This is another one of the amendments that basically guts the whole purpose of this entire bill. There is nobody who is cut out of the process. None of the public is cut out of the process. What is cut out is redundant, duplicative NEPA analysis, all of which can result in litigation. It simply says you do the process the first time. You don't have to redo it again and again and again and admit the Forest Service to litigation again and again. In fact, they admit 71 percent of all their lawsuits mention these types of provisions in there. As we said before, these provisions were not coming out of thin air. They are coming from what the Forest Service tells us they need to do their job, the tools they need so they can take the resources they have and do it once the first time and get it over with and do it right and not have to spend it on frivolous litigation. NEPA is not taken away. The analysis is not taken away. The public is not taken out of the system. All you are simply doing is saying you don't have to do it repetitively, in other words, don't have to do it redundantly. This is one to streamline it. This is what they need desperately. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Rob Bishop: “This is another one of the amendments that basically guts the whole purpose of this entire bill. There is nobody who is…”
On the recordNovember 1, 2017
Share
More from Rob Bishop
Nov 16, 2020
Instead of helping, it seems the Majority is more interested in putting fishermen's livelihood at risk in the name of faux conservation.
Dec 3, 2020
I include in the Record two documents. The first document is the dissenting views that Republicans filed on this bill in the committee. The second is the summary of problems that the Department of Commerce Inspector General, the GAO and…
Jul 22, 2020
PREPA needs to continue to pursue conversion of their power generation assets off of burning inefficient Venezuelan bunker fuel and onto clean and efficient liquified natural gas.
Nov 16, 2020
Just as locking up large sums of lands has been a terrible and expensive idea, locking up 30 percent of our oceans does not translate to good stewardship.





