The current program has specific dollar amounts going which will be reviewed and specific programmatic responsibility, all of which were stripped out in this particular version. The problem we have is--and we could have easily, easily gone along with the expansion of this program if they had actually allowed us to come up with some kind of limitations, because unfortunately, as I mentioned before, what we have now done with this program, 75 percent of which was to go to make sure that we have healthy forests, where the actual priority was to go to help public lands, is you have taken out all that language and we have simply replicated AmeriCorps.
Rob Bishop: “The current program has specific dollar amounts going which will be reviewed and specific programmatic responsibility…”
Editor's note · Context
The speaker discusses changes to an existing program and its implications for public lands and forest health.
Share
More from Rob Bishop
Instead of helping, it seems the Majority is more interested in putting fishermen's livelihood at risk in the name of faux conservation.
Is the Speaker telling me that if the Republicans have cleared this bill and are in favor of it, it has to have a written clearance from the Democrat side more than simply verbal commitment to the Tribes? The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair…
Did you tell me the form the clearance has to have? In what form must it be? The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has advised only that appropriate clearance must be provided. It has not been so provided, and so the Chair cannot entertain…
the Magnuson-Stevens Act is not just for the conservation and management of fishery resources, but also to assure that our citizens benefit from employment, food supply, and revenue which could be generated from these resources.





