[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 18]
[House]
[Pages 23329-23330]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CORRECTION TO ENROLLMENT OF H.R. 5946, MAGNUSON-STEVENS 
    FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2006

  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur

[[Page 23330]]

in the Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 123) providing for 
correction to the enrollment of the bill H.R. 5946.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                            S. Con. Res. 123

       Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
     concurring), That in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 5946, 
     the Clerk of the House shall make the following corrections:
       (1) In the table of contents, strike the item relating to 
     section 702 and redesignate the item relating to section 703 
     as relating to section 702.
       (2) In title VII, strike section 702 and redesignate 
     section 703 as section 702.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rahall) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.


                             General Leave

  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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  This resolution corrects the text of H.R. 5946, Magnuson-Stevens 
Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 2006. The Senate amendment 
to that bill included a provision not in the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on Resources, and with the passage of this resolution, that 
provision will be deleted when the bill is enrolled.
  And, Mr. Speaker, the Magnuson-Stevens Act is an act 30 years old 
that manages the Nation's fisheries out 200 miles. It is a bill that 
deals with an industry that is nearly $100 billion annually. And what 
we have done with this bill, with the Members, with the chairman of the 
Resources Committee, Mr. Pombo; with the former chairman of the 
Resources Committee, Mr. Don Young; Mr. Rahall; Frank Pallone; Jim 
Saxton; and a number of Members; and I also want to compliment the 
staff on the House side, the staff on both committees, personal staff. 
And those people who helped us with the Senate, they have made a bill 
that is going to be successful, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, because this 
act enables the management of a public resource that is worth about 
$100 billion to be integrated with fishermen, with processers, with 
distributors, with university scientists, government scientists, 
council members, and private citizens. The bill goes a long way to 
sustain and restore the Nation's fishery. It ends overfishing, rebuilds 
depleted stocks, improves safety and life at sea, protects fish 
habitat, enables us to better understand the ecology of our oceans, 
improves the management of our councils, fairly and equitably deals 
with overcapitalization, and numerous other provisions.
  This is a good piece of legislation. It further restores and goes a 
long way into enabling us to carry out the traditions of Senator 
Magnuson and Senator Stevens.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this most sustainable fisheries act.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, this is a technical 
measure, and we have no problems with it on our side. I support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) that the House suspend the 
rules and concur in the Senate concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 123.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds of those voting having 
responded in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the Senate 
concurrent resolution was concurred in.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________