FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:Thursday, March 12, 2015CONTACT:NGC Press Office, 415-802-2423orpress@nextgenclimate.orgREPUBLICAN SENATORS CONTINUE TO DEFEND TRANSCANADAS LAND GRABWhen it comes to the Keystone XL pipeline Senate Republicans are not only fine wasting time for the benefit of a foreign oil company, theyre also willing to completely abandon their own principles in order to kowtow to their Big Oil backers. Recently, Senate Republicans voted against a measure to ensure private property cannot be seized through condemnation or eminent domain for the private gain of a foreign-owned business entity, the exact methods that TransCanada has attempted in order to build the Keystone XL pipeline. However, these same members have a long history of supporting eminent domain and private property rights as detailed below.Would Senate Republicans be willing to give up their home, uproot their lives, and relocate their families all for the benefit of a foreign oil company? Is a project that only creates 35 permanent jobs and transports dirty tar sands, which threatens our air and water quality, worth the hypocrisy? Would they be willing to ignore their previous positions to push a project that was not supported by their Big Oil backers?Its time for Republicans stop hiding behind rhetoric and start taking accountability for their actions.Heres alist of Republicans that voted in favor of TransCanadas land grab with previous positionsopposingsuch action.LAMAR ALEXANDERAlexander Voted Against An Amendment That Would Have Ensured Private Property Could Not Be Seized Through "Eminent Domain For The Private Gain Of A Foreign-Owned Business Entity Such As TransCanada. On an amendment intended to ensure private property cannot be seized through condemnation or eminent domain for the private gain of a foreign-owned business entity, Alexander voted nay. [S.Amdt. 72 to S.Amdt. 2 to S. 1, Vote Number 22, 1/22/15]Alexander Wrote A Letter With Concerns About Using Eminent Domain. Concerns over eminent domain and the ongoing fight over renewal of the wind production tax credit have pulled a Clean Line Energy Partners transmission project into the spotlight in Congress. Two Tennessee GOP lawmakers, Sen. Lamar Alexander and Rep. Stephen Fincher, sent a letter Wednesday to the Tennessee Valley Authority over their concerns with the Plains and Eastern Clean Line, a $2 billion transmission project to take wind power from the Oklahoma and Texas panhandles to utilities in the southeastern United States. Among their concerns are the costs to ratepayers, the reliability of wind power and the use of eminent domain to secure a route for the 700-mile high-voltage, direct-current transmission line. [Daily Oklahoman, 5/14/14]JOHN BARRASSOBarrasso Voted Against An Amendment That Would Have Ensured Private Property Could Not Be Seized Through "Eminent Domain For The Private Gain Of A Foreign-Owned Business Entity Such As TransCanada. On an amendment intended to ensure private property cannot be seized through condemnation or eminent domain for the private gain of a foreign-owned business entity, Barrasso voted nay. [S.Amdt. 72 to S.Amdt. 2 to S. 1, Vote Number 22, 1/22/15]Barrasso Has Proposed Restrictions On Eminent Domain. In the midst of an Energy and Natural Resources Committee bill drafting session, Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., proposed to restrict the governments eminent domain authority in states where it controls more than 40 percent of the land. [Las Vegas Review Journal,5/14/09]ROY BLUNTBlunt Voted Against An Amendment That Would Have Ensured Private Property Could Not Be Seized Through "Eminent Domain For The Private Gain Of A Foreign-Owned Business Entity Such As TransCanada. On an amendment intended to ensure private property cannot be seized through condemnation or eminent domain for the private gain of a foreign-owned business entity, Blunt voted nay. [S.Amdt. 72 to S.Amdt. 2 to S. 1, Vote Number 22, 1/22/15]Blunt Praised The Passage Of A Bill Protecting Private Property Rights Against Eminent Domain. House Majority Whip Roy Blunt today praised the passage of H.R. 4128, the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005, 376-38. The bill was co-sponsored by Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) and Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL). The House acted today to protect private property rights, a bold plan that enhances the penalty for states and localities that abuse their eminent domain power and defends the freedoms of private ownership, said Blunt. [Joplin Independent, 11/4/05]JOHN BOOZMANBoozman Voted Against An Amendment That Would Have Ensured Private Property Could Not Be Seized Through "Eminent Domain For The Private Gain Of A Foreign-Owned Business Entity Such As TransCanada. On an amendment intended to ensure private property cannot be seized through condemnation or eminent domain for the private gain of a foreign-owned business entity, Boozman voted nay. [S.Amdt. 72 to S.Amdt. 2 to S. 1, Vote Number 22, 1/22/15]Boozman Introduced Legislation To Restrict The Use Of Eminent Domain. U.S. Sens. John Boozman and Tom Cotton, both Arkansas Republicans, introduced legislation last week that would require the Energy Department to get approval from the governor and public service commission before exercising the federal power of eminent domain for Section 1222 transmission projects such as the one Clean Line wants to build. The Arkansas Advanced Energy Association is supporting the project. The association, of which Clean Line is a member, is a trade association of companies and organizations that says it is dedicated to helping Arkansas create more jobs in the emerging renewable energy field. [Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 2/18/15]SHELLEY MOORE CAPITOCapito Voted Against An Amendment That Would Have Ensured Private Property Could Not Be Seized Through "Eminent Domain For The Private Gain Of A Foreign-Owned Business Entity Such As TransCanada. On an amendment intended to ensure private property cannot be seized through condemnation or eminent domain for the private gain of a foreign-owned business entity, Capito voted nay. [S.Amdt. 72 to S.Amdt. 2 to S. 1, Vote Number 22, 1/22/15]Capito Supported Legislation To Halt Funding For Projects That Use Eminent Domain. To discourage the bulldozing of private homes to build shopping malls that generate more tax revenue, Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) supported legislation yesterday that would halt the flow of federal economic development grant funding to states or local governments that utilize eminent domain to seize private property for the purposes of economic development. [Press Release, US Fed News, 11/4/05]BILL CASSIDYCassidy Voted Against An Amendment That Would Have Ensured Private Property Could Not Be Seized Through "Eminent Domain For The Private Gain Of A Foreign-Owned Business Entity Such As TransCanada. On an amendment intended to ensure private property cannot be seized through condemnation or eminent domain for the private gain of a foreign-owned business entity, Cassidy voted nay. [S.Amdt. 72 to S.Amdt. 2 to S. 1, Vote Number 22, 1/22/15]Cassidy Voted In Favor Of The Private Property Rights Protection Act. In a vote taken on February 26, 2014, Cassidy voted yea on the Private Property Rights Protection Act. [House.gov, 2/26/14]JOHN CORNYNCornyn Voted Against An Amendment That Would Have Ensured Private Property Could Not Be Seized Through "Eminent Domain For The Private Gain Of A Foreign-Owned Business Entity Such As TransCanada. On an amendment intended to ensure private property cannot be seized through condemnation or eminent domain for the private gain of a foreign-owned business entity, Cornyn voted nay. [S.Amdt. 72 to S.Amdt. 2 to S. 1, Vote Number 22, 1/22/15]Cornyn Introduced Legislation To Protect Against Eminent Domain. U.S. Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Rand Paul, R-KY, today introduced legislation (attached) to protect homes, small businesses, and other private property rights by limiting the power of eminent domain. Saturday marks the seventh anniversary of Kelo vs. the City of New London in which the Supreme Court ruled that local governments could use eminent domain to take private property against the owners will for use in private development. [Press Release, Senator John Cornyn, 6/21/12]TOM COTTONCotton Voted Against An Amendment That Would Have Ensured Private Property Could Not Be Seized Through "Eminent Domain For The Private Gain Of A Foreign-Owned Business Entity Such As TransCanada. On an amendment intended to ensure private property cannot be seized through condemnation or eminent domain for the private gain of a foreign-owned business entity, Cotton voted nay. [S.Amdt. 72 to S.Amdt. 2 to S. 1, Vote Number 22, 1/22/15]Cotton Introduced Legislation That Would Require Approval From Governors And Public Service Commissions Before Exercising Eminent Domain. U.S. Sens. John Boozman and Tom Cotton, both Arkansas Republicans, introduced legislation last week that would require the Energy Department to get approval from the governor and public service commission before exercising the federal power of eminent domain for Section 1222 transmission projects such as the one Clean Line wants to build. The Arkansas Advanced Energy Association is supporting the project. The association, of which Clean Line is a member, is a trade association of companies and organizations that says it is dedicated to helping Arkansas create more jobs in the emerging renewable energy field. [Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 2/18/15]MIKE CRAPOCrapo Voted Against An Amendment That Would Have Ensured Private Property Could Not Be Seized Through "Eminent Domain For The Private Gain Of A Foreign-Owned Business Entity Such As TransCanada. On an amendment intended to ensure private property cannot be seized through condemnation or eminent domain for the private gain of a foreign-owned business entity, Crapo voted nay. [S.Amdt. 72 to S.Amdt. 2 to S. 1, Vote Number 22, 1/22/15]Crapo Cosponsored Legislation To Protect Against Eminent Domain. Idaho Senator Larry Craig joined a number of his colleagues today, including the rest of the Idaho Congressional Delegation, in cosponsoring legislation to protect citizens from some federal land grabs. Last week the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in Kelo v. City of New London Connecticut in which it significantly expanded the power of governments to seize private property. Idaho Senator Larry Craig is disturbed by the decision, offering the following commentary, The Supreme Court has seriously weakened the Constitutional protection of private property rights. Allowing the eminent domain power to be used for private to private transfers for nothing more than economic development effectively eliminates that portion of the Fifth Amendment. It is unfortunate that the Supreme Court came to such a conclusion that will have a dramatic impact on private property rights. In order to right the wrong, Craig joined the efforts of Senator John Cornyn, R-Texas, who introduced S. 1313, the Protection of Homes, Small Business, and Private Property Act of 2005. Idaho Senator Mike Crapo is also a cosponsor, and Idahos Congressmen cosponsored a similar measure in the House. The legislation dictates that the federal government cannot use eminent domain to seize property for purely economic development. [Press Release, Senator Larry Craig, 6/30/05]TED CRUZCruz Voted Against An Amendment That Would Have Ensured Private Property Could Not Be Seized Through "Eminent Domain For The Private Gain Of A Foreign-Owned Business Entity Such As TransCanada. On an amendment intended to ensure private property cannot be seized through condemnation or eminent domain for the private gain of a foreign-owned business entity, Cruz voted nay. [S.Amdt. 72 to S.Amdt. 2 to S. 1, Vote Number 22, 1/22/15]Cruz Said He Is Disturbed About Eminent Domain Abuse. In a Texas U.S. Senate debate held on June 22, 2012, Cruz said, I am disturbed about eminent domain abuse because I think private property rights are fundamental to who we are as Americans and who we are as Texans. [KERA Dallas, 6/22/12]Cruz Said He Doesnt Think The Government Should Use Eminent Domain To Help Out Private Interests. In a Texas U.S. Senate debate held on June 22, 2012, Cruz said, The U.S. Supreme Court said, wrongly I think, that the government could do it to help out private interests. I dont think we should be helping out private interests. [KERA Dallas, 6/22/12]STEVE DAINESDaines Voted Against An Amendment That Would Have Ensured Private Property Could Not Be Seized Through "Eminent Domain For The Private Gain Of A Foreign-Owned Business Entity Such As TransCanada. On an amendment intended to ensure private property cannot be seized through condemnation or eminent domain for the private gain of a foreign-owned business entity, Daines voted nay. [S.Amdt. 72 to S.Amdt. 2 to S. 1, Vote Number 22, 1/22/15]Daines Voted In Favor Of The Private Property Rights Protection Act. In a vote taken on February 26, 2014, Daines voted yea on the Private Property Rights Protection Act. [House.gov, 2/26/14]JONI ERNSTErnst Voted Against An Amendment That Would Have Ensured Private Property Could Not Be Seized Through "Eminent Domain For The Private Gain Of A Foreign-Owned Business Entity Such As TransCanada. On an amendment intended to ensure private property cannot be seized through condemnation or eminent domain for the private gain of a foreign-owned business entity, Ernst voted nay. [S.Amdt. 72 to S.Amdt. 2 to S. 1, Vote Number 22, 1/22/15]Ernst Said She Doesnt Agree With Taking Property Rights Away From Individuals. The United Nations has imposed this upon us, and as a U.S. senator, I would say, No more. No more Agenda 21. Community planning to the effect that it is implementing eminent domain and taking away property rights away from individuals I dont agree with that. And especially in a place such as Iowa, where we rely heavily upon our agricultural community, our rural communities. We dont want to see things like eminent domain come into play, Ernst said in response to a question about Agenda 21 at the forum. [Yahoo News, 8/13/14]DEB FISCHERFischer Voted Against An Amendment That Would Have Ensured Private Property Could Not Be Seized Through "Eminent Domain For The Private Gain Of A Foreign-Owned Business Entity Such As TransCanada. On an amendment intended to ensure private property cannot be seized through condemnation or eminent domain for the private gain of a foreign-owned business entity, Fischer voted nay. [S.Amdt. 72 to S.Amdt. 2 to S. 1, Vote Number 22, 1/22/15]Fischer Said She Supports Protecting The Private Property Rights Of Nebraskans From Eminent Domain. Many politicians like to talk about being a conservative, but they have few accomplishments to show for all their campaign rhetoric, she said. Ive focused my time and energy in the Nebraska Unicameral on getting conservative policy passed. I authored a priority bill to protect the private property rights of Nebraskans from eminent domain abuse; Ive helped pass the largest tax relief package in Nebraska history; Ive made the tough decisions to cut spending and balance the budget seven times; and Ive co-sponsored several pieces of pro-life legislation that have helped make Nebraska a leader in protecting the unborn. [NTV ABC, 2/1/12]JEFF FLAKEFlake Voted Against An Amendment That Would Have Ensured Private Property Could Not Be Seized Through "Eminent Domain For The Private Gain Of A Foreign-Owned Business Entity Such As TransCanada. On an amendment intended to ensure private property cannot be seized through condemnation or eminent domain for the private gain of a foreign-owned business entity, Flake voted nay. [S.Amdt. 72 to S.Amdt. 2 to S. 1, Vote Number 22, 1/22/15]Flake Voted To Prohibit Funds From Being Used To Enforce The Supreme Courts Case Allowing Eminent Domain For Private Purposes. In amendment 427 of H.R. 3058, Flake voted in favor of an amendment to prohibit use of funds in the bill to enforce the judgment of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Kelo v. New London. [House.gov, 6/30/05]CORY GARDNERGardner Voted Against An Amendment That Would Have Ensured Private Property Could Not Be Seized Through "Eminent Domain For The Private Gain Of A Foreign-Owned Business Entity Such As TransCanada. On an amendment intended to ensure private property cannot be seized through condemnation or eminent domain for the private gain of a foreign-owned business entity, Gardner voted nay. [S.Amdt. 72 to S.Amdt. 2 to S. 1, Vote Number 22, 1/22/15]Gardner Voted In Favor Of The Private Property Rights Protection Act. In a vote taken on February 26, 2014, Gardner voted yea on the Private Property Rights Protection Act. [House.gov, 2/26/14]CHUCK GRASSLEYGrassley Voted Against An Amendment That Would Have Ensured Private Property Could Not Be Seized Through "Eminent Domain For The Private Gain Of A Foreign-Owned Business Entity Such As TransCanada. On an amendment intended to ensure private property cannot be seized through condemnation or eminent domain for the private gain of a foreign-owned business entity, Grassley voted nay. [S.Amdt. 72 to S.Amdt. 2 to S. 1, Vote Number 22, 1/22/15]Grassley Questioned Sotomayor About Eminent Domain During Her Confirmation Hearing. Sen. Lindsey Grahams (R-S.C.) vigorous prosecutorial questioning of Supreme Court hopeful Sonia Sotomayor was the sole bright spot in an otherwise difficult day for Senate Republicans on Tuesday, who struggled to use Sotomayors confirmation hearings as a forum to restart the culture wars of the recent past. The exchange between Graham and Sotomayor stood in stark contrast to those of his Republican colleagues on the Judiciary Committee. Aside from Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who largely stuck to parochial concerns regarding eminent domain laws, Republicans sought to use Sotomayor as a foil for a much larger fight over abortion, race relations, capital punishment and other culture war issues that harken back to the GOPs heyday in the 1990s. [Roll Call, 7/15/09]ORRIN HATCHHatch Voted Against An Amendment That Would Have Ensured Private Property Could Not Be Seized Through "Eminent Domain For The Private Gain Of A Foreign-Owned Business Entity Such As TransCanada. On an amendment intended to ensure private property cannot be seized through condemnation or eminent domain for the private gain of a foreign-owned business entity, Hatch voted nay. [S.Amdt. 72 to S.Amdt. 2 to S. 1, Vote Number 22, 1/22/15]Hatch Introduced A Plan To Help Property Owners Facing Eminent Domain. Standing in hot summer sun with a wizened grandmother in the background, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, announced his solution Tuesday to eminent domain takings across the nation. Hatchs plan, called EMPOWER for the Empowering More Property Owners With Enhanced Rights Act, would create a federal ombudsman for property owners who find themselves in the sights of federal agencies exercising eminent domain. Hatch modeled his bill after a 1997 Utah law and the states ombudsman, Craig Call. Hatch believes Call is the only such private-property ombudsman in the country. Hatch unveiled the bill because a U.S. Supreme Court decision last month said governments could take property for private development. [Deseret Morning News, 7/6/05]JOHN HOEVENHoeven Voted Against An Amendment That Would Have Ensured Private Property Could Not Be Seized Through "Eminent Domain For The Private Gain Of A Foreign-Owned Business Entity Such As TransCanada. On an amendment intended to ensure private property cannot be seized through condemnation or eminent domain for the private gain of a foreign-owned business entity, Hoeven voted nay. [S.Amdt. 72 to S.Amdt. 2 to S. 1, Vote Number 22, 1/22/15]Hoeven Said He Is Very Concerned About Forcing Someone To Sell Their Home For An Economic Development Project And Called It An Overreach. The North Dakota Association of Realtors intends to explore the possible impact of the U.S. Supreme Courts ruling, said its president, Scott Louser, a Minot real estate broker. We, as Realtors, understand and appreciate the need for eminent domain, Louser said. But it seemed to be redefined by the Supreme Court. Gov. John Hoeven said he was dubious of the idea of forcing someone to sell their home for an economic development project. When you start talking about taking someones home to develop other properties, the argument being enhancing tax base, I am very concerned thats an overreach, Hoeven said. [Associated Press, 7/10/05]JIM INHOFEInhofe Voted Against An Amendment That Would Have Ensured Private Property Could Not Be Seized Through "Eminent Domain For The Private Gain Of A Foreign-Owned Business Entity Such As TransCanada. On an amendment intended to ensure private property cannot be seized through condemnation or eminent domain for the private gain of a foreign-owned business entity, Inhofe voted nay. [S.Amdt. 72 to S.Amdt. 2 to S. 1, Vote Number 22, 1/22/15]Inhofe Introduced Legislation To Protect Property Rights And Limit Eminent Domain. I believe in the right to own private property, and I believe in the right to enjoy it and not be harassed, especially by the government. There are three issues addressed by the Private Property Protection Act of 2006 that I will soon introduce. First, this legislation aims to protect the right to own and enjoy private property, one of our governments core purposes. Second, the bill directly confronts the Supreme Courts decision in Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut, which allows local governments to take private property for economic reasons. Finally, the bill forces the Court to reign in its incessant judicial activism, returning to the true intent of the Fifth Amendment. In sum, the bill limits government intervention into the private market. [Statement, Senator Jim Inhofe, 8/18/06]JOHNNY ISAKSONIsakson Voted Against An Amendment That Would Have Ensured Private Property Could Not Be Seized Through "Eminent Domain For The Private Gain Of A Foreign-Owned Business Entity Such As TransCanada. On an amendment intended to ensure private property cannot be seized through condemnation or eminent domain for the private gain of a foreign-owned business entity, Isakson voted nay. [S.Amdt. 72 to S.Amdt. 2 to S. 1, Vote Number 22, 1/22/15]Isakson Co-Sponsored Legislation To Restrict How The Government Uses Eminent Domain. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) today announced that he is co-sponsoring legislation to restrict how the government may exercise its power of eminent domain. The Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005, which was introduced by Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas), states that the federal government is prohibited from using the power of eminent domain to condemn property for the purpose of economic development. It also imposes the same prohibition on state and local governments when the condemnation involves the use of federal funds. [Press Release, Senator Johnny Isakson, 7/5/05]JAMES LANKFORDLankford Voted Against An Amendment That Would Have Ensured Private Property Could Not Be Seized Through "Eminent Domain For The Private Gain Of A Foreign-Owned Business Entity Such As TransCanada. On an amendment intended to ensure private property cannot be seized through condemnation or eminent domain for the private gain of a foreign-owned business entity, Lankford voted nay. [S.Amdt. 72 to S.Amdt. 2 to S. 1, Vote Number 22, 1/22/15]Lankford Voted In Favor Of The Private Property Rights Protection Act. In a vote taken on February 26, 2014, Lankford voted yea on the Private Property Rights Protection Act. [House.gov, 2/26/14]JOHN MCCAINMcCain Voted Against An Amendment That Would Have Ensured Private Property Could Not Be Seized Through "Eminent Domain For The Private Gain Of A Foreign-Owned Business Entity Such As TransCanada. On an amendment intended to ensure private property cannot be seized through condemnation or eminent domain for the private gain of a foreign-owned business entity, McCain voted nay. [S.Amdt. 72 to S.Amdt. 2 to S. 1, Vote Number 22, 1/22/15]McCain Said He Would Amend The Constitution If Need Be To Protect Property Rights And Called The Supreme Courts Eminent Domain Decision Disastrous. The senator, who is trying to revive his struggling White House campaign, told a crowd in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, that he plans to appoint constructionist judges to the Supreme Court who respect the Constitution and understand the security of private property it provides. If need be, I would seek to amend the Constitution to protect private property rights in America, he added. McCain was referring to the 2005 Supreme Court eminent domain decision, which he blasted as disastrous. The ruling gave local governments the right to take the house of a homeowner and use it for economic development. [The Hill, 8/6/07]JERRY MORANMoran Voted Against An Amendment That Would Have Ensured Private Property Could Not Be Seized Through "Eminent Domain For The Private Gain Of A Foreign-Owned Business Entity Such As TransCanada. On an amendment intended to ensure private property cannot be seized through condemnation or eminent domain for the private gain of a foreign-owned business entity, Moran voted nay. [S.Amdt. 72 to S.Amdt. 2 to S. 1, Vote Number 22, 1/22/15]Moran Voted To Prohibit Funds From Being Used To Enforce The Supreme Courts Case Allowing Eminent Domain For Private Purposes. In amendment 427 of H.R. 3058, Moran voted in favor of an amendment to prohibit use of funds in the bill to enforce the judgment of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Kelo v. New London. [House.gov, 6/30/05]LISA MURKOWSKIMurkowski Voted Against An Amendment That Would Have Ensured Private Property Could Not Be Seized Through "Eminent Domain For The Private Gain Of A Foreign-Owned Business Entity Such As TransCanada. On an amendment intended to ensure private property cannot be seized through condemnation or eminent domain for the private gain of a foreign-owned business entity, Murkowski voted nay. [S.Amdt. 72 to S.Amdt. 2 to S. 1, Vote Number 22, 1/22/15]Murkowski Voted Against An Energy Amendment Because She Was Concerned It Would Encourage The Use Of Eminent Domain. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on Thursday adopted language that would broaden the authority of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to intervene when it suspects that electric and natural gas companies are engaged in market manipulation at the expense of consumers, and would allow the agency to freeze company assets to ensure payment of penalties. The amendment was passed 13-10 with only Democratic support. Republicans, including Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, the panels senior GOP member, worried the amendment would encourage the use of eminent domain, which should be employed only sparingly as an option of last resort. [Megawatt Daily, 6/12/09]JAMES RISCHRisch Voted Against An Amendment That Would Have Ensured Private Property Could Not Be Seized Through "Eminent Domain For The Private Gain Of A Foreign-Owned Business Entity Such As TransCanada. On an amendment intended to ensure private property cannot be seized through condemnation or eminent domain for the private gain of a foreign-owned business entity, Risch voted nay. [S.Amdt. 72 to S.Amdt. 2 to S. 1, Vote Number 22, 1/22/15]Risch Said He Does Not Support Expanding Federal Powers Of Eminent Domain For Power Lines. First and foremost, new upgrades must be sited with deference to personal property rights. I do not support the expansion of federal powers of eminent domain and I believe that every effort should be made to locate new power lines on federal lands instead of private lands where it is feasible. [Senator James Risch, accessed3/11/15]MIKE ROUNDSRounds Voted Against An Amendment That Would Have Ensured Private Property Could Not Be Seized Through "Eminent Domain For The Private Gain Of A Foreign-Owned Business Entity Such As TransCanada. On an amendment intended to ensure private property cannot be seized through condemnation or eminent domain for the private gain of a foreign-owned business entity, Rounds voted nay. [S.Amdt. 72 to S.Amdt. 2 to S. 1, Vote Number 22, 1/22/15]Rounds Signed A Law Prohibiting Government Agencies From Seizing Property For Transfer To Any Private Person, Nongovernmental Entity, Or Other Public-Private Business Entity. This month, South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds signed into law HB 1080, prohibiting government agencies from seizing private property by eminent domain for transfer to any private person, nongovernmental entity, or other public-private business entity. [Press Release, Castle Coalition, 2/27/06]MARCO RUBIORubio Voted Against An Amendment That Would Have Ensured Private Property Could Not Be Seized Through "Eminent Domain For The Private Gain Of A Foreign-Owned Business Entity Such As TransCanada. On an amendment intended to ensure private property cannot be seized through condemnation or eminent domain for the private gain of a foreign-owned business entity, Rubio voted nay. [S.Amdt. 72 to S.Amdt. 2 to S. 1, Vote Number 22, 1/22/15]The Rubio-Chaired House Select Committee To Protect Private Property Rights Drafted Legislation That Would Limit The Ability Of Local Governments And State Agencies To Condemn Property So It Can Be Redeveloped. Local governments and state agencies would be severely limited in their ability to condemn property so it can be redeveloped by businesses and other private groups under legislation proposed Monday by a House committee. ATwo proposed state constitutional amendments and a bill that also would put the restrictions into state law are a reaction to a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year. The high court approved taking homes in New London, Conn., for a redevelopment project because it would economically benefit the community overall. The justices, however, said states are free to ban the use of eminent domain for private purposes and Florida is one of several considering such action. It has not been a widespread problem in Florida, said Rep. Marco Rubio, chairman of the House Select Committee to Protect Private Property Rights, which drafted the legislation. [Associated Press, 3/14/06]JEFF SESSIONSSessions Voted Against An Amendment That Would Have Ensured Private Property Could Not Be Seized Through "Eminent Domain For The Private Gain Of A Foreign-Owned Business Entity Such As TransCanada. On an amendment intended to ensure private property cannot be seized through condemnation or eminent domain for the private gain of a foreign-owned business entity, Sessions voted nay. [S.Amdt. 72 to S.Amdt. 2 to S. 1, Vote Number 22, 1/22/15]Sessions Said So Much For The Constitutional Guarantee That Your Property Can Only Be Taken For Public Use, Not Private Use. During a Senate session on judicial nominations, Sessions said, So much for the constitutional guarantee of life, liberty, and property and the constitutional guarantee that your property can only be taken for public use, not private use. [CSPAN, 9/22/10]JOHN THUNEThune Voted Against An Amendment That Would Have Ensured Private Property Could Not Be Seized Through "Eminent Domain For The Private Gain Of A Foreign-Owned Business Entity Such As TransCanada. On an amendment intended to ensure private property cannot be seized through condemnation or eminent domain for the private gain of a foreign-owned business entity, Thune voted nay. [S.Amdt. 72 to S.Amdt. 2 to S. 1, Vote Number 22, 1/22/15]Thune Called The Supreme Courts Decision Allowing The Government To Seize Property For Private Development A Slap In The Face To Private Property Rights. Supreme Court decisions like the recent Kelo v. City of New London eminent domain decision show the dangers of having activist judges who change the intent of the Constitution. That decision allows government to seize private homes and businesses, not just for public use, such as a highway or a bridge, but for private development that will bring more tax revenue to the city. That decision was a slap in the face to private property rights and greatly expanded the practice of eminent domain as provided for in the Constitution. [Senator John Thune, 7/18/05]THOM TILLISTillis Voted Against An Amendment That Would Have Ensured Private Property Could Not Be Seized Through "Eminent Domain For The Private Gain Of A Foreign-Owned Business Entity Such As TransCanada. On an amendment intended to ensure private property cannot be seized through condemnation or eminent domain for the private gain of a foreign-owned business entity, Tillis voted nay. [S.Amdt. 72 to S.Amdt. 2 to S. 1, Vote Number 22, 1/22/15]Tillis Said An Amendment To Prevent Seizure Of Property For Anything Other Than Public Use Protects Our Citizens Ability To Make Their Own Choices About Their Property. The North Carolina House of Representatives on Tuesday passed House Bill 8, which proposes an amendment to the North Carolina Constitution preventing state and local governments from seizing private property for anything other than a public use. The Constitutional amendment would further require just compensation to be paid to the property owner. House Bill 8 protects private property rights for North Carolinians against the practice known as eminent domain, said House Speaker Thom Tillis (R-Mecklenburg.) We have seen government abuse of this power all-too-often. This measure protects our citizens ability to make their own choices about their property and codifies their rights in our Constitution. [Press Release, Speaker Thom Tillis, 2/12/13]PAT TOOMEYToomey Voted Against An Amendment That Would Have Ensured Private Property Could Not Be Seized Through "Eminent Domain For The Private Gain Of A Foreign-Owned Business Entity Such As TransCanada. On an amendment intended to ensure private property cannot be seized through condemnation or eminent domain for the private gain of a foreign-owned business entity, Toomey voted nay. [S.Amdt. 72 to S.Amdt. 2 to S. 1, Vote Number 22, 1/22/15]Toomey Asked Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development Nominee Julian Castro To Agree to Deter Use Of Eminent Domain. San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro sought to reassure a Senate panel Tuesday he would demand performance and accountability if confirmed to be Housing and Urban Development secretary. Sen. Patrick Toomey, R-Pa., wanted Castro to agree to deter use of eminent domain to confiscate mortgages from private lenders and prohibit FHA from refinancing mortgages for properties seized this way. [NBC News,6/17/14]ROGER WICKERWicker Voted Against An Amendment That Would Have Ensured Private Property Could Not Be Seized Through "Eminent Domain For The Private Gain Of A Foreign-Owned Business Entity Such As TransCanada. On an amendment intended to ensure private property cannot be seized through condemnation or eminent domain for the private gain of a foreign-owned business entity, Wicker voted nay. [S.Amdt. 72 to S.Amdt. 2 to S. 1, Vote Number 22, 1/22/15]Wicker Voted To Prohibit Funds From Being Used To Enforce The Supreme Courts Case Allowing Eminent Domain For Private Purposes. In amendment 427 of H.R. 3058, Wicker voted in favor of an amendment to prohibit use of funds in the bill to enforce the judgment of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Kelo v. New London. [House.gov, 6/30/05]# # #NextGen ClimateNextGen Climate is focused on bringing climate change to the forefront of American politics. Founded by investor and philanthropist Tom Steyer in 2013, NextGen Climate acts politically to prevent climate disaster and preserve American prosperity.