On the recordJuly 15, 1997
I am concerned about the type of precedent. I understand there is a special problem asserted in this particular instance, but the word ``eviction'' used by the amendment author very much surprises me. I expect that most of these individuals had a 25-year contract that they made to, in fact, utilize the property, and I might add at generally reasonable prices, and receive then the compensation for their property under specific terms of a contract. I am surprised to hear that there are so many sites. I do not know every year if you look at what is happening with these properties that were largely voluntarily sold, maybe some years ago, that you may be getting into an issue here where every year, even this year in 1997, you may have individuals that are now expected to in fact give up the properties in accord with their agreements. When an amendment like this passes, I think it raises all sorts of issues and questions.
Source
govinfo.gov
