Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, as a result of BRAC decisions, the military is reconsidering closing the Army Radar Approach Control at Fort Sill, OK. This amendment prohibits the FAA from moving air traffic control over the area to the TRACON at Oklahoma City. The amendment has been cleared on both sides.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Stabenow and ask it be considered.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this amendment deals with the HUD elderly demonstration program. It provides a set-aside out of HUD's 202 elderly housing program to fund the legacy housing program which provides for intergenerational housing units to assist low-income grandparents who are heads of households. This program was enacted in 2003. It seems to make eminent good sense to me.

Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I call up amendment numbered 2072 on behalf of Senator Craig, and I send a modification of the amendment to the desk.

Mr. BOND. I ask that Senator Murray be added as a cosponsor. The amendment clarifies the non-Federal share for certain funding. It has been cleared on both sides of the aisle. I ask my colleague if she wishes to make any comments.

Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, not having had a chance to review the entire workings of the amendment, this is a very serious legislative amendment. Unfortunately, this is not the appropriate place to raise this legislation. It is more appropriately concerned with the Energy Committee or other committees. I, therefore, raise a point of order that this is legislation on an appropriations bill. I believe now the Chair has a copy of the amendment. I raise an objection under rule XVI that this is legislation on an appropriations bill.

Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I note that my partner and comanager of the bill, the Senator from Washington, and I are here and ready to do business. We were ready to do business yesterday. We had one rollcall vote. There were more than 40 amendments filed yesterday. I know there are many others who have or are thinking about amendments. But we have enough work to do now if Members will come forward and offer their amendments that are filed or talk with us to see if they can be accepted. We would like very much to move forward on this bill today, and perhaps complete work on it by 8 o'clock tonight when the baseball game is on television. But hope springs eternal. We would love to see Members come forward. I think more are ready to go. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, there has been much discussion with many Members who are interested in this. I am filing it now, and I will ask unanimous consent that others who wish to be added as original cosponsors add their names. But I wanted to get it here on the floor so everybody could have a chance to look at it. We will shortly set it aside because I think we are perhaps ready to go forward with the minimum wage amendments. At this point, permit me to explain what the amendment is about. This amendment is in response to the U.S. Supreme Court case, Kelo, et al. v. City of New London, et al., in which the Court upheld by a 5- to-4 majority decision the use of eminent domain by the city of New London, CT. The Court noted that New London utilized a comprehensive plan that seeks to revitalize the city by using the land occupied by some 115 privately owned properties as well as 32 acres of land formally occupied by a naval facility to accommodate a $300 million Pfizer research facility, a waterfront conference hotel, a ``small urban village,'' as well as 80 new residences. The opinion seems to rely on ``affording legislatures broad latitude in determining what public needs justify the use of the takings power.'' The opinion also notes that nothing precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power. As discussed by the four-Justice dissenting opinion, this majority opinion goes much farther than the facts of the case and would essentially allow the use of eminent domain in virtually any circumstance where the locality believes some benefit could be derived. In particular, the four-Justice dissenting opinion concludes that ``under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner so long as it might be upgraded--i.e., given to a owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public--in the process.'' There are a number of problems that have already been raised in the eminent domain field. I say none are more striking than the proposal by a developer to condemn the land on which the home of one of the Justices in the majority opinion sits to put a new hotel and the Lost Freedom Bar on his property. In my State of Missouri, we have seen the use of eminent domain for a private purpose having tremendously harmful impacts in the Sunset Hills community in St. Louis County. Eminent domain was used by a private developer to condemn a large number of homes, forcing the residents out of their homes. The residents, in expectation of being forced out of their homes, purchased other houses. They began to move into other houses. The private developer went broke. Now these people are stuck with two mortgages, and the place they left is being declared a blighted area because everybody has left. This has had a double impact, not only on the homeowners who were forced to take out a second mortgage but on a community which now is blighted, and some enterprising developers are seeking tax subsidies and other help to renovate a blighted property. I believe most of us--and certainly the people I listen to in my home State of Missouri--believe this is absolutely wrong. When you look at the New London case, you see how a tragic result can occur under the Kelo decision if legislatures do not act. The Governor of Missouri has called for a task force to study eminent domain. I believe we have responsibility here to make sure that Federal funds are not used in the taking of property for a private use and utilizing Federal funds to bolster that effort. In the Kelo case, the dissenting opinion notes that the petitioners are nine resident or investment owners of 15 homes in one of the neighborhoods subject to eminent domain. One of the petitioners lived in the house that has been in her family for over 100 years. She was born in the house in 1918. Her husband has lived there since their marriage in 1946, and their petitioner son lives next door with his family. Moreover, the record makes no claim that these are anything but well-maintained houses that do not pose any source of social harm, unlike the circumstances of several earlier cases cited in the majority opinion. The opinion warns that despite the majority opinion's reliance on the city's comprehensive plan, there is nothing in the majority opinion that prohibits property transfers generated with less care, that are less comprehensive, that happen to result from a less elaborate process, where the only projected advantage is the incidence of higher taxes or the hope to transform an already prosperous city into an even more prosperous one. Despite my misgivings about the Kelo case and its implications, this amendment today is very narrow and merely limits the availability of Federal funds from within this act for the year for which it is applicable for use in funding eminent domain activities. The key issue in this amendment is that these funds should not be used to provide Federal support for eminent domain activities that primarily benefit private entities. The amendment recognizes the importance of supporting eminent domain activities in support of transportation projects, utility projects, and projects to remedy blight. Funds may still be used from the Federal sources in this act for these projects. Moreover, the amendment requires the GAO to conduct a study that analyzes the use of eminent domain throughout the Nation, as well as the results accomplished by these uses of eminent domain. I know some of my colleagues are proposing significant substantive authorizing legislation which would have a much broader band. This objective is worthwhile. I hope to join them at a later stage. This is just a starting step. It is a starting point to make sure eminent domain for private purposes is not funded in the coming year from funds from the Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary, Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies bill. I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this amendment. It establishes a very important principle. I hope to have a very solid vote for this amendment when it comes to the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I believe that is correct.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, there is time to speak. We would be happy to find the time for the distinguished Senator from Washington to speak. We are just asking this be set aside. If the objection is sustained, we will go immediately to a vote and get it out of the way.

Mr. BOND. Pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 of the 109th Congress, the fiscal year 2006 concurrent resolution on the budget, I make a point of order against the emergency designation contained in this amendment.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that this measure be set aside to be set for a vote at a time determined by the leaders on both sides.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, before I yield the floor to the other Senators who wish to speak, first, let me point out that while LIHEAP is a very important subject, it has nothing to do with this bill. There will be the Labor-HHS appropriations bill on the floor next week. There will also be a supplemental bill which will deal with it. While I am a big supporter of LIHEAP, this measure should be appropriately discussed in the forum where LIHEAP is handled. Either one of those two vehicles is appropriate. Now, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 4:30 today, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Kennedy amendment No. 2063, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Enzi amendment No. 2115. I further ask consent that prior to those votes there be 3 hours for debate equally divided between Senators Enzi and Kennedy to run concurrently on both the Enzi and Kennedy amendments; provided further that no second-degree amendments be in order to either amendment prior to the votes. I further ask consent that if either amendment does not have 60 votes in the affirmative, that amendment then be automatically withdrawn or fall to the point of order, if applicable. I further ask consent that there be 2 minutes equally divided prior to each vote.

Mr. BOND. No objection.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I raise a point of order under section 425(a)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act that the amendment is an unfunded mandate.

Mr. BOND. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we believe the amendment of the Senator from Iowa makes good sense. It has been cleared on both sides. I believe it can be agreed to by voice vote.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.