The point with regard to the 15 years I did not characterize with the other language, but I do not agree with the gentleman's interpretation of the argument over 'necessary' and or 'desirable' in terms of what the impact would have been. The concern, of course, is that we wanted to go forward. I am supporting the chairman's amendment to the amendment of the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] and would just suggest that this is a workable, a reasonable alternative in terms of addressing this particular issue. The other ancillary suggestions, of course, are something that came up late, was not offered in committee and, therefore, we are trying to work it out here on the floor today and I hope that that would be accomplished. I might say too the gentleman from California has repeatedly stated that the gentleman from Minnesota was not here when he conducted his debate. This gentleman has been here throughout the debate.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing amendments and debate on the House floor regarding a legislative issue.
Share
More from Bruce F. Vento
this particular language and these designations would not restrict the military flights. I would point out to the gentleman though that the gentleman from Minnesota and others have introduced legislation dealing with the overflights issue…
I would further state, I want to make it clear that I do not accept, and I think that we really need to come to a common understanding as to what the backlog figures are for the National Park Service in terms of roads, in terms of land…
I just would point out this is not a discretion. It says it shall be administered in the same manner as the secretary. So it is a mandated requirement on page 28 of the bill, section 103.
the gentleman from Montana is correct in his statement and observations regarding outfitting in wilderness and its compatibility with the provisions of the 1964 Wilderness Act. This act does not modify that basic policy.





