Wayne Gilchrest

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I would like to invite the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), as this bill passes and the restoration projects begin, to take a canoe trip down one of the more beautiful tidal estuaries of the Chesapeake Bay, the Pocomoke River, the ancestral homeland of the gentleman from Mississippi, in a canoe, and we will see what progress is being made. I want to thank the staff on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on Resources for working together to blend our concepts and ideas in a unique fashion so that this bill can be signed into law and be successful. We now have the capacity, I think, as human beings to begin the process of understanding the complexities of the dynamics of the mechanics of natural processes. The web of life that sustains all of us is now in the process by us at the beginning early stages of understanding. An Indian philosopher said, I think his name was Chief Seattle, ``Touch a flower, trouble a star.'' When human activity interferes in a dull way, not a natural, dynamic way, with the environment, it has a negative, degrading effect. Our estuaries have been degraded over the last especially 100 years. The process of this bill is to make the correction so that we work with the natural processes by understanding their mechanics as to working against them. Habitats in many of America's estuaries have been degraded or destroyed over the last 100 years. Their many economic values and their quality have been either ignored or unknown. Population growth in coastal watersheds, dredging, draining, bulldozing, paving, pollution, dams, sewage discharges, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, have had their impacts. From these human activities, the loss that we now have seen of these estuary habitats is evident. For example, in our coastal States alone, more than 55 million acres of wetlands have been destroyed in the last 100 years. In the Chesapeake Bay, 90 percent of the sea grasses that we know are homes to many of the marine ecosystem life is gone. Only 2 percent of the oyster harvest of 100 years ago is left. Thirty years ago we harvested 30 million pounds of oysters. Now it is less than 1 million. In San Francisco Bay, 95 percent of its original wetlands have been destroyed, and only 300 of the original 6,000 miles of stream habitat in the Central Valley support spawning salmon. Seventy percent of salt marshes along Narragansett Bay are being cut off from full tidal flow, and 50 percent, 50 percent have been filled and are virtually gone forever. Louisiana estuaries continue to lose 25,000 acres annually of coastal marshes. An area roughly the size of Washington, D.C. is lost due to neglect or ignorance or some other human activity. For the most part, the loss of each estuary is an accumulation, a small accumulation of small development projects, almost unseen to the residents' naked eyes. Other impacts have destroyed in a very small way one acre at a time, and this destruction alone cannot be blamed for the loss of our estuaries and their habitats and wetlands, but the cumulative effects of the destruction are surprising in their extent and severity. Those tiny little developments, another shopping plaza, another road, another acre filled in, another housing development, another building, another boat, the extent and severity has amounted to tens of millions of acres. We can, I think, coordinate Federal, State and local management efforts to protect our estuaries. We must also provide sufficient resources for estuary restoration, without which all of our planning and coordination efforts are useless. Our estuaries are sick and dying, and planning without implementation is like a diagnosis without any follow-up treatment. If we want to bring estuaries back to health, we need to commit the time, money, and creativity necessary to restore the vital organs that make estuaries live and breathe. We know how to do it. Now let us roll up our sleeves, put on our boots, and get to work. The last comment on this bill, H.R. 1775, the National Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act, is going to try to restore 1 million acres over 10 years. One national park in Alaska, one national park in Alaska, is 13 million acres, so it is a very humble beginning. It is not about a new layer of Federal bureaucracy, however. It is about coordination of existing estuary restoration efforts. This bill will complement the efforts of programs like the National Estuary Program and the Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grants by providing direction to Federal agencies to work together with the States, with other governments, with the National Estuary Program, conservation groups, to get together to address the critical needs. That means someone from the Corps of Engineers, someone from the Department of Agriculture, someone from a State agency, and someone from a nonprofit agency will all stand in the stream together, forget what their titles are, but they will roll up their sleeves with their boots, put the mud in the right place, and get the catfish back in the streams. We can do it. I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for all his work on this effort. Not only are the estuaries and coastal areas going to be included in this legislation, but also the Great Lakes, and they are great lakes.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, we rise here today to say good-bye to Congressman Herb Bateman, and to extend the depths of our condolences to Mrs. Bateman and to his family. Mr. Bateman was known around here, the House floor, simply as Herb. He was a quiet statesman. I served on the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment with Herb, and also on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and I can tell the Members that Herb was very generous with his opinions. In fact, I can tell the Members that there are few people who are more pleasantly opinionated than Herb Bateman, and we endured and enjoyed each other's company through the legislative process. But Herb was also generous with something else. This is what I will always remember him by. That is, his smile and his greeting on the House floor. When we came up to Herb, he would smile, put his hand on our shoulder, and say good morning, and then use our name. Then we would say good morning back. Herb was, and will always be, a quiet statesman who has done great things for America.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and celebrate the fiftieth reunion of the Thomas Edward Parsons family. The Parsons family is gathering in Oxford, Talbot County, Maryland, on July 29th, to celebrate their reunion at the home of Elaine Valliant Cox. The Parsons family reunion was first held in Royal Oak, Talbot County, Maryland, at the home of William Harris Valliant and instituted to preserve family relationships as their family began to spread beyond Talbot County. The Parsons' family history has been documented in Talbot County, Maryland back to the early nineteenth century. The first reunion was advertised in a local newspaper asking descendants of Thomas and Susan Benson Parsons to gather on August 20, 1951. One hundred eleven members of the Parsons family gathered on the Valliant lawn coming from Idaho, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Delaware, West Virginia, Maryland and Washington, DC. The oldest family member in attendance was Mrs. Margaret Parsons of Oxford, Maryland, wife of Edward Thomas Parsons. She was ninety years of age. This year the eldest family member in attendance is Mrs. Louise Valliant Willis of Oxford, Maryland, She is ninety-nine years of age and is the daughter of Susan Parsons Valliant, the youngest member of the original twelve Parsons siblings. The youngest member will be Natalie Chance Schmidt of Easton, Maryland. About sixty Parsons family members are expected to attend from all over the country. In recent years, family members have attended the Eastern Shore reunion from as far away as Seattle, Washington. The current generation of Parsons family members represents all walks of life from many parts of the country and from around the Eastern Shore of Maryland. The Parsons family reunion officers are Jan Valliant O'Neal of Kensington, Maryland, Marguerite Schimpff Webster of Washington, District of Columbia, Cathy Newton Schmidt of Easton, Maryland, and Robert Thomas Valliant, Jr., of Oxford, Maryland. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I want to congratulate the Parsons family for celebrating their fiftieth family reunion and honoring the significance of family in the building of our great nation.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution from the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and support the Jackson- Vanik waiver. In the 1870s, France colonized Vietnam. From 1940 to 1945, the Japanese and the French collaborated to oppress and colonize Vietnam. In 1945, President Roosevelt sent an agent, Archemedis Patti of the OSS, the forerunner of the CIA, to see what was going on in Vietnam and what should happen after World War II, which was fought for self- determination around the world. Archemedis Patti suggested that Ho Chi Minh was fighting for independence against the French and the Japanese. Roosevelt died. Archemedis Patti persisted with President Truman. Throughout the 1950s, the OSS, which turned into the CIA, recommended that the United States not become involved in the Vietnam conflict because it was a matter of a civil war and a matter of a fight for independence. Now, I know the decisions were tough back then. In the 1940s and 1950s it was Communist expansion, China fell to the Communist, there was a Korean War and so on. But the United States got involved in the conflict. I served in Vietnam. I lost close friends in Vietnam. I knew men who are still to this day MIAs. I was proud to fight for the democratic process in the 1950s in Vietnam. It is now 25 years later. The war virtually ended in 1975. The United States does have business interests around the globe and in Vietnam. The United States does have humanitarian interest around the world and in Vietnam. We will not lose sight of those humanitarian interests regardless of what anybody says about cultural interests. So I highly recommend to my colleagues that we vote against the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), we stand firm in favor of the Jackson-Vanik waiver; and while we do that, we salute Pete Peterson, the Ambassador to Vietnam from the United States.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for yielding me this time. When we consider the size of the United States, the diversity of this great Nation, the range of our population and the configuration of the potential danger throughout the world, the United States above all countries should have the kind of strategy, the kind of policy, the kind of coordination, the kind of vision to protect our citizens. Up to this point, that strategy and that policy has been fragmented. With this particular bill, the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler) and the members of the committee that have come together and their staff to coordinate this activity, that fragmentation will no longer exist, the policy will be straightforward; and America will be safer. I urge my colleagues to vote for the bill.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment about Mr. Barnett's service on the committee. It was my first time as chairman of the committee and Rick ensured that the stability, the consistency, and the professionalism of that committee was carried out in an efficient, prompt manner. I would also like to say something above Rick Barnett's ability to ride a bicycle. He is also a good horseback rider. In fact, on the day of the tragedy in Oklahoma, when the Murrah Building was bombed, Rick and I were riding horses in Kennedyville, Maryland, on the Eastern Shore when we came back to the House and saw that tragedy unfold. From that point on, Rick made sure that our committee was fully engaged in the healing process and the legislative process to ensure that that type of terrorist activity would not happen again. So I salute Mr. Barnett in his future career.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, just to reiterate what the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) said, we are also collectively, as a body, proud of the Coast Guard blue. I say to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), my daughter, when she was 15, some years ago christened a class of buoy tender called the Busal with a bottle of champagne, and she smacked it and broke it on the first try. She was a little worried about it, but she went and did it. So I understand the sense of pride that his family has in taking part of that celebration. So, Mr. Speaker, we wish the Coast Guard Semper Paratus and happy birthday.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 372) expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the historic significance of the 210th anniversary of the establishment of the Coast Guard, and for other purposes.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, we have no more speakers.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble). (Mr. COBLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, August 4 will mark the 210th anniversary of the U.S. Coast Guard. Since 1790, the men and women of the Coast Guard have demonstrated that they are always ready, Semper Paratus, to carry out their critical duties. Today's Coast Guard has primary responsibility for the promotion of safety of life and property at sea. That is easy to say and difficult to do, because there are days when the seas are calm and there are days when the seas are stormy. There are evenings when the stars are out, and the twilight is beautiful. And there are evenings when the storm rages, the icebreakers are out there, and the storm ensures that the hours the Coast Guard is on duty will be very, very dangerous. But, Mr. Speaker, they do their job in spite of all that. The Coast Guard is responsible for enforcing all Federal laws, at sea and under the sea, in all of the United States' waters and the United States' territories. They maintain the aids to navigation, which is something we almost never think of until we are in a boat and we do not want to run aground. As a result of that, as a result of the Coast Guard's professional, efficient, persistent adherence to those aids of navigation, the mariners, whether they are on the high seas, in our coastal waters, or in our rivers, they are safe. The protection of the marine environment, which is one of the major responsibilities exclusively designated to the U.S. Coast Guard. Under all circumstances, in all weather, in all seas, throughout the entire many thousands of miles of the U.S. coastline. And the U.S. citizens are protected from the vast array of problems surrounding pollution, including oil pollution from the vast array of oil tankers and cruise ships that navigate through our waters. Domestic and international icebreaking activities from the North Sea to the majestic Great Lakes, to the Arctic Circle, to the Antarctic Circle, and to the jewel of estuaries, the Chesapeake Bay. Those waters are protected. They are navigable in all weather to ensure that schoolchildren, if they live on an island like Smith Island in the Chesapeake, that they can get to school in spite of the ice. They might not be disappointed, but because of the Coast Guard they ensure that they get their education. Or to all the barges and the ships that travel throughout the Nation's waters, and especially in the Antarctic or the Arctic, the U.S. Coast Guard icebreakers are on duty 24 hours a day. Sometimes in the Antarctic, they are cutting through ice that is 12 feet thick. It is a lonely duty. But the courageous Coast Guard people ensure that it is done. The safety and security of vessels, ports, waterways and facilities are all ensured by the Coast Guard. And the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) mentioned the fisheries out 200 miles, the exclusive economic zone as it is called, is constantly under siege by the foreign fishing vessel fleet. And who is out there to protect the economics and the marine ecosystem but the U.S. Coast Guard. As a military service and a branch of the Armed Forces, the Coast Guard also maintains a readiness to operate as a specialized service with the Navy upon the declaration of war, whenever the President directs. And we do not have to wait for a declaration of war. We know that there are very often illegal immigrants that go on tramp steamers, go on a number of vessels. Mr. Speaker, recently in the Caribbean I was on a Coast Guard cutter that was directed to intervene in any vessel that they thought there were illegal immigrants. In one incident, there was a, what we might call a tramp steamer, a merchant marine fishing vessel from an Asian country filled with over 50 illegal, hostile immigrants. A small group of Coast Guard people, led by an officer who was a professional young woman, boarded that tramp steamer, arrested those illegal immigrants without incident, and assured that they were taken into custody. The Coast Guard is a mighty fine outfit. And during all the wars that they were involved in, including Vietnam, and I was in Vietnam in the mid-1960s with the Marine Corps. And I have to say that the Marine Corps has a beautiful hymn. The gentleman from North Carolina said the Coast Guard, their song is a beautiful song, and it is. I would give a vote that the most beautiful song is the Marine Corps hymn, but the second most beautiful would be the Coast Guard hymn. But the Coast Guard served its Nation in Vietnam. And sometimes, yes, those young Coasties had barbecues on the back of those Coast Guard cutters in safe waters. But more often than not, the Coast Guard gave up those barbecues for dangerous patrols to protect American interests and the interests of the democratic process. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support House Concurrent Resolution 372 to honor the U.S. Coast Guard on its 210th anniversary. Mr. Speaker, I reserve 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 H. Con. Res. 372.

Mr. GILCHREST

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

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) for yielding to me. There has been no environmental impact statement done on this particular project. I have talked to the Corps of Engineers from Baltimore City, along with the Coast Guard, along with numerous other people involved in this in Chestertown, Maryland once again, and the Corps cannot tell us how high the wake will be when it hits the shore except that it is going to be higher. The Corps cannot tell us whether or not that slow down in the current will have an impact on those oysters because they have not done the study. I would like to, if I may, just respond to some of my colleague's comments. This is not a maintenance project. We do maintain the Tolchester Channel. The Tolchester Channel is maintained on a regular basis. This amendment has no impact on normal maintenance of the Tolchester Channel. This is considered new work. Now, the Corps of Engineers has stated that this is not appropriate nor proper when considering it as a safety project. Because since 1994, there has been 6,700 ships pass through the Tolchester S-turn without an incident. There has been some groundings north of the Tolchester S- turn and there has been some groundings south of the Tolchester S-turn, but there has been no groundings in the Tolchester S-turn. Now, as far as the Coast Guard saying that this is the biggest navigation challenge in this particular Coast Guard district, well, that is correct. This is a challenge. But apparently the pilots and the captains have met that challenge, and they have not had an incident in the Tolchester S-turn. So since they have not had an incident, a safety hazard incident in the Tolchester S-turn, what are we talking about here? We are talking about straightening the channel where there has been no incidents of safety problems reported. Then we are creating a safety hazard for people on the banks that are less than 1,000 feet from these huge ships that pass by that cause major wakes and potential problems with young children on the shore. Plus the fact we are then going to increase the cost to homeowners' property. Remembering now there is no safety hazard in the S-turn, there is a challenge to the pilots, they pass through there all the time. But a safety hazard, has it risen to the legality of a safety hazard by the Coast Guard or Corps of Engineers? The answer is no in their documents. So I would urge the Members of this House to think two ways, to think fiscally, conservative, as to why we do not want to throw good money down a sink hole when a project is not necessary; and when a project is not necessary, why do we do it to create another safety hazard and another environmental hazard? So I would urge my colleagues in the House to vote for this amendment.

Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would reduce the Corps of Engineer's General Investigation Account by $100,000, the amount provided to continue the study to deepen the C&D Canal in my district. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inform the Members that this is a project that has been ongoing for most of the 1990s. And in 1996, in a meeting I had at the Corps of Engineers headquarters in Washington, with the Philadelphia Corps in my district in Chestertown, Maryland, we went over all of the numbers, the math and came to a very, very clear determination that the benefit-to-cost ration on this particular project in Maryland did not meet the threshold in order to be funded by the Federal Government because there was no benefit to the taxpayers. It is 4 years later. Every year since 1996, the Philadelphia district has come up with a benefit-to-cost ratio. Under scrutiny from the headquarters in Washington, it has always failed muster. We are not going to close the C&D Canal, there will be no decrease in commerce, but there is two things that we have seen very clearly, that to continue studying this issue that the Corps of Engineers has not been able to justify for most of the 1990s is a waste of the taxpayers dollars, so therefore we would like to cut $100,000 from any more study in this particular area. It does not reduce commerce in the C&D Canal. I want to make that very clear, that is in the Corps' own document. The Corps says if we deepen it, there will be no increase in commerce to the Port of Baltimore. The Port of Baltimore has a 50-foot deep channel right now to the Port down the Bay out into the ocean. It is not a matter of not being able to accommodate the number of ships that are necessary. In these studies, if we looked at it from an environmental perspective, deepening the canal will bring in more salty, polluted water from the Delaware River, into the sensitive spawning areas in the upper Chesapeake Bay. But even more interesting than that, the environmental study has not been concluded. Even though the Washington Corps asked it to go along with the feasibility study, the Philadelphia district did not do that. But there is something that we found out just a few months ago, which was rather astounding, in the study to determine whether there was going to be a change of water flow from the Delaware River or from the Chesapeake Bay. There is an organization in the Corps in Mississippi called the Water Environmental Studies, or WES. WES gave to the State of Delaware an environmental water flow study that showed the water flowing from Delaware to Maryland, and then WES gave a study to Maryland showing that the water, as a result of the deepening, would go from the Chesapeake Bay to the Delaware River. When we confronted them with this rather minor conflict, they said, well, we have to redo the study. Mr. Chairman, one other comment about the environmental aspect of this. The northern route, which is not necessary to increase commerce by deepening it, if it is deepened, will result in 18 million cubic yards of dredge material being dumped overboard into the Chesapeake Bay. Now, to use the Corps' own words, what does that mean as far as nutrients are concerned, and nutrients is really another word for pollution. By dumping 18 million cubic yards of dredge material directly into the Chesapeake Bay, a stone's throw north of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, it means the equivalent of adding a sewage treatment plant the size of the City of Annapolis, dumping in an uncontrolled amount of 2 million pounds of ammonia, some people call that nitrogen, they are the same thing, and 700,000 pounds of phosphorous. Now, the average farmer in my congressional district is taking great pains to reduce the amount of silt or nutrients that they let into the Chesapeake Bay or its tributaries. A homeowner, if he wants to build a driveway has to put up a silt fence. The whole State of Maryland is going to great lengths to try to figure out how they can reduce the number of nutrients going into the Chesapeake Bay. All we want to do with this amendment, Mr. Chairman, is because the Corps has not been able to, in the decade of the 1990s, financially justify to the taxpayers of the United States this project and time and time and time again, every time it came up for scrutiny, the project was not justified, we want to save the taxpayers' dollars and cut $100,000 from this study.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a comment about the S-turn and the pilots. The S-turn was not made to accommodate ship traffic. The S-turn is a natural channel, as the old Susquehanna River bed that is a natural channel. It is naturally deep. Now, when we straighten out that S-turn, we are going to do a number of things, one of which is to increase the cost of dredging because many of those areas will be filled in. Now, we are talking about $6 million, $13 million dollars, to complete a project that we asked the Corps to look into. When the Corps looked into this project, their answer to do this project was no. It is written down no. I have talked to Colonel Berwick that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) has referred to, and Colonel Berwick, from the Baltimore district, said, number one, it does not rise to a safety hazard, it is a challenge to get through there, but it is not a safety hazard for ships to pass through and this particular channel is an environmental problem if we dredge this channel. So the Corps of Engineers said no. So what does Congress say if this amendment fails? The Corps of Engineers, through their study that we say we ought to trust, we hold on to their study, the Corps says no, for sound fundamental reasons. Congress says yes. I strongly urge my colleagues in the House to be fiscally responsible, environmentally smart, and consider the safety hazard of the people on the shore because of the increasing wake that will result from these bigger ships that will go faster through this straightened Tolchester channel. One other quick comment. There is at this point in time no Environmental Impact Statement that has been concluded by the Corps of Engineers on this project.

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

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, and I will close with this comment, the other problem with this, it is a much broader issue than the Sandy Canal or a safety concern for the Tolchester area. The whole northern route that would be dredged by my colleagues would involve 18 million cubic yards of dredge material being dumped overboard in the middle of the Chesapeake Bay just north of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge. I guess we could get into a dispute whether or not that is actually in my district or in the district of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) or anybody else's district. It does not matter. That 18 million cubic yards is 2 million pounds of ammonia, 700,000 pounds of phosphorus. It is the equivalent of putting a sewage treatment plant the size of the city of Annapolis right there in the middle of the Chesapeake Bay, and I do not think that is what we want to do. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, could the Chair tell me how much time I have remaining.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding. I just wanted to make a couple of points very quickly, if I can. The last comment: Whose district is the Tolchester Channel in? I do not think it really makes a difference whose district the Tolchester Channel is in. It happens to be in my district, though, and I will show my colleagues on the map. Not the district of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ehrlich) and not the district of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). If my colleagues will look at this map, it is a little busy, a little hard to see, but if we look at the map, the C&D Canal channel comes down the eastern side of the Chesapeake Bay along the Eastern Shore, and the area we are talking about is Kent County on the Eastern Shore. Following this line coming down here, we can see the C&D Canal approach the channel. Down in this area, what do we have right here, less than a thousand feet off the shores of Kent County, in a pretty little place called Tolchester? The Tolchester Channel. Now, in the Tolchester Channel is the Tolchester S-turn, which we have already concluded is not classified as a hazard but a challenge. So just a quick clarification. The Tolchester Channel, the Tolchester S-turn is contained within the first congressional district. Now, since we are reading letters, I want to read something from the report of the Corps of Engineers that was recently put out about the Tolchester S-turn. Here is what it says. ``The benefit for straightening the Tolchester S-turn is based solely on transit time savings.'' It might be a challenge to get through the Tolchester S- turn, but well over 6,000 ships have done it since 1994 without one incident in the Tolchester S-turn. What are the hazards for straightening the Tolchester S-turn? As we can see right along here, the shores of Kent County in the first congressional district, the hazards apply to the people on the shore. The hazards apply to those watermen who want to catch the few remaining oysters in the Chesapeake Bay that will be silted over, which is about the largest oyster bar in the Chesapeake Bay, well over 300 acres. One last comment. The only reason they would straighten the Tolchester Channel, the Corps of Engineers, is if it was a benefit to the taxpayers; and they have concluded that it is not a benefit to the taxpayers. There is no financial justification for it. And the other one, is it really a safety hazard? And we have concluded that it is a challenge. The safety hazard lies with those residents on the shoreline.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I will make a comment about the State of Delaware and the State of New Jersey supporting this project. There are numerous agencies within each of those States, and the State of Delaware has a problem with this dredging from the governor to the two senators, to the Member of Congress from that State. The issues that they have had are environmental issues, and those environmental issues deal with the toxins that are in these regions of the river that is going to be dredged. They have a problem with the dredged spoil that is supposed to be considered clean, which, in fact, when we move tiny particles of dredged material, each of those grains of sand, because of the physical nature of that structure, when it is moved, exposed to air, deposited someplace else, releases nitrogen and phosphorus. Those are concerns. Delaware does not want this project to go forward, because of the environmental concerns that the Corps of Engineers have been asked to address, and they have not addressed those issues. The other issue my colleague from New Jersey talked about, when they dredge this channel in the river from 40 to 45 feet, it is going to cost the taxpayers millions of dollars. Well, what good is that dredged deeper channel going to do when we do not dredge the equivalent depth to the berths where the ships are going to dock? And almost all of those ships are owned by somebody. Whether it is an oil company or a foreign steamship company, they have intimated that they are not going to dredge from the channel to the berths. Now, why are we dredging? I think that is the question that needs to be asked. What are we dredging? We are dredging for fundamentally two reasons. One so that we can get a 6-pack of Heineken for a couple of pennies less. That is what it amounts to. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge support for the Andrews amendment.