I ask the Senator a second question and maybe even a more salient question which is, as a businessman if the Senator from Utah was in the position of the Catellus Corp., keeping in mind they would have this ability to veto this national park, which in turn is supported by 70 or 75 percent of the people of California, does the Senator from Utah not agree with me that it would considerably enhance their ability to negotiate with the Federal Government over the price of the land which would be essential to make this national park? Would he agree with that?
John Johnston: “I ask the Senator a second question and maybe even a more salient question which is, as a businessman if the Senator…”
Editor's note · Context
Questioning the implications of land negotiations related to a national park during Senate debate.
Share
More from John Johnston
The actual wording is not that the trip is not substantially recreational, but that the activities as part of the trip are not substantially recreational, which I think is a significant difference because you can have a serious trip that…
It is my understanding of S. 1935 that it will be practically impossible for Members to make an effort, either directly or indirectly, to assist worthwhile causes--that is, tax-exempt, charitable entities.
Yes. When you go to, say, the Opera Ball, I do not know what one of these dinners down here will cost. You go down at the hotel. I do not feel like I am really being entertained. I feel like I am doing when I go to those things at the…
All I am saying, I think that is entirely correct, and ours allows that. The difference is ours is limited to $75, yours is unlimited, except yours is close personal friend. All I am saying is that the Senator from Minnesota, in quavering…





