Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 986) to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate certain segments of the Eightmile River in the State of Connecticut as components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, I have had the wonderful opportunity, or privilege, I guess, at different times, of standing, sitting in this chair, standing at this mike either to present bills or to control time or to present rules. Oftentimes, I was perplexed at the discussion that went on, because oftentimes our side would be giving wonderful speeches and their side would be giving wonderful speeches but never on the same topic. We didn't even have the terms defined. That will not happen today with this particular bill, because there is but one issue, and the issue is clear, and it is precise.

We do not have a problem with the creation of the wild and scenic river for this Eightmile area in the State of Connecticut. I am under the assumption that at the public hearings that were held in Connecticut, issues that could be of concern, for example, if you have a kid and want to add a bedroom, if you want to add a garage to your home, if you want to fix the roof to your house, if you want to repair a road that's been washed out or even ask to clear some of the brush next to the river, that not only could that possibly be prohibited, but it would probably be prohibited because there is precedent in other wild and scenic areas where that exact same thing has happened.

But, with that, and I am sure it was covered in those public hearings, I am convinced a majority of residents in this area supported the wild and scenic area. I was somewhat disenchanted, when we were told in the hearing it was unanimous support. Later on, we found out it was not that and the record has been amended to illustrate that.

In one city, in which one of the letters I received said only five people were opposed to it, in reality it was about a 400-person meeting with about a third, about 40 percent who were opposed to it. Still not a majority, so I am not opposed to the scenic river.

What is significant, though, is there is a significant minority of individuals in this area that are fearful of what may happen to their homes in this area. Their rights and their fears should be considered and should be considered carefully. It is ironic that this happens to be in the district in which both the leaders of the State and local government turned their backs on Susette Kelo and brought about that infamous court case decision dealing with Kelo, imminent domain issues.

We do not want that to be replicated, which is clearly why the Republicans presented language in both the Resources and Rules Committee to make it specifically clear what was the intent of this bill. The language we propose simply says, no Federal funds may be used to condemn land to carry out the purposes of this act or the amendment made by subsection B. Nothing would be done. It is puzzling to us why the Democratic Party would not support that language, when all the Democrats from the sponsor to the committee chairman say that is, indeed, their goal.

If their goal is not to use condemnation, then you should say so. Why this wasn't accepted in a bipartisan way is, for me, puzzling. Otherwise, this bill need not to be here today; it could easily be handled by unanimous consent.

The language that the chairman of the subcommittee gave you does not prohibit condemnation. It is based on zoning ordinances, zoning ordinances.

It is unusual that, indeed, Federal statute should be contingent on local governments coming up with their zoning ordinance as of a specific date.

What happens if they don't have those? What happens if they change those zoning ordinances, as has already happened?

This is like a trial lawyer's dream come true in being able to take this language to a court and say, Look, Congress didn't specifically protect property rights with no condemnation language; they put their emphasis on local control. Ergo, local control should take precedence.

They claim that the only land that will be taken will be done by donations or willing sellers. Another phrase, we have problems, simply because we have files that are bulging, of citizens who became willing sellers only after years of harassment put on them by Federal agencies.

If you mean that you don't want condemnation, say it. Say it in logical terms that any citizen, any lawyer or any judge will clearly understand.

If you don't mean it, then use double-talk, use loopholes. There is more that we need to talk about on this particular issue.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

I am very pleased to yield to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) such time as he may consume.

If I could ask the gentleman from Arizona how many more speakers you have.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

As I said before, there are some significant issues that always take place on these particular types of bills. Indeed, there is no basic statutory structure for wild and scenic bills. They've gone all over the place, including the now infamous one in New Jersey, which I think was actually the last bill to go through during the last session.

These are the issues that we've talked about before which can, indeed, take place under wild and scenic areas where people do not have the right to fix their roof, do not have the right to expand their garage, do not have the right to clear areas on their own property. It is not just a possibility; it is actually a probability. There is precedent for all of those.

But once again, this isn't this key issue. We are willing to have 8 miles of scenic river in Connecticut. The key issue is defending those people in Connecticut and establishing a precedent that is significant the rest of the way.

It's not simply a matter of reading the bill; it's a matter of reading the law. The language of zoning requirement, which once again is a conditional one. You mentioned the Attorney General from the State of Connecticut wrote a letter and once again he said the act flatly prohibits use of eminent domain if, and once again that's the conditional language, if the lands are subject to local zoning laws that conform to the purposes of the act. And once again the date that these zoning laws should have been in effect, the zoning ordinances have already been changed from that particular date.

But the key element is that that zoning language, that willing seller language, is inserted into the existing bill and it comes directly after this sentence, and the sentence is very clear. Nothing contained in this section, which is everything we've been talking about in this bill, nothing contained in this section however, shall preclude the use of condemnation. Nothing that you add as far as zoning ordinances or willing sellers precludes the right the Secretary of Interior has in the rest of the bill and the rest of the section from condemnation, unless you simply adopt the Republican language, and that is why we hit over and over and over again on this issue.

It is important that we stand up for property rights and personal property. It's important that people have some sense of security and safety in their own homes. And this bill doesn't take away this provision of the act which says, nothing contained in this section shall preclude the use of condemnation. That is to which we object. That is the problem with this bill. That is what must change.

The Republican option was clear, simple and to the point. The Democrat option, whatever the motive was, is somewhat double-talk. It's a loophole. This language that we propose is very similar to what this body adopted by a voice vote with the Department of Interior appropriations bill.

And in conclusion, Madam Speaker, I'm actually sad that we had this bill before us at all. There is no reason this bill should be before us with a closed rule. I wish that the Democrats had moved in a bipartisan way to work with us to meet what are legitimate concerns. And if, indeed, protection of private property is a partisan issue, I'm more than happy to be on the side of private property. That's the right side to be on in this issue. This bill may indeed sometime become a metaphor for this entire section where we can see how much muscle can be flexed to push through issues rather than sitting down and trying to solve problems.

I truly hope that in the future we can work in a bipartisan way, that we can actually talk together to find language that is mutually acceptable to both sides of the aisle for these issues, because there's no reason that we should actually have to go through a closed rule on this type of a bill.

But the issue is simply black and white or yellow and black, I guess. Will you actually ensure, by taking the money away, there is no condemnation, or do you leave the language in the act? It's clear. It's understandable. It should be clear to our colleagues. It will be clear to our constituents and our voters.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, with the exception of 2 minutes, which I reserve for tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this completely closed rule and to the underlying big government legislation to use eminent domain to strip property owners of their rights that the Democrat majority is bringing to the House floor today.

This is the first of two closed rules being brought to the floor today courtesy of the Democrat majority from the graveyard of democracy and good ideas in the House of Representatives, the Rules Committee. It represents yet another example of the procedural gimmickry being blatantly exploited by the Democrats as they continue to completely ignore their campaign to run the most honest, open Congress in history.

Mr. Speaker, as any 5-year-old could tell you, the opposite of open is closed, and that's precisely what the American people are getting from the Democrats once again, another closed rule.

In fact, as compared with last Congress, through the same date, as of July 30, the Democrats have brought exactly twice as many closed rules to the floor as Republicans did when we held the Speaker's gavel.

Mr. Speaker, I will insert in the Record a document prepared by the Republican staff of the Rules Committee comparing the Democrats' awful record of reporting out closed rules in the 110th with last year's record of those controlled by the Republican Congress.

I appreciate the gentlewoman's inquiring about our intent. We have at least two speakers who would wish to speak on this issue at this time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Mr. Speaker, the bill that is being brought forward today, I believe, is yet another example of the Democrat majority's attack on what I would refer to as constitutional balanced authority in this country. By virtue of bringing this bill forward, it means that what we will be doing is not allowing what I think is a fair process for people dealing with their own private land.

And I'm sure that you'll have lots of people who are my friends who are Democrats say, well, this is so important that we've got to have this land for the interest of all of the people, so we can have this pristine land. But, Mr. Speaker, we're talking about private property. And private property rights are those things under which this country, one of the things that this country is founded under that makes us entirely different than other countries. Other countries, many of them, all around the world, do not extend to their citizens the right for private property.

And so today, once again, what we're seeing is an assault, an attack, using Congress to come and use the powers of the Federal Government against private landowners. I'm sure if their story were being presented today, these private landowners may tell the story about how, for many, many years, I don't know the stories, but how many, many years, being from Texas we could tell the same story, in Connecticut it might be even longer, how people have passed these pieces of property down through generations.

But the fact of the matter is that any time that private property is being taken as a result of a force or a threat, in this case, to make a scenic wilderness area pristine and to preserve that as opposed to a single property owner keeping what they had, making those choices within the law and looking up and seeing the Federal Government staring down at them with all the resources of the Federal Government, knowing that the United States Congress brought this action on them, is regrettable.

It's regrettable that it had to happen this way. It's regrettable that we could not at least, through the Rules Committee, make a simple amendment in order that would say, why don't we clarify that we're not going to force this issue, that we'll hope that some compromise happens, but that we're not going to allow this condemnation.

Not at all. Can't have that kind of debate here.

And this Congress had claimed that we were going to be open and honest, and it would be the most open and honest Congress in the history of the United States Congress.

So that's what's regrettable. That's what's regrettable that here we find ourselves on a Monday at the end of July trying to help the big Federal Government to grab the land from private landowners. And I think that's wrong. I think it's wrong. I think it's wrong for this House to do that without being on record of saying we're not going to sick the Federal Government on these people who might be private landowners.

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a recorded vote for the previous question for this rule. And if the previous question fails, I will ask the House to amend the rule to provide for the separate consideration of H.R. 3138, which would amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to update the definition of electronic surveillance.

Our country is facing a very serious problem, and I said this on the floor of the House twice last week, that must be addressed before the House adjourns in August. That means last week we had two weeks to get it done; this week we have one week to get it done. The majority Democrats continue to shirk their responsibilities to keep Americans safe by ignoring the seriousness of this threat.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 11 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico, the ``Land of Enchantment'' (Mrs. Wilson).

By prior agreement, I will close at this time, and I thank the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, if the Rules Committee wants to spend special time on the House floor debating these closed rules, I believe that we can do better than the Eightmile Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

However, for some reason this Democrat leadership cannot seem to find time to schedule consideration of legislation that was just spoken about by the gentlewoman from New Mexico and the gentleman from California that clarifies one very specific thing, and that is that the United States Government will no longer be required to get a warrant to listen to foreign terrorists who are not even located in the United States of America.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, we have got time to pick on private landowners and to take their land by the use and force of the Federal Government, but we don't have time to schedule legislation to come and protect this country. Utterly incredible.

The Director of the National Intelligence, Michael McConnell and the Director of the CIA, Michael Hayden, have testified to this Congress that under current law their hands are tied. They are giving this body notice: we cannot do this under the law. And as Director McConnell testified, FISA is outdated and has been made obsolete by technology.

Today, once again, the Republicans are asking for us to support the intelligence community because they are forced to obtain warrants to listen to terrorists outside of our Nation, and as a result, and this is a quote, ``We are actually missing a significant portion of what we should be getting,'' directly from the Director of Central Intelligence.

This Congress has known about it for months. Republicans were on the floor last week. We are on the floor again this week. We are saying we are getting ready to go on break, we need to protect this country, we need to pass the law. We are asking the Democrat leadership once again if you have got time for this bill that is about a river, you certainly should have time to protect this country when our intelligence people are saying we need it. We have been saying for months we need it. The Republicans are on the floor today again to say there are 5 days left and then we will be on vacation.

Are they going to say to the American people and to the intelligence community, ``Too bad, we didn't have time to do that?''

If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are serious about facing down this threat, Mr. Speaker, they should come and join us. They should join us in defeating the previous question so that the House will be able to then address this issue since the Democrat leadership won't.

Don't hide behind something that deals with Republican or Democrat, and do the right thing for the country. This is a very real and a very serious threat.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include my amendment and extraneous material in the Congressional Record.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this legislation. And I also want to thank my colleague from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) for his strong words in support of this measure, which again is something that people in Connecticut are watching anxiously in terms of the actions of this body.

Madam Speaker, I submit for printing in the Record letters of support for this legislation from the Republican Governor of Connecticut, Jodi Rell; the first selectman of the town of East Haddam, Brad Parker; the Republican first selectman from the town of Salem, Larry Reitz; the Republican first selectman of the town of Lyme, Ralph Eno; and also a letter of support from the State of Connecticut's Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal, all of whom have reviewed this legislation and have, very mindful of the situation that occurred in London, a year ago, have examined the question of whether or not this legislation opens the door to condemnation of eminent domain, and all have expressed their support for the committee bill which is before the House this evening and will be voted on tomorrow

Attorney General,

State of Connecticut,

Hartford, CT, July 19, 2007.

Hon. Joseph D. Courtney,

U.S. Congressman,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Courtney: I am writing to support H.R.

986, the Eightmile Wild and Scenic River Act, which

designates certain areas of the Eightmile River in Lyme,

Salem and East Haddam as part of the National Wild and Scenic

Rivers System. This river is a great asset to the people of

Connecticut, and such designation will enhance efforts to

preserve and protect its beauty and environmental integrity.

The proposal also protects the property rights of land

owners within the designated areas from federal eminent

domain takings by expressly stating that the Secretary of the

Interior's authority to acquire property

in this area ``shall be limited to acquisition by donation or

acquisition with the consent of the owner thereof . . .''

Section 2(g).

The Secretary's general statutory authority under the Wild

and Scenic Rivers Act to acquire land is already severely

circumscribed. The Act flatly prohibits use of eminent domain

if the lands are subject to local zoning laws that conform to

proposes of the Act. According to the Interior Department,

there have been no condemnations under this Act in the past

30 years. Nevertheless, H.R. 986 goes even further by

prohibiting the use of eminent domain by the Secretary under

any circumstance.

I commend your leadership on this critical legislation.

Very truly yours,

Richard Blumenthal.

Sure. I'd be happy to yield.

Well, again, I don't sit on the Resources Committee, on the day that this was deliberated on, but, I think clearly, and I don't want to put words in the Chairman's mouth, and he can probably answer this when maybe the microphone goes back to him, but my understanding is that basically they wanted to follow the basic statutory format that has worked in all the other designations that this Congress has taken up in the past, and where really honestly there has not been a problem of condemnation or eminent domain of the property owners. But that's the best of my knowledge.

And in conclusion, again, I'd be happy to submit an excerpt from the Eightmile River Watershed management plan, which again confirms what the zoning and wetland regulations, which ones were examined by the National Park Service and by the committee, again, the 75-foot and the 100-foot setback for wetland permits, which, again, were satisfactory in terms of triggering the anticondemnation provisions of the wild and scenic act, which, again, I think have worked without a hitch based on any data and information, facts or law that the committee staff and the committee leadership has examined.

In conclusion, I just want to thank, again, the leadership of the committee for the work that they've done on this legislation. I hope maybe this colloquy has reassured people that this is not a plan which is about trying to ram through government authority to take people's property rights away. It has been fashioned and designed in a way that accommodates people's input and participation with, again, property owners in strong support of it. Their names were submitted to the committee during the committee process. And again, I want to thank Mr. Grijalva for his leadership on this issue

adequacy of protection

An important component of the management plan development

process was determining the adequacy of existing protection

mechanisms to protect and enhance the watershed's outstanding

resource values. Determining adequacy achieves objectives:

(1) Proving that local communities meet the requirements of

Section 6(c) of the Wild & Scenic Rivers Act.

Section 6(c) of the Wild & Scenic Rivers Act states:

``(c) Neither the Secretary of the Interior nor the

Secretary of Agriculture may acquire lands by condemnation,

for the purpose of including such lands in any national wild,

scenic or recreational river area, if such lands are located

within any incorporated city, village or borough which has in

force and applicable to such lands a duly adopted, valid

zoning ordinance that conforms with the purposes of this Act.

The standards specified in such guidelines shall have the

object of (A) prohibiting new commercial or industrial uses

other than commercial or industrial uses which are consistent

with the purposes of this Act and (8) the protection af the

bank lands by means of acreage, frontage, and setback

requirements on development.''

Local, state and federal regulations, combined with

protected lands and physical constraints to development (i.e.

floodplains, wetlands, topography, etc.) create enough of an

existing protection scheme to make federal condemnation of

lands unreasonable and unnecessary. While no new actions are

deemed required by the towns to meet the requirements of

Section 6(c), the management recommendations in Section VI

are considered critical to the overall long-term quality of

the watershed's outstanding resource values.

At the local and state level, a number of key actions

underscore the current level of protection and the dedication

to river and watershed conservation:

Local upland review areas are in place in all three

communities. These are the areas within 100 feet of wetlands

and watercourses in East Haddam and Lyme, and 75 feet in

Salem. Municipal Inland Wetland and Watercourse Commissions

can regulate activities in upland review areas that would

likely impact wetland or watercourse function. Reviews in

upland areas may include assessing and regulating impacts

from a proposed activity on hydrologic, water quality and

ecological functions.

All three towns have adopted net buildable area

requirements in their subdivision regulations recognizing new

construction should be compatible with the carrying capacity

of the land to sustain it. In addition, Salem requires 75% of

the net buildable area be outside of the upland review area,

and Lyme requires all of the net buildable area be at least

100 feet back from wetlands and watercourses.

Local communities, working in partnership with local land

trusts, the state and The Nature Conservancy, have directly

preserved 28% of the watershed (over 11,000 acres of land),

and 25% of all river frontage within 100 feet of the 160

miles of river and stream in the watershed.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 580, I call up the bill (H.R. 986) to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate certain segments of the Eightmile River in the State of Connecticut as components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 986.

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

H.R. 986 would designate 25.3 miles of the Eightmile River and its tributaries in Connecticut as a national scenic river. The bill was introduced by my friend and colleague, Representative Joe Courtney, who has been a strong and effective advocate for this designation.

H.R. 986 would protect portions of the Eightmile River that have been found to have outstandingly remarkable values, including an intact watershed with a natural flow, very high water quality, unusual geological features, and large numbers of rare plants and animals.

The bill would designate five segments of the river and its tributary as scenic under the Wild and Scenic River Act.

The designated segments would be managed according to a plan produced pursuant to the 2001 Eightmile River Wild and Scenic River Study Act.

The administration supports the legislation. The National Park Service has found these segments of the river and its tributaries to be eligible and suitable for designation. Under the provisions of the bill, the river will be managed pursuant to a partnership agreement as envisioned in section 10(e) of the Wild and Scenic River Act.

H.R. 986 is cosponsored by the entire Connecticut House delegation. Both Connecticut centers support the designation, as does the Republican Governor of Connecticut and the State legislature.

I submit for the Record a letter from Governor Rell, dated July 11, 2007, in support of the bill.

Executive Chambers,

State of Connecticut,

July 11, 2007.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Steny Hoyer,

House Majority Leader.

John Boehner,

House Minority Leader.

Roy Blunt,

House Minority Whip.

Dear Speaker Pelosi and Congressmen Hoyer, Boehner, and

Blunt: I am writing to express my support for H.R. 986, which

will designate certain sections of the Eightmile River in

southeastern Connecticut for inclusion in the National Park

Service's Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Including parts of

this exceptional natural and cultural resource within this

program will help ensure that it receives the protections

that it deserves.

I understand that this legislation also will protect

property owners from having their lands taken by condemnation

without the consent of the property owner. As you may know,

this has become an important issue in Connecticut in the wake

of the U.S. Supreme Court's Kelo decision, and I am pleased

that H.R. 986 will respect the rights of property owners.

Thank you for your efforts to help preserve this river, its

tributaries and watershed.

Very truly yours,

M. Jodi Rell,

Governor.

The legislation also enjoys ample support from the affected local communities, including the local governments of the towns of Salem, East Haddam and Lyme.

During the committee consideration of the bill, there had been expressed concern about the private property provisions in the legislation.

To ensure that the bill is absolutely clear on this point, I offered, and the Natural Resources Committee adopted, language that deems the zoning ordinances adopted by the towns of Salem, East Haddam and Lyme to satisfy section 6(c) of the Wild and Scenic River Act, and thus the bill expressly prohibits the use of Federal condemnation of authority under the Wild and Scenic River Act.

In addition, the bill goes on to expressly forbid Federal condemnation for the Eightmile River designation. The authority contained in the bill to acquire land is limited to donation or

acquisition with the consent of the owner of the property. We have not one but two provisions, making it abundantly clear there will be no Federal condemnation along the Eightmile River.

These provisions track the language used in several wild and scenic river designations in the east, including the designation of Connecticut's other wild and scenic river, the Farmington River. The language has been in effect for over a decade without questions or ambiguity on those rivers or in court.

The opposition has said that they only want to add language to deny Federal condemnation. Given the language already in the bill, this would be plainly redundant. We simply ask that when all else fails, that they read the bill.

The specific language of H.R. 986 denies the Federal Government any condemnation authority. The Bush administration has assured us that they consider the language to be absolutely unambiguous.

H.R. 986 was originally considered by the House on July 10. When the vote was taken, the bill got a clear majority on a vote of 239-173 but failed to get the two-thirds necessary for passage under suspension of the rules.

Since the only amendment that opponents have raised is clearly unnecessary, we believe the procedure under which the bill is being considered in the House today will allow the House to work its will on the measure.

This is a good bill. I want to commend my colleague from Connecticut, Representative Courtney, for his commitment and leadership on this matter.

We support the passage of H.R. 986, as amended, and urge its adoption by the House today.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, local ordinances are being changed, and that will allow the National Park Service to invoke its condemnation authority as one of the issues that my good friend brought up now.

What I would like to say, the specific language of the bill denies the National Park Service any condemnation authority. Even if a local government were to change this ordinance, the National Park Service wanted to exercise condemnation authority, they would have to come back and they would have to get this law changed.

Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).

I thank the gentleman from New Mexico. And I would just point out that every time, and I am guilty of that, too, when we vote for a highway bill, a defense bill, a water bill that comes before us, we are voting for the ability of the Federal Government to conduct condemnation. This is not the case in this legislation. It is specifically prohibited in two sections of this bill.

I yield to the sponsor, my good friend from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

We have no additional speakers.

Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend from Utah, the ranking member.

Just in closing, let me say that the Appalachian Trail that was referenced by the gentleman from New Mexico has, in the legislation, condemnation as part of it. This particular bill does not. And there is separate language, aside from the section that my good friend from Utah presented today, that adds an additional prohibition and a protection for the acquisition of private property in this legislation

Madam Speaker, I yield back all but 2 minutes and reserve the 2 minutes until tomorrow.

I thank the gentleman from Utah and recognize the hard work of my friend from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).

I think that we all agree patently that the underlying bill is not a problem. The problem is a very simple sentence that my friend from Utah would have included: no Federal funds may be used to condemn land, carry out the purposes of this act, or the amendment made by subsection B. It is a very simple amendment, one that is very clear.

One would have to ask: Are there circumstances where we would be concerned about confiscation? Is it a valid concern? Has it been done before? Is it a worry that land owners or property owners might have to fear that confiscation would actually reach in and take their property and wrestle it away from them? That is the essential question before us.

As the chairman of the Parks Subcommittee last year, we had the opportunity to listen to people along the Appalachian Trail. The Friars case was most prevalent. It is not the actual condemnation; it is the threat of condemnation that is the tool that is most often used; that we begin to persist from the Federal Government that we are going to take your land; that we can; that you need to just get along. So we have seen up and down the Appalachian Trail problems that come when land owners get in the way of a very strong central government.

A couple of weeks ago I had the opportunity to be in Shenandoah National Park. I was amazed at the boldness of the park superintendent there. The entire visitors center was filled with stories of exactly the same thing, where a too strong Federal Government came in and began to take people and move them off the land because they were just so inconvenient. These constitutional rights of private property ownership were so inconvenient that we simply confiscated their land and moved about 4,000 families out of that whole Shenandoah area.

Confiscation is a very real thing to people of New Mexico. The White Sands missile range extends for 100 miles north to south, 40 miles east to west. Ranch was confiscated because the Defense Department felt like it wanted to create a training base. Now, all of us in the area support the training base. We support that it is the largest overland missile training proving ground in the world. We are able to do magnificent things there. But we cannot turn a blind eye to the way that parcel of land was put together, by taking people and evicting them off their land.

Recently, I had the opportunity to stumble across one of the books that people in dire frustration write in their home. No major publisher would pick it up and do it. It wasn't very well written, maybe. But it was published on a small printer or maybe even one of the old copying machines that we used to have in high school, but it talked about 50 years of confiscation there in that one section of New Mexico.

So, yes, we do in this country face a problem of a too strong central government. I don't know if it is going to be a problem; Mr. Bishop alludes to the fact that we have land owners there who are expressing their concern of what is going to happen to them. None of us can say what any bureaucracy would do in the future. All we can do is offer the security of this one simple sentence: no Federal funds may be used to condemn land to carry out the purposes of this act or the amendments made by this subsection (b).

Now, there are those who completely oppose this kind of restriction. Recently, I volunteered to help with the Continental Divide Trail that runs north-south, through the United States. It starts at the Mexican border, goes all the way to the Canadian border, and runs all the way north to south through New Mexico. That trail was originated in 1978 language, but in the intervening years not one mile across private property had ever been gotten. I volunteered to take that task on, but the one reassurance people wanted was, don't let them come and take my land later.

I am sympathetic to the rights of private property owners. I think that we all should be, because private property ownership is at the heart of the success of our democracy and this Republic that we represent people in. Private property ownership is the basis of our Constitution. It is the basis of the economic way of life that we have in this country, and we should jealously guard it even to the point of putting in simple language like that that Mr. Bishop has suggested. It is not an unreasonable request.

And, no, it is not some scheme rigged up to make it look like someone didn't get their job done. It is simply the people out West, where 60 and 70 and 80 percent of our States are owned by Federal Governments. Those people out West have a different view than those people on the east coast where almost nothing is owned by the Federal or State government. And we out West say, please, just take the time to put in this one simple sentence, to take the precautions that would protect the constitutional rights and liberties of our residents. It is not an unreasonable request, and we simply ask that the bill be voted against because of that one provision that is missing. I thank the gentleman for yielding

Would the gentleman yield?

The gentleman understands, I mean, it is a very straightforward, transparent thing that we're suggesting. What was offensive about this particular amendment that simply says no Federal funds may be used to condemn, and it just gets really clear, because again, those of us in the West, maybe we're overly sensitive, but so much land has been taken from us that it is, it is a point at which we begin to resist. Why wasn't that amendment simply agreed to?

I appreciate the gentleman's comments. And if he would yield further, just point out that, again, we have had so many people come and testify about the Appalachian Trail that came through there, and I wouldn't call it systematic, but enough to where we began to feel, I began to feel uncomfortable with a too-strong National Park Service that was very energized about just getting this little parcel here, and it would make things fit so well that they began to really use their power in a way that was distressing. And that's, again, it's a very simply straightforward, transparent piece that is the problem.

We've got some magnificent vistas out West that might not equal what you're talking about, but we share our love for those things, and it's unfortunate that this bill is kind of the focal point for this particular dispute. But again, it's certainly nothing to do with the gentleman's underlying assumption or his belief that this river is worth protecting, but is instead one that we're expressing our concern as cleanly as we can that a government can be too strong and too large and too heavy-handed. And we worry about that.

But I thank the gentleman for yielding.