Wayne Gilchrest

Mr. GILCHREST

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

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlemen for agreeing to the amendment.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, that is exactly right. That is my concern. I think we can have both. I would like to have a discussion on the cost to the private sector, but certainly on the need for the legislation. That debate should continue as well.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, about 25 years ago I read a fascinating book called The Ascent of Man, and the book fundamentally was about the evolution of man's relationship to the advancement of science, and there was the chapter in that book called: Knowledge or Certainty: Which Do You Strive For; Knowledge or Certainty? In this floor, in this democratic process that we have here in the U.S. House of Representatives, we have fundamentally in the democratic process an exchange of information with a sense of tolerance for someone else's opinion and then we vote. We do not have an exchange of certainty, and then cut off debate and then we vote. We have an exchange of information. With the underlying legislation here, with the bill of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) it is my judgment that we have a very short debate on the mandate, on the cost to the private sector, and then we stop debate on the underlying legislation. We stop debate on that particular issue, and I want to talk about that in just a second. Under the amendment of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), we have an opportunity to not only debate the legislation, whether it deals with the important aspects of clean air, clean water, health or a whole range of issues, but we also can talk about the issue of the cost to the private sector. We have both included in the amendment of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), which I think is vital. Yes, we do not want to overburden the private sector with excessive, unnecessary costs, but we want to make sure that the private sector is part of the Nation's policy of preserving our economic structure and preserving the Nation's health and safety and the quality of life to its citizens. The underlying bill of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) takes the legislation that might deal with clean air and it cuts that legislation off, cuts the debate off on that legislation, and then simply talks about the mandate to the private sector. What the amendment of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) does is carry on the debate of the unfunded mandate and the expense to the private sector, but also includes the important debate, the exchange of information, the acquisition of knowledge about the importance of that particular legislation. Let me give an example, the Chesapeake Bay: Forty percent of the pollution of the Chesapeake Bay is from air deposition. What does that mean? Forty percent of the pollution from the Chesapeake Bay comes from the Midwest and comes from places like Baltimore City, but comes from industry and comes from automobiles. Now, if you want to clean up the smokestacks to the factories, which we are trying to do with the Clean Air Act, and try to eliminate much of the emissions from automobiles, which we are trying to do with the Clean Air Act, of course, that is expensive, and I would dare say costs the Nation over $100 million. But what are we going to do about the nutrient overload from the Chesapeake Bay? What do we get from the Chesapeake Bay as far as economic rebound and economic vitality? We get a huge fishing industry, we get a huge recreational industry, we get enormous sums as a result of the clean water in the Chesapeake Bay. That should also be included in the debate. How about discussions on sewage treatment plants, outflows from all kinds of commercial activities? In 1898, if you compared oyster production in the Chesapeake Bay to 1998, 99 percent of it is gone. Ninety-nine percent of the oyster production in the Chesapeake Bay. We get 1 percent of what we used to get 100 years ago, and much of that is because the oysters are gone, but the most important factor in that statement is that many of the oysters in the Chesapeake Bay cannot be eaten because of the problems from outflows from all kinds of sources. The amendment of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) does not cut off debate on the problem of the cost to the private sector. That debate can flourish and continue. The amendment of gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) cuts off debate on how we can understand the need to acquire knowledge for us to reduce the pollution to the Chesapeake Bay, for us to make sure about the air we breathe, because of the increasing numbers of people in this country that are coming down with asthma. I do not want to sound like an alarmist up here or that this is the most important thing that we have to do immediately, but I want to go back to the first statement that I made: The fundamentals of democracy are an exchange of information, the acquisition of knowledge, tolerance for other people's opinions. I urge an ``aye'' vote for the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, this debate is about the principle of equal justice under law, as the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) so eloquently stated in his sad and magnificent speech. It is fundamental to our liberty that no one is above the law. It is absolute despotism that a crime for one person is not a crime for another. The words in an oath in our judicial structure is an indispensible pillar. No one can be selective when they are under oath to tell the truth. It has been written that language is the essence of law, and law is the essence of liberty. The President is at the epicenter of this storm. Its duration and tenor have always been under his control. To quote Emerson, the last line of his essay, Self-reliance, ``Nothing can bring you peace but the triumph of principles.'' Mr. Speaker, this debate is about the principles of equal justice under law.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I want to make two quick points on the floor this morning. The first point is that this is a representative body, based on constitutional provisions that provide for differences of opinion. The strength of this country is that we, as Representatives, critically analyze the decisions of other elected officials and even the President. So for us to discuss the issue of an invasion of Iraq is totally proper. The other issue I want to bring up is that all of us, regardless of our party and regardless of our perspective on this issue, have total and absolute support when we focus on those troops in the Persian Gulf. Those troops in the Persian Gulf have our heartfelt, secure support that what they are doing is just. And we wish them an absolute successful mission and we await their arrival back home. We wish them all a happy holiday.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 1 p.m. tomorrow.

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 on H. Res. 602.

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 yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I do look forward to next year working with the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Clement) and the staff on both sides of the committee. I think we can further spread the idea that our coastal waters are worth saving. The Coast Guard does a great job in dealing with the fisheries issue, the illegal immigrants issue, the whole maritime safety issue, the environmental pollution areas that they work hard on on a very daily, regular basis, and the issue of the interdiction of drugs. I think on every facet of this legislation, we have worked in an atmosphere of cooperation, and we certainly appreciate that on our side of the aisle.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2204. This bill was developed in a bipartisan manner and deserves support of all the Members. The primary purpose of H.R. 2204 is to authorize approximately $4.1 billion in expenditures for the United States Coast Guard for the current fiscal year. This is an increase over the level requested by the President for Coast Guard operating expenses of approximately $83 million. These authorizations support additional Coast Guard efforts to interdict illegal drugs before they reach the United States. The fiscal year 1999 authorization also contains additional funds for Coast Guard acquisition costs. Specifically this legislation includes $2.85 billion in fiscal year 1999 for Coast Guard operating expenses, $510 million in fiscal year 1999 for acquisition of vessels, aircraft and shore facilities, and $691 million in fiscal year 1999 for Coast Guard retired pay. I strongly support the increase in funds for drug interdiction, because cuts in resources devoted to drug interdiction in the early 1990s have greatly hindered Coast Guard efforts to fight the war on drugs. The evidence is clear that effective drug interdiction raises the price of drugs, driving use down, especially among casual users. The issue is particularly relevant in light of the continued rise in drug abuse among our young people. As the House overwhelmingly voted to increase drug interdiction activity in H.R. 4300, the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act, I ask for the support of this body in advancing the drug interdiction increases proposed in this bill. The funds authorized in this bill restore cuts to the Coast Guard drug interdiction program and provide the level of drug interdiction we need to keep drugs from reaching the shores of the United States. There are many things we as a Nation can do to fight drugs and support a viable war on drugs. Treatment programs and educational programs are important. But until they dampen America's appetite for dangerous drugs, we must pursue a vigorous program of drug interdiction and source country eradication. Title II of H.R. 2204 deals with several internal Coast Guard administrative and personnel management matters. Title III of the bill addresses issues related to navigation safety. This title amendments the Ports and Waterways Safety Act, and subtitle II of Title 46, United States Code, by extending the territorial sea for these laws from 3 to 12 nautical miles from shore. These provisions will enhance the Coast Guard's ability to fully implement its port state control program and protect U.S. Waters from substandard foreign vessels. Titles IV and V of the legislation contain several miscellaneous provisions, including enhancements to the Coast Guard vessel identification system. Title VI of H.R. 2204 provides provisions to allow for the study of toxic algal blooms, such as red tide, brown tide and pfiesteria. These occurrences endanger our natural resources and threaten the delicate ecological balance of our coastal areas and our important estuaries, such as the Chesapeake Bay. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation. I also want to thank certainly the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Clement) on the minority side for his effort in this. I also want to give thanks for all of the effort that the Coast Guard staff went through to shuttle this back and forth between the Senate and ourselves. I urge my colleagues to vote for this piece of legislation, ensuring them that this money will go to the silent service, the Coast Guard, to do the very diverse, very difficult work on a day-to-day basis, to protect our shores from a whole range of activities. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 602) providing for the concurrence by the House with an amendment in the Senate amendment to H.R. 2204.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I also want to thank the chairman and the ranking member from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for all the work they have done, their tenacity, their patience and their determination to make sure these worthy programs are reauthorized and re-funded. I also want to thank the staff for all their hard work. In my district, Mr. Speaker, we put together a consortium of the private sector along with an EDA grant to work with each of the economic development officers from each of the counties in my district. That is 10 counties that normally were competing with each other against economic growth and economic development. Along with this EDA grant and two utility companies that contributed dollars, these economic development officers worked together for about a year and-a-half. They put together what we would call in modern vernacularism for computers a CD/ROM to represent not one county, not two counties, but our district as a region. We put a CD/ROM together for the whole region. The First Congressional District is one economic development region. We made 2,000 of those CD/ROMs, and we distributed those 2,000 CD/ROMs to corporations and businesses not only in our region and not only in the United States, but from around the world, and those corporations that have specific people designated as locators to find new areas for their industries to move into were given each one of those CD/ROMs, and now our district is an economic development region, we are having a great deal of prosperity, and a lot of thanks goes to the Economic Development Administration.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Jerry, I guess some decades ago when you occasionally were barely able to hold up your M-1 rifle because you were holding it for hours in the rain with sand fleas on that glorious place called Paris Island you did not really dream of serving your Nation in this capacity as an U.S. Member of Congress. But those early days on Paris Island gave you a sense of pride, not pride in yourself, but pride in America, and your presence here on the House floor has lifted us up with your pride because your pride comes from your love of your country, your love of your colleagues, and so that gift that you have given to us has been enormous. I heard one time, Jerry, from a Marine that there are five words that make up a person's life, and you really are the epitome of those things when someone gets to know you personally, and that is humility, commitment, compassion, faith and love. And that is being American, Jerry, and you have given us quite a gift. So we salute you. Semper fi.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I make the request because H.R. 4614 directs the administrator of general services to convey this property and specifically waives section 203 of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure be discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 4614) to provide for the conveyance of Federal land in New Castle, New Hampshire to the town of New Castle, New Hampshire, and to require the release of certain restrictions with respect to land in such town, and that the bill be rereferred to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding time to me, and for his generous help on this legislation. This bill will go far to preserve and restore Blackwater Refuge on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, and to provide a base of information and experience to help other States devise ways to deal with this little critter we call nutria. The Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1933 to protect habitat for migrating and wintering birds. The refuge is currently home to more than 250 species of birds, including bald and golden eagles, cormorants, great blue herons, northern loons, ospreys, and 20 different varieties of ducks. It is also home to the Delmarva fox squirrel, a critically endangered species that is found almost exclusively in only 4 counties in my district. Of the 20,000 acres protected by the refuge, almost 17,000 acres are or were marshland. Seven thousand of those marshland acres have been lost to erosion. One of the reasons for the loss is the reason for the bill we are discussing today, the rabid appetite of this little critter from South America known as the nutria. Nutria are large, semi-aquatic rodents native to South America, and were introduced to Maryland in the 1950s to support the fur industry. As demand for nutria fur dropped off, and with no natural predators, nutria populations took off. From far less than 150 animals in 1968, today we have between 35,000 and 50,000 of them. Nutria are surface-feeding herbivores that can be extremely destructive to marsh vegetation. They forage directly on the vegetative root mat, leaving the marsh pitted with digging sites, riddled swim canals, and extremely susceptible to erosion associated with tidal currents, wave action, and sea level rise. While it is impossible to quantify exactly what percentage of marsh loss is due to nutria, recent studies have shown that excluding or controlling nutria substantially slows the rate of erosion. In Louisiana, for example, where there is still some market for nutria, the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries has documented substantial habitat damage in coastal wetlands for every year that the annual harvest falls below 500,000, as it has every year since 1988. The bill will authorize the Fish and Wildlife Service to work with the State of Maryland and other partners to extensively trap nutria, to develop methods to eradicate or control nutria that may be applied in other affected States, and to begin to restore marshland damaged by the nutria. The proposal, which is the centerpiece of this bill, was developed jointly by Federal, State, and local and private partners. This bill authorizes $2.9 million over the next 3 years to implement a pilot program, and requires that nonfederal partners bear 25 percent of the cost of the program. It also includes a limitation that administrative expenses may not be used for more than 10 percent of the Federal share. This is an important piece of legislation, not only that it is going to reduce the problems nutria have caused in the State of Maryland, and extend some of that information to the State of Louisiana, but we certainly do not want nutria to extend their way up to the State of New Jersey. I am sure the chairman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife, and Oceans would go along with that, along with a brother that I have in the pine barrens up there. Unless action is taken, seriously, Mr. Speaker, this will only get worse, and the marsh habitat that is so critical to migratory waterfowl will disappear. We know while people need a certain area, a certain habitat, and sometimes suburbs to live in, the migrating waterfowl need a habitat that is not being destroyed. Again, I would like to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) and the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega) for all of their good work on this legislation, and I urge the support of my colleagues to pass the nutria eradication and control program bill.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1481, the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act. I want to compliment the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) for his outstanding leadership and tireless commitment to moving this legislation. This measure arose from the need to coordinate management, protection and restoration of fish and wildlife resources within the Great Lakes Basin. The Great Lakes, which cover approximately 95,000 square miles in surface area, provide unique challenges for resource managers. In many respects, the Great Lakes are more comparable to oceans than lakes and require ocean-type vessels to accomplish management and research tasks. With respect to our fishery laws, we must remember that fish do not understand or recognize geographical boundaries. It is critical, therefore, that regulatory schemes are developed throughout their ranges. H.R. 1481 establishes necessary cooperative agreements between States and Federal agencies to ensure that fish passing through jurisdictions of many management regions get the proper attention they need to sustain viable populations in the future. The Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act uses cooperative agreements between States, Native American tribes, and the Federal Government to manage Great Lakes resources. The act encourages all interested parties to participate in the implementation of recommendations in the comprehensive study. These management and restoration activities were deemed necessary to restore Great Lakes fish and wildlife resources. Finally, this bill was designed to evaluate and, where appropriate, implement the recommendations of the Great Lakes Fishery Resources Restoration Study. This 5-year study identified 32 recommendations which should be undertaken to restore the fishery resources of the Great Lakes Basin to sustainable levels. Mr. Speaker, while I will let my Great Lakes colleagues discuss some or all of the 32 recommendations, I will point out that one of the suggestions was to conduct a cormorant fishery predation study. Since this issue has been of interest to several Members of the House, I would hope that this study would occur. Mr. Speaker, this legislation authorizes the Department of the Interior to spend $8 million per year to carry out fish and wildlife restoration in the Great Lakes Basin. This is a sound investment in a very important region of the country. Mr. Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote on H.R. 1481, and I look forward to early positive action by the other body on this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. GILCHREST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, we will continue to look at this very closely. That certainly is not our intent. Our intent with this legislation is to ensure that all participating parties improve the quality of the Great Lakes Basin, not to give one any more advantage over another.

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. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2314) to restore Federal Indian services to members of the Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma residing in Maverick County, Texas, to clarify United States citizenship status of such members, to provide trust land for the benefit of the Tribe, and for other purposes, as amended.

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. 1481, the bill just passed.