Suzanne Bonamici

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Jerralynn Ness, the Executive Director of Community Action in Washington County, Oregon. After more than 40 years of dedicated service, Jerralynn is retiring. Jerralynn will leave a remarkable legacy. Her work has made northwest Oregon a better place--a place where people can access the support they need to escape poverty. Under Jerralynn's leadership, Community Action has helped families find housing and afford basic utilities, provide quality early childhood education for their children, and access prenatal and child care services. Connecting families and children with essential services improves their health and overall quality of life. Just as important, Jerralynn's work contributed to a sense of dignity for the families served through Community Action. Because of Jerralynn, more Oregon families have clean, comfortable homes; more Oregonians have control over their finances; and more children in Oregon are entering school healthy and prepared for academic success. The happy, productive lives of these families are an appropriate tribute to Jerralynn, who has been a selfless champion for those living in poverty. During decades of change at Community Action, Jerralynn and the organization remained committed to President Johnson's promise of equal opportunity and his directive that we ``pursue poverty, pursue it wherever it exists.'' Jerralynn spent her entire career helping people build better lives. The communities of northwest Oregon will miss Jerralynn's leadership, but her legacy will be carried forward through the families who are now enjoying lives full of opportunity and promise.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bills. This closed rule makes in order misguided legislation that would seriously limit access to crucial healthcare services, like cancer screenings, and limit access to contraception that would prevent unwanted pregnancies. We are talking about defunding Planned Parenthood? How counterproductive. In my home State of Oregon, more than 72,000 patients were served by Planned Parenthood in 2013 alone. We are talking about real women and men who received compassionate, preventive care. I have heard from Oregonians like Stacy, who went to Planned Parenthood and got a lifesaving cancer screening when she had no insurance. It is unfortunate that the House is using its limited time to debate legislation that harms women, but it is downright irresponsible to even consider shutting down the government over access to these vital services. There is no evidence that Planned Parenthood has broken any laws. We have seen proposals like this before. It is time to end these attacks on women's constitutional reproductive rights. I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and other legislation that limits access to vital healthcare services.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, over the last several weeks I have been carefully considering the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the agreement that is intended to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. There is no question that preventing Iran from ever developing a nuclear weapon is in the best interest of the United States, Israel and the Middle East, and the rest of the world. I favor diplomacy over military action whenever and wherever reasonably possible, and I strongly agree that an engaged and unified international community, led by the United States, is the best option to preserve peace by keeping close watch over a rogue state that seems to respond only when the world's major powers speak in one voice. It is through this lens, and with these goals, that I approached my analysis of the JCPOA and the potential consequences of Congress accepting or rejecting the agreement. I will vote to support the agreement and advocate for vigorous oversight and enforcement. To reach this decision, I carefully read the agreement, reviewed classified intelligence materials, and participated in both classified and unclassified briefings. I have spoken with President Obama, and I've heard thorough explanations from Secretary of State Kerry and Secretary of Energy Moniz. Knowledgeable critics of this agreement offered compelling arguments, which I considered in my analysis. I asked questions of the Administration and other experts and evaluated their responses. I have discussed the agreement with people from Iran and Israel, and others with deep ties to both nations. Constituents have offered significant input in letters, emails, phone calls, conversations, and at town hall meetings across Northwest Oregon. As I deliberated, I recalled my time visiting Israel, and always kept in mind my knowledge and understanding of how volatile the region is and what it's like to live under constant threat. Reaching this decision was not easy. The consequences of this agreement will shape the future of the region and the world. The complexity of the agreement, and the questions it raises about the future that cannot be answered irrefutably, contributed to the fervent, well-reasoned, and passionate opinions on all sides. Many people who I know and respect deeply have reached a different conclusion; I acknowledge their concerns but have concluded that rejecting the deal will not diminish the possibility that Iran will obtain a nuclear weapon. In my assessment, if Congress rejects the agreement, it could result in a higher likelihood of Iran developing a nuclear weapon while at the same time diminishing the global leadership of the United States. Implementing the JCPOA, on the other hand, will preserve the principal role of the United States in dealing with Iran in the future, and it is our best chance to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Right now, without the agreement, the ``breakout time'' for Iran to acquire fissile material for a nuclear weapon is a mere 2-3 months. Under the JCPOA, the breakout time for at least the next decade will be extended to a year, and there will be no sanctions relief until that breakout time has been extended and Iran has taken multiple required steps and completion of those steps has been verified. These steps include reducing Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium by 97 percent, removing the core of the heavy water reactor and filling it with concrete, and submitting to ongoing inspections and continuous, unprecedented monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Iran can only enrich uranium to 3.67 percent, a level far below the 90 percent range that is necessary to build a nuclear weapon. Sanctions ``snap back'' and can be reinstated if there is a violation. The JCPOA does not affect the existing U.S. bans on weapons sales, and, importantly, no option, including military force, is taken off the table. Like most negotiated agreements, however, the JCPOA is not perfect. Because of that, some suggest that we should reject the deal and bring the parties back to the table in an effort to make it better. But our negotiating partners agree that this is a deal worth pursuing, and I concur with many experts who say it would be a near impossibility to convince all parties to return to the table. Even then, it is not at all clear that the outcome of future negotiations would be better than the current agreement. Others have argued that the agreement is likely to fail given Iran's history of noncompliance. Yet throughout this process, no one has suggested that the Iranian government can be trusted. This is not a deal built on trust, but rather on verification. The agreement puts in place a comprehensive inspection regime, some of which is permanent, that will supplement the work of intelligence agencies and provide confidence that Iran could not dash for a nuclear weapon without being caught. Rather than reject the agreement, Congress should come together and commit to vigilance in holding Iran to every aspect of the JCPOA and to the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which provides that Iran, as a signatory, is never allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. We should make clear--very clear--that anything short of strict compliance will result in the swift reimposition of sanctions. Working together in Congress and with other world leaders will give us the best chance to make sure that Iran complies with its obligations and the best chance to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. I support this bill.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, during consideration of the motion to suspend the rules and pass S. 1359, E-Warranty Act of 2015, I was not able to cast a vote because of a delayed flight. Had I been present I would have voted yea.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to introduce H.R. 3175, the Assuring Contracting Equity Act. This legislation promotes economic development for many of the small businesses and communities that were hit the hardest by our country's recession and are still struggling to recover. As I tour small businesses in my district, I am constantly reminded of the critical contribution they make to our communities. But too often our small businesses can't access or are unable to take advantage of federal contracting opportunities. By raising the contracting goal, the government will need to be more proactive in its outreach to small businesses. More contracts will help small businesses grow and hire more workers, empowering them to continue to give back to our communities. The Assuring Contracting Equity Act will expand opportunities for small businesses to secure contracts with the federal government; particularly businesses owned by women, veterans, and minorities. The bill also provides increased access to government contracts for small businesses located in economically distressed areas known as Historically Underutilized Business Zones, or HUBZones. In addition, the ACE Act improves accountability and transparency by requiring the Small Business Administration to report the percentage of all federal contracting dollars that are awarded to small businesses as well as direct agencies to prioritize large contractors that maximize subcontracts to small businesses. In my district and across the country, small business owners are striving to succeed. The Assuring Contracting Equity Act could redirect an additional $10 billion in business every year to the nation's smallest companies, giving entrepreneurs the potential to expand their businesses and continue creating jobs and growing our economy. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Assuring Contracting Equity Act to provide a greater opportunity for success to the small businesses that deserve it the most.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2146, the Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015. For the past several years I have had many conversations about trade with the people of Northwest Oregon. I've spoken with farmers, environmentalists, semiconductor manufacturers, wine makers, workers, sports and outdoor apparel employees, and others. The district I represent has many trade-dependent jobs and industries. We export a broad array of products--from computer chips to potato chips. Last year in Oregon, nearly 6,000 Oregon companies exported more than $20 billion in products. Expanding the overseas markets for U.S. goods will help businesses expand in this country. Trade agreements done right make it easier to sell American-made goods and they level the playing field by reducing tariffs that currently make it difficult for Oregonians to compete in many of the world's markets. This legislation is not the trade agreement itself, but rather a bill through which Congress establishes requirements for the negotiation of trade agreements and the procedure for Congress to use when voting on whether to approve the agreement when it is final. The Trade Priorities and Accountability Act earned my vote because it requires the President to negotiate a trade agreement that includes strong and enforceable labor and environmental standards, fosters innovation, would help expand exports, provides transparency for the American people, and guarantees a meaningful role for Congress in trade negotiations. I strongly support the rights of workers and their ability to collectively bargain and work in a safe environment. I also oppose child labor and forced labor. The Trade Priorities and Accountability Act raises the bar in these areas and includes provisions that require trading partners to comply with internationally-accepted labor standards and face trade sanctions if they do not. For the first time it includes human rights--one of the cornerstones of our democratic values--as a negotiating objective. Oregon's First Congressional District is known for its natural treasures--from the Pacific Ocean to the Columbia River to the Clatsop State Forest--and it is imperative that they be preserved for future generations. Deciding between conserving our natural resources and growing our economy is a false choice; we can and must do both. The Trade Priorities and Accountability Act ensures that our clean air, land, and water will not be up for negotiation. The bill also protects intellectual property to safeguard innovation and fight piracy overseas, but with provisions to ensure that those protections will not impede access to much-needed medicines for people in developing countries. The Trade Priorities and Accountability Act requires trade agreements to contain high standards and protections, and it also requires that the agreements include strong enforcement provisions to make clear that the standards and protections will be upheld and enforced. It is important to my constituents that any trade agreement be accessible and transparent to the public. The Trade Priorities and Accountability Act includes unprecedented access to trade agreements; the entire final agreement must be made available to the public for a minimum of 60 days before the President signs it. In addition, after the full text of the trade agreement becomes public, there will still be months before Congress votes on whether to approve it. To earn my vote, any trade agreement must be good for Americans. The jobs we gain by expanding exports tend to pay high wages, but there is a risk that some workers may be displaced by trade and by globalization. Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) is an important program to help workers transition into new fields by investing in skills and worker retaining. Without a reauthorization, TAA will expire at the end of September 2015. I voted in favor of TAA last week, but unfortunately it did not pass. But let me be very clear, I voted for the TPA again today because the Speaker, the Senate Majority Leader, and the President have committed that Trade Adjustment Assistance and customs enforcement legislation will also move forward without delay. I was deeply concerned that an early version of TAA legislation included cuts to Medicare. Seniors serve our country, contribute to our economy, raise families, and strengthen communities across the nation. I urged House leadership to eliminate this provision. The bill I voted for did not cut Medicare and I will continue to work with my colleagues to ensure seniors are not singled out to pay for this program. This trade package, however, is far from perfect, and as we move forward I will continue to work to pass TAA and improve the trade agreement. I am very disappointed that partisan language to tie the administration's hands on climate change was inserted at the last minute into the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act, which passed the House of Representatives last week without my support. I am also very concerned that two very smart enforcement provisions offered by my colleague from Oregon, Representative Earl Blumenauer, were deleted. His ``Green 301'' and enforcement fund provisions were very important to the overall effectiveness of the customs bill, and I will encourage the conferees to insist upon their inclusion in the bill we ultimately send to the President's desk for signature. We live in a changing and global economy. Markets, industries, and technologies evolve and American businesses and workers need to be able to react and adapt to thrive. A 21st century trade agreement broadens our country's reach and, done right, leads to more opportunity, more growth, and more job creation. It also supports the principle of trade according to fair rules, equally applied, as opposed to all parties doing whatever they want on a playing field that is far from level. I am committed to policies that support a strong, long-term economy for hardworking Oregonians and Americans. A trade agreement done right can help achieve this goal, and passing H.R. 2146 is an important step in this process.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, recently, I visited Warrenton High School in a small coastal community in my district in beautiful northwest Oregon. I met with students who were working on an underwater robotics team. These talented students are running simulation experiments in a pool in preparation for the Marine Advanced Technology Education competition. This year, students were asked to maneuver their underwater robots to retrieve items like algae and sea urchins from the ocean floor. This hands-on learning fosters collaboration and creativity in students and helps them see the connections between what is in their textbook and how it translates to practical work that can make a difference for our planet. Perhaps more importantly, this kind of activity builds problem- solving skills and shows students that trial and error is a natural part of growth and discovery and learning. After visiting the underwater robotics team, I joined students at their school's fish hatchery, where they raise salmon for release into local waterways. This program provides opportunities for students to develop skills in biology, water chemistry, engineering, and natural resources management and contributes to our ability to sustain an economically and culturally important fishery; importantly, it also gives them valuable skills and leadership in management. In the United States, we face a growing shortage of innovative workers, people who are prepared to tackle the challenges of the future. This is an especially serious problem because we absolutely must grapple with one of the greatest environmental threats this Nation has faced, climate change. Today, too many students, particularly young women and minorities, lack access and opportunities to engage in this hands-on kind of STEM learning occurring at Warrenton High School. Here in Congress, we must be doing more to foster and support students who have become the problem-solvers of tomorrow. Doing so makes economic sense and environmental sense. We need smart, passionate students to help understand environmental challenges and changes, to develop the technology to address our growing impact on our planet, and to find more sustainable practices. Oregon is home to some excellent research universities. The University of Oregon, Oregon State University, and Oregon Health & Science University are all working on a wide range of research and development programs to help combat and adapt to climate change. These universities are conducting the basic science we need to understand and anticipate changes and trends, as well as the applied science to help use existing information to develop practical tools and technologies to meet the challenges presented by climate change. They model changes caused by sea level rise; they help shellfish hatcheries adapt to ocean acidification, or they develop new types of biofuel. This is exciting, important research; and we need smart, passionate young people to take up this mantle. June is National Oceans Month. This month, we recognize the value of our oceans, lakes, and coastline, and we recommit to protecting these bodies of water. I would also like to recommit to developing and investing in technologies to help stop and begin to repair the damage we have done to our oceans, our coasts, and our ecosystems. Improved and innovative technology development in areas such as renewable energy and water conservation have the power to make a real difference for our planet and for current and future generations, but we can't do it without people like smart, skilled students who will become the workers in the workforce of tomorrow. Those students in Warrenton, Oregon, and others like them are our future leaders and problem-solvers. Let's help do all we can to make sure that they have the tools and the resources they need today as students and tomorrow as scientists, engineers, and innovators who can meet the complex challenges ahead and turn them into productive opportunities that will better their communities, their States, our country, and the world.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Chair, as we have heard this evening, it makes no sense that industrial hemp is legal to have and legal to use in manufacturing but can't be grown by our own farmers. Right now the companies that are manufacturing with hemp have to import it from places like Canada and China. They should be able to grow it in our own country. Please support this bipartisan amendment. Industrial hemp is grown differently from marijuana. It looks different. The enforcers can tell it apart. Let's let our farmers grow industrial hemp. Please support this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Chair, I rise to offer a bipartisan amendment with Mr. Massie to restore power to the States to regulate the cultivation of industrial hemp within their own borders. The House adopted this amendment last year with strong support from both sides of the aisle. This amendment is very simple. It would move our country in line with industrialized countries around the world that long ago recognized the importance of industrial hemp as a natural resource, an agricultural commodity, and a versatile component that is now found in more than 25,000 commercial products. In fact, not only does this amendment bring America in line with much of the rest of the industrialized world, it brings America back in line with our country's history. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson grew it. The first drafts of our Constitution and first laws were written on paper made from it. During World War II, the USDA encouraged patriotic American farmers to raise it for the war effort. They even produced a slick promotional film titled ``Hemp for Victory.'' Now, at least 23 States have passed laws to allow farmers to grow it, too. Unfortunately, the Federal Government stands in the way of family farmers who want to grow hemp. The senseless classification of hemp as a schedule I drug contributes nothing to public safety; instead, it robs our farm economies of a potentially multibillion-dollar crop that is used to make everything from rope to soap. The amendment would simply allow farmers to grow hemp in accordance with their own State's laws. The amendment does not eliminate regulation in hemp cultivation; it simply divests the Department of Justice and the DEA of their ability to treat hemp like marijuana because hemp is not marijuana. So far, 23 States have passed laws to allow farmers to grow hemp. Right now, farmers in California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia are waiting for the Federal Government to get out of the way. Because the Department of Justice refuses to acknowledge what Washington and Jefferson knew, that hemp is an agricultural commodity and not marijuana, these State laws take a back seat to Federal overreach. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment, and I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie), my cosponsor.

Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), my colleague.

Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Chair, may I inquire into the amount of time remaining.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to ensure the continuity of NOAA's polar satellite program by restoring its funding. There are many important priorities in this bill, but the technical nature of this satellite program and its value to our Nation are being overlooked. The importance of these satellites and the need to maintain the information they collect is not daily news, but the accurate, timely data the satellites provide to our weather forecasters is crucial. This data is needed not only in severe weather scenarios, but also for the wide-ranging accessibility to everyone in our Nation, from those who hear a weather forecast on the local news to the millions across the Nation who open up an app on their phones. Weather is important. It affects everything from our commute to the food on our table. In fact, a 2009 study from the American Meteorological Society stated that U.S. weather forecasts generate $31.5 billion in benefits for $5.1 billion in cost. Unfortunately, past trouble and mismanagement in the polar satellite program means that a gap in coverage within the next decade is possible, with the worst-case scenario being a gap lasting more than 5 years. Any loss of coverage from the polar satellites would have serious consequences on the accuracy and timeliness of our weather forecasts, warnings, and the capabilities of the National Weather Service. Thankfully, NOAA and NASA have worked very hard to get the polar satellite program back on track. Unfortunately, the bill we are considering today has the potential to undermine that progress. The President's fiscal year 2016 budget request included $380 million for a polar follow-on program. This important program will minimize the risk of a gap in polar weather data and address a recommendation from various independent groups, including the Government Accountability Office, regarding the need to develop a robust satellite program, a program that can withstand a launch failure. By not funding the polar follow-on program in 2016, the continuity for the polar weather mission is put at risk and the Nation will be exposed to the vulnerabilities and impacts of a potential gap. Mr. Chairman, working families in my district and across the country are balancing enough already. They need to rely on accurate and timely forecasts, not worry about a gap or where the weather data comes from. We need this program to continue so we do not lose the gains we have made. Americans deserve to have access to the best available scientific data. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, the funding levels in this bill are stretched so thin that it is impossible for me to find more than $300 million to provide an offset. So I do ask the subcommittee chairman and ranking member to work with me on ways that we can find to preserve and maintain this essential program. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I have amendment No. 5 at the desk.

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned, I do plan to withdraw this amendment. I do want to emphasize the seriousness of this issue in addressing it. I do contend that the amount in this bill is inadequate. So I do look forward to working with the committee chairman, the ranking member, and the committee going forward to address this very important issue. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), my colleague.

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, can I please inquire about the remaining time.

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to increase funding for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, to support its Integrated Ocean Acidification research and fulfill the administration's requested funding level of $30 million in fiscal year 2016. The administration's requested funding increase for ocean acidification research reflects a growing consensus in the scientific community and in the coastal and fishing communities that so many of our colleagues and I represent. Ocean acidification is already affecting marine organisms and could irreversibly alter the marine environment and harm our coastal ecosystems. On the West Coast alone, a $270 million shellfish industry has experienced disastrous oyster production failures and faced the risk of collapse in recent years because of changes in water condition that have been attributed to ocean acidification. This change in chemistry is caused by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere dissolving into the ocean, and the increased acidity of the ocean is harming basic building blocks for life in the sea. This makes it more difficult for marine organisms to build their skeletons and shells, and it slows the formation of important ecosystem features like coral reefs. These changes can ripple through the food chain, disrupting delicate marine ecosystems and threatening major commercial fisheries. In the Pacific Northwest, the combination of seasonal upwelling of acidic waters, low alkalinity, and increased anthropogenic carbon dioxide creates some of the most corrosive ocean conditions in the world. In the last few years, Mr. Chairman, the scientific community has increasingly raised concerns about the ocean. Researchers at Oregon State University have been working with the fishing community in Oregon to determine the effects of acidification. They have been helping the shellfish hatcheries assess the oyster die-off and finding ways to mitigate the harmful upwelling events by monitoring the water entering their facilities. This exemplifies the kind of academic and industry partnerships that are possible when the Federal Government supports academic research. NOAA's Integrated Ocean Acidification research program supports extramural research awards that fund studies on acidification in ocean, coastal, and estuary environments. Not only does this program support studies on the effects of acidification, it also allows NOAA to run the observing system that helps monitor areas of increased acidity. These examples have focused on the effects in Oregon and on the West Coast, but our changing ocean conditions can have far-reaching implications for fisheries throughout the U.S., including the East Coast and Gulf shellfish industries. It also affects the people across the Nation who eat seafood and the stores and restaurants that sell it. Mr. Chairman, it is clear that we need more information, which is why NOAA's Integrated Ocean Acidification research program must be fully funded. Unfortunately, this bill falls short of what the American people and our fishing communities deserve. I urge support of the amendment, and reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I have amendment No. 4 at the desk.

Ms. BONAMICI

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I rise today in support of the substitute amendment to H.R. 1806 and focus on one issue. The underlying bill would set a harmful new precedent by authorizing funding at the directorate level. Currently, funding levels for the National Science Foundation for each directorate are based on strategic priorities and science-based recommendations from the National Science Board. This is how it should be and how it remains under the substitute amendment. By setting authorization levels according to directorate, this bill would limit the flexibility NSF needs to set strategic priorities and adapt and capitalize on unanticipated discoveries. I share the concerns of many experts that the underlying bill would reduce authorized funding levels for specific directorates: the Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences and the Directorate for Geosciences. Some of this funding has been used, for example, for Oregon State University to conduct research on ocean acidification. It has also been used critically to support the work in Oregon to develop our understanding of the risks posed by a Cascadia subduction zone earthquake. Other examples are around the country. In summary, the underlying bill diminishes the ability of the National Science Foundation to make strategic science-based decisions. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the substitute amendment.

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer), a member of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee.

Ms. BONAMICI. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Peters), a member of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee.

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chair, may I please inquire as to the amount of time remaining.

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.