On the recordOctober 5, 1998
I think that far from indicating any weakness in the legislation, the colloquy we just had and the remarks made is nothing more than a spirited defense of the kind of bureaucracy that gives Washington a bad name. I think there is no question that granting the land to the town would meet the contractual obligation under the Land and Water Conservation Fund requirements. Granting the land to the State would probably also achieve the same ends but, in all likelihood, the State would continue to give full responsibility to the town itself to continue to maintain, to continue to use for recreational purposes. What we are quibbling about here is the kind of regulatory red tape that the vast majority of Americans find repulsive about Washington. What we are trying to do here is to look at a process that exists, the public benefit transfer, which is actually fairly clear language for Washington, and to use a piece of legislation to make sure that we move these two acres of land to the ownership of the town to meet its needs for a public cemetery as quickly as is expeditious. But, at the same time, we are not going to leave the GSA or the Park Service out of the process.
Source
govinfo.gov




