I UNDERSTAND, AND I AM SURE YOU HAVE HANDLED A LOT OF THOSE ALL THE TIME AS A DISTRICT JUDGE. THE REASON I RAISED IT IS BECAUSE IT RELATES ONLY DIRECTLY TO SOME CONCERNS I HAVE GOT THAT ARE SOMEWHAT UNIQUE TO THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. WE HAVE A LOT OF CASES THAT INVOLVE THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, AND AGENCY ACTIONS TAKEN RELATIVE TO THE PUBLIC LAND THAT WE HAVE. IN EVERY STATE EAST OF COLORADO, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OWNS LESS THAN 15% OF THE LAND, MOST OF THOSE WITH MUCH LESS, SINGLE DIGITS FOR MOST. IN EVERY STATE, COLORADO, LESS OF COLORADO, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OWNS MORE THAN 15% OF THE LAND, AND MOST OF THE TIME IT IS A LOT MORE. IN MY STATE, IT HAPPENS TO BE ABOUT TWO-THIRDS OF THE LAND OWNED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. IT COMPLICATES OUR ABILITY TO DO JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING WE DO. RECREATION, CONSTRUCTION, OIL, GAS DEVELOPING, WHETHER IT IS ACCESS TO PEOPLE'S CARS AND RANCHES OR EVEN SOMETHING AS SIMPLE AS TRYING TO FIND LOCAL FIRE, POLICE, SEARCH-AND-RESCUE OPERATIONS. ALL THESE THINGS ARE AFFECTED BY THE EXCESSIVE OWNERSHIP OF FEDERAL LAND BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN THE WAY IT IS OFTEN MANAGED. SOMETIMES THE DECISIONS MADE AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL ARE CHALLENGED IN PARALLEL ACTIONS LIKE THESE, ONE IN THE FORM STRAIGHT, IN THE HOST STATE, AND OTHERS IN THE SEA, AND I AM ALWAYS CONCERNED ABOUT SHOPPING, AND I'M SURE THAT IS SOMETHING YOU WATCHED OUT FOR AS A JUDGE, AND SAW FORUM SHOPPING FROM TIME TO TIME. SOMETHING THAT TOUCHES ON AN ISSUE THAT INVOLVES STATUTORY INTERPRETATION. THERE IS SOMETHING CALLED THE ANTIQUITIES ACT, BACK 110 YEARS AGO OR SO, DESIGNED TO GIVE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES THE AUTHORITY TO DESIGNATE PARCELS OF FEDERAL LAND AS NATIONAL MONUMENTS. THE TEXT OF THE STATUTE STATES THAT THE LIMIT OF THE PARCELS IN QUESTION SHOULD BE "CONFINED TO THE SMALLEST AREA COMPATIBLE WITH THE PROPER CARE AND MANAGEMENT OF THE OBJECTS TO BE PROTECTED." NOW, GIVEN THAT THESE PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATIONS TEND TO BE BROAD, IT IS SOMETIMES THE OBJECTS TO BE PROTECTED ARE ALSO BROAD. AND AS A RESULT OF THAT, IT IS DIFFICULT TO TELL WHAT THE LIMITS ARE. DO YOU HAVE ANY REACTION AS TO HOW WE COULD DISCERN THAT, HOW WE COULD GET MEANING OUT OF THAT? IT HAS GOT TO MEAN SOMETHING. YOU TRY NOT TO LEAVE LANGUAGE SIMPLY UNADDRESSED OR MEANINGLESS IN A STATUTE. DO YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON HOW A STATUTE LIKE THAT, SAYING IT SHOULD BE CONFINED TO THE SMALLEST AREA COMPATIBLE WITH THE PROPER CARE AND MANAGEMENT OF THE OBJECTS TO PROTECT IT, ANY THOUGHTS BRIEFLY ON THE?