Wayne Gilchrest

Mr. GILCHREST

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

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume in order to thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton] for their participation in this worthy event, and for this worthy resolution.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 146) authorizing the 1996 Special Olympics Torch Relay to be run through the Capitol Grounds.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Here is the American values and the Constitution, which allows for diversity of opinion. The difference between these two weapons, this has a collapsible stock. It can be hidden in a small big, easier to walk into McDonald's or a bank; it provides also a pistol grip which makes it a lot easier to hold the weapon down while shooting it fast, and an extended magazine gives you a much larger capacity for bullets, which means if you walk into McDonald's or some other place, if you have some crazy nut, he is going to be able to kill more people with this gun than with this gun.

Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, a little earlier a gentleman on the other side of the aisle made mention of an automobile not being banned because people are killed, but the automobiles do have standards set upon them to help prevent that: Brakes, seat belts, frame structure, a whole range of other things. Also an earlier speaker on this side of the aisle talks about American values when talking about this issue, and I would say massive accumulation of high-tech weapons is not about American values. At the time the Constitution was ratified, the only two choices of weapons you had was a smooth bore musket or a musket with rifling, not Uzi's, TEC-9's and a whole range of other things which, even though they are semiautomatic, you can get off about 100 to 120 rounds a minute and maybe even more. The Constitution protects people's rights right now to hunt, target shoot, defend themselves, or collect. The bill we passed a couple of years ago defends that right and statutorily protects 650 weapons that you can choose from. The American values and the Constitution allows for diversity of opinion, and it is my opinion that we should not repeal the assault weapons manufacturing ban.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment of my good friend from California [Mr. Pombo] to create a new guest worker program. At a time when our focus is on reducing immigration levels, the Pombo amendment attempts to allow an additional 250,000 nonskilled temporary workers to help the agricultural industry because they feel there will not be a sufficient work force once this legislation becomes law. We know that there is currently a surplus of agricultural workers in this country. We know that half of the illegal aliens currently working in this country remain here past their visa time. We know that the work force has helped to drive down the wages to agricultural workers to the point where most low-skilled U.S. citizens simply cannot afford to take these jobs. Knowing this, do we fix these problems by creating another program out of fear of what could happen? Or do we reform our current H-2A program to create a compromise solution while continuing to address a problem that actually has happened? The problem is that our immigration system is broken. Our agricultural workers' wages are down because the system is broken. The last thing we should do now is bring in more temporary agricultural workers who will not want to leave. We do not want to create more problems for farmers with the INS. I think the Pombo amendment will do that. We do not want to create more problems for our farmers with legal aid. We do not want more conflict with the local job market. Local people in your community will not be hired if there is a flood of foreign workers who wages may sound high, but far too often the foreman, the person in charge of bringing in these workers, often takes much of that money away from the workers. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Pombo amendment and an ``aye'' vote on the Goodlatte amendment.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me time, and I thank the gentleman from Kansas for allowing the opportunity to discuss an issue such as conservation. The previous speaker spoke about an important issue, and that is balancing the budget. He spoke about an important issue in not frivolously spending the taxpayers' dollars in a wasteful manner. We must balance the Federal budget. But in so doing, I think we have to remember that we have to reduce some of the problems that are causing Federal spending to go spiralling out of sight. If we are dealing with the area of agriculture, how do we save money? We reduce soil erosion, we prevent ground water from becoming contaminated, we reduce the necessity of spending Federal dollars on flooding. How do you do all these things in one particular area in the scheme of things? If we are dealing with agriculture, we need to spend taxpayer money wisely, we need to spend Federal dollars wisely, to reduce the overall mismanagement of things. So if we can have conservation programs that protect things such as wetlands, which, by the way, are now relatively easily identified and farmers wanted to participate in that so they can encourage the fact that soil will not be eroded anymore, ground water will be clean, we will have areas that will not be flooded anymore, we have areas where fish can spawn, and they want to participate in the best management practices for farming, then we are going to work as a team. It is going to work. Mr. Chairman, I encourage an aye vote on this amendment.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment from the gentleman from New York to reauthorize conservation programs. I believe it is a first good step toward having a comprehensive and incentive-oriented agricultural conservation policy. And as we work with the other body in conference, it is my hope to strengthen this section even more, as the conservation title amendment approved by the other body has strong bipartisan support among farmers, rural communities, sportsmen, and conservationists across the country, and a wide array of organizations such as the Farm Bureau, Sierra Club, and National Rifle Association. The amendment before us today has similar support. In particular, reauthorizing the Wetlands Reserve Program and the Conservation Reserve Program is important to assure that voluntary, incentive-based options are available to farmers. These programs have been highly effective in controlling erosion, improving water quality, and enhancing wildlife habitat. More farmers apply to these programs than can be now accommodated. This amendment begins to address this demand of farmers for voluntary options. For example, under the amendment, the Conservation Reserve Program would preserve new acres on land that should not be in internsive crop production because of poor soil conditions, proximity to water bodies, or importance as priority wildlife habitat. The Wetlands Reserve Program is a win for farmers and a win for fish and wildlife resources. Currently, landowners may voluntarily agree to sell conservation easements permanently or for 30 years. When a farmer decides to no longer crop a previously farmed wetland, WRP helps the farmer restore the wetland. These restored wetlands have proved critical for migration, wintering, and nesting habitat for waterfowl in the Midwest and West. In Maryland, WRP contributes to our efforts to clean up and restore the Chesapeake Bay. Maryland farmers have enthusiastically embraced the WRP and want the program expanded beyond the 975,000 acres allowed in this amendment. Under the amendment, the Wetlands Reserve Program [WRP] is reformed to give farmers more options. The amendment improves the Wetlands Reserve Program by allowing farmers to obtains cost share payments to restore wetlands, as well as enter a voluntary 30 years contracts with the Government to preserve wetlands, or obtain permanent easements on their land. These options are a clear improvement over the original bill, and I look forward to continuing to work with the gentleman from New York and the chairman of the Agriculture Committee to further improve this section to assure that those farmers who now have contracts in place can continue to participate and to apply for cost share funds. Furthermore, the amendment includes a consolidation of current conservation programs into an environmental quality incentive program [EQUIP], which would provide flexibility and new options to poultry, livestock, and dairy farmers. Under EQUIP, small and medium-sized producers would obtain cost-share payments to put in animal waste management structures, grass waterways, and other practices. EQUIP would prevent manure and contaminants from entering water bodies. I also look forward to working with the gentleman from New York and the chairman of the Agriculture Committee--and the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr] and the gentlelady from Maryland [Mrs. Morella]-- to reform and strengthen the farms for the future program. Maryland is the Nation's leader in preserving agricultural land through a voluntary easement program, with more than 100,000 acres preserved. Many farmers nationwide with the best soil for agricultural production face intense pressure from urbanization. The other body's conservation title includes this needed reform, recognizing that many States and localities actually pay farmers who voluntarily wish to remain in farming. The farms for the future provision updates Federal conservation policy, and I hope it will be included when the conference report comes before the House. In closing, Mr. Chairman, the conservation title is profarmer and proenvironment and will benefit taxpayers, farmers, and rural communities. It includes meaningful solutions to the problem of agricultural runoff pollution, and will aid farmers in addressing water quality problems. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. First of all, I drink my coffee black, so I am a perfect neutral party for this particular discussion. We have heard a great deal of debate on the House floor about whether this helps or hurts the American consumer, helps or hurts the American farmer, and also where trade fits in here, and if my colleagues will just pay attention to the issue of trade for one item, the Miller amendment ensures through existing laws that foreign subsidized sugar will not hurt American producers. We have existing laws to protect those tariffs. No. 2, the government-subsidized loans, which is what we are talking about here, have been bad for consumers, bad for those jobs in the refining industry, and bad for family farmers. Mr. Chairman, the Miller-Schumer-Kingston amendment offers the only real reform in this good bill called the Freedom to Farm Act so that we can let market forces in this country decide what is best for the consumers. I urge a vote for the Miller-Schumer-Kingston bill. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr].

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference agreement, and I request permission to revise and extend my remarks. Mr. Speaker, unless I miss my guess, the bill before us will probably be the most historically important piece of legislation this Congress will consider. The telecommunications industry is growing rapidly in size and significance, primarily because telecommunication is about information and information is the future. The law currently governing telecommunications, the Communications Act of 1934, was written for the era of radio, and while it has been amended several times since, it still maintains an outdated regulatory structure designed for an era where sources of information were scarce. But technology has blurred the lines among telephone, television, computer, and newspaper, to the point where all three can potentially be the same thing. And with the advent of the information age, we need to recognize the need for competition among information media so that the free marketplace of ideas can be communicated through a free marketplace of information outlets. This bill seeks to exploit the market's ability to maximize quality, maximize consumer choice, and minimize prices. Mr. Speaker, I supported the Contract With America. But years after the the contract is a footnote in history, the significance of this law will still be obvious, for this is Congress' most important step ever toward embracing the information era. And through this legislation, we embrace it with the freedom and efficiency that only the free market can provide. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. GILCHREST

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

Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I know there is some concern. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] and I sat through the hearings. We sat through both markups. I know there are some reservations about the cost of marketing. That is still limited at $75,000. There is some concern about the profitability of this sale. With new estimates, I give the gentleman assurances that when this building is sold there is going to be a profit to the Federal Government, there is going to be a $300,000 savings on annual maintenance to the Government, and you can be firmly assured that the day care center will be retained.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution. Mr. Speaker, we have all heard the awesome crash when an irresistible force hits an immovable object. Maybe in the last week we have gotten some insight into that particular explosion. We have seen the crash between a 30-year culture of deficit spending and the resolve of a nation to have some sense of fiscal responsibility. To my great regret, we have seen Federal employees and others squeezed between the forces of the past and those of a frugal future. For those of us who support a balanced budget, perhaps we were naive to think that the tradition of deficits would die quietly and easily, but today we have to govern. We have to recognize that the White House in all likelihood will probably not come to the table with a balanced budget any time soon, and we must put the Federal employees back to work. As George Will has pointed out, Britain's parliamentary system does not lend itself to train wrecks; we do not see this kind of showdown in Cuba; but the Founding Fathers vested Congress and this particular House with the power of the purse and the power of debate. The President, our Founding Fathers gave, apparently, which seems obvious now, the power to be an obstructionist. Unlike previous Congresses who chose to blame the President with the fiscal deficit, we have accepted the responsibility and the people have given us this idea to balance the budget. It is a superior idea, for today we will end the shutdown as prudent government requires, but the fight for a balanced budget will not stop here and it will ultimately succeed. As has been pointed out before, history knows no force more powerful than an idea, and the idea to balance the Federal budget; its time has come. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this resolution.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] for yielding this time to me. I would like to respond to the last couple of speakers. One a couple a speakers ago said Republicans do not get it. I would hope that we, and, as my colleagues know, this place is inherently political, so we are going to talk about politics here, and politics enters into the veins of what goes on in this House, but I do not see this Interior bill as a political issue. I see this Interior bill as an issue to get the Nation back to work, to open up the Park Service, to talk about legitimate policy differences, and it is my understanding that basically we worked out the policy differences before the bill left the House floor. There was a great deal of discussion on this for a period of many weeks, so I think we solved those problems, and, as a representative of the State of Maryland, I think the Interior bill is not a perfect bill, it is not an excellent bill. It is a moderate approach to solve the problems of the Federal lands, and I think it should be voted on, and I think we should override the Presidential veto. On a couple of the policy differences, restricting our natural resources with this bill I do not think is correct. I think this bill goes a long way in enhancing the policies to improve the natural resources of the United States. It is not perfect, but there is no utopia. Let us move in the right direction. This did not take a huge step in the right direction, but it did take a couple of steps in the right direction. We continue to work on this to promote technology for conservation. I think we have shifted in the right direction. One of the things this country can do, this Government can do, to enhance conservation is to enhance the environment conducive in the private sector to look for the technology to do that. We cannot do everything here in Government. Native Americans. We increased the amount of money from what the President wanted. Now, if we look at native Americans and we look at reservations today, I think we are improving the quality of life for native Americans. I want to say something quick about Tongass. The President did not like the fact that there could not be legal challenges. We changed that. We moderated that. The President did not like the fact that we were not going to protect goshawks, we did not have conservation areas. We changed that. We now have those changes. There is a lot of discussion about how is there going to be clear- cutting. There is nothing in the bill that states there is going to be clear-cutting, and the Forest Service manages the way the trees are going to be cut, and I trust this Interior Department so that there will not be clear-cutting. I think we ought to override the President's veto.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, if there is anybody in the Chamber who was born in 1946, they are now the quintessential baby boomer. They are 50. That means in 15 years or a little bit less or a little bit more, they are going to retire. If we do not reform what we are doing now, if we do not reform Medicare, there is going to be no health care for those retirees. Mr. Speaker, if we do not reform Social Security, there is going to be no Social Security for those retirees. If we do not do something about the debt, which is about $5 trillion, there will be no economic structure for the baby boomers' children to operate under. It is time for us to deal with this debt, with this budget. We want to put the Federal workers back to work. We want the President to sign the bills, which he can today, to put these people back to work. We need to get rid of the politics, shift the focus back to the budget and some of this Nation's problems.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2415) to designate the U.S. Customs Administrative Building at the Ysleta/Zaragosa Port of Entry located at 797 South Ysleta in El Paso, TX, as the ``Timothy C. McCaghren Customs Administrative Building,'' as amended.

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, David J. Wheeler was a forest service employee murdered in the line of duty while inspecting a bridge at a guard station about 20 miles north of Wiser, ID. This tragedy occurred at the hands of inmates who had escaped. Mr. Wheeler was a model citizen of Baker City and was active in civil and religious affairs. He leaves behind a wife and two children. At the time of his death he was 50 years old. The town of Baker City is a small community and is tight knit in its community relations. It is fitting to name this Federal building in Mr. Wheeler's honor. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2061) to designate the Federal building located at 1550 Dewey Avenue, Baker City, OR, as the ``David J. Wheeler Federal Building.''

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. I want to reiterate what the gentleman from Ohio has said. We worked together on this. it is an opportunity that should not be passed up. 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, Judge Rosenn is a life long resident of the Wilkes- Barre, PA area. He was a gifted student who graduated from college at age 19 and received his law degree at the age of 22. He commenced his law practice in Wilkes-Barre. He was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in 1972. Judge Rosenn has had a long and distinguished career in public service. He was chairman of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, chairman of the Governors Council for Human Services, and former member of the Pennsylvania State Council on Civil Defense. Judge Rosenn is a veteran of World War II where he served in the South Pacific. He is active in civil, religious, fraternal, and business affairs. It is a fitting tribute that we pass this bill in his honor and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1718) to designate the U.S. courthouse located at 197 South Main Street in Wilkes-Barre, PA, as the ``Max Rosenn United States Courthouse.''

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. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on S. 965.