Rob Bishop: “Let me close by simply saying this. The environmentally friendly approach would be not to accept this amendment because…”

“Let me close by simply saying this. The environmentally friendly approach would be not to accept this amendment because think of all the trees you are going to save from reprinting an extra report that says the same thing over again. We are already doing this process in the law. Requiring NEPA plus the fishery statement is simply a replication of the process that is already there. It does not need to be there. You are not cutting anyone out, as has been said. It is simply one of those things that you need to do it the first time and do it right the first time, and you don't have to redo it a second time to allow lawyers to then come up with another chance to litigate one more time. I reject the amendment. I urge its rejection. I yield back the balance of my time. The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell). The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it.”