[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 23]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 31551-31552]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     INTRODUCTION OF THE STOPP ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. BOB GOODLATTE

                              of virginia

                    in the house of representatives

                       Friday, December 11, 2009

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, private ownership of property is vital 
to our freedom and our prosperity, and is one of the most fundamental 
principles embedded in our Constitution. The Founders realized the 
importance of property rights when they codified the Takings Clause of 
the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which requires that private 
property shall not be taken ``for public use, without just 
compensation.'' This clause created two conditions to the government 
taking private property: That the subsequent use of the property is for 
the public and that the government gives the property owners just 
compensation.
  However, the Supreme Court's recent 5-4 decision in Kelo v. City of 
New London is a step in the opposite direction. This controversial 
ruling expands the ability of State and local governments to exercise 
eminent domain powers to seize property under the guise of ``economic 
development'' when the ``public use'' is as incidental as generating 
tax revenues or creating jobs, even in situations where the government 
takes property from one private individual and gives it to another 
private entity.
  By defining ``public use'' so expansively, the Court essentially 
erased any protection for private property as understood by the 
Founders of our Nation. In the wake of this decision, State and local 
governments can use eminent domain powers to take the property of any 
individual for nearly any reason. Cities may now bulldoze private 
citizens' homes, farms, and small businesses to make way for shopping 
malls or other developments.
  I completely agree with Justice O'Connor who, in her dissent in the 
Kelo case, wrote: ``Today the Court abandons this long-held, basic 
limitation on government power. Under the banner of economic 
development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and 
transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded. 
To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits 
resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render 
economic development takings ``for public use'' is to wash out any 
distinction between private and public use of property--and thereby 
effectively to delete the words ``for public use'' from the Takings 
Clause of the Fifth Amendment.''
  For these reasons, I have introduced legislation with Representative 
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin to ban all Federal economic development money 
for a period of two years for any State or local government that uses 
eminent domain for private economic development purposes.
  The STOPP act also prohibits funding to a State or local government 
that fails to provide relocation assistance to a person displaced from 
property by any use of eminent domain for an economic development 
purpose. Relocation assistance must meet the level and be of the same 
manner as that required under the Uniform Relocation and Real Property 
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. The STOPP act also provides 
landowners with a right to enforce the prohibition of funds under this 
act.
  No one should have to live in fear of the government snatching up 
their home, farm, or business, and the Private Property Rights 
Protection Act will help to create the incentives to ensure that these 
abuses do not occur in the future.

[[Page 31552]]



                          ____________________