Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1528) to amend the National Trails System Act to designate the New England National Scenic Trail, and for other purposes.

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.

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.

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

H.R. 1528 amends the National Trails System Act to designate most of an existing trail system in Massachusetts and Connecticut as the New England National Scenic Trail. In 2002, Congress directed the National Park Service to study this trail for potential addition to the National Trails System. The draft study, completed in 2006, supports designation of the trail, with some changes to the route to address landowner concerns. The administration has testified that no major changes in the study are expected, and expressed support for the measure in testimony before the Natural Resources Committee.

The trail runs 220 miles through the heart of Connecticut and Massachusetts, past some of the most spectacular vistas and landscapes in New England. The trail offers some of the world's best opportunities to view volcanic and glacial geology, including fossil and dinosaur footprints. The proposed trail also fulfills another requirement of the National Trails System Act by being close to population centers. This trail has over 2 million people that live within 10 miles of the route, and this accessibility makes the trail a wonderful recreational opportunity.

The route of the trail crosses land owned by State and local governments and by private landowners. No Federal land is involved. Local trails associations have obtained permission from landowners allowing existing trails to cross their lands. If a landowner requests that the association close the trail on his or her property, the association honors that request. The NPS study identified no need for direct Federal trail ownership or direct Federal trail management.

If H.R. 1528 is enacted, the role of the National Park Service in implementing the designation would be to provide technical and financial assistance to

the existing trail partners, including State, tribal, regional and local agencies, the Appalachian Mountain Club, and the Connecticut Forest and Park Association. H.R. 1528 is cosponsored by Members representing all the affected districts in Connecticut and Massachusetts, and enjoys energetic support from the affected local communities.

Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill, and I want to commend my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) for his commitment and leadership on this matter. We support the passage of H.R. 1528, and urge its adoption by the House today.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments that the gentleman from Utah, the ranking member of the subcommittee, made. There is a point of consistency, too. As we talked about the effects, I thought we were talking about a trail bill, not a farm bill, but the effects of the Federal Government on private land.

I would suggest that part of the consistency would be to quit incentivizing extraction of mining claims and mining rights on private property, that that would be consistent. It would be consistent also to not have eminent domain and condemnation with regard to road construction of Federal roads and energy corridors. I think that kind of points out the fact that we are talking two different things here. We are talking about a trail that has already been through the process and the study and that merits our support today.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), a cosponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield to the sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) such time as he may consume.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).

(Mr. LARSON of Connecticut asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, it's a good piece of legislation, well crafted, well worked. Many of the doomsday scenarios we've heard about condemnation have no relationship to this legislation. I would urge its adoption.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this draft report that I'm holding is entitled The National Scenic Trail Feasibility Study and Environmental Assessment.

Like many products of the Federal Government, it's lengthy and complicated. But let's be perfectly clear. We're not waiting for a separate environmental assessment. It's all done and it's all in here.

Even though it's labeled a draft report, the National Park Service doesn't do drafts like a high school assignment does drafts. This is a 75-page bound document, eight full color fold-out maps. It draws on more than 90 sources, from books on dinosaur footprints to books on the pioneers who first set foot on those trails, from scholarly histories of the ancient Earth to histories of the small communities along the trail. This study is done.

In reality, the process of changing the study from a draft into a final report is a bureaucratic one; it is not a substantive one, which makes this amendment dilatory, at best, and not a substantive one.

The draft study was completed in August of 2006. It has been under review at the Department of the Interior for 17 months. The National Park Service tells us that it needs approximately one dozen signatures from various Interior officials in order to be considered final. That's all we're waiting for.

In effect, therefore, the amendment could have us abdicate our authority and responsibility to designate trails and pass that authority over to the Secretary, so that whenever he and the various Deputy Assistant Secretaries at Interior get around to signing off on the study, then the trail would be designated. Such an abdication would not lead to a better study; it would just lead to delay.

It might be different, Mr. Chairman, if my good friend from Utah could point out something that is lacking in this study, if he wanted to wait because he felt the analysis of the affected environment on pages 61 and 62 were not entirely complete, or if he was contending that the book The Indian Tribes of North America by John R. Swanton and the Smithsonian Institution Press should not have been relied on in this study.

That is not the case, Mr. Chairman. The work of the study is done. The administration came before the National Parks, Forest and Public Lands Subcommittee in May and testified they do not anticipate any substantive changes to this document and that they support the designation.

Congress has, in this study, more than sufficient documentation to establish this trail. There is no reason to delay this designation. Only if you simply oppose the trail, then that would be the reason for delay.

Mr. Chairman, it's not the role of the Secretary of the Interior to designate trail. It's the role of this Congress, and we should get on with it. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, let me just say that this amendment is completely unnecessary. The trail crosses State land that is State- owned, local, and the property of willing private landowners. That's all. State and local hunting and fishing laws clearly govern all of these lands.

What's more, this amendment refers to ``all designated and future designated land within the New England National Scenic Trail, including all Federal lands.''

Mr. Chairman, once again, there are no Federal lands involved here.

So in addition to being unnecessary, the amendment is drafted and applies to land that does not exist.

Secondly, we are perplexed as to why we would single out State and local laws on hunting and fishing and the possession or use of a weapon, trap, or net. Why would we state that these laws, which, as I have already said, obviously apply to the lands along the trail, why would we state that these laws apply but not mention other equally applicable State and local laws.

The amendment could legitimately cause someone to wonder, because we mention only these activities, are other State and local laws somehow rendered inactive by this bill?

A Federal trail designation does not preempt State and local laws. But this amendment might make some believe that it does.

This amendment is not intended to solve what I believe is a real problem. It's, rather, an attempt to inject a made-up issue into a simple, straightforward trail designation. In the end, this amendment really only confuses the issue.

Having said that, however, if the language makes Mr. Bishop comfortable enough to support this legislation, we are willing to consider it. We do not believe that it is needed or really even helpful. It will burden the bill, despite its redundancy, only slightly; and in the spirit of bipartisanship, we accept Mr. Bishop's language.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, we accepted a motion on hunting and fishing that was consistent with State laws because that seemed to be the most pressing issue in the discussion and debate over this legislation. Now we have a motion to recommit that tries to solve a problem already dealt with which is easily and simply dealt with with the underlying legislation.

The bill specifically prohibits condemnation, so there is no legitimate concern regarding private property rights. There is no legitimate reason to say the same thing over and over again. But now we're in a whole other realm. We're in a conspiracy theory, Federal bogeyman kind of discussion where proponents of the bill say, Well, sure, you have stopped Federal condemnation, but what about our doomsday scenario where the Feds and a State or a locality team up in some secret plan to have the State condemn the land and then give it to the Feds. We better stop that scenario as well.

The point of the matter is that this motion is about usurping local control and, indeed, giving it to the Federal Government. I want to say enough is enough. At what point have we gone far enough to deal with any legitimate problem?

Supporters of this amendment and the motion see condemnation under every rock and around every corner, and there could never be enough language in this bill or any other bill to satisfy them.

Even worse, proponents of this language know full well that neither this motion nor anything else we do here in Congress can stop States from exercising their condemnation authority. Here we have a motion that is both completely unnecessary and completely ineffective. There is no condemnation under this bill. Proponents of this motion need to move on.

I urge defeat of the motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the motion to recommit.

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

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I am not quite sure how long my voice will hold out, so I will probably be fairly short.

I just want to commend the chairman of the full committee, Chairman Rahall, and the chairman of the subcommittee, Chairman Grijalva, and thank them for all of their great work in bringing this bill to the floor.

The New England Scenic Trail Designation Act is a product of almost a decade of cooperation between the Massachusetts delegation and the Connecticut delegation, and both delegations have changed over that period of time, the National Park Service, the Appalachian Mountain Club, the Connecticut Forest and Park Association and a lot of local communities and individuals.

The bill designates major portions of an older, voluntary Metacomet- Monadnock-Mattabesett trail system as a national scenic trail. Now, I have hiked every mile of the old voluntary system through Massachusetts; and while some segments are very well protected, other sections have suffered serious encroachment. National scenic trail designation will provide an opportunity for long-term preservation for future generations.

Currently, the MMM trail system is administered by local nonprofit organizations: the Connecticut Forest and Park Association in Connecticut and the Appalachian Mountain Club through its Berkshire Chapter in Massachusetts. The Connecticut Forest and Park Association in fact is a private nonprofit organization which contracts with the State of Connecticut to run the trail systems in all of their public parks, so it is a very reputable organization which has been there for a long time and has a huge number of volunteers who work on it, and it works closely with the State of Connecticut. I want to recognize and thank the many volunteers and staff of these organizations who have worked diligently to help develop this initiative. Because of their effort, every Member through whose district this trail system passes supports this legislation.

In the case of Massachusetts, the Appalachian Mountain Club has over time been sort of a sponsor for the trail within Massachusetts, the old voluntary trail, not only this trail but other trails within Massachusetts. In Massachusetts, the land passes through at least four substantial State parks or State forests so that much of the land is already publicly owned by the State of Massachusetts, but there are connections between those publicly owned pieces of land and there are visitor centers and park facilities and so on at a rather convenient distance for hiking purposes, for day hikes or overnight camp-type hikes along the way.

Now, I understand that some Members have expressed concerns that this bill will infringe upon landowner rights and allow the National Park Service to seize lands through eminent domain. Well, the Federal Government does not own any land anywhere in the area that the trail is intended to go, following the old voluntary trail, and then some additional territory that has to be worked out by the Connecticut Forest and Parks Association in order to reach the Long Island Sound. There is no expectation of there being any Federal land there. It was never intended there would be federally owned land. Whatever protection of the land would be held by the Park Association or on behalf of the State of Connecticut. And in Massachusetts, the same thing is basically true.

No one wants to establish Federal ownership of a corridor. In recognition of that, in the legislation we added the language: ``The United States shall not acquire for the trail any land or interest in land without the consent of the owner.''

Yet the argument keeps coming back that that doesn't protect people. Well, maybe the language of the motion to recommit will satisfy that. I think it is completely redundant with what is already there and certainly in total keeping with the intent not to have any Federal ownership of land in that area.

The blueprint for the management of the trail specifically states that all existing landowner uses and rights, including hunting, fishing, timber management and other recreational activities, will continue to be at the discretion of the landowners.

Throughout the process, protection of private property has been of the utmost concern, and I believe we can accommodate the concerns of all landowners and continue to provide a scenic, protected path for public use as the New England National Scenic Trail. There is wide support for this designation. I would submit for the Record a March 25, 2007, Boston Globe editorial and a letter of support from the Massachusetts Secretary of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, Ian Bowles.

[From the Boston Globe, March 25, 2007]

From Monadnock to the Sound

Home to some of the most spectacular sections of the

Appalachian Trail, New England could gain a new interstate

hiking trail that is closer to the region's population

centers. U.S. Representative John Olver of Amherst filed a

bill this month to create a New England National Scenic Trail

that could one day stretch from Mount Monadnock in New

Hampshire to the Long Island Sound at Guilford, CT.

For 190 miles of the 220-mile distance, the trail would

roughly follow the route through the Connecticut River Valley

of the existing Monadnock, Metacomet, and Mattabesett trail

system in Massachusetts and Connecticut. The principal

addition would be a 14-mile spur from the southern end of the

Mattabesett in Connecticut to the shoreline in Guilford.

The state of New Hampshire chose not to join Connecticut,

Massachusetts, and the U.S. Department of the Interior in the

feasibility study for the new trail, but Olver's bill would

encourage Interior to work with New Hampshire and private and

public organizations in that state to include the stretch

from Royalton, Mass., to Monadnock's 3,165-foot summit in the

national scenic trail. Nationwide, there are already eight

such trails, including the Appalachian and the Pacific Crest.

Within 10 miles of the new trail live 2 million people.

Many already use--and do maintenance work on--the existing

stretches. At a time when young people, in particular, need

more recreational opportunities to ward off the health

problems of obesity, the national scenic trail designation

should increase the path's popularity. It should also help

protect it from development pressures. Much of the trail is

on state forest or park lands near the river valley's farms,

forests, tobacco barns, and towns.

Monadnock itself has 40 miles of maintained foot trails and

is considered to be the second-most-frequently hiked summit

in the world, after Japan's Mount Fuji. Three of the

Massachusetts peaks on the new trail include Mount Grace,

Mount Holyoke, and Mount Tom. The new trail includes a wide

range of natural habitats and is close to more than 50

registered village historic districts. Hikers could pass over

volcanic, sedimentary, and glacial rock and observe fossils

and dinosaur footprints.

The goal of planners is that the scenic trail will have a

single trail blazing system, but with few through hikers,

since overnight camping would be permitted in only a limited

number of locations. Of course, decades ago planners of the

Appalachian Trail did not envision through hikers for its

2,175-mile length, either. Congress should designate the path

as a new national scenic trail and let the walking public

decide how best to use it.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I guess I thought that the problem was that the devil was the Federal Government here and that we wanted to make certain that there was no way for them to issue eminent domain, and the language of this bill, in relation to this trail, is quite clear on that point. In fact, it would appear that now we're trying to solve a problem which isn't there, which just is an order of magnitude somewhere farther away in concept, that somehow the local communities or the State is going to issue eminent domain and then pass the land to the Federal Government in some sort of manner. That really surprises me as there is nothing in the intent of this anywhere along the way to do such a thing.

I think we have solved the problem as much as it needs to be solved with the language which is in the bill, that there can be no Federal acquisition of land here. Nobody wants Federal acquisition of land. There might well be community acquisition of a corridor somewhere along the way over time, but there is to be no Federal ownership of any of that land.

I hope the matter will be opposed and we will not adopt this amendment. This is finding a solution where there is no problem.