My only question is, this does reduce the amount of money for land acquisition, but it does not zero it out. I mean, the intention of the amendment was to say let us leave some money there and to recognize that we need to acquire some lands. There are things that need to happen in a timely fashion. It seems to me reasonable to delay some of those land acquisitions. I guess I am asking, does the gentleman know what projects have to be delayed, what acquisitions would have to be delayed, based on the reduction contemplated in the legislation?
John Shadegg: “My only question is, this does reduce the amount of money for land acquisition, but it does not zero it out. I mean, the…”
Editor's note · Context
Questioning the impact of a legislative amendment on land acquisition funding.
Share
More from John Shadegg
I have spent a great deal of my life advocating for the victims of crime. It seems to me this is an outrage that exists in current law. The victims of crime should not be revictimized. In this case, American law does revictimize those…
Oh, the cost went up. Wait, the cost went up? They have forced everybody in Massachusetts, like this bill would do, to buy a health insurance plan on the premise that the cost would go down. But in Massachusetts where they did it, the cost…
Because of one word difference? One word difference. The Senate has already passed the Senate bill, the House has to pass that exact bill word for word. It can't have one word missing?
I kind of think the American people are fairly bright. I think they see through this. If you are deeming a bill passed in a rule, aren't you actually passing that bill and aren't you voting for that bill? And isn't this just a trick or a…





