However, I do want to state that there are two particular problems, once again, with the process, which are very perplexing and concerning to me, and I think it's something we ought to discuss. This bill has been changed--I think significantly--since it left the committee on November 18. An amendment was added at 12:58--that is the date on it, today. Admittedly, we knew about it maybe an hour before that, but an amendment that changes this bill significantly was added today. That is not the process you go through. Once again, poor process will equate to poor public policy. The amendment that was added in here took out salvaged sales on BLM land. That is not what was in the bill when it went through committee, and I would suggest that I am not in favor of that change to a very good bill. We will be told, I'm assuming, that this change was made to conform what practices we do on BLM with national forest land. However, what we are doing is changing the law to conform to an agency regulation, which is, indeed, backwards.
Rob Bishop: “However, I do want to state that there are two particular problems, once again, with the process, which are very…”
Editor's note · Context
The speaker addresses concerns about amendments made to a bill regarding BLM land sales.
Share
More from Rob Bishop
I think many of those local fisheries on the coast would have some quibbling with your jurisdictional approach.
The Majority is pushing a so-called 30x30 idea, locking up 30 percent of our oceans by 2030, all under the guise of protecting biodiversity while tackling climate change.
I know that when Democrats were in the Minority, they used to object to some of the titles which we had on our hearings.
Let's get a couple of things very clear. First of all, this is not about the Land and Water Conservation Fund. We reauthorized permanently the Land and Water Conservation Fund in the last Congress, and in doing that, in a House Republican…





