I oppose the amendment. The question is a question of States' rights and management of wildlife populations. The States have broad responsibility and authority over resident fish and wildlife, including fish and wildlife found on Federal lands within a State. Congress has reaffirmed this authority through numerous acts. States must be allowed to effectively manage resident wildlife populations. This is an authorizing issue and a States' rights issue and this provision does not belong in an interior appropriations bill. So I must urge defeat of this amendment.
Charles Taylor: “I oppose the amendment. The question is a question of States' rights and management of wildlife populations. The States…”
Editor's note · Context
Opposing an amendment related to states' rights and wildlife management during a congressional debate.
Share
More from Charles Taylor
I commend the gentleman. The San Marcos National Monument in St. Augustine, Florida, is one of the outstanding examples of parks for the east coast, and his effort is commendable. As the gentleman can appreciate, we cannot make commitments…
on rollcall Nos. 415 and 416, I was detained in a conference with the Senate. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 415 and ``aye'' on rollcall No. 416. ____________________
As the gentleman knows, this committee has been extremely generous to the national parks. Over the last 10 years, we have provided an additional $515 million specifically for park-based increases. This bill includes another $55 million…
may I inquire if there are other speakers? The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Fossella). The gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) has yielded back.





