PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 19, 1999
Private Property Protection Act of 1999 - Requires the Federal Government to compensate a property owner whose use of that property has been limited by an agency action, pursuant to a specified regulatory law, that diminishes the fair market value of that property by 20 percent or more, for that diminution in value. Requires the Government to buy at fair market value any portion of a property whose value has been diminished by more than 50 percent. Declares that property with respect to which compensation has been paid under this Act shall not thereafter be used contrary to the limitation imposed by the agency action, unless: (1) the action is later rescinded or vitiated; and (2) the property owner refunds the amount of the compensation to the Treasury. Provides that if a use is a nuisance as defined by State law or local zoning ordinance, no compensation shall be made under this Act with respect to a limitation on that use. Prohibits compensation from being made under this Act with respect to: (1) an agency action the primary purpose of which is to prevent an identifiable hazard to public health and safety or damage to specific property other than the property whose use is limited; or (2) an agency action pursuant to the Federal navigational servitude, except as such servitude is applied by U.S. courts to wetlands. Sets forth the procedures by which a property owner may seek compensation under this Act. Requires any agency taking an action limiting private property use to give appropriate notice of rights and compensation procedures to the property owners. Declares that: (1) nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit any right to compensation under the Constitution or other Federal law; and (2) payment of compensation shall not confer on the Federal Government any rights other than the use limitation resulting from the agency action.
People & committees
Rep. DeLay, Tom [R-TX-22] · R–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 20, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.2550 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.2550 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.2550 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.2550 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.