In negotiations over this, it was set up, very bluntly-- and I can put this on the record because it is obviously the case--so that if the President feels that is somehow or another totally unwise and doesn't mind making the government of the State of Montana unhappy, this provision is subject to a line-item veto. It was set up in that fashion. The President doesn't have to veto the whole bill or the whole $700 million in the land and water conservation fund. So if he feels it is disproportionate in some respect, we never have to go through these negotiations at all.
T. Gorton: “In negotiations over this, it was set up, very bluntly-- and I can put this on the record because it is obviously the…”
On the recordOctober 28, 1997
Source
govinfo.govEditor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of a line-item veto in relation to a funding bill.
Share
More from T. Gorton
Oct 5, 2000
I expect that the $2.5 million grant program administered by NFWF will leverage at least $2.5 million overall in additional, nonfederal funds.
Oct 5, 2000
I would agree that the U.S. Forest Service should preserve the option to use such fire retardants in order to minimize the long-term visual impacts of wildfires.
Oct 5, 2000
This bill includes appropriations from the Historic Preservation Fund that could be used for eligible projects such as that for the Great Falls in Paterson.
Oct 5, 2000
I would agree that maintaining dual suppliers of high performance, environmentally acceptable fire retardants is critical to the mission of the Service.





