The point I am leading to is that the Tongass Timber Reform Act has an explicit ban on that harvesting, if I am not correct.

I would appreciate that. I think the Committee would as well, because part of it is how we are interpreting the content of the legislation.

It is offensive and I think it should be repudiated.

I think you are using a legitimate issue--access for sportsmen--to leverage broader political campaigns against this Administration and Democrats.

The tone and the rhetoric in the written testimony presented to the Committee by some of today's witnesses is inflammatory, to use a word we will hear from shortly, 'specious.'

Without the political posturing we could find agreement on this issue.

The majority and this panel decided on a different approach.

some guns, military-style assault weapons, for instance, have no place in national parks

I said in my opening statement that people who support H.R. 1825 and people who oppose it might have legitimate differences of opinion, or we might just have a different interpretation of the impacts of the language.

the significance of the Park Service agreeing with Congressman Young, and conversely, Congressman Young agreeing with the Park Service.

I very much appreciate the Chairman's approach, because there are areas that I particularly would like to see protected.

The Outdoor Industry Association estimates that outdoor recreation creates $646 billion in direct consumer spending, and $80 billion in Federal, State, and local taxes.