PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Mar 3, 1995
Private Property Protection Act of 1995 - 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shall not thereafter be used contrary to the limitation imposed by the agency action, unless: (1) the action is later rescinded or vitiated; and (2) the property owner refunds the amount of the compensation to the Treasury.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. Subjects any payment under this Act to the availability of appropriations. 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. Canady, Charles T. [R-FL-12] · R–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
The Clerk was authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation, and cross references, and to make other necessary technical and conforming corrections in the engrossment of H.R. 925.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 277 - 148 (Roll no. 197).
House roll call 197 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 277 - 148 (Roll no. 197).
House roll call 197 · Individual votesThe House adopted the amendment in the nature of a substitute as agreed to by the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
The House rose from the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to report H.R. 925.
The House resolved into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for further consideration.
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H2607)
ORDER OF PROCEDURE - Mr. Canady asked unanimous consent that consideration of the bill, H.R. 925, in the Committee of the Whole be extended for an addtional 10 minutes. Agreed to without objection.
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union rises leaving H.R. 925 as unfinished business.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the unanimous consent agreement just secured, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Goss amendment.
ORDER OF PROCEDURE - Mr. Canady asked unanimous consent that Mr. Goss be recognized next for the purpose of offering an amendment, that debate on that amendment be limited to not to exceed 10 minutes equally divided and controlled, and that after completion of the Goss amendment, that Messrs. Taylor and Traficant be recognized for the purpose of offering amendments and that debate on each amendment be limited to not to exceed 5 minutes, equally divided and controlled. Agreed to without objection.
DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole continued with debate on the Mineta amendment which was pending when the Committee rose on Thursday, March 2, 1995. The amendment seeks to raise the minimum threshold for payment of compensation under the bill from a 10% to 20% loss in property value.
The House resolved into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for further consideration.
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H2590-2607)
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union rises leaving H.R. 925 as unfinished business.
GENERAL DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole resumed general debate.
The House resolved into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for further consideration.
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H2495-2566)
Rule H. Res. 101 passed House.
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union rises leaving H.R. 925 as unfinished business.
GENERAL DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with one hour of general debate.
The Speaker designated the Honorable Bud Shuster to act as Chairman of the Committee.
The House resolved into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union pursaunt to the previous special order of the House.
Considered by previous special order. (consideration: CR H2469-2473)
Consideration initiated by previous special order.
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 101 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 925 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill. Measure will be considered read. Specified amendments are in order. After passage of H.R. 925, it shall be in order to consider in the House H.R. 9. All points of order against the bill and against its consideration are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to amend and on the bill to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 23.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 104-46.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 104-46.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
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.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. 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.925 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.925 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.925 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.925 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.