Rob Bishop

This draft guidance sets the stage for potentially sweeping Federal overreach by pushing agencies to examine greenhouse gas emissions that are beyond their ability to control or regulate the impacts.

I am highly dubious, and will listen closely to the testimony today for evidence whether or not that is the case.

The draft guidance acknowledges it is 'not legally enforceable.' In other words, it is unlawful.

The trend for this Administration seems to be that the end justifies the means.

The results will force more delays, more costs onto economic and energy-related activities nationwide.

The draft guidance is overly broad, expansive, it goes outside the scope of NEPA.

What you are proposing now will be used in the courts, and that is not what we are all about.

As was just mentioned before, this bill authorizes the study, which is the appropriate first step in all these types of procedures. Any designation of a trail would require additional action from this committee and this Congress. With…

I find the consequences of agenda-driven science offensive and pernicious.

I find it even more egregious when such science is financed by public dollars and advanced by federal agencies.

At every level a lack of accountability let the bureaucracy, or even the bully, win and our constituents, our friends, our neighbors, and our families paid with their livelihoods and their safety.

Are our concerns not important to you?

I appreciate listening to the testimony that was here.

The Part 83 procedures--quote--'are not based on standards or guidelines established by Congress, whose power to regulate Indian affairs under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution has been characterized by the Supreme Court as…

I have been among those calling for reforms in the recognition process. But contrary to what the Assistant Secretary will testify, I called for reforming the procedures, not for relaxing and eliminating the criteria for extending…

The proposed rule to Part 83 does not uphold high standards. It guts them. The proposal is fundamentally flawed.

Will you commit to pull back Part 83 revisions you submitted to OMB?

Five years since the Macondo spill in the Gulf, there is widespread recognition that a great deal has been accomplished to address safety and environmental issues raised by this tragedy.

I and others will be listening carefully to the witnesses' opinions on whether this Department has struck the right balance.

Moving forward, improvements to safety and responsible offshore energy development will require the continued involvement of both the private and the public sectors working collaboratively.

Unfortunately, that is a subject for a different day.

It is appropriate to acknowledge the damage that was caused.

That is a rather damning kind of concern to put in public, isn't it?

I am assuming you support NASA's decision in this regard.

So from what pot of money is that coming?