it also clarifies nepa, that you don't have to do a second nepa on these small jobs. anything greater than 1.5 megawatts, you do the analysis again, but for small projects on manmade property where the land has already been disturbed and already is having an analysis done and mitigation has already taken place, we move on and do the job. the bureau of reclamation does have the right of categorical exclusion but they won't do it. all they say we may start thinking about it sometime in the future. let me give you an example. there are three specific projects in the neighboring state of mine. one was mandated by congress in 1990. they are still starting the process because of that administrative red tape. two other projects it took a full year for them to decide to go through a process. when they did it they realized there was no change. it had already been done before. all you did was take a year to check off the box and do the expense with it. we had somebody from arizona come in and testify that the administrator review cost more than the actual construction of the pr

you're sorry trying to point out, there is more than just ceqa and nepa involved. i'm going to give some examples because i question whether there was proper, full, responsiveness on planning meetings about this. there have been two recent instances where i had made complaints about notices i am planning. so far, i am two and 0. do you know for certain -- are you sure, are you sure you are sure that there was requirements in compliance that when there was a meeting notice, the people were told alternative format information would be available? that even for the blind, there could be a tactile map of some of this -- do you know that? with the language ordinance the city has about material being available in spanish and chinese, was that part of the notice? i bring that up because with the heron's head block of green walks, that was not the case. i got the mayor's office of disability involved. they are training staff. things have changed. i just got the notice yesterday. similarly, when there was a concern some weeks ago about public open space in a private building

we are also moving for process nepa process to designate solar energy zones where we would steer development to areas that have already been screened, analyzed, cleared for such development. in the near future we would steer the development to the best place where is the development can go forward and actually achieve our mutual goal of diversifying our nation's energy portfolio. at the same time, we understand that these are large scale projects. they're large footprints on these public lands. therefore, we need to make sure there's appropriate mitigation to offset the lands that are being dedicated for that particular type of use. we work very closely with the communities, with we're working very closely with all public land stakeholders, with the industry itself, as well as environmental groups to come up with an appropriate mitigation for such a large scale commercial development. and i think we're seeing some successes. >> power is very costly at this point in time. senator murkowski and i have a bill which would expand our knowledge about geothermal energy and its potential. can you sp

we have to adhere to nepa. we have to adhere to consultation, not only with native americans but fish and wildlife services to ensure the proposals before us can be adequately mitigated. so there are an awful lot of rules and regulations that companies would have to adhere to. but each of those rules and regulations are intended to make sure that the production goes forward to the degree that it can be allowed as appropriate. but also the leasing reforms that we have applied is to provide greater certainty to the industry themselves that if they lease a parcel of land that they're going to be able to develop that parcel of land. and i can tell you in 2009, that was not the case. >> thank you. my time has expired. >> i'll follow on because you've given me a little bit of assurance by saying that the decision has not been made on this issue of increasing the royalty rates on shore. you have stated, and rightly so, that it is more costly to develop on the public lands, and so as we look to a royalty rate increase,

too often nepa delays onshore and offshore exploration. my amendment provides a commonsense solution. it requires agencies to use in whole or in part an existing environmental review document if the document is substantial the same as the permit under consideration. this amendment doesn't exempt age sreus -- agencies from complying with nepa and does not provide for categorical exclusions. it provides for agencies to use their previous work so they don't have to reinvent the wheel. madam president, i am disopponented the majority continues to prevent the senate from doing its job and that we heard an objection to these amendments. high gasoline prices are causing hardships for american families and american businesses. my republican colleagues and i filed a number of amendments to s. 2204. we would like to have votes on these amendments. we would like to take steps to increase american oil production. instead, like we just saw, the majority says "no." no to more american energy, they say. no, they say, to jobs. and no, they say, to strengt

it places a road block by elimiting and in some cases outright waiving nepa. and h.r. 7 eliminates osha protections for hazmat workers and allows bad actors to continue to receive hazmat compliant exemptions. so this body could have considered and passed the other body's bipartisan bill which passed that body by a vote of 74-22. that's half of the republican members in the other body, and we know how difficult it is to get that other body to get 60 votes to cut off debate on any resolution or any bill, even one saying i love mother would be hard to pass in that body. yet, for a transportation bill, they came up with 72 votes. that bill continues current funding levels, sustaining approximately 1.9 million jobs. the states will receive $3.8 billion more in highway construction funding than h.r. 7 over the course of two years. the senate bipartisan bill eliminates many of the gaping loopholes in current law buy american requirements, and the senate bipartisan bill does not contain poison pills like h.r. 7 such as provisions to strip osha requirements for hazmat

it places a road block by elimiting and in some cases outright waiving nepa. and h.r. 7 eliminates osha protections for hazmat workers and allows bad actors to continue to receive hazmat compliant exemptions. so this body could have considered and passed the other body's bipartisan bill which passed that body by a vote of 74-22. that's half of the republican members in the other body, and we know how difficult it is to get that other body to get 60 votes to cut off debate on any resolution or any bill, even one saying i love mother would be hard to pass in that body. yet, for a transportation bill, they came up with 72 votes. that bill continues current funding levels, sustaining approximately 1.9 million jobs. the states will receive $3.8 billion more in highway construction funding than h.r. 7 over the course of two years. the senate bipartisan bill eliminates many of the gaping loopholes in current law buy american requirements, and the senate bipartisan bill does not contain poison pills like h.r. 7 such as provisions to strip osha requirements for hazmat

we have to adhere to nepa. have to adhere to consultation not only with native americans, but with the fish and wildlife service to insure that the proposals before us can be adequately mitigated. so there are an awful lot of rules and regulations that the companies would have to adhere to, but each of those rules and regulations are intended to make sure that the production goes forward to the degree that it can be allowed as appropriate. but also the leasing reforms that we have applied is to provide greater certainty to the industries themselves that if they lease a parcel of land, that they're going to be able to develop that parcel of land. and i can tell you this 2009 that was not the case. >> thank you. my time has expired. senator murkowski, please. >> well, thank you, and i'll follow on because you, you've given me a little bit of assurance by saying that the decision has not been made on this issue of increasing the royalty rates onshore. you have stated, and rightly so, that it is more costly to deve