PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Congressional Research Service
Version 81 · Passed House without amendment · Jun 30, 2005
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Expresses disagreement with the majority opinion in Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al. (Kelo) and its holdings that effectively negate the public use requirement of the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that state and local governments: (1) should only execute the power of eminent domain for the public good; (2) must always justly compensate affected individuals in accordance with the Fifth Amendment; (3) should never use eminent domain to advantage one private party over another; and (4) should not construe Kelo as justification to abuse the power of eminent domain.
Reserves to Congress the right to address through legislation any abuses of eminent domain by state and local government in light of Kelo.
People & committees
Rep. Gingrey, Phil [R-GA-11] · R–GA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 365 - 33, 18 Present (Roll no. 361). (text as passed House: CR H5577)
House roll call 361 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 365 - 33, 18 Present (Roll no. 361).(text as passed House: CR H5577)
House roll call 361 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H5592-5593)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
FURTHER DEBATE - By unanimous consent, the House proceeded with an additional 12 minutes of debate to be equally divided and controlled.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H. Res. 340.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5577-5585)
Mr. Sensenbrenner moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H5370)
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.Res.340 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.Res.340 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.Res.340 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.Res.340 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.