Steve Daines: “I urge my colleagues to join me in support of making our forests healthier, and for the adoption of my amendment. Mr.…”

“I urge my colleagues to join me in support of making our forests healthier, and for the adoption of my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. DeFAZIO. Like many here tonight, I'm frustrated by the seemingly endless appeals and litigation on efforts to responsibly manage our forests, but not all appeals and litigation are frivolous. We know that some zero-cut groups seeking to end all logging in national forests have been successful in nitpicking the Forest Service's submission in Montana. However, this amendment literally tips the scales of justice. The underlying bill already places extraordinary restrictions on parties--which I mentioned earlier, over which I have concern--on parties seeking to protect public resources. Do we really want to tell people they can't protest a government activity if the Federal Government violates a procedural requirement? Failing to give notice of a major activity is a procedural requirement. Shouldn't the community be able to appeal an activity that's moving forward if they think it might impact their drinking water and they were never notified about the proposal? Failing to properly advertise for bids is a procedural requirement.…”