill in February ought to vote against the Baird amendment today. The expedited special election procedure will mean that the House will be filled up within 49 days. In this 49-day time frame, the election center has shown that there can be special elections that will have the vigorous debate that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) wants to have in terms of selecting replacement Representatives for those of us who are wiped out. But I would say that if the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) has his way, we could have a House of 350 appointed Members outvoting the 85 elected Members that survive the enemy attack. That is not democracy. We would have an appointed House and perhaps an appointed Senate, and an appointed President of the United States. We ought to reject the Baird amendment. We ought to get the Continuity of Representation Act passed through the other body and made law because it is an important and vital homeland security measure.