Wayne Gilchrest

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the States go by that. Since wetlands are regulated as waters of the United States, and they come under the Federal jurisdiction, the wetland delineation criteria is also used by the State.

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 rise in support of the alternative. I want to make some comments, first, about wetlands. We cannot preserve clean water. We cannot have fish, we cannot preserve waterfowl and we cannot limit flooding unless we have wetlands. I know the controversy about which wetlands to regulate and which wetlands not to regulate. But if the bill goes through the way it is, we will not have any wetlands to regulate. Mr. Chairman, there are serious flaws in the lack of science, or the complete absence of science, in the evaluation on how to delineate a wetland. People have been talking about the loss of value to people's property. If we will look at this in a broad sense, the vast majority of people in the United States will have their property value increased as a result of a carefully crafted, well-managed wetlands program. I do not know whose property value would be diminished if we continue to have wetlands. If Members will look at this map, this is the State of Maryland up here, and this is the Chesapeake Bay. The value of wetlands to the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed in this region that we see on the map is in the billions of dollars. What the wetlands do, they filter out pollution, they limit flooding, they provide habitat for waterfowl, they do a whole host of things that increase the value of people's property in the region of the Chesapeake Bay. I want Members to look at something. I am going to turn the map upside down. This, as we notice, is the Chesapeake Bay. Here we are in Washington, DC, and this is the Potomac River. We have a lot of development around Washington, DC, and there is much limited development in these other areas, which means they soak up the nutrients, the toxins, the silt that the rain normally washes into the water. We can see we do not have that protection around Washington, DC. If we look down here in Richmond, VA, nothing against these great communities, if we look in the vicinity of Richmond, VA, we also see the lack of protection, because of the lack of wetlands, and we see the silt going into the water. Mr. Chairman, I am going to turn the map upside down. I want Members to imagine that this is a root that goes up to the trunk of a tree. When we have a root in the ground, the root absorbs nutrients. It absorbs anything that is in the ground, whether it is water, whether it is water inundated with nutrients, a whole variety of things. If there is a tree in a wetland, this tree is going to absorb those nutrients before they go anywhere else, and preserve the quality of water where the tree happens to stand, and it could be a forested wetland, or it could be a wetland. If this is a tree, these nutrients that you see pouring into the Chesapeake Bay would not pour into the Chesapeake Bay. This diminishes, right now, because they are not being absorbed, the value of the Chesapeake Bay, and reduces its productivity. One other comment I want to make about the bill. That is the pure lack of science that is in the delineation criteria for what is a wetland. Right now in the bill, in order for an area to be considered a wetland, it has to be saturated at the surface, that means water ponded on the surface for 21 consecutive days during the growing season, and it has to have hydric soil, and it has to have the wettest of obligate vegetation. That is like a cattail. In this picture, this area is wet for 21 consecutive days during the growing season, it has hydric soil, but it does not have the third criteria which meets the provisions of the bill to be a wetland, obligate plant species. If that is not a wetland, even if that is wet for 40 days during the growing season, if it does not have that third criteria, it is not a wetland. There is one other comment that I think is worth mentioning. This is a pond in Nebraska. This pond in Nebraska, and I will show it to the other side, in case they cannot see it there, this is a pond in Nebraska. What it does, it offers habitat for migrating waterfowl. This is not always wet for 21 consecutive days during the growing season, or has obligate wetland species. It has hydric soil. It could be, unfortunately, wet for 20 days during the growing season, 20 days right after the growing season, and even if it had the obligate wetland species, still would not be classified as a wetland. When we are traveling long distances if we are going on a trip with the family, you have to stop some places. My kids like McDonald's and I like diners, but we generally have to stop to consume a little refreshment. If we lose these wetlands, we lose an awful lot of value to property, we lose a lot of value to this Nation.

Mr. GILCHREST. The scientists recommended we go on a region-by-region basis. Your bill does not do that.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman, I agree that scientists and researchers should not dictate policy for the United States. But if we are going to make policy, we ought to know what the scientists say what a wetland is.

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

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. If I could just have a couple of seconds to give the audience a history lesson. Late in the 1500's we all remember Galileo, and he said at that time he was trying to educate people that the sun was the center of the solar system. Well the Pope heard that, Pope Urban VIII, the head of the early Roman Empire, and he said, if Galileo repeats that comment, the sun is the center of the solar system, he will have his arms and legs dislocated. Mr. Chairman, I want to put everybody's mind at ease. I do not fear that my arms will be dislocated by making a comment about the provision in this Clean Water Act taking away wetlands, but by the Pope telling that center of the solar system. In this legislation this will not be a wetland. Now we can say anything we want about wetlands. We can describe them any way we want to describe them. But that does not change the way nature works, and this type of filtration system is absolutely essential if we are going to have any productive coastal fishery, if we are going to have any clean water. This, my colleagues, regardless of what the bill says, is a wetland.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I think the States should have the information that the National Academy of Sciences has to offer to us as Congress.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make one other comment on the compensation criteria, which people say is absent in this bill. We already passed a law to compensate landowners for wetlands and for the Endangered Species Act, so putting it into the Clean Water Act I think is totally unnecessary. I do want to make a comment about compensation and the Fifth Amendment property rights. If your property is taken away for the public good, you are to be compensated. Everybody endorses that. However, if your property is, in my judgment, reasonably regulated to prevent pollution of your neighbor's property or to prevent public harm, compensation in this area is a whole other different story. Should we compensate people to prevent them from polluting? I do not think we should.

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

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

Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I urge a vote on the Saxton substitute.

Mr. GILCHREST. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. GILCHREST. I need to make a couple of quick statements. No. 1, the previous gentleman, and a number of people, have been talking about giving the States the flexibility, let the States do this, let the States do that. One comment about the Constitutional Convention, you know, over 200 years ago, the reason the Constitutional Convention came about was because there was a dispute between Maryland and Virginia dealing with the Potomac River because it went across State lines, so there is a Federal role to play, especially when pollution runs downstream. I would like to draw your attention to this map one more time, the Chesapeake Bay region. We are talking about nonpoint source pollution, and we are talking about the Coastal Zone Management Act which helps protect pollution along the coastal waters. If you look at Washington, DC, right here, here, we have a certain amount of nonpoint source protection, but you still see this urban area putting pollution, silt, and a number of other things into the Potomac River which gradually gets into the coastal waters. If you look at the coast of Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia, you see no such thing during that storm, and the reason is because the Coastal Zone Management Act was able to protect this particular area of the coastline, and if we go with the same rule of nonpoint programs and fold the Coastal Zone Management Act into that program, we stand the chance of having this that you see on this map, polluting the Chesapeake Bay and eventually the coastal waters, happening over here along the coast. The last thing is, there are a lot of people that have approached me on the House floor today and said, ``Washington, DC, was built on a wetland. What do you think about that?'' I guess there was not a sense of the problem of population and urban sprawl and unbridled development 200 years ago, 200 years ago, let us say 1795; there were 3 million people in the world; 100 years ago in 1895, there were 76 million people in the world. Today, 1995, there are 265 million people in the United States. Now, there is a certain sense of sharing the resources and what we do or do not do to our neighbor downstream. And so the cumulative impact of population growth which is expanding now to the coastal areas of this country poses a certain threat to the resources of those areas, and it is up to us, this legislative body, to understand how we can help the State and local communities create an environment where we can manage resources and still have people living in areas where they do not have to worry about their drinking water, their natural resources. And one more comment before my time is up, I want to point to the areas that have urban sprawl and urban development. If you will notice, during this rain storm, all of the silt that comes down the Potomac River, but you do not see that because of the protection of the coastal areas along Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. So I urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment.

Mr. GILCHREST. As the greatest legislative body in the world, which is the U.S. Congress, I think we should use the best scientific evidence available to determine the delineation criteria for a wetland, which is not the case in this bill now, and once we know the science, which is available to use now, we can make the policy. However, I think we are making policy in the absence of information.

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, and include therein extraneous material, on House Concurrent Resolution 64.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I rise to voice opposition to the Coast Guard's current fee schedule that took effect on May 1, 1995. This user fee schedule is overly burdensome to small operators. The final rule states that as of May 1, 1995, all inspected commercial vessels, including vessels carrying as few as seven passengers, will be required to pay the Coast Guard a user fee for the inspection of their vessels. The fees for inspected operators with vessels less than 54 feet would be $670 per year, escalating up to $1,200 for larger vessels. For small seasonal marine businesses, this fee represents a large percentage of their net revenue. I believe these fees would have a disproportionate impact on small business. In my district, thousands of small operators would be hurt by this rule. The Coast Guard should adjust its proposed fees for small operators to ensure that they are not regressive. This can be done by basing user fees on the actual time it takes to inspect a small vessel, usually 2 to 4 hours, which would translate into a fee much lower than announced. The Coast Guard states that its fee is $87 per hour for inspections. The one topside inspection done each year and the one drydock inspection done every 18 months, takes approximately 3 hours per year per vessel. Therefore, the inspection fee should be no higher than $261 per year. In addition, a number of vessels could be inspected at one time, thus increasing the efficiency of the travel time spent by the Coast Guard, and possibly lowering the fees further. I support the efforts of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] to eliminate the regressive nature of these fees. I urge my colleague from North Carolina, Mr. Coble to work with us toward this end.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the concurrent resolution before us would authorize the 1995 Special Olympics Torch Relay to be run through the Capitol Grounds on May 19, 1995, as part of the journey of the special olympics torch to the Special Olympics Summer Games at Gallaudet University here in the District. Under the resolution, the Capitol Police Board will oversee the run and the Architect of the Capitol is responsible for establishing the conditions and making preparations necessary for the event. This is an annual event and one which Congress has approved several times before. This year approximately 60 local and Federal law enforcement agencies throughout the region will participate in this 26- mile relay run we all know, this program gives handicapped children and adults the opportunity to participate in athletic 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 participation in this event. Activities will begin on Capitol Hill where the U.S. Capitol Police will host opening ceremonies and thereafter over 1,000 law enforcement officials will relay the torch through the city to Gallaudet University where the D.C. Special Olympics Summer Games will be held. Mr. Speaker, this is a very worthwhile endeavor and I strongly encourage my colleagues to support the resolution which authorizes the event.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the concurrent resolution (H.Con. Res. 64) authorizing the 1995 Special Olympics Torch Relay to be run through the Capitol Grounds.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to talk to you about the drug taxol. Taxol was first used on a trial basis in 1983 to treat ovarian and breast cancer. Today, it is the most effective treatment for achieving remission in advanced ovarian cancer. It took researchers over 20 years, testing thousands of plant and animal extracts from all over the world to come up with a safe and effective compound able to kill cancer in humans. Now, taxol gives new hope to many of the women who suffer from breast and ovarian cancer, which now kills almost 40,000 women a year. This amazing drug was originally derived from a tree called the Pacific yew. The yew three is found in the old growth forests of the Pacific Northwest and was once burned as scrap. It takes from 3 to 12 trees to provide enough taxol for each cancer patient. Each tree takes about 100 years to reach maturity. the Endangered Species Act, biological diversity, and taxol.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, what is biodiversity? Biodiversity is the overwhelming diversity of life. Each species has a definite and specific role to play in sustaining the dynamics of ecosystem processes as producers, consumers, decomposers, parasites, and predators, and each species occupies a specific niche. Biodiversity refers to the harmony and tension that exist between all species and ecological systems on the plant. Remove or sufficiently damage one of the components and the entire structure is weakened. The value of biodiversity to humanity goes far beyond economic utility. Humans are a part of the diversity of life. We rely on it to sustain our existence on this plant. We cannot continue to exist without interaction with other species. We rely on diversity for the air we breathe and the water we drink. The value of biodiversity lies not only in the utilization value of resources, it lies in the intrinsic value of its ability to support life.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to talk to my colleagues about sharks. Sharks produce few offspring, grow slowly, and take years to mature. Many species of sharks are being severely depleted due to overfishing. Ironically, just as we are exterminating these ancient fish, medical science is discovering that the highly evolved immune systems of sharks make them almost invulnerable to cancers and infections. Squalamine is a compound recently isolated from the tissues on the dogfish shark. It has demonstrated potent activity in laboratory tests against a variety of bacteria, fungi, and parasites. Squalamine may lead to new antibiotics for infectious organisms that have become resistant to standard drugs. With a medical breakthrough of this kind this fishery will gain tremendous economic value. This in turn will benefit coastal communities as well as medical science. This is possible only if we remain vigilant against irresponsible management of our natural resources. Economic value is only a small fraction of the value of biodiversity. We need to keep this first in our minds as we work to reauthorize the Endangered Species Act and the Magnuson Act.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to bring to your attention two little known animals that are very important to the pharmaceutical industry in the United States. The existence of these animals brings new hope to high blood pressure sufferers and heart attack victims in this country. First, high blood pressure sufferers look to the pit viper to provide an entirely new generation of extremely effective antihypertensives. Compounds found in the venom of these snakes have lead to greater understanding of the human mechanism for maintaining blood pressure. However, number of pit viper species are threatened with extinction. Second, the Houston toad, on the brink of extinction due to habitat loss, produces alkaloids which scientists believe may prevent heart attacks. These alkaloids also appear to have analgesic properties more powerful than morphine. The Houston toad is native to the United States. At least 500 species and subspecies of plants and animals in the United States have become extinct since the 1500's. Could one of those long-gone species have held the cure to AIDS, cancer, or the common cold? Let us reauthorize a workable Endangered Species Act.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, as we take up the debate over the reauthorization of the Environmental Protection Act, we hear claims there is no need to preserve less well-known, often unglamorous species. It is easy to call for preservation of charismatic species like the bald eagle, the grizzly bear, and the sea turtle. Some of today's most important medicines, as well as the keys to future medical crises, come from a wide range of animals, plants, molds, invertebrates, and other obscure wild species. In fact, more than 40 percent of the prescriptions sold in the United States today are derived from these organisms. heart and circulatory disease was derived originally from chemicals produced by the purple foxglove. In 1991, more than 923,000 Americans died of heart disease or stroke. That statistic would be higher if it were not for the purple foxglove, the plant which produces digitalis, a drug that is taken by 3 million Americans annually to combat high blood pressure. Digitalis is frequently used to improve circulation in patients with congestive heart failure. Only 5 percent of known plant species have been screened for their medical purposes. Let us continue to look for more.

Mr. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure be discharged from further consideration of the current resolution--House Concurrent Resolution 34--authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus anniversary commemoration, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.