I can be painfully brief on this amendment. In two places in this bill you have the same problem we have been talking over and over about, about the vague notion of simply ``values.'' The last amendment took the very superfluous language in the preamble, which has the potential of creating problems, as it has in other sections. But also in section 3(c)(2), we once again find this vague, nefarious language. It says that the Secretary shall manage the system in a manner that protects the values for which the components of this system were designated. Once again, by simply saying ``values'' without any kind of definition, nor is there any regulatory definition, you have simply opened this up to a vague, contentious opportunity. If you are going to establish this system and give them something to do, for heaven's sake, tell them what they are going to do and make it simple and make it succinct. That is why this section should be eliminated. Until we are ready to define these values, you don't put this in statute.
Rob Bishop: “I can be painfully brief on this amendment. In two places in this bill you have the same problem we have been talking…”
On the recordApril 9, 2008
Source
govinfo.govEditor's note · Context
Discussing concerns over vague language in a bill regarding the management of a system.
Share
More from Rob Bishop
Nov 16, 2020
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.
May 31, 2020
Instead, we decided to move ahead with what can only be described as really good political theater.
Dec 10, 2020
Yesterday, I called Lisa Pittman, who is the counsel for our committee, to make sure we had somebody covering us for floor time. She chastised me then, saying that under my condition, I need to ask about calling a doctor first, not calling…





