Wayne Gilchrest

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the gentleman for his statement. One quick comment to the gentleman from Wisconsin: When we had the hearings on the Appalachian Regional Commission, I asked for a plan; what are we going to need to stop funding this type of program for Appalachia to come up with the rest of the country, and they have gotten to work on finding a way so that within the next 4 or 5 years this particular program will not be needed. It is a different region. The funds are necessary to complete the task. There is a plan to do that. I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment.

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

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in opposition to my good friend from Wisconsin, but I would like to make a couple of quick points. We all know that for every dollar that the U.S. Government spends, we do not often get that money back, but if we look at a program like the Appalachian Regional Commission, and when we spend a dollar on this particular program, very often we get at least $5 back into the Federal Treasury as a result of the infrastructure created that attracts new jobs. So I think as a program, it is powerfully positive for a region that is deserving and needs it. The other comment is, what is the difference between the Appalachian region and some other areas of the country? My district is not in the Appalachian region. We do not have any mountains. We are not isolated. So we get no money from ARC in the first district of Maryland. If you go to places like my good friend from Kentucky has described, and other regions of Appalachia, places like Turkey Fork, Stinking Creek, or Hell for Certain, these places are so mountainous the rivers and creeks and streams barely have room to meander through them. What did we do with the interstate highway plan when we created that in the 1950's? We did not go through the Appalachian region, because it was too mountainous. We have decided to do that for a couple of decades with the ARC, and the highway program that can bring jobs to that community is 75 percent complete. Let us hold onto this for just a few more years. The poverty rate is down. Infant mortality rate is down. This is a good program. It is the type of program that we want the Federal Government to be involved in. If you are fiscally conservative and you are sensitive to the needs of people, you will vote for the ARC.

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

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

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, as the House moves closer to a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning, I am reminded strangely enough of the book of Exodus. When the Israelites were given the Ten Commandments, they were warned against graven images as symbols of God. The wisdom of this is obvious. It is easy to confuse the symbol of something with what that symbol represents, and what that symbol symbolizes, so one worships the statue instead of what the statue represents. Mr. Speaker, the House is about to make a similar mistake, confusing the flag with what it symbolizes. I remember when I came home from Vietnam, after spending 4 years in the Marine Corps, I read about incidents where students were insulting servicemen and waving North Vietnamese flags instead of American flags, and I started to think ``Is this what I and members of my platoon were fighting and dying for?'' It took a few years for me to realize that the right to be obnoxious, the right to be unpatriotic, was the essence of what we are fighting for. Freedom means the freedom to be stupid, just as surely as it means the freedom to be wise. No government should ever be so powerful as to differentiate between the two. I understand the anger and the frustration of people when they hear about malcontents who burn the flag, and most of the time they do that to get attention. I was raised to respect the flag, and I cannot understand anybody that would do otherwise. However, if these malcontents can get us to alter the Constitution, the very premise and foundation of this country, then they have won and we have lost. I read about a southern State legislator who said that nothing is more stupid than burning the flag and wrapping oneself in the Constitution, except burning the Constitution and wrapping oneself in the flag. When we accept the principle of free speech, we have to recognize that it is both a blessing and a curse. We have to understand that the reasoned voices of good men will often be drowned out by the blustering of fools. We have to understand that the government will not be able to protect us from speech which is imprudent or offensive, in most cases, and we accept all of this as the price of freedom. The work of Betsy Ross is beautiful. The flag is an honored symbol which deserves reverence and respect. However, it is meaningless without the work of Jefferson and Madison. How do we protect and show respect for the flag? We are good family members, we are good fathers, good mothers, we serve our country, we serve our community, we serve our Nation, and we serve our family.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 38) authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, this resolution authorizes the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby races to be run on the Capitol Grounds on July 15, 1995, or on such other date as the Speaker of the House and President pro tempore of the Senate so designate. This free event is sponsored by the All American Soap Box Derby and its local affiliate, the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby Association. Its participants are young girls and boys from 9 to 16 years old who reside in the Greater Washington metropolitan area. Pursuant to this resolution the association would assume full responsibility for any expenses involved with the event and for any liability related to it. The association also agrees to make any necessary arrangements for the races with the approval of the Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board. For 50 years the Soap Box Derby races have taken place in Washington, D.C., and this will be the fifth time that the Capitol Grounds will be used for the races down Constitution Avenue. Every year this event helps teach participating youngsters the basics of mechanics and aerodynamics as they design and build their race cars. It is truly an exciting event for the entire family. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution so that this activity may take place.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay]. But I would like to speak for just a few minutes on the positive impacts of the Global Environmental Fund. A number of my colleagues have mentioned a number of things here about tropical rain forests, global fisheries, biological diversity, global warming, ozone depletion, and things like that. These are not abstract concepts. These are not things that are proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to have impact on our Nation or the world as a whole. When we are dealing with scientific realities, there are always certain scientific uncertainties, but I want to start from this list and make a couple of comments. The nations of the world's forests, the rain forests of the world, are a storehouse of medical potential breakthroughs that will not only benefit us as citizens today, but future generations to come. What are the major pharmaceutical companies of the world, especially in the United States, American companies included, doing in tropical rain forests now? I will give you one example. Merck & Co. has signed an agreement partially through the link with the Global Environmental Fund to bring these two countries, the United States and Costa Rica, together. Costa Rica has decided to set aside 25 percent of their entire country so a U.S. pharmaceutical firm can go down there and study the biology and the biodiversity of that country's species, flora and fauna, that means the animals and the plants, to try to extract chemical agents to cure diseases around the world that are becoming resistant to antibiotics today. These are going to be the cures for tomorrow. What does that mean to Merck & Co. as a result of this connection? It means literally billions of dollars. So if we are looking at the Global Environmental Fund and saying that it is not worth the few dollars that we are going to put into it, talk with the pharmaceutical companies of this country and they will tell you it is worth billions for Merck. It is worth hundreds of billions for the other pharmaceutical companies in this country and for the emerging biotechnology companies of this country. The global fisheries. If we just looked at the United States, 70 percent of the commercial fish that we harvest are spawned in tidal estuaries. What does GEF, the Global Environmental Fund, do? It helps other countries realize the necessity of protecting their tidal marshes for the main protein source of the entire world. So for the few investment dollars that we put into GEF, the Global Environmental Fund, we reap huge profits. What about biological diversity in the first place? You cannot name a disease in this country that does not have a potential cure as a result of finding some chemical agent in some species around the planet. That is just as a result of our understanding for renewed molecular technology advancements in this country today. From an endangered species called the rosy periwinkle, a small little endangered flower, they extracted a chemical agent that now cures or sets aside 80 percent of childhood leukemia. Why is this particular plant important? Because it cures disease. Also, we have not been able to synthesize that chemical agent, so we need that particular plant. Whether it is heart attacks, high blood pressure, cancer, glaucoma, a whole range of diseases, we are finding agents in particular plants for these particular diseases to be cured. The Global Environmental Fund is a small investment, folks, for a major discovery. Global warming, has it been proved? No. Has it been disproved? No. But I will tell my colleagues, the major scientists of this country, if we talk to an independent scientist from Harvard or Cornell or Yale or whatever that is not linked with any environmental group, they would say, ``Hedge your bets, it might be happening.'' What about ozone depletion? Is there an increase in the incidence of skin cancer? Are doctors telling you to stay out of the sun? The answer is yes. I reluctantly ask my colleagues to vote no on the amendment. amendment offered by mr. porter to the amendment offered by mr. delay

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute Mr. Robert J. Patterson, the man who was the driving force behind the New POW/MIA postage stamp. Mr. Patterson, a two-tour VietNam veteran, currently employed but the Department of Veteran Affairs Medical Center in Perry Point, MD, devote 5 years of his life toward honoring POW/MIA's with their own postage stamp. Mr. Patterson spent countless hours meeting with House and Senate staff members, VietNam Veterans of America, Veterans of Foreign Wars, the American Legion, disabled American Veterans, American Ex-Prisoners of War, as well as every veterans association medical center in the country. With these veterans groups, Mr. Patterson gather nearly 2 million signatures on his POW/MIA postage stamp petition form. Mr. Patterson's efforts proved successful when the U.S. Postal Service issued the new POW/MIA postage stamp on May 29, 1995. with the American flag as its backdrop, the stamp pictures a pair of military ID tags embossed with the words ``POW & MIA--NEVER brave Americans who fought for this country and were either imprisoned by enemy forces or have been classified as missing in action. All of these soldiers will forever be heroes and will forever be remembered. Mr. Patterson's achievement is no small feat. Only the second commemorative POW/MIA stamp ever issued, the new stamp embodies how the vision and hard work of one volunteer can result in a great accomplishment. The first commemorative POW/MIA stamp was issued by the Post Office in 1970 in the form of a 6 cent postage stamp. Had it not been for Mr. Patterson's effort, that may have been the last stamp honoring the Nation's many POW's and MIA's. Mr. Patterson's love of and devotion to our great Nation, as well as to our POWs and MIAs, should serve as a model for all Americans. I commend Robert Patterson for his tireless efforts in bringing about the POW/MIA postage stamp. Mr. Patterson's efforts on behalf of the stamp showed for all the world our country's commitment to the message of the POW/MIA cause, ``You Are Not Forgotten''; not forgotten also will be Mr. Patterson's message to the cause. In closing, I reiterate Mr. Patterson's simple message to the many groups he addressed and to the volunteers who assisted him: Remember.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment of the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella]. The amendment continues the policy of preventing funds provided to UNFPA from being spent in China. Further, the United States representative to the UNFPA must seek condemnation of China's coercive population policy, and the amendment prevents funds to groups that lobby for changes in abortion laws in other countries. It does just about everything that anybody wants it to do. This amendment is the reasonable approach that our foreign policy should take with respect to family planning programs. The aid provided by the United States for the purpose of improving knowledge and access to family planning methods is an important investment in helping people improve the quality of their lives. Just listen to some of these statistics. In 1830, the world's population reached 1 billion people. Today the world's population is close to 6 billion people. In the year 2020, 8 billion people are expected to live on earth. In 40 years the population is expected to double, to about 12 billion people. During the years 2000 to 2025, the poorest countries will grow the fastest, accounting for 5.1 billion people of the world's population. Twenty-five percent of the Earth is land, and that is where we live. We do not have that much room on the planet. Mr. Chairman, population conferences such as the Bucharest Conference, the Mexico City Conference, and the Cairo Conference in 1994, all became mired in this controversy about the abortion issue. I really think it is time, people are pleading with us around the world and people are pleading with us in this country, it is time for us to stop the argument and for those who are pro-choice, if I can label that, and pro-life, if I can label that, to get together and think of creative, thoughtful solutions to this most difficult problem. I do not think there is anybody in this Chamber that favors abortion. But the people who are discussing this issue today recognize the serious, severe potential calamity if we do not reduce the number of people, the huge burgeoning population growth, especially in underdeveloped countries, where they will never have an economy that can support the people, they do not have resources right now that can support their population. So it is necessary for us to sit down together, pro-choice people, pro-life people, and think of thoughtful, creative solutions that can solve the problem, so that abortions will become unnecessary as a result of the funds that we provide through education. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the gentlewoman from Maryland's amendment.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, it occasionally happens that rather small provisions of bills which very few people know about have a tremendous impact. This amendment seeks to strike such a provision which will have a significant effect on hunters and other people who enjoy migratory birds. The gentleman from Michigan and the gentleman from Pennsylvania, who are both members of the Migratory Bird Commission, are coauthors of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon]. (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a comment very briefly about the previous speaker. There really are all the exemptions that a farmer would ever want in order to continue farming and certainly preserve vital land contained in the Boehlert amendment. What I want to talk about briefly here, this is the map of the United States, and I unfortunately had to omit Alaska and Hawaii, but I have a great strong feeling for those two illustrious States, but at the top of the map wanted to ask the question first, what do wetlands do? What is the function of a wetland? Well, wetlands purify water, they prevent flooding, they ensure wildlife habitat, and they ensure that fish in coastal regions, whether it is a tidal estuary or fresh water estuary, will continue to be able to reproduce. Who would benefit from pure water, from an area that will not flood, from wildlife habitat and all the diversity that goes along with that, and abundant fish? Who benefits? Whose property that is near those areas would be increased in value? I would say that everybody in the United States will benefit from a preservation program that ensures the quality of America's wetlands. Now, this thick book here is the 1991 field testing manual of the changes in wetlands delineation criteria. It was proven to be unworkable. The Bush administration set it aside. This particular manual was very restrictive, and everybody agreed that we would lose 50 percent of our wetlands if we used this manual. Now we are using a bill that is even more restrictive on wetlands, so we can conclude that we will lose about 60 percent of our wetlands across the United States. What I want to do is read from the illustrious text of the National Academy of Sciences study on wetlands. I am on page 29. We are going to deal with water quality and flooding and so on. Here is a quote. ``As wetland acreage declines within a watershed, functional capacity such as maintenance of water quality begins to become impaired.'' Right out of the text. If we lose wetlands acreage, water quality in those particular areas decline. Now, I want to give some examples. I am not targeting anybody in particular, but just some examples. This is also found in the new NAS study on page 30, if you want to look it up. California has lost since 1780, 91 percent of its wetlands. As a direct result of those wetlands lost, you have 220 animals and 600 plant species that are threatened or endangered. Since 1955, according to the NAS study, the mallard population is down 35 percent, pintails are down 50 percent. Forty-one fish species have become extinct in this century as a result of lost wetlands. Twenty-eight percent of fresh water species have seriously been reduced. Prairie potholes are very important for migrating waterfowl. Floods in New Orleans, the Midwest, California, and many other areas have been mainly to a large extent caused as a result of where people build. And if you build on a wetlands, the water is going to go someplace else. I wanted to put up one other map. I want to say something about whether this should be State regulated or the Federal Government should work in harmony with the States and with the local communities. If each State can do what they wanted, look what will happen to the Chesapeake Bay. Up here you see Washington, DC, which is not a part of Maryland. We could have real strict controls over our wetlands, and you can see the silt that is washed out of the Potomac River into the Chesapeake Bay. A little further, I have great respect for the State of Virginia, you see in the James River, right here, more silt coming into the Chesapeake Bay. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Boehlert amendment.

Mr. GILCHREST. No, we will not.

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

Mr. GILCHREST. It is my understanding that prior to converted cropland, any land converted to cropland prior to 1985 does not fall under jurisdiction of wetlands by any Federal agency. There are also a number of farms and ag areas around the country that can continue to farm wetlands even though they still function as a wetland. They can continue to do that

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta]. (Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I yield to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell]. and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I want to make a comment to my good friend the gentleman from Kansas that the reason America's agriculture is as advanced as it is today is because we use good science. We do not want to reverse ourselves and go back to a Third-World-nation status not using the best available knowledge to pursue the agricultural industry. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman]. (Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta].

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time. My last couple of comments will deal with who benefits from wetlands. The people who benefit from wetlands are those people who want clean water, those people who want floods prevented in their neighborhoods and in their regions, those people who understand the esthetic value, the appeal and the quality of life when it comes to habitat for wildlife, those people who feel a sense of closeness to nature, to the economic value of the coastal fisheries. All Americans benefit from sound wetlands policy. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski], a member of the committee. (Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)