The other question I wanted to put, do I understand the proposal that has now been brought--sprung to the floor, so to speak, because I don't know that it represents the culmination of any consultative process--for people who have been working their way through the existing system toward getting some recovery for the illness and the harm they suffered, they would be required to go back and start all over again under this? Is that correct? I find that very difficult to accept. I just wanted to be clear on that particular point.
John Sarbanes: “The other question I wanted to put, do I understand the proposal that has now been brought--sprung to the floor, so to…”
Editor's note · Context
Questioning a proposal regarding recovery processes for individuals affected by illness and harm.
Share
More from John Sarbanes
I hope that today's hearing is the first step in continuing that legacy of strong bipartisan support for the Chesapeake Bay in this Congress.
Without the strong and continued investment the EPA has requested for the Chesapeake Bay Program in fiscal year 2024, the risk is we could jeopardize decades of work in collaboration towards the Bay's restoration.
But these are dramatic changes that can bring us to a new place and, I think, have given many people a sense of hope instead of despair in the face of what we are seeing with a warming planet.
This bill takes important steps to support the ongoing restoration of the Chesapeake Bay by reauthorizing NOAA's Chesapeake Bay Office and authorizing the agency's long-running Bay Watershed Education and Training, or B-WET Grant program.





