Wayne Gilchrest

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Reclaiming my time, my interpretation of the bill and that section of the bill is that if we take that out, then what the gentleman is trying to do becomes more ambiguous. I think the specifics of the Shays language offers a concrete protection for the Christian Coalition's advocacy material.

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

Mr. GILCHREST. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from California that I would agree with the interpretation of the author of the bill; that the statement the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) just read in no uncertain terms protects the brochure that the gentleman is holding for the Christian Coalition.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would like to lend my voice to the debate on campaign finance reform and reluctantly stand in opposition to the amendment of my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle). The issue at hand is express advocacy, and the courts have made a number of statements on this, and there are a number of conflicting comments on express advocacy and whatever the magic words are. Buckley makes a statement. Lower courts have been split on this issue. But I think it is very important, if for no other reason, for the Congress to have some legislative history on what express advocacy is. I am of the strong opinion that when we do this, the Shays-Meehan legislative framework provides the kind of structure we need to ensure that those who want to advocate a position, an issue, or even a candidate be heard in a responsible manner. Shays-Meehan does not limit the First Amendment rights for free speech. It provides a framework in which rigorous mental debate, rigorous mental effort, intellectual discussion can be pushed for. It does not limit free speech. It holds speech to a standard. It holds free speech and those who are giving it to be held accountable. It just does not let the broad array of anybody's opinion based on good judgment, good facts, or based on absolutely nothing go out into the free media. So I have a strong position, and I would hope my colleagues vote for Shays-Meehan. I just want to make a couple of other points. Our responsibility as Congress is to ensure protection from the public against corruption. I do not think anybody in this House Chamber would say that too much money or money expended in years passed or in this election cycle, especially in some of the elections and special elections that are going on right now do not put forth or masquerade as putting forth the truth. We have too much money in certain instances being put forth against Republicans and Democrats that do not support good, legislative, fundamental, sound issues. We as Members of Congress, I strongly feel, have the broad ability to protect the public in the political process from corruption and the appearance of corruption. The Supreme Court specifically noted on a number of times that contribution limits do not undermine robust and effective discussion for candidates. Myself, I do not take, and I am not advocating this for everybody, even though I have an amendment, I do not take any PAC money. I do not take any money out of the district. You have to be eligible to vote for me as a candidate to contribute to my campaign. That way, I do not raise a whole lot of money in campaign, but I can tell my colleagues that my campaigns, my discussions in campaigns, and my debates, even though I have been outspent six to one, seven to one, eight to one all across the board in most of my campaigns, I still have a rigorous and robust debate. I would advocate that for everyone. But I think this Congress has the right, the power, and the broad responsibility to protect the public from political corruption and the appearance of corruption. The Shays-Meehan bill does not affect, I will throw this in very quickly, State campaigns or State politics or State elections. It does regulate State party activity to the extent that it affects Federal elections. I think this is a positive thing. Mr. Chairman, I will make two last quick points. Number one, the Supreme Court makes a statement. They make a ruling, and that is fine. To the extent we live with that, but we still have the option and the ability and the freedom and the responsibility to question that decision. That is what democracy is. We are debating this issue. It is an exchange of information with a sense of tolerance for somebody else's opinion wherever they lie on the political spectrum. Then we vote. That is what is happening here. The last point I would like to make is, in my judgment, the question here is, will we continue to allow campaign ads to bypass campaign finance laws simply because they appear to be such?

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, let me make this one last point, the question is should campaign ads escape finance laws simply because they are crafted to masquerade as something else? I do not think so. So I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for Shays-Meehan.

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

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Traficant amendment and oppose the Reyes amendment. The basic reason, in 1968 I was in the Marine Corps stationed in Quantico, Virginia. We came up here when there were D.C. riots after Martin Luther King, Junior, was assassinated. We as the U.S. Marine Corps patrolled the streets, made sure people were not out looting and things like that. Whenever we came across a problem, we called the District of Columbia police. They were the ones that made the arrest. The point is, we operated with them in a very fluid manner. I think this is a possibility for the Southwest. Support the Traficant amendment.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the chairman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough) in a colloquy on the issue of ship scrapping. Mr. Scarborough, as we know, the government's program for scrapping obsolete ships of the Department of Defense and the Maritime Administration has recently come under scrutiny because of environmental, health and safety violations that have occurred at some domestic ship breakers and concerns about the conditions under which ships are scrapped overseas. As chairman of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I held a hearing on the problems of this program in March and will hold a follow-up hearing on June 4, 1998. Based upon testimony at the March hearing and the recently published report of an interagency panel studying the issue, I continue to have concerns about the ability of DOD and MARAD to develop a satisfactory plan to dispose of obsolete vessels. I intend to aggressively pursue the ship scrapping issue with a goal of developing legislation to address this problem next year. I hope to work closely with the Merchant Marine Panel of the Committee on National Security to pursue the goal of establishing a viable and environmentally responsible ship scrapping program.

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

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough) and the Chairman for their cooperation in this matter.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the request of the Senate to return the Senate bill (S. 414) to amend the Shipping Act of 1984 to encourage competition in international shipping and growth of United States exports, and for other purposes, be agreed to.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 3605.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I rise to support the Boehlert-Delahunt amendment. I would like to say very clearly first that the gentleman from Illinois has a good argument in that we are taxed very heavily now, so I want to commend him on his effort to streamline the whole complex tax system. It is just that I fear that his method, which we agree with basically, would go a little bit too far and have consequences that the gentleman from Massachusetts does not foresee. This bill and this amendment would not give the courts any extra power to raise taxes. It does not change anything in my understanding in that area at all. The gentleman from Illinois quoted Jefferson. He quoted Madison and he quoted Hamilton. Jefferson and Hamilton certainly did not want taxation without representation. This amendment does not tax people without representation. People continue to have representation. Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison would want people to have clean water, and they would want the collective community to be responsible for clean water. Let me give my colleagues an example. In my district, the Chesapeake Bay, over the last year or so, we have been having a problem with a microorganism called pfiesteria. It is scientific conclusion that pfiesteria is stimulated in part by extra nitrogen and phosphorous going into the waterways. The courts and the community, the public sector can impose fines and cause farmers to have to pay for the improvement of their practices to reduce phosphorous and nitrogen getting into the water. If the gentleman from Illinois does not, if the gentleman from New York does not have his amendment passed, the farmer would have to pay to clean up his act, but the local sewage treatment plant, which has also caused phosphorous and nitrogen into the waterway, which is called Pokomoke, would not. So the farmer would go to all these expenses and the local sewage treatment plant and everybody has a little problem with money, even people have problems with whether or not there really is a problem. And sometimes there are problems with competency, and the court is there to say yes, you also have to clean up your act. I will give you an example in Baltimore City. The sewage treatment plant right now is under order from the EPA to clean up their act. The EPA is going to fine, with the help of the courts, Baltimore not to put more nitrogen and phosphorous into the water. The local ARCO plant, the local CONOCO plant, they have to clean up. They have to pay. The private sector has to pay. The farmer has to pay. But unless this amendment passes, the city of Baltimore does not have to do anything. They can continue to put the phosphorous and the nitrogen in the water that is causing to a great extent this microorganism that is decimating the fish population of the Chesapeake Bay. The Boehlert amendment does not give the court system any iota of more power to raise taxes, but unless the Boehlert amendment passes, your local farmer is going to be more responsible for cleaning up the waterways than the public facilities. I am sure Jefferson and Hamilton wanted us to drink clean water, and I think this amendment is perfectly balanced. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time. I thank the chairman and ranking member for the bipartisan nature in which we have put forth this bill. I would like to say basically every time you cross a bridge, ride a train, light rail, subway, ride on a bus, commute to work, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, who do you assume assures your safety? Well, Mr. Chairman, that is us. More accurately, that is the government. And more accurately than that, that is individuals on the House floor and the Senate side who take their role very responsibly. I want to give one example of a problem that would be fixed by this bill, and it is Highway 113 in my district. That is a single-lane highway, and in the last 20 years, over 70 people have been tragically killed on this highway. This bill corrects that problem. I once again commend the bipartisan nature with which this bill has come forth, the ranking member and the chairman of the committee.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to my good friend, the other gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Steny Hoyer) that the part of this legislation that is by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. White) is a good piece of the puzzle. I would also add, however, that I think the package that we are voting on tonight, the fundamental issue here is that the package that we have an opportunity to vote on tonight pushes the whole campaign finance funding problem into a better situation. Basically what we are voting on is a package that will put the whole campaign funding situation in a much better light for the American public. I would like to say one other thing, that each succeeding Member that speaks to the House tonight, Mr. Speaker, should also tell the American people that we as individuals have an opportunity every single day, every day we have the option, we have the choice, to reject all out-of- State money, all PAC money, all out-of-district money. Each of us can just say, I will only accept money from those people who vote and live in my district.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I just have a question to ask. First of all, in my judgment this is a bill not about roads, it is not about logging, it is not about salvage, it is not about inappropriately using the taxpayers' dollars. This is a bill to target areas that need recovery. That is basically what this bill is, to recover those areas of our national forests that are having problems. Mr. Chairman, the area we are discussing now is on page 29, lines 15 through 22. It starts out by saying, and this is the original language before it was amended, ``Prohibition on use of any funds,'' ``prohibition on use of any funds to construct new permanent roads.'' It seems to me they can construct roads that are not permanent. What I would like to do, I would say that is a prohibition on new permanent roads in all recovery areas, all recovery areas, whether they are roadless or whether they are not roadless. My question to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), could he explain his amendment briefly? The gentleman has a prohibition of?

Mr. GILCHREST. So, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment would allow the building of roads in recovery areas that are not roadless areas?

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out to my colleagues some of the provisions as they are stated within the context of the bill. First of all, I would like to make very clear that this, as far as my understanding of the bill, working on this piece of legislation for several weeks now, this bill is not a logging bill, this bill is a recovery bill. This deals with the recovery of certain areas that the chief of the Forest Service has described as needing some recovery, some management. This is not a logging bill. I would like to bring to my colleagues' attention page 7 of the bill, line 8, where it says, ``identifying recovery areas,'' what areas are going to be worked on. ``The recovery area that will be designated will be an area that has experienced disturbances from wildfires, insect infestations, disease, wind, flood, or other causes which have caused and contributed to,'' which is what we want to recover and repair, ``significant soil erosion, degradation of water quality, loss of watershed values, habitat loss, or damage to other forest resource areas.'' That is what we are looking at. These are the areas which will be considered recovery areas. Now, the recovery project. I would ask my colleagues to turn to page 8, starting on line 3. A recovery project means, this is what we are going to do when they get on the ground, a recovery project means ``to improve, restore, or protect forest resources within an identified recovery area, including the types of projects, riparian restoration, treatments to reduce stand density for the purpose of reducing risk of catastrophic loss.'' Let me bring to my colleagues' attention the Southern Appalachian assessment of their forests. It states, ``Several tree species in the Southern Appalachians are at risk of extinction or significant genetic loss because of exotic pests and the lack of active management in other stands that has led to the development of dense forest understories.'' I go on. ``Soil stabilization and water quality improvement,'' this is what is going to happen on the ground, ``removal of dead trees or trees being damaged by injurious agents other than,'' other than, ``competition from other trees, prescribed fire, integrated pest management.'' And the list goes on. This is a list of recovery projects. It is not a list of logging. Now I would like my colleagues to turn to page 21. What kind of scientists are going to be looking at these areas and what kind of scientists will be designating the standards and the criteria upon which we will base these recovery projects, picked independently. They will be hydrologists, wildlife biologists, fisheries biologists, entomologists or pathologists, fire ecologists, silviculturists, economists, soil scientists. I would like to remind my colleagues of something that the gentleman from Texas talked about when he said we should compare our forest to our agriculture. The only way we are going to improve agriculture is to bring scientific data into the equation so we can not only increase the yield, but protect the environment at the same time. Can we sustain logging? Maybe the question is, should we sustain logging? People wanting homes, with the need for construction, do we need wood? The answer is yes. How do we sustain logging? We mimic nature and we protect biological diversity and we harvest trees. It is the injection of scientific data. Now, the last comment I want to make on this, because there will be some amendments coming up, this has been a tremendously healthy exercise. We are bringing in a lot of information. There is an exchange of information. And to the extent that I can see what is happening on the floor, there is a tolerance for someone else's opinion. But the bottom line is, does this bill move us a little bit forward in understanding the limited and diminishing resources that we people depend upon? And it is my judgment that this legislation moves us in the right direction. And I encourage my colleagues to vote for the bill.

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

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Oregon for yielding this time to me, and I want to emphasize the word ``gentleman'' when I say the gentleman from Oregon, with capital letters. Quickly, in response to one of my earlier colleagues, I have drawn a conclusion that this bill represents the best of the Quincy Library bill. The Quincy Library bill brought this House together in understanding the difficulties of managing the Nation's forests, and we passed that bill. I think this bill does the same thing. Very quickly, I would like us to look at the big picture here. This country was founded on four very positive things: democracy, character, an endless frontier, and an abundance of natural resources. Well, our resources are diminishing quickly. Our frontier is gone. Basically what we have left to manage our resources for future generations, yes, hundreds of years in the future, is democracy and character. We have to rely on democracy and character. What is the next frontier? It is an intellectual frontier. An intellectual frontier means we have to put aside rancorous debate, personal prejudices, sit together and discuss these issues in as intelligent a manner as is possible so that we can manage those few remaining resources for generations to come. Can we sustain logging, mimic nature and protect biological diversity? Yes, we can. Do we have the knowhow? Yes, we do. How do we implement that knowhow? The first step to implementing that particular skill is through this bill. Is this bill based on the best available scientific data? Absolutely without question. Does this bill protect all environmental regulations? Absolutely without question. What are some of the things this bill does? It goes in and finds those areas of the riparian places in our national forests that are damaged, and we will fix them. Soil stabilization, water quality improvements, thinning, habitat improvement, et cetera, et cetera et cetera; this bill does that. The chief of the Forest Service said 35 to 40 million acres are in danger of catastrophic fire, soil erosion, habitat loss. So what do we do? Do we come up to the plate and respond? The answer is yes. This is not about forest roads, it is not about commercial logging, it is not about clear-cutting. This is about funding a recovery program for our Nation's forests. Is this bill more positive than negative? That is the question. More than we can ever know at this point, this bill is positive, and I urge my colleagues to vote yes.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, my concern was trying to understand the nature of the amendment compared to the original text of the bill, and try to differentiate between the Boehlert amendment and the Smith amendment to the original text of the bill.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding. I would like to echo the words of my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton], that we need to release our feeling of anger and rancor and let this go down the stream and flow out into the gentle waters. We are all Americans, whether it is the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, the Coast Guard, the Merchant Marine. Whoever it is, we all serve this country in a way that we feel is right. We are reacting now to some words that we do not agree with. But the positive part of those words, which I think were ill-spoken, the positive part of those words, which I think we all should not agree with, is that we are here to discuss that we as Americans in the military that serve our country do so in the proudest condition that we can. We believe in this country and we believe in freedom, so those in the military service are going to lay down their lives, which is the best gift that they can give, for their country. We consistently give words of encouragement to those soldiers, sailors and marines in lonely areas around the country. I would just like to relay a very short story when I was in the service as a young marine with other young Marines, to give some sense about the military service. Whenever we would cross this rice paddy in Vietnam, we would be shot at by a sniper. So we decided one day to send across this rice paddy some decoy marines, and then some of us would go around and find out where the sniper was. We did that. The decoys went across the rice paddy. We went around, and from the ``hootch'' grass hut we could see some firing. We went into the grass hut, and we found a very old man with one leg, an old woman, about in their nineties, and a little girl about 10. Well, we started to remove the old man. We were going to take him in because we assumed he was the sniper. The old woman sat on a little stump and started to cry. The little girl began screaming and pulling at our uniforms, desperate not to let this old man, maybe her great grandfather, go. She thought she would never see him again. So we young marines, trained for combat, stopped. We looked into the eyes of the old man, and the woman stopped crying, in desperate fear, wondering what we were going to do next. We looked into the eyes of the old man, and I can still see his eyes. He had for an instant striking fear in his eyes, not knowing what we were going to do. And then the fear turned to curiosity, the curiosity turned to friendship, and we looked at this old man as a human being. We simply let him go, and we walked away. We were never shot at again when we crossed that rice paddy. But we young marines, trained for desperate combat, found in this man a sense of common humanity, and that is what all the military services are about.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I too would like to take a minute to address the House on the words of Sara Lister, the top personnel officer at the Pentagon for the U.S. Army, in her remarks about naming Marines as ``extremists.'' What I would like to say is that I am a former Marine. I enlisted when I was 18 years old because I wanted to see the world. The people that I met throughout the 4 years I served in the Marine Corps in the middle 1960's were anything but extremists. For the most part, they were gentle, young kids, who wanted to find adventure, wanted to serve their country, wanted to do something. They were curious about the world. As they went through their service in the Marine Corps, they raised money for toys for poor children. In combat, they put their life at risk delivering babies. They found lepers in the jungles, and they dealt with the strange disease. Mr. Speaker, the Marine Corps is made up of individuals who are like every average American.