[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 141 (Friday, September 21, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Page S11951]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  TRAILS ACT TECHNICAL CORRECTION ACT

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I rise with my colleague from 
Missouri, Senator Claire McCaskill, to correct a small but important 
injustice in the National Trails System Act. The Trails Act Technical 
Correction Act of 2007 is a Senate companion to a bipartisan House bill 
sponsored by Representatives Carnahan, Akin, Clay, Emerson, and Graves. 
Our bipartisan bill will ensure that property owners are compensated 
for land taken from them as Congress intended.
  In 1992, the Federal Government confiscated property owned by 102 St. 
Louis County residents through the Federal Rails-to-Trails Act. The 
taking imposed an easement on their property for a public recreational 
hiking/biking trail. A trail easement was established on their property 
on December 20, 1992. After 12 years of bureaucratic fighting and 
delay, the Justice Department admitted the government's takings 
liability and agreed to pay the property owners a total of 
$2,385,000.85 for their property, interest and legal fees.
  However, 2 days before the U.S. Court of Claims was scheduled to 
approve the agreement, the Federal circuit issued the Caldwell decision 
regarding a Rails-to-Trails takings case in Georgia. That decision 
interpreted the statute of limitations for a taking in this program as 
beginning with a notice of interim trail use, not the commonly 
understood later date the trail easement was legally imposed on the 
property. Under the new date, the statute of limitations on the St. 
Louis County takings claim had expired. The Justice Department 
accordingly sought dismissal of the claims without payment and the 
court of claims judge agreed.
  Our bill clarifies in statute that the statute of limitations for a 
takings claim under the Trails Act begins on the date an interest is 
conveyed and allows for reconsideration of past claims dismissed 
because of this issue. This technical clarification--the takings 
statute of limitations starts upon the taking--makes the most sense. It 
also corrects a past injustice that deprived landowners of their 
rightful compensation. It makes no change to the substance of the 
Rails-to-Trails program and is supported on a bipartisan basis. I urge 
my colleagues to agree to its passage.

                          ____________________