Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves), the chairman of the Small Business Committee.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the majority leader.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the chairman of the Regulatory Reform, Commercial, and Antitrust Law Subcommittee, who has worked so closely with us on this legislation and who is the sponsor of one of the pieces of the ALERRT Act.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, it is now my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Holding), a member of the Judiciary Committee and a contributor of one of the bills that has been included in the ALERRT Act.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee, and the chief sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have in my hand bits of the few remaining bricks from the foundation of Susette Kelo's home in New London, Connecticut. They were picked up at the site just over a year ago. They once supported the lovingly arranged sanctuary of a woman who raised five sons and put herself through nursing school by working as an emergency medical technician. They gave her a place to rest after a long day's work surrounded by the things that meant the most to her. They were the foundations of her castle until the government's bulldozers arrived. Mr. Speaker, Ms. Kelo's home, known as the ``little pink house,'' was reduced to rubble--this rubble--by the government's abuse of eminent domain and has remained just that--rubble. These bits of bricks serve as a stark reminder of the government's inability to plan people's lives better than they can plan them themselves. They are the dramatic result of a type of government abuse that should never be rewarded with Federal taxpayer dollars. The homes that hardworking Americans have earned should be protected from government abuse, and we here in the people's House have a duty to do just that. I had the opportunity to meet Susette Kelo. To me, she is a genuine American hero, fighting all the way to the United States Supreme Court to protect her little pink house and to protect all of our Fifth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution. To me, the failure of the Court to correctly rule on that eminent domain case cries out for the Congress to correctly rule on this abuse by passing Mr. Sensenbrenner's bill, by passing the Private Property Rights Protection Act. As has been noted, 43 States have acted to protect eminent domain rights. Isn't it time for the United States Congress to do the same? I urge my colleagues to support the Private Property Rights Protection Act, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In 1997, Susette Kelo was trying to rebuild her life when she purchased a small, Victorian house perched on the waterfront in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood of New London, Connecticut. It was Susette's dream to own a home that looked out over the water. The little pink house she purchased was in need of repair, but with lots of hard work, she was able to restore it and start a new life for herself on the banks of the Thames River. Susette was finally living her dream. Tragically, however, the city of New London turned that dream into a nightmare. In 1998, pharmaceutical giant Pfizer announced its intent to build a plant in Fort Trumbull, and the city of New London began planning a massive redevelopment of the area surrounding the Pfizer plant. The city handed its power of eminent domain to a private corporation to take the entire neighborhood for economic development purposes. Susette and several of her neighbors, some of whose families had lived in their homes for generations, challenged the city's use of eminent domain all of the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in a desperate attempt to save their homes and their mostly blue collar neighborhood. However, the Supreme Court, in one of the most controversial rulings in its history, held that private economic development constitutes a ``public use'' under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Under the Court's reasoning, the government can now use the eminent domain power to take the property of any individual for nearly any reason. As the dissenting justices observed, by defining public use so expansively, the result of the decision is: Effectively to delete the words ``for public use'' from the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment. The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory. The government now has license to transfer property from those with few resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result. The Court's 5-4 decision against Susette and her neighbors sparked a nationwide backlash against eminent domain abuse. Susette's fight helped remind Americans that private ownership of property is vital to our freedom and our prosperity, and is one of the most fundamental principles embedded in the Constitution. Poll after poll that came out in the wake of the Court's ruling consistently showed that Americans from across every demographic cross-section overwhelmingly opposed the decision and supported efforts to strengthen property rights protections. Although Susette's story is probably the most infamous case of eminent domain abuse, it is by no means an isolated case. Every day across this country, Americans are forced to sit back and watch powerlessly as their homes, small businesses, family farms, and churches are bulldozed to make way for high-end condos, shopping malls, and other upscale developments. Oftentimes, after Americans go through the trauma of losing their private property to eminent domain abuse, the planned private economic development doesn't even occur. In New London, for instance, the Fort Trumbull redevelopment project never got off the ground. After spending close to $80 million in taxpayer money, there has been no new construction, and the neighborhood where Susette Kelo's little pink house was located is now a barren field, overrun by weeds. It is time for Congress finally to step in and do its part to rein in eminent domain abuse by passing the Private Property Rights Protection Act. I want to thank Mr. Sensenbrenner for reintroducing this legislation. He and I have worked together on this issue for many years, and I am pleased that this legislation incorporates many provisions from legislation I helped introduce in the 109th Congress, the STOPP Act. Specifically, the Private Property Rights Protection Act prohibits State and local governments that receive Federal economic development funds from using economic development as a justification for taking property from one person and giving it to another private entity. Any State or local government that violates this prohibition will be ineligible to receive Federal economic development funds for a period of 2 years. Moreover, this legislation grants adversely affected landowners the right to use appropriate legal remedies to enforce the provisions of the bill. In addition, it allows State and local governments to cure violations by giving the property back to the original owner. No one should have to live in fear of the government snatching up their home, farm, church, or small business. As the Institute for Justice has observed: Using eminent domain so another richer, better-connected person may live or work on the land you used to own tells Americans that their hopes, dreams, and hard work do not matter as much as money and political influence. The use of eminent domain for private development has no place in a country built on traditions of independence, hard work, and protection of property rights. This bill creates incentives for State and local governments to help ensure that eminent domain abuse does not occur in the future. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1944, currently under consideration.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1944) to protect private property rights.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Reclaiming my time, what the gentlewoman says is, indeed, true; that there is a private agreement, but that private agreement cannot and does not mitigate the fact that the act of unlocking a cell phone carries with it a felony penalty under the law, and that is absolutely ridiculous. So this legislation needs to be passed, and we can then move on to have the larger debate about the importance of cell phone unlocking--or rather, section 1201 of the DMCA, and other issues as we move forward on various copyright issues in the committee, but now is not the place, now is not the time to have that debate. This simple, bipartisan legislation should be passed by the House. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I am happy to yield briefly to the gentlewoman.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I would just say to the gentleman from Colorado, I understand his larger aspirations with regard to changes in copyright law. The committee recognizes that our copyright laws have not been amended in 40 years, and that we are conducting a comprehensive review. We have held many hearings on copyright issues already. We have many more planned, and we are going to continue that work, but this small bill to protect the rights of consumers on cell phone unlocking does not meet his aspirations to try to use it as a vehicle for greater things being done here because it is intended to be a narrow fix to a problem that was created when the Register of Copyrights did not take the necessary steps to allow the continued unlocking of cell phones. So it has taken a great deal of bipartisan work on the part of the ranking member and myself; the ranking member of the subcommittee, who had objections to the bill as reported out of the committee, has since left Congress, and the new ranking member has signed off on the change that was made here to bring organizations like the Fraternal Order of Police into acceptance of this, and we still have the support of important consumer organizations, like Consumers Union, as well as the cell phone industry organizations. As a result, this legislation needs to move forward as it is today. The savings clause that the gentleman objects to is meant to make it clear that this is focused on consumers and not on the larger issues. If enacting in one area as we are in this very narrow, targeted bill, we sent a signal in another area, and a signal is what the gentleman identifies, we would never enact anything. So it is important that we address what is in this bill, the language that was worked out in the committee, that was discussed in the committee, that was then worked out further as the bill was reported to the floor, and pass this legislation today, and we can work on these broader issues in the future, but in the meantime, we need to protect the rights of our consumers to unlock the phones that they own when they purchase a used cell phone.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I am the last speaker remaining on our side. I believe I have the right to close, so if the gentleman has anything else he would like to say.

Mr. GOODLATTE. That is correct. Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. GOODLATTE. That is correct. This legislation is not intended to impair unlocking related to family plans consisting of a small number of handsets or of used phones by legitimate recyclers or resellers. The objective of this savings clause is to make it clear that the legislation does not cover those engaged in subsidy arbitrage or in attempting to use the unlocking process to further traffic in stolen devices.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds. I will read very briefly from the letter from the National Fraternal Order of Police. It says: ``As Congress contemplates legislation to facilitate lawful unlocking by individuals, either for themselves or for devices on a family plan, we urge you to retain the prohibition on bulk unlocking consistent with both the 2010 and 2012 decisions from the Copyright Office. We believe that maintaining this prohibition will reduce smartphone thefts because the criminal sale of these devices will no longer be as profitable.'' I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to say to the gentleman from Colorado, I understand that you would like to see copyright law changed. But the fact of the matter is this is copyright law, and so the fact of the matter is right now consumers cannot legally unlock their phones, and we need to fix that problem. We have been working to do it. I have worked very closely with the ranking member of the full committee and the ranking member of the subcommittee on the Judiciary Committee so that this change that was made is bipartisan. It should come as a surprise to no one because we, in fact, discussed this during the markup of the bill in the committee. When we did discuss that, we said we would continue to work with Members moving forward, and we came up with language that is bipartisan. It is also supported, by the way, by Senator Leahy and Senator Grassley in the United States Senate. This is a bipartisan and bicameral compromise to move this legislation forward to address the concerns of organizations like the American Consumers Union supporting this legislation, the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, the Competitive Carriers Association, the CTIA, and also, importantly----

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, on the very point that the gentleman from California just raised, I will submit a letter for the Record from the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, representing many small businesses and entrepreneurs around America and endorsing this legislation. I would also like to note that the Consumers Union of America and the Competitive Carriers Association, which are the small telecommunications companies that have to compete with the big behemoths, would both be concerned about their ability to compete in this very area; but they both support this legislation as well, the Consumers Union representing consumers and small businesses, and the SBE representing small businesses and entrepreneurs. SBE Council, Vienna, VA, February 24, 2014. Hon. Bob Goodlatte, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Goodlatte: The Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council (SBE Council) is pleased to support H.R. 1123, the Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act of 2013. Entrepreneurs require flexibility to successfully run their businesses, and they certainly support the freedom and choice provided by H.R. 1123. H.R. 1123 repeals a Library of Congress (LOC) rulemaking determination regarding the circumvention of measures controlling access to copyrighted software on wireless telephone handsets for the purposes to connecting to other, different wireless handsets. This means entrepreneurs and small businesses can easily switch to another carrier once their contracts expire on their cell phones or tablets. H.R. 1123 is a common sense measure that aligns government policies with the flexibility the 100,000 members of SBE Council need. We look forward to working with you to advance

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from California.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Will the gentleman yield?