that is the dialog we have had all along. The fact is they wrote the bill, it was in it and they were not going to let it come out all along no matter what. It was the question of losing 1 square mile, not necessarily where it was, it was the loss of 1 square mile. Most of the discussions I have had with these folks is over bulk acreage. No one objected to certain sites which everyone agreed were appropriate wilderness areas. It is this mass grab for bulk acreage that is so difficult for someone like myself to understand who wants to preserve areas that clearly should be preserved. It just came home to me in trying to deal with 1 square mile. They would not give language which would allow it to occur.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing concerns over land preservation and wilderness areas during a legislative debate.
Share
More from William M. Thomas
I believe we have taken an important step towards improving our election process.
I appreciate the responses of the chairman. Mr. Chairman, so although we do honor the memory of ``Tip'' O'Neill in 1994, it will be done in a frugal way, which I think is entirely appropriate with the politics of the '90s.
Yes, more than several years ago I testified. I just said, perhaps the gentleman was not on the floor at the time, but I said it became apparent to us when we examined the final iteration of the maps.
It is geography. But I also pointed out in the letter and to the folks on the committee that the amendment did not block in any way the application of the Endangered Species Act or other laws. I just wanted to keep the option open for…





