On the recordDecember 10, 2019
We understand that for some industries interested in the exploitation of our oceans that the Marine Mammal Protection Act is inconvenient. We understand that we ask for limitations on the activities of those industries, which would otherwise not demonstrate any discernible concern for our oceans. And we reject the basic premise that that regulation is not necessary for our oceans. Our marine mammals deserve our protection, and we have protected them, and we have worked through the give-and-take of legitimate activities in the oceans where they can and should be balanced with impacts on our marine mammals. So, again, I respectfully submit that this particular proposal, which has been--as the ranking member points out--thoroughly vetted in prior Congresses, although not brought to the floor, can in fact yield a good, solid debate. But we simply reject the position taken. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time. {time} 1645 The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson). The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it.





