Alan Lowenthal: “Thank you. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Washington is saying that, if we remove the extraordinary circumstances part…”

“Thank you. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Washington is saying that, if we remove the extraordinary circumstances part of seeing whether, in fact, we grant a categorical exemption--what my amendment does by saying ``no'' is that the public must have an opportunity, if we are going to grant an exemption, which we think is fine, but what is wrong with finding out whether there is going to be a significant impact on health and safety? What is wrong with finding out if there is going to be a violation of State, Federal, local, or tribal law? What is wrong with understanding what are the limits to access to ceremonial use of sacred sites? He says that by asking these questions before we give an exemption, that this imposes regulatory red tape that is exactly the opposite of what the Nation needs, it is more bureaucracy. It is just the opposite. This protects the Nation. This allows us to understand, when we are given a categorical exemption, that we are protecting the public health of the Nation. I urge an ``aye'' vote on my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.”