Wayne Gilchrest

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am not going to take a position on the Jones Act, but what I would like to describe to the gentleman from Michigan is that there was a ship in Baltimore that was loading cargo, helicopters. One of the helicopter blades that was just loaded onto the ship fell and was damaged. The only place to replace those helicopter blades was in Jacksonville, FL. Now, the ship was a Norwegian-owned ship. The ship traveling from Baltimore to Florida could take on the new blade, but it could not exchange it for the old blade without a fairly significant fine, because of the Jones Act. We were able to work through this and mitigate that down, which is still in the process of being mitigated. I think in instances where one can exchange parts under those circumstances, that probably ought to be accomplished.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the gentleman from the Garden State for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie], and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner] for this compromise bill that goes a long way into understanding the nature and the usefulness and the resourcefulness of the Sea Grant Program. Mr. Chairman, this program, Sea Grant, takes young idealists and inculcates into them knowledge, experience to become pragmatic, idealistic scientists, to become a piece of the infinite puzzle to understand the mechanics of creation. What are the problems in the Great Lakes with zebra mussels and how do we solve that? What is the problem in the Chesapeake Bay with MSX and dermo? Where did it come from and why is it so tenacious? What is the problem of fishkills in North Carolina? Millions of fish have died in the estuaries of North Carolina. The tragedy of the commons in the Gulf of Mexico; the coastal fisheries of the United States, where there are more people, better technology, catching fewer fish. How do we solve this? To understand the complexities of the power and the weaknesses, the endurance and the sensitive limitations of the Earth's natural processes, we need educated, knowledgeable, dedicated young people to begin a lifetime of service to this environmental end. Mr. Chairman, our resources on planet Earth are limited. There are no more new frontiers on the other side of the horizon on the ground. Our horizons physically are limited and to a certain extent they have come to an end. What is our next frontier? Our next frontier is an intellectual frontier. If we use up our resources in the manner in which we are using them now, especially the resources from the marine ecosystem, we cannot go anywhere in this infinite, hostile environment we call the universe. We are here. Mr. Chairman, we need science, we need knowledge, and we need the technique to implement that science and that knowledge to preserve the natural processes, which is to preserve the natural resources on this planet. One of the solutions to this puzzle, Mr. Chairman, is the Sea Grant Program. I encourage my colleagues to vote for this legislation.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], sponsor of the amendment.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise to speak against the resolution. Mr. Speaker, as we move closer to amend the Bill of Rights for the first time in our Nation's history, I am reminded of what the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] said at the opening day of this session of Congress, and I quote, ``On the altar of Almighty God, I have sworn eternal hostility to the forces that would bind the minds of men.'' That statement is arguably the most moving statement to individual freedom I have ever heard. Though I am no Thomas Jefferson, I too swore an oath before this Chamber to defend the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights in particular. For that reason, I strongly oppose the measure before us. Jefferson did not pledge to fight for the freedom of good men, of wise men, or of inoffensive men. Until God himself sits in judgment, these distinctions will always reside in the minds of those with power. Jefferson realized that the only way to defend freedom of good men is to defend the freedom of all men. The test, in fact the only test of a government's commitment to free speech is how it deals with the most unpopular, the most offensive and the most ill-conceived of messages. We all know what would happen to anyone who burned the flag in Cuba. We all know what would happen to anyone, and we have seen it, who would burn the flag in China at Tiananmen Square. What is remarkable to me, however, is hearing my colleagues suggest that we have something to learn from China or Cuba; that patriotism requires us to become a little bit more like the oppressive regimes that we most often daily criticize. Throughout the cold war years, we continually reminded ourselves that freedom is not free. One cost of freedom is eternal vigilance against those foes from without and from within. Another is vigilance against the sort of creeping majoritarianism that values freedom from insult more highly than freedom of speech. The unavoidable cost of freedom is the fact that people will use freedom in insulting and sometimes idiotic ways. The few malcontents who burn flags seek our outrage. They need it to draw attention to their causes. If we ignored their actions or maybe just throw a bucket of water on them, they would soon realize that they were wasting their time. Today, we not only give what they are doing the outrage that they seek but we enshrine it in the highest document in the lands. We are wrapping this gift in some pretty expensive paper. That expensive paper is the Constitution, whose liberties were bought with the blood of our forefathers. Is this the right thing to do? In the play, ``A Man for All Seasons,'' Sir Thomas Moore is questioned about whether the law should be used to protect bad men. He is even asked if it is wise to cut through the law to get at the devil. This is his response, and I quote: And when the devil turned round on you, do you really think you could stand the winds that blow against you and blow against them? All the laws being flat, I would give the devil protection of the law for my own safety's sake. Today we are asked a question much like the one asked Thomas Moore. Today we are asked to cut through the Bill of Rights to get at a particular devil: people who burn the flags. But the constitutional limitations which protect them are the same as the constitutional rights which protect us from oppressive governments. Mr. Speaker, I believe that, no matter what anyone says, the House seems to value the work of Betsy Ross above the work of Madison and Jefferson. In my opinion, the practical effect will be to weaken both and to increase the pressure to restrict other kinds of speech. Thus, we will find ourselves cutting through the first of several swaths to the Constitution to get at various devils. May God help us should the devil turn round on us. Our Nation's flag deserves our respect and protection. The best way to show respect for that symbol of freedom is good works, to be loving parents, competent teachers, and responsible legislators. We honor those who have given the ultimate sacrifice for their country by living those ideals. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Paul]. (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I want to respond to the gentleman from New Jersey about his statement where the United States is giving up its sovereignty. A couple of quick points. When the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham] and myself began to work on this particular issue, to us, to the gentleman from California and myself, this had nothing to do with GATT, it had absolutely nothing to do with NAFTA, it had nothing to do with the World Trade Organization, it had nothing to do with sovereignty of anybody. We knew we were going to retain our sovereignty. We came up with this regimen, with this idea, with this structure with many other groups, including our U.S. State Department and including Greenpeace, an environmental organization that opposes GATT. This is not about GATT or NAFTA, this is about protecting dolphins in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. This is about protecting the marine ecosystem in the eastern tropical Pacific with an international agreement. This has nothing to do with the U.S. giving up our sovereignty. We, in fact, are imposing this structure on 11 other countries. So this is about the United States retaining our sovereignty and entering into an international agreement to protect the marine ecosystem in the Pacific Ocean.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I also want to reemphasize the participation of the gentleman from California, Duke Cunningham, in this legislation. His efforts started back in 1992. It has been mentioned on the floor here a number of times that the United States only has a small fishing fleet related to tuna fish. The reason for that is that our fishing fleet virtually became extinct because of the embargo that we have placed on importing tuna using encirclement of dolphins. Now while we want to protect the dolphins, and this legislation will in fact protect the dolphins, Duke Cunningham and a number of other people along the southern coast of southern California also wanted to protect the livelihood of individuals that fished throughout the Pacific Ocean, especially the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, to pay their mortgages and raise their children and have a quality of life and standard of living that all of us would want to achieve. And because of the mismanagement of the legislation and because of the lack of ability to come to an international agreement, most of those people lost their jobs. So what happens? Do we ignore that? I think we, as human beings, are intelligent enough to do two things: Provide jobs for people that need to extract natural resources and, also, protect those natural resources. And that is exactly what this legislation does. A number of people on the other side of the aisle mentioned numerous times that dolphin deaths have been reduced down to about 2,500. The reason for that is the agreement reached by these 12 countries, which the United States needs to now become a partnership with, these other 11 countries, countries like Belize, Columbia, Costa Rica, Equador, France, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, and Spain. How do we treat these other countries in the international community? Do we insult them or do we treat them with dignity and respect? Can we solve all the world's environmental problems alone, just the United States, or do we need to have some sense of responsibility on this globe to have an agreement with our neighbors? We cannot solve the environmental problems for this world in the United States alone. We need international agreements. This international agreement does the two things that we need to have done. It provides jobs for people. It raises their standard of living. And it also protects the environment. This protects the marine ecosystem by looking at it as a complete system. Now, my colleagues have mentioned a number of times that the dolphin deaths have been reduced dramatically; and, yes, that is correct, because of the Panama agreement. This was under the Marine Mammal Protection Act when just the United States adhered to it. If you look at the chart over here, each one of these dolphins represents 5,000 deaths. This is under our environmental regulations, the Marine Mammal Protection Act. But we could not do it alone. This is what it looks like now with this agreement, with 12 countries involved in understanding, yes, these 12 countries are going a long way into understanding the mechanics of natural processes. We have to do that. The next frontier on this planet is not space. The next frontier is understanding how we live on this planet with a bulging population, we cannot do anything about that, with all our neighbors bulging even more than this country, trying to understand how we can fit in with the limited resources. With more people catching fewer fish, we need to produce more fish; and this is the agreement that will do that. I would like to just go over some of the charges from the other side. Our State Department, our State Department, our U.S. State Department negotiated this deal, not some foreign country. Our State Department negotiated this deal with mutual respect for the countries involved. The gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombia] said that we knuckled under to the State Department because we would not negotiate a change of words in the agreement. Well, the two words that Mr. Abercrombia is talking about is ``shall,'' and Mr. Abercrombia wanted the word ``shall''; the agreement says the word ``should.'' We looked into that, and it is unconstitutional for the U.S. Constitution to tell the State Department ``you shall do this.'' It is just a matter of semantics. Now the label dispute. If you pick up a can of tuna fish, I do not happen to have one right here, but if you pick up a can of tuna fish, it has a little dolphin on it. That dolphin means that that can of tuna fish is dolphin safe. But, in all practicality, nobody in the eastern tropical Pacific, the western tropical Pacific, or anywhere in the Pacific Ocean knows whether or not any of those tuna fish were caught without killing dolphins. There are no observers. There are no observers anywhere. So we just simply do not know. The present regime of dolphin safe is specific to a gear or a fishing technique. It has nothing to do with whether or not dolphins were killed. What we tried to do in our bill, or what we do in our bill, is to ensure that every single boat that sells tuna fish in the United States, whether they are from Panama, or France, or Belize, or Mexico, or anywhere, every single boat must have a licensed biological observer on board. And if he or she observes a dolphin being killed, they cannot label that dolphin safe. The gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse] talked about the stress of dolphins. I want to show my colleagues the stress of bycatch without this legislation. If you look, you will see sharks, you will see sea turtles, you will see juvenile tuna fish, you will see a whole range of marine mammals. This is not stress, this is death. Now about the stress of dolphins being encircled. The National Science Foundation in 1992 found absolutely no evidence that dolphins were stressed when they were encircled and then pushed out of the back of the net. California at Berkeley biologists found no evidence of stress in the dolphins. And yet we have put into this bill $1 million to further study this issue. And if we find out that there is any stress at all, then we are going to change the regime. The issue of sovereignty has come up a number of times. This is not about sovereignty. This is about the United States imposing this regime on 12 other countries. I encourage the House to vote for H.R. 408.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I will take a little more time later to explain all of the accusations by the other side of the aisle, but very quickly now, the reason there are fewer dolphin deaths in the eastern tropical Pacific is precisely because of this legislation. Twelve countries have agreed to use the regime, the structure to ensure that dolphins are not killed. Prior to this legislation, prior to this agreement, if Members look at this photograph, this is the bycatch that we were living under before. This agreement, if we sign into it, eliminates the bycatch problems. We were up to this number of dolphin deaths. If we look on the top of this graph, each of these dolphins represent 5,000 dolphins dead. The Panama agreement, as it is now working, reduces this number down to this number. Because of this agreement, a few years ago the maximum number of acceptable dolphin deaths by the Panama agreement was 9,000. There were about 2,500 killed. Who pushed it down to a 5,000 maximum level? The United States. What is the biological accepted limit for the number of dolphin deaths in the eastern tropical Pacific without endangering the species? Sixty thousand. Not only have we reduced it from 100,000 to 60,000 to 9,000 to 5,000, this legislation and this international agreement is going to push it down to lower than that.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, today, I am pleased to introduce, with my distinguished colleague from my home State of Maryland, Mr. Cardin, two bills to continue the protection, restoration, and public access and education efforts in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Our Nation's largest and most productive estuary, the Chesapeake Bay, is almost 200 miles long and is fed by 48 major rivers and hundreds of smaller rivers and streams. It is home to more than 2,700 plant and animal species and is the recreational destination of millions of people. The Chesapeake Bay also plays a primary role in this region's economy. In Maryland alone, the estimated value of commercial and recreational fishing, boating, hunting, and observing, feeding, and photographing wildlife in the Chesapeake Bay is $2.6 billion a year. Draining into the Chesapeake are some 64,000 square miles; the bay's watershed covers most of Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, parts of Delaware, New York and West Virginia and all of the District of Columbia, and is home to over 15 million people. From the headwaters near Cooperstown, to the Appalachians in southwest Virginia and the Delmarva peninsula to the east of the bay, everything that affects the land, ultimately affects the bay. Every drop of rain, every ounce of polluted runoff, every best management practice, every tree planted within those 64,000 square miles makes the bay what it is. It is the recognition of this connection that makes the Chesapeake so special. Sadly, the Chesapeake Bay had to fall victim to unchecked pollution, degradation of water quality, loss of underwater vegetation, and diminution of key fisheries before this connection between land and estuary was really understood. Like many other water bodies in the United States, unchecked and unregulated activities threatened wildlife habitat, commercially important fish species, and human health. In the late 1970's the problems in the Chesapeake Bay estuary were brought to light and Congress rallied to provide Federal dollars and structure to what became known as the Chesapeake Bay Program. Since 1983, when the first Chesapeake Bay Agreement was signed by the Governors of the States of Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, the Mayor of the District of Columbia, the Chesapeake Bay Commission, and the Administrator of the EPA, the Chesapeake Bay Program has been a Federal-State cooperative responsible for restoring and protecting the bay. It has become the national model for interstate and intrastate cooperative efforts when a resource of regional and national significance is shared, as is the Chesapeake Bay. The two bills we introduce today are a testimony to that initial recognition of the bay's unique value, the link between land and water and the need for additional education and outreach to continue the conservation, restoration and appreciation for the natural, cultural, historical, economical and recreational resources that the Chesapeake Bay provides this region. The first bill we are introducing today, the Chesapeake Bay Restoration Act of 1997, is designed to build upon the Federal role in the Chesapeake Bay restoration efforts by maintaining the EPA Bay Program Office and highlighting the important technical and financial assistance, research and monitoring and educational and outreach programs the office fosters. The bill specifically establishes a small watershed grants program to provide Federal assistance to local governments and nonprofit organizations within the watershed for locally significant restoration, protection and education initiatives. The second bill we are introducing today, the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Act of 1997, would further the connection of natural, historic, cultural and recreational resources to create an innovative Chesapeake Bay gateways and watertrails network throughout the bay and its tributaries. This bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to identify and protect resources throughout the watershed, to identify these individual sites as Chesapeake Bay gateways, and to link them with trails, tour roads, scenic byways and other sites. It also directs the Secretary to establish important water routes as Chesapeake Bay watertrails, and connect these watertrails with gateways sites and other land resources to create a Chesapeake Bay gateways and watertrails network. This bill encourages the affiliation among all of these sites in an effort to improve overall access to the bay and its resources, as well as provide opportunities for education of visitors and residents alike. A similar effort is already underway in Maryland, where our Department of Natural Resources has been working on a program to feature the connections among a variety of protected lands, parks, and other special natural areas. This bay link system, as it is called, seeks to highlight each site's role in maintaining the integrity of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem while providing a unique recreational opportunity. The collection of sites also acts to educate visitors as to the regional significance of the site by providing historical and ecological information. Such information will eventually be provided to virtual visitors who visit the bay via the Internet as well. Many residents of the watershed are familiar only with specific sites; many visitors to the bay are exposed only to particular areas. The Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Act of 1997 would promote the creation of a network of important sites across the entire watershed and provide residents and visitors alike the opportunity to recognize the connections between different parts of the watershed. It would provide financial and technical assistance for the conservation of important areas in the bay's watershed and promote linkages among national parks, waterways, local or regional heritage sites, wildlife refuges and other regionally or locally significant areas in the watershed. While encouraging visitors to experience the history and beauty of the bay, the gateways and watertrails network would also enhance public education, outreach and access around the bay and its tributaries. Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to let everyone know just how special the Chesapeake Bay is to Marylanders and everyone in our region. I am pleased to be introducing these two bills to further coordinate efforts to protect and conserve the treasures of the Chesapeake Bay and her watershed. I ask unanimous consent that the text of H.R. 1579, the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Act, be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from California, I thank both gentlemen from California, and even the other gentleman from California. There are a lot of people from California here. I think that we all have to recognize that yes, there have been some extremes, and there are some examples. And the gentleman from California [Mr. Herger] described an example where some maintenance was held up because of the Endangered Species Act, because of the problems with maintenance and because of the problems of mitigation costs. Those are real issues that actually happened and create layers of bureaucracy that we are trying to swim through, pardon the pun. However, Mr. Chairman, at this point, I think this House would more adequately address the problem if we vote for the Boehlert amendment, which will end in 1998 and in that process ensure that repairs are taking place. In a minute I will offer an amendment to the Boehlert amendment that will deal with the maintenance and the mitigation costs.

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

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, the Boehlert amendment deals with the existing emergency, which is to repair the levees up to 1998.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the Boehlert amendment, in my understanding, does not address the maintenance, the long-term maintenance. The gentleman is correct.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I think all of us, if cool heads prevail, would have some understanding that, yes, there are problems with the Endangered Species Act; and I think we would all recognize that there are problems with maintenance on various levees. I think we would all recognize that there are costs associated with mitigation. If we look at the maintenance and we look at what has to be mitigated, it is hard to tell what comes first, the chicken or the egg, but there are serious problems with maintenance and mitigation. I will offer an amendment in a little while to try to deal with those problems. Mr. Chairman, I stand here today to address the emergency issue at hand, and that is the levees and the levee system that failed, especially in these 48 counties in California, and how do we repair those levees right now. I am supporting the Boehlert amendment because the Boehlert amendment goes beyond present existing law to repair the levees up to 1998. Now, I would be the first one to say that some of those levees might not be ready in 1998 and we are going to have to extend that. I would also be one of the first people to say that there is a problem with understanding how to maintain a levee so that we do not have to deal with an elderberry bush or a small yellow snake; we can just clear that elderberry bush, fill in that snake hole, fill in that rat hole. I recognize that we have to deal with the situation that we are now presented with, and that is the safety of human beings that rely on the levee system. We have to deal with that. However, I would go further, Mr. Chairman, and say the weaknesses here today, when we focus on the photograph that the gentleman from California showed us, the breach in the levee and the woman being carried down with the fast-moving water, I would say that the real weakness, if we look at the big picture, is not with the Endangered Species Act. The real big picture here is not with maintenance or mitigation. The real picture here, the weakness, is within State and Federal approaches to flood management. The weakness is with the current labyrinth of dams and levees. The weakness is with land use planning and our attempts to engineer rivers. In this debate do we need to understand the mechanics of natural processes? Can we protect people behind levees for a 500-year flood that may happen 2 or 3 years in a row, and the answer is no. Do we want to repair the existing levees? You bet we do. Do we want to resolve the problem of maintenance? You bet we do. Do we want to resolve the problem of mitigation? You bet we do. Do we need to find a solution for the mitigation costs? The answer to these questions is yes. I feel at this point that the gentlemen from California, [Mr. Pombo, Mr. Herger and Mr. Campbell], my friends, their motivations are right on target to resolve the problem of flood control, particularly with levees. I just happen to think that they go a little bit too far at this particular point. Do we want people to move off the levees or out of these cities? The gentleman from Louisiana said, do we want people to move out of New Orleans? The answer is no. Do we want people to move out of Sacramento? The answer is no. Do we want people that are behind levees right now to have to move and go someplace else? The answer is no. However, my question is--and I know that we want to protect those people behind those levees and clear up the problems with maintenance and clear up the problems with mitigation costs. I fear, though, that if we say adopt the present bill in front of us, that there will be a sense of protection that tranquility will prevail, and we will then begin to expand the levee system and we will put more people in harm's way. For this reason, Mr. Chairman, at this point, I support the amendment of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert]. I will offer an amendment to help resolve the problem of maintenance and mitigation costs. I will yield to the gentleman from California, and then I will yield to the other gentleman from California.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yieldin me this time. I would like to list a number of things here. Everyone here wants to save the lives of people, and everyone here wants to put people out of harm's way, and I would assume that everyone here wants to understand the natural mechanics of the flow of water and the mechanics of creation, how things work. No. 1, this area in California is already exempted as a result of section 7 of the Endangered Species Act from consultation. This area declared a disaster is exempted from the Endangered Species Act. No. 2, the amendment of the gentleman from New York, [Mr. Boehlert], goes a little bit further than already existing law to ensure that repairs are made at least by December 1998, and it can be extended beyond that. I am going to amend the Boehlert substitute by ensuring that we have some sense of understanding as far as what maintenance means and the cost of mitigation. Now, the present bill on the floor, whether it is the present bill or whether the present bill is amended by the gentleman from California, [Mr. Campbell], exempts in a blanket manner the Corps of Engineers from ESA consideration in the following areas: Dams, reservoirs, erosion control, beach replenishment, levies, dikes, walls, diversion channels, channel operations, draining of agricultural lands, you name it, the list goes on and on and on. Now, the issue here is an emergency. We are dealing with an emergency with the present law. With the Boehlert amendment we will ensure that what we see here will be repaired. But I want my colleagues to take a close look at what they see here. We see levies, we see when levies fail they cause great problems in the other picture. The problem is, as far as I am concerned, and we are missing the mark in this debate, is that we are dealing with, at least, a 500-year-old engineering design. That design is called levies. Most of the levies in the area of California were built 100 years ago. In 1997, we have better engineering skills. Levies, by their very nature, increase the level of the water and increase the speed of the water. Levies exacerbate upstream and downstream flooding. Levies fail because they conflict rather than conform to the natural processes of the water. A gentleman earlier, from Oregon, said that if we had more areas where the water could meander into, more wetlands, then we might have nuisance flooding every once in a while, but the problem is when we channel that water and speed up that water and we raise the level of that water, not only do we have flooding, we have major flooding. And not only do we have major flooding with this faulty design of levies, we have human misery. So, it is about time that we have some sense of understanding as to the construction of these levies. My fear is that if we pass the bill in its present form or even with the Campbell amendment, we will once again give people the false impression that levies will protect their lives and property, and that simply is not true. Levies, by their very nature, the design of levies are going to fail, whether they have been maintained or whether they were some of the best levies and they met all the standards. I think if we look at the levies in this picture they look like they are pretty well maintained, the grass is cut, we do not see a lot of bushes. Whether this was the best maintained levy in that district of California or whether it was the worst maintained levy in that district of California, levies are designed to fail, and if we bring the people of this country some tranquil sense that we are going to protect them, this bill will not do it.

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

Mr. GILCHREST. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, and I do not want to object, but I would like to ensure that my amendment be protected in this time frame.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the amendment to the amendment in the nature of a sustitute be adopted.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would say two quick things. No. 1, the Boehlert amendment ensures that repairs that were broken take place in the levee system; but No. 2, if the levees are maintained--and this is what I want to do in my study--if the levees are maintained and cut the grass and deal with the issues, we are not going to have an elderberry bush grow up. So my amendment, which will amend the Boehlert amendment, I think, will deal with the problem of maintenance. I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I think everybody in the Chamber this afternoon wants to resolve a problem that has persisted in this Nation for decades, and that is the problem of poverty, particularly the problem of poverty in public housing. Someone mentioned that we are about to change the ground rules. I think it is about time to change the ground rules. We are attempting to change the ground rules so that we can cut the cycle of the paralysis of poverty that has existed in public housing for far too long. We are talking about women who have children should not be a part of this particular program of voluntarism. Well, No. 1, if someone living in public housing with children has a part-time job, it is my understanding that they are exempt from this voluntarism program. However, let us take a look at the women who are not exempted, let us take a look at the women who are not working and who have children. It seems to me that, if we create a structure where these women will have an opportunity to have an exchange, a simple, human exchange with other people for a couple of hours a week, that is a positive thing. If we are to break the cycle of poverty, we need people to have an exchange of information, an honest exchange of information with other people within the community. Women with children should be offered an opportunity to improve the quality of their life. They will not improve the quality of their life unless they have the chance, created by this structure, to exchange information with other people, and the community, the public housing project, the manager of that project, has the opportunity to create an infinite number of volunteering opportunities, not just one or two. We could even have two women in that project who would volunteer to baby- sit 2 hours a week for their neighbor. That is an opportunity to volunteer. Let me make one other point. As we discuss this issue, I think a fundamental issue has to be raised here. As we discuss the issue of trying to break the cycle of poverty, which is what has paralyzed people, often for decades, what is the mystery of human initiative? Why do some people seem to be successful and other people are not so successful? It seems to me, the mystery of human initiative is responsibility, dignity, and compassion, and offering the structure, a very flexible structure, so people will have the opportunity to meet other people, to exchange ideas, to listen and learn, to improve the quality of their life, the structure that we are offering here, that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] is offering here I think is beginning to resolve or solve that mystery. We are offering people responsibility, we are offering people dignity, and in the process we are offering people compassion. Now, I want to look at public housing. I have many public housing units in my district. I go from Baltimore city to the rural Eastern Shore, and I can tell my colleagues some housing projects are wonderful and some housing projects no one would want to live there, and no one should live there. The reasons for that are several. There is a lot of money pumped into public housing projects. I can tell my colleagues just in my district, and we relentlessly pursue this, a lot of that money never reaches the maintenance of the public housing project. It never reaches the problems of drug abuse. It never reaches the problems of recreation. It never reaches the people that we intended that money to be served for. Whose responsibility is that? It is each Member of Congress that needs to get into every housing project in their district and see what some of the problems are. When we pass this bill, and I hope we pass this bill and I hope this bill is signed into law by the President, it is not the end of it; it is only the beginning of it. We should begin to pursue not only how this volunteerism program works but follow the money trail, because I would say right here on this House floor, Mr. Chairman, that there should not be one housing project in the United States that is managed well that should not be a fine example of how people should live, not only the maintenance, but the education and how people are nurtured. So I would support the amendment of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio].

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, in the landmark case of McCulloch versus Maryland, America's first judicial giant, John Marshall, wrote that the power to tax is the power to destroy. To be sure, in that instance Justice Marshall was seeking to prevent my home State of Maryland from taxing a Federal bank, but the principle remains. The fact is that taxation, taken to the extreme, can render meaningless the right to property, freedom of contract, or virtually any other freedom. For example, we can all agree that a high enough tax on newspaper profits would make freedom of the press moot. Excessive or capricious tax policy can similarly erode nearly every other freedom we enjoy in one way or another. This amendment simply clarifies that Congress' use of that potentially destructive power--the power of taxation--should be subject to a higher approval standard than that of Congress' other powers as defined under article I, section 8 of the Constitution. This amendment would make it subject to the same super-majority requirements used for constitutional amendment, veto override, or treaty ratification. It is true that the founders did not intend for taxation to be subject to the same requirements. But it is also true that their standards were adopted prior to the ratification, indeed the proposal, of the 16th amendment. Prior to the 16th amendment, the power of taxation meant tariffs and excise taxes. But the 16th amendment created the income tax which refocused taxation on the livelihoods of individuals. When the rights of individuals to earn a living face potential threats from Government power, there should be a higher legislative standard for Government to use that power. The amendment before us creates such a standard. Mr. Chairman, today many people feel the strain attendant to tax rates which have risen continually over decades. On this day more than any other, our constituents are aware of the potentially destructive power of federal taxation. I am supporting this amendment to provide my constituents a reasonable level of protection against that. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I would like to strongly emphasize that all of us in this Chamber take the responsibility to listen to this debate, to come to some resolution. We are missing the mark, and I think to a large extent overpoliticizing this statement about certifying or decertifying. We have got to get together, decent, honest Americans, must get together with decent, honest Mexicans. It is as simple as that. There are drug profiteers in Mexico; there are drug profiteers in the United States. It is an external problem; it is an internal problem. Let us be clear on just a couple of points. The United States is responsible for 60 to 70 percent of the world's consumption of drugs. It is a lucrative, lucrative business. The Mexican Government is spending billions of dollars trying to fight this. They are confronted with tens of billions of dollars on the other side which we, the American consumers of drugs, are supplying to Mexico. As has been documented, Mexico's problems arise because the shift in the drugs from the Caribbean up from Colombia through Mexico has taken place in dramatic proportions in the last few years. Amazingly, we are now discussing at a point when Mexico is moving into an arena where they can begin, however small, in a very small way, to begin to resist the drug cartels. We are talking about decertifying Mexico as though it was somehow Mexico's problem, Mexico's problem, to save us from ourselves. We have all these laws which say just say no. Now, we say it with our laws, but we do not seem to say it with our noses. We always seem to be pointing the finger at the wrong people. Mr. Speaker, it is always politically convenient to blame somebody else. It is time that we demand from Mexico what we must demand from ourselves.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. I would like to embark on a slightly different dimension here, and I would hope that all the Members would listen as to my observation of the Speaker, what has Newt Gingrich done in my mind over the years, especially the last 2 years as Speaker of the House of Representatives. The Speaker has created a situation on the House floor where each Member of Congress can become a responsible advocate for his or her position. My first 4 years here, I saw money and seniority as the influencing factor in developing legislation. The Speaker, in my observation, changed that. Those with credibility have information, and those with information generated as a result of that information influence. That is how a democracy is supposed to work. Those with the information have the influence, the course, the direction of the legislation. As a result of that, the sophistication of the debate in my judgment has risen very, very high, a more open and honest exchange of ideas, not pummeled by political punishment by seniority or power; but an exchange of ideas is what democracy is all about. The debate has often been clearly misunderstood as partisan politics or gridlock. This is democracy. It is difficult. That exchange of ideas does not take place in North Korea, Cuba, Iraq, or someplace else. Newt Gingrich has not aspired to power in this House or this country like many others in this place have done, buttressed by arrogance, dogma, and ignorance. In my judgment, in my observation, Newt Gingrich has sought to reveal his vision for America. This is what democracy is about.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Resources have until 5 p.m. on October 11, 1996, to file a report on H.R. 2041, the Guam War Restitution Act, as amended.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Resources be discharged from further consideration of the Senate bill (S. 1973) to provide for the settlement of the Navajo-Hopi land dispute, and for other purposes, and I ask for its immediate consideration in the House.