New England National Scenic Trail Designation Act

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I appreciate the opportunity to be here. I appreciate Mr. Grijalva as well for joining me here on this particular bill.

There are three types of trail bills that the National Park Service has: historic, recreational, and scenic. This happens to be the last of those; a scenic trail. We have not done one of those since 1983. It would seem that after 25 years, one of the things we ought to be able to do is at least do it the right way.

In the 107th Congress, a study was mandated on this particular trail and was not to go forward until the study was completed, the environmental review was completed. The study has not yet been completed. It is close to it, but not, which is, once again, one of the reasons we will be talking in a few minutes about an amendment to say this should go into place once regular order has taken place, the study has been completed, and then, appropriate to our rules to move forward at that particular time.

This particular trail has been, since 1931, done on a volunteer, local operation. People there have automatically authorized the use of their land, private property, for trails. It has been that way for over 70 years, has functioned well, and it should be one of those things of which we are extremely proud in this country, that people can actually come together and work together on a local area to do something that is good, without the heavy hand of the Federal Government helping them along the way. We have had 70 years of experience with that.

Now, one of the things I'd like to talk about, because I am an old history teacher, is simply one of the things we need to do as a Congress and as a people is to learn the lessons of history. We obviously know the hackneyed cliche that if we don't learn those lessons, we will repeat them. Or, as P.J. O'Rourke did a much better corollary, he who did not learn the lessons of history probably didn't do well in English or remedial math as well.

This Congress ought to do well in all of those, and one of those is the potential of those lessons of history. It is from those of us in the West who have had a sad experience dealing with Federal issues on Federal land issues. So our good friends in the East have not had that experience yet.

The State of Massachusetts has a grand total of 1.8 percent of its State owned by the Federal Government. The State of Connecticut has a whopping .4 percent of its State owned by the Federal Government. Very little interface with the Federal Government, which may be one of the reasons why Mr. Young of Alaska or Mr. Heller of Nevada, who stand up with concerns, should be taken into consideration, because 90 percent of their State is owned by the Federal Government, or Mr. Flake of Arizona, with half of his State, over half controlled by the Federal Government, or 70 percent of my State is controlled by the Federal Government. And we have had, by sad experience, seen where well-meaning and well-intentioned efforts on behalf of the Federal Government have led to some negative and unfortunate situations.

I want to tell you one story in an issue that is different than a trail setting. I want to talk about Gene, an old farmer, third- generation farmer, growing sugar beets, which, by definition, is a root crop and cannot grow in wetlands. Gene decided he would rent part of his sugar beet land for alfalfa, and to make sure that the water, which was going from an irrigation pipe from the creek to his land, would get to the high point, he allowed it to pool in the lower point.

One day, one of the Federal regulators, given authority under a very vague Federal law, came there and said that land is obviously a wetland. Actually, what he simply said is that the Great Salt Lake is part of our interstate commerce system, Logan Creek is part of it going into the Great Salt Lake. Therefore, the irrigation pipe is part of the navigable waterways of the United States, and the water is a wetland.

It didn't matter that Gene was able to get the Soil and Conservation Corps in there to prove the land was not conducive to wetlands; didn't matter that once he stopped the irrigation pipe, the water went away. In fact, that same regulator from the Federal Government threatened to throw him in jail if he actually stopped that water from going into the navigable rivers, i.e., irrigation pipes of the United States.

The end result is that this old gentleman, who in his entire experience in working with the Federal Government I never heard him utter one swear word, although I did on many occasions, had his entire heritage regulated and controlled by, not taken, because that means the Federal Government would have had to pay him for it, instead, they regulated and controlled it. They told him what he could or could not do. They took away not only his heritage, but took away his pension. They also took away his pension and legacy for his children, and, yes, I am mad about that.

When this Congress passed the Clean Water Act, which has to be a wonderful act; no one would be opposed to the Clean Water Act, we did not intend to take Gene and ruin his life. But because the language was vague, we allowed government entities to interpret it their own way, and, in fact, we harmed that old gentleman. It's not what we intended to do. No one wanted to do it, but, nonetheless, that citizen was harmed.

We have already talked in the rule debate over one citizen who wanted out of this trail system, and by the fact she had enough money and time and determination, she was allowed to be exempt from that. Whether that is isolated or indicative of a greater situation is what we must be very careful of; otherwise, our good intentions will actually harm and hurt individuals, which is not what we should be doing.

We did have testimony coming in of other people who were in this same situation in this same area. The government should not be in the business of harming people. We should be in the business of protecting the little guy so that his home, his farm, his legacy is neither harmed by anything that we will do. Too many irregularities with government land have happened in the past to say that we can do anything less than making sure that our language in these types of bills is specific and direct as to what we intend to be the net product. If we say we want to save somebody's property, we don't want to take it, it must be specific and direct and say that; otherwise, like we had with the Clean Water Act, people can interpret it in a different way, and American citizens get harmed.

Mr. Chairman, under the pronouncement, the point that was made by Mr. Grijalva at the very beginning of his motion, I would like to submit letters into the Record indicative of individuals who have those same problems dealing with the Federal Government. It wasn't intended for them to be harmed, but they have been harmed and they have been harassed in like situations.

We have proposed several amendments which in all sincerity if adopted would make us happy with this bill, and we could support it in every sense of the word.

One of the issues deals with the concept of hunting and gun rights. Long in the 75-year-plus history of this trail, there has been a cooperative effort to make sure that those rights were not infringed and that local ordinance and local concerns would be the dominant factor. We want to make sure that that is very clear in this bill. It is the intent of the sponsor, but we insist that the verbiage has to be specific to make sure that that is never put into any

question or doubt by some future Congress, some future regulator, some future judge.

We will have an amendment also to be presented to do exactly that, to make sure that it is very clear that is our intent, that local law will take precedence.

We have said before that we are concerned about a potential eminent domain loophole within this bill. We are concerned about that, and at some time we will want to address that as we go through with this particular debate.

April 14, 2007.

Re H.R. 1528.

Chairman Nick Rahall,

Ranking Member Don Young,

House Committee on Natural Resources.

Chairmen Rahall and Ranking Member Young: My name is

Katherine (Kitty) Breen and I am writing to testify in

opposition to H.R. 1528, the New England Trail Bill.

My family owned Saddleback Mountain and Ski Area in

Rangeley Maine. The Appalachian Trail traversed over

Saddleback Mountain and bisected the mountain's ski terrain.

The negotiation between my family and the NPS over what could

have been a simple land donation exceeded 20 years and had a

serious, long-term detrimental affect on my family, the ski

area and the surrounding community. Eventually, after

millions of dollars lost, countless hours of time from our

highest ranking state and federal public officials, strained

professional careers of an entire ``at risk'' community, and

negative health and financial repercussions for my family

members, the Saddleback Issue was resolved. For now.

I speak to you as someone who has been NPS classified as a

``willing'' seller. In reality, we were bullied, pressured,

intimidated, threatened, ignored, played with and forced. In

the end, we escaped, we are still alive, financially solvent,

and able to be grateful to those who helped us. Most land

owners who deal with the NPS administrators are not as

fortunate. For this reason, I feel a moral responsibility to

speak out.

I have previously submitted testimony on July 26, 2005

describing many of the legal details and strategies devised

by the NPS to take more land than was legally allowed or

intended by Congress. Let me just say here, that during the

entire 23-year conflict, which began in 1978 and ended in

2001, my family was acting honorably and in good faith,

trying to donate the required land to secure a permanent

passageway for the Appalachian Trail. Many offers were put in

writing, countless face to face negotiations were held (many

which were observed or even facilitated by Senators Snowe and

Collins and their staff), thousands of citizens wrote letters

and a unanimous resolution passed by the state Senate urged

acceptance of our donation offers. And yet, inexplicably, the

NPS not only refused to accept or seriously consider our

offers but in an increasingly intimidating manner, proceeded

to bully and emotionally threaten us for more.

I am opposed to this Bill because in our experience, the

authority you think you are granting the NPS, will not be

what they will implement. They will find ways to interpret

that authority in ways unforseen by Congress, to achieve

goals Congress may even be explicitly forbidding. In our

specific case, even when we were able to point out

inconsistent and incorrect intrepretations of power, even

when a sitting U.S. Senator commanded them to behave, it

became clear that no one had the oversight or authority to

stop them. Based on our experience and those of others with

whom we have spoken along the Trail, they can and will

interpret this bill and its authority inappropriately to

bully landowners.

I am writing this letter because we are not typical

landowners. On reflection, we were fortunate to have a

constellation of resources, political capital, expertise,

moral determination and luck that others would not be likely

to have. My family had another business which financed us.

Our long-standing relationship with a community which

supported us and wanted us to succeed enabled us to undertake

a grass roots campaign involving thousands of supporters. We

were lucky that all of the Maine Congressional Delegation

were honest, hardworking, reputable public servants who would

listen to us, provide neutral environments conducive to

resolution, observe injustices, and ultimately take action

that achieved resolution. Ultimately, our problem was

resolved by Secretary Babbitt himself, who worked with ex-

Senator Mitchell and Senators Snowe and Collins and

Congressmen Baldacci and Allen. Our case was resolved on the

day Clinton left office.

In sum, we had not only luck, but tremendous resources and

political pressure on our side. We cannot imagine any other

single land owner having the financial resources,

determination, intellectual capacity, political capital or

emotional/physical health to fight the NPS administrators who

use unjust tactics to achieve unintended program goals.

Following are a few examples of what we consider unjust

tactics: we experienced repeated attacks on our integrity,

often by radio in our home town. My family has a deep and

broad commitment to public service, so these attacks hurt.

While our longstanding reputation protected us from these

attacks, it was nonetheless hurtful and continues to be so.

Nothing has been unaffected: my career, my husband's career,

my family's reputation.

They also conducted biased ``scientific'' studies and

publicly vilified us regarding financial viability in order

to justify our existence. With limited resources, we were

placed in a position where we had to defend ourselves and

refute their studies instead of being able to spend what time

and resources we did have growing the business. We were shut

out from public opportunities to set the record straight

despite requests from a sitting U.S. Senator to allow us to

do so.

The negative campaign conducted trashing Saddleback's

business viability continued to have repercussions long after

the settlement. When my father retired, it was very hard for

us to convince future owners of the mountain's viability.

There were stacks of inaccurate NPS studies showing otherwise

and we had to disprove everything. Additionally, despite

verbal agreements that the NPS would not come back for more

land once we had left, the NPS refused to put such a

statement in writing.

In our experience, the NPS uses the Appalachian Trail

Conference (ATC) to do the work they are legally prevented

from doing. The two work in inappropriate partnership in this

regard. In all negotiation sessions, the ATC presented

scenarios on behalf of the NPS, and were presented to us as

representing the NPS. But agreements forged with the ATC were

then retracted by the NPS. In this way they were able to

squeeze more concessions out of us.

Showing up to negotiation sessions with no decision making

authority was another common tactic and any level playing

field requirements we requested were turned against us. For

example, they refused to negotiate at all if we required

transcripts of the negotiations and agreed upon outcomes. And

after refusing multiple invitations for negotiation during

the nine months of my pregnancy, they sent a letter to my

office a week after my son was born threatening eminent

domain if I didn't meet to negotiate immediately. Only a few

weeks later a Maine newspaper headline screamed that

negotiations were off due to my baby's ``colic''. You can

imagine how a first time mother who had left her chosen

career and worked tirelessly in good faith throughout her

pregnancy would feel.

Today, six years after resolution, we are still recovering

from the personal toll the conflict took on us. I am just now

starting to feel like the anger I developed as a result of

the Saddleback/NPS experience is starting to leave me, and

that I can begin to talk about it without negative

repercussions. Even so, I try not to talk about it or think

about it and I work to shield my 76 year old father from it.

My husband and I are grateful the sense of betrayal and anger

has finally left our house.

The general public does not want to believe that NPS

administrators are the bullies they have shown themselves to

be. But they are and as our elected officials you need to

know that. Based on conversations with other land owners, I

believe that a majority of land owners who have had to

negotiate with the NPS have similarly devastating experiences

to share.

It is hard to come forward. We still have land at

Saddleback, and fear that they will retaliate. Other people

will feel the same way. It is not in my family's best

interest to write this letter, I did not want to write this

letter, but I feel a moral responsibility to my country to do

so.

My family and the Western Region of Maine had the benefit

of an amazing constellation of resources and good luck. I can

not imagine such luck striking twice or that most land owners

would be able to withstand the indecent tactics employed by

the current NPS administration. Nor can I envision a way that

you can regulate against them once you have empowered them.

While I can support the creation of a multistate trail

system, I cannot in any way support NPS or ATC involvement in

such a cause. Please create the Trails under the State

regulators and under the guidance of state citizens with

access to State Government. Please join me in opposing NE

trail Bill H.R. 1528.

Thank you,

Kitty Breen,

Former Executive Vice President and Chief Negotiator for

Saddleback Mountain.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk about one other potential problem with this particular bill. It is not really a problem, but it is a concern that needs to be addressed in some particular way.

We have talked a great deal over the past year about the concept of

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), one of the cosponsors of the bill. Hopefully by the end of this day we can accept some amendments that would make all of us happy with this particular bill.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to address one last element of this particular bill. As I've said, it is my hope that with some of the amendments that can be passed or added, some modification, this can be a very, very good bipartisan bill.

There is one concern I have that I want to specifically address, and it's been talked around the edges by everyone, but it is the concept of eminent domain. I have said before, in the original remarks, that oftentimes as a government we do things not intending to actually harm people, but that's the net result. And unless we are crystal clear on the language that what we intend to do is what will happen, that sometimes, down the road, tends to be the net result, and I want to try to avoid this in this particular trail situation.

The National Park Service is unique in that it does have condemnation power. This is an amendment to the National Trails System Act. The condemnation power within that act is not modified in any way. The language is there. It stays. It's not terminated. It's not finished in some particular way.

It is the intent, I assume, and I believe of the sponsor of this legislation, that condemnation would not be used on any of the private lands within this trails system. I think he's very sincere and legitimate in that. That is our effort as well. But the text of the bill, the amendment to the total act, is not crystal clear as to that point.

What they have tried to do in the text of this bill is say that land, if it's going to be taken over by the park service, would have to come from willing sellers. That is an effort to try and stop the Federal Government from using the condemnation power to take over land.

The problem is, though, is the definition of ``willing seller'' sometimes gets murky as time goes on, and what is specifically not allowed in the bill, or not solved, not clearly stated in the bill is what I call the loophole. It's that even though the Federal Government would have to buy from only willing sellers, State and local governments would not. State and local governments could condemn the property, and then they could become the willing seller. And as the act encourages the National Park Service to accept or acquire property, that is a way around the concept of what we're talking about. And I don't think that's what the sponsor intended. I'm not trying to put words in his mouth. Clearly, by the testimony in front of the committee, I don't think that's what he intended. I don't think that's what the committee intended to see happen. I know that is what we fear, and I know we do not want that to be the concept taking place. What we need is very succinct and crystal clear language that said that no land will be accepted by the Federal Government if any of it was taken by the concept of eminent domain. So whether the Federal Government tries to use eminent domain or whether the State and local government uses eminent domain and then the State becomes the willing seller to give it to the Federal Government, that will not be a way our citizens will be treated in this trails system. That language is important to me. I think it's important to our side. That is what I talked about in the protection of the little guy who may not even know this is going to be imposed upon him. In this post-Kelo decision world, those kinds of concepts become important. If this issue was to be solved, it would be one of the things that I think would solve any other kind of acrimonious debate that would go forward. A couple of issues. This is one of the key ones. It's one of the important ones. And I bring that up because I know the language was put in there to prohibit the Federal Government from using eminent domain, but there is still a loophole, so the Federal Government could end up with land that had been condemned by the second party, which would be the State and the local governments. We should be very crystal clear that we do not wish to do that.

One of the amendments proposed to the Rules Committee said specifically that no land would be taken that had been acquired through eminent domain. That's one of our concepts. That's one of the principles. That's one, I think, of the elements that I think is significant.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have every intention of saving the committee some time on this particular amendment. It is, I think, very straightforward.

In the 107th Congress a bill was passed that said there would be a study, a feasibility study based on this project. The gentleman from Massachusetts was the author of that piece of legislation.

Bottom line is the feasibility study has yet to be completed, period. This is simply a concept of regular order. What this says is that this trail will not be slowed down, but it will be enacted once we have gone through the process outlined before, regular order, and the feasibility study is finalized and presented. Then the trail would actually be enacted. It's an effort to try and maintain the standards and the process that we have established before.

With that, actually, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this particular amendment is one of the key concerns that we do have with this bill, that if it were solved would go a long way to satisfying our concerns with this particular bill.

It is one of the unique concepts that a power has been given to the National Park Service that is not given to the Bureau of Land Management or to the National Forest Service to regulate gun laws and hunting laws within their jurisdiction, even if it violates something that the local government in that jurisdiction would like to imply, something that happens to be different.

This trail, as we said, has been around for over 70 years, very efficiently and very effectively on private and state lands. And the argument that we made is that there is no reason that you should deny Park Service authority to curtail these activities because they're not going to get these activities or they're not going to get control of the land.

The problem is that there is a unique history on this trail of voluntary cooperation. That is not necessarily the same thing that takes place once the Federal Government takes ownership or the Federal Government takes administrative control of this particular trail.

The Park Service does have the authority to change the rules of local government. This is the language that's given in the bill. It is not modified by this particular act. Even though the intent may not be as we have heard to have the Federal Government take over property in this land, it is the intent of the management plan that is there.

If you look at the management plan, it talks about a blueprint for recommendations to utilize restrictive zoning, height restrictions, land acquisition easements, et cetera, et cetera, going through all sorts of other concepts.

This simply means this: this legislation authorizes and encourages the Federal Government, the Park Service, to gain land in the future in this trail system. Once the Park Service has gained control of that land, then Park Service rules and regulations which limit and restrict hunting rights and gun rights would take precedence over it.

There is also a unique concern that none of us really know the answer to. If the National Park Service is the administrator of these lands, do they actually have the ability of imposing the rules and regulations on these lands, whether they own it or not, which is something that today we may know the answer, but you cannot predict what will happen in the future with some legislator, some judge, some administrator somewhere along the line; and as I said very early in a concept of this particular bill, often times the Federal Government does things, and we don't intend to hurt people but we end up hurting people.

What this amendment clearly says is that along this trail we will protect what has historically been done for the last 70 years. But whether the Federal Government, the Park Service, in particular, has administrative control or whether they access and acquire land in the future, that local ordinances will take precedence, that local ordinance on hunting rights, on gun rights, on fishing rights, will be what will take precedence in this particular situation.

This to us is important. We want it to be crystal clear. But what I think everyone intends in this trail is in reality what happens both now and in the future.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Unfortunately, without this, yes.

Madam Speaker, as we said at the very beginning of the discussion of this entire bill, there are some amendments that are made in an effort to slow down a bill or stop it from coming to passage. This is not one of those. That is why you will notice very carefully the verbiage here is ``forthwith.'' We want to try and fix the bill so it can go on with its process, not send it back to committee.

What I have in front of me here is the poster of the language that you find in the Trail Act itself. What we are debating is not the Trail Act. It's simply an amendment to the Trail Act, and in the act itself it says the appropriate Secretary may utilize condemnation to acquire private property without the consent of the owner.

That is the language about which we object. It would be nice if at some time we could actually go in and attack this language and perhaps solve the problem once and for all forever. But as the time is right now, this condemnation power is still in the act. It's still in the bill. It's still in the act. It is still out there as a potential and a possibility. We do not believe that the sponsor ever intended this to be the way of things.

But the bottom line is the National Park Service still has the ability of condemning. The Federal Government still has the ability of condemning. As we said before, the committee, the sponsor, tried to solve that problem by saying land will only be taken from a willing seller. That may deal, hopefully, with the Federal Government aspect, but the Federal Government has to take the land from a willing dealer, but it also leaves a loophole for some other entity to do condemnation powers. The State or local government could still condemn property, and then they would become the willing seller who could offer this land to the Federal Government.

Please remember, the Federal Government is empowered in this act and bill to acquire property. They are encouraged to acquire property coming from a willing seller. I don't have a problem with that, if the willing seller is truly a willing seller.

And so the motion to recommit tries to cover every potential in the future, with once again the concept being that you want to make sure that individuals will always be protected in every circumstance in the future, many of which we cannot predict. It would be nice if everyone was simply wonderful and courteous, but that's not the way the real world is. We have to make predictions and plans for the future to protect individuals.

This bill says the Federal Government may not acquire land from anything other than a willing seller, but it also says they cannot accept land that has been condemned, regardless of whether it comes from a willing seller. It prohibits State and local governments from doing an end-run from the purpose of this act and protects private property.

We told you before that one person was able to come here and say I don't want my property part of this bill because she had the financial resources and the time to come down here to Washington to lobby. She's exempt. That's right, it's fair. It's the right thing to do. The committee should be commended for that.

The question is, are there others in like circumstances? And in the committee testimony there are. What we just put in by unanimous consent, there are, and that is the concern. Our concern has to be for the little guy whose home, whose property, whose heritage, whose farm may be put in danger by an overzealous local government that uses condemnation power to try and expand the scope of this particular trail.

It is possible. And the language should be crystal clear that that may not be what we do. That may not be our concept.

If only one individual is harmed by this act because we do not close every potential loophole, that is one individual too many. Our goal should be, and must be, to ensure that wherever a possibility of a loophole exists, we will close that loophole, and that we will make sure that every potential to save somebody's property will be there, and that no opportunity to do a laundering of land and make an end run around the purposes and goals of this bill will be there.

The language in the motion to commit is crystal clear, that no land may be taken by any level of government for any reason to be used in this trail. In our post-Kelo world, it is important that we make sure that every word in this bill make sense; it is clear, it is precise, it is our goal, it is our purpose. That's what this does. It solves this problem. And it solves it in a way that makes this a very, very good bill. Without it, it's a huge loophole that could be used to harm people in the future. We can never do that.

Madam Speaker, whatever time I don't have, I yield back.

Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

If this body were a debating society or we were involved in a high school forensics tournament and this bill were the topic of the tournament, I would be giddy with happiness every time one of my teams was given the negative side of the debate because there are so many reasons why this bill is a bad bill for policy reasons that it would almost be a rhetorical feast for even the most inexperienced and naive of my high school debaters.

Let me at least start by addressing three of the main problems with this particular bill.

First, this bill is very clearly an abuse of the Wild and Scenic River language. In 1968 when this bill was passed, its purpose was to inhibit dams and locks along rivers so that there could be a free flow of water on rustic rivers. The verb used in that act was ``preservation.'' The goal and purpose was preservation. Not rehabilitation, not restoration, certainly not economic advantage or economic development, but simply preservation. There are some elements of this particular river which have the qualities of a wild and scenic river, specifically the upper parts of the Taunton River. But the lower parts of the Taunton River, what is sometimes called segment 4, are the elements of this river which provide major problems. They are not and do not have the qualities of a wild and scenic river.

You've seen the pictures before. All you need to do is look at the pictures and you recognize this is not the design of a wild and scenic river as envisioned in the 1968 legislation. In fact, the only part of this river that's scenic is the graffiti that's found on the bridges and the human embankments that are part of this river system. The only thing that's wild about this river are the gangs that wrote this graffiti in the first place. These are not the qualities of which we are looking for. In fact, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that if you are floating down this river, it is not a wild and scenic if you can look over and see the local McDonald's right there on the bank.

What we also have is the understanding that this lower portion is supposed to be for recreation. We could believe it would be for recreation if you believe that tugboat races or barge surfing would be considered recreational activities. This is not the kind of material that one would want to find floating in a river for Boy Scout troops to try to paddle their canoes around or by.

This bill simply violates the concept of the wild and scenic river. The wild and scenic river was never intended to go through an industrial park. It was always intended to be water that was surrounded by public lands so that you could control and preserve both the water and the embankment of those public lands, not something that goes through a privatized residential/industrial park.

Also, if you look at section 1 of the act that it specifically talks not only about preservation of the water but the embankment as well, that actually in a real wild and scenic river, the National Park Service is required to take the embankment as well up to a quarter of a mile away and put that aside. Obviously, you can't do this because there is no public land on this lower Taunton River, although the National Park Service does have eminent domain power; so if you really wanted to create a true wild and scenic river, we could probably accomplish that deal if that was really what you are after.

This bill provides economic advantages to some elements but not to others. In 2002 the sponsor and other members of the Massachusetts delegation received an earmark to try to dredge this river, a fact which should disqualify it within the National Park Service criteria in the first place. Yet what it does now when we want to make this a wild and scenic river is simply take the law and turn it on its head. This bill gives current businesses disadvantages and some current businesses advantages, as is clearly illustrated in the newspaper articles that are coming from this area already where people are wanting to know what we do to see how it impacts, positively or negatively, their business operation. And that was never, never, never the intent of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

Secondly, this is simply an abuse of the system, an abuse of power. In the year 2000, this Congress authorized a study of the Taunton River, the upper Taunton River. The authorization was for the upper Taunton River. The appropriation was to study the upper Taunton River. And yet mysteriously the National Park Service, a system that has millions of dollars of backlog, a system that has 37 studies still in backlog for Wild and Scenic River projects, a system that is always talking about how pressed they are for cash, volunteered in actual disregard to the legislative direction and legislative intent to study something never intended to be studied, never directed to be studied, and spent roughly $400,000 to do it, in total violation to the aspect of Congress and the requirements of Congress.

One low-level employee within the National Park Service felt in some way compelled to violate Federal law to study the wrong part of the river and to spend money illegally to study the wrong part of the river and then in his report had the audacity to say, well, this would be the most developed river we would ever have in this kind of status. When asked why he did that, his response was very simple to us in committee: He did what the river would choose to do if it could speak.

He said that twice. Not only do we have a mid-level bureaucrat who is talking to water, but he is now interpreting the will of water. And if in 2002 it wished to be dredged and in 2008 it wishes to be wild and scenic, this must be schizophrenic water at the same time.

Here is the problem: When the National Park Service came up with their report, they did not come up with one alternative. The sponsor has chosen one of the alternatives to make part of this bill. They call that the ``environmentally preferred'' alternative. But there were two other alternatives

which I compare to the rational and the intelligent alternatives that did not include the lower Taunton River. And, in fact, in this so- called second version that has now become part of this bill, the report said it was problematic that there is no precedent for this kind of action, no precedent for this kind of action, but it does meet political expectations.

Let me give a third reason, and yes indeed, this is an energy reason. The potential LNG port which would be put in Weaver's Cove would have been the largest taxpaying entity. And it was not agreed to to move on so far, but it has not been stopped. This project is still viable until the year 2015. This bill, if passed, is the only way to permanently make this a moot issue.

This language is the language of the report, which simply meant that the current proposal was to be rejected but that they encouraged an additional proposal to try and work out the situational problems to be encouraged. And they gave them the time to do that. The actual report encourages them to review this issue one more time. So it is true that this issue of an LNG port is still on the table. And the only way it can be permanently taken off the table is by passage of this type of bill.

Now why would that impact me because I live in Utah and I really don't care about this river all that much? It is simply because one of the members of the delegation came down on the floor this morning and said that last year 350,000, according to his numbers, individuals in the State of Massachusetts had to be given subsidies under LIHEAP, paid by all the taxpayers of the Nation, because they did not have the ability to handle the energy crisis within their State and that, indeed, heat was not something that was negotiable. However, the problem is, why don't we simply solve the problem by providing the energy there so that you don't have to tell the citizens of Massachusetts to freeze in the dark but solve the problem yourselves?

There was an interesting discussion on the floor during the rule which the gentleman, Mr. Hastings of Washington, was criticized for not having LNG ports in his home State. I wish to simply respond that it was a factual accuracy that has total irrelevance to the issue, because Washington State does not need LNG ports. It has gas pipelines. The entire West is provided by gas pipelines that do not reach to the eastern coast. The only way Massachusetts can step up and solve their own problem is by having not fewer but more LNG ports. That is the only option that is left to them. And this bill does inhibit that particular option.

Now with that are only three of the many reasons why this bill should not be passed, why this bill is poor public policy, why this bill does abuse the statute and change the meaning of the words that were intended for a wild and scenic river, why this bill does disrespect to this body and how we decided to try and do this study in the first place by ignoring the will of Congress and ignoring the authorization and appropriation of Congress and going off on some other particular way. And it does stop any potential improvements of an LNG port on this river which is desperately needed in that part of the country.

Those are only three of the possible reasons. There are others. I'm sure we will hear from those others as this discussion continues on.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I appreciate very much the gentleman from Massachusetts standing up to defend his constituency. It is the right thing to do. It is the proper thing for him to do. It is his job and purpose. But once again, I want him to focus in on the reality of the situation, which is not the quality of the individuals in Massachusetts. It is simply the issue at hand. This, by the way, is that same battleship--assuming there should be a battleship in a wild and scenic river zone--this is the same battleship from the other angle which is decidedly less pristine and much more urbanized.

But the issue at hand that the gentlemen on the other side need to deal with is that the purpose of the act is for preservation, not rehabilitation, not for economic development, which are the very words that were just used. That is not what the Wild and Scenic River Act was ever intended to do. And that is what is going to be done in this particular bill. That is why we are abusing the vocabulary of the Wild and Scenic River Act. And we must focus back in on what we are doing. Indeed, the proposed LNG port is in an existing brownfield, zoned for maritime industrial use. But the issue is for what purpose are the verbs and the nouns in the Wild and Scenic River Act supposed to be implied? And does it apply to the lower Taunton? And the answer is simply ``no.'' It doesn't meet the definition.

With that, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, unless, Mr. Chairman, you would like us to reserve and then come back.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I appreciate once again the comments that have been made here. I appreciate the defense of constituencies. I appreciate that there is a difference between gasoline that goes in a car and gasoline that heats a home, and LIHEAP does deal with gas that does heat homes.

But once again, the issue is not the same. I want to focus on the issue. The beautiful picture you had here of the park does not qualify for the purpose of a wild and scenic river designation. That is why under the law, you are supposed to take a quarter mile on either side of the river and stop everything from that area. It is already developed. Development does not qualify even under the concept of recreation under the letter of the law.

This bill is bad because the study itself violated the law. Congress told the National Park Service to study the upper river and paid for a study of the upper river which has legitimate merits to it, and instead they studied the lower river in violation of the congressional directive.

Once they wrote their report, they still said it was problematic. There is no precedent for the lower river. It is still the problem of the details of what the river is supposed to be.

The department still recommends not doing this. The National Park Service recommends not doing this until the entire study has been totally completed. So once again we are back to this issue of what does it mean to have a wild and scenic designation?

The upper Taunton River has those qualities. The lower Taunton River does not because the purpose is for preservation, not for economic development, not for creating more urban parks, not for changing the landscape on the sides. It is for the purpose of preserving a river in its native state. That was the purpose of, and that is the intent, and there has never been a proposal to this date that is this far afield from the purpose of the 1968 act. Never. That is why there is no precedent ever for this type of action. That's why this bill should not go forward.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Once again I appreciate the comments from the gentleman, and I would like once again to try and focus on what is indeed the issue. The State of Rhode Island, the State of Massachusetts do, indeed, have coastal zone management acts in which they get Federal money to help maintain the quality of their coastal zones and rivers. The fact that they are cool rivers running in urban areas is wonderful. You can do it, it's great, but not under the definition of this act.

When the gentleman from Rhode Island says you want to put it back to the way it were, it disqualifies it from the concept of preservation of existing facilities and preservation of existing embankments. That's why you have struck too far when you go into the lower Taunton River.

Mr. Chairman, I have letters in opposition to this bill from the Shipbuilders Council of America, as well as from three companies who actually do business on the lower Taunton River who are worried about the kind of economic disadvantage they may be facing that I would like to be placed in the Record.

Shipbuilders Council of America,

Washington, DC, October 29, 2007.

Hon. Bob Bishop,

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and

Public Lands, Natural Resources Committee, 1329 Longworth

House Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Grijalva: I am writing to express the

opposition of the Shipbuilders Council of America (SCA) to

H.R. 415, legislation to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act

(WSRA) to designate segments of the Taunton River as a

component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

Specifically, SCA is strongly opposed to the inclusion under

the WRSA of the Lower Taunton River (Segment 4).

The Lower Taunton River does not meet designation criteria

for inclusion in the WSRA. The WSRA requires that a river be

``free flowing'' defined as ``existing or flowing in a

natural condition without impoundment, diversion,

straightening, rip-rapping, or other modifications of the

waterway''. There is today significant industrialization

along Segment 4 of the Taunton River including bridges, a

power plant, sewage plants, marinas and shipyards, and

granite bulkheads. In addition, this portion of the Taunton

has been federally dredged for more than 125 years.

The SCA does not oppose designation under the WSRA of the

upper portions of the Taunton River. However, inclusion of

the Lower Taunton will harm existing businesses and

jeopardize crucial industrial jobs.

SCA is the national association representing U.S.

commercial shipyards. SCA represents approximately 40

shipyard companies that own and operate more than 100

shipyards on all three U.S. coasts, the Great Lakes and

Hawaii. SCA member yards employ more than 30,000 shipyard

workers. Our companies build, repair and maintain America's

commercial fleet as well as small and mid-sized vessels for

the U.S. military and other government agencies. SCA member

yards also repair and maintain Navy combatant ships.

Sincerely,

Allen Walker,

President.

Mr. Chairman, once again, I appreciate the fact that the gentleman from Massachusetts, his views may have evolved. The law has not. We are a nation of laws, not what we wish it to be, but what the law is.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

I will be happy to close when you are ready.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate once again the discussion that we have had here today.

The gentleman from Massachusetts, who is the chairman of a very important committee, does a great job, charming, witty, one of the funniest Members we have in Congress, actually said what my close was going to be. Someone once asked me, why do I care about this? I'm from Utah. I don't care about this river in Massachusetts.

And you're right. I really don't. I didn't get involved in this issue by choice. The gentleman introduced a bill that had to come to my committee.

But the reason that I do care is because exactly what the gentleman from Massachusetts said. We are attempting, in a vote, by a majority vote, to change the definition of law.

When I was in college, I had a professor that told me that all those men that went to the Constitutional Convention had baggage that they took, which meant they had a common educational, classic educational system. They understood what they were talking about. They went back to the concepts of Aristotle, who loved to make

definitions of everything. He said government was of the one, the few, and the many, and it could be either good or bad depending upon the attitude of those who were empowered to govern.

Government that was good is a government where the people, the leaders of that government, cared about the individuals and were self- sacrificing. Government that was bad is where the people didn't care and they tried to make things for themselves.

Then he gave definitions to that. So a government of one that was good was a monarchy, called a monarch back then, that's positive. Government of one that was bad was a tyranny. It is no coincidence that Thomas Jefferson, when he wrote the Declaration of Independence, of all the terms he could use to describe King George called him a tyrant, because it harkened back to their common understanding of classical literature and everything that Aristotle wrote.

The government of the many that was good, he called a polity. The government of the many that was bad, bad intentions, bad mindset, he called a democracy.

That's one of the reasons why we very seldom used the term ``democracy'' for the first 150-plus years of this country. The idea was that the worst form of government is one in which by a majority vote you can either take property from someone else and redistribute it or you can change the definition of the law--by a majority vote.

And that's why I object to this bill, because that is exactly what we are trying to do. The language of the original act is still clear and has not been changed. The language is clear, and that's why the Park Service did say that this proposal for the lower Taunton is without precedent, that it is problematic, that it does have its problems, because the law and the words of the law need to have a meaning. The law gives us guidelines. It gives us parameters. It protects the minority at the same time it directs the majority.

It's just like if we ever come to a point of time where by a majority vote we can come in here and change the meaning of the law, we have moved to the time where we are back with Petrucchio and Bianca, where the sun is the moon and night is day and by a majority vote we can accomplish it, and that is why I am so opposed to this bill because it is exactly what the gentleman said and exactly what we are doing.

By a majority vote, we are going to change the definition of wild and scenic rivers. By a majority vote. So I really don't care if you want to do this, if it's nice, if it enhances the attitude of any kind of urban area, it is not explicit with the letter of the law and with the spirit of the law, with the understanding of the law, which is why you are supposed to take a quarter mile of an embankment on either side of the designation and keep it free from development, for preservation purposes, not economic discovery and not economic development.

I have great concerns, and I have expressed this many times, with the process that we have. At no time in the debate on this floor have we had more than perhaps a half dozen Members who have heard the debate and participated in it, perhaps a larger number are listening, but what will soon happen is we will call for the vote on this bill, and through those doors will come 300 Members who have not heard the debate and do not understand the issue of this bill. They will look up on the screen and say, it's an issue, it's a bill for Mr. Frank, and they will say, I like him. He may be of my party. I'll vote for him. He's an influential chairman. I'll support him. He is a very nice person. He is a very funny person. He is probably the best debater we have on the floor, and I'll vote for it.

But that is not the reason, and that is not a rationale for changing law by vote instead of changing the words. Words have meaning.

And if we ever deny that words have meaning, we no longer have the rule of law. All we have is what Aristotle warned and threatened and criticized that our attitude is going to be what drives us in the future, not what we should do, but what we want to do at the time.

So, yes, it is important what the 1968 bill says. Yes, it is important. Yes, the upper Taunton River has all the qualities for which the gentleman wants. And, yes, the lower Taunton River does not. I don't care whether you are talking about LNG ports or not, it doesn't meet the qualifications of a wild and scenic river.

Until we change the law, we should not, by a simple majority vote on this bill, try and change the definitions of those words. That is why I, from Utah, care about this river.

Because if we can change the meaning of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act by this vote, there is no river in America that is not in danger of being made wild and scenic if you have enough votes to do it. There is no law that can stand if you have enough votes to do it, which is why this is supposed to be a republic, why the words have meaning and the words of the law are significant and important.

That's why I beseech the handful of Members of this floor who actually are listening to this debate to please understand the rudiments of this debate and the significant issue that we are doing right here. That's why we are making this significant. That's why we are putting this. That's why I am opposed to this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in order under the rule.

Once again, I appreciate the discussion we have had on this bill. I think that is perfunctory. We have to say that. But let's once again make common the facts of this particular bill.

The Department, the National Park Service, has not supported this bill. They have asked that we refrain from it until the study is final. They have also, though, in that study, given options, three different options of what to do with this river. This bill happens to take the worst of the options, an option that has no precedent, an option that is problematic.

My amendment makes this a legitimate bill. The area to which I object, the area that does not meet the standards of a wild and scenic river, those areas I am asking to be removed. The Upper Taunton River, that is the area this Congress, in the Year 2000, mandated the study and paid for a study, and that what the study should have done, has those wild and scenic qualifications that match the law.

That is my amendment, to remove the offending sections of this bill and limit just to those which meet the meaning of the words in the law.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Let me continue to reserve until we are done.

I am prepared to close whenever the gentleman from Massachusetts is.

I appreciate that. And to be honest, I anticipated going first in the closing of this, so the gentleman from Massachusetts could have had the last word. So I will try and be kind with that.

But to be very honest with you, Mr. Chairman, it doesn't matter how many property owners may or may not object to it. Under our constitutional system of laws, if there are three people with property rights, they must be respected. It doesn't matter how many dislike it. They must be respected.

The gentleman has very nice people in his district. I am positive. Look who they elected. But that is not the issue. The issue is the language of the law. The language in section 16 talks about free- flowing rivers, natural waterways, existing and flowing in a natural condition. There should not be low dams, diversion works or other minor structures at the time the river is proposed.

This ain't minor structures. This is a large urban development. It does not meet the definition of those terms. We say it over and over again.

It is not the House that is denying the constituents the right to have this designation. The State of Massachusetts could do the same thing if you just used local ordinances and State authority. It is not the House that will be denying them. It is the law that denies them. It is the law that does not allow this lower river to meet definition of wild and scenic rivers. Period.

Pass the amendment, and I can easily and happily support the bill because if you pass the amendment, the parts that do qualify as wild and scenic rivers will be included as wild and scenic rivers, and the parts that do not qualify will be exempt.

I yield back.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, though to be honest, I'm not in opposition to this amendment.

The words of this amendment are hauntingly familiar. As Yogi Berra would say, ``It's deja vu all over again,'' but I don't like to use cliches that are that old. However, this amendment is a wonderful, positive, good amendment. It's been mine up until the last couple of bills.

I like this amendment. I am proud that the gentleman from North Carolina has seen conversion to this point of view. To be honest, in our committee, on H.R. 1528, this same amendment, you voted against. I'm happy for your conversion. I welcome you over to the side of truth, right, and justice and where words have meaning.

For that reason, we are more than happy to accept this amendment. We will be supportive of this amendment. It's the right thing to do. It's the positive thing to do. It's brilliant verbiage because, to be honest, we wrote it a long time ago.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, as Mr. Pearce's designee, I offer amendment No. 3 made in order under the rule.

Thank you, sir. If I had known we were having a vote on the last one, I might not have fished for the first one.

It's a wonderful opportunity for me to introduce this particular amendment from the gentleman of New Mexico who spends so much time in this area and understands it so well. We're facing, obviously, an energy crisis in the United States, and we do have a dearth of solutions that have been forthcoming in this particular body. And we have repeatedly passed legislation that actually has, over the last 30 years, restricted access, limited our resources.

This amendment is once again simple. It calls upon the Secretary of Interior to provide us the full accounting of the resources this bill may take away from the American people. Simply, the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy and private industry, if it remains, shall complete and submit a report accounting for the energy resources withdrawn from future development by designation of this land and waters included in the Taunton River bill. Specifically, the report shall identify, among other sources, the amount of geothermal, wind, solar, biomass energy and any impact on electrical transmission.

The amendment is simple. If Congress is acting to take energy resources away from the people, we should know if there is a true impact by these actions.

I would urge your support of Mr. Pearce's well-thought-out and significant amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would suggest a wise choice of action, and I will yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition, kind of.

I think the other side of the aisle will be happy to know that this amendment does nothing to prevent a proposed LNG port in the Taunton River. The legislation does, but the amendment does not. I'm not really sure exactly what the amendment does. About the most you can say is it doesn't appear to do anything negative, and for that purpose I will be happy to support this amendment, because at least it recognizes that energy is important, and that's an excellent first step. A curious one, I admit, but an excellent first step, especially if it's accepted by those who are supporting the underlying legislation without the first Bishop amendment to be added to it.

It is curious also to understand what domestically produced energy source will come in this particular area unless maybe you actually do have the Park Service use their eminent domain power and actually condemn all of the land a quarter mile from either side of the river in the way a real wild and scenic river should be done. But let's see what happens.

An LNG port, if it was actually produced there, would be able within 3 years, according to best estimates, to reduce the amount of energy needs for the people that live in this area by 10 percent or more, just from this one port. But the issue at hand is not domestically produced energy because an LNG port does not bring in domestically produced energy. It's all coming from abroad.

The countries that produce LNG are Australia, Trinidad, Malaysia, Algeria, Nigeria, Oman, Brunei, Qatar, with other developments in Norway, Venezuela, Egypt, Bolivia, Peru, Angola, Equatorial Guinea, and Russia.

It is true that some is produced in Alaska, which I don't know if the gentlelady actually accepts that as part of the United States, but that doesn't go all the way around to the east coast. That stays up here in the West.

That's the issue. So I accept this amendment, but we're actually talking not about domestic production. The LNG port was about foreign production coming in to the country, but because it at least addresses the issue that energy is important, I'm happy to accept it.

I yield back.

Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by regretting the animus toward the people we represent that we've just heard. The gentleman from Utah said, ``Wild and scenic. The only thing wild about this are the gangs there.'' The city of Fall River, the gentleman has an amendment that would exempt from this bill the city of Fall River, Massachusetts, a city full of working people, many of them immigrants who became American citizens, and their descendants, from Portugal and elsewhere, people who worked in the garment industry and the textile industry, a city which has suffered economically the fate of de-industrialization.

Characterizing them and saying ``The only thing scenic about them is their graffiti, the only thing wild about them is their gangs,'' they don't deserve that denigration, no matter what political points people want to score. If you want to come after me, if you want to come after Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island or Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts, we'll deal with it. But please don't denigrate these hardworking people. Don't impute to them gang activity that doesn't exist. The gentleman who accused them of gang activity has no idea of what goes on there and he makes an inaccurate statement.

The only thing scenic is the graffiti? Is that not scenic? This is the Battleship Massachusetts. It's part of a national park. It's one of the few battleships that comes with a Patriot missile, because I got Raytheon to put it up there. It's a park, a park for patriotic people. Do you see any graffiti on the Battleship Massachusetts?

In fact, that is part of the problem here. Apparently we're told it's okay to have a wild and scenic river. And of course we're not saying it should be wild and scenic. We are talking about a part of the statute that says you can have recreation. And these are people who have decided that in part because they have lost their industrial base that they had for a variety of reasons, they will develop new economic activity that is based on their river.

By the way, one of the bridges that is talked about, one of these structures, we have gotten money to take down. Like a number of cities that walled themselves off from the river, Fall River has appreciated the great beauty and attractiveness of that waterfront. And they would like to tear it down.

But here is the issue. Is environmentalism only for suburbanites? Do working people who have found themselves in economic distress have no right to try and enhance the quality of their environment?

Let me have some more of those pictures down here. Let me have some more to show people what we are talking about. We are not talking about only what was pictured.

This is part of the area that would be banned from the bill under the gentleman from Utah's amendment. So is this. Part of it is Mr. McGovern's district. Part of it is my district. It impacts the other districts. Yes, it is not everywhere beautiful. These are people who haven't had the good fortune to live always in land that was so attractive. But they would like to try and improve their situation. They would like to be able to enhance the quality of their environment without being denigrated as gang members or graffitists. Yes, there are a few people who do graffiti. The overwhelming majority in every single community along this river on both sides has asked for this designation. It was begun by our late and beloved colleague Joe Moakley before anybody heard of LNG. By the way, on LNG, there is an LNG plant in the district of our colleague, Mr. Markey. We in the Massachusetts delegation overwhelmingly supported a second LNG plant just a little bit offshore, just north of Boston that has been approved. Many of us support a third one. It is not a case of rejecting LNG. And I notice that people on the other side, those who think Fall River is just full of graffiti artists and gang members and don't know that wonderful city and the decent, patriotic people who live there, they circulated an editorial from the Boston Herald saying this isn't needed. And the Herald editorial, the op-ed piece that they circulated, concluded by saying, of course, it's not necessary because the LNG plant is dead. It's not simply the current LNG plant that has been rejected. It was the Coast Guard saying that in that narrow waterway, with the bridges that have to be traversed, you can't do it.

Carlos Gutierrez said ``no,'' the Secretary of Commerce. I've got to say, I didn't know that I would be defending the Bush administration so much here. I know I will be defending them against the Republicans on the questions of the housing bill. But we were also told there was this terrible conspiracy with the Park Service under George Bush. I don't think the Interior Department

under President Bush was engaged in this kind of chicanery that has been imputed to them.

We are talking about the desire of people who live in an area that has some industrial activity, but some residential and recreational areas, who want to protect what they have and make it better. They have asked us, and we have worked with them, to tear down an elevated highway. We are working with them to enhance the quality of their environment in a way that will also improve things economically. Every Member of Congress whose district is remotely near here strongly supports this bill. Every city and town along the way supports this. Every elected legislator and local official supports it. For them to be told essentially that ``it's too gritty, it's too grubby, you aren't people who we had in mind when we talked about the beauties of the environment, you don't deserve this because you've had graffiti and some of you belong to gangs''--an inaccurate characterization of the whole city--to deny them that is I think a degree of cruelty, frankly, that I hope this House does not encompass.

I and others have tried very hard to take into account what other Members think about their districts. To repudiate what all of the Members of Congress, five of us very directly involved here, think would be important for this particular area because an LNG plant that has been rejected by the Department of Commerce and by the Coast Guard and cannot be resuscitated, might some day in 10 years be resuscitated, and by then we will have had enough other LNG plants that it wouldn't even have any demand probably, that these people should be told, just the 9 miles, conveniently, the city of Fall River, the urban area, the area of hardworking immigrants who became American citizens, that they should be told that they don't qualify for environmental protection is a decision that I hope this House would not make.

I thank the gentleman from Arizona and the gentleman from West Virginia for the consideration they have given. It may in part be relevant that these are Members who themselves understand the desire of working people, of people who have lived in these kinds of areas, to get the same kind of consideration for their environmental needs as wealthy suburbanites.

I hope that the bill is passed without amendments that would cripple it.

Would the gentleman yield?

I just want to point out, this is a park that would be excluded. Behind it you do see a superstructure. It walls off the city. That is what Mr. McGovern and I have gotten money to take down, without regard to the wild and scenic, but we want to take this down and open up this waterfront even more. That is what you will deny us by killing this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I concede three business people out of this whole area opposed it. So we did not pass this by unanimous consent. Three people were there. Fortunately, my area that I represent is not the Senate. You don't need unanimous consent. If you get 98.9 percent, that's good enough.

What particularly puzzles me, though, is the gentleman from Utah apparently thinks that Congress in 1968 reached the ultimate in wisdom and that because something was passed in 1968 it can never be changed. We're not talking about interpreting the statute, we're talking about passing one. And, in fact, our views of the environment have evolved.

As my colleague from Rhode Island eloquently put it, the nature of the economy of New England has evolved. Back then it was a very industrial economy. We have lost that industrial base for reasons not, I think, largely the fault of the people there, and they are trying now to go in a new direction.

So here is where it is. If you were ever industrialized, according to the gentleman from Utah, that's it. The environment is not for you. He says, well, why doesn't the State do it? Probably because we are talking about navigable waterways, and as there are limits to what the State can impose on navigable waterways. This is a navigable waterway. There is Federal responsibility. So we are coming here to the Federal Government to empower the State. Every single community there. Governors. The previous Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, was for this. The current Governor is for it. But again the gentleman says, well, because it didn't meet this definition of 1968 you can never do it again.

We are talking about recreation, recreation for the people there, and, yes, we are saying that there is an act of Congress. We look at the 1968 act, we look at our current views of the environment, we look at the needs of the people, and this is the question. This isn't a test on what was in the minds of

people 40 years ago who passed the bill. We are the Congress. We are now passing the bill.

The gentleman's amendment excludes 9 miles, the City of Fall River, whom, again, he characterizes, as, well, the only thing that's wild there are the gangs, the only thing scenic is the graffiti. That is a very unfortunate thing to say about a city of hardworking people in which there are a number of very attractive and useful institutions and places.

But the question is, do the people who live in that 9 miles--by the way, that's on both sides of the river, and there is a less-developed town across that my colleague Mr. McGovern represents--are they to be denied the chance to maximize the quality of their environment? Are they to be denied this planning tool, overwhelmingly supported by the city, so that as we tear down this elevated highway, as they expand the open space, as they take advantage of the river, they can do it in a rational way.

The gentleman keeps saying, well, but what about 1968? What about 1968? Maybe it was a good year for wine.

But the notion that because a bill was passed in 1968, this Congress has lost the ability to make subsequent decisions, makes no sense.

We are asking you, all of us who represent the affected area, all of the elected officials in the area, the overwhelming majority of people in the area, give us this tool so that we can enhance the recreational character, improve our environment, and don't say that because we once had this industrialization, we don't qualify for environmental concerns.

Executive Department,

City of Fall River,

Fall River, MA, July 15, 2008.

Hon. Barney Frank,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Frank: I am writing to express my full

support of the bill you recently sponsored, which is

currently awaiting a vote by the House, to designate the

Taunton River as a Wild and Scenic River under the federal

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. As the Mayor of the City of Fall

River, which is situated on Mount Hope Bay at the mouth of

the Taunton River, I recognize the river's value and am

pleased to join you and other legislators (Representative

James McGovern and Senators John Kerry and Edward Kennedy) in

support of legislation that will protect this integral

resource from further development.

As a sign of Fall River's commitment the City Council of

Fall River passed a resolution on May 20, 2005, in support of

the recommendation for designation of the Taunton River as a

Wild and Scenic River. In addition, at that same time the

City Council endorsed the Taunton River Stewardship Plan

developed by the Taunton Wild and Scenic River Study

Committee.

Thank you for recognizing the Taunton River's remarkable

value and for introducing legislation that will protect it

from development and industrial use. The City of Fall River

appreciates and fully supports your advocacy efforts in this

matter.

Sincerely.

Robert Correia,

Mayor.

That is a most extraordinary misunderstanding of the law. Yes, there was a law in 1968. Guess what this will be if we pass it--a new law. The notion that a law passed in 1968 somehow defies this Congress of the ability to pass a subsequent law incorporating current judgment doesn't make any sense to me.

You're not in court here arguing. The question is, does this Congress have the right to take into account evolved views to amend the law? Yes, there is a law on the books. If the law on the books, I would say to the gentleman, covered this, we wouldn't need this law, but this is a law that we would pass. So the notion that there was a prior law really makes less sense than a lot of other things I have heard today, which says a lot.

I claim the time in opposition.

I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close?

I yield myself 2 minutes.

These are the portions of the river bank that would be excluded by the gentleman's amendment. These would not be protected. The historic park enshrining the battleship Massachusetts would not be protected.

The gentleman made an argument I found hard to follow. It was because the 1968 Act said one thing, it would be a violation of the rule of law to pass a law. I have never heard that. We are here in the House of Representatives debating a law. If it gets a majority and is passed by the Senate, never to be taken for granted, it will become an addition to the law. The notion that a law being passed somehow distorts the law is a grave error.

The gentleman talked about the will of the people. The overwhelming will of the people in this area is to have this designation. No, it is not wild and scenic in the dictionary definition. It is recreational, which is one of the provisions that the law calls for.

And the question is today, 40 years after the original passage of the law, do we, as a Democratically elected House--the gentleman will forgive me for using the word ``democratic'' affirmatively. Unlike Aristotle, I don't think ``democracy'' is a bad word. Do we have the right to say to urban dwellers, the people in the city of Fall River who are targeted by the gentleman's amendment, the people in the city of Fall River, an industrial area. They are the ones that are being told the environment is not for you. Environmental enhancement, the ability to use this law to get the planning right, you don't get that. You are not entitled to it because you have been an industrial area.

I don't think the House wants to deny the right to environmental improvement and enhancement to working people who live in an urban area.

I reserve the balance of my time.

While the gentleman from Utah is thinking of something to say, I will yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) such time as he may consume.

How much time do I have remaining?

I will close.

I appreciated the kind words the gentleman from Utah had to say about me. I only wish he would extend those courtesies to my constituents who have, I think, been unfairly denigrated.

And I again want to stress there was nothing inappropriate about 40 years later the Congress deciding, by a vote, this is no fiat here, to look at the law and say, we now believe that this is an appropriate designation. It is to say to an area that has been subjected to de- industrialization, you get the support of this planning mechanism, which is necessary because it is on a navigable waterway, so it can't be entirely done by State authorities. It is supported by all of the locally elected officials, overwhelmingly by the people there, by all of the Members of Congress nearby, by the four United States Senators who would be affected. You get this ability to enhance the quality of your life and, at the same time, to find, as my colleague from Rhode Island said, a new economic pattern. And that is engaging in self-help. We are trying to help them tear down an elevated highway that is a barrier to this river. There is a coordinated set of planning activities to improve it.

And I have to say, the gentleman, I think, has helped me prove the point. In his diligent search to defeat this bill, he came up with three people in the area who were against it. Well, I don't think three people in an area of hundreds of thousands gives you, even under Aristotle's definition, the right to impugn the legitimacy of this, particularly since we are following the regular order.

I would say to my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, please don't tell the people, the hardworking people of an industrial area who are trying to improve the quality of their lives for themselves and the lives of their children, don't tell them that this environmental designation stops where they live, and that they are to be, by a specific vote of the Congress of the United States, excluded from this set of benefits.

Mr. Speaker, first, let's note the nonseriousness of this. It says ``promptly.'' It kills the bill. If you want to vote against the bill, you can vote against the bill. This says ``promptly.'' If it were seriously intended to be a legislative act, it would have said ``forthwith.''

Beyond that, it is not simply about energy. The last two lines say ``nothing shall be used as a basis to restrict current and future business and economic activities.'' This is a license to do any business whatsoever. Now I know a couple of businesses down there that I didn't think the Republican Party would be all in favor of. They would love to have this. They will expand it and invite you down and give you a discount.

This isn't just about energy. First of all, it's about killing the bill. But what does it say? The gentleman from Arizona read the amendment we have adopted about energy. ``Nothing shall be used as a basis to restrict current and future business and economic activities or expansion of such activities.'' It is hardly about energy.

The LNG plant has been rejected twice by the Coast Guard and once by that radical environmentalist, the Secretary of Commerce, Carlos Gutierrez, appointed by George Bush.

I'm about to yield to my colleague from Massachusetts. He and I represent hardworking people, working class people. Many of them are Portuguese immigrants and others who became American citizens who have lost their industrial base. They are trying to enhance the quality of their environment and at the same time offer an alternative economic mode.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, don't take it out on them. If we've got a political fight over energy, let's carry it out among the big boys and girls. Don't turn to these working people and say, do you know what? You're not classy enough. You don't deserve environmental protection. That is for the elite. That is for the wealthy.

I yield, finally, to my colleague from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, is asking the same unfounded inquiry repeatedly a violation of the House under dilatory tactics?

Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I'd like to express my great appreciation to my very good friend and Rules Committee colleague, the gentleman from Atwater, California, who so ably represents his constituents here, is beginning his second session as a member of the Rules Committee, and I will say that it is great to welcome a fellow Californian to the Rules Committee.

But, Madam Speaker, at first blush one looks at this bill and it is, as I think was really reflected in the gentleman's remarks, sort of innocuous and noncontroversial. I mean, it's a pretty simple measure. New England National Scenic Trail Designation Act, who can be opposed to that? I mean, who could be concerned about that?

It certainly wouldn't be the first time in the 110th Congress that we have had a measure brought up with a rule that could have very easily been considered under suspension of the rules. After all, today so far we have under suspension of the rules passed a bill that provided a $150 billion economic stimulus to our Nation's economy, an issue which I'm very proud to say, as we all are, that saw the two parties come together, working with the White House in a bipartisan way to make sure that we could have this economic stimulus package. And I hope and pray that it mitigates the economic challenges that our constituents are facing in the future.

And then, Madam Speaker, we move from there to consider the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, an extension of that, as we worked on the issue of reform. And so here we've dealt with the economic stimulus and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, both measures considered under suspension of the rules, and now we have a rule for consideration of the New England National Scenic Trail Designation Act.

I think my point is that this is a measure that very easily could have been considered under suspension of the rules, and we understand that there is an attempt to fill the schedule and there were people who quipped about that last night up in the Rules Committee. It is unfortunate. I know a number of other Members have already left. We didn't work today until noon; and we are in a position now, having begun working so late, that we're going into the night on this measure, which is a bill that initially, as I said, could have been completely noncontroversial and considered under suspension of the rules.

But I will say, having looked now at the measure, there are concerns that have been raised. They are concerns about private property rights and the threat of eminent domain. In fact, Madam Speaker, the State of New Hampshire opted out of the national designation because of these concerns. The people of New Hampshire believe that the trail running through their State is well managed and is in no need whatsoever of Federal intervention.

But the other States involved would like to move forward on the Federal designation, so we are here late this afternoon to consider this.

Now, as we proceed, we've simply asked that the concerns that have been raised see the light of day on the House floor; as I said, these concerns as they relate, first and foremost, with the issue of private property rights and eminent domain.

Unfortunately, while seven amendments were submitted to us in the Rules Committee, only two were made in order, two out of seven amendments submitted. And unfortunately, contrary to the promise that was made at the beginning of the 110th Congress by Speaker Pelosi that we would have a substitute made in order for legislation that's considered, a substitute that was proposed by Mr. Bishop was, in fact, denied by the Rules Committee. And why? I mean, I ask about the time constraints again. As I said, we didn't begin work today until noon. The House convened at noon. Our most critical business of the day, as I said, the stimulus bill and the FISA law, were considered under suspension of the rules. So, why the rush for us to proceed with this New England Scenic Trails bill?

There is really no practical reason why, Madam Speaker, now that we've decided to not take this up under suspension of the rules and have a debate, that we can't engage in a little extra debate to allow for the concerns to be vetted. And if we can't have an open debate on the issue of scenic trails, then one's got to ask, what issue will we have an open debate on? I mean, what hope is there for an open process for the most significant and the most controversial issues if we can't have it on the New England National Scenic Trail Designation Act?

Now, six amendments were submitted by our friend, former Rules Committee colleague, Mr. Bishop, addressing the private property rights issue. Four were rejected by the Rules Committee. A seventh amendment was offered by Mr. Flake that would explicitly prevent the use of earmarks in this bill. Now, Mr. Flake's amendment would have provided an opportunity to examine this bill's provision to direct unspecified Federal dollars to two private entities. Now, did any Members have a personal stake in these private groups, in these private entities? Did any Member make a specific request on behalf of these private entities? Mr. Flake's amendment would have helped to shed a little sunlight on this provision before we direct Federal taxpayer dollars towards two private groups. But this amendment was also rejected, Madam Speaker, unfortunately, by the Rules Committee.

Shutting out this amendment is, to me, probably the most troubling of all. Obviously, the issue of private property rights and eminent domain that Mr. Bishop has wanted to address and his four amendments that were denied is very, very troubling. But this issue of completely preventing Members from the opportunity for sunshine and disclosure on what could have been a request by a Member for support for two private organizations is very troubling.

Now, Madam Speaker, I've got to say that this issue itself gets right to the heart of one of the biggest challenges that we faced under the Democratic leadership in this place, and it is the inability or unwillingness to rein in wasteful earmarks.

Now, last week, we Republicans were meeting in West Virginia, and we spent a great deal of time talking about the issue of earmarks when our Republican conference came together. And I'm happy to say that, with a united front, Republicans came together on this issue and we decided that we would call for a moratorium on earmarks, a moratorium until a bipartisan committee can formulate a proposal that eradicates waste, fraud, and abuse in the earmark process. It's the so-called Kingston- Wolf-Wamp legislation that has been put forward.

Now, we offered to have a complete ban on earmarks, and we challenged our Democratic colleagues to join in with a bipartisan agreement to have a moratorium on earmarks until such time as this bipartisan committee can come forward. Now, Madam Speaker, as I see you in the chair, as I see my friend from Atwater, I suspect that either or both of you, and certainly a lot of your Members, are going to be going on to your retreat. The Democratic Caucus is, I know, going for a meeting that will be taking place over the next few days. And it's fun, but challenging, and great to have an opportunity for the two parties to work within their caucuses, your caucus, our conference, to deal with these issues.

Well, I would just like to say that, just as we did at our meeting last week, while far be it for me to be so presumptuous as to say I should set the agenda for the Democratic Caucus retreat, I would like to say that in light of the offer that we made coming forward as Republicans on this issue of earmarks, I would recommend that in

light of the discussion that came here on the floor today on this issue, the speech that was delivered last night from the President of the United States in which he called for cutting in half the number of earmarks saying that he would veto legislation if he didn't see it cut in half, the request that we have made on behalf of our constituents to say we should have this moratorium done in a bipartisan way, and we as Republicans are challenging our Democratic colleagues to do that, I would like to say that I hope very much that Members at your retreat would, rather than spending a lot of time on a number of other issues, I would hope that you would put partisanship aside and try to work, just as we did on this economic stimulus issue, in a bipartisan way to recognize the very, very pressing need for earmark reform and our proposal, which should, in fact, provide strong bipartisan support.

I will say, Madam Speaker, that the integrity and the effectiveness of this body depends on our agreement to proceed with very, very important bipartisan reform on this issue. It's my hope that my Democratic colleagues will use their upcoming retreat over the next few days as an opportunity to urge their leadership to accept our proposal to make a bipartisan effort to tackle this very, very critical issue.

Today's bill was perhaps a small but yet a significant opportunity to signal a newfound commitment to open process and meaningful earmark reform. Unfortunately, today's bill is a missed opportunity. I suspect that this measure will proceed. I don't think that we'll have the votes to defeat the previous question, which I should say I'm going to attempt to do, to defeat the previous question so that we can make in order what I would describe as the Marshall proposal, the proposal that has been put forward by one of our Democratic colleagues, Mr. Marshall, which is basically identical to the Boehner proposal that we have on earmark reform, which will provide a greater degree of transparency, accountability, disclosure, and enforcement on this issue, which unfortunately is not there.

So, when it comes to our attempt to defeat the previous question on this, what I will be offering is tantamount to a bipartisan proposal for our colleagues as we seek to address this issue.

So, again, I would say, Madam Speaker, if my colleagues had proceeded with this bill under a suspension of the rules, you would not have had to listen to the speech I just delivered because we would have done the exact same things as we did on the $150 billion economic stimulus bill, and we would have done the exact same thing as we did on the very important Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act reform measure, and albeit simply an extension, the steps towards bringing about reform.

But in light of the fact that we are here, denying the opportunity for us to address the issue of private property rights and eminent domain, and the opportunity for the kind of transparency and disclosure that everyone around here talks about on the issue of earmarks that would have come forward in the amendment offered by our colleague, Mr. Flake, I'm going to encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can make that earmark reform proposal in order. And if that is defeated, I will urge a ``no'' vote on the rule as we proceed with this.

With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding, Madam Speaker.

I would simply say that I very much appreciate his willingness to have greater openness on this debate. And unfortunately, when the Rules Committee met late yesterday afternoon, I offered an amendment to have this considered under an open amendment process, and that was defeated. And I then made an attempt to offer this under a modified open amendment process.

Would the gentleman further yield?

Well, I look forward to yielding to you if you would ever like to ask.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to respond to my very dear friend from Atwater by saying a few things.

First, on this notion of Mr. Bishop's very able leadership position on the committee, my friend, who served with great distinction in the California State Legislature, knows very well that the legislative process is an ongoing process, and people work on amendments, people work on legislation in committee. And the fact that Mr. Bishop may have been working on some of the amendments that he is dealing with right now and did not offer them in the committee should in no way deny him the right to represent his constituents and the American people with one of his brilliant, new, and creative ideas that quite possibly developed from the markup to the Rules Committee and now to the floor.

So, I would argue that it is very important for us to do everything that we can to ensure the most open amendment process, which is what we were promised at the beginning of this Congress.

Second, Madam Speaker, I would say to my friend on this notion of the designation of earmarks, I will say that I am particularly proud of the fact that in the 109th Congress we dealt with stronger enforcement, we dealt with the issue of earmark authorization, tax bills, and appropriations bills. Now, I will recognize that the definition that

exists for earmarks in the 110th Congress is not nearly as strong as the definition that was put into place in the 109th Congress. Why? Because the gentleman is trying to argue right now that there are no earmarks in this bill. Well, I would argue that in the 109th Congress, based on the definition that we passed in this House and was implemented, that this would have been considered an earmark.

Now, I know that there is a lot of vagueness on this, but we do know the following: this is an authorization bill, and there are two private entities that are the beneficiaries of this. The gentleman may be absolutely right. It may be critically important to the New England National Scenic Trail Designation Act to have these items in there. It may be. Far be it from me to say that they shouldn't be there because I don't know at this point. All we're arguing is that we should, in fact, have the opportunity for our colleague, Mr. Flake, who spent a great deal of time dealing with the earmark issue, to come forward with his amendment so that we could debate it. That's what we are hoping for.

So I will say, Madam Speaker, that I believe that if we, as an institution, are serious about the issue of earmark reform, reining in wasteful Federal spending, we should, in fact, in a bipartisan way, in a bipartisan way, proceed with this moratorium until such time as the bipartisan committee can come back with a group of recommendations as to how we can again, in a bipartisan way, deal with this issue of earmark reform.

With that, Madam Speaker, I would like to yield such time as he may consume to my very good friend from Utah, my former Rules Committee colleague (Mr. Bishop).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume as we proceed with this debate on this authorization and earmark process.

I will acknowledge that based on this new and, I believe, rather unfortunate definition that is provided for earmarks, you have, in fact, seized a little loophole in trying to determine that these are not earmarks.

And I will tell you, Madam Speaker, what that loophole consists of. Not a specific dollar amount. Now, Madam Speaker, potentially this is even more egregious. Why? Because without a specific dollar amount, we don't know exactly how much is going to be expended. And Mr. Bishop has just given me a copy of the proposed blueprint budget; and, Madam Speaker, what that consists of is specific designation to these private entities. And in many ways, this is, as I said, more egregious than had a specific amount been put into place, which would have required this to have been considered as an earmark.

Madam Speaker, our quest is simply for more transparency, accountability, and disclosure of our constituents' hard-earned taxpayer dollars; and we believe very strongly that that should, in fact, be the case. Now, everyone says what I just said. Everyone says we want more transparency, accountability, and disclosure. Everyone says that we want to be great stewards of the taxpayer dollars, those dollars of our hardworking constituents. The fact is what we have got here is something that is potentially even worse than under the definition that you all have as an earmark.

So I will say that looking at this proposed blueprint budget makes it even more imperative that we do everything within our power to proceed with making sure that we defeat the previous question and make in order the earmark amendment that we are going to be offering, and I hope very much that my colleagues will join in doing that.

Madam Speaker, I will be asking Members to oppose the previous question, as I have said, so that I can amend the rule to allow for consideration of H. Res. 479, the Boehner earmark enforcement rule changes. And don't fear, the amendment would not prevent the House from considering the New England National Scenic Trail Designation Act. It would merely allow the House to also consider the Boehner earmark reform proposal.

Over the first year of Democratic control, we have learned that the earmark rule does not apply when considering amendments between the Houses as well as a myriad of other legislative scenarios which were not contemplated when the new Democratic majority put through the so- called earmark reform rules. These loopholes, as I was saying earlier, have prevented numerous earmarks from being challenged in the energy bill, the State Children's Health Insurance Program expansion legislation, and the omnibus bill, which, as we all know, contained nearly 9,000 earmarks, including at least 150 earmarks that were air- dropped in the bill at the last minute.

Now, Madam Speaker, it's not just Republicans as I was saying in my opening remarks who have taken note of these earmark loopholes. Our colleague from Georgia (Mr. Marshall) recently introduced a virtually identical rules change geared at closing the air-drop loophole as well as the amendments between the Houses loophole.

Obviously, I believe it's about time for the Democratic majority to start listening not only to concerns that are emerging from those of us who serve in the minority, but from members of their own caucus on this issue as well.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment and extraneous material be inserted into the Record just prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that I can amend the rule in order to restore accountability and enforceability to House earmark rules.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 940 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 940.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 940 provides for consideration of H.R. 1528, the New England National Scenic Trail Designation Act, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources. The rule makes in order two Republican amendments submitted to the Rules Committee by the ranking member of the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, Mr. Bishop of Utah. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except for clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Madam Speaker, the bill before us today, H.R. 1528, amends the National Trails System Act to designate most of the MMM Trail System as the New England National Scenic Trail.

The MMM Trail System extends from the Massachusetts border with New Hampshire through western Massachusetts and Connecticut toward the Long Island Sound. The highly popular trail system has existed for over 50 years and is predominantly managed and maintained by volunteers.

The trail system travels through important historical landmarks and harbors a range of diverse ecosystems and natural resources, including mountain summits, waterfalls, and critical habitats for endangered species.

In a recent feasibility study, the National Park Service recommended that the trail system be designated as a national scenic trail, with some adjustments and rerouting for a total of 220 miles. However, this study has been out since the spring of 2006; and while no changes are expected, it has been trapped in a giant morass of bureaucratic red tape that has not been finalized.

H.R. 1528 is simply about cutting through this red tape and getting Federal recognition and administrative support for a trail that is already extremely popular and well managed.

H.R. 1528 includes specific language protecting private property rights, and landowner cooperation in the national scenic trail designation is entirely voluntary. All landowners affected by the trail have the opportunity to have the trail rerouted around their property.

Furthermore, since no Federal land is involved, Federal designation of the land has no impact on State or local laws currently in place, including those governing hunting, fishing, or trapping or local zoning or other land use issues.

Madam Speaker, this designation is widely supported. It is supported by

the administration and the local communities across New England, and it has bipartisan congressional support, including the Representatives of all affected districts in Connecticut and Massachusetts.

In closing, I'd like to thank Chairman Rahall, Chairman Grijalva, and Mr. Olver for their hard work in bringing this legislation to the floor today so we can ensure that America's most treasured resources are protected for future generations.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for his kind words that he opened his statement with.

He mentioned throughout the statement that we might not be here if we were under suspension. I feel that under suspension of the rules, we would not be able to hear any of the debate that Mr. Bishop is going to offer on his two amendments. So, we are actually, in fact, allowing Mr. Bishop to make his amendments before the House of Representatives.

I will yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, Madam Speaker, the gentleman did make that offer in Rules. However, it should be noted that Mr. Bishop is the ranking member of his subcommittee. He had an opportunity to amend this bill in committee. He did not choose to offer but one amendment in committee, is my understanding, and then he came to the Rules Committee at the last minute with seven amendments.

The Rules Committee is allowing two amendments to be offered on the floor today. I think that's a fair hearing for the gentleman.

The gentleman has his own time.

I would like to just get through a few of my points, if I may.

The gentleman also brought up the issue of whether or not this bill has any effect on eminent domain. And I can tell you that there is absolutely no authority in H.R. 1528 for the National Park Service to take land by eminent domain, nor does the Service have any authority in local zoning issues that might affect national scenic trails.

Further, H.R. 1528 explicitly states that ``the United States does not acquire for trail any land or interest in land without the consent of the owner.'' In fact, this bill is an opt-in bill; you have to agree to have your land put into this act and used in this way.

The second part of the gentleman's statement with regard to earmarks, I'd like to just refer the gentleman to the committee report, page 7, the earmark statement. And in the committee report it states that ``H.R. 1528 does not contain any congressional earmarks.'' This is an authorization bill, not an appropriation bill. Further, the report states that it does not contain any limited tax benefits or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of rule XXI.'' It states that very clearly in the committee report.

Finally, the bill does allow two private groups that manage the trail currently, and this is the entire point of the bill, to receive Federal technical assistance. And that is in the way of educational experience or technical assistance to manage the trail, not resources to manage the trail.

So, I would say that there is no earmark whatsoever in this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I agree totally with one statement that Mr. Dreier, my colleague and friend from California, said, and that is that Mr. Bishop often comes up with brilliant ideas. Today we are allowing two of those brilliant ideas to be debated on the floor.

With regard to some of the other issues that were raised, I already read into the Record the fact that the committee has certified that there are no earmarks in this bill. Mr. Bishop says, well, there's a potential to have grants later on down the road. My understanding of grants is that they come from the administration, not from Congress. And if we start talking about every grant that is given by the Federal Government or the U.S. Government to the myriad of people who receive them throughout this country, that is a process that Congress has set up for a number of years. That has never before been the definition of an earmark, to my knowledge. So if that's the new definition of earmarks, that's news to me.

But I don't believe, based on the committee's certification, what I have heard, the testimony I have heard, there are any earmarks in this bill. That is what has been reported in the report, and I believe that to be the case.

Secondly, as I have previously stated as well, this bill is a voluntary measure where landowners have the absolute right to opt in or out. And so I can't see where there is coercion. There is agreement among the delegations in the affected regions, our House colleagues.

I believe that this is a good measure and it should go forward, and I would encourage my colleagues to support the rule.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his debate today. I disagree vehemently that his rendition of the earmark process is an accurate one. I don't believe that last Congress's rules on earmarks were stricter and more transparent than this Congress's. In fact, I believe that the country knows that the earmark process has gotten more transparent under the Democrats and that we have far fewer earmarks in the current process than we had previously. I think voters spoke about that in the last election.

I would just go on to say, Madam Speaker, that 40 years ago, the National Trails System Act was established to provide a system of trails for outdoor recreation and the enjoyment of scenic, historic, and naturally significant areas. H.R. 1528 adheres to these very long- established values. It ensures that the sweeping, natural landscapes across New England remain protected and untouched so they may be enjoyed by our children and grandchildren for years to come. It deserves strong support by all Members on the floor today, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and a ``yes'' vote on the previous question.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Dreier of California is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 940

Offered by Mr. Dreier of California

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 3. That immediately upon the adoption of this

resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point

of order, consider the resolution (H. Res. 479) to amend the

Rules of the House of Representatives to provide for

enforcement of clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House

of Representatives. The resolution shall be considered as

read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on

the resolution and any amendment thereto to final adoption

without intervening motion or demand for division of the

question except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and

controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the

Committee on Rules; (2) the amendment printed in section 4,

if offered by Representative Boehner of Ohio or his designee,

which shall be in order without intervention of any point of

order or demand for division of the question, shall be

considered as read and shall be separately debatable for

forty minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent

and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or

without instructions.

Sec. 4. The amendment referred to in section 3 is as

follows:

Strike all after ``That'' and insert the following:

(1) Clause 9(a) of rule XXI is amended by striking ``or''

at the end of subparagraph (3), striking the period at the

end of subparagraph (4) and inserting ``; or'', and adding

the following at the end:

``(5) a Senate bill held at the desk, an amendment between

the Houses, or an amendment considered as adopted pursuant to

an order of the House, unless the Majority Leader or his

designee has caused a list of congressional earmarks, limited

tax benefits, and limited tariff benefits in the bill and

amendments (and the name of any Member, Delegate, or Resident

Commissioner who submitted the request for each respective

item in such list) or a statement that the proposition

contains no congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or

limited tariff benefits to be printed in the Congressional

Record prior to its consideration.''.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.