CHESTERTOWN -- It was his most contentious day in Congress, and the scene reminded Wayne T. Gilchrest of Turners Creek near his Kent County home here, where birds swirl and dive toward the shallow water.
Lawmakers had swarmed into the House chamber Oct. 29, screeching and crowing about Mr. Gilchrest's amendment calling for a one-year scientific study to define "wetland" -- a seemingly benign term until it was seized by both landowners and environmentalists as their own. "We need a policy based on fact," the freshman Republican told his colleagues simply, "not a policy based on politics."
His small-town demeanor and civics-book optimism remind some observers of "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," the classic Jimmy Stewart film about a lanky idealist who arrives in the U.S. Senate and mounts a lone battle against cynicism and corruption.
The man who in 1990 wrested the 1st District congressional seat from Roy P. Dyson, a 10-year veteran plagued by ethics problems, seems like an amiable, wide-eyed science student on an extended field trip, keenly interested and at times amused by his visits to Capitol Hill.
But conservatives mounted a successful attack on Mr. Gilchrest's environmental proposal in October, saying it would delay Bush administration efforts toward more development of non-tidal wetlands.
"This is an end run trying to again have this Congress voice its support for the taking of lands that are privately owned," thundered Representative Don Young, R-Alaska. "It is a mischievous amendment."
At the same time, some environmentalists saw the Gilchrest amendment as the only way to save wetlands -- by returning the debate to impartial scientific review.
"We need a scientific judgment because we are losing our wetlands and, if the president has his way, we will lose even more," declared Representative Peter H. Kostmayer, D-Pa.
The amendment fell to defeat, 181-241, and the flock of $l legislators melted into the cloakrooms, but the freshman maverick from the Eastern Shore had made a name for himself.
"It established [Mr. Gilchrest] as a factor in the environmental movement," recalled Representative Arthur Ravenel Jr., R-S.C., a close friend. "We don't have many Republicans on the environmental side."
"It's clear Wayne Gilchrest is a friend of the nation's wetlands and the environment," said James Waltman of the National Audubon Society. "He really kind of put himself out on a limb on that."
One Capitol Hill staffer said he showed "chutzpah" in tackling an issue that has divided his district as well as Congress. Others chose the word "naive." "It doesn't seem bright for a freshman congressman to try and take on his party and his president," said one aide.
"It was fun actually, I had a good time," recalled the 45-year-old former high school teacher matter of factly, after he settled into a chair at his Chestertown office. "It was a learning experience, the whole year has been a learning experience."
His slightly wrinkled shirt, easy manner and wide grin lend an approachable air. The word "neat" at times strolls into his conversation, as he talks about Congress and the hope that his wetlands amendment will pass next year.
On Capitol Hill, Mr. Gilchrest has forged a voting record that is conservative on spending issues and crime. He was the only member of the Maryland delegation to back failed amendments designed to slash social programs and transportation spending. "Some points occasionally need to be made for fiscal responsibility," he said.
On other issues he has taken a more liberal stance. The congressman backed a seven-day waiting period for the purchase of handguns and split with the Bush administration when it prohibited federally funded clinics from discussing abortion. He was one of only 37 Republicans to back a successful proposal by a liberal Democrat that would cut U.S. troop strength in Europe to under 100,000 by 1995.
Committee staffers say Mr. Gilchrest is an attentive and active new member, unlike others who may either make a brief appearance or offer a canned statement. "You can tell he grapples with subjects," said one aide on the Merchant Marine Committee, "and asks questions that are not just scripted for him."
But his junior status with the minority party in Congress makes him a "non-player" in the fight for federal projects and money, noted one congressional staffer. "He's a junior Republican, which means he has virtually no power in the Congress," said another Capitol Hill aide.
Despite appearances, this "Mr. Smith" went to Washington to get along.
"The heart of being up there is being plugged into the right places," said the novice politician. He talks of putting together coalitions, building credibility and at times compromising on his positions.
The congressman voted against an assault weapons ban -- which he backed during the campaign -- with an eye toward his conservative constituents but mostly to show colleagues that "I'm not really a far-out nut," he said.
"I try not to do it [compromise]. I try not to have to do it. When I compromise I compromise for a working relationship with Congress," he said in slow and measured cadence. "If I want to be a real force . . . then there are a certain amount of politics that are involved."
The Eastern Shore congressman has postponed, shelved or altered positions he espoused in the heady days before and after his election victory:
* He fell short of his campaign pledge to return the $25,000 congressional pay raise, approved before his election, and instead is making several small charitable donations. He said he has had to borrow money to support his wife and three children because of debts contracted before he began drawing his congressional salary. He said he hoped to make more charitable donations next year but was not specific about the amounts.
* During the campaign he backed limits on congressional terms. But now he is "neutral" on this issue, explaining that some veteran members of Congress "are very wise."
* Last year, he pledged not to have districtwide mailings, terming them "a waste of money." This week, he said he did not recall that statement. Later this month, he plans to distribute such a mailing to discuss energy and environmental policy, along with his key votes. "I truly see it as useful," he said.
* He vowed to accept political action committee (PAC) money onlyfrom groups he supported. "My position on PACs is to make sure we take PAC money from those people we can basically agree with," he repeated this week.
He was asked: such as the Tobacco Institute, which donated $500 last December?
"Good Lord of mercy. Maybe I should go over my PAC list," he replied, then recalled that he was told of this donation by an aide.
When reminded of other donations, including $1,000 from the American Bankers Association, $500 from Occidential Oil and Gas PAC, and $4,000 from the National Association of Life Underwriters PAC, he was asked if he supports these groups.
He pondered the question, wondering aloud if he should return some of this money or donate it to a charity. "I don't know. I'm going to have to look at it," he finally said.
Tomorrow, the congressman is scheduled to return to this pleasant Colonial town on the Chester River and kick off his re-election effort.
It will also be his first run in a redesigned district that includes the Eastern Shore, portions of Anne Arundel County and a small slice of South Baltimore.
The former political Independent admits little allegiance to the Republican Party, saying his GOP affiliation was a way to oust Mr. Dyson, doubting he could defeat the congressman in a Democratic primary.
Why not register as a Democrat now? "I probably won't," he said.
"It's not out of the question. I wouldn't do it for ideological reasons. One of the main reasons I wouldn't do it is a lot of good people who helped me here on the Eastern Shore are Republican."
Asked why voters should return him to Washington, he pauses for a time. "If I was not me and I was standing off to the side," he ruminates. "Gee, I like his wetlands stand . . . his position on the [abortion] gag rule, vote [in favor] of the [Persian Gulf] war." He also points to his effort generally to be "a good congressman."
Some would disagree. Conservative Republican Lisa G. Renshaw hopes to unseat Mr. Gilchrest in the primary. Three Democrats -- including two state delegates -- also have announced.
They could likely find support among landowners, businessmen and local lawmakers annoyed with the congressman's pro-environmental position on wetlands.
"He's listening to the wrong people. He's wrong on that issue," declared state Sen. Lewis R. Riley, R-Wicomico.
"Wayne does not understand his constituents, he's listening to a small group of environmental extremists," charged Peggy Ann Reigle of Fairness to Land Owners Committee, a 6,000-member group.
"The wetland issue has been studied for 22 years."
But the congressman seems unconcerned by the attacks and thepoliticians lining up against him, who could also include Representative Tom McMillen, D-Md.-4th.
Mr. Gilchrest plans to raise about $100,000 -- which many politicians would consider a paltry sum -- and expects to win. If he loses, he said, he'll return to his teaching post at Kent County High School, where he will have more time to take his children to places such as Turners Creek.
"This is one of the reasons I ran for Congress -- the environment, the open space," he said. "There are some issues I had to compromise on for different reasons. This is not one of them."