Steve Pearce: “I think that we all agree patently that the underlying bill is not a problem. The problem is a very simple sentence that…”

“I think that we all agree patently that the underlying bill is not a problem. The problem is a very simple sentence that my friend from Utah would have included: no Federal funds may be used to condemn land, carry out the purposes of this act, or the amendment made by subsection B. It is a very simple amendment, one that is very clear. One would have to ask: Are there circumstances where we would be concerned about confiscation? Is it a valid concern? Has it been done before? Is it a worry that land owners or property owners might have to fear that confiscation would actually reach in and take their property and wrestle it away from them? That is the essential question before us. As the chairman of the Parks Subcommittee last year, we had the opportunity to listen to people along the Appalachian Trail. The Friars case was most prevalent. It is not the actual condemnation; it is the threat of condemnation that is the tool that is most often used; that we begin to persist from the Federal Government that we are going to take your land; that we can; that you need to just get along.”