Jim Saxton

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I take this 5-minute special order to discuss with my colleagues why I believe it is important that we expand the IRA, Individual Retirement Account Program, for the American taxpayers. I rise today to address what I believe is an urgent need to increase incentives to save and invest for middle-class taxpayers. Earlier this year, I introduced a bill which we called the Investment Revitalization Act of 1997 that would greatly increase the deduction ceilings for IRA contributions, increase the income caps which currently prevent many middle-class taxpayers from using IRA's, and expand the reasons for penalty-free withdrawals from IRA accounts. By increasing incentives to save, this legislation would boost long- term economic growth and help middle-class taxpayers help themselves in addressing a wide variety of economic contingencies that might otherwise lead to expanded Government activity, which is exactly what this House has been trying to avoid. Why? Well, in part because there have been concerns expressed about the economic viability of families when they are exposed to unemployment and other setbacks, the exposure of families to medical or other emergencies, the great difficulty in coping with increased educational costs, the heavier tax burden over the last three decades, and the looming problems associated with the retirement of the baby- boomers. These are all issues that we have traditionally set up as reasons for our families to save, and this IRA program will help and encourage Americans to do so. Most of these problems are related to the fact that our income tax is systematically biased, however, biased against personal savings, and this makes it much harder for families to accumulate the resources successfully to address these needs as they arise and encourages families to depend more and more on government programs. More extensive use of the IRA would go a long way toward removing the bias against saving and investment in the Tax Code. This legislation is intended to suggest a new direction and to guide tax policy into the next century. The basic idea is to expand our IRA's enough to strip away much of the multiple taxation of personal savings and investment which is vital. My IRA bill increases, therefore, the $2,000 IRA deduction that exists today by $500 every year for the next 10 years, and, at the end of this period, the deduction cap would, therefore, be $7,000. In addition, to make IRA's even more attractive, penalty-free IRA withdrawals would be permitted for medical care, for college education, unemployment, and for first-time home ownership. Over some number of years, a few years, a thrifty middle-class family could accumulate sums in excess of $100,000 or more. Then, when a career setback or an unexpected medical problem occurred, they would have significant assets to fall back on, and not have to look to the Government for help. Some would save aggressively for children's education expenses, or for some other reason, attracted by the deduction, but also knowing that earnings compound even faster without the annual tax bite. Others might focus solely on retirement. In my view, the adoption of this legislation would largely reverse the current discrimination against personal savings and investment, thus boosting long-term economic growth as well as savings. Government policy has undermined middle-class savings incentives for far too long. If we are concerned about inadequate personal savings and related problems, it is time for the U.S. tax policy to become less counterproductive. We cannot maintain a Tax Code that systematically discriminates against personal savings and investment, and then be surprised when people fail to save, and then be surprised when they demand more and more government services to help deal with these very difficult problems. Let us reduce the multiple taxation on middle-class savings and get serious about expanding the individual retirement account, IRA system.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Hawaii, for his great cooperation and his leadership in helping to bring this coral reef bill to the floor today. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SAXTON. Madam Speaker, on April 23rd, the House of Representatives unanimously approved House Concurrent Resolution 8, a resolution that I introduced along with my colleague, the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie]. This measure expresses strong support for research, monitoring, and education related to the coral reef ecosystems. Healthy coral reefs help provide numerous benefits to the United States and other nations. For example, coral reefs support important commercial and recreational fisheries, as well as a large tourism and vacation industry, provide natural storm protection in coastal communities, and have recently become an important frontier for biomedical research. The other body has now approved an amended version of House Concurrent Resolution 8. The amendment takes note of the alarming damage to coral reefs caused by destructive fishing practices, as unbelievable as the use of cyanide and dynamite in fishing in some areas of the globe. It further expresses the sense of Congress that international action to eliminate these unbelievably harmful practices is much needed. I believe that this amendment is not only acceptable, but strengthens the resolution, and I am sorry that I did not think about it to begin with. Madam Speaker, I urge the House to approve this measure as amended, and complete Congressional recognition of the importance of the coral reef ecosystems and the need to conserve them. I urge my colleagues to vote ``aye''. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 1787, as amended.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, this morning I attended the signing of the National Wildlife Refuge bill by President Clinton at the White House. As a consequence, I was unable to vote on rollcall Nos. 507 and 508. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on both rollcalls: For the rule waiving points of order against the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2169, Transportation appropriations for fiscal 1998, and for the rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 2607, District of Columbia appropriations for fiscal 1998.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I come before the House today, to be followed by my good friend, the gentleman Michigan [Mr. Dingell] to discuss the need to reauthorize the Endangered Species Act. I believe the time is now to reauthorize this granddaddy of all environmental laws. It is vital that any piece of legislation that is developed is done so in a bipartisan way. I want to congratulate also the Senate in their effort to craft such a bill. This process must recognize the needs of people who are impacted by ESA as well as the issue of declining species. I want to commend my colleague, the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], chairman of the Committee on Resources, and the ranking member, the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] for their recent efforts to craft a bipartisan bill. This process has been supported by the involvement of my friend [Mr. Dingell] as well as the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo]. We must set aside partisan politics. We must set aside personal interest and do what is right for the people of this country and for the species which this legislation protects.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, recently a friend, a proud father, sent me an article his daughter authored. It seems to me that Jessica Kozlov, editor of Duke University's, the Chronicle, clearly articulates important and deep thoughts that are part of her developing being. I'd like to share them for the record. [From the Chronicle, Sept. 16, 1997] Housewives Place in Society Minimized by Feminist Movement (By Jessica Kozlov) June Cleaver is as anachronistic in the '90s as Peg Bundy would have been in the '50s. It is because feminism has begun to dictate those accomplishments of a woman that can be deemed ``merit- worthy''--and June Cleaver no longer fits that model? Or is it because women have become so obsessively wrapped up in breaking the glass ceiling that they have forgotten she ever existed? In a society that encourages women to be men in the workplace and mere nannies in the home, the triumphs and rewards of being a ``house mom'' have been overshadowed by the honor of being the division president of a company or by the esteem earned from climbing the corporate ladder. I am an anachronism in my own society, but only because of my mother: She was June Cleaver, and the only one in my neighborhood. My family could be considered an atypical nuclear family: two parents, two children and a German shepherd named Abigail. All under one roof. Dad went to work every day. Mom stayed home, packed our lunch and waited for the school nurse to call with an update of my newest illness. She was always there to retrieve me, teary eyed, from the school office-and because of that, I am different. I came from a town where au pairs were the norm and housemoms a foreign concept. I remember afternoons at my friends' homes, eating after-school snacks served by babysitters who didn't speak English and cared only about their boyfriends back home in Italy or France. My mother put her career on hiatus when I was born--a 21- year hiatus, and counting. The most important thing to her was raising her children, and for her, it was a full-time job. The result: My friends wanted to be career women when they grew up, and I just wanted to be Miss Piggy. But 21 years have passed since my mom made that decision, and society is different. My mother was a product of the June Cleaver era, but my generation is the product of an era that began with ``Working Girl'' and has yet to peak. Our society no longer admires the woman who chooses her family over her career. Feminism's quest to shatter the glass ceiling began as a valiant, admirable effort--and it has almost achieved its tangible goal. But in its path it has left a track of shattered values, misdirected esteem and latch-key children. The feminist movement has taken great strides in the past few decades: An increasing number of women are playing major roles in today's corporate world, and we are rapidly achieving a ``genderless'' workplace. Women themselves have completed a 180-degree rotation-from the homemaker to the working girl. That which we respect and strive for as women--and as society as a whole--has also completed that rotation. In changing the perspective from which we define our values, we have changed our accomplishments to parallel those values. In other words, because a powerful movement valued gender equality in the workplace, women strive to achieve that equality. Undermining the importance of gender equality is not my intention. Indeed, women have come a long way and should strive to maintain the gain already earned. But we must not lose sight of--or minimize--the reward we once experienced, be it personal or external, from raising our own children. The success that accompanies raising a child--in the eyes of many members of society--is no longer equivalent to the success that accompanies climbing the corporate ladder. Now here we are at the third-ranked school in the nation, attending class after class. And for the first time, maybe learning just how much we don't know. We are here because we strive for the best--to be the best and to do the best. And we are immersed in an environment that fosters those intentions. As I sit here in The Chronicle office enjoying the end of one of my many 18-hour days, I realize I have the genes of the quintessential workaholic. Not long from now I will once again ask myself what I want to be when I grow up--and the answer will be much more difficult than it was in the days when Miss Piggy was my hero. A career is certainly a priority, and it is to that end that I have been trained to think. Logically, I know I would appreciate the opportunity to stay home with my children--to raise children who will have the benefit of a childhood experience similar to mine and to promote their ability to grow up and contribute to the wealth of knowledge and the pool of successful individuals; to put down the reins of this parade of all-nighters and end the days endured on pure adrenaline highs. I hope in today's society, in which the working woman is valued over the homemaker, I'll have the courage to follow my values as I have defined them and not follow what society has proscribed for me, just as my mother would have done.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, due to a memorial service in New Jersey for the airmen from McGuire Air Force Base who were killed off the coast of Namibia, I was unable to make rollcall votes 465, 466, 467, 468, and 469. Had I been present I would have voted ``nay'' on vote No. 465, ``yea'' on vote No. 466, and ``yea'' on votes Nos. 467, 468, 469.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution, House Concurrent Resolution 131, expressing the sense of Congress regarding the ocean, as amended.

Mr. SAXTON. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me just emphasize just how important I think this subject is. Obviously, when we pass a resolution suggesting that Congress pay special note to something, or that the American people pay special note of something, obviously there is a good reason for us to do it. I think what the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr] and I bring to the House together in terms of this subject is that we have both had experiences over the last decade or so that have shown us that while there are problems related to the oceans, and while we continue to need to make progress along that line, we have also made significant progress in the last 10 years. One decade ago, in the summer of 1987 on the Atlantic coast, we had a horrific summer. We had dolphins washing up on our shores, we had algae blooms all up and down the East coast, and in my home State of New Jersey and on Long Island there was medical waste that washed up on our beaches. It was enough to lead anyone who would vacation in the Northeast at the shore or to eat products derived from the sea to take their vacations elsewhere, or to buy their food from some other source. It was an easy conclusion for the public to make. Since 1987 and 1988, we have cooperated with the States, we have put Federal programs in place to help with the ocean environment, we have passed the Medical Waste Tracking Act, for example, we passed the sludge dumping prohibition that passed in 1988 or 1989, and generally speaking, the ecological state of our oceans has improved manyfold since those very difficult times in the Northeast. Mr. Speaker, as we move forward, we continue to have problems. We continue to have problems with the regulatory process through which we try to regulate fish and mammals that live in the ocean. I spoke of one the other day with the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr]. We have a Federal agency that regulates the fishing industry. It is known as the National Marine Fisheries Service. Perhaps it has some goals that need to be changed, because really, every time I go home and talk to someone who lives by the sea, I hear another story about how we need to do a better job in making sure that the ocean environment is conducive to making a good home for fish and mammals and other animal life that live there. This is indeed an important subject. The amount of people who live near the ocean is immense. The amount of the world's surface that is covered by oceans is huge, and it is in all of our best interests to take these subjects extremely seriously. And so I hope that today will not be just a pro forma vote, passing another resolution. The United Nations has recognized how important this is on a global basis and has designated 1998 as the Year of the Oceans, internationally. It is in all of our best interests to support this bill and to carry this message out across the country and, in fact, around the world as to just how important these matters are.

Mr. SAXTON. Today we are considering House Concurrent Resolution 131, Mr. Speaker, expressing the sense of Congress on the importance of the ocean, the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie] and I, for two purposes. First, it will publicize the importance of the oceans to the economy, environmental quality, and national security of the United States. The ocean is critical to our Nation. Ninety-eight percent of the U.S. foreign trade travels by ship. Half of Americans live within 50 miles of the coastline. However, many U.S. ocean programs have received flat or decreasing funding over the last decade. We cannot act to address this problem unless the public fully understands that the oceans are important to all Americans, whether or not they make their living directly from the sea. Mr. Speaker, House Concurrent Resolution 131 helps to build this understanding. Also, it is interesting to point out that 1998 will be the International Year of the Ocean. Scientific and educational events designed to increase understanding of the oceans and ocean resources will be held throughout the year. The international focus on ocean resources presents a very good opportunity for us to make substantive improvements to the U.S. oceans programs. House Concurrent Resolution 131 encourages the administration to take advantage of the Year of the Ocean to review and streamline ocean programs, and take steps to improve our understanding of the ocean resources. Mr. Speaker, this resolution, will express congressional recognition of the importance of the ocean and congressional commitment to improving the ocean programs. Obviously, I hope everyone will support this bill. I would also like to point out the important role that the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr] has played, not only in helping to bring this resolution to the floor, but relative to the subject of ocean environment, generally. His contribution has been very, very meaningful, and it has been a pleasure to work with him. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SAXTON. I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the concurrent resolution under consideration.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. SAXTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2233, the bill just passed.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2233) to assist in the conservation of coral reefs, as amended.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just conclude by saying that the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr] and I made note of some successes that we have had over the last decade in terms of protecting the ocean habitat. While this is one of the great failures of humankind in the way we have taken the coral reef systems for granted and the practices that we have continued to perpetuate that have caused great damage to the coral reef systems, which, as Mr. Farr eloquently pointed out, are immensely important to the ocean ecosystems and the interdependence of life in the oceans, when we held our hearings and it was brought to light publicly that two of the ways, two of the techniques of fishing are through the use of dynamite and cyanide, I looked at those issues with some disbelief. But we should not look at those issues with disbelief because they are, in fact, practices that are used which do cause great damage not only to the coral reef system but, obviously, to other life in the oceans as well. While we have had some successes over the last 10 years, it is pretty obvious that our work is not completed. Passage of this bill is perhaps a good first step in addressing the problems that are still to be addressed.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we are now considering H.R. 2233, the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 1997. The gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie] and I and the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr] introduced this bill to promote conservation of coral reef ecosystems. The Committee on Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife, and Oceans, which I chair, had two coral-reef-related hearings this year, and it is very clear that coral reefs are an important natural resource for coastal nations worldwide and many U.S. States and territories. Reefs generate significant tourism, provide habitat for many commercial fisheries, and protect coastlines from storm damage. Unfortunately, coral reefs worldwide are also in great danger from both natural and human-induced causes. In the U.S. waters near Florida, six new coral reef diseases have been identified in the last 5 years, and they are spreading rapidly. In the Philippines, an astounding 70 percent of native reef environments have been obliterated by destructive fishing practices such as, believe it or not, dynamiting and cyanide fishing. This bill establishes a coral reef conservation fund which is modeled after existing programs such as the very successful African elephant conservation program. This fund will contain both appropriated moneys and donations. Grants from the fund will support conservation projects which benefit coral reefs worldwide. The bill authorizes $1 million to be appropriated into the fund annually for the next 5 years and requires that all grants be matched by other funds on a one-to-one basis. Mr. Speaker, this type of conservation approach has been very successful for African elephants and other threatened species. I believe that this bill can make a difference in reducing damage to coral reefs worldwide. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. (Mr. FARR of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct privilege and honor to pay tribute to Kurt and Elizabeth Booth of Lacey Township, NJ. On October 4, 1997, Mr. and Mrs. Booth will celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary. Kurt Booth was born in Elizabeth, NJ on March 23, 1927. After graduating from Thomas Jefferson High School in 1944, he enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps. During his service as a marine, Kurt did a tour of duty in World War II's Pacific campaign and did occupation duty in Japan. He was discharged from the Marine Corps on August 21, 1946. Elizabeth Mazur was born in Carteret, NJ. She moved with her family to New Castle, NY, and then moved back to Rahway, NJ, where she graduated from high school in 1946. The couple met in November of 1946 at the Twin City Roller Skating Rink, while Kurt was employed as a postal worker in Elizabeth. On Valentine's Day 1947, they were engaged and on October 4, 1947 they were married at the Russian Orthodox Church in Rahway. They moved to Lacey Township in October of 1975 and have lived there ever since. Kurt was employed as an electrical contractor with offices in Lacey and Woodbridge, NJ. Since his retirement in 1992, Kurt has worked part time as a photographer with Ocean County, NJ. Kurt Booth served as chairman of the Chairman's Ball Ad Journal for 6 years and co-chairman of the Ocean County Candidates Ad Journal for 12 years. Kurt was also the designer of the journals and most of their ads as well as a very effective fund raiser for the party. Kurt and Elizabeth have a son, Professor Kenneth Kurt Booth, who spent 14 years in South Africa teaching people how to provide veterinary care to animals in the community. He now resides in the United States with his three children. Mr. Speaker, Mr. and Mrs. Booth's commitment to each other, illustrated by their 50 years together, is a testament to their characters. Not only have they enriched the lives of those they have come into direct contact with, but they have displayed immense leadership in their community, State, and country. It is with great pleasure that I recognize this couple on this special occasion.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, part of Mr. Rogers' amendment addresses an important matter regarding the Atlantic herring and mackerel fishery. This amendment would reduce the operations, research and facilities account for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. This account funds the National Marine Fisheries Service. The purpose of the amendment is to prohibit any fiscal year 1998 funds to be used by the Department of Commerce to issue or renew a fishing permit or authorization for any fishing vessel of 165 feet in length or larger and of 3,000 or more horsepower. By way of background, on July 28, 1997, the House of Representatives approved an emergency measure, H.R. 1855, to place a moratorium on the entrance of new large fishing vessels in the Atlantic herring and mackerel fisheries. These stocks are under an imminent threat. There are up to four huge factory trawler/freezer vessels which are poised to enter this fishery within a very short timeframe. One such vessel plans to begin harvesting this fall and is working feverishly to obtain the necessary permits, despite the overwhelming vote of the House. As the subcommittee chairman of the authorizing committee, I am extremely concerned about this threat to these fisheries. This is a potentially disastrous situation that needs to be remedied quickly. Based on testimony before the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, it is clear that the mackerel fishery can only sustain a 150,000 metric ton annual harvest. The capacity of each of these vessels exceeds 50,000 metric tons per year. Three of these large fishing vessels would easily meet and possibly exceed this harvest within 1 year. It is not clear that the resource can withstand this massive fishing effort and remain viable. Because of this threat to the resource off the East Coast, I feel compelled to offer this amendment to implement emergency action for 1 year through the appropriations process. During this 1-year cooling off period, it will be possible to obtain the necessary population data so that the Department of Commerce can make an accurate forecast of how many fish can be caught--before another crisis occurs. The limitation contained in this amendment closely parallels the authorization bill I introduced on the matter, H.R. 1855, which passed the authorizing committee, House Resources, with no objection. It also was debated on the House Floor on July 27, during which there was not one word of dissent. It passed on suspension of the rules by voice vote. Its vocal supporters include Don Young, Resources Committee chairman, George Miller, Resources Committee ranking Democratic member, Neil Abercrombie, Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans ranking Democratic member. The NMFS seems content to wait until the stocks crash before taking action to protect these fisheries. We have seen how the agency's inaction has caused precipitous declines in the Gulf of Mexico with redfish, in the Atlantic with sharks, in the Pacific with sea urchins and in New England with cod and haddock. As someone who has witnessed the pain and economic suffering experienced by those fishermen, I do not believe that we should fish now and pay later. We must end this cycle of destroying our resources without knowing how much fishing pressure they can endure. Help me to conserve our Atlantic herring and mackerel stocks.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1420, the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. This bill passed the House on June 3, 1997 on a recorded vote of 407 to 1. The National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act provides an organic act for the Refuge System similar to those which exist for other public lands. Its principle focus is to establish clearly the conservation mission of the System, provide a mechanism for unit-specific refuge planning, and give refuge managers clear direction and procedures for making determinations regarding wildlife conservation and public uses of the System and individual refuges. The other body passed this bill, amended, on October 9, 1997. The House concurs to the amendments. I urge all Members to vote in support of this bill, which greatly benefits the Refuge System.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, in addition, the number of households participating in CAMPFIRE has grown from 9,000 in 1989 to 105,000 in 1996. Our Nation's support for the CAMPFIRE Program is without question, and it is a misrepresentation to say that CAMPFIRE moneys were used in opposition to the U.S. position on sport hunting, because our law provides for the recognition of sport hunting and our negotiation position has provided for the recognition of sports hunting. Our Nation's support for the CAMPFIRE Program allows thousands of people to improve their livelihoods and has created a situation for the comeback of the African elephants. This is not a program that we should be trifling with. Congress, this Congress, is criticized over and over again for doing things that do not work, and yet this amendment brought to the floor today would defund one of the most successful programs that we have had in the area of conservation. It is not a coincidence that elephant populations have increased under CAMPFIRE, and it would be a terrible mistake to end the Agency for International Development's essential involvement and investment in this program.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Fox amendment. Mr. Chairman, I must say at the outset that I have been in this House for over 12 years, and I cannot think of a more important conservation measure than that which is referred to as the CAMPFIRE Program. And I cannot remember a time when a program has been more grossly and greatly misrepresented than this one has in the last few minutes. Let me explain where this program came from, why it is important, and why it ought to be retained as is. First, let me say that the point made by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] that it is funded through the use of funds that the gentleman objects to, in an earlier news release this month, the gentleman indicated that 90 percent of the funding for this program came from the sources that he objects to. Therefore, the gentleman's argument falls of its own weight, because if we are going to remove 90 percent of the funding, there will be no CAMPFIRE Program. It is pretty simple. Therefore, if we are going to have a CAMPFIRE Program, which the gentleman from Pennsylvania purports to support and at the same time purports to withdraw 90 percent of the funding, it seems like a fairly ridiculous proposal. Mr. Chairman, in the early 1980's this program was born. It was born because of concern which came to fruition in 1988 with the passage of the African Elephant Conservation Act of that year, and that came about because the population of elephants in the African countries was dropping substantially. In 1979, for example, there were about 1.3 million elephants in Africa. By 1988, there were less than 750,000. In 1973, there were 130,000 elephants in Kenya, and by 1987, there were only 20,000. In 1977, in the Selous Game Reserve in the United Republic of Tanzania, there were 109,000 elephants. By 1988, there remained only 55,000. So the subcommittee which I served on in the old Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries, the Subcommittee on Fish and Wildlife, studied this situation and recommends some changes in law which we thought would be beneficial. And, in fact, the African Elephant Conservation Act of 1988 was passed in that year and it provided broad authority for our country to unilaterally take action to save elephants. We did that under the Bush administration and the same policies have been followed by the Clinton administration. Also, the Convention on International Trade and Endangered Species, known as CITES, has enacted international regulations which essentially do three things: First, Outlaw the international trade of ivory; second, permit the continuation of trophy hunting as a fund-raiser; and third, the moneys resulting from conservation efforts such as tourism and hunting would be used for conservation by African countries. Huge successes have come from this program which the gentleman from Pennsylvania would defund. We have seen the African elephant population increase from 4 to 6 percent a year; a huge springback in the years since 1989 when this law became effective. We have also seen a number of very important conservation groups endorse this program and, in fact, four have written to me, in some cases as late as today, supporting my position. Those organizations include the African Wildlife Foundation, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, the National Wildlife Federation, and the World Wildlife Fund; all support my position and oppose the Fox amendment. Mr. Chairman, they do so for a number of reasons. For example, 7 million people in southern Africa have directly benefited from programs like CAMPFIRE. In Zimbabwe alone, 5,000 to 10,000 jobs have been created and 33 percent of the land in that country is devoted now to conservation and wildlife management, which benefits African elephants. Mr. Chairman, I am beside myself trying to figure out how the gentleman from Pennsylvania, my friend, wants to defund this program. The population of African elephants has also increased from 4 to 6 percent, as I said earlier. In Zimbabwe alone, increasing from 45,000 elephants to 66,000 elephants over this same period of time, the program the gentleman from Pennsylvania wants to defund.