Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property 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, 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, soon after President Bush won reelection last November, he made it clear that the top priority of his second term would be the privatization of Social Security. This is something the President had thought of long before his second term. In fact, when he ran for Congress in the late seventies from Texas, he talked then about the Social Security plan going broke and that it should be privatized. So this is something he has thought of a long time. But since he was elected the second time, he and other members of his administration have organized a massive campaign, given countless speeches, and crisscrossed the country all in an effort to sell the American people privatization.

It has been a tough sell, though. The polls show that people have accepted this whole Social Security agenda about 25 percent. When he started it was in the 70s. Now it is down to 25 percent. It has been a tough sell because the President's privatization proposal is flawed in many ways. It would require deep benefit cuts, even for workers who don't choose to privatize accounts. It would require massive borrowing from countries such as China, Saudi Arabia, where we borrow about 40 percent of the money we borrow for this year's deficit, which will be in the hundreds of billions of dollars, probably closer to half a trillion than not. It would turn Social Security from a guarantee into a gamble. And his privatized accounts would not strengthen Social Security's finances at all. In fact, it would make the long-term challenge worse, not better. The President has said the privatization plan will not stabilize Social Security.

It is important to remember that even if we do nothing, which no one here is advocating, Social Security will pay 100 percent of promised benefits until about 2055 and about 80 percent thereafter. In fact, President Bush will be about 108 years old at the time Social Security would start paying 80 percent of benefits.

While claims of a crisis are obviously false, it is also true that we face a long-term challenge, and we as Democrats need to address that, as we have said we would.

Unfortunately, the President has other ideas. His goal is not to bolster Social Security. To the contrary, he went all the way to West Virginia, arguing that the trust fund is nothing more than an accounting fiction. And you can't argue for strengthening something if you don't believe it exists.

No, the President's goal isn't to strengthen Social Security. His goal is to privatize it. Privatization, with its deep benefit cuts and massive debt, would undermine Social Security, and as a matter of principle we Democrats will never go along.

Social Security is based on the best of American values. It promises Americans if they work hard, contribute, and play by the rules, they can retire and live in dignity, and their families will be protected if they become disabled or pass away. A third of the benefits paid out by Social Security are not, as my grandmother referred to it, old-age pensions. They are for people who are disabled, widows, orphans. Social Security is not a handout. It promises benefits that people earn through their hard work. That is as it should be, and we need to do everything we can to make good on that promise.

Fortunately, the American people agree with us. Along with several of my Democratic colleagues, I have traveled the country on behalf of Social Security and against privatization. Everywhere we go, whether rural areas, suburban settings, or big cities, the response is the same: Americans don't want Social Security privatized. Middle class workers don't want their benefits cut. They don't want our Nation to get even further in debt to the Chinese and Japanese and Saudis. They don't want to adopt a risky scheme that could undermine the retirement security they have worked so hard to earn.

According to one poll, as I have mentioned, only 25 percent of Americans support the President's handling of Social Security. The opposition to privatization is as broad as it is deep. From those numbers, it is very obvious that it is not only Democrats throughout the country who oppose this, Republicans oppose it, also. Most Americans in rural areas who are especially reliant on Social Security voted for President Bush last year, but they strongly oppose his privatization plan. In fact, among those rural residents who know a great deal about the President's plan, opponents outnumber supporters by almost 40 percent.

That certainly seems to be the prevailing view among my neighbors at home in Searchlight. Whenever I am home, folks tell me the same thing:

Protect Social Security and stop privatization. It is a message my colleagues are hearing from their constituents in every part of the country.

Because of this widespread opposition, some here in Washington have apparently concluded they could not pass this proposal on the Senate floor in an open and public debate. Rather than give up on this unpopular proposal, they are, instead, adopting a stealth strategy. It has been widely reported that many in the minority party are now seeking to move a bill through the Senate without the private accounts or painful benefit cuts included in the President's plan, not because the President has abandoned privatization or benefit cuts but, instead, because they recognize this is the only means available to them to get their flawed plan adopted by Congress.

Under this bait-and-switch strategy, what the Senate says or does on private accounts or benefit cuts during its consideration of legislation would be largely irrelevant. The Senate would pass a bill lacking private accounts or significant cuts and send it to conference with the House, which would be controlled by a handful of privatization supporters. These supporters would work behind closed doors to ensure that private accounts emerge in the conference report.

We will not allow that to happen. In recent weeks, we have seen new evidence that this is, in fact, the administration's strategy. Last week, for example, bills were introduced in the Senate and the House that were advertised as establishing private accounts with no pain whatsoever. But these proposals are nothing more than political gimmicks. In truth, they still would threaten benefits, they still would require massive borrowing from foreign countries, and they would still fail, at one day, Social Security's solvency. In fact, like the President's plan, the private accounts they propose would make matters worse.

No one is going to be fooled by this type of gimmickry, and Democrats are not naive or foolish enough to fall for a bait-and-switch strategy that has been widely advertised in advance.

So I call on the President and his supporters to face reality and give up on privatization. Rather than continuing to push for this radical and ideologically driven proposal, which is a buzzword for getting rid of Social Security, I propose they listen to the words of another Republican President from 50 years ago, Dwight D. Eisenhower. This is what General Eisenhower said back then--This is not some Democratic Senator, Democratic Governor, Democratic State legislator, or Democratic Member of the Senate. This is President Eisenhower:

Should any political party attempt to abolish Social

Security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws

and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in

our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of

course, that believes you can do all these things. Among them

are H.L. Hunt . . . and a few other Texas oil millionaires,

and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas.

Their number is negligible and they are stupid.

President Eisenhower.

As I have said, I want to make sure these words are not coming from me. These are President Eisenhower's words. But if President Eisenhower's view is not persuasive to our current President, I would propose he listen to the words of another Republican President, his dad. In 1987, the first President Bush called privatization, ``nutty.'' As he said at the time: ``It may be a new idea, but it's a dumb one.''

That is what two Republican Presidents said about privatization. They are right.

So I hope we can move beyond privatization, move beyond gimmicks, move beyond the attempt to secure private accounts through a transparent strategy of bait and switch. Instead, let's agree to strengthen Social Security and to do it on a bipartisan basis. That would be the right thing to do for America's workers and our country.

Is it my understanding the distinguished Senator from Texas wants to speak in time that has been reserved to the minority?

I don't think we have anyone coming, so you are sure welcome to use our time.

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, the main reason I wanted to come to the floor today was to talk about the important issue of private property rights. Today marks the 1-year anniversary of one of the most controversial decisions ever handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court, and that is the case of Kelo v. the City of New London. In that decision, the Court held by a 5-to-4 vote that the government may seize private property, whether it be a home or small business or other private property, for the purpose--not of public good but, rather, to transfer that same property to another private owner simply because the transfer would create an increased economic benefit to that community.

What made this such a profoundly alarming decision was that it represented a radical departure both from what the Constitution says-- that the power of government to condemn private property should be used only for public use--and it represented a radical departure from the decisions handed down interpreting that constitutional provision over the last 200 years.

After all, protection of homes and small businesses and other private property against government seizure or unreasonable government interference is a fundamental principle of American life and really a distinctive aspect of our form of government. Indeed, private property rights rank among the most important rights outlined by the Founding Fathers when this country was created. Thomas Jefferson wrote that the protection of such rights is:

. . . the first principle of association, ``the guarantee

to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the

fruits acquired by it.''

These protections were enshrined in the fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution which 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 power by eminent domain by permitting the government to seize private property only for ``public use'' and only upon paying just compensation.

The Court's decision in Kelo was sharply criticized by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in her dissent, in which she wrote:

[The Court] effectively [has] . . . deleted the words ``for

public use'' from the Takings Clause of the fifth amendment

and thereby ``refuse[d] to enforce properly the Federal

Constitution.''

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

. . . 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.

She further warns that, under Kelo, under the Supreme Court's decision just 1 year ago ``any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party,'' and she said, ``the fallout from this decision will not be random.''

Indeed, as noted in a friend-of-the-court brief filed by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the AARP and other organizations:

[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.

Again, that is the brief of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and AARP and others.

Suffice it to say that the Kelo decision was a disappointment. What I find particularly troubling is that the Kelo case is just one of many examples of the abuse of the power of eminent domain throughout our Nation. Its use for private development is now widespread. The Institute for Justice has documented more than 10,000 properties either seized or threatened with condemnation for private development during the 5-year period between 1998 and 2002. Despite the fact that so many abuses of that power were already occurring, the Kelo decision is particularly alarming, and local governments, the condemning authorities most often, have become further emboldened to take property for private development.

As this pattern has continued elsewhere, courts very quickly used this decision to reject challenges by owners to the taking of their property for other private parties. In 2005, for example, a court in Missouri relied upon Kelo in reluctantly upholding the taking of a home so that a shopping mall can be built. As the judge commented:

The United States Supreme Court has denied the Alamo

reinforcements. Perhaps the people will clip the wings of

eminent domain in Missouri, but today in Missouri it soars

and devours.

I firmly believe legislative action is appropriate and necessary, and I am not alone in that belief. Several State legislatures have taken immediate action. Indeed, my home State of Texas passed legislation that was signed into law by the Governor last summer that protects private property from seizure for purposes of economic development. But it is also necessary and appropriate that Congress take action consistent with our authority under the Constitution to restore the vital protections of the fifth amendment. That is why the week after the Court handed down its decision I introduced S. 1313 entitled ``the Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005.'' I am delighted that other Senators have joined in that in broad and bipartisan support, including the immediate support shortly after it was filed of the Senator from Florida, Mr. Bill Nelson.

Today I am happy to report that a total of 31 of our colleagues have joined me as cosponsors of this important bill. This bill would ensure that the power of eminent domain is exercised only for public uses, consistent with and guaranteed by the fifth amendment of the Constitution. Most important, though, it would make sure the power of eminent domain would not simply be used to further private economic development interests.

The act would apply the standard to two areas of government action which are clearly within Congress's authority to regulate: No. 1, all exercises of the power of eminent domain by the Federal Government itself; and No. 2, all exercises of the power of eminent domain by State and local governments using Federal funds.

While we work to protect private property rights, we are mindful that the language we craft could have far-reaching implications. There is no question that where appropriate, eminent domain can play an important role in ensuring that true public uses are preserved. But now, just 1 year after the Supreme Court shut the door on Suzette Kelo and her fellow homeowners in New London, CT, it is imperative that Congress act soon to ensure that private property remains free from the long arm of government so that no American will have to worry about the Federal Government being involved in taking their private property for private development.

Chairman Specter of the Senate Judiciary Committee, on which I am proud to serve, is working with me on legislation that I hope he will choose to move soon through the committee. I look forward to working with him and my other colleagues to develop a solution that reaffirms our commitment to the protection of private property rights, one that will help stem the tide of egregious abuses of private property rights that we have seen throughout the Nation by the illegitimate use of the power of eminent domain.

I yield the floor.