Jerry Nadler

The point is, the existence of this statute on the books would put a cloud, like a cloud of title, like a cloud on title, here being a cloud on future revenue.

The penalties in this bill are so draconian and misguided that even a government that never took a prohibited action would be hobbled financially by it.

I think it is a very misguided clause. I think all it will do is enable states to be sued.

Since the Kelo decision, there have been new developments that call into question whether Congress should even act at this point.

I continue to believe that this bill is the wrong approach to a very serious issue.

I think we owe it to the many property owners who have been subject to eminent domain by this foreign corporation to consider whether that use of the takings power is appropriate.

Historically, eminent domain has been abused and has destroyed communities for projects having nothing to do with economic development.

The power of eminent domain is an extraordinary one and should be used rarely and with great care.

Did the trial lawyers write this bill?

This bill allows the use of eminent domain to give property to a private party.

Baseless nonsense, ill-motivated baseless nonsense. Those allegations have now been investigated and debunked twice with both the Inspector General and the Office of Professional Responsibility.

There should be no bite at this apple. Any continued claims of wrongdoing in efforts to taint this Administration or Assistant Attorney General Perez with this case should be flatly rejected as the ill-motivated nonsense that they are.

This hearing is not about legitimate oversight of the Civil Rights Division.

So, Mr. Beisner, why is that not a great public service?

But if that had not happened, the State would have gotten zero and the State could not have afforded to bring the case in the first place.

If an AG, through a contingency fee lawyer, wins millions of dollars in damages for the taxpayers or for some injured class in the State, what is wrong with that?

I will do my best to get that revoked as soon as possible.

I had hoped that we could at least agree that a realistic understanding of how that system is functioning would entail a balanced look at both the costs and benefits of the system.

I see that the majority has again prejudged the issue with the title of this hearing.

We have to deal with that problem.

What can the Federal Government do to help expand investment in rail?

That is a 50-percent change. That is not a small change, it is a huge assumption.

That figure that I couldn't remember a moment ago is an 88-percent increase in demand by 2035.

Is there sufficient investment capacity to keep up with that?

This is not a cost to society, but, rather, a transfer to the injured party.