PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Subcommittee on Department Operations and Nutrition Discharged.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 25, 1993
Private Property Protection Act of 1993 - Prohibits any regulation issued by an executive agency after enactment of this Act from becoming effective until the issuing agency is certified by the Attorney General to be in compliance with Executive Order 12360 or similar procedures to assess the potential for the taking of private property in the course of Federal regulatory activity, with the goal of minimizing such takings where possible. Provides for limited judicial review of an action taken pursuant to this Act. Requires the Secretary of Agriculture to study and report to the Congress on the effect this Act will have on the farm economy and agricultural production.
People & committees
Rep. Condit, Gary A. [D-CA-18] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Subcommittee on Department Operations and Nutrition Discharged.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Administrative Law and Governmental Relations.
Executive Comment Requested from USDA.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Department Operations and Nutrition.
Referred to the House Committee on Judiciary.
Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
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 26, 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.561 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.561 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.561 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.561 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.