Wayne Gilchrest

Mr. GILCHREST

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

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise to encourage my colleagues to vote for this funding for the Centers for Disease Control for this rather extraordinary situation, not only on the East Coast of the United States but this is found under certain conditions in coastal waters which meet a certain criteria worldwide. We are concerned with this not only in the coastal waters of the United States, but the Centers for Disease Control is looking into this particular issue along with other scientists worldwide. As my colleague from Maryland has stated, over a billion fish, that is with a B, that is hard to imagine, but in the last 6 years over a billion fish on the East Coast, most of them in the tidal estuaries of North Carolina, have died as a result of this microorganism that comes to life, has 24 different life cycles, several of them toxic. To give Members some sense of this microorganism, it is a cross between a vegetable and an animal, depending on the life cycle. Now, in human beings, first of all, I want to make sure that Members understand, we are not creating hysteria here, even though that sounds like Pfiesteria, this is not a situation where Members can become afraid of waters on the coastal areas of the United States. There are certain conditions which they need to stay away from, but for the most part, the Chesapeake Bay, the areas around North Carolina, from Delaware to Florida, are fine. But we have seen a phenomenon here that scientists have told us they were not able to anticipate. As a result of that, this needs to be studied, not only for fish health but for the health of human beings who become exposed to these areas at a critical time. What I would like to read just briefly to my colleagues are some of the human health conditions that can result as a result of exposure to these microorganisms called Pfiesteria. You can have a drugged feeling effect. You can have uniform reddening of the eyes. You can have blotches and lesions on the skin. You can have severe headaches, blurred vision, nausea and vomiting, kidney and liver dysfunction, acute memory loss. When I say acute memory loss, you cannot add numbers between one plus two equals three. There are certain conditions in North Carolina and around the world where these physical effects have gone away and then mysteriously returned years later. So we are dealing with a specific issue that we basically have the science to fix, and we want to make sure that we dot every I and cross every T. The Centers for Disease Control needs $12 million. We are going to appropriate $7 million here, move forward with the research, find the solution to this problem and fix it. We have, as human beings, interrupted by our human activity, the mechanics of natural processes in the marine ecosystem. What that means is we need the best minds available to figure out how we can resolve this issue. My colleagues, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] for his help on this issue, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle], and especially my good friend, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] for having this amendment.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I can give a response to that. The question is not whether fish have memory loss. The question is that it has been confirmed that humans that come in contact with this micro- organism not only have memory loss but have other severe neurological problems that can lay dormant and reoccur 6 years later.

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

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I would like to start off by making a comment about America in general, what makes this country successful. I would say the hallmark of the Nation, of this democracy, is human initiative using good judgment. It is not the Government dictating any policy. I say that as a general rule of thumb for individuals across this great Nation, in the diversity of situations they find themselves in. Most are very positive, very loving, filled with commitment, compassion, humility, and discipline. But there are exceptions to that. It is the initiative, that we want people to take responsibility to solve their problems. All of us here want to solve the problems of unwanted pregnancy, of statutory rape, of sexually transmitted diseases, and all of these things. Everybody on the House floor right now is committed to do that. None of us have all the right answers. None of us are absolute in our knowledge and absolute in our certainty how to resolve those human issues that will be around for generations and generations and generations to come. This is just a small, little piece of the puzzle. This discussion is going to do some positive good to help resolve the nightmare that some people go through. But human initiative, in my judgment, is the key: How do we resolve this problem? I would say to my good friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn], the doctor, who is a very knowledgeable person, and I take a lot of his advice home to my family, that teenagers are not uniformly irresponsible. Many of them are. Many of them come from very irresponsible homes, irresponsible communities, but especially irresponsible homes. Teenagers are on the brink of beginning to reflect the nature of their home life. So what we are trying to do here is to discuss the difficult issue of raising children, and that is very difficult. Parents, we would hope every single one of them would be good parents by being responsible, by exposing their children to other adults that are responsible, by having a good home life with friends and neighbors and other family members from the extended family, and that is a wonderful environment. The problem is, there are some homes that are not like that. As a school teacher for many, many years, I have had students come to me in desperate situations because they have been sexually abused by their parents, or parent, or physically abused or mentally abused. And the difficulty that the Istook amendment would place upon them is untenable. All of us want to resolve this problem, and certainly we want the parents to be responsible, and certainly we want the parents, the responsible parents, notified; and the responsible parents are going to know about these situations because they are going to create around them an environment of support from the school to the church to the synagogue to the mosque to the neighborhood to the police department to you-name-it. Those are responsible people, exchanging their lives and information, and sharing things with other people. It is the isolated situations, whether it is in a home that has difficulty with poverty or whether it is in the wealthiest of families, there are families where children are isolated from the community and need our help and need our judgment. So the hallmark of America is human initiative, using good judgment. I encourage my colleagues to vote for the Castle amendment, because I think it begins the process of doing that.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, again reclaiming my time, I understand that $4.3 million in a $1,600,000,000,000 budget is minuscule. But for those parents that are listening, the discussion of the positive nature that we want to protect their children, teach their children, love their children, give their children opportunities, the joy that that brings into their hearts is worth that small amount of money and in my mind is worth the debate.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman from Illinois, Chairman Porter, and the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Obey, the ranking minority member, for ushering through some very positive legislation with very limited resources, but appropriately, application of those resources for very, very critically needed programs to ensure the safety of the American people and American children in a diverse way. It is critically needed. It is done in a very difficult environment. Mr. Chairman, I am not on the authorization committee or the appropriating committee, but I do have a very critical need for dollars in the IDEA Program in my district. I do not want to get involved in the hornet's nest of discussion about the controversy or about anybody's motives. I stand firm in my belief that we should protect workers' wage and hour rights. The Department of Labor should do that with all due diligence, and the amount of money we appropriate for that purpose needs to be the amount that is necessary to perform their given responsibilities. We have to choose between critical programs. When we are talking about a program to educate children that are physically and mentally handicapped, where they have been underfunded for decades, probably for the existence of public schools, it is necessary, I believe, under those circumstances, and given the circumstances of the process that we use here in Congress, we are now ready to give a little more money to the IDEA program. And I think the amount of money that goes to the IDEA program to ensure that the door remains open in our public schools for those children, to ensure that the right kind of professionals are hired to deal with those difficult problems, to ensure that there is a nurse nearby that knows how to administer to those children, to ensure that the technology is available in the school so those children can learn and have opportunities and some day have job opportunities and career opportunities, it takes a little money. So, Mr. Chairman, in my mind, the amount of money that is taken away from the wage and hour enforcement is a very small amount of money. I do not think the Department of Labor is going to miss that amount of money with the mission that they have to perform, their duties. But that small amount of money, Mr. Chairman, that 4-some million dollars going into the IDEA program, from my perspective and in my district, and knowing children in that program, and having former students who have grown up now and have children and, sadly enough, have children in the category of being mentally or physically handicapped, I know the parents, I know their despair, I know their sorrow, I know their frustration. So I am not involved in a turmoil of motives. I am involved in a few extra dollars going into a program that is really going to make a difference. So, Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we are talking about $4.3 million into the IDEA program nationwide. And I fully understand that it is a very insignificant amount of money, in all likelihood.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield just for a second?

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I can assure the gentleman from Hawaii that we will not only revisit this in 18 months, but that the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) and myself will visit this issue on a very regular basis during the course of this study.

Mr. GILCHREST. It will be 18 months after October 1997, whatever that might be, March of 1999.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, the dolphin-safe label does not change now from the way it is.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I have enjoyed working this bill with the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham], certainly the Members of the Senate, but I hold the gentleman from Hawaii in high esteem for his seriousness in legislation that comes out of this body.

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

Mr. GILCHREST. Yes.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, the reason the label does not change until March of 1999 is a compromise worked out on the Senate side to pursue a very scientific study of what the dolphins go through under this new regime. Now if the scientific study shows that there is no stress as a result of encirclement and other problems with the dolphins do not arise and one can catch tuna fish by encircling them and releasing the dolphins, if everything scientifically proves out within this 18-month period, then the label will reflect that dolphins can be released without harm in the process of encircling tuna fish and then the label will reflect that.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I understand that there is a point of order raised against this amendment and the amendment may be withdrawn. I would like to speak from the perspective of my congressional district in somewhat reference to the reservations of the gentleman from California [Mr. Duncan Hunter] about precipitous railroad tax and dangerous canyons for the shortline railroads to run across the border to Mexico and to be used or abused, and I recognize the problems that he has in his congressional district. In my congressional district the shortline railroads are absolutely indispensable, and I think that the Federal Government, when we subsidize the automobile industry, the airport industry, and just name it, I think if we target with these loan guarantees, and this is not a direct subsidy, it is not a direct appropriation; this is a loan guarantee program. The shortline railroads in my district haul stone for roads, they haul grain for livestock, they haul manufactured goods. They are an absolutely indispensable, very important part, a critical part of the infrastructure of the economic base of my congressional district, and I am sure that they are a critical part of a whole range of congressional districts around this country. This is not a subsidy that we want to prop up an industry that has no value. This is an interest in an industry that is virtually, in my judgment, indispensable for the economic health of this country via those small areas, whether they be urban areas, suburban areas or rural areas, to provide the important link between the major rail systems in this country. So I am not sure what is going to happen in the next few minutes, but I strongly urge this Congress today or tomorrow to deal very effectively with this vital link, this vital part of our infrastructure, this vital link of our economic base.

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

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring to the Members' attention on page 6, line 12, through line 18, this is an area of the appropriations bill of which I have talked to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], the chairman, about that I have some strong reservations on. What I would like to do is to read the three areas of the bill that I have strong reservations and then speak directly as to what they are. No. 1, line 5, first of all, the Committee on Appropriations has taken $34 million that was directed to the Coast Guard interdiction program and has effectively given it to the drug czar to determine the best area where this money should be spent. The authority given to the drug czar is the following, that is the director's office of the National Drug Control Policy. This is the authority given to Mr. McCaffrey. No. 1, Mr. McCaffrey will review the specific activities and associated costs and benefit proposed by the Coast Guard. I think those reviews of those activities and the cost and benefits have already been reviewed by the authorizing committee, the Coast Guard committee and the transportation. No. 2 compares those activities to other drug interdiction efforts government-wide. This was always done with various other authorizing committees. But within that, what I have the most disagreement with is No. 3. No. 3 certifies that the drug czar will certify in writing to the House and the Senate Committees on Appropriations, not to the authorizing committee, but to the Committee on Appropriations, that such expenditures represent the best investment relative to other options provided further that, should the director, Office of National Drug Control Policy decline to make such certification after notification in writing to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, the director may transfer, at his discretion, up to $34 million of funds provided to the Coast Guard to any other government entity to use this amount of money. I have some reservations about reporting to the Committee on Appropriations, as opposed to the authorizing committees, this waiver. This part of the bill could have been struck in a point of order, but it was protected by waiver by the Committee on Rules. Mr. McCaffrey, in a letter to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to Mr. Pena wanted, this is the drug czar now, wanted $34 million sent to the Coast Guard for this interdiction part. The Coast Guard, in the whole area of the Nation's drug problem, in the last few years, in my judgment, has been engaged in a very positive way to drastically reduce the number of drugs coming into the United States. Now, lastly, Mr. Chairman, I think when we begin to pick apart in the various levels of the appropriations process and the authorizing process an agency such as the Coast Guard, I think we lose sight of the rather large responsibility, increasing responsibility that we give to the Coast Guard every single year. If the Members will just consider this particular fact: On any 1 day, any one point in time on any given day, every Coast Guard jet that is assigned an area, every Coast Guard helicopter, every Coast Guard cutter, every Coast Guard buoy tender, every Coast Guard boat has the following responsibilities: Drug interdiction, determining who are illegal immigrants, boarding hostile steamship lines with hostile immigrants prepared to wreak havoc, finding boats where people have had accidents, determining the difference between shad, salmon, yellowfin tuna, bluefin tuna, striped bass, when the regulations for fishing are the international standards for boaters' safety, for vessel safety, for oil pollution. Every single Coast Guard person has this and more as their responsibility. Drug interdiction is just one of these things. And what the Coast Guard is doing now as far as drug interdiction is concerned, they are working in the international arena and they have international cooperation, and the U.S. Coast Guard is seen as a leader in this area. So I would just request, and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] and myself have had some very good discussions on this prior to this statement, but I think it is important for us to realize the increasing responsibility of the Coast Guard.

Mr. GILCHREST. First, I have a great deal of respect for the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], and I think he knows that. I do look forward to working with him on this particular issue on page 6, but I look forward to working with him on this issue in a very comprehensive way so that we can ensure a reduction in the drug problem in the United States. And all the Federal agencies are working very closely together to do a better job.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] for yielding me the time. I also want to thank all those people on both sides of the aisle that have been involved in working through this legislation to reach a compromise that will benefit not only the people in the community that are directly involved in this issue, but it will have a positive impact on the rest of the country and on logging in general. Are we smart enough, Mr. Chairman, to sustain logging, mimic nature, and protect biological diversity? I think we are, and I think this legislation will begin the process for us to understand how to do that. Does this Nation need wood? The answer is yes. Must we sustain logging, or should we sustain logging? The answer is we must sustain logging. Does this Nation need the kind of health that biological diversity offers species, including human beings? Biological diversity ensures that we are going to sustain the kind of things we need in order to survive on this planet. Not only can we protect and sustain biological diversity, we must sustain biological diversity. So are we smart enough, in this society that we call the United States of America, with a democracy, with a free market economy out there, with people with varying interests, can we get together and resolve these issues? The answer is yes. And if we look at the legislation, does it protect the habitat for species? This legislation protects habitat for species. Does it protect and do further research on riparian areas? The answer is yes. On page 8, line 18: ``All environmental laws apply to this pilot project.'' On page 10: ``An annual review of the project is ordered by the Secretary of Agriculture,'' an annual review. If my colleagues look on page 15, line 6, this has something else to do with ensuring that we are going to do the right thing: ``The Secretary shall compile a science-based assessment of the effectiveness of this pilot project.'' The legislation is sound. Are we smart enough, as people in this democracy, to sustain logging, mimic nature, and protect biological diversity? Can we do that? The answer is yes. I strongly encourage my colleagues to vote for this legislation.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] for yielding me the time, and I thank him for the opportunity to have this colloquy with him. In the State of Maryland, as in many other States, it is common practice for school boards to contract out school busing services to independent contractor schoolbus drivers. Nearly every school district on the Eastern Shore has operated under such a contractual arrangement for decades. Recently, however, the Internal Revenue Service made a determination that under the 20-factor common law test used to classify workers for Federal tax purposes, the Maryland school boards are required to treat these schoolbus drivers as employees of the school districts. These school districts are faced with a closing agreement that takes effect September 1 under which the school districts would be forced to purchase the buses from the independent contractor owner-operators and make them employees of the school district. The IRS determination will disrupt longstanding contractual relationships that are beneficial to both the school districts and the self-employed schoolbus drivers who provide this vital service. My understanding is that the safe harbor for independent contractors in section 934 of the bill will cover the longstanding contractual relationships between Maryland school boards and their independent contractor schoolbus drivers.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for that clarification. However, I do have a lingering concern about the Maryland school districts' problem. Under the December 31 effective date of the independent contractor safe harbor contained in the bill, many school districts will be forced, since they have this contract beginning in September, the school districts will be forced to sign the contract and potentially lose their buses and their independent status.

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