Wayne Gilchrest

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 308) to provide for the conveyance of certain lands and improvements in Hopewell Township, PA, to a [[Page H 13949]] nonprofit organization known as the Beaver County Corporation for Economic Development to provide a site for economic development.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I, too, urge an ``aye'' vote on this bill and would like to echo the sentiments of my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant], to restate that Mr. Mazzoli, a Member of Congress, epitomizes what all of us would seek to be like, an honorable man, a just man, and without a doubt a good friend. I urge support for the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], a colleague of Mr. Mazzoli.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 965, a bill which designates the Federal building located in Louisville, KY, as the ``Romano L. Mazzoli Federal Building.'' Romano L. Mazzoli was born and raised in Louisville, KY. After graduating from the University of Notre Dame, he served in the Army for 2 years before returning to attend law school at the University of Louisville. Ron was admitted to the Kentucky bar in 1960, and began practicing law in Louisville. In 1967, he began his career in public service by being elected to the Kentucky Senate, where he served from 1968 to 1970. In 1970, he was elected to join the House of Representatives, and the people of Kentucky's 3d Congressional District returned him to Washington in 11 subsequent elections, where he served from 1970 to his retirement in 1994. Mr. Mazzoli may be best remembered for his tireless efforts on immigration issues. He was also an active voice on issues concerning campaign finance reform, smoking in public places, and cigarette advertising. Romano Mazzoli built a strong reputation as one of the most dedicated ethical and courageous Members ever to serve in Congress. Naming this Federal Building in his honor would be a fitting tribute to this distinguished former Member of Congress. I urge all Members to support this bill. 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. 965) to designate the Federal building located at 1600 Martin Luther King, Jr., Place in Louisville, KY, as the ``Romano L. Mazzoli Federal Building.''

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1804, a bill to designate the United States Post Office--Courthouse located in Fort Smith, AR, as the ``Judge Isaac C. Parker Federal Building.'' Judge Parker is a legendary figure in Arkansas, and his fame extends to the surrounding States as well. He was a soldier, a lawyer, a member of Congress, and a judge. In 1875 after his retirement from Congress, President Ulysses Grant appointed him Chief Justice of the Utah Territory. However, at the President's request, he resigned to accept appointment to the United States Court for the Western District of Arkansas. The Western District Court had fallen into disrepute due to the actions of Judge Parker's predecessor, Judge William Story. Under the threat of impeachment, Judge Story had departed. The jurisdiction of the court covered the western half of Arkansas and what is now the entire State of Oklahoma. Judge Parker dedicated himself to reestablishing the court as a power in the land. During his service the court disposed of a grand total of 13,500 cases, of which 12,000 were criminal. Of the 12,000 criminal charges, 8,600 resulted in criminal convictions, either by jury trials or guilty pleas. Judge Parker is best known for his reputation and nickname as the ``hanging judge.'' Reportedly, he sentenced more men to the gallows than any other jurist in United States history. This reputation is particularly interesting in light of reports that he did not believe in capital punishment. But he did believe in the law, and is quoted as saying ``I've never hanged a man, it is the law that has done it.'' Judge Parker died in November 1896. Perhaps nothing illustrates more vividly the legacy of Judge Parker than the request of the citizens of Fort Smith, almost 100 years later, to name the Federal building in their city in his honor. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], the distinguished ranking member.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson].

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like again to echo the sentiments of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] that we recognize a man such as Judge Parker who did blaze a trail in the early years of this country to establish justice and law. I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson], for being extremely relentless and persistent, consistently, to get this bill pushed through the House. I thank him for all of his efforts. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this bill. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1804) to designate the United States Post Office-Courthouse located at South 6th and Rogers Avenue, Fort Smith, AR, as the ``Judge Isaac C. Parker Federal Building''.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 255, a bill to designate the Federal justice building in Miami, FL, as the James Lawrence King Federal Justice Building. Judge King is an esteemed and respected U.S. district judge who advocated improved judicial administration, and devoted countless hours to the improvement of our justice system. Among his many accomplishments, Judge King served as 1 of 23 members of the Judicial Conference of the United States. He was the Chairman of the Conferences' Implementation Committee on Admission of Attorneys to Federal Practice and was a member of the Judicial Ethics Committee. In addition to his tenure as chief judge for the U.S. district court of Florida, Judge King served as chief U.S. district judge for the Panama Canal Zone and as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals, compiling over 200 published opinions. Judge King was instrumental in promoting the construction of the new Federal justice building. I urge all Members to support the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 869, as amended, a bill to designate the Federal Building and Courthouse located in Youngstown, OH, as the ``Thomas D. Lambros Federal Building and United States Courthouse.'' Judge Lambros was born and raised in Ashtabula, OH. He attended Fairmont State College in Fairmont, WV and received his law degree from Cleveland Marshall law School in 1952. Prior to his career as a judge, he served in the U.S. Army from 1954 to 1956. In 1960, Judge Lambros began his career in public service with his election to the Court of Common Pleas in Ashtabula County. In light of Judge Lambros' excellent reputation as a fair and dedicated jurist, President Lyndon B. Johnson nominated him in 1967 to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. As a district court judge, Judge Lambros was responsible for several important legal reforms such as the voluntary public defender program, which provided indigent criminal defendants with free counsel. This reform eventually became law in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision of Gideon versus Wainwright. Judge Lambros became Chief Judge of the Northern District of Ohio in 1990, and officially resigned from this position in February 1995. Judge Lambros also received numerous honors and awards throughout his career including the Cross of Paideia presented by the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America, and an honorary doctorate of law from Capital University Law and Graduate Center. It is a fitting tribute to name this building after Judge Lambros because he played such an instrumental role in its construction. Prior to the opening of the U.S. courthouse in Youngstown, citizens had to travel at least 65 miles to Cleveland to seek justice in the Federal court system. Judge Lambros recognized the hardship this imposed on many people, especially senior citizens and the indigent. I strongly urge all Members to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, my last comments would be to echo those of my colleagues who addressed Mr. Jones, Chairman Jones, Congressman Jones as a fine man, one who fought throughout the course of his career and his life for justice, for tolerance, for freedom, for fairness, for liberty. And it is quite obvious here this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, that he was also a very fine father, because he raised a fine son who is now a Member of this Chamber. On behalf of the present gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Jones], I urge my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on this bill. Mr. Speaker, 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 H.R. 308, H.R. 255, H.R. 395, H.R. 653, H.R. 840, H.R. 869, H.R. 965, and H.R. 1804, the bills just considered.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the Hefley resolution. Does the United States have a responsibility in the international arena? The answer is yes. Does the United States have a role to play, a significant role to play in the Bosnia crisis? The answer is yes. Do the warring parties in Bosnia have a responsibility to come to a peaceful resolution? The answer is yes. Can and should the United States with NATO forces bring to an abrupt end the butchery that we have witnessed over the past so many years? Should we support the peace process? We must. But consider, was Congress fully informed of the consequences of the Tonkin Gulf resolution in 1964, of Somalia, of Haiti, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera? Should we commit troops before we are fully informed? The answer is no. I urge support of the rule.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, if I understand this correctly, there are three schools of thought driving the gift ban. The first is that some believe Members of Congress regularly, or even occasionally, sell their vote for a dinner or a golf game. If anyone seriously believes this, instead of bringing a bill to the floor, they should bring a complaint to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. I do not think anyone who knows this institution or its Members could believe that this is the case. The second theory maintains that the problem is not reality; the problem is perception. They think that the people believe that we are easily bribed and we need to prohibit these bribes in order to placate the populace. In other words, they say that on a day when the Government is shut down over budget problems and we are on the brink of entering a conflict in Bosnia, the American people want us to go through this self-flagellation to restore the appearance of integrity. I am not sure that is what we ought to be spending our time on. The third school of thought maintains that our constituents will re- elect us as long as we make a grand show of how terrible this institution or its Members are. If we make it clear to everyone that we are trying to clean this place up and that we are trying to somehow play the integrity guardian of this place, then they will never consider us politicians. Mr. Speaker, in the Bible it says that hypocrites stand on the street corner and pray out loud. Well, I think we ought to restore the confidence of the public by doing the public good. Mr. Speaker, I do not go to dinner with lobbyists. I have no interest in gifts. I do not play golf. I do not like to travel. More importantly, I do not take any PAC money. I do not take any money outside the district. I find it ridiculous that the suggestion here is that if Members take a $25 dinner from a lobbyist, they might be bribed, but if they accept $5,000 from a PAC, they will not be bribed. The only gift, for example, that would interest me right now is that we get our work done, and we can all go home. But, Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this legislation.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the good-faith effort by the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Whitfield], who is offering his amendment; but I think what we see here is a very fundamental difference in philosophy. What is the government's role in the private sector and in the economy? In our judgment, I guess we could say the government's role is to create an environment that is conductive for economic productivity in the private sector. It is not to unduly or unfairly interfere in that particular area but to create an environment where jobs can prosper. Mr. Chairman, this is not a race to the bottom of the ladder. If we look at a free market economy we need to do whatever we can to make a free market thrive. What does a thriving free market do? It encourages hard work. It encourages enthusiasm. It encourages the initiative of individuals to have a sense of curiosity, to go out and create jobs. It encourages a free market economy and encourages cooperation. It encourages cooperation between the workers and management. In this particular bill, we are creating an environment that will create jobs. We are creating an environment that will preserve jobs. We are encouraging collective bargaining. We are not doing away with collective bargaining. We want laborers' rights to continue in collective bargaining. I have heard through phone calls into my office that we are eliminating retirement for Class I railroads. We are not, but I have heard that kind of discussion. Mr. Chairman, in my geographic area of the mid-Atlantic States in Maryland, our area is conductive for small rail lines. Many industries moved to the State of Maryland, especially to the eastern shore, because there are small railroads there that can take their produce to the Port of Baltimore or bring it from the Port of Baltimore to other areas of Maryland. In my area of Maryland, small rail lines bring grain products to another area of our agricultural region to farmers that grow livestock. So small rail lines are the life's blood of our particular region. This is or should be a bipartisan effort, and we should have support from both sides of the aisle. There are environmental regulations that are still intact. There are safety regulations that are still intact. People can continue to bargain in a cooperative, collective fashion. Mr. Chairman, how do we ensure protection for workers? We ensure that there are jobs for those workers. I again rise reluctantly to oppose the gentleman's amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to vote down this amendment and vote for the bill.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me time. I want to make a comment, Mr. Speaker, on the gentleman from Texas. I think he made the argument for a yes vote on the previous question because he is dealing with these issues in a committee. There is a tremendous amount of confusion, really, if we think about it, on both sides of the aisle, among most of the Members, as to exactly what does the repeal of the enforcement provisions for these 17 riders do. What exactly happens if we zero out enforcement. Well, we do not all exactly know. We have fears and we have reservations. There is ambiguity here and there is certainly confusion here. So I think the most intelligent thing to do as a result of that confusion is vote yes on the previous question, let us move forward with these hearings so that we have some understanding about what is going on. What we are virtually doing here is changing the Clean Water Act. We are. Do we want to do that without hearings? We are virtually changing the Clean Water Act and do we want to do that without hearings? I do not think so. Vote yes on the previous question.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, all those who are listening in the House Chamber this morning, and if there are any people over the age of 65 listening on their televisions at home, the vote that we will take today will not take any benefits to Medicare away. The existing program of Medicare, if it is not reformed, is not sustainable. We are going to take a vote that will reform Medicare in a manner that, if any senior citizen wants to keep the existing program the way it is, they can choose to do so. If any senior citizen wants to choose another form of health care or another health care carrier, the amount of money that they put in and the Federal Government puts into their Medicare Program as an individual can be transferred to that contracting health care carrier. The point is we are going to make Medicare better for senior citizens.

Mr. GILCHREST

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

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, as children, many of us heard the story of the goose that laid the golden egg and the folly of the man who killed the goose to eat it. The same principle applies to marine fisheries. Every year, each fishery provides us with a harvest of fish for our consumption and recreation. But each species must maintain a certain population in order to reproduce and maintain the stock, and if we overfish the stock, we impair the ability of the resource to renew itself. The collapse of the New England fishery is an example of what happens when we exceed the maximum sustainable yield of a fishery. They deep fry the goose that laid the golden egg. Our constituents have had to pay millions of dollars to bail out fishermen who lost their livelihood as a result of the failure to manage the resource. Current law allows fishery management councils to allow a stock to be overfished for short-term social or economic reasons. This was one of the main contributors to the collapse of the New England ground fishery. The bill before us, while good in many ways, does not change the tragic flaw in the Magnuson Act, leaving open the possibility other fisheries will collapse in the future, requiring more bailouts. The principle is simple: In order for a fish stock to replenish itself, a certain base population must be maintained, and in order to maintain that population, a cap must be placed on the number of fish which can be caught. This limit is called the maximum sustainable yield for the fishery. The way this works is similar to principal and interest in a savings account. As long as we only spend the interest in our savings account, the principal will perpetually replace that interest for us. If we spend down the principal investment, then we impede our ability to get future investment and future interest. The amendment essentially says we can only catch that portion of the fish that represents interest. This is called the maximum sustainable yield. Without touching the principal, fish, that being the critical population necessary to replenish the stock year after year, we will continue to have fish. I should emphasize this is not a new concept. We have been calculating maximum sustainable yield for fisheries for many years. The unfortunate fact, however, is that many fishery management councils simply choose to exceed MSY to serve short-term economic interests. I realize most people believe this is an environmental amendment, and I agree to a certain extent it is. Even if overfishing had no environmental impact at all, economics would still argue for this amendment. Overfishing leads to unemployment, shortages of certain seafood and, in many cases, taxpayer bailouts for fishermen who lose their jobs because there is no more fish. You do not have to care about the environment to oppose mismanagement of a publicly owned resource. Some opponents of this amendment will claim that it will prevent fishery management councils from allowing overfishing of so-called trash fish that threaten populations of commercial fish. This argument is its own species of trash fish, and that is, it is a red herring. It is true two fisheries have called for fishing down two species, the arrowtooth flounder and Atlantic mackerel. Both of these species could be fished at several times their current rate without violating the provisions of this amendment. This amendment will not prevent fisheries from reducing populations of trash fish which threaten commercial fish populations. We have two choices here: We can manage and preserve the resource, or we can exploit the resource and lose it. I want to call your attention, if the camera can just look at this so people can see this back in their offices, take a look at this chart. In 1900, the number of fishermen compared to the number of fish. Now, 1995, look at the number of fish compared to the number of fishermen, and include the following, there are sonar finders on each one of these ships, there is hydraulic gear, spotter planes, there is onboard processing equipment, there are satellite communications systems. We went in 1900 from this to 1995 to this. There has to be some sense of a management tool to preserve the stock so we can preserve the fisheries. Now, there is a bright spot in all of this. There is a bright spot. In the mid-Atlantic region, striped bass or rockfish in 1985 was commercially extinct. When we injected some reasoned management in this to prevent overfishing, 1995, with some sense in the management, the rockfish, striped bass, are fully recovered. This would not have happened if we did not inject some science to prevent overfishing. If we want to preserve the fishing industry, I encourage you to adopt my amendment.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. GILCHREST. If the gentleman will yield further, considering that we have sonar finders, hydraulic gear, spotter planes, onboard processing equipment, satellite communications systems, considering all of this out here now, taking fewer fish with more fishermen, should there not be some emphasis, and that is what this amendment does, it places emphasis on the discretion of the management councils, which I do not think have done that up to this point.