Wayne Gilchrest

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I would like to present what I hope you will find as fascinating facts about the carbon cycle. There has been a great deal of discussion over the last several years about climate change: Is human activity causing the climate to change or is that not the case? What I would like to present tonight, Mr. Speaker, is somewhat of a science lesson about the carbon cycle. Carbon, when burned, turns into a gas called CO2, and CO2 is a gas in the atmosphere that is needed to sustain life in its cycle. Excessive CO2 would add to the greenhouse effect or cause the climate to warm. Thus, the climate would change. What I would like to do tonight, Mr. Speaker, is to give some interesting facts, almost like a 7th grade science class; and I would like to go back to 1771, where an English minister named Reverend Priestley performed an experiment. Now, this is 1771. He took a glass jar, about a foot high and about 8 inches in diameter, and he wanted to see how long air would stay good in that glass jar. And he discovered the air stayed good as long as he sealed it. Whether it was a week, a month, 3 months, it was always good air. What he did next, though, was put a flame next to that glass jar, which he found immediately fouled the air. After that, he got another glass jar, and he put a mouse in that glass jar, and he sealed the glass jar. And it was not too long before the air was fouled again and the mouse died. What he did next was pretty extraordinary. He took a glass jar, put a sprig of mint, a small green growing vegetable in that glass jar. Then he saw that the air stayed fine for a long time. He then put a flame to it. And we know that CO2 comes from burning wood. The air stayed fine. Then he put the mouse in the glass jar with that mint sprig and the mouse stayed in there for a long time and the air stayed fine. Now Reverend Priestley did not realize what he had in that glass jar with the mint sprig and the mouse was a carbon cycle. The mint absorbed the carbon, built up its woody structure and exuded oxygen and so the mouse could live. Trees across the planet breathe in carbon dioxide. They turn it into leaves and wood and breathe out oxygen. If we tested around the globe different areas and tried to discover the level of the CO2 in the atmosphere, which is less than 1 percent, you would discover if you are near a forest, the CO2 level is less than in other areas, if you are in an urban area. The trees breathe in CO2, make wood and breathe out oxygen. This is the carbon cycle. Every time you start your car, turn on a light, turn up the thermostat, you contribute more CO2 to the atmosphere because you are burning carbon. Coal, oil, and natural gas fuel the world's economy, and they all use carbon dioxide which are inhaled by our forests and they turn that into oxygen. But when we burn a lump of coal, when we burn oil, when we burn natural gas, we are releasing into our environment what took the natural processes, 20 million years ago, millions of years to lock up. So we are releasing into the atmosphere the same amount of CO2 that took millions of years to lock up in about 150 years. So we are being excessive more than we have seen in eons of time by putting excessive extra amounts of CO2 that goes against the grain of the natural cycle into our atmosphere. Are there consequences to that faster releasing of CO2? There are. The consequences are we see coral reefs around the world dying. We see deserts expanding, and we see the ocean currents themselves changing and in some cases slowing down. We see sea levels rise. In the northern parts of Canada, Alaska, and Russia, beetles are infesting millions of acres of forest that never infested those forests before because it was not that warm in the Northern Hemisphere. Forests, grasslands, and even our oceans absorb CO2 that we emit into the atmosphere as humans. If we diminish those carbon sinks, we accelerate CO2 release into the atmosphere, and the consequences are that we are changing our climate.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I did not come here to talk about veterans, but I will add my voice to the chorus of voices tonight to endorse the legislation put forth by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and state that veterans deserve fundamental, sound health care in this country. Veterans' families also need that kind of health care because veterans fought for their families in foreign wars. As we move forward with health care, remember the veteran, remember the veteran's mother, remember all those in rural areas that we can work collectively to find ways to manage health care in urban, suburban and rural areas. However, I came here tonight to talk about this lump of coal. This lump of coal and coal throughout the world for the last several hundred years has provided heat, warmth, security and in recent times electric power which has transformed civilization. Coal has fueled the modern era. Coal is made up mostly of something called carbon. Coal has been developed on our planet naturally by geologic forces over millions of years. As the carbon on the surface in the form of animals, plants, vegetation, rocks, you name it, gradually deteriorated, was forced underground, in some cases in mountainous areas, in other cases, flat areas, but basically was forced underground, sometimes 100 feet, sometimes miles. When this lump of coal, which is made mostly of carbon, was locked up underground over a long period of time, it took an element out of the atmosphere called carbon dioxide, CO2, and locked it away. Over eons of time, these geologic forces, whether there was a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere or much less CO2 in the atmosphere, the geologic forces changed the climate. Now the most recent climate change came about 10,000 years ago when the Ice Age ended. As the Ice Age ended, we moved into a warming trend. Over the last 10,000 years, the rate of warming has been about 1 degree centigrade every 1,000 years on a steady rate. That is 1 degree centigrade every 1,000 years. Since we have been burning coal, which is carbon and then it turns into CO2, we have been releasing into the atmosphere the amount of CO2 in decades what it took nature to lock up over millions of years. So in the last 150 years, the earth has warmed about 1 degree centigrade. Previous to that time, the earth had been warming 1 degree centigrade every 1,000 years. Since we have been burning fossil fuel, we have been warming the surface of the earth's temperature, reducing glaciers, thinning the ice cap in the Arctic Ocean by about 40 percent. The American Geophysical Union, the National Academy of Sciences, a group of scientists which President Bush appointed, has confirmed that the earth from human activity has been warming fairly significantly over the last 100 years, but especially over the last 50 years. Carbon is locked up in this piece of coal. When this piece of coal burns, it releases carbon dioxide which is one of those elements naturally occurring in the world, naturally occurring in the atmosphere that balances the heat for the climate. When we infuse a significant amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the climate begins to warm faster. In fact, the EPA and other scientific institutions in the United States say that over 90 percent of the CO2 released in the United States comes from burning fossil fuel. What I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, is this chart that actually goes from 1750 up to the year 2000. We can see from 1750, 1800, 1850, burning fossil fuel was minimal, so we do not increase CO2 in the atmosphere very much. But once we get into the 1900s, especially 1950, CO2 increases in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels has had a dramatic effect. CO2 is a naturally occurring element in the world. When we increase that element by the magnitude that we have, we have the potential for climate change.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments this evening on an issue that remains somewhat controversial. The issue is climate change. Is the Earth warming, and is there such a thing as global warming? I would like to present a few findings affirmed by National Academy of Science, at the request of George Bush, and which the American Geophysical Union also agrees with. Basically the conclusion of the scientific community is that the Earth has been warming for the last 10,000 years. We left the Ice Age, and for the last 10,000 years, the Earth on average has been warming 1 degree centigrade every 1,000 years, and this is detectable through various tree rings, ice cores and a number of other techniques used to determine the kind of climate we have had over the past 400,000 years. But the last 10,000 years, the trend is the natural range of fluctuation, it is a little warmer 1 year, a little colder the next year, but the natural range of fluctuation clearly shows that we have been in a warming trend over the past 10,000 years about 1 degree centigrade every 1,000 years. What we have seen in the last 100 to 150 years is that natural range of fluctuation appears to have abruptly changed. The question is that abrupt change, which actually is a jump in surface warming, is that a natural fluctuation or is it as a result of mankind burning fossil fuel and adding greenhouse gases to the environment. What I am going to show tonight is the fluctuation that we have seen, the abrupt fluctuation, is not a natural fluctuation. If it is not a natural fluctuation, the environmental variables from this point on are not going to be predictable as far as the climate and the weather is concerned. Mr. Speaker, this chart has two parts to this graph. The first part, which is the color gray, deals with the computer models that are telling us something about the climate and how it has changed over the past 100 years. One part of this chart shows the input in the model. The other part of the chart, the color red, shows actual observations on the ground where you go out and you actually take temperatures all around the globe. The first part of the chart, the gray line, is what you put into the computer. The second part is what you actually observe. There are three charts up here. The first chart deals with the natural fluctuation in the climate over the last 150 years with solar energy, with ocean currents, with volcanoes, with a number of things that have caused the climate to change, the geologic forces which have caused the climate to change over the last thousand years. We see if we just take the variables in the natural forcing, the climate will stay fairly steady. In other words, there would be no increase in the last 150 years. The actual temperature, though, shows that there has been an increase over the last 150 years. So there is a question, where is the increase in temperature coming from? The next chart shows only measuring human activity, anthropogenic forcing only. That means we only measure the kind of temperature increase we would get from burning fossil fuel or cutting down a forest or a variety of other things. When we do that, we show that the temperature, as we see over here, is the same. There is an abrupt increase in the temperature. The third chart shows the natural fluctuation or the natural increase in temperature that we have seen over 10,000 years, but it also shows mixed in with that if we add to that natural increase, if we add human activity, we see that the blend shows that there has been about a 1 degree temperature rise in the last 150 years. You cannot account for the increase in temperature over the last 150 years with just natural forces but you can account for it when you add in human activity. Those are just a few interesting facts, Mr. Speaker, I thought that the Members would like to know.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, in recent years there has been a significant conflict in our discussion and certainly differences of opinions from reliable sources about whether or not human activity is affecting the climate. So what I would like to do this evening in just the short time that I have is not to say that the Earth is warming, not to say that the Earth is cooling, not engage in the dispute as to whether human activity is causing the climate to change or the climate to warm. But what I would like to do is to present some observations from various independent scientists including the National Academy of Sciences that did a study to evaluate the International Panel on Climate Change, a study that was conducted by about a thousand scientists from around the world, to draw from the President's own scientists to make a determination as to what really are or what can be seen as observations of the indicators of whether we are engaged in a climate change. If we observe the world the way it is now and the way it was 100 years ago and through an analysis the way it was 400,000 years ago, can we make some determination about the type of climate we have today, what we had 100 years ago, what we had 10,000 years ago, and what might happen in the future? To do this, there are certain understandings in the scientific community that the ocean, the land, and the atmosphere working together provide us with a type of balance in the heat distribution on the planet. No one would dispute that the Earth, the ocean, and the atmosphere work together through various means to make the type of climate that the planet has right now. The atmosphere and the elements that make up the atmosphere and all the different kinds of gasses are in a constant cycle with the Earth and the oceans. So that is not in dispute. If we observe the planet today and 150 years ago, we will see that there is a warming trend both on the surface of the land, the surface and subsurface of the oceans. There is a significant retreat of glaciers around the planet, and the Arctic Sea ice is getting smaller and actually thinning. So if we look at these observations, someone could say that there is a natural cycle over the last 150 years and we happen to be in a warming trend. If we take the climate over the long range and we go back 10,000 years ago through an analysis of ice cores, certain seabeds, coral, crustaceans, et cetera, if we go back 10,000 years, we will see a natural range of fluctuation on the climate of the planet, a natural range of fluctuation due to a number of variables including the atmosphere, land, and ocean, the wobble of the Earth, the closeness we are to the sun, et cetera. There is a predictable change in the climate based on the last 10,000 years. In fact, we could go back 400,000 years and base that prediction. What we are now seeing, though, in the last few decades of the 20th century and the first decade of the 21st century, are environmental variables that have not been seen for 400,000 years. If we look at what is making up our atmosphere and the kind of greenhouse gasses that we need in order for a distribution of the heat balance, we will see an increase in these greenhouse gasses, most notably carbon dioxide or CO2, a more significant increase now than we have seen in the last 400,000 years. The amount of carbon dioxide that has been in the atmosphere over the last 400,000 years has been a predictable amount based on the historical records which we find in ice cores and so on; but that natural range of fluctuation, the amount of CO2, the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, was seen to have a pattern, a trend. But the increase in CO2, carbon dioxide, that we have seen now in the last 50 years is larger, stronger than has ever been seen before. So is it a natural bump up in CO2? When we calculate the natural sources of CO2 on the planet, and there are many, we will have a certain amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. What is the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere? When we take in all of the natural variables, we still have more than we have ever had before. When we take in another variable, which is interesting, human activity, this answers the question that human activity is increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, changing the climate in ways that may not be predictable. Just a few facts to lay upon the table.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, what I would like to do this evening is give the Members some ideas of a phenomenon that is occurring in the oceans that is clearly observed by the scientific community that is having an effect on the Earth's climate. Ocean currents that flow throughout the entire world stabilize the heat balance on the planet so that the northern hemisphere does not get frigidly cold and many people that live in the southern hemisphere are not forced to move because of the increased heat. To give some example of this, if you look in this area of Canada, you know that it is quite cold there. But if you go right across the Atlantic Ocean and visit England, you will know that the weather is quite moderate. In fact, the weather in England is often and most often is much more moderate than much further in latitude to the south and mid-Atlantic part of the United States. If you look at the Scandinavian countries and their latitude, in Labrador you will see that their climate is more moderate than the climate we see on that latitude in North America. The reason for this is the ocean has currents that take warm from the equatorial regions to the northern regions that moderate their temperature. At the same time, when those warm waters reach the north, because they get colder and because of the salinity they drop to the ocean bottom and come to the south. As they gradually warm, they rise, because we know that warm air rises and colds air falls. Well, that is the same thing that happens with water. Part of what I am trying to explain here is that there is a constant dispute about whether or not there is such a thing as global warming. Is the climate changing? Does human activity put more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere to cause a warming in the atmosphere? What I would like to do in just a brief minute here is to explain the fact that there is clear, unequivocal evidence that the ocean surface water is warming. As a result of that, there is more evaporation in the equatorial regions of the ocean. With more evaporation, that means there is more rain further north, and so the northern ocean is becoming more fresh. Now what does that mean? What that means is, as the ocean current moves from the equatorial regions north in its current and it moves into the northern hemisphere, as the water becomes more fresh, it becomes less dense. That means it will sink a lot slower. As the water evaporates more, it leaves more saltwater in the southern hemisphere, less saltwater in the northern hemisphere. There are two things that cause this ocean current to occur, fresh water and salinity. As the ocean water becomes more salty, it sinks up here; and when it sinks to the bottom, it returns down to the equatorial regions like we have here. When the ocean becomes saltier up here and more or less saltier, that water sinks. Without becoming too complicated, the phenomenon is that the ocean currents are changing as a result of the increase in temperature of surface water. The increase in temperature of surface water is happening because, over the last 40 years, the warmth or the increase in temperatures in the atmosphere is moving up. Now, whether or not you think there is more CO2, more greenhouse gasses, is almost at this point beside the point, because the fact of the matter is here, over the last 40 years, temperatures on the planet have been increasing, thereby causing the temperatures of the surface of the ocean to increase. As a result of that increase in temperature of the ocean, we are actually redistributing fresh water and saltwater so we are having an effect on ocean current. Saltwater, the density of salt, the amount of fresh water in its distribution of the ocean are fundamental to moving water from one place to another. As a result of that, as a result of the current moving in this way, the cycle of ocean current is slowing down; and when the cycle of currents slow down there is less warm water moving north and less cold water moving south. The result of that, this region of the United States receiving less warm water, this region of Europe is moving into an era when it is becoming colder. So that is a counterintuitive observation when you consider that the Earth is getting warmer.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I would like to spend just a couple of minutes discussing facts about the potential for climate change. Is there such a thing as climate change? Is the earth warming? On the perspective of climate change and whether or not there is global warming, tonight I would like to discuss the oceans, which make up about 70 percent of the earth's surface. The ocean has a huge moderating effect on the heat balance of the planet. As the oceans affect our climate, they move in currents around the globe and bring either cold water or warm water to different areas. And that effect has this immense balancing of the heat on the planet. And we have experienced fairly moderate temperatures for hundreds of years. We all know that the climate does change periodically. We have had Ice Ages in the past. In the past there have been plants growing in the area we now call the Antarctic. So climate does change over a period of time. There is some indication, though, that when the climate has changed in the past, it has changed quickly, sometimes dramatically, without human intervention. What I would like to speak to tonight is human activity causing the ocean surface temperature to rise. A number of scientists who have written a number of articles recently have shown clear evidence that in the last 40 years, ocean temperatures around the globe on their surface have increased rather dramatically. As a matter of fact, the increase in the last 40 years can be compared to the increase in the last 1,000 years. Now, there are certain things that cause the ocean to move. We know wind causes it to move, the temperature of the water will cause it to move, the salinity of the ocean will cause certain movements, the rotation of the earth, evaporation and precipitation. These are all effects that cause the ocean to move. But since the ocean temperature is warming, there is more evaporation around the equatorial regions because the ocean is warming more there than has been in recent times. As a result of that, there is more precipitation in the northern part of our oceans. Ocean currents, then, which are affected by these conditions, whether it is wind, temperature, salinity and so on, the ocean currents are having a tendency to move differently. Ocean currents have a dynamic impact on the climate balance of the planet because it moves warm water, thus the weather, or a change of weather, to different parts of the planet. For example, England is on the same latitude as Labrador, but England has a much warmer climate than Labrador. Part of this is because of ocean currents moving in the Atlantic Ocean. If we can take the Atlantic Ocean as an example, if you look at the Atlantic Ocean, the currents move in a clockwise fashion. We know that the gulf stream moving north along the coast of the United States moves north. When it gets up to the area of Greenland-Iceland-Norway, it then moves south. This current has been going for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. The reason the current is so strong in this area is because when the water moves further north, it gets colder and more dense and begins to sink. As a result of a relationship of evaporation and precipitation, when it moves further north it gets saltier. When the water is cold and saltier it sinks fast, creating a pump that pushes the water south. Hence, we have a conveyer belt that keeps the north Atlantic moving in a clockwise motion. What is beginning to happen now, though, is interesting. Glaciers are melting, the polar ice cap is diminishing. There is greater rainfall in the north Atlantic. And as a result of these conditions, caused in part by the warming on the ocean surface, we have fresh water being a major part of the north Atlantic. Even though fresh water will sink because it is more dense, it sinks very slowly. The fact that you have saltwater with the cold fresh water, it sinks faster. Because the water is becoming fresher, less saltier in the north Atlantic, the pump is slowing down, which means the conveyer belt is slowing down, which means the warmer water that is moving to the northern areas from the equatorial regions of the planet is not moving as fast. So the consequence of this, the potential consequence of this, is a much colder area in the north Atlantic, which would mean the United States and that area, Asia, Europe, and Scandinavia. Mr. Speaker, just a couple of interesting facts about the potential climate change.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. And I thank all of the Members and the staff that have worked on this piece of legislation because I think fundamentally this brings many disparate Federal programs that are often paid for by taxpayers at cross-purposes into clearer focus. I want to make three points. One, many taxpayers pay to restore environmental degradation. Taxpayers provide incentives to keep people out of harm's way. Taxpayers pay to provide incentives to degradate the environment under many circumstances. Taxpayers provide incentives to put people in harm's way. What this legislation does is clearly view the problems of disparate Federal programs and provide an incentive to move in the right direction. The third point I want to make, though, I came from England to live in the Chesapeake Bay. I was run out of England around the time of John Smith. We live in a region where there are a number of storms and a number of people that are in harm's way. Keep in mind my perspective that the Federal Flood Insurance Program, the premiums paid into it fundamentally only pay a tiny fraction of the cost of these problems because we have to pay for the police, the fire department, the National Guard, residences where people must live. So this legislation brings into clear focus the needs of this problem.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1006) to amend the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 to further the conservation of certain wildlife species, as amended.

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 extraneous material on H.R. 1006.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of this legislation, I am pleased to rise in strong support of the Captive Wildlife Safety Act. This measure addresses the growing problem of unqualified and inexperienced individuals who are purchasing an increasing number of large exotic cats. There are dozens of Web sites that offer lion or tiger cubs for as little as $300. Sadly, we know that one of those Internet tigers ended up living in deplorable conditions in an apartment complex in Bronx, New York. While these species are extremely attractive when they are young, they quickly become 400-pound unwanted pets. Those buying these cats simply do not have the knowledge or resources to provide the specific nutritional, physical and environmental requirements of these animals. In many cases, they are unaware of the animals' growth patterns and the enormous cost of caring for them over their lifetime. In addition, escaped exotic animals have seriously injured or killed a number of our citizens. In far too many cases, these pets are abandoned, locked away in tiny cages, or sold for their hide, meat and bones because, sadly, they are worth more dead than alive. H.R. 1006 will help to solve the problem by making it illegal to buy, sell, or trade certain large exotic cats in interstate or foreign commerce. Under the terms of the bill, the term ``prohibited wildlife species'' is defined to include lions, tigers, leopards, cheetahs, jaguars and cougars and the hybrids of those species. The measure does not ban the private ownership of these cats and specific exemptions have been provided by qualified aquariums, circuses, sanctuaries and zoos. During our subcommittee hearing, there was a great deal of support for H.R. 1006. One of our witnesses was Ms. Tippi Hedren who is not only a famous actress, but also someone who has dedicated her life to saving hundreds of wildlife species by operating the Shambala Sanctuary in southern California. In her remarks, Ms. Hedren noted that the Captive Wildlife Safety Act is a bipartisan, commonsense measure to safeguard the public and prevent harm to animals. It will help to stop a largely underground, and in many cases criminal, economy that breeds, trades, and butchers wild, exotic and often endangered species. Mr. Speaker, this is a timely solution to a growing problem, and I compliment the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and his constituent, Tippi Hedren, for their tireless leadership on this legislation. I urge an aye vote on H.R. 1006. 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 California (Mr. McKeon).

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I just want to make a closing comment. I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) for their effort to stay steadfast with this legislation to get it passed. I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) for assisting us in this. I also want to thank the committee staff on both sides of the aisle for their knowledge and information and help with the passing of this bill. I urge my colleagues to vote ``aye.'' Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I want to say right up front that I will vote for this defense authorization. The gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), and a whole range of people have done an outstanding job to ensure the safety not only of the United States and our security but of those young men and women who are out there basically buttressing the pillars of civilization. The gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) mentioned a little while ago that a 19-year-old rifleman ought to get the best training in the world. I agree with him 100 percent. I was a 19-year-old Marine Corps rifleman who worked with the Navy over a period of years, went into assaulted-fortified positions from Navy ships. So I personally recognize the absolute need, the uncompromising need, to ensure the best available training, the best equipment, the best of support that this country can offer to U.S. soldiers, sailors, Marine Corps, and airmen. I would like to work with the Committee on Armed Services and the chairman and the ranking member. Over the next several months, the Committee on Resources will be reauthorizing the Marine Mammal Protection Act. The language in the defense authorization bill dealing with the marine mammals was something that we worked out. The language that is in the defense bill now, I think, goes beyond what is necessary. There are some issues dealing with small numbers versus negligeable numbers. There are some issues dealing with confined geographic areas. There are issues dealing with permits. There are issues with civilian scientific research. I think the model we can use for the marine mammals and the Marine training is laid out before us in this thing called INRMPs, Integrated National Resources Management Plans, that there is consultation, there is collaboration with the Committee on Resources and the other agencies throughout the Federal Government. That model that deals with INRMPs, that assures those guys on the ground, that young 19-year-old rifleman, is going to get the best training, no compromise on that. And I would like to work with the Committee on Armed Services to deal with those issues over the next several months.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding me this time, and I thank the gentleman from Indiana for bringing up the amendment which he and his followers feel is balanced as far as the loan versus grant issue that we are now debating. I think if it were a year from now and we were debating further supplementals for Iraq, it would be very appropriate; but it is not a year from now. We have tens of thousands of American soldiers in Iraq. Many of us have visited them. There is, when we look into their eyes, a deep sense of courage; but there is also, as anybody that has ever been in combat can see, there is a deep sense of fear. Coupled with that, there is urgency. There is not a sense of urgency; there is urgency. There is urgency that we get the supplemental out tonight so the 60- some billion dollars reinforces what our soldiers have, and there is an urgency that we heard from every military person we met at every base we went to that money is ammunition. What that means is, if we can get the electric turned back on, that puts Iraqis back to work. If we can get 80,000 Iraqi police within the next year, that will relieve our MPs from guarding the city streets and guarding the prisons. If we can get 27 battalion Iraqi units on the road, on the borders, in the hinterlands, in this famous peninsula area that is very, very dangerous, 27 Iraqi battalions, that will bring our troops home. There is real urgency in this supplemental, not as a loan, but as money that will go to secure the troops in Iraq to ensure their safety and to ensure their quick and speedy return. Mr. Chairman, we did not debate loans or grants at the height of World War II. There is a critical juncture that we must realize. We are at that fork in the road. We do it with a sense of urgency, with a sense of responsibility. We will succeed. If we falter, it makes it much more difficult. Our troops will be in Iraq a great deal longer. So I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding me the time. The gentleman from Arizona will remember about 12 years ago we traveled to southeast Asia, and one of the countries we visited was Cambodia, and we talked to a number of people in Phnom Penh, the capital of Cambodia, only a very short period of time after Pohl Pot and the Khmer Rouge had ravaged the country. And we were discussing the issues with these former members of the Khmer Rouge who were forced to be the members of Khmer Rouge, and they were stricken with utter fear. They asked us the question, where were you when we needed you. If my colleagues will remember their history, it was the Vietnamese who went in and relieved the burden of that suppression from the Cambodians. Today, we are relieving the burden of fear and oppression for the Iraqis from a regime that has the psychology of serial killers. I recently went to Iraq with the delegation of eight Members. Four Members on this delegation voted against the resolution to give the President the authority to use force, and they were going to vote against this $87 billion package because they felt that we had not planned the war appropriately and did not plan for reconstruction and did not allow the State Department and other agencies in the Federal Government not associated with the military more access to the reconstruction in Iraq. Four of the eight Members were going to vote against this $87 billion. They are now voting for the $87 billion, the $60-some billion for our troops and the $20 billion to further reconstruct and bring democracy to the Iraqi people and here is why. What we found out when we went to Iraq was that the planning to reconstruct Iraq was almost entirely done a year ago. In the last September-October time frame, this government looked at what was going to be needed, and they began putting that together. Right now, there are 11,000 construction projects underway. To mention just a few, 1,600 schools were completely rebuilt and refurbished with the children with uniforms, with desks, with chalk boards, with books, materials ready for the school to be productive. The power plants are being rebuilt so there is now more electricity in Iraq than there was before the war; 150,000 tons of wheat have been harvested in Iraq as a result of the irrigation projects that were put in place last spring as a result of the Agriculture Department being involved in this productivity. What we have seen was a total integration of the military, the State Department, the Agency for International Development, the private sector, a whole range of organizations that are in Iraq today bringing prosperity, bringing support and security for our troops, making Iraq an example for the rest of the Middle East. Mr. Chairman, I would like to close with this comment, and there are a lot more positive stories that can be told. The situation in Iraq and the United States and the rest of the world, we are facing a fork in the road. If we take the wrong turn, we will allow Iraq, and subsequently the rest of the Middle East, to decay into radical religious oblivion and suppression. If we take the right turn, there will be a new renaissance of science, technology and human expression never before seen in the Middle East. I urge my colleagues to vote for the full supplemental.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize National Public Lands Day on September 20, 2003. On this day, volunteers around the nation will be lending their hands to our public lands--improving the nation's habitats, removing invasive species, building trails, planting trees, and contributing an invaluable service to the nation. This event promotes the stewardship of our publicly held natural and cultural resources. To provide further information, I attach the enclosed statement. Volunteers Spruce Up National Mall Saturday, September 20, 2003 Volunteers around the nation will be lending their hands to our public lands on the 10th annual National Public Lands Day--Saturday, September 20, 2003. This is the largest nationwide effort to improve and enhance those places where Americans go for recreation and to enjoy the outdoors. It is expected that around 80,000 volunteers will be working at 500 locations and in every state. This year the focus is on improving and preserving the nation's habitats--the forests, mountains, prairies, plains, rivers, wetlands, and urban streams that are home to a rich diversity of animals, plants and birds. Many of the projects will involve invasives, a growing threat to our public lands. Volunteers will also repair trails, build bridges, plant trees, protect cultural sites, restore aging facilities and much more. Here in our nation's capital volunteers will be working from one end of The National Mall to the other--the Lincoln Memorial to the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial. Projects include repairing the walkway around Constitution Gardens; trimming cherry trees around the Tidal Basin; painting benches and railings at Hains Point; and weeding, planting and mulching flowerbeds at the George Mason Monument, Department of the Interior and the Benjamin Banneker Park. Kids will build bat houses for a National Park Service research project and help install duck ramps in the lake at Constitution Gardens. This is a unique opportunity for Members and staffs to join others who are giving up a Saturday to care for our special place, The National Mall. National Public Lands Day is a project of the National Environmental Education & Training Foundation in partnership with nine federal agencies, numerous state land authorities and private organizations. Toyota Motor Sales USA is the national corporate sponsor.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlemen for yielding me this time. I want to quickly make a comment in reference to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg) and praise him for all his efforts to deal with this issue I think in a very comprehensive, competent way. I come to the floor on this issue from a slightly different perspective. I am from Maryland, not from out West. I have lived and worked in the Rocky Mountains. I have ridden snowmobiles in National Forest in the Rocky Mountains. I have had some experience in the wintertime in pretty cold places, spent the winter of 1966 in a tent 250 miles north of the Arctic Circle in Norwood, a number of experiences. But what I want to do is make a comparison between the Chesapeake Bay and Yellowstone Park. The Chesapeake Bay is a beautiful estuary. We are working hard to restore it. But the Chesapeake Bay in some sense like Yellowstone is being loved to death by too many people. In the Chesapeake Bay, it is not snowmobiles. It is motorboats. In the Chesapeake, if we want to bring back the oysters, which are 99 percent less than what they were 100 years ago; if we want to bring the crabs, which are 50 percent of what they were 50 years ago; if we want to bring back the rockfish, they need certain areas to spawn, they need certain areas to survive. And, yes, we can have motorboats in the Chesapeake Bay, but what we are trying to do is to limit those motorboat activities to certain areas where they do not have interaction with spawning areas or critical wildlife habitat. In the Chesapeake Bay we are looking at this issue, this motorboat human activity issue, with three things: respect, responsibility, and dignity for the bounty of God's creation. And in this issue of snowmobiles in Yellowstone, there are still about I am told, and correct me if I am wrong, in the three-State area, 13,000 miles of access that will not be impacted at all from snowmobiles. What we are talking about here is about 180 miles of snowmobile access right in Yellowstone. So it is a difference of opinion. I think people on both sides of the issue, the gentleman from Montana, the gentleman from New Jersey, both gentlemen are trying to do what they feel is right for the pristine beauty of certain wonderful places in the United States; and I will tell the Members to vote their conscience on this issue.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. It is my understanding, and I usually do not get involved in something that happens in Utah or Colorado, being from the State of Maryland, but having taken some time to look at this, the new rule that opens up some other possibilities for right of ways was promulgated January 6, 2003, this year. The first memorandum of understanding that grew out of that rule, it is my understanding, happened in Utah when Utah developed its memorandum of understanding to implement this new rule which has been different from what we have been used to for the past 100 years. It actually did a pretty good job in its promulgation of the rule, because it protected wilderness areas, wilderness study areas, refuges, national parks, not monuments, but in the Taylor amendment, it does protect monuments. What the second-degree amendment attempts to do is limit the ability to file these disclaimers on Federal land that is designated wilderness, national parks, refuges, and national monuments to use the example that Utah has used in this new rulemaking. I am one that favors strongly, for a number of reasons, the protection of private property rights and the protection of our wilderness areas and our Federal lands. What I would like to do with the gentleman from Utah, if we can agree on the second-degree amendment with the gentleman from North Carolina, is pass the second-degree amendment to the Udall amendment. Once all of these lands are protected for at least a year, we can work through the process of trying to make the rule that was promulgated in January a little bit more open-ended. I do not think there are any backroom deals that went through as far as this rulemaking was concerned. I have talked to the Forest Service, I have talked to a number of people. I talked today to the Governor of Utah about this process, calling from Moscow. I feel strongly that the second-degree amendment protects the kinds of lands that we want to protect for the kinds of things that we are considering here, which is right of way, which are roads, which are private property problems. Even within the Utah MOU, told to me by the governor of Utah today, not one cow path, not one horse path, not one area that is not and has not been a road will ever become a road on any Federal land. So I urge a vote on the gentleman from North Carolina's amendment. Amendment Offered by Mr. Matheson as a Substitute for Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Udall of Colorado

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), the chairman of the subcommittee, in a colloquy regarding the eradication and control of exotic, invasive nutria through a partnership of Federal and State agencies and private organizations in Maryland. I would like to thank the chairman for including funding for the Maryland Nutria Eradication and Control Act within the national wildlife refuge operations and maintenance budget. In the Chesapeake Bay, both the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge and the Chesapeake Bay field office are partners in the Nutria Eradication and Control Project management team with other Federal agencies, the State of Maryland, and private landowners around the refuge. It covers over 60,000 acres of marsh, and it has been a 5-year program. Funds made available for this project have been authorized by Public Laws 105-322 and 108-16, which specify that, ``In the State of Maryland, the Secretary shall require that the program consist of management, research, and public education activities carried out in accordance with the document published by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service entitled 'Eradication Strategies for Nutria in the Chesapeake and Delaware Bay Watersheds,''' dated March 2002. This strategy describes a comprehensive approach to nutria eradication on the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge and the surrounding areas. We have lost over 7,000 acres of marshland up to this point from this invasive species. In the past few years, Maryland nutria eradication funds were appropriated and administered through the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, and this ensured that the project funding was not limited to use on the refuge. The refuge receives separate funds directly for use on the refuge system. The interior appropriations bill we are considering today includes generous funds for the current nutria project for this year, but the funds are entirely within the budget of the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge. It is vital that funds be applied to the entire project so that USDA trappers can be compensated and the Fish and Wildlife Service can procure and maintain the necessary equipment and facilities on the refuge and continue to support the Nutria Eradication and Control Project. Is it the understanding of the chairman that the service, through the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge, should continue to support the Nutria Eradication and Control Project in Maryland, as authorized, throughout the 60,000 acres impacted by nutria as well as on the refuge itself?

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

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his attention to this issue.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Sometimes in these debates one issue gets mixed up with another issue, and I think that is what is happening here. I rise in support of this rule. I also want to make a comment to the previous speaker that this Congress, Republican majority, with the help of the Democratic minority, is increasing the amount of money that is going to a myriad of veterans programs all over the country. So when those veterans come back from Iraq, they will not only see us waving the flag in strong appreciation of the work they did in enhancing freedom in Iraq, but they will receive the kind of benefits that the previous speaker mentioned about going to college on the GI bill. I went to college on the GI bill. I bought a house with the GI bill, and those kinds of services are for the veterans of today. These young people are children of democracy, and they deserve what we received many, many years ago in our service to our country, but we are here today to discuss the rule and the issue of flag burning amendment. I want to ask the question, what does it mean to be patriotic? How do we protect the flag and honor the flag? We honor the flag by being good parents, by being good citizens, by being good neighbors, by understanding and respecting the rule of law and understanding the thread of tolerance that weaves its way through the quilt of democracy. I rise today opposing the underlying bill. How many times have we seen the flag burned in the United States? We see it burned in China, we see it burned in Iraq, we see it burned in Syria. We see it burned all over the country, but we do not see it burned here. If a person burns the flag in China, they put them in jail. If they burn the flag in Iran, they probably cut their head off. If they burn the flag in Cuba, they go to jail. Do we want to follow that example and that precedent? I do not think so. Our present Constitution blends together the best of our heart and our minds. Our present Constitution understands our responsibility to respect the rule of law, but it shows such humanity in the tolerance that we have for different opinions in this country. Do we want to respect and honor those who lost their lives in defense of this Nation? The last verse of that wonderfully beautiful poem ``In Flanders Fields'' says, ``If you break faith with us who die, we shall not sleep, though poppies grow in Flanders Field.'' How do you break faith with those who defended the country? You stop having tolerance. You start following the precedent of countries like the former Iraq or Cuba or China. We want to raise the flag in honor of those people who have protected the flag. Be a good citizen, a good neighbor, a good American.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1588 and urge my colleagues to vote for it. I also rise, if I may, in support of all the young men and women who are serving in our Armed Forces. I also want to say that the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter); the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), ranking member; the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton); and certainly the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) have brought a fine bill to the House floor. I want to speak briefly to the environmental provisions in the bill here this afternoon. Some slightly unknown provision called the Sikes Act has been in effect since 1960 and has provided a means for our military to conserve fish and wildlife with the fish and wildlife agencies on 25 million acres of military land across this country; and for the most part they have done quite well, in some circumstances a magnificent job. It has been on this floor today alleged that we are going to change or degrade or reduce the effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act. This is not true. There is a provision in this bill that authorizes military facilities with cooperation of the Fish and Wildlife Service, with National Marine Fishery Service, and the fish and game agencies of the States to create what is called a Natural Resource Management plan, and what that Natural Resource Management plan does, it can or it may replace ESA's critical habitat designation. This Integrated Natural Resource Management plan is actually more effective than the critical habitat as described in the Endangered Species Act because it is a holistic approach, it is an ecosystem approach to those problems which threaten an endangered species. It also integrates what the military does with off-site private land. This is an integrated approach. It is an approach that can be extremely effective and the criteria on which these Integrated Natural Resource Management plans are based are very specific criteria to ensure the protection and recovery of species. So this legislation improves the Endangered Species Act. It has also been said that it is going to reduce the effectiveness of the Marine Mammal Protection Act under certain circumstances. This also is not true, and I understand the disagreement as to the language when one deals with what is harassing a marine mammal. What we have done across the board is to hold many hearings with the Department of Defense, with Fish and Wildlife, with the National Marine Fishery Service, with university scientists from as far afield as Hawaii, where we visited to look at marine mammals; Woodshole in Massachusetts, which we visited again to look at the problems with marine mammals. When we implemented the change of the definition, we had two things in mind: the effectiveness of military training, which is critical; and enhanced protection for marine mammals and an understanding of how we as human beings coordinate our activities with the world's oceans. We took into consideration noise. We took into consideration resonance, decibels, variations in sonar. So in places in this legislation we are improving the process of understanding human activity in the ocean by protecting marine mammals and improving the quality of training for our military. So we have improved ESA. We have improved the Marine Mammal Protection Act. We have improved the Sikes Act provision which protects conservation on 25 million acres of land, and we have improved America's ability to train young people that go into harm's way. And I urge support on H.R. 1588.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all of those who participated in the process of the healthy forests reform legislation for doing a pretty good job. I think we are moving in the right direction. In this piece of legislation today we are moving significantly in the right direction. It does not go the whole way that all of us want to do, but we move significantly in the right direction. For those Members who will support the Miller amendment and oppose the underlying bill, the democratic process is a never-ending story, so we will always have opportunities to do what we want to do in this constant management regime. The other thing is, we do something, I think, that is extraordinary in the underlying bill and that is that it deals with the hydrology, or the watershed approach, to our national forests. This kind of approach takes out the fragmentation piece by piece, the politically charged process of dealing with what we need to deal with, and that is healthy forests. What were they like 10 years ago? They were not very well 10 years ago. What were they like 20 years ago? Healthy forests did not exist 20 years ago. But what were they like 500 years ago? It was a natural process. What we are trying to do in this legislation is go through a process to get back to restore the prodigious bounty of nature and our healthy forests.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, as the author of H.R. 274, I am pleased the House is considering this legislation to expand the boundaries of the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge, which is located in my congressional district. Garrett Island, which consists of approximately 180 acres, was the site of Maryland's second settlement in the 1600's. It is the only rocky island in the tidal waters of the Chesapeake Bay system, and it is a vital link between the Susquehanna River and the Bay. It also provides habitat to 44 different bird species, including eagles, Common Loons, Tundra Swans and 14 species of ducks. I have visited Garrett Island and there is no question that its rich history, geographic location and wildlife resource values make it an excellent candidate for inclusion within the National Wildlife Refuge system. As a nation, we can ill afford to allow unique places, like Garrett Island, to be lost forever. While I am disappointed that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has not endorsed this idea, I was pleased to hear the agency testify that, ``Given the Island's historic and archaeological values, its recreational opportunities, and its environmental education and interpretation potential, a concerted effort should be put forth to provide long-term protection and management of the island.'' This is the goal of H.R. 274. The Cecil Land Trust has done everything it can to protect this important property, contributing $150,000 toward the purchase of the island. Based on our hearing, Federal acquisition costs will be less than $400,000, and little, if any, maintenance or personnel will be required in the future. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation had it right when it wrote that steps must be taken to ``ensure protection of this largely unspoiled, historical and ecological gem.'' I would urge my Colleagues to vote ``aye'' on H.R. 274! This is an important and necessary inclusion in our National Wildlife Refuge system, which celebrated its 100th birthday last month. This is exactly the type of place that Theodore Roosevelt had in mind when this unique system of public lands was created.