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 & report
More from Mark Amodei
My amendment would prohibit funds being used by the FEC to enforce the prior approval requirement for trade associations. The prior approval requirement is the requirement that trade associations must acquire written approval for Member…
I want to thank the chairman of the committee for yielding me this time, and I also thank my colleague from California, the ranking member, and also the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), for processing this…
New York Times, get out of the way. Chicago Tribune, San Francisco Chronicle, not good enough; keep trying harder. May 16 marks the 150th anniversary of the publishing of Nevada's oldest daily newspaper, the Nevada Appeal, published in its…
I want to thank my colleague from Rhode Island for the eloquent description of what the underlying bill does. I tend to agree with his description on how critical this legislation is. I am surprised at the tone, though, when we already…





