Reducing Conflicts of Interests in the Representation of Indian Tribes Act of 2005

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce new legislation, entitled the Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005. I introduce this legislation in response to a controversial ruling of the United States Supreme Court issued just last Thursday.

The protection of homes, small businesses, and other private property rights against government seizure and other unreasonable government interference is a fundamental principle and core commitment of our Nation's Founders. As Thomas Jefferson famously wrote on April 6, 1816, the protection of such rights is:

the first principle of association, ``the guarantee to

everyone of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits

acquired by it.''

The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution specifically provides that ``private property'' shall not ``be taken for public use without just compensation.'' The Fifth Amendment thus provides an essential guarantee of liberty against the abuse of the power of eminent domain, by permitting government to seize private property only ``for public use.''

On June 23, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its controversial 5-4 decision in Kelo v. City of New London. In that ruling, the Court acknowledged that ``it has long been accepted that the sovereign may not take the property of A for the sole purpose of transferring it to another private party B,''

and that under the Fifth Amendment, the power of eminent domain may be used only ``for public use.''

Yet the Court nevertheless held, by a 5-4 vote, that government may seize the home, small business, or other private property of one owner, and transfer that same property to another private owner, simply by concluding that such a transfer would benefit the community through increased economic development.

This is an alarming decision. As the Houston Chronicle editorialized this past weekend:

It seems a bizarre anomaly. The government in China or

Russia might take private property to hand over to wealthy

developers to build shopping malls and office plazas, but it

wouldn't happen in the United States. Yet, that is the

practice the U.S. Supreme Court narrowly approved this week.

Local governments, the court ruled, may seize private homes

and businesses so that other private entities can develop the

land into enterprises that generate higher taxes.

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this editorial be printed in the Record at the close of my remarks.

The Court's decision in Kelo is alarming because, as Justice O'Connor accurately noted in her dissenting opinion, joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Scalia and Thomas, the Court has:

effectively . . . delete[d] the words ``for public use'' from

the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment and thereby

``refus[ed] to enforce properly the Federal Constitution.''

Under the Court's decision in Kelo, Justice O'Connor warns,

[t]he 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.

She further warns that, under Kelo,

[a]ny property may now be taken for the benefit of another

private party, [and] the fallout from this decision will not

be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens

with disproportionate influence and power in the political

process, including large corporations and development firms.

As for the victims, the government now has license to

transfer property from those with fewer resources to those

with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse

result.

Indeed, as an amicus brief filed by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, AARP, and other organizations noted:

[a]bsent a true public use requirement, the takings power

will be employed more frequently. The takings that result

will disproportionately affect and harm the economically

disadvantaged and, in particular, racial and ethnic

minorities and the elderly.

In a way, the Kelo decision at least vindicates supporters of the nomination of Justice Janice Rogers Brown to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. That nomination attracted substantial controversy in some quarters, because of Justice Brown's personal passion for the protection of private property rights. The Kelo decision announced last Thursday demonstrates that her concerns about excessive government interference with property rights is well-founded and well within the mainstream of American jurisprudence.

The Houston Chronicle has called upon lawmakers to take action, editorializing this past weekend that:

lawmakers would do well to pass restrictions on this

distasteful form of eminent domain.

I firmly agree.

It is appropriate for Congress to take action, consistent with its limited powers under the Constitution, to restore the vital protections of the Fifth Amendment and to protect homes, small businesses, and other private property rights against unreasonable government use of the power of eminent domain.

That is why I am introducing today the Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005. The legislation would declare Congress's view that the power of eminent domain should be exercised only ``for public use,'' as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment, and that this power to seize homes, small businesses, and other private property should be reserved only for true public uses. Most importantly, the power of eminent domain should not be used simply to further private economic development. The act would apply this standard to two areas of government action which are clearly within Congress's authority to regulate: (1) All exercises of eminent domain power by the Federal Government, and (2) all exercises of eminent domain power by State and local government through the use of Federal funds.

It would likewise be appropriate for states to take action to voluntarily limit their own power of eminent domain. As the Court in Kelo noted, ``nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power.''

The protection of homes, small businesses, and other private property rights against government seizure and other unreasonable government interference is a fundamental principle and core commitment of our Nation's Founders. The Kelo decision was a disappointment, but I congratulate the attorneys at the Institute for Justice for their exceptional legal work and for their devotion to liberty. We must not give up, and I know that the talented lawyers at the Institute for Justice have no intention of giving up. In the aftermath of Kelo, we must take all necessary action to restore and strengthen the protections of the Fifth Amendment. I ask my colleagues to lend their support to this effort, by supporting the Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005.

Exhibit 1

Stealing Home

It seems a bizarre anomaly. The government in China or

Russia might take private property to hand over to wealthy

developers to build shopping malls and office plazas, but it

wouldn't happen in the United States. Yet, that is the

practice the U.S. Supreme Court narrowly approved this week.

Local governments, the court ruled, may seize private homes

and businesses so that other private entities can develop the

land into enterprises that generate higher taxes.

The Supreme Court found, 5-4, that local elected officials

are not barred by the Constitution from condemning whole

neighborhoods and small businesses if, in their view, doing

so would lead to redevelopment that increases tax

collections.

A majority on the court was convinced that the possibility

of improving the tax base for the benefit of the wider

community satisfies the Fifth Amendment's requirement that

private property can be taken by eminent domain only for a

public purpose.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who dissented, pinpointed the

problem with the majority's argument. It cedes

``disproportionate influence and power'' to a community's

most powerful and well-connected residents.

Public parks, schools and right of way for thoroughfares

traditionally have provided the sort of public purpose to

justify government's use of eminent domain. Grand

redevelopment schemes, especially when they are cooked up by

government officials, often lack a sound economic basis and

carry the potential of becoming boondoggles that hurt

taxpayers.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority that local

officials are qualified judges of whether an economic

development project will benefit the community. In this case,

city officials in New London, Conn., plan to tear down

private homes to make way for a riverfront hotel, offices and

a fitness club.

``The city has carefully formulated an economic development

that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the

community, including--but by no means limited to--new jobs

and increased tax revenue,'' Stevens wrote.

But is that universally true? Municipal and county

governing bodies frequently miscalculate or wildly

overestimate the benefits of tax abatements and other

incentives.

Besides that, individual taxpayers don't necessarily

benefit from increased government revenues.

Sometimes the increased revenue proves insufficient to

cover the cost of providing services to new development.

Sometimes increased revenues are wasted on things other than

essential services.

Now that the high court has cleared the way for elected

officeholders to trump private property rights, abuse of

eminent domain becomes more likely, particularly in

neighborhoods populated by the least influential citizens. In

Texas, lawmakers would do well to pass restrictions on this

distasteful form of eminent domain.

Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce ``The Bone Marrow and Cord Blood Therapy and Research Act of 2005.'' I am grateful that Senators Dodd, Burr, Reed and Ensign have joined me as sponsors of this important, bipartisan bill. All five sponsors of this bill have been working on this legislation for the past few months. We have met with organizations that are deeply interested in participating in this new program and heard their input. We talked to other Senators, including members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee, who have a deep commitment to getting this legislation signed into law by the President. This bill was a group effort and I commend the sponsors of this bill on a job well done.

I am pleased that this legislation will be considered by the Senate HELP Committee on Wednesday; we are hopeful it will then be passed by the Senate in the near future. HELP Chairman Enzi and Ranking Democrat Kennedy and their staffs have been very supportive of our efforts in getting this bill through the Senate in a timely manner. I greatly appreciate their willingness to work with all of us on this important issue.

As many of my colleagues know, I introduced a bill earlier this year S. 681, the Cord Blood Stem Cell Act of 2005. I have introduced that legislation during the past three Congresses. The bill I have introduced with my colleagues today is a much improved version of my original cord blood legislation, primarily because it reflects a compromise between the key stakeholder groups that are deeply interested in providing federal funding to establish cord blood banks for public use. This legislation creates an easily accessible network of adult stem cell transplant material for the treatment of patients and supports the research into the uses of such cells.

One of the biggest changes in this bill is the establishment of a three year demonstration project for the collection and storage of cord blood units for a family in which a child has been diagnosed with a condition that will benefit from a cord blood transplant at no cost to the family. When we were meeting with individuals interested in this legislation, we were told by scientific experts that the most successful cord blood transplants come from a sibling's cord blood. Once a cord blood unit is put in a public cord blood bank, there is no guarantee that a family will be able to get that specific cord blood unit back if it is needed. Therefore, we believed that it was necessary to create this demonstration project so that families would have immediate access to its cord blood units. It is important to emphasize that the only families that may participate in this demonstration project are those that have a sick child or parent.

In addition, this legislation includes language calling for single point of access. The purpose of a single point of access is to provide health care providers with the ability to search for bone marrow donors and cord blood units through a single electronic point of access. Today, doctors have to search several places in order to find available cord blood units and bone marrow donors. A single point of access improves this process dramatically for both doctor and patient by making the search process much more efficient.

There is strong, bipartisan interest throughout the Congress for using adult stem cells to treat a wide variety of medical conditions. Our bill not only reauthorizes the National Marrow Donor Program, but it also creates a national network of public cord blood banks. Together, these two programs for umbilical cord blood and adult bone marrow will provide us with a widely-accepted source of hematopoietic stem cells for transplant and research.

For several decades, thousands of Americans have received and been saved by bone marrow transplants. But thousands more die for lack of an appropriate donor. The good news is that research now suggests that the blood and stem cells from human placenta and umbilical cords may in some cases provide an alternative to bone marrow transplantation. For some patients, particularly those for whom a bone marrow match cannot be found, transplantation of these cells may be a life-saving therapy. Cord blood stem cells are readily available, and they require less- stringent matching from donors to recipients, thus decreasing the difficulty of finding a fully matched donor.

Cord blood transplantation has been used successfully to treat leukemia, lymphoma, immunodeficiency diseases, sickle cell anemia, and certain metabolic diseases. However, the number of available cord blood stem cell units in the United States is insufficient to meet the need. The Bone Marrow and Cord Blood Therapy and Research Act of 2005 will establish an inventory of 150,000 new cord blood stem cell units that reflects the diversity of the United States' population. In conjunction with the five million potential bone marrow donors registered through the National Marrow Donor Program, this cord blood network will enable 95 percent of Americans to receive an appropriately matched transplant.

The Bone Marrow and Cord Blood Therapy and Research Act of 2005 also incorporates recommendations from the Institute of Medicine's recent report on cord blood. The Institute provided Congress with guidelines and recommendations to enhance the structure, function, and utility of the program. As a result, I am confident that this Nation's system for obtaining adult stem cells for transplantation purposes will improve dramatically, and that many more of our citizens will have access to the life-saving therapies they offer. Through transplants of this nature, we can finally cure previously incurable diseases such as sickle cell anemia. It is my hope that this legislation will help us ensure that children with this and other illnesses will be able to achieve their full potential, unhindered by poor health.

My goal, which I share with the other sponsors of this bill, is to create the best possible system to provide patients, clinicians, and families with access to these life-saving treatments. I believe the current bill does this by ensuring that the number of bone marrow donors and cord blood units available for transplant and research increases in the coming years.

The integrated system will include not only the international bone marrow donor registry, but also a network of qualified cord blood banks which will collect, test, and preserve cord blood stem cells. In addition, the system will educate and recruit donors, facilitate the rapid matching of donors and recipients, and quickly make such cells available to transplant centers for stem cell transplantation.

The establishment of a national infrastructure for transplant material will help save the lives of thousands of critically ill Americans. We must be sure that our Nation can meet the needs of patients and physicians by ensuring a strong future for bone marrow and cord blood in this country. My primary goal is to ensure that the amount of transplant material available for patient care and research increases in the coming years. The only way that goal may be accomplished is through strong federal support. I look forward to working with my colleagues on doing everything possible to provide transplant patients with the best possible options by ensuring a strong future for bone marrow and cord blood transplantation in this country. This is a good bill and I urge my colleagues to support it.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Hatch, Senator Burr, Senator Reed, and Senator Ensign in introducing legislation that will significantly benefit some of the most gravely ill patients--those in need of a blood stem cell transplant. By reauthorizing the national program for bone marrow, creating a similar program for umbilical cord blood, and expanding the national stockpile of umbilical cord blood units, this legislation will dramatically increase the chances that patients in need of a life-saving transplant will be able to find an appropriate genetic match.

The bill that we are introducing today is similar to legislation that Senator Hatch and I introduced earlier this year to create a national network of cord blood banks and a cord blood registry. However, there are two important differences. First, this legislation is consistent with recommendations made by the Institute of Medicine, IOM, in their recent report, ``Cord Blood: Establishing a National Hematopoietic Stem Cell Bank Program,'' about the structure of a national cord blood program. Second, and more importantly, this bill would also reauthorize the national bone marrow program, and put both bone marrow and cord blood under the auspices of a single national program. This structure reflects the complimentary nature of bone marrow and cord blood, and will ensure that physicians and patients can more easily find the best possible match for transplantation.

The therapeutic benefits of bone marrow are well established. Bone marrow transplants have been used for nearly half a century to treat patients suffering from diseases such as leukemia, Hodgkin's Disease, sickle cell anemia, and others. The use of cord blood as an alternative to bone marrow is a more recent development, but one that is just as promising and exciting.

The bill that we are introducing today will begin a new national commitment to the development of this technology which has the potential to reduce pain and suffering and save the lives of so many Americans afflicted with some of the most debilitating illnesses. Cord blood has already been used successfully in treating a number of diseases, including sickle cell anemia and certain childhood cancers. However, the use of cord blood is still in an early stage relative to the use of bone marrow, and may have even broader application in the II future.

Like many Americans, I had never heard of cord blood before the birth of my first daughter, almost 4 years ago. It is not widely used--at least in this country. Approximately 95 percent of all bone marrow reconstitutions are done using a bone marrow transplant--only 5 percent use cord blood. This figure is surprising when we consider the benefits of cord blood.

First, it can be very difficult to find a suitable bone marrow donor. According to a General Accounting Office, GAO, report, of the 15,231 individuals needing bone marrow transplants between 1997 and 2000 who conducted a preliminary search of the National Bone Marrow Donor Registry, NBMDR, only 4,056 received a transplant--a 27 percent success rate. This number is even lower for minorities. Cord blood would not only produce an additional source of donation; it also does not require as exact a genetic match as bone marrow.

In addition, cord blood is readily available. While it can take months between finding a bone marrow match and actually receiving a transplant, a unit of cord blood can be utilized in a matter of days or weeks. Cord blood also lowers the risk of complications for both the donor and the recipient. The need to extract bone marrow from the donor is eliminated, and the risk of infection or rejection by the recipient is significantly reduced. Finally, research has suggested that cord blood might produce better outcomes than bone morrow in children.

Why then, given all of these benefits, has the use of cord blood not become much more prevalent in the United States? In Japan, where the use of cord blood in clinical settings is more advanced, nearly half of all transplants now use cord blood rather than bone marrow.

The relatively infrequent use of cord blood in our country is at least partly attributable to the lack of a national infrastructure for the matching and distribution of cord blood units. There are a handful of cord blood banks around the country doing excellent work, but there is a much more developed infrastructure for bone marrow. This is thanks to legislation passed by Congress in 1986 that established a national registry for bone marrow, which this bill would reauthorize. Our bill

would create a similar infrastructure for cord blood, operating under the auspices of a newly established Bone Marrow and Cord Blood Cell Transplantation Program. In addition to connecting physicians and patients with a suitable bone marrow donor or cord blood unit, the program would be required to educate the general public about cord blood and bone marrow, and encourage an ethnically diverse population of donors.

Our bill would also provide grants to qualified cord blood banks to acquire 150,000 new cord blood units. This number is consistent with recommendations made by the IOM, and should be sufficient to provide a suitable match for 90 percent of the U.S. population.

Finally, the legislation authorizes an appropriation of $15 million for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2010 for the cord blood inventory grants, and $186 million over the next 5 years for the establishment and maintenance of the Bone Marrow and Cord Blood Cell Transplantation Program.

Before finishing today I would like to make it clear that, just as I believe that cord blood should act as a complement to, not a replacement for, bone marrow, I also believe that cord blood does not eliminate the need for research into the potential benefits of embryonic stem cells. Just as cord blood seems to be preferable to bone marrow for treating certain individuals or conditions--and the reverse is certainly true as well--the same may prove to be true for embryonic stem cells. Certainly, we should provide doctors with the best tools to help cure their patients, whether those tools come from bone marrow, cord blood, embryonic stem cells, or another source entirely.

I firmly believe that the strengthening of our national infrastructure for bone marrow and the creation of a similar infrastructure for cord blood will save the lives of thousands of gravely ill Americans. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that calls on the administration to assess the progress of poverty reduction efforts around the world since September 2000, when the Millennium Declaration was unanimously adopted by more than 180 nations, including the United States. Each of these nations signed an agreement to work toward defined objectives, called the Millennium Development Goals, which include the commitments to: build a global partnership for

development; eradicate extreme poverty by halving the number of people living on less than one dollar a day and the number who suffer hunger; achieve universal primary education for boys and girls alike; reduce by two-thirds the under-5 child mortality rate; halt and reverse the spread of AIDS, malaria and other major disease; promote gender equality, reduce maternal mortality by two-thirds; and ensure environmental sustainability.

This bill also highlights the important research and recommendations of the Report of the Commission for Africa that was commissioned by Prime Minister Tony Blair in preparation for the July 2005 G8 Summit in Scotland. The report, entitled ``Our Common Interest,'' is an excellent study of past development efforts and current opportunities to respond to the challenges of extreme poverty in Africa.

Three important international forums will occur this year that will help define the world's response to extreme poverty; the group of Eight highly industrialized countries will meet in July at Gleneagles, Scotland and will address the challenges and opportunities of the African continent; The United Nations Summit to review progress on the Millennium Development Goals will occur in September. It will provide an opportunity to measure global coherence and commitment to specific objectives in eradicating extreme poverty by 2015; and the The Sixth Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organization will meet in Hong Kong in December. Progress toward a genuinely equitable trade round in Hong Kong could provide a significant boost to global international development.

This bill asks that the Secretary of State produce a report on the commitments made by the United States and the international community to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, including the decisions made in regard to these goals in the three upcoming summits. It asks that the report assess the prospects of achieving these goals by 2015 and to review policies that maintain continued United States leadership in reducing poverty worldwide. The report would be due 60 days after the completion of the WTO summit December 13-18, 2005.

The purpose of this report is to encourage a discussion of the goals themselves and the practical challenges with which each of these goals must contend. This discussion should take place within and among donor and developing governments, on a continuing basis. The upcoming summits are an important opportunity to continue that discussion as well as to make concrete efforts, and if necessary adjustments, to achieving such goals.

Since the Millennium Summit in 2000, the United States has taken steps to invest in development in a more comprehensive manner. President Bush made an historic commitment to address the threat and impact of HIV-AIDS on the countries most affected by this pandemic. The United States also established a bold new development initiative that closely parallels important elements of the MDGs and the recommendations of the Commission for Africa report. The Millennium Challenge Corporation has begun to deliver billions in assistance to developing nations that are committed to investing in their own people, to ruling justly, and to encouraging economic freedom. In addition, the United States removed barriers to trade with eligible African countries through the successful Africa Growth and Opportunity Act.

There are many other significant efforts by the United States to address the challenges to poor countries face, from technical assistance to bilateral and multi-lateral debt relief, from peacekeeper training and equipping to capacity building and emergency assistance. Whether bilaterally or through multilateral institutions, the international community should capitalize on a coordinated strategy that reinforces the prospect of a more peaceful and stable world.

The commitment of the United States to the moral and humanitarian goal of reducing the inequities seen across the developing world is a key factor in achieving greater security at home and abroad. Since September 11, 2001, our nation has been engaged in a debate over how to apply national power and resources most effectively to realize the maximum degree of security. Throughout this process, I have been making the point that we are not placing sufficient weight on the diplomatic and economic tools of national power.

Even as we seek to capture key terrorists and destroy terrorist units, we must be working to perfect a longer term strategy that reshapes the world in ways that are not conducive to terrorist recruitment and influence. To win the war against terrorism, the United States must assign U.S. economic and diplomatic capabilities the same strategic priority that we assign to military capabilities. There are no shortcuts to victory. We must commit ourselves to the painstaking work of foreign policy day by day and year by year. As we undertake this mission, we must be persistent in our advocacy among our fellow nations to encourage a global partnership and commitment to eradicating poverty.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to address conflicts of interest and the appearance of conflicts involving former Federal officers and employees who represent Indian tribes.

The legislation amends the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEA), 25 US.C. 450i(j), by limiting the exemption from Federal conflicts of interest laws. Current law exempts from the conflicts laws former Federal officers and employees who ``are employed by Indian tribes'', thus permitting these former Federal employees immediately to lobby the departments they just left and act as agents and attorneys for the tribes. The legislation limits this exemption only to those former Federal employees who are employees of Indian tribes pursuant to self-determination contracts or self-governance compacts.

The bill clarifies what I believe was the intent of the Congress, as evidenced by House Report No. 93-4600 that accompanies the ISDEA, that Federal employees who work in an area that is contracted or compacted to a tribe be able to continue performing their jobs if they become employees of the Indian tribe for purposes of working in the contracted or compacted area. The exception that was made to the conflict laws appeared to have been made in response to the recognition that when Indian tribes took on the responsibility of operating programs traditionally fulfilled by the Federal Government, they would need experienced individuals to fulfill contracted or compacted functions.

Former Federal employees who leave the Federal Government and go to work as outside lawyers or lobbyists for Indian tribes, however, would, under the legislation I am introducing today, be subject to the same conflicts of interest restraints that apply to other former Federal employees who work for other entities. The bill takes effect one year after enactment to allow time for people to familiarize themselves with the new law and for tribes to seek alternative representation if necessary.

Limiting the waiver of conflicts laws in this manner proposed in this bill will address a problem identified by the Inspector General of the Department of Interior. In a report dated February 2002, entitled ``Allegations Involving Irregularities in the Tribal Recognition Process and Concerns Relating to Indian Gaming, the IG laid out a number of contacts by former BIA and DOI officials, who left Federal employment to represent tribes at law firms, to the BIA regarding recognition matters that, but for the exemption from the conflicts rules, they would be barred from making. The IG suggested that these contacts were improper, but not illegal. These contacts were all made by former Federal employees who worked as outside lawyers and lobbyists for tribes. In his testimony before the Senator Committee on Indian Affairs earlier this year, the Inspector General again raised the issue of conflicts of interest and referred to a problem of a ``revolving door'' involving former Department of Interior officials. This legislation seeks to address that problem. I urge my colleagues to support it. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.