Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I am pleased that my colleagues have focused on the importance of the Supreme Court's Kelo decision. The power of eminent domain is an extraordinary power that must be used rarely and with great care. Even where the constitution might permit the exercise of this extraordinary power, government must take great care to respect the rights of families, of small businesses and of communities. This is not a power that should be used for the benefit of private parties who might be well connected, as Justice O'Connor said. It is a power that can be abused, and that has been abused.

I want to point out that the Supreme Court, in this decision, is essentially saying that power that communities have exercised, they can continue to exercise, where some thought that we ought to pull it back. For example, when President Bush was one of the owners of the Texas Rangers baseball team, they were able to get the town of Arlington, Texas, to condemn private property to give them land to build a baseball stadium. Ask the Mathes family about the abuse of power. The city condemned 13 acres of their land for George Bush's baseball team, and the Mathes family had to go to court to compensate them for the actual value of the land.

Now, I think we would agree that was not right, and the Supreme Court now says that that is okay. We cannot allow private individuals to be enriched at the expense of their neighbors by hijacking and abusing the power of government.

The Kelo decision raises a great many questions, and I want to commend my colleagues, the chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), for introducing legislation and allowing the Committee on the Judiciary to consider the full impact of the court's decision and draw the proper line between the public interest and private enrichments. We need to protect families like the Mathes family, victimized by the Texas Rangers and the town government in Texas, and we need to protect our communities from the abuse of government power to benefit private interest.

Now, I am going to reluctantly vote against the resolution because, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) said, it says things about the decision that probably are not accurate. I do not think the decision said that you can use the power of eminent domain for the sole benefit of another private person. It might be the incidental benefit of a private person if you could concoct a theory of public benefit. I do not think it completely negates the public use requirements of the takings clause.

Having said that, the basic purpose of the resolution is a good one, and the basic purpose of the legislation that the chairman has introduced is a good purpose. But I hope we will hold a series of hearings on the Committee on the Judiciary. We should hold one hearing to determine from experts exactly what the Supreme Court said; how far it went and how far it did not go. When the dissent says it went this far, it does not mean that is what the majority meant. Dissents often overemphasize the implications of the majority decision.

So I think we should have one hearing on what the Supreme Court actually said and what we are faced with, and I think we should have another hearing on where we think we should draw the line. Communities need to be able to use eminent domain for legitimate economic development, but they should not be able to use it for private enrichment. How do you draw that line?

These are serious questions that we should consider adequately. I think we should hold a few hearings and craft careful legislation to limit the effect of the Supreme Court's decision, and I would hope that we could craft legislation carefully that we could all support in this House.

So, again, I commend Chairman Sensenbrenner, and I am glad to be able to have the opportunity to do that after recent history. I commend Ranking Member Conyers. But I will reluctantly vote against this resolution because, although I approve of its main thrust, I believe it says things about the court decision that are not quite accurate, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to fashion legislation that we can all support and that gets us what the Greeks called the proper mien to protect the rights of communities for proper economic development, but protect the rights of individuals. But I do, once again, thank the gentleman for bringing this subject to our attention.