[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 85 (Tuesday, June 11, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H6127-H6132]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   SILVIO O. CONTE NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE REFUGE EMINENT DOMAIN 
                             PREVENTION ACT

  The Clerk called the bill (H.R. 2909) to amend the Silvio O. Conte 
National Fish and Wildlife Refuge Act to provide that the Secretary of 
the Interior may acquire lands for purposes of that act only by 
donation or exchange, or otherwise with the consent of the owner of the 
lands.
  The Clerk read the bill, as follows:

                               H.R. 2909

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Silvio O. Conte National 
     Fish and Wildlife Refuge Emminent Domain Prevention Act''.

     SEC. 2. RESTRICTION ON METHOD OF ACQUISITION OF LANDS FOR 
                   PURPOSES OF THE SILVIO O. CONTE NATIONAL FISH 
                   AND WILDLIFE REFUGE ACT.

       Section 106 of the Silvio O. Conte National Fish and 
     Wildlife Refuge Act (Public Law 102-212; 16 U.S.C. 668dd 
     note) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(e) Restriction on Method of Acquisition.--The Secretary 
     may acquire lands for purposes of this title only by donation 
     or exchange, or otherwise with the consent of the owner of 
     the lands.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Saxton] and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds] 
will each be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton].


                   modification offered by mr. saxton

  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that on page 2, line 
5 of the bill, the word ``Emminent'' be corrected to read ``Eminent.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2909, the Silvio O. Conte National Fish and 
Wildlife Refuge Eminent Domain Prevention Act, was introduced by 
Congressman Charles Bass on January 31, 1996. The bill directs the 
Secretary of the Interior to acquire lands for the Silvio O. Conte 
Refuge only with the consent of the landowner. Unlike many refuges, the 
Conte refuge spans four States--Vermont, Conneticut, Massachusetts, and 
New Hampshire. Landowners surrounding the refuge are concerned that 
eminent domain will be used to condemn their properties, so the Fish 
and Wildlife Service will be able to purchase the properties without 
the owners' consent. At the subcommittee's legislative hearing, the 
Fish and Wildlife Service did acknowledge that there is precedent for 
similar willing seller language already set in law. The Service also 
maintains that it does not intend to use eminent domain as a land 
acquisition tool for the Conte Refuge. That being the case, codifying 
this prohibition into statutory language would not adversely affect 
Fish and Wildlife Service operations. It would, however, serve the 
useful purpose of quelling landowner concerns.
  I urge an ``aye'' vote on this bill in support of property owners' 
rights.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, believe it or not, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2909, 
because it is both an example of bad policy and bad process. When the 
Corrections Day Calendar was originally proposed, it was touted as a 
way to address bureaucracy that is particularly dumb, or to address 
obviously silly, redundant Government regulations in a rapid fashion. 
H.R. 2909 does not address silly Government regulations or bureaucracy, 
it addresses one of the fundamental powers granted to the Federal 
Government by the Constitution--the power of eminent domain. Supporters 
of this bill may claim that it is about protecting private property. 
But there is a world of difference between uncompensated takings of 
private property and the rare and judicious use of eminent domain to 
acquire private property, for fair market value, to protect public 
wildlife resources.
  The Corrections Day Calendar was ostensibly created to expedite the 
passage of noncontroversial, bipartisan legislation. This legislation 
is controversial. I and a number of my colleagues on the Resources 
Committee oppose it. The administration opposes it. And environmental 
groups such as the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, and the Audubon 
Society oppose it. Lastly, I believe that if our late friend and 
colleague, Silvio Conte, were alive today, he would join me in opposing 
this legislation. Since the Fish and Wildlife Service has no intention 
to use eminent domain to acquire land for the refuge, H.R. 2909 is a 
solution in search of a problem.
  It is my understanding that corrections day legislation should be 
narrow in scope. But, since H.R. 2909 sets a bad precedent for the 
entire 92 million acre National Wildlife Refuge System, it is much 
broader in scope than the problem it purports to address.
  The Corrections Day Calendar was never intended to circumvent the 
committee process. However, the Corrections Day Advisory Group 
considered H.R. 2909 for placement on the Corrections Day Calendar a 
month and a half before the Resources Committee reported the bill.
  The Silvio Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge represents a new 
kind of wildlife refuge that will protect a total of 78,000 acres using 
a combination of conservation easements, cooperative agreements, and 
cost-sharing partnerships. This approach minimizes the need for Federal 
land acquisition: Only about 6,500 acres, spread over the States of New 
Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, and Massachusetts, will be under 
Federal ownership. And how is this innovative approach rewarded? By the 
adoption of punitive legislation that restricts the ability of the Fish 
and Wildlife Service to protect public wildlife resources when they are 
threatened.
  The Fish and Wildlife Service is entrusted with the power of eminent 
domain to acquire lands for the greater public good. Although eminent 
domain authority is a tool of last resort for the Service, without it 
there is ultimately no way to protect land already purchased with 
taxpayer dollars from adjacent harmful development or to prevent the 
destruction of critically important wildlife habitat. If we deny the 
Service this tool, we make it that much more difficult to protect 
effectively the public interest in habitat conservation.
  Furthermore, this bill exclusively ties the hands of the Federal 
Government in protecting the public interest in fish, game, and 
wildlife habitat. I am not aware of any attempts to restrict eminent 
domain authority when it is applied to highways, dams, or other public 
works projects in New England. In establishing a differential standard 
for application of the power of eminent domain, H.R. 2909 relegates 
wildlife habitat protection to second-class status. That is wrong.
  For these reasons, I oppose H.R. 2909 and feel that it was 
inappropriately placed on the Corrections Calendar. I urge the House to 
reject this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Bass].
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this piece of 
legislation. I would like to thank the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Saxton] and the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] for moving this bill 
promptly, in an expeditious fashion. I believe that their understanding 
of the time-sensitive nature of this matter in allowing H.R. 2909 to 
move in an expeditious manner is important.
  Mr. Speaker, simply put, as we have heard, this bill will smooth the 
road for the creation of the Silvio O. Conte Refuge by reassuring local 
residents, and folks who live in the affected areas, that their land 
will not be taken by

[[Page H6128]]

eminent domain as a result of efforts to create this very important 
refuge.
  The Conte refuge was established in 1991, and subsequently went 
through 4 years of hearings and input. The result of the plan, which 
seeks to protect the entire Connecticut River Valley from its 
headwaters in northern New Hampshire to the area in southern 
Connecticut where it flows into the Atlantic Ocean, is the scope of the 
bill.
  In undertaking this task, the Fish and Wildlife Service has 
identified virtually all water sources that empty into the Connecticut 
as potential areas to protect. Consequently, nearly 50 percent of my 
district, which is a large rural district, and clearly close to half of 
the district of the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders], will be 
potentially affected by this refuge, including, I might add, many major 
metropolitan areas, cities, towns, rights-of-way and so forth.
  Mr. Speaker, it is important to realize that the Connecticut River, 
which flows through many diverse regions of New England, has many 
different characteristics in different areas. I might use the analogy, 
if I could, to the shape of an oak tree in describing the Connecticut 
River.
  Like any river, near its mouth on the Long Island sound it is like a 
pencil line, but as it gets farther north it branches out and branches 
out and branches out until finally up in Coos County, and in Essex 
County over in Vermont, it covers the entire county. In my district, 
half of Grafton County, all of Sullivan County, and all of Cheshire 
County. It is a huge area which it covers.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not here today to take issue with protecting the 
Connecticut River. It is a very important project, and I fully support 
the Silvio O. Conte Wildlife Refuge. However, I feel that there are 
efforts that need to be undertaken in order to assure that there is 
cooperation between not only the folks that live along the river's edge 
and will be affected, and as I said it is more than just folks living 
along the edge of the river, but also the respective legislatures in 
New Hampshire and Vermont and potentially Connecticut and 
Massachusetts.
  There have been bills introduced in New Hampshire that would create 
considerable restrictions on the ability of the Fish and Wildlife 
Service to effect this important refuge project, and it is all based 
upon the fact that there is fear on the part of landowners that the 
Fish and Wildlife Service will use their eminent domain power to take 
property unnecessarily away from people who are trying to make a living 
off of it.
  Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that this is not good for the future 
creation and growth of the wildlife refuge, but it is also not good for 
farmers and other individuals who depend, and have depended now for 
generations, upon the land to make a living.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also point out that the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Studds], my good friend, has pointed out that this 
bill does not qualify or may not qualify for the Corrections Day 
Calendar. I would point out that this bill codifies U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife's intent using statutory authority of eminent domain for the 
purposes of the refuge. The potential financial burden, underlined, of 
large scale eminent domain takings could be high on the taxpayers of 
America.

  The refuge plan represents a new approach by the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service in that it does not have well-defined boundaries. It 
is not an island or specific area, it is a watershed. Therefore, areas 
that could be affected by eminent domain are ambiguous.
  The bill protects the average family and small business by ensuring 
that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service does not arbitrarily take their 
land for the purposes of a refuge that is not clearly defined. And, 
last, the bill promotes the well-being of everyone by removing one of 
the final stumbling blocks to the successful creation of this refuge to 
protect the Connecticut River for all of New England.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also point out that there is ample precedent for 
this change in the law. There are 33 different precedents in law in 
which eminent domain as a mechanism for acquiring land has been 
inserted; I think the most notable of which is the wildlife refuge in 
Massachusetts known as the Atchafalaya, or something like that, 
wildlife refuge in which the exact same language is in law there.
  Mr. Speaker, I would point out that as one who supports the Silvio O. 
Conte Wildlife Refuge, as one who was personally acquainted with 
Congressman Silvio O. Conte, I would take issue with my distinguished 
colleague from Massachusetts and I would say that Congressman Conte 
would have wanted to see the wildlife refuge developed with the full 
cooperation and consent of the Federal Government, Congress, as well as 
the people who would be affected by this wildlife refuge.
  Now, as a former State senator and a member of the legislature in New 
Hampshire, I was pleased to have sponsored shoreline protection 
legislation in New Hampshire, rivers protection laws in New Hampshire, 
as well as serving 2 years on the Land Conservation Investment Program, 
which is a program similar to what is envisioned by Silvio O. Conte 
Wildlife Refuge, in which $50 million was allocated to protect key 
pieces of real estate that are environmentally sensitive and important 
for the State of New Hampshire.

                              {time}  1030

  Not once did we, we did not have eminent domain in the law obviously, 
and we never needed it. The fact is we do not need to have the hand of 
Federal Government taking people's property away from them against 
their will when there is plenty of property available and more than the 
Federal Government will ever have the money to purchase to begin with.
  What we need here is cooperation, which is in the New Hampshire 
tradition, and I think in the tradition that will be beneficial to the 
creation and long-term preservation of this very important ecosystem, 
the Connecticut River.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of corrections, let me say to 
the gentleman from New Hampshire, the Atchafalaya Refuge is in 
Louisiana, which is a very long way from Massachusetts and New 
Hampshire. May I also say that things must be blissful indeed in the 
Granite State if the biggest thing you have to worry about is the 
specter of the Federal Government grabbing an acre in the name of 
Silvio Conte. I think it must be a lovely existence you have up there. 
Some of us can think of real problems that need solutions.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. 
Gejdenson].
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, when this new Congress led by its 
antienvironmental zealots came here, they said they were going to do 
business in a new way. And sure enough, we find business in a new way. 
We solve problems that do not exist. What we have here is not simply an 
assault on the Federal Government or an opportunity to try to create 
barriers to protect what I think virtually all of our citizens 
recognize is a heritage that we want to pass on to our children and 
grandchildren, but what we have is an attempt to hobble the Government 
from being able to defend itself. Should we have a refuge area and 
suddenly someone comes in and has a pollution problem that they refuse 
to remedy, the Federal Government would have no legal ability to enjoin 
that action. They would have to sit by and watch the entire refuge be 
decimated because we are about to take away the legal rights that 
Government has always had from time immemorial.
  I guess I am somewhat confused. If we are fighting the Civil War over 
again on States rights, then it seems to me that maybe we ought to have 
a real bill that just disbands the Federal legislature. But if we are 
going to continue to have a Federal role, and let me assure you that 
many of these States with this anti-Federal attitude come rushing here 
for Federal resources, much as the Freemen did for their farms. We do 
have one country; do we not? National resources are worth protecting. 
What we are going to do here is not so much protecting any individual 
or State right. What we are doing is taking action to prevent something 
that is virtually never used but to ensure that, if Federal land is in 
the process of being degraded, the Federal Government will have no 
legal ability to protect its investment and the taxpayers' investment.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I just would like to say to the gentleman from Connecticut that I am

[[Page H6129]]

kind of surprised hearing his opposition this morning, particularly 
since the gentleman is from the State of New Jersey and inasmuch as the 
chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], 
offered the gentleman an opportunity to take Connecticut out of this 
bill. So it surprises me that the gentleman declined the opportunity to 
take Connecticut out of the bill, saying that apparently Connecticut 
ought to be included. And now the gentleman is opposed to the bill. I 
do not understand, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will promise to be nice, I 
yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson].
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I think that this is an important 
principle. Frankly, if I did not think it would violate that principle, 
I would have been happy to accept an agreement to exempt Connecticut. I 
would be happy to accept that.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, let me reoffer, 
we have decided on our side that we are happy to grant the gentleman 
unanimous consent to take Connecticut out.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will ask unanimous 
consent to exempt Connecticut, I will accept that exemption.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, it is the gentleman's State. I will not ask 
unanimous consent.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. I will ask unanimous consent to exempt Connecticut 
from the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will have to have his 
unanimous-consent amendment in writing.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I will return.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Speaker, if I may briefly observe, before yielding to 
my colleague from Massachusetts, I look forward with great anticipation 
to the gentleman on the other side offering analogous language on all 
future public works and highway bills so that the power of eminent 
domain may not be waived to frighten the good people of New Hampshire 
or of any other State.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Olver] who holds the seat once held by out late esteemed 
colleague, Silvio Conte, who, if he were here today, I suspect would be 
in the well with a pheasant or a moose mocking all of us.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise as the Member of Congress who 
has had the honor of following in office one of the greatest Members of 
this body in this century on his legacy of environmental protection and 
conservation for the people of the first district of Massachusetts.
  Out of all of Silvio Conte's great successes and legislative 
accomplishments, perhaps his legacy of conservation is what he will be 
remembered for more than anything else. Which is what makes the Conte 
Fish and Wildlife Refuge so fitting for this man who has had such a 
tremendous impact on the people of the Connecticut River Valley.
  Sil Conte was a sportsman and a conservationist and he understood the 
interrelationship between the two.
  He knew that, like most resources, you can't just continue to draw 
from it without renewal and continual reinvestment.
  That's what conservation is all about.
  Silvio Conte's favorite pastimes included fishing and bird watching. 
And he knew that as a Member of this body, he was in a position to 
ensure that future generations would have that opportunity.
  Sil Conte was wise enough to know that waterfowl and other migratory 
birds, as well as anadromous fish, know no boundaries or manmade 
borders.
  Which is why the bill before us today is a sneak attack on the 
concepts of conservation. This bill permanently removes the authority 
of the Fish and Wildlife Service to prevent activities that negate the 
purposes of the refuge.
  After 130, yes, 130, public meetings, the 3 Members sponsoring this 
legislation, and the 7 from Massachusetts and Connecticut even more 
affected by it, know perfectly well that the Fish and Wildlife Service 
is keenly aware of the concerns that this bill aims to address.
  We also know that the Service cannot proceed effectively to secure 
the purposes of Public Law 102-212, the Silvio Conte National Fish and 
Wildlife Refuge Act, without full cooperation from private citizens.
  The cooperative arrangements the Conte Refuge includes is what makes 
this refuge a model for the National Wildlife Refuge System.
  The problem with this bill is that it forever ties the hands of the 
Fish and Wildlife Service in its management in carrying out its 
responsibilities.
  This bill mocks the constitutional protections already provided 
against takings. The Constitution was not meant to be offered a la 
carte. We can't just pick the sections we like and ignore those we 
don't care for.
  The people of the first district are fiercely independent in the 
proud Yankee tradition. However, they also have a proud tradition in 
believing in government and the good that it can do.
  The Connecticut River is today swimmable and boatable because the 
Federal Government took action under the Clean Water Act back in 1972.
  When we passed the Silvio Conte fish and wildlife legislation we 
affirmed the purposes of conserving, protecting, and enhancing 
important fisheries habitat, important wetlands, and other habitat for 
a broad variety of plants and wildlife.
  These species are held in the public trust. the public trust depends 
on the Federal Government to act as its guardian. I believe that the 
people in my district depend on the Fish and Wildlife Service to guide 
the protection of the natural environment.
  The choice is simple. You can either vote with those who have been 
swayed by rumor and distrust of the Federal Government. Or you can vote 
for the environment, for the refuge, and for its inhabitants--the 2 
million people but also the black bear, moose, the bald eagle, red fox, 
bobcat, coyote, beaver, lynx, salmon, shad, striped bass, herons, 
egrets, piping plover, osprey, and the kingfisher.
  And so today we're again faced with making choices for the Silvio 
Conte Refuge. It is a refuge. Let it live out the true meaning of its 
name.
  And as for its namesake, let the refuge continue to honor him in the 
legacy of conservation on which he spent his life's work.
  As the Member now serving the first district, the district that 
Silvio Conte served so well for more than 30 years, I ask that you vote 
against this bill--so that the House can take up this matter in a more 
appropriate forum outside of the Corrections Day Calendar.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson].


                   amendment offered by mr. gejdenson

  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to offer an 
amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Gejdenson: Page 2, line 16, after 
     ``lands'' insert ``in New Hampshire and Vermont''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Connecticut to amend the bill?
  Mr. SAXTON. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I do not plan 
to object. I would like to point out that I am not quite sure what is 
different about the constituencies that live in the 2 States which will 
be exempted under this unanimous consent request.
  In the case of Mr. Bass' constituents, he is concerned, the gentleman 
from New Hampshire, Mr. Bass, is concerned that his constituents feel 
comfortable with the process that will be ongoing. And apparently Mr. 
Gejdenson and the gentleman from Massachusetts do not share the same 
concerns or their constituents do not share the same concerns as to how 
the process will proceed without the protection which will be 
eliminated by virtue of this unanimous-consent request.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SAXTON. I yield to the gentleman from New Hampshire.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the 
remarks of the gentleman from New Jersey but also point out that the 
nature of the districts through which the Connecticut River runs in 
Massachusetts and Connecticut is considerably different geographically 
than that of New Hampshire and Vermont. So as a result, I believe that 
there is justification for this amendment in that the sheer territory 
covered by the potential for eminent domain proceedings in 
Massachusetts and Connecticut is substantially smaller than in New 
Hampshire and Vermont. I certainly would not object to this amendment.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation of objection, I 
would just conclude by saying that inasmuch as the gentleman from 
Connecticut and the gentleman from Massachusetts apparently do not wish 
to afford their constituents the same protections that Mr. Bass does, I 
will not object.
  Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Connecticut to amend the bill?

[[Page H6130]]

  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the amendment is agreed 
to.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am sorry this debate has gone this long. I would think all of us 
would be more than a little embarrassed by having devoted the amount of 
time we have to this matter. There is no problem here that needs 
solving, none whatsoever.
  I am prepared to concede to the gentlemen from over there that New 
Hampshire and Vermont are larger than Connecticut and Massachusetts. I 
am prepared to concede for some reason they have a more profound 
paranoia than southern New England. I could care less whether one State 
or another is covered. I never mentioned my own State in my own 
remarks. My objection is to the principle involved here as to whether 
we will allow the Federal Government to have as a last resort the 
constitutionally sanctioned provision of eminent domain in the public 
interest.
  I noted with some interest not that it was a particular State or 
States but that it was only at wildlife legislation, not at highways, 
not at public works, but the paranoia seems to be finely focused in 
this instance in the hills of northern New England.

                              {time}  1045

  It is beyond me. I do not understand it. I do not know why we have to 
discuss it here. I do not know why it rises to the level of being 
considered by this House. I think we should apologize to our colleagues 
for the amount of time we spent on this. It is more than a little bit 
silly. No one thinks it is going to become law. It will die in the 
Chamber of the winds across the hall, and, anywhere else, it will die 
by other means.
  So, Mr. Speaker, with apologies to my brethren and sisters for the 
amount of time we have taken, I yield back the balance of our time.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  A, I do not apologize; and, B, this is not silly. This is a 
protection of people's right to own property without having to be 
afraid of Big Brother coming along and taking it from them.
  I would say further, Mr. Speaker, that the refuge system, as chairman 
of the Fish and Wildlife and Ocean Subcommittee, the refuge system is 
something that I have taken great pains to protect and to enhance the 
process through which it works. That is why we passed a bill earlier 
this year to reform the process so that people will want the process to 
continue to move forward so that they will not be afraid that refuges 
and refuge managers and the Fish and Wildlife Service will become Big 
Brother and take over their property.
  And so, Mr. Speaker, I do not apologize in any sense of the word, nor 
do I believe this is silly. I think it is a very serious issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from New Hampshire [Mr. Bass].
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Saxton] for yielding this time to me, and I would only say that thee 
are, and I have here, precedent after precedent after precedent in 
public works for the type of exemption that we are talking about in 
this particular piece of legislation.
  What is most significant about this effort is taht it is going to 
help preserve the Connecticut River basin. It is going to create an 
environment of cooperation amongst all of the parties involved, and all 
we are saying is that the Fish and Wildlife Service's promise not to 
use eminent domain in any instance in this particular project, we are 
going to hold them to their word.
  Now, it appens to be important to me tht we preserve the Connecticut 
River basin, but it is also important to me that we protect the rights 
of landowners and that we prevent this bill, this problem, from slowing 
the long-term process.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also like to ask for unanimous consent that my 
colleague from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] be recorded in support of this 
bill and be allowed to place a statement in the Record in support of 
the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. Walker). Would the gentleman from New 
Hampshire modify his request regarding a statement in the Record? The 
gentleman cannot have a request that another Member be recorded in 
favor.
  Mr. BASS. A statement in the Record, to amend my unanimous-consent 
request.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, that will be covered 
under general leave.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SAXON. Mr. Speaker, there a couple of Members on the other side 
who would like to have time at this time. I would be either happy to 
yield to them myself or to ask unanimous consent to have the 
gentleman's time restored.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Studds] can reclaim the balance of his time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman].
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank very much the managers of this bill 
for giving me an opportunity to speak, and I do not come here to speak 
on the substance of the bill, but the process.
  When whole idea of the Corrections Day Calendar was proposed, I 
raised a lot of concern about it because I thought it might be a 
vehicle for special interest proposals, for controversial matters 
cloaked, perhaps, in a cover that maybe they are not as controversial 
as they otherwise would be perceived to be. I thought my misgivings 
were misplaced when I went on the corrections day advisory committee 
and participated in the process where, up to now, we have presented 
bills that were noncontroversial, bipartisan, clear-cut corrections of 
Federal law.
  But this bill is a controversial matter. It affects the gentleman 
from Massachusetts, Mr. Olver's district, and he is opposed to the 
bill, the administration vigorously opposes it, the gentleman from 
California, Mr. Miller, as a ranking Democrat on the Committee on 
Resources, and the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Studds, the 
ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, oppose the bill; Sierra Club and 
other environmental groups oppose the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not appropriate for the Corrections Day 
Calendar, and I am very disappointed that this bill has been put on as 
a corrections day matter. When it came before the corrections day 
advisory committee, no Democrat was present, there was a ballot vote 
where the Republicans voted one way and whatever Democrats voted, voted 
the opposite way.
  The Chair of the corrections day advisory committee was advised that 
this was controversial and that had Democrats been at the meeting, we 
would have opposed this bill being placed on the Corrections Day 
Calendar. The fact this bill is on the calendar as a corrections matter 
undermines the whole idea of the validity of a Corrections Day 
Calendar. It discredits the work of the advisory group for the 
Corrections Calendar.
  So I wanted to speak out on this issue, opposing this proposal not 
only in substance, which others can speak more articulately about, but 
in terms of the process itself.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 more minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Olver].
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his indulgence. I 
just wanted to respond to comments made on the other side and, in fact, 
in part to agree with them.
  The gentleman from New Hampshire points out and agrees that the 
nature of the territory is quite different. Of the 2 million people 
living in the Connecticut River watershed area that is the subject of 
the Silvio Conte Fish and Wildlife Refuge Act, 80 percent of them live 
in Massachusetts and Connecticut, whereas 80 percent of the land 
involved in that area is in New Hampshire and Vermont, at least 80 
percent of the total land area involved. And in terms of the amount of 
acreage that has been proposed after 3 years of study with hundreds of 
meetings, all of them public meetings, all over the Connecticut River 
basin, less than 20 percent of the very tiny amount of land being 
proposed as possible refuge sites actually occurs in the States 
involved, in the States of Vermont and New Hampshire. So the territory 
is very, very different.

[[Page H6131]]

  In our erea, the support for the original language of the Silvio 
Conte Fish and Wildlife Act is extremely strong and extremely deep, and 
so for that reason it is appropriate, and we believe that it should 
certainly be possible, that if there is a critical bog, one of those 
critical areas under consideration or a critical fish habitat area, 
that we should not be in a position where one owner may negate the 
purposes of the protection under the Silvio Conte Fish and Wildlife 
Refuge Act, one owner may completely negate the purposes of the public 
interest.
  So in that sense this is an appropriate kind of an amendment, and I 
might point out that there is a very similar case. And I will let the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut speak for herself.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Bass].
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to say that in response to my 
distinguished colleague from California, as he well knows, just prior 
to his arrival here on the floor we did exempt by unanimous-consent 
amendment the States of Massachusetts and Connecticut, which was so 
eloquently advocated by my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts, 
Mr. Olver, in mentioning that 80 percent of the people involved by or 
covered by this wildlife refuge live in the States of Massachusetts and 
Connecticut, whereas 80 percent of the land is in New Hampshire.
  Although just a small portion of the total area has been designated 
thus far to be part of the wildlife refuge, the fact is that this is an 
open-ended project, as it should be, and there are, as I recall, some 
80,000 acres potentially affected by it. So it does have the potential 
to become quite a bit more substantial, which is not all that bad.
  I would also point out that the New Hampshire Forest Society, the 
Appalachian Mountain Club and other environmental groups based in New 
Hampshire strongly support the passage of this legislation.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I have real concerns with 
this legislation. The Conte Refuge is unique. It is an urban refuge. 
Its goal was never to be achieved through the acquisition of large 
tracts of land. Rather, its goal was to restore the Connecticut 
watershed through partnerships, conservation easements, cooperative 
agreements, environmental education with the Fish and Wildlife Service 
providing technical expertise and serving as the catalyst for the 
effort, and in fact it is moving along very well and holds enormous 
potential for the whole Northeast as being a very positive contribution 
to the preservation of our wilderness areas and the quality of our life 
in the Northeast.
  As my colleagues know, we have preservation laws not only to preserve 
lands, but to preserve historic buildings, and whenever we try to 
preserve something, people do give up certain rights because 
preservation carries with it certain responsibilities.
  Now, in my district the Appalachian Trail runs right through it, and 
the Government does have the right of eminent domain, if they need it 
in that instance, and we had to go through a very painful relocation of 
a portion of the trail for very good reasons of safety and so on. And 
in the course of those negotiations with various property owners we 
were able to negotiate good solutions with all but one, and that one 
person simply could not see the public interest, but could only see the 
private interest. And if the Government had not had the right of 
eminent domain, which they never had to exercise, but if they had not 
had that right, that citizen would never have been required to stay at 
the table. And by staying at the table we did finally get a negotiated 
solution that was satisfactory to the citizen and satisfactory to the 
Government in terms of achieving the public goal of a safe and 
beautiful trail across the Eastern Seaboard.
  So eminent domain is rarely used by the Government, but it does 
provide clear and convincing, in a sense, elbow to remind the 
individual citizen that there is a larger public interest that the 
Congress recognized in establishing the Conte Refuge. I think the goals 
of the Conte Refuge can be achieved without any eminent domain actions; 
I am absolutely convinced of that. But to withdraw that from the law 
for this particular project I think is to set a precedent that is very 
destructive and also fundamentally counters the public interest that 
lies behind not only this designation, but other designations, and also 
underlies our belief in things like historic preservation tax credits.
  So I oppose this bill.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman does he have any 
further speakers?
  Mr. STUDDS. Not to my knowledge, I would say to the gentleman.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, with that understanding I yield such time as 
he may consume to the gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Bass] for his 
closing statement.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for 
yielding this time to me, and I would just like to point out that there 
is an enormous difference between an effort to preserve a trail and an 
undertaking that will potentially affect 80,000 acres of property.
  I would also point out that the scope of this piece of legislation is 
now, by unanimous-consent amendment, limited to the States of New 
Hampshire and Vermont. Now, this is a very critical issue for folks in 
New Hampshire and Vermont, and the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] 
and I have joined together in a bipartisan effort to create a modicum 
of protection for folks who make a living off of the land that might be 
affected by this potential wildlife refuge.
  Nobody opposes the idea of the Silvio Conte Wildlife Refuge. We want 
it to go ahead. But we feel that this amendment, which is supported by 
numerous environmental groups in my home State of New Hampshire, and I 
suspect also in Vermont, is important to us. I would point out that 
there are 33 other precedents for use of this limitation on eminent 
domain proceeding, and to the best of my knowledge it has worked very 
well in all of those instances.
  So I would urge the body to support this bill along with its 
unanimous-consent amendment. It is important for Vermont and New 
Hampshire, and it is important for the future of this very significant 
wildlife refuge.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2909, the Silvio O. Conte 
National Fish and Wildlife Refuge Eminent Domain Prevention Act, 
prevents the Fish and Wildlife Service from purchasing land for 
inclusion in the Conte Refuge without the consent of the owner.
  I served with Silvio Conte for nearly 20 years, and I know that he 
cared deeply about the protection of migratory bird habitat and the 
creation of this refuge. This bill will further both of those goals by 
increasing public support for this refuge.
  Local residents want to see important habitat protected, but some 
fear the Federal Government's sometimes heavy-handed land acquisition 
policies. This bill allows the Service to preserve important habitat, 
but also protects property owners from overzealous bureaucrats. The 
protections in this bill will enhance the public's support of the 
refuge since surrounding property owners will know that their property 
cannot be taken without their consent.
  H.R. 2909 would allow condemnations for the purposes of settling 
title issues and determining price as long as the property owner 
consents to such actions. There is precedent for this bill. In 1988, 
Congress enacted a law, Public Law 98-548, which established a Federal 
wildlife refuge in Louisiana and stipulated that the Fish and Wildlife 
Service could only obtain lands for inclusion in this refuge from 
willing sellers.
  Furthermore, in the testimony of the Department of the Interior on 
H.R. 2909, the administration witness stated that ``since 1989, the 
Fish and Wildlife Service has not used condemnation without the consent 
of the owner, and does not intend to use if for this unique refuge''. 
The testimony went on to say that ``no condemnation is planned for any 
aspect of this project.'' Putting the force of law behind this policy 
will clearly enhance public support for this refuge.
  This bill is widely supported by environmental and conservation 
groups in New Hampshire, including the Appalachian Mountain Club, the 
New Hampshire Farm Bureau, the New Hampshire Timberland Owners 
Association, and the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire 
Forests.
  I commend Congressman Bass for introducing this measure, and I urge 
an ``aye'' vote on this important property rights bill.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I understand the concerns of the 
gentleman from

[[Page H6132]]

California [Mr. Waxman]. If he will recall, the advisory group met on 
March 20 of this year to consider five bills for the Corrections 
Calendar. While no members of the minority were present at that 
meeting, all members of the advisory group are allowed, and were 
allowed following that meeting, to participate by expressing their 
views even though they may not be able to attend our meetings.
  Following our March 20 meeting, we reviewed the input from all our 
members and a consensus was reached to recommend H.R. 2909 to the 
Speaker for placement on the Corrections Day Calendar when reported out 
of the committee of jurisdiction, in this case the Resources Committee. 
Once recommended, all corrections day legislation must travel through 
the regular legislative process and be reported.
  I recognize that the corrections day process is new to many and that 
we all have demanding schedules. However, being a member of a panel 
such as the Corrections Day Advisory Group requires members' attendance 
in order that we may be able to carry out its purpose.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. STUDDS. I have no further requests for time.
  I want to close by commending the gentlewoman from Connecticut on the 
eloquence of her lesson in civic responsibility.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the previous question 
is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and (three-fifths having voted in favor 
thereof) the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________