Wayne Gilchrest

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 700) to reauthorize the Asian Elephant Conservation Act of 1997, as amended.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this legislation, H.R. 700, to extend the Asian Elephant Conservation Act. This act was first proposed in 1997 by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) in response to the dramatic decline in the population of Asian elephants. There are many reasons why the population of this keystone species has fallen to less than 40,000 animals in the wild. However, the overriding reason has been the loss of essential habitat. In the short time the Asian Elephant Conservation Fund has been in place, the Fish and Wildlife Service has spent $3 million on 27 conservation projects in nine different range countries. These projects have assisted in the construction of anti-poaching camps, equipped field staff, and educating local indigenous people about the critical importance of conserving this species. During our subcommittee hearing, Ms. Ginette Hemley of the World Wildlife Fund testified that ``when tigers and elephants thrive, the whole ecosystem thrives. When they suffer, the entire ecosystem suffers, including the people that live in or around it.'' Mr. Speaker, I urge an aye vote on H.R. 700. I am confident by reauthorizing this small investment of money we will provide huge conservation benefits. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton).

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega) for his assistance, certainly the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton). We did not get the Asian Elephant back again this time, as the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) did, but certainly our thoughts are in the right place. It used to be that people thought that the habitat of the Asian and the African Elephant was an endless frontier. Now we know it was not endless, and the frontier is gone. So it is highly appropriate for us, along with the international community, to set aside a small sliver of habitat that can in some small way reflect the bounty that used to be so that generations unseen in the future will be able to enjoy the magnificence of the creation that we now see.

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

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

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material on H.R 643 and H.R. 700.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1661) to extend indefinitely the authority of the States of Washington, Oregon, and California to manage a Dungeness crab fishery until the effective date of a fishery management plan for the fishery under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1661 is a bill to extend the existing State management of the Dungeness crab fishery off the coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington. The bill is sponsored by the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden). This is not the first time State management of the Dungeness crab fishery has been addressed by Congress. In 1996, in conjunction with the Sustainable Fisheries Act, Congress authorized the States of California, Oregon, and Washington the interim authority for the management of Dungeness crab for 3 years. During that period of time, the States showed they could cooperatively and effectively manage the Dungeness crab fishery. When the interim authority was due to expire in 1998, the Pacific Fishery Management Council, which has the Federal management responsibility for conservation and management of the fishery, wrote to Congress requesting an extension of State management authority. For the past 5 years, the States has been cooperatively managing the Dungeness crab fishery, which occurs in Federal waters adjacent to their States. This is an extremely valuable fishery. In fact, in the 1999-2000 season, 41.3 million pounds of Dungeness crab were landed, which had a value of $84.2 million. This is a healthy food source for thousands of Americans. H.R. 1661 will extend the authority for State management indefinitely. Until the Pacific Council decides it should regain its authority through a Federal fishery management plan developed by the Council, the States will continue their cooperative management. Congress has acted favorably on this issue in the past, and I urge passage of this non-controversial bill. I want to thank Members on both sides of the aisle for their cooperation, especially the Members who sponsored this legislation; and I want to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle for helping this legislation along. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I do want to compliment the President on his efforts to make education a high priority in this country. The pillars of the next generation rests upon teachers giving knowledge to this new and young and curious, inquisitive generation of Americans. I want to compliment the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), his staff and the committee on the struggle that they went through to bring this bill to the floor, and there are many good things in this legislation. But this legislation is going to be the quintessential example of the principle of unintended consequences, and I am referring to the accountability part. People keep talking about accountability and they use the word ``accountability.'' That means piling on of tests. And when the educational system, especially in local areas, know that there are high stakes involved and they know that they are going to get more money for a particular school because they pass a particular test, then the focus is on the test. When the focus is on the test, we do not observe teachers teaching the broad range of knowledge, we observe teachers teaching techniques to the test, and then the children are left out. So I would urge my colleagues to vote for an amendment when it comes up to deal with this issue.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I urge my colleagues to vote for the Hoekstra-Frank amendment. The portion of the bill that we are debating now represents, in my judgment, the quintessential example of the principle of unintended consequences. Teaching to the test has become the norm in many States. It definitely has become the norm in the State of Maryland. In a system where high stakes and dollars are involved, this is almost always the inevitable consequence. We do not want to build on the current system because the current system of testing our children is failing. H.R. 1 would buttress a system that is failing, further erode creativity and diversity in the classroom, it would literally tenure incompetence, especially in school administrators, eliminate a professional ethic in the educational field, and enhance vindictive behavior with people who are working to make their schools look good at any cost. We all know tests and assessments are necessary to find out what the progress is. But for the Federal Government to get into creating a testing criteria for tests, and then obliquely refer to it as accountability, is wrong. Teachers receive degrees. They are licensed to teach in a State. They are professionals. They represent the broad diversity of the country. Now we summarily assume that the aristocracy of Washington and the State capitals are smarter and wiser. The Federal Government endorsing more tests will not make schools better. They will make them less knowledge-based and turn teachers into technicians. By encroaching on the ability of individual teachers to be unique, we show aversion for the independent thinker, and self-reliance drifts away. Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of our own mind. I encourage my colleagues to vote for the amendment that simply takes us back to current law.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 642) to reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay Office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. GILCHREST. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I want to say up front that the staff on both sides of the aisle, the Democrat and Republican staff, both in our personal offices and the committee, have done excellent work on this bill to make it a bipartisan bill supported by everybody. It is also an excellent piece of legislation. I also want to thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood), for his support of the legislation and for working with us to make sure that this bill passed the committee and will now pass the House and eventually become law. I know the bill does not deal with Guam exclusively, it deals with the Chesapeake Bay region and the China watershed, but his tireless efforts to support this legislation bodes well for his professionalism. Madam Speaker, H.R. 642 reauthorizes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Chesapeake Bay Office and clarifies its role in coordinating NOAA's bay activities. This legislation is similar to a measure we introduced last year. It is also similar to separate legislation introduced last year by my colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin). Those bills were the subject of a committee hearing last fall. H.R. 642 is a result of that hearing and is supported by the entire Maryland delegation. In addition to reauthorizing the NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office, H.R. 642 would create two new very interesting requirements. The first would be a 5-year study leading to the development of a multiple-species living marine resources management strategy for the Chesapeake Bay. I do not want to go over that too fast. It is a multiple-species living marine resources management strategy. What exactly does that mean? Let me give just a small example. In the Chesapeake Bay, we have sunlight and we have nutrients. The sunlight is the engine behind what gives the Chesapeake Bay life. So to a certain extent, the sunlight and nutrients generate a microorganism, something called phytoplankton, a little tiny microorganism, which is then eaten by another tiny microorganism called zooplankton. The zooplankton is then eaten by a little fish called menhaden. The menhaden is eaten by a bigger fish called rockfish, or striped bass. Now, to a small extent, that is an example of a food web, or something we refer to today as an ecosystem. In the bill, it talks about a multiple-species management strategy. What has happened in the Chesapeake Bay, and the reason there is a need for this legislation, is that we have sunlight and nutrients now, but now we have too many nutrients. That means we have too much of the first microorganism, or phytoplankton. When we have too much of that phytoplankton, the zooplankton cannot eat enough of it, so a lot of the phytoplankton, that microorganism, falls to the bottom after it dies. It uses a lot of oxygen as it decays. As a result of that loss of oxygen, we do not have a good-quality environment for the phytoplankton anymore, and we come up with another microorganism called the dynoflagellate. Because the dynoflagellate can prosper in low oxygen, it is not nearly as good a quality food for the zooplankton. Then the zooplankton are not as nutritious. Then the menhaden that eat the zooplankton, they begin to fail, not only because the quality of their environment is reduced, but because they are overharvested by way too many times. So what does that do to the rockfish at the top of the food web? The rockfish do not have enough menhaden to eat. So what do the rockfish do? They go after the crabs. What I am trying to explain here is as soon as human activity, which causes too many nutrients in the Chesapeake Bay, interrupts or disrupts the ecosystem or the food web, we need to employ some quality legislation to understand the mechanics of the natural processes. That is what this bill does. The second requirement of this bill would be to establish a community-based fishery and habitat restoration small grant program for the Chesapeake Bay watershed, a small grant program for activities to understand the nature of the food web that we have disrupted. How do we get back in to bring that food web back into originally what it was designed for? It was designed; it has a design to it. Sometimes we refer to it in the Chesapeake Bay region as the mechanics of creation. If we can understand that, we can fix these problems. So the small watershed grants will plant grass to improve the quality of the water; build oyster reefs to filter out some of those nutrients; stabilize shore lines, I think the way they are supposed to be stabilized so they can be habitat for other wildlife; and spawning areas for fish. As a representative of the district that surrounds the Chesapeake Bay, I am well aware of and appreciate the quality of the work done by the Chesapeake Bay office. I commend Judith Freeman, director of the Chesapeake Bay Office, for her efforts to improve the environmental quality and public stewardship of the bay. The Chesapeake Bay is vitally important to our district and the mid- Atlantic States. Every corner of Maryland's first district is dependent in one way or other on the health of the Chesapeake Bay. From the State capital in Annapolis, home of constituents as diverse as the United States Naval Academy, recreational boaters, to the Eastern Shore, where thousands of watermen rely on the health of the bay to sustain their families, the Chesapeake Bay is a focal point of life for my constituents; therefore, the success of the Chesapeake Bay Office is of critical concern to them and myself. Madam Speaker, I want to quote one more person in this dialogue we are having here, and that is Rachael Carson, the author of the book that exploded the idea that the environment is important in her book ``Silent Spring.'' Rachael Carson always found it a strange phenomenon that individual people when you talk to them about science consider the only people concerned with the details and the mechanics of natural processes or science were scientists locked away in some obscure laboratory, and they very rarely ever left that scientific perspective. Madam Speaker, science is a wonderful form of dialogue and conversation not only for us, but certainly for young children in school. To understand what keeps life on this planet alive is an extraordinary thing that all of us should talk about a little bit more. Madam Speaker, I urge an aye vote on this important legislation. Madam Speaker, I also want to thank my colleagues from Maryland and the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood) for their support. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GILCHREST. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).

Mr. GILCHREST. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood) once again, and certainly the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) for helping us with this legislation. One last very brief comment on the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The Chesapeake Bay itself, about 100 years ago, at the turn of the century, we took out of the bay on an annual basis up to 15 million bushels of oysters, 15 million. It was the engine that drove the economy of the State of Maryland and Virginia and, to some extent, Pennsylvania, for the commercial harvest, for the recreational activities, for all the spin-off economic resources that depended on the Chesapeake Bay, 15 million bushels the oysters. We are, in a good year now, in a very good year, down to 300,000 bushels of oysters. With this legislation, we can understand the nature of the mechanics of the ecosytem, how the food web works. Human activity degraded the bay; human ingenuity will restore it. I urge an aye vote on H.R. 642.

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

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

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the people of Chestertown, Maryland, who will celebrate the launch of the Schooner Sultana on its inaugural tour on Saturday, March 24, 2001. Built by the people of Chestertown, Maryland, with thousands of volunteer hours, the Schooner Sultana is a reproduction of an 18th Century sailing ship used by the British to enforce the tea taxes against American colonists. The new Sultana's mission is to celebrate and preserve the character and environment of the Chesapeake Bay through education, instilling an appreciation for our history and culture and the irreplaceable natural ecology of the Bay and its watershed. With its home in the smallest county in the State, with the smallest population, Kent County continues to preserve the colonial legacy of Maryland--and the Schooner Sultana represents its proud heritage. Generations of students, as they sail on the decks of the Sultana, will learn to become good stewards of the Bay and treasure the resources with which we have all been blessed. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate all the people of Chestertown, Maryland, and those across our state who helped make the Sultana a reality and wish them Godspeed on this momentous occasion.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call my colleagues' attention to the fine service to our Nation by five citizens from my Maryland Congressional district: Mr. John Williams of Elkton, Mr. Richard Noennich of Elkton, Mr. William Jeanes of Earleville, Mr. Donald H. Burton of Chesapeake City, and Mr. Emmett Duke of Chestertown. Very often we go on with our busy lives and forget that every day our government is making decisions and plans that will affect our health, our lives and our future. Every day so many of us take for granted that someone else will take up the causes for which we care and serve as the watchdog over our Federal institutions. Often we are too busy to get involved and our government moves ahead without critical oversight from the people, leaving accountability to be sacrificed on the altar of convenience. More than 4 years ago our government, emboldened by the neglect of its elected leaders, was determined to move forward on a public works project in Maryland to deepen the Chesapeake and Delaware canal that connected the Delaware River to the Chesapeake Bay. This particular project was both a disservice to the taxpayers and a sin to our fragile Chesapeake Bay. A proposal to spend over $100 million on this wasteful and unnecessary project was never challenged. Yet five men from opposite corners of the community and separate walks of life met by chance and formed an alliance in the name of injecting honesty and integrity into an intimidating government review process. Led by the guiding principle of truth and a commitment to public service, these patriots faced the air of entrenched special interest with little outside support and ultimately triumphed in their efforts. After enduring years of ridicule by editorial writers, being stonewalled by government bureaucrats and marginalized by many of their own elected officials, they were recently vindicated in their work by the rightful collapse of the project when the Corps of Engineers finally recognized that they were correct in their assumptions. Throughout the entire experience, these five men did not forget that one thing that makes America so strong, that democracy only works when citizens stay involved. These five citizens committed thousands of hours and thousands of dollars to making sure that our institutions of government stay committed to the principles of democracy, that our government of the people, and by the people remain truly for the people. Long after many of us would have withdrawn in frustration and moved on, they never lost their sense of optimism about our system of government. Mr. Speaker, I commend them for this optimism. I commend their perseverance, and I commend the example they set for our children and grandchildren. In his recent inaugural address, our new President reminded us sometimes in life we are called to do great things, but every day we are called to do small things with great love. These five patriots showed that in the small things they did every day and the great accomplishment that resulted, they showed great love for their community and our country. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking John Williams, Richard Noennich, Bill Jeanes, Don Burton and Emmett Duke for their service to our nation. Ralph Waldo Emerson said in his essay more than a hundred years ago, Self-reliance, ``There is no peace without the triumph of principles.'' These men epitomize that statement.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, as the new chairman of the House Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, I am pleased to introduce legislation to reauthorize the African Elephant Conservation Act of 1988. Prior to the passage of this landmark conservation law, the population of African elephants plummeted from 1.3 million animals to less than 600,000. The primary causes of this catastrophic decline were the illegal poaching of elephants and the insatiable international demand for elephant ivory. Without immediate action, it was clear that this flagship species of the African continent would continue its march toward extinction. In response to this crisis, the Congress passed the African Elephant Conservation Act. In addition, President George H. Bush used the authority of this law to prohibit the importation of all carved ivory into the United States and to persuade the convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of wild fauna and flora [CITES] to place the African elephant on its Appendix I list. Through this listing, a worldwide commercial ban on all products derived from the species was established in January of 1990. Due to these actions, the price of ivory, the trade in ivory, and the poaching of elephants all decreased almost immediately. A key component of this law was the establishment of the African Elephant Conservation Fund. Under the terms of the fund, the Secretary of the Interior is charged with the responsibility of reviewing and approving meritorious conservation projects. To date, 113 conservation projects that affect elephant population in 22 separate countries have been funded. In total, $11.9 million in federal money has been obligated for these projects, matched by $51.7 million in non-federal funds. In recent years, money has been spent to aerial monitor elephants in Kenya; assess the impact of elephants on plant and habitat biodiversity in South Africa; control elephant crop damages in Ghana; financially assist the African elephant specialist group; study forest elephants in the Central African Republic; supplement anti-poaching activities in Zimbabwe; and track the origin of African elephant ivory. While the population of African elephants is no longer declining, and, in fact, is growing in Southern Africa, the job of conserving this magnificent specifies is far from over. The number of worthwhile unfunded projects far exceeds those receiving aid and the African Elephant Conservation Fund remains the only dedicated source of funding for this species in the world. The authorization of appropriations for the act expires on September 30, 2002 and the goal of my legislation is to extend the highly effective conservation law for an additional 5 years. It is essential that we not allow this irreplaceable species to disappear from this planet. During the last reauthorization process, the administration testified that ``The principles embodied in this act are sound. They provide a catalyst for cooperative efforts among the governments of the world, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector to work together for a common goal--the conservation and continued healthy existence of populations of African elephants. This is not a hand out, but a helping hand''. I urge my colleagues to join with me in support of the African Elephant Conservation Reauthorization Act of 2001.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I am today pleased to introduce legislation to extend the authorization of appropriations for the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994, which is a landmark conservation law. When the Congress first enacted this proposal seven years ago, the population of these two magnificent animals had fallen to record lows. It was clear that unless immediate action was taken, these species would virtually disappear from their historic range. Fortunately, Congress responded to this crisis. In the case of the five species of rhinoceros their population status was bleak. In fact, the number of African black rhinos alone had fallen from 65,000 animals in 1970 to fewer than 2,000 in 1994. In total, there were less than 11,000 rhinos living in the wild. While human population growth was a major factor in the destruction of the rhinoceros habitat, the other major cause of the species decline was the huge demand for products made from rhinoceros horn. Rhinoceros horn has been used for generations to treat illnesses in children and for ceremonial purposes in certain Middle Eastern countries. Despite this grim future, the fate of the five remaining subspecies of tigers was even worse. In 1990, there were more than 100,000 tigers living in the wild. In 1994, the total was fewer than 5,000 animals which represented a decline of 95 percent. As in the case of rhinos, the illegal hunting of tigers was the overwhelming factor in their demise. Tigers were killed for their fur, and other body parts. Tiger bone powders, wines, and tablets were used to combat pain, kidney, liver problems, rheumatism, convulsions, and heart conditions. Despite the fact that both rhinos and tigers are internationally protected, these prohibitions have not been effective. In 1998, the Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt testified in support of reauthorizing the act when he said, ``This is a small grant program, but it is amazing how much even a small amount of money can mean to our partners in other countries. Something more intangible--but often even more important--is the boost to their morale when they realize that we, the United States care enough to help them.'' At that same hearing, the president of the American Zoo and Aquarium Association stated that, ``Passage--combined with increased appropriations for law enforcement will certainly be a bold step by the United States in ending the slaughter of the rhinoceros and tigers in the wild.'' Since its passage in 1994, Congress has appropriated $2.9 million to the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Fund. This money has been matched by $4.1 million in private funding. Together this money has been used to finance 111 conservation projects in 16 range countries. These projects have included: A database on tiger poaching, trade and other wildlife crimes in India; desert Rhino conservation and research; development of national tiger action plan in Cambodia; establishment of a viable population of ``greater one-horned rhinoceros''; public education on Siberian tiger conservation; survey and habitat assessment for South China tigers; training in anti-poaching techniques for rhinoceros in southern national parks; training of staff in Nepal's Department of National Parks, and a video on tiger poaching in Russia. In addition, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation has done a superb job of managing the Save the Tiger Fund that has helped to educate millions of people about the harmful effects of tiger poaching. Since the establishment of this grant program, these conservation projects have helped to change international opinion on the need to protect their animals. While the job is far from complete, the population of both animals has slightly increased and there is new found hope of saving their species from extinction. However, it is essential that the availability of money to this fund be extended for an additional five years. In addition, I will work to increase the amount of appropriated money for rhinoceros and tiger projects. The good news is that the Department of the Interior financed 111 projects. The bad news is that it lacked the resources to fund some 358 other projects, many of which were highly meritorious. I urge support for the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Reauthorization Act of 2001.