[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 14 (Tuesday, January 29, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H522-H535]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           NEW ENGLAND NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL DESIGNATION ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 940 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1528.

                              {time}  1649


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 1528) to amend the National Trails System Act to designate the 
New England National Scenic Trail, and for other purposes, with Mr. 
Lynch in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) and the gentleman from Utah 
(Mr. Bishop) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  H.R. 1528 amends the National Trails System Act to designate most of 
an existing trail system in Massachusetts and Connecticut as the New 
England National Scenic Trail. In 2002, Congress directed the National 
Park Service to study this trail for potential addition to the National 
Trails System. The draft study, completed in 2006, supports designation 
of the trail, with some changes to the route to address landowner 
concerns. The administration has testified that no major changes in the 
study are expected, and expressed support for the measure in testimony 
before the Natural Resources Committee.
  The trail runs 220 miles through the heart of Connecticut and 
Massachusetts, past some of the most spectacular vistas and landscapes 
in New England. The trail offers some of the world's best opportunities 
to view volcanic and glacial geology, including fossil and dinosaur 
footprints. The proposed trail also fulfills another requirement of the 
National Trails System Act by being close to population centers. This 
trail has over 2 million people that live within 10 miles of the route, 
and this accessibility makes the trail a wonderful recreational 
opportunity.
  The route of the trail crosses land owned by State and local 
governments and by private landowners. No Federal land is involved. 
Local trails associations have obtained permission from landowners 
allowing existing trails to cross their lands. If a landowner requests 
that the association close the trail on his or her property, the 
association honors that request. The NPS study identified no need for 
direct Federal trail ownership or direct Federal trail management.
  If H.R. 1528 is enacted, the role of the National Park Service in 
implementing the designation would be to provide technical and 
financial assistance to

[[Page H523]]

the existing trail partners, including State, tribal, regional and 
local agencies, the Appalachian Mountain Club, and the Connecticut 
Forest and Park Association. H.R. 1528 is cosponsored by Members 
representing all the affected districts in Connecticut and 
Massachusetts, and enjoys energetic support from the affected local 
communities.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill, and I want to commend my colleague 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) for his commitment and leadership on 
this matter. We support the passage of H.R. 1528, and urge its adoption 
by the House today.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. 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.

                              {time}  1700

  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

[[Page H524]]

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.
                                  ____

                                               Christ the Redeemer


                                              Catholic church,

                                       Sterling, VA, May 18, 2007.
     Hon. Don Young,
     Hon. Ron Bishop,
     Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands, 
         House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Sirs: Thank you for the opportunity to express my 
     concerns regarding H.R. 1528, which permits the Secretary of 
     the Interior to administer the New England National Scenic 
     Trail consistent with the plan developed by the National Park 
     Service.
       My concerns grow from my experience with the National Park 
     Service's administration of the Appalachian Trail while I was 
     Minister General of the Franciscan Friars of the Atonement 
     when the National Park Service attempted to seize 118 acres 
     of the Friar's property through eminent domain.


                               Background

       Graymoor, Garrison, New York has been the headquarters of 
     the Franciscan Friars of the Atonement since 1899. The 420 
     acres provides housing for friars, a homeless shelter--

[[Page H525]]

     St. Christopher's Inn (operating since 1909), worship, a 
     retreat ministry and a variety of other ministries and 
     programs including providing hospitality to Appalachian Trail 
     hikers. In the course of a year several thousand persons come 
     to Graymoor for shelter, spiritual renewal, to enjoy the 
     natural beauty, to worship or for pastoral counseling. On a 
     typical weekend there may be 300 to 400 visitors or several 
     thousand. From the beginning the Friars have always welcomed 
     visitors and those seeking assistance.


                     First Threat of Eminent Domain

       The Friars permitted the Trail to cross the eastern portion 
     of the property at Graymoor in 1923 on a handshake agreement. 
     Beginning in 1980 the National Park Service requested the 
     trail be moved to the western portion of Graymoor, which 
     directly borders the area in which most of the previously 
     mentioned ministries and activities take place. For that 
     reason, the friars resisted and preferred the Trail remain in 
     its original  location, The National Park Service threatened 
     eminent domain. In 1984 the Friars reluctantly agreed to 
     grant an easement for 58 acres and the trail was moved 
     from the open and natural eastern side of Graymoor to the 
     more built-up and busy western side.


                    Second Threat of Eminent Domain

       During 1980's the Friars began to undertake needed and 
     necessary upgrading and repairs of infrastructure. This was 
     needed to continue St. Christopher's Inn, to accommodate 
     pilgrims and retreatants, and for St. Paul's Friary in which 
     the friars lived. The first project was the installation of a 
     sewage treatment plant and sewer system, Due to the fact that 
     Graymoor is located on a mountain, it was necessary to 
     install a sewage treatment pump. To house that pump, a shed 
     was built, about the size of a shed you would purchase for 
     your lawnmower and garden tools. One corner of that shed 
     (maybe 15 square feet at most) infringed upon the easement.
       It was in this time period that the National Park Service 
     informed the friars that it wanted to expand the easement 
     from 58 acres to 118 acres in order to protect the 
     environment on both sides of the Appalachian Trail. The 
     reasoning was its mission had expanded from maintaining the 
     Trail to protecting its immediate environment and to protect 
     any further infringement by the friars as happened with the 
     pump shed.
       As Minister General of the Friars I was opposed to this 
     expanded easement because our land on the western portion of 
     Graymoor is the area in which friars live, employees' work, 
     and ministries and programs take place. We considered the 
     land to be holy and to be used for the service of God, the 
     Roman Catholic Church, and the thousands who came for 
     whatever reason. It was my responsibility to make every 
     effort to ensure that we would have the needed resources for 
     future growth and use. To expand the easement could all too 
     easily hamper our ministries or future development. One 
     example is that the proposed new easement would have bordered 
     our sewage treatment plant, thus making any future upgrades 
     almost impossible. As an aside, since that time the new St. 
     Christopher's Inn and the new infirmary for the Franciscan 
     Sisters of the Atonement have been hooked up to the sewage 
     treatment plant--my concerns weren't just theoretical. Part 
     of the area, if confiscated by the National Park Service, was 
     also used for parking. We offered the National Park Service 
     the opportunity to switch back the Trail to the original 
     setting, still undeveloped, so that not only the Trail could 
     be maintained but that there would a natural environment for 
     it. The National Park Service refused this option and 
     threatened to proceed with eminent domain.
        It was only with the active intervention of Sen. Charles 
     Schumer and the assistance of Representative Sue Kelly was 
     this issue resolved to the satisfaction of the Friars and the 
     National Park Service.
        One of the surprising things I learned during our 
     negotiations with the National Park Service was the fact the 
     agreement for an easement could not contain any provision in 
     which the U.S, government would agree not to further use 
     eminent domain. This certainly leaves open the possibility of 
     more disagreement in the future if the National Park Service 
     expands its mission regarding the Trail or switches its 
     location once again.
       Even though H.R. 1528 states, ``The United States shall not 
     acquire for the trail any land or interest in land without 
     the consent of the owner'', the plan mandated by this bill 
     does permit that. Also, efforts are being made to the states 
     to claim the land by eminent domain before it would come 
     under management of the Secretary of the Interior.
       I urge the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and 
     Public Land not to endorse this bill.
       Thank you.
           Sincerely,
                                      Rev. Arthur M. Johnson, S.A.

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments that the 
gentleman from Utah, the ranking member of the subcommittee, made. 
There is a point of consistency, too. As we talked about the effects, I 
thought we were talking about a trail bill, not a farm bill, but the 
effects of the Federal Government on private land.
  I would suggest that part of the consistency would be to quit 
incentivizing extraction of mining claims and mining rights on private 
property, that that would be consistent. It would be consistent also to 
not have eminent domain and condemnation with regard to road 
construction of Federal roads and energy corridors. I think that kind 
of points out the fact that we are talking two different things here. 
We are talking about a trail that has already been through the process 
and the study and that merits our support today.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut 
(Mr. Murphy).
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Grijalva, 
and thank you also to Chairman Rahall and my good friend Mr. Olver from 
Massachusetts for their hard work and diligence in bringing this bill 
to the House floor. The process by which it comes to us started long 
before I arrived here.
  Mr. Chairman, in this digital age, our computers, our cell phones, 
our BlackBerrys, our PDAs, they have all collapsed vast distances that 
for so long have defined our lives. Continents can now be bridged in 
seconds with just the touch of a button, and the miles of fiber optic 
cable running beneath our feet and the satellites orbiting miles above 
our heads have helped make our modern world seem much smaller and much 
more compact. The idea of sending a physical letter through the mail 
now seems charmingly outdated in an age where communication is measured 
at the speed of light.
  But in our wholesale embrace of this breathtaking new age of 
technology, we sometimes have lost sight of the enduring power of the 
natural world. Back in the outdoors, one is once again reminded of the 
sheer immensity and the beauty of the world around us. Getting away 
from our cars, getting away from our desks and laptops, thousands of 
New England residents every day take to the parks, to the trails, and 
to our reserves to reconnect with the natural world that thrives 
quietly all around us.
  I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1528, the New England Scenic 
Trail Designation Act, because it will give thousands of more 
Americans, many of whom reside in the Fifth District of Connecticut, 
access to one of the most beautiful natural resources throughout the 
Northeast.
  The Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett Trail, or the MMM Trail, runs 
some 220 miles from the southern border of New Hampshire all the way 
down to the Long Island Sound, from Royalston, Massachusetts, to 
Guilford, Connecticut, cutting across the Farmington Valley towns and 
the towns of New Britain and Meriden in the Fifth Congressional 
District of Connecticut.
  Now, this isn't some secluded, inaccessible trail. This gem runs 
right through the heart of some of this district's most populous areas. 
More than 2 million people live within 10 miles of the MMM Trail, 
making it uniquely accessible as a recreational opportunity for hikers, 
for joggers, for picnickers, and for everyone who loves the outdoors.
  With this bill's passage, the MMM Trail will become only the ninth 
scenic trail designated in the 40-year history of the national trail 
system, joining the likes of the Appalachian Trail and the Continental 
Divide Trail throughout the country as these national scenic recognized 
trails.
  Until now, the MMM Trail has been maintained through the generosity 
of private donors, through natural preservation groups and landowners 
who have allowed people to pass through the trail of their own accord. 
With Federal recognition, the trail will have access to grants and to 
resources that will help with its maintenance, with its preservation, 
and with public awareness.
  The hundreds of thousands of Connecticut and Massachusetts residents 
who have enjoyed the MMM Trail over the past half century will be 
joined by scores of new visitors coming to enjoy its breathtaking 
vistas, its distinctive flora and fauna, and its rich history. And 
those who have enjoyed the MMM Trail in the past will now be assured 
that the trail will be protected for future generations, while ensuring 
that the trail is actively maintained and cared for for all.
  Perhaps the most important backers of this trail are the thousands of 
nature lovers who have hiked and enjoyed the MMM Trail for decades. 
Just today,

[[Page H526]]

Adam Moore, the director of the Connecticut Forest and Park 
Association, wrote me. He said: ``It's thrilling to me to think that 
this beautiful trail that I once hiked with my father could now become 
a scenic trail. I recall dangling my legs off the rocks of Mt. Pisgah 
in Durham while my father pointed out the gold building in Hartford 
some miles away gleaming in the distance. It is so inspiring to think 
that this trail in my home community could merit national status and 
recognition and that people will be able to enjoy it for years to 
come.''
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit at the conclusion of my remarks 
several such testimonials for the Record.
  Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the Congressional Land Conservation 
Caucus and a representative of the thousands of Connecticut residents 
who lie along the MMM Trail, who have enjoyed it for years and will 
enjoy it for years to come, I hope that the House will join me in 
recognizing and protecting this beloved trail for future generations. I 
urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 1528 and join me in the 
near future for a hike through the beautiful hills of New England.

                                          Simsbury Land Trust,

                                   Simsbury, CT, January 21, 2008.
     Representative Christopher Murphy,
     Cannon House Office Building,
     Washington, DC
       Dear Representative Murphy: We want to thank you for your 
     time and comments January 12 at the Avon Community Center. It 
     is easy to start thinking of our local challenges in a vacuum 
     and it is useful to have an opportunity like your visit 
     provided to sit down with others and to look at the bigger 
     picture. We also appreciate your offer to help should we 
     think your office could be of assistance in working with 
     federal programs. I actually plan to send some ideas and a 
     request this winter.
       In the meantime, we wanted to get this thanks to you and 
     also to respond to your comments regarding the New England 
     Scenic Trail Designation Act and recognition of the MMM 
     Trail. We could not agree more with you that this is vitally 
     important. As you know, the MMM Trail runs through Simsbury 
     as well as other Farmington Valley towns. It is the most 
     heavily used trail in this town as well as in neighboring 
     towns. It is easily accessible to the Greater Hartford area, 
     it has spectacular views of both the Farmington River Valley 
     to the west and the Connecticut Valley to the east and it is 
     rugged enough to be both physically and intellectually 
     challenging.
       Over many years the State of Connecticut, towns and land 
     trusts along the trail have acquired large sections of the 
     ridge over which the trail runs. However, there are still 
     important sections that all of us continue to work on. We 
     know well from experience along this trail as well as others 
     that trails are under continual pressure as development along 
     the hillsides crowds out this historical use. This trail is a 
     regional and national treasure that gets heavy public use by 
     local residents and visitors alike. National scenic 
     designation will be a valuable tool and will be a great help 
     in assisting regional efforts to maintain this resource for 
     years to come.
       Thanks again for your recent visit.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Richard A. Davis,
     President.
                                  ____

                                                 January 28, 2008.
     Congressman Christopher S. Murphy,
     Cannon House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Murphy: On behalf of the Connecticut 
     Forest & Park Association, I am writing to express our strong 
     support for H.R. 1528, the New England National Scenic Trail 
     Designation Act. This bill would designate the Metacomet and 
     Mattabesett Trails in Connecticut, and the Metacomet-
     Monadnock Trail in Massachusetts, as the New England National 
     Scenic Trail. We strongly support this legislation as it 
     would greatly enhance the opportunities for the stewardship 
     of these trails while leaving the fundamental, voluntary 
     nature of this trail system intact.
       The Connecticut Forest & Park Association established the 
     Metacomet and Mattabesett Trails in Connecticut in 1931, and 
     our volunteers have maintained them as open-to-the-public 
     hiking trails ever since. The Association would still 
     maintain these trails in Connecticut if designation occurs. 
     With funding and assistance that could come from National 
     Scenic Trail designation, we would be better able to work 
     closely with landowners and towns, post signs, construct 
     trailhead kiosks and parking areas and improve the condition 
     of the trail for owners and for the walking public. 
     Furthermore, we believe that National Scenic Trail 
     designation would enhance the prospects for willing seller 
     land conservation along the trails.
       I further note that the primary goal of the National Trails 
     System Act states that ``trails be established primarily . . 
     . near the urban areas of the nation.'' With two million 
     people living within ten miles of this trail, the proposed 
     New England National Scenic Trail certainly meets this goal, 
     perhaps better than any other National Scenic Trail.
       Thank you very much for your support of the New England 
     National Scenic Trail Designation Act.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Adam R. Moore,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                             State of Connecticut,


                                           Executive Chambers,

                                   Hartford, CT, January 29, 2008.
     Congressman Christopher Murphy,
     Cannon House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Murphy: I am writing to express my support 
     for the New England National Scenic Trail Designation Act. 
     Amending the National Trail System Act to designate the 
     Monadnock, Metacomet and Mattabesett (MMM) Trail System as 
     the New England National Scenic Trail, will generate the 
     necessary increased levels of attention and resources to 
     ensure the long-term viability of the MMM Trail System. I 
     believe that this designation is an important step in 
     preserving the unique character and quality of life that we 
     enjoy in our states.
       The 825 mile MMM trail system forms a backbone supporting 
     our state's ecological, historic, scenic and economic 
     resources. More than two million people live within ten miles 
     of the trail system. As development continues to change our 
     landscape, unprotected portions of the MMM Trail System 
     continually experience increasing pressures. The Connecticut 
     Forest & Park Association established the Metacomet and 
     Mattabesett Trails in Connecticut in 1931, and through the 
     hard work of volunteers and the good will of private 
     landowners, these trails have remained open to the public but 
     are greatly at risk. The legislation will help to protect 
     this regional treasure for generations to come.
       I am confident that the MMM Feasibility Study's goals we 
     identified in collaboration with the Massachusetts Department 
     of Conservation and Recreation can be brought to fruition. 
     Thank you for your continued leadership on this issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                     M. Jodi Rell,
     Governor.
                                  ____

       Dear Sirs: The Avon Land Trust strongly supports H.R. 1528, 
     the New England Scenic Trail Designation Act, because open 
     space preservation is an increasingly important issue in 
     Connecticut and scenic trail designation conserves open space 
     and promotes the use of that space. Hiking is a low cost, low 
     key recreation that gets the public, especially families, 
     outside to see nature firsthand.
       As more land is developed in Connecticut, habitat is 
     reduced but trail systems protect wildlife corridors crucial 
     to many species. This particular trail system is located on 
     ridge line, which helps preserve the appearance of these 
     highly visible geological features in the Farmington Valley.
           Regards,
                                              Robert Breckinridge,
                                       President, Avon Land Trust.

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. 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. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, first let me thank the ranking 
member of the subcommittee for his excellent presentation on this 
legislation, and, yes, the chairman, too. There is just a matter of a 
difference of opinion.
  Again, the majority on that side is more interested in creating 
recreation and amusement opportunities than creating jobs and 
affordable energy. It is ironic to me that one of the States, in fact 
both of the States, named in this bill, none of their Representatives 
or their Senators have ever voted for any energy development, not one 
time. And consequently, they are paying, their constituents, a 
tremendous price for energy they are consuming.
  Just last week, the Boston Globe published a story that said: 
``Massachusetts manufacturers pay the highest electricity prices in the 
Continental United States,'' thus discouraging industry coming into the 
State. In fact, it is leaving.
  A 200-year-old paper mill in Lee, Massachusetts, was shut down 
because of high energy costs, a loss of 160 jobs. Now, some of these 
workers may get an opportunity to be retrained to cut brush on the 
trail we are trying to set aside today. Of course, that pays the 
minimum wage.
  It is ironic to me that this was all caused by a lack of action in 
this Congress. New England needs energy; and if I can remind this body, 
and good morning, Mr. and Mrs. America, that is our number one problem 
in this country today, is energy. That side of the aisle, not only the 
side of the aisle in the House but also in that other body, now because 
of you, we are importing--

[[Page H527]]

                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will please direct his remarks to the 
Chair.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. In what line? What did I say wrong?
  The CHAIRMAN. While speaking in the second person. The gentleman 
pointed to the other side.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I will point to you next time.
  We are importing 12 million barrels a day from our enemies, thanks to 
you; 12 million barrels a day, at $100 a barrel. Mr. and Mrs. America, 
remember, $1.2 billion a day we are sending overseas because of the 
majority not supporting energy development. That is $438 billion a year 
that we are sending overseas, to not our friends, but to our enemies, 
the Chavezes, and to the Iraqis, the Kuwaitis, Saudi Arabia, and, yes, 
a little bit to Russia, because we don't have the courage to develop 
our oil and our fossil fuels in this country, thanks to the majority.
  And we just voted on a stimulus bill today. Big deal. If you are 
taking that up, $438 billion a year, we are imposing a $1,460 tax on 
every man, woman, and child in America every year because the majority 
will not support energy legislation. Oh, you are going to support a 
trail today, taking taxpayer dollars again for recreation, but you will 
not support energy in this country. And this Congress, especially the 
majority side, has never, ever supported energy production in this 
country of any type, nuclear, even wind power, and certainly not fossil 
fuels.
  That is what is wrong with this Nation today. We are bleeding the 
economy from our bodies to support overseas countries for fossil fuels 
which we have on our shores, on our shores and off our shores. We are 
disallowed from developing the Rocky Mountains. We are disallowed from 
drilling off the coast of California. We are disallowed from even 
drilling off the coast of Alaska. And, of course, the majority will 
never support opening ANWR, which has 39 billion barrels available for 
America.
  And for those out there, my colleagues, every time you fill your gas 
tanks, it doesn't hurt you too bad. But Mr. and Mrs. America as they go 
to work are being taxed by you. The stimulus package, everybody might 
get $1,000. But remember, everybody is going to be taxed this year 
$1,460, every man, woman, and child in America, because this Congress 
on the majority side doesn't have the courage, the courage nor the 
wisdom, to develop necessary energy in this country which we have.
  I ask you, when are you going to wake up? When is this body, and even 
the Presidential election that is going forth today, I don't hear 
anybody talking about developing energy sources. I hear about 
conservation and light bulbs made in China and filled with mercury. 
Wait until you try to dispose of those, Mr. and Mrs. America, and see 
what happens. I say shame on us.
  This bill today is a trail that people say they need and they want. 
But I suggest, respectfully, if you don't address the energy bill, you 
will never be able to have anybody walk on it. You might as well make 
your highways into trails, because you won't be able to run your 
trains, your planes, your automobiles, or your ships.
  And that is the economy of this country. That is the economy of this 
country. If you can't move product to and from, if you don't have the 
energy within your factories to produce those products and hire the 
people, you don't have an economy. You don't have an economy. You don't 
have an America. You don't have freedom. You don't have the Nation of 
the United States of America.
  We were made great because we had a source of energy. We were made 
great because we had hydro and we had fossil fuels, the coal that drove 
our steel mills and produced the greatest war machine to stop World War 
II in history. We used our coal because we needed it. We had it and we 
did it. Not today. You can't do it.
  So, as I say, Mr. Chairman, this Congress has a tremendous 
responsibility and you are not living up to it. You passed an energy 
bill that produced nothing but hot air. Nothing. Conservation, yes, we 
are all for that. But it had no production in that bill of any source 
of energy. And yet we say we passed an energy bill.
  It will come back. It will haunt you. And some day down the line your 
grandchildren and all those around you and their grandchildren will 
say, what was Congress thinking about? The greatest Nation in the 
world, the greatest Nation in the world became a third-class country. 
The greatest Nation in the world, because we didn't produce our energy. 
We didn't provide for the future generations.
  And for those that don't agree with me, thank God these words are 
going down. And some day along those lines they will say, you know, the 
gentleman from Alaska had a point that they should have listened to, 
but they did not. It is too bad they didn't, because we are where we 
are today, not the democracy that they were then and not the greatest 
Nation in the world, in fact a third-class country.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), a cosponsor of this legislation.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to start by first of all thanking 
Chairman Grijalva who during this 110th Congress has shown that he is a 
true friend of the State of Connecticut with his advocacy on the 8-Mile 
River bill and now for the MMM Scenic Trail bill.
  I also want to recognize Congressman Olver for his hard work on this 
issue, and Congressman Murphy and the other cosponsors of this 
legislation.
  People are extremely excited who live in the area that will be 
affected by this trail. Again, I think it will be a wonderful step 
forward for New England. And as Chris said, reconnecting with its 
terrific natural beauty and natural heritage.
  Four of the towns which this trail goes through touch Connecticut's 
Second District. Suffield, Durham, Haddam and Madison, at various 
points on the map that Congressman Murphy presented, are part of the 
national scenic trail.
  This is a system, to sort of get back to the bill before us today and 
maybe away from some of the global issues which were just discussed, it 
was a system created in 1968. Twenty-three trails have been given 
designation by Congress during the last 40 years in a very nonintrusive 
way with no damage done to people's property rights, but in a way that 
is a partnership relationship between the Federal Government and local 
landowners and communities.
  It is my understanding that the Governor of the State of Connecticut, 
Governor Rell, a Republican, is supporting a letter in support of the 
legislation. I think that is indicative of the feeling of the 
communities that are touched by it, certainly in the State of 
Connecticut, and particularly by the private, nonprofit Connecticut 
Forest and Park Association, which Mr. Bishop gave great praise to, and 
they deserve it for the work that they have done over the many years.
  But I think it is important that when we talk about the work that 
they did, they are vigorous advocates and supporters of this 
legislation because they see it as consistent with the mission that 
they have carried out for 75 years, to keep the trail accessible to 
families, to individuals from all over the world. They deserve, I 
think, the biggest credit for their support for this legislation over 
the last few years.
  Finally, I want to say in response to the prior speaker, the Members 
of the U.S. Senate from the State of Connecticut did support production 
of new sources of energy in the energy bill which was sent to the 
Senate. Production tax credits for geothermal wind and solar were paid 
for by taking away tax breaks for oil companies. Unfortunately, the 
opposition party in the Senate stripped those critical, important, 
necessary changes that our country is yearning for. We in the Northeast 
are as committed as any part of the country in terms of the need to 
transform our energy system so we will have a thriving economy that 
will be there for our children and our grandchildren.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. 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 
PAYGO.

[[Page H528]]

This bill does not have a PAYGO concern; the committee said it did not 
because it does not specifically appropriate money. However, it does 
authorize the use of money, and in the bottom line from what people 
would be saying at the kitchen table, it costs money.
  This bill will actually cost $2 million. Not a huge sum, kind of a 
rounding error in our government, but it is still $2 million. The money 
is not having to be offset under PAYGO earmarking accounting rules. 
However, it is still money that has to be spent, and it has to come 
from somewhere else.
  Where it will come from is the Parks Department budget which will 
then take it from other projects. It is one of the spinoff effects 
every time we add a new measure that the Parks Department has to 
administer, has to pay for and has to run. That is one of the concepts 
that we have.
  I mention that simply because we have crying needs in the Parks 
Department today. I would like to mention specifically this building. 
It is not in my district; it is Mr. Matheson's district in my State. 
But it is a brilliant building at Dinosaur National Monument. I went 
there with my kids. I have been there before several times with other 
kids. It is a wonderful opportunity for people to see bones exposed in 
the mountainside itself. It is a great learning experience with one 
problem: it is condemned. And we don't have the money in the parks 
system to fund it, to fix it.
  This is one of those issues here. It is only $2 million for this 
trail. It is only a little more administrative responsibility and a 
little bit more land. But the problem we have is it comes from 
somewhere. It comes from these types of problems, these types of issues 
and determinations that need to be made.
  Even though it doesn't have to be offset by PAYGO rules, it has to be 
funded somewhere and that is going to come out from other needs that 
are in the Park Service that will continue to be minimized as we expand 
the assets that this government has and we expand the programs that the 
Parks Department actually has to run.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to rise in support of H.R. 
1528, the New England Scenic Trail Designation Act, which would 
designate portions of the Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett, or the MMM 
Trail System, as a national scenic trail.
  I commend Representative Olver for his leadership on this issue, and 
I thank him for bringing the entire region together to make this 
happen.
  This is a simple commitment to act as responsible stewards of our 
natural resources. We have an obligation to our communities and to 
generations that follow to preserve our Nation's scenic beauty, 
wildlife, and outdoor recreation.
  Now we have the opportunity to make good on that great promise, every 
step of the way along the 190-mile MMM trail system as it winds through 
39 communities in central Connecticut and Massachusetts.
  The trail route, which has been in existence for over half a century, 
hosts numerous scenic features and historic sites. But more than that, 
this unique trail passes through some of the most densely populated 
parts of the country, 2 million people live within 10 miles of the 
trail, and offers users exceptional recreational opportunity near urban 
areas.
  That is why this legislation is so critical. By protecting against 
increasing pressures from residential subdivision growth, national 
scenic trail designation will provide an opportunity for long-term 
viability.
  It will offer residents safe, healthy recreation options free of 
smog, congestion, and stress. In an age when we are constantly trying 
to combat sprawl in our communities, we need to recognize that these 
kinds of projects are a real investment in our communities and in 
community spirit alike. I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield to the 
sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Olver) such time as he may consume.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I am not quite sure how long my voice will 
hold out, so I will probably be fairly short.
  I just want to commend the chairman of the full committee, Chairman 
Rahall, and the chairman of the subcommittee, Chairman Grijalva, and 
thank them for all of their great work in bringing this bill to the 
floor.
  The New England Scenic Trail Designation Act is a product of almost a 
decade of cooperation between the Massachusetts delegation and the 
Connecticut delegation, and both delegations have changed over that 
period of time, the National Park Service, the Appalachian Mountain 
Club, the Connecticut Forest and Park Association and a lot of local 
communities and individuals.
  The bill designates major portions of an older, voluntary Metacomet-
Monadnock-Mattabesett trail system as a national scenic trail. Now, I 
have hiked every mile of the old voluntary system through 
Massachusetts; and while some segments are very well protected, other 
sections have suffered serious encroachment. National scenic trail 
designation will provide an opportunity for long-term preservation for 
future generations.
  Currently, the MMM trail system is administered by local nonprofit 
organizations: the Connecticut Forest and Park Association in 
Connecticut and the Appalachian Mountain Club through its Berkshire 
Chapter in Massachusetts. The Connecticut Forest and Park Association 
in fact is a private nonprofit organization which contracts with the 
State of Connecticut to run the trail systems in all of their public 
parks, so it is a very reputable organization which has been there for 
a long time and has a huge number of volunteers who work on it, and it 
works closely with the State of Connecticut. I want to recognize and 
thank the many volunteers and staff of these organizations who have 
worked diligently to help develop this initiative. Because of their 
effort, every Member through whose district this trail system passes 
supports this legislation.
  In the case of Massachusetts, the Appalachian Mountain Club has over 
time been sort of a sponsor for the trail within Massachusetts, the old 
voluntary trail, not only this trail but other trails within 
Massachusetts. In Massachusetts, the land passes through at least four 
substantial State parks or State forests so that much of the land is 
already publicly owned by the State of Massachusetts, but there are 
connections between those publicly owned pieces of land and there are 
visitor centers and park facilities and so on at a rather convenient 
distance for hiking purposes, for day hikes or overnight camp-type 
hikes along the way.
  Now, I understand that some Members have expressed concerns that this 
bill will infringe upon landowner rights and allow the National Park 
Service to seize lands through eminent domain. Well, the Federal 
Government does not own any land anywhere in the area that the trail is 
intended to go, following the old voluntary trail, and then some 
additional territory that has to be worked out by the Connecticut 
Forest and Parks Association in order to reach the Long Island Sound. 
There is no expectation of there being any Federal land there. It was 
never intended there would be federally owned land. Whatever protection 
of the land would be held by the Park Association or on behalf of the 
State of Connecticut. And in Massachusetts, the same thing is basically 
true.
  No one wants to establish Federal ownership of a corridor. In 
recognition of that, in the legislation we added the language: ``The 
United States shall not acquire for the trail any land or interest in 
land without the consent of the owner.''
  Yet the argument keeps coming back that that doesn't protect people. 
Well, maybe the language of the motion to recommit will satisfy that. I 
think it is completely redundant with what is already there and 
certainly in total keeping with the intent not to have any Federal 
ownership of land in that area.
  The blueprint for the management of the trail specifically states 
that all existing landowner uses and rights, including hunting, 
fishing, timber management and other recreational activities, will 
continue to be at the discretion of the landowners.

[[Page H529]]

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

                [From the Boston Globe, March 25, 2007]

                      From Monadnock to the Sound

       Home to some of the most spectacular sections of the 
     Appalachian Trail, New England could gain a new interstate 
     hiking trail that is closer to the region's population 
     centers. U.S. Representative John Olver of Amherst filed a 
     bill this month to create a New England National Scenic Trail 
     that could one day stretch from Mount Monadnock in New 
     Hampshire to the Long Island Sound at Guilford, CT.
       For 190 miles of the 220-mile distance, the trail would 
     roughly follow the route through the Connecticut River Valley 
     of the existing Monadnock, Metacomet, and Mattabesett trail 
     system in Massachusetts and Connecticut. The principal 
     addition would be a 14-mile spur from the southern end of the 
     Mattabesett in Connecticut to the shoreline in Guilford.
       The state of New Hampshire chose not to join Connecticut, 
     Massachusetts, and the U.S. Department of the Interior in the 
     feasibility study for the new trail, but Olver's bill would 
     encourage Interior to work with New Hampshire and private and 
     public organizations in that state to include the stretch 
     from Royalton, Mass., to Monadnock's 3,165-foot summit in the 
     national scenic trail. Nationwide, there are already eight 
     such trails, including the Appalachian and the Pacific Crest.
       Within 10 miles of the new trail live 2 million people. 
     Many already use--and do maintenance work on--the existing 
     stretches. At a time when young people, in particular, need 
     more recreational opportunities to ward off the health 
     problems of obesity, the national scenic trail designation 
     should increase the path's popularity. It should also help 
     protect it from development pressures. Much of the trail is 
     on state forest or park lands near the river valley's farms, 
     forests, tobacco barns, and towns.
       Monadnock itself has 40 miles of maintained foot trails and 
     is considered to be the second-most-frequently hiked summit 
     in the world, after Japan's Mount Fuji. Three of the 
     Massachusetts peaks on the new trail include Mount Grace, 
     Mount Holyoke, and Mount Tom. The new trail includes a wide 
     range of natural habitats and is close to more than 50 
     registered village historic districts. Hikers could pass over 
     volcanic, sedimentary, and glacial rock and observe fossils 
     and dinosaur footprints.
       The goal of planners is that the scenic trail will have a 
     single trail blazing system, but with few through hikers, 
     since overnight camping would be permitted in only a limited 
     number of locations. Of course, decades ago planners of the 
     Appalachian Trail did not envision through hikers for its 
     2,175-mile length, either. Congress should designate the path 
     as a new national scenic trail and let the walking public 
     decide how best to use it.
                                  ____

         The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Executive Office of 
           Energy and Environmental Affairs,
                                     Boston, MA, January 28, 2008.
     Hon. Raul Grijalva,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Natural Parks, Forests, and Public 
         Lands, Committee on Natural Resources, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Rob Bishop
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Natural Parks, Forests, and 
         Public Lands, Committee on Natural Resources, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Chairman Grijalva and Ranking Member Bishop: On behalf 
     of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, I write to ask for your 
     support of H.R. 1528, the New England Scenic Trail 
     Designation Act, which would designate the Metacomet 
     Monadnock Mattabesett (MMM) Trail System as a National Scenic 
     Trail.
       Under H.R. 1528, the newly established New England National 
     Scenic Trail would extend approximately 220 miles, from 
     northern Massachusetts through Connecticut, incorporating 
     most of the MMM Trail System and hosting an array of classic 
     New England scenic landscapes and historic sites. In 
     Massachusetts, the MMM Trail is one of our most significant 
     and threatened long-distance trails and greenways, linking 
     and connecting vital state parks and other public lands and 
     landscapes.''
       By designating the MMM Trail System a National Scenic 
     Trail, the National Park Service would provide important 
     leadership and support to the public and private landowners 
     who host the trail and the dedicated volunteers who sustain 
     it. Importantly, the bill represents the culmination of years 
     of outreach and discussion with local landowners and other 
     interested parties, with all owners afforded the opportunity 
     to have the trail rerouted at their request.
       In designating the MMM Trail a National Scenic Trail, 
     Congress would be providing a significant boost to local 
     efforts to further the trail's long-term viability, and a 
     great service to the hundreds taking advantage of this 
     wonderful resource. I urge your support for this important 
     effort.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Ian Bowles.

                              {time}  1730

  It's my hope that H.R. 1528 will establish permanent protection for 
this unique and majestic land and ensure that future generations will 
be able to enjoy a great national treasure.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. 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. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise candidly as the only Republican in 
all of New England to support H.R. 1528, the New England Scenic Trail 
Designation Act, and thank Congressman Olver for bringing this 
legislation to the floor.
  H.R. 1528 would designate portions of the existing Metacomet-
Monadnock-Mattabesett Trail System for a national and scenic trail. For 
over 50 years the States of Massachusetts and my home State of 
Connecticut have partnered with the Appalachian Mountain Club and the 
Connecticut Forest and Park Association to manage these beautiful 
trails and footpaths. Volunteers and private landowners have enjoyed 
these lands and maintained them. This legislation would not change that 
relationship.
  This bill also protects private landowners by prohibiting the 
National Park Service from taking any land by eminent domain. The park 
service has no authority on local zoning issues that might affect 
national scenic trails.
  H.R. 1528 provides the resources and knowledge of the National Park 
Service and the National Scenic Trail System for the long-term upkeep 
of this important trail and extends Federal recognition to trails that 
have existed for over half a century.
  My colleagues in the West often criticize those of us from the East 
for wanting to increase public lands at the expense of private 
ownership. This does not do that.
  In Connecticut, more than 2 million people live within 10 miles of 
the trail system. Among the pressures of industrialization that we see 
in the East, H.R. 1528 is an opportunity to protect this precious 
resource for future generations and protect it for all of those in this 
country, not just those nearby.
  I ask my colleagues to support protection of this regional treasure, 
and I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 1528.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).
  (Mr. LARSON of Connecticut asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Arizona for his leadership, and I rise in strong support of this 
legislation.
  But I especially want to commend Congressman Olver for his dedication 
and hard work. I think most people in this Chamber recognize John Olver 
as somewhat of an academician and someone who certainly knows the 
workings of the Appropriations Committee, but few probably know that 
he's an avid hiker. And next to Henry David Thoreau, from 
Massachusetts, probably is as close and akin to nature as anyone in the 
United States Congress. And so this is something that he has worked on 
a long period of time, at least since I've been in the United States 
Congress, and I want to commend him for his hard work, and especially 
commend Chris Murphy from Connecticut as well for his work in this 
district.
  I'm proud to say that this trail runs all the way through from 
Massachusetts to the Sound, and the Governor of the State of 
Connecticut has fully endorsed this matter, and it impacts the 
communities in my district of East Granby, Bloomfield, West Hartford, 
Southington, Berlin, Middleton. More than 2 million people, as you've 
heard other members come to the floor and enumerate, are going to be 
fortunate enough to share the values that we derive from going out and 
hiking and

[[Page H530]]

being able to be part of this unbelievable MMM Trail that will be 
provided for our constituents and citizens. So I stand in strong 
support of this bill and thank Mr. Olver again, and again, kudos to 
Chris Murphy for his hard work making sure that this came to the floor.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. 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. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, it's a good piece of legislation, well 
crafted, well worked. Many of the doomsday scenarios we've heard about 
condemnation have no relationship to this legislation. I would urge its 
adoption.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
1528, introduced by our friend and colleague, Representative John 
Olver. 
  This is a straightforward bill which would enhance the protection and 
interpretation of a network of trails that have been in existence for 
more than 50 years. This trail system is extremely popular and is 
managed and maintained by an enthusiastic army of volunteers.
  The route that would be added to the National Trails System carries 
hikers through the heart of Massachusetts and Connecticut, past scenic 
vistas, unique geological formations, dinosaur footprints, and rare 
plants and animals. The trail provides recreation and relaxation for 
visitors from near and far, and valued open space for the many 
communities along the way.
  H.R. 1528 has strong, bipartisan support and is important not only to 
the people of Massachusetts and Connecticut but also to visitors from 
around the world wishing to experience the beauty of New England on 
foot.
  Given the popularity of the existing trail and the support for a 
federal designation, it is surprising that anyone would oppose H.R. 
1528. In our view, such opposition is based on a misunderstanding of 
this legislation.
  In the first place, the bill is based on a National Park Service 
study that found no need--let me repeat--no need, for direct Federal 
trail ownership or direct Federal trail management. The trail will be 
managed by state and local groups under cooperative agreements with the 
National Park Service.
  Further, the bill itself expressly states, and I quote: ``The United 
States shall not acquire for the trail any land or interest in land 
without the consent of the owner.''
  It is perfectly clear that this bill does not threaten property 
rights. In fact, the trails groups who have managed this trail network 
for half a century or more have gone out of their way to avoid those 
conflicts. There is no Federal land involved, and no Federal 
acquisition anticipated.
  I strongly support this bill, and I want to take this opportunity to 
thank the bill's sponsor, Representative Olver, for his hard work on 
the legislation, as well as his nine cosponsors from Connecticut and 
Massachusetts.
  In the end, this is about providing Federal recognition and support 
to local, non-profit, volunteer organizations who want nothing more 
than to help people take an enjoyable walk through the woods. I urge my 
colleagues to support H.R. 1528.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
1528, the New England National Scenic Trail Designation Act. This 
important legislation would amend the National Trails System Act of 
1968 to designate a 220- mile long National Scenic Trail through 
Massachusetts and Connecticut. Designation as a National Scenic Trail 
will allow this important regional trail system to be supported, 
maintained, and protected at the highest possible level.
  The bulk of this new trail would be comprised of the existing 
Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett trail system--a 190-mile trail route 
through 39 communities in Massachusetts and Connecticut. This important 
regional recreation system has been in existence for more than fifty 
years and winds its way from the border of Massachusetts and New 
Hampshire through western Massachusetts and into Connecticut.
  Designating this trail system as a National Scenic Trail will ensure 
that future generations of New Englanders will be able to fully enjoy 
the tremendous beauty of these trails and take advantage of their many 
recreational opportunities. Right now, more than 2 million people live 
within 10 miles of the Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett trail system. As 
a result, this designation will not only allow millions of people to 
have access to the trail system but also ensure that it will be 
properly preserved from the threats and pressures of development and 
encroachment.
  H.R. 1528 requires that the Secretary of the Interior administer the 
trail consistent with the recommendations of the National Scenic Trail 
Feasibility Study and Environmental Assessment that was conducted by 
the Department of the Interior. The legislation also ensures that no 
land can be incorporated into the trail system without the consent of 
the landowner, and I am pleased that the Administration has testified 
in support of this important legislation.

[[Page H531]]

  This National Scenic Trail designation would provide for increased 
cooperation between communities, citizens and the Department of 
Interior to conserve these special routes and expand the recreational 
opportunities of this New England treasure. I urge passage of the bill.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, as a cosponsor of the New 
England Scenic Trail Designation Act, I rise in strong support of this 
very important bill.
  Connecticut is proud to be home to part of the Metacomet-Monadnock-
Mattabesett Trail System, a beautiful nature trail that runs 190 miles 
from Massachusetts through Connecticut to the Long Island Sound. First 
established in 1931, the 700-mile long Blue-Blazed trail network in 
Connecticut join the Metacomet-Monadnock trail system in Massachusetts, 
a trail laid in the late 1950s. The trail is a vital part of the 
natural beauty and recreational activity of the First Congressional 
District of Connecticut, as well as the other parts of the state and 
neighboring Massachusetts. This distinctive trail passes through one of 
the most densely populated parts of the country--2 million people live 
within 10 miles of the trail.
  In 2001, the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection 
designated the Metacomet Ridge System--part of the trail system--as an 
official state greenway. The ridge system contains a ``spine'' of 
traprock ridges, providing a habitat for various types of plants and 
animals. These living things that call the ridge home and add to its 
beauty are not protected from residential development pressures, and 
while seventeen towns in Connecticut have signed a compact to work 
towards protecting the ridge system the trail merits Federal 
protection.
  In December of 2002, the President signed the Metacomet-Monadnock-
Mattabesett Trail Study Act into law, which directed the National Park 
Service to study the trail to determine if the Metacomet-Monadnock-
Mattabesett Trail should be included in the National Trail System. In 
April of 2006, the study recommended its inclusion. This legislation 
before us today urges the implementation of the study's 
recommendations, while protecting land owners. The bill protects the 
trail system against encroachment by residential growth, but prohibits 
the government from seizing private land through eminent domain.
  Mr. Chairman, designation of the New England Scenic Trail would be an 
important step towards preserving the 190-mile long trail and its 
natural and recreational value for years to come. I urge my colleagues 
to join me in ensuring the environmental preservation of the Metacomet-
Monadnock-Mattabesett Trail by supporting the underlying bill.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the 
purpose of the amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be 
considered read.
  The text of the committee amendment is as follows:

                               H.R. 1528

       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 ``New England National Scenic 
     Trail Designation Act''.

     SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION.

       Section 5(a) of the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1244(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(__) New england national scenic trail.--The New England 
     National Scenic Trail, a continuous trail extending 
     approximately 220 miles from the border of New Hampshire in 
     the town of Royalston, Massachusetts to Long Island Sound in 
     the town of Guilford, Connecticut, as generally depicted on 
     the map titled `New England National Scenic Trail Proposed 
     Route', numbered T06-80,000, and dated October 2007. The map 
     shall be on file and available for public inspection in the 
     appropriate offices of the National Park Service. The 
     Secretary of the Interior, in cooperation with Federal, 
     State, tribal, regional, and local agencies, the Appalachian 
     Mountain Club, the Connecticut Forest and Park Association, 
     and other organizations, shall administer the trail 
     consistent with the recommendations of the draft report 
     titled the `Metacomet Monadnock Mattabesset Trail System 
     National Scenic Trail Feasibility Study and Environmental 
     Assessment', prepared by the National Park Service, and dated 
     Spring 2006. The United States shall not acquire for the 
     trail any land or interest in land without the consent of the 
     owner.''.

     SEC. 3. MANAGEMENT.

       The Secretary of the Interior (hereafter in this Act 
     referred to as the ``Secretary'') shall use the Trail 
     Management Blueprint described in the draft report titled the 
     ``Metacomet Monadnock Mattabesett Trail System National 
     Scenic Trail Feasibility Study and Environmental 
     Assessment'', prepared by the National Park Service, and 
     dated Spring 2006, as the framework for management and 
     administration of the New England National Scenic Trail. 
     Additional or more detailed plans for administration, 
     management, protection, access, maintenance, or development 
     of the trail may be developed consistent with the Trail 
     Management Blueprint, and as approved by the Secretary.

     SEC. 4. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.

       The Secretary is authorized to enter into cooperative 
     agreements with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (and its 
     political subdivisions), the State of Connecticut (and its 
     political subdivisions), the Appalachian Mountain Club, the 
     Connecticut Forest and Park Association, and other regional, 
     local, and private organizations deemed necessary and 
     desirable to accomplish cooperative trail administrative, 
     management, and protection objectives consistent with the 
     Trail Management Blueprint. An agreement under this section 
     may include provisions for limited financial assistance to 
     encourage participation in the planning, acquisition, 
     protection, operation, development, or maintenance of the 
     trail.

     SEC. 5. ADDITIONAL TRAIL SEGMENTS.

       Pursuant to section 6 of the National Trails System Act, 
     the Secretary is encouraged to work with the State of New 
     Hampshire and appropriate local and private organizations to 
     include that portion of the Metacomet-Monadnock Trail in New 
     Hampshire (which lies between Royalston, Massachusetts and 
     Jaffrey, New Hampshire) as a component of the New England 
     National Scenic Trail. Inclusion of this segment, as well as 
     other potential side or connecting trails, is contingent upon 
     written application to the Secretary by appropriate State and 
     local jurisdictions and a finding by the Secretary that trail 
     management and administration is consistent with the Trail 
     Management Blueprint.

  The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the committee amendment is in order 
except those printed in House Report 110-519. Each amendment may be 
offered only in the order printed in the report; by a Member designated 
in the report; shall be considered read; shall be debatable for the 
time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent of the amendment; shall not be subject to an 
amendment; and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
question.


             Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Bishop of Utah

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed 
in House Report 110-519.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Bishop of Utah:
       At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

     SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act shall be effective on the date that the Secretary 
     issues a final National Scenic Trail Feasibility Study and 
     Environmental Assessment for the New England National Scenic 
     Trail.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 940, the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Bishop) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. 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. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, this draft report that I'm holding is 
entitled The National Scenic Trail Feasibility Study and Environmental 
Assessment.
  Like many products of the Federal Government, it's lengthy and 
complicated. But let's be perfectly clear. We're not waiting for a 
separate environmental assessment. It's all done and it's all in here.

[[Page H532]]

  Even though it's labeled a draft report, the National Park Service 
doesn't do drafts like a high school assignment does drafts. This is a 
75-page bound document, eight full color fold-out maps. It draws on 
more than 90 sources, from books on dinosaur footprints to books on the 
pioneers who first set foot on those trails, from scholarly histories 
of the ancient Earth to histories of the small communities along the 
trail. This study is done.
  In reality, the process of changing the study from a draft into a 
final report is a bureaucratic one; it is not a substantive one, which 
makes this amendment dilatory, at best, and not a substantive one.
  The draft study was completed in August of 2006. It has been under 
review at the Department of the Interior for 17 months. The National 
Park Service tells us that it needs approximately one dozen signatures 
from various Interior officials in order to be considered final. That's 
all we're waiting for.
  In effect, therefore, the amendment could have us abdicate our 
authority and responsibility to designate trails and pass that 
authority over to the Secretary, so that whenever he and the various 
Deputy Assistant Secretaries at Interior get around to signing off on 
the study, then the trail would be designated. Such an abdication would 
not lead to a better study; it would just lead to delay.
  It might be different, Mr. Chairman, if my good friend from Utah 
could point out something that is lacking in this study, if he wanted 
to wait because he felt the analysis of the affected environment on 
pages 61 and 62 were not entirely complete, or if he was contending 
that the book The Indian Tribes of North America by John R. Swanton and 
the Smithsonian Institution Press should not have been relied on in 
this study.
  That is not the case, Mr. Chairman. The work of the study is done. 
The administration came before the National Parks, Forest and Public 
Lands Subcommittee in May and testified they do not anticipate any 
substantive changes to this document and that they support the 
designation.
  Congress has, in this study, more than sufficient documentation to 
establish this trail. There is no reason to delay this designation. 
Only if you simply oppose the trail, then that would be the reason for 
delay.
  Mr. Chairman, it's not the role of the Secretary of the Interior to 
designate trail. It's the role of this Congress, and we should get on 
with it. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
  The amendment was rejected.


             Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Bishop of Utah

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed 
in House Report 110-519.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Bishop of Utah:
       Page 3, line 6, insert ``(a) In General.--'' before ``The 
     Secretary''.
       Page 3, after line 17, insert the following:
       (b) Application of Certain State and Local Laws.--
     Notwithstanding subsection (a), all designated and future 
     designated lands within the New England National Scenic 
     Trail, including all Federal lands, shall be exclusively 
     governed by relevant State and local laws regarding hunting, 
     fishing, and the possession or use of a weapon (including 
     concealed weapons), trap, or net.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 940, the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Bishop) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. 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. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that this amendment is 
completely unnecessary. The trail crosses State land that is State-
owned, local, and the property of willing private landowners. That's 
all. State and local hunting and fishing laws clearly govern all of 
these lands.
  What's more, this amendment refers to ``all designated and future 
designated land within the New England National Scenic Trail, including 
all Federal lands.''
  Mr. Chairman, once again, there are no Federal lands involved here.
  So in addition to being unnecessary, the amendment is drafted and 
applies to land that does not exist.
  Secondly, we are perplexed as to why we would single out State and 
local laws on hunting and fishing and the possession or use of a 
weapon, trap, or net. Why would we state that these laws, which, as I 
have already said, obviously apply to the lands along the trail, why 
would we state that these laws apply but not mention other equally 
applicable State and local laws.

[[Page H533]]

  The amendment could legitimately cause someone to wonder, because we 
mention only these activities, are other State and local laws somehow 
rendered inactive by this bill?
  A Federal trail designation does not preempt State and local laws. 
But this amendment might make some believe that it does.
  This amendment is not intended to solve what I believe is a real 
problem. It's, rather, an attempt to inject a made-up issue into a 
simple, straightforward trail designation. In the end, this amendment 
really only confuses the issue.
  Having said that, however, if the language makes Mr. Bishop 
comfortable enough to support this legislation, we are willing to 
consider it. We do not believe that it is needed or really even 
helpful. It will burden the bill, despite its redundancy, only 
slightly; and in the spirit of bipartisanship, we accept Mr. Bishop's 
language.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Ms. 
Loretta Sanchez) having assumed the chair, Mr. Lynch, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1528) to 
amend the National Trails System Act to designate the New England 
National Scenic Trail, and for other purposes, pursuant to House 
Resolution 940, he reported the bill back to the House with an 
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment 
reported from the Committee of the Whole? If not, the question is on 
the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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.


            Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Bishop of Utah

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Unfortunately, without this, yes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Bishop of Utah moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1528 to 
     the Committee on Natural Resources with instructions to 
     report the same back to the House forthwith with the 
     following amendment:
       Page 3, line 4, strike ``owner.'' and insert ``owner. The 
     Secretary may not use eminent domain to acquire land for the 
     trail and may not accept any land that was acquired through 
     the use of eminent domain for inclusion in the trail.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. 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.

                              {time}  1800

  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.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 
5 minutes.

[[Page H534]]

  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, we accepted a motion on hunting and 
fishing that was consistent with State laws because that seemed to be 
the most pressing issue in the discussion and debate over this 
legislation. Now we have a motion to recommit that tries to solve a 
problem already dealt with which is easily and simply dealt with with 
the underlying legislation.
  The bill specifically prohibits condemnation, so there is no 
legitimate concern regarding private property rights. There is no 
legitimate reason to say the same thing over and over again. But now 
we're in a whole other realm. We're in a conspiracy theory, Federal 
bogeyman kind of discussion where proponents of the bill say, Well, 
sure, you have stopped Federal condemnation, but what about our 
doomsday scenario where the Feds and a State or a locality team up in 
some secret plan to have the State condemn the land and then give it to 
the Feds. We better stop that scenario as well.
  The point of the matter is that this motion is about usurping local 
control and, indeed, giving it to the Federal Government. I want to say 
enough is enough. At what point have we gone far enough to deal with 
any legitimate problem?
  Supporters of this amendment and the motion see condemnation under 
every rock and around every corner, and there could never be enough 
language in this bill or any other bill to satisfy them.
  Even worse, proponents of this language know full well that neither 
this motion nor anything else we do here in Congress can stop States 
from exercising their condemnation authority. Here we have a motion 
that is both completely unnecessary and completely ineffective. There 
is no condemnation under this bill. Proponents of this motion need to 
move on.
  I urge defeat of the motion to recommit.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Olver).
  Mr. OLVER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I guess I thought that the problem was that the devil was the Federal 
Government here and that we wanted to make certain that there was no 
way for them to issue eminent domain, and the language of this bill, in 
relation to this trail, is quite clear on that point. In fact, it would 
appear that now we're trying to solve a problem which isn't there, 
which just is an order of magnitude somewhere farther away in concept, 
that somehow the local communities or the State is going to issue 
eminent domain and then pass the land to the Federal Government in some 
sort of manner. That really surprises me as there is nothing in the 
intent of this anywhere along the way to do such a thing.
  I think we have solved the problem as much as it needs to be solved 
with the language which is in the bill, that there can be no Federal 
acquisition of land here. Nobody wants Federal acquisition of land. 
There might well be community acquisition of a corridor somewhere along 
the way over time, but there is to be no Federal ownership of any of 
that land.
  I hope the matter will be opposed and we will not adopt this 
amendment. This is finding a solution where there is no problem.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the motion to 
recommit.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes 
the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 183, 
nays 205, not voting 42, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 27]

                               YEAS--183

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Arcuri
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carney
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Dent
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Gene
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Latham
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--205

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hare
     Harman
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--42

     Andrews
     Baker
     Berry
     Boucher
     Calvert
     Carter
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doyle
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Filner
     Fortenberry
     Gilchrest
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Jones (OH)

[[Page H535]]


     Keller
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     Marchant
     McCollum (MN)
     McCrery
     Miller, Gary
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Saxton
     Simpson
     Slaughter
     Tiberi
     Udall (CO)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (NM)
     Wynn

                              {time}  1829

  Ms. HOOLEY, Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin, and Messrs. JACKSON of Illinois, 
MICHAUD, MAHONEY of Florida, BRALEY of Iowa, KENNEDY, MEEK of Florida, 
CARDOZA and OBERSTAR changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. MILLER of Florida, MORAN of Kansas, ALTMIRE and WALSH of New 
York changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 27, I was away due to a 
family emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 27, had I been present, 
I would have voted ``nay.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 261, 
noes 122, not voting 47, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 28]

                               AYES--261

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Buchanan
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castle
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rogers (MI)
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--122

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Emerson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Issa
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (NE)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Thornberry
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--47

     Andrews
     Baker
     Berry
     Boyda (KS)
     Calvert
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doyle
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Filner
     Fortenberry
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Jones (OH)
     Keller
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     Marchant
     McCollum (MN)
     McCrery
     Miller, Gary
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rodriguez
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Saxton
     Sestak
     Simpson
     Tiberi
     Udall (CO)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (NM)
     Wynn

                              {time}  1837

  Mr. RAMSTAD changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
   Stated for:
  Mr. FILNER. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 28, I was away due to a 
family emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Madam Speaker, because I was unavoidably detained, I 
was unable to cast a vote on rollcall 28. Had I been present, I would 
have voted ``aye'' on Final Passage of H.R. 1528.

                          ____________________