this is a good bill, but I have some concerns. There are 60 separate authorizations in this bill; 10 were cleared through my committee. The remaining came from the other body. What bothers me is we have sent over to the other body a WRDA bill that they should be acting on. When we have that many projects in an appropriations bill without having to go through the due process, including my committee, I think it is inappropriate. I have worked with the chairman and the chairman of the subcommittee. My staff has worked with them, and we worked through what the House projects should be and they were cleared. But now we see a small WRDA bill. When the conference report was filed, I was a little shocked. In fact, it has two projects in this bill which were not asked for by either the House or Senate. Two projects were inserted by the Corps itself. I think this is a bad way to legislate. The bill overall is a good bill, but what we ought to be doing is passing a WRDA bill out of the other body and getting that done because this Nation needs a sound policy.
Editor's note · Context
Addressing concerns about the appropriations bill and the need for a comprehensive WRDA bill.
Share
More from Don Young
More broadly, this sequence of events starkly illustrates why we believe fishery management plans should be developed in-region through a transparent and robust review process rather than through an outside, centralized body.
Alaska's own Representative Don Young voted in favor of H.R. 1620's expanded jurisdictional definition.
We have learned firsthand that resource development and protection of the environment are not mutually exclusive goals.
When the tribe asked Congressman Don Young to cosponsor the bill years ago, he looked me in the eye and said, so the landowners get resolved, the tribe still has to prove its case, are you sure that is what you want? I said, yes, sir, it…





