Would you let me know? Would you answer that question in writing as well?

Thank you. And I would ask you to identify a specific person that will respond in writing to my request.

Will you commit your organization to meet with them and other stakeholder groups?

So is it fair for me to assume that the liability standard may in some instances at least, deter utilities from assisting Federal land management agencies in clearing fire hazards?

I am proud to say that Wyoming has led the pack by securing the first and only federally approved state sage grouse plan.

The Administration has finally admitted that the law needs more transparency, more state and local involvement, and less unproductive litigation.

The goal was preventing a species listing that would devastate western economies, which it can because it affects 11 states.

It is a refreshing day when the Administration admits that the law needs more transparency, more state and local involvement, and less unproductive litigation.

We need this open dialog with the Administration on how to bring the ESA into the 21st century.

The purpose of this hearing, as I understand it, is to allow states to tell their remarkable stories.

This Administration has had 'just say no' policy on ESA improvements for the last 6 years.

Today, I rise in support of the Lummis-Zinke-Cramer-Smith amendment: to prohibit the unilateral decrease of the alert status of our Nation's ICBM force. Nuclear deterrence is based on the fundamental belief that a nuclear attack on the…

In recognition of the fact that the concern here is the unilateral decrease of the alert status, I now yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers), the chair of the Armed Services Committee's Strategic Forces…

I have an amendment at the desk. The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Add at the end of subtitle D of title XVI the following: SEC. 1657. PROHIBITION ON DE-ALERTING…

This so-called guidance didn't even go through rulemaking, which is astounding when you consider its economic impacts.

I agree with Chairman DeSantis that the Federal Government needs to take the EMP threat seriously by including it in DHS national planning scenario.

So if a disagreement occurs between agencies about the application of the guidance, would CEQ get involved?

So it's not chump change.

That's why I support Congressman Trent Franks' Critical Infrastructure Protection Act.

The Federal Government needs to follow the lead of State-based utilities and harden the grid against an EMP threat.

Look, major Federal decisions should be informed by an understanding of how they impact our environment.

That will lead to project delays, project modifications, added project costs, mitigation costs, or even project denials.

But the Council on Environmental Quality's revised draft guidance on greenhouse gas emissions turns NEPA on its head.

What would be the practical effects of an agency not following the guidance?

The new greenhouse gas guidance assumes that any greenhouse gas emissions contribute to global climate change, and are hence environmental impacts.