Rob Bishop

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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. 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.

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. We have proposed several amendments which in all sincerity if adopted would make us happy with this bill, and we could support it in every sense of the word. One of the issues deals with the concept of hunting and gun rights. Long in the 75-year-plus history of this trail, there has been a cooperative effort to make sure that those rights were not infringed and that local ordinance and local concerns would be the dominant factor. We want to make sure that that is very clear in this bill. It is the intent of the sponsor, but we insist that the verbiage has to be specific to make sure that that is never put into any question or doubt by some future Congress, some future regulator, some future judge. We will have an amendment also to be presented to do exactly that, to make sure that it is very clear that is our intent, that local law will take precedence. We have said before that we are concerned about a potential eminent domain loophole within this bill. We are concerned about that, and at some time we will want to address that as we go through with this particular debate. April 14, 2007. Re H.R. 1528. Chairman Nick Rahall, Ranking Member Don Young, House Committee on Natural Resources. Chairmen Rahall and Ranking Member Young: My name is Katherine (Kitty) Breen and I am writing to testify in opposition to H.R. 1528, the New England Trail Bill. My family owned Saddleback Mountain and Ski Area in Rangeley Maine. The Appalachian Trail traversed over Saddleback Mountain and bisected the mountain's ski terrain. The negotiation between my family and the NPS over what could have been a simple land donation exceeded 20 years and had a serious, long-term detrimental affect on my family, the ski area and the surrounding community. Eventually, after millions of dollars lost, countless hours of time from our highest ranking state and federal public officials, strained professional careers of an entire ``at risk'' community, and negative health and financial repercussions for my family members, the Saddleback Issue was resolved. For now. I speak to you as someone who has been NPS classified as a ``willing'' seller. In reality, we were bullied, pressured, intimidated, threatened, ignored, played with and forced. In the end, we escaped, we are still alive, financially solvent, and able to be grateful to those who helped us. Most land owners who deal with the NPS administrators are not as fortunate. For this reason, I feel a moral responsibility to speak out. I have previously submitted testimony on July 26, 2005 describing many of the legal details and strategies devised by the NPS to take more land than was legally allowed or intended by Congress. Let me just say here, that during the entire 23-year conflict, which began in 1978 and ended in 2001, my family was acting honorably and in good faith, trying to donate the required land to secure a permanent passageway for the Appalachian Trail. Many offers were put in writing, countless face to face negotiations were held (many which were observed or even facilitated by Senators Snowe and Collins and their staff), thousands of citizens wrote letters and a unanimous resolution passed by the state Senate urged acceptance of our donation offers. And yet, inexplicably, the NPS not only refused to accept or seriously consider our offers but in an increasingly intimidating manner, proceeded to bully and emotionally threaten us for more. I am opposed to this Bill because in our experience, the authority you think you are granting the NPS, will not be what they will implement. They will find ways to interpret that authority in ways unforseen by Congress, to achieve goals Congress may even be explicitly forbidding. In our specific case, even when we were able to point out inconsistent and incorrect intrepretations of power, even when a sitting U.S. Senator commanded them to behave, it became clear that no one had the oversight or authority to stop them. Based on our experience and those of others with whom we have spoken along the Trail, they can and will interpret this bill and its authority inappropriately to bully landowners. I am writing this letter because we are not typical landowners. On reflection, we were fortunate to have a constellation of resources, political capital, expertise, moral determination and luck that others would not be likely to have. My family had another business which financed us. Our long-standing relationship with a community which supported us and wanted us to succeed enabled us to undertake a grass roots campaign involving thousands of supporters. We were lucky that all of the Maine Congressional Delegation were honest, hardworking, reputable public servants who would listen to us, provide neutral environments conducive to resolution, observe injustices, and ultimately take action that achieved resolution. Ultimately, our problem was resolved by Secretary Babbitt himself, who worked with ex- Senator Mitchell and Senators Snowe and Collins and Congressmen Baldacci and Allen. Our case was resolved on the day Clinton left office. In sum, we had not only luck, but tremendous resources and political pressure on our side. We cannot imagine any other single land owner having the financial resources, determination, intellectual capacity, political capital or emotional/physical health to fight the NPS administrators who use unjust tactics to achieve unintended program goals. Following are a few examples of what we consider unjust tactics: we experienced repeated attacks on our integrity, often by radio in our home town. My family has a deep and broad commitment to public service, so these attacks hurt. While our longstanding reputation protected us from these attacks, it was nonetheless hurtful and continues to be so. Nothing has been unaffected: my career, my husband's career, my family's reputation. They also conducted biased ``scientific'' studies and publicly vilified us regarding financial viability in order to justify our existence. With limited resources, we were placed in a position where we had to defend ourselves and refute their studies instead of being able to spend what time and resources we did have growing the business. We were shut out from public opportunities to set the record straight despite requests from a sitting U.S. Senator to allow us to do so. The negative campaign conducted trashing Saddleback's business viability continued to have repercussions long after the settlement. When my father retired, it was very hard for us to convince future owners of the mountain's viability. There were stacks of inaccurate NPS studies showing otherwise and we had to disprove everything. Additionally, despite verbal agreements that the NPS would not come back for more land once we had left, the NPS refused to put such a statement in writing. In our experience, the NPS uses the Appalachian Trail Conference (ATC) to do the work they are legally prevented from doing. The two work in inappropriate partnership in this regard. In all negotiation sessions, the ATC presented scenarios on behalf of the NPS, and were presented to us as representing the NPS. But agreements forged with the ATC were then retracted by the NPS. In this way they were able to squeeze more concessions out of us. Showing up to negotiation sessions with no decision making authority was another common tactic and any level playing field requirements we requested were turned against us. For example, they refused to negotiate at all if we required transcripts of the negotiations and agreed upon outcomes. And after refusing multiple invitations for negotiation during the nine months of my pregnancy, they sent a letter to my office a week after my son was born threatening eminent domain if I didn't meet to negotiate immediately. Only a few weeks later a Maine newspaper headline screamed that negotiations were off due to my baby's ``colic''. You can imagine how a first time mother who had left her chosen career and worked tirelessly in good faith throughout her pregnancy would feel. Today, six years after resolution, we are still recovering from the personal toll the conflict took on us. I am just now starting to feel like the anger I developed as a result of the Saddleback/NPS experience is starting to leave me, and that I can begin to talk about it without negative repercussions. Even so, I try not to talk about it or think about it and I work to shield my 76 year old father from it. My husband and I are grateful the sense of betrayal and anger has finally left our house. The general public does not want to believe that NPS administrators are the bullies they have shown themselves to be. But they are and as our elected officials you need to know that. Based on conversations with other land owners, I believe that a majority of land owners who have had to negotiate with the NPS have similarly devastating experiences to share. It is hard to come forward. We still have land at Saddleback, and fear that they will retaliate. Other people will feel the same way. It is not in my family's best interest to write this letter, I did not want to write this letter, but I feel a moral responsibility to my country to do so. My family and the Western Region of Maine had the benefit of an amazing constellation of resources and good luck. I can not imagine such luck striking twice or that most land owners would be able to withstand the indecent tactics employed by the current NPS administration. Nor can I envision a way that you can regulate against them once you have empowered them. While I can support the creation of a multistate trail system, I cannot in any way support NPS or ATC involvement in such a cause. Please create the Trails under the State regulators and under the guidance of state citizens with access to State Government. Please join me in opposing NE trail Bill H.R. 1528. Thank you, Kitty Breen, Former Executive Vice President and Chief Negotiator for Saddleback Mountain.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Unfortunately, without this, yes.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

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. 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. 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. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity in being here and talking on this particular bill. This is a day when we have dealt with some emergency measures in a very bipartisan way. I don't know if this is classified as an emergency measure, but it can be a bipartisan approach, too, depending on how we go from here on out. I am grateful to the Rules Committee for taking my six amendments and approving two for the floor. This is a .333 batting average. It's enough to get me in the Hall of Fame. I'm at least above the Mendoza line, and I appreciate your doing that for me. However, there are some amendments that really are bad amendments aimed at trying to scuttle a bill, aimed at putting shackles on the runner to prohibit him or her from getting to the finish line. The amendments that were proposed by Representative Flake and myself are not aimed to do that. They are aimed to take a bill and to improve a bill so they can be approved in a bipartisan way and take a bill and make it even better. Let me assume that I can just talk for a moment on a couple of amendments that were not made in order. This trail covers the States of Massachusetts and Connecticut, but in reality the trail goes to New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut. Only two of those States are proposed in this particular bill and then a process allowed for New Hampshire to join later on. One of the amendments simply said, why don't you make the same process for all three States? It's not an effort to slow anything down. It's an effort to try to be rational in the approach to take place. I thought it was a significant and simple and straightforward amendment. One of the things we always talk about is how important it is to have informed citizens and an informed citizenry. We had, for this particular bill, one specific property owner who did not wish her property to be included in the bill. At great expense to her, with a great deal of study and effort coming to Washington to lobby us, she was allowed by the committee to be exempt from this trail boundary line. I appreciate the committee's doing it. It was appropriate to do so. It's very positive on the part of the Natural Resources Committee to do so. But the question that should be brought to mind is, was she an isolated situation, or was she indicative of a greater problem? Indeed, if you look at the record of the testimony, there are at least 40 other people that have the same question, the same concerns, the same approach. And so what we wanted to do is to make sure in one of our amendments that citizens were allowed to be notified that they would be now included in what before had been a voluntary trail system now into a federally mandated and regulated trail system. And this is not an onerous task. We were told in committee that both the organizations that are currently managing this, as well as States, had a database of all the property owners in both Massachusetts and Connecticut, and they are already being mailed yearly. What would be the problem in including another paragraph in the yearly mailing saying, this is about to happen to you and if you don't like it, this is the process you can use to exempt yourself, or, even better, if you do want to be part of it, this is the process you could use to include yourself and your property? Once again, that's not to stop the bill. It's simply a matter of making sure that everyone is clearly informed of what is about to take place, because in the history of trails, in the history of land issues in these United States, that has not always been the case, that every individual is informed of what is happening to him before it takes place. I don't think, once again, that was an onerous request. It was unfortunate. I think it simply indicates that we should value the individual in our legislation, that we should say if even one person is going to be adversely affected and does not wish to be adversely affected, his home, his farm, his property should be held inviolate, and we should respect that. And that was the purpose of one amendment that was ruled out of order by the Rules Committee. Once again, I don't think it would have negatively harmed the bill. In fact, I think it would have moved the bill forward in a bipartisan manner. We will talk a great deal about the concept of takings. No one who has talked about this bill wants takings to take place, wants property taken from an individual. We have heard that before. And yet in the attempt on the committee staff's part to protect individuals, there is a loophole. There is a huge loophole that will result in contradictions coming into the future. Those are some of the things we tried to put in order. And simply if you had taken that loophole out of the system and done what everyone says they want to do, we would have had a bill that all of us on this side of the aisle could have stood up and said, yes, this is a bill that we all had our input on and we are all prepared to move forward on the bill. It could have moved forward in the same bipartisan manner, hopefully even a bigger bipartisan manner, than the other two emergency pieces of legislation we handled today, as well as the LSU resolution, which we also did in a bipartisan way, except for the people from Ohio. Let me, at last, very briefly, re-echo what Mr. Dreier said about the Flake amendment, the so-called earmark amendment. By definition this bill does not have earmarks. That's because the committee said it didn't. By definition this bill doesn't have a PAYGO question, because the committee said it didn't. But, indeed, right after we had the State of the Union and the President talked about earmarks and the Speaker talked about earmarks, the minority talked about earmarks, we have the first authorization bill coming before us with two organizations, the Appalachian Mountain Club, the Connecticut Forest and Park Association, specifically mentioned as being eligible for grants given to them by the Federal Government, and then the language goes on and says ``or other groups,'' I think ``groups'' or ``associations.'' Had you simply taken out the specific names of the two organizations and simply allowed it to be the other groups, any group could apply for these grants and the leadership in this particular one, it would have solved all of the problem. And that's what Mr. Flake was trying to say. It wouldn't have prohibited them from being in the management position on this trail, but it would have simply made it a clear and open process without giving an earmark to these two organizations. That's all that needs to be taken. Once again, these amendments that we presented were not in an effort to kill the bill, to slow it down, to make sure it does not pass. They were in an effort to try to make sure that we took some of the areas which we think are a little rough, smoothed them over, and gave us some protections for the future that we could feel comfortable, as the Republican side, in joining with our Democratic colleagues to move this bill forward and understand that many of the things we are concerned about, protecting the individual, protecting the process that we go through, to ensure that those things are included in the bill before it leaves this body. It would have been a chance to show real bipartisan support for this concept going forward. Hopefully, we will still have some debate on the amendments that were made in order, maybe some other issues that we can once again show the ability of this body to come together and make sure that a bill that everyone can support goes forward as opposed to one that seems to be skewed in one direction or the other. With that, I appreciate the time being yielded to me.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I thank the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks) leading this discussion. As I walked past the Supreme Court this evening, remnants of the two groups were protesting this very issue, one dealing with a press conference, the other marching in chants in a way that was really more appropriate to a high school pep rally than to this particular issue. And I was saddened because this is one of those issues that should never be simplified into simply chants or slogans or sound bites because this issue is one that deals with the soul of this particular country. For when we have a cavalier attitude about life at the beginning of the cycle, we tend to develop a cavalier attitude about life at the end of the cycle. And then for those areas in between, we tend to look at life not in terms of its sanctity but in its quality of life. I firmly believe that man is both perfectable and savable. But we are perfectable and savable not in the ease in which we make our lives or the material possessions which we can accumulate, but in our relationships with others and our development of our families. I appreciate being able to add my voice to this particular discussion, and I appreciate the representative from Arizona, as well as the gentlewoman from Minnesota, for leading these two hours because this discussion is truly about the very heart of this country and where we go.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate the gentlewoman from North Carolina expressing her comments about the Bill of Rights and the significance of the ninth and 10th amendments. I would now like to concentrate on a couple of other bills that are in the Bill of Rights. Perhaps the second amendment. As we talked earlier, it is very important for us to understand and know the meaning of the words. The preamble of the Constitution talks about a more perfect union, which is a terribly ungrammatical saying. You can be perfect, but you can't be more perfect. What we don't realize is that this is a term of art historically used. ``More perfect union'' was the concept of the union of England, Scotland and Wales, where all of a sudden their defense was based on a navy, not necessarily on armies. It is interesting in our Constitution we prohibit an army from lasting any longer than 2 years, for specific reasons. Armies, at that time, were mercenary units. When one thought of the army, they thought of mercenaries. When the British were fighting us in the Revolutionary War, they didn't send British over here. They sent German Hessians over here for us. The concept was for an army, when it was not attacking foreign countries, a tyrant could use the army to attack his own people and there would be no remorse since they were not necessarily of the same nationality. The idea of a popular army does not come until the French Revolution, and that's still a couple of decades away. So when we talk about the militia, at that particular period of time the militia meant the people. Army was a mercenary; militia was individuals who were, by definition, to be a balance in the power against the government. When Madison wrote that all members, all Americans should be in the militia, and all Americans should be able to have a gun and know how to use a gun, he was making reference to that historical concept. When one looks at the second amendment today, they have to realize that the word militia was a reference to the people. With that, I would like to yield some time now to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun) who has a few comments specifically about the second amendment which I think is very apropos as we're talking about the Bill of Rights today.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here and I am grateful to the gentleman from New Jersey for allowing me to have some time here. You know, when we come into this Chamber and we look around, there are cameos of the great lawgivers of the world all around us. There is Moses to Hammurabi, even Napoleon over there in the corner. It is interesting, there are only two Americans in this pantheon of great lawgivers, Thomas Jefferson and George Mason, ironically neither of whom signed the Constitution. Of those two, Mason is, as the gentleman from New Jersey said, clearly the most interesting. He is one of three people who was at the entire Constitutional Convention, and then at the end refused to give his assent to the actual document because it did not contain a Bill of Rights. I would like to talk for just a second about the other members of that convention who did not agree to add this Bill of Rights, because one must ask why were great patriots like Washington, Franklin, Madison, Hamilton, Dickinson, Wilson, why did they refuse to join with a Bill of Rights? Were they opposed to civil liberties? It is pretty obvious they were not. But what they said is a fear that the Bill of Rights, that actually if you start listing what those rights are, it may be a ceiling of what rights are allowed as opposed to a floor of what rights are going to be guaranteed. Actually, the Bill of Rights is misnamed. It should be called the ``Bill of Wrongs.'' It is a list of things that it is wrong for the Federal Government to do, no matter how many people actually want to do it. In their concern though, they were still concerned about civil liberties. They had an additional plan to do that, which was a structural guarantee of the rights of citizens. We call it today federalism. It was a means to defend the individual liberties of Americans. They realized that increasing the number of competitors to power was as effective as listing the things that would be prohibited for the government to do. As Madison said, ambition would counteract ambition. They had two ways of looking at it. The horizontal separation of powers between the executive, legislative and judicial branches, which, unfortunately, is what we only spend our time teaching in schools today. But equally important to them was a vertical separation of powers between a national government and a State government. The fear, obviously, was that the Federal Government would not check itself, so the 50 States would be the perfect counterbalance to a national government. Justice Scalia in Mack v. The United States once said the Constitution protects us from our own best intentions. It divides power among sovereigns and among branches of government precisely so we may resist the temptation to concentrate power in one location as an expedient solution to the crisis of the day. Power with no check historically resulted in tyranny, and no government was out of the potential of doing that; however, balance of power and limitations of governments would result in the support of individual civil liberties. In Federalist 51, Madison said, ``Experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.'' That was the structure he was talking about, separation of powers, federalism. In Federalist 45, Madison again wrote, ``The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.'' That was the plan. In Federalist 32, Hamilton continued to say that ``under the plan of the convention, States retained the authority in the most absolute and unqualified sense, and that attempt on the part of the national government to abridge any State power would be a violent assumption of power unwarranted by any article or clause of the Constitution.'' Unfortunately, today our national government has grown out of the bounds originally established. Often by good intent, often by misguided compassion for people, which eventually actually ends up hurting far more than it ever intended to help. As P.J. O'Rourke once wrote, the history of government is not how Washington works, but how to make it stop. We understood in the Bill of Rights, when they were listed, a couple of unique concepts. The Bill of Rights always talked about how Congress may make no law to inhibit the rights of an individual. Other countries had bills of rights. The USSR Constitution did also have a bill of rights which contained guarantees of free speech. But, as they said, in order to produce a socialist state, citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of speech, et cetera. Now, there is a difference. In the USSR constitution, the freedom of speech was granted by the government and therefore could be taken back by the government, as opposed to the way we are looking at it as rights inherent in individuals. Now, when the Bill of Rights was actually established, there were 10 Bills of Rights. I want you to know that when they did that, they did not forget this concept of a structural balance of power, both horizontally and vertically, as the foundation for ensuring the civil liberties. And that is why they did the 10th amendment. The 10th amendment clearly says that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by its States are reserved to the States respectively or to the people. Jefferson called this 10th amendment the bedrock of constitutional government. These are the words that are significant and important, and we must remind ourselves. Congress passes laws almost on a weekly basis. Sometimes we make incorrect assumptions about the meaning the Founding Fathers had on the words, or we simply ignore those words as looking as if they were irrelevant to our time. Justice Scalia once again wrote about the Constitution, ``What it meant when it was adopted, it means today. And its meaning doesn't change just because we think that meaning is no longer adequate to our times.'' That also applies to the words in the Bill of Rights: What it meant at its time of adoption, it still means today, and it doesn't change in the period of time and simply because our assumptions may wish to change. I was once in a conversation with another history teacher. She asked, how do we know what they originally thought when they were writing these words? And it was very simple: We study history. It may be that I am an old history teacher and I am kind of biased about this; but when we fail to study the history of this country and, more importantly, when we fail to study the history of our government, the history of this document, we fail to understand what they meant by those words, and then we replace our own definition. We use our own wit to try and come up with what it should be and oftentimes we fail in understanding what made this country great or what we need to do to truly honor the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that are there. One of the things we need to do most definitely in this country is take the time and effort to ensure that we read the documents, that we understand the documents, and we put them in their historical connotation. That is the way we preserve and secure them. I would like to yield to the gentleman from Texas who has a unique approach here, one of the things we may do to try to remind us, even those of us who were elected to this body, that maybe it is time to review and know the history of this document and these documents so we understand what the words mean and how the words should be applied in our time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 123 was introduced by our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from California, the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, David Dreier; and it extends a highly successful water cleanup effort in Southern California. This legislation as amended authorizes additional Federal dollars for groundwater remediation aquifers that provide drinking water to the Los Angeles area residents. As explained by the Democrat bill manager, this amended bill will allow the central basin water authorities to pursue their own appropriations while not harming what remains of the original San Gabriel Restoration Fund. This aspect of the bill is very important when it comes to protecting the San Gabriel water supply. This bill has enjoyed bipartisan support and dialogue throughout the legislative process, and I urge my colleagues to support this result-oriented bill. I will reserve at this moment.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. It is only right that I yield as much time as he chooses to consume to the gentleman from California, the sponsor of this wonderful piece of legislation, Mr. Dreier. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 3079, as amended, has received much support from the Bush administration, as well as the Northern Marianas elected resident representative, a Republican, Pedro Tenorio. Mr. Tenorio has worked hard to bring forth a bill which has consensus from both sides of the aisle. This bill brings about unified border control and immigration to the Marianas region, which will benefit our national security. In addition, the bill will foster economic development on the islands by providing local businesses and the military with ready access to labor to support the tourist industry and military base construction. I appreciate the assistance of our colleagues from the Judiciary Committee. I believe that their efforts have helped to improve the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I understand that we have another speaker who wishes to come here, so I appreciate this opportunity just to say a short word on behalf of this bill. And I appreciate the many speakers who have spoken already who have spoken to the bipartisan nature in which this bill has proceeded. At this time, I think we need to thank the Judiciary Committee, and I believe the chairman wishes to say something about this particular bill, for the way in which they've worked in a bipartisan way. I am also very grateful to be a part of the Natural Resources Committee, which I think has worked in a bipartisan way to present this bill. I have to admit that the only thing that would really make me happier is if we were discussing this bill in October rather than this close to Christmas. But other than that, I am very much appreciative of those people who worked for this bill, especially the administration, who is supportive of it, and the resident representative from this particular area. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. My colleague from the majority has adequately described this technical correction bill. We have no objection. We urge its passage. I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I thank the gentleman from New Mexico for offering, for allowing me an opportunity of saying a few words on what will be a significant piece of legislation that we will maybe be asked to vote upon this week. You know, it is only intuitive that this Nation should be energy independent. If we were energy independent, not relying on foreign sources of energy from obviously other places, not only would it allow our military to have the flexibility it needs to function in whatever situation upon which it is called to be used, but it allows our diplomacy to be used in flexibility in any situation. So, how do we actually replace this foreign oil that is presently being brought in here? Everyone who understands the situation will tell you there is no simple, single silver bullet. Multiple means have to be used. Energy conservation, efficiency in transportation, things we have talked about, those are good. That is part of the mix. But only about 16 percent of our foreign oil imports could be eliminated simply by using efficiency in transportation or energy conservation means. Other methods have to be added to the mix as well, and one of those is biomass. Biomass by itself could produce 24 percent of all the foreign oil we are importing into this country, far more than even our best efforts of conservation or efficiency. If we combined those two together, we are well on our way to trying to become energy independent. For those of you like me that like technical talk, biomass is dead trees, dead shrubs, the stuff that burns in forests if you don't remove it first. And as much as our friends on the other side of the aisle will continuously say they want to require biomass to be part of the fuel standards, the renewable alternative fuel standards, the bill that will be brought before us this week will not allow biofuels, dead trees, to come from the one and the largest source of those dead materials, and that is Federal lands where we have unhealthy and overgrown forests. That is specifically prohibited as part of the alternative energy formula. Now, when we limit the collection of hazardous fuels from those forests, that biomass material, what we are really doing in essence is gutting the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, a bipartisan bill that was passed last year, in an effort to prevent catastrophic fires, wildfires, those fires that we have seen that destroy property, that actually push more pollutants into the air than any highway full of cars can ever do, and, more importantly, they destroy the lives of people who are caught in the path. This act was there to bring a new energy to people in the West and to help rural economies recover from a collapsed timber industry forced on them by outside sources. This bill tries in some way to help with payment in lieu of taxes to western counties and secure rural schools; yet at the same time, secure rural schools are rural districts that relied upon the timber industry and can no longer do it because of outside decisions, and therefore they are getting subsidizations for their school systems. At the same time this bill tries to help those schools, it prohibits them from ever having any kind of natural recovery within those areas by prohibiting their last source of job creation in those areas, which is recovering the dead fuel in the forests. Now, that is the hope, and that is eliminated in the bill that we will have coming before us. It isn't enough that this energy bill prevents the use of this material that is grown in those areas; it prohibits the use that is used in private forests to maintain their health as well. The Democrat intents of this bill seems to be clear: If you can prohibit the collection of biomass, the dead stuff of the forests, and make the provisions so unworkable, then obviously no responsible company would ever attempt to comply and go in and therefore do it. So the essence is, like Marie Antoinette of old who said ``Let them eat cake,'' the essence of this bill is simply let it burn. That is what will happen to our forests, when it could be being used to help us become energy independent and energy self-sufficient. And it is a key and crucial element. Not only can we help our societies by reducing wildfires, we can help have jobs in those rural areas that need them so desperately. We can help all of society become energy independent by using a renewable source, but it is specifically prohibited by the language that you will find in this particular bill. Now, once again, I am very simple, and I need to know who is going to be hurt by this situation. I am an old schoolteacher. We have two States in the West bordering one another, one of which puts its emphasis on proactive energy development and the other does not. A starting teacher in the school district that puts its emphasis in proactive energy development makes $4,000 a year more than a fourth- year teacher in the neighboring State will do. So who is hurt when we prohibit and eliminate the opportunity of expanding our energy production in the West? Well, the kids are, the school system is, the teachers are, the road funds that you need to construct roads in those larger western areas. Those people who actually pay taxes will be hit higher when we don't need to do it if we simply look to the resources we have. As the gentleman from New Mexico clearly said, quoting Daniel Webster, this quote that is in this Chamber, we sit and look at it every day, very few of us actually look up the words, but, once again, Daniel Webster said, ``Let us develop the resources of our land, call forth its powers, build up its institutions, promote all its great interests.'' And why? ``And see whether we also, in our day and generation, may not perform something worthy to be remembered.'' This bill that will be before us is a bill that is not going to be worthy to be remembered. It does not move us towards energy self- sufficiency. It does not make us independent in our efforts. It does not grow our energy needs and provide jobs and provide a cleaner kind of energy for the future. It simply doesn't make the cut on a whole bunch of areas, one of which happens to be biomass. What could have been a great source for energy in the future is literally shut out by provisions in this bill that should not be there, ever. It is the wrong approach to take. Now, I appreciate the chance of rambling on here for a minute, and I appreciate what my good friend from New Mexico is doing to present the concepts that are in this bill that we are glossing over in an effort to try and rush an energy bill just before Christmas. No one is going to have the time to look at it. No one is going to have the time to study it. No one is going to have the time to simply sit down and say, you know, there is a better way. We could tweak it here and there and actually come up with a decent policy. But because we have waited and piddled around until the very end of the session when our backs are to the wall, we are going to be faced with an up or down vote on something that just isn't worth it. It has too many flaws. With that, I would yield back to the gentleman from New Mexico.

Mr. BISHOP of Utah

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate the time being yielded. Mr. Speaker, one of the processes of this particular bill is one that I hope we do not replicate very often because indeed there are nine separate bills tied together into one package. Each bill has a separate amount of merits to those particular bills. Some of them, like the bill by Mr. Skelton, the chairman from Missouri, is a very well-written bill. I particularly would like to thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman) for writing a bill that I think went above and beyond the call of duty in trying to ensure that the rights of citizens who would be in this study area are protected, as well as ensuring that the maximum amount of participation can be given to those people who are living in that particular area. There are also some elements in the bill as it came out of committee that I found personally egregious. Those have been removed from the bill that is here. I would like to thank the chairman of the committee and the subcommitees respectively as well as Democratic staff for making changes in this particular bill in a way that I find very appealing. I appreciate them for entering into discussions in an effort to find some kind of bipartisan cooperation with this, and I also am very appreciative of the professional manner in which the Democrat staff worked with our staff in coming up with a bill that I think is very positive coming out of here. With the bill that is now before us, I certainly have no objections to this particular bill, and I wish to express my appreciation for putting this particular piece of legislation in a form that I think is commendable, and we can commend it and represent it and encourage our fellow Members of the House to vote for it.