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?
Editor's note · Context
Questioning the implications of land negotiations related to a national park during Senate debate.
Share
More from John Johnston
It has been said we have not changed the perception of the Congress through all the things we have done, and I think that is true. But we must continue to try. I think it is our obligation to keep trying, when public opinion polls come…
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…
I commend the Senator from Wyoming for a very powerful statement on the subject of the starvation, from a budgetary standpoint, of the national parks. He is surely, surely correct on that issue. Mr. President, I hope all of my colleagues…
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…





