Wayne Gilchrest

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendments numbered 1 through 60, 62 and 63, and disagree to the Senate amendment numbered 61 to the bill (H.R. 1604) to provide for the division, use, and distribution of judgment funds of the Ottawa and Chippewa Indians of Michigan pursuant to dockets numbered 18-E, 58, 364 and 18-R before the Indian Claims Commission.

Mr. GILCHREST. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, H.R. 1604 by my colleague on the Committee on Resources, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee], would provide for the division, use, and distribution of judgment funds of the Ottawa and Chippewa Indians of Michigan pursuant to the four Indian Claims Commission dockets. These funds were appropriated by Congress years ago and have been held by the Department of the Interior for the beneficiaries. The funds would be divided according to a formula included in H.R. 1604 which the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee] helped work out over the course of many years, and I am very grateful to him for doing that. I am sure the native Americans are very grateful to him for doing that. The funds would be divided according to a formula included in H.R. 1604 between individuals on a judgment distribution roll of descendents, to be created by the Secretary of Interior, and five Michigan tribes. Madam Speaker, the House passed H.R. 1604 on November 4. Since then, the other body has amended our bill and has sent it back to us for another vote. The amendments will solve a problem relative to providing certain Federal services to Alaskan Natives. The added language would limit the number of contracts and compacts for providing certain Indian services to not more than one native entity in any bureau where there are less than 50,000 people. The intent is to ensure that there is only one Alaskan Native provider in those areas of Alaska which do not require more than one provider. It would save taxpayers money, and it makes sense from an administrative point of view. One amendment to the bill is unacceptable and will be stricken from the bill and returned to the other body for concurrence. I support H.R. 1604, I highly recommend its passage, and I also thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee] for his diligent work over the years on this issue Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GILCHREST. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1604.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. One of the previous speakers made mention that this legislation, and I support this legislation, was a radical idea. Let me just tell Members some of the radicals in this Nation's history. Thomas Jefferson was a radical, and he broke with tradition. Martin Luther King, Jr., was a radical, and he broke with tradition. Those people from our past had dreams. I am a proud product of the public school system. I graduated public school 33 years ago, and it was an integrated public school. I am a proud former public school teacher. The only way we are going to improve the quality of our schools is to break with tradition. The only way we are going to improve the quality of the public schools is to come up with ideas and find alternatives. This Nation is based on ideas. This Nation is based on dreams. This Nation is based on vision. This is a visionary piece of legislation. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I would like to address my colleagues with this concept: how many Members on this House floor are in favor of judicial activism where the unelected will determine land use and local zoning ordinances in their community? Who is in favor of that? If Members are in favor of judicial activism and if they are in favor of the unelected judicial judges determining local zoning in their area, then they will vote against the Boehlert amendment. If, however, Members are in favor of expedited process to the Federal courts whenever a Federal action impedes or regulates private property, then they will vote for the Boehlert substitute. The Boehlert amendment in the nature of a substitute expedites the process to Federal courts whenever a Federal action regulates Federal property. What the bill does without the Boehlert amendment is make Federal action control local land use and local zoning. That is the unintended consequences. The bill would send to Federal courts cases to decide local zoning and local land use. Now, Mr. Chairman, the small community might be able to afford State courts, but there is no way they are going to be able to afford Federal courts. We all believe in the fifth amendment. We strongly believe that if property rights are taken away for the public good, constitutionally landowners should be compensated and they will be compensated. However, if the local zoning board, the planning commission, decides in their management of their community that someone's property is going to cause public harm, that is a different story. Mr. Chairman, I urge an ``aye'' vote on the Boehlert substitute.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I would like to express to my colleagues that may be observing this debate that this really is what the gentleman from Colorado referred to as a world turned upside down. This legislation is absolutely outrageous. The unintended consequences are limitless. I would perfectly agree, especially with the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] that if someone's property rights are hindered by a Federal action, that individual should have an expedited process to get to Federal court. But this bill goes way beyond that. This legislation deals with local zoning laws that have nothing to do with Federal action, and they have a major impact on State land use that has nothing to do with Federal action. So what we are doing here is completely taking out of the hands of your local planning commission, their right to decide zoning and land use and what is best needed for their community. Mr. Chairman, we all want expedited Federal process when a Federal action impedes private property, but this takes the right of a local planning board in a community to have their say about how land is supposed to be used. Land use, is it to be controlled by the Federal Government, or is it to be controlled by the State? If you think land use is a State issue and a local zoning issue, then you must vote against this legislation. The idea that if your property is taken away for the public good, you should be compensated, that is absolutely, 100 percent for sure. But if the local government wants to regulate your property and regulate land to prevent public harm on other property, they should have a right to do that.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GILCHREST. Madam Speaker, the comment about taking money just from one's district, I do that now. I do not take any PAC money, no money unless a person can vote for me. I did that in 1992, when I ran against an opponent, an incumbent of this House, who spent a lot more money than I did. It is still possible to win.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I would like to respond to the gentleman who spoke about the transfer of the helicopter in the Chicago region. I do not see him on the floor now, but I do want to say that this is an area that we have considered. We certainly will try to obtain more funding so the Coast Guard can have more helicopters. It is my judgment that the Coast Guard, for the past several years, has been, in fact, underfunded. So we are going to correct this in the next cycle, so that we hope with that increase in funding the helicopters can be in more areas than they are now. Now, one of the reasons that the Coast Guard helicopter was moved from this gentleman's particular area to another area is because of the assessment of where most of the accidents occur. Most of the accidents, clearly over 90 percent of the accidents that the Coast Guard responds to, they respond with small boats, not helicopters. There is only a small percentage of the accidents where they actually use helicopters, but the helicopters are moved to those areas that need that type of assistance more, and that is a judgment by the Coast Guard. But I assure the gentleman it is an area that we are taking under serious consideration. Mr. Speaker, if I can just go back to our favorite subject, I suppose at least for some Members, campaign finance reform, I would like to remind my colleagues on the House floor that each of us, regardless of what the regulations are regarding the Federal Election Commission, and regardless of whatever regulations there are out there for campaign finance fundraising, each of us, as individuals, can eliminate the entire system at the snap of a finger. What is good about this country is that it thrives on individual initiative and individual responsibility. So if a Member thinks the system is bad or corrupt, or whatever they think about the system, I would like to remind my colleagues that they can simply stop taking money from everybody; from PAC's, from interest groups, from unions, from trade unions. Just name it. Just stop taking all those dollars that might be tainted or might be corrupted and run the campaign without taking any money or just from people that vote in the district. In 1990 I won an election. I was very honored to come to the House of Representatives. And I defeated an incumbent. I was a candidate and I defeated a 10-year incumbent who had a lot of money. I figured if I wanted to get to Congress, I had to create a strategy where I could meet as many people as possible and convince them that I would be a better Member of the House of Representatives. It takes a lot of work, a lot of courage, a lot of planning as an individual, using one's own initiative. So if we do not like the system, then we can change it ourselves.

Mr. GILCHREST. Madam Speaker, I am going to make reference to the previous speaker, the gentleman from California, saying that the leadership of both Houses of Congress are discussing at this time anything else, discussing the issue of campaign finance reform when they should be discussing the issues of the Nation. I want to say emphatically that the issue that the leadership has been discussing in recent times are the issues of what the Coast Guard needs in the Arctic Ocean in February. They are discussing how the Coast Guard has more influence and can more effectively deal with the pollution problems of the coastal waters of the United States and the inland seas of the United States. The leadership of both Houses is discussing the major problem of cargo ships bringing in enslaved immigrants by criminal thugs and how they can get to the shores of the United States and perform more effectively their criminal activity. And how does the Coast Guard, made up of very young men and women, stop that? We are talking about a whole range of issues that deal with the Coast Guard. The leadership of both Houses of Congress are talking about welfare reform. They are talking about IRS reform. They are talking about how to improve agricultural practices. They are talking about a lot of things. Last, Madam Speaker, I would like to remind the gentleman from California, when we are talking about campaign finance reform, each and every Member of this House, as individuals, as representatives of their district, have always the option of how they are going to run their campaign and how they are going to raise their money. So if the gentleman from California does not like the present legal system of the way campaigns are funded, he can simply do what he wants. He could stop taking PAC money. He could stop taking money from anybody from his district. He could do what he wants. Each of us, as Members of this House, should tell our constituents, this is what I am going to do as a person, regardless of what Congress can or cannot do, I am going to stop taking all money except for those people who can vote for me. I will stop taking PAC money. I will stop taking money from outside of my district. I will stop taking special interest money. I will stop accepting soft dollars into my district. I will only take money from someone who is registered in my district to vote in my district, regardless of what the Congress does. The leadership of this Congress has been talking about issues relating to the American people and, I might add, in the last 2 or 3 years, doing a fine job. I would remind the American people that sometimes the rhetoric on the floor would make a Shakespearean play look pretty dull, but look through the rhetoric at some of the details. We are talking about how to protect the coastal waters of the United States. This rule, as the gentleman from Florida has suggested, is open. All amendments are possible on this particular rule. I urge my colleagues to support the rule.

Mr. GILCHREST

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

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I do want to say it is a well-done amendment. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak] has done his homework, and we accept his amendment.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, to advise that while we have no more speakers on our side, I do want to take just a few seconds to respond to this issue of the helicopter. There are limited resources no matter where we go in this country. Each State has limited resources. Each county has limited resources. The Federal Government has limited resources. The Coast Guard has limited resources. So we try to spread those few limited resources to the areas that we think need to be served the most because of the dangers that have been associated with those areas. The Coast Guard has chosen to move that helicopter. Now, we also recognize that the Coast Guard does a fine job working with State and county officials in all of these rescue missions, and that is what they are going to do. And I want to assure the people in the gentleman's area, I want to assure the people in the Great Lakes region, Lake Michigan, that the Coast Guard is there and they are continuing to work there and they are going to do the best job they can and they will continue to work with local hospitals, with local States, with local rescue missions with their helicopters that cover the area. What we are going to do next year is to find out what areas the Coast Guard is lacking, where they are underfunded because of increased responsibilities and make those corrections. So I assure the gentleman from Indiana that we are going to pursue this issue with all our effort.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. LoBiondo].

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

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2204. Before I discuss this bill, I would like to thank the distinguished chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], our ranking minority member, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Oberstar], and the ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Clement], and their staff for their help and cooperation on this legislation. H.R. 2204 was developed in a bipartisan manner and deserves the support of all the Members. The primary purpose of H.R. 2204 is to authorize funds for the United States Coast Guard for fiscal years 1998, 1999. Title I of this bill authorizes $3.9 billion for Coast Guard activities in fiscal year 1998 and $4 billion in fiscal year 1999. The fiscal year 1998 authorization contains an increase over the level requested by the President for the Coast Guard of approximately $97 million. These funds primarily support additional Coast Guard efforts to interdict illegal drugs before they reach the United States. The fiscal year 1999 authorization contains additional funds for drug interdiction and for other Coast Guard operating and acquisition costs. Specifically, this legislation includes approximately $2.79 billion in fiscal year 1998, and $2.85 billion in fiscal year 1999 for Coast Guard operating expenses, $401 million in fiscal year 1998, and $444 million in fiscal year 1999 for acquisition of vessels, aircraft and shore facilities, and $652 million in fiscal year 1998, and $692 million in fiscal year 1999 for Coast Guard retired pay. I strongly support the increase in funds for drug interdiction because cuts in resources devoted to drug interdiction in the early 1990s have greatly hindered Coast Guard efforts to fight the war on drugs. The evidence is clear that effective drug interdiction raises the price of drugs driving use down especially among casual users. A study released last January by the Institute on Defense Analysis confirmed this point. Interdiction is especially significant as we focus on ways to eliminate teenage drug use. We must mount an aggressive attack on drug smugglers if we intend to win the war on drugs. The funds authorized in this bill will restore cuts to the Coast Guard drug interdiction program and provide the level of drug interdiction we need to keep drugs from reaching the shores of the United States. There are many things we as a Nation together can do to fight the drugs and to participate in the war on drugs. There is treatment programs, there is educational programs, there is a whole range of things that we can do. Interdiction is an important part, an important piece of that puzzle. Title II of H.R. 2204 deals with several internal Coast Guard personnel management matters. Title III of the bill addresses issues related to navigation safety. This title amends the Ports and Waterways Safety Act and subtitle II of title XLVI, United States Code, by extending the territorial sea for these laws from 3 to 12 nautical miles from shore. These amendments will enhance the Coast Guard's ability to fully implement its port State control program and protect U.S. waters and substandard foreign vessels. Title IV of the legislation contains several miscellaneous provisions, including enhancements to the Coast Guard vessel identification system, several Coast Guard property transfers, classification of financial responsibility requirements for oil spill response vessels and several specific wavers of the U.S. coastwise trade laws. Finally, Mr. Chairman, as we go through the authorization of the Coast Guard, we would like, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Clement], and I, and the staff would like Members, when they think about the Coast Guard, to think about the Arctic Ocean at midnight in February in a driving storm, the Coast Guard is there. Think of the environmental enforcement of our shores, our coastal waters and our inland seas, the Coast Guard is there. Think of the illegal immigrants enslaved in cargo ships by criminals from all around this globe intercepted by young Coast Guard men and women on the high rough seas in all kinds of weather. Think about the protection of the coastal waters and the fisheries which provide an abundance of food for this United States. Think about the search and rescue missions that are taken throughout the entire year, day and night, winter and summer, calm seas and rough seas, that is what the Coast Guard does. At the appropriate time, I will offer an en bloc amendment which makes several technical corrections and includes several noncontroversial amendments to the bill. I urge Members to support this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I offer several amendments.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, this amendment was developed and agreed to on a bipartisan basis. The amendment contains miscellaneous amendments, many of which are technical or clarifying in nature. The amendment includes a requirement for the Secretary of Transportation to appoint members to the Great Lakes Pilotage Advisory Committee, amendments to implement the Coast Guard Vessel Identification System, and various Jones Act waivers and Coast Guard property transfers. I urge the Members to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, this amendment was developed and agreed to on a bipartisan basis. The amendment contains miscellaneous amendments, many of which are technical or clarifying in nature. The amendment includes a requirement for the Secretary of Transportation to appoint members to the Great Lakes Pilotage Advisory Committee, amendments to implement the Coast Guard Vessel Identification System, and various ``Jones Act'' waivers and Coast Guard property transfers. I urge the members to support this amendment. New section 411(a) of the bill, as contained in this amendment, amends provisions in section 311 of the FWPCA, regarding liability immunity for measures to respond to oil spills, to clarify that such immunity also applies to measures to prevent, minimize or mitigate the substantial threat of a discharge. The intent of this amendment is to address oil spill prevention and response. Nothing in the amendment changes the current relationship between the FWPCA and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, regarding hazardous substances. For example, there is no intent to supersede or modify the effect of section 304 of such Act. Section 411(b) amends the definition of discharge in section 311 of the FWPCA to exclude discharges that are incidental to mechanical removal authorized by the President under section 311. Mechanical removal activities, such as the ``decanting'' or separation of water from recovered oil, usually involve the return of excess water into the response area. However, such excess water almost necessarily includes a ``de minimis'' amount of oil. Unfortunately, current provisions and policies regarding ``harmful quantities'' in section 311 could potentially apply to such de minimis discharges, creating a disincentive to effective oil spill response. The amendment is intended to remove this potential disincentive.

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

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, this is a 2-year authorization. I will say that I as well accept the gentleman's amendment. I think what we will do, though, between now and the conference committee and beyond is to look into the issue of navigation concerns. I know that GPS is an up-and-coming technology that more and more people are purchasing and using and is probably the best type of system that anybody could have. However, I do think for the next few years, maybe even the next decade or so, we need to consider ourselves those people who do not have that technology who may have to rely upon the foghorn system. I am not sure what the foghorn sounds like. I wonder if the gentleman from Michigan-- --

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

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.R. 2204, the bill just passed.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I would like to make the comment that I have been stopped several times by the guards questioning whether I was a Member of Congress. I may not look like a Member of Congress, the Scotch-Irish descent, but I have been stopped many times questioning whether I was a Member of Congress. We are debating here tonight. It is a positive thing that we debate the issues. Oliver Wendell Holmes, a physician, a jurist, and a poet, said that the Constitution was made for people with differing opinions. We are seeing that to an extent tonight. But this is a Nation of laws, not of rhetoric. This is a Nation where we have one man, one vote. And we are committed to that. A World War II veteran who is committed to his country and always optimistic and positive about what America stood for says our lives are made up of five things: Humility, I ask that our colleagues tonight look at who has humility; commitment to justice; compassion to people; faith in the American people; and faith that people will be responsible, will be decent, will be honest, and allow themselves to have dignity. We must allow the process, in my judgment, to work to make sure that those people that vote vote honestly, have dignity. The last word he used was love, not for self-serving reasons but love for the things that America, which is still a great country, stands for. I encourage Members to vote for this resolution because it means that we are committed to justice in America, one man, one vote, and we want people to have responsibility to do the right thing. And if we give them that responsibility and show them what we stand for, there will be dignity for each and every citizen that their vote counts.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] and those distinguished people and staff that have worked on this process for many, many months now to achieve an end that we are all seeking. When we deal with these kinds of issues, which are basically scientifically driven, we as policymakers sometimes find it difficult to understand the mechanics of all of the details. But what we need to understand is that it is time to understand the mechanics of natural processes and how they impact all of us and the quality of our lives. I would just leave my colleagues with this statement to drive policy for environmental issues: Mortgage payments and lung tissue. We have got to have both.