Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity in being here and talking on this particular bill. This is a day when we have dealt with some emergency measures in a very bipartisan way. I don't know if this is classified as an emergency measure, but it can be a bipartisan approach, too, depending on how we go from here on out.

I am grateful to the Rules Committee for taking my six amendments and approving two for the floor. This is a .333 batting average. It's enough to get me in the Hall of Fame. I'm at least above the Mendoza line, and I appreciate your doing that for me.

However, there are some amendments that really are bad amendments aimed at trying to scuttle a bill, aimed at putting shackles on the runner to prohibit him or her from getting to the finish line. The amendments that were proposed by Representative Flake and myself are not aimed to do that. They are aimed to take a bill and to improve a bill so they can be approved in a bipartisan way and take a bill and make it even better.

Let me assume that I can just talk for a moment on a couple of amendments that were not made in order. This trail covers the States of Massachusetts and Connecticut, but in reality the trail goes to New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut. Only two of those States are proposed in this particular bill and then a process allowed for New Hampshire to join later on. One of the amendments simply said, why don't you make the same process for all three States? It's not an effort to slow anything down. It's an effort to try to be rational in the approach to take place. I thought it was a significant and simple and straightforward amendment.

One of the things we always talk about is how important it is to have informed citizens and an informed citizenry. We had, for this particular bill, one specific property owner who did not wish her property to be included in the bill. At great expense to her, with a great deal of study and effort coming to Washington to lobby us, she was allowed by the committee to be exempt from this trail boundary line. I appreciate the committee's doing it. It was appropriate to do so. It's very positive on the part of the Natural Resources Committee to do so.

But the question that should be brought to mind is, was she an isolated situation, or was she indicative of a greater problem? Indeed, if you look at the record of the testimony, there are at least 40 other people that have the same question, the same concerns, the same approach. And so what we wanted to do is to make sure in one of our amendments that citizens were allowed to be notified that they would be now included in what before had been a voluntary trail system now into a federally mandated and regulated trail system.

And this is not an onerous task. We were told in committee that both the organizations that are currently managing this, as well as States, had a database of all the property owners in both Massachusetts and Connecticut, and they are already being mailed yearly. What would be the problem in including another paragraph in the yearly mailing saying, this is about to happen to you and if you don't like it, this is the process you can use to exempt yourself, or, even better, if you do want to be part of it, this is the process you could use to include yourself and your property?

Once again, that's not to stop the bill. It's simply a matter of making sure that everyone is clearly informed of what is about to take place, because in the history of trails, in the history of land issues in these United States, that has not always been the case, that every individual is informed of what is happening to him before it takes place.

I don't think, once again, that was an onerous request. It was unfortunate. I think it simply indicates that we should value the individual in our legislation, that we should say if even one person is going to be adversely affected and does not wish to be adversely affected, his home, his farm, his property should be held inviolate, and we should respect that. And that was the purpose of one amendment that was ruled out of order by the Rules Committee. Once again, I don't think it would have negatively harmed the bill. In fact, I think it would have moved the bill forward in a bipartisan manner.

We will talk a great deal about the concept of takings. No one who has talked about this bill wants takings to take place, wants property taken from an individual. We have heard that before. And yet in the attempt on the committee staff's part to protect individuals, there is a loophole. There is a huge loophole that will result in contradictions coming into the future. Those are some of the things we tried to put in order. And simply if you had taken that loophole out of the system and done what everyone says they want to do, we would have had a bill that all of us on this side of the aisle could have stood up and said, yes, this is a bill that we all had our input on and we are all prepared to move forward on the bill.

It could have moved forward in the same bipartisan manner, hopefully even a bigger bipartisan manner, than the other two emergency pieces of legislation we handled today, as well as the LSU resolution, which we also did in a bipartisan way, except for the people from Ohio.

Let me, at last, very briefly, re-echo what Mr. Dreier said about the Flake amendment, the so-called earmark amendment. By definition this bill does not have earmarks. That's because the committee said it didn't. By definition this bill doesn't have a PAYGO question, because the committee said it didn't. But, indeed, right after we had the State of the Union and the President talked about earmarks and the Speaker talked about earmarks, the minority talked about earmarks, we have the first authorization bill coming before us with two organizations, the Appalachian Mountain Club, the Connecticut Forest and Park Association, specifically mentioned as being eligible for grants given to them by the Federal Government, and then the language goes on and says ``or other groups,'' I think ``groups'' or ``associations.'' Had you simply taken out the specific names of the two organizations and simply allowed it to be the other groups, any group could apply for these grants and the leadership in this particular one, it would have solved all of the problem. And that's what Mr. Flake was trying to say. It wouldn't have prohibited them from being in the management position on this trail, but it would have simply made it a clear and open process without giving an earmark to these two organizations. That's all that needs to be taken.

Once again, these amendments that we presented were not in an effort to kill the bill, to slow it down, to make

sure it does not pass. They were in an effort to try to make sure that we took some of the areas which we think are a little rough, smoothed them over, and gave us some protections for the future that we could feel comfortable, as the Republican side, in joining with our Democratic colleagues to move this bill forward and understand that many of the things we are concerned about, protecting the individual, protecting the process that we go through, to ensure that those things are included in the bill before it leaves this body. It would have been a chance to show real bipartisan support for this concept going forward.

Hopefully, we will still have some debate on the amendments that were made in order, maybe some other issues that we can once again show the ability of this body to come together and make sure that a bill that everyone can support goes forward as opposed to one that seems to be skewed in one direction or the other.

With that, I appreciate the time being yielded to me.

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, I offer an amendment.

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.

I thank the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks) leading this discussion.

As I walked past the Supreme Court this evening, remnants of the two groups were protesting this very issue, one dealing with a press conference, the other marching in chants in a way that was really more appropriate to a high school pep rally than to this particular issue.

And I was saddened because this is one of those issues that should never be

simplified into simply chants or slogans or sound bites because this issue is one that deals with the soul of this particular country. For when we have a cavalier attitude about life at the beginning of the cycle, we tend to develop a cavalier attitude about life at the end of the cycle. And then for those areas in between, we tend to look at life not in terms of its sanctity but in its quality of life.

I firmly believe that man is both perfectable and savable. But we are perfectable and savable not in the ease in which we make our lives or the material possessions which we can accumulate, but in our relationships with others and our development of our families.

I appreciate being able to add my voice to this particular discussion, and I appreciate the representative from Arizona, as well as the gentlewoman from Minnesota, for leading these two hours because this discussion is truly about the very heart of this country and where we go.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here and I am grateful to the gentleman from New Jersey for allowing me to have some time here.

You know, when we come into this Chamber and we look around, there are cameos of the great lawgivers of the world all around us. There is Moses to Hammurabi, even Napoleon over there in the corner. It is interesting, there are only two Americans in this pantheon of great lawgivers, Thomas Jefferson and George Mason, ironically neither of whom signed the Constitution.

Of those two, Mason is, as the gentleman from New Jersey said, clearly the most interesting. He is one of three people who was at the entire Constitutional Convention, and then at the end refused to give his assent to the actual document because it did not contain a Bill of Rights.

I would like to talk for just a second about the other members of that convention who did not agree to add this Bill of Rights, because one must ask why were great patriots like Washington, Franklin, Madison, Hamilton, Dickinson, Wilson, why did they refuse to join with a Bill of Rights? Were they opposed to civil liberties? It is pretty obvious they were not.

But what they said is a fear that the Bill of Rights, that actually if you start listing what those rights are, it may be a ceiling of what rights are allowed as opposed to a floor of what rights are going to be guaranteed. Actually, the Bill of Rights is misnamed. It should be called the ``Bill of Wrongs.'' It is a list of things that it is wrong for the Federal Government to do, no matter how many people actually want to do it.

In their concern though, they were still concerned about civil liberties. They had an additional plan to do that, which was a structural guarantee of the rights of citizens. We call it today federalism. It was a means to defend the individual liberties of Americans.

They realized that increasing the number of competitors to power was as effective as listing the things that would be prohibited for the government to do. As Madison said, ambition would counteract ambition.

They had two ways of looking at it. The horizontal separation of powers between the executive, legislative and judicial branches, which, unfortunately, is what we only spend our time teaching in schools today. But equally important to them was a vertical separation of powers between a national government and a State government.

The fear, obviously, was that the Federal Government would not check itself, so the 50 States would be the perfect counterbalance to a national government.

Justice Scalia in Mack v. The United States once said the Constitution protects us from our own best intentions. It divides power among sovereigns and among branches of government precisely so we may resist the temptation to concentrate power in one location as an expedient solution to the crisis of the day.

Power with no check historically resulted in tyranny, and no government was out of the potential of doing that; however, balance of power and limitations of governments would result in the support of individual civil liberties.

In Federalist 51, Madison said, ``Experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.'' That was the structure he was talking about, separation of powers, federalism.

In Federalist 45, Madison again wrote, ``The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.'' That was the plan.

In Federalist 32, Hamilton continued to say that ``under the plan of the convention, States retained the authority in the most absolute and unqualified sense, and that attempt on the part of the national government to abridge any State power would be a violent assumption of power unwarranted by any article or clause of the Constitution.''

Unfortunately, today our national government has grown out of the bounds originally established. Often by good intent, often by misguided compassion for people, which eventually actually ends up hurting far more than it ever intended to help. As P.J. O'Rourke once wrote, the history of government is not how Washington works, but how to make it stop.

We understood in the Bill of Rights, when they were listed, a couple of unique concepts. The Bill of Rights always talked about how Congress may make no law to inhibit the rights of an individual. Other countries had bills of rights. The USSR Constitution did also have a bill of rights which contained guarantees of free speech. But, as they said, in order to produce a socialist state, citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of speech, et cetera.

Now, there is a difference. In the USSR constitution, the freedom of speech was granted by the government and therefore could be taken back by the government, as opposed to the way we are looking at it as rights inherent in individuals.

Now, when the Bill of Rights was actually established, there were 10 Bills of Rights. I want you to know that when they did that, they did not forget this concept of a structural balance of power, both horizontally and vertically, as the foundation for ensuring the civil liberties. And that is why

they did the 10th amendment. The 10th amendment clearly says that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by its States are reserved to the States respectively or to the people.

Jefferson called this 10th amendment the bedrock of constitutional government. These are the words that are significant and important, and we must remind ourselves.

Congress passes laws almost on a weekly basis. Sometimes we make incorrect assumptions about the meaning the Founding Fathers had on the words, or we simply ignore those words as looking as if they were irrelevant to our time. Justice Scalia once again wrote about the Constitution, ``What it meant when it was adopted, it means today. And its meaning doesn't change just because we think that meaning is no longer adequate to our times.''

That also applies to the words in the Bill of Rights: What it meant at its time of adoption, it still means today, and it doesn't change in the period of time and simply because our assumptions may wish to change.

I was once in a conversation with another history teacher. She asked, how do we know what they originally thought when they were writing these words? And it was very simple: We study history.

It may be that I am an old history teacher and I am kind of biased about this; but when we fail to study the history of this country and, more importantly, when we fail to study the history of our government, the history of this document, we fail to understand what they meant by those words, and then we replace our own definition. We use our own wit to try and come up with what it should be and oftentimes we fail in understanding what made this country great or what we need to do to truly honor the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that are there.

One of the things we need to do most definitely in this country is take the time and effort to ensure that we read the documents, that we understand the documents, and we put them in their historical connotation. That is the way we preserve and secure them.

I would like to yield to the gentleman from Texas who has a unique approach here, one of the things we may do to try to remind us, even those of us who were elected to this body, that maybe it is time to review and know the history of this document and these documents so we understand what the words mean and how the words should be applied in our time.

I appreciate the gentlewoman from North Carolina expressing her comments about the Bill of Rights and the significance of the ninth and 10th amendments.

I would now like to concentrate on a couple of other bills that are in the Bill of Rights. Perhaps the second amendment. As we talked earlier, it is very important for us to understand and know the meaning of the words.

The preamble of the Constitution talks about a more perfect union, which is a terribly ungrammatical saying. You can be perfect, but you can't be more perfect. What we don't realize is that this is a term of art historically used. ``More perfect union'' was the concept of the union of England, Scotland and Wales, where all of a sudden their defense was based on a navy, not necessarily on armies.

It is interesting in our Constitution we prohibit an army from lasting any longer than 2 years, for specific reasons.

Armies, at that time, were mercenary units. When one thought of the army, they thought of mercenaries. When the British were fighting us in the Revolutionary War, they didn't send British over here. They sent German Hessians over here for us.

The concept was for an army, when it was not attacking foreign countries, a tyrant could use the army to attack his own people and there would be no remorse since they were not necessarily of the same nationality. The idea of a popular army does not come until the French Revolution, and that's still a couple of decades away.

So when we talk about the militia, at that particular period of time the militia meant the people. Army was a mercenary; militia was individuals who were, by definition, to be a balance in the power against the government.

When Madison wrote that all members, all Americans should be in the militia, and all Americans should be able to have a gun and know how to use a gun, he was making reference to that historical concept.

When one looks at the second amendment today, they have to realize that the word militia was a reference to the people.

With that, I would like to yield some time now to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun) who has a few comments specifically about the second amendment which I think is very apropos as we're talking about the Bill of Rights today.

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

H.R. 3079, as amended, has received much support from the Bush administration, as well as the Northern Marianas elected resident representative, a Republican, Pedro Tenorio. Mr. Tenorio has worked hard to bring forth a bill which has consensus from both sides of the aisle.

This bill brings about unified border control and immigration to the Marianas region, which will benefit our national security. In addition, the bill will foster economic development on the islands by providing local businesses and the military with ready access to labor to support the tourist industry and military base construction.

I appreciate the assistance of our colleagues from the Judiciary Committee. I believe that their efforts have helped to improve the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I don't have anyone coming down to speak on the bill, but I anticipate they may. So, until the gentlelady is finished, I will continue to reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that we have another speaker who wishes to come here, so I appreciate this opportunity just to say a short word on behalf of this bill. And I appreciate the many speakers who have spoken already who have spoken to the bipartisan nature in which this bill has proceeded.

At this time, I think we need to thank the Judiciary Committee, and I believe the chairman wishes to say something about this particular bill, for the way in which they've worked in a bipartisan way. I am also very grateful to be a part of the Natural Resources Committee, which I think has worked in a bipartisan way to present this bill.

I have to admit that the only thing that would really make me happier is if we were discussing this bill in October rather than this close to Christmas. But other than that, I am very much appreciative of those people who worked for this bill, especially the administration, who is supportive of it, and the resident representative from this particular area.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Having no other speakers on our side, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 123 was introduced by our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from California, the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, David Dreier; and it extends a highly successful water cleanup effort in Southern California. This legislation as amended authorizes additional Federal dollars for groundwater remediation aquifers that provide drinking water to the Los Angeles area residents.

As explained by the Democrat bill manager, this amended bill will allow the central basin water authorities to pursue their own appropriations while not harming what remains of the original San Gabriel Restoration Fund. This aspect of the bill is very important when it comes to protecting the San Gabriel water supply. This bill has enjoyed bipartisan support and dialogue throughout the legislative process, and I urge my colleagues to support this result-oriented bill.

I will reserve at this moment.

It is only right that I yield as much time as he chooses to consume to the gentleman from California, the sponsor of this wonderful piece of legislation, Mr. Dreier.

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

We have no other speakers, Mr. Speaker. I did not have the opportunity of giving my life history on the last bill, and I really am disappointed Mr. Dreier didn't give his life history in his bill; but beside that disappointment, I also am grateful to be here with the distinguished subcommittee chairwoman who is dressed in as festive an outfit for this time of year as is possible to do, and we simply yield back the balance of our time in urging my colleagues to approve this piece of legislation.

My colleague from the majority has adequately described this technical correction bill. We have no objection. We urge its passage.

I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from New Mexico for offering, for allowing me an opportunity of saying a few words on what will be a significant piece of legislation that we will maybe be asked to vote upon this week.

You know, it is only intuitive that this Nation should be energy independent. If we were energy independent, not relying on foreign sources of energy from obviously other places, not only would it allow our military to have the flexibility it needs to function in whatever situation upon which it is called to be used, but it allows our diplomacy to be used in flexibility in any situation.

So, how do we actually replace this foreign oil that is presently being brought in here? Everyone who understands the situation will tell you there is no simple, single silver bullet. Multiple means have to be used.

Energy conservation, efficiency in transportation, things we have talked about, those are good. That is part of the mix. But only about 16 percent of our foreign oil imports could be eliminated simply by using efficiency in transportation or energy conservation means. Other methods have to be added to the mix as well, and one of those is biomass.

Biomass by itself could produce 24 percent of all the foreign oil we are importing into this country, far more than even our best efforts of conservation or efficiency. If we combined those two together, we are well on our way to trying to become energy independent.

For those of you like me that like technical talk, biomass is dead trees, dead shrubs, the stuff that burns in forests if you don't remove it first. And as much as our friends on the other side of the aisle will continuously say they want to require biomass to be part of the fuel standards, the renewable alternative fuel standards, the bill that will be brought before us this week will not allow biofuels, dead trees, to come from the one and the largest source of those dead materials, and that is Federal lands where we have unhealthy and overgrown forests. That is specifically prohibited as part of the alternative energy formula.

Now, when we limit the collection of hazardous fuels from those forests, that biomass material, what we are really doing in essence is gutting the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, a bipartisan bill that was passed last year, in an effort to prevent catastrophic fires, wildfires, those fires that we have

seen that destroy property, that actually push more pollutants into the air than any highway full of cars can ever do, and, more importantly, they destroy the lives of people who are caught in the path. This act was there to bring a new energy to people in the West and to help rural economies recover from a collapsed timber industry forced on them by outside sources.

This bill tries in some way to help with payment in lieu of taxes to western counties and secure rural schools; yet at the same time, secure rural schools are rural districts that relied upon the timber industry and can no longer do it because of outside decisions, and therefore they are getting subsidizations for their school systems. At the same time this bill tries to help those schools, it prohibits them from ever having any kind of natural recovery within those areas by prohibiting their last source of job creation in those areas, which is recovering the dead fuel in the forests.

Now, that is the hope, and that is eliminated in the bill that we will have coming before us. It isn't enough that this energy bill prevents the use of this material that is grown in those areas; it prohibits the use that is used in private forests to maintain their health as well.

The Democrat intents of this bill seems to be clear: If you can prohibit the collection of biomass, the dead stuff of the forests, and make the provisions so unworkable, then obviously no responsible company would ever attempt to comply and go in and therefore do it. So the essence is, like Marie Antoinette of old who said ``Let them eat cake,'' the essence of this bill is simply let it burn. That is what will happen to our forests, when it could be being used to help us become energy independent and energy self-sufficient.

And it is a key and crucial element. Not only can we help our societies by reducing wildfires, we can help have jobs in those rural areas that need them so desperately. We can help all of society become energy independent by using a renewable source, but it is specifically prohibited by the language that you will find in this particular bill.

Now, once again, I am very simple, and I need to know who is going to be hurt by this situation. I am an old schoolteacher.

We have two States in the West bordering one another, one of which puts its emphasis on proactive energy development and the other does not. A starting teacher in the school district that puts its emphasis in proactive energy development makes $4,000 a year more than a fourth- year teacher in the neighboring State will do. So who is hurt when we prohibit and eliminate the opportunity of expanding our energy production in the West? Well, the kids are, the school system is, the teachers are, the road funds that you need to construct roads in those larger western areas. Those people who actually pay taxes will be hit higher when we don't need to do it if we simply look to the resources we have.

As the gentleman from New Mexico clearly said, quoting Daniel Webster, this quote that is in this Chamber, we sit and look at it every day, very few of us actually look up the words, but, once again, Daniel Webster said, ``Let us develop the resources of our land, call forth its powers, build up its institutions, promote all its great interests.'' And why? ``And see whether we also, in our day and generation, may not perform something worthy to be remembered.''

This bill that will be before us is a bill that is not going to be worthy to be remembered. It does not move us towards energy self- sufficiency. It does not make us independent in our efforts. It does not grow our energy needs and provide jobs and provide a cleaner kind of energy for the future.

It simply doesn't make the cut on a whole bunch of areas, one of which happens to be biomass. What could have been a great source for energy in the future is literally shut out by provisions in this bill that should not be there, ever. It is the wrong approach to take.

Now, I appreciate the chance of rambling on here for a minute, and I appreciate what my good friend from New Mexico is doing to present the concepts that are in this bill that we are glossing over in an effort to try and rush an energy bill just before Christmas. No one is going to have the time to look at it. No one is going to have the time to study it. No one is going to have the time to simply sit down and say, you know, there is a better way. We could tweak it here and there and actually come up with a decent policy. But because we have waited and piddled around until the very end of the session when our backs are to the wall, we are going to be faced with an up or down vote on something that just isn't worth it. It has too many flaws.

With that, I would yield back to the gentleman from New Mexico.

I appreciate the time being yielded.

Mr. Speaker, one of the processes of this particular bill is one that I hope we do not replicate very often because indeed there are nine separate bills tied together into one package. Each bill has a separate amount of merits to those particular bills. Some of them, like the bill by Mr. Skelton, the chairman from Missouri, is a very well-written bill. I particularly would like to thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman) for writing a bill that I think went above and beyond the call of duty in trying to ensure that the rights of citizens who would be in this study area are protected, as well as ensuring that the maximum amount of participation can be given to those people who are living in that particular area.

There are also some elements in the bill as it came out of committee that I found personally egregious. Those have been removed from the bill that is here. I would like to thank the chairman of the committee and the subcommitees respectively as well as Democratic staff for making changes in this particular bill in a way that I find very appealing. I appreciate them for entering into discussions in an effort to find some kind of bipartisan cooperation with this, and I also am very appreciative of the professional manner in which the Democrat staff worked with our staff in coming up with a bill that I think is very positive coming out of here.

With the bill that is now before us, I certainly have no objections to this particular bill, and I wish to express my appreciation for putting this particular piece of legislation in a form that I think is commendable, and we can commend it and represent it and encourage our fellow Members of the House to vote for it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2627, which designates the Edison National Historic Site as the Thomas Edison National Historic Park. Supporters of the park anticipate this redesignation will improve the visitation revenue to the Edison historic site.

I would like also to recognize the critical contributions to this legislation made by Congressman Scott Garrett. Last year, Mr. Garrett successfully moved this bill through the Resources Committee in the House. I urge my colleagues to support this effort, and hopefully it will go all the way through both Houses at this time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 229, promoting the conservation and management of the Atlantic bluefin tuna.

The United States has been instrumental in working towards a viable and successful rebuilding plan for western Atlantic bluefin tuna. Unfortunately, the countries fishing on the eastern bluefin tuna stock have repeatedly ignored the recommendations of the scientific committee and set quotas for eastern Atlantic bluefin tuna at unsustainable levels. To add insult to injury, those countries have not even complied with these unsustainable quotas, having continued to fish at levels far over the unsustainable quota level.

This concurrent resolution is very timely, within the 20th meeting of the Tuna Commission, occurring this week in Turkey. The U.S. delegation should continue its leadership role and propose additional conservation measures for eastern Atlantic bluefin tuna. Moreover, the delegation should work to get the Commission to adopt viable compliance measures and, if necessary, sanctions for those countries that continue to ignore the conservation and management recommendations of the Commission.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on this particular bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2614, a bill sponsored by the former chairman of the Water and Power Subcommittee, Mr. Calvert of California.

Since Southern California is dependent upon imported water, many communities are pursuing ways to develop local water supplies through water recycling. This bill will help the Yucaipa Valley and the town of Corona in California reduce their dependence on imported water through water recycling.

This bill, which is cosponsored by our distinguished colleague, Jerry Lewis of California, will also help protect these communities from drought and environmental lawsuits aimed at shutting off water deliveries.

I urge my colleagues to support this important measure.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

Could I ask the gentleman from California if he has other speakers.

Then I'll be the last speaker, and I think we're ready to move on with that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume at this time.

I think in closing on this particular issue, I would like to speak also in favor of the motion to instruct of the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle). It's a wise motion. I don't think I or anyone else here objects to any administrator making an adequate compensation. But I also think that six figures is an adequate compensation, especially when the teachers in Head Start are averaging 25 grand a year.

In 2005, the independent General Accountability Office did issue a report that warned that their financial control system in the Head Start program is flawed, failing, and it did fail to prevent multi- million-dollar financial abuses that do cheat children in this particular program.

It is important that the resources that we have go to increasing teacher salaries, hiring more teachers or supplies that directly go to help the kids in the Head Start program. And it's important that in conference we make it very clear that our resources should be targeted to those who are simply in need.

Sparky Anderson was once asked why he was such a successful manager, and he simply responded that baseball is a simple game. You have good players you keep in the right positions, and then the manager is a success.

Even Earl Weaver once said that if you do the dull things right, extraordinary things won't be required. This motion to instruct may be one of those dull things, that if we do it right and do it right in this bill, we won't have to come back here and do the extraordinary things. The extraordinary things will be done by the teachers in the classrooms who are helping these kids who need this help in the Head Start program so desperately.

I urge a favorable vote on the motion to instruct.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am actually saddened to rise today on this particular bill. The 16 heritage areas that are either existing or proposed, many of them are very good, things that I would readily support.

Unfortunately, they have been packaged into what the government book my high school students read called ``A Christmas Tree'' in a very real way, in which bad proposals can be packaged around the few good proposals that are in here in hopes that people will tolerate the bad in hopes of getting a favorable recommendation from the good. My State and most State legislatures would never have tolerated this type of bill. This bill would be split up in our State so that each proposal would stand on its own merits and go up or down. Unfortunately, we do not use that procedure here. We ought to, but we do not.

Even in areas where something like an appropriation can be justified by lumping things together, in an authorization, it should not. That is why I rise in opposition to H.R. 1483.

When this bill was originally introduced, it was to reauthorize nine heritage areas, giving each an additional $10 million. Since the reauthorization on these nine original areas doesn't lapse until 2012, 5 years hence, it is interesting why we are taking the time now to revisit these particular areas. Even though some of these areas are simple technical corrections and changes, for most it appears that the reason we're doing it again is because they have gone through their money and they want more.

It is difficult when the process of a heritage area is supposed to become self-sufficient. It is an affront to heritage areas that are trying to become self-sufficient and break themselves from Federal dependence.

In 1994 when these same nine areas were being discussed, the Democrat hero of heritage areas, the advocate, the chairman of the then subcommittee, the late Bruce Vento stated: ``There is a limit to the length of time or the amount of money the Federal Government can be in a heritage area.'' Not totally grammatical, but you get the point of what he was trying to say.

He went on to say: ``In 10 years, we are out of there. Then they are on their own and we get the benefit of that conservation.''

Thirteen years later, that has not been the case. In fact, it has been said that for every dollar spent on these heritage areas, there is $10 to $20 from the private sector that comes back. It sounds like a great return on our investment if it could be independently verified.

In fact, during the hearings on this bill, the National Park Service testified that no heritage area has become self-sufficient. Unfortunately, it gets worse.

The Heritage Area Alliance, the association which represents all heritage areas, has told us in committee hearing that they should never become self-sufficient and they should always rely on continuous Federal appropriations for every heritage area. In fact, the Heritage Area Alliance has become a cottage industry where groups get grants from the Federal Government to go around telling other people how to get more grants from the Federal Government. And this performance we are now wishing to reward. While a public-private partnership can yield positive results, this program has taken on a life of its own.

In the Resources Committee, the bill was amended to cut back additional funds to existing heritage areas from $10 million to $5 million. I compliment Chairman Grijalva for his amendment and the chairman of the full committee for accepting it. It is like taking the balls off the bottom branches of the Christmas tree so the cat won't play with them.

And after taking that positive step, they reverse course and tacked on six new heritage areas. They have had hearings, but in fairness, only one has gone through the regular order that the chairman of the full committee established when we first met this year.

The Democrats also decided to make changes that were never part of the hearing. The new heritage areas will now receive $15 million each, up from the $10 million that they requested. It is great and lucky to receive a 50 percent bonus without asking for it. This gracious move by the Democrats means the total cost of this bill is now $135 million. Some of our committees thought that was a paltry sum. But $135 million is the total annual Federal income tax paid by 33,276 middle-class taxpayers. And this is how we are being responsible for their particular money.

We have some problems concerning some of the subtitles included in this new omnibus Christmas tree bill.

A journey through Hallowed Ground Heritage Area has been diligently sought by my colleague from Virginia (Mr. Wolf). I commend him for his dedication to this cause, and there is much of his proposed area that I like and I applaud. However, one of the problems still is there are issues that still persist. There is both support and opposition within this proposed area. Two of our colleagues have asked their particular congressional districts be removed from this designation. In committee, an amendment was offered to remove their districts, but it was rejected. And because this is a closed

rule, our colleagues do not have the opportunity of coming down here and on the floor of the House presenting their reasons why they wish to be withdrawn from this particular district.

We should not take Federal designations lightly. When we create a Federal designation, a Member who is opposed to that should be respected in his particular wishes. We were told this would disrupt the continuity of this heritage area. Well, this heritage area spans four States and it is supposed to still be locally operated. One must ask how a Virginia-based management entity will represent the local interests of four States. It is a legitimate question, but the bottom line is we still should respect our colleagues' privilege to represent their constituencies.

There has been criticism that private property protections in this bill are inadequate. The majority claims that the protections in this bill are sufficient because it states that participation is voluntary. Voluntary.

If two of our Members want to voluntarily opt out of this particular bill and are not allowed to do so, how will any property owner sitting in one of these new proposed districts get any kind of confidence that they are safe when it is not voluntary for any Member to remove their districts from these types of recommendations?

In the Resources Committee, I offered an amendment that would have simply provided for the right of private property owners to withdraw their land from a heritage area boundary. This is the exact same provision that has been on the 12 prior heritage areas. This is the same provision that Mr. Wolf added in his bill and was taken out by the committee even though he objected to the removal of that language from his own particular provision. Why are we treating these heritage areas different than the precedent we established for the other heritage areas? It is not an additional burden to the management. It would go a long way to assuring constituents that their rights would be protected. Unfortunately, the amendment was defeated again because the Democrats claim that their language was sufficient, an argument that has proved inaccurate on other occasions. In light of the infamous Kelo decision, we need to be extra cautious in the House when we deliberate on property rights.

The other side will claim that there is no risk to property rights. While I hope that is correct, we need to be very sure because boundaries have a consequence, or why should we have them. Proponents of this bill on the one hand say we need boundaries to protect historical properties, but on the other hand there is no regulatory authority. You can't have it both ways. It is an invitation to lawsuits. We have already seen cases brought forward based on these recommendations. I would point my colleagues to Pogliani v. United States Corps of Engineers. It has already happened that lawsuits have been filed to discontinue actions based on inclusion in a heritage area. The right to opt out of the boundary we proposed would have prevented this type of situation in the future.

In some respects this legislation is simply not ready for prime time. The Muscle Shoals proposal, which is another one I like a lot, I think it is good, but it has not yet completed a feasibility study. In other words, we don't have the assurance this heritage area could get off the ground before we wish to actually make the check for it.

We were promised in this particular bill that there would be a map included. If you see in the self-executing rule of the Rules Committee, they have put a number in place that used to be blank. A small little detail. But we have not been provided with a map of what the boundaries of this new heritage area actually are. So how can we tell people they can be voluntarily in or out of it when we don't even know yet what the boundary levels are? No wonder this has become a closed rule.

There is another area in this bill that was created, a Niagara Falls region, at the behest of the very powerful chairwoman of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter. Proponents claim it is needed to protect the falls. Protect the falls from what? What potential harm to the falls can be protected by the provisions of this particular bill? Remember, proponents say there are no restrictions or regulations imposed. Perhaps the totally unique commission that is established in this portion of the bill that has the Secretary of the Interior creating a new entity and staffing it with Federal employees and paying for it can finally answer that particular question. There is little more in this particular provision than using the National Park Service to conduct economic redevelopment projects. The Park Service does not have the expertise, or the funds, or the desire to be burdened with this subject.

At the center of the economic development plan for Niagara Falls is a new casino. Niagara Falls, honeymoons, gambling, there may be a nexus there somewhere for us. But while the State of New York has the right to pursue casinos and help their development, it is inappropriate to use national heritage areas to promote the casino. An amendment was offered when the Niagara Falls heritage bill originally went through the committee to put a firewall between the Federal funds in this bill and the casino. Committee Democrats rejected again this simple amendment. Whatever my colleagues feel on the issue of gaming is irrelevant. We should all agree, though, that this is not an appropriate use of Federal funds, especially when one area is given an advantage over the other.

Finally, concerns have been raised that these heritage areas and their boundaries may be used to impede the placement of energy transmission lines. While this may not be the full intent of the sponsors, we must proceed cautiously before we further damage our ability to keep up with the demand for energy. The grid is already heavily taxed, and it would be a tragedy to see blackouts as an unintended consequence of these designations.

Mr. Speaker, because we do not have an opportunity to improve this bill via amendment as a result of the closed rule, I have to urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation, unfortunately.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the sponsor of this particular bill, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), at the conclusion of which it would be very nice if the other side would have additional time for him because he's supporting your side.

Mr. Speaker, I'd also like to yield the gentleman 1 minute of our time as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), once again speaking in favor, and I would ask maybe perhaps the other side would be a little bit more generous than the last time with their giving him some additional time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).

(Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a letter signed by 110 organizations interested in property rights who are opposed to this particular bill, including such groups as the Taxpayers Union, a supervisor in the affected area, Property Rights Foundation of America, Family Research Council and a mayor in my district.

Coalition Letter Detailing Risks of National Heritage Area Designation

The following letter--signed by a diverse group of more

than 110 organizations, elected officials and citizens--was

delivered on September 4 to Senate Majority Leader Harry

Reid, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Speaker

Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Leader John Boehner, Senate

Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff

Bingaman, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee

Ranking Member Pete V. Domenici, House Committee on Natural

Resources Committee Chairman Nick Rahall, House Committee on

Natural Resources Ranking Member Don Young as well as all the

members of the House and Senate Natural Resources Committees.

Dear [Elected Official]: The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in

Kelo v. City of New London ignited a national outcry against

government abuse of property rights. The ``bridge to

nowhere'' and other wasteful programs triggered angry

protests against the practice of earmarking National heritage

areas are the Kelo decision and earmarks rolled into one.

National heritage areas are preservation zones where land

use and property rights can be restricted. They give the

National Park Service and preservation interest groups (many

with histories of hostility toward property rights)

substantial influence by giving them the authority to create

land use ``management plans'' and then the authority to

disburse federal money to local governments to promote their

plans.

As a March 2004 General Accountability Office report on

heritage areas states: ``[National heritage areas] encourage

local governments to implement land use policies that are

consistent with the heritage areas' plans, which may allow

the heritage areas to indirectly influence zoning and land

use planning in ways that could restrict owners' use of their

property.''

The proposed ``Journey Through Hallowed Ground National

Heritage Area Act'' provides a good case study on how

heritage areas can be self-perpetuating federal pork and

influence projects. The chief lobbying organization for this

heritage area, the Journey Through Hallowed Ground

Partnership, received a one million-dollar earmark in the

2005 federal transportation bill at the behest of Members of

Congress sponsoring legislation to establish this heritage

area--an earmark that was granted before the organization was

even incorporated. A million-dollar earmark thus was issued

to help create a steady stream of future pork, at the expense

of the rights of local landowners.

We believe zoning and land use policies are best left to

local officials, who are directly accountable to the citizens

they represent. National heritage areas corrupt the principle

of representative government and this inherently local

function by giving unelected, unaccountable special interests

the authority to develop land management plans and federal

money with which to finance their efforts.

Once established, National heritage areas become permanent

units of the National Park Service, and as such, permanent

drains on an agency that currently suffers a multibillion-

dollar maintenance crisis. According to the GAG, ``sunset

provisions have not been effective in limiting federal

funding [for National Heritage Areas]: since 1984, five areas

that reached their sunset dates received funding

reauthorization from the Congress.''

Supporters of new heritage areas have the public will

precisely backward: Americans want stronger property rights

protections and less pork-barrel spending--not more earmarks

to programs that harm property rights.

Please do not support the creation of additional national

heritage areas or federal funding for heritage area

management entities, support groups, or groups that lobby for

or advocate the creation of new heritage areas.

Sincerely,

David Ridenour, Vice President, National Center for

Public Policy Research; J. William Lauderback,

Executive Vice President, The American Conservative

Union; John Berthoud, President, National Taxpayers

Union; Paul Poister, Executive Director, Partnership

for the West; Larry Pratt, Executive Director, Gun

Owners of America; William Niemeyer, Mayor, City of

West Alton, MO; Ryan Ellis, Executive Director,

American Shareholders Association; Peter Flaherty,

President, National Legal and Policy Center; Steve

Snow, Supervisor, Loudoun County, VA; Carol W.

LaGrasse, President, Property Rights Foundation of

America; Paul M. Weyrich, National Chairman, Coalitions

for America; Tom McClusky, Vice President of Government

Affairs, Family Research Council; Jay Lehr, Science

Director, The Heartland Institute; Jim Martin,

President, 60 Plus Association; Bill Moshofsky, Vice

President, Oregonians In Action; Niger Innis, National

Spokesman, Congress of Racial Equality; Gregory Cohen,

President and CEO, American Highway Users Alliance.

Richard Falknor, Executive Vice President, Maryland

Taxpayers Association, Inc.; Linda C. Runbeck,

President, American Property Coalition; Thomas K.

Remington, Managing Editor, U.S. Hunting Today; Fred L.

Smith, President, Competitive Enterprise Institute;

Matt Kibbe, President, Freedom Works; Mychal Massie,

Advisory Council Chairman, Project 21; Steve Baldwin,

Executive Director, Council for National Policy Action,

Inc.; Caren Cowen, Executive Director, New Mexico

Cattle Growers' Association; Randy T. Simmons, Mayor,

Providence City, UT, Professor, Utah State University;

Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman, American

Family Association; Leroy Watson, Legislative Director,

National Grange; Kelsey Zahourek, Executive Director,

Property Rights Alliance; Roy Cordato, Ph.D., VP for

Research and Resident Scholar, John Locke Foundation;

Tom DeWeese, President, American Policy Center; Rachel

Thomas, Property Rights Advocate, Huachuca City, AZ;

Rose Ellen Ray, Treasurer, Citizens for Property Rights

Loudoun County, VA.

Paul Driessen, Senior Policy Advisor, Center for the

Defense of Free Enterprise; Maxine Korman, Korman

Ranch, Hinsdale, Montana; Gerald Hobbs, President,

Public Lands for the People; John Grigsby, Vice

President, Taxpayers for Accountable Government; Don

Parmeter, Executive Director, American Property

Coalition; Leo Schwartz, Chairman, Virginia Land Rights

Coalition; Pat King, Anvil Ranch, Tucson, AZ; Tom

Borelli, Ph.D., Portfolio Manager, Free Enterprise

Action Fund; John and Connie Morris, Members, Tongue

River Watershed Alliance, and MT and WY Farm Bureaus;

Brad VanDyke, Representative, Rural Utahns for Local

Solutions; Jerry Hamilton, Environmental Coordinator,

Formation Capital Corporation; F. Patricia Callahan,

President and General Counsel, American Assoc. of Small

Property Owners; Lew Uhler, President, National Tax

Limitation Committee; Jon Caldara, President,

Independence Institute; Dan Byfield, President,

American Land Foundation; John Taylor, President,

Tertium Quids.

Susan Carlson, Chairman and CEO, American Civil Rights

Union; Gary Palmer, President, Alabama Policy

Institute; Lenore Hardy Barrett, State Representative,

Idaho; Jonathan DuHamel, President, People for the

West-Tucson; Jack and Patricia Shockey, President and

Director, Citizens for Property Rights; Fred Grau,

Executive Director, Take Back Pennsylvania; Mike Dail,

Chairman, American Land Foundation; Chuck Cushman,

President, American Land Rights Association; James

Stergios, Executive Director, Pioneer Institute; Deneen

Borelli, Fellow, Project 21; Marilyn Hayman, Chairman,

Citizens for Responsible Zoning and Landowner Rights;

C.J. Hadley, Publisher/Editor, Range Magazine;

Elizabeth Arnold, Grassroots Consultant, Environmental

Community Outreach Services, Juneau, AK; Greg

Blankenship, President, Illinois Policy Institute; Bill

Wilson, President, Americans for Limited Government;

Jane Hogan, Secretary, Ontario Hardwood Company, Inc.

Katherine Lehman, President, People for the USA Grange

#835; Howard Hutchinson, Executive Director, Coalition

of Arizona/New Mexico Counties; C. Preston Noell III,

President, Tradition, Family, Property, Inc.; Dr.

William Greene, President, RightMarch.com; Leo T.

Bergeron, President, Upper Mid-Klamath Watershed

Council; Eugene Delgaudio, President, Public Advocate

of the U.S., Inc.; Leri M. Thomas, Ph.D., Charter

Member, Virginians for Property Rights; John

McClaughry, President, Ethan Allen Institute; Richard

O. Rowland, President, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii;

James W. Jarrell, Sr., Board Member, Virginia Bear

Hunters Association; Erich Veyhl, Publisher, Maine

Property Rights News; Dane vonBreichenruchardt,

President, U.S. Bill of Rights Foundation; Mark

Williamson, Founder and President, Federal

Intercessors, New Mexico Federal Lands Council, New

Mexico Wool Growers, Inc.; Beth Machens, Board of

Aldermen, City of West Alton, MO .

Janet M. Neustadt, Board of Aldermen, City of West Alton,

MO; William J. Richter, Board of Aldermen, City of West

Alton, MO; Deborah Anderson, Treasurer, City of West

Alton, MO; Susan Silk, City Clerk, City of West Alton,

MO; Charlotte Meyers, Assistant Administrator, City of

West Alton, MO; Ora B. Anderson, Jr., Planning and

Zoning Commission, City of West Alton, MO; Ray

Ponciroli, Board of Aldermen, City of Portage, MO; Army

Ridenour, Director, Americans for the Preservation of

Liberty; Bruce Colbert,

Executive Director, Property Owners Association of

Riverside County, CA; Randall and Ruth Lillard, Farmers

and Landowners, Madison County, VA; Joyce Morrison,

Farmer and Agricultural Environmentalist, Fieldon, IL;

Donald Castellucci, Jr., Councilman, Town of Owego,

Tioga County, NY; Milari Madison, Property Owner,

Loudoun County, VA; Robert L. Sansom, Farmer and

Landowner, Madison County, VA; Mary E. Darling,

Sonoita, AZ.

James Vadnais, Port Angeles, WA; Floyd Rathbun, Fallon,

Nevada; Steven and Peggy Breen, Boise, Idaho; Peggy

Bogart, Access Advocate; Dan Goulet, Portland, OR;

Susan Freis Falknor, Bluemont, VA; Harold L. Stephens,

Member, Citizens to Protect the Confluence; Jerry

Fennell, Chairman, Jicarilla Mining District; Bonner R.

Cohen, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, National Center for Public

Policy Research; Judy Keeler, Secretary, Bootheel

Heritage Assoc. (Animas, NM); Alexandra H. Mulkern,

Mechanicsville, MD; Lee Riddle, Brookings, OR; Stephen

L. Ralston, Columbia, PA; Mark Pollot, Boise, ID; Billy

Jean Redemeyer-Roney; D.J. McCarthy, Civil Engineer;

Clifton McDonald, Needles, CA; Kirk and Jeri Hansen,

Clayton, ID; Suzanne Volpe, Sterling, VA.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the GAO report that was just referenced, it is one of those unique things, not wishing to actually criticize the Federal Government for what they do, but in the entire report, not one property owner was interviewed, not a single property attorney was interviewed, nor a Realtor, nor appraiser, nor a local zoning official. Simply put, the report neglected to ask those who actually know what the impact of a heritage area has on the property rights and values of their land.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield an additional 2 minutes to the sponsor of this particular bill, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).

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

Do I understand you have no more speakers?

Then I'm prepared to close as well, if that's okay.

Mr. Speaker, as I said at the very beginning of this particular debate, on this particular bill there are elements of this bill that I fully support and I think are wise, good moves forward. There are some things in there that simply are not.

We have talked a lot and heard a lot about some of the better parts of this bill. However, we're talking about heritage areas. And I'm sorry, in all due respect, a casino as a heritage area for Niagara Falls? Those are some of the stretches that we have in this particular element.

When we had our committee hearing, there were several people that were talking about the need for these new heritage areas. One particular individual who was testifying told of the importance of having this Federal designation, so I tried to zero in on that and ask what it is specifically about this designation that cannot be done by the local levels, by State government, the local entity. Give me one thing that cannot be done that only the Federal Government can do. There was not one element that was given until somebody behind him simply answered that the correct answer is there are 15 million reasons why you have this designation, and each one has a portrait of George Washington on it.

We have all been lobbied on this bill, even though lobbying is not allowed in this bill. We have tried to put amendments and provisions of these parts that would clarify, clarify that lobbying could not be used by this Federal money going to these entities, and yet the chairman's argument against this, well, it would be making it too difficult for heritage areas to then ask for money. Had we not had a closed rule, some commonsense changes as, for example, where the map actually is, should there be lobbying allowed, should there be real protection for private property owners, should we actually define what these are, they would have been allowed to be discussed and at least voted on this particular bill. Unfortunately, the Rules Committee cut out that opportunity, and now we're here with a closed bill.

Many of my colleagues who do not serve on the Resources Committee may not be aware that the Department does not support these bills. On each and every heritage area that we've had recommended to the committee, the Department has asked the committee to defer action until a criteria for heritage areas is established. And I can see why some deferment makes sense. Perhaps we wouldn't be here debating heritage areas that have not yet finished their feasibility studies or had their maps prepared had we listened to that advice.

A lot of good things, but this is still a classic Christmas tree with a lot of bad things that are hidden by the good ones.

I urge my colleagues not to support this omnibus lands bill, this Christmas tree of lands bill, simply because there are too many bad things that need to be fixed before it moves on.

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

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Yes, in it's current form.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This particular motion to recommit ensures that the rights of State and local governments within heritage area designations will be able to regulate hunting and that it will be unharmed by this legislation.

This bill currently provides that heritage area designations shall not diminish the right of States to regulate hunting, but it is silent on the issue including the right to carry firearms.

The motion to recommit also clarifies that laws regarding fishing and possession or use of a weapon or trap shall be governed exclusively by States and localities.

The second amendment is a critical right. We want to protect our constituents against consequences of this legislation that could harm that right.

National parks have regulations that limit hunting and the right to carry or possess firearms even in States and localities where it is legally permitted. The text you see to my left is title 36 for the National Park Service Department, and this is the language that would prohibit in heritage areas those rights that even are currently allowed by State and local legislation.

These regulations harm wildlife and the environment because even local wildlife management officials are impeded in their work.

Before any attempt is made to restrict the rights of gun owners and second amendment defenders, this motion to recommit protects their legal existing rights now and in the future. It is important that it be said and be said clearly.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

As I am sure the distinguished gentleman from West Virginia knows, each and every one of the divisions within the Department of the Interior has different sets of rules and regulations. BIA land would not be a problem. A national park designation would be. So any of these heritage areas that were under the direction of the National Park Service, and there are some within this new bill, would fall under title 36. That's why this legislation desperately needs to be there,

the same amendment that we actually did present at another time in one of our committees.

So, yes, it's still significant. It's still important. It needs to be there to clarify specifically. If the intent is not to change what has been happening by the locals, this clearly sets in all these areas what has been local will continue and State and local regulations will have precedence.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) very much wanted to manage H.R. 505 today, but he is on his way to an annual convention of the Alaska Federation of Natives, something that's very important to him as well as to that particular group. So I have consented to manage this issue, though there are few Members in this House who feel as strongly in favor of H.R. 505 as Mr. Young.

The sponsor of this bill, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) has done something that is very unique in this body. He's written a bill that only affects his own State. Recognizing the Native Hawaiian governing entity does not affect Native American tribes in my State, does not affect the lands or resources in my district. That is something that's becoming very unusual around here. Mr. Abercrombie, you need to be careful, you're almost becoming a Republican.

Congress has already enacted dozens of authorizing laws and appropriations bills for the benefit of Native Hawaiians. This bill does not create a new source of funds, nor does it let Native Hawaiians seek funds through the BIA.

This bill has the support of the Hawaiian delegation, Governor Lingle and the State legislature. Their judgment should be given some respect.

Georgetown Professor Viet Dinh, who was the U.S. Assistant Attorney General for Legal Policy in 2001 to 2003, testified that ``Congress has constitutional authority to enact the Native Hawaiian Government Recognition Act, and to recognize a Native Hawaiian governing entity as a dependent sovereign government within the United States or, in other words, to treat Native Hawaiians just as it treats Native Americans and Alaska Natives.''

Professor Dinh explained that when Congress recognizes Native people, it does so in a political way, not a racial way, and he established two criteria that Congress must deem having met in order to exercise this authority. Basically, one, that people must have a native ancestry on lands that became part of the United States; two, they must be members of a distinct native community. H.R. 505 appears to have passed these two tests.

This bill deserves a fair and open debate in this body, just as the native people who are seeking formal recognition from the government do.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Speaker, I will continue to reserve.

In closing, I will merely state I have appreciated this particular dialogue we have had, without the long colloquy we went through in this particular area. I would humbly submit that at least some of the times in the past when more than adequate time to consider a recommital has been given, the bill tends to disappear from the floor before the vote takes place. So we are happy this may not necessarily be the case today.

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