this is an odd motion as you read it and one that I don't think takes full account of how aware people are of the effect of gas prices, which is the issue that the other side has talked about all day. It says that there will be education of the public regarding the effect of high fuel prices. I think the public is fully able to educate itself with respect to that impact. This is a distraction. It doesn't really connect to the underlying bill. It was not offered in committee. It was not offered as part of the rules process. But more importantly than that, this is styled, as was just indicated, as a ``promptly'' motion and, therefore, effectively would kill the bill. And I can't imagine why anybody would want to kill this bill. What this is designed to do is to recognize the incredible commitment that has been made by ordinary citizens on behalf of the Chesapeake Bay. It would reauthorize on a permanent basis the Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program and Watertrails Network, which was first enacted in 1998. This is a successful, efficient and effective program.…
Editor's note · Context
Opposing a motion related to gas prices during a discussion on the Chesapeake Bay Gateways Program.
Share
More from John Sarbanes
These are successes that are going to create new jobs. They are going to strengthen our domestic clean energy production.
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.
If you concluded that putting some reasonable limits in place and trying to find a way to enforce them would lead some percentage of your users to leave TikTok and go somewhere else, is that something that you are prepared to accept?
The health of the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed can only continue to improve through robust Federal, state, and local partnerships.





