I would just, again, like to remind my colleagues this was requested by the communities so there wouldn't be a delay. We are not eliminating NEPA. There is already a process in the Magnuson Act which was not there in the original act, I will say that, and I did support it when it went in. But to duplicate it and to require outside interests that they cannot respect those in the community--which is really what her amendment would do. It lets other outside interest groups get involved in this issue of sustainable fisheries. This has always been a fishery community bill, not an outside bill or interest groups getting into the issues of sustainability and community activity through transparency. What you do is you start a duplication of the process. It is not necessary. We are not eliminating NEPA. We are just adding to it.
Share & report
More from Don Young
First, let me thank the Speaker and the minority leader for their introductions. I have been in the House for 45 years, with nine Speakers and nine Presidents. I have been in this House with 2,000 Members who have left. I love this body. I…
This is an issue that should have been settled a long time ago. In 2009, this Congress passed a land exchange piece of legislation, very similar to this, and we made one mistake. We did put into it the ability to have the Fish and Wildlife…
You know, I rarely do this, but I'm deeply disappointed in my good lady from Washington. * * * This was a preserve, and we were guaranteed this in the Alaska National Lands Act. No more. No more. And the State, under the Constitution, has…





