Providing for Consideration of H.R. 4128, Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4128, PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT OF 2005 -- (House of Representatives - November 03, 2005)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of the underlying legislation.

H.R. 4128, the Private Property Rights Protection Act, demonstrates that a bipartisan, collaborative effort can produce sound legislation. This bill is directly aligned with H. Res. 340, a resolution passed by this House on a vote of 365 to 33, which expressed Congress's disapproval of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Kelo v. The City of New London.

In taking the next step, H.R. 4128 contains appropriate measures to ensure the protection of private property and addresses the potential for abuse under the power of eminent domain. By providing effective deterrents to abuse, H.R. 4128 protects the constitutional and legal rights of private property owners.

The majority in the Kelo decision found that the City of New London, Connecticut, could condemn and take property as part of its economic revitalization plan. Essentially, this decision grossly expanded the use of eminent domain as granted by the fifth amendment.

Madam Speaker, this decision legitimized an abuse of the fifth amendment, specifically, the takings clause. According to the Constitution, the government's taking authority over land that is restricted for public use. Expanding the government's ability to strong-arm private property, not necessarily for public use, sets a troubling precedent.

Thankfully, H.R. 4128 discourages States and localities from exploiting eminent domain. Overall, this legislation will prohibit State and local governments from receiving Federal economic development funding should they use eminent domain to seize land for private economic development purposes. Federal funding will be lost for 2 fiscal years if a court determines that eminent domain was used improperly.

Madam Speaker, Congress, through its spending powers, is authorized to impose policies on State and local governments through appropriations of Federal funds. In the case of eminent domain abuse, it is the duty of Congress to intercede to protect the property rights of all Americans.

Protecting the constitutional rights of our citizens should continue to be on the forefront of our concerns. Economic development is clearly crucial for every community in this country, but economic development can and must be achieved without compromising our constitutional rights.

I believe that the Kelo case was wrongly decided. Eminent domain must not grant State and local governments the power to take private property away from one and give it to another, all in the name of economic development. Economic development takings are not necessarily in the essence of public use and, therefore, do not constitute the use of eminent domain.

As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in her dissent in the case: ``The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the States from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.''

Madam Speaker, as Members of Congress, we all took oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution. By supporting this bill, Members are fulfilling their constitutional obligations.

This bill, Madam Speaker, is not perfect; but it is needed and it is necessary. I am pleased that the Rules Committee made amendments by our colleagues, Congressman Nadler and Congressman Watt, in order. They and other Members have real concerns with this bill, and their perspectives deserve to be debated and deserve an up-or-down vote.

Madam Speaker, while I would prefer an open rule and I, quite frankly, cannot understand why we do not have an open rule here, the Rules Committee did make all the germane amendments in order, so we are not going to object to this rule.

I have no further speakers. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the underlying bill and to support the rule, and let us move on and get this thing done.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov