Wayne Gilchrest

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. If the gentleman would yield for a second, first of all, I want to compliment the gentleman on this fascinating factual presentation which leads me to what I want to say. The gentleman said something earlier about finding solutions to the problem is going to be similar to the Manhattan Project or similar to placing a man on the moon within a decade when President Kennedy made that statement, and it is that kind of leadership from this Congress, from the administration, to incentivize, to create the kind of inspiration from the general public, to put these forces together to make it all work.

Mr. GILCHREST. If the gentleman would yield just for a second, I am sure he knows, but the general public, I do not think realizes it is not necessary to be sitting right on top of a volcanic area, an earthquake zone to get geothermal energy. We on the Eastern Shore of Maryland have a number of schools that are actually providing heat for those schools from geothermal energy. Some of these things are sort of a hidden secret. But it is the classical conventional wisdom that keeps us from exploring some of these things a little bit further. And I think the gentleman is bringing those out tonight.

Mr. GILCHREST. It is actually bringing water up from the surface, from the subsurface. The water is much warmer further down.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans have been in the majority for basically 10 years, and we have done a number of very positive things. What I would like to speak to this august body about tonight is an issue of oceans. In 1994, when the Republican majority took over, they began to reorganize the committee process. At that time, they wanted to make it more applicable to the Members to represent their districts, to represent their regions and to be more efficiently organized, to spend the taxpayers dollars wisely. What we did, however, was to consider that we will continue to reorganize the process as the years went by to ensure that Members had an opportunity to serve on the committee that not only represented their districts, but that also represented their desire to be a visionary Member of this Congress. One of the committees that was eliminated was the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee that dealt with oceans issues, fisheries issues, the Great Lakes and things of that nature. The reason that one single standing committee was important was because there are billions and billions and billions of dollars that are generated in the U.S. economy as a result of the world's, and especially the jurisdiction of the oceans, that fall in the United States, of the oceans, whether that is trade, whether that is commercial fisheries, recreational fisheries, marine habitat, the weather, the climate, the rain that sustains the country. All of these issues are dealt with because of ocean and Great Lakes issues. The committee, however, was reduced to a subcommittee and put under the jurisdiction of the Interior Committee which was renamed the Committee on Resources. There is still a great deal of effort to put forth a good ocean policy by the Federal Government. However, since the full committee was reduced to a subcommittee, much of the jurisdiction was taken away. On the House side, there are 19 full and subcommittees that deal with a myriad of ocean issues; and, as a result of that, even though committees work well together in their area of jurisdiction, the issues dealing with oceans are relegated to a very small piece of any one single committee, even the Committee on Resources, where that full standing committee became a subcommittee. Because the issues are so fragmented, there is no one particular center of gravity to develop policy, in my judgment, for the U.S. ocean policy. What I am suggesting that we do in the next Congress is that we create a standing committee that has full jurisdiction over the oceans, that takes that $120 billion annual economy that is generated by oceans, that deals with the commercial fishing activity from Alaska to Hawaii, to the Pacific, to the Gulf of Mexico, to the Atlantic Ocean, an area whose jurisdiction is larger than the 50 States combined. We take all of those issues and we combine it into one full committee, and that one full committee will have jurisdiction over the issues that are dealt with as far as the oceans are concerned. Let us just take commercial fishing activity, for example. Everybody has gone into a store and purchased fish. Everybody has gone into a restaurant and ordered fish. That generates billions upon billions of economic activity. But 75 percent of the commercial fish caught in U.S. waters spawn in tidal estuaries, and one of the problems with tidal estuaries is they are being polluted. They are being fragmented. They are being dammed. They are being degraded in a whole host of ways. And there is not really one single entity in the Federal Government that can work with the State government, the private sector and various groups to take a look at the loss, which is as much as 20,000 acres on an annual basis. So just on the perspective of an economic agenda I feel confident that an oceans committee, which would be the center for the perspective on developing coordinated U.S. policy on oceans issues, is vital in the next Congress. So, Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues, when this comes up for an issue, to vote favorably in this direction.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Madam Speaker, H.R. 3479, the Brown Tree Snake Control and Eradication Act of 2004, introduced by the distinguished gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo), has wide support. This particular species, the brown tree snake, has been an awful nemesis on Guam for 50 years. It has virtually eradicated all of the local bird population that nests on the ground. It has been a problem for many decades, and the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo) has been relentless to bring that to our attention to do something about it. This particular bill offers a number of approaches and solutions. It broadens the level of Federal involvement and research in the brown tree snake programs in Guam. It requires the establishment of predeparture quarantine protocols so the brown tree snake does not go anywhere else in the South Pacific. It declares that the brown tree snake is nonmaleable, thank goodness for that; clarifies the role of the brown tree snake technical working group, and authorized an enhanced level of Federal financial assistance. So basically the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo) has created a structure upon which it is possible, and many people thought it was impossible up to this point, to actually eradicate the brown tree snake. In my district in Maryland we have had a problem with an invasive species called the nutria, a rat that weighs about 30 pounds, from South America. It has been a significant problem for about the same period of time, but because of a similar proposal structure, Federal involvement, State involvement, and so on, we have neared the time where we are eradicating that particular species. So I want to compliment the gentlewoman from Guam. We will work with her until the day that there are no brown tree snakes in Guam at all.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, the issue here is not about the manufacturing extension program, the issue is about the dollars. When we talk about the issue of dollars, we talk about the practicality of the limited resources in the Federal Government that are distributed over a wide range of areas. All of us collectively agree that the Manufacturing Extension Program is fundamental, it is good, so our argument is, let us make sure that we get this bill passed. It is $470 million over 4 years, a 200 percent increase. It will increase the ability for production, for efficiency in energy costs, for marketing strategies, for new technologies. It will dramatically increase the base of the manufacturing sector in this country by pulling together the collective ingenuity of partnerships from the Federal Government, one is one-third, the State government, which is one-third, and fees, which is one-third. So I urge my colleagues, let us vote to ensure that we have a program that is reality, and not have a program in hopes of having a program, but in fact does not actually pass. So I reluctantly urge my colleagues to vote against the Democratic amendments and vote for the base bill.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with the chairman. I would like to draw the attention of the chairman of the subcommittee to the proposed reductions in the appropriations for NOAA of nearly $400 million. The appropriation subcommittee over the years, including this one, has been very supportive of the issues dealing with the oceans and those issues that surround our oceans, our exploration, and our coastal problems. I also understand the delicate balance and appreciate the difficulty faced by the subcommittee in allocating limited funds across the board when there are so many pressures. Our oceans and coasts support over 2.8 million jobs, generate over $54 billion in goods and services, and are the most popular destinations for recreation and tourism in the United States. But I can see next year some major initiatives dealing with the oceans in this particular Congress as a result of the Ocean Commission Report. Some of the more pressing needs include an integrated ocean observing system, ocean science and exploration. We currently know more about the Moon than we know about our oceans. It is important for us to adopt the principles of ecosystem management for our oceans and coasts and focus on control of marine and coastal aquatic invasive species. So, Mr. Chairman, I would like to work with the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) as we move the process along, knowing the difficulties of a limited budget, so that we can continue to fund adequately the science and the kinds of science that NOAA needs.

Mr. GILCHREST. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman. I look forward to working with the gentleman from Virginia and his fine staff.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleague, Representative Ehlers, in introducing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act at the request of this Administration. Our Subcommittees in the Science and House Resources Committees share jurisdiction over authorization of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, programs and I'm proud to say we work well together. Our joint introduction of a NOAA organic act is just one step in our commitment to work together to solidify and better support NOAH agency functions. NOAA performs a number of vital services to the nation, including the monitoring and management or our oceans, monitoring meteorological trends, and making life-saving storm predictions. Its job is to bring together many pieces of complex oceanic and atmospheric systems so that we can best understand and utilize them as good stewards. Our very lives, particularly along the coasts, depend upon many of NOAA's functions and our future, especially as we observe the impacts of atmospheric, surface and ocean warming trends, rests on how well we support this work. NOAA's work emphasizes an ecosystem approach and enables the U.S. to best manage our place in the global environment as well as the impacts of global changes on us. This effort, given its many and diverse pieces and constituents, needs strong and central leadership and coordination, just as steering a ship requires a captain and a plan. Because NOAA does not have a single organic act that requires the agency budget, as a whole, to be authorized on an annual basis and because many NOAA programs are authorized under different public laws and committees of jurisdiction, NOAA programs may be authorized at different times. NOAA's functions, in the contexts of many laws with varying purposes, are difficult to oversee and for the agency to fulfil under these circumstances. In light of these challenges, NOAA has done well, and by crafting an organic act for the agency, the Administration has taken the first important step toward the leadership we need to strengthen NOAA's role. As one of the key recommendations of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, this effort is a necessary component to improving our ocean management. I look forward to working with Representative Ehlers and my colleagues on both the Resources and Science Committees and the Administration with this important legislation and on continuing to pursue and create greater central coordination of ocean policy issues.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), chairman of the subcommittee, in relationship to an invasive species issue in the State of Maryland. Invasive species all across this country have wreaked havoc on a number of ecosystems from California to the Great Lakes to Florida to numerous areas of the east coast. One of the specific invasive species that we are dealing with in Maryland is called a nutria. It looks exactly like a rat, only it gets to be about 30 pounds. This was to a certain extent brought to the United States with the blessings of Fish and Wildlife Service to add to the trapping economy with possum, groundhogs, and a number of other species for their pelts and for their meat. Nobody liked the pelt of the nutria. Nobody liked the meat. And all of a sudden this particular species became invasive and has destroyed tens of thousands of acres of wetlands across the United States, nearly 10,000 acres of wetland just in the State of Maryland. We have been very successful in eradicating nutria in a specific wildlife refuge in the State of Maryland that covers about 28,000 acres, eliminated the nutria there, with the Federal, the State government, the local governments, and the private sector. We need to do it on about 80,000 more acres in the State of Maryland to completely eradicate the nutria in this part of the country, which will set up a type of trapping system that can be used in other parts of the country. In this Interior appropriations bill, however, there is no money. It has been zeroed out. We have spent about $6 million over the last 6 or 7 years. And I would like to ask the chairman if at some point we could work on bringing some dollars to keep this program, very successful program, continuing.

Mr. GILCHREST. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much. This is a fine example of a great, successful program; and we will work with the chairman of the committee.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. America mourns these past few days the passing of a true American, one who reflects not only the values of the country in the 21st century or the 20th century, but Ronald Reagan had inherent in his body and his soul and his mind and his heart the idea that each of us has a passion for freedom, that each of us has a sense of urgency for justice. Jefferson will be remembered for many, many things; but we will all remember those words, ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.'' And Lincoln will be remembered for many, many things, but we will all remember those words after the Civil War: ``With malice toward none, with charity for all, let us work together to bind up the Nation's wounds.'' And a century later, another American that reflected the true values of our country said that ``you will not be judged by the color of your skin, but by the content of your character.'' These men through the centuries brought America together. They united America. They had a vision for America. Ronald Reagan will be remembered for many, many things, but we will all remember with a sense of seriousness and joy when he said, ``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall.'' So what Mr. Reagan was trying to do was to impart that passion for freedom, that urgency for justice, not only for Americans and the vast array of cultures that we have here but for the rest of the world. Mrs. Reagan, the Reagan family, America, President Ronald Reagan will be missed, but always remembered.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, what I would like to do to the Members assembled here tonight is to give a perspective on whether or not to some degree the climate on the planet is changing based on observational techniques by U.S. scientists. What I would like to do as far as this perspective is concerned is to say about 500 years ago people thought the world was flat until there was observations and exploration. And through those techniques, Columbus, for example, it was discovered that the Earth was round. Galileo, the scientist, said that the Earth revolved around the Sun. As a result of that, he was put in prison and his life was threatened because at the time the religious doctrine was that the Sun revolved around the Earth because it was not mentioned in the Bible that it was the other way around. But then through certain techniques and observation, scientific discoveries, more information being disseminated, we realized that the Earth revolves around the Sun. The other interesting perspective about 100 years after Galileo was a man named James Usher, a bishop in Ireland, said that the Earth was formed in 4004 B.C. but that was before we had the science of geology, geologic techniques. And through a series of information-gathering, it was discovered that the Earth was several billion years old. In fact, we did not realize how old it was in the extent of the universe until the Hubbell spacecraft. Now we have this thing called climate change. And there is a great deal of discussion on that, whether or not there is climate change or whether there is not climate change, can humans impact the Earth so that the actual climate will change. What I would like to go through very briefly are some observational discoveries about planet Earth. For example, the oceans cover 70 percent of the surface. The oceans store 1,000 times more heat than the atmosphere. The ocean transports about 50 percent of the energy it receives from the Sun. It transports that. That means if you look at the heat that hits the equator, and the oceans have a current and they move that, that heat is moved to the northern latitudes and that moderates temperature so that it is not that cold. In the northern latitudes, the high latitudes, since the ocean currents move back the other way, some of that cold is moved down toward the equator, and it moderates the heat at the equator. As a result of those ocean currents, the Earth, as we know it now, 21st century, has a heat balance that we are used to. But that heat balance throughout the geologic time has changed many, many, many times. So what are the observations of the ocean? There is increased salinity as a result of some of the warming trends that the Earth has experienced in the last 100 years, and there has been a warming trend. There might be some dispute about how that warming trend has impacted, but there has been a warming trend. We could look at some of the impact of the warming trend since in the last 50 years we have put more CO2 back into the atmosphere than what it took nature millions of years to lock up in the form of CO2 trapped in fossil fuel deep under the ground. If you looked at a map of the United States at night, you could see all the lights, you would see one long consistent trail, which actually is about 24 hours, from Florida to Maine of automobiles on Route 95. From Florida to Maine we would see this crease. You will see it in all the major cities, whether it is Miami, Chicago, Pittsburgh, Los Angeles, et cetera, et cetera, and New York City certainly, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, Houston, Dallas. We are spewing more CO2 into the atmosphere than the Earth's ability to absorb that and process that so we have that same balance. We have seen a change. This kind of change in the balance or the makeup of the atmosphere has not been seen on planet Earth based on scientific ice core analysis for 400,000 years. So we see a salinity change around the equator in the ocean currents. We see elevated evaporation rates around most of the oceans because of the warmth, warming trend. We see increasing freshening of the ocean water in the northern latitudes, consequently changing the direction of these currents. And through these observations, we find some interesting perspectives that need more research on climate change.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to reform the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) to clarify that human introduced exotic avian species are not covered by the provisions of this landmark law. The United States is currently a party to four international treaties to protect and conserve populations of migratory birds. Two years after the signing of the first treaty with Great Britain, Congress enacted the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. This act is our domestic implementing law and it statutorily commits this Nation to the proper management of certain families and species of birds. After reviewing these treaties, it is clear that the list of covered species is not exhaustive, there is an inconsistency between migratory and nonmigratory birds and no distinction is made between exotic and native species. Despite this fact, for over 80 years, there has never been a debate over whether exotic species should be protected under this act. Federal wildlife authorities have consistently treated exotic birds as falling outside of the provisions of the MBTA. However, three years ago, a U.S. District Court of Appeals Judge, in the Hill v. Norton case turned this policy on its head by ruling that exotic mute swans, which are native to Europe and Asia, are covered because they are in the same avian family as native tundra and trumpeter swans. As a result, neither the States nor the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service can effectively manage mute swans. This species contributes to the degradation of Chesapeake Bay habitats by consuming large amounts of submerged aquatic vegetation and has destroyed nests and young of Maryland-stated listed native colonial waterbirds: least terns and black skimmers. The population of exotic mute swans has dramatically increased in the Chesapeake Bay from five birds that escaped captivity in 1962 to more than 3,600 today. There are more than 14,000 mute swans living in the Atlantic flyway. As a result of this Federal court decision, an argument can now be made to apply the MBTA provisions to other introduced, feral populations of exotic birds, such as, Eurasian collared doves, house sparrows, English starlings, Muscovy ducks, pigeons and a host of other species. These species were introduced by humans after the enactment of the 1918 Act and to varying degrees they are extremely destructive to the ecosystems in which they reside. Pigeons, or rock doves, are alone responsible for up to $1.1 billion annually in damages to private and public property. They are the single most destructive bird in the United States. On December 16th of last year, my Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans conducted an oversight hearing on exotic bird species and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. At that hearing, a diverse group of witnesses testified that Congress must reform the 1918 statute. For instance, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service testified that ``affording the protection of the MBTA to introduced birds that are not native to the United States is ecologically unsound, contrary to the stated purposes of the MBTA and contrary to efforts by the Federal government to control invasive species''. It is my firm belief that it makes absolutely no sense to spend millions of dollars trying to control nonnative invasive species like the snakehead, brown tree snake, nutria, mitten crab, asian carp and zebra mussels, while at the same time expending precious resources to achieve the same conservation standards afforded native species under the MBTA for introduced avian species. States are ready to work with Federal and local governments to control populations of exotic birds. Following this hearing, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, which represents all 50 States, submitted a statement indicating that ``The Association would strongly support congressional intervention to clarify that certain exotic species of birds are not covered under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act''. Exotic, invasive species are having a huge impact on this Nation's native wildlife and fisheries, economic interests, infrastructure and human health. In fact, it has been estimated they are costing our economy about $100 billion each year. Mr. Speaker, I have carefully read the testimony and concluded that we can not idly sit by and allow exotic species to undermine the fundamental core of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act which is to conserve native species. My bill is a simple common sense solution. It will restore a nearly century-old policy that reserves the application of the MBTA to native species. It will again allow Federal and State wildlife biologists to effectively manage exotic species at levels that do not conflict with the Federal and State obligations to conserve native species and habitats. My bill has been endorsed by a number of governmental, conservation and environmental groups including the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the American Bird Conservancy, the Izaak Walton League, the Maryland Ornithological Society, Environmental Defense, the Nature Conservancy and the National Wildlife Federation. I urge my colleagues to join with me in support of the Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act of 2004.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly urge a no vote on the gentleman's amendment. Every State in the Union gets an increase in Federal dollars in this bill. The distribution of all these Federal dollars depends on highway traffic on Federal highways. When one State says they gave $12 billion through the Federal gasoline tax and excise tax, that is true, but all that money did not come from that particular State. That money comes from people that transit all over the Nation. The gentleman from Connecticut talked about several interstate highways intersecting in the small State of Connecticut, so their proportion needs to be dependent on the Federal highway traffic on Federal highways. Mr. Chairman, I urge a no vote.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation coming up this afternoon, the highway transportation bill. I implore that my other colleagues in the House also support this measure. One of the sticking points here is the highway formula about donor States and donee States. I would like to remind my colleagues, Maryland is a donor State through the formula. I would like to remind my colleagues that everybody that goes through your State, from near or very far away, pays those gasoline taxes, pays those tolls, et cetera, et cetera. So we as Americans contribute in a collective way all across this country to ensure that the interstate highway system provides sufficient opportunity and avenues to continuously stimulate our dynamic economy. There are some questions about the formula here, but those questions I think should not hold up this important piece of legislation. Our truckers, the people that ride trains, the cargo that go across this country on trucks and trains, our commuters, our salesmen, our vacationers, our explorers, they travel across the Nation's highways, which is the foundation for the infrastructure of this Nation. I hope my colleagues will vote for this piece of legislation. There is one provision that is in the Senate version of the highway bill that is not in the House version of the highway bill, and that is a 2 percent set-aside to understand how you can engineer, in other words, do it right the first time, a highway, so you do not contribute to the pollution of the Nation's waterways, which is also important for the infrastructure, the environmental infrastructure, of this Nation. So I would like to work with the House and the Senate and will work with the chairman of the Committee on Transportation to ensure that that Senate version provision, the 2 percent set-aside to engineer our highways, to reduce or eliminate storm water runoff into the Nation's water system, remains intact. This is a bill that deals with human infrastructure, and we have an opportunity to take the first big step to ensure that human infrastructure is compatible with nature's infrastructure.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 2584) to provide for the conveyance to the Utrok Atoll local government of a decommissioned National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ship, and for other purposes.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 2584 passed the House on November 11, 2003, by voice vote. The bill, as passed by the House, included a number of important provisions including the transfer of a decommissioned NOAA vessel to the local government of the Utrok Atoll, the reauthorization of the Yukon River Salmon Act of 2000, the reauthorization of the Fishermen's Protective Act of 1967, and a provision to correct and ratify certain promotions within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Corps. The Senate has made several additions to the legislation which make it a stronger conservation measure. These additions include language to implement the Pacific Albacore Tuna Treaty, a measure which will help ensure the sustainable conservation and management of the albacore tuna fishery shared by the United States and Canada; and language to allow certain U.S. fishing vessels access to South Pacific tuna stocks consistent with revisions to the 1988 South Pacific Tuna Treaty. The bill was further amended to strike a provision of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004, which would have delayed the implementation of important conservation and management measures in the Northeast multispecies fishery management plan. This provision is important to the continued rebuilding process for New England groundfish stocks and to meet court-ordered timetables. Finally, the amendments include a requirement that a plan for the use of the decommissioned vessel be submitted to Congress by the local government of the Utrok Atoll in consultation with the government of the Republic of the Marshall Islands. I urge Members to support these important provisions by voting ``aye'' on the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to thank the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega), the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall), and the staff on both sides of the aisle for helping to bring this measure to the floor. I hope for a unanimous vote later on this afternoon. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record an exchange of letters between the chairman of the Committee on Science and the chairman of the Committee on Resources regarding this legislation. House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Washington, DC, March 26, 2004. Hon. Richard W. Pombo, Chairman, Committee on Resources, House of Representatives, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: I understand that the House plans to take up H.R. 2584 as amended by the Senate. Thank you for your support in having the Committee on Science added to the list of Committees to which the Utrok Atoll local government must report after receipt and use of the decommissioned National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ship. The Committee on Science supports passage of this bill as amended, but wishes to clarify the Committee's jurisdiction over the NOAA Corps. Based on conversations with the Office of the Parliamentarian, the Committee on Science understands it would receive a sequential referral of legislation involving the NOAA Corps. Recognizing your wish that the House of Representatives consider this bill as soon as possible, I will not exercise the Committee's right to a sequential referral of H.R. 2584 based on the Committee's jurisdiction over the NOAA Corps. This decision to forgo a sequential referral does not waive the Committee's future jurisdiction over the NOAA Corps. I ask that you include our exchange of letters on this matter in Congressional Record during floor consideration of

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2584, the bill just considered.