2014: Schweikert Voted Against Requiring Companies Seeking To Export Liquefied Natural Gas To Disclose If They Intend To Use Eminent Domain As Part Of Any Export-Related Construction. In June 2014, Schweikert voted against an amendment to a liquefied natural gas exports bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, "would require applicants [for permission to export liquefied natural gas] to disclose any intention to use eminent domain for any construction necessary for liquefied natural gas exports." The underlying bill, according to a separate Congressional Quarterly article, "would require the Energy Department to expedite decisions on applications to export liquefied natural gas. As amended, it would require that a decision on pending applications be made within 30 days of the bill's enactment or the close of the application's public comment period, whichever is later. It would require that all applications publicly disclose the specific nation or nations that would receive the proposed export of liquefied natural gas." The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 196 to 221. [House Vote 357, 6/25/14; Congressional Quarterly, 6/25/14; Congressional Quarterly, 6/25/14; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 961; Congressional Actions, H.R. 6]
Eminent Domain Is The Sovereign Right Of The Government To Take Private Property For Public Use Without The Owner's Consent, But Paying The Owner A Just Compensation For The Property. According to Ballentine's Law Dictionary, "The power of the nation or a sovereign state to take, or to authorize the taking of, private property for a public use without the owner's consent, conditioned upon the payment of a just compensation. The theory of such power, otherwise known as compulsory purchase or expropriation, is that all lands are held mediately or immediately from the state, upon the implied condition that the eminent domain, the superior dominion, remains in the state, authorizing it to take the same for public uses, when necessity requires it, by paying therefor an equivalent in money. It resembles the ancient prerogative of purveyance whereby the crown enjoyed the right of buying up provisions and other necessaries for the use of the royal household at an appraised valuation, and in preference to all others, even without the consent of the owner" (citations omitted). [Ballentine's Law Dictionary, 2010]
The Government May Delegate Its Eminent Domain Authority To Private Corporations That Are Furthering A Valid Public Purpose. According to the Constitution of the United States: Analysis and Interpretation, "The power of eminent domain is inherent in government and may be exercised only through legislation or legislative delegation. Although such delegation is usually to another governmental body, it may also be to private corporations, such as public utilities, railroad companies, or bridge companies, when they are promoting a valid public purpose" (footnotes omitted). [Constitution of the United States: Analysis and Interpretation, 5/23/14]
Amendment Sponsor: New LNG Export Facilities Will Require New Pipelines To Supply Them, And Pipeline Companies Have Received Eminent Domain Authority Under A 2005 Energy Law. According to the Congressional Record, Rep. Peter Defazio (D-OR), the amendment's sponsor, said, "But the reason natural gas companies want to export is to realize higher prices, and some of these terminals will require new pipelines to connect to domestic natural gas supplies, particularly some of the new supplies. Here is the problem. In 2005, Congress passed the Bush-Cheney energy plan, which gave the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission--a group of nameless, faceless, obscure bureaucrats--the authority to grant eminent domain to pipeline companies. That means companies have eminent domain authority generally reserved for the greater public interest to build pipelines to export natural gas." [Congressional Record, 6/25/14]
Amendment Opponents: There Is No Eminent Domain Authority For Liquefied Natural Gas Facilities, And The Amendment's Requirement Would Add Unnecessary Complications To LNG Exporting. According to the Congressional Record, Rep. Gene Green (D-TX) said, "Mr. DeFazio's amendment, with all due respect, requires an applicant to disclose any intention to use eminent domain on any construction necessary to support the LNG export project. I rise in opposition because it looks like an attempt to unnecessarily complicate LNG exports." In addition, Rep. Cory Gardner (R-CO) said, "I would just add again that there is no eminent domain authority for an LNG facility. That is what H.R. 6 is addressing, the export permits for LNG facilities. There is no eminent domain authority for an LNG facility." [Congressional Record, 6/25/14]
2014: Schweikert Voted To Withhold Federal Economic Development Funds From State And Localities That Use Eminent Domain For Private Use. In February 2014, Schweikert voted for legislation that would withhold funds from state and localities that use eminent domain for private economic development. According to Congressional Quarterly, the legislation would have "with[e]ld federal economic development funds, for two fiscal years, from states and localities that make property acquisitions for private economic development using eminent domain. Landowners could [have] sue[d] if a local or state government wrongfully takes their property." The vote was on a motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill. The House adopted the motion, passing the bill, by a vote of 353 to 65. The bill died in the Senate [House Vote 67, 2/26/14; Congressional Quarterly, 2/26/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1944]