Wayne Gilchrest

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. The whole arrangement is going to be cleared through the Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol police. The Capitol police will be responsible for enforcing any of the violations.

Mr. GILCHREST. It is my clear understanding that there will be no association with foreign sponsors. These are all U.S. sponsored, U.S. manufactured products.

Mr. GILCHREST. I will assure the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] that we will continue to work with his side of the aisle in any future resolution that deals with a similar matter, that we will assure that all of his concerns will continue to be shared, that there will be precise and concise penalties on those who violate it, that this will be sponsoring U.S. manufacturers and not foreign manufacturers of automobiles, and that we will ensure that no photographs taken during this event can be used for commercializing purposes or for endorsement purposes. If they are, they will feel the full force of the law.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] has an excellent idea and we will follow it up. We will, sometime following the event, assure him that there will be a hearing on that issue.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words and I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the substitute under consideration, as modified by the Boehlert amendment, because I think the Boehlert amendment and the substitute improve existing law. I am going to support the bill, as amended. The bill represents a significant effort to factor environmental interests into the balance, and I compliment the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], for their effort. First, the problematic section of the State management of coordination areas is resolved by the amendment requiring that management of those areas meet the compatibility standard. We just went through an interesting debate about whether or not 500 acres should come before this House to be authorized, and I think that was clarified and that was debated and more clearly understood. Finally, my greatest concern is that we remember the reason we have refuges in the first place. First and foremost is for conservation of wildlife and plants. Whether the purpose for that conservation is to provide hunting and fishing opportunities, to preserve endangered species or to save wild spaces so our children in this world can know that there is something more than cars, pavements and sidewalks, this bill, the mission of this bill, is for conservation. The Boehlert amendment insures that compatibility means compatibility with the conservation mission. Mr. Chairman, the last two Congresses have seen a stalemate on environmental issues which has benefited neither landowners, nor industry, nor environment, nor conservation. We have seen both sides occasionally trip over their hyperbole, and the mistrust that has grown has made consensus impossible. This admittedly imperfect bill at least contains a tremendous attempt at consensus, and for that reason I believe it deserves our support. It should come as no surprise that generally, I believe, good science is critical for environmental legislation. I also recognize that good environmental legislation has always been developed by consensus. The bill before us will do no practical harm to the refuge system, and if it can become the first step toward building a consensus on conservation issues, then it does a tremendous amount of good, and I urge support for the amendment and I urge support for the adoption of the bill.

Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I think that whenever the U.S. Congress passes legislation, they should keep several important things in mind which I am going to describe. I think those things that enhance legislation in this House, which enhance laws, are present in this legislation. First of all, I think with the amendments by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], this legislation will improve existing law. No. 2, this legislation provides a structure which will enhance local managers' ability to work much more closely with the State government, with the local government, with private landowners, with environmental groups, with anybody that has any kind of an interest in America's wildlife refuges. No. 3, this particular legislation continues to give local managers the flexibility they need to provide what they feel is necessary to manage wildlife in any way that they think is conducive for their conservation. I want to make a comment to an earlier statement by the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham]. Mr. Cunningham described the story where a father and son had a falling out, and the father called the son and said, ``Let's get together.'' The son said, ``I can't, there is too much between us''. Then Mr. Cunningham said the father told the son, ``Just come as far as you can go, and I will go the rest of the way''. If we want to legislate good laws for this country, then this particular piece of legislation, I might add to the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], this particular piece of legislation brings opposing forces together. Each side has come just as far as they can go and there has been a compromise. If we are going to be successful in managing the Nation's resources, then this type of discussion, this type of debate, this type of legislation is the kind of example that we need to show to our constituents and we need to show to our Nation. So I would urge the Members that this is a good bill. We should vote for this bill. I want to compliment the chairman of the Committee on Resources for his work.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, in recognition of the nationwide celebration of Earth Day, I would like to pay special tribute to the Chesapeake Bay Alliance, a group of dedicated men and women who for 25 years have sought to leave this planet just a little bit better than the way we found it. The Alliance has proven that when Americans feel strongly about something--in this case the health of the Chesapeake Bay--all they need to do is work together for the common good. It brings together businesses, citizen groups, industries, farmers, environmentalists, scientists, government leaders, and others, to achieve the mission of restoring and preserving the Chesapeake Bay. Whether it's through their public policy program, which encourages public participation in restoration strategies, their information services program, which helps educate all of us about the Bay, or the watershed restoration program, involving hundreds of volunteers who take a hands-on approach to restoring this unique ecosystem. For 25 years, the Chesapeake Bay Alliance has served as a model of how citizens can work together and make a difference. I hope we can look forward to many more years of their dedicated service.

Mr. GILCHREST

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

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

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I hope the rally is conducted in a way that will make all of us proud. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the issue that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] raised. I would like to extend my concurrence with the gentleman's sense of concern about the process not being followed. I would also like to extend an invitation to work with both of the gentlemen, starting right now, that the process for these kinds of resolutions not be superseded, so that we get the information in a timely fashion and the committee process can fully review some of these reservations and some of these activities. Mr. Speaker, this particular activity was brought to our attention very recently. This particular activity, this prayer rally, is going to happen, I believe, next Monday. So as a result of that, we have been asked to expedite this process. When we were asked to do that, we looked into a number of other activities that were very similar to this activity over the years. There have been numerous prayer rallies on the Capitol Grounds very similar to this particular activity that is occurring next Monday. The only difference is that this activity will go beyond 24 hours. As a result of that extension of time, it is necessary for the permit to go through the Congress, as opposed to the permit just going through the Capitol Police. In the future, however, Mr. Speaker, whenever an extension of time like this is necssary, I would like to work with the gentlemen, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], to make sure the process is not superseded, that we go through the committee process, and all of the concerns the Members have raised here today would be fully aired in this process. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stockman].

Mr. GILCHREST. There will be no fundraising activities involved under this permit.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, no goods will be able to be sold whatsoever on the Capitol grounds.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I respect the concerns of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] about the process, and I will try to address some of those concerns. To specifically answer his question, the rally will not be able to construct any structure that is not permitted under the regulations.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 166; a resolution to authorize the use of the Capitol Grounds for the 1996 prayer rally. The first rally took place in 1980 and drew approximately 750,000 people. The second one in 1988 was somewhat smaller at approximately 500,000 people. Both of these rallies took place on the Mall and were conducted under permits issued by the National Park Service. The Capitol Police Board has notified the organization that because of the extent of the event, Congressional authorization this time is necessary. On April 18, 1996, Congressman Stockman introduced House Concurrent Resolution 166 which would authorize the use of Capitol Grounds for the 1996 prayer rally. Pursuant to the resolution the sponsor, would be authorized to sponsor an event on the Capitol Grounds on April 29, and April 30. This would include 1 day before and 1 day after the event for set up, take down, and clean up. The event would be conducted without any admission charge to the public and would be arranged so as not to interfere with congressional activities. It would be subject to the conditions prescribed by the Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board. The resolution would require the sponsor to assume full responsibility for the expenses and liabilities associated with the event. The resolution would also authorize the sponsor to erect stage, and sound amplification devices, and related structures and equipment required to conduct the rally, subject to the approval of the Architect of the Capitol. The Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board would be authorized to make any additional arrangements necessary to carry out the event in order to protect order, public health, safety, and property. Finally, the resolution states that the resolution does not either directly or indirectly, endorse the sponsor or any related activities or expressions, religious or otherwise. Further, the sponsor may not represent that the resolution or any activity carried out under it constitutes endorsement by the U.S. Government or any of its agencies. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 166) authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for Washington for Jesus 1996 prayer rally.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Con. Res. 166, the concurrent resolution just agreed to.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, in the landmark case of McCulloch versus Maryland, America's first giant judicial situation, 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. 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. Speaker, 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, the gentleman from Georgia is correct about the Superfund situation. I think this Congress has begun the process of resolving the vast differences in that complex piece of legislation so we can have as our priority spending the money on cleanup costs rather than litigation costs. I would like to mention just one thing to the gentleman from Michigan. I know Michigan has assumed the enforcement of the Federal wetlands regulations, and Maryland is about to do the same thing. I would like to make a comment on wetlands, the Endangered Species Act, and these other pieces of environmental legislation which are sometimes very emotionally discussed. In the State of Maryland, as a result of the Chesapeake Bay improving and having clean water, much of that is attributed to wetlands filtering out a good deal of the nitrogen that comes in as a result of farming, or filters out a variety of other pollutants that get into the groundwater and spawning areas for fish, but wetlands is key to the economic boom in Maryland. There is about $2 billion worth of tourism, commercial fishing, recreational fishing, hunting, boating that comes to the State of Maryland as a result of the type of environment we have, so wetlands regulations help us to manage our resources. The Endangered Species Act, which in the State of Maryland is actually stricter than the Federal Endangered Species Act, that might cause some alarm for some people, but for the State of Maryland, it assumes that our rural areas, through certain management tools on the Federal, State, and local level, when we work in a pretty cooperative consulting fashion, ensures that our number one industry, or number one and number two industries in the State of Maryland are fishing, tourism, and agriculture. To save these particular industries, we need to work together and now apart. We do need to recognize the differences in a regional way, but people in Louisiana want clean water, as the people in Maryland want clean water, so it is the consulting process. It is getting involved from all the different levels, including elected officials getting involved in the consulting process. I just want to close with this one point, Mr. Speaker. I read recently a book from a Montana mayor, and I can't remember his name, the mayor of Missoula, Montana, wrote a book about community and place, and how we can reconcile the difference, especially that seem to become political differences. The essence of the book, without going into it, and I recommend the book to people to read, it is called ``Community and the Politics of Place,'' I think that is the name of it. But the essence of the book is, he said that America used to be a frontier. People used to be able to go places if they did not like where they were. if they had religious differences or had any kind of quarrel or wanted to seek adventure, they could go to the frontier that seemed endless. Now America does not really have a frontier. America is filling up with people, and we are a prosperous Nation, so the next frontier will be the frontier that is based on our ability to consult, to cooperate, to use our intellectual skills to manage the limited resources that we have so that they will still exists for future generations. We cannot do that and argue. My son told me a couple of years ago when he was in high school, when he sort of was getting ready to look at the world, he said the world to him seemed like two people in a big truck driving down the highway at 90 miles an hour, and the highway ended at a huge precipice, a 10,000- foot drop, and the people were not only not paying attention to where they were going, they were arguing. So if we are going to be legislators that are going to deal with the problem of the Nation, we have to, together, set the example so we can cooperate here and disseminate that sense of policy to the rest of the country.

Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I wanted to just say a few things. Mr. Speaker, we are here talking about a number of issues, one of which is policy relating to environmental issues. The gentleman from Michigan, the gentleman from Arizona, and the gentleman from Georgia, I think, all discussed the direction that we need to move in. The gentleman from Michigan said we need to protect the environment. There is no one in this room that wants to dirty the air, and I do not think there is anybody in this room that says the water is too clean, and I do not think there is anybody in this room that wants to do away with species that we are able to enjoy in the wild so that in years to come they will become extinct. But there is a way that we can go about doing this in a fundamental manner that will bring more people into the process, and in the long run and in the short run, I believe, we will be more successful. A hundred years from now, and I am sure that there are people out there listening, Mr. Speaker, that knew people that were alive in 1896. And we will know people that will know people in 2096. I am not sure any of us will know people that are alive in 2096, but our great grandchildren, perhaps our grandchildren, will know people that will be alive in the year 2096. So a hundred-year time span is not very long. And for us to protect the resources that we have right now, I think, is crucially important so that future generations will be able to enjoy the blessings that we have inherited. Now in order to do that I do not think you can do that from a centralized authority like the Federal Government. We have been accumulating more and more responsibility with the States and the local governments and even private citizens. So, we create environmental legislation which is important for a lot of reasons. For example, about 40 percent of the pollution problem in the Chesapeake Bay, where I come from, the Chesapeake Bay watershed; I live on the eastern shore of Maryland; about 40 percent of the problem in the Chesapeake Bay is air deposition. That means air pollution, and there is very little you can do about that, and about 60 percent of that air pollution which pollutes the Chesapeake Bay from the air is from automobiles. We are increasing the number of cars every year; we are increasing the number of people that live in the watershed every year. So we have to begin to find solutions to problems that are difficult to solve because very often, if not always, the problems are as a result of increased population. The way to do that, I think, is to begin cooperating and consulting with these environmental pieces of legislation, with the State government, with the local government and private citizens developing policies that can actually work. Future generations will not care who cleaned up the pollution, or even who polluted. The fact is they are going to live with what we do. One other comment about clean air and clean water. Very often the Republicans are tagged with causing gridlock in Washington, with causing partisan politics in Washington, especially when it relates to environmental issues. I would just like to send this message, and that is gridlock. Arguments in Washington are not bad. You do not see the North Koreans arguing. You do not see gridlock in Cuba. What you see here in Washington is an argument about the best way that America should move forward. These arguments are actually bringing out more information. In fact, I would say that the people with the most credibility in Washington right now are not the ones with long years behind them. They are not the powerful committee chairmen that might have been elected in the 1950's. We do not have that anymore. Mr. Speaker, the people with the most power in Washington right now are the ones with credibility, and people with credibility are people with information. If we can begin to share information from Member to Member and develop legislation so that we can share responsibility, cooperate with the States, have consultations to do the best that we can with environmental legislation, then I think we are going to move forward to protect the environment.

Mr. GILCHREST

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

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] for his work on this resolution, for his work on the subcommittee. We have a truly bipartisan subcommittee that endeavors to do the work of the Nation, no matter how corny that might sound. Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my opening statement, there will be over 15,000 police officers attending this memorial service. It is in dedication to the quiet courage of those law enforcement officers that have dedicated their lives to this great country. In that endeavor we pass this resolution.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, House Concurrent Resolution 147 would authorize the use of the Capitol Grounds for the 15th Annual Peace Officers' Memorial Service to be held on May 15, 1996. This year, as in past years, the U.S. Capitol Police will be the sponsoring law enforcement agency for this event. During the past year, 155 peace officers have lost their lives in the line of duty. This figure includes many of the dedicated Federal employees who lost their lives in the tragic bombing in Oklahoma City last April. This year, it is expected that over 2,000 friends and family members of those who lost their lives last year will attend this event, and 15,000 peace officers will also participate. This is a worthwhile endeavor, and I urge my colleagues to support this measure. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 147) authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the 15th annual National Peace Officers' Memorial Service.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, House Concurrent Resolution 146 would authorize the Special Olympics torch to be run on the Capitol Grounds on May 24, 1996, as part of the journey of this torch to the Special Olympics summer games at Gallaudet University here in the District of Columbia. This is an annual event and one which this committee has supported several times through resolutions authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for this purpose. This year approximately 3,000 members of 60 local and Federal law enforcement agencies throughout the region will participate in this 26-mile relay run through the city in support of the Special Olympics. This program gives handicapped children and adults the opportunity to participate in sporting events. Because of laws prohibiting open flames on Capitol Grounds, and because of safety concerns about activities taking place thereon, this resolution is necessary to permit the relay to occur. The resolution authorizes the Capitol Police Board to take necessary action to insure the safety of the Capitol, and the Architect of the Capitol may set forth conditions on the participation of this event. This is a very worthwhile endeavor and I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this measure. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.