Wayne Gilchrest

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis). (Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to express my gratitude and appreciation for the members of the Committee on Resources on both sides of the aisle for piecing this package together, and I also want to compliment the staff on both sides of the aisle for their effort and cooperation in pulling this package together. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers; and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This legislation reauthorizes a number of important fishery statutes that range from grants for States for conservation, research, and enforcement activities to the implementation of international treaties. The bill reauthorizes these statutes through September 30, 2006. Two of the State grant statutes are the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act of 1986 and the Anadromous Fisheries Conservation Act of 1965. These laws have been active for a number of years and have provided funding for many worthwhile activities, including research to help improve the way fisheries are managed, enforcement activities, the rebuilding of necessary habitat, and other measures to improve the survival of fish that travel across State boundaries and over great distances. The Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act of 1984 and the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act are laws that provide directives to the States and the Atlantic States Fisheries Commission to develop fishery management plans for the species of fish under their jurisdiction along the East Coast. These laws promote cooperation between the States and Federal Government to ensure that fisheries are getting appropriate and complementary management throughout their range, whether it be in State or Federal waters. The current robust health of striped bass populations is a direct result of efforts undertaken under these two acts. The Atlantic Tunas Convention Act of 1975 and the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Convention Act of 1995 are laws that implement international agreements. These acts allow the U.S. to be a member of the International Fishery Commission where management recommendations are developed by member nations for fisheries under the Commission's jurisdiction. The United States then implements those recommendations through regulations for U.S. fishing vessels. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1989 also makes some technical changes to the Oceans Act of 2000, Public Law 106-256. The bill extends the deadline for the Presidential commission to submit its report to Congress from 18 months to 27 months. This change will allow the commission to still be operational while the administration reviews and submits its comments. The commission will then have a chance to respond to the administration's comments and submit those to Congress. In addition, the commission has opted for a much broader field hearing schedule in order to obtain the views of additional Americans; and due to such a schedule, as a result, we have increased their authorization by $2.5 million. Mr. Speaker, all of these acts are very important. They have been very successful in accomplishing their conservation goals; and in the coming years, greater emphasis will be placed on research and management measures which promote the development of an ecosystem-based management of fisheries. I urge Members to vote ``aye'' on H.R. 1989. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GILCHREST

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

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1230) to provide for the establishment of the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge in the State of Michigan, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present H.R. 1230, an important bill introduced by the distinguished dean of the House, the honorable gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). The measure has 28 bipartisan cosponsors. Also, the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), lends his support enthusiastically to this piece of legislation. The goal of this innovative measure is to establish an international wildlife refuge along the lower 18 miles of the Detroit River that flows between the United States and Canada. The river provides a central habitat for 29 species of waterfowl and 65 different kinds of fish. It has been designated as a heritage river in both countries, and it is an important waterfowl corridor for over 3 million ducks, geese, and swans who annually migrate through this region. Sadly, up to 95 percent of the original wetlands of the Detroit River have been lost to development. H.R. 1230 offers a rare opportunity to protect the remaining high-quality fish and wildlife habitats, to restore degraded wetland areas, and to encourage international efforts to promote awareness of the ecosystem resources of the Detroit River. Under the terms of the original bill, if a corporation donated property to the Secretary of the Interior for inclusion in the refuge, then they were protected from future financial responsibility for any environmental cleanup and its cost. As Members might expect, the Justice Department and the Office of Management and Budget raised some concerns about future potential liability for the Federal Government. In an effort to accommodate those concerns, the author of the bill has agreed to modify this proposal by deleting the indemnification provisions in section 7. With this change, any remaining questions about the impact of this legislation have been alleviated. We on this side of the aisle greatly appreciate the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) for that effort. H.R. 1230 has been endorsed by the Governor of Michigan, a member of the Canadian Parliament, numerous State and local officials, and dozens of conservation groups, including Ducks, Unlimited, the National Audubon Society, the National Rifle Association, the Nature Conservancy, and the Trust for Public Lands. In his endorsement letter, Governor John Engler noted that the creation of a new Federal wildlife refuge will certainly enhance the conservation of the Detroit River and its unique natural, historical, and cultural resources. During our hearings, a witness for Ducks, Unlimited, testified that the new refuge would provide a unique opportunity for international cooperation between the United States and Canada among governmental and nongovernmental partners to protect and restore the international treasure. Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) for his outstanding and tireless leadership in proposing the creation of this new, exciting international wildlife refuge. The gentleman from Michigan has been a conservation giant in this country, and this bill is a testament to his ongoing commitment to that effort. I am pleased to support this measure, and I urge my colleagues to vote aye on this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, once again, I would like to compliment the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) on his work in developing this refuge, in one sense in an international way and in another sense setting a precedent that can be replicated countless numbers of times across the Nation where you can bring in an urban landscape and provide habitat for numerous waterfowl, birds, migrating neo-tropical birds and an abundance of marine life. Mr. Speaker, I live off the Chesapeake Bay, and along the shores of the Chesapeake Bay there are numerous little tidal basins and estuaries. One of the waterfowl that rests there comes from Alaska, the tundra swan, with a beautiful whistling sound. But between Alaska and the Chesapeake Bay, where they spend their winter months, they need a number of places to stop to provide rest and food for themselves and their young. And now we can be assured that one of those places that those tundra swans will stop and rest along their thousands of miles of journey to the tidal basins of the Chesapeake Bay will be this refuge. So we in Maryland thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and the staff for putting this together. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the three bills just considered, H. Con. Res. 270, H.R. 1913, and H.R. 1230.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I will say to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, having spent weeks looking into this issue, not as a Republican, not as a Democrat, but as someone who wants both wings to say passenger safety, someone who truly believes that it is keen that the Federal Government has responsibility for the safety and security of American citizens, that I also truly believe it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to provide security at our Nation's airports. Now, why are we here today and not 3 weeks ago? Because it took the committee time. It took myself visiting the Port of Baltimore, BWI Airport, our bridges, and all those vulnerable areas in our State, which includes nuclear power plants, which includes Federal buildings, and includes a whole array of other things. So this bill, in my judgment, after talking to the Coast Guard, the CIA, the FBI, Customs, INS, airport security, State police, you name it, it is my considered judgment, after listening to them, that the Federal Government needs to be responsible in this case for airport security. What does that mean? That means that we want to make sure that behind every screener is a Federal agent. In some cases every screener will be a Federal employee, a Federal agent; and in some cases the baggage handlers will also be in that category. But be sure that every bag is going to be screened. The Federal Government will provide security for this system in the same manner that the Federal marshals provide security for our nuclear power plants.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. I want to thank the chairman and ranking member and the staff on both sides for bringing this resolution to the floor in what really is a timely manner for us to say a few words to, in the way we can, to honor those people who went to the tragedy to save lives and to comfort the afflicted. Whether they were firemen or policemen or medical personnel or just an average citizen responding to a tragedy, they responded in a way to save lives. They responded in a way to comfort those who were injured. They did not respond to political ideology, they did not respond to religious differences, they did not respond to the cultural divide that separates us from much of the rest of the world. They responded, pure and simple, to human suffering, human tragedy and human need. This is what we come here today to honor. It is very difficult for us to comprehend the madness that caused this tragedy. That is in fact pervasive and persistent in a tiny fraction of the human population. But it is easy to understand why so many brave men and women gave their lives on that tragic morning of September 11. It is easy for us, and we should always remember the unity of purpose for which they gave their lives and for which we are here this afternoon honoring that courage and that strength. It is for those young men and women, those middle-aged men and women, and those senior citizens that gave their lives that morning and for their friends and for their relatives and for America, to never forget. We will prevail.

Mr. GILCHREST

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

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, we have an amendment that deals with a concept known as the ``conservation corridor.'' A conservation corridor would use existing agricultural and forest conservation practices to ensure a steady contiguous land mass for the purpose of protecting, enhancing and making agriculture profitable. In accordance with the conservation programs in the Department of Agriculture, we want to make a conservation corridor. I have discussed this with the committee and a number of members on the committee; and at this point, to discuss further this issue, I would like to yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo).

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, we have discussed this. We do accept the fact that we will make it a pilot project in an area, a geographic area in my district known as the Delmarva Peninsula. It is a peninsula that includes part of Maryland, all of Delaware, and part of Virginia; and we will create a conservation corridor which will be conducive for agriculture to be profitable. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be withdrawn.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I have a comment about the dairy compact. The dairy compact should be extended during the renegotiation of the process while we deal with the issues of stabilizing the infrastructure, the important infrastructure, that supports not only the dairy industry at large, but, more importantly, the farm, the dairy farm, in many places where you find it around the diverse landscape of this Nation. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I have a few comments about statements by some of the previous speakers. First of all, I want to tell the Nation that we are here concerned and continue to work on the problems that occurred in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania. We are working to make America safer, more secure, and more economically viable, even though we are strongly debating differences of opinion in the agriculture bill. Mr. Chairman, I also want to say that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) have done a pretty good job on this agriculture bill because they have funneled dollars where they needed to go. My disagreement is the equitable distribution of those dollars and the number of dollars. Not in the Committee on Agriculture, but I worked with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) some years ago on nutrient management problems. In my area it was poultry, and in his area it was dairy. There are many of us not on the Committee on Agriculture that live in agricultural communities. I am the first generation of my family not born on the farm, and yet I have an intimate relationship with agriculture. I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) for his increase in conservation dollars, and I trust his judgment because he is a good and fine gentleman. Mr. Chairman, the issue here with me is the perspective on the equitable, my word, equitable, distribution of dollars, throughout the Nation toward those farms with a sense of urgency that are in the most need over the next few years. They are out there. This amendment goes a long way towards dealing with agriculture that is intimately related with environmental issues. Agriculture deals with soil, one of the most complex things on Earth. As a matter of fact, when one thinks about milk, think about buying a carton of milk. Does one think about going to the store and pulling it off the shelf; or do my colleagues think about the sun shining on grass, and then the whole natural process that goes from there to producing milk. Agriculture is intimately tied in with environmental issues, with the mechanics of natural processes. So the issue here is how do we keep our rural areas economically viable? How do we keep our rural areas rural? Well, we do that by creating a situation where agriculture can be unique and profitable. And how does agriculture remain unique and profitable? It remains unique and profitable if those farmers can not only produce the corn, the wheat, the poultry, the hogs, the milk, et cetera, et cetera, but close to where they produce it, they can process it. They can package it. They can market it within a particular region. It is value added. How else do we keep this rural area viable? We keep it environmentally sound. The conservation in this amendment goes a long way into making those rural areas environmentally pristine. The water quality is going to improve. The forest habitat is going to improve. The wildlife habitat is going to improve. As a matter of fact, contained in this amendment is a unique perspective on the conservation programs. Up to this point the conservation programs were applied to one farm at a time. What we do in this amendment is to help create a regional approach so many farmers can get together and submit these plans to USDA, and then get those dollars for a regional approach. It does not have to be just one State, it could be in a multistate region. In my area of Delmarva, we have Delaware, Maryland and Virginia. We are working on what we call Chesapeake fields, to keep agriculture viable, profitable, and environmentally sound, and create a conservation corridor from Virginia to Pennsylvania for wildlife. There has also been some discussion that I have heard here today and I have heard in the last few days about hobby farmers. Well, just because a farmer has a small farm and just because a farmer's wife has to work in the bank or is a schoolteacher or drives a bus does not mean that farmer is not putting his heart and soul and grit and life into that dirt to make that farm profitable because that farm was received from the farmer's great, great grandparents 200 years ago; or maybe the farmer is a recent farmer. Mr. Chairman, this is not about small farmers getting a subsidy because they are not competitive with the big farmers, and I do not want to go where some of us have gone pitting the big farmers against the small farmers. This is about preserving the infrastructure of agriculture for itself, for water quality, for wildlife habitat, but mostly to preserve the family farm because that is American.

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

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, one of the earlier speakers made a comment about how this amendment would be bad for the watershed. How I would like to respond to that is that contained in this amendment is a new approach to protecting watersheds so that we do not have to have each individual farmer apply for the conservation programs that will improve water quality, but we can do it with a number of farmers getting together, a number of farmers getting together in one State, or we could do it with a number of farmers getting together in a multi-State region which is protecting, truly, a broad watershed area. So contained in this amendment is a specific program with specific criteria to use agriculture and the conservation program to protect the water quality in a watershed.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding time to me. I would just like to make three quick comments. One, I think it is vital for the defense authorization bill to go through this House today, and I would hope that we could pass it with the unanimous votes of the Members on both sides of the aisle. We also come here today to express our condolences to those families and victims of this cruel tragedy; praise, with as much compassion and encouragement to those people who have responded, and in particular the firefighters, the medical teams, the police officers, our military services, and all those volunteers that have contributed to that effort, as well as the nongovernmental organizations like people of religious faiths, and also certainly the Red Cross. In essence, the long-term victory will come in this battle when we as Members of Congress and the Nation come together to focus our attention and our hearts to those tragedies that have been brought to America, and with our allies in the international community, to know that we need to make this worldwide effort to replace arrogance with humility, to replace ignorance with knowledge, and to replace dogma with tolerance. This is what is needed. I think, in fact, this is probably what will happen. On a smaller scale, in the defense authorization bill, I am glad that the chairman of the committee has basically included this en bloc amendment in H.R. 2586, in the Defense Authorization Act, to ask the Secretary of Defense to study the issue that has not been resolved yet, dealing with our citizens that attend our military academies, to determine whether or not they can be in the same category as men and women in the regular armed services as far as compensation is concerned for disabilities that they incurred while they were at the military academies.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, our hearts go out to the hurt America now feels. For centuries, the international civilized community has been plagued by three fundamental enemies: ignorance, arrogance and dogma. America's solution for the long-term defeat of these enemies is to replace ignorance with knowledge, arrogance with humility, and dogma with tolerance. Sometimes, as now, in the short term a terrible swift sword is also necessary. America now recalls the words of Franklin Roosevelt 60 years ago when he said, ``This generation has a rendezvous with destiny.'' We defeated evil then. We will defeat evil now. Our generation has accepted a rendezvous with this destiny; and that is to rid the world of these plagues.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time. I guess the question here is, for those of us who want a vote on this increase in gas mileage is, is it technically feasible? Do we have the brains, the will, the initiative to increase gas mileage and improve safety of these vehicles? The answer is yes, we have the brains, the skill, the technology. We can increase gas mileage, improve the environment and provide safety for those Americans who choose to buy SUVs or light trucks. I urge support of the amendment.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that I have a sensitivity to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) who wants the oil drilled in ANWR because of the kind of resources that it will bring to bear on the Native Alaskans. Sometimes we forget how easy our life is here in the lower 48 with all of the conveniences and resources that we have to provide the quality of life that we have. There is a strong sensitivity to that particular issue. I will say to the gentleman from Louisiana, about the diversity between the difference of the Arctic refuge on the North Slope of Alaska and the bayous of Louisiana, in 1966 I spent a winter in a tent 250 miles north of the Arctic Circle, and I can tell the gentleman, there might not be as much biological diversity there as opposed to Louisiana, but what is there is extremely sensitive. What is damaged, for all intents and purposes, is damaged forever. When we have access to this oil, if and when it is drilled, the alternative use of technology to provide our energy will also come on- line; in less than 20 years, alternative sources of fuel that will break us away from the dependence on fossil fuel, and the way we are now can be achieved. The other reason I am opposed to drilling for oil in ANWR is relatively simple. We are using up our oil faster than we should, and ANWR ought to be preserved in case of a disaster or an energy crisis.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in opposition to this amendment, not because I am opposed to the concept but because I think that the gathering of science needs to be clearly understood as soon as possible in order for us to implement a level of arsenic that we know beyond a reasonable doubt that is safe for consumers. I would like to tell the previous speaker that I believe totally that human activity is causing climate change, and we are working with the administration. We have a difference of opinion, but I as a Republican believe that climate change is real. I believe in strong protections for wetlands, strong protections for our national forests, strong protections for all of our environmental issues. But I believe in those issues based on the best available data and the best science that we can gather. It is difficult to get the best available science on the House floor by nonscientists as we continue to debate this issue. The gentlewoman from Connecticut said it is time that we bring the studies to a conclusion and implement that information. Well, I would say that I would hope that scientific studies never come to a conclusion, that they continue to be ongoing, that when we have what we feel at the end of a particular study is the best available information then we will implement that particular process. The EPA director, Christine Todd Whitman, is now engaged in a very quick, ongoing analysis of the data from the Clinton administration, from the National Academy of Sciences, and from the scientists that she has put on this particular issue. Christine Todd Wittman said in a very short period of time the level of arsenic that will be acceptable could be down to 5 parts per billion; not 10 parts per billion, but 5 parts per billion. So let us let the administration move forward. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I served in Vietnam as a young marine. I met many extraordinary, wonderful people in Vietnam. I have visited Vietnam as a Member of Congress. I have had many, many conversations with Pete Peterson, the distinguished ambassador to Vietnam. My conclusion is this: Those Vietnamese, young and old, who are being persecuted religiously, basic human rights violations, torture, et cetera, are painfully, patiently waiting the return of the Americans to once again, but in a much different way, and perhaps much more effective, bring the opportunity for freedom to Vietnam to prevail. Mr. Speaker, communism cannot exist against a tidal wave of hope, knowledge and a clear avenue of opportunity. The Jackson-Vanik waiver offers a portion of that avenue to open up. I urge a ``no'' vote on this opposition to Jackson-Vanik.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman for the inclusion of funding for marine protected areas in this bill. In the Chesapeake Bay we are already using marine protected areas to ensure the recovery of species such as oysters and blue crabs. We are finding that with the involvement of recreational and commercial fishermen as well as Federal, State and local governments, marine protected areas will play a critical role in restoring over-exploited fish species. As chairman of the subcommittee on this issue, I am a strong proponent of using a variety of types of marine protected areas to ensure conservation and sustainable use of our marine resources in the Chesapeake and throughout our Nation's waters. The President's funding request for marine protected areas is based upon this principle as described in Executive Order 13158, which reads, in part, ``An expanded and strengthened comprehensive system of marine protected areas throughout the marine environment would enhance the conservation of our Nation's natural and cultural marine heritage and the ecologically and economically sustainable use of the marine environment for the future generations.'' We feel that including the President's executive order in this colloquy is fundamental to sound marine resources. I would like to conclude, is it the intent of the chairman that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration may use funds appropriated for implementation of the Marine Protected Areas Executive Order 13158, as supported by the Secretary of Commerce on June 4, 2001, and in accordance with the President's budget request? Specifically, in addition to direction given in the committee report for NOAA to develop a marine protected atlas, is it the intent of the chairman that funds may be used to implement the full scope of the Executive Order 13158, including the implementation of the Marine Protected Area Federal Advisory Committee, the development of a framework for communication amongst agencies and programs that utilize marine protected areas, and the consultation with State and local partners in preparation for expanding the scope of the Nation's marine protected areas?

Mr. GILCHREST. I yield to the chairman.