Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS -- (Senate - September 14, 2005)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DORGAN. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court ruled in Kelo vs. New London that it was permissible for a government to use the power of eminent domain simply for the purpose of economic development.

I am greatly troubled by this case. I do not believe that the government can or should take property for a non-governmental purpose simply because it will generate additional tax revenue.

This court decision stands logic on its head--and it is a dangerous precedent as well.

I understand that there will be times when it is essential for the government to use eminent domain for the public good. For example, eminent domain is appropriate in order to build a flood control project to protect a city. Or to construct a highway or lay a water line.

But it makes no sense for the Court to allow a city--or a state or even the federal government--to use its power to allow private developers to acquire property under the takings clause. Once you start down that path, whose private property is safe? Could my home be condemned because a larger, more expensive house could be built on that lot? Can a local café be seized in order to provide space for a new, high-end French restaurant?

Government at all levels should be protecting and strengthening private property rights--not diminishing them.

So today I am introducing legislation to clarify and strengthen private property rights and ensure that government cannot abuse its power of eminent domain in the name of ``economic development.''

First, my bill prevents the use of Federal funds for any economic development project that uses property that was subject of an eminent domain taking. This would cut off the spigot of Federal dollars to these questionable projects. Frankly, most economic development projects rely in some way on Federal dollars so this provision would have the practical effect of sharply curtailing this practice.

Second, my bill is explicit that traditional public use and public purpose projects are still permitted. I am not trying to end the use of eminent domain in order to protect public health and safety or in order to build important infrastructure in our communities. My bill makes this clear.

Finally, this bill clearly lays out that the funding prohibition includes takings of private property for the use of, or ownership of, another private individual or entity. One of the most troubling trends in this area is the use of eminent domain by a government that then turns the property over to a private person or group for their private gain.

This issue also demands attention at the state level. I commend the efforts of a number of leaders in North Dakota to make changes to our state constitution in a way that will protect private property owners.

Our former state attorney general, Heidi Heitkamp, is spearheading an effort to prevent the use of eminent domain at the State level for economic development purposes regardless of whether Federal funds are used. This is an important initiative and I fully support it. It is an important complement to the bill I am introducing today. In fact, much of the language in my bill reflects the language in the initiated measure in North Dakota.

Strong private property rights are a fundamental part of our country's heritage and I believe that we should take steps to protect those rights. This bill will afford all Americans better protection against inappropriate uses of eminent domain and seizure of property.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the RECORD.

http://thomas.loc.gov/