Jim Saxton

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my long-time friend, Anna B. ``Peg'' Jacobi, a resident of the Borough of Tuckerton for more than a half century. Peg served as Tuckerton's Mayor from 1994 to 1998, after retiring from 36 years of public service. She served as Tuckerton Borough registrar, and secretary for the Board of Health, tax collector, treasurer and executive director of the Tuckerton Municipal Utilities Authority. She was also a member of the Pinelands Regional Board of Education for a decade. A charter member of both the Tuckerton Historical Society and the Tuckerton Seaport, Peg was the first president of the New Jersey Association of Rural Water and Watershed Utilities, and is currently president of Rural Water. She is also the current chairman of the Ocean County Utilities Authority, the Ocean County Board of Social Services, the Board of the Southern Ocean County Hospital Foundation, and finance chair of the Lutheran Church of the Holy Spirit and Ocean County Girl Scout Council, where she originated the community Christmas Tree on Lake Pohatcong. Married for 48 years to the late Egbert M. ``Jake'' Jacobi, Peg is the mother of four, grandmother of two, and great-grandmother of two fine boys. It has been a pleasure and a privilege working with Peg Jacobi through the years, and I am proud to recognize her for her many, many contributions to her community, county and State. I am proud, too, to call her my friend.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, the facts bear out that the economy is growing. Like the previous speaker, I wish that jobs were growing faster, and I believe they will. But the previous speaker's examples were not exactly examples that I would have used. For example, to compare this recession to the Great Depression I find, I guess I would say amusing to a certain extent, because while we know that the unemployment rate today is at 5.6 percent and topped out at 6.3 percent in this recession, the unemployment rate during the Great Depression was 25 percent. So I think that is a rather poor example, and I think goes to show the extent and the lengths to which the minority will try to bend things to make their story look like the one that they would like the American people to believe. A lot has been said about tax rates. One of the charges that has been made about our tax policy and our tax cut, and the last speaker repeated it again for the last of many times today, is that when we reduced taxes for the American people, when we did away with the marriage tax penalty, when we created the child tax credit, when we passed the other tax cuts that provided for economic growth, we created the deficit. Well, I would like to show one final chart which demonstrates that that is not true either. This chart to my left shows, and the Congressional Budget Office, which works on a bipartisan basis, came up with these numbers, it shows that the projected surplus in 2001 was $281 billion, and shows in the first year that the tax cuts went into effect the static cost. ``Static'' is a word we use around here to mean as exactly as we can the amount of money that will not flow into the Treasury if you assume no economic growth at the same time because of the tax cuts. We assume that there is a static loss of revenue to the Federal Government, and it is shown here in blue. This is what the tax cut cost. Out of the $281 billion surplus that was projected to exist, only $70.2 billion went for tax cuts, and we actually would have had a surplus of $210 billion, after the tax cuts. The actual surplus turned out to be $127 billion because, as I pointed out before, during the last year of Bill Clinton's administration, the economy began to decline. So less growth in the economy, less people working, less people paying taxes, less revenue. And then, if I move on to the next year, the projected CBO surplus was $313 billion, and the actual cost of the tax cuts that year, $73.7 billion; and for the first time in 4 years, we went into a deficit situation of $158 billion. We had a $158 billion deficit. So if we go from a $313 billion projected surplus to a $158 billion deficit, it is a swing of $471 billion, from surplus to deficit. The cost of tax cuts: $73.7 billion. I will not bore everybody with the third year, but the same trend continues: the cost of the tax cut, $172 billion out of a $359 billion projected surplus, and we ended up with a deficit of $375 billion, a big swing from a $359 billion surplus to a $375 billion deficit. The fourth year is the most dramatic. We went from a projected surplus of $397 billion to a deficit of $477 billion, a swing of $874 billion, and the actual cost of the tax cuts: $264.8 billion, which would have left us with a surplus of $132 billion if it were the fault of the tax cuts. Other factors mitigated to have that tremendous swing. The war was taking place, the economy fell, and other factors played into it, such as the loss in the stock market. So as is evident from this chart and the CBO numbers, and the numbers from the Joint Tax Committee, all of which are bipartisan, the tax cut did not cause the deficits at all, unlike what our minority opponents would like America to believe. One of the most important accomplishments of our budget policy, and this budget reflects this, in this year, in the past few years, is the enactment of this tax package for families all along the income spectrum. The budget before us today continues and preserves the key elements of this tax relief, allowing families to keep more of their hard-earned money. Over the 4-year period, from 2002 to 2004, just three key tax reductions out of the dozens enacted have produced savings for American taxpayers. These three provisions are a new 10 percent tax bracket. Previously, low-income people paid 15 percent in the bottom tax bracket. Pursuant to these tax cuts, that 15 percent dropped to 10 percent. We enacted a child tax credit worth $1,000 in 2003 and $1,000 in 2004; and we enacted a marriage penalty relief through an increased standard deduction for couples filing joint returns. For married couples with two children and who use the standard deduction, the savings from these tax reductions total approximately $5,500 over these 4 years, according to the Joint Economic Committee report that was published recently. If one is interested in that report, click on our Web page. It is there for everyone to see. Consider these figures for 2004 from the JEC report. First, the child tax credit, now $1,000 per child, double what it was back in 2000. For a two-child household, the increases translate to $1,000 in tax savings. Second, thanks to the 2001 and 2003 tax relief cuts, there is now a new 10 percent tax bracket, which applies to the first $14,300 of income this year for joint tax returns. Without this new bracket, that income would otherwise be taxed at 15 percent. These are for the lowest wage-earners. This tax cut is for the lowest wage-earners. In 2004, this 10 percent tax bracket will save taxpayers $715. Third, married couples have finally received some tax relief on the marriage tax penalty. A quirk in the law required married couples to pay more taxes than the same individuals paid if they were single. Tax legislation enacted in 2001 now provides new tax relief such as a standard deduction for married couples that is double the standard deduction for single couples. Families taking advantage of this increased standard deduction will save $233 this year. Total tax savings from these three provisions alone amount to $1,948 in 2004. Over the 4-year period, 2001 to 2004, combined savings total $5,480 for low-income and middle-income American families. Mr. Chairman, these tax cuts are not for the rich. These tax reductions benefit everyone who pays income taxes. In fact, the threshold to receive all the dollar savings described here is just $36,400 for a married couple with two children claiming a standard deduction. Mr. Chairman, this budget, while all of us would have written it differently, is a budget that deserves to pass; and the tax cuts and the economic growth provisions provided by this budget are important for the future of America's families and for America's economy.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, much has been said here today with regard to the subject of our budget and fiscal policy and its effect on economic growth. I would like to show as clearly as I can as the vice chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, which of course is made up of Members of the House and Members of the Senate, the actual effect of budgetary policy over the last few years, monetary policy as carried out by the Fed, and tax policy implemented at the request of the administration and carried out by this House and the Senate. Actually we have found that there are some very positive effects that have accumulated over the past several years in terms of a variety of good economic trends. For example, lower inflation that has resulted from various policies actually has improved economic growth through the appearance of lower interest rates directly as a result of lower inflation which can be primarily attributed to the policy of the Federal Reserve. It reduces unnecessary uncertainty and volatility in financial markets, it causes the price system to work better, it acts like a tax cut to have lower interest rates, especially for those portions of the Tax Code that are not indexed for inflation. The Fed's policy of inflation targeting has worked. I can remember many years ago when the Fed's policies of today were not in place, when we felt good when inflation was at 6 percent or at 5 percent. Today, inflation is at historic lows, probably today under 2 percent. As a result of that, these lower interest rates have worked, as I said before, as tax cuts to help rally economic growth. Lower marginal tax rates as well as lower interest rates remain in place today, and we are reaping the long-run effects of lower tax rates despite two increases, one in 1990 and one in 1993. Marginal tax rates remain lower today than they were in the 1950s or the 1960s or the 1970s. This is very important. It is also important not to revise the tax rates that are already in place. We have seen the results of these as demonstrated on this chart, for example. Here, in 2001, when the tax rates were put into place, we see that real economic growth, of course, was bad during the three quarters of 2001, but then the economy started to grow. Real gross domestic product in the fourth quarter of 2001 began to grow, and we had seven straight quarters of economic growth, culminating, as the chairman of the Committee on the Budget said, in the last two quarters that we have just experienced where we saw 8.2 percent economic growth in one quarter and 4.1 percent in the next quarter. There has been good reason for optimism and, of course, the stock market has rebounded during this period of time, but there have been other factors that have been holding the economy back. National security and homeland security are two general areas that are essential for securing our peace and security and stable, sustained economic growth. This economic growth is not possible without both security from foreign adversaries and security from adversaries who threaten the homeland. And so spending on our national security and on homeland security is absolutely essential. Investment spending will not occur without stable property rights or security for investment and investors as well as lenders. While national security and domestic security are essential, they also depend on what weapons the adversaries employ. In a sense, they depend on the adversary and not entirely on some absolute standard of security. Investment, on the other hand, is essential to fostering economic growth. Increases in investment improve both supply and demand so it fosters growth without causing inflation. Investment is needed to improve productivity, raise real wages and increase living standards. Productivity-enhancing investment increases economic growth without inflation. Let me just turn to the next chart we have here which shows fixed private nonresidential investment. Again, beginning in the third and fourth quarter of the year 2000, which coincidentally was before President Bush took office, we see that fixed private nonresidential investments fell sharply. And then as the recession ensued in 2001 and through the first two quarters of 2002, fixed private nonresidential investment was actually in the negative. But then as the effect of the tax cuts kicked in and as the effects of low interest rates brought about by the control of inflation kicked in, we see that fixed private nonresidential investment begins to improve. This was a very positive thing for the economy. The U.S. economy currently is expanding at a healthy clip. A wide spectrum of sectors of the economy are contributing to this advance. Consumption, housing, investment, and production among others have all made notable contributions. Fourth-quarter real GDP was up by a brisk 4.1 percent and, as I said before, the third quarter of last year was up 8.2 percent, which certainly again is demonstrated here on the chart that we have. For the future, the consensus view of economists is that the economy will continue to expand at a robust pace over the next several quarters. Specifically, the consensus is for better than 4 percent growth in the near term. This current and prospective performance of the U.S. economy is superior to most other world economies, including both Europe and Japan. Business investment, as well, has been a leading sector fueling these healthy economic gains. Real business investment has been up sharply in the last three quarters. A key reason for this strength was the progrowth tax policies adopted by this Congress and by the administration. Further, gains in profits, the stock market as well as capital goods orders all point to additional advances in investment. Although the stock market has had its ups and downs, particularly as measured by the Dow Industrials, the stock market has regained much of the ground it lost in recent years. The stock market gains not only encourage investment activity, but because of widespread ownership in stocks, mutual funds, IRAs and other savings vehicles, we have fostered household wealth gains as well. The latest figures indicate that about 50 percent of American households own stock shares in some form, and stock market capitalization was up significantly last year. The tax cuts and expectations of continued economic advance have propelled stock prices to continue to rise until just a couple of weeks ago. Manufacturing activity, as well, as measured by the Institute for Supply Management, ISM, the ISM index, is also making significant gains. The index shows that manufacturing gains have been quite widespread. Manufacturing production as measured by the Federal Reserve's Industrial Product Index is up sharply as well. We have another chart here which shows that the ISM index fell during the recession, and it shows how we have grown today to the point where 61.4 percent of our businesses are actually expanding. Employment is one area, however, that has lagged behind output growth. It is quite clear that manufacturing employment softness began in July of 2000. The impacts of investment and stock market weakness were concentrated in manufacturing. Nonetheless, recent payroll employment is up 364,000 jobs since August and payrolls have advanced the last 6 months in a row. During a comparable time period, household employment was up 604,000 jobs. Let me turn to the unemployment rate which we hear so much about in regard to our economy. The unemployment rate has fallen from a high this year of 6.3 percent to 5.6 percent in recent months. The 5.6 percent rate is lower than the average rate in the 1970s, lower than the average rate in the 1980s, and lower than the average rate in the robust 1990s. It has not been characterized as such, however. Further, the recent peak in the unemployment rate is considerably lower than the peaks of earlier business cycles. Let me show my colleagues what I mean. In the 1970s during a recession, the unemployment rate peaked at around 9 percent. In the 1980s during a deeper recession, the unemployment rate peaked at just under 11 percent. In the 1990s during a recession, the last quarter of 1990 and the first quarter of 1991, we had an 8-month recession, and the unemployment rate peaked at just under 8 percent. In this recession, the unemployment rate peaked at 6.3 percent and is now at 5.6 percent, as I said, lower than the average rates of unemployment in the 1970s, the 1980s or the 1990s. Inflation has also remained low during this period. As can be seen on this chart, core CPI inflation has continued to trend down for the past several years. This is good news for all income earners and all consumers. This is the result of the Fed's persistent anti-inflation policy. Currently there are few, if any, signs of inflationary expectations re-emerging in any significant way. This line speaks for itself. Inflation is historically low today as a result of Fed policy. Likewise, the Misery Index, we all remember the Misery Index that we got so accustomed to hearing about in the 1970s, the Misery Index measures the sum of the unemployment rate and the core CPI inflation rate. It is premised on the notion that both a higher rate of unemployment and a worsening of inflation create economic costs for a country. The index is used unofficially to assess a nation's economic health. Currently the Misery Index is relatively low, lower than it has been for most of the past 35 years. Once again, the red line here speaks for itself, the Misery Index is very low today. Long-term interest rates have continued to trend down as well and remain at near 40-year lows. What is particularly relevant is that long-term rates remain low or even declined in the face of increases in the budget deficit. These low long-term rates are more importantly determined by the rate of inflation than by budget deficits. Again, we have a chart here that has a line on it that shows the 10-year Treasury bond yield at consistent maturity, and once again we see that we have historically low interest rates. In sum, the economy is currently advancing at a healthy pace. Most key sectors of the economy have contributed to this healthy growth. The consensus of economic forecasters project continued healthy economic growth for the foreseeable future. The policies that have supported this growth, namely, tax relief and accommodative monetary policy as carried out by the Fed, appear to have been quite appropriate. Accordingly, so long as inflation remains subdued, a continuation of these policies and making certain that tax cuts are permanent seems quite appropriate. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am not surprised, but I am somewhat troubled that the previous speaker did not recognize that the economic downturn was well under way well before President Bush took office. The administration's critics blame President Bush for his policies for the loss of about 2 million jobs since January of 2001. However, all of this employment decline is accounted for by falling manufacturing employment, and manufacturing employment started declining well before President Bush or his policies were in place. Manufacturing employment has been falling since March of 1998. From this point through January of 2001, over half a million manufacturing jobs had already been lost. It is hard to blame that on President Bush. Thus the trend was well under way before the President ever took office. And it was the policies that were in place during the 1990s that caused that decline. Manufacturing employment has been falling steadily, well before President Bush took office. The respected Institute for Supply Management employment index plunged in 2000. By January of 2001 most firms surveyed indicated that manufacturing jobs were falling or stagnating, according to these indices. That was the year President Bush took office. So according to your theories, President Bush's policies that had not even gone into effect yet caused all that unemployment. It is just not true. It cannot be true. President Bush was not here. After the bursting of the stock market in the first quarter of 2000, there was a sharp fall-off in investment. Because much of this investment is comprised of machinery and equipment produced in the manufacturing sector, manufacturing employment began declining every month since July of 2000. We know President Bush was not the President before July of 2000 when the policies of the previous administration caused these declines. In the last month of the previous administration, manufacturing employment declined by 82,000 jobs. That was President Clinton, not President Bush. However, with a strong rebound in investment in the last half of 2003, manufacturing output is growing today at a healthy pace, and monthly manufacturing employment declines have been slowed dramatically because since President Bush took office, he has made it a priority to institute policies that provide for economic growth. Since last August, payroll employment has gained 364,000 jobs, not declined. We all want to see more job growth, but strong productivity gains have made this harder. Strong productivity growth is good for the majority of the workers who have jobs because it enhances their job security and earnings potential. However, in the short run, it does slow job growth. We had a technological advance during the 1980s and 1990s that was good. It made our workers more productive. The use of computer technology, the use of communications technology, and many other increases in technology across the board made our workforce the most productive workforce in the history of our country. But it had a negative side as well because when the recession hit and the decline started, while President Clinton was President, when the decline started and people lost their jobs, the inclusion of more technology continued to go forward. And when the economy began to grow and people went back to seek their jobs, they had been replaced by technology, adding to the productive nature of our workforce. The upward productivity trend started in the second half of the 1990s and has been under way for at least 8 years. By the second half of the 1990s, investments in new technology and equipment changed the economy and its relationship to employment. The cumulative effect of these investments was that the economy could grow quite quickly without greatly increased employment. Productivity growth, not outsourcing, is the primary cause of slow employment growth in the short run. With healthy economic growth now under way, most economists expect employment growth to continue in the future. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SAXTON

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

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 958) to authorize certain hydrographic services programs, to name a cove in Alaska in honor of the late Able Bodied Seaman Eric Steiner Koss, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

Mr. SAXTON. 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. 958.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of Commerce, through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, is responsible for the United States navigation services programs. These include the collection of hydrographic data, the production and distribution of nautical charts, the maintenance of geodetic reference systems, and the measurement and prediction of tides and currents. In the 1990s, years of budget cuts and a revolution in technology left NOAA decades behind in meeting its mission goals and made it unable to provide the up-to-date products needed to assure safe and efficient marine transportation. In response to this problem, Congress enacted the Hydrographic Services Act of 1998. Coupled with increased appropriations, the 1998 act has reduced the nautical charting backlog for areas critical to navigation and modernized NOAA hydrographic, geodetic, and tide and current measurement programs. To build on that reauthorization, H.R. 958 creates four regional navigation response teams which will conduct activities related to navigational safety and the validation of hydrographic data. The bill allows the Secretary of Commerce to accept volunteer services and create a volunteer program. Section 103 of the bill names a cove in Alaska for a sailor who drowned while on a nautical charting mission. The bill requires the Secretary to provide Congress with a plan to depict shorelines consistently on NOAA and the United States Geographical Survey maps. It makes technical modifications to the Hydrographic Services Panel. It also clarifies that $2 million of the funds authorized each fiscal year are for the Great Lakes Water Level Observation Network. Finally, Title II of the bill reauthorizes the Fishery Survey Vessel Authorization Act of 2000 for 2 years and authorizes the Secretary to provide Congress with a plan detailing requirements for the cost for the construction and equipping of the hydrographic survey vessel. H.R. 958 will continue the progress we have made to get our coastline surveys up to date and to make our ports and waterways safer. This is a noncontroversial bill and I urge all Members to support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2408) to amend the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 to reauthorize volunteer programs and community partnerships for national wildlife refuges, as amended.

Mr. SAXTON. 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. 2408.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I introduced the bill, H.R. 2408, to reauthorize the National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer and Community Partnership Act, which I authored in 1998. There is no question that volunteers play an invaluable role in the successful operation of hundreds of National Wildlife Refuges throughout the United States. Since 1982, the number of refuge volunteers has grown from about 4,200 individuals to over 39,000 people. In the past year alone, volunteers have contributed over 1.4 million man-hours of their own time to the refuge system. From operating a backhoe, assisting in the banding of birds or providing education to the public, to many other functions, volunteers can do it all. At the hearing of the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans held in June of this year, significant support for the volunteer program was very evident. A number of suggestions were made to improve the existing 1998 landmark law, and at the subcommittee markup these suggestions were incorporated into the bill. Included in these changes is the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to enter into cooperative agreements outside the Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreements Act of 1977 with academic institutions, State and local agencies, and partner organizations, like the ``Friends'' groups that exist at many refuges. The Cooperative Agreement Act has been a hindrance to the Secretary in entering into these agreements. H.R. 2408 would clarify that Congress intended to give the Secretary the same flexibility that the Secretary has to enter into these agreements under the North American Wetlands Conservation Act. I urge all Members to support the Refuge Volunteer Program by voting yes on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2489) to provide for the distribution of judgment funds to the Cowlitz Indian Tribe, as amended.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2489.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, our colleague, the gentleman from the State of Washington (Mr. Baird), has introduced legislation to assist a tribe in his district that will finally receive funds they are owed by the Federal Government. His legislation, H.R. 2489, will provide for the distribution of judgment funds awarded to the Cowlitz Indian Tribe. The Cowlitz Indian Tribe has lands in western Washington and the over 1,000 enrolled members are commonly divided into two groups, the Upper Cowlitz and the Lower Cowlitz. In 1973, the Indian Claims Commission ruled in favor of the tribe, stating that their aboriginal title of the lands had been taken from them and they deserved compensation for the loss of those lands. H.R. 2489 provides for the distribution of the Commission's judgment. The legislation is also particularly crafted so that the tribe will use the judgment funds in a manner that follows the Indian Tribal Judgment Funds Use or Distribution Act. Uses of the moneys will include programs administered by the Cowlitz Indian Tribe, bringing assistance to tribal elders and educating younger tribal members in the areas of culture and cultural significance. Specifically, H.R. 2489 distributes moneys from the judgment fund into areas that plague many tribes and are of concern to the Cowlitz tribe as well. To address these issues, the tribe will be using the funding wisely; for example, they will disburse sums annually for tribal housing improvements and for other purposes. Recognizing tribal health care needs, the Cowlitz Indian Tribe plans to set aside over 20 percent of the principal funding for various health care needs. This will allow the Tribe's Fir Complex in Longview, Washington, to provide more comprehensive health care to the tribal members. Again, it is important to emphasize that the Cowlitz Indian Tribe will finally be able to use the moneys they are owed in a manner which best fits their needs and continues their sovereignty as well as their positive working relationship with the Federal Government. The House can now move this legislation forward and help to strengthen the close relationship the Federal Government has with this tribe. Having been federally recognized in 2000, they can use this funding to more easily help their tribe to grow and become increasingly self-sufficient, while retaining their culture. This legislation represents another step toward tribal government advancement through the many hours of work put in by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Indian Claims Commission and, of course, the Cowlitz Indian Tribe itself. The amendment in the nature of a substitute was supported at the committee level, and I appreciate the bipartisan work of the committee in acting quickly on this legislation. Finally, I would also like to point out that H.R. 2489, as amended, was passed by the Committee on Resources by a voice vote on October 29, 2003. I hope we can now act in the same bipartisan fashion. I urge adoption of the bill. Let me commend the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) for his fine work in bringing this bill forward to us. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I have had the privilege of traveling to Iraq twice in the last few months to visit our troops and to thank them for the job they are doing, as well as to see firsthand the progress that is being made by both the Iraqis and the international coalition in providing security and growing stability to the Nation. I was amazed to see and hear some of the very real and significant success stories that our forces are accomplishing. When one travels by air, for example, over Iraq, it is easy to realize that 65 percent of the Iraqi people live off the land. Many are accomplished farmers, but others are being aided by the efforts of the American soldiers and by American generosity. In Iraq, the Iraqi Ministry of Agriculture once ran a 400-acre farm not far from where Saddam Hussein was captured. It was called Saddam Farm, and it produced a harvest that benefited only Saddam Hussein and his family. Today, the Army is helping Iraqis establish the nation's very first cooperative farm on that 400 acres. Iraqi farming families are also being helped by the generosity of the American citizens who have donated some $20,000 worth of seeds, and the Army has distributed them. Throughout my travels in Iraq, I have found Iraqi children with smiles on their faces. It is remarkable to think that they are living in freedom for the first time. They know it and they like it. Like many children throughout the world, Iraqis enjoy the sport of soccer, and I have seen Iraqi children kicking soccer balls on the playing fields and vacant lots and empty streets. American troops have undertaken projects to give soccer balls to some of the poorer Iraqi children who may not be able to obtain for themselves. For example, the 501st Forward Support Battalion undertook one project and gave away 150 soccer balls to kids in Baghdad. The 101st Airborne also distributed soccer balls in the north. Perhaps the greatest and most noteworthy accomplishment that I have seen in Iraq, however, is the increase in the level of security and stability for the Iraqi people. Unfortunately, there are still those that want to see a free Iraq fail, but for our troops, many changes in the Iraqi lifestyle have been evident. In many other areas, security and stability are succeeding because of the efforts of the international coalition forces and the Iraqis themselves. Iraq's security forces have grown tremendously in the last year since they were first created. The Iraqi Department of Border Enforcement now employs 80,000 Iraqis and 9,000 border enforcement agents, as well as to monitor the nation's 3600-kilometer border. More than 11,000 experienced policemen now patrol Iraq, and another several thousand Iraqi policemen will join their ranks by the end of this year. There is still much to be done in Iraq, but the fact of the matter is that there are many success stories, many more than one reads in the morning newspaper or sees on daily television reports, and certainly many more than I have time to outline here. The successes I spoke of and the countless others not only are helping Iraq to become more stable, but they are helping Iraqis to provide for that security and stability. Ultimately, the sooner Iraq is run and secured by Iraqis, the sooner our great troops will come home. I am proud to stand here today and commend the Iraqi people for their courage and to say again thank you to our troops for a great job well done.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, those people who dedicate their lives to the protection of the environment are very special and deserve full recognition of their devotion, which is why I'm so pleased to be able to congratulate Ken Smith for being awarded the American Shore and Beach Preservation Association's Lifetime Achievement Award for 2004. Ken has been a tireless, devoted advocate for not only New Jersey beaches but for beaches throughout the United States. Ken has spent twenty-five years as the ``Coastal Advocate;'' has spent more than seven years as a Vice President and as a Director of the American Shore and Beach Preservation; and is a co-founder of the Alliance for a Living Ocean, formed in response to the awful summer when garbage and other pollution was washing up on the Jersey shore in 1987. The Alliance for a Living Ocean won the Governor's Award for Volunteerism in 1999, and last but not least, Ken won the American Shore and Beach Preservation Association's Morrough P. O'Brien Award in 1999. Ken has led by example for many years, bringing an awareness to so many people about the importance of working together to preserve not only our beaches and oceans, but the environment and our natural resources as a whole. He has been tireless in his dedication to not only protecting the beaches but educating people on the importance of preservation. Even as he is fighting his own battle with cancer, his amazing drive and devotion to our shores has not wavered in the least. Congratulations Ken, I look forward to working with you for many more years to come.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to introduce an important piece of conservation legislation, the Office of Ocean and Coastal Policy Creation Act of 2003. This bill establishes in the Executive Office of the President, an Office of Ocean and Coastal Policy. I believe this Office will serve as a valuable complement to the environmental offices and agencies that currently exist, and will provide a unique perspective on the direction we ought to be moving in with regard to comprehensive ocean policy. An issue to which I have devoted a great deal of time and one that I feel is very important is the protection of the diverse range of fish stocks that inhabit our world's oceans, many of which are very close to disappearing forever. Given the recent release of two studies essentially stating that what I have been talking about is likely to happen, I am more convinced than ever that we need to take aggressive action immediately. Many of our oceans' fish stocks are now reportedly 90 percent depleted, meaning only 10 percent of the stocks that once existed remain. And many of these stocks are in grave danger of extinction if we proceed down the same path we are on now--that is, continue to study these stocks and do little to mitigate the damage that has already been done. One of these two studies recently published was conducted by Dalhousie University, in Halifax, Canada, stating that the global ocean has lost over 90 percent of its large predatory fishes, such as tuna, swordfish and marlin. I have long known that the use of pelagic longline gear is one of the most, if not the most destructive, indiscriminate way to fish. A direct result of the use of this geartype, starting in the early 1960s, has provided for the almost complete disappearance of white marlin. Though not the target species of longline gear, marlin are a bycatch species, meaning that this geartype catches whatever eats the bait, and as the lines are left in the water overnight, any fish that bites onto a hook is more likely than not dead by the time the lines are pulled in, killing not only the target species, which is primarily swordfish, but also marlin or turtles or sharks or even small whales that happen to take the bait. The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, created from my Oceans Act of 2000, has it's own report forthcoming on the status of our oceans, it will be interesting to see what conclusions they put forward. The National Marine Fisheries Service, the agency tasked with the protection of these species has failed to do so. The United States is a world leader on so many important and complex issues; it is hard to understand why the issue of fisheries management, and enforcement of the regulations currently in place both domestically and internationally, seems impossible to accomplish. We need to take immediate aggressive steps to prevent the disappearance of these fish species, before it's too late. These studies should be a wake-up call that the process through which our world's fisheries is managed is broken and needs to be fixed. This is an issue that resonates with anyone who has ever been to the beach in states like New Jersey, or watched a television program involving the deep blue sea. And given that 50 percent of the population of the United States lives within 100 miles of a coast, there are many who are personally affected by this issue. We have a unique opportunity to do something amazing and I think we owe it these wonderful resources that are our oceans to do all we can to bring them back to a healthy and sustainable level, for future generations. I look forward to working with this unique Office on Ocean Policy to preserve these magnificent resources.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to pay tribute to one of my greatest friends and one of Ocean County's finest, Ocean County Freeholder and Long Beach Township Mayor James J. Mancini. Upon hearing of his passing, I was deeply saddened, given the tremendous impact he had on my life and those he served in Ocean County. To say that Jim will be missed is an understatement; he touched the lives of so many around him and spent every day of his life helping others. A champion for seniors and veterans, Mayor Mancini's dedication to his community and his genuine interest in reaching out to others was unparalleled. As one of Ocean County's best advocates for seniors, his commitment to providing retirees with quality health care was unwavering. Every chance he had, Jim worked to make life better for every senior who lived in Ocean County. Additionally, as a Veteran of World War II, Mayor Mancini made it his top priority to work on behalf of our local veterans. In fact, as a result of his efforts, services to tens of thousands of veterans were increased and improved. Many of us from south Jersey remember the two ``nor'easter'' storms in the early 1990's that severely damaged the beaches of Long Beach Island. As a result of the threat to property and lives, Mayor Mancini made it his mission to guarantee these beaches would be rebuilt. After ten years of work--including securing 3 million federal dollars, 8 years of study and design, and overcoming hurdles that prevented new beach replenishment projects from starting--just yesterday we found out that Jim's long-sought after funding to begin replenishing Long Beach Island's beaches came to fruition. This funding was included in the House-passed final version of the 2004 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill. How ironic. After more than a decade, the project was approved by the House of Representatives on the same day as Mayor Mancini's passing. Without his persistence, it likely would not have happened. Beginning from his election as Mayor of Long Beach Township in 1964 to his serving as a State Assemblyman in the 1970s to his becoming an Ocean County Freeholder in the 1980's, Mayor Mancini lived his life to serve and help others, and his legacy will live on for many years to come. Throughout my life, I have met few people as compassionate and as selfless as Jim Mancini; it was an honor and privilege to be his friend. I extend my deepest sympathies to Madeline Mancini and the rest of their family, and know we will remember this caring friend, wonderful father and grandfather, admired leader, and dedicated public servant for the rest of our lives.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to M. Dean Haines on the occasion of his retirement as clerk of Ocean County. As one of the County's Constitutional Officers, he has been responsible for the administration of a wide range of services offered by the Office of the County Clerk for two decades. Serving the community is the main focus of the Clerk's Office, including assisting residents in real estate transfers, obtaining passports, courtesy photo identification and Alcoholic Beverage Control Cards, and supervision of elections in the county. Dean's office has been recognized as the most technologically advanced County Clerk's Office in our State, thanks to his leadership and innovation. Dean Haines' involvement in many community service organizations such as his membership on the Southern Ocean County Hospital Board of Trustees, the Southern Ocean County Rotary, Jersey Shore Council Boy Scouts of America, Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Council of Ocean County, Barnegat Historical Society, and both Barnegat Fire Company Number One and the New Jersey State Fireman's Association is a demonstration of his commitment to the people of Ocean County. I have always valued his friendship and support through the years. I hope Dean and his wife, Christine, will accept my congratulations and best wishes for a retirement filled with health, happiness, and dreams come true.