Wayne Gilchrest

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I want to support the gentleman's effort in this area, and all of our colleagues' efforts, including the chairman of the committee, to work vigorously to avail ourselves of these new technologies, not only for the private sector but for the public sector. Cleaner fuel and better gas mileage is good for the economy. It lessens our dependence on foreign oil, it improves the balance of trade, saves consumers dollars, it is good for the environment, increases energy security, new technology, and creates jobs. This is an overall good effort, and I am sure in the next Congress we will find a way to make this happen.

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

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to the H.R. 4205, The National Defense Authorization Act. This amendment is designed to urge the Secretary of Defense to add five additional Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Team (WMD- CST) to the fiscal year 2001 defense bill. At the direction of Congress, the Department of Defense recently expanded this program to embrace a total of 27 teams, known as WMD Civil Support Teams. The WMD Civil Support Teams were established to deploy rapidly to assist a local incident commander in determining the nature and extent of an attack or incident; provide expert technical advice on WMD response operations; and help identify and support the arrival of follow-on state and federal military response assets. Each team consists of 22 highly-skilled, full-time members of the Army and Air National Guard. The first 10 teams have completed their individual and unit collective training and are in the process of receiving highly sophisticated equipment. Each team has two large pieces of equipment: a mobile analytical laboratory for field analysis of chemical or biological agents and a unified command suite that has the ability to provide communications interoperability among the various responders who may be on scene. The first 10 teams will be certified as fully mission-capable later this spring, with the remaining 17 expected to come on line in early 2001. The first 10 teams are based in Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, California, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas and Washington. The remaining 17 teams, announced in January, will be based in Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Virginia. Surprisingly, our Nation's capital does not currently have a National Guard civil support team. The closest team is in rural Virginia or the center of Pennsylvania. These locations are too far away to provide comfort that my state, Maryland, will have adequate protection and civil support in the event a terrorist uses poison gas or germs in the Washington, DC or Maryland area. Having a team available to deploy rapidly, assess the situation, and coordinate assistance with local first-responders is extremely important. The WMD Civil Support Teams are unique because of their federal-state relationship. They are federally resourced, federally trained and federally evaluated, and they operate under federal doctrine. But they will perform their mission primarily under the command and control of the governors of the states in which they are located. They will be, first and foremost, state assets. Operationally, they fall under the command and control of the adjutant generals of those states. As a result, they will be available to respond to an incident as part of a state response, well before federal response assets would be called upon to provide assistance. If the situation were to evolve into an event that overwhelmed state and local response assets, the governor could request the president to issue a declaration of national disaster and to provide federal assistance. At that point, the team would continue to support local officials in their state status, but would also assist in channeling additional military and other federal assets in support of the local commander. It is essential to note that these teams are in no way connected with counter-terrorism activities. They are involved exclusively in consequence management activities. The civil support teams will link with the consequence managers in their jurisdictions. The WMD-CST will have robust planning and command and control capabilities and the ability to mobilize a military task force quickly in support of FEMA requests. It will also have rapid access to military forces and quick reach-back capability to subject matter experts, labs and medical support. If terrorists release bacteria, chemicals or viruses to harm Americans, we must have the ability to identify the pathogens or substances with speed and certainty. The technology to accomplish that is still evolving, and current technology is very expensive, technically challenging to maintain, and largely unaffordable to most states and localities. In this regard, my goal is to support America's fire, police and emergency medical personnel as rapidly as possible with capabilities and tools that complement and enhance their response, not duplicate it. It is better to have these teams be funded, fielded and idle than to have no team at all. Every Governor should, and must, have the flexibility to call on a WMD-CST Team if the situation warrants. My amendment to this year's defense bill will increase the number of WMD-CSTs to 32, providing greater coverage to the American population. I support the efforts Congress and the Defense Department have made to establish state-controlled WMD Civil Support Teams, which leverage the best military technology and expertise available, to achieve that goal. I thank you for the opportunity.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman I am from Maryland.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I think the last couple of days has been an extraordinary debate about a profound issue about the future of conservation for this country. This legislation, in my judgment, is as profound and may be more so than the concept of national parks and national forests to preserve the heritage of a Nation and, certainly, the world. There has been some discussion about maintenance backlog in our national parks and our national forest, and those are legitimate questions, but I would like to pose this thought, how were they managed before Columbus came? There is a certain amount of natural processes that go into place the mechanics of creation have created. This legislation creates the potential, if we take advantage of the opportunity, for disparate interests to collectively collaborate on land use issues. There is a lot of money coming directed towards certain States. In my district, we are, and have been for about a year, in anticipation of this legislation, bringing farmers together, real estate agents together, developers together, nonprofit people together, local government folks together. You name it, and we are beginning to understand the nature of what our region should look like to preserve those natural resources, to preserve the agricultural heritage of our districts in future years. We did a study and looked at three things: We looked at the contribution of taxes from housing developments, the contribution of taxes from industry, and the contribution of taxes from agriculture. For every dollar that a housing project gave to local government, local government had to give them nearly a $1.50 back for services. In agriculture for every dollar, the farm gave to the local community, the local government only had to give 35 cents back. The argument that we need more development and more construction is just not there. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation.

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

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) for yielding me this time. There is a lot of discussion here today about this is going to be another entitlement, and we need to correctly budget the tax dollars that come in to this great city. But that is exactly what we are doing. The gentleman from Alaska just said that the tax dollars that are designated for highways go to highways. They do not go to all the other programs that are out there. The tax dollars designated for airports go to airports. The revenue that we are collecting for conservation, for land easements, for fisheries, for agriculture, for all those things, the dollars collected for that specific purpose from those programs now are not going to be scattered throughout the Federal budget. They are going to be designated with a succinct budget for these conservation programs. In our home, we designate a certain amount of money from our budget for the mortgage or rent, for water or electricity, for clothing, for recreation. That is exactly what we are doing here. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, we just heard some eloquent remarks about small little jewels being preserved and not being able to wait a few more years for lack of funding because of the advancing concrete. If we could picture in our mind the East Coast of the United States and then picture from Boston to Richmond. It is almost a constant corridor of buildings and highways, a megalopolis. And in the midst of that constant corridor is a tiny little space viewed from space that is still dark. It is called the Delmarva Peninsula, made up of Maryland, Delaware and Virginia. What we have done is worked with the three States on that tiny little peninsula to retain its rural character by creating a Habitat Conservation Corridor for those three States on the peninsula for wildlife. We are working to produce and preserve and make profitable agriculture. And we are going to restore 10 percent of the original historic number of oysters in the Chesapeake Bay, which will do tremendous things for water quality. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment for those jewels in this country that still can be preserved.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I also thank the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on Resources for pulling together all the people that were necessary to craft this legislation so carefully and in such a way that it balances the conservation of our resources and, I might add, the strong constitutional provisions of property rights. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make a couple of points. I hope my colleagues here in Washington are listening to this debate. This is the kind of debate that brings out good information, is bipartisan, is something that the American public can feel good about; and, in the end, everybody will benefit. This is a great Nation. We have been a great Nation for over 200 years. The Nation was built as a result of democracy, character, and endless frontier that provided expanse to move in, and an abundance of natural resources. But over 200 years after the founding of this country, our resources are diminishing as the population increases. Our frontier is virtually gone, if not entirely gone. All we have left is democracy and character to pull together our intellectual capacity to understand the nature of how we now manage those limited resources for unseen future generations to come. This is a big step in understanding how to manage those limited resources, how to manage our forests, how to manage our prairies, how to manage our agriculture, how to manage our fisheries, how to manage the water hydrologic cycle which provides us with sustenance. This bill will bring together the Nation's intellectual capacity to fund the money that is necessary to sustain the resources. And I urge my colleagues to vote for the bill.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Andy Rooney, a number of years ago, wrote a book about war, and he revealed in that book a little known phenomenon that is very rarely, if ever, discussed about war. That phenomenon is in essence this: The combat soldier in combat is dependent and dependable. He is loved and he loves others. He deals with those who are dying. He deals with those who are sick. He deals with those who are afraid. He deals with those who cannot rise up to the difficult challenge, emotional challenge, of viewing the slaughter on a daily basis. Many of those men who were afraid, or who may not have been wounded in the body, their spirit was wounded. Their mind was wounded. Some of them picked up disease. Those young men deserve some recognition along this magnificent wall that represents that conflict so that their families may come and have some resolution.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. What I would like to do, Mr. Speaker, is to honor a young man who, 33 years ago on May 14, 1967, was a corpsman in the Navy, fought with the Marines in Vietnam, served his country extremely well, and on that particular date put his own life in danger to save my life while in an operation called ``Union'' in the northern part of South Vietnam. That young man, who went to Vietnam in 1966, in November, stayed more than a year and not only served his country well, not only served the Marines very well, but he acted responsibly as an American and was a fine example of this country to that war-torn region and to the people. That young man is with us today, Mr. Speaker. His name is John T. Weed from Texas. And I wanted to make this statement to salute his effort, his commitment, his courage, his grace, and his skill.

Mr. GILCHREST

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

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman's concern with Agriculture not being consulted, the perception that they were not consulted about this piece of legislation. But I can tell the gentleman that with regard to the Chesapeake Bay Program, the biggest industry in my business is agriculture, and USDA and the Departments of Agriculture in Maryland, Delaware, Virginia and Pennsylvania have all worked through a variety of existing programs to ensure the quality of water in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries via many agricultural programs that exist, for example, the Buffer Program, the Waterway Program, the program that provides habitat for wildlife, the CRP Program. So there is a whole range of programs that the Chesapeake Bay program, which is EPA, consults with these other agencies to ensure water quality, and also the biggest thing I would like to say, I say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), is to ensure that agriculture remains not only a viable industry but a profitable industry.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. This has been a bipartisan effort on both sides of the aisle, from the chairman of the committee to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). Certainly I would like to honor on this day the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bateman), who has worked literally his entire career on these issues and his heart is in this greatest of estuaries, which the gentleman from Minnesota has so eloquently stated. I also want to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) for his efforts and all of us that have worked together on this particular issue. When John Smith came here well over 300 years ago, there were a few thousand people in the watershed. Now there are over 15 million people in the watershed. With this new census, there might be 16 or 17 million people in the watershed. So things are difficult. To manage this watershed, we need more than just one State doing their job. We need a multistate effort to ensure that human activity is in such a way that we certainly encourage economic development; but we encourage that economic development to be in harmony with the natural processes of nature so the bay can continue to be restored. I do not think we can ever get the bay back to the way it was when John Smith was here. We will never restore the bay to its original grandeur, and we will never solve the problem. From now until the end of time, the end of human habitation, this Chesapeake Bay program is going to be vital, because we continue to have development, we continue to have agriculture, we continue to have a whole range of issues, including air deposition from as far away as the Midwest causes about a third of the nutrient overload in the Chesapeake Bay. And so this multistate agreement is vitally important for us to learn how to reduce the nutrients, and we have found some key factors; and we are becoming successful in that. One of the other issues of the Chesapeake Bay program is to bring the bay grasses back that provides the necessary habitat for the resource, which is crabs and fish and a whole range of other things in this marine ecosystem. The bay was not intended to be a desert. Maybe the Sahara Desert has a good ecosystem, maybe the Antarctic has a good ecosystem; but the Chesapeake Bay was intended to have grass, subaquatic vegetation for the natural ecosystem to abound. The Chesapeake Bay program is figuring out, with our help, the relentless, sometimes tiring, effort to bring that resource back to the bay. Toxic pollution. With the Clean Water Act back in 1972 when they began to think about point source pollution, we began to solve that problem. We still have toxic pollution in the Chesapeake Bay, whether it still comes from chemical factories that we are trying to resolve and doing a good job at or point source pollutions like sewage treatment plants that need upgrades. Those are the kinds of issues that the Chesapeake Bay program deals with. It is vital. The Chesapeake Bay program also deals with the fisheries. The oyster population is down over 90 percent from what it was at the turn of the century. Now that we are in a new turn of the century, it is time to bring those oysters back and in a manner in which nature intended, by building oyster reefs, maybe 10 feet high, maybe 20 feet high, to perpetuate that particular species. Striped bass recovery we know is pretty successful. The fisheries is a part of the Chesapeake Bay program. I have one quick comment about a particular species called menhaden which also filters out certain nutrients in the bay like the oysters. The Chesapeake Bay program has recommended an ecosystem approach to that particular fisheries management plan where the menhaden, you give a few to the commercial watermen that use it for a variety of reasons, you give a few to the recreational fishermen, whoever wants to eat menhaden, pretty oily. But you also make sure that you give a certain number of menhaden to the rock fish that need it to sustain themselves, and you give a certain quantity of menhaden to the Chesapeake Bay so that a filtering action can occur. Mr. Chairman, the Chesapeake Bay program is vital. I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bateman) for his efforts, and I want to thank all the members of this committee that have moved this program forward. I urge an ``aye'' vote on this bill.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, there is annual dredging that takes place in the Chesapeake Bay, millions of cubic yards behind the three hydroelectric power dams in the Susquehanna River that have right now over 200 million cubic yards of sediment that eventually within the next 15 years has to be removed, otherwise the U.S. geological survey said it would smother the entire Chesapeake Bay floor if something is not done. There are problems with the dredge material on an annual basis. There are problems with the dredge material behind the Susquehanna River damages. So if something could be worked out in the next few years to figure out where to put this stuff and if Ohio wants it, we would be more than glad to trade it out.

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

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make two points here today. The first point is about Fish and Wildlife as an organization has done some magnificent things around the country. In my district in particular, they have helped enhance the marine ecosystem for the fisheries in the Chesapeake Bay. They have helped enhance wildlife habitat corridors to protect wildlife and keep the Eastern Shore of Maryland and much of Maryland in a beautiful state, in an environmental condition that we can be proud of. The Fish and Wildlife has also worked in my district to help preserve agriculture and make it profitable by a collaborative effort with a number of Federal, State agencies, and the private sector. So the Fish and Wildlife is out there, and they can do a magnificent job that is worthy of all of us. But what we do not want to have happen is those few dollars that are available for when official Fish and Wildlife can do a substantial job to be taken away and spent in an unwise fashion where there is no criteria. The bill of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) addresses two specific problems that we have come across through a series of hearings. One, and this is, in essence, a misdirection of dollars that are badly needed at all of our congressional level districts. Number one, the Director's Conservation Fund. The Director's Conservation Fund was used solely at the discretion of the director. No criteria existed for making grants under this unauthorized fund. So what is the solution? The bill provides a solution. This bill will restore the good faith of sportsmen and women in this successful program by eliminating unauthorized expenditures through the Director's Conservation Fund, reducing disproportionately the high amount for overhead. So that is the Director's Conservation Fund. The other problem has been there were several instances in which Fish and Wildlife Service use conservation trust funds for wildlife and sport fish to pay for other service needs. These were salaries, these were a whole range of things, travel and so on. So what is the solution? The solution to spending these Federal aid program dollars in areas where they should not be spent is that this legislation eliminates extra funds for the Fish and Wildlife Service to use for inappropriate expenditures. We fix the amount available and limit what it can be spent on. That means that we fix the amount that can be spent on administrative services and ensure that a majority of those dollars, if not 99 percent of those dollars, that people pay excise taxes for will be given to the Fish and Wildlife. With the cooperation of Members of Congress, other Federal agencies, the Fish and Wildlife Service can do the job that we all want them to do throughout this country, and that is preserve the natural heritage of Fish and Wildlife that our forefathers experienced in the past, we experience now in the present, and unseen generations to come will be able to enjoy that pristine natural environment.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) on his attempt in the legislation to hold onto one of the foundations of this country, and that is the hallmark of private property rights. But I want to make another suggestion on another hallmark of America and our freedom, and that is respect for one's neighbor, respect for the air one's neighbor breathes, the water he drinks, the dust around his property, the noise, the traffic, the odor, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera; that what one does on one's property does not adversely affect the quality of life for one's neighbor to use his property. Now, there was also another fundamental in our democratic process which is embedded in the Constitution; and that is, if one's property is taken away for the public good, one is to be compensated at fair market value. But now listen to this, what else is there in one's constitutional right in America? It is this. When one's property is regulated to prevent harm to one's neighbor from that dust or that odor or that inability to have a water management plant or storm water management plant or whatever, should one be compensated? The basic answer through our court system, through our legislation is no. Let me give my colleagues two quick examples in my district. There was a 54-acre plot of land purchased for the purpose of bringing in out-of-State trash to be put on this land and then called a rubble fill. The local zoning board said, no, you cannot do it. It was appealed to the zoning appeals board. They said, no, you cannot do it. It was then taken to the State court; and the State court said, no, it will adversely affect your community for a number of reasons: Truck traffic, noise, dust, you name it. The premise in this, and there was another example that I could use, almost the exact same thing with a sludge storage facility, to bring in out-of-State sludge to be stored on a 300-acre farm that only needed sludge, if they were going to use it, every third or fourth year. They were going to store thousands of tons of sludge. The zoning appeals board said no. The State court said no. They took it to Federal court. If they could jump from the zoning appeals board to the Federal court, would the judge, in this case the judge lives in the community because it is a circuit court judge, would he have an understanding of the need for the neighbors in his community? I would say the answer is no. I say to my colleagues, support the Boehlert- Delahunt substitute.

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

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I will say the rubble fill operator stood to make literally millions of dollars on the property, but it would have damaged.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, this morning I rise publicly to honor the memory of a true hero, a woman who gave her time, patience, experience, knowledge, and love to the young adults at Northeast High School in my district. In 1996, Linda Aschenbach-Hackmann, a former student and outstanding athlete, stepped in to fill a coaching vacancy for the girls' softball team. Her impact was immediate, leading the team to the State finals during the next 2 years. In late 1998, sadly, Linda was stricken with lymphoma cancer, confining her to the hospital with continuous painful treatments. Still, she managed to coach the team from her hospital bed and rally them from the sidelines. When Linda passed away in April 1999, her funeral was attended by hundreds of families and friends, including her beloved girls from the softball team that decorated her casket with the winning ball autographed by the players, for that year the girls won the State championship. Mr. Speaker, there can be no greater sacrifice for children today than giving our love and our patience and our time. She is a true hero. I want to thank Capitol Hill Police Officer Dave Pendleton and Linda's brother Gary for bringing this to our attention. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the letter Linda's brother sent to us. In Memory of Linda Aschenbach-Hackmann (By Gary Aschenbach) As a result of a sudden, unscheduled change in staff at Northeast High School, the girls Junior Varsity softball team was left without a coach. Anxious to fill that position, a search was initiated to immediately locate an interested and qualified person. On the overwhelming recommendation of colleagues, Mrs. Linda Aschenbach-Hackmann, a former student of Northeast High and star athlete, was sought to fill the position. Linda accepted the position and began her coaching career at Northeast in 1996, where in the first and second year she successfully led the team to compete in the state finals. In 1999, they triumphed to not only compete in the finals, but progressed to win the JV County Championship with an 18-0 record. The team's achievement had not accomplished in over a decade at Northeast High School. Without warning, in late 1998 Linda was suddenly stricken with Lymphoma cancer that eventually confined her to hospital care undergoing continuous, painful treatment. Still, she kept a watchful eye on the excellent progress of her talented softball team. She received daily updates and visits from fellow coaches and players as she continued to coach and rally her girls from the sidelines. Through her relentless love of players and the game, she won the respect and confidence of everyone. On April 17, 1999, exactly 30 years to the day after the death of her father, Linda succumbed to the attack of the cancer after a gallant fight. Her funeral was attended by hundreds of family and friends, including her beloved girls from the softball team who decorated her casket with the winning ball autographed by the players. Linda will always be remembered for her sportsmanship and ability to teach the fundamental rules and skills of the successful ball player. Her enthusiastic personality was complimented by the natural patience she shared with the youth. After her death and in her memory for so many accomplishments, Northeast High School paid special tribute to Linda at the highest possible standard. They immediately offered in her honor an annual scholarship to be given to a qualified athletic student. The criteria for this award required that the recipient continually demonstrate the same community and leadership qualities toward others as they seek to further their own education and career.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me, and what I want to try to explain up here in the 2-minute time frame that I have is what is happening with the present amendment by my good friend from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the bill that I hope all my colleagues will vote for. If the bill, if the amendment, passes by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), it will have a significant impact on the type of farming over a period of years that we have in the United States. Right now we have a mix of farming. We have some corporate farms, we have some family farms, and we have a mix of corporate family farms. We have some really big farms that are family farms. We have mega farms that are corporate farms that take in tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of acres whether it is poultry, dairy, grain; just name it. Right now though, we have a relatively pretty good mix of small family farms, big family farms, and pretty big corporate farms. If we vote for the gentleman from Ohio's amendment, what will happen is the shift will go from family farms, big family farms, to corporate farms, and it will shift from being all across the United States, whether one is a dairy farmer in New York, New England, South Carolina, California, Oklahoma, Montana, Ohio. The consolidation of agriculture then will go to corporate agriculture, and a consolidation of the dairy industry will go to the Midwest. If I could draw just very briefly a map of the United States? Now, right now the Midwest is a big producer of dairy products. We have other dairy regions in the Northeast, the mid-Atlantic States, the Southeast, virtually all across the country. But with Mr. Boehner's amendment, the focus of the dairy industry, the corporate dairy industry, will be concentrated in the Midwest. Now there are several problems with that, but one of the problems is suppose this is a severe drought in the future, a concentration of dairy in the Midwest, without it in other areas of the country. If we had a drought, if we had an increase of pests, if we had an increase of disease, if we have floods, we do not have the safety net of the diversity of agriculture that we have right now. So I will urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment and vote for the bill.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me, and to add on to the gentleman from Texas' explanation for the constitutional provision which allows the U.S. Congress to do what we are doing now, which is basically a more equitable distribution of the funds, not an inequitable distribution of the funds, and I will quote from Oliver Wendell Holmes. I was going to make this comment to the gentleman from Wisconsin who originally brought up the idea of the Constitution. Oliver Wendell Holmes, chief justice, said that the Constitution was made for people with fundamentally differing views. And what we see here today is a reflection of people on this House floor with fundamentally differing views. And at this particular point, my colleague with whom I have great respect, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), I would oppose his amendment. We talked about free and open markets. We need to have access to foreign markets. Well, in the state of the world today, especially when we consider the agricultural community in the United States, who are we going to sell our agricultural products to in the near term? Is it going to be Russia? I do not think so. Is it going to be China? I do not think so. Is it going to be Japan? So our markets right now with the international situation are somewhat restricted. Can the agricultural community in the United States wait until the Russian economy improves, or China opens its markets, or Japan opens its markets, or Canada opens its markets? I do not think so. We are talking about a free market system. What I would like to remind my colleagues who are in favor of this particular amendment is, Mr. Chairman, that if they look at General Motors, they operate whether it rains or whether it does not rain. They can operate in a free, open-market economy without much interference from anybody. They do not have to worry about floods; they do not worry about droughts; they do not worry about disease; they do not worry about insect infestation. But the U.S. agricultural community worries about all of those things every single day of the year, and the U.S. agriculture industry operates on a very slim weather margin. So I would ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman made mention that Equador pays nothing? Is that the country he said? He said they pay nothing? $142,000 from Ecuador. Venezuela $67,000. Costa Rica $29,000. Significantly smaller countries. But the United States is telling these other 10 countries how they have to fish to meet our standards. This is an international agreement decided upon by the United States to protect the dolphin and the tuna industry.

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.