I am opposing this amendment which would block the Bureau of Energy Management from implementing the terms of a stay agreement between NOAA and several NGOs related to mitigation measures to protect the Rice's whales in the Gulf of Mexico. I guess my confusion here is that this amendment has already been overtaken by events. On October 27, NOAA announced that it had denied the petition from several NGOs to establish a mandatory 10-knot speed limit and other vessel-related mitigation measures to protect the Rice's whales in the Gulf of Mexico. Further, NOAA stated that it will not be proceeding with the rulemaking at this time. I guess I would ask the gentleman, now that he is aware of this development, since this happened just on October 27, would he consider withdrawing this unnecessary amendment from a bill that is already bloated with riders? It seems to have no purpose. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Share
More from Chellie Pingree
We, therefore, ask you to withdraw OPM and MSPB’s proposed rule, 'Promoting Employee Accountability,' and consider alternatives that preserve federal workers’ longstanding civil service protections.
I demand a recorded vote. The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania will be postponed. Amendment No. 82 Offered by Mr. Perry The Acting CHAIR. It…
I demand a recorded vote. The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania will be postponed. Amendment No. 83 Offered by Mr. Perry The Acting CHAIR. It…
I am sorry to say that this is a terrible farm bill. As a result of this bill, more people will go hungry, more farmers will lose assistance to the conservation programs that are already oversubscribed, and more farmers who are struggling…





