On the recordJuly 30, 2010
Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's trying to clarify that. I have to say, in my reading of this, that this will lend itself to more acquisition, and I will simply say this, reading the language here, "provides a substantially greater likelihood of improving the resilience of whatever is lost." Now, having said that, let me put this analogous to at least my part of the country as it relates to refuges. If a refuge burns in my area and it might damage something, the way I envision the interpretation of this is the refuge manager can say, boy, this is irreparably lost and there might be some private land right next door, I think I will buy that private land. Now, in due respect, that is the way I interpret it. Listen, I hope I'm wrong and I hope you're right, but I have a very strong wariness of any attempt--especially in a bill, I say to my friend, the Transportation chairman, especially when we are authorizing $30 billion of land acquisition. Surely, surely there must be a way to massage that to satisfy at least what the gentleman's amendment purports to do. But I have to say, for this Member, I am always weary when I see we are taking another fund and using that to acquire even an extension of Federal lands.
