under nepa will occur. that means no independent hydrology study to access impacts of local water resources. that means no mining plan of operation, an independent jobs and economics report. that means no objective appraisal of the lands to be exchanged. we're stuck relying on the companies' numbers to guest te the value added to the -- guesstimate the value added to the taxpayers. i was astounded that the majority decided to shield the company from testifying in the hearing on this bill. we all would have benefited greatly from the benefit of hearing from resolution copper on the record for their support of the bill, their validity of the study, the lack of mining operations, the lack of a hydrology study associated with a real mining plan of operations and the negligent disregard for nepa standards and native american tribal consultation processes. how is the house expected to make an informed decision on this deeply controversial bill when the committee of jurisdiction didn't even bother owners and he pr

it's unnecessary because nepa already applies. nepa remains in force. this just allows needless and endless bureaucratic delays by allowing nepa to be done, an environmental impact statement at every step in the whole process. it is important to have a certainty of when the process is over so you know whether or not you can invest in a long-term project like this. seven to 10 years is beyond any of our economic cycles. it is not feasible from a business standpoint to wait that long in a commodity market like minerals and metals, to make these investment decisions. you have to have certain i -- certainty, you have to have closure, you have to have a time certain that you're done. the 30-month time frame is critical. we respect and uphold nepa, it remains in effect, but we get rid of the ability to do it as every step in the process. be a mendment would backwards step, back to the current status quo which makes it harder to have mining projects in this country work the jobs they create work the benefit to our economy that these minerals allow for. so mr.

they still need to go through the nepa process, for example, which is run out of ferc. so environmental review is still needed to come back for a final license. in the first case -- the first license granted, i think about a year inbetween the provisional and the -- and the final licen license. and even then that project is still not exporting. it's still i think a couple of years away from -- from exports, because these are large capital investments, you know, i mean, billion-dollar scale, and one has to arrange customers and suppliers to -- to make the project go. so going forward, what we have said is -- and this was established certainly before i was secretary, that the -- we evaluate the -- the applications case by case. roughly speaking in the order submitted. there's a published order so everybody knows where they are in the queue and we just -- we're working through the next one. there's no secret, the next one is cove point. you can go on our web site and in -- in maryland, the only one on the east coast, and we're now evaluating that application. as you say, i

any project less than -- nepa. any probably less than 10,000 acres does not have to go through analysis. but this would allow a project to move forward no matter the size or where it's located. without review, without judicial eview. we don't really know yet, i mean, i don't think a lot of the areas of the rim fire have yet been surveyed. certainly the forest service doesn't have the assets to do that. to find out what the impacts were. where the spot burns are, where the through burns are, what the conditions are. what areas would be critical to surviving wildlife, what areas are critical to watersheds and how we will deal with those areas, how we're going to recover the recreation in that area in the future. you know, what would happen with building of roads and logging and salvaged logging in those areas. so, i believe that this is, you know, a bridge too far in terms of expediting recovery and/or potentially salvage efforts and would oppose the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from oregon reserve? mr. defazi

laws like nepa and endangered species act are often the basis of lawsuits and aren't filed by the rank and file residents of montana who are working to collaborate our national forests but filed by extreme groups toll halt projects that could help prevent fires and create hundreds of jobs. in one of our hearings, a top national forest official deputy chief jim hubbard said litigation has played a huge role in blocking responsible timber sales in montana, including projects supported by collaborative groups. to quote mr. hubbard he said this, it has virtually shut things down in the national forests. and the gentleman from oregon mentioned, the numbers in montana are the same. timber harvest is down 90%. mr. chairman, something must be done and i'm glad i'm joining you to introduce this bill. h.r. 1526 will revitalize the timber industry in montana and create thousands of good high-paying jobs. reducing the threat of catastrophic wildfires in montana. the act will cut the red tape that has held up responsible forest management and timber production and includes comprehensive reforms to