We talk about additional giveaways or whatever. Nobody gets anything out of this other than they get a time certain in the review process. And if there's more time needed, then guess what? It provides for that. What's the idea here? Collaboration between Federal land managers and stakeholders, all stakeholders. If you're an applicant, you want a ``yes,'' but there's no magic in getting a 30-month ``no.'' My final point is this. When you talk about the changes that have been made by the present administration in permitting time, I find it incredibly interesting to hear in committee that that permitting time was actually less than what this proposes. This cuts nobody off. It's a good place to talk, and it gets rid of the part that is never in NEPA, which is, we're going to outwait you and hope you go away.
Share
More from Mark Amodei
H.R. 6070 is a technical amendment to the Military Lands Withdrawal Act of 1999.
Congress established the Pell Grant as the main investment in college affordability for low- and middle-income students, but today, the Pell Grant has the lowest purchasing power in more than its 50-year history.
Here is a little history, and you can use it however you like. In the 2024 appropriations bill, we cut CISA $15 million, and it was because of this switchboarding issue. I agree that sometimes you want to get somebody's attention…
I rise as the designee of Congresswoman Stefanik to offer and support amendment No. 56. The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: At the end of the bill (before the short title)…





