My staff tells me we tried very hard, because we talked in committee about this and I offered to work with the gentlewoman to strengthen the requirements for public participation in the underlying legislation. The staff have had conversations back and forth and apparently we could not bridge the differences. But let me assure the gentlewoman that she is absolutely right in calling for public participation. I want public participation. So does the administration. I just do not think we have to be so prescriptive in this bill as to set the parameters for that public participation.
Sherwood Boehlert: “My staff tells me we tried very hard, because we talked in committee about this and I offered to work with the…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing public participation requirements in legislation during committee discussions.
Share
More from Sherwood Boehlert
with great regret, but with even greater conviction, I rise in opposition to this bill. While this bill certainly has some worthy provisions, including those reported out by our committee, overall this bill is a step backward. This bill…
The only reason we left out Sicily, because the initial was 6 countries in 6 days; but as the gentlewoman will recall, when we added Libya, there were requirements on the pilots in that they could not fly a certain amount of time beyond…
I proudly support S. Con. Res. 13, a resolution to recognize the American Society of Mechanical Engineering (ASME) on the occasion of its 125th anniversary. Since 1880, ASME has focused upon technical, educational, and research issues as…
I would propose in response to the gentlewoman that she withdraw the amendment and we work in the spirit of bipartisanship to refine it so we all clearly understand what we are talking about.





