Wayne Gilchrest

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 5946) to amend the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to authorize activities to promote improved monitoring and compliance for high seas fisheries, or fisheries governed by international fishery management agreements, and for other purposes.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5946, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 2006. I want to thank Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye for their hard work in getting this authorization to the Senate and to the House. I also want to thank Chairman Richard Pombo, who has been a champion for the recreational and commercial fishermen of this Nation. We will miss his leadership greatly. And I want to thank and support all the other Members and their staff that have been involved in this process. At this point I will insert in the Record an exchange of letters between Chairman Pombo and Chairman Boehlert regarding this bill and between Chairman Pombo and Chairman Thomas regarding the polar bear provisions contained in title IX, originally part of H.R. 4075. House of Representatives, Committee on Resources, Washington, DC, July 13, 2006. Hon. William M. Thomas, Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: I ask your cooperation to help schedule consideration by the House of Representatives of H.R. 4075, the Marine Mammal Protection Act Amendments of 2006, during the week of July 17-21, 2006. I have proposed an amendment to this bill which includes text from S. 2013, the United States-Russia Polar Bear Conservation and Management Act of 2005. The Committee on Ways and Means has a jurisdictional interest in this Senate bill because of its inclusion of trade measures. My staff has worked with yours to develop a mutually-agreed on text for this amendment, and I have enclosed this amendment for your review. I ask that you not seek a referral of H.R. 4075 based on the inclusion of this language to expedite Floor scheduling. Of course, this action would not be considered as waiving or affecting your jurisdiction over the subject matter of the amendment, nor as precedent for any future referrals of similar measures. Moreover, if the bill is conferenced with the Senate, I would support naming Ways and Means Committee members to the conference committee for the trade provisions. I would also be pleased to include this letter and your response in the Congressional Record during consideration of the bill on the Floor. Mr. Chairman, I have been very pleased with the tremendous degree of cooperation between our two Committees. Your staff, especially Angela Ellard and Steven Schrage, has been responsive and thoughtful, and my staff very much appreciates their support and teamwork. I hope that you will give my request serious consideration and I look forward to your response. Sincerely, Richard W. Pombo, Chairman.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank Jim Saxton from New Jersey for his work on this bill. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the Resources Committee, Richard Pombo.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Pallone. I want to yield now to the part of the country that has the largest fishery, to Congressman Don Young.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Mr. GILCHREST. I want to thank Mr. Rahall and his staff and the Members on that side of the aisle, and Mr. Pombo for his effort, Mr. Young, and Mr. Jim Saxton, and certainly the staff behind me for all their work. This is not a perfect bill. There is no utopia in the legislative process. Through consensus and dialogue, we have tried to integrate the ideas of the Members, and we feel very strongly that we have come up with a bill that will improve, sustain and restore the ecology of the Nation's oceans. I urge my colleagues for an ``aye'' vote on this legislation.

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

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for allowing us to have this debate today. The human condition on the planet requires that there be strong military power under certain circumstances, strong intelligence under certain circumstances, strong sanctions under certain circumstances, and strong dialogue. The President recently spoke to the Iranian people through The Washington Post. Here is what he said: ``I would like to say to the Iranian people, we respect your history. We respect your culture. I recognize the importance of your sovereignty, that you are a proud nation. I understand that you believe it is in your interest, your sovereign interest, to have nuclear power for energy. I would work for a solution to meeting your rightful desires to have civilian nuclear power. I will tell the Iranian people that we have no desire for conflict.'' If we hope to convince our allies and the international community that we are serious about resolving this matter diplomatically, the U.S. must open direct diplomatic channels with Tehran.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 362) to establish a program within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the United States Coast Guard to help identify, determine sources of, assess, reduce, and prevent marine debris and its adverse impacts on marine environment and navigation safety, in coordination with non-Federal entities, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 362.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, S. 362, the Marine Debris Research, Prevention and Reduction Act, was introduced by Senator Inouye of Hawaii and was passed by unanimous consent in the Senate in July last year. The bill would enhance the Federal Government's capabilities to remove and prevent the creation of marine debris that is derived from ocean-based activities. Marine debris degrades very slowly, is highly buoyant and can be carried thousands of miles by ocean currents. Marine debris poses significant entanglement threats to many marine organisms, including fish, crabs, birds and marine mammals and can have serious consequences on human health. The bill would require the establishment of a Marine Debris Prevention and Removal Program with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to coordinate that agency's existing activities and requirements to reduce the impact of marine debris on the environment and navigation safety. The bill also would require the Coast Guard to implement measures to improve compliance and enforcement of laws and international agreements regarding the discard of plastics and garbage from vessels. The bill also amends current law to reactivate the Interagency Marine Debris Coordinating Committee, rather than establish a new interagency forum, as was proposed in the Senate-passed bill. The bill before us today is the result of extensive consultation between the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on Resources. The bill has strong bipartisan support, and I expect the Senate to act quickly to send this legislation to the President. S. 362 will significantly improve the Federal Government's programs to prevent and remove marine debris without creating unnecessary, duplicative programs. I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, especially the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) for his work on this issue. To use another term, marine debris is trash and garbage which is massively discharged into our oceans. Some of it is degraded within a few days, others will last for hundreds if not thousands of years. As Mr. Pallone mentioned, the Ocean Commission dedicates an entire chapter to the problems of marine debris. This legislation, with the help of the staff on the Transportation Committee and the Resources Committee, will go a long way to solve this problem. Mr. Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote on the legislation.

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

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to thank Mr. Porter for the legislation; Mr. Osborne, Mr. Davis, and the staff for bringing this to the floor and for bringing it to the attention of the Members; and, Mr. Speaker, to the general public at large. The community service for youth across this great Nation is, I think, for the most part, doing one of the best jobs it can for the youth of America who are homeless, who each day, instead of a bright, sunlit opportunity, they find despair, and they do not know what hope is. They do not know what joy is. But they probably know what a prison cell looks like at a very young age. What this legislation does, and what we all should continue to pursue, is dedicate our words to the front line of service that Mr. Davis was talking about and Mr. Osborne has mentioned, those people who are mostly volunteers that provide the shelter, provide the hope, provide the work for these people who are homeless. And what we hope this resolution will do, and what we should continue to work towards, is to create a better framework for homeless youth, that more people will get involved. The community service, the front line service, can be expanded to an immense pool of people that will spend just a very small amount of their time on a weekly or monthly basis if they go out into their community and find out where a homeless shelter is and then visit that homeless shelter and talk to those youth and give them hope and give them opportunity and let them know that someone cares about them. Create a Boy Scout troop for juvenile delinquents. Create a Boy Scout troop or a Girl Scout troop for people who are homeless, who are living in homeless shelters. Almost 40 years ago, my brothers and a couple other people who had not gone to college, we all got out of the service. We had just gotten out of Vietnam, and we got involved with a minister and a lawyer that created a Boy Scout troop for people who committed felonies. We created a Boy Scout troop for juvenile delinquents. And the way to get in that Boy Scout troop was that you had to have committed a felony or you had to be homeless or one of those categories. And it transformed their lives. This Sunday in my district, we are going to have a picnic for 30 homeless children and, if they come, their parents. And what we are going to do is we are going to walk through the woods, we are going to feel the cool shade of the forest, and we are going to identify trees and we are going to talk about nature's design. Then we are going to take them on a short canoe ride and walk them on the beaches of the Sassafras River. But we are going to show them that in their dreary, hopeless life, there are magnificent opportunities. The people on the front line need help. There is a massive amount of opportunity out there for people to see something that they don't see every day, to find out where a homeless shelter is in your community, and then go and talk to the people who service those homeless shelters, talk to the people who fund those homeless shelters, and talk to the people who are in those homeless shelters and provide them with dignity, respect, hope, and opportunity. It is a matter of initiative, ingenuity, courage, and compassion. And it can all be done. And I want to thank Mr. Osborne, Mr. Davis, and Mr. Porter and his staff for this great resolution.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to a couple of items here. One, to the gentleman from California, Mr. Farr, as far as who has the prettiest district in the country, I would like to invite Mr. Farr from California to ply the placid waters of the Sassafras River and enjoy either a dawn or sunset in a canoe as we go past the marsh and beautiful forested areas along the coastal Chesapeake Bay. He just accepted my invitation, so I appreciate that. I also have some understanding of where Mr. Farr comes from, as far as dealing with the organic act and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, including what we can call the wet side and the dry side of NOAA. As we move forward with this legislative agenda and this process with the bill that Mr. Vern Ehlers brings to us today, I want to say two things as far as this bill is concerned. Number one, Mr. Ehlers has not only worked for 6 years on this issue, Dr. Ehlers has worked 10 years on the idea that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that was created by executive order in 1970 by President Richard Nixon needs, as Mr. Boehlert defined, a specific direction and order prescribed by the U.S. Congress, so that it has a definitive, objective goal that Members of Congress can pursue a specific oversight agenda for. Dr. Ehlers has worked very strongly with both sides of the aisle to bring this bill before us today. Now, there is a small piece that we can add to this as the process continues, as Dr. Ehlers said. We will add the fisheries and the oceans side of NOAA as we move along. But this bill before us today is a piece of legislation that provides the direction that Congress needs to set goals and be a part of the agenda of an administration to ensure that the Nation has the kind of satellites to give us the kind of weather reports that will enhance local reporting and save literally billions of dollars on our understanding of weather patterns, of hurricanes and things of that nature. It also has an understanding of the coastal ecology in this particular part of the bill. What this bill does, and we will include as soon as we can the oceans part of this bill, but what this bill does is literally recognize that there are trillions of dollars tied up in satellite communication, in the private sector communication of satellites, and a whole host of other areas that will give us an understanding of marine research, of how the oceans affect the climates. I urge my colleagues, as we move along in this process, this bill that Dr. Ehlers, in a bipartisan fashion, has brought to the House floor today be voted on.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to make a comment on the chairman and the ranking member of this committee, that they have done a stunning job given the allocation. What I would like to do with this amendment is to explain why it is important to take $738 million out of the space exploration program in NASA, that is the program that will send the man to the Moon and a man to Mars, and put that money into the National Ocean Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Ocean Atmospheric Research Service of NOAA. The Ocean Commission, commissioned by Congress, the members were appointed by the present President, Mr. Bush, recommended 200 items to be done with the world's oceans as ocean policy for the United States. They recommended that we put in $3.9 billion to implement those recommendations. Well, we know that the budget is tight. The problem, though, is this particular appropriations bill provides for $300 million below the President's request for 2007, $300 million below the President's request, not even coming anywhere near, not even approaching the $3.9 billion. If you look at the budget for NOAA in 2005, we are, with this bill, with this budget, putting in $800 million less than the 2005 budget. With the 200 recommendations to be implemented with the $3.9 billion that this commission recommended, we are attempting to resolve the issue of most of the world's largest fish, like you see here, 90 percent of their population is gone, 90 percent. By the year 2050, the coral reefs that are healthy in the upper picture will look like the below picture. By the year 2050, we could have 60 percent of the coral reefs completely diminished. That doesn't even come close to the severe problems along U.S. coastal areas, the Gulf of Mexico, around Florida, the south Atlantic. In this picture you see the dead zone, which is about a third of the area of the Chesapeake Bay. Our coastal areas are being depleted. I urge an ``aye'' vote on this amendment to take $738 million out of the manned space program to Mars and the Moon and put that amount of money into the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure if I have any other speakers on the floor. I would simply say that, out of about approximately $16 billion that is spent on NASA and less than $4 billion spent on ocean issues, that is a pretty big disparity. We need to spend the $16 billion on NASA, and probably a lot more. But, in my judgment, the Moon will be there for a long time. Mars will be there for a long time. And I don't want to take the money out of needed science programs, but the world's oceans are being degraded. They are being degraded in a number of ways by human activity that is not compatible with nature's design and the bulging population and acidic problems in the ocean. Because of burning of fossil fuel, the coastal areas are being inundated with our populations and being polluted. It is time that this country looked at this world, this Nation, and came up with a comprehensive, well-funded ocean program. I want to thank the gentleman from Maine for speaking on behalf of this amendment. I want to thank the chairman for the time and his comments.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. As we debate the war in Iraq, Afghanistan and the war on terrorism, there will be strong, heartfelt feelings and expressions on this House floor. Let us, however, as we debate have a powerful sense of resolution, a powerful sense of urgency, a powerful sense of urgency to end the war and to end the war successfully. A stable, free Iraq, a stable, free Afghanistan will be a blessing to the Iraqis, a blessings to the Afghanis and a blessing to the region and the world at large. The war on terrorism is the next stage of the Cold War. Civilized people who believe in the rule of law, justice, equality and freedom cannot allow self-anointed fanatics to rape, pillage and murder at will around the globe. A great Islamic theologian once said, ``One hour of justice is equal to a hundred-year prayer.'' The world wants to hear from us. It is our job to end the war in Iraq successfully. The United States, with the assistance of and for the good of the civilized world, can and will defeat terrorism. This debate is our hour of justice. General Eisenhower said, ``The emphasis of the military is on authority and obedience; the emphasis on public office is communication and consent.'' As we craft this resolution, I urge you to keep these themes in mind. And as we will eventually walk across the graves in Arlington Cemetery, listen to these words: ``We are the dead. Short days ago we lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow, loved and were loved. And now we lie in Flanders Field.'' Let us work together through this debate to figure out how to end the war.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think there are two things both sides of the aisle can agree with today. Demand is up. We look at our country, China, and India, and the price is up. Those are two things we all agree on. What we don't agree on, I guess, which is why we have this debate this afternoon, is supply. The United States Government, including the Army Corps of Engineers, recently completed a study saying that peak oil is real; supply is down. Drilling for oil in ANWR, regardless of how much limited supply is there, will not, will not bring the price down. The world burns, burns, 25 billion barrels of oil a year. We burn it. ANWR will bring us about 5 billion barrels. That will postpone the world decline in oil reserves by only 2 or 3 months. Once we burn it, and the key word here is burn, once we burn it, it is gone. What is at the bottomless well? It is not oil. As some of the speakers have said, it is ingenuity, it is intellect, and it is initiative. What else do we have oil use for? We have it for pharmaceutical products and medical products. We have it for plastic products. We have it for asphalt and the fabric of this civilization, and we are burning the legacy of our children's future. Let us hold this one area for its pristine beauty and oil reserves for our children's future.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemen from Utah for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the rule and I rise to support the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, what I would like to speak to at this point is in the underlying bill there is a provision which states that this body, that there is a sense of Congress that we should recognize that there is an ongoing problem with the amount of carbon dioxide, CO2 that is being emitted as a result of burning fossil fuel and that the United States should take steps to reduce that emission of CO2. Now, carbon dioxide makes up a fraction of less than 1 percent of the atmosphere, and yet that one element in the atmosphere, less than 1 percent, a fraction of 1 percent, pretty much determines the heat balance or the climate of the planet. CO2 is increasing, especially over the last 100 years, as a result of burning fossil fuels. We are having a dramatic impact on the heat balance of the planet. Let us just look at some simple scientific observations. This is data that is conclusive among the scientific community. 10,000 years ago we were at the end of the last ice age, and we can measure the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere 10,000 years ago. It was 180 parts per million. 180 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere 10,000 years ago. Now, let us fast forward almost 10,000 years. It was 280 parts per million 100 years ago. So almost 10,000 years it took to increase CO2 into the atmosphere from natural processes 100 points, from 180 parts per million to 280 parts per million 100 years ago. Now, let us fast forward 100 years to today. It is 380 parts per million. So what took 10,000 years to increase in the last 100 years, we have done that that fast, from 280 parts per million to 380 parts per million in just 100 years. What we are saying is that dramatic increase is attributed to human activity burning fossil fuel. That dramatic increase has resulted in glaciers receding traumatically around the planet, the warmest 10 years on record from the 1990s. Hurricanes are getting stronger and more fierce, and all we have to do is take a look at what happened in New Orleans, lower Louisiana, Katrina, Rita, Wilma, Florida, et cetera, et cetera, because the atmosphere is warming as a result of an increase in CO2. The seas, the oceans are warming as a result of increasing CO2 into the atmosphere that is directly attributed to fossil fuel burning by human activity. The polar ice cap is melting. In the last 20, 25 years it has decreased in volume by 40 percent. Twenty years ago, the amount of water running off the ice caps of Greenland was 20 cubic miles a year. Now it is 53 cubic miles a year flowing off Greenland. If Greenland's ice cap melts, that is a 23-feet sea level rise, try to imagine that, depending on where you live. Human activity, the burning of fossil fuel, is increasing CO2, and so the idea that we should have a sense of Congress that this is an observable problem and we should take a look at it is only reasonable. The U.S. is losing competitiveness, economic opportunities for advanced technologies unless we move forward with this. I support the underlying rule.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee for his work and the staff on the hard work they have done on this bill. Based on the limited allocation that they have received, I think they did a pretty good job. Mr. Chairman, I want to speak specifically to a provision in the bill that I support, and I want to thank Mr. Dicks for putting the provision in the bill, and I want to thank the chairman for allowing it to stay in the bill. Basically, the provision I would like to speak to is the sense of Congress in this bill that deals with the fact that this Congress should pay attention to, work with, and try to understand the increasing amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and what does that mean. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, while it represents a tiny fraction of 1 percent of the whole atmosphere, is the chief gas that determines the heat balance; it determines the climate. And there is a scientific consensus that within the last 100 years, especially within the last 50 years, human activity burning fossil fuel has put huge amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, thus debilitating or changing that heat balance that we have known for a long time. An example: 10,000 years ago, at the end of the Ice Age, it is calculated through analysis that there was 180 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It took 10,000 years for that to go up 100 points. 10,000 years. Now, in the last 100, but especially in the last 50 years, it has risen 100 points. So what the natural environment did in 10,000 years, human activity burning fossil fuel has done in less than 100 years. Now, what does that mean? Does that mean whoever talked about global warming is crying Chicken Little, the sky is falling; don't worry about it, nothing will happen? Or does it mean we need to pursue knowledge? What it means is, that increase in carbon dioxide in less than 100 years that took the natural process 10,000 years to produce, this U.S. Congress, this government should pay attention to that issue. And the sense of Congress contained in this legislation should remain in this legislation. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.