Wayne Gilchrest

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I want to make a comment. The gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) said that the fees from the fishermen will pay for the implementation of the dolphin-safe fishing techniques, something to that end, the fees of the fishermen pay for the program. That is how I interpret it. What I want to make a comment on is the fees from the fishermen do not cover the funding for the dolphin program. It is only about 50 percent of the total cost of this program. The biological work from the commission comes from the contributions from the participating countries. I rise in opposition to the amendment, strong opposition, Mr. Chairman. I do not often oppose the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) on marine resource issues. But I think the gentleman is wrong on two counts. Number one, if we cut the funding by the amount the gentleman from California wants to cut the funding, this will completely cripple the program entirely. The participating nations at this point have not negotiated the total amount of money that is necessary. That is going to happen in October. My colleague has made several points about the role of the United States in the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission versus our actual participation in the fishery. I want to make a comment about the utilization. Between 30 and 83 percent of the tuna in the last 10 years, with passage of the International Dolphin Conservation Program, comes to the United States. And that number will go up. Until the U.S. fleet was effectively driven out by the tuna-dolphin regulations, the United States caught the bulk of the tuna fish in the eastern tropical Pacific. As soon as this negotiation goes through and as soon as the science is done, as long as we do not have a million- dollar cut in the appropriation, we will do two major things: We will save the dolphins, who used to be slaughtered at about 100,000 a year, down to below 2,000 a year; and, number two, we will increase the tuna fishing industry in California. Also, the vast majority of the costs of dolphin protection are borne not by the international agreement but by the fishermen themselves. The fishermen now have to buy extra speed boats, rafts, divers to assist in the dolphin nets, added cost to carry the mandatory observers on board, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Contributions to the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission effectively fund this management regime. My colleague has also argued that the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act of 1997 was passed in part to end these heavy subsidies. Well, that is what is in the process of happening right now. The heavy subsidies are being reduced. No one disagrees that it is necessary to eventually bring the U.S. contribution in line with its present share of the fishery. The International Dolphin Conservation Program Act even contains a sense of Congress that the parties should negotiate a more equitable scheme for contributions. However, while almost any program might be able to cut costs incrementally over time, slashing funding by one-third all at once is a crippling blow to the research and conservation efforts of this most important program. Participating nations will meet in October to work out a more equitable schedule for annual contributions. I fully expect the parties to this agreement to meet their responsibilities and bear a more proportionate share of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission's budget. If that does not happen, I would quite happily support a cut to their budget next year, a small cut to their budget, but enough to send a strong signal. In the meantime, we should meet our commitment, allow the negotiations to proceed, and work in good faith to develop a more equitable allocation. We cannot solve an international problem with a unilateral cut like the gentleman from California is proposing here. A vote against the amendment of the gentleman from California saves dolphins, substantially invigorates the tuna fishing industry in California, goes a long way to saving other marine mammals, and goes a long way to saving the vast fishery and the marine ecosystem in the eastern tropical Pacific. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment proposed by the gentleman from California.

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

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me, and what I would like to do is address my remarks to all of my colleagues, but especially to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham). As a young soldier in Vietnam, I like to speak to my colleagues through the eyes of many young soldiers in Vietnam where we would every once in a while help corps men deliver babies, some alive and some dead. We as very young men saw leprosy for the first time. We saw the eyes of the dying Viet Cong. We saw the eyes and looked into the eyes of dying young Americans and said good bye. We laughed and cried with the Vietnamese people, the very old and the very young. One incident, we moved into a small little village, pulled an old man out of a grass hut with one leg, and the old woman in the grass hut began to cry because we thought he was shooting at us and we were going to take him away. And a little girl about 10 screamed and cried and grabbed at our clothes as we were walking this old man away from the village, and then suddenly we young soldiers just stopped. We looked into the eyes of the old man. The old woman froze in fear as to what might happen next, and the little girl just stopped crying, and then the old man looked at us, and we looked back at him, and we suddenly realized something. We were just all people together caught in a horrible struggle, none of which we created. There was an Israeli soldier in 1967 that said, We need to learn to love our children more than we hate our enemies. We can never forget the pain of the past. But in this vote I think it is time that we start a new future for us, for the Vietnamese children. We remember the quote from President Kennedy at the Berlin Wall where he said: ``We all cherish our children's future, we all breathe the same air, and we are all mortal.'' Let us vote for America and Vietnam.

Mr. GILCHREST

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

Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the gentleman for that comment.

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

Mr. GILCHREST. Reclaiming my time, it is the big, meaty blue crabs from the Chesapeake Bay. I thank the gentleman from Louisiana. We are also working on the nutria problem. I know you guys eat them down there. We do not do that up here. I would like to respond to the gentleman from Oregon for whom I have great respect and with whom I realize and all of us here collectively certainly want to do everything we can to add to the Nation's acreage of wetlands, but as far as two quick items: The appeals process that is in this legislation. One, it offers someone that has been, if you want to, and I cringe when I say this word, develop or have some activity on wetlands, which I think we should avoid them at all cost and find some other alternative. But if you disagree with the Corps when they say that they have delineated that piece of acreage as a nontitled wetland, what can you do then? In the bill, the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) has said, you can appeal that to a higher level of the Corps of Engineers and then they will determine whether the person on the ground delineated that piece of wetlands correctly. If the Corps sustains the original delineation, then the individual or the group can go to a Federal court. But the Federal court is not going to overturn the Corps' delineation unless it is judged to be arbitrary and capricious. That is rock solid. The other issue we are talking about here is Nationwide 26 which is a small, narrow area of nontitled wetlands, of wetlands in general. It is not the whole program of section 404. It is a narrow part of section 404 dealing with three acres or less that are considered isolated, are considered at the headwaters of an area. Personally I do not think those isolated wetlands should have activity on there other than maybe a Canada goose or some other habitat for wildlife. But the language in this bill does exactly what the Corps of Engineers said they were going to do in the Federal Register. That is, the Corps of Engineers said by December 31, we will have in place the ability to implement a new regime for isolated wetlands, and, that is, to get rid of Nationwide 26, so they will be able to have an individual permit for activity on that particular wetland. This bill makes sure, puts into statute, that they will no longer postpone that implementation. It will happen December 31st. They were going to do it in July and then that slipped. They were going to do it in September, then that slipped. Now they say they might do it this December. What the amendment of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) does is to make sure they will do it in December, and I think we ought to know the kind of money they need for the people on the ground to implement that policy so that we can ensure that they have enough money. And I think it will help the community that wants to have activity on wetlands, the development community, that they ought to know what it is going to cost them. This is just good legislation.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want to make a quick comment that the gentleman from Louisiana stated earlier about crabs and restaurants in Washington, where most of them come from Louisiana. I would just like to say that a good portion of those crabs come from the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to compliment the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development for bringing forth a very difficult, complicated, yet sophisticated piece of legislation to deal with the Nation's resource needs, energy needs, water needs. This is not an easy task to follow, to implement. I also want to compliment the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) for his eloquent statement about the need for this Nation to, not only protect the Nation's wetlands, to not only come up with a proposal for no net loss of the Nation's wetlands, but to add to the Nation's wetlands, because they are what he has spoken, the world's filtering system for the dwindling supply of water. It does create habitat and spawning grounds for most of the fish in the world. So wetlands are important. I want to make just a brief statement about this country, the United States. We are as sophisticated as we are right now, we are as successful as we are right now for four reasons: democracy, our political system; an endless frontier; an abundance of natural resources; and character. We are about character and democracy, but we are diminishing our resources because of the expanding population, and our frontier is gone. We are a developed Nation. So what is our next frontier? What is the most important thing we can do now? Understand that for future unseen generations we need to be as sophisticated as possible to recognize the next frontier is an intellectual frontier on how to manage and increase and improve the way we use the Nation's resources. Now, this energy appropriations bill goes a little way toward doing that. We will do this on an annual basis. The gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) has taken a diverse amount of material, disparate interests, and he has put together, or pieced together a package to do something about the Nation's resources. And I am going to support the Boehlert amendment because it does what we want to do. Let me run through a couple of other items. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) said that the President had an edict that we were going to get rid of Nationwide 26. What is Nationwide 26? It is a regulation that came out in 1996 that said the Corps of Engineers could not issue permits for isolated wetlands or wetlands on the headwaters of our Nation's waterways for any particular activity. Now, they have studied that for several years to see its impact. The President said last October that by this July he wanted to eliminate Nationwide 26. The Corps said they could not do it by then, so they pushed it off until September. Now they have pushed it off until December, according to the Federal Register. The Corps of Engineers is not going to eliminate Nationwide 26 permitting process until December. Now, does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) offer a delay to that? Does this stop the Corps dead in its tracks? The answer is no. There is no delay in the proposal of the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) or the proposal of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert). Does it cause a burden on the Corps? I personally do not think so. The Corps can pool its resources with the help of this Congress and decide by December 31 that Nationwide 26 will be eliminated and we will propose some permits for activities in the Nation's wetlands. What is the cost of the Corps to do this? We ought to know. Do they need any more people on the ground to evaluate the activity to issue the permit? We should know this. What is the cost to the community that would like to propose those activities? I think some of the cost to the regulations by the bureaucracy is arbitrary. We do not know as Members of Congress when we issue statutes what happens. We ought to know the cost to the Corps, because we have to propose funding for the Corps, and we should know the cost to the people that want the permits to do those activities so we can better expedite the entire process. The language in this proposal by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) is not a political solution; it is a practical solution. There is no potential delay. The language says by December 30. That is what the Corps said themselves. We should know the cost estimate, and we should know the activities. I would urge my colleagues that a more sophisticated approach to protecting the Nation's wetlands is to know the full impact of what the Corps is about to do. I want to preserve those wetlands. We want to increase the number of wetlands. Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the Boehlert amendment.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time. I will not take the entire minute, but I do want to say just two quick things. My compliments and gratitude to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) for their effort in moving this legislation through and for taking the time to come down to the House floor this afternoon and saying the words that they have spoken. It is greatly appreciated. I also want to make a comment about our counterparts on the Senate side, and I know we are not supposed to mention the senators, but the effort they are making on that side to move this legislation through there, as well. The last comment I would like to make is that I would invite my colleagues, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), that when the trail is finally done that the four of us stand at Ft. McHenry and sing for our constituents the Star-Spangled Banner.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), the chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands of the Committee on Resources, for yielding me this time; and I thank all the members of the Committee on Resources for their help on this piece of legislation. But in particular I want to thank the residents of the State of Maryland in my district for bringing this idea, this concept, to our attention. The War of 1812 is not one of those wars that elicits a great deal of dramatic thought. We do not see it on the silver screen very often. I like to compare it to the Korean War. We hear a great deal about World War II, and there has been many films about the Vietnam conflict, but we did not hear a lot about the Korean War veterans until in recent years, and there is a stunning monument on the mall to the Korean War veterans for their efforts and struggles to preserve liberty in that part of Asia. During the American revolution, patriots fought so valiantly to bring liberty and justice to light in the Americas, to bring a new idea that people can institutionalize freedom, that people can institutionalize the idea that an individual is independent, and we talk a great deal about the American revolution. The War of 1812 was a conflict that was our second war of independence. Now, there was a great deal of misunderstanding between the British and the French and the Americans, and certainly back in 1812 there were no telephones, no fax machines, no E-mail, for example. There was no way to communicate with another person until one was talking face-to-face with that person. I bring that up because some of the issues that caused the conflict between the United States and Great Britain were resolved 2 days before the war started, but there was no way to get that message across. So we had this conflict. And the conflict basically was continental. The conflict was in the Great Lakes, Lake Champlain, Canada, the mid-Atlantic States, the great Chesapeake Bay, and certainly all the way down to the Gulf of Mexico at the battle of New Orleans. This could all have been averted, but we needed this struggle, I guess, to show Europe the United States was firm in its belief that it was independent; that it preserved the right of freedom and justice and liberty for all Americans, and eventually for all the rest of the world. Now, if we could go forward quickly to the end of the conflict, the agreement to end the war was signed 2 weeks before the last battle was fought. And anybody on the House floor right now who is, I guess, middle-aged, they will remember that song; ``In 1814, I took a little trip, along with Colonel Jackson down the mighty Mississipp. We took a little bacon and we took a little beans, and we took a little ride to New Orleans.'' I remember I used to love that song. But that battle that we smile when we hear the song was a tragedy. Hundreds and hundreds, if not well over a thousand men on both sides were killed because of that conflict. And that conflict was fought to show that the United States was determined to be independent and free. This trail, which we will come up with after about 3 years of study, will show people all across this country and all across this world America's second battle of independence. There will be a brochure that people can follow from the lower Chesapeake Bay through the Potomac River, up several counties in Maryland, to show how the British tried to take the troops that protected Washington, south of Washington into Georgetown, and draw them away as far as Baltimore so that they could go into the District of Columbia, our Nation's capital, and burn every single Federal building except for the post office and the patent office, including this building that we now speak from. Fortunately, however one wants to look at it, coincidentally a huge tornado with driving rains came in and flushed out the fire. Now, we know the rest of the story which is fundamental to this legislation. The Star-Spangled Banner. Francis Scott Key went on board a British ship to try to release Dr. Beanes from his captivity. Francis Scott Key was accompanied by John Skinner. They were going to release Dr. Beanes, but they also wanted to attack Fort McHenry, as the chairman mentioned a little earlier. As the ship traveled up the Chesapeake Bay, the beautiful Chesapeake Bay, which probably had a few more fish in it at the time, maybe some more clams and oysters, but we are trying to restore the Chesapeake Bay, and maybe a piece of this legislation will bring some attention to that as well, as they came up to Fort McHenry they wanted to bomb Fort McHenry and continue their onslaught to recapture America. And what Francis Scott Key saw we still remember today. As the night glistened in stars, it also glistened with the bombardment from the British ships, but the Americans held. And the next morning the flag still flew over Fort McHenry. And that flag, Mr. Chairman, is now in the Smithsonian institute. But Francis Scott Key penned the poem which later became our national anthem, the Star-Spangled Banner. The flag still waves over Fort McHenry, regardless of the bombs bursting in air. And that spirit, that feeling, that sense of community that we are one among many still holds today in the United States. So, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Star-Spangled Banner Trail Bill. The last comment I want to make is a gracious ``thank you'' to those constituents that brought this idea to our attention, and also to my staff, Erika Feller, for doing a great deal of work on this particular issue.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, the gentlewoman has a wonderful voice. I know the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) has a wonderful voice, and I know the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) has a wonderful voice. So we will work it out.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. I fully support this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment. This is not an assault on the First Amendment or freedom of speech. This is a courageous step to limit vulgarity and violence. Let me take a second to talk about big brother, the Federal Government. The Federal Government helps parents protect their children from dirty air, the Federal Government helps parents protect their children from dirty water, the Federal Government helps parents protect their children's equal rights. So I think it is only incumbent upon us for the Federal Government to help parents protect their children from vulgar, violent videos.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make a comment about the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, and this is with regard to the caps, and I say this with all sincerity.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, here is what I think he would say, that he would restate his comment that the foolish and the dead alone never change their minds.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would like to tell the gentleman from Wisconsin just my perspective on roadblocks by one member or another member. My perspective is that we do not have roadblocks, we do not have partisan politics. Basically, we have differences of opinions. We come here as Members of Congress to exchange information, for the most part, have a sense of tolerance for somebody else's opinion, and then we vote. And what I see here from the gentleman from Oklahoma and those who support his position, they have a strongly held conviction that we need to reduce various budget items for the purpose of saving Social Security, all of which we would agree with. I would also say that this is not the Republican Caucus on the House floor right now; this is the Congress, and we are speaking to various issues. I know the gentleman from Massachusetts is going to strike some very humorous comment about that, and I am going to wait around to listen, because I would appreciate it. What I do want to say, however, is that I strongly disagree with the gentleman from Oklahoma on this issue; and what I would like to do is to read part of the committee bill and then give my opinion on the need to enhance and preserve and save agriculture and not talk about agriculture like it is General Motors and we are producing cars out there, or Westinghouse producing light bulbs. This is an industry that produces life-needed food for this country, and we are, for the most part, the warehouse for foodstuffs for the world. They are doing this on less and less land. This is what the committee bill says. This bill ``provides funding for research to strengthen our Nation's food supply to make American exports competitive in world markets, to improve human nutrition, and to help ensure food safety. Funds in this bill make it possible for less than 2 percent of the population to provide a wide variety of safe, nutritious and affordable food for more than 272 million Americans and many more people overseas.'' What we are seeing in agriculture is, we are losing 1 million acres of ag land a year. That is not a million acres of ag land 10 years ago or over the decade, that is every single year we lose 1 million acres or more of agricultural land for a variety of reasons, but we are losing it. So that means, because the population continues to increase, we need to produce more poultry on less land. We need to produce more milk on less land. We need to produce more vegetables and more agricultural products on less land with fewer farmers, and in order to do that, we need the best technology. There is all kinds of technology out there, but not all of it is the best, and not all of it is environmentally safe. Not all of it is going to work within the confines of what we understand to be the mechanics of natural processes. One might be able to create genetically safe corn from the southern boll weevil, but what other forms of life are going to be damaged in the process? This is an intricate, very complex, scientific undertaking that we are doing here today. Now, I would say that Social Security is safe. This has nothing to do with Social Security. We are going to preserve Social Security not only for seniors today, but for future generations. This bill is about how we, as people, will understand how we are going to provide food for a growing population on less land; and I would urge my colleagues to vote for the bill of the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen). It is a good one. Also for the bill of the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur). In conclusion, on the House floor, we have various differences of opinions. We do not see these arguments in Cuba or North Korea or Iraq. This is the way we do business in this country. We come down here, sometimes in a very volatile atmosphere, but we discuss, debate, argue, disagree. We have a sense of tolerance of someone else's opinion, and then we vote. And that is the final say.

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

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize one of Maryland's finest newspapers, the Annapolis Capital. The Capital was recently named ``Newspaper of the Year'' by the Maryland-Delaware-D.C. Press Association. This prestigious award goes to the newspaper which has received the most awards for any newspaper in its category, and this year, Mr. Speaker, the Capital was honored with 22 separate awards for outstanding work. Under the leadership of their executive editor, Edward D. Casey, the staff at the Capital collected 21 awards for photos, articles, page designs, and graphics published in 1998. These awards are given by their peers, Mr. Speaker, and the message this year was loud and clear: The Capital consistently delivers a quality product with outstanding coverage of its community. Among the award winners was Eric Smith, the Capital's own talented editorial cartoonist. He won first place for an editorial cartoon which I am happy to report, Mr. Speaker, was not about me. Mr. Smith spent a day with me in Washington several years ago to find out what members of Congress do on a daily basis, and I'm happy to report, has not given up his day job yet. Mr. Smith also won second place for a column he wrote. David Brown won first place for spot news for a story he wrote on a Navy flier from Annapolis who was killed on an aircraft carrier. Nicole Gaudiano won second place for spot news for a story on a shooting death. Christopher Munsey captured second place for general news for his story on a body police could not identify. The staff as a whole won second place for continuing coverage on the Whitbread Race, the prestigious yacht race which came to Annapolis last year. Staff members that shared that award included: Bill Wagner, Jeff Nelson, Scott Haring, Christopher Munsey, Denise Murray, Kristin Hussey, Gerry Jackson, David Trozza, George N. Lundskow, Bob Gilbert, Mark M. Odell, and Christopher B. Corder. Reporter Jeff Nelson won first place for investigative reporting for his story on bonuses given to county employees. Sara Marsh won second place in this category for her probe of the legal problems of an election candidate. Mary Allen won first place in state government reporting for her story on the law that allowed the marriage of a 13-year-old girl. Theresa Winslow won second place in the public service category for her consumer story on the cost of funerals. In the photography category, the Capital has consistently delivered its readers some of the most beautiful photographs capturing incredible joy sorrow and every moment in between. Bob Gilbert won second place for a photo series of a heart transplant operation. David Trozzo won first place for general news photo with a photo depicting a tribute to a shooting victim. Christopher B. Corder won first place for sports photo with a photo of a baseball play. John McNamara won second place for a sports column, and Mary Grace Gallagher won first place for a medical/science story on a heart transplant. She also captured second place for business/economic news for a story on choosing new employees. The staff won first place for Page One design for a Sunday Capital layout of a heart transplant patient. That award was shared by Scott and Loretta Haring, Denise Murray, Bob Gilbert, and Mary Grace Gallagher. Scott Haring also won first place for feature/news page design for his layout of the Naval Academy graduation. Andra Baumgardt won second place for feature/news page design for her layout of an Entertainment cover featuring the Annapolis Symphony Orchestra. And Denise Murray won second place for information graphics/ general for her graphic on Inner West Street. And finally, Mr. Speaker, The Capital was awarded the first-ever ``Freedom of Information Award'' by the Maryland-Delaware-D.C. Press Association. This award was given to the newspaper for its diligence and persistence in seeking the truth. The Capital, with the leadership of Managing Editor Tom Marquardt, has a long history of holding public officials accountable to the voters they represent, and it's a tradition I respect. Newspapers have an obligation to inform the public of the activities of their public officials, and I'm glad the Capital takes its obligation seriously. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to represent the great city of Annapolis in Congress, and I am equally proud that my Congressional District is served so well by an outstanding newspaper that has received overdue recognition from its peers. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating The Annapolis Capital on being named the 1998 Newspaper of the Year by the Maryland-Delaware-D.C. Press Association.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, at this point the American people are asking: ``Is it business as usual in Congress?'' I am proud of serving this institution. I am proud of doing what is right for the country, what is right for my State, and what is right for my district. I am not necessarily proud of the American public viewing this process and saying it is business as usual, where political influence and seniority still supersedes rigorous mental effort and accountability. The American people want a thinking Congress, not a self-serving Congress. We are looked upon in Congress, in general, as the lower House. Well, on this particular issue, Mr. Speaker, we are really on the high side. The democratic process, which I explain to my constituents every time I go home, is an exchange of information, with a sense of tolerance for somebody else's opinion, and then we vote. Well, on this particular motion the House of Representatives, I urge, will send a strong, clear, unanimous vote to the conferees that this emergency supplemental is for military emergencies, people suffering from hurricane devastation, and the hard-pressed American farmers that have experienced a very, very difficult year. I urge my colleagues to vote for this motion, and I am proud of the gentleman from Michigan for bringing this to our attention.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Madam Chairman, I too want to make some comments about the water bill of 1999, sort of a retroactive process. There are a lot of good projects in here. As the previous speaker mentioned, there are a number of positive environmental provisions in here. There are several in particular in my district. One of those provisions is to correct a couple of previous mistakes by the Corps of Engineers in Chesapeake City, where a water pipe was cut as a result of dredging in the C&D Canal. Another provision which is under evaluation to be corrected is an area where there is a dredge disposal site by the Corps of Engineers that was not managed properly and the wells of the community right now cannot be used as a result of the acidic leaching from that dredge disposal site. That will be corrected. There is a small community on the ocean side called Snug Harbor. There is going to be some effort into producing nonstructural flood control measures. And the other provision that is in the water bill, that I am very, very pleased with, is a study that has never been done before, not even by the Chesapeake Bay Program, NMFS, or Fish and Wildlife. This is a study to evaluate the nutrient loads into the Chesapeake Bay as a result of dredging across the entire bay. Now, the Chesapeake Bay Program, what we have funded every single year with millions and millions and millions of dollars tries to evaluate the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus and other pollutants that get into the bay from all kinds of sources: from air deposition, from agricultural runoff, from shopping plazas, from housing developments, from roads; all kinds of sources, with one exception, and that is the nutrient pollution problem from dredging. In this bill there is going to be an 18-month study to determine the contribution of pollution nutrient overloads from dredging. And if we are going to restore the Chesapeake Bay to the kind of health that is necessary for that marine ecosystem to be sustained for future generations, this is the kind of thing we really need to do, and this is in this bill and we are very pleased with it.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) for yielding this time to me. I would like to start with a quote by a man called Jacob Brownoski that I think is apropos to this situation. In it he says there are two parts to the human dilemma. One is the belief that the end justifies the means, that deliberate deafness to suffering has become the monster of the war machine. The other is the betrayal of the human spirit where a nation becomes a nation of ghosts, obedient ghosts or tortured ghosts. The road to war is paved with unchecked ignorance, arrogance and dogma. What is our national interest in Yugoslavia? It is peace and stability in a democratic process where all men are created equal. It is in our national interest to check the road to war that has caused the dilemma that we are now in. I am going to vote in favor of this resolution.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me, and I would like to express in the strongest terms possible my sentiments of this resolution tonight in the House of Representatives, that it is a heartfelt, gut wrenching resolution from every Member of the House of Representatives to everyone in the world about the United States commitment to this effort now underway and that it is not an act of war, it is an act of peace, a gesture of justice, and we appeal to the leaders of the world that the United States is carrying out the commitment that we had at the end of World War II that this will never happen again. The seeds of despair, the crime of genocide, will be stopped. This, Mr. Speaker, this resolution is a gesture on our part to the parents, the wives, the children of the men and women in harm's way in this air strike. We, as Members of the House, come together to share their anguish. This resolution is a statement to Mr. Milosevic and people like him around the world that we are resolute in our relentless determination to end cruel injustice and genocide. Mr. Speaker, we are here tonight to express in the strongest way possible that we, with the unity of the full House and this country, that our support for our troops and this mission is unequivocal.

Mr. GILCHREST

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

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

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